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.
"Discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self"
Hello
I haven't written here much of late but I know from being here in the past that you as a community enjoy sharing, teaching and encouraging thought.
I was wondering if I could call upon some insight about the Diamond Sutra chapter 6
I used to think that this meant that as we don't exist ("discarded all arbitrary notions of the existence of a personal self"), words didn't really exist either so we didn't exist or not-exist.
But in the last few days, I've started to think that i am wrong, I didn't take my thinking far enough. We do exist, but 'we', 'you', 'I' don't exist, these are merely labels, we just are. A bottle is just a label for something that just is. Hence, 'we', 'you', 'I' are just concepts, labels, but also a label is its self a label and hence doesn't exist, which is why we must "discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self, other people, or a universal self."
I haven't written here much of late but I know from being here in the past that you as a community enjoy sharing, teaching and encouraging thought.
I was wondering if I could call upon some insight about the Diamond Sutra chapter 6
"Subhuti, any person who awakens faith upon hearing the words or phrases of this Sutra will accumulate countless blessings and merit.Can you share any clarity on this
How do I know this? Because this person must have discarded all arbitrary notions of the existence of a personal self, of other people, or of a universal self. Otherwise their minds would still grasp after such relative conceptions. Furthermore, these people must have already discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self, other people, or a universal self. Otherwise, their minds would still be grasping at such notions. Therefore anyone who seeks total Enlightenment should discard not only all conceptions of their own selfhood, of other selves, or of a universal self, but they should also discard all notions of the non-existence of such concepts.
When the Buddha explains these things using such concepts and ideas, people should remember the unreality of all such concepts and ideas. They should recall that in teaching spiritual truths the Buddha always uses these concepts and ideas in the way that a raft is used to cross a river. Once the river has been crossed over, the raft is of no more use, and should be discarded. These arbitrary concepts and ideas about spiritual things need to be explained to us as we seek to attain Enlightenment. However, ultimately these arbitrary conceptions can be discarded. Think Subhuti, isn't it even more obvious that we should also give up our conceptions of non-existent things?"
I used to think that this meant that as we don't exist ("discarded all arbitrary notions of the existence of a personal self"), words didn't really exist either so we didn't exist or not-exist.
But in the last few days, I've started to think that i am wrong, I didn't take my thinking far enough. We do exist, but 'we', 'you', 'I' don't exist, these are merely labels, we just are. A bottle is just a label for something that just is. Hence, 'we', 'you', 'I' are just concepts, labels, but also a label is its self a label and hence doesn't exist, which is why we must "discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self, other people, or a universal self."
2
Comments
You said: "We do exist, but 'we', 'you', 'I' don't exist, these are merely labels, we just are. A bottle is just a label for something that just is. Hence, 'we', 'you', 'I' are just concepts, labels, but also a label is its self a label and hence doesn't exist, which is why we must "discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self, other people, or a universal self."
That wraps it up pretty nicely, if you ask me.
If you invite me to dinner at your favorite restaurant, a place I have never been to, and then, before we go, proceed to describe all the wondrous dishes that are available ... and if you go on and on and on and on about them ... it's pretty irritating and stupid. "Delicious" just plain isn't as good as delicious.
OK, so there are arbitrary concepts in Buddhism ... lots and lots and lots and lots of them, but the point is not to somehow tattoo a bunch of concepts on the brain and then prattle them to someone else. The point is not "delicious." The point is delicious.
Ego, no-ego, existing, not existing ... sounds yummy.
Dig in!
I try..I really do..to understand them. I go through them line by line reading them out loud.. But I fail almost always..
Then I become irritated at my inability, which then makes me annoyed at my irritation.
I think its highly likely that this is my problem and that others are able to decipher them and benefit therefrom..
Just a bit of feedback probably best ignored.
Easiest might be just to write me off as another bullshit artist which, if not entirely true, at least is close enough to the truth to be true.
I feel like I almost know what your saying but I can't quite grasp it.
I used to think that this meant that as we don't exist ("discarded all arbitrary notions of the existence of a personal self"), words didn't really exist either so we didn't exist or not-exist.
But in the last few days, I've started to think that i am wrong, I didn't take my thinking far enough. We do exist, but 'we', 'you', 'I' don't exist, these are merely labels, we just are. A bottle is just a label for something that just is. Hence, 'we', 'you', 'I' are just concepts, labels, but also a label is its self a label and hence doesn't exist, which is why we must "discarded all arbitrary notions of the non-existence of a personal self, other people, or a universal self."
I don't think you're far off.
What this means to me in a general sense is that one shouldn't read too much into the Buddha's conventional use of language, that words are like tools and we should be careful not to misapprehend them. The Buddha makes a similar point at the end of DN 9, where he says "these are the world's designations, the world's expressions, the world's ways of speaking, the world's descriptions, with which the Tathagata expresses himself but without grasping at them" (or as Thanissaro Bhikkhu interprets this passage, "he has adopted the linguistic usages of his interlocutors simply for the sake of discussion, and that they should not be interpreted out of context").
