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.
If other beings are real, who am I hurting with wrong speech? What is non-self?
Perhaps one of the most unhelpful speculations (one of them ) in Buddhism is to presuppose that there is no entity, no thing apart from what is seen, tasted, touched, heard etc.
Were it so, why would the Buddhas have so painstakingly returned to this world to teach and reteach. And for the enlightened to agree to hold off their own Nibbana until all beings too no longer suffered.
I would urge everyone to reconsider -- not conclude -- just reconsider their own assumptions and the messages they send to others, in spreading these messages.
There are a number of definitions of abiding. There are a number of definitions of entities. Without making it clear how you are using those words, I can't really tell what you mean.
Perhaps one of the most unhelpful speculations (one of them ) in Buddhism is to presuppose that there is no entity, no thing apart from what is seen, tasted, touched, heard etc.
Phagguna Sutta: To Phagguna:
Dwelling at Savatthi. "Monks, there are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second; intellectual intention the third; and consciousness the fourth. These are the four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born.
When this was said, Ven.-Moliya-Phagguna said to the Blessed One, "Lord, who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feeds.' If I were to say 'feeds,' then 'Who feeds on the consciousness-nutriment?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'Consciousness-nutriment for what?' And the valid answer is, 'Consciousness-nutriment for the production of future coming-into-being. When that has come into being and exists, then the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.'"
"Lord, who makes contact?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'makes contact.' If I were to say 'makes contact,' then 'Who makes contact?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes contact?' And the valid answer is, 'From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.'"
"Lord, who feels?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'feels.' If I were to say 'feels,' then 'Who feels?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes feeling?' And the valid answer is, 'From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.'"
"Lord, who craves?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'craves.' If I were to say 'craves,' then 'Who craves?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes craving?' And the valid answer is, 'From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.'"
"Lord, who clings?"
"Not a valid question," the Blessed One said. "I don't say 'clings.' If I were to say 'clings,' then 'Who clings?' would be a valid question. But I don't say that. When I don't say that, the valid question is 'From what as a requisite condition comes clinging?' And the valid answer is, 'From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging. From clinging as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.[1]
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of the six sense media[2] comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
I am here seeing that object over there (dualistic).
Seeing (dependent on eye, contact, object) = consciousness arisen as color. color meeting color = shape. shape +light = form (non dualistic).
The first one posits the "I am" reference point or entity. This is the watcher, the seer, the subject we identify with.
The second one posits that the color itself is vision. There is no vision out there or in here. Vision is dependently arisen where it is.
Is there a mind (entity) apart from vision of color? No because the mind is the vision of color. Color is not a thing or entity. It refers back to no thing or entity. Because there is no thing or entity to refer back towards. That is just a thought. And many people take awareness or presence as a source. But that source cannot be apart from what is the experience. Color is presence and awareness.
If everything is presence and awareness...and this presence/awareness cannot be found to have a center or location then it cannot be an entity or a thing. It is a centerless center.
All experiences from the six sense doors come and go. The subject object split is the holding of non conceptual awareness as a thing or holding onto a thought. This manifests in the form of aversion and attachment.
The questions are not valid because self is not a valid concept.
That is funny
And try to remember what you say next time so you stop contradicting yourself all over the forum:
To study the Buddha Way is to study the self To study the self is to forget the self To forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand dhammas
Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately.
Kalaka Sutta: "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer." - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html
Phagunna sutta: "Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'" - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html
To study the Buddha Way is to study the self To study the self is to forget the self To forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand dhammas
- Dogen
Floating Abu
And try to remember what you say next time so you stop contradicting yourself all over the forum:
I wouldn't take Dogen as affirming the reality of a self.
You study the self because it is the concern of deluded people.
You forget the self because the concept is not coherent, it is a chimera which dissolves when studied.
Kalaka Sutta: "Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, doesn't construe an [object as] seen. He doesn't construe an unseen. He doesn't construe an [object] to-be-seen. He doesn't construe a seer." - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.024.than.html
Phagunna sutta: "Who, O Lord, feels?"
"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'" - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html
Yes, dependent origination is very, very important, but nowhere does the Buddha deny anything, instead he always skilfully leads the students to the realisations he knows. Conclusions are premature until we know what the Buddha knew.
Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer.
...Did the Buddha teach No Self? There are articles which states that the Buddha did not teach No Self, but Not-Self (Anatta). Indeed, the term Anatta refers to non-self. Why non-self and not no-self? I think to term it non-self brings the point that Anatta merely rejects the view of an existent self, but does not assert non-existence of self, which is another equally erroneous extreme. Actually I have no problems with calling it No Self at all - as long as it is not taken to mean that a self becomes non-existent (rather, it should mean that no existent self within or apart from the five aggregates could be established to begin with, that could become non-existent, both or neither)....
