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
@David said:
Since the Bahiya Sutta was mentioned earlier I was wondering if anyone in the "no-I" camp can tell me exactly what self Buddha is referring to when he says to train yourself.
Any takers?
The conventional self.
Are you not negating one of those truths by claiming the lack of individuals? Both truths work together. One is not more "true" than the other.
You're not negating the absolute truth by claiming the lack of self, that IS one of the truths
That's the problem I see with the term "absolute" truth for one of the Two. It makes people see the subjective experience as somehow fake.
Its not absolute vs subjective, its absolute or ultimate vs relative or conventional. By defining the conventional as subjective there is a greater chance that you will misunderstand.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I would have thought that, as you trying to clarify anything with @SpinyNorman hasn't been particularly effective so far, then you'd have appreciated that seeking further clarification is not going to be any more effective, any time soon....
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
Since the Bahiya Sutta was mentioned earlier I was wondering if anyone in the "no-I" camp can tell me exactly what self Buddha is referring to when he says to train yourself.
Any takers?
The conventional self.
Are you not negating one of those truths by claiming the lack of individuals? Both truths work together. One is not more "true" than the other.
You're not negating the absolute truth by claiming the lack of self, that IS one of the truths
How can we train the lack of a conventional self? And why would compassion for individuals come into play when there are none?
I can see negating a soul but apart from that, negating people seems delusional.
That's the problem I see with the term "absolute" truth for one of the Two. It makes people see the subjective experience as somehow fake.
Its not absolute vs subjective, its absolute or ultimate vs relative or conventional. By defining the conventional as subjective there is a greater chance that you will misunderstand.
So the conventional and relative self is not subjective then?
How so?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
I would have thought that, as you trying to clarify anything with @SpinyNorman hasn't been particularly effective so far, then you'd have appreciated that seeking further clarification is not going to be any more effective, any time soon....
Meh. Fine, I'll leave him out of it from now on.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
Since the Bahiya Sutta was mentioned earlier I was wondering if anyone in the "no-I" camp can tell me exactly what self Buddha is referring to when he says to train yourself.
Any takers?
The conventional self.
Are you not negating one of those truths by claiming the lack of individuals? Both truths work together. One is not more "true" than the other.
You're not negating the absolute truth by claiming the lack of self, that IS one of the truths
How can we train the lack of a conventional self? And why would compassion for individuals come into play when there are none?
I wonder if you're not intentionally misunderstanding now. There IS a conventional self, no one is saying there is a lack of convention. If you look deeper what is lacking is an essence, a core being apart from its properties and components. There are TWO truths, a conventional self that suffers and feels compassion but ultimately is empty. You consistently keep arguing that we are saying no conventional self when we are negating an ultimate self, like there is only one truth and by negating one we are negating all.
That's the problem I see with the term "absolute" truth for one of the Two. It makes people see the subjective experience as somehow fake.
Its not absolute vs subjective, its absolute or ultimate vs relative or conventional. By defining the conventional as subjective there is a greater chance that you will misunderstand.
So the conventional and relative self is not subjective then?
How so?
I'm not really sure I understand your point here. But I'd say there is subjectivity with the conventional self but the fact is really tangential to the point, like saying the conventional has emotion or vision. Subjectivity is one of the qualities that make up the conventional self but doesn't address the overall nature of convention.
@namarupa said:
I forgot somehow that the topic is categorized under "meditation". Yes "who or what am I?" Can be a great meditation object. It does help ease the tension of attachment in real life. How often that is needed, I don't really know.
To be honest, the only reason it's under Meditation is that I can't choose the Category when starting a post on my phone
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
Since the Bahiya Sutta was mentioned earlier I was wondering if anyone in the "no-I" camp can tell me exactly what self Buddha is referring to when he says to train yourself.
Any takers?
The conventional self.
Are you not negating one of those truths by claiming the lack of individuals? Both truths work together. One is not more "true" than the other.
You're not negating the absolute truth by claiming the lack of self, that IS one of the truths
How can we train the lack of a conventional self? And why would compassion for individuals come into play when there are none?
I wonder if you're not intentionally misunderstanding now. There IS a conventional self, no one is saying there is a lack of convention. If you look deeper what is lacking is an essence, a core being apart from its properties and components. There are TWO truths, a conventional self that suffers and feels compassion but ultimately is empty. You consistently keep arguing that we are saying no conventional self when we are negating an ultimate self, like there is only one truth and by negating one we are negating all.
I am just trying to get my head around all the double speak. Things like "There is suffering but nobody to suffer" is not all that helpful and neither is calling a soul a self.
You guys don't have to keep beating the Two Truths bit, I've been studying this stuff for decades as well and just because I question the logic behind some terms doesn't mean I don't understand the Two truths or the Middle way.
That's the problem I see with the term "absolute" truth for one of the Two. It makes people see the subjective experience as somehow fake.
Its not absolute vs subjective, its absolute or ultimate vs relative or conventional. By defining the conventional as subjective there is a greater chance that you will misunderstand.
So the conventional and relative self is not subjective then?
How so?
I'm not really sure I understand your point here.
