Dividing things until they aren't things

sova

So a book is made entirely of non-book parts. Pages are not books, bindings are not books, inks are not books, yet a book is made of all these things.

Buddha used the example of a chariot - the axle is not a chariot, nor the wheels, nor the place to stand.

All phenomena can be analyzed and vivisected like this.


Likewise, beings are made up of five aggregates, at least humans are - in the teachings there are also descriptions of beings in different realms, beings without bodies, etc.

Each of the aggregates is not a being. Beings are made of non-being elements.


So look at stuff around you - break it into simple pieces like "top" and "front" -- phenomena can be split into any convenient way in this analysis. This is useful to reflect upon because everything is made of parts which are not the thing itself.


In looking at the world in this fashion, true continuity of information may open up!

So check it out. Help me out with some of your own sectings. (:

lamaramadingdong

Or, to paraphrase Thich Nhat Nanh and go the other direction, don't see a book as just paper. See in it the tree, the sun, the rain, the winds, the seasons, the clouds and all that it took to make the paper and then see the thoughts, the work, the ink, the printer, the binder, the transporter, the seller that it took to put the book in your hands.

footiam

sova said:

So a book is made entirely of non-book parts. Pages are not books, bindings are not books, inks are not books, yet a book is made of all these things.

Buddha used the example of a chariot - the axle is not a chariot, nor the wheels, nor the place to stand.

All phenomena can be analyzed and vivisected like this.


Likewise, beings are made up of five aggregates, at least humans are - in the teachings there are also descriptions of beings in different realms, beings without bodies, etc.

Each of the aggregates is not a being. Beings are made of non-being elements.


So look at stuff around you - break it into simple pieces like "top" and "front" -- phenomena can be split into any convenient way in this analysis. This is useful to reflect upon because everything is made of parts which are not the thing itself.


In looking at the world in this fashion, true continuity of information may open up!

So check it out. Help me out with some of your own sectings. (:

When you look at things this way, you would not just appreciate the chariot for a chariot but for axles, wheels and all. When you look at yourself this way, you see yourself not as 'you' or 'I' but as everybody else. Perhaps, in this way, we make peace with the world.

pegembara

The ear is composed of eardrum, ear ossicles, inner ear (labyrinth, semicircular canal), auditory nerve, brain etc. It depends on all its parts for its existence. In reality there is no ear but its existence is merely imputed.

All body parts are the same - eyes, lungs, kidneys etc.

Things don't exist just because we put labels on them.

Another way is to thinking in terms of elements or dhatus.

"'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six properties: the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, the wind property, the space property, the consciousness property. 'A person has six properties.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

"'A person has six media of sensory contact.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the six media of sensory contact: the eye as a medium of sensory contact, the ear... the nose... the tongue... the body... the intellect as a medium of sensory contact. 'A person has six media of sensory contact.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

"'A person has eighteen considerations.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the eighteen considerations: On seeing a form with the eye, one considers a form that can act as a basis for joy, a form that can act as a basis for sadness, or a form that can act as a basis for equanimity. On hearing a sound with the ear... On smelling an aroma with the nose... On tasting a flavor with the tongue... On feeling a tactile sensation with the body... On cognizing an idea with the intellect, one considers an idea that can act as a basis for joy, an idea that can act as a basis for sadness, or an idea that can act as a basis for equanimity. Thus there are six considerations conducive to joy, six conducive to sadness, & six conducive to equanimity. 'A person has eighteen considerations.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

"'A person has four determinations.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? These are the four determinations: the determination for discernment, the determination for truth, the determination for relinquishment, the determination for calm. 'A person has four determinations.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.140.than.html

Here is another way of dissecting the (compact) body into parts.

"Furthermore, the monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' Just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain — wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, husked rice — and a man with good eyesight, pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This is husked rice'; in the same way, the monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.

