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.
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
I don't think that the mind is the self. My opinion is that our inner experience cannot be fully explained by physical processes. I don't think though that mind is independent of the brain, my view is more like that of a film projector that needs the film (brain) a light source (fundamental clear-light mind or rigpa) to create an image on the screen (qualia). I'm on board with David Chalmers when he talks about the hard problem of consciousness.
I don't think that the mind is the self. My opinion is that our inner experience cannot be fully explained by physical processes. I don't think though that mind is independent of the brain, my view is more like that of a film projector that needs the film (brain) a light source (fundamental clear-light mind or rigpa) to create an image on the screen (qualia). I'm on board with David Chalmers when he talks about the hard problem of consciousness.
Ah, I see. Personally I tend to side with physicalist explanations of consciousness, but I certainly respect the views of dualists like Chalmers. I suppose I have to admit that at the moment all attempts to answer the problem of consciousness are little more than speculation. Perhaps one day philosophy and science will be able to solve the questions surrounding consciousness, but until then, to each their own.
The buddha talks about the self in the dhammapada. He says that only by the self is evil done/undone iirc. He also says that it is only by the self that the defilements are overcome.
Then there are mahayana sutras such as the ratnagotravibbhaga and the Shrimaladevi sutra which talk about themselves, though I haven't read those; I am going strictly by word of mouth.
The nature of the entity is unconditional heart essence. This does not exist without pointing out instructions of the guru.
The nature of this self is unconditional openness, patience for clarity, and the alive responsibility and sensation of sensitivity. For a Buddha suffering is just sensitivity.
When the shit hits the fan and you are in the hospital to die the remainder of your refuge is the only thing you got.
The buddha talks about the self in the dhammapada. He says that only by the self is evil done/undone iirc. He also says that it is only by the self that the defilements are overcome.
Then there are mahayana sutras such as the ratnagotravibbhaga and the Shrimaladevi sutra which talk about themselves, though I haven't read those; I am going strictly by word of mouth.
The nature of the entity is unconditional heart essence. This does not exist without pointing out instructions of the guru.
The nature of this self is unconditional openness, patience for clarity, and the alive responsibility and sensation of sensitivity. For a Buddha suffering is just sensitivity.
When the shit hits the fan and you are in the hospital to die the remainder of your refuge is the only thing you got.
My interpretation of such passages falls in line with that of Sayadaw U Silanda, which you can read in his book "No Inner Core," Chapter 2: Misunderstanding Anatta, Page 29.
The buddha talks about the self in the dhammapada. He says that only by the self is evil done/undone iirc. He also says that it is only by the self that the defilements are overcome.
He speaks about the self in other places, too.
He beholds the self purified (visuddhamattânam) of all these evil unskilled states, he heholds the self freed (vimuttamattânam), MN 40 (Cula-Assapura Sutta)
The buddha talks about the self in the dhammapada. He says that only by the self is evil done/undone iirc. He also says that it is only by the self that the defilements are overcome.
He speaks about the self in other places, too.
He beholds the self purified (visuddhamattânam) of all these evil unskilled states, he heholds the self freed (vimuttamattânam), MN 40 (Cula-Assapura Sutta)
@Blondel, Buddha also said in Patisambhidamagga and in Majjhima Nikaya,
As Sayadaw U Silanda explains in his book, these words are properly interpreted as follows:
The first sentence means, "All conditioned things are impermanent." The second sentence means, "All conditioned things are suffering." The third sentence, however, is different. Here, Buddha does not use the word sankhara [conditioned], but He uses dhamma instead. Dhamma here means all things without exception. So the third sentence means, "All things, conditioned or unconditioned, are anatta, void of self and soul."
The second chapter of Silanda's book (the link to which I have provided in an earlier post) also mentions many other statements of the Buddha which categorically reject the existence of a self.
1. It must be immaterial, for the Buddha taught form is not self. 2. It must be emotionless, for the Buddha taught feelings are not self. 3. It must be insentient, for the Buddha taught perception is not self. 4. It must be mindless, for the Buddha taught mental formations are not self. 5. It must be unconscious, for the Buddha taught consciousness is not self.
So what exactly would the nature of this entity be? That which is immaterial, emotionless, insentient, mindless, and unconsciois can hardly be called a "self" in my opinion. If your assertions are true, the only conclusion I'm able to reach is that our true "self" must be an impersonal force like gravity; however, I'm not the type to claim that something like gravity is a "self," rather, it's simply a natural force lacking any kind of sentience whatsoever.
Must be eh? One would think so. Thinking ain't gonna cut it . . .
One might allude to it as a 'quantum field of entanglement' that does not come into our timeline or any known causality. Weird eh?
Your mind is grasping at an object, that is so ephemeral, even dreaming of it is not going to hold . . .
Yet it is the foundation of our being. Touch of Neti, Neti from our Vedanta friends might be helpful . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti :ninja:
1. It must be immaterial, for the Buddha taught form is not self. 2. It must be emotionless, for the Buddha taught feelings are not self. 3. It must be insentient, for the Buddha taught perception is not self. 4. It must be mindless, for the Buddha taught mental formations are not self. 5. It must be unconscious, for the Buddha taught consciousness is not self.
So what exactly would the nature of this entity be? That which is immaterial, emotionless, insentient, mindless, and unconsciois can hardly be called a "self" in my opinion. If your assertions are true, the only conclusion I'm able to reach is that our true "self" must be an impersonal force like gravity; however, I'm not the type to claim that something like gravity is a "self," rather, it's simply a natural force lacking any kind of sentience whatsoever.
Must be eh? One would think so. Thinking ain't gonna cut it . . .
One might allude to it as a 'quantum field of entanglement' that does not come into our timeline or any known causality. Weird eh?