..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."...
And all the great Buddhist masters from the past have said the same things with regards to what Buddha said above:
As Chandrakirti states:
"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts, Nor non-other. It also does not possess them. It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it. It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape. [The self and the aggregates are] similar."
And Padmasambhava states:
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity. It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates Nor as identical with these five aggregates. If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true, That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent. Therefore, based on the five aggregates, The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent. The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
And Nagarjuna states:
“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other than the aggregates. The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them. The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates. What Tathagata is there?”
Notice that the Buddha said that you cannot find the self of the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas (aggregations): there is no Tathagata to be pinned down as a form-based or a formless Truth or Reality. This means that the so called 'self' actually cannot be found, located or pinned down as a reality just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently (independently, unchangingly) existing (apart or within the conglomerate of everchanging phenomena such as clouds, lightning, wind, rain, etc) - the label 'self' is merely a convention for mind, which is a process of self-luminous (having the quality of luminous clarity, knowing, cognizance) but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'self' can be found within nor apart from them.
And if we cannot pin down an entity called 'self' to begin with, how can we assert the non-existence of a self: which means that an existent 'self' annihilates or goes into non-existence? To assert non-existence, you must have a base, an existent entity to begin with, that could become non-existent. If the convention 'self' is baseless to begin with, then existence, non-existence, both and neither become untenable positions....
And if we cannot pin down an entity called 'self' to begin with, how can we assert the non-existence of a self: which means that an existent 'self' annihilates or goes into non-existence? To assert non-existence, you must have a base, an existent entity to begin with, that could become non-existent. If the convention 'self' is baseless to begin with, then existence, non-existence, both and neither become untenable positions....
Well put. The very question 'is there a self?', is incoherent.
Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the Kinsman of the Sun. However you observe them, appropriately examine them, they're empty, void to whoever sees them appropriately.
Yes! And of each aggregate (khandha) we should say: "This is not mine, this am not I, this is not my self (attâ).” This way we dis-identify with the psycho-physical body which is suffering.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited June 2012
xabir
And if we cannot pin down an entity called 'self' to begin with, how can we assert the non-existence of a self: which means that an existent 'self' annihilates or goes into non-existence? To assert non-existence, you must have a base, an existent entity to begin with, that could become non-existent. If the convention 'self' is baseless to begin with, then existence, non-existence, both and neither become untenable positions....
Well put. The very question 'is there a self?', is incoherent.
It's quite a bit illogical to be sure.
Being isn't the delusion, lol... Just being seperate and lasting.
JMO
I believe far too many mistake the teachings of emptiness as teachings of nothingness. I also believe this to be a very fundamental misunderstanding.
We can say a glass is useful because it is empty but we can hardly say the glass is useful because it's nothing.
I personally feel - and have seen mentioned elsewhere - that a more meaningful and perhaps accurate term than non-self, would be "NOT-Self". Self is an acknowledgement of the skandas, a confirmation of their existence, and therefore, as follows, ours. We see, we smell, we touch, we hear, we taste, we think. We Are. Yet there is a definite impermanence, a transitoriness, an illusory existence, a passing of things that cannot be undone; so the Self is real, yet it does not exist in the same state for more than an instant....this is Not-Self. Who do we hurt? Our Consciousness, our Mind. The Self of others, others who cannot process the transitoriness of Not-self. Not-Self cannot be hurt. Self - can.
I would agree with this and add that one's actions, be they body speech or mind, conditions future results and will solidy and strengthen one's tendencies. Our actions produce results, not only in us, but in those around us. Tell a child he's a loser. Tell a child you love him. Are those just words? Are they just empty? There is not-self in these words but these words, our intention, our motivation will certainly bear results. All the best, Todd
@ourself-"We can say a glass is useful because it is empty but we can hardly say the glass is useful because it's nothing". Well put. As form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness are not self yet entirely useful and certainly not nothing. It appears to me that the idea of emptiness, is nothingness to some. This is a mental leveling of all things, as if all arising are equal. My anger is the same as my compassion, in this line of thinking they are the same in that they are simply temporary arisings. This gives no thought as to the results of one's actions or the context of which they are done. I would counter that all things are equal in that they are not-self and they are temporary but my actions don't occur in a vacuum and certainly produce results, be they skillfull or harmful. All the best, Todd
Being isn't the delusion, lol... Just being seperate and lasting.
