Circumstances create us?

music

It is often said (and explained even in dhammapada) we are what we think. Our thoughts make us who we are. But isn't it more apt to say that circumstances create us? For instance, weak people often find themselves in difficult circumstances, and they find amazing strength and skills to go through those trials. In normal life, they are completely weak-minded, but a crisis of some sort suddenly creates a new personality.

So my point is, do circumstances make us who we are, since both circumstances and 'I' keep changing (as in buddhist thought)?

Citta

Conditions create us. That includes circumstances.
Vipaka creates conditions.

DairyLama

music said:

So my point is, do circumstances make us who we are, since both circumstances and 'I' keep changing (as in buddhist thought)?

Do we also create our circumstances?

Citta

Vipaka is created through action ( karma ). And so the wheel goes round as long as we identify with the process and create a self from it.
Conversely the process stops when we see its essential emptiness.

RebeccaS

We create our circumstances. We're responsible for our lives and what happens in them. Everything is a choice.

Citta

Who chooses ?

music

Our choice is limited by circumstances, environment. In a sense, therefore, choice is only an illusion.

RebeccaS

music said:

Our choice is limited by circumstances, environment. In a sense, therefore, choice is only an illusion.

There's always a choice. Your karma (which is the culmination of previous choices) determines how varied those choices are. The idea of infinite choices is an illusion, but there's still always a choice.

RebeccaS

Citta said:

Who chooses ?

You do.

Zero

music said:

So my point is, do circumstances make us who we are, since both circumstances and 'I' keep changing (as in buddhist thought)?

Akin to a nature:nurture debate... it appears to be a bit of both in varying degrees...

Zero

RebeccaS said:

Everything is a choice.

Everything may well contain a choice but not everything is a choice.

Citta

RebeccaS said:

Citta said:

Who chooses ?

You do.

Which you ? Volition ? Conditioning ?

RebeccaS

Zero said:

RebeccaS said:

Everything is a choice.

Everything may well contain a choice but not everything is a choice.

Kind of agree, kind of don't, but I believe that everything that happens to us is something that we want to happen to us for whatever reason. For example, people who carry lots of unconscious guilt tend to get into accidents because they want to punish themselves. So getting into an accident was their choice, albeit unconsciously. Then they get the choice of how to deal with it.

Whatever happens in life is a result of karma, which is generated by the choices we make.

It's just about taking responsibility, really.

And I guess this maybe only really makes sense if you believe in reincarnation and previous lifetimes, so if you don't believe in that it probably sounds a bit stupid.

Jeffrey

In the notion of 'choice' there may aready be untrue assumptions. Still our experience is as it is. One quality of mind is clarity in which we see the path through our problems. Anger is a distortion of clarity where we think to anihilate something to overcome an obstacle.

Zero

RebeccaS said:

And I guess this maybe only really makes sense if you believe in reincarnation and previous lifetimes, so if you don't believe in that it probably sounds a bit stupid.

It's far from stupid... I now see what you meant - we may not see everything the same way but that doesn't make your point stupid.

RebeccaS

Zero said:

RebeccaS said:

And I guess this maybe only really makes sense if you believe in reincarnation and previous lifetimes, so if you don't believe in that it probably sounds a bit stupid.

It's far from stupid... I now see what you meant - we may not see everything the same way but that doesn't make your point stupid.

Maybe stupid isn't such a good word, perhaps nonsensical? I just mean that from certain perspectives/viewpoints/belief systems what I'm saying doesn't really make a lot of sense and may even be considered false.

RebeccaS

Citta said:

RebeccaS said:

Citta said:

Who chooses ?

You do.

Which you ? Volition ? Conditioning ?

You. You, you, you. You are a you. An individual. You make choices. You chose to write that response. You did. Nobody made you, you weren't "conditioned" to do it, you chose to do it. You.

Citta

That is certainly what we learn.

RebeccaS

Citta said:

That is certainly what we learn.

Well, there is a test so get studying

Jeffrey

@RebeccaS said: "You. You, you, you. You are a you. An individual. You make choices. You chose to write that response. You did. Nobody made you, you weren't "conditioned" to do it, you chose to do it. You."

