Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@Kerome said:> I find it hard to shake the notion that I do not have some influence on the direction of my thoughts and life. Granted the total scope of my decisions is limited by the scope of my previous thoughts, but given four possible life altering decisions, I can still pick and choose one that I like, or one at random.
I think if you look more closely at how you make decisions you will see that there is less "free choice" involved than you assume. Intention is largely determined by one's state of mind, and decision-making is often habitual.
More generally teachings like anatta are not beliefs to be taken on, but theories to be investigated in one's own experience. That means looking closely and directly. A good way into this is observing the impermanence of experience, the way that the aggregates are continually changing.
@federica said:
Every time I see this thread, I can't help thinking that "Beauty is in the 'I' of the Beholder".... Which just ties me further in knots....
@Kerome said:> I find it hard to shake the notion that I do not have some influence on the direction of my thoughts and life. Granted the total scope of my decisions is limited by the scope of my previous thoughts, but given four possible life altering decisions, I can still pick and choose one that I like, or one at random.
I think if you look more closely at how you make decisions you will see that there is less "free choice" involved than you assume. Intention is largely determined by one's state of mind, and decision-making is often habitual.
More generally teachings like anatta are not beliefs to be taken on, but theories to be investigated in one's own experience. That means looking closely and directly. A good way into this is observing the impermanence of experience, the way that the aggregates are continually changing.
Admittedly, the choices I make are often between just two or three alternatives. But today I went out to buy a birthday present for my mother in a nearby town, I could easily have left that for tomorrow but I decided not to. That's a classic example - there was no 'forcing factor' which made me pick one over the other, I had free choice and I chose to do this.
To me that implies that the self includes an actor and something that focusses the attention.
But I believe the Buddha said there was 'no such thing as an abiding self', not no such thing as a self? What is the difference I wonder.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Volition is categorized as one of the 51 mental factors that make up an individual. Its described as being like a foreman who gives motivation to the other factors. So it's not a self that imbues action but one of the many parts of the "chariot".
4
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited August 2016
@lobster said:
What is the distinct re-birthing component made of? Rainbows or fairy dust? Just asking ...
It could be unicorn farts, that too is a possibility.
Or maybe some combination of farts and rainbows :shrug
But I believe the Buddha said there was 'no such thing as an abiding self', not no such thing as a self? What is the difference I wonder.
There is no true self because this self does not remain. The sense of continuity is not the reality of things eg. false appearance appearing solid. You cannot point out and say "That's me and who I am".
The following statement is as clear as it gets.
"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self.
"This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am."
@Kerome said:> But I believe the Buddha said there was 'no such thing as an abiding self', not no such thing as a self?
Really? It would be good to see a source for this. The sense you get from the suttas is of self-view as an illusion.
And what would a "non-abiding self" look like? A succession of different selves? A constantly changing self? But if a "thing" is continually changing, then it is really a process. We can talk about "the weather", but it is less a noun and more a verb.
Maybe there are Mahayana texts or teachers that talk about a non-abiding self? It would be good to see more Mahayana source material in discussions like this, instead of just personal opinions based on who-knows-what. Views will vary across the Buddhist schools, but without a clear statement of what those views actually are it is difficult to have a sensible discussion.
Another thing that plagues these discussions is not acknowledging the difference between intellectual understanding and direct insight.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
But I believe the Buddha said there was 'no such thing as an abiding self', not no such thing as a self? What is the difference I wonder.
An abiding self would hang around forever.
A regular and non-abiding self is temporary and subject to change.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Bunks said:> So I was meditating on dependent arising and the emptiness (lack of inherent existence) of the I this morning and I wondered if the I we percieve as being solid and existing independently is a thought, a feeling or perhaps both?
I think it is really a deep-seated assumption which expresses itself in both thought and feeling. But it is an assumption which is challenged by Buddhist insights into anatta and sunyata, both of which are expressions of dependent arising and conditionality.
