Picture 3: Understanding no-self and conditionality.
From another topic:
About those questions about what happens to an arahant after death, it is quite simply to see why they are wrong. They all imply that there is/was a self. While in reality there was never a self to begin with. There is no arahant that dies. There are just the 5 aggregates that cease without reminder. There was never an arahant (witch implies a self) to begin with, just the 5 aggregates that exist and make up that being. There is nobody there to experience the death. There never was anybody there to experience anything. Just the 5 aggregates that used to exist and now do not exist anymore.
Another way to understand it better: There is not a person that experiences suffering. There is just suffering that arises. This person or self that supposedly experiences things was always just an invention, just an opinion. Same as Freud “super ego” and other ideas of his that people laugh about now. Just an invention, just an opinion that has arisen. It is not a self that perishes, there never was a self to begin with.
Another way to understand it even more better: Imagine a car parking sensor. There are 2 elements. The physical parking sensor and the “sensor sights” or the thing the sensor perceives. This sensor perception then triggers the beep-beep to start. In the case of a being, there are 3 elements. There is the eye, eye sights and a 3rd one - eye consciousness. Then these things trigger volition, feelings etc. to arise like the parking sensor triggers the beep-beep. There is not a self that sees the eye sights. There is just eye consciousness/ear consciousness/mind consciousness/nose consciousness etc. For more on consciousness:
* - JustPaste.it
* - JustPaste.it
* - JustPaste.it
Those mountains in the pictures are born out of contitions. The top of the mountains represent a feeling felt in this moment, or a thought cognized in another moment. They all arisse because of conditions. For example when one needs to go to the bathroom. First arises bodily discomfort. Dependent on this bodily discomfort arises the volition (will) to go to the bathroom. This is a simple example but shows that even will arises dependent on conditions. All that arises, arises because of conditions, even will (volition). When there arises the idea “I am experiencing this” - that idea is just another mountain that has appeared dependent on conditions. Dependent on the human brain, dependent on thinking about that in that particular moment (witch also had happened because of conditions, because of other thoughts that lead one to thinking that thought), dependent on the lack of wisdom about that not been so, etc. It is just another mountain that has arisen dependent on conditions.
And here is a powerful sutta for contemplation:
Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Baraṇasi in the Deer Park at Isipatana. There the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus of the group of five thus: “Bhikkhus!”
“Venerable sir!” those bhikkhus replied. The Blessed One said this:
“Bhikkhus, form is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, form were self, this form would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’ But because form is nonself, form leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of form: ‘Let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.’
Feeling is nonself…
Perception is nonself…
Volitional formations are nonself…
Consciousness is nonself. For if, bhikkhus, consciousness were self, this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and it would be possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’ But because consciousness is nonself, consciousness leads to affliction, and it is not possible to have it of consciousness: ‘Let my consciousness be thus; let my consciousness not be thus.’
“What do you think, bhikkhus, is form permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”—“Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
Is feeling permanent or impermanent?…
Is perception permanent or impermanent?…
Are volitional formations permanent or impermanent?…
Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?”—“Impermanent, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent suffering or happiness?”— “Suffering, venerable sir.”—“Is what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, this I am, this is my self’?”—“No, venerable sir.”
“Therefore, bhikkhus, any kind of form whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all form should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
Any kind of feeling whatsoever …
Any kind of perception whatsoever …
Any kind of volitional formations whatsoever …
Any kind of consciousness whatsoever, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near, all consciousness should be seen as it really is with correct wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’
“Seeing thus, bhikkhus, the instructed noble disciple experiences revulsion towards form, revulsion towards feeling, revulsion towards perception, revulsion towards volitional formations, revulsion towards consciousness. Experiencing revulsion, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion his mind is liberated. When it is liberated there comes the knowledge: ‘It’s liberated.’ He understands: ‘Destroyed is birth, the holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is no more for this state of being.’”
That is what the Blessed One said. Elated, those bhikkhus delighted in the Blessed One’s statement. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the bhikkhus of the group of five were liberated from the taints by nonclinging. (SN 22.59)
PS: Some might have the question of how can free will exist in such conditionality without a self. It exist just like randomness exist in online poker where cards are distributed though a RNG system that is entirely conditioned. From one point of view things look deterimistic, from another they do not. This is how Buddha answered the question too. This is how free will exist without a self and has the same power just like a free will based on a supposedly existing self. Looking towards the past, things look 100% deterministic from such a perspective of looking. Looking towards/through a present perspective, things do not look deterministic.
