No self theory do I get it right?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
auto
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Fri May 10, 2019 2:25 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 12:01 am
To ordinary people who are not engaged on the path to awakening I do not discuss whether or not there is a self because it is futile. To those who wish to develop changeless wisdom, to untangle the knot of views and to put an end to craving - they should understand there is no self. If there were a self there would be no end to dukkha because dukkha would be your self.
pleasure, pain.. ends when sensory contact ceases. It is not about if there is self or not. And in Sutta i think say if khandhas were your self you wouldn't suffer.
Last edited by auto on Fri May 10, 2019 2:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

auto
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Fri May 10, 2019 2:36 pm

DNS wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 9:52 pm
auto wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 11:30 am
DNS wrote:
Wed May 08, 2019 7:37 pm


You were looking for some kind of "soul" to explain "no self" or i.e. that there is no soul. How could a soul explain there is no soul? :D
yes because there is a self- i am. It is indeed weird to think there is no self, when you are aware that you think about there is no self.
And that is the other part that is also kind of funny. Some who are very attached to the no-self doctrine argue vociferously in favor of the doctrine and appear upset at any opposition to their view, which shows a sign of asmi-mana and a self as they are attached to that. And so those on the opposing view say something like, if there is no self, who is doing all this arguing? :tongue:

The traditional Buddhist position would be that it is a perceived, illusory self that is being created in the attachment to views (either side).
the fire what burns on a matchstick, it is taken as a being by normal people, not seen as causes and effects like when you look at the fire you see immediately how it came or from what, you don't see fire as being.

i think the self who is aware of something, when you see it as like that you don't see being but in accordance to right seeing or view.

auto
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Fri May 10, 2019 2:45 pm

clw_uk wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 7:40 pm
auto wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 7:16 pm
clw_uk wrote:
Thu May 09, 2019 6:44 pm
Reacting to light doesn’t mean there is consciousness.
skin cells have consciousness, you feel when something touch your skin, you can also go to that organ consciosuenss and try to feel different things, like lets feel the clothes around me, or pressures what come from sitting etc.

why then plants can't have consciousness? that when light comes it start grow that way that it could get more light..

That’s “you” feeling, not the cells. Plants don’t feel as they lack any form of a central nervous system.
its me feeling, but the feeling itself is existing thanks to sensory contact. I think plants have feelings but if there is no spirit in that plant there is noone feeling them there.

User avatar
Jerafreyr
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:22 am

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by Jerafreyr » Fri May 10, 2019 3:54 pm

auto wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 2:25 pm
Jerafreyr wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 12:01 am
To ordinary people who are not engaged on the path to awakening I do not discuss whether or not there is a self because it is futile. To those who wish to develop changeless wisdom, to untangle the knot of views and to put an end to craving - they should understand there is no self. If there were a self there would be no end to dukkha because dukkha would be your self.
pleasure, pain.. ends when sensory contact ceases. It is not about if there is self or not. And in Sutta i think say if khandhas were your self you wouldn't suffer.
If the khandas are not self then what is it you call your self?

And what sutta says "if khandhas were your self you wouldn't suffer" ?

auto
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Fri May 10, 2019 5:21 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 3:54 pm
auto wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 2:25 pm
Jerafreyr wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 12:01 am
To ordinary people who are not engaged on the path to awakening I do not discuss whether or not there is a self because it is futile. To those who wish to develop changeless wisdom, to untangle the knot of views and to put an end to craving - they should understand there is no self. If there were a self there would be no end to dukkha because dukkha would be your self.
pleasure, pain.. ends when sensory contact ceases. It is not about if there is self or not. And in Sutta i think say if khandhas were your self you wouldn't suffer.
If the khandas are not self then what is it you call your self?

And what sutta says "if khandhas were your self you wouldn't suffer" ?
my fault, its defilements,

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nymo.html
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
When i am aware its me who is aware. Its that simple.

bridif1
Posts: 172
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:42 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by bridif1 » Fri May 10, 2019 8:43 pm

auto wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 5:21 pm
When i am aware its me who is aware. Its that simple.
If you ask me, that sounds like a circular reasoning, for instance:
God exists because the Bible says so.
The stories in the Bible are real because they are the word of God.
Or maybe like a circular definition, for instance:
Good: it is the quality of something being good.
------------------
When "I am" aware its "me" who is aware.
What is that "I am" that you are talking about?
What is that "me"?
If the khandhas are not the self, where do those "I am" and "me" come from?
Are you saying that "I am" exists when "I am" aware?
And, again, what is that "I am" anyway?