The most succinct teaching I can think of is the first verse of the Heart Sutra:
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I have been reading a bit more about Anatta and was wondering whether in terms of the Two Truths it might not be so that there is a conventional self, based on the focus of attention and action, but that in ultimate terms there is not a lasting or abiding self or soul?
The rest might merely be a series of problems of translation. The whole discussion goes back to the Hindu concept of atman, which the Buddha denies, and so perhaps Anatta is more aimed at that then at the conventional western concept of the self.
@Kerome said:
I have been reading a bit more about Anatta and was wondering whether in terms of the Two Truths it might not be so that there is a conventional self, based on the focus of attention and action, but that in ultimate terms there is not a lasting or abiding self or soul?
Sort of, though personally I find the Two Truths doctrine can have the effect of muddying the water, rather than making it clearer. "Conventional Truth" is not ultimately true, and attaching to the idea can just end up reinforcing the illusion we are trying to see through.
IMO it is more productive to contemplate ultimate truth, rather than getting bogged down in discussions about relative truth.
....so perhaps Anatta is more aimed at that then at the conventional western concept of the self.
In the suttas it is both assumptions which are challenged, ie soul and self-view.
In the end though these are questions to be investigated in personal practice, we can only go so far with intellectual analysis and discussion.
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Self view and soul are both largely irrelevant from my point of view, the thing I call self is the actor, the thing that executes my decisions. For the rest I don't generally label anything in the world as 'mine'... It's all in temporary use, even the body...
@Kerome said:
Self view and soul are both largely irrelevant from my point of view, the thing I call self is the actor, the thing that executes my decisions. For the rest I don't generally label anything in the world as 'mine'... It's all in temporary use, even the body...
So do you think of the "actor" as separate from "you"?
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
The actor is me, but it's actions are not always immediate. I make the decision to raise my arm, an impulse is sent to start raising it, and slowly my physical arm goes up. 'My' decision, my action is immediate, but the mechanisms can be complex and slow.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited August 2016
I like the science of emergence to understand how decisions and actions don't need a central conductor but arise in dependence upon complex systems. You can get the gist in about the first 4 minutes but the rest fills in the details.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@Kerome said:
Self view and soul are both largely irrelevant from my point of view, the thing I call self is the actor, the thing that executes my decisions. For the rest I don't generally label anything in the world as 'mine'... It's all in temporary use, even the body...
That's how I feel as well basically.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
...."And sundered the bonds that caused him Suffering".
@David said:
I still think it boils down to action.
No action, no being.
But there is action.
There is action and still no being.
Some examples- breathing, thinking, sitting/walking, eating, sweating. The I is a convention eg. I am thinking. As mentioned elsewhere there can be thinking without a thinker behind those thoughts.
Are you choosing or is a choice being made without an agent? Do you know what your choices are before making them?
What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?
Do you take a position?
This is purely a pile of fabrications.
Here no living being
can be pinned down.
Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,
there's the word,
chariot,
even so when aggregates are present,
there's the convention of
living being.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I still think it boils down to action.
No action, no being.
But there is action.
There is action and still no being.
Some examples- breathing, thinking, sitting/walking, eating, sweating. The I is a convention eg. I am thinking. As mentioned elsewhere there can be thinking without a thinker behind those thoughts.
Somehow I doubt it.
A thinker may not take any actual form but I cannot see your thoughts and so thought is a personal thing.
Are you choosing or is a choice being made without an agent? Do you know what your choices are before making them?
This line of reasoning is fruitless.
What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?
Do you take a position?
This is purely a pile of fabrications.
Here no living being
can be pinned down.
Just as when, with an assemblage of parts,
there's the word,
chariot,
even so when aggregates are present,
there's the convention of
living being.
"A" living being is different than being alive and I admit I find a bit humorous that you figure you are not alive, no offense.
I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just not very practical.
