Mind versus Self?

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

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Astus » Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:47 am

Exactly.
"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: 4127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:09 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
pretty much a word game A pretty pointless and ridiculous word game as basically you are saying that "Self" is anatman (ie you say that Atman is anatman). At the same time others are saying that "Self" (Atman) is atman. So when you all can come up with a coherent and unfied designation of what this "Self" is then please come back so we can seriously discuss the issue.
:namaste:
PS Realistically though, the whole thing smacks of (non-dual) Advaita Vedanta, all you need to do is replace the term "Self" with Brahman. Replacing it with Buddha is just an extraordinarily transparent disguise.



I dont see where your getting the idea that we are all saying different things about the true self.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:20 pm

From the past 14 pages of discussion? :shrug:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7946
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:30 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:From the past 14 pages of discussion? :shrug:


Im not seeing what you are saying,go ahead and qoute some of the differences for me along with the page numbers.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:42 pm

I got more important things to do right now, like vacuuming and mopping. ;)
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7946
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Jan 06, 2013 12:57 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:I got more important things to do right now, like vacuuming and mopping. ;)


You said for us to come back for a serious discussion when we can all agree on what the True Self is.

You made the claim we have different views concerning the subject,and when I ask for you to qoute these "different" views you simply say you have better things to do.

If you cannot qoute 2 different people with different views of the true self in this topic,you are simply speaking baseless falsehoods.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Son of Buddha » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:02 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:What do you guys think?
Well... I must admit that it wasn't exactly crystal clear to me. But what it left me with was a sense that it verified my claim, some 8 pages back, that the true self is no-self. That's what I go out of it anyway.


The True self is (((not))) no-self or not self

Not self is a list of things that are not enlightenment,
defilements,impermenance,suffering,conditioned,attachment to the "i"(false self) all these things are not my self,not our self,(not self)

Not self isnt Enlightenment not self is everything that is NOT enlightenment

True Self IS Enlightenment

Not self is a skillfull means to get too True self
not self tells us what is not enlightenment and leads us to what is.
User avatar
Son of Buddha
 
Posts: 784
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2011 6:48 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:32 pm

Not-self is what is left when you take away (or more correctly: stop clinging to) all the factors that you impute the self onto.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7946
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Astus » Sun Jan 06, 2013 2:36 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:Not self is a skillfull means to get too True self
not self tells us what is not enlightenment and leads us to what is.


If the teaching of no-self tells us what is not enlightenment, then the true self should tell what enlightenment is. However, I am still looking for a clear description of what that actually is. Yes, it is said that it is "permanent, joy, self and purity", but those are just qualities without telling the thing that has those qualities.

Just to give an example of what I'm looking for from those emphasising "true self", here is an explanation from Sallie B. King's book "Buddha Nature" that is a study of the Buddha Nature Treatise (Foxinglun):

"The essential point here is that the new teaching of atmaparamita is not in conflict with the old anatman teaching, but on the contrary is the fulfillment of it. The very anatman itself, when taken to its extreme (i.e., when perfected) is the atmaparamita. This teaching is logically parallel to the sunyavada teaching that emptiness or sunya is the characteristic or the own-being (svabhava) of all things. ... Though the language is new, the content of this message is not. What we have here is a variation on the theme enunciated previously, "Buddha nature is the Thusness revealed by the dual emptiness of person and things ... If one does not speak of Buddha nature, then one does not understand emptiness'' (787b ). Non-Buddhists are as wrong as ever in seeing a self in the changing phenomena of worldly flux." (p. 89)
"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: 4127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Sun Jan 06, 2013 3:13 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
The True self is (((not))) no-self or not self
Not self is a list of things that are not enlightenment,
defilements,impermenance,suffering,conditioned,attachment to the "i"(false self) all these things are not my self,not our self,(not self)
Not self isnt Enlightenment not self is everything that is NOT enlightenment
True Self IS Enlightenent
Not self is a skillfull means to get too True self
not self tells us what is not enlightenment and leads us to what is.


