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.
But Buddha said we are NOT the skhandas I believe. He didn't say we were a stream of changing skhandas.
I think it depends on tradition. In the suttas the skhandas represent the totality of human experience, ie there is nothing else - so a person isjust a stream of changing skhandas.
That's one interpretation, and probably the most common one at that. However, the Buddha never explicitly equates the person with the aggregates (e.g., SN 22.22), although they do represent the most discernible aspects of our experience on top of which we construct our sense of self in a process of, as the Buddha called it, 'I-making' and 'my-making' (e.g., MN 109). For more of an alternative look at the role the aggregates play in regard to the path, I suggest checking out "Five Piles of Bricks: The Khandhas as Burden & Path."
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited April 2012
You are such a wealth of information, Jason, thank you.
What I got from that is that (leaving what exactly constitutes an aggregate aside) we cannot rightly claim a permanent self not only because it is a temporary phenomenon, but because it is in constant change. In more ways than one, we are constantly dying and being reborn.
It is rediculous to think that we could own anything let alone a permanent identity.
But Buddha said we are NOT the skhandas I believe. He didn't say we were a stream of changing skhandas.
I think it depends on tradition. In the suttas the skhandas represent the totality of human experience, ie there is nothing else - so a person is just a stream of changing skhandas.
Porpoise I seem to feel that the skhandas are what is not the self. This is the shravaka view of emptiness. There are other views such as cittimatra, sautantrika, prasangika, and shentong.
Indeed in the scripture the Buddha said that the skhandas were not the self, but he didn't say that there was no self. In the dammapada he said that only the self can liberate the self from evil.
The heart sutra states that there is no form: eye, ear, nose, etc...
The nirvana sutra is regarded as a definitive sutra in TB and talks about the self.
Indeed it is hard to say 'buddhism says' because there are many traditions, but in a short paragraph each tradition tends to say 'buddhism says'.
But Buddha said we are NOT the skhandas I believe. He didn't say we were a stream of changing skhandas.
I think it depends on tradition. In the suttas the skhandas represent the totality of human experience, ie there is nothing else - so a person isjust a stream of changing skhandas.
That's one interpretation, and probably the most common one at that. However, the Buddha never explicitly equates the person with the aggregates (e.g., SN 22.22), although they do represent the most discernible aspects of our experience on top of which we construct our sense of self in a process of, as the Buddha called it, 'I-making' and 'my-making' (e.g., MN 109). For more of an alternative look at the role the aggregates play in regard to the path, I suggest checking out "Five Piles of Bricks: The Khandhas as Burden & Path."
My understanding of Buddha's teachings till now says: on practical ground reality, what we can see/feel/observe through our 5 senses and our conditioned mind, that Buddha said is not-self. So the five aggregates of form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness are conditioned things and it is craving and clinging to these 5 aggregates which is the cause of suffering because all these 5 aggregates are impermanent(anicca) and not-self(anatta).
So 'I' is just a label put to the totality of 5 aggregates. As far as if there is any Self/Consciousness existing apart from it, Buddha did not answered it as it does not help in reducing the suffering.
But Buddha said we are NOT the skhandas I believe. He didn't say we were a stream of changing skhandas.
I think it depends on tradition. In the suttas the skhandas represent the totality of human experience, ie there is nothing else - so a person isjust a stream of changing skhandas.
That's one interpretation, and probably the most common one at that. However, the Buddha never explicitly equates the person with the aggregates (e.g., SN 22.22), although they do represent the most discernible aspects of our experience on top of which we construct our sense of self in a process of, as the Buddha called it, 'I-making' and 'my-making' (e.g., MN 109).
I can't recall a sutta where the Buddha described a self beyond the aggregates. And doesn't it say "sabbe dhamma anatta" in the Dhammapada?
Also the Sabba sutta seems to say that "the all" ( the totality of our experience ) is just what we experience via our 5 senses and our minds.
Indeed it is hard to say 'buddhism says' because there are many traditions, but in a short paragraph each tradition tends to say 'buddhism says'.
You're right, but broadly speaking is it not the case that Theravada teaches anatta ( non-self ) while Mahayana teaches sunyata ( emptiness ), both of which contradict the notion of a self or essence?
