Interbeing ?

A forum for members who wish to develop a deeper understanding of the Pali Canon and associated Commentaries, which for discussion purposes are both treated as authoritative.

Moderator: Mahavihara moderator

Re: Interbeing ?

Postby lojong1 » Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:08 am

meindzai wrote:Such a view is just a statement of fact...
Gaping mouthed speechless, crossing my fingers that I've misunderstood absolutely everything! .......................................................................................
lojong1
 
Posts: 580
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Interbeing ?

Postby beeblebrox » Sun Feb 20, 2011 4:51 am

meindzai wrote:
kirk5a wrote:If we take the view "there is no self" as true and established, is that attending appropriately?


I agree with Pete that taking a view is not the same as attending in such a way "I do not have a self." Such a view is just a statement of fact, not a statement in relation to oneself. "Where is my self? Where did my self go if I do not have one?"

"Then, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. 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, Bahiya, there is no you in terms of that. When there is no you in terms of 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."
Bahiya Sutta

-M


Just forget about self... if you're thinking (or attending): "There is no self," you're actually still thinking about self. Such a view still relies on there being a "self" in the first place... i.e., you would have to bring up this idea of "self" before you can deny it, to yourself or other people. That is basically annihilationism (and that's why it's such a silly view). It goes nowhere. The "self" keeps on popping up over and over, just because someone wanted to take it down.

Just view the aggregates as they are... and don't identify with them. Instead of thinking: "This is what 'my' mind is like," just think: "This is what mind is like." Instead of: "I have nothing to do with what this mind is like," or, "There is no self in what this mind is like," think: "This is what mind is like, so I'm going to stop associating a "self" with it." I think those are very subtle differences, but really crucial ones.

Whether there's a self or no self is irrelevant. Whether there's an "I" or not is irrelevant. Whether these have something to do with the aggregates are also irrelevant. Just anicca, dukkha, and only then anatta.

Also, I apologize if this is going on off-topic to the thread.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Previous

Return to Classical Theravāda

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot] and 4 guests