The "I"

David

What's the difference between intellectual knowledge and figuring out the truth?

I swear sometimes people just like to argue for no reason or clue.

federica

Tell me about it.....

DairyLama

@David said:> What's the difference between intellectual knowledge and figuring out the truth?

You really don't know the difference between intellectual knowledge and direct insight?

DairyLama

@David said:> I swear sometimes people just like to argue for no reason or clue.

Have you heard of the psychological mechanism of projection?

David

@SpinyNorman said:

@David said:> What's the difference between intellectual knowledge and figuring out the truth?

You really don't know the difference between intellectual knowledge and direct insight?

The two work together and usually our "direct" insight is a result of finally making sense of all we've gathered, you know... intellectually and experientially.

But you know that, don't you?

At any rate I only get argumentative about two subjects here. One is vegetarianism so I stay away from those and the other is when people present nihilism in the guise of Buddhism.

If compassion is not a logical result of understanding and instead has to be idealized then I equate said understanding to nihilism.

Steve_B

@SpinyNorman said:

@David said:> What's the difference between intellectual knowledge and figuring out the truth?

You really don't know the difference between intellectual knowledge and direct insight?

When I have encountered people who "really don't know . . . " I have often found that they really DO know quite a lot. But I won't learn from them if I take an antagonistic approach.

silver

Antagonism happens.

(saw it on a bumper sticker once)

DairyLama

@silver said:
Antagonism happens.
(saw it on a bumper sticker once)

Even with girls.

DairyLama

@David said:One is vegetarianism so I stay away from those and the other is when people present nihilism in the guise of Buddhism.

I haven't seen anyone here presenting nihilism as Buddhism, and I don't see how it is even relevant to the discussions we've been having.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

David

@SpinyNorman said:

@David said:One is vegetarianism so I stay away from those and the other is when people present nihilism in the guise of Buddhism.

I haven't seen anyone here presenting nihilism as Buddhism, and I don't see how it is even relevant to the discussions we've been having.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

It seems obvious to me. I mean, every time someone has asked how compassion fits in with a lack of the individual nobody seems able to give a straight answer.

I can understand negating one aspect of our nature to bolster the other even as I feel there are better ways to do that.

namarupa

@David said:
It seems obvious to me. I mean, every time someone has asked how compassion fits in with a lack of the individual nobody seems able to give a straight answer.

I can understand negating one aspect of our nature to bolster the other even as I feel there are better ways to do that.

If the lack of the individual, just letting the aggregates be for example, turns into compassion for others, then it would seem to fall in accordance with the teachings.

If the lack of the individual turns into disregard for oneself and the rest of the world, then that would seem to fall with the definition of craving (vibhava tanha) as in wanting/craving for everything to be rid of.

http://www.buddhanet.net/4noble12.htm

David

@namarupa said:

@David said:
It seems obvious to me. I mean, every time someone has asked how compassion fits in with a lack of the individual nobody seems able to give a straight answer.

I can understand negating one aspect of our nature to bolster the other even as I feel there are better ways to do that.

If the lack of the individual, just letting the aggregates be for example, turns into compassion for others, then it would seem to fall in accordance with the teachings.

But what I mean is if there is no individual then there are no other individuals either.

namarupa

I don't understand how anyone can question their existence. I am not saying that towards you. I am just saying that people should just go by experience. If a brick falls on ones foot, and if there is pain, then that alone should be enough to know that we exist right?

Jeroen

But what is experiencing the pain? There is the sensation of pain, emotion that comes with it, the whole chain of feeling up to the level of consciousness, but what exactly is the 'experiencer'? It just seems to be a sensation passing through various processes.

namarupa

We need to have conventionality before we can get to that level of understanding. We say ouch before we think of where did the word ouch comes from. There is no point in questioning some things.

Jeroen

@namarupa said:
We need to have conventionality before we can get to that level of understanding. We say ouch before we think of where did the word ouch comes from. There is no point in questioning some things.

But surely answering the question "what is the I" is one of the keystones of Buddhism. You can't just bypass it. The conventional truth is obvious, our senses radiate out from the body and permeate the body, therefore the waking body is the seat of the "I". But the deeper truth, of the nature of the inner I, is the more interesting one.

The question is, can it even be captured in words? The Indian sage Sri Ramana Maharshi said, "the most direct route to self realisation is to enquire within 'who am I'." Buddhism talks much about the arising of phenomena, dividing the process up into several stages, but I have not yet found a place where it answers that.