I just have to let everyone here know how much I enjoy listening in on this discussion. Kudos to all of you. It's so refreshing to see actual, respectful, thoughtful Dharma debates instead of yelling matches on an internet forum.
And you all are some pretty sharp, knowledgeable people.
I never said that he did. What I said was that he "never explicitly equates the person with the aggregates"; and SN 22.22 would be the most obvious place for him to do so, which he doesn't. Moreover, SN 35.23 defines 'the all' as the six sense media, not the five aggregates.
In my opinion, these are just two of the many ways of looking at and dividing up experience that we find throughout the Pali Canon (e.g., aggregates, elements, six sense-media, etc.), not descriptions of what constitutes a human being.
The way I see it, by defining yourself as the aggregates or sense media, you're not only limiting yourself, you're still grasping hold of the very things that give rise to self-view. And clinging to ideas of an impermanent self (i.e., person = aggregates) is as much of a cause for suffering as a permanent one (i.e., person = self).
The way I see it, by defining yourself as the aggregates or sense media, you're not only limiting yourself, you're still grasping hold of the very things that give rise to self-view.
I agree that these schemes are methods for analysing human experience rather than an ontological statement about what a person is.
But I suspect that grasping at the idea of some essence beyond ( beneath? ) the aggregates or sense media is the greater danger.
I agree that these schemes are methods for analysing human experience rather than an ontological statement about what a person is.
But I suspect that grasping at the idea of some essence beyond ( beneath? ) the aggregates or sense media is the greater danger.
Perhaps, but I haven't posited an essence beyond or beneath the experience of form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness, or the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and tactile sensations, and intellect and ideas. Nor have I suggested the Buddha did, either. All forms of self-view are ultimately a cause for suffering, which is why I think the Buddha's not-self strategy avoids defining the conventional person or their experience of the present in any way, shape, or form, focusing instead on helping the meditator dis-identify themselves from all phenomena whatsoever.
it is the "thing" in question. we point to something be it ourselves or anything we don't consider ourselves. we give it everything. all the baggage. all the solidity.
but absolutely nothing is solid and everything lacks everything we give it.
and when we finally realize this both intellectually and in our lives.
we just put everything down. but then we realize there is no one to put down nor is there anything to put down.
@porpoise, Is the dharmakaya an aggregate? I really don't know. I do believe that the heart sutra is pretty explicit. It sounds like you are saying that the self is a fluxional mind-body. How is this different from western scientific materialism or atheism? Wouldn't an atheist also believes that a person undergoes changes?
I agree that these schemes are methods for analysing human experience rather than an ontological statement about what a person is.
But I suspect that grasping at the idea of some essence beyond ( beneath? ) the aggregates or sense media is the greater danger.
Perhaps, but I haven't posited an essence beyond or beneath the experience of form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness, or the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and tactile sensations, and intellect and ideas. Nor have I suggested the Buddha did, either. All forms of self-view are ultimately a cause for suffering, which is why I think the Buddha's not-self strategy avoids defining the conventional person or their experience of the present in any way, shape, or form, focusing instead on helping the meditator dis-identify themselves from all phenomena whatsoever.
This is my experience in meditation which continues to be of benefit in promoting ongoing mindfulness on a moment to moment basis. We clearly continue to live our lives as seperate human being individuals.
@porpoise, Is the dharmakaya an aggregate? I really don't know. I do believe that the heart sutra is pretty explicit. It sounds like you are saying that the self is a fluxional mind-body. How is this different from western scientific materialism or atheism? Wouldn't an atheist also believes that a person undergoes changes?
As I understand it the dharmakaya is unconditioned, so it isn't an aggregate and it isn't an aspect of the self. And the Heart Sutra makes it clear that the aggregates are all empty ( eg rupa = sunyata, which can be seen as a development of rupa = anatta ). I think in some traditions there is a distinction between the nature of mind and the activity of the mind.
We're going to look at how words and experiences interact. I'll use three words as examples -- "tree," "city," and "Santa Claus."