Your mind is grasping at an object, that is so ephemeral, even dreaming of it is not going to hold . . .
Yet it is the foundation of our being. Touch of Neti, Neti from our Vedanta friends might be helpful . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti :ninja:
Perhaps it's simply my lack of understanding, but I don't see how your comment addresses my assertions, which ultimately boil down to nothing more than "the Buddha taught us that 'x' is not self; therefore, if one accepts the teachings of the Buddha, 'x' cannot be self." Personally I find that claim to be self-evident.
But again, I may just not be fully understanding you.
If someone proposes a self, or sees a self, they do so by mistakenly taking one of the aggregates to be a self:
At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said, "Monks, whatever contemplatives or brahmans who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them.
[...]
He assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He assumes feeling to be the self, or the self as possessing feeling, or feeling as in the self, or the self as in feeling.
"He assumes perception to be the self, or the self as possessing perception, or perception as in the self, or the self as in perception.
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self, or the self as possessing fabrications, or fabrications as in the self, or the self as in fabrications.
The self as we typically think of ourselves is a story. A work of fiction. More importantly I, Me becomes the subject for the action of grasping and clinging. The reason we stay stuck in cyclic existence.
Reality is that everything lacks inherent existence. Things manifest, come into being, in real time (the present moment) based on dependent origination. " Just this." To the extent that you realize this it is very liberating. The past and the future are not so important. The story of me is not so important. There is nothing to do but let go of that which is not you. If you are truly letting go compassion arises because you see that where one thing ends and another begins is not clear. Separation is an illusion created by the delusion of self.
I would also add that I think a meditation practice is required to allow these insights to develop and that Anatta (no self) should be seen in relation with impermanence and suffering.
I for one think intellectual understanding can actually be an obstacle. For one thing, because it's easy to cling to. It also easily becomes a fixed view.
I for one think intellectual understanding can actually be an obstacle. For one thing, because it's easy to cling to. It also easily becomes a fixed view.
@Sabre, I actually agree that intellectual understanding can become an obstacle for the reasons you've mentioned; however, I also believe that if you remain intellectually honest, keep an open mind, and be willing at times to admit that you're wrong, attempting to understand things from an intellectual point of view can actually be very beneficial and useful.
Personally, I think anatta can be understood intellectually, but only experienced through meditation.
The unconditioned self is outside of time, thus impermanence or self nature are a moot point. As the diamond sutra said: no beings, no life, and no lifetime.
I for one think intellectual understanding can actually be an obstacle. For one thing, because it's easy to cling to. It also easily becomes a fixed view.
@Sabre, I actually agree that intellectual understanding can become an obstacle for the reasons you've mentioned; however, I also believe that if you remain intellectually honest, keep an open mind, and be willing at times to admit that you're wrong, attempting to understand things from an intellectual point of view can actually be very beneficial and useful.
Personally, I think anatta can be understood intellectually, but only experienced through meditation.
I agree. If used skillfully it doesn't have to become an obstacle. But I find many people stuck in intellectual views, so therefore my warning. It's also not just attaching to views or intellect, the attachment to thoughts itself can also go very deep, to the point that when people experience something new in meditation they immediately start thinking about it. (if they weren't already thinking)
But just to add that full understanding is only after experience, and then understanding is not intellectual anymore. To take one of the things I heard David Chalmers' say in the video: You can know all about the theory of light but not really understand what blue is until you see it.
But this is of course all depending on how we define 'understanding'.
The unconditioned self is outside of time, thus impermanence or self nature are a moot point. As the diamond sutra said: no beings, no life, and no lifetime.
I don't know much about Buddhism from a Mahayana perspective, as I tend to study the dhamma from a purely Theravadan point of view. As far as I can tell, Theravadans are quite clear on the self -- it doesn't exist; however, Mahayana sutras might paint a different picture (and although I respect Mahayana writings, I tend to ignore them over the Pali canon).
Reading the Buddha's teachings from the Pali canon, it seems quite obvious that there is no self, whether conditioned or not (the quote I provided by Sayadaw U Silanda is a good example example of this). Therefore, according to my understanding of Buddhism, I don't see room for a timeless, unconditioned self.
Nevertheless, I respect your views. I just think believing in a "self" gives us yet another thing to cling onto, thereby resulting in even more suffering.
The division is not that clear. Some theravadans define a sort of a self. Some mahayanists don't speak in such ways at all. In Zen I often came across strict no-self teachings. So there is no specific mahayana and theravada perspective. I do get the point, though, and in general it is probably true. Just wanted to say this so that traditions don't become 'authorities' and people don't think: "(S)he is a theravadin, so (s)he beliefs like this and that."
(so it doesn't turn into a theravada vs mahayana thing)
I think a big part of the problem is that each religious group is defining self and other terms differently. What I am talking about are qualities of mind without which there could not be awareness. These qualities are ungraspable so in that sense there is no self. But from the perspective of the impossibility of consciousness without these qualities we have to say they are there. The qualities are openness, clarity, and sensitivity.
I apologize for not reading your quotation of Sayadaw, I get anxious when 'taking on' a long passage of text. Most of the threads with a lot of text or links I never 'get up to' tackling.
I think a big part of the problem is that each religious group is defining self and other terms differently. What I am talking about are qualities of mind without which there could not be awareness. These qualities are ungraspable so in that sense there is no self. But from the perspective of the impossibility of consciousness without these qualities we have to say they are there. The qualities are openness, clarity, and sensitivity.
I apologize for not reading your quotation of Sayadaw, I get anxious when 'taking on' a long passage of text. Most of the threads with a lot of text or links I never 'get up to' tackling.
@Jeffrey, ah, yes, I think I understand what you mean now. The only point I have tried to convey is that, in my opinion, there is no independent, permanent, or irreducible entity which exists as the very essence (if you will) of one's "self," and that therefore the idea of "me, I, mine" is an illusion born out of a combination of the aggregates.
