Mind versus Self?

[futerko]

What is self?

Self is a concept.

What is no self?

No self is a concept.

That's my conclusion after reading 32 pages.

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.

[gregkavarnos]

"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).

What a surprise, cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context again. I never would have expected that from you.

Now this has been said by the Blessed One: One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination. 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 origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust for these five aggregates, affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.

[LastLegend]

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.

Yeah, I do get caught up with intellectualization sometimes. But what you don't know is how I practice, and how I progress. Slow, but I am changing.

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.

Concept is a self then?

[songhill]

"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).

What a surprise, cherry picking quotes and taking them out of context again. I never would have expected that from you.

Now this has been said by the Blessed One: One who sees dependent origination sees the Dhamma; one who sees the Dhamma sees dependent origination. 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 origin of suffering. The removal of desire and lust for these five aggregates, affected by clinging is the cessation of suffering.

Now your telling us that in Pali the passage I submitted doesn't say what it obviously says. So when the passage reads: "[A]nd holding based on these five aggregates affected by clinging is the origin of suffering" tell us what it is really saying O Bhante.

[songhill]

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.

Yeah, I do get caught up with intellectualization sometimes. But what you don't know is how I practice, and how I progress. Slow, but I am changing.

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.

Concept is a self then?

When the Buddha said that his self was not any of the five aggregates was his self a concept? Who or what moves your body around all day, puts it to sleep and wakes it up? is that a concept? What are your thoughts composed of? Is this a concept? Do you know what makes your hands and feet move? Is this also a concept? I hope your practice goes much deeper than observing the superficial five aggregates which are not your self; which are illusory.

[futerko]

"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).

To me, what this means is not that there is nothing beyond this, but rather that there is nothing beyond this to be clung onto, which makes the first formulation irrelevant. This raises the question, why the obsession with naming what lies beyond this?

[PadmaVonSamba]

Buddhism minus self is absurd.

Perhaps.
But realization without self is essential.
.
.
.

[PadmaVonSamba]

Who or what moves your body...

Whose body?

...around all day, puts it to sleep and wakes it up? is that a concept? What are your thoughts...

Whose thoughts?

...composed of? Is this a concept? Do you know what makes your hands...

Whose hands?

...and feet move? Is this also a concept? I hope your practice...

Whose practice?

...goes much deeper than observing the superficial five aggregates which are not your self; which are illusory.

So far, you (Who?) haven't gone "much deeper".
All you have done is to "abandon" the skhandas by renaming them "Buddha" .

TOO FUNNY!!!!
.
.
.

[songhill]

"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).

To me, what this means is not that there is nothing beyond this, but rather that there is nothing beyond this to be clung onto, which makes the first formulation irrelevant. This raises the question, why the obsession with naming what lies beyond this?

In discourse after discourse the Buddha distinguishes himself from the five aggregates which are suffering (S.v.425). He says, again and again with respect to each aggregate: this is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self/attâ. So obviously, he is outside of the ballpark aggregates. But when a puthujjana clings to the five aggregates (which are suffering) he suffers. This is the origin or cause of his suffering.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Buddhism with some kind of inherent, non-conventional self is absurd, as has been pointed out numerous times, with no good rebuttals since the beginning of the thread.

What a bizarre reading of middle path to think that finding the unreality of a thing is implying existence of something else in it's place, misses the entire point.

[songhill]

Buddhism with some kind of inherent, non-conventional self is absurd, as has been pointed out numerous times, with no good rebuttals since the beginning of the thread.

What a bizarre reading of middle path to think that finding the unreality of a thing is implying existence of something else in it's place, misses the entire point.

Seems like your worldly pickup is stuck in worldly mud, dude. You need AAA scholar services to pull your truck out of the mud of wrong view.