It was a question, not a point. I'm trying to picture it to understand your perspective.
What we call self is caused by various conditions. And since these conditions keep changing, so does the self. Therefore, there is no permanent self. This doesn't negate individuality. It only negates the feeling that there is a permanent 'I' within us.
8
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@techie said:
What we call self is caused by various conditions. And since these conditions keep changing, so does the self. Therefore, there is no permanent self. This doesn't negate individuality. It only negates the feeling that there is a permanent 'I' within us.
Well said.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited August 2016
@techie said:
What we call self is caused by various conditions. And since these conditions keep changing, so does the self. Therefore, there is no permanent self. This doesn't negate individuality. It only negates the feeling that there is a permanent 'I' within us.
I made this point I think in the other anatta thread, its the idea of an ever changing self. If we took a snapshot in time of the changing self we still wouldn't find an essential "I". That snapshot, conventional self is rightly said to be caused by various conditions and its the conditions that make up the conventional self that change not an essential self that changes over time.
By whom or what as there is no 'no self'? [yep that is the meaningless 'round in circles ever born' question ...]
Very well and succinctly said @techie. Those of us who look for 'our self' in meditation or contemplation find nothing that is not composite or composed of arisings as depicted by the face in @persons pic. That is the 'dependent origination' of the person. No being without arisings.
The persona or subjective personality arises from the stream and ignorant attachment to the components as a 'me'.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David
Here are some official answers to your question about compassion and emptiness.
Essentially there seem to be two explanations. One is in the realization of true emptiness there is a non-dual union with compassion, these states are one and the same. Two, by eliminating the barrier between self and other our natural concern to relieve our own suffering becomes the natural concern to relieve all suffering.
“There was a young @Bunks who said though, it seems that I know that I know, but what I would like to see is the I that knows me when I know that I know that I know.”
~We (the "I") didn't come into this world...We (the "I") came out of it~ Mr A W Watts
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
@person said: @David
Here are some official answers to your question about compassion and emptiness.
Essentially there seem to be two explanations. One is in the realization of true emptiness there is a non-dual union with compassion, these states are one and the same. Two, by eliminating the barrier between self and other our natural concern to relieve our own suffering becomes the natural concern to relieve all suffering.
Ah but this is different than negation of the "I". It's all good, I know you aren't really negating the individual.
If you read my earlier posts on this thread and the other self thread before there was arguing, you should see that I'm actually saying the same thing.
It is not the actual doctrine I question, it's the terminology we decide to use when translating and interpreting.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
@Bunks, I only went the direction I did because the emptiness of self is sometimes seen as rather depressing and can lead to a nihilistic mind-set if not presented in such a way as to reinforce the logic of compassion. If it does then it isn't seen as depressing at all.
If we can't have compassion for our sense of "I" whether illusory or not but try to have it for others then it still feeds the disease of us and "them".
@techie said:
What we call self is caused by various conditions. And since these conditions keep changing, so does the self. Therefore, there is no permanent self. This doesn't negate individuality. It only negates the feeling that there is a permanent 'I' within us.
If by "individuality" you mean that my bundle of aggregates or characteristics is different to yours, then yes, of course. If by "individuality" you mean an essence beneath those characteristics then I'd disagree, and that idea isn't supported by the teachings on anatta and sunyata.
@lobster said:The persona or subjective personality arises from the stream and ignorant attachment to the components as a 'me'.
That is certainly how the suttas describe it, self-view results from identifying with the aggregates as "me" and "mine". "My thoughts", "my feelings", and so on.
The Bahiya Sutta passage describes the cessation of self-view, which is the result of insight into anatta:
"When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
And in the first verse of the Heart Sutra, we find a similar insight into the emptiness of the aggregates:
These are of course liberating insights, and the notion that they are "nihilistic" is ridiculous.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
For the record, I never once said anything about the Bodhisattva code, emptiness or even the Bahiya Sutta as being nihilistic.
Sneaky straw-man. And someone accusing another of projection once again projects.
There is willful ignorance and there is convenient misrepresentation. Ironically, the insinuation that anything other than personal interpretation of these things is in question is a straw-man created by someone that loves using the term.
But that's none of my business.
Emptiness if understood is far from nihilistic but if expressed in such a way as to negate the person then it could be seen as such. We walk the Middle Way for a purpose.
Buddha negated the idea of a soul, not unique people even as we are all a part of the same process of change.
To be selfless is not a negation but a confirmation.
Am I the only one here that has heard the teachings of emptiness come with a warning label as not to be misconstrued as nihilistic?
Can't be.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited August 2016
I'd recommend everyone checking out this section on the debate between Madhyamika-Prasangika and Madhyamika-Svatantrika schools. It seems to be on point here.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I tried to read that a few weeks ago when it was posted on another thread but didn't have the time.
My interpretation doesn't involve an affirmative negation nor a non-affirmative negation but a confirmation of sunyata which in my view is more positively understood as conditional change or the potential for change.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
My interpretation doesn't involve an affirmative negation nor a non-affirmative negation but a confirmation of sunyata which in my view is more positively understood as conditional change or the potential for change.