Therefore, I would simply assert that consciousness, as well as the qualities that comprise it, are impermanent, dependent, and reducible entities which arise from a combination of the aggregates (particularly form and mental formations), and therefore cannot rightly be called "self."
Alternatively, maybe I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about and have simply lost all sense of logical coherence by attempting to analyze the ineffable
Dhamma here means all things without exception. So the third sentence means, "All things, conditioned or unconditioned, are anatta, void of self and soul."
Well, since the Bhante is commenting, the older commentary on this very verse says that sabbe dhamma anatta refers to the five aggregates which, incidentally, belong to the Buddha's foe, Mara the evil one. I wonder what the Bhante has to say about this passage: sabbe dhammâ nâlam abhinivesâya (All things are unfit to adhere to). I think his use of the word dhamma is pretty much the logical fallacy of equivocation insofar as the word dhamma is polysemic.
@Blondel, I think this discussion would be much more productive if you explained what your concept of the "self" is.
As a physicalist, when I strip away the aggregates, I fail to identify any kind of separate or distinct self. A good example of this is during sleep when consciousness is temporarily disabled; during that time, any sense of "self" is non-existent (which suggests to me that "self" is just an illusion caused by the aggregates).
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could elucidate your views on the self and what it is, if not an illusion born out of the aggregates.
"self" is just an illusion caused by the aggregates
True but not very important until we learn to meditate from the 'non self'. How? Allowing the passing of the aggregates . . . like clouds across a sun unseen. :wave:
My understanding is that you only live once. So that kind of makes death nirvana. Which would in turn mean that Buddhism, like most religions, is about ways to handle our existence until that day.
My understanding is that you only live once. So that kind of makes death nirvana. Which would in turn mean that Buddhism, like most religions, is about ways to handle our existence until that day.
@betaboy, that's my understanding, as well; however, unlike most Buddhists who are skeptical of literal rebirth, I actually acknowledge that the Buddha most likely taught such. In fact, there's a lot of things the Buddha taught which I don't accept, including the existence of psychic powers and supernatural beings like naga.
Although what I'm about to say is controversial, the Buddha was simply an ordinary (albeit very wise) man who managed to discover a path (perhaps just one of many) that can lead to the end of dukkha; I don't think he possessed any supernatural powers/understanding, nor do I believe he was immune to being influenced by the pervading thoughts, philosophies, and ideologies of his time.
Of course, this is all just my personal opinion and is probably inconsistent with most people's understanding of the Buddha.
Wise, not infallible -- that's my personal understanding of the Buddha.
@Blondel, I think this discussion would be much more productive if you explained what your concept of the "self" is.
As a physicalist, when I strip away the aggregates, I fail to identify any kind of separate or distinct self. A good example of this is during sleep when consciousness is temporarily disabled; during that time, any sense of "self" is non-existent (which suggests to me that "self" is just an illusion caused by the aggregates).
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could elucidate your views on the self and what it is, if not an illusion born out of the aggregates.
Let's use the analogy of an old radio (not too old but old enough). We have tubes in it, an antenna coil, a speaker, power supply, etc. For the sake of discussion, you've never seen a radio before and even less do you know anything about radio waves and how they are generated and transmitted.
When I turn on the radio we both hear Mario Lanza singing. You're amazed! It's almost magical to you that such a powerful voice is coming from such a small box. You ask me how does it work. But no matter how I explain this radio to you, you don't grasp what I am trying to tell you, especially how a completely invisible a radio wave is being amplified by this box.
Next you ask me if you can take the radio apart. I consent. But after you finish taking it apart you still can't figure out how the radio works. You are unable to find the "radio wave" that I keep telling you is amplified by the radio. So why is this? It's because your mind is totally taken up by the gross parts of the radio.
If all that we are capable of realizing is the five aggregates, which the Buddha says are murderous, by default, we are doomed to samsara.
My understanding is that you only live once. So that kind of makes death nirvana. Which would in turn mean that Buddhism, like most religions, is about ways to handle our existence until that day.
Maybe I can sum it up for you. The Buddha is the common person; his Dharma is sensory perception; and the Sangha is the natural world. When one dies, this is Nirvana.
@Blondel, I think this discussion would be much more productive if you explained what your concept of the "self" is.
As a physicalist, when I strip away the aggregates, I fail to identify any kind of separate or distinct self. A good example of this is during sleep when consciousness is temporarily disabled; during that time, any sense of "self" is non-existent (which suggests to me that "self" is just an illusion caused by the aggregates).
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could elucidate your views on the self and what it is, if not an illusion born out of the aggregates.
Let's use the analogy of an old radio (not too old but old enough). We have tubes in it, an antenna coil, a speaker, power supply, etc. For the sake of discussion, you've never seen a radio before and even less do you know anything about radio waves and how they are generated and transmitted.
When I turn on the radio we both hear Mario Lanza singing. You're amazed! It's almost magical to you that such a powerful voice is coming from such a small box. You ask me how does it work. But no matter how I explain this radio to you, you don't grasp what I am trying to tell you, especially how a completely invisible a radio wave is being amplified by this box.
Next you ask me if you can take the radio apart. I consent. But after you finish taking it apart you still can't figure out how the radio works. You are unable to find the "radio wave" that I keep telling you is amplified by the radio. So why is this? It's because your mind is totally taken up by the gross parts of the radio.
If all that we are capable of realizing is the five aggregates, which the Buddha says are murderous, by default, we are doomed to samsara.
@Blondel, so if I understand you correctly, you see the "self" as an invisible, immaterial entity that is separate and distinct from the aggregates. Is this right?
Another question I have concerns the function of this "self." If you were to strip away the aggregates, would the self possess any type of awareness, or is it dependent on the aggregates to perform a function?