It seems though that there is a lot of point in pursueing this line of questioning - if only in meditation.

David

People seem to want to get rid of the "I" but that only solidifies it with desire and aversion.

We could always try to expand our sense of self to include others but we may be accused of conjuring a deity.

There is no deeper truth than the middle way between the Two Truths in my opinion.

Use that illusion skillfully.

@namarupa said:
I don't understand how anyone can question their existence. I am not saying that towards you. I am just saying that people should just go by experience. If a brick falls on ones foot, and if there is pain, then that alone should be enough to know that we exist right?

You would think so.

I don't get the appeal either to be honest. It just doesn't make sense to figure I was tricked into thinking I exist.

What was tricked?

Sure, we can't point to anything that is "I" but we're looking for a microscope under its own lens.

namarupa

There's a point in time where the microscope should stop looking and use that time more wisely is all I'm saying.

person

What is the I? What is its character and nature? We say I have a body, I have a mind right, so that implies that the I has to be something different than those things doesn't it?

The body feels pain, the mind feels compassion. So since we own those things that must be how "I" experience them, right?

Bunks

There is pain. There is joy. There is suffering. There is all these things. Just no-one actually experiencing them.

David

@Bunks said:
There is pain. There is joy. There is suffering. There is all these things. Just no-one actually experiencing them.

Does this help you at all?

I mean, if a loved one dies (and they will) will you experience pain?

Why or why not?

Don't feel pressured to answer, I'm just nosey.

Bunks

Yes I will.

But perhaps not as intensely or for as long as I would've previously because I have some degree of understanding of Emptiness and Dependent Arising along with the antidotes to Attachment.

DairyLama

@David said:> People seem to want to get rid of the "I" but that only solidifies it with desire and aversion.

No, it's the other way round. Craving and aversion arise from self-view.
And it's not a case of wanting to "get rid" of something, it's seeing how things really are.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.than.html

DairyLama

@Kerome said:But the deeper truth, of the nature of the inner I, is the more interesting one.

It's emptiness all the way down.

Jeroen

@person said:
What is the I? What is its character and nature? We say I have a body, I have a mind right, so that implies that the I has to be something different than those things doesn't it?

The body feels pain, the mind feels compassion. So since we own those things that must be how "I" experience them, right?

My personal view is that there is no mind, there is just being, with various things moving through it, thoughts, emotions, impulses.

DairyLama

@David said:> It seems obvious to me. I mean, every time someone has asked how compassion fits in with a lack of the individual nobody seems able to give a straight answer.

Somebody with strong self-view is likely to be more egocentric, and less aware of other peoples' needs.

Your charge of "nihilism" is a straw-man, perhaps stemming from a misunderstanding of the Two Truths doctrine.

DairyLama

@Kerome said:
My personal view is that there is no mind, there is just being, with various things moving through it, thoughts, emotions, impulses.

I think of "mind" as the space where all this stuff arises and ceases.

DairyLama

@namarupa said:
There's a point in time where the microscope should stop looking and use that time more wisely is all I'm saying.

But in terms of Buddhist practice the looking closely **is** using time wisely.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.089x.wlsh.html

Jeroen

@SpinyNorman said:

@Kerome said:
My personal view is that there is no mind, there is just being, with various things moving through it, thoughts, emotions, impulses.

I think of "mind" as the space where all this stuff arises and ceases.

Then what do you call the thing that causes thoughts to arise? There is no denying, I reckon, that there is something there, it can be trained, it can absorb things from the senses, even though it is not directly visible from consciousness it must be quite large.

DairyLama

Thoughts arise in dependence on conditions. I'm not sure what you mean by a "thing".

David

@SpinyNorman said:

@David said:> People seem to want to get rid of the "I" but that only solidifies it with desire and aversion.

No, it's the other way round. Craving and aversion arise from self-view.
And it's not a case of wanting to "get rid" of something, it's seeing how things really are.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.than.html

Self negation is another extreme to be avoided. It's in many suttas but I'm not one to make my points by pleading to authority and I don't have the time. Many times Buddha said what is not self but never did he say the individual doesn't exist.

Hey, if you want to pretend you aren't here, be my guest. I just think it's silly and won't do any good in the cessation of your suffering.

Who sees things as they really are if there is no you to see?

How do you tie your shoes?

David

@SpinyNorman said:

@David said:> It seems obvious to me. I mean, every time someone has asked how compassion fits in with a lack of the individual nobody seems able to give a straight answer.

Somebody with strong self-view is likely to be more egocentric, and less aware of other peoples' needs.