Kind regards!

auto
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Sat May 11, 2019 12:21 pm

bridif1 wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 8:43 pm
auto wrote:
Fri May 10, 2019 5:21 pm
When i am aware its me who is aware. Its that simple.
If you ask me, that sounds like a circular reasoning, for instance:
God exists because the Bible says so.
The stories in the Bible are real because they are the word of God.
Or maybe like a circular definition, for instance:
Good: it is the quality of something being good.
------------------
When "I am" aware its "me" who is aware.
What is that "I am" that you are talking about?
What is that "me"?
If the khandhas are not the self, where do those "I am" and "me" come from?
Are you saying that "I am" exists when "I am" aware?
And, again, what is that "I am" anyway?

Kind regards!
When i started out i could already dissolve delusion from my heart, so that if i look my cup of coffee its just cup of coffee whilst before i was riding on worldly delusion, so i lack necessary delusion to get absorbed.

You won't get absorbed when you are aware, like when you discern that you are lookin at an object..you are too aware at that time and free of delusion to get into any sort of absorption.

people sit to do concentration practice, their attention tires off ceases and then they start get absorbed, but when that happens you should notice it that ceased and forcefully bring it back on, to make you clear and attentive again, force being aware more and more.
But thing is they need sit long time and don't know what causes the cessation of that mind, so not knowing what exactly to look for to cause cessation of that mind.

The mind develops this way, you can discern things what matter and are important. And through that experience i can say how important being aware is at certain stages.

When you are aware, you can force you to come even more aware, but its a part of puzzle since there are more things and what for it is important, and maybe(i doubt it is) just being aware and recognize the self that its me who is aware is detrimental for certain level of deludedness.

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun May 12, 2019 9:44 am

"No self"
When you hear the sound of silence, because your mind is just in that state of attention, of pure awareness, there’s no self.
Ajahn Sumedho
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-problem-of-personality/
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun May 12, 2019 9:53 am

"No self"
Anatta - There is no self

Ajahn Brahmavamso
https://podcast.bswa.org/e/anatta-there ... ahmavamso/
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 474
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta » Sun May 12, 2019 10:05 am

"No self"

Ajahn Chah
No me and no you, no self at all.
http://www.buddhanet.net/bodhiny2.htm

All things in the world fall under the characteristics of instability, unsatisfactoriness and being without a permanent ego or soul.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/tha ... ah_web.pdf

In truth there's no self anywhere to be found, there are only dhammas continually arising and passing away, as is their nature.
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha103.htm
🅢🅐🅑🅑🅔 🅓🅗🅐🅜🅜🅐 🅐🅝🅐🅣🅣🅐
  • "the one thing all the mistaken views have in common is the assump­tion that the self exists" ~ DN1
  • "It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea" ~ MN22
  • The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha.
  • No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. ~ SN22.59

auto
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Sun May 12, 2019 12:59 pm

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 9:44 am
"No self"
When you hear the sound of silence, because your mind is just in that state of attention, of pure awareness, there’s no self.
Ajahn Sumedho
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-problem-of-personality/
https://www.lionsroar.com/the-problem-of-personality/
That which is aware of your thinking—what is that? Is that a person? Is it a person that is aware? Or is it pure awareness? Is this awareness personal, or does the person arise within that?

Explore. Investigate. By investigating you are actually getting to notice the way it is, the Dhamma. You come to recognize that there is actually no person who is being aware. Nevertheless, awareness will include what seems personal.
Who am I?” These techniques or expedient means that we find in Zen and Advaita Vedanta stop the thinking mind so that we begin to notice the pure state of attention, where we are not caught in thinking and the assumptions of a self, where there is just pure awareness.
When you hear the sound of silence, because your mind is just in that state of attention, of pure awareness, there’s no self.
their problem if they can't find the self, it doesn't mean there isn't..who is .. enough to fall for the reasoning there above..

Without discovering the self you won't ever ever ever get to heart and from heart to abdomen and more..other words for you guys hello old age and sicknesses you can't heal out

*edited mean talk out. Just in case.

https://www.lionsroar.com/the-problem-of-personality/
Nevertheless, awareness will include what seems personal.
there is no person but nevertheless awarenss will include what seem personal.