More specifically, however, I'd say that this has to do with the way the Buddha approaches the issue of self (both conventionally and soteriologically) in the context of the path. And when it comes to the teachings on not-self (anatta), I agree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu that, "the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness" ("No-self or Not-self?").
Both the view that 'there is no self' and the view that 'there is a self' are forms of self-view, laying at opposite ends of the spectrum. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on you how you look at it), the Buddha refused to directly answer whether or not there is a self (SN 44.10), stating that he didn't see "any such supporting (argument) for views [of self] from the reliance on which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair" (MN 22). Instead, he focuses on events in and of themselves, as they are experienced, bypassing the question of self altogether.
The Buddha essentially said, "Who suffers," isn't a valid question, and suggests the alternative, "From what as a requisite condition comes suffering" (SN 12.35, Thanissaro) in an effort to re-frame these questions in a way that's conducive to liberation, i.e., in terms of dependent co-arising (paticca-samuppada), the psychological process by which suffering arises in the mind. Hence my understanding is that the teachings on not-self are ultimately pragmatic, soteriological methods of gaining insight rather than strictly ontological statements.
Self (atta) in the philosophical sense, as opposed to its conventional usage, is defined as that which is "permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change" (SN 24.3, Bodhi). Our sense of self, the ephemeral 'I,' on the other hand, is merely a mental imputation, the product of what the Buddha called a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' (e.g., MN 109).
In the simplest of terms, the Buddha taught that whatever is inconstant is stressful, and whatever is stressful is not-self—with the goal being to essentially take this [analytical] knowledge, along with a specific set of practices such as meditation, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience. That doesn't mean, however, that the teachings on not-self are understood to deny individuality (MN 22) or imply that the conventional person doesn't exist (SN 22.22). The way I understand it, they merely break down the conceptual idea of a self — i.e., that which is satisfactory, permanent and completely subject to our control — in relation to the various aspects of our experience that we falsely cling to as 'me' or 'mine' (SN 22.59).
So in essence, the Buddhist teachings on not-self aren't merely assertions that we have no self; they are a method for deconstructing our false perceptions about reality, as well as an important tool in removing the vast net of clinging that gives rise to suffering. That's why I've since come to the conclusion that the answer to the question "Who am I?" isn't important. In terms of our sense of identity, there's no concrete answer as who we are is continually changing.
What's really important from the Buddhist point of view, however, is realizing that a combination of clinging to sensual pleasures and our attachment to views and doctrines of self keeps us rooted in "perceptions and categories of objectification" that continually assail us and our mental well-being (MN 18); and questions such as "Who am I?" are ultimately better left aside. I suppose meditating on the question of "Who am I?" can potentially lead to the same realizations and release from suffering; but I think the probability of mistaking certain experiences along the way and latching on to them as 'me' is greater, and possesses more dangers, than the Buddha's not-self strategy.
This may be a bit of nonsense, but in one of the ways I like to look at it, the conventional viewpoint (sammuti sacca) explains things through subject, verb, and object whereas the ultimate viewpoint (paramattha sacca) explains things through verb alone. In essence, things are being viewed from the perspective of activities and processes. This, I think, is incredibly difficult to see, but perhaps what happens here is that once self-identity view (sakkaya-ditthi) is removed, the duality of subject and object is also removed, thereby revealing the level of mere conditional phenomena, i.e., dependent co-arising in action.
This mental process is 'seen,' ignorance is replaced by knowledge and vision of things as they are present, and nibbana, then, would be the 'letting go' of what isn't self through the dispassion (viraga) invoked in seeing the inconstant and stressful nature of clinging to false refuges that are neither fixed nor stable, particularly in relation to the five clinging-aggregates (panca-upadana-khandha).
The Buddha teaches the middle way that is free from the extremes of the dualistic mind that only see's in existent/non-existent, being/non-being, this/that.
Reality basically says fuck you to all the ideas we overlay on top of it.
If we just sit here and observe the world around us. We will come to the same conclusions the Buddha did. The world isn't what it seems. It is constantly moving, yet there is no center or edge or source.
This appearance is the timeless unborn buddha mind. Yet for those who grasp at their projections suffer. And for those see with eyes unclouded are free.
When it comes to liberation we must set aside our petty ideas and dive straight into reality. Then we may live as the paradoxes and our minds will never know.
But it is a helpful way and practice as it brings a good ground for investigation into reality.
I would assert it is bringing a view and exploration of that view onto experience, which brings either a sense of freedom or bondage. Use views and application of the views onto experience to find and play with the conditions which bring the most liberation.
And ultimately all views are cast aside and reality is shown to us. And such reality we cannot really speak about. It is these very black symbols we see with our eyes. It is the sound of the birds. These vivid appearances free from elaboration and even the elaboration as the function.
So yes see reality as it is, then keep cultivating a view that brings about more freedom and liberation. Then one day when the time is right one will cast it all aside.
Sorry I cannot give you a linear, one dimension view. Life isn't fair =].
Most of what we talk about becomes invisable when we examine it closely enough. Gravity, electricity, time, matter and on and on.
Something is off and what explains it to me is it all arises from how the 5 skandas manifest as a delusionary identity machine.
