A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
dhamma_spoon wrote:"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness."
[Repeat for the other four aggregates]
To me the seeing/assuming of "a self" in each of the five aggregates (resulting in the 20 self-identifications) is "gross" if self is 'soul', a permanent identity.
Yes, "in", i.e. identical with, or "other than" ... there is no difference since both is conceptual fantasy.
dhamma_spoon wrote:
On the other hand, the I-sense ('This is what I am') conceit is the subtle self that doesn't have to be permanent.
"This is what I am" or "doesn't have to be permanent" is conceptualizing retrospectively. So this again is theory comparable to the one of "soul" theorists and is not what I meant with "subtle". The crucial point of "subtle" is the way the illusion appears right in the moment of arising, the instantaneously "felt" self or "I" or "mine". Right in this instant of arising it appears as if permanent and existing "in and of itself", although in the next moment you may think "doesn't have to be permanent".
Kind regards
Dhamma_spoon: That knowing in the "here and now" is interesting and indeed crucial, TMing. Maybe I also had a glimpse of the permanent-self illusion yesterday, when I read the following medical news.
"Writing in the The Lancet, US researchers say they have regrown the forelimb thigh joint of rabbits using their own stem cells.
Scientists say they have shown "proof of principle" for the technique which could replace hips It was the first time an entire joint surface had been regenerated with the return of functions, they said.
The research could benefit patients with damaged hips, shoulders or knees." [BBC News 28 July 2010 ]
Then I asked myself : Why are you excited? Does this joy come from the (false) hope of greatly extending life -- a subtle longing for the "permanent self" that may live forever?
Tep
-----
A soup spoon does not know the taste of the soup. A dhamma spoon does not know the taste of the Dhamma!
rowyourboat wrote:Hi Tilt, the illusion maybe real, but the content isn't
What do you mean here by content, and how would you relate it to the loka of experience (e.g. five aggregates or six sense bases).
Metta,
Retro.
An illusion (ie- a thought) has dependently arisen. This is true. It is made up of the 5 aggregates. But that illusion says that there is a self- this is the content of the illusion. But when look at the structure of the illusion (rather than the content) we see that the 5 aggregates are causally arisen, impermanent and devoid of self. Atleast, I think that was what Tilt was alluding to.
rowyourboat wrote:I think there is a danger in considering atta as just the soul. Because then the solution is to not believe in a soul, yet there might still be a sense of 'me' as a person being in existence. This is also illusory. It is nothing but a string of causes and effects. There is no doer.
Well said. Anatta is not simply an intellectual rejection of the metaphysical concept of a soul. It goes far deeper than that. If this were the case then atheists and others who lack a belief in a soul could be said to have true insight into Anatta. But that's not the case.
Anatta is indeed a refutation/rejection of a soul or essence, but this is just the beginning of eliminating the fetter of self-identification. When there is no such identification, things are seen clearly and conceptualisations about self become meaningless.
tiltbillings wrote:Don't forget: an illusion is real.
It is a real illusion. It exists as something, but it doesn't exist as it appears to be. There are phenomena which are conditions for other phenomena, but these phenomena don't constitute a self, either eternal and metaphysical, impermanent, physical or otherwise.
In everyday life puthujana assumes feeling, consciousness etc is belong to an entity within, feeling etc is just part of this entity. After we learn The Buddha's teachings we understand feeling, consciousness etc is only part of mind (nama) and it devoid of entity. But this understanding is shallow, because the understanding is just conceptual (ditthi).
It needs practice to see directly this anatta to know and develop deep unshakeable true understanding .
chandrafabian wrote:In everyday life puthujana assumes feeling, consciousness etc is belong to an entity within, feeling etc is just part of this entity. After we learn The Buddha's teachings we understand feeling, consciousness etc is only part of mind (nama) and it devoid of entity. But this understanding is shallow, because the understanding is just conceptual (ditthi).
It needs practice to see directly this anatta to know and develop deep unshakeable true understanding .
chandrafabian wrote:In everyday life puthujana assumes feeling, consciousness etc is belong to an entity within, feeling etc is just part of this entity. After we learn The Buddha's teachings we understand feeling, consciousness etc is only part of mind (nama) and it devoid of entity. But this understanding is shallow, because the understanding is just conceptual (ditthi).
It needs practice to see directly this anatta to know and develop deep unshakeable true understanding .
With the emphasise on practice. Discussion at best can only provide an impetus to practice. The time if any for metaphysical discussion is in order to verify or clarify experience. This is best done with a teacher.
No amount of trying to convince ourselves or others of the truth of Anatta will ever avail anything. Its a just a socially sanctioned way of postponing practice.
Ironically in this context...... its a way of clinging to self..