@Blondel, so if I understand you correctly, you see the "self" as an invisible, immaterial entity that is separate and distinct from the aggregates. Is this right?
Another question I have concerns the function of this "self." If you were to strip away the aggregates, would the self possess any type of awareness, or is it dependent on the aggregates to perform a function?
It is an analogy that was intended to illustrate the difference between the hyper-subtle and the coarse aggregates. By using the measure of the aggregates, i.e., the psycho-physical organism, as a kind of net to capture the self, it forever eludes us. We then become like Kafka's cage in search of a bird.
The problem is with consciousness the fifth aggregate. It's a kind of pseudo-self. Awareness - any awareness - is just a synonym for consciousness. Also, there is a binary aspect (the "vi") to vi-jnana/consciousness which carries with it a subject and object mode. The Buddha calls consciousness a magician's illusion. The aggregates, Bodhivaka, are really a huge, subtle trap. And to whom do they belong? None other than Mara, the Buddhist devil.
@Blondel, I'm confused as to whether or not you assert the existence of a "true self" which is separate and distinct from the aggregates; your earlier posts suggest that you do, but your latest post (as I understand it) seems to suggest that you don't.
My position is that there is nothing which can rightly be called I, me, mine, or self; rather, I believe that the aggregates, when combined, simply create the illusion of self. Would you agree with that position? If not, why not?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
What I'm hearing @Blondel saying is that the aggregate of consciousness is more subtle than the physical processes we can see and touch but he doesn't equate that with a self.
@Blondel, I'm confused as to whether or not you assert the existence of a "true self" which is separate and distinct from the aggregates; your earlier posts suggest that you do, but your latest post (as I understand it) seems to suggest that you don't.
My position is that there is nothing which can rightly be called I, me, mine, or self; rather, I believe that the aggregates, when combined, simply create the illusion of self. Would you agree with that position? If not, why not?
Let me shift to a problem that, in time, confronts serious Buddhists. If there is no self in or outside of the aggregates, and the aggregates are Mara the Buddhist devil - we have a major problem. :eek: There is no way to transcend Mara's kingdom. And nirvana, also, falls within the realm of Mara.
@Blondel, I'm confused as to whether or not you assert the existence of a "true self" which is separate and distinct from the aggregates; your earlier posts suggest that you do, but your latest post (as I understand it) seems to suggest that you don't.
My position is that there is nothing which can rightly be called I, me, mine, or self; rather, I believe that the aggregates, when combined, simply create the illusion of self. Would you agree with that position? If not, why not?
Let me shift to a problem that, in time, confronts serious Buddhists. If there is no self in or outside of the aggregates, and the aggregates are Mara the Buddhist devil - we have a major problem. :eek: There is no way to transcend Mara's kingdom. And nirvana, also, falls within the realm of Mara.
@Blondel, first of all, I don't accept Mara as a literal demon that actually exists; rather, I believe Mara is a metaphor used to represent various things which are unskilfull; therefore, Nirvana (which in my opinion is simply a personal state of non-suffering attained through enlightenment) isn't connected to or controlled by Mara at all.
Secondly, if we are to use Mara as a representation of the five aggregates, then transcending "Mara's kingdom" would simply be a matter of dis-identifying with the aggregates and realizing that "self" is nothing more than an illusion born out of them.
By letting go of the idea of "self," we destroy the concept of I, me, and mine; by destroying the concept of I, me, and mine, we destroy clinging; by destroying clinging, we destroy craving; by destroying craving, we destroy suffering; by destroying suffering, we attain Nirvana.
Therefore, imagining the existence of a self only serves as an impediment to transcending Mara's kingdom and attaining Nirvana, for as long as there is "me," there is "mine," and it is that very mentality -- the concept of "mine," that gives rise to clinging, which gives rise to craving, which gives rise to suffering. To destroy suffering, you must strike it at it's roots -- the illusion of self.
@Blondel, I'm confused as to whether or not you assert the existence of a "true self" which is separate and distinct from the aggregates; your earlier posts suggest that you do, but your latest post (as I understand it) seems to suggest that you don't.
My position is that there is nothing which can rightly be called I, me, mine, or self; rather, I believe that the aggregates, when combined, simply create the illusion of self. Would you agree with that position? If not, why not?
Let me shift to a problem that, in time, confronts serious Buddhists. If there is no self in or outside of the aggregates, and the aggregates are Mara the Buddhist devil - we have a major problem. :eek: There is no way to transcend Mara's kingdom. And nirvana, also, falls within the realm of Mara.
First of all, I don't accept Mara as a literal demon that actually exists; rather, I believe Mara is a metaphor used to represent various things which are unskilfull; therefore, Nirvana (which in my opinion is simply a personal state of non-suffering attained through enlightenment) isn't connected to or controlled by Mara at all.
Secondly, if we are to use Mara as a representation of the five aggregates, then transcending "Mara's kingdom" would simply be a matter of dis-identifying with the aggregates. By letting go of the idea of "self," we destroy the concept of I, me, and mine; by destroying the concept of I, me, and mine, we destroy clinging; by destroying
clinging, we destroy craving; by destroying craving, we destroy suffering; by destroying suffering, we attain Nirvana; therefore, imagining the existence of a self only serves as an impediment to transcending Mara's kingdom and attaining Nirvana.
As long as there is "me," there is "mine," and it is that very mentality -- the concept of "mine," that gives rise to clinging, which gives rise to craving, which gives rise to suffering. To destroy suffering, you must strike it at it's roots -- the illusion of self.
That's my view, anyway.
