Mind versus Self?

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality

Postby Lotus_Bitch » Fri Jan 18, 2013 9:53 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
"Lotus_Bitch"]
lowlydog wrote:Prove it. :smile:


From the Alagaddupama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html:

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone has this view: 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishment of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then thinks: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps, and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the internal."


This is refering to the universal self(that is based on Samsara)(the "i" "me")this is what we calll the False Self


actually continue reading the SAME sutta you posted
From the Alagaddupama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html:

Not Yours[44]
40. "Therefore, monks, give up whatever is not yours.[45] Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Feeling is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long bring you welfare and happiness. Perception is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Mental formations are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Consciousness is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness.[46]
41. "What do you think, monks: if people were to carry away the grass, sticks, branches and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burnt them or did with them what they pleased, would you think: These people carry us away, or burn us, or do with us as they please?" — "No, Lord." — "Why not?" Because, Lord, that is neither our self nor the property of our self." — "So, too, monks, give up what is not yours! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness."(give up everything that is Dependently originated)

Here check this out.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

Having taken a seat to one side, Vacchagotta the wanderer said to the Master, 'Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?' When this was said, the Master was silent.
'Then is there no self?' For a second time the Master was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Master, 'Why, sir, did the Master not answer when asked a question asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer?'
'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e., the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism (i.e., that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?
'No, Lord.'
'And if I... were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?"'
— S XLIV.10

Ok, but in Vacchagotta's case: It was tailored so as not to confuse him, since he held to a notion of an Atman.
Lotus_Bitch
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 12:24 am

Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Fri Jan 18, 2013 10:34 pm

"you" are the grass and sticks,its nothing to burn "you"
once you give up the 5 aggreagates their is nothing left to call "you"
the fire goes out("you""self" cease)=nothing
of course this is just my view on the meaning.


Yes, it is..and all the 'true self' stuff is your own, there is nothing in what you quoted that supports that inference.
"Just as a lotus does not grow out of a well-levelled soil but from the mire, in the same way the awakening mind
is not born in the hearts of disciples in whom the moisture of attachment has dried up. It grows instead in the hearts of ordinary sentient beings who possess in full the fetters of bondage." -Se Chilbu Choki Gyaltsen
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 2152
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality

Postby deepbluehum » Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:16 pm

lankavatara sutra explains true self is a subterfuge to trick those in lesser paths into the path of no projection.
deepbluehum
 
Posts: 1302
Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2011 2:05 am
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality

Postby songhill » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:07 am

deepbluehum wrote:lankavatara sutra explains true self is a subterfuge to trick those in lesser paths into the path of no projection.


Was this subterfuge in order to spare those on the lesser path from the real teachings of the Buddha which is annihilationism (i.e., the self is naught)?
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality

Postby songhill » Sat Jan 19, 2013 12:29 am

Son of Buddha wrote:
"Lotus_Bitch"]
lowlydog wrote:Prove it. :smile:


From the Alagaddupama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html:

"There can be, monk," said the Blessed One. "In that case, monk, someone has this view: 'The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide in that very condition.' He then hears a Perfect One expounding the Teaching for the removal of all grounds for views, of all prejudices, obsessions, dogmas and biases; for the stilling of all (kamma-) processes, for the relinquishment of all substrata (of existence), for the extirpation of craving, for dispassion, cessation, Nibbaana. He then thinks: 'I shall be annihilated, I shall be destroyed! No longer shall I exist!' Hence he grieves, is depressed and laments; beating his breast, he weeps, and dejection befalls him. Thus, monk, is there anxiety about unrealities, in the internal."


This is refering to the universal self(that is based on Samsara)(the "i" "me")this is what we calll the False Self


actually continue reading the SAME sutta you posted
From the Alagaddupama Sutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.nypo.html:

Not Yours[44]
40. "Therefore, monks, give up whatever is not yours.[45] Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Feeling is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long bring you welfare and happiness. Perception is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Mental formations are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Consciousness is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness.[46]
41. "What do you think, monks: if people were to carry away the grass, sticks, branches and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burnt them or did with them what they pleased, would you think: These people carry us away, or burn us, or do with us as they please?" — "No, Lord." — "Why not?" Because, Lord, that is neither our self nor the property of our self." — "So, too, monks, give up what is not yours! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness."(give up everything that is Dependently originated)

