Here, bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple, who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, _does not regard does not regard material form as self, or self as possessed of material form, or material form as in self, or self as in material form.
Re the section in italics - are parts 3 and 4 of the tetrad just another way of repeating parts 1 and 2?
Each of these can be considered as different ways of relating to material form as self:
rūpaṃ attato: Material form is identical with the self. (Eg your self is your body)
rūpavantaṃ vā attānaṃ: One’s self owns material form. (For example, your self is immortal and spiritual but at birth it takes possession of your body.)
attani vā rūpaṃ: material form is one aspect of a larger self. For example, the self may be all five khandhas, or even the entire cosmos, of which my body is just one particle.
rūpasmiṃ vā attānaṃ: Due to how Pali grammar works, this can be construed in two ways.
Either “self is a part of material form, i.e. is literally inside my body”, eg my self is my (physical) heart, or my (living) breath.
Or else self is “in relation to material form”, eg. my self is a psychological construct that is an emergent property of my brain activity.
No doubt there are other ways of considering it. But this is a start!
Such formulas are condensed ways of summarizing theories of the self. Remember that in ancient India every man and his dog has some kind of metaphysical theory, so they needed some way of making sense of how they related to each other.
Hi Bhante Sujato
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. You have indeed given me a good place to start; with different twists.
I’ve put your answers into the context of
He does not regard
and also replaced material form with consciousness to see how that fits. Would you mind running your mind over them sometime and see if I’ve got what you meant, esp in respect to consciousness?
He does not regard
consciousness as self,
consciousness as identical to the self ie your self is not your consciousness
or
self as possessed of consciousness,
one’s self as owning consciousness ie your self is not immortal and not spiritual but at birth it thinks it takes possession of your consciousness
or
consciousness as in self,
consciousness as one aspect of a larger self. ie the self is not all five khandas, of which consciousness is not one particle (*as it is subject to conditions, (arising and ceasing) therefore taken to be impermanent, unsatisfactory and not self – *my note)
self as in consciousness
Self as a part consciousness ie it is not inside body eg my self is not my heart or my breath
Self in relation to consciousness ie my self is not a psychological construct – not an emergent property of my brain activity
I found the above relevant passage in Mn Sutta 131 para 21 - Bhaddekaratta Sutta - A Single Excellent Night
(I find the integrating passage of these 4 related Suttas (Mn 131 - 134) very helpful to keep in mind.
“Let not a person revive the past
Or on the future build his (their) hopes;
For the past has been left behind
And the future has not been reached.
Instead with insight let him (them) see
Each presently arisen state;
Let (them) know that and be sure of it,
Invincibly, unshakeably.
Today the effort must be made;
Tomorrow Death may come, who knows?
No bargain with Mortality
Can keep him and his hordes away.
But one (those) who dwell/s thus ardently,
Relentlessly, by day, by night—
It is he (they), the Peaceful Sage has said,
Who has (have) had a single excellent night.”
especially
Instead with insight let him (them) see
Each presently arisen state;
Let (them) know that and be sure of it,
Invincibly, unshakeably. (my brackets)
Exactly, yes. the theories of a self ranged all the way from simple animist ideas to the sophisticated non-dualism of the Upanishads. Schemes such as this are ways of organizing and comprehending this vast range of ideas.
