Two stories: Self as subject (anatta)

Discussion
26

I think it’s equally true for permanent things too. Or things beyond existence and non-existence.

Some people say this is why it is “sabbe dhammā anattā” rather than “sabbe sangkhārā anattā”

I think it’s because one sees perceives those arising and ceasing either as some sensory objects or mental object, and this is what they believe to be self, so the statement is a comment on that misunderstanding. You must see these permanent things through your own temporary factors anyway, and all new situations or things you get will go away / be departed from you.

This is relevant to Green’s words because he’s saying that there’s something permanent you just can’t see which must be self.

1 Like
27

Yes, because identifying with a thing involves clinging or grasping after that thing. Clinging and grasping inevitably leads to the arising of dukkha. Another way of saying it - identifying the self with a permanent thing is still a self view. It is only in the cessation of all self views that a self can be said to extinguish.

Importantly - and I think we might disagree on this @bran - identifying with the aggregates as the self in any form or fashion is still a self view. If identification with the aggregates has not been abandoned, then it is not possible to say that a self can be said to extinguish.

:pray:

28

I think that’s included in what I said.

Although for “self view” it may be referring to something particularly theoretical:

There are these four kinds of grasping.

Grasping at sensual pleasures, views, precepts and observances, and theories of a self.

Since here the Buddha separates grasping onto sensual pleasures from grasping on to views and grasping onto theories of a self in SN12.2.

That sutta also shows how any sense channel involves dependent origination, mind or rūpa, which conditions nāmarūpa (any 5 aggregate), which conditions any sense channel then sensation.

Either way it would lead to suffering.

1 Like
29

No Bran. Most people have a stable sense of self but they do not at all believe that it is permanent. Many people believe that it just ends for ever while death. Or they relate to their experience that any sense of self is gone while deep asleep. So there is no relation AT ALL between experiencing a stable sense of self while awake and eternalism, or some conviction that the self is permanent.

Home

Sutta’s are not vague about this. Buddha sought a home. And he found it. Finding home is like knowing and seeing ones deepest nature, stable, not liable to cease. Simple as that. This true knowledge is the protection, the safety, he sought. He did never ever search for a mere cessation. Such things are alien to EBT. There is really no sutta that ever mentions that Buddha wanted to cease without anything remaining.

That people do not understand that the end of all bhava is not the end of Life, i cannot help. The end of all bhava is in EBT Home.

This is the light Buddha brings in the world. Oke, in my world :heart_eyes:

From life to life the wave has been fed, has been re-energenized by the winds of kamma that increases due to seeing waves as me, mine and my self. At death of the arahant all just becomes cool. No wave anymore. All what was never me, mine, my self ceases.

30

Yes, this is I think very closely related. It is possible that this is the origin of the Ship of Theseus. King Milinda was of greek origin. There is speculated cross polination between greece and ancient India in this time period. It is possible these ideas percolated down through geography and time to Plutarch and his exposition on the Ship of Theseus. I don’t hypothesize this originated with Nagasena though. I hypothesize that something very like this came from the Teacher originally.

:pray:

1 Like
31

Why do they suffer when it changes?

If they didn’t suffer, then why not in that case?

There are many examples of this you can trace out and see. Suffering over: death of a relative, growing old, spilling your food, your views being challenged, not getting what you want, failing, being sick, body aches. Why do people suffer over that?

Are you claiming it’s because they know it’s a “self that changes”?

32

You see all the time things i do not do. I only describe Buddha’s teachings. If pain arises immediately anusaya are triggered—dosa, mana, avijja anusaya…those anusaya colour the way we experience that pain. A mentallity is formed of wanting to escape it (dosa) and a sense of a me that carries the pain (mana, asmi mana in particular). This is very normal. This is what anusaya do. They distort the real nature of mind which is a bare awareness.

So you do NOT experience a one who knows? Then, you are fully enlightend Yeshe.

33

:joy: No. I don’t perceive any enlightened one here; just a mistaken and ignorant being struggling to practice and understand what is beneficial. I don’t experience a stable “one who knows.” When such thoughts and conceptions and perceptions do arise I try not to identify with them. :pray:

34

Can we please first agree that people can have a stable sense of self and that this does not mean AT ALL, they believe that this self is permanent?

35

So when you experience pain you have no idea at all that a subject, you, me, I experience that pain?
That is absent?

36

Hopefully one day that’s true for him as well as everyone.