"Furthermore, the monk contemplates this very body — however it stands, however it is disposed — in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' Just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body — however it stands, however it is disposed — in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' And as he remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered. This is how a monk develops mindfulness immersed in the body.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.119.than.html

Simonthepilgrim

At the same time as all the above being true, it is also entirely inadequate. To see our fellow humna, for example as "a rag, a bone, a hank of hair" is true, false, both true and false, and neither true nor false, all at the same time. A chair may be the wood, the tree, the cloth, the plant, the worker's hands, etc., but we still sit on it as if it were not a vast space inhabited by a few fundamental particles and Higgs bosons, as if it is, indeed, a chair.

This is the mystery of mind, which comes before all things.

sova

Thank you all for your contributions (:

Regarding how one sees other people, I really find wisdom in the Rasta greeting "fellow sufferer"

So it is important to use such analysis, but skillfully. And the tradition you follow has a lot of variation -- in the canon for the school of the elders (Theravada) the body is yucko .. in Vajrayana there is a sense of awe and divinity with the precious human body..

Also, the whole point is that things cannot be reduced to particles. Which really lets the mind come to stillness in that knowledge.

DairyLama

sova said:

So look at stuff around you - break it into simple pieces like "top" and "front" -- phenomena can be split into any convenient way in this analysis.

I can't resist being a devils advocate here.

OK, so everything, including us, can be thought about as a collection of parts or components....but so what? This has some practical uses, but it doesn't seem like a particularly profound observation.

DairyLama

pegembara said:

In reality there is no ear but its existence is merely imputed.

In reality there is something which we label as an ear.

sova

@SpinyNorman
what is a collection? where does the collection exist?

looking at things in the conventional way is easy, but if you are trying to get down to the essence then some "fundamental" ideas must be challenged.

DairyLama

sova said:

...looking at things in the conventional way is easy...

Sure, but looking at things as a collection of parts seems very conventional.

sova

Ah, I see what you mean. Transforming to view of continuity - sight field as uninterrupted light and so forth is truly powerful. The basic inherited tendency is to objectify and thus implicitly subjectify. But objects and thereby grasping can dissolve when we understand the fluidity of reality. It is like coming to know the river by seeing the co-reliance of tent posts which uphold the tent.

Reminded of a John Muir verse: "When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe."

Often paraphrased as "Tug on anything at all and you'll find it connected to everything else in the universe."


Decomposition is not to arrive at fundamental particularization, but to accomodate the mind to clear perception of Emptiness

May circumstances be favorable for all beings to swiftly attain the Unsurpassed state of the Bless'ed Ones _/\_

riverflow

It isn't really just that an object is made of parts (because those parts would then also be "objects" too)-- it is made of relations. So a book is not just made up of parts which could be infinitely broken down ad infinitum, but more importantly, it "exists" by virtue of relationality (relationships which extends ad infinitum spatially and temporally). Those relations combined in a very particular way in a particular place and time manifests as what we call a book.

Each thing depends on all things. All things depend on each thing. Emptiness and dependent origination are two different perspectives of the same "thing."

pegembara

SpinyNorman said:

pegembara said:

In reality there is no ear but its existence is merely imputed.

In reality there is something which we label as an ear.

That something is actually not a thing. Just as that piece of paper you called money is actually paper or that piece of land you called your property. That is what concepts are - conventional reality.

You think I'm an ignorant savage
And you've been so many places
I guess it must be so
But still I cannot see
If the savage one is me
How can there be so much that you don't know?
You don't know ...
You think you own whatever land you land on
The Earth is just a dead thing you can claim
But I know every rock and tree and creature
Has a life, has a spirit, has a name

And we are all connected to each other
In a circle, in a hoop that never ends

from Disney's Pocahontas

DairyLama

pegembara said:

SpinyNorman said:

pegembara said:

In reality there is no ear but its existence is merely imputed.

In reality there is something which we label as an ear.

That something is actually not a thing. Just as that piece of paper you called money is actually paper or that piece of land you called your property. That is what concepts are - conventional reality.

