Is the Chariot No-self Simile in the Pali Canon?

[Ron-The-Elder]

Is a car more than the sum of its parts?

There is no car.

Suñña Sutta:
"It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Great photo! Ironically, this doesn't take the concept far enough. It's actually limitless in its subdivisions:






resources for further study: http://www.flickr.com/photos/aquafloria ... /lightbox/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://teachers.web.cern.ch/teachers/ar ... telist.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[retrofuturist]

Greetings Dhammapal,

I found this quote by Bhikkhu Bodhi, who has been working on a translation of the Anguttara Nikaya (see this thread for news of progress)

In Anguttara Nikaya, persons are as a rule not reduced to mere collections of aggregates, elements and sense-bases, but are treated as real centers of living experience engaged in a heartfelt quest for happiness and freedom from suffering.
(from Intro to Samyutta Nikaya)

I'd suggest that what Bhikkhu Bodhi is intending to say is that the general theme of the Anguttara Nikaya is such that it does not focus on the deep teachings of anatta, but glazes over that reality such that other matters can be addressed more easily through the use of conventional language. I can understand your confusion coming from Bhikkhu Bodhi's words though, as he sometimes speaks very fluently and poetically in flowery language that doesn't always pay fine attention to the particular details and implications of what he actually says.

Neither you, nor Bhikkhu Bodhi, nor the Puggalavadins (an early Buddhist school who actually endorsed the reality of a 'person') could actually identify any "sum greater than the parts" or "real center of living experience". As the Buddha says...

SN 35.24 - Sabba Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

Then again, if you are a Puggalavadin, you may as well learn what they believed...

Pudgalavāda Buddhist Philosophy
http://www.iep.utm.edu/pudgalav/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Pudgalavāda was a group of five of the Early Schools of Buddhism. The name arises from their adherents’ distinctive doctrine (vāda) concerning the self or person (pudgala). The doctrine holds that the person, in a certain sense, is real. To other Buddhists, their view seemed to contradict a fundamental tenet of Buddhism, the doctrine of non-self. However, the Pudgalavādins were convinced that they had had preserved the true interpretation of the Buddha’s teaching.

Metta,
Retro.

[phil]

I think that human beings are more than the sum of their parts.

Hi Antony

I do too. At my level of understanding, pretending I believe otherwise would be dishonest. However, I try to stay open to the deep teaching and reflect on it as often as possible. That's where the liberation lies, obviously. But in the meantime, the deluded belief that the person has some kind of ongoing identity and existence rather than being an assembly of parts, so to speak, is here and it's not going anywhere soon by virtue of trying to read or think it or even meditate it away...as long as we keep in mind that there are delusions at work. I personally refuse to claim the understanding that there are no people (well, let's say no beings) until such an understanding comes to be. I think a proper understanding of the Dhamma as the Buddha intended it (as we know, he didn't teach deep teachings until he knew the listeners minds were ready for them) involves easing our way into the deeply liberating teachings, not going straight at them with full gusto and greed for fast understanding. I'm not saying that people here do that, but I know I did for awhile. On the other hand, it would be a shame to close the door on the deep teachings because of some belief that I will never be ready. So I do read them and reflect on them quite often. But for now, of course there are people and of course they are more than a sum of their parts. And of course the Dhamma says otherwise. That is as far as my weak understanding goes, and I refuse to try to forcefully appropriate deep understanding and slather it onto my world view! I will continue to concentrate on sila (and concerns about people are very helpful there) so that there is a freedom from remorse, and the mind can better settle in concentration. And then perhaps there will be a turning deeper into the deep teachings. No way to know if and when that will come, I will continue to emphasize sila and guarding the sense doors (a full time job!) and see what happens. Just my opinion.

p.s my apologies if I don't follow up on any comments on what I've written, just popping by for my weekly visit. Thanks!

[pegembara]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loC5ztXw ... r_embedded#" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjI0HrwO ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpDPEI2v ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUSJ4GD ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ron-The-Elder]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loC5ztXw ... r_embedded#

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjI0HrwO ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpDPEI2v ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RUSJ4GD ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thank you for these, pegembara. Very good teaching methods demonstrated.

_/\_Ron

[Nibbida]

Is a car more than the sum of its parts?

2066997439_95cf390380.jpg

There is no car.

Suñña Sutta:
"It is said that the world is empty, the world is empty, lord. In what respect is it said that the world is empty?"
"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

There is no spoon either.

photo_movieMatrix-quoteSpoon.jpeg

It's the manner in which they are arranged and are continually being re-arranged.

A chariot, a car, a being is nothing more than a particular (and temporary) arrangement.

And concepts superimposed on all that.

[Guy]

Hi Dhammapal,

I think that human beings are more than the sum of their parts.

For the sake of clarity, can we assume that by "parts" we are all talking about the five aggregates here?

In that case I think it is up to you, for the sake of the discussion, to specify what exactly it is that you think makes a human being more than just the five aggregates.

Metta,

Guy

[Guy]

Hi TMingyur,

I think that human beings are more than the sum of their parts.

The chariot is a simile. Actually since it implies physically detectable parts it can only be applied to the body.

I disagree.