That's neither here nor there. Somebody that thinks they don't exist is probably insecure and not in tune with what is really going on around them.

Other people? So now there are people? To know "other" people is to be a person. A person is an "I".

Your charge of "nihilism" is a straw-man, perhaps stemming from a misunderstanding of the Two Truths doctrine.

Nope. Repeating your nonsense won't help make compassion a logical outcome of pretending you are not here, sorry.

If compassion is not a logical consequence you are wrong. Not too hard to grasp but that you cannot answer a simple question is telling.

David

Geez, I'm sounding all serious all of a sudden, lol.

Maybe I'll make this the focus of meditation today.

Who knows? Maybe the no-self can pay the bills!

But in all seriousness, if you want to find out who you are, look no further than what you do. No thing we point to is me or mine but action is something else.

Disowning our action is kind of irresponsible, no?

DairyLama

@David said:

@SpinyNorman said:

@David said:> People seem to want to get rid of the "I" but that only solidifies it with desire and aversion.

No, it's the other way round. Craving and aversion arise from self-view.
And it's not a case of wanting to "get rid" of something, it's seeing how things really are.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.049.than.html

Self negation is another extreme to be avoided. It's in many suttas but I'm not one to make my points by pleading to authority and I don't have the time. Many times Buddha said what is not self but never did he say the individual doesn't exist.

I wish you would quote some actual Buddhist teachings occasionally, instead of just posting your own idiosyncratic opinions which are often very little to do with Buddhadharma.

Here is another sutta which expresses the Buddhist view clearly:

"Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

It's only suffering that comes to be,
Suffering that stands and falls away.
Nothing but suffering comes to be,
Nothing but suffering ceases."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html

DairyLama

@David said:

@SpinyNorman said:

@David said:> It seems obvious to me. I mean, every time someone has asked how compassion fits in with a lack of the individual nobody seems able to give a straight answer.

Somebody with strong self-view is likely to be more egocentric, and less aware of other peoples' needs.

That's neither here nor there. Somebody that thinks they don't exist is probably insecure and not in tune with what is really going on around them.

Other people? So now there are people? To know "other" people is to be a person. A person is an "I".

Your charge of "nihilism" is a straw-man, perhaps stemming from a misunderstanding of the Two Truths doctrine.

Nope. Repeating your nonsense won't help make compassion a logical outcome of pretending you are not here, sorry.

If compassion is not a logical consequence you are wrong. Not too hard to grasp but that you cannot answer a simple question is telling.

You are completely missing the point and still haven't understood the essence of Buddhadharma, which is conditionality. Anatta, sunyata, dependent origination are all expressions of it.

DairyLama

@David said:
Geez, I'm sounding all serious all of a sudden, lol.

Maybe I'll make this the focus of meditation today.

Who knows? Maybe the no-self can pay the bills!

But in all seriousness, if you want to find out who you are, look no further than what you do. No thing we point to is me or mine but action is something else.

Disowning our action is kind of irresponsible, no?

Again with the silly straw-men. You clearly don't understand the Two Truths doctrine, as I suspected. They represent different levels of Truth, and not mutually exclusive.

namarupa

I forgot somehow that the topic is categorized under "meditation". Yes "who or what am I?" Can be a great meditation object. It does help ease the tension of attachment in real life. How often that is needed, I don't really know.

DairyLama

@namarupa said:> I forgot somehow that the topic is categorized under "meditation". Yes "who or what am I?" Can be a great meditation object. It does help ease the tension of attachment in real life. How often that is needed, I don't really know.

Some schools use "Who am I?" as an insight contemplation. It's really a koan.

David

@namarupa said:
I forgot somehow that the topic is categorized under "meditation". Yes "who or what am I?" Can be a great meditation object. It does help ease the tension of attachment in real life. How often that is needed, I don't really know.

This I agree with wholeheartedly.

David

@SpinyNorman said:

@David said:

@SpinyNorman said:

@David said:> It seems obvious to me. I mean, every time someone has asked how compassion fits in with a lack of the individual nobody seems able to give a straight answer.

Somebody with strong self-view is likely to be more egocentric, and less aware of other peoples' needs.

That's neither here nor there. Somebody that thinks they don't exist is probably insecure and not in tune with what is really going on around them.

Other people? So now there are people? To know "other" people is to be a person. A person is an "I".

Your charge of "nihilism" is a straw-man, perhaps stemming from a misunderstanding of the Two Truths doctrine.