Mara symbolizes the five aggregates. When speaking to Radha the Buddha told him to see form as Mara, see it as the killer as with the rest of the aggregates. Mara is useful, it helps to bring home the important point that the five aggregates are not something we should identify with. They are not our self. We should not be disposed to say of these aggregates, This is mine, this I am, this is my self. If we regard an aggregate as my self we are in the grip of wrong view. We are not in the grip of wrong view to say of each aggregate, this is not my self.
When Buddhists believe that there is no self outside of Mara's aggregates, they've created an insurmountable problem for themselves: there is no way to escape Mara's realm. But if the problem is only a matter of wrong identification with Mara's aggregates because, intrinsically, the first person is transcendent to all, then there is no insurmountable problem. Just let go. By the way, the self is not the illusion. The illusion is the aggregates which the Buddha says are anâtman (not the self).
@Blondel, I tried posting a reply but experienced some technical difficulties. My phone is about to die so I will reply as soon as possible, but at the moment I can't. Thank you for your patience
The aggregates do not become nirvana. They are always conditional thus they could never be Nirvana.
The qualities of the aggregates as they blossum during the awakening of the heart do change. I am not sure if the aggregates themselves become nirvana or if they stay conditioned attributes. I tend to 'guess' the latter, because nirvana cannot be nailed down in an air tight theory.
Form -> morality Feeling -> concentration Perception -> wisdom Formations -> liberation Consciousness -> knowledge of liberation
@Blondel, I'm confused as to whether or not you assert the existence of a "true self" which is separate and distinct from the aggregates; your earlier posts suggest that you do, but your latest post (as I understand it) seems to suggest that you don't.
My position is that there is nothing which can rightly be called I, me, mine, or self; rather, I believe that the aggregates, when combined, simply create the illusion of self. Would you agree with that position? If not, why not?
Let me shift to a problem that, in time, confronts serious Buddhists. If there is no self in or outside of the aggregates, and the aggregates are Mara the Buddhist devil - we have a major problem. :eek: There is no way to transcend Mara's kingdom. And nirvana, also, falls within the realm of Mara.
First of all, I don't accept Mara as a literal demon that actually exists; rather, I believe Mara is a metaphor used to represent various things which are unskilfull; therefore, Nirvana (which in my opinion is simply a personal state of non-suffering attained through enlightenment) isn't connected to or controlled by Mara at all.
Secondly, if we are to use Mara as a representation of the five aggregates, then transcending "Mara's kingdom" would simply be a matter of dis-identifying with the aggregates. By letting go of the idea of "self," we destroy the concept of I, me, and mine; by destroying the concept of I, me, and mine, we destroy clinging; by destroying
clinging, we destroy craving; by destroying craving, we destroy suffering; by destroying suffering, we attain Nirvana; therefore, imagining the existence of a self only serves as an impediment to transcending Mara's kingdom and attaining Nirvana.
As long as there is "me," there is "mine," and it is that very mentality -- the concept of "mine," that gives rise to clinging, which gives rise to craving, which gives rise to suffering. To destroy suffering, you must strike it at it's roots -- the illusion of self.
That's my view, anyway.
Mara symbolizes the five aggregates. When speaking to Radha the Buddha told him to see form as Mara, see it as the killer as with the rest of the aggregates. Mara is useful, it helps to bring home the important point that the five aggregates are not something we should identify with. They are not our self. We should not be disposed to say of these aggregates, This is mine, this I am, this is my self. If we regard an aggregate as my self we are in the grip of wrong view. We are not in the grip of wrong view to say of each aggregate, this is not my self.
When Buddhists believe that there is no self outside of Mara's aggregates, they've created an insurmountable problem for themselves: there is no way to escape Mara's realm. But if the problem is only a matter of wrong identification with Mara's aggregates because, intrinsically, the first person is transcendent to all, then there is no insurmountable problem. Just let go. By the way, the self is not the illusion. The illusion is the aggregates which the Buddha says are anâtman (not the self).
As I understand it, Mara can be used to represent more than just the five aggregates. We both agree that the aggregates are not self and that we should dis-identify with them, where we disagree is whether or not there is a "true self" that exists separate and distinct from the aggregates. It seems you believe a separate "self" is necessary to transcend Mara's kingdom, I disagree (for reasons I've explained.)
In my opinion, the historical Buddha most likely believed transcending Mara's kingdom meant escaping samsara by becoming enlightened -- no "true self" needed.
The aggregates do not become nirvana. They are always conditional thus they could never be Nirvana.
The qualities of the aggregates as they blossum during the awakening of the heart do change. I am not sure if the aggregates themselves become nirvana or if they stay conditioned attributes. I tend to 'guess' the latter, because nirvana cannot be nailed down in an air tight theory.
Form -> morality Feeling -> concentration Perception -> wisdom Formations -> liberation Consciousness -> knowledge of liberation
I certainly don't mean to suggest that the aggregates become Nirvana. In my opinion, Nirvana is simply a state of "non-suffering."
When Buddhists believe that there is no self outside of Mara's aggregates, they've created an insurmountable problem for themselves: there is no way to escape Mara's realm.
Of course there is: the cessation of the aggregates.
I directly knew form, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation. I directly knew feeling … perception … volitional formations … consciousness, its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation.
When this isn't, that isn't. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that.
In other words:
From the cessation of ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media 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, and despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress.
If monism is opposed to dualism then it is a disguised form of dualism. It is an equal and opposite counterview. It would be a positive metaphysical position, as refuted by Nagarjuna. Nondualism is opposed to this kind of monism. I suspect that whenever we see a metaphysical contradiction we have departed from right view. Right view would be to see that in a sense dualism is true, in a sense monism is true, and ultimately nondualism is true.