What's your take on my example of the individual frozen in time. Without it changing what is its status?
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I couldn't really say. As I don't think there is a smallest increment of time, it would be like trying to find a drop that has been absorbed by an ocean.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
I couldn't really say. As I don't think there is a smallest increment of time, it would be like trying to find a drop that has been absorbed by an ocean.
It probably would be impossible to locate, but if nothing happens at a distinct point in time when does it happen?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I couldn't really say. As I don't think there is a smallest increment of time, it would be like trying to find a drop that has been absorbed by an ocean.
It probably would be impossible to locate, but if nothing happens at a distinct point in time when does it happen?
When conditions allow is about the best I can do.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
I couldn't really say. As I don't think there is a smallest increment of time, it would be like trying to find a drop that has been absorbed by an ocean.
It probably would be impossible to locate, but if nothing happens at a distinct point in time when does it happen?
When conditions allow is about the best I can do.
Alright, I guess the point isn't to try to define the present. Let's relate it back to my original question about the individual at one moment in time rather than defining it dependent upon change?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I'm not sure I'm able to suspend my disbelief long enough for this hypothetical scenario or wrap my head around it but I will try.
If the individual sense of self cannot be isolated within an increment of form, I don't think I could isolate one in any increment of time either.
Not to say it doesn't exist but that it takes up no space and space and time are aspects of the same phenomenon.
I guess it would be no more the individual than an actual photograph is the event depicted in said photograph.
Without the action, there is no being because being is a verb, not a thing.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
This is getting pretty obscure like we're talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. But I think we're making progress and your response is new so I had to give it some thought.
I'm not sure I'm able to suspend my disbelief long enough for this hypothetical scenario or wrap my head around it but I will try.
This is a subtle, probably unintentional, way to try to minimize my argument to make it seem lesser. I don't think its any more hypothetical though to try reduce an individual to a moment in time than it is to try to reduce an individual to one single discrete cause or condition, ie. distinguishing a thing from its parts.
If the individual sense of self cannot be isolated within an increment of form, I don't think I could isolate one in any increment of time either.
Sounds like nihilism to me.
Not to say it doesn't exist but that it takes up no space and space and time are aspects of the same phenomenon.
So it takes up no space and therefore no time so my argument about a distinct point in time is invalid because there is no time in this case?
I guess it would be no more the individual than an actual photograph is the event depicted in said photograph.
Without the action, there is no being because being is a verb, not a thing.
Again with the nihilism. Calling a being a verb is just another way of defining a self changing over time and avoids my question.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Sorry you feel that way but I'm not sure how you could possibly get nihilism out of that, lol.
I'm trying to make sense of a hypothetical situation as I don't think there are really little chunks of time or that space/time is something we can stop and observe from the outside.
Again, I'm shaking my head wondering how saying the being is in the action and is not a thing equates to the meaninglessness of nihilism.
I am just giving you an honest answer and am not trying to belittle anything.
Perspective is a funny thing.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Sorry you feel that way but I'm not sure how you could possibly get nihilism out of that, lol.
I'm trying to make sense of a hypothetical situation as I don't think there are really little chunks of time or that space/time is something we can stop and observe from the outside.
Again, I'm shaking my head wondering how saying the being is in the action and is not a thing equates to the meaninglessness of nihilism.
Perspective is a funny thing.
Shoe is on the other foot now isn't it? That's kind of where I've been, wondering how you could say "no self" equates to nihilism.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
Yes, I was just going to say I'm getting a taste of my own medicine, lol.
I use "not-self" instead of "no-self" because nothing I can point to is me but I can find myself in the pointing.
A process within a process but not a thing to be isolated.
The first noble truth is that birth, old age, sickness, and death is suffering. If you can accept this, everything else will be easy to understand.
Self is the ability to make choices. Not self is when things happen beyond our control. Anything that we can point to that we think is self is actually not self because the illusion is permanence and control.
Compassion plays a role in accepting "not self" because once you see suffering for what it is, it is developed by wanting to be happy. By finding happiness in the most unlikely places, it is natural to want share that knowledge with others.
Compassion plays a role in accepting "not self" because once you see suffering for what it is, it is developed by wanting to be happy. By finding happiness in the most unlikely places, it is natural to want share that knowledge with others.
Who said that? Not me!
Welcome to born again dharma, let's evangelise - not!
Idk some people don't even see how metta/loving kindness/compassion fits into dharma or practice. I just want to tell them that it is something that naturally happens upon seeing truth. Such as seeing an old, sick, or dying person, if you don't have any compassion for them at all, it could mean you have distanced yourself or don't see how you are tied to the same suffering.
@namarupa said:
Idk some people don't even see how metta/loving kindness/compassion fits into dharma or practice. I just want to tell them that it is something that naturally happens upon seeing truth. Such as seeing an old, sick, or dying person, if you don't have any compassion for them at all, it could mean you have distanced yourself or don't see how you are tied to the same suffering.
Eh? Buddhist practice inevitably makes us more sensitive to suffering, both our own and other peoples'. And of course the less ego-centric we become, the more sensitive we are to the needs of others.
