If other beings are real, who am I hurting with wrong speech? What is non-self?

Jeffrey · June 2012

By real I mean they have feelings. But they are just like me. Insults vibrate with pain. So what is non-self?

taiyaki · June 2012

In seeing just the seen no seer.
In smelling just the smell no smeller.
In thinking just thoughts no thinker.
In tasting just the taste no taster.
In hearing just sounds no hearer.
In feeling just sensation no feeler.

The subject who owns or is the experiencer is an after thought.

In direct experience there is only the experience which refers back to no source or entity.

enko · June 2012

Fanatical spellers. Sorry couldnt resist

David · June 2012

I think the teachings of non-self got a bit mixed up along the ages. I don't think it is about seeing that the self is an illusion but that the self doesn't exist apart from anything else.

The way I interpret the dharma is that the trick isn't to extinguish the self but to expand the notion of self to include all sentient beings, animals, plants and minerals.

This is how compassion overcomes nhilism in my honest opinion.

I don't feel sorry for my finger when I bandage it, I bandage it because it is a part of me in need of healing. This is compassion as common sense.

Nothing special.

ClayTheScribe · June 2012

We are the light, we are energy, we are not these bones, this skin, these muscles, these organs, this brain. But speech is energy and the wrong intention behind it can be received as negative vibrations by other light beings and damage them, especially if they are not guarded against it. But, from what I understand, wrong speech hurts you the most in regard to your karma.

federica · June 2012

Fanatical spellers. Sorry couldnt resist

Tell me about it.... :rolleyes:

driedleaf · June 2012

Just be the self that you want to live. You decide what to say and what to do that determines your well-being. That should be good enough.

Tosh · June 2012

By real I mean they have feelings. But they are just like me. Insults vibrate with pain. So what is non-self?

I don't think non-self means no-self. There is very definitely something here because one thing we can be sure of is that we experience. Descartes said this when he said, "I think, therefore I am!"

But it's the false view of the self that's difficult to understand; it's our concept of self. Remember, Buddhism is the middle way, so the extremes of self concepts would be:

1. There is a permanent existing self.
2. There is no self; mere illusion - nothing there.

The truth lies in the middle. I mean if they were no-selfs, then who are all these people Buddhists try to develop love 'n' compassion for?

As for insults, well the 8fold path translates into the 3 trainings; ethical life, wisdom and compassion. We shouldn't give insults because it's not compassionate towards others, probably not ethical either; if we don't have an ethical life to some extent, we will not have the peace of mind to cultivate wisdom and compassion. For example it'll be tough to meditate and develop wisdom when you're anxious and worried that some big gimp is out to thump you because you've insulted him (I guess).

And as for receiving insults, dharma gives plenty of help with dealing with that. Look to Emptiness for example. If you said, "Tosh, you are nothing but a stupid fool", we can look at the reality. Those words are empty of inherent meaning until they enter my mind and I overlay them with a meaning. Those words are not hurtful by themselves, I've got to get involved for them to hurt me, I get to choose how I will react and feel. That's good news, by the way, it means I have a big say in the happiness I experience - I have some control over it.

If I were to believe that if someone said something I didn't like, then I would have no other option to get angry and destroy my peace of mind, then I'm at the mercy of everything external; I'd be just like my dog when I throw a stick; he has no choice but to chase it. As humans we have the intelligence to make a choice.

In a way, Buddhism kinda strikes me as 'manning up' and taking control of OUR thoughts, feelings and reactions; and not being like a wishy washy leaf getting blown around in the wind.

And I can type all that, but I am still very much like a wishy washy leaf at times; of course I get hurt and suffer with negative mental afflictions; but at some stage I will take a step back and ask myself, "What can I do about this?" and take action along the lines of something I've learnt from Buddhism - even if it's just realising impermanence, and that the situation will change and I'll feel something else at a later stage.

pegembara · June 2012

Wrong speech causes hurt and painful feelings, that is all. There is no need for a "self" to experience that feeling.