Here check this out.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

Having taken a seat to one side, Vacchagotta the wanderer said to the Master, 'Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?' When this was said, the Master was silent.
'Then is there no self?' For a second time the Master was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, the Venerable Ananda said to the Master, 'Why, sir, did the Master not answer when asked a question asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer?'
'Ananda, if I, being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self, were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism (i.e., the view that there is an eternal soul). And if I... were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism (i.e., that death is the annihilation of experience). If I... were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?
'No, Lord.'
'And if I... were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: "Does the self which I used to have, now not exist?"'
— S XLIV.10


Eternalism and annihilationism are all based on the five aggregates which the Buddha repeadtly says are not the self (anâtman) or are not my self (na meso attâ). The Buddha's discrimination between the five aggregate/attributes and his self is absolutely disparate. Astonishingly, some scholars and sectarians miss this. But it is too conspicuous to deny if one has taken the time to read the 159 discourses in the Khandhasamyutta which is part of the Samyutta-Nikaya. The brings up the important spiritual issue that natural human behavior is based on self-indentification is the form of “this is mine”, “I am this”, “this is my self” with regard to the temporal psycho-physical organism (the five aggregates). In so doing, the worldly person (prithagjana) mixes up unreality with true reality. When the Buddha says, again and again, with respect to each aggregate, ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' he is attempting separate the unreal from the real. Buddhists who do not get it, are still tied to the aggregate system, more specifically sakkaya many of whom without knowing it are annihilationists.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:37 am

songhill wrote:The brings up the important spiritual issue that natural human behavior is based on self-indentification is the form of “this is mine”, “I am this”, “this is my self” with regard to the temporal psycho-physical organism (the five aggregates). In so doing, the worldly person (prithagjana) mixes up unreality with true reality. When the Buddha says, again and again, with respect to each aggregate, ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' he is attempting separate the unreal from the real. Buddhists who do not get it, are still tied to the aggregate system, more specifically sakkaya many of whom without knowing it are annihilationists.


nope.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Jan 19, 2013 2:50 am

People wonder "how can someone experience 'no self'?"
it seems impossible. But actually, we do it all the time.
We just don't notice that we are doing it,
because that would negate doing it.

For example, at this moment, you do not think,
"I am sitting in a chair...I am looking at the computer...I am reading these words..."
(except for the fact that I have suggested it. You weren't thinking it a few seconds ago.)

No, you are just doing it.
It is a direct experience of no self.
Maybe it's not a deeply profound realization of no-self,
but for the present moment, that's what it is,
and the present moment is all there is anyhow.
But as soon as you think,
"I am sitting in a chair...I am looking at the computer...I am reading these words..."
the notion of 'self' arises.
This has nothing to do with the aggregates
and everything to do with the aggregates.
Outside of the mind, where does any notion of 'true self' exist?
'True self' is just another construct.
It gets in the way of realizing, ultimately, no self
because, ultimately, 'no self' isn't even 'no-self'
but goes beyond the duality of 'self' and 'no-self'.
So, sometimes it might be called 'true self'
but there isn't a true 'self'.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:09 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:People wonder "how can someone experience 'no self'?"
it seems impossible.
.


It's easy. Your corporeal body (rupa) is no self (anattâ). Yep, that is what the Buddha said PadmaVonSamba. Continuing, he said feeling, perception, volitional tendencies, and consciousness are also no self.

"rúpam bhikkhave anattá, vedaná anattá, saññá anattá, sankhárá anattá, viññánam anattá: sabbe sankhárá aniccá, sabbe dhammá anattáti" (Culasaccaka Sutta).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sat Jan 19, 2013 4:41 am

songhill wrote:
PadmaVonSamba wrote:People wonder "how can someone experience 'no self'?"
it seems impossible.
.


It's easy. Your corporeal body (rupa) is no self (anattâ). Yep, that is what the Buddha said PadmaVonSamba. Continuing, he said feeling, perception, volitional tendencies, and consciousness are also no self.



Whose corporal body?
The "true self" 's corporal body?
If something owns this sack of bones,
then it asserts "mine"
and cannot be Buddha nature.
If nothing is owned,
then it is only clinging to the notion of aggregates
that conjures up the false notion of a self
because then the aggregates themselves are of no consequence.

As soon as you assert "let go of the skandhas" you cling to them.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby LastLegend » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:11 pm

What is self?