@person said:> I made this point I think in the other anatta thread, its the idea of an ever changing self. If we took a snapshot in time of the changing self we still wouldn't find an essential "I". That snapshot, conventional self is rightly said to be caused by various conditions and its the conditions that make up the conventional self that change not an essential self that changes over time.
I think "changing conditions" captures what we experience very well. Changing sensations, sights, sounds, moods, etc., these are all conditioned and conditional.
"Sabbe sankhara anicca" = all conditions are transient.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@namarupa said:
Idk some people don't even see how metta/loving kindness/compassion fits into dharma or practice.
I don't think I saw this on this thread. I did question where compassion comes into play for some belief systems such as there being no self at all but that is very different.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I believe I saw a comment on one of the threads about self which went along the lines of "experience is the self" and I just found a great teaching by Ajahn Chah on identification with the body which really helped.
It went, "If you tell the body what to do, it doesn't really obey. You tell it not to age or not to get sick, and it just does it anyway. So the body is not truly ours, we merely borrow it." For me that really hit home... The body is part of the world's interconnected fabric, it is more part of the world than of any distinct concept of self we might have.
@namarupa said:
Idk some people don't even see how metta/loving kindness/compassion fits into dharma or practice.
I don't think I saw this on this thread. I did question where compassion comes into play for some belief systems such as there being no self at all but that is very different.
No it was a long time ago. Someone said it here, that person is banned now. Figures
@Kerome said:
I believe I saw a comment on one of the threads about self which went along the lines of "experience is the self" and I just found a great teaching by Ajahn Chah on identification with the body which really helped.
It went, "If you tell the body what to do, it doesn't really obey. You tell it not to age or not to get sick, and it just does it anyway. So the body is not truly ours, we merely borrow it." For me that really hit home... The body is part of the world's interconnected fabric, it is more part of the world than of any distinct concept of self we might have.
The body really isn't anybody's until we take ownership and claimed it to be ours. Same for feelings, thoughts and perceptions. Once we realise there isn't anything solid at the centre, the grip loosens.
"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree?"
Yes, the Phena Sutta has that well-known verse, reminiscent of the Heart Sutra:
"Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them appropriately."
I was also looking again at MN28, which is about the internal and external elements of form:
"Now there comes a time, friends, when the external wind property is provoked and blows away village, town, city, district, & country. There comes a time when, in the last month of the hot season, people try to start a breeze with a fan or bellows, and even the grass at the fringe of a thatch roof doesn't stir.
"So when even in the external wind property — so vast — inconstancy will be discerned, destructibility will be discerned, a tendency to decay will be discerned, changeability will be discerned, then what in this short-lasting body, sustained by clinging, is 'I' or 'mine' or 'what I am'? It has here only a 'no." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html
"Now there comes a time, friends, when the external liquid property is provoked and washes away village, town, city, district, & country. There comes a time when the water in the great ocean drops down one hundred leagues, two hundred... three hundred... four hundred... five hundred... six hundred... seven hundred leagues. There comes a time when the water in the great ocean stands seven palm-trees deep, six... five... four... three... two palm-trees deep, one palm-tree deep. There comes a time when the water in the great ocean stands seven fathoms deep, six... five... four... three... two fathoms deep, one fathom deep. There comes a time when the water in the great ocean stands half a fathom deep, hip-deep, knee-deep, ankle deep. There comes a time when the water in the great ocean is not even the depth of the first joint of a finger."
Curious that the Buddha seems to say that such an event is inevitable all those years ago!
Impermanence is everywhere. Galaxies, planets and stars as we know today. What more the body? In short nothing lasts forever.
"Friends, just as when — in dependence on timber, vines, grass, & clay — space is enclosed and is gathered under the term 'house,' in the same way, when space is enclosed in dependence on bones, tendons, muscle, & skin, it is gathered under the term, 'form.'"
What is the distinct re-birthing component made of? Rainbows or fairy dust? Just asking ...
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
It's all very well to talk about the substance of the body being not one's own, but it is indisputably true that the body is still the locality of the senses - it is our point of focus in the material world, from which our senses spread out. That alone designates this body and this brain as a special point of interface for the entity "I".
It still puzzles me a little, how to resolve the question around the "I".
@Kerome said:
It's all very well to talk about the substance of the body being not one's own, but it is indisputably true that the body is still the locality of the senses - it is our point of focus in the material world, from which our senses spread out. That alone designates this body and this brain as a special point of interface for the entity "I".
It still puzzles me a little, how to resolve the question around the "I".
Clearly there are individual bundles of aggregates with a body and unique point of view, which by convention we call a person or being. What is being questioned here is self-view, the assumption of an "I" which owns these aggregates or characteristics, the notion of somebody who experiences stuff. What is being challenged is assumptions like "my body", "my thoughts", "my feelings", "my character", "my personality", when really there are just bodily sensation, thoughts, feelings and character traits.
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
If there is personal karma then we own our actions but little else. It is hard to point to action but Buddha was not telling us we had no responsibilities. Quite the opposite in fact.
Energy=work=action
What we do with the tools we use is who we are.
