description of self and not self

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

description of self and not self

Postby Gena1480 » Fri Jan 25, 2013 7:37 pm

Hello to all i would like to examine sutta mn15
Maha nidana sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
the sutta describes depending origination
but i'm not really interested in that yet
i'm interested how it describes self and not self
so there is 3 sections description.
1)Delineations of a Self
2)Non-Delineations of a Self
3)Assumptions of a Self
lets take the first one
Delineations of a Self

"To what extent, Ananda, does one delineate when delineating a self?
Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.'
Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.'
Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.'
Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.'

"Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and finite,
either delineates it as possessed of form and finite in the present,
or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death],
or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.'
This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite obsesses him.

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and infinite,
either delineates it as possessed of form and infinite in the present,
or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death],
or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.
' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite obsesses him.

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and finite,
either delineates it as formless and finite in the present,
or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death],
or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.'
This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite obsesses him.

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and infinite,
either delineates it as formless and infinite in the present,
or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death],
or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.'
This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite obsesses him

I'm interested what others think about this first part of explaining Self.
metta please post your opinion.
Gena1480
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:36 am

Re: description of self and not self

Postby Gena1480 » Sat Jan 26, 2013 5:09 pm

so here is the second part

Non-Delineations of a Self

"To what extent, Ananda, does one not delineate(discribing) when not delineating(discribing) a self?
Either not delineating a self possessed of form and finite,
one does not delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or,
not delineating a self possessed of form and infinite,
one does not delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or,
not delineating a self formless and finite,
one does not delineate that 'My self is formless and finite.'
Or, not delineating a self formless and infinite,
one does not delineate that 'My self is formless and infinite.'

"Now, the one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as possessed of form and finite,
does not delineate it as possessed of form and finite in the present,
nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death],
nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.'
This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite does not obsess him.

"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as possessed of form and infinite,
does not delineate it as possessed of form and infinite in the present,
nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death],
nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.'
This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite does not obsess him.

"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as formless and finite,
does not delineate it as formless and finite in the present,
nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death],
nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.'
This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite does not obsess him.

"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as formless and infinite,
does not delineate it as formless and infinite in the present,
nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death],
nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.'
This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite does not obsess him.
metta
Gena1480
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:36 am

Re: description of self and not self

Postby ground » Sun Jan 27, 2013 4:36 am

Gena1480 wrote:I'm interested what others think about this first part of explaining Self.
metta please post your opinion.

It is not "explaining Self" in an exhaustive sense but it is explaning some of the views of a self which may have been part of religions during the time of the speaker. Actually the number of views of a self is countless if one takes the words by means of which individuals express their ideas to be "views".

Views are not relevant. Just something to play with for the intellect.

What is relevant is knowing the arising of a sense of self and the conditions for this arising and knowing the conditions for the non-arising of a sense of self and knowing the conditions for sense of self to subside once it has arisen.

:sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: description of self and not self

Postby Gena1480 » Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:19 pm

Assumptions of a Self

"To what extent, Ananda, does one assume when assuming a self?
Assuming feeling to be the self,
one assumes that 'Feeling is my self'
[or] 'Feeling is not my self:(self is not feeling)
My self is oblivious(unaware) [to feeling]'
[or] 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious(unaware) to feeling,
but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now, one who says, 'Feeling is my self,' should be addressed as follows:
'There are these three feelings, my friend —
feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, and feelings of neither pleasure nor pain.
Which of these three feelings do you assume to be the self?'
At a moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no feeling of pain or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed.
Only a feeling of pleasure is sensed at that moment.
At a moment when a feeling of pain is sensed,
no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed.
Only a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment.
At a moment when a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed,
no feeling of pleasure or of pain is sensed.
Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed at that moment.

"Now, a feeling of pleasure is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions,
subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation.
A feeling of pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions,
subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation.
A feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is inconstant,
fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation.
Having sensed a feeling of pleasure as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pleasure,
'my self' has perished.
Having sensed a feeling of pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pain,
'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain as 'my self,'
then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, 'my self' has perished.

"Thus he assumes, assuming in the immediate present a self inconstant,
entangled in pleasure and pain, subject to arising and passing away,
he who says,'Feeling is my self.'
Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume feeling to be the self.

"As for the person who says,
'Feeling is not the self:(self is not feeling) My self is oblivious(is not sensing) [to feeling],' he should be addressed as follows:
'My friend, where nothing whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

"No,

"Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Feeling is not my self:
well this part explain self /not self
My self is oblivious [to feeling].'

"As for the person who says, 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling],
but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' he should be addressed as follows:
'My friend, should feelings altogether and every way stop without remainder, then with feeling completely
not existing, owing to the cessation of feeling, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

"No,

"Thus in this manner, Ananda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Neither is feeling my self,
nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now, Ananda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the self,
nor the self as oblivious, nor that 'My self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,'
then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world
. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within.
He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

can some help me to understand this part (feeling is not self) or as i understated self is separates from feeling.
As for the person who says,
'Feeling is not the self:(self is not feeling) My self is oblivious(is not sensing) [to feeling],' he should be addressed as follows:
'My friend, where nothing whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

Thank you very much.
Gena1480
 
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 1:36 am


Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DreBay and 11 guests