JMO
I believe far too many mistake the teachings of emptiness as teachings of nothingness. I also believe this to be a very fundamental misunderstanding.
We can say a glass is useful because it is empty but we can hardly say the glass is useful because it's nothing.
Hi. No, I am not talking about nothingness.
Of course there's life, but it's not yours. How could it be? How could a thing belong to the thing that it is... it's incoherent, and the incoherence is 'belong', and with it the sense of self which causes suffering.
Aren't all words 'just words'....?
Yes, here it's not the word but the feeling we call identification. When all words are felt as just words there's no error and no suffering. e.g. when someone says 'you made a mistake' and there's no sense of hurt pride, just recognition of whether a mistake was made or not and learning from that.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited June 2012
Hey PrairieGhost;
Hi. No, I am not talking about nothingness.
Of course there's life, but it's not yours. How could it be? How could a thing belong to the thing that it is... it's incoherent, and the incoherence is 'belong', and with it the sense of self which causes suffering.
I didn't think you were... I was agreeing with you to an extent.
I don't have a life because that implies a seperateness that simply doesn't exist.
I live.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@ourself-"We can say a glass is useful because it is empty but we can hardly say the glass is useful because it's nothing". Well put. As form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness are not self yet entirely useful and certainly not nothing. It appears to me that the idea of emptiness, is nothingness to some. This is a mental leveling of all things, as if all arising are equal. My anger is the same as my compassion, in this line of thinking they are the same in that they are simply temporary arisings. This gives no thought as to the results of one's actions or the context of which they are done. I would counter that all things are equal in that they are not-self and they are temporary but my actions don't occur in a vacuum and certainly produce results, be they skillfull or harmful. All the best, Todd
The reason I think nothingness is a misleading term when talking about emptiness is that nothingness explicitly implies no potential for change whereas emptiness implies untold potential.
I agree that all things are equal, temporary and not self because to me, "self" automatically implies seperateness.
We are each the entire universe manifesting in infinitly unique aspects of form.
The word "self" is as good as any really to describe any one aspect from the perspective of said aspect but we seem to want to forget that one depends on all others.
Comments
Perhaps one of the most unhelpful speculations (one of them
Were it so, why would the Buddhas have so painstakingly returned to this world to teach and reteach. And for the enlightened to agree to hold off their own Nibbana until all beings too no longer suffered.
I would urge everyone to reconsider -- not conclude -- just reconsider their own assumptions and the messages they send to others, in spreading these messages.
Just ma' opinion.
Thankyou,
Abu
The interdependent world has no abiding entities.
And if that is wrong please direct me to a teaching that says otherwise.
Earlier you said 'There is no entity, there is no source' which did not seem complementary to the teachings.
Now you say the interdependent world has no abiding entities
But what does that even mean?
Abu
The questions are not valid because self is not a valid concept.
I am here seeing that object over there (dualistic).
Seeing (dependent on eye, contact, object) = consciousness arisen as color. color meeting color = shape. shape +light = form (non dualistic).
The first one posits the "I am" reference point or entity. This is the watcher, the seer, the subject we identify with.
The second one posits that the color itself is vision. There is no vision out there or in here. Vision is dependently arisen where it is.
Is there a mind (entity) apart from vision of color? No because the mind is the vision of color. Color is not a thing or entity. It refers back to no thing or entity. Because there is no thing or entity to refer back towards. That is just a thought. And many people take awareness or presence as a source. But that source cannot be apart from what is the experience. Color is presence and awareness.
If everything is presence and awareness...and this presence/awareness cannot be found to have a center or location then it cannot be an entity or a thing. It is a centerless center.
All experiences from the six sense doors come and go. The subject object split is the holding of non conceptual awareness as a thing or holding onto a thought. This manifests in the form of aversion and attachment.
And try to remember what you say next time so you stop contradicting yourself all over the forum: http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/15680/bringing-attention-to-peace#Item_49
etc etc
Abu
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html
You study the self because it is the concern of deluded people.
You forget the self because the concept is not coherent, it is a chimera which dissolves when studied.
Only the 10000 dhammas continue.
Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
Thanks xabir, appreciate the input.
Abu
Vajira Sutta
"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.
For only stress is what comes to be;
stress, what remains & falls away.
Nothing but stress comes to be.
Nothing ceases but stress."