We don't have to last forever to be or to have consequence.
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@Kerome said:
It's all very well to talk about the substance of the body being not one's own, but it is indisputably true that the body is still the locality of the senses - it is our point of focus in the material world, from which our senses spread out. That alone designates this body and this brain as a special point of interface for the entity "I".
It still puzzles me a little, how to resolve the question around the "I".
Clearly there are individual bundles of aggregates with a body and unique point of view, which by convention we call a person or being. What is being questioned here is self-view, the assumption of an "I" which owns these aggregates or characteristics, the notion of somebody who experiences stuff. What is being challenged is assumptions like "my body", "my thoughts", "my feelings", "my character", "my personality", when really there are just bodily sensation, thoughts, feelings and character traits.
However, if you say there is no person there, it's all just mechanics down to these various aspects of the body, the mind, the character and so on, isn't that coming very close to determinism? I understood that the Buddha spoke out strongly against determinism and a lack of personal responsibility as standing in the way of right effort, and if the 'I' doesn't have influence on the outcome of the thoughts, feelings actions and so on, then it seems to tend against that.
Or is it just a case of not taking ownership? Of agreeing that there is some core part of us that exerts an influence, where we make an effort, but that part does not own the senses, thoughts, feelings and so on? But doesn't that just move the point of 'I' to the core part of us that does act?
@Kerome said:
It's all very well to talk about the substance of the body being not one's own, but it is indisputably true that the body is still the locality of the senses - it is our point of focus in the material world, from which our senses spread out. That alone designates this body and this brain as a special point of interface for the entity "I".
It still puzzles me a little, how to resolve the question around the "I".
Clearly there are individual bundles of aggregates with a body and unique point of view, which by convention we call a person or being. What is being questioned here is self-view, the assumption of an "I" which owns these aggregates or characteristics, the notion of somebody who experiences stuff. What is being challenged is assumptions like "my body", "my thoughts", "my feelings", "my character", "my personality", when really there are just bodily sensation, thoughts, feelings and character traits.
However, if you say there is no person there, it's all just mechanics down to these various aspects of the body, the mind, the character and so on, isn't that coming very close to determinism? I understood that the Buddha spoke out strongly against determinism and a lack of personal responsibility as standing in the way of right effort, and if the 'I' doesn't have influence on the outcome of the thoughts, feelings actions and so on, then it seems to tend against that.
Or is it just a case of not taking ownership? Of agreeing that there is some core part of us that exerts an influence, where we make an effort, but that part does not own the senses, thoughts, feelings and so on? But doesn't that just move the point of 'I' to the core part of us that does act?
Still confused.
Intention or volition is an important aspect of the sankhara aggregate, but intentions arise in dependence on conditions and are not owned by an "I". You could say that Buddhist practice is about creating the right conditions for wholesome intentions to arise.
This might sound counter-intuitive, but it's becomes much clearer with the practice of mindfulness, seeing how intentions arise and what they depend on.
You are? Tsk, tsk
Continuity between components is how the 'ghost in the machine' determines, 'I AM REAL'.
The Buddha through intense introspection, examined and searched for the distinction. Do the same.
Meditate.
Everything that arises - find if 'you are in them'. You will be in all the arisings, sometimes more, sometimes less.
For example I tend to be very aware of self when I drop a brick on my foot. Ouch! However I am not the brick, not the dropping, not the sensation. Oh the sensation of 'ouch' is there no doubt but ...
When you find this unique self let us know what it is like.
I for one need to know before I disintegrate into the dust I arose from ... http://opcoa.st/0vrMc
If you need help on examining and realising this component 'self' try the liberation unleashed guided forum process ...
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I find it hard to shake the notion that I do not have some influence on the direction of my thoughts and life. Granted the total scope of my decisions is limited by the scope of my previous thoughts, but given four possible life altering decisions, I can still pick and choose one that I like, or one at random.
It's a decision based on what to give focus to in life. You can give focus to Buddhism, or you can give focus to Christianity, or to the Dairy Lama. It's still a choice, perhaps the only one we truly have. Although it is debateable that this also guides your thoughts at times - that by choosing to give your attention to one thing over another, you are placing it in the limelight and you may well end up executing it.
Comments
The conventional self.
You're not negating the absolute truth by claiming the lack of self, that IS one of the truths
Its not absolute vs subjective, its absolute or ultimate vs relative or conventional. By defining the conventional as subjective there is a greater chance that you will misunderstand.
I would have thought that, as you trying to clarify anything with @SpinyNorman hasn't been particularly effective so far, then you'd have appreciated that seeking further clarification is not going to be any more effective, any time soon....
How can we train the lack of a conventional self? And why would compassion for individuals come into play when there are none?
I can see negating a soul but apart from that, negating people seems delusional.
So the conventional and relative self is not subjective then?
How so?
Meh. Fine, I'll leave him out of it from now on.
I wonder if you're not intentionally misunderstanding now. There IS a conventional self, no one is saying there is a lack of convention. If you look deeper what is lacking is an essence, a core being apart from its properties and components. There are TWO truths, a conventional self that suffers and feels compassion but ultimately is empty. You consistently keep arguing that we are saying no conventional self when we are negating an ultimate self, like there is only one truth and by negating one we are negating all.
