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.
Who asked the question? & To whom is the question directed?
Shoshin
No one in particularNowhere Special Veteran
When it comes to "Anatta" ... Who is it that asks the questions ? & Who is it that gives the answers ?
Umm now that's better....
0
Comments
And who is mindful of asking?
meh
mu
.
Whoever it is won't be around for very long so make the questions count.
Well, the question HAPPENS, the question is real. Who/what is asking and answering seems to be up for grabs though :P . It seems like one of those relative versus actual kinds of questions. Yes, it's real, but it's not necessarily 'true'.
The question is answered by the question. It's all the Question; Emptiness, Dependent Origination, flow flow; on and ever on. If that's not obtuse enough you can eat my shorts, by which I mean the question can question the question. Questions?
@Shoshin
Karma is the short answer...But
The form of your question seems to make assumptions that there is a questioning "who" related to Anatta, that can be interdependently labeled.
Like thinking that the naming of one part of the ocean really gives that named part some independence from it's whole.
Understanding the identity or ego's habituated tendency to place everything in the context of self and other, is a good platform from which to ask if this question is really about the support of a dream world or the awakening from it.
In this case, you are asking and I am answering.
Is this less true because we are only temporary?
The process of being asks and answers from differing and temporal perspectives and grows through interaction.
We are information sharing all over the place and there is absolutely always a result be it on a pool table or in the vacuum of space or even in the reproduction of what we call life.
An apple ripening to fruition is information sharing and the result of information being shared.
You and I are information sharing and the result of information being shared.
The heart of dependent origination is information being shared so let us not so easily dismiss that which is able to consciously ask questions.
You and me. Or me and you whatever the case may be. Simple question simple answer.
And if You have any compliccated objection to this I do recommend the Hammer test before bringing that up ...
.
EDIT Just in case you are of Finnish origin. Really, no kiddin, do not do the hammer test.
The hammer gives pain. But pain is not a self. The hammer does show how non-grasping of the skhandas is not a walk in the park.
The point with the test is:
It is the self that attaches to the pain.
If there is no attachment to the pain then it is possible to say:
There is no self.
/Victor
Do you mean the self pushing away the pain?
Attachment, aversion. Same-same but different, as they say in Thailand.
Yes, two sides of the same coin really.
I sometimes think of it as attachment to comfort ( non-pain ).
Yes I do mean that.
And I am not so sure about the conditional "there is no self" claim.
I guess I will know when I get there.
I think the no-self claim turns into a red herring at the point where people mistake absolute reality for conventional reality. The claim should be "there is no permanent, independent, essential core to a human being". That's what Buddhism teaches. If the word "self" is being used in different ways, we run into problems; and it is!
Clarification never hurts.
Exactly so.
That's just it... Somewhere along the line someone decided that to really exist, one would have to be permanent.
I think Buddha's style was and is logical and so I will always side with logic over faith.
The skandhas that deal with mental processing and your brain's ability to pose questions and figure out answers?
Thanks for the insightful comments....
In regards to the questions... Perhaps @how's karma short answer is right to the point, cause condition & effect, data bombarding the sense doors, stimulating a reaction of a sort...
It would seem the paradox is, when searching for this elusive "permanent" self (ie, the giver and receiver of information) , a sense of self is needed to do the searching...
I posted this before in another thread, it tends to sum the so called elusive self up neatly...
It is not so much that we have a self, it’s that we do self-ing. The self has no inherent, unconditional, absolute existence apart from the network of causes it arises from, in, and as!
The Self.....A convenient tool for a conventional world.....But Ultimately not required....
Yes indeed. Thanks everyone.
My undestanding of anatta is tied in with dependent origination. I can not be empty or void, or totally para-nirvanic whilst in physical manifestation. In fact I am quite happy to be a part time Boddhisattva if possible . . . That is my Ideal Self.
However my real self or real nature does not have soul or sole being independent of personal manifestation. My persona (C. S. Lobster) is formed or karmically dependent on body, location, socialisation and other temporary arisings and affiliations. In this sense even the Ideal Buddha Self is a delusion . . .
Oh the humanity.
As I understand it, @Shoshin, anatta does not mean that we have no self.
Rather, that what we conventionally accept as our recognizable self, does not stand on its own, but is the product of many causes and interactions.
As @lobster said above, DO is closely intertwined with the notion of anatta.
It's funny because as we look for a self, we are looking with the self (a temporary self but a self none the less)... It's like trying to find a microscope by looking through said microscope.
Reminds me of a half baked joke my older brother tried when our folks were driving. He screamed "My eyes, my eyes... I can't see them!"
The parents were not amused as we were on the highway. I think that was when I learned why it's illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater.
Disciple: Oh wise and all knowing one, take me to the realm of perfect peace.
Master: If I take you to that realm, it will no longer be peaceful.
When it comes to explaining the "self", one of my favourite Buddhist philosophers is "Nagasena" (or Nāgārjuna)...
The five aggregates acting in unison give the illusion of a self; a perceived self if you will.
Each of the aggregates when examined individually is empty, no essence, no permanence whatsoever.
In the Milindapanha, the arahant Nagasena describes it well with the talk on the chariot and the parts of the chariot.
Nagasena asks if the pole of the chariot is the chariot. Answer, no. Nagasena asks if the axel is the chariot or if the wheels are the chariot. Answer, no. Nagasena asks if the reins are the chariot. To this and further questions about the parts, the answer is no.
Nagasena explains that the chariot is not something other than these parts. Yet the parts are not the chariot. Nagasena states that chariot is just a word, it exists, but only in relation to the parts. The concept "chariot" does not have an intrinsic, inherent value or place as something permanent. It is the same with the self. We certainly exist, just as a chariot exists, but it is more in terms of conventional language as opposed to absolute language.
Nagasena developed this excellent teaching from the wise words of Venerable Vajjira, a bhikkhuni who lived during the time of the Buddha. She once remarked:
"Just as, with an assemblage of parts, the word chariot is used, so when the aggregates exist, there is the convention of being." Samyutta Nikaya 5.554
_