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 Sherab Dorje » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:26 pm

songhill wrote:
"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.
"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: 7959
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby LastLegend » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:47 pm

futerko wrote:
:DPersonally 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:



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.

songhill wrote: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?
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:51 pm

gregkavarnos wrote:
songhill wrote:
"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. :rolling:
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:07 am

LastLegend wrote:
futerko wrote:
:DPersonally 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:



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.

songhill wrote: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.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:37 am

songhill wrote:
"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?
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 PadmaVonSamba » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:43 am

songhill wrote:Buddhism minus self is absurd.

Perhaps.
But realization without self is essential.
.
.
.
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 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:50 am

songhill wrote:Who or what moves your body...

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

Whose thoughts?
songhill wrote:...composed of? Is this a concept? Do you know what makes your hands...

Whose hands?
songhill wrote: ...and feet move? Is this also a concept? I hope your practice...

Whose practice?
songhill wrote:...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!!!!
.
.
.
Last edited by PadmaVonSamba on Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:55 am, edited 3 times in total.
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 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:51 am

futerko wrote:
songhill wrote:
"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.

(edit) S.v. 425
Sv425.jpg
Sv425.jpg (49.1 KiB) Viewed 107 times
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Johnny Dangerous » Mon Jan 28, 2013 1:52 am

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.
"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: 2163
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:06 am

Johnny Dangerous wrote: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).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Jnana » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:06 am

songhill wrote: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?
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:23 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
songhill wrote: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).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby futerko » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:33 am

songhill wrote: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?
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 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:35 am

Jnana wrote:
songhill wrote: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. :applause:
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby Jnana » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:39 am

songhill wrote: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?
Last edited by Jnana on Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
Jnana
 
Posts: 1106
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:58 pm

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 28, 2013 2:40 am

futerko wrote:
songhill wrote: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.
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby PadmaVonSamba » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:36 am

songhill wrote: 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'.
.
.
.
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 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:41 am

songhill wrote: 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 .
.
.
.
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 » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:08 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
songhill wrote: 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 ).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Mind versus Self?

Postby songhill » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:16 am

PadmaVonSamba wrote:
songhill wrote: 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 .
.
.
.


Any Buddhist who believes the Buddha denied the self or âtma is an annihilationist. Period. So where does that leave you PadmaVonSamba? I'd say you're at least a nihilist because attâ is a problem for you and others who claim to be Buddhists.

"But if nihilism is anything, it is first of all a problem of the self. And it becomes such a problem only when the self becomes a problem, when the ground of the existence called "self" becomes a problem for itself. When the problem of nihilism is posed apart from the self, or as a problem of society in general, it loses the special genuineness that distinguishes it from other problems" (Setsuko Aihara, Nishitani Keiji, Graham Parkes, The Self-Overcoming of Nihilism, 1990, 1).
User avatar
songhill
 
Posts: 245
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: deff, M.G., Taijibum, zerwe and 15 guests

>