Floating_Abu · June 2012

In seeing just the seen no seer.
In smelling just the smell no smeller.
In thinking just thoughts no thinker.
In tasting just the taste no taster.
In hearing just sounds no hearer.
In feeling just sensation no feeler.

The subject who owns or is the experiencer is an after thought.

In direct experience there is only the experience which refers back to no source or entity.

Dear taiyaki

The Buddha did not teach no source or no entity.

Please be careful.

Best wishes,
Abu

Floating_Abu · June 2012

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

Full: Teaching: No-self or Not-self?

Floating_Abu · June 2012

I think the teachings of non-self got a bit mixed up along the ages. I don't think it is about seeing that the self is an illusion but that the self doesn't exist apart from anything else.

The way I interpret the dharma is that the trick isn't to extinguish the self but to expand the notion of self to include all sentient beings, animals, plants and minerals.

This is how compassion overcomes nhilism in my honest opinion.

I don't feel sorry for my finger when I bandage it, I bandage it because it is a part of me in need of healing. This is compassion as common sense.

Nothing special.

Thanks

Floating_Abu · June 2012

So what is non-self?

The most basic form of logic.

seeker242 · June 2012

My version: "Non-self is a skillful technique of mind training so that one can dis-identify with that which causes suffering thereby causing suffering to end."

PrairieGhost · June 2012

It means that whenever you say 'self', you feel like you know what that word means. And whenever someone says 'you're stupid' or 'you're clever', you feel like you know what that means.

But Buddhas don't know what 'self' means, because that feeling of identification is just empty feeling.

And when you tell a Buddha 'you're stupid' or 'you're clever', he doesn't know what you mean, but he knows what saying that means for you. And he knows that you suffer.

Floating_Abu · June 2012

That's funny

sndymorn · June 2012

I think the teachings of non-self got a bit mixed up along the ages. I don't think it is about seeing that the self is an illusion but that the self doesn't exist apart from anything else.

The way I interpret the dharma is that the trick isn't to extinguish the self but to expand the notion of self to include all sentient beings, animals, plants and minerals.

This is how compassion overcomes nhilism in my honest opinion.

I don't feel sorry for my finger when I bandage it, I bandage it because it is a part of me in need of healing. This is compassion as common sense.

Nothing special.

Interesting comments. Thank You

taiyaki · June 2012

In seeing just the seen no seer.
In smelling just the smell no smeller.
In thinking just thoughts no thinker.
In tasting just the taste no taster.
In hearing just sounds no hearer.
In feeling just sensation no feeler.

The subject who owns or is the experiencer is an after thought.

In direct experience there is only the experience which refers back to no source or entity.
Dear taiyaki

The Buddha did not teach no source or no entity.

Please be careful.

Best wishes,
Abu

Are not the five skandhas arisen dependently?

federica · June 2012

I personally feel - and have seen mentioned elsewhere - that a more meaningful and perhaps accurate term than non-self, would be "NOT-Self".
Self is an acknowledgement of the skandas, a confirmation of their existence, and therefore, as follows, ours.
We see, we smell, we touch, we hear, we taste, we think. We Are.
Yet there is a definite impermanence, a transitoriness, an illusory existence, a passing of things that cannot be undone; so the Self is real, yet it does not exist in the same state for more than an instant....this is Not-Self.
Who do we hurt?
Our Consciousness, our Mind.
The Self of others, others who cannot process the transitoriness of Not-self.
Not-Self cannot be hurt.
Self - can.

ozen · June 2012

By real I mean they have feelings. But they are just like me. Insults vibrate with pain. So what is non-self?

No-self only means that 'selves' are impermanent. It doesn't mean that there are no selves to hurt.

Jeffrey · June 2012

Buddha said the skhandas were not self as I recall from a dharma talk.

The fourth skhandas is the definition of not the self as it is prapancha.

You could say that non-clinging to the skhandas was enlightenment. But skhandas are a skillful means to help non-Buddhas.