If I drop a brick on my foot it hurts, regardless of whether I attach labels like "brick", "foot", etc.

pegembara

SpinyNorman said:

pegembara said:

SpinyNorman said:

pegembara said:

In reality there is no ear but its existence is merely imputed.

In reality there is something which we label as an ear.

That something is actually not a thing. Just as that piece of paper you called money is actually paper or that piece of land you called your property. That is what concepts are - conventional reality.

If I drop a brick on my foot it hurts, regardless of whether I attach labels like "brick", "foot", etc.

Body sensations are not conventions - the solidity of earth, the cohesiveness of water, the heat of fire and movement of wind ie. elements/dhatus. Like sights, sounds, smells, tastes. They can be directly experienced regardless. Whatever you call that solid thing that fell on you will hurt. A child will know pain without having to call that thing a brick or whatever. Make no mistake. Concepts are useful but they are only a convention.

robot

pegembara said:

SpinyNorman said:

pegembara said:

SpinyNorman said:

pegembara said:

In reality there is no ear but its existence is merely imputed.

In reality there is something which we label as an ear.

That something is actually not a thing. Just as that piece of paper you called money is actually paper or that piece of land you called your property. That is what concepts are - conventional reality.

If I drop a brick on my foot it hurts, regardless of whether I attach labels like "brick", "foot", etc.

Body sensations are not conventions - the solidity of earth, the cohesiveness of water, the heat of fire and movement of wind ie. elements/dhatus. Like sights, sounds, smells, tastes. They can be directly experienced regardless. Whatever you call that solid thing that fell on you will hurt. A child will know pain without having to call that thing a brick or whatever. Make no mistake. Concepts are useful but they are only a convention.

I think I am missing the point. What is it?

pegembara

Concepts are just concepts, they are just conventions - not reality.

robot

So the objects out there that we conceptualise are reality? That doesn't sound like Buddhism.
If everything is empty, why discriminate between what I see and what I think I see?
What am I still missing here?

DairyLama

pegembara said:

Body sensations are not conventions - the solidity of earth, the cohesiveness of water, the heat of fire and movement of wind ie. elements/dhatus. Like sights, sounds, smells, tastes. They can be directly experienced regardless. Whatever you call that solid thing that fell on you will hurt. A child will know pain without having to call that thing a brick or whatever. Make no mistake. Concepts are useful but they are only a convention.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make.

DairyLama

robot said:

So the objects out there that we conceptualise are reality? That doesn't sound like Buddhism.
If everything is empty, why discriminate between what I see and what I think I see?
What am I still missing here?

Buddhism says that nothing exists independently, ie everything arises in dependence on causes and conditions. It doesn't say that nothing exists, or that there is nothing "out there".

Simonthepilgrim

Does the Dharma exist independently? Has Sunyatta a 'self'?

David

SpinyNorman said:

robot said:

So the objects out there that we conceptualise are reality? That doesn't sound like Buddhism.
If everything is empty, why discriminate between what I see and what I think I see?
What am I still missing here?

Buddhism says that nothing exists independently, ie everything arises in dependence on causes and conditions. It doesn't say that nothing exists, or that there is nothing "out there".

Exactly. I stumbled on this block for at least a decade.

It's this magic "nothing" we keep hearing about that doesn't exist.

anataman

Just remain in the field of awareness with something to focus on and nothing will arise…

DairyLama

Simonthepilgrim said:

Does the Dharma exist independently? Has Sunyatta a 'self'?

Isn't sunyata the absence of self-identity?

Dakini

Simonthepilgrim said:

Does the Dharma exist independently? Has Sunyatta a 'self'?

If things are empty of inherent existence, is the Dharma empty? Was the Buddha emptiness?

betaboy

SpinyNorman said:

robot said:

So the objects out there that we conceptualise are reality? That doesn't sound like Buddhism.
If everything is empty, why discriminate between what I see and what I think I see?
What am I still missing here?

Buddhism says that nothing exists independently, ie everything arises in dependence on causes and conditions. It doesn't say that nothing exists, or that there is nothing "out there".