Self is a concept.

What is no self?

No self is a concept.

That's my conclusion after reading 32 pages.

:D
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:30 pm

"PadmaVonSamba"]

Whose corporal body?
The "true self" 's corporal body?
If something owns this sack of bones,
then it asserts "mine"
and cannot be Buddha nature.
If nothing is owned,
then it is only clinging to the notion of aggregates
that conjures up the false notion of a self
because then the aggregates themselves are of no consequence.

As soon as you assert "let go of the skandhas" you cling to them.


The True Self isnt the corporal body(page 25) no matter how many times we say this you guys just
dont seem to listen.
As soon as you assert "let go of the skandhas"you cling to them.
Okay so as soon as you assert "keep the skandhas" you dont cling to them right?
So are you saying the Buddha was clinging to the skandhas when he told us to "give them up"?
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Astus » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:06 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:So are you saying the Buddha was clinging to the skandhas when he told us to "give them up"?


The Buddha taught to give up attachment, give up desire, anger and ignorance. Those are the causes of suffering. The skandhas are not, that's why there is nothing to give up about them. What sane person would want to give up their hearing, rationality, etc.? This misunderstanding that the skandhas must be eliminated makes people think there must be a superego, a higher self and a heavenly nirvana. This mistake has nothing to do with shentong, yogacara or buddha-nature, but simply not comprehending the basics, the very essentials of Buddhism.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:38 pm

Astus wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:So are you saying the Buddha was clinging to the skandhas when he told us to "give them up"?


The Buddha taught to give up attachment, give up desire, anger and ignorance. Those are the causes of suffering. The skandhas are not, that's why there is nothing to give up about them. What sane person would want to give up their hearing, rationality, etc.? This misunderstanding that the skandhas must be eliminated makes people think there must be a superego, a higher self and a heavenly nirvana. This mistake has nothing to do with shentong, yogacara or buddha-nature, but simply not comprehending the basics, the very essentials of Buddhism.



Apparently you didnt read the top of the page(32) before you commented.

The very qoute I posted states to give up the 5 skandhas :)

Even gives an analogy of burning then and not caring cause they are not our self.

You do know the 5 skandhas themselves are produced from ignorance dont you?(do you need the sutra?)

Do you even know what Zhentong teaches?I think the true mistake is trying change The Buddha Nature sutras and Zhentong into something they are not.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:50 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:As soon as you assert "let go of the skandhas"you cling to them.
Okay so as soon as you assert "keep the skandhas" you dont cling to them right?
So are you saying the Buddha was clinging to the skandhas when he told us to "give them up"?


The skandhas do not possess any power.
Clinging to therm or not clinging to them
elevates them to a position of concern which is not necessary and only becomes a distraction.
The skandhas possess no ultimate reality of their own
So holding on to them or abandoning them is of no consequence.
But it is only when we fixate upon them as being either good or bad,
as either something to hold onto or something to abandon, that they become something to worry about.
What the Buddha warned about is not letting the mind regard the skandhas and their workings as significant.
Form, feeling, perception, and so on,
They are just there.
How can you abandon them, unless you are in a coma?
The point is not to be tricked into thinking that they constitute a self.
You could say that the one who is either fooled or not fooled is the 'true self'
but that is an expression of comparison.
Because Mind's true nature, when free from attachment and confusion, is fully awake, it is called called Buddha nature.
All beings strive to be perfectly free from suffering, in other words, to realize mind's original nature.
This true nature of the mind is unrealized when one attaches to the notion of 'self' whether as a permanent soul, or the aggregates, or even the idea of a "buddha-self", which is what one is asserting by the idea of "true self" as some kind of permanent thing, like atman.
A buddha mind is free of attachment to the appearances of things.
Regarding the skandhas as one way or another is still being attached to their appearance.
It's like breathing.
If you don't inhale, you die.
If you don't exhale, you die.
Inhaling is a good thing, except when you need to exhale, then it isn't.
Exhaling is a good thing, except when you need to inhale, then it isn't.
So, holding on to either one and negating the other is trouble.
Breathing in and out keeps this corporal body alive
and some day it won't.
So, even though it matters greatly,
it really doesn't.
The point is that you don't have to abandon the skandhas,
just abandon clinging to them as the 'self'
and as something that must be either held onto or let go of.
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Astus » Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:57 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:Apparently you didnt read the top of the page(32) before you commented.