Yes but 'you' is not the body or mind because otherwise I ought to be able to choose to be healthy and blissful. Since I have no control over that functionally calling my mind (feeling etc) or body 'me' is a delusion. The body will always decay and the emotions will always fall apart as our attachments decay. Thus the five skhandas are not the refuge.

Citta

RebeccaS said:

Citta said:

That is certainly what we learn.

Well, there is a test so get studying

The point is that we learn it, but is it the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.? Are some of our reactions knee-jerk conditioned responses for example ?
Are " you" and I solid non changing entities ?
The Buddha said that we are not.

RebeccaS

No, I don't think you are your body or your mind. If you were your body, if you lost a finger you would have lost a part of yourself. But you're still there, whole and complete without a finger. And your mind is definitely not you, or we wouldn't have thoughts the way we do. If we lost our minds or our minds got sick, we would still be there.

Citta

Its begining to sound like the used car analogy..
Is this car you are selling me the original ?
Yes of course..but its had a new engine. The old one wore out. And new tyres,,,and new doors and a complete new chassis..the only thing I haven't replaced is the left hand wing mirror and thats cracked...but yes its the original car all right.
Where is the " you " of the car ?

music

RebeccaS said:

Citta said:

RebeccaS said:

Citta said:

Who chooses ?

You do.

Which you ? Volition ? Conditioning ?

You. You, you, you. You are a you. An individual. You make choices. You chose to write that response. You did. Nobody made you, you weren't "conditioned" to do it, you chose to do it. You.

Is this 'you' made of ideas, belief systems, and so on? If so, aren't these the product of certain historical periods?

RebeccaS

Citta said:

RebeccaS said:

Citta said:

That is certainly what we learn.

Well, there is a test so get studying

The point is that we learn it, but is it the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.? Are some of our reactions knee-jerk conditioned responses for example ?
Are " you" and I solid non changing entities ?
The Buddha said that we are not.

This isn't going to end up in "emptiness" territory is it? Because those conversations suck

Some of our reactions are knee jerk reactions, but it's our choice to jerk the knee. There's always a space to consider your reaction, and choose to react differently.

Like I said, it's just about taking responsibility for ourselves, our actions and our lives. And I think taking responsibility is of fundamental importance. What we are isn't really an important question in this matter.

Citta

I agree. Its of vital importance. We are not victims.

RebeccaS

music said:

RebeccaS said:

Citta said:

RebeccaS said:

Citta said:

Who chooses ?

You do.

Which you ? Volition ? Conditioning ?

You. You, you, you. You are a you. An individual. You make choices. You chose to write that response. You did. Nobody made you, you weren't "conditioned" to do it, you chose to do it. You.

Is this 'you' made of ideas, belief systems, and so on? If so, aren't these the product of certain historical periods?

No. That would mean that if you let go of those ideas and beliefs you wouldn't be you anymore. You're still there, even if you changed your beliefs.

Citta

If you want to continue that conversation sometime Rebecca...but its likely to end up with sucky " emptiness " I fear...We could start if you want by talking about how green leaves do not change colour in the Fall... Or not.

Jeffrey

You're still there but you cannot point out who you are. If you refer to adjectives they suffer the communication barriers. You might be a calm person, but sometimes not. Anything you say about yourself could change.

Still the dishes get washed and the body fed. But it all happens as if a ghost did it.

So there is a you but it is ungraspable. Buddha didn't say there was no 'you' he just said that the five skhandas were not it. In fact he said in the dhammapa that the dharma can only be realized by the Self. (not sure if that is an agreed upon translation). And then there are a lot of mahayana sutras about the Self, tathagarbagotra.

RebeccaS

Citta said:

If you want to continue that conversation sometime Rebecca...but its likely to end up with sucky " emptiness " I fear...We could start if you want by talking about how green leaves do not change colour in the Fall... Or not.

Sure. We can do that. My argument is that we are not the chlorophyll, we're not even the original color of the leaf hidden by chlorophyll in the summer, we are the leaf itself.

RebeccaS

Jeffrey said:

You're still there but you cannot point out who you are. If you refer to adjectives they suffer the communication barriers. You might be a calm person, but sometimes not. Anything you say about yourself could change.

Still the dishes get washed and the body fed. But it all happens as if a ghost did it.