"When the aggregates are present, there is convention of living being."
What do you think convention means?
Some people seem to think convention means "fake" when all it means is a coming together.
Convention can not possibly negate any "I" because as has been pointed out, convention is what allows for "I".
Just because you are temporary doesn't mean you are not a true and unique reflection of our nature. It's what makes us useful for each other.
Come on guys, get a grip.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I still think it boils down to action.
No action, no being.
But there is action.
There is action and still no being.
Some examples- breathing, thinking, sitting/walking, eating, sweating. The I is a convention eg. I am thinking. As mentioned elsewhere there can be thinking without a thinker behind those thoughts.
Somehow I doubt it.
A thinker may not take any actual form but I cannot see your thoughts and so thought is a personal thing.
Are you choosing or is a choice being made without an agent? Do you know what your choices are before making them?
If thoughts and choices are personal, how is it that neuroscientists can "read" your choices before you make them?
"A" living being is different than being alive and I admit I find a bit humorous that you figure you are not alive, no offense.
I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just not very practical.
>
If "we" are not "alive", we wouldn't be having this conversation! No, no - "we" are most definitely "alive". When the 5 aggregates are present, the is the convention of living being. Although they are unique at every point in time, it still doesn't mean there is an actual "person". There is no "David" in reality. The newborn David isn't the same as the old David.
For one to be a self, he has to have these two characteristics:
He is permanent. He does not change.
He is independent. He can control himself.
When we look at ourselves, we find that the 5 aggregates that make up our bodies and minds are changing all the time. That means we are not permanent.
At the same time, we cannot control these changes. That means we are not independent. So, definitely we are not “selves”.
We are just successions of mental and bodily aggregates. Life is a flow of physical and mental processes arising and passing away constantly, just like a river flowing to the sea.
The saying “We can never step into the same river twice.” is very true.
What do you think convention means?
Some people seem to think convention means "fake" when all it means is a coming together.
Convention isn't fake but is a useful way to communicate but leads to suffering if its true nature is not recognized.
People die for their "King and country". If a being is mistaken to be real, one falls under the mistaken belief that the person grows old, gets sick and dies.
Convention can not possibly negate any "I" because as has been pointed out, convention is what allows for "I".
Just because you are temporary doesn't mean you are not a true and unique reflection of our nature. It's what makes us useful for each other.
@pegembara said:> When we look at ourselves, we find that the 5 aggregates that make up our bodies and minds are changing all the time. That means we are not permanent.
At the same time, we cannot control these changes. That means we are not independent. So, definitely we are not “selves”.
I came across the Sunna Sutta again:
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self."
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@pegembara said:
For one to be a self, he has to have these two characteristics:
He is permanent. He does not change.
He is independent. He can control himself.
pegembara, I agree fully with your whole post above. I just wanted to add one thing I think is important in regards to this portion.
These 2 characteristics aren't arrived upon as a matter of philosophical mastication (the proper word isn't coming to me). It's arrived at as a result of personal meditative observation in to how we all innately perceive the self to be. So you could easily say that you define a self as being impermanent and dependent and think you've gotten around the problem. But it isn't the idea that is important, the important thing is our innate belief of how we see ourselves.
@person said: It's arrived at as a result of personal meditative observation in to how we all innately perceive the self to be. So you could easily say that you define a self as being impermanent and dependent and think you've gotten around the problem. But it isn't the idea that is important, the important thing is our innate belief of how we see ourselves.
Exactly so, it is self-view which is being challenged. It is more about how we feel than about ideas, hence the need to develop some insight.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
There is a self that takes ownership, and there is a self that does not. The self that takes ownership also owns the suffering that follows.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited August 2016
@namarupa said:
There is a self that takes ownership, and there is a self that does not. The self that takes ownership also owns the suffering that follows.
I'll also ask for some explicit teaching that backs that interpretation up as well.