I'm not really sure I understand your point here. But I'd say there is subjectivity with the conventional self but the fact is really tangential to the point, like saying the conventional has emotion or vision. Subjectivity is one of the qualities that make up the conventional self but doesn't address the overall nature of convention.
To be honest, the only reason it's under Meditation is that I can't choose the Category when starting a post on my phone
I am just trying to get my head around all the double speak. Things like "There is suffering but nobody to suffer" is not all that helpful and neither is calling a soul a self.
You guys don't have to keep beating the Two Truths bit, I've been studying this stuff for decades as well and just because I question the logic behind some terms doesn't mean I don't understand the Two truths or the Middle way.
It was a question, not a point. I'm trying to picture it to understand your perspective.
What we call self is caused by various conditions. And since these conditions keep changing, so does the self. Therefore, there is no permanent self. This doesn't negate individuality. It only negates the feeling that there is a permanent 'I' within us.
Well said.
I made this point I think in the other anatta thread, its the idea of an ever changing self. If we took a snapshot in time of the changing self we still wouldn't find an essential "I". That snapshot, conventional self is rightly said to be caused by various conditions and its the conditions that make up the conventional self that change not an essential self that changes over time.
So not like this
But more like this
By whom or what as there is no 'no self'?
[yep that is the meaningless 'round in circles ever born' question ...] 
Very well and succinctly said @techie. Those of us who look for 'our self' in meditation or contemplation find nothing that is not composite or composed of arisings as depicted by the face in @persons pic. That is the 'dependent origination' of the person. No being without arisings.
The persona or subjective personality arises from the stream and ignorant attachment to the components as a 'me'.
@David
Here are some official answers to your question about compassion and emptiness.
http://www.unfetteredmind.org/awakening-compassion/
http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/09/emptiness_and_c.html
http://www.mountainrunnerdoc.com/emptiness_is_empty.html
Essentially there seem to be two explanations. One is in the realization of true emptiness there is a non-dual union with compassion, these states are one and the same. Two, by eliminating the barrier between self and other our natural concern to relieve our own suffering becomes the natural concern to relieve all suffering.
“There was a young @Bunks who said though, it seems that I know that I know, but what I would like to see is the I that knows me when I know that I know that I know.”
~We (the "I") didn't come into this world...We (the "I") came out of it~
Mr A W Watts
Ah but this is different than negation of the "I". It's all good, I know you aren't really negating the individual.
If you read my earlier posts on this thread and the other self thread before there was arguing, you should see that I'm actually saying the same thing.
It is not the actual doctrine I question, it's the terminology we decide to use when translating and interpreting.
@techie explained it perfectly and simply above.
@Bunks, I only went the direction I did because the emptiness of self is sometimes seen as rather depressing and can lead to a nihilistic mind-set if not presented in such a way as to reinforce the logic of compassion. If it does then it isn't seen as depressing at all.
If we can't have compassion for our sense of "I" whether illusory or not but try to have it for others then it still feeds the disease of us and "them".
In short, I was just checking.
If by "individuality" you mean that my bundle of aggregates or characteristics is different to yours, then yes, of course. If by "individuality" you mean an essence beneath those characteristics then I'd disagree, and that idea isn't supported by the teachings on anatta and sunyata.
"Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn05/sn05.010.bodh.html
That is certainly how the suttas describe it, self-view results from identifying with the aggregates as "me" and "mine". "My thoughts", "my feelings", and so on.
The Bahiya Sutta passage describes the cessation of self-view, which is the result of insight into anatta:
"When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
And in the first verse of the Heart Sutra, we find a similar insight into the emptiness of the aggregates:
"The Bodhisattva of Compassion,
When he meditated deeply,
Saw the emptiness of all five skandhas
And sundered the bonds that caused him suffering"
http://www.fwbo-news.org/resources/heart_sutra.pdf
These are of course liberating insights, and the notion that they are "nihilistic" is ridiculous.
For the record, I never once said anything about the Bodhisattva code, emptiness or even the Bahiya Sutta as being nihilistic.
Sneaky straw-man. And someone accusing another of projection once again projects.
There is willful ignorance and there is convenient misrepresentation. Ironically, the insinuation that anything other than personal interpretation of these things is in question is a straw-man created by someone that loves using the term.
But that's none of my business.
Emptiness if understood is far from nihilistic but if expressed in such a way as to negate the person then it could be seen as such. We walk the Middle Way for a purpose.
Buddha negated the idea of a soul, not unique people even as we are all a part of the same process of change.
To be selfless is not a negation but a confirmation.
Am I the only one here that has heard the teachings of emptiness come with a warning label as not to be misconstrued as nihilistic?
Can't be.
I'd recommend everyone checking out this section on the debate between Madhyamika-Prasangika and Madhyamika-Svatantrika schools. It seems to be on point here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasaṅgika#Sv.C4.81tantrika_debate
Edit: And then this one too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svatantrika#Debates
I tried to read that a few weeks ago when it was posted on another thread but didn't have the time.