PrairieGhost · June 2012

'Self' is not ultimately a meaningful concept, it's just a conventional tool. But it takes practice to arrive at a point where there is the corresponding emotional understanding. One difficulty can be the reluctance to give up stance taking, because this is a tool for survival and social dominance - e.g. 'I'm hungry, I want the biggest slice'. We tend to think, erroneously, that in the absence of self-view, our needs will be neglected.

The most difficult bit is the last step, dis-identifying from awareness/appearance. There's a tendency to say 'of course I am awareness, how could I not be, I am impermanent awareness', until it is understood that there is no impermanent or inherent phenomena of awareness, so no phenomenal distinction to cause definition, and there is no need therefore to put 'I' prior to anything. The Buddha describes this in more detail in the cycle of dependent origination. When there is this, there is that. No this, no that. No that, no this.

At this level of understanding, suffering begins to lose traction.

This essay might be helpful.

In conversation about the self, metaphors are the standby. Sometimes we use object metaphors, as when we say we pushed ourselves to finish, pulled ourselves together, or tied ourselves in a knot. On the other hand, when we say “I deceived myself” or “I talk to myself,” the person metaphor is invoked.

Sometimes the self is conceived of as a project, for example, when we undertake self-improvement or self-discipline. Sometimes one’s self is analogized as a process, such as becoming mature or wise.

Thus juxtaposed, these commonplace metaphors are strikingly diverse. What the metaphorical language suggests is that the self is not a thoroughly coherent, single, unified representational scheme about which we have thoroughly coherent, unified beliefs. Rather, the self is something like a squadron of capacities flying in loose formation. Depending on context, it is one or another of these capacities, or their exercise, to which we refer when we speak of the self

http://sciphilos.info/docs_pages/abst_neuro_self_css.html

Floating_Abu · June 2012

In seeing just the seen no seer.
In smelling just the smell no smeller.
In thinking just thoughts no thinker.
In tasting just the taste no taster.
In hearing just sounds no hearer.
In feeling just sensation no feeler.

The subject who owns or is the experiencer is an after thought.

In direct experience there is only the experience which refers back to no source or entity.
Dear taiyaki

The Buddha did not teach no source or no entity.

Please be careful.

Best wishes,
Abu
Are not the five skandhas arisen dependently?

Yes, and so what's your point?

The Buddha did not teach no source or no entity.

Floating_Abu · June 2012

I personally feel - and have seen mentioned elsewhere - that a more meaningful and perhaps accurate term than non-self, would be "NOT-Self".
Self is an acknowledgement of the skandas, a confirmation of their existence, and therefore, as follows, ours.
We see, we smell, we touch, we hear, we taste, we think. We Are.
Yet there is a definite impermanence, a transitoriness, an illusory existence, a passing of things that cannot be undone; so the Self is real, yet it does not exist in the same state for more than an instant....this is Not-Self.

Hi federica

The ending paragraph in the ATI quote above says --

In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness.

Thanks,
Abu

Floating_Abu · June 2012

'Self' is not ultimately a meaningful concept, it's just a conventional tool.

It's not a meaningful concept? Wow, how interesting!

To study Buddhism is to study the self
- Dogen Zenji

What is the self? What is personality?
- Ajahn Sumedho

But it takes practice to arrive at a point where there is the corresponding emotional understanding.

If it's an emotional understanding one has reached, that would suggest that one is still mired in the bog.

One difficulty can be the reluctance to give up stance taking, because this is a tool for survival and social dominance - e.g. 'I'm hungry, I want the biggest slice'. We tend to think, erroneously, that in the absence of self-view, our needs will be neglected.

That is a big asssumption to make on behalf of everyone.

In Buddhist terms, though, it is not a reluctance. The root is a fundamental and gross misunderstanding. Hence, the cultivation of the insight into truth - which is things as they are.

The most difficult bit is the last step, dis-identifying from awareness/appearance.

Who said that was the "last step" - i.e. besides you? And who is it that so-called disidentifies? What is awareness? What is appearance?