Buddhism is not a sentient being to say anything, one way or another. It is our interpretation.

Jeffrey

Yes, the dharma is empty and Buddha is empty. The question then is what is emptiness. It is not nothingness.

DairyLama

Jeffrey said:

The question then is what is emptiness.

Lack of independent existence due to conditionality?

Nevermind

riverflow said:

It isn't really just that an object is made of parts (because those parts would then also be "objects" too)-- it is made of relations. So a book is not just made up of parts which could be infinitely broken down ad infinitum, but more importantly, it "exists" by virtue of relationality (relationships which extends ad infinitum spatially and temporally). Those relations combined in a very particular way in a particular place and time manifests as what we call a book.

Each thing depends on all things. All things depend on each thing. Emptiness and dependent origination are two different perspectives of the same "thing."

It isn't really that things are made of relations (because those relations would also be "relations" too) -- objects and relations are nothing without purpose. For instance, is a hammer a piece of art, or is it a weapon? And if the hammer is caused by all things, then it's caused by nothing. :crazy: ... it's cause is determined to be whatever is most useful to our purposes.

The moral of the story: KNOW YOUR PURPOSE!

Jeffrey

SpinyNorman said:

Jeffrey said:

The question then is what is emptiness.

Lack of independent existence due to conditionality?

I cannot fault that, but there may be a little more to it even? For example our poisons are not a self so they are not even a real correlation to a person in some sense. They are only what our minds designate them??? It's a little hard to figure out.

David

Nevermind said:

riverflow said:

It isn't really just that an object is made of parts (because those parts would then also be "objects" too)-- it is made of relations. So a book is not just made up of parts which could be infinitely broken down ad infinitum, but more importantly, it "exists" by virtue of relationality (relationships which extends ad infinitum spatially and temporally). Those relations combined in a very particular way in a particular place and time manifests as what we call a book.

Each thing depends on all things. All things depend on each thing. Emptiness and dependent origination are two different perspectives of the same "thing."

It isn't really that things are made of relations (because those relations would also be "relations" too) -- objects and relations are nothing without purpose. For instance, is a hammer a piece of art, or is it a weapon? And if the hammer is caused by all things, then it's caused by nothing. :crazy: ... it's cause is determined to be whatever is most useful to our purposes.

The moral of the story: KNOW YOUR PURPOSE!

How is being caused by all things the same as being caused by "nothing"? I can see it being the same as having no one specific cause but not no cause at all.

Purpose just might be made instead of found.

What came first, the tool or the art?

The implementation or the inspiration?

David

Jeffrey said:

SpinyNorman said:

Jeffrey said:

The question then is what is emptiness.

Lack of independent existence due to conditionality?

I cannot fault that, but there may be a little more to it even? For example our poisons are not a self so they are not even a real correlation to a person in some sense. They are only what our minds designate them??? It's a little hard to figure out.

Whatever we designate a process/thing will be incomplete because by the time a label is made up, that which was labeled is already a little bit different.

I often hear people being so down on emptiness but it isn't a bad thing. Emptiness means potential for change.

sova

I wrote this tonhelp acclimate my own mind, perhaps it will help someone else, too:

emptiness is what you get when you pour the ocean out of your cup.



**ancillary notes:
relax into the fundamental heartbeart of the universe

reasoning about how no object is independent of its environment

--end result is like: environment (substance/fluid of existence) is continuous, unbroken, smooth like satin --

The metaphors a simple mind like me can generate are limited. We must read from a source who knows experientially. Thus, to read a sutra, to hear a teaching is to come face-to-face with the Buddha.

We exaggerate the whirlwind about us to be distinct items in a tornado, of which we are the center. But with our innate eye of wisdom and some helpful training, we can loosen our grasping (to duality)

really, grasping equals duality
like how an extremely hot piece of iron is redorange

hot iron and redorange are inseperable.


but to "see" emptiness you need to build faith in the dharma, the natural way of things, and the joyous understanding of.

and probably most importantly, yearn to meet teachers, to listen and understand, and see clearly that Every being suffers and wishes to be free of pain, both mental anguish and physical pains.


just some meanderings from my own dharma understanding. if some of this makes sense to you, please study the prajnaparamita and meditate every day.