My interpretation doesn't involve an affirmative negation nor a non-affirmative negation but a confirmation of sunyata which in my view is more positively understood as conditional change or the potential for change.
What's your take on my example of the individual frozen in time. Without it changing what is its status?
I couldn't really say. As I don't think there is a smallest increment of time, it would be like trying to find a drop that has been absorbed by an ocean.
It probably would be impossible to locate, but if nothing happens at a distinct point in time when does it happen?
When conditions allow is about the best I can do.
Alright, I guess the point isn't to try to define the present. Let's relate it back to my original question about the individual at one moment in time rather than defining it dependent upon change?
@person;
I'm not sure I'm able to suspend my disbelief long enough for this hypothetical scenario or wrap my head around it but I will try.
If the individual sense of self cannot be isolated within an increment of form, I don't think I could isolate one in any increment of time either.
Not to say it doesn't exist but that it takes up no space and space and time are aspects of the same phenomenon.
I guess it would be no more the individual than an actual photograph is the event depicted in said photograph.
Without the action, there is no being because being is a verb, not a thing.
This is getting pretty obscure like we're talking about how many angels fit on the head of a pin. But I think we're making progress and your response is new so I had to give it some thought.
This is a subtle, probably unintentional, way to try to minimize my argument to make it seem lesser. I don't think its any more hypothetical though to try reduce an individual to a moment in time than it is to try to reduce an individual to one single discrete cause or condition, ie. distinguishing a thing from its parts.
Sounds like nihilism to me.
So it takes up no space and therefore no time so my argument about a distinct point in time is invalid because there is no time in this case?
Again with the nihilism. Calling a being a verb is just another way of defining a self changing over time and avoids my question.
@person;
Sorry you feel that way but I'm not sure how you could possibly get nihilism out of that, lol.
I'm trying to make sense of a hypothetical situation as I don't think there are really little chunks of time or that space/time is something we can stop and observe from the outside.
Again, I'm shaking my head wondering how saying the being is in the action and is not a thing equates to the meaninglessness of nihilism.
I am just giving you an honest answer and am not trying to belittle anything.
Perspective is a funny thing.
Alright, well the issue of whether space/time is continuous or made of discrete chunks is still up for grabs so that is a defensible position.
Shoe is on the other foot now isn't it? That's kind of where I've been, wondering how you could say "no self" equates to nihilism.
Yes, I was just going to say I'm getting a taste of my own medicine, lol.
I use "not-self" instead of "no-self" because nothing I can point to is me but I can find myself in the pointing.
A process within a process but not a thing to be isolated.
The first noble truth is that birth, old age, sickness, and death is suffering. If you can accept this, everything else will be easy to understand.
Self is the ability to make choices. Not self is when things happen beyond our control. Anything that we can point to that we think is self is actually not self because the illusion is permanence and control.
Compassion plays a role in accepting "not self" because once you see suffering for what it is, it is developed by wanting to be happy. By finding happiness in the most unlikely places, it is natural to want share that knowledge with others.
Who said that? Not me!
Welcome to born again dharma, let's evangelise - not!
Idk some people don't even see how metta/loving kindness/compassion fits into dharma or practice. I just want to tell them that it is something that naturally happens upon seeing truth. Such as seeing an old, sick, or dying person, if you don't have any compassion for them at all, it could mean you have distanced yourself or don't see how you are tied to the same suffering.
Eh? Buddhist practice inevitably makes us more sensitive to suffering, both our own and other peoples'. And of course the less ego-centric we become, the more sensitive we are to the needs of others.
I think "changing conditions" captures what we experience very well. Changing sensations, sights, sounds, moods, etc., these are all conditioned and conditional.
"Sabbe sankhara anicca" = all conditions are transient.
I don't think I saw this on this thread. I did question where compassion comes into play for some belief systems such as there being no self at all but that is very different.
I believe I saw a comment on one of the threads about self which went along the lines of "experience is the self" and I just found a great teaching by Ajahn Chah on identification with the body which really helped.
It went, "If you tell the body what to do, it doesn't really obey. You tell it not to age or not to get sick, and it just does it anyway. So the body is not truly ours, we merely borrow it." For me that really hit home... The body is part of the world's interconnected fabric, it is more part of the world than of any distinct concept of self we might have.
No it was a long time ago. Someone said it here, that person is banned now. Figures
The body really isn't anybody's until we take ownership and claimed it to be ours. Same for feelings, thoughts and perceptions. Once we realise there isn't anything solid at the centre, the grip loosens.
"Now suppose that a man desiring heartwood, in quest of heartwood, seeking heartwood, were to go into a forest carrying a sharp ax. There he would see a large banana tree: straight, young, of enormous height. He would cut it at the root and, having cut it at the root, would chop off the top. Having chopped off the top, he would peel away the outer skin. Peeling away the outer skin, he wouldn't even find sapwood, to say nothing of heartwood. Then a man with good eyesight would see it, observe it, & appropriately examine it. To him — seeing it, observing it, & appropriately examining it — it would appear empty, void, without substance: for what substance would there be in a banana tree?"
