Interbeing ?

Exploring the Dhamma, as understood from the perspective of the ancient Pali commentaries.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Interbeing ?

Post by kirk5a »

cooran wrote:Hello kirk,
kirk said: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self...
The whole point of the quote you underline is in the use of the word 'I' .

with metta
Chris
I take the point of the quote (that part is a small piece) to be appropriate attention.

If we take the view "there is no self" as true and established, is that attending appropriately?
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Interbeing ?

Post by PeterB »

Taking a view is not attending...taking a view is taking a view.
lojong1
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Interbeing ?

Post by lojong1 »

custard
PeterB
Posts: 3909
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 12:35 pm

Re: Interbeing ?

Post by PeterB »

How droll.
meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Interbeing ?

Post by meindzai »

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
lojong1
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 2:59 am

Re: Interbeing ?

Post by lojong1 »

meindzai wrote:Such a view is just a statement of fact...
Gaping mouthed speechless, crossing my fingers that I've misunderstood absolutely everything! .......................................................................................
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Interbeing ?

Post by beeblebrox »

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:
Post Reply