DairyLama

Jeffrey said:

SpinyNorman said:

Jeffrey said:

The question then is what is emptiness.

Lack of independent existence due to conditionality?

I cannot fault that, but there may be a little more to it even? For example our poisons are not a self so they are not even a real correlation to a person in some sense. They are only what our minds designate them??? It's a little hard to figure out.

I think you could say that mental states arise in dependence on conditions, so they are transient, and if one changes those conditions then the mental states will change too. Right Effort would be an example.

DairyLama

ourself said:

I often hear people being so down on emptiness but it isn't a bad thing. Emptiness means potential for change.

Yes, and the same is true of impermanence. Dukkha is temporary too.

Nevermind

ourself said:

How is being caused by all things the same as being caused by "nothing"? I can see it being the same as having no one specific cause but not no cause at all.

Are you trying to say that it's not possible to know a specific cause? OF COURSE that's possible, don't confuse yourself.

Purpose just might be made instead of found.

Why does it have to be one or the other?

What came first, the tool or the art?

Why does that matter?

The implementation or the inspiration?

Why does that matter?

David

Nevermind said:

ourself said:

How is being caused by all things the same as being caused by "nothing"? I can see it being the same as having no one specific cause but not no cause at all.

Are you trying to say that it's not possible to know a specific cause? OF COURSE that's possible, don't confuse yourself.

How did you get that from what I said?

I asked why something being caused by all things is the same as being caused by nothing.

Jeffrey

SpinyNorman said:

Jeffrey said:

SpinyNorman said:

Jeffrey said:

The question then is what is emptiness.

Lack of independent existence due to conditionality?

I cannot fault that, but there may be a little more to it even? For example our poisons are not a self so they are not even a real correlation to a person in some sense. They are only what our minds designate them??? It's a little hard to figure out.

I think you could say that mental states arise in dependence on conditions, so they are transient, and if one changes those conditions then the mental states will change too. Right Effort would be an example.

Still it remains that the self, again, is not the skhandas or kleshas. The kleshas are passing arisings. Muddy water let stand clears.

Jeffrey

From "buddhism" facebook page

Conceptual mind is ego grasping past, present and future, manipulating, substantializing and solidifying Buddha Nature that cannot be grasped, manipulated, substantialized and solidified.
That is why, in order to awaken to our Buddha Nature, the Mahasiddha Tilopa said:

"Let go of what has passed.
Let go of what may come.
Let go of what is happening now.
Don’t try to figure anything out.
Don’t try to make anything happen.
Relax, right now, and rest."

Nevermind

ourself said:

why something being caused by all things is the same as being caused by nothing.

Let see now, hmmm.... let's try a practical example:

Jack and Jill went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown,
And Jill came tumbling after.

Multiple choice question:
A) Jack's broken crown was caused by all thing.
Jack's broken crown was caused by nothing.

If we were to attempt reasoning this though a bit we might come to the conclusion that it makes no difference which answer we chose, cuz Jack is doomed to repeat his mistake either way.

Poor Jack.

David

Nevermind said:

ourself said:

why something being caused by all things is the same as being caused by nothing.

Let see now, hmmm.... let's try a practical example:

Jack and Jill went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown,
And Jill came tumbling after.

Multiple choice question:
A) Jack's broken crown was caused by all thing.
Jack's broken crown was caused by nothing.

If we were to attempt reasoning this though a bit we might come to the conclusion that it makes no difference which answer we chose, cuz Jack is doomed to repeat his mistake either way.

Poor Jack.

I'd say Jacks broken crown was caused by a lack of mindfulness.

Still not sure how that explains that something being caused by all things is the same as being caused by nothing.

robot

Nevermind said:

ourself said:

why something being caused by all things is the same as being caused by nothing.