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.095.than.html
Yes, the Phena Sutta has that well-known verse, reminiscent of the Heart Sutra:
"Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them appropriately."
I was also looking again at MN28, which is about the internal and external elements of form:
"Now there comes a time, friends, when the external wind property is provoked and blows away village, town, city, district, & country. There comes a time when, in the last month of the hot season, people try to start a breeze with a fan or bellows, and even the grass at the fringe of a thatch roof doesn't stir.
"So when even in the external wind property — so vast — inconstancy will be discerned, destructibility will be discerned, a tendency to decay will be discerned, changeability will be discerned, then what in this short-lasting body, sustained by clinging, is 'I' or 'mine' or 'what I am'? It has here only a 'no."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.028.than.html
"Now there comes a time, friends, when the external liquid property is provoked and washes away village, town, city, district, & country. There comes a time when the water in the great ocean drops down one hundred leagues, two hundred... three hundred... four hundred... five hundred... six hundred... seven hundred leagues. There comes a time when the water in the great ocean stands seven palm-trees deep, six... five... four... three... two palm-trees deep, one palm-tree deep. There comes a time when the water in the great ocean stands seven fathoms deep, six... five... four... three... two fathoms deep, one fathom deep. There comes a time when the water in the great ocean stands half a fathom deep, hip-deep, knee-deep, ankle deep. There comes a time when the water in the great ocean is not even the depth of the first joint of a finger."
Curious that the Buddha seems to say that such an event is inevitable all those years ago!
Impermanence is everywhere. Galaxies, planets and stars as we know today. What more the body? In short nothing lasts forever.
"Friends, just as when — in dependence on timber, vines, grass, & clay — space is enclosed and is gathered under the term 'house,' in the same way, when space is enclosed in dependence on bones, tendons, muscle, & skin, it is gathered under the term, 'form.'"
Form here seems to refer to the human body.
What is the distinct re-birthing component made of? Rainbows or fairy dust? Just asking ...
It's all very well to talk about the substance of the body being not one's own, but it is indisputably true that the body is still the locality of the senses - it is our point of focus in the material world, from which our senses spread out. That alone designates this body and this brain as a special point of interface for the entity "I".
It still puzzles me a little, how to resolve the question around the "I".
Clearly there are individual bundles of aggregates with a body and unique point of view, which by convention we call a person or being. What is being questioned here is self-view, the assumption of an "I" which owns these aggregates or characteristics, the notion of somebody who experiences stuff. What is being challenged is assumptions like "my body", "my thoughts", "my feelings", "my character", "my personality", when really there are just bodily sensation, thoughts, feelings and character traits.
If there is personal karma then we own our actions but little else. It is hard to point to action but Buddha was not telling us we had no responsibilities. Quite the opposite in fact.
Energy=work=action
What we do with the tools we use is who we are.
We don't have to last forever to be or to have consequence.
However, if you say there is no person there, it's all just mechanics down to these various aspects of the body, the mind, the character and so on, isn't that coming very close to determinism? I understood that the Buddha spoke out strongly against determinism and a lack of personal responsibility as standing in the way of right effort, and if the 'I' doesn't have influence on the outcome of the thoughts, feelings actions and so on, then it seems to tend against that.
Or is it just a case of not taking ownership? Of agreeing that there is some core part of us that exerts an influence, where we make an effort, but that part does not own the senses, thoughts, feelings and so on? But doesn't that just move the point of 'I' to the core part of us that does act?
Still confused.
Intention or volition is an important aspect of the sankhara aggregate, but intentions arise in dependence on conditions and are not owned by an "I". You could say that Buddhist practice is about creating the right conditions for wholesome intentions to arise.
This might sound counter-intuitive, but it's becomes much clearer with the practice of mindfulness, seeing how intentions arise and what they depend on.
You are? Tsk, tsk
Continuity between components is how the 'ghost in the machine' determines, 'I AM REAL'.
The Buddha through intense introspection, examined and searched for the distinction. Do the same.
Meditate.
Everything that arises - find if 'you are in them'. You will be in all the arisings, sometimes more, sometimes less.
For example I tend to be very aware of self when I drop a brick on my foot. Ouch! However I am not the brick, not the dropping, not the sensation. Oh the sensation of 'ouch' is there no doubt but ...
When you find this unique self let us know what it is like.
I for one need to know before I disintegrate into the dust I arose from ...
http://opcoa.st/0vrMc
If you need help on examining and realising this component 'self' try the liberation unleashed guided forum process ...
I find it hard to shake the notion that I do not have some influence on the direction of my thoughts and life. Granted the total scope of my decisions is limited by the scope of my previous thoughts, but given four possible life altering decisions, I can still pick and choose one that I like, or one at random.
It's a decision based on what to give focus to in life. You can give focus to Buddhism, or you can give focus to Christianity, or to the Dairy Lama. It's still a choice, perhaps the only one we truly have. Although it is debateable that this also guides your thoughts at times - that by choosing to give your attention to one thing over another, you are placing it in the limelight and you may well end up executing it.