You say - "Moreover, if such an entity actually did exist, exactly what function would it perform? If you are indeed correct to say that the Buddha was simply attempting to bring us to a realization of our "true self" through the dis-identification of the aggregates, then the following must be true of the "self":
1. It must be immaterial, for the Buddha taught form is not self. 2. It must be emotionless, for the Buddha taught feelings are not self. 3. It must be insentient, for the Buddha taught perception is not self. 4. It must be mindless, for the Buddha taught mental formations are not self. 5. It must be unconscious, for the Buddha taught consciousness is not self.
So what exactly would the nature of this entity be? That which is immaterial, emotionless, insentient, mindless, and unconsciois can hardly be called a "self" in my opinion. If your assertions are true, the only conclusion I'm able to reach is that our true "self" must be an impersonal force like gravity".
Spot on I'd say. 'Thou art that.' All separation would be an illusion. Hegel calls what remains a 'spiritual unity'. Bradley calls it the 'Real'. Plotinus calls it a 'Simplex'. Hindus calls it the 'unconditioned Brahman'. It would be unmanifest and lie beyond the coincidence of contradictories. I think sometimes it is called 'Self', (upper case) or 'True Self', since it would be the basis of our being and thus in a sense 'belong' to us, although it would be more nearly correct to imagine it is the other way around.
Without this ultimately real phenomenon, the one phenomenon to which the Abhidharma awards true and independent reality, then Buddhism would be Nihilism. Dis-identify with the aggregates and this is what is would be revealed.
If monism is opposed to dualism then it is a disguised form of dualism. It is an equal and opposite counterview. It would be a positive metaphysical position, as refuted by Nagarjuna. Nondualism is opposed to this kind of monism. I suspect that whenever we see a metaphysical contradiction we have departed from right view. Right view would be to see that in a sense dualism is true, in a sense monism is true, and ultimately nondualism is true.
@Florian, perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but to me monism and non-dualism are synonyms. Could you please elucidate your perceived distinction?
Spot on I'd say. 'Thou art that.' All separation would be an illusion. Hegel calls what remains a 'spiritual unity'. Bradley calls it the 'Real'. Plotinus calls it a 'Simplex'. Hindus calls it the 'unconditioned Brahman'. It would be unmanifest and lie beyond the coincidence of contradictories. I think sometimes it is called 'Self', (upper case) or 'True Self', since it would be the basis of our being and thus in a sense 'belong' to us, although it would be more nearly correct to imagine it is the other way around.
Without this ultimately real phenomenon, the one phenomenon to which the Abhidharma awards true and independent reality, then Buddhism would be Nihilism. Dis-identify with the aggregates and this is what is would be revealed.
Or something like this.
In my view, composite entities (including humans) don't possess a "true self." When we reduce humans, the only intrinsically existing entities we arrive at are irreducible elementary particles (such as quarks) -- these particles might rightly be called "true reality," but I wouldn't go as far as to say they are the "true selves" of humans.
You are right to say that the view I've presented would make Buddhism nihilism, but I see no problem with this, as I view nihilism as the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism. As I've said a couple times before, as long as there is "me," there is "mine," which leads to clinging, which leads to craving, which leads to suffering; therefore, to overcome suffering we must strike it at it's roots -- the illusion of any type of "self," even one with a capital S.
The notion of anatta as an ontological reality is a commentarial innovation, a corruption of what was originally a practice instruction. Debating whether there is or is not a true self is basically a waste of time, and something the Buddha warned against.
All these teachings [regarding anatta, anicca & dukkha] have their strategic purpose. And it's important that we keep using them for their strategic purpose. We're not here to argue, we are not here to establish the one right view about reality. We're here to find ways of putting an end to suffering.
So remember those three perceptions. And that's what the Buddha called them, "perceptions": the perception of inconstancy, the perception of stress, the PERCEPTION of not-self. HE NEVER CALLED THEM CHARACTERISTICS. He never talked about three characteristics. You do a search for the term, "three characteristics" in the Pali Canon, and you're not going to find it. The Buddha's talking about a way of perceiving that helps you see through your attachments, that helps you see through your delusions about where you can find happiness, so that the question that lies at the beginning of wisdom — What when I do it will lead to my true long-term welfare and happiness?" — finally gets its answer in the skills you've developed. And part of the strategy in mastering those skills is to master the tasks that are appropriate to the four noble truths. That's what we're doing: We're working on those tasks so that we can handle them skillfully. We want to skillfully comprehend stress and suffering, so we can understand why it is that we keep feeding on these things, even though they ultimately lead to disappointment. That helps us develop dispassion for the craving that keeps pushing us in that direction, so that we can let it go. At the same time, we're developing the path that puts the mind in a position where it can do this without feeling threatened, until it no longer needs that particular position, that particular center. Then you can take that apart as well.
The suttas talk about death as a perception in a similar fashion as it talks about the perception of anatta, in a single breath even. Now clearly death is a reality and not a practice instruction. The perception of death means we bring this reality into our awareness and reflect upon it. It would thus be a bit odd for the perception of anatta (noself), dukkha (suffering), and annica (impermanence) to not be a reflection on reality.
Also the part is in itself contradictory. If we are here to put an end to suffering, but suffering is just a practice instruction, what are we going to put an end to?
Thanissaro is at least just as much a commentator as the old commentaries. Now we could wonder what is the corruption.
That's a red herring, Sabre. Dukkha is just as much an accepted reality as death. The fact that experience beats us over the head with the reality of some dhammas doesn't imply that it's useful to attach to the ontological reality or unreality of subtler dhammas. Yes, bring it into awareness and reflect on it for the purpose of fostering dispassion, or as a goad to more practice, but that's very different from intellectual analysis.
Well then there is no reason to think anatta is not a reality as it is treated similar as death and suffering in the perceptions of them. Of course it is not useful to attach to intellectual ideas, I would be the first to warn against that, but that in itself doesn't say anything about things being true or not. Death is no intellectual idea and neither is anatta if you can see it.