37

I was talking about just this the other day with someone dear to me in an offline conversation. Yes, I think I’ve had some trifling limited experience of this. The experience of (small) pain that is not identified as suffering, not identified with at all. It is just experienced as pain. There was no arising of “I” am the one experiencing this (small) pain in this very limited experience.

Again, I’m making no claims of attainment or anything just the (very limited) experience of some (small) experiences of pain with no identification. In fact, it is only recently that I’ve even been able to see this experience as potentially useful for developing some limited insight in the future.

:pray:

38

It would be great that we all find home, and feel deeply protected, safe, because this uncertainty, this unsafety is what makes us grasping and seeking minds. Seeking grip in this or that. Buddha felt deeply unprotected and i can relate to that. I felt this too. I hope we all find home.
Buddha found home. That way he overcame all his fear, all his anxiety, all his restlessness, his seeking grip, his uncertainty. Isn’t it great?

39

Yes, very useful. But maybe now you understand what the one who knows refers to?

40

Ah! You mean the “one who knows” refers to the self view that I had when I said, “I’ve even been able to see this experience” :joy: ??

Yeah, it would be very good for me to let go of this and I’ll endeavor to continue trying :wink: :joy: Thank you for the great reminder. As I’ve said many times I clearly ain’t enlightened :joy: :pray:

41

If there would be only coming and going of formations, what can provide us with a sense of stability and stillness? What can be a basis for peace, for stilling, if in fact there are only formations?

Like the Buddha teaches…sankhata as well as asankhata are elements in our lifes and both must be known.

42

Hello @Green,

As I mentioned in the other thread I do not wish to deprive you of peace, stability or stillness. I do not wish to deprive you or dissuade you from a path wherein you’ve found solutions to the problems of the non-virtuous minds. It is very good if you’ve found a way of disassociating the non-virtuous minds from any notion that they are intrinsic to who you are.

In a way, this reminds me again of my own experience with anger. Before I could really work on letting go of my anger I needed to really explore it. I needed to investigate my anger to come to a firm conclusion of whether there was any redeeming quality to my anger.

I used to believe very strongly that my anger was a source of power and protection for me and my loved ones. I believed that letting go of my anger would leave me and my loved ones unprotected and potentially vulnerable. If I let go of this innate power who or what would protect me from those wishing to do me or my loved ones harm?

After a lot of careful thought and analysis it became clear to my mind that my anger wasn’t providing protection for myself or loved ones; rather it was harmful to providing such protection. My anger had deceived me and fooled me into believing it was a power and a protection when in fact it was the exact opposite.

I bring this up because the question naturally arises for me: could it be that your view of “oneself” is similarly fooling you? I can’t answer this for you, but I do hope that some day you’ll ask the question earnestly and investigate deeply and carefully if you haven’t done so already. Maybe today isn’t that day, but one day it might be good to really look into this.

I don’t say that because I claim to know for a certainty that this concept of “oneself” is so fooling you! I am happy to admit that I don’t know this to be the case.

However, if this concept or perception of “oneself” is not fooling you and is not changing; if it truly is a refuge for peace and stable; then no amount of investigation you could do would dislodge it, would it? Merely investigating like I suggest wouldn’t harm it in the slightest if it truly is as you suggest, right? So you should have no fear of performing such an investigation.

Look and see; isn’t it possible to let go of the things you describe - anger, ill-will, violence, conceit - without the arising of this concept or perception of “the one who knows”? Isn’t it possible to avoid focusing on “the one who knows” and still accomplish the goal of letting go of what you and I both identify should be let go of? If so, what does that say for the necessity of this concept or perception of “the one who knows”?

As for what can be a basis for peace; have you ever read the Bodhisattva’s Guide? I think the wish fulfilling jewel described in that guide as well as the triple jewel and dhamma can be such a basis. Those to my mind are proper basis for refuge.

Again, please know that I’m not saying that I definitively know that your concept of “the one who knows” is wrong. I don’t know that. It is just a hypothesis and only you can investigate and determine for yourself the truth.

:pray:

43

I think you have already answered that question and do not need me for that.
But…No. I am just sure that all defiled thinking, speaking and acting are all forms of not being oneself.

1 Like
44

But that wasn’t the question. It was more along the lines of should you focus on what “oneself” is rather than what it is not? But I’m happy to let this rest as I have confidence you have already or will figure this out one way or another without any further bumbling interference by me. :pray:

45

This is for me the same as knowing what is adventitious to mind and not. Without that there can be no development of mind (AN1.51)