Nope. Repeating your nonsense won't help make compassion a logical outcome of pretending you are not here, sorry.

If compassion is not a logical consequence you are wrong. Not too hard to grasp but that you cannot answer a simple question is telling.

You are completely missing the point and still haven't understood the essence of Buddhadharma, which is conditionality. Anatta, sunyata, dependent origination are all expressions of it.

Forget it, Spiny. You are not looking to understand views, you are looking to argue.

I have not once argued contrary to your last paragraph so you obviously are not really paying attention to what I'm saying.

DairyLama

@David said:> Forget it, Spiny. You are not looking to understand views, you are looking to argue.

You are just projecting again. I am trying to focus on Buddhist teachings, you are only concerned with point-scoring and straw-men.

person

@Kerome said:

@person said:
What is the I? What is its character and nature? We say I have a body, I have a mind right, so that implies that the I has to be something different than those things doesn't it?

The body feels pain, the mind feels compassion. So since we own those things that must be how "I" experience them, right?

My personal view is that there is no mind, there is just being, with various things moving through it, thoughts, emotions, impulses.

Sure mind is just a label, we could equally say there is no body, there's just physical structure made up of various things like blood and bone and muscle.

namarupa

Yo So Savaakkhaato Bhagavataa

Dhammo,

(The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Exalted One.)

Sanditthiko

(It is something which one who learns and truly practice will realize by one’s own self.)

Akaaliko

(It is also something which can be actually practiced and yields results without the limitation of time.)

http://www.dharmathai.com/morning-prayers-thai-buddhist-chanting/
>
>

Some aspects of the dhamma such as anatta, perhaps just cannot be discussed. At least not always in a proper manner.

federica

@David, @SpinyNorman, quit bickering, play nicely and be kind.
Or *Yo Mamma's gonna bring the stick out.

(*That would be me.)

Jeroen

@person said:

@Kerome said:

@person said:
What is the I? What is its character and nature? We say I have a body, I have a mind right, so that implies that the I has to be something different than those things doesn't it?

The body feels pain, the mind feels compassion. So since we own those things that must be how "I" experience them, right?

My personal view is that there is no mind, there is just being, with various things moving through it, thoughts, emotions, impulses.

Sure mind is just a label, we could equally say there is no body, there's just physical structure made up of various things like blood and bone and muscle.

But is that true from an experiential point-of-view? What I said about the mind is true for me, I have no experience of the real mind, the thing that learns and manufactures thoughts, it is like the magician behind the screen. I have only a dim awareness of what arises at the moment where it impinges on awareness, thoughts erupting from behind the covers.

Of the body I have direct, moment-to-moment experience. The mind knows it is blood and bone and muscle in a physical structure, but what I truly experience is the kinaesthetic sense which tells me how my limbs are arranged, or the temperature sense which tells me "I am hot" or "I am cold", or touch which tells me where my limbs are arranged or how I touch the ground.

As an aside, the buddhist discourse on classifying the senses and the way sense phenomena arise is not totally accurate, movements such as the Anthroposophists have identified more senses than just five, although they did not include a sense of mind objects.

David

@federica said:
@David, @SpinyNorman, quit bickering, play nicely and be kind.
Or *Yo Mamma's gonna bring the stick out.

(*That would be me.)

Oh crap!

David

Since the Bahiya Sutta was mentioned earlier I was wondering if anyone in the "no-I" camp can tell me exactly what self Buddha is referring to when he says to train yourself.

Any takers?

David

@SpinyNorman said:

@David said:
Geez, I'm sounding all serious all of a sudden, lol.

Maybe I'll make this the focus of meditation today.

Who knows? Maybe the no-self can pay the bills!

But in all seriousness, if you want to find out who you are, look no further than what you do. No thing we point to is me or mine but action is something else.

Disowning our action is kind of irresponsible, no?

Again with the silly straw-men. You clearly don't understand the Two Truths doctrine, as I suspected. They represent different levels of Truth, and not mutually exclusive.

Do you know what a straw man is? If so, just what position of yours do you feel I am misrepresenting?

Are you not negating one of those truths by claiming the lack of individuals? Both truths work together. One is not more "true" than the other.

That's the problem I see with the term "absolute" truth for one of the Two. It makes people see the subjective experience as somehow fake.

federica

Oh goody. Is it popcorn time again....?

David

@federica said:
Oh goody. Is it popcorn time again....?

I'm not trying to be disrespectful, just trying to clarify.

What somebody has to say about my views won't make me lose any sleep nor will it make me feel animosity towards them.