Echoing our tathagatagarbha sources, the Samgharâja argues that while the Buddha says that the conditioned is worldly (i.e. laukika), evil, impermanent and leads to death, the unconditioned is supramundane (lokottara), good, permanent and undying. The former must be rejected; the latter accepted. If there were no Self to be accepted, there could be no not-Self to be rejected. Again, in common with tathagatagarbha texts (and perhaps significant culturally), the Samgharâja makes a great deal of the purity of nirvana. Since nirvana is pure, there must be something that is actually to be pure (we might say, something in which purity inheres). That is the attâ, the Self. It is also the mind, but a mind purified of all conditioned dharmas. It is hence an unconditioned mind or consciousness, i.e., 'Mind'. The Samgharâja states that he agrees with other Buddhists that 'Self' is conventional and a concept. But it is not the conventional concept that he is speaking of here, but its referent, i.e.., the actual Self that really exists and is nirvana. To abandon the designation is not to abandon its referent" (Paul Williams, Mahayana Buddhism, p. 126).

[Jnana]

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

Question: Does this actual self that you are asserting experience feeling or does it not experience feeling?

[songhill]

Buddhism minus self is absurd.

Perhaps.
But realization without self is essential.
.
.
.

My good dude, when one first awakens to Mind that is bodhi (bodhicittotpada), the false self of the five aggregates which worldlings cling to as their self, is gone—poof! Truly the world is Mind-only. Nothing actually exists except Mind. I see all as only a configuration of Mind, hence Mind-only. (You need to keep in mind that in the commentaries self and mind are fungible as is Tathagata and self.)

“There is the ‘Mind-only,’ there are no objects to be seen; when there are no objects to see, Mind is not born; and this is called by myself and others the Middle Way" (Lankavatara Sutra).

[futerko]

In discourse after discourse the Buddha distinguishes himself from the five aggregates which are suffering (S.v.425). He says, again and again with respect to each aggregate: this is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self/attâ. So obviously, he is outside of the ballpark aggregates. But when a puthujjana clings to the five aggregates (which are suffering) he suffers. This is the origin or cause of his suffering.

I think we established that. The question was, why do you insist on trying to name and cling to whatever lies beyond the suffering of the aggregates?

[songhill]

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

Question: Does this actual self that you are asserting experience feeling or does it not experience feeling?

Feeling is not mine—it's not my self. Feeling (vedana) is based on sense contact which in turn is based on the six sense organs which are based on nama-rupa (the psycho-physical organism) which is based on rebirth consciousness which is based on karmic impressions/volitions which are based on non-knowledge of our true nature or Mind. If you awaken to your true nature, you're home free.

[Jnana]

Feeling is not mine—it's not my self.

The question was about experiencing feeling, not about whether or not you consider feeling to be your self. Thus, your answer doesn't address the question. I'll ask again: Does this actual self that you are asserting experience feeling or does it not experience feeling?

[songhill]

In discourse after discourse the Buddha distinguishes himself from the five aggregates which are suffering (S.v.425). He says, again and again with respect to each aggregate: this is not mine, I am not this, this is not my self/attâ. So obviously, he is outside of the ballpark aggregates. But when a puthujjana clings to the five aggregates (which are suffering) he suffers. This is the origin or cause of his suffering.

I think we established that. The question was, why do you insist on trying to name and cling to whatever lies beyond the suffering of the aggregates?

I don't dude, I am there—never left it. I am trying to help deludeds. My task is difficult because the deludeds are annihilationists who imagine nirvana is mystical death. That view is a big Dharma no-no.

[PadmaVonSamba]

when one first awakens to Mind that is bodhi (bodhicittotpada), the false self of the five aggregates which worldlings cling to as their self, is gone—poof!

"Mind that is bodhi" is accurate. your error is in asserting that this is some kind of 'self'.
.
.
.

[PadmaVonSamba]

deludeds are annihilationists who imagine nirvana is mystical death.

That is a misunderstanding you have because the suggestion that buddhists hold such a notion of extinction (mystical death) is typical in so much of the outdated literature on which you rely, composed by western scholars in the first half of the 20th century .
.
.
.

[songhill]

when one first awakens to Mind that is bodhi (bodhicittotpada), the false self of the five aggregates which worldlings cling to as their self, is gone—poof!

"Mind that is bodhi" is accurate. your error is in asserting that this is some kind of 'self'.
.
.
.

In Pali, self and mind are said to be the same in the Atthakathas. It is stated that Attāti cittaṃ in the Atthakatha to the Brâhmanasamyuttama 9. Sundarikasuttavaṇṇanā (of the Samyutta-Nikaya ).