And as I wrote in http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2011/10/anatta-not-self-or-no-self.html
...Did the Buddha teach No Self? There are articles which states that the Buddha did not teach No Self, but Not-Self (Anatta). Indeed, the term Anatta refers to non-self. Why non-self and not no-self? I think to term it non-self brings the point that Anatta merely rejects the view of an existent self, but does not assert non-existence of self, which is another equally erroneous extreme. Actually I have no problems with calling it No Self at all - as long as it is not taken to mean that a self becomes non-existent (rather, it should mean that no existent self within or apart from the five aggregates could be established to begin with, that could become non-existent, both or neither)....
...Here, the Buddha clarifies:
http://www.accesstoi...2.086.than.html
..."What do you think: Do you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?"
"No, lord."
"And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
"No, lord."...
And all the great Buddhist masters from the past have said the same things with regards to what Buddha said above:
As Chandrakirti states:
"A chariot is not asserted to be other than its parts,
Nor non-other. It also does not possess them.
It is not in the parts, nor are the parts in it.
It is not the mere collection [of its parts], nor is it their shape.
[The self and the aggregates are] similar."
And Padmasambhava states:
"The mind that observes is also devoid of an ego or self-entity.
It is neither seen as something different from the aggregates
Nor as identical with these five aggregates.
If the first were true, there would exist some other substance.
This is not the case, so were the second true,
That would contradict a permanent self, since the aggregates are impermanent.
Therefore, based on the five aggregates,
The self is a mere imputation based on the power of the ego-clinging.
As to that which imputes, the past thought has vanished and is nonexistent.
The future thought has not occurred, and the present thought does not withstand scrutiny."
And Nagarjuna states:
“The Tathagata is not the aggregates; nor is he other
than the aggregates.
The aggregates are not in him nor is he in them.
The Tathagata does not possess the aggregates.
What Tathagata is there?”
Notice that the Buddha said that you cannot find the self of the Tathagatha inside nor apart from the five skandhas (aggregations): there is no Tathagata to be pinned down as a form-based or a formless Truth or Reality. This means that the so called 'self' actually cannot be found, located or pinned down as a reality just as the word 'weather' cannot be found or located as something inherently (independently, unchangingly) existing (apart or within the conglomerate of everchanging phenomena such as clouds, lightning, wind, rain, etc) - the label 'self' is merely a convention for mind, which is a process of self-luminous (having the quality of luminous clarity, knowing, cognizance) but empty phenomenality, in which no truly existing 'self' can be found within nor apart from them.
And if we cannot pin down an entity called 'self' to begin with, how can we assert the non-existence of a self: which means that an existent 'self' annihilates or goes into non-existence? To assert non-existence, you must have a base, an existent entity to begin with, that could become non-existent. If the convention 'self' is baseless to begin with, then existence, non-existence, both and neither become untenable positions....
pegembara Yes! And of each aggregate (khandha) we should say: "This is not mine, this am not I, this is not my self (attâ).” This way we dis-identify with the psycho-physical body which is suffering.
Being isn't the delusion, lol... Just being seperate and lasting.
JMO
I believe far too many mistake the teachings of emptiness as teachings of nothingness. I also believe this to be a very fundamental misunderstanding.
We can say a glass is useful because it is empty but we can hardly say the glass is useful because it's nothing.
"You" is a verb, not a noun. And ultimately, it's just a word.
All the best,
Todd
Well put.
As form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness are not self yet entirely useful and certainly not nothing.
It appears to me that the idea of emptiness, is nothingness to some. This is a mental leveling of all things, as if all arising are equal. My anger is the same as my compassion, in this line of thinking they are the same in that they are simply temporary arisings. This gives no thought as to the results of one's actions or the context of which they are done. I would counter that all things are equal in that they are not-self and they are temporary but my actions don't occur in a vacuum and certainly produce results, be they skillfull or harmful.
All the best,
Todd
Of course there's life, but it's not yours. How could it be? How could a thing belong to the thing that it is... it's incoherent, and the incoherence is 'belong', and with it the sense of self which causes suffering. Yes, here it's not the word but the feeling we call identification. When all words are felt as just words there's no error and no suffering. e.g. when someone says 'you made a mistake' and there's no sense of hurt pride, just recognition of whether a mistake was made or not and learning from that.
I don't have a life because that implies a seperateness that simply doesn't exist.
I live.
I agree that all things are equal, temporary and not self because to me, "self" automatically implies seperateness.
We are each the entire universe manifesting in infinitly unique aspects of form.
The word "self" is as good as any really to describe any one aspect from the perspective of said aspect but we seem to want to forget that one depends on all others.