The very qoute I posted states to give up the 5 skandhas :)

Even gives an analogy of burning then and not caring cause they are not our self.

You do know the 5 skandhas themselves are produced from ignorance dont you?(do you need the sutra?)

Do you even know what Zhentong teaches?I think the true mistake is trying change The Buddha Nature sutras and Zhentong into something they are not.


It says that skandhas are neither I nor mine, that's what is to be given up, namely identification. Eliminating, destroying the skandhas would mean destroying your body and your mind, complete annihilation of all living functions. Apparently both the Buddha and his disciples were alive and well after their enlightenment, and they didn't lack their body or their mind.
"There is no such thing as the real mind. Ridding yourself of delusion: that's the real mind."
(Sheng-yen: Getting the Buddha Mind, p 73)

“Don’t rashly seek the true Buddha;
True Buddha can’t be found.
Does marvelous nature and spirit
Need tempering or refinement?
Mind is this mind carefree;
This face, the face at birth."

(Nanyue Mingzan: Enjoying the Way, tr. Jeff Shore; T51n2076, p461b24-26)
User avatar
Astus
Former staff member
 
Posts: 4126
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby ocean_waves » Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:54 pm

LastLegend wrote:What is self?

Self is a concept.
What is no self?
No self is a concept.
That's my conclusion after reading 32 pages.

:D


:applause:
"True seeing is called transcendence;
False seeing is worldliness:
Set aside both right and wrong,
And the nature of enlightenment is clear."
User avatar
ocean_waves
 
Posts: 35
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:35 pm
Location: Hartford, CT [USA]

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:12 pm

Astus wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:So are you saying the Buddha was clinging to the skandhas when he told us to "give them up"?


The Buddha taught to give up attachment, give up desire, anger and ignorance. Those are the causes of suffering. The skandhas are not, that's why there is nothing to give up about them.


If I were you I would be more cautious with my pronouncements, Astus. Check the Pali Nikayas first.

"And these five aggregates affected by clinging are dependently arisen. The desire, indulgence, inclination, and holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origination of suffering" ( M. i. 191).


The following passage then goes on about the cessation of suffering.

(edit) M.i. 191
Mi191.jpg
Mi191.jpg (53.35 KiB) Viewed 51 times
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Jan 27, 2013 9:23 pm

ocean_waves wrote:
LastLegend wrote:What is self?

Self is a concept.
What is no self?
No self is a concept.
That's my conclusion after reading 32 pages.

:D


:applause:


Not quite accurate. If you want to believe that, fine. But the Buddha never taught that self is a concept. The no-self doctrine of the Buddha teaches that the five grasping aggregates of form, feeling, perception. volitions, and consciousness are not the self. The Buddha even calls the self the "noble witness" (A. i. 149). The unwarranted dogma that the Buddha denied the self cannot be supported by scripture. Strictly speaking, a denial of self is annihilationism which is heresy. The Atthakathas even say the Tathagata is the self. They also say the self is the island, the refuge, the rock, the support, the strength, and so on. Buddhism minus self is absurd.