We can say whatever we want about the meaning of the words but the traditions have put effort into making sure interpretations are true so I'd like to see some authoritative person teaching this interpretation of a changing self that owns things.
These interpretations seems to be the opposite of the way I have come to understand the teaching. Maybe, at best they could be said to be a description of the way we perceive the conventional self, which is the ignorance we try to refute to gain liberation.
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness*, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html
When I said take ownership I meant taking ownership of the khandas.
There is plenty more more examples, but I'm at the office and on the clock
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@namarupa said:
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness*, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html
When I said take ownership I meant taking ownership of the khandas.
There is plenty more more examples, but I'm at the office and on the clock
I don't get ownership from that. Are you saying consciousness (with a *) is the owner or do you mean it is implied in "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self" that then there must be something that is mine, I am, and is my self?
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Consciousness speaks of eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and cognition. Taking ownership of those would mean to fall into passion, delite, frustration, whatever arises and ceases. The Bahiya sutta speaks of the eye is just the eye etc. It means to not fall into passion, delite etc. without reflecting on their emptiness.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
@namarupa said:
Consciousness speaks of eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and cognition. Taking ownership of those would mean to fall into passion, delite, frustration, whatever arises and ceases. The Bahiya sutta speaks of the eye is just the eye etc. It means to not fall into passion, delite etc. without reflecting on their emptiness.
Yes and that is just the part of the lesson given to Bahiya because he was very selfish and was worshipped in his community. Buddha gave a lesson on how to take himself out of the equation.
There is another lesson for all of us which takes his impatient journey to where he found the Buddha collecting alms and interrupted him all because he wanted to know if he (Bahiya) was an arahant into account.
If the sutta was just about an answer to Bahiyas foolish question, it would only contain the snippet we see supplied on this thread.
Buddha's dharma is subtle and suttas and sutras are best understood in context.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited August 2016
@namarupa said:
Consciousness speaks of eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and cognition. Taking ownership of those would mean to fall into passion, delite, frustration, whatever arises and ceases. The Bahiya sutta speaks of the eye is just the eye etc. It means to not fall into passion, delite etc. without reflecting on their emptiness.
I read the same words you do but get a totally different meaning from them.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
That's why I don't have beliefs.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
That's why I don't have beliefs.
You really don't think your view is a belief? To qualify as knowledge it needs to be justified and true. Are you saying that your view qualifies as true then? I think you could use to be a little less certain about things.
@pegembara said:
For one to be a self, he has to have these two characteristics:
He is permanent. He does not change.
He is independent. He can control himself.
pegembara, I agree fully with your whole post above. I just wanted to add one thing I think is important in regards to this portion.
These 2 characteristics aren't arrived upon as a matter of philosophical mastication (the proper word isn't coming to me). It's arrived at as a result of personal meditative observation in to how we all innately perceive the self to be. So you could easily say that you define a self as being impermanent and dependent and think you've gotten around the problem. But it isn't the idea that is important, the important thing is our innate belief of how we see ourselves.
So true. Saying to oneself "I have no self" repeatedly doesn't work.
Perhaps it may be easier to see the empty nature of say United States. There are definitely people, buildings. laws etc there but the US itself exists only in our minds and no where else. Ditto for Google, Microsoft.
So when one turns one's attention to a name, say the Siddartha. Who is he? A child, son, father, husband, prince etc. Just a collection of ever changing parts.
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
That's why I don't have beliefs.
Just a lot of opinions, which seem very little to do with what Buddhism actually teaches.
@namarupa said:
Consciousness speaks of eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and cognition. Taking ownership of those would mean to fall into passion, delite, frustration, whatever arises and ceases. The Bahiya sutta speaks of the eye is just the eye etc. It means to not fall into passion, delite etc. without reflecting on their emptiness.
Yes and that is just the part of the lesson given to Bahiya because he was very selfish and was worshipped in his community. Buddha gave a lesson on how to take himself out of the equation.