Let see now, hmmm.... let's try a practical example:

Jack and Jill went up the hill
To fetch a pail of water.
Jack fell down and broke his crown,
And Jill came tumbling after.

Multiple choice question:
A) Jack's broken crown was caused by all thing.
Jack's broken crown was caused by nothing.

If we were to attempt reasoning this though a bit we might come to the conclusion that it makes no difference which answer we chose, cuz Jack is doomed to repeat his mistake either way.

Poor Jack.


Breaking out the old 'baffle them with bullshit' tactic, huh?
Admit it, you are stumped.
Jack's crown is broken. How can he repeat this mistake?

DairyLama

Jeffrey said:

Still it remains that the self, again, is not the skhandas or kleshas.

So are you saying there is a self "outside" the skhandas?

David

Jeffrey said:

SpinyNorman said:

Jeffrey said:

SpinyNorman said:

Jeffrey said:

The question then is what is emptiness.

Lack of independent existence due to conditionality?

I cannot fault that, but there may be a little more to it even? For example our poisons are not a self so they are not even a real correlation to a person in some sense. They are only what our minds designate them??? It's a little hard to figure out.

I think you could say that mental states arise in dependence on conditions, so they are transient, and if one changes those conditions then the mental states will change too. Right Effort would be an example.

Still it remains that the self, again, is not the skhandas or kleshas. The kleshas are passing arisings. Muddy water let stand clears.

I'm not sure if I have this right but although I agree the skandhas are not the self, I feel it is a reaction caused by the interaction of skandhas.

Nevermind

ourself said:

I'd say Jacks broken crown was caused by a lack of mindfulness.

Still not sure how that explains that something being caused by all things is the same as being caused by nothing.

Okay, let me see if I've got your thinking right. When it comes to oh-so-meaningful pie-in-the-sky religious dogma, something is caused by everything. But when it comes to the real world, something, like Jack's broken crown, has a specific cause or causes.

If that's what you believe, why do you single out Jack's mindfulness as the cause for the broken crown? Why don't you attribute the broken crown to some random subatomic particle on the other edge of the universe (assuming the universe has edges)?

Nevermind

robot said:

Admit it, you are stumped.

That's Mr. Stumpy, to you.

Jack's crown is broken. How can he repeat this mistake?

The answer is in the nursery rhyme, Mr. Robot...

Then Jill came in, and she did grin,
To see Jack's paper plaster;
Her mother whipt her, across her knee,
For laughing at Jack's disaster.

MaryAnne

To all of the above.....

:coffee:

David

Nevermind said:

ourself said:

I'd say Jacks broken crown was caused by a lack of mindfulness.

Still not sure how that explains that something being caused by all things is the same as being caused by nothing.

Okay, let me see if I've got your thinking right. When it comes to oh-so-meaningful pie-in-the-sky religious dogma, something is caused by everything. But when it comes to the real world, something, like Jack's broken crown, has a specific cause or causes.

I'm sorry but you are obviously confused as I've uttered no dogma here nor have I implied that everything is caused by everything else. Dependent origination means everything arises in conjunction with all things through causation.

Everything has a cause.

If that's what you believe, why do you single out Jack's mindfulness as the cause for the broken crown? Why don't you attribute the broken crown to some random subatomic particle on the other edge of the universe (assuming the universe has edges)?

Uhh... Yeah, that's the ticket.

David

MaryAnne said:

To all of the above.....

:coffee:

Somebody call the "wha"mbulance.

Jeffrey

SpinyNorman said:

Jeffrey said:

Still it remains that the self, again, is not the skhandas or kleshas.

So are you saying there is a self "outside" the skhandas?

No I just know the self is not the skhandas. I'm not sure about if there is a self outside. I suspect if there is something then it is openness, clarity, and sensitivity.

Nevermind

ourself said:

... nor have I implied that everything is caused by everything else.

You don't seem to know what you believe.