(edit) A.i. 149
40 (10) Authorities
"Bhikkhus, there are these three authorities. What three? Oneself
as one's authority, the world as one's authority, and the
Dhamma as one's authority.
(1) "And what, bhikkhus, is oneself as one's authority?
Here, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an
empty hut, a bhikkhu reflects thus: T did not go forth from
the household life into homelessness for the sake of a robe,
almsfood, or lodging, or for the sake of becoming this or that,
but rather [with the thought]: "I am immersed in birth, old age,
and death; in sorrow, lamentation, pain, dejection, and anguish.
I am immersed in suffering, afflicted by suffering. Perhaps
an ending of this entire mass of suffering can be discerned/'
[148] As one who has gone forth from the household life into
homelessness, it w ould not be proper for me to seek out sensual
pleasures similar to or worse than those that I have discarded.'
He then reflects thus: 'Energy will be aroused in me without
slackening; mindfulness will be established without confusion;
my body will be tranquil without disturbance; my mind will
be concentrated and one-pointed. Having taken himself as his
authority, he abandons the unwholesome and develops the
wholesome; he abandons what is blameworthy and develops
what is blameless; he maintains himself in purity. This is; called
oneself as one's authority.
(2) "And what, bhikkhus, is the world as one's authority?
Here, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an
empty hut, a bhikkhu Reflects thus: 'I did not go forth from the
household life into hCFmelessness for the sake of a ro b e ...b u t
rather [with the thought]: "I am immersed in birth, old age, and
death... Perhaps an ending of this entire mass of suffering can
be discerned." As one who has gone forth from the household
life into homeless ness, I might think sensual thoughts, thoughts
of ill Will, or thoughts of harming. But the abode of the world
is vast. In the vast abode of the world there are ascetics and
brahmins with psy chiccpo tency and the divine eye who know
the minds of others. They see things from a distance but they
are not themselves seei¥everi when they're close; they know the
minds [of others] with their own mind. They would know me
thus: "Look at this clansman: though he has gone forth from the
household life into homelessness out of faith, he is tarnished by
bad unwholesome s ta te s." There are deities, too, with psychic
potency and the divine eye w ho know the minds of others. They
see even from a distance but are not seen themselves even when
close; they too know the minds [of others] with their own mind.
They too would know me thus: "Look at this clansman: though
he has gone forth from the household life into homelessness
out of faith, he is tarnished by bad unwholesome states."' He
then reflects thus: 'E n e rg y will be aroused in me [149] without
slackening; m indfulness will be established without confusion;
my body wili be tranquil without disturbance; my mind will
be concentrated and one -p o in ted. Having taken the world as
his authority, he abandons the unwholesome and develops the
wholesome; lie abandons what is blameworthy and develops
what is blameless; he maintains himself in purity. This is called
the world as one's authority. .
(3) "And what, bhikkhus, is the Dhamma as one's authority?
Here, having gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an
empty hut, a bhikkhu reflects thus: T did not go forth from the
household life into homelessness for the sake of a robe. . . but
rather [with the thought]: "I am immersed in birth, old age,
and death. .. Perhaps an ending of this entire mass of suffering
can be discerned." The Dhamma is well expounded by the
Blessed One, directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come
and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise.
There are fellow monks of mine who know and see. As one
who has gone forth from the .household life into homelessness
in this well-expounded Dhamma and discipline, it would be
improper for me to be lazy and heedless.' He then reflects thus:
'Energy will be a roused in m e without slackening; mindfulness
will be established without confusion; my body will be tranquil
without disturbance; m y mind will be concentrated and
one-pointed.' Having taken the Dhamma as his authoritv/he
abandons the unwholesome and develops the wholesome; he
abandons what is blameworthy and develops what is blameless;
he maintains himself in purity. This is called the Dhamma as
one's authority.
"These, bhikkhus, are the three authorities."
For one performing an evil deed
there is no place in the world called "hidden."
The self within you knows, O person,
whether it is true or false.
Indeed, sir, you the witness
despise your good self;
you conceal the evil self
existing within yourself.[150]
The devas and Tathagatas see the fool
acting unrighteously in the world.
Therefore one should fare mindfully,
taking oneself as authority;
alert and meditative, taking the world as authority;
and fare in accordance with the Dhamma,
taking the Dhamma as authority.
Truly exerting himself, a sage does not decline.
Having vanquished Mara
and overcome the end-maker,
the striver has finished with birth.
Such a sage, wise, a world-knower,
identifies with nothing at all".
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Jan 27, 2013 10:56 pm

songhill wrote: The unwarranted dogma that the Buddha denied the self cannot be supported by scripture.


Would you disagree with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's assertion that the Buddha taught:
"Nothing whatsoever should be grasped at or clung to as "I" or "mine." ?
.
.
.
Profile Picture: "The Foaming Monk"
The Chinese characters are Fo (buddha) and Ming (bright). The image is of a student of Buddhism, who, imagining himself to be a monk, and not understanding the true meaning of the words takes the sound of the words literally. Likewise, People on web forums sometime seem to be foaming at the mouth.
Original painting by P.Volker /used by permission.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
 
Posts: 2800
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:00 pm

LastLegend wrote:What is self?

Self is a concept.

What is no self?

No self is a concept.

That's my conclusion after reading 32 pages.

:D
Personally I find it useful to check my view against others' views. If all you can see is intellectualization then I suggest you check your view too. :smile:
we cannot get rid of God because we still believe in grammar - Nietzsche
User avatar
futerko
 
Posts: 993
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2012 5:58 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JKhedrup, tobes and 16 guests

>