There is another lesson for all of us which takes his impatient journey to where he found the Buddha collecting alms and interrupted him all because he wanted to know if he (Bahiya) was an arahant into account.
If the sutta was just about an answer to Bahiyas foolish question, it would only contain the snippet we see supplied on this thread.
Buddha's dharma is subtle and suttas and sutras are best understood in context.
This was a lame interpretation of the Bahiya Sutta passage when you first used it, and just repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing.
The Bahiya Sutta passage straightforwardly describes the cessation of self-view, "when there is no you there".
It is describing non-dual experience, "in the seen just the seen".
It really couldn't be clearer, and the context of the passage doesn't change the meaning.
And of course in the suttas self-view and the conceit "I am" are fetters to be overcome.
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
@David said:
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
I think on a Buddhist forum it is reasonable to care about what Buddhism actually teaches, even when it is at odds with our personal opinions.
@namarupa said:
There is a self that takes ownership, and there is a self that does not. The self that takes ownership also owns the suffering that follows.
I'll also ask for some explicit teaching that backs that interpretation up as well.
We can say whatever we want about the meaning of the words but the traditions have put effort into making sure interpretations are true so I'd like to see some authoritative person teaching this interpretation of a changing self that owns things.
These interpretations seems to be the opposite of the way I have come to understand the teaching. Maybe, at best they could be said to be a description of the way we perceive the conventional self, which is the ignorance we try to refute to gain liberation.
@namarupa said:
There is a self that takes ownership, and there is a self that does not. The self that takes ownership also owns the suffering that follows.
I'll also ask for some explicit teaching that backs that interpretation up as well.
We can say whatever we want about the meaning of the words but the traditions have put effort into making sure interpretations are true so I'd like to see some authoritative person teaching this interpretation of a changing self that owns things.
These interpretations seems to be the opposite of the way I have come to understand the teaching. Maybe, at best they could be said to be a description of the way we perceive the conventional self, which is the ignorance we try to refute to gain liberation.
@namarupa said:
There is a self that takes ownership, and there is a self that does not. The self that takes ownership also owns the suffering that follows.
I'll also ask for some explicit teaching that backs that interpretation up as well.
We can say whatever we want about the meaning of the words but the traditions have put effort into making sure interpretations are true so I'd like to see some authoritative person teaching this interpretation of a changing self that owns things.
These interpretations seems to be the opposite of the way I have come to understand the teaching. Maybe, at best they could be said to be a description of the way we perceive the conventional self, which is the ignorance we try to refute to gain liberation.
People seem to be grasping at conventional truth, and denying ultimate truth,
@namarupa said:
Consciousness speaks of eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and cognition. Taking ownership of those would mean to fall into passion, delite, frustration, whatever arises and ceases. The Bahiya sutta speaks of the eye is just the eye etc. It means to not fall into passion, delite etc. without reflecting on their emptiness.
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It is straightforwardly describing the cessation of self-view, "when there is no you there".
It is describing non-dual experience, "in the seen just the seen". It really couldn't be clearer.
And of course in the suttas self-view and the conceit "I am" are fetters to be overcome.
Comments
I think if you look more closely at how you make decisions you will see that there is less "free choice" involved than you assume. Intention is largely determined by one's state of mind, and decision-making is often habitual.
More generally teachings like anatta are not beliefs to be taken on, but theories to be investigated in one's own experience. That means looking closely and directly. A good way into this is observing the impermanence of experience, the way that the aggregates are continually changing.
The illusion of control is like being able to move around within a maze but still caught in that maze.
Every time I see this thread, I can't help thinking that "Beauty is in the 'I' of the Beholder".... Which just ties me further in knots....
Strangely enough there is an interesting book related to the topic of this thread which is sub-titled "The I of the beholder"
http://zepdf.cineworldyapim.com/early-buddhism-a-new-sue-hamilton-11427434.pdf
page won't load....?
