Re: How do you contemplate anatta?
Posted: Tue Jun 04, 2013 12:20 pm
Sure, but probably not on their terms.Spiny Norman wrote:Sure, but some people do manage to lose weight.
A Buddhist discussion forum on the Dhamma of TheravÄda Buddhism
https://www.dhammawheel.com/
Sure, but probably not on their terms.Spiny Norman wrote:Sure, but some people do manage to lose weight.
Agreed. But I don't find the "lack of control over the aggregates" argument for anatta entirely convincing, because we do have some control - and if we didn't, then Buddhist practice would be impossible.binocular wrote:Sure, but probably not on their terms.Spiny Norman wrote:Sure, but some people do manage to lose weight.
Of coursedaverupa wrote:This is well put, indeed, though samatha has a role in "this practice" as well,rowyourboat wrote:"Anatta is not an object of insight. Phenomena are objects of insight (meditation) ie vipassana. Anatta is an insight which arises as a consequence of this practice."
Thank you for your explanation of the six element. I never would have made that connection had you not pointed it out. However, it remains somewhat of a backasswards approach (IMHO) to insight study in this matter, as it neglects going in from the front door in favor of approaching the problem from the back door. I personally find such indirect approaches time-consuming, time-wasting, and generally inefficient.Spiny Norman wrote:See MN112.7, MN115.5, MN140.8 and MN143.10. At MN140.8 it says "This person consists of the 6 elements".Spiny Norman wrote: By 6 elements I mean earth, wind, fire, water, space and consciousness - this set is effectively equivalent to the 5 aggregates though much heavier on the materiality end.
I do also work with the 6 sense bases, specifically in terms of anicca, rise and fall. I don't find the aggregates very "user-friendly", but maybe that's just me.
Us having some control over form does not mean that form is self, though.Spiny Norman wrote:But I don't find the "lack of control over the aggregates" argument for anatta entirely convincing, because we do have some control
Investigating what this idea is based on may be a good starting point for contemplating anatta.Spiny Norman wrote:Agreed. But I don't find the "lack of control over the aggregates" argument for anatta entirely convincing, because we do have some control - and if we didn't, then Buddhist practice would be impossible.binocular wrote:Sure, but probably not on their terms.Spiny Norman wrote:Sure, but some people do manage to lose weight.
It's the idea that some things are a result of volition. Those are subject to "control." Like typing. Or keeping attention on one's meditation object.reflection wrote:Investigating what this idea is based on may be a good starting point for contemplating anatta.Spiny Norman wrote: Agreed. But I don't find the "lack of control over the aggregates" argument for anatta entirely convincing, because we do have some control - and if we didn't, then Buddhist practice would be impossible.
With respect, unless you and Spiny Norman are the same person, I don't think you can say what his idea is. And it doesn't really matter because what I think is that whatever we take as "mine" should be subject to investigation. Here, "we do have some control" seems to me something that is part of this.kirk5a wrote:It's the idea that some things are a result of volition. Those are subject to "control." Like typing. Or keeping attention on one's meditation object.reflection wrote:Investigating what this idea is based on may be a good starting point for contemplating anatta.Spiny Norman wrote: Agreed. But I don't find the "lack of control over the aggregates" argument for anatta entirely convincing, because we do have some control - and if we didn't, then Buddhist practice would be impossible.
I agree with the principle that Buddhist practice would be impossible if there was utterly no control. The notion doesn't belong to Spiny Norman, I was just giving my take on it. Obviously Spiny can also say whatever he/she likes. The basic fact of volitional activity isn't inherently a matter of holding onto "mine."reflection wrote: With respect, unless you and Spiny Norman are the same person, I don't think you can say what his idea is. And it doesn't really matter because what I think is that whatever we take as "mine" should be subject to investigation. Here, "we do have some control" seems to me something that is part of this.
We have "control" when we have the ability to keep things in an acceptable condition or at least the ability to return something to an acceptable condition were something to be altered from its "normal" state. It's only when things go beyond these perimeters that the lack of control becomes evident. Of course it is going to take time to see that this potential for lack of control is present with ALL things.reflection wrote:I think it's worth investigating the idea behind this control, which will be different for most people.
I'm happy you recognize it's all personal, that's why the Buddha gave different ways to reflect on things. I often use the six senses instead of the aggregates.IanAnd wrote:Thank you for your explanation of the six element. I never would have made that connection had you not pointed it out. However, it remains somewhat of a backasswards approach (IMHO) to insight study in this matter, as it neglects going in from the front door in favor of approaching the problem from the back door. I personally find such indirect approaches time-consuming, time-wasting, and generally inefficient.Spiny Norman wrote:See MN112.7, MN115.5, MN140.8 and MN143.10. At MN140.8 it says "This person consists of the 6 elements".Spiny Norman wrote: By 6 elements I mean earth, wind, fire, water, space and consciousness - this set is effectively equivalent to the 5 aggregates though much heavier on the materiality end.
I do also work with the 6 sense bases, specifically in terms of anicca, rise and fall. I don't find the aggregates very "user-friendly", but maybe that's just me.
It is unfortunate that you find effort at insight into the five aggregates to be not "user-friendly," as this is the most direct route to take. But each to his own. Have fun trying to figure this out with your present approach. I wish you much good fortune.
Anyway, main advice here for OP: Perhaps six senses is a useful way of contemplating for you. You said you aren't looking for suttas, but here you go anyway:"But as for what's called 'mind,' 'intellect,' or 'consciousness,'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
If form were self, one could eat as much as one likes and not get fat but since it is not so ........ One could command the body not to get sick or grow old.Spiny Norman wrote:
Sure, but some people do manage to lose weight.
We can't will our bodies not to grow old, get sick or die (form). We can't will ourselves to be happy and not feel sad or scared (feeling). We can't will ourselves from thinking bad thoughts (formations). If we see red we can't will what we see to become blue (perceptions). We can't will ourselves to fall asleep. We can't not be there (consciousness).Agreed. But I don't find the "lack of control over the aggregates" argument for anatta entirely convincing, because we do have some control - and if we didn't, then Buddhist practice would be impossible.
Whatever phenomena arise from cause:
their cause
& their cessation.
Such is the teaching of the Tathagata,
the Great Contemplative.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
I haven't written off the aggregates, it's probably a case of finding an approach that works. In the meantime I find the 6 sense-base approach to be quite productive. I find the 6-element approach gives a good feel for the transient nature of human existence.IanAnd wrote: It is unfortunate that you find effort at insight into the five aggregates to be not "user-friendly," as this is the most direct route to take.