Why they don't admit they don't just can't pinpoint it down. Instead of admiting to defeat they claim there is no self.
--

in cultivation even the most faint and unreal, useless untangible pebbles in mind needs be accounted(if it matters oc..that is skill of its own)

auto
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Sun May 12, 2019 3:11 pm

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 10:05 am
"No self"

Ajahn Chah
No me and no you, no self at all.
http://www.buddhanet.net/bodhiny2.htm

All things in the world fall under the characteristics of instability, unsatisfactoriness and being without a permanent ego or soul.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/tha ... ah_web.pdf

In truth there's no self anywhere to be found, there are only dhammas continually arising and passing away, as is their nature.
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha103.htm
what Suttas say,
https://suttacentral.net/sn35.23/en/sujato
“Mendicants, I will teach you the all. “Sabbaṃ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi.
Listen … Taṃ suṇātha.
And what is the all? Kiñca, bhikkhave, sabbaṃ?
It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and thoughts. Cakkhuñceva rūpā ca, sotañca saddā ca, ghānañca gandhā ca, jivhā ca rasā ca, kāyo ca phoṭṭhabbā ca, mano ca dhammā ca
— This is called the all. idaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, sabbaṃ.
https://suttacentral.net/mn49/en/sujato
‘A galaxy extends a thousand times as far ‘Yāvatā candimasūriyā,
as the moon and sun revolve Pariharanti disā bhanti virocanā;
and the shining ones light up the quarters. Tāva sahassadhā loko,
And there you wield your power. Ettha te vattate vaso.
You know the high and low, Paroparañca jānāsi,
the passionate and dispassionate, atho rāgavirāginaṃ;
and the coming and going of sentient beings Itthabhāvaññathābhāvaṃ,
from this realm to another. sattānaṃ āgatiṃ gatinti.

That’s how I understand your range and your light. Evaṃ kho te ahaṃ, brahme, gatiñca pajānāmi jutiñca pajānāmi: “evaṃ mahiddhiko bako brahmā, evaṃ mahānubhāvo bako brahmā, evaṃ mahesakkho bako brahmā”ti.
But there is another realm that you don’t know or see. Atthi kho, brahme, añño kāyo, taṃ tvaṃ na jānāsi na passasi;
But I know it and see it. tamahaṃ jānāmi passāmi.
There is the realm named after the gods of streaming radiance.
You passed away from there and were reborn here. Atthi kho, brahme, ābhassarā nāma kāyo yato tvaṃ cuto idhūpapanno.
You’ve dwelt here so long that you’ve forgotten about that, so you don’t know it or see it. Tassa te aticiranivāsena sā sati pamuṭṭhā, tena taṃ tvaṃ na jānāsi na passasi;
..
Having directly known water … Āpaṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe … fire … tejaṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe … air … vāyaṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe … creatures … bhūte kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe … gods … deve kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe … the Creator … pajāpatiṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe … Brahmā … brahmaṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe … the gods of streaming radiance … ābhassare kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe … the gods replete with glory … subhakiṇhe kho ahaṃ, brahme … … pe … the gods of abundant fruit … vehapphale kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe … the Overlord … abhibhuṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme … pe …
-
Having directly known all as all, and having directly known that which does not fall within the scope of experience based on all, I did not identify with all, I did not identify regarding all, I did not identify as all, I did not identify ‘all is mine’, I did not enjoy all. sabbaṃ kho ahaṃ, brahme, sabbato abhiññāya yāvatā sabbassa sabbattena ananubhūtaṃ tadabhiññāya sabbaṃ nāpahosiṃ sabbasmiṃ nāpahosiṃ sabbato nāpahosiṃ sabbaṃ meti nāpahosiṃ, sabbaṃ nābhivadiṃ.
might want to actually get to the All, what is beyond the world..eye and its object is not the world.

Consciousness that is invisible, infinite, radiant all round—that’s what is not within the scope of experience based on earth, water, fire, air, creatures, gods, the Creator, Brahmā, the gods of streaming radiance, the gods replete with glory, the gods of abundant fruit, the Overlord, and the all.
Viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ anantaṃ sabbato pabhaṃ, taṃ pathaviyā pathavattena ananubhūtaṃ, āpassa āpattena ananubhūtaṃ, tejassa tejattena ananubhūtaṃ, vāyassa vāyattena ananubhūtaṃ, bhūtānaṃ bhūtattena ananubhūtaṃ, devānaṃ devattena ananubhūtaṃ, pajāpatissa pajāpatittena ananubhūtaṃ, brahmānaṃ brahmattena ananubhūtaṃ, ābhassarānaṃ ābhassarattena ananubhūtaṃ, subhakiṇhānaṃ subhakiṇhattena ananubhūtaṃ, vehapphalānaṃ vehapphalattena ananubhūtaṃ, abhibhussa abhibhuttena ananubhūtaṃ, sabbassa sabbattena ananubhūtaṃ.

see there is more than the All, so learn or get the context what is more possible meant with the sabbe dhamma anatta.


also,
And while invisible I recited this verse: Antarahito imaṃ gāthaṃ abhāsiṃ:
‘Seeing the danger in continued existence—‘Bhavevāhaṃ bhayaṃ disvā,
that life in any existence will cease to be—bhavañca vibhavesinaṃ;
I didn’t welcome any kind of existence, Bhavaṃ nābhivadiṃ kiñci,
and didn’t grasp at relishing.’ nandiñca na upādiyin’ti.
relishing: making things pleasant. Aren't the no -self taught by these people to make life pleasant or live-able?

