On how the skandhas are self

[Aemilius]

Human beings, and other beings, have different selves, they have different identities.These are mental events of identifying with form, sensation, conceptualization and volition skandhas ( first four among the five aggregates). Identity itself is mainly conceptualisation (samjna) and volition (samskara) skandhas.
These selves are for example:
Nationality self
Species self; you are human, or you are dog, horse, fox, vulture, snake, etc.. or you are a deva, asura, naga, rakshasa and so on...
Racial self; you are white, yellow, black, red, or something else,
Professional self; you are a plumber, airplanemechanic, salesperson, schoolteacher, nurse, military person, etc...
Political self
Religious self
Sexual self
Sports self
Hobby self
etc...
You are these selves even in your dream state.

In the end, when you get old, and when you die, these selves gradually dissolve, they become nothing, you yourself become nothing, these selves turn out to be without permanent reality,...

[White Lotus]

there is a mundane self, impermanent and impure.
with cessation of the mundane self is the Self, true self/mind/own nature.

sutta nipata 761. the holy ones know it as highest bliss, the cessation of the self. repugnant to worldly folks, but not to those that clearly see.

fundamentally there has never been a self of any kind, not a thing. to speak of a self is to speak discriminatively about a dream, an illusion.

conventional truth is negated by fundamental truth.

rgds white lotus.

[ground]

What a question "On how the skandhas are self"?

The skandas have been taught to negate the thought "self", "I" and "mine" and replace it through "aggregates". Thus it is an affirming negation.

The Mahayana philosophers have delved into absurdity when asking "In what way are the skandhas self?" or asking "Why are the skandhas not self?"

The Mahayana philosophers compare to someone entering a shop and asking "What do you have to sell?" and after having been told "Nothing" they say "Okay, please sell me three pounds of that nothing."


kind regards

[Aemilius]

What a question "On how the skandhas are self"?

The skandas have been taught to negate the thought "self", "I" and "mine" and replace it through "aggregates". Thus it is an affirming negation.

The Mahayana philosophers have delved into absurdity when asking "In what way are the skandhas self?" or asking "Why are the skandhas not self?"

The Mahayana philosophers compare to someone entering a shop and asking "What do you have to sell?" and after having been told "Nothing" they say "Okay, please sell me three pounds of that nothing."


kind regards

There is no absurdity, because you still are something, you are a human. you have a passport, you have a nationality, you have a familytree, you have a profession, you have a social class, and so on...
For the purposes of meditating on selflessness you first of all have to understand what the self is, how it exists, in the skandhas.
Many buddhists who nominally claim selflessness will react angrily if they are called "negro", "gypsy", "russian", "swede", and so on...( providing that you don't have one of these identities, or selves, ofcourse!).

[Jikan]

There is no absurdity, because you still are something, you are a human. you have a passport, you have a nationality, you have a familytree, you have a profession, you have a social class, and so on...
For the purposes of meditating on selflessness you first of all have to understand what the self is, how it exists, in the skandhas.
Many buddhists who nominally claim selflessness will react angrily if they are called "negro", "gypsy", "russian", "swede", and so on...( providing that you don't have one of these identities, or selves, ofcourse!).

Yes, you are provisionally the name on your passport. Your are, provisionally and conventionally, that shape you call your body. But so what?

let's say you're a particular human being. Any particular human being is reducible to the five skandhas, which is to say, isn't really a coherent identity at all in an ultimate sense, it's a coincidence of five categories of impermanence.

my point: it would help to understand the Two Truths if you want to understand a Mahayana position on this topic

[catmoon]

If I have understood him, Lama Zopa says that the self exists, at least in some sense. He defines the self as a label applied to the association of mind and body. Since this label is commonly used and understood, it has a tenuous sort of existence, as a label. He also points out that since the label "self" is applied to an association of mind and body, it is a collective label, like the words "forest" and "army". There really is no separate thing from the trees called "forest" and there really is no separate thing from the soldiers called "army". Thus the existence of forests and armies are wholly dependent on the existence of soldiers and trees. Take away the trees and the forest does not remain.

In the same way, the trees and soldiers are dependent on their constituent parts, and those parts depend on their parts, all the way down. An independently existing part is never found.

[Aemilius]

There is no absurdity, because you still are something, you are a human. you have a passport, you have a nationality, you have a familytree, you have a profession, you have a social class, and so on...
For the purposes of meditating on selflessness you first of all have to understand what the self is, how it exists, in the skandhas.
Many buddhists who nominally claim selflessness will react angrily if they are called "negro", "gypsy", "russian", "swede", and so on...( providing that you don't have one of these identities, or selves, ofcourse!).

Yes, you are provisionally the name on your passport. Your are, provisionally and conventionally, that shape you call your body. But so what?

let's say you're a particular human being. Any particular human being is reducible to the five skandhas, which is to say, isn't really a coherent identity at all in an ultimate sense, it's a coincidence of five categories of impermanence.

my point: it would help to understand the Two Truths if you want to understand a Mahayana position on this topic

I don't know whether we disagree or not ? What I'm saying is that all identities I have mentioned ( nationality, ethnic group, family, profession, social class, sexuality, etc... ) are levels in Name and Form. And that it is useful to know them in order to understand what name and form signifies. They are subtly (or evidently) visible in your form, and they each have a name.