views without a thinker

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: views without a thinker

Postby SamKR » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:35 pm

SarathW wrote:Hi everyone
If mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found, then why Buddha asked us to extend loving kindness towards the sufferer?

Perhaps loving kindness is directed towards the suffering (the five khandhas out of which there is fabrication of a sufferer) itself.
the five aggregates subject to grasping are suffering.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .piya.html

Such loving kindness, though directed towards another panca-khandha, is actually also contributing to reducing the suffering of the panca-khandha which generates loving kindness.
Last edited by SamKR on Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
SamKR
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: views without a thinker

Postby SDC » Sun Jan 06, 2013 10:40 pm

SarathW wrote:Hi everyone
If mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found, then why Buddha asked us to extend loving kindness towards the sufferer?


Within that suffering an illusion of sufferer that experiences that suffering comes about. Although the sufferer is an illusion (not real), much pain is being experienced due to this misunderstanding and therefore metta should be directed towards this situation.
Through many of samsara’s births I hasten seeking, finding not the builder of this house - pain is birth again, again. O builder of this house you’re seen, you shall not build a house again, all your beams have given away, rafters of the ridge decayed, mind to the unconditioned gone, exhaustion of craving has it reached.(Dhp - 153, 154)
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 865
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: views without a thinker

Postby SarathW » Mon Jan 07, 2013 2:37 am

Thanks Samkr /SDC
I agree with your points.
I think Anatta (voidness/selflessness) should be considered as a meditation object in attaining Nirvana ,rather than trying to explain it literally and think that there is no person as such.
Please see attached : page 297 and 298
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/printguna.pdf
SarathW
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: views without a thinker

Postby SamKR » Thu Jan 10, 2013 1:40 am

SamKR wrote:
cbonanno wrote:The Buddha does not teach that there is no self. That would actually be an extreme view in his understanding.


Indeed, I have not found any sutta where the Buddha says "there is no self". He does not say "there is self" either. In the suttas the Buddha tells us to regard any phenomenon as ''This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self."
That's super interesting.

But now I remember Bahiya sutta where the Buddha says:
When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

The phrase "there is no you there" seems to be same as "there is no self there".
SamKR
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: views without a thinker

Postby SarathW » Thu Jan 10, 2013 2:50 am

If I saw a tiger , while I was walking in the jungle, I have to decide whether to fight or flight!
I could see the fear arising within me and the anger arising within the tiger.
However, if I can keep the tiger away from me for some time (say 40 years) the tiger or I may die in natural causes.
In that sense there is no tiger or I.

Empirical sense there is a tiger or I.
Absolute sense there is no tiger or I.
SarathW
 
Posts: 1315
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: views without a thinker

Postby alan... » Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:10 am

befriend wrote:there is no self, so there is nothing to call me or mine, not sight no feeling no thought, none of those things belong to us there is no thinker. but what about when we stub our toe and there is pain is there self then?


yes and no. there is a fabricated self that is a combination of many factors. when we meditate and become very concentrated we see this. in normal consciousness we stub our toe, feel angry and so on. with a concentrated mind either from jhana or just good daily mindfulness, we stub our toe, see the painful feeling as a separate thing, then we feel the anger, also totally separate, then we see our consciousness of this situation, also totally separate and changing as well.

it all comes down to that "thinker" which in some traditions is seen as evidence for the self. however in buddhism we see that the "thinker" is constantly changing from one moment to the next and anything that is in that much flux cannot be thought of as "self". self as an idea is more like a mountain. solid, rarely changing at all. snow and plants may change but the mountain remains roughly the same. our mind, the "thinker" is more like the sky. clouds, rain, twilight, night, stars, moon, morning, sun, clear blue, clouds, twilight, comets, stars, clouds, and so on and so on. constant change. there is no single constant that can really be called "self". in fact the sky is more "self" than our consciousnesses as it at least is always there more or less. when we sleep or die our consciousness totally changes into something else temporarily whereas even with all the change the sky is always up there being made of air and vapor 24/7.

EDIT: a perfect example is to try and think about your mind state when you first wake up compared to after you have been up for six or seven hours. totally different conscoiusness. the only thing that ties them together is memory which is totally fabricated and not always reliable. it's almost a lie, your mind tells you your consciousness is a continuous thread but it's a trick. when you really look at memories they are little stories and images your mind creates and unless you have an eidetic memory they are not even complete usually! seen as not self as well it can be nothing more than the ability to navigate life skillfully but without attachment.
Last edited by alan... on Sun Jan 13, 2013 7:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
alan...
 
Posts: 824
Joined: Thu Dec 06, 2012 9:37 pm

Re: views without a thinker

Postby SamKR » Sun Jan 13, 2013 2:58 am

SamKR wrote:But now I remember Bahiya sutta where the Buddha says:
When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."

The phrase "there is no you there" seems to be same as "there is no self there".

However, saying "there is no you there" is different from saying "there is no you".
Similarly, saying "there is no self there" is different from saying "there is no self".
SamKR
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 4:33 pm
Location: Virginia

Re: views without a thinker

Postby ground » Sun Jan 13, 2013 5:28 am

However saying
SamKR wrote:However, saying "there is no you there" is different from saying "there is no you".
Similarly, saying "there is no self there" is different from saying "there is no self".

... is different from saying "When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two." :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Previous

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 7 guests