Most scrutiny of phenomena seems identity based to me. Meditation is the method of allowing all phenomena to be disconnected from our habitual need to "relate" to it.
It shows that there was, is and will never be a real me. Just the mouth piece of a temporary flow, caught up in an eddy of karmic inertia.
To feed it is to suffer (ooohh that questionable English word again) and to not feed it is to not suffer.
This is another version of the Buddha's (giving it some gravitas now) story about being shot by a poisoned arrow and how to respond to it.
If "chocolate" were as good as chocolate, my cholesterol would be a hell of a lot lower.
Texts like the Diamond Sutra have a self-destructive aspect. They point away from words and concepts and then the text looks in the mirror and sees itself as just another bunch of words and concepts.
The text is like a beer without alcohol or like a cigarette without nicotine.
We do the reading but we don’t get out of it what we are addicted to; more knowledge, deeper understanding, superior feelings.
Buddhist practice offers a deceitful promise, like in the parable of the burning house.
We don’t “get it”, we “get out”.
The real reward is not an acquisition, it is a letting go.
You described your responses as the result of laziness...I think in fact the reverse is true. They are the result of working too hard to make a point.
To be born is to be eventually Shanghaied by a brain that the ego is manipulating. The brain is just another organ who in concert with the rest of the organs, allows us to function. To advance it into the role of captain is to ask it to provide services that it is poorly equipped to do. Think of the brain as an information centre that the Ego has co opted to promote it's own survival.
Meditation is just the practise of learning how to allow that input to be received without automatically routing it through the brain's ego trained department of spin.
Only by allowing that input to unfold free from our own habitual manipulative influences can awakening be possible.
Something that the generation of deliberate notions, ideas, thoughts or understandings will not do
If the flower was not composite and having so many glittering facets it wouldn't have the same beauty. It has petals and a stem and grows in the earth. The earth came from balls of gas. The gardner or nature is composed of endless glittering facets. A flower can symbolize beauty. It may or may not have a smell. It can be given as a gift. So many facets and if it were reducible to words it would not be part of the real world. The real world is always interbeing and many facets.
I'm trying to compose words but they can either be understood or not. If they are not understood they will decompose and go back to the seed consciousness. Just as flowers years ago are not remembered. If you painted the flowers or took a picture you might or might not have a memory. Having memory sometimes we think things are very solid. But all the facets are lost and each memory arises in present experience. Even if you understood the diamond sutra you would forget it. So don't worry and just open up to the present experience. There is no 'you' who may understand.
But it's awesome that you are asking questions. Not so much to know information but to sharpen your thinking. Do you think each person in this thread see the same facet of the diamond sutra? There are infinite worlds of each persons perception and memory. The heart is the stage where we can conjure a whole world from a memory or song or smell.
Still delicious.
Yum
I'm just sort of thinking out loud so by all means, please correct me if I'm saying something completely off from what you meant.
so experiencing reality with direct experience is what really changes the mind. The thoughts are just thoughts in the mind and so thinking does not help in experiencing the truth - thoughts are just the words, not the actual dishes.
-- Train yourself to see things as Process --
Consider this:
What is your computer monitor? Aristotle, I think, once said that you can't really define something, you can only say what it's not.
So maybe you say "that's a computer monitor" or maybe you say "that thing I want to talk about is Not [the universe that surrounds computer monitor]"
But really, where is "computer monitor" ? If all time was just one static, unchanging moment then we could maybe [somehow] say "computer monitor" and be real about it, but computer monitor is just a passing glimpse -- it's got parts, a frame, a screen, a cord, lots of stuff going on, each of which is not a monitor in itself. And, these parts started once as oil or something, which was then polymers, which was then plastic, which was then assembled into a computer monitor, which will go off to decompose and weather away in the sands of time to become new stuff etc etc
Just like how there are mountains and there are trees, but the trees are already on fire, the mountains already vast stretches of crumbled rock and desert, the oceans already dried up. But on the flip side, vast openings of atmosphere have become rain clouds and precipitation, hard soil has become soft and fertile, ash has transformed into the seeds of life, flowers bloom
some people say then, that a static [unchanging] object does not exist anywhere. In the conventional sense, the words we use to talk and communicate, it's helpful to say "hey pass the salt" -- but in the ultimate sense/analysis we can't pinpoint a salt shaker that will always be a saltshaker, and we can't label every single moment of its existence. reality as-it-is is not box-up-able, and Buddha explained this is because there is no self that can box things up. this does not mean we are powerless, quite the contrary, it means we have within us all the powers of the omniscient Buddha mind, and that they are simply obscured by delusions that project a lasting identity onto "stuff" in a river that is constantly flowing and changing
Thinking about this stuff helps; it is good to get an intellectual understanding, but don't resist wordlessness -- instead, take time to meditate. have some good posture, try to make sure your shoulders are level, and then just breathe and relax.
the fabric of reality has a temporary bulge, a knot; the fabric is itself beyond the conception of the existence of a self, and beyond the conception of non-existence of a self
all things as process, may the ocean of stress dry up!