Admittedly, the choices I make are often between just two or three alternatives. But today I went out to buy a birthday present for my mother in a nearby town, I could easily have left that for tomorrow but I decided not to. That's a classic example - there was no 'forcing factor' which made me pick one over the other, I had free choice and I chose to do this.
To me that implies that the self includes an actor and something that focusses the attention.
But I believe the Buddha said there was 'no such thing as an abiding self', not no such thing as a self? What is the difference I wonder.
Volition is categorized as one of the 51 mental factors that make up an individual. Its described as being like a foreman who gives motivation to the other factors. So it's not a self that imbues action but one of the many parts of the "chariot".
It could be unicorn farts, that too is a possibility.
Or maybe some combination of farts and rainbows :shrug
There is no true self because this self does not remain. The sense of continuity is not the reality of things eg. false appearance appearing solid. You cannot point out and say "That's me and who I am".
The following statement is as clear as it gets.
"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Forms are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self and forms are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Consciousness at the eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable... Thus the eye is not-self, forms are not-self, consciousness at the eye is not-self.
"This, monks, is the path of practice leading to self-identification. One assumes about the eye that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about forms... One assumes about consciousness at the eye... One assumes about contact at the eye... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.148.than.html
Really? It would be good to see a source for this. The sense you get from the suttas is of self-view as an illusion.
And what would a "non-abiding self" look like? A succession of different selves? A constantly changing self? But if a "thing" is continually changing, then it is really a process. We can talk about "the weather", but it is less a noun and more a verb.
Maybe there are Mahayana texts or teachers that talk about a non-abiding self? It would be good to see more Mahayana source material in discussions like this, instead of just personal opinions based on who-knows-what. Views will vary across the Buddhist schools, but without a clear statement of what those views actually are it is difficult to have a sensible discussion.
Another thing that plagues these discussions is not acknowledging the difference between intellectual understanding and direct insight.
An abiding self would hang around forever.
A regular and non-abiding self is temporary and subject to change.
I still think it boils down to action.
No action, no being.
But there is action.
I think it is really a deep-seated assumption which expresses itself in both thought and feeling. But it is an assumption which is challenged by Buddhist insights into anatta and sunyata, both of which are expressions of dependent arising and conditionality.
The most succinct teaching I can think of is the first verse of the Heart Sutra:
"The Bodhisattva of Compassion,
When he meditated deeply,
Saw the emptiness of all five skandhas,
And sundered the bonds that caused him suffering."
http://www.fwbo-news.org/resources/heart_sutra.pdf
I have been reading a bit more about Anatta and was wondering whether in terms of the Two Truths it might not be so that there is a conventional self, based on the focus of attention and action, but that in ultimate terms there is not a lasting or abiding self or soul?
The rest might merely be a series of problems of translation. The whole discussion goes back to the Hindu concept of atman, which the Buddha denies, and so perhaps Anatta is more aimed at that then at the conventional western concept of the self.
Sort of, though personally I find the Two Truths doctrine can have the effect of muddying the water, rather than making it clearer. "Conventional Truth" is not ultimately true, and attaching to the idea can just end up reinforcing the illusion we are trying to see through.
IMO it is more productive to contemplate ultimate truth, rather than getting bogged down in discussions about relative truth.
In the suttas it is both assumptions which are challenged, ie soul and self-view.
In the end though these are questions to be investigated in personal practice, we can only go so far with intellectual analysis and discussion.
Self view and soul are both largely irrelevant from my point of view, the thing I call self is the actor, the thing that executes my decisions. For the rest I don't generally label anything in the world as 'mine'... It's all in temporary use, even the body...
So do you think of the "actor" as separate from "you"?
The actor is me, but it's actions are not always immediate. I make the decision to raise my arm, an impulse is sent to start raising it, and slowly my physical arm goes up. 'My' decision, my action is immediate, but the mechanisms can be complex and slow.