"Tree" refers to a 'definite thing'. You can point to the thing represented by the word "tree." (or man, woman, child etc)
"City" works differently. If you're in the middle of a city, you can point to a particular building or street, but you can't point to a definite object called "city." It's a collection of objects we conventionally name "city," and everyone knows what we mean, but it's not a thing you can point to. (or weather, universe, British Empire etc.)
"Santa Claus" is even more removed from reality. We can picture Santa, we can tell a story about Santa, everyone can follow along, and yet Santa don't exist. "Santa Claus" doesn't point to a real thing.
Is the word "I" like the word "tree" -- it points to something solid and persistent in the real world? Or is "I" like "Santa Claus" -- you can construct intelligble sentences with it, but it doesn't really exist?
We're going to look at how words and experiences interact. I'll use three words as examples -- "tree," "city," and "Santa Claus."
"Tree" refers to a 'definite thing'. You can point to the thing represented by the word "tree." (or man, woman, child etc)
"City" works differently. If you're in the middle of a city, you can point to a particular building or street, but you can't point to a definite object called "city." It's a collection of objects we conventionally name "city," and everyone knows what we mean, but it's not a thing you can point to. (or weather, universe, British Empire etc.)
"Santa Claus" is even more removed from reality. We can picture Santa, we can tell a story about Santa, everyone can follow along, and yet Santa don't exist. "Santa Claus" doesn't point to a real thing.
Is the word "I" like the word "tree" -- it points to something solid and persistent in the real world? Or is "I" like "Santa Claus" -- you can construct intelligble sentences with it, but it doesn't really exist?
If I were to say, "Point to a tree", you may point to a branch, but no, that's the branch. So you may point to the trunk, but no, that's the trunk. So you may point to the tree roots, but no, those are the tree roots.
You will never be to point to the tree. You may say, well, "The collection of these parts is the tree!", and if that were right, we could call each part a "None-tree parts" (because each of the parts isn't the tree). But if a collection of coins is coins and a collection of goats is goats, how can a collection of non-tree parts be a tree? (This may take some meditating upon).
A good commentary on the Heart of Wisdom Sutra may explain this better than I.
Is the word "I" like the word "tree" -- it points to something solid and persistent in the real world? Or is "I" like "Santa Claus" -- you can construct intelligble sentences with it, but it doesn't really exist?
And yes, the word "I" exists in the same mode as the "tree", in that it doesn't have any inherent existence on it's own side.
Also it isn't solid and persistent in the real world (only to our perspective). If you fast forwarded a film shot showing an acorn growing into a 300 hundred year old oak tree, then dying and decaying, it would look like an explosion. Now how can an explosion be anything solid and persistent? It's only from our human perspective of time that the tree appears solid and persistent, but it's not; it's constantly changing, moment to moment. Just like you and I.
I know it's confusing. It takes a little bit of effort to begin to understand (I only have the gist of it), and I recommend finding a good long commentary on the Heart of Wisdom sutra (the long commentaries are for people like me, who don't know much about Buddhism. The short ones are for people with some prior knowledge, since they can fill in the 'blanks' with their knowledge), because stuff like the Doctrine of the Two Truths and Dependant Arising will need to be understood in conjunction with this.
It's also not rocket science, so if I've made it sound overly complicated, apologies. I'm a Geordie with no formal further education than high school, and it's analytically razor sharp (which is what I enjoy about it); ultra rational and logical.
It just takes a bit of effort.
Oh, funny story, at my first 'lesson' on the Emptiness of Self, after the lesson I said to the Monk, "I didn't understand that at all, I think that's because I'm a Geordie!" (Implying it was because I was thick; a joke).
The monk said to me, "Point to me where it is you're a Geordie."
It was like one of those 'Grasshopper moments'.
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
edited April 2012
No, you are thick.
That was also a (British in-)joke, because I'm not a Geordie.
(I AM kidding, Tosh....... )
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
We're going to look at how words and experiences interact. I'll use three words as examples -- "tree," "city," and "Santa Claus."
"Tree" refers to a 'definite thing'. You can point to the thing represented by the word "tree." (or man, woman, child etc)
"City" works differently. If you're in the middle of a city, you can point to a particular building or street, but you can't point to a definite object called "city." It's a collection of objects we conventionally name "city," and everyone knows what we mean, but it's not a thing you can point to. (or weather, universe, British Empire etc.)