That's largely true. But what Thanissaro thinks is: not just that anatta is not to be pondered intellectually, but that it is not to be realized at all - that it is only a practice instruction. And to that latter one I was mainly responding because in my eyes that doesn't hold at all.
These universal characteristics have to be understood in two stages: first intellectually, by reflection; and thereafter by direct insight or realisation through insight meditation. When we explain these intellectually, we should not make this a substitute for practice, but only take it as a guideline for understanding what has to be seen by the actual practice of insight meditation.
I'm not sure I agree on this as I think insight can arise without preliminary intellectual understanding, but anyway I don't think intellectual understanding (thus going beyond the 'practice instruction') necessarily hurts.
Comments
The buddha talks about the self in the dhammapada. He says that only by the self is evil done/undone iirc. He also says that it is only by the self that the defilements are overcome.
Then there are mahayana sutras such as the ratnagotravibbhaga and the Shrimaladevi sutra which talk about themselves, though I haven't read those; I am going strictly by word of mouth.
The nature of the entity is unconditional heart essence. This does not exist without pointing out instructions of the guru.
The nature of this self is unconditional openness, patience for clarity, and the alive responsibility and sensation of sensitivity. For a Buddha suffering is just sensitivity.
When the shit hits the fan and you are in the hospital to die the remainder of your refuge is the only thing you got.
(http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/noinnercore.pdf)
@Blondel, Buddha also said in Patisambhidamagga and in Majjhima Nikaya, As Sayadaw U Silanda explains in his book, these words are properly interpreted as follows: The second chapter of Silanda's book (the link to which I have provided in an earlier post) also mentions many other statements of the Buddha which categorically reject the existence of a self.
One might allude to it as a 'quantum field of entanglement' that does not come into our timeline or any known causality. Weird eh?
Your mind is grasping at an object, that is so ephemeral, even dreaming of it is not going to hold . . .
Yet it is the foundation of our being. Touch of Neti, Neti from our Vedanta friends might be helpful . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neti_neti
:ninja:
But again, I may just not be fully understanding you.
However, nice throwing with suttas. But as I said, understanding no self is not an intellectual exercise.
. . . Some experience must be expressed as a song, painting or poem.
Can you 'understand' a tree or rock? How fully are they being understandable? Now carve them into a Buddha. Nothing has changed.
When Nothing changes, everything is understandable . . .
:wave:
Reality is that everything lacks inherent existence. Things manifest, come into being, in real time (the present moment) based on dependent origination. " Just this." To the extent that you realize this it is very liberating. The past and the future are not so important. The story of me is not so important. There is nothing to do but let go of that which is not you. If you are truly letting go compassion arises because you see that where one thing ends and another begins is not clear. Separation is an illusion created by the delusion of self.
I would also add that I think a meditation practice is required to allow these insights to develop and that Anatta (no self) should be seen in relation with impermanence and suffering.
Best Wishes
I'd say yes. Not everyone approaches the path from an intellectual angle- Bhante G mentions 'Faith followers' -
Personally, I think anatta can be understood intellectually, but only experienced through meditation.
But just to add that full understanding is only after experience, and then understanding is not intellectual anymore. To take one of the things I heard David Chalmers' say in the video: You can know all about the theory of light but not really understand what blue is until you see it.
But this is of course all depending on how we define 'understanding'.
Reading the Buddha's teachings from the Pali canon, it seems quite obvious that there is no self, whether conditioned or not (the quote I provided by Sayadaw U Silanda is a good example example of this). Therefore, according to my understanding of Buddhism, I don't see room for a timeless, unconditioned self.
Nevertheless, I respect your views. I just think believing in a "self" gives us yet another thing to cling onto, thereby resulting in even more suffering.
The division is not that clear. Some theravadans define a sort of a self. Some mahayanists don't speak in such ways at all. In Zen I often came across strict no-self teachings. So there is no specific mahayana and theravada perspective. I do get the point, though, and in general it is probably true. Just wanted to say this so that traditions don't become 'authorities' and people don't think: "(S)he is a theravadin, so (s)he beliefs like this and that."
(so it doesn't turn into a theravada vs mahayana thing)
I apologize for not reading your quotation of Sayadaw, I get anxious when 'taking on' a long passage of text. Most of the threads with a lot of text or links I never 'get up to' tackling.
Therefore, I would simply assert that consciousness, as well as the qualities that comprise it, are impermanent, dependent, and reducible entities which arise from a combination of the aggregates (particularly form and mental formations), and therefore cannot rightly be called "self."
Alternatively, maybe I have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about and have simply lost all sense of logical coherence by attempting to analyze the ineffable
As a physicalist, when I strip away the aggregates, I fail to identify any kind of separate or distinct self. A good example of this is during sleep when consciousness is temporarily disabled; during that time, any sense of "self" is non-existent (which suggests to me that "self" is just an illusion caused by the aggregates).
Anyway, I would appreciate it if you could elucidate your views on the self and what it is, if not an illusion born out of the aggregates.
True but not very important until we learn to meditate from the 'non self'. How?
Allowing the passing of the aggregates . . . like clouds across a sun unseen.
:wave:
Although what I'm about to say is controversial, the Buddha was simply an ordinary (albeit very wise) man who managed to discover a path (perhaps just one of many) that can lead to the end of dukkha; I don't think he possessed any supernatural powers/understanding, nor do I believe he was immune to being influenced by the pervading thoughts, philosophies, and ideologies of his time.
Of course, this is all just my personal opinion and is probably inconsistent with most people's understanding of the Buddha.
Wise, not infallible -- that's my personal understanding of the Buddha.
When I turn on the radio we both hear Mario Lanza singing. You're amazed! It's almost magical to you that such a powerful voice is coming from such a small box. You ask me how does it work. But no matter how I explain this radio to you, you don't grasp what I am trying to tell you, especially how a completely invisible a radio wave is being amplified by this box.