The similes which are used to describe the mind (by which I mean the four aggregates other than the body) can only be physical. Why is that? Because the mind is the only non-physical "thing" (more accurately: process). The mind is often compared to physical things because this is all it can be compared with. Some of Ajahn Chah's similes come to mind: e.g. the simile of the still forest pool and the simile of the water buffalo. These describe different aspects of the mind in a way that is easy to understand because our mind processes pictures and symbols quite easily.

Perhaps the chariot simile is used because it was a relevant (to that time and place) example that everyone could easily understand. If the Buddha was alive today perhaps he would refer to the five aggregates as being like a car, not because all of the aggregates are physical, but because all of the aggregates rely on each other to function as a whole.

Metta,

Guy

[pulga]

The similes which are used to describe the mind (by which I mean the four aggregates other than the body) can only be physical. Why is that? Because the mind is the only non-physical "thing" (more accurately: process).

“That in the world by which one perceives the world and conceives conceits about the world is called ’the world’ in the Noble One’s Discipline. And what is it in the world with which one does that? It is with the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.” (SN 35:116) translated by the Ven. Ñánamoli (italics mine)

[ground]

The similes which are used to describe the mind (by which I mean the four aggregates other than the body) can only be physical. Why is that? Because the mind is the only non-physical "thing" (more accurately: process).

“That in the world by which one perceives the world and conceives conceits about the world is called ’the world’ in the Noble One’s Discipline. And what is it in the world with which one does that? It is with the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind.” (SN 35:116) translated by the Ven. Ñánamoli (italics mine)

In that case "eye, ear, nose, tongue, body" cannot be validly posited as "physical".

Kind regards

[pulga]

In that case "eye, ear, nose, tongue, body" cannot be validly posited as "physical".

What do you mean by "physical"? Since phassa is designated as an aspect of náma (M. 9; D.15; S. XII. 2), I'd say that both the ajjhattikáyataná and the báhiráyataná were abstractions derived from our immediate experience: parts of a given whole ("moments" as opposed to "pieces" in the language of Husserl).

[ground]

In that case "eye, ear, nose, tongue, body" cannot be validly posited as "physical".

What do you mean by "physical"?

This term refers to the communication above. I guess the corresponding term may be "form".

Since phassa is designated as an aspect of náma (M. 9; D.15; S. XII. 2), I'd say that both the ajjhattikáyataná and the báhiráyataná were abstractions derived from our immediate experience: parts of a given whole ("moments" as opposed to "pieces" in the language of Husserl).

I don't understand these terms ajjhattikáyataná and báhiráyataná.

Kind regards

[pulga]

I don't understand these terms ajjhattikáyataná and báhiráyataná.

The six bases (saláyataná), internal (ajjhattika) and external (báhira), corresponding to the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind and the objects they come in contact with; i.e. form, sound, odor, taste, tactile object, and idea (dhamma). (Or would image be a better translation for dhamma here? How does one see an "idea" with the mind's eye?).

[ground]

The six bases (saláyataná), internal (ajjhattika) and external (báhira),

Thank you.
Well then "internal" and "external" can harldy be based on immediate experience (referring to the statement "both the ajjhattikáyataná and the báhiráyataná were abstractions derived from our immediate experience"). They are based on thought which I would not consider "immeditate" but habitual.

(Or would image be a better translation for dhamma here? How does one see an "idea" with the mind's eye?).

"idea" or "determining cognition", yes. One does not "see" but (conceptually) infer the learned (an "idea") from immediate experience. This inference is synthesis.

So in this context of immediate experience Guy's statement "Because the mind is the only non-physical "thing" is invalid. The same holds true for my statement "The chariot is a simile. Actually since it implies physically detectable parts it can only be applied to the body."

But in the context of conventional language it may be acceptable to speak in these ways.

But this

The similes which are used to describe the mind (by which I mean the four aggregates other than the body) can only be physical. Why is that? Because the mind is the only non-physical "thing" (more accurately: process).

What about "space"? In the context of conventional language ... isn't it a simile for mind but non-physical?


Kind regards

[Guy]

Hi TMingyur,

I didn't want to get into a technical debate...I probably shouldn't have started one. You win.

All that I should have said originally was: Just because the simile uses physically detectable parts (i.e. the various components of a chariot) doesn't necessarily mean that it was referring to the body alone. Maybe the reason why the chariot was chosen as a simile was because it was referring to how the various chariot parts (five aggregates) make up a chariot (sentient being). In other words, the theme of the simile (I believe) has nothing to do with physical/non-physical, instead the theme is about how "a being is the sum of its parts" (going back to the original post) like a "chariot is the sum of its parts".

Anyway, it doesn't really matter whether the Buddha was talking about the body alone or all of the five aggregates when he used this simile. The underlying principle is the same (i.e. Anatta), just applied on different levels. This reminds me of the Sutta where the monk and the layperson were arguing about whether the Buddha taught that there are 2 types of feeling or 3 types of feeling. They are just different categorizations that are used for the same ultimate purpose.

I hope this clarifies the main point I was trying to make...maybe it doesn't, oh well, I tried my best.

Metta,

Guy