I like the science of emergence to understand how decisions and actions don't need a central conductor but arise in dependence upon complex systems. You can get the gist in about the first 4 minutes but the rest fills in the details.
That's how I feel as well basically.
...."And sundered the bonds that caused him Suffering".
What a spectacularly notable line.....
There is action and still no being.
Some examples- breathing, thinking, sitting/walking, eating, sweating. The I is a convention eg. I am thinking. As mentioned elsewhere there can be thinking without a thinker behind those thoughts.
Are you choosing or is a choice being made without an agent? Do you know what your choices are before making them?
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.than.html
Somehow I doubt it.
A thinker may not take any actual form but I cannot see your thoughts and so thought is a personal thing.
This line of reasoning is fruitless.
"A" living being is different than being alive and I admit I find a bit humorous that you figure you are not alive, no offense.
I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just not very practical.
"When the aggregates are present, there is convention of living being."
What do you think convention means?
Some people seem to think convention means "fake" when all it means is a coming together.
Convention can not possibly negate any "I" because as has been pointed out, convention is what allows for "I".
Just because you are temporary doesn't mean you are not a true and unique reflection of our nature. It's what makes us useful for each other.
Come on guys, get a grip.
Too much negating, not enough appreciation.
The Middle Way is in everything.
If thoughts and choices are personal, how is it that neuroscientists can "read" your choices before you make them?
http://exploringthemind.com/the-mind/brain-scans-can-reveal-your-decisions-7-seconds-before-you-decide
Do you think that your thoughts are all original and education has nothing to do with how you think?
>
If "we" are not "alive", we wouldn't be having this conversation! No, no - "we" are most definitely "alive". When the 5 aggregates are present, the is the convention of living being. Although they are unique at every point in time, it still doesn't mean there is an actual "person". There is no "David" in reality. The newborn David isn't the same as the old David.
For one to be a self, he has to have these two characteristics:
When we look at ourselves, we find that the 5 aggregates that make up our bodies and minds are changing all the time. That means we are not permanent.
At the same time, we cannot control these changes. That means we are not independent. So, definitely we are not “selves”.
We are just successions of mental and bodily aggregates. Life is a flow of physical and mental processes arising and passing away constantly, just like a river flowing to the sea.
The saying “We can never step into the same river twice.” is very true.
Convention isn't fake but is a useful way to communicate but leads to suffering if its true nature is not recognized.
People die for their "King and country". If a being is mistaken to be real, one falls under the mistaken belief that the person grows old, gets sick and dies.
No argument there.
I came across the Sunna Sutta again:
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty. And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html
pegembara, I agree fully with your whole post above. I just wanted to add one thing I think is important in regards to this portion.
These 2 characteristics aren't arrived upon as a matter of philosophical mastication (the proper word isn't coming to me). It's arrived at as a result of personal meditative observation in to how we all innately perceive the self to be. So you could easily say that you define a self as being impermanent and dependent and think you've gotten around the problem. But it isn't the idea that is important, the important thing is our innate belief of how we see ourselves.
Exactly so, it is self-view which is being challenged. It is more about how we feel than about ideas, hence the need to develop some insight.
I think "self" is a shabby term for what was described. When Buddha says to train your self he did not mean an unchanging and permanent entity, he meant the temporary individual.
That's probably my main concern.
How terms are used makes a big difference.
I'm requesting some doctrinal source to back that claim up.
It's already been given in the Bahiya Sutta and I've already pointed it out.
"Train yourself thus"
It's in the Sankhitta Sutta as well.
Or you figure he was talking to an entity that doesn't change?
But then if it can't change, it can't be trained.
I guess that feels pretty light to me and is all about your interpretation of the words. I was thinking more about something more thought out and explicit. Like some commentary by someone authoritative a bikkhu or geshe, for example.
There is a self that takes ownership, and there is a self that does not. The self that takes ownership also owns the suffering that follows.
