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.
is murder possible if there is no-self?
is murder possible if there is no-self?
0
Comments
No-self does not mean no moral responsibility. No-self is a very subtle aspect of Dhamma which is often misunderstood. Part of the motivation of murder comes from a sense of self. I believe that someone who does not accept the no-self doctrine is more likely to commit acts such as murder, out of self-interest.
Our actions have consequences whether or not there is a self. There is still pain, even without a self. There is still craving for existence (will to live), even though there is no self who is "doing" the craving. Because of this, it would be creating more suffering for sentient beings (even though there is no self behind the five aggregates which comprise a sentient being) if we were to kill them. This is why we shouldn't kill.
With Metta,
Guy
It operates only in positive and beneficial ways for ourselves and others if we understand Anatta correctly. Some of these benefits include: Forgiveness, Spritual Growth, Non-Attachment, Unselfishness.
Forgiveness and Spiritual Growth:
We are much more forgiving of ourselves and others because we realise that we (unenlightened beings) are still subject to our conditioning. Also, a natural result of forgiving ourselves is that we are less likely to make the same mistakes in the future because we realise there is no core, unchangeable aspect of ourselves which is "bad". Therefore, the "bad" parts of us we can drop and guard against and the "good" parts of us which we already have we can protect and nurture.
Non-Attachment:
We are less likely to form attachments to our friends and relatives because we realise there is no essential core part of them which is unchanging, which will always be there. It is because of delusion that we attach to that which is not-self as "self". We are also less likely to be attached to the body, when it comes time to die we will let it go with a lot less struggle than someone without this understanding because we already know the body doesn't belong to us.
Unselfishness:
If we think that everything we desire is "my desire" then we think that its in our interests to follow it. But if we have a deep understanding that desire is just an impersonal phenomena and that as soon as we fulfill one desire we seek another and another and another...then we tend to become disenchanted with it. The more we see that there is "nobody in here" the less inclined we are to run around trying to satiate every desire that arises. We are more inclined to help others and more inclined to live based on our needs instead of our greed.
I am sure there are other benefits, but these were the first things that came to my mind.
With Metta,
Guy
Of course.
Self (atta), in the philosophical sense as opposed to it's conventional usage, is defined as that which is "permanent, stable, eternal, not subject to change" (SN 24.3). Our sense of self, the ephemeral "I," on the other hand, is merely a mental imputation, the product of what the Buddha called a process of "I-making and my-making."
In the simplest of terms, the Buddha taught that whatever is inconstant is stressful, and whatever is stressful is not-self—with the goal being to essentially take this [analytical] knowledge, along with a specific set of practices such as meditation, as a stepping stone to what I can only describe as a profound psychological event in the mind that radically changes the way the mind relates to experience.
That doesn't mean, however, that the teachings on not-self are understood to deny individuality (MN 22) or imply that the conventional person doesn't exist (SN 22.22). The way I understand it, they merely break down the conceptual idea of a self — i.e., that which is satisfactory, permanent and completely subject to our control — in relation to the various aspects of our experience that we falsely cling to as "me" or '"mine'" (SN 22.59).
So in essence, the Buddhist teachings on not-self aren't merely assertions that we have no self, they are a method for deconstructing our false perceptions about reality, as well as an important tool in removing the vast net of clinging that gives rise to suffering.
You have not grasped the concept of "no-self". The self is as real as the cup of coffee in front of you. What is not real is our belief that self exists independently and that it is permanent.
Because the self is real, murder is possible.
What murders?
Usually, the angry 'self'.
'No-self' mind cannot murder because it has no self-interest, no self-cherishing.
:smilec:
Isn't it obvious that no self exists independently and that it is not permanent? I believed this before I even knew about Buddhism. Saying there is no self because we change and and are influenced by other things that seem seperate but are in fact not. But the same is true for a tree, a car and anything. But do Buddhists say there is no car or tree?
So Buddhists believe we do exist and there is self but it is not seperate and independent or permanent?
Absolutely. Well said DD !
.
<meta http-equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"> <title></title> <meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 2.4 (Linux)"> <style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 2cm } P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm } --> </style> BuddhaOdin, the problem is you are getting answers from a load of different people who come from different traditions. It's like asking 5 different Christian from different traditions about the transmigration of bread and wine. So
1. Separate to some because they view interconnections in all things.
2. Permanent because our mental states change all the time, through mental, hormonal and physical changes
3. Some traditions also really use it to refer to your ego
4. Some to really refer to a soul, so no passing on of the soul in transmigration or no being part of the Tao / Brahman / force etc.
You will need to spend time on what you think is for you.
To answer you above "trick" question on murder, I thing no of the above say there is no murder.
1. Kill one kill them all, whatever you do to the least of my brothers...
2. Mental changes may be an excuse for you being a killer, but the murder still happens.
3. The ego well the self still exists.
4. The soul well the self still exists.
I don't know about you, but I am neither a Taoist, nor a Brahmin, nor a Jedi. I thought this was a Buddhist forum.
With Metta,
Guy
It is the false "self" or Non-Self that murders, but... lol... let's not start out answering that initial question with "No"! ahahahahaha
BUT actually, Buddhism states there IS self, car and tree ... but ALSO that there is NO self, car or tree. Read the Heart Sutra.
It's pretty simple, actually. Anything dependent on causes and conditions is a composite phenomenon and for that reason does not fit our sense of what the self is.
I also should have noted that in DN 2, the Buddha specifically rejects the view of Pakudha Kaccayana, who holds there are seven eternal and unconditioned substances — the earth-body, water-body, fire-body, air body, pleasure, pain the life-principle — and that "there is neither slayer or slain." Pakudha Kaccayana basically held an extreme atomic theory, going so far as to say that "whoever cuts off a man's head with a sharp sword does not deprive anyone of life, he just inserts the blade in the intervening space between these seven bodies" (Bodhi).