"Santa Claus" is even more removed from reality. We can picture Santa, we can tell a story about Santa, everyone can follow along, and yet Santa don't exist. "Santa Claus" doesn't point to a real thing.
Is the word "I" like the word "tree" -- it points to something solid and persistent in the real world? Or is "I" like "Santa Claus" -- you can construct intelligble sentences with it, but it doesn't really exist?
If I were to say, "Point to a tree", you may point to a branch, but no, that's the branch. So you may point to the trunk, but no, that's the trunk. So you may point to the tree roots, but no, those are the tree roots.
You will never be to point to the tree. You may say, well, "The collection of these parts is the tree!", and if that were right, we could call each part a "None-tree parts" (because each of the parts isn't the tree). But if a collection of coins is coins and a collection of goats is goats, how can a collection of non-tree parts be a tree? (This may take some meditating upon).
A good commentary on the Heart of Wisdom Sutra may explain this better than I.
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
@porpoise, According to Gampopa's Jewel Ornament of Liberation the dharmakaya is in fact emptiness = shunyata. That is the Lam Rim text for the Karma Kagyu tradition. It also states that the dharmakaya radiates to all beings respecting neither high nor low. And finally, it states that all beings are of the five families of Buddhas.
My lama said from some perspective that means that sentient beings are manifestations of the Dharmakaya. But it was just a dharma talk, not written in stone I suppose.
Anyhow that's just what I have been exposed to.
Pema Chodron said in her three CD audio of: from fear to fearlessness, pure meditation, and good medicine, that shunyata as most beings feel could be a sense of no big deal, or boredom, or peace. Various things.
We're going to look at how words and experiences interact. I'll use three words as examples -- "tree," "city," and "Santa Claus."
"Tree" refers to a 'definite thing'. You can point to the thing represented by the word "tree." (or man, woman, child etc)
"City" works differently. If you're in the middle of a city, you can point to a particular building or street, but you can't point to a definite object called "city." It's a collection of objects we conventionally name "city," and everyone knows what we mean, but it's not a thing you can point to. (or weather, universe, British Empire etc.)
"Santa Claus" is even more removed from reality. We can picture Santa, we can tell a story about Santa, everyone can follow along, and yet Santa don't exist. "Santa Claus" doesn't point to a real thing.
Is the word "I" like the word "tree" -- it points to something solid and persistent in the real world? Or is "I" like "Santa Claus" -- you can construct intelligble sentences with it, but it doesn't really exist?
If I were to say, "Point to a tree", you may point to a branch, but no, that's the branch. So you may point to the trunk, but no, that's the trunk. So you may point to the tree roots, but no, those are the tree roots.
You will never be to point to the tree. You may say, well, "The collection of these parts is the tree!", and if that were right, we could call each part a "None-tree parts" (because each of the parts isn't the tree). But if a collection of coins is coins and a collection of goats is goats, how can a collection of non-tree parts be a tree? (This may take some meditating upon).
A good commentary on the Heart of Wisdom Sutra may explain this better than I.
Note that the "tree" referred to a "definite thing" was deliberately put between quotations ie. that trees don't have inherent existence either as you put it ):
Hmmmm. So I am my arm? Who would I be if I lost my arm? Would I still be in my arm?
I've been listening to Beginner's Mind by Suzuki Roshi, so maybe this is some Zen thing I don't get.
Who would I be if I lost my life? Am I my life?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
The branch is the tree and so are we.
Hmmmm. So I am my arm? Who would I be if I lost my arm? Would I still be in my arm?
I've been listening to Beginner's Mind by Suzuki Roshi, so maybe this is some Zen thing I don't get.
I'm not exactly sure how Zen it is but non-seperation is non-seperation. Inter-being is just that.
Comments
What I got from that is that (leaving what exactly constitutes an aggregate aside) we cannot rightly claim a permanent self not only because it is a temporary phenomenon, but because it is in constant change. In more ways than one, we are constantly dying and being reborn.
It is rediculous to think that we could own anything let alone a permanent identity.