I'll also ask for some explicit teaching that backs that interpretation up as well.
We can say whatever we want about the meaning of the words but the traditions have put effort into making sure interpretations are true so I'd like to see some authoritative person teaching this interpretation of a changing self that owns things.
These interpretations seems to be the opposite of the way I have come to understand the teaching. Maybe, at best they could be said to be a description of the way we perceive the conventional self, which is the ignorance we try to refute to gain liberation.
"Therefore, surely, O monks, whatever consciousness*, past, future or present, internal or external, coarse or fine, low or lofty, far or near, all that consciousness must be regarded with proper wisdom, according to reality, thus: 'This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.nymo.html
When I said take ownership I meant taking ownership of the khandas.
There is plenty more more examples, but I'm at the office and on the clock
I don't get ownership from that. Are you saying consciousness (with a *) is the owner or do you mean it is implied in "This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self" that then there must be something that is mine, I am, and is my self?
Well, I've never been one to let authority dictate my understanding of the dharma so I figure suttas where the term "yourself" is used to signify the temporary individual in need of training is enough.
Besides, I'm pretty sure @Bunks was asking for what we thought as individuals. If he was just asking us to parrot authority figures I wouldn't have bothered.
Consciousness speaks of eye, ear, nose, tongue, touch, and cognition. Taking ownership of those would mean to fall into passion, delite, frustration, whatever arises and ceases. The Bahiya sutta speaks of the eye is just the eye etc. It means to not fall into passion, delite etc. without reflecting on their emptiness.
Yes and that is just the part of the lesson given to Bahiya because he was very selfish and was worshipped in his community. Buddha gave a lesson on how to take himself out of the equation.
There is another lesson for all of us which takes his impatient journey to where he found the Buddha collecting alms and interrupted him all because he wanted to know if he (Bahiya) was an arahant into account.
If the sutta was just about an answer to Bahiyas foolish question, it would only contain the snippet we see supplied on this thread.
Buddha's dharma is subtle and suttas and sutras are best understood in context.
Alright, I guess if it is all up to just our personal opinions, my opinion is that using the term yourself isn't enough, I believe it is just a convention.
Personally I think there is an actual truth beyond personal beliefs, but vive la difference.
I read the same words you do but get a totally different meaning from them.
That's why I don't have beliefs.
You really don't think your view is a belief? To qualify as knowledge it needs to be justified and true. Are you saying that your view qualifies as true then? I think you could use to be a little less certain about things.
So true. Saying to oneself "I have no self" repeatedly doesn't work.
Perhaps it may be easier to see the empty nature of say United States. There are definitely people, buildings. laws etc there but the US itself exists only in our minds and no where else. Ditto for Google, Microsoft.
So when one turns one's attention to a name, say the Siddartha. Who is he? A child, son, father, husband, prince etc. Just a collection of ever changing parts.
Finally turn inwards to oneself and ask Who am I?
Just a lot of opinions, which seem very little to do with what Buddhism actually teaches.
This was a lame interpretation of the Bahiya Sutta passage when you first used it, and just repeating it doesn't make it any more convincing.
The Bahiya Sutta passage straightforwardly describes the cessation of self-view, "when there is no you there".
It is describing non-dual experience, "in the seen just the seen".
It really couldn't be clearer, and the context of the passage doesn't change the meaning.
And of course in the suttas self-view and the conceit "I am" are fetters to be overcome.
I think on a Buddhist forum it is reasonable to care about what Buddhism actually teaches, even when it is at odds with our personal opinions.
People seem to be grasping at conventional truth, and denying ultimate truth,
No, it doesn't mean that at all. It is straightforwardly describing the cessation of self-view, "when there is no you there".
It is describing non-dual experience, "in the seen just the seen". It really couldn't be clearer.
And of course in the suttas self-view and the conceit "I am" are fetters to be overcome.