We need only a rough hewn idea of Anatta. And a meditation teacher. Practice will do the rest.
Real authentic practice under the supervision of a Vipassana teacher will in half a day begin to resolve both our queries and our as yet unasked questions.
PeterB wrote:With the emphasise on practice. Discussion at best can only provide an impetus to practice. The time if any for metaphysical discussion is in order to verify or clarify experience. This is best done with a teacher.
No amount of trying to convince ourselves or others of the truth of Anatta will ever avail anything. Its a just a socially sanctioned way of postponing practice.
Ironically in this context...... its a way of clinging to self..
We need only a rough hewn idea of Anatta. And a meditation teacher. Practice will do the rest.
Real authentic practice under the supervision of a Vipassana teacher will in half a day begin to resolve both our queries and our as yet unasked questions.
I agree, practicing Vipassana under experience and knowledgable teacher would help us to see three characteristics.
chandrafabian wrote:In everyday life puthujana assumes feeling, consciousness etc is belong to an entity within, feeling etc is just part of this entity. After we learn The Buddha's teachings we understand feeling, consciousness etc is only part of mind (nama) and it devoid of entity. But this understanding is shallow, because the understanding is just conceptual (ditthi).
It needs practice to see directly this anatta to know and develop deep unshakeable true understanding .
With the emphasise on practice. Discussion at best can only provide an impetus to practice. The time if any for metaphysical discussion is in order to verify or clarify experience. This is best done with a teacher.
No amount of trying to convince ourselves or others of the truth of Anatta will ever avail anything. Its a just a socially sanctioned way of postponing practice.
Ironically in this context...... its a way of clinging to self..
We need only a rough hewn idea of Anatta. And a meditation teacher. Practice will do the rest.
Real authentic practice under the supervision of a Vipassana teacher will in half a day begin to resolve both our queries and our as yet unasked questions.
According to the Visuddhimagga, we shouldn't postpone practice, we should practice sila and samadhi straight away, but we must also understand these things like the sense bases and aggregates intellectually, and should reflect on them. The Buddha taught them for a reason. Not only do they help to develop wisdom, but they can also help your sila and samadhi because when you have a lot of hindrances, you can reflect on what they really are-- that they are just nama and rupa, not a self, and so on. You can reflect on them and see that the world is void. And they can help to develop wisdom. They are the "soil" and "trunk".
Well said, I agree. It's clear from the suttas that the Buddha did teach a rational or 'intellectual' aspect to Non-self - as a way of abandoning unhelpful beliefs and tendencies. This is not merely philosphising or thinking for it's own sake, but challenging beliefs which are actually knots of attachment - thus it is directed at the way we experience life.
The Buddha did not teach self or non self at all. At a number of points in the Suttas he says that he doesnt.
He taught anatta. Which is not a thing, to be experienced. It is to be realised. And it is one mark of sentient existence together with Dukkha and Anicca. Anatta is not a stand alone goal of any kind. It is what is.
PeterB wrote:The Buddha did not teach self or non self at all. At a number of points in the Suttas he says that he doesnt.
He taught anatta. Which is not a thing, to be experienced. It is to be realised. And it is one mark of sentient existence together with Dukkha and Anicca. Anatta is not a stand alone goal of any kind. It is what is.
Hi, PeterB -
The following extreme views, 'Is there a self? Is there no self? Who am I? Where did I come from? What will I become?', are caused by attachment, not by detachment (i.e. non-clinging).
When you dislike someone, there is a mentally-fabricated "self" that is the object of hatred. Same can be said in the case of love.
The right view that avoids extremes does not attach; thus with right view one has no fear, no worry, no love, no hate. And he understands non-self (anatta).
Dhamma_spoon
A soup spoon does not know the taste of the soup. A dhamma spoon does not know the taste of the Dhamma!
jajas wrote:if self doesn`t excist, how must i see this body and mind. I have to treat it as an thing. I have to feed it and more. allso i want to let it meditate. does the buddha have any suggestions?
the word self tends to mean 'person' in english (puggala in pali). buddhism accepts persons but says they are free of any quality of atta. atta tends to refer to the idea that things have their own fixed, unchanging essence which makes them what they are. it can of course go into much more detail.
in other words, what makes you you is that there's an unchanging fixed essence in you. Lord Buddha said thats absolutely not true, thats not what makes up you, and further, only someone who is fundamentally deluded will grasp to and believe in such an appearance (ie. everybody).
A Japanese man has been arrested on suspicion of writing a computer virus that destroys and replaces files on a victim PC with manga images of squid, octopuses and sea urchins. Masato Nakatsuji, 27, of Izumisano, Osaka Prefecture, was quoted as telling police: "I wanted to see how much my computer programming skills had improved since the last time I was arrested."