There's a tendency to say 'of course I am awareness, how could I not be, I am impermanent awareness',

Really?

until it is understood that there is no impermanent or inherent phenomena of awareness, so no phenomenal distinction to cause definition, and there is no need therefore to put 'I' prior to anything.

That doesn't even make sense. So you are saying now you think there is no impermanent or wait, even "phenomena" of awareness - THEREFORE there is no distinction to be made (do you really think that is just a logical step even just intellectually) and THEREFORE now people don't need to use the "I" word?

I'm pretty sure you find this a fascinating theory, but firstly I am not sure it makes sense even intellectually and second, it's nowhere near the Buddhist guidance (which is what you seem to be representing?)

The Buddha describes this in more detail in the cycle of dependent origination. When there is this, there is that. No this, no that. No that, no this.

Dependent origination does not say what you said above.

At this level of understanding, suffering begins to lose traction.

What level would that be?

Best wishes,
Abu

ozen · June 2012

'Self' is not ultimately a meaningful concept, it's just a conventional tool. But it takes practice to arrive at a point where there is the corresponding emotional understanding.

Self is a meaningful concept, a very meaningful concept, and deconstructing it does not make it less meaningful. It might actually make it more meaningful.

PrairieGhost · June 2012

Floating Abu

That doesn't even make sense.

Not when you try to understand with what you take to be your mind. You reach a blank, a voiding of intellectuality, and after that there is nothing which can be or needs to be done. Then, true understanding is expressed in action, not through the primacy of thought.

Floating_Abu · June 2012

'Self' is not ultimately a meaningful concept, it's just a conventional tool. But it takes practice to arrive at a point where there is the corresponding emotional understanding.
Self is a meaningful concept, a very meaningful concept, and deconstructing it does not make it less meaningful. It might actually make it more meaningful.

Indeed, all the great Buddhist teachers encourage study of the self, not ignorance of the self.

As federica says, it is a strategy to learn the transcendent.

To study the Buddha Way is to study the self
To study the self is to forget the self
To forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand dhammas

- Dogen

I forget the rest of the Dogen quote but I remember it is also quite meaningful.

Abu

ozen · June 2012

"True understanding" can't be expressed through thought? True understanding must be quite limited.

PrairieGhost · June 2012

ozen

"True understanding" can't be expressed through thought? True understanding must be quite limited.

Not primarily through thought. Though no longer commands the foreground of experience.

Floating Abu

To study the Buddha Way is to study the self
To study the self is to forget the self
To forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand dhammas

- Dogen

Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

Floating_Abu · June 2012

Floating Abu
That doesn't even make sense.
Not when you try to understand with what you take to be your mind. You reach a blank, a voiding of intellectuality, and after that there is nothing which can be or needs to be done. Then, true understanding is expressed in action, not through the primacy of thought.

That must be a useful strategy for you to engage in anytime your points are proven to be nonsensical.

Unfortunately, you are using your (what you take to be your) mind for this conversation no? Or you are using something other than "the primacy of thought" -- but just expressing yourself using thought coincidentally?

Attention to peace this and that dependent the inherent phenomena of distinction awareness not possible to evaluate origination generate distinctions primacy of thought superiority awareness attention to centre to peace to nibbana to peace

Did you get that? Because if you didn't, it might be because you lapsed from the "void of intellectuality."

Floating_Abu · June 2012

To study the Buddha Way is to study the self
To study the self is to forget the self
To forget the self is to be enlightened by the ten thousand dhammas

- Dogen
Yes, this is exactly what I'm talking about.

With respect, what you talk about doesn't sound like this at all.

I hope you have a good teacher.

Peace,
Abu

Jeffrey · June 2012

True understanding is like the taste of an apple. You can describe it. But your thirst for the descriptions may get confused with your hunger for the apple.

ozen · June 2012

ozen
"True understanding" can't be expressed through thought? True understanding must be quite limited.
Not primarily through thought. Though no longer commands the foreground of experience.

Well, again, needing to push thought to the background is obviously limiting.

ozen · June 2012

True understanding is like the taste of an apple. You can describe it. But your thirst for the descriptions may get confused with your hunger for the apple.