Next you ask me if you can take the radio apart. I consent. But after you finish taking it apart you still can't figure out how the radio works. You are unable to find the "radio wave" that I keep telling you is amplified by the radio. So why is this? It's because your mind is totally taken up by the gross parts of the radio.
If all that we are capable of realizing is the five aggregates, which the Buddha says are murderous, by default, we are doomed to samsara.
Another question I have concerns the function of this "self." If you were to strip away the aggregates, would the self possess any type of awareness, or is it dependent on the aggregates to perform a function?
My position is that there is nothing which can rightly be called I, me, mine, or self; rather, I believe that the aggregates, when combined, simply create the illusion of self. Would you agree with that position? If not, why not?
Secondly, if we are to use Mara as a representation of the five aggregates, then transcending "Mara's kingdom" would simply be a matter of dis-identifying with the aggregates and realizing that "self" is nothing more than an illusion born out of them.
By letting go of the idea of "self," we destroy the concept of I, me, and mine; by destroying the concept of I, me, and mine, we destroy clinging; by destroying clinging, we destroy craving; by destroying craving, we destroy suffering; by destroying suffering, we attain Nirvana.
Therefore, imagining the existence of a self only serves as an impediment to transcending Mara's kingdom and attaining Nirvana, for as long as there is "me," there is "mine," and it is that very mentality -- the concept of "mine," that gives rise to clinging, which gives rise to craving, which gives rise to suffering. To destroy suffering, you must strike it at it's roots -- the illusion of self.
That's my view, anyway.
How does one view the world
so as not to be seen
by Death's king?
[The Buddha:]
View the world, Mogharaja,
as empty —
always mindful
to have removed any view
about self.
This way one is above & beyond death.
This is how one views the world
so as not to be seen
by Death's king.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.5.15.than.html
When Buddhists believe that there is no self outside of Mara's aggregates, they've created an insurmountable problem for themselves: there is no way to escape Mara's realm. But if the problem is only a matter of wrong identification with Mara's aggregates because, intrinsically, the first person is transcendent to all, then there is no insurmountable problem. Just let go. By the way, the self is not the illusion. The illusion is the aggregates which the Buddha says are anâtman (not the self).
The qualities of the aggregates as they blossum during the awakening of the heart do change. I am not sure if the aggregates themselves become nirvana or if they stay conditioned attributes. I tend to 'guess' the latter, because nirvana cannot be nailed down in an air tight theory.
Form -> morality
Feeling -> concentration
Perception -> wisdom
Formations -> liberation
Consciousness -> knowledge of liberation
In my opinion, the historical Buddha most likely believed transcending Mara's kingdom meant escaping samsara by becoming enlightened -- no "true self" needed.
If monism is opposed to dualism then it is a disguised form of dualism. It is an equal and opposite counterview. It would be a positive metaphysical position, as refuted by Nagarjuna. Nondualism is opposed to this kind of monism. I suspect that whenever we see a metaphysical contradiction we have departed from right view. Right view would be to see that in a sense dualism is true, in a sense monism is true, and ultimately nondualism is true.
You say - "Moreover, if such an entity actually did exist, exactly what function would it perform? If you are indeed correct to say that the Buddha was simply attempting to bring us to a realization of our "true self" through the dis-identification of the aggregates, then the following must be true of the "self":
1. It must be immaterial, for the Buddha taught form is not self.
2. It must be emotionless, for the Buddha taught feelings are not self.
3. It must be insentient, for the Buddha taught perception is not self.
4. It must be mindless, for the Buddha taught mental formations are not self.
5. It must be unconscious, for the Buddha taught consciousness is not self.
So what exactly would the nature of this entity be? That which is immaterial, emotionless, insentient, mindless, and unconsciois can hardly be called a "self" in my opinion. If your assertions are true, the only conclusion I'm able to reach is that our true "self" must be an impersonal force like gravity".
Spot on I'd say. 'Thou art that.' All separation would be an illusion. Hegel calls what remains a 'spiritual unity'. Bradley calls it the 'Real'. Plotinus calls it a 'Simplex'. Hindus calls it the 'unconditioned Brahman'. It would be unmanifest and lie beyond the coincidence of contradictories. I think sometimes it is called 'Self', (upper case) or 'True Self', since it would be the basis of our being and thus in a sense 'belong' to us, although it would be more nearly correct to imagine it is the other way around.
Without this ultimately real phenomenon, the one phenomenon to which the Abhidharma awards true and independent reality, then Buddhism would be Nihilism. Dis-identify with the aggregates and this is what is would be revealed.
Or something like this.
You are right to say that the view I've presented would make Buddhism nihilism, but I see no problem with this, as I view nihilism as the Middle Way between eternalism and annihilationism. As I've said a couple times before, as long as there is "me," there is "mine," which leads to clinging, which leads to craving, which leads to suffering; therefore, to overcome suffering we must strike it at it's roots -- the illusion of any type of "self," even one with a capital S.
(Audio)
Also the part is in itself contradictory. If we are here to put an end to suffering, but suffering is just a practice instruction, what are we going to put an end to?
Thanissaro is at least just as much a commentator as the old commentaries. Now we could wonder what is the corruption.
Well then there is no reason to think anatta is not a reality as it is treated similar as death and suffering in the perceptions of them. Of course it is not useful to attach to intellectual ideas, I would be the first to warn against that, but that in itself doesn't say anything about things being true or not. Death is no intellectual idea and neither is anatta if you can see it.
Also, Bhikkhu Bodhi says in http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/trilogy.htm : I'm not sure I agree on this as I think insight can arise without preliminary intellectual understanding, but anyway I don't think intellectual understanding (thus going beyond the 'practice instruction') necessarily hurts.