The true nature of mind may be without defilements,
but it is not a "self".
Whatever you are talking about isn't a "self".
That's the difference between Buddhist and non-Buddhist assertions.
And self isn't another word for non-self, or the other way around.

"Self" implies a primordially existent, independently arising thing.
Once I hold this idea, then it becomes "my thing", meaning "me", or "who I really am"
which is very self-affirming, but it isn't Buddhist.

I understand what you are saying about one's true nature,
but as soon as you call it a self, that blows it.
.
.
.
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 06, 2013 3:23 pm

PadmaVonSamba wrote:That's the difference between Buddhist and non-Buddhist assertions.


Well, I did once have a dream where Spongebob Squarepants was teaching the path of no-path pathlessness path, but I woke up.
I like to think that in that talk he may well have spoken about the doctrine of the selfless self of no-self. :tongue:
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

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:20 pm

Son of Buddha wrote:
gregkavarnos wrote:
Lotus_Bitch wrote:What do you guys think?
Well... I must admit that it wasn't exactly crystal clear to me. But what it left me with was a sense that it verified my claim, some 8 pages back, that the true self is no-self. That's what I go out of it anyway.


The True self is (((not))) no-self or not self

Not self is a list of things that are not enlightenment,
defilements,impermenance,suffering,conditioned,attachment to the "i"(false self) all these things are not my self,not our self,(not self)

Not self isnt Enlightenment not self is everything that is NOT enlightenment

True Self IS Enlightenment

Not self is a skillfull means to get too True self
not self tells us what is not enlightenment and leads us to what is.


You might enjoy this:

"Radha, you should abandon desire for whatever is nonself [anattâ]" (S.iv.49, brackets are mine).


(edit)At this point Songhill misquotes (and mistranslates) the Satta Sutta, to read the actual translation:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn23/sn23.002.than.html

In another passage the Buddha says:

“Bhikkhu, you should abandon desire for whatever does not belong to the self” (S.iii.78).


(edit)Full quote in order to add the context of the specific stanza.
S iii 76 to 79.jpg
S iii 76 to 79.jpg (57.62 KiB) Viewed 145 times
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:38 pm

You think that by capitalisng the "A" in atman it makes it something different to atman?

And this leads you to believe that the Buddha taught anatman but did not teach anAtman.

And all of this based on a couple of quotes from the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, some sentences in the Lankavatara Sutra (that are contradicted by some sentences a little further down in the same paragraph) and out of context quotes from (dubious translations of) the Nikayas?

If you are fishing for fools, you are going to have to use some better bait to catch this one.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7946
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Jan 06, 2013 4:59 pm

Astus wrote:
Son of Buddha wrote:Not self is a skillfull means to get too True self
not self tells us what is not enlightenment and leads us to what is.


If the teaching of no-self tells us what is not enlightenment, then the true self should tell what enlightenment is. However, I am still looking for a clear description of what that actually is. Yes, it is said that it is "permanent, joy, self and purity", but those are just qualities without telling the thing that has those qualities.

Just to give an example of what I'm looking for from those emphasising "true self", here is an explanation from Sallie B. King's book "Buddha Nature" that is a study of the Buddha Nature Treatise (Foxinglun):

"The essential point here is that the new teaching of atmaparamita is not in conflict with the old anatman teaching, but on the contrary is the fulfillment of it. The very anatman itself, when taken to its extreme (i.e., when perfected) is the atmaparamita. This teaching is logically parallel to the sunyavada teaching that emptiness or sunya is the characteristic or the own-being (svabhava) of all things. ... Though the language is new, the content of this message is not. What we have here is a variation on the theme enunciated previously, "Buddha nature is the Thusness revealed by the dual emptiness of person and things ... If one does not speak of Buddha nature, then one does not understand emptiness'' (787b ). Non-Buddhists are as wrong as ever in seeing a self in the changing phenomena of worldly flux." (p. 89)