Really? Has that happened to you?

PrairieGhost · June 2012

ozen

Well, again, needing to push thought to the background is obviously limiting.

That's far from what I posted.

ozen · June 2012

If thought is no longer in the "foreground" then it must be in the background, right?

I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying. If you are unable to express your ideas that's fine, not that important.

PrairieGhost · June 2012

ozen

If thought is no longer in the "foreground" then it must be in the background, right?

Are those the only two options?

ozen · June 2012

It is your language. I assumed that you used the term "foreground" deliberately. If you had meant side by side or some other positioning I assume that you would use that language.

Jeffrey · June 2012

True understanding is like the taste of an apple. You can describe it. But your thirst for the descriptions may get confused with your hunger for the apple.
Really? Has that happened to you?

Yes it has. Not with apples though, that was just an illustration. I was trying to make a point. I will try to think of a different way.

How about a sunset? Jon Kabatt Zinn's whole mindfulness training program is to see the real sunset and not be anxious about comparing it to other sunsets. Some of them are out of view and some you can see but the clouds aren't as good as other sunsets.

ozen · June 2012

I've never tried to eat a description myself.

Jeffrey · June 2012

ozen, you eat the description with your mind.

ozen · June 2012

And I eat the apple with my stomach? That makes sense.

ozen · June 2012

Have you ever tried eating the description with your stomach?

Jeffrey · June 2012

Yes you eat the apple with everything you have if you are mindful. With all of your senses and your mind sense. The visual, the taste, the smell, the feeling of biting, and even the sound of the apple being bitten.

If you are *too* much in the mind you miss out on how extraordinary or real an apple can be. This is part of Jon Kabatt Zinn's mindfulness training program. Eat raisins mindfully.

Jeffrey · June 2012

Have you ever tried eating the description with your stomach?

No you eat descriptions with your mind.

tmottes · June 2012

@ozen It is like reading the label on a medication. Reading that label and understanding it, will not cure your disease. Understanding exactly how the medicine works will not cure your disease. Only opening the container and taking the medicine will cure the disease.

Non-conceptual things can't be defined with words. They can only be referenced by words.

ozen · June 2012

If you are *too* much in the mind you miss out on how extraordinary or real an apple can be.

And that's bad. Okay I get it, thanks.

ozen · June 2012

@ozen It is like reading the label on a medication. Reading that label and understanding it, will not cure your disease. Understanding exactly how the medicine works will not cure your disease. Only opening the container and taking the medicine will cure the disease.

Non-conceptual things can't be defined with words. They can only be referenced by words.

Dear Tmottes, please ALWAYS READ THE LABEL ON MEDICATION. Taking the wrong kind or amount of medicine can kill.

pegembara · June 2012

"There is the case where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He does not assume feeling to be the self...

"He does not assume perception to be the self...

"He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identification does not come about."

"He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am consciousness' or 'Consciousness is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, his consciousness changes & alters, but he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, or despair over its change & alteration.

"This, householder, is how one is afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind."

Nakulapita Sutta

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.001.than.html

misecmisc1 · June 2012

My understanding of Buddha's teachings says: All conditioned things are anicca, dukkha and anatta.

Anatta is not-self meaning that all conditioned things are empty of any inherent existence.

Now if the question is: who is hurt with wrong speech? , then my answer is: there is no entity who is hurt with wrong speech.

But in conditioned view of Samsara, since wrong speech is already deluded with the notion of 'I' to begin the story, so the bad karma of wrong speech is done by 'I' and its bad effect needs to be felt later by 'I'.

After a person will get Awakened, due to right view, there will be nothingness everywhere - so there is no 'I' to begin with, no wrong intention will be there, no wrong speech will be said, no bad karma will be generated and so no bad effect will be felt later - moreover, there will be no entity to experience the results of past karma, only the effects of past karma getting played out with the 5 aggregates without producing any further suffering because of no craving and no clinging to these 5 aggregates.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

If other beings are real, who am I hurting with wrong speech? What is non-self?

Comments