User avatar
Jerafreyr
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:22 am

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by Jerafreyr » Sun May 12, 2019 6:09 pm

Do you call your awareness your consciousness? Do you own it or was it given to you by another?

Also, are you trying to prove your case or are you trying to test your observation?

auto
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by auto » Sun May 12, 2019 8:18 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Sun May 12, 2019 6:09 pm
Do you call your awareness your consciousness? Do you own it or was it given to you by another?

Also, are you trying to prove your case or are you trying to test your observation?
manasikara.


https://suttacentral.net/an11.8/en/sujato
“Could it be, sir, that a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t be aware of the eye or sights, ear or sounds, nose or smells, tongue or tastes, or body or touches. They wouldn’t be aware of earth in earth, water in water, fire in fire, or air in air. And they wouldn’t be aware of the dimension of infinite space in the dimension of infinite space, the dimension of infinite consciousness in the dimension of infinite consciousness, the dimension of nothingness in the dimension of nothingness, or the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception in the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. They wouldn’t be aware of this world in this world, or the other world in the other world. And they wouldn’t be aware of what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind.

Yet they would be aware?”

“It could be, Ānanda.”
“But how could this be?”
“Ānanda, it’s when a mendicant is aware:

‘This is peaceful; this is sublime—that is, the stilling of all activities, the letting go of all attachments, the ending of craving, fading away, cessation, extinguishment.’
That’s how a mendicant might gain a state of immersion like this. They wouldn’t be aware of the eye or sights, ear or sounds, nose or smells, tongue or tastes, or body or touches. …
And they wouldn’t be aware of what is seen, heard, thought, known, attained, sought, or explored by the mind.
Yet they would be aware.”
same is with the perception.


what you can assume? going higher and higher places or states there still is awareness and mendicant who does practice.


also

perception of no-self is for to uproot asmimana. It isn't about if there is self or not. it is a period of where you are effed up, everything goes downhill, bad etc, you can't just simply remove asmimana being the top dog.

https://suttacentral.net/an9.1/en/sujato
A mendicant grounded on these five things should develop four further things.

They should develop the perception of ugliness to give up greed,
love to give up hate,
mindfulness of breathing to cut off thinking,
and perception of impermanence to uproot the conceit ‘I am’. asubhā bhāvetabbā rāgassa pahānāya, mettā bhāvetabbā byāpādassa pahānāya, ānāpānassati bhāvetabbā vitakkupacchedāya, aniccasaññā bhāvetabbā asmimānasamugghātāya. When you perceive impermanence, the perception of not-self becomes stabilized. Aniccasaññino, bhikkhave, anattasaññā saṇṭhāti.
Perceiving not-self, you uproot the conceit ‘I am’ and attain extinguishment in this very life.” Anattasaññī asmimānasamugghātaṃ pāpuṇāti diṭṭheva dhamme nibbānan”ti. (6–9.)
.when you are feeling down, cravings are up and feel strong urges to do evil, broke discipline etc

https://suttacentral.net/an4.5/en/sujato
And who is the person who goes against the stream? Katamo ca, bhikkhave, paṭisotagāmī puggalo?
It’s a person who doesn’t take part in sensual pleasures or do bad deeds. They live the full and pure spiritual life in pain and sadness, weeping, with tearful faces. Idha, bhikkhave, ekacco puggalo kāme ca nappaṭisevati, pāpañca kammaṃ na karoti, sahāpi dukkhena sahāpi domanassena assumukhopi rudamāno paripuṇṇaṃ parisuddhaṃ brahmacariyaṃ carati.
This is called a person who goes against the stream. Ayaṃ vuccati, bhikkhave, paṭisotagāmī puggalo.

User avatar
Jerafreyr
Posts: 77
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:22 am

Re: No self theory do I get it right?

Post by Jerafreyr » Sun May 12, 2019 11:02 pm

I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify without using suttas?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dinsdale, robertk and 42 guests