Looking for the self using the nets of the five aggregates is an impossible task. It isn't a particular shape or a pleasant feeling. It isn't a percept. It isn't a formation or consciousness. In addition, the five aggregates are produced by worldlings (S. iii. 152).
(edit) I reproduce the entire passage here for the context.
100 (8) The Leash (2)
"Bhikkhus, this samsara is without discoverable beginning. A
first point is not discerned of beings roaming and wandering on
hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving....
"Suppose, bhikkhus, a dog tied up on a leash was bound to a
strong post or pillar. If it walks, it walks close to that post or pillar.
If it stands, it stands close to that post or pillar. If it sits down,
it sits down close to that post or pillar. If it lies down, it lies down
close to that post or pillar.
"So too, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling regards form
thus: 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.' He regards feeling
... perception ... volitional formations ... consciousness thus:
'This is mine, this I am, this is my self.' If he walks, he walks close
to those five aggregates subject to clinging. If he stands, he stands
close to those five aggregates subject to clinging. If he sits down,
he sits down close to those five aggregates subject to clinging. If
he lies down, he lies down close to those five aggregates subject
to clinging.
"Therefore, bhikkhus, one should often reflect upon one's own
mind thus: 'For a long time this mind has been defiled by lust,
hatred, and delusion.' Through the defilements of the mind beings
are defiled; with the cleansing of the mind beings are purified.
"Bhikkhus, have you seen the picture called 'Faring On'?"
"Yes, venerable sir."
"Even that picture called 'Faring On' has been designed in its
diversity by the mind, yet the mind is even more diverse than
that picture called 'Faring On.'
"Therefore, bhikkhus, one should often reflect upon one's own
mind thus: 'For a long time this mind has been defiled by lust,
hatred, and delusion.' Through the defilements of the mind
beings are defiled; with the cleansing of the mind beings are
purified. [152]
"Bhikkhus, I do not see any other order of living beings so
diversified as those in the animal realm. Even those beings in the
animal realm have been diversified by the mind,208 yet the mind
is even more diverse than those beings in the animal realm.
"Therefore, bhikkhus, one should often reflect upon one's own
mind thus: 'For a long time this mind has been defiled by lust,
hatred, and delusion.' Through the defilements of the mind beings
are defiled; with the cleansing of the mind beings are purified.
"Suppose, bhikkhus, an artist or a painter, using dye or lac or
turmeric or indigo or crimson, would create the figure of a man
or a woman complete in all its features on a well-polished plank
or wall or canvas. So too, when the uninstructed worldling
produces anything, it is only form that he produces; only feeling
that he produces; only perception that he produces; only volitional
formations that he produces; only consciousness that he
produces.
"What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?"
- "Impermanent, venerable sir." ... - "Therefore ...
Seeing thus ... He understands: ' ... there is no more for this state
of being."

The aggregates also belong to Mara the Buddhist devil (S.iii.189).
(edit) The entire teaching.
1 (l) Mara
At Savattru. Then the Venerable Radha approached the Blessed
One, [189] paid homage to him, sat down to one side, and said
to him: "Venerable sir, it is said, 'Mara, Mara.' In what way, venerable
sir, might Mara be?"
"When there is form, Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer,
or the one who is killed. Therefore, Radha, see form as Mara,
see it as the killer, see it as the one who is killed. See it as a disease,
as a tumour, as a dart, as misery, as real misery. Those who
see it thus see rightly.
"When there is feeling ... When there is perception ... When
there are volitional formations ... When there is consciousness,
Radha, there might be Mara, or the killer, or the one who is killed.
Therefore, Radha, see consciousness as Mara, see it as the killer,
see it as the one who is killed. See it as a diseasel as a turnoUT, as
a dart, as misery, as real misery. Those who see it thus see rightly."
"What, venerable sir, is the purpose of seeing rightly?"
"The purpose of seeing rightly, Radha, is revulsion."
And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of revulsion?"
"The purpose of revulsion is dispassion."
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of dispassion?"'
"The purpose of dispassion is liberation."
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of liberation?"
"The purpose of liberation is Nibbana."
"And what, venerable sir, is the purpose of Nibbana?"
"You have gone beyond the range of questioning,
You weren't able to grasp the limit to questioning. For, Radha,
the holy life is lived with Nibbana as its ground, Nibbana as its
destination, Nibbana as its final goal."