Indeed in the scripture the Buddha said that the skhandas were not the self, but he didn't say that there was no self. In the dammapada he said that only the self can liberate the self from evil.
The heart sutra states that there is no form: eye, ear, nose, etc...
The nirvana sutra is regarded as a definitive sutra in TB and talks about the self.
Indeed it is hard to say 'buddhism says' because there are many traditions, but in a short paragraph each tradition tends to say 'buddhism says'.
So 'I' is just a label put to the totality of 5 aggregates. As far as if there is any Self/Consciousness existing apart from it, Buddha did not answered it as it does not help in reducing the suffering.
And doesn't it say "sabbe dhamma anatta" in the Dhammapada?
Also the Sabba sutta seems to say that "the all" ( the totality of our experience ) is just what we experience via our 5 senses and our minds.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
You're right, but broadly speaking is it not the case that Theravada teaches anatta ( non-self ) while Mahayana teaches sunyata ( emptiness ), both of which contradict the notion of a self or essence?
And you all are some pretty sharp, knowledgeable people.
In my opinion, these are just two of the many ways of looking at and dividing up experience that we find throughout the Pali Canon (e.g., aggregates, elements, six sense-media, etc.), not descriptions of what constitutes a human being.
The way I see it, by defining yourself as the aggregates or sense media, you're not only limiting yourself, you're still grasping hold of the very things that give rise to self-view. And clinging to ideas of an impermanent self (i.e., person = aggregates) is as much of a cause for suffering as a permanent one (i.e., person = self).
But I suspect that grasping at the idea of some essence beyond ( beneath? ) the aggregates or sense media is the greater danger.
we point to something be it ourselves or anything we don't consider ourselves.
we give it everything. all the baggage. all the solidity.
but absolutely nothing is solid and everything lacks everything we give it.
and when we finally realize this both intellectually and in our lives.
we just put everything down. but then we realize there is no one to put down nor is there anything to put down.
everything as it is is already perfection.
so we bust out laughing and move on with life.
I think in some traditions there is a distinction between the nature of mind and the activity of the mind.
You will never be to point to the tree. You may say, well, "The collection of these parts is the tree!", and if that were right, we could call each part a "None-tree parts" (because each of the parts isn't the tree). But if a collection of coins is coins and a collection of goats is goats, how can a collection of non-tree parts be a tree? (This may take some meditating upon).
A good commentary on the Heart of Wisdom Sutra may explain this better than I.
Also it isn't solid and persistent in the real world (only to our perspective). If you fast forwarded a film shot showing an acorn growing into a 300 hundred year old oak tree, then dying and decaying, it would look like an explosion. Now how can an explosion be anything solid and persistent?
It's only from our human perspective of time that the tree appears solid and persistent, but it's not; it's constantly changing, moment to moment. Just like you and I.
It's also not rocket science, so if I've made it sound overly complicated, apologies. I'm a Geordie with no formal further education than high school, and it's analytically razor sharp (which is what I enjoy about it); ultra rational and logical.
It just takes a bit of effort.
Oh, funny story, at my first 'lesson' on the Emptiness of Self, after the lesson I said to the Monk, "I didn't understand that at all, I think that's because I'm a Geordie!" (Implying it was because I was thick; a joke).
The monk said to me, "Point to me where it is you're a Geordie."
It was like one of those 'Grasshopper moments'.
That was also a (British in-)joke, because I'm not a Geordie.
(I AM kidding, Tosh....... )
I've been listening to Beginner's Mind by Suzuki Roshi, so maybe this is some Zen thing I don't get.
"Bhikkhus, how do you conceive it: is form permanent or impermanent?" — "Impermanent, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent painful or pleasant?" — "Painful, venerable Sir." — "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "No, venerable sir."
My lama said from some perspective that means that sentient beings are manifestations of the Dharmakaya. But it was just a dharma talk, not written in stone I suppose.
Anyhow that's just what I have been exposed to.
Pema Chodron said in her three CD audio of: from fear to fearlessness, pure meditation, and good medicine, that shunyata as most beings feel could be a sense of no big deal, or boredom, or peace. Various things.
Who would I be if I lost my life? Am I my life?