So there is a you but it is ungraspable. Buddha didn't say there was no 'you' he just said that the five skhandas were not it. In fact he said in the dhammapa that the dharma can only be realized by the Self. (not sure if that is an agreed upon translation). And then there are a lot of mahayana sutras about the Self, tathagarbagotra.

Awesome. That's what I believe to be true, anyway, including the Self part.

Citta

Jeffrey said:

You're still there but you cannot point out who you are. If you refer to adjectives they suffer the communication barriers. You might be a calm person, but sometimes not. Anything you say about yourself could change.

Still the dishes get washed and the body fed. But it all happens as if a ghost did it.

So there is a you but it is ungraspable. Buddha didn't say there was no 'you' he just said that the five skhandas were not it. In fact he said in the dhammapa that the dharma can only be realized by the Self. (not sure if that is an agreed upon translation). And then there are a lot of mahayana sutras about the Self, tathagarbagotra.

How do you square that with the Buddha's teaching on Anatta Jeffrey ?
You see I think he meant it. He was ruthlessly radical. He left no corner for us to paint ourselves into.

Songhill

Music:

So my point is, do circumstances make us who we are, since both circumstances and 'I' keep changing (as in buddhist thought)?

Consciousness (viññâna/vijñâna) in Buddhism is mutually conditioning. You can think of yourself as an entity of consciousness. From the Lankavatara Sutra:

Mahamati, the perceiving Vijñâna perceives [objects]. Mahamati, between the two, the perceiving Vijñâna and the object-discriminating Vijnana, there is no difference; they are mutually conditioning.

Jeffrey

Citta said:

Jeffrey said:

You're still there but you cannot point out who you are. If you refer to adjectives they suffer the communication barriers. You might be a calm person, but sometimes not. Anything you say about yourself could change.

Still the dishes get washed and the body fed. But it all happens as if a ghost did it.

So there is a you but it is ungraspable. Buddha didn't say there was no 'you' he just said that the five skhandas were not it. In fact he said in the dhammapa that the dharma can only be realized by the Self. (not sure if that is an agreed upon translation). And then there are a lot of mahayana sutras about the Self, tathagarbagotra.

>
How do you square that with the Buddha's teaching on Anatta Jeffrey ?
You see I think he meant it. He was ruthlessly radical. He left no corner for us to paint ourselves into.

Anatta is consistent with my presentation in many sects of Buddhism. In fact ^ is anatta. Anatta is not the skhandas but Buddha did not say there was no self, he just said that conditioned phenomena are not the self..

I haven't studied all the polemics I am just controverting 'Buddha said X' when whole traditions say that he said Y.

music

Songhill said:

Music:

So my point is, do circumstances make us who we are, since both circumstances and 'I' keep changing (as in buddhist thought)?

Consciousness (viññâna/vijñâna) in Buddhism is mutually conditioning. You can think of yourself as an entity of consciousness. From the Lankavatara Sutra:

Mahamati, the perceiving Vijñâna perceives [objects]. Mahamati, between the two, the perceiving Vijñâna and the object-discriminating Vijnana, there is no difference; they are mutually conditioning.

What exactly does this mean - perceiving V?

lobster

Part of the path is putting in place the right circumstances that facilitate the likelihood of better choices.
How many choose to be Buddhas? Failure rate due to circumstance or past life as a malevolent haddock?

DairyLama

Citta said:

Where is the " you " of the car ?

It would be the little computer that controls the vehicle's systems...

David

music said:

So my point is, do circumstances make us who we are, since both circumstances and 'I' keep changing (as in buddhist thought)?

It is how we deal with circumstance that defines us as individuals (subjectively). We cannot always control our circumstance because everybody else makes choices too. Since (absolutely) we are all interconnected through karma/cause and effect, other individuals choices can create circumstance we have to navigate.

I suppose that's kind of like chaos theory.

Getting attacked is a circumstance but it is how we deal with being attacked that defines us as our actions are our only true possessions (I don't know if that bit of truth came from Lao Tzu or Buddha but I believe it).

We are action... We are reaction.

We are interaction.

Citta

PedanticPorpoise said:

Citta said:

Where is the " you " of the car ?

It would be the little computer that controls the vehicle's systems...
But to complete the analogy the computer would have to programmed in a random way which is consistent to local knowledge only.

David

I'd say the "you" of the car depends entirely on where the focus lies for long enough.