From passage after passage, for example in the Khandhavagga of the Samyutta-Nikaya we learn that aggregates are not the self or not my self (na meso attâ). From this we can surmise that the self is most intrinsic. It doesn't have to be made or produced. In a manner of speaking it finds itself by putting away desire for what is not itself (S.iii.78).
(edit) The entire teaching.
49 (9) The Noble Disciple
At Savattru. [78] "Bhikkhus, an instructed noble disciple does not
think: 'When what exists does what come to be? With the arising
of what does what arise? [When what exists do volitional fonnations
come to be? When what exists does consciousness come to
be? When what exists does name-and-fonn come to be? ..
When what exists does aging-and-death come to be?'
"Rather, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple has knowledge
about this that is independent of others: 'When this exists,
that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. [When there
is ignorance, volitional formations come to be. When there are
volitional formations, consciousness comes to be. When there is
consciousness, name-and-form comes to be.... When there is birth,
aging-and-death comes to be.' He understands thus: 'In such a
way the world originates.'
"Bhikkhus, an instructed noble disciple does not think: 'When
what does not exist does what not come to be? With the cessation
of what does what cease? [When what does not exist do volitional
fonnations not come to be? When what does not exist does
consciousness not come to be?] When what does not exist does
name-and-form not come to be? .. When what does not exist
does aging-and-death not come to be?'"
"Rather, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple has knowledge
about this that is independent of others: 'When this does
not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that
ceases. [When there is no ignorance, volitional fonnations do not
come to be. When there are no volitional formations, consciousness
does not come to be.] When there is no consciousness, nameand-
form does not come to be.... When there is no birth, agingand-
death does not come to be.' He understands thus: 'In such a
way the world ceases.' [79]
"Bhikkhus, when a noble disciple thus understands as they
really are the origin and the passing away of the world, he is then
called a noble disciple who is accomplished in view, accomplished
in vision, who has arrived at this true Dhamma, who sees
this true Dhamma, who possesses a trainee's knowledge, a
trainee's true knowledge, who has entered the stream of the
Dhamma, a noble one with penetrative wisdom, one who stands
squarely before the door to the Deathless."

But as we know, worldlings produce and crave the five aggregates which are suffering; which are not the self.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Astus » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:37 pm

songhill wrote:Looking for the self using the nets of the five aggregates is an impossible task. It isn't a particular shape or a pleasant feeling. It isn't a percept. It isn't a formation or consciousness. In addition, the five aggregates are produced by worldlings (S. iii. 152). The aggregates also belong to Mara the Buddhist devil (S.iii.189). From passage after passage, for example in the Khandhavagga of the Samyutta-Nikaya we learn that aggregates are not the self or not my self (na meso attâ). From this we can surmise that the self is most intrinsic. It doesn't have to be made or produced. In a manner of speaking it finds itself by putting away desire for what is not itself (S.iii.78). But as we know, worldlings produce and crave the five aggregates which are suffering; which are not the self.


You think that because it is taught that the five aggregates are not self that there must be a self somewhere else. However, if there were a self outside of the five aggregates that self would be without any sensory ability or even consciousness. Who believes in an unconscious, inactive self, and what would be the point of such a self anyway? On the other hand, the Buddha teaches that people think something to be a self or a possession of the self among the five aggregates, and that's why he teaches again and again that the five aggregates are not the self. But imagining a self beyond the five aggregates makes no sense even in everyday terms, not to mention Buddhism. Nevertheless, if you find a self appealing that is without thoughts, feelings and sense faculties, go on. It's just I don't see what Buddhism has to do with that idea of a non-functional self.
"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: 4127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Budapest

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:38 pm

songhill wrote:Looking for the self using the nets of the five aggregates is an impossible task.
And looking for the "True Self" is also an impossible task given that, right now, we only have the five aggregates to look for it. Oh wait on, but it's our true nature right now isn't it. So we have it now, but we can't see it? We can't see it via the five aggregates although it constitutes "us" and "we" are the five aggregates right now. It is our essence yet we cannot see our essence with our essence? It is our essence but it is beyond our current form of existence?

So is it our future existence or is it our current existence? If it is our future existence it is unattainable since we can only exist in the now. If it is our current existence then we have it right now and the aggregates are a part of it (since the aggregates is what we have right now).

Do we leave our current existence of body and form and go to this true existence that is beyond our current existence? So does it exist somewhere else apart from here and now? If so when and where? If it exists beyond the here and now then we can never achieve it. If it exists here and now then we have it and are enlightened right now. If it is not "us" then it cannot be "us". Mangoes don't grow on olive trees.

It is a permanent state and it is our True Nature. If it is permanent then it has always existed and will always exist. So that also means that we have always existed and will always exist since, logically, it has to be our true state right now.
From passage after passage, for example in the Khandhavagga of the Samyutta-Nikaya we learn that aggregates are not the self or not my self (na meso attâ).
Yup, this is certainly the case. But your logic leap in the next statement:
From this we can surmise that the self is most intrinsic.
Is a massive leap backwards.

Why, because the Buddha does not say that the aggregates are the problem, he says that clinging to the aggregates as if there was something permanent there is the problem. You see, you have overlooked a minor point, a minor point that is actually REALLY important. The Buddha achieved enlightenment while constituted of the five aggregates. He stated that his enlightened state cannot be identified by his body, not that it was something beyond his existence.

So now we reach the closing scene and our hero is faced with two choices: Tathagatagarbha (unaligned to any notion of self) here and now and thus enlightenment here and now, or Tathagatagarbha (aligned with a notion of Self) beyond the here and now and thus unattainable enlightenment.

Cake-eat it-cake-eat it-cake-eat it. It's a difficult choice but you gotta make it at some point in time.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7946
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby oushi » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:44 pm

Buddhahood as a matter of choice :lol:
User avatar
oushi
 
Posts: 1377
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:18 am
Location: Chrząszczyrzewoszyce

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 06, 2013 5:54 pm

oushi wrote:Buddhahood as a matter of choice :lol:
Most definitely. Without a doubt.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7946
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:04 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
Why, because the Buddha does not say that the aggregates are the problem, he says that clinging to the aggregates as if there was something permanent there is the problem.


Well, yes he does say they are the problem which is suffering. The aggregates ARE suffering (D.ii.305, S.iii.20).

(edit) D.ii. 305 Highlighting added by me
D ii 305.jpg
D ii 305.jpg (30.05 KiB) Viewed 95 times

(edit) S.iii.20
10 (10) Suffering in the Three Times
At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, form is suffering, both of the past and the
future, not to speak of the present. [20] Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the
instructed noble disciple is indifferent towards form of the past;
he does not seek delight in form of the future; and he is practising
for revulsion towards form of the present, for its fading away
and cessation.
"Feeling is suffering Perception is suffering ... Volitional
formations are suffering Consciousness is suffering, both of
the past and the future, not to speak of the present. Seeing thus,
bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple is indifferent towards
consciousness of the past; he does not seek delight in consciousness
of the future; and he is practising for revulsion towards consciousness
of the present, for its fading away and cessation."
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 06, 2013 6:15 pm

"Monk, clinging is neither the same thing as the five clinging-aggregates, nor is it separate from the five clinging-aggregates. Just that whatever passion & delight is there, that's the clinging there."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

From now on you will link to the references you quote so we can cross check them. It is only polite. Actually, please link to the source you provided above.

And, anyway, I noticed that you, yet again, failed to answer any of the important points I made and just focused in on one detail.
:namaste:
"When one is not in accord with the true view
Meditation and conduct become delusion,
One will not attain the real result
One will be like a blind man who has no eyes."
Naropa - Summary of the View from The Eight Doha Treasures
User avatar
Sherab Dorje
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 7946
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Indrajala, MSN [Bot] and 10 guests

>