Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Theravāda in the 21st century - modern applications of ancient wisdom

Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby SarathW » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:49 am

Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me” and “myself”?
If not, why he/she is not an Arahant?
SarathW
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby retrofuturist » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:57 am

Greetings,

A child has avijja, therefore has dependently originated experience.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14524
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby ground » Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:54 am

SarathW wrote:Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me” and “myself”?

I do not remember.

SarathW wrote:If not, why he/she is not an Arahant?

You may call it Arahant then it is Arahant. :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby Sylvester » Wed Feb 27, 2013 6:52 am

SarathW wrote:Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me” and “myself”?
If not, why he/she is not an Arahant?



Because -

“And, Māluṅkya,putta, to whom do you remember the five lower fetters as having been taught
thus by me.
Would not the wanderers of other sects prove you, Māluṅkya,putta, false with the simile of the infant?

(1) For, Māluṅkya,putta, even a young tender infant, lying on its back, does not have the notion of
„self-identity‟ (sakkāya); for, how could the self-identity view arise for him?
Yet, the the latent tendency of self-identity view lies in him.


(2) For, Māluṅkya,putta, even a young tender infant, lying on its back, does not have the notion of
„dharma‟ (dhamma); for, how could doubt regarding dharmas arise for him?
Yet, the the latent tendency of doubt lies in him.

(3) For, Māluṅkya,putta, even a young tender infant, lying on its back, does not have the notion of
„virtue‟ (sīla); for, how could attachment to rituals and vows with regards to moral virtue arise for him?
Yet, the the latent tendency of attachment to rituals and vows lies in him.

(4) For, Māluṅkya,putta, even a young tender infant, lying on its back, does not have the notion of
„sense-desire‟ (kāma); for, how could sense-desire in sense-pleasure arise for him?
Yet, the the latent tendency of sense-desire lies in him.

(5) For, Māluṅkya,putta, even a young tender infant, lying on its back, does not have the notion of
„being‟ (satta); for, how could ill will towards beings arise for him?
Yet, the the latent tendency of ill will lies in him.

Would not the wanderers of other sects prove you, Māluṅkya,putta, false with the simile of the infant?”

MN 64, transl Piya Tan - http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-con ... 4-piya.pdf


We seldom pay attention to the anusaya, those silent and unconscious sankhara that condition the establishment of consciousness...

The best time to confront these, especially lust and aversion, would be when we become conscious and aware of how we react to the presence of the 2 main defilements in mindfulness practice.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby kirk5a » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:19 pm

Sylvester wrote:We seldom pay attention to the anusaya, those silent and unconscious sankhara that condition the establishment of consciousness...

I agree. But I wouldn't say unconscious. I would say sub-rational.
"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
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1725
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby Sylvester » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:29 pm

Why not unconscious?
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby kirk5a » Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:38 pm

Sylvester wrote:Why not unconscious?

Because that sounds like they are inaccessible to awareness, not part of our current experience.
"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
User avatar
kirk5a
 
Posts: 1725
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby danieLion » Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:36 pm

SarathW wrote:Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me” and “myself”?
If not, why he/she is not an Arahant?

Not according to William James. And as he and Retro note, the experience of new-borns is mostly if not all pure ignorance and confusion.
danieLion
 
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby beeblebrox » Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:17 pm

SarathW wrote:Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me” and “myself”?
If not, why he/she is not an Arahant?


Hi SarathW,

I think it's because an Arahant is never reborn... that is why we never see a baby who is already an Arahant, or a Buddha.

:anjali:
User avatar
beeblebrox
 
Posts: 825
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby SarathW » Thu Feb 28, 2013 12:58 am

kirk5a wrote:
Sylvester wrote:We seldom pay attention to the anusaya, those silent and unconscious sankhara that condition the establishment of consciousness...

I agree. But I wouldn't say unconscious. I would say sub-rational.


Thanks for all your replies. Special thanks for Sylvester providing for Sutta referance which I never heard before!
By the way I thought latent tendancies are in Bhava Consciouness. Any thoughts?
SarathW
 
Posts: 1325
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Does newly born child think in terms of “i”, “me”, “myself”?

Postby Sylvester » Thu Feb 28, 2013 1:39 am

kirk5a wrote:
Sylvester wrote:Why not unconscious?

Because that sounds like they are inaccessible to awareness, not part of our current experience.


Thanks for that. But SN 12.25 does appear to be a little more generous, insofar as it allows for one to construct (abhisaṅkharoti) the 3 different kinds of volitional constructions unknowingly or unawares (asampajāno) -

Sāmaṃ vā taṃ, ānanda, manosaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Pare vā taṃ, ānanda, manosaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharonti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ. Sampajāno vā taṃ, ānanda…pe… asampajāno vā taṃ, ānanda, manosaṅkhāraṃ abhisaṅkharoti yaṃpaccayāssa taṃ uppajjati ajjhattaṃ sukhadukkhaṃ.

Either on one’s own initiative, Ananda, one constructs that mental volitional construction
conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; or prompted by others
one constructs that mental volitional construction conditioned by which pleasure and pain
arise internally. Either knowingly, Ananda, one constructs that mental volitional construction
conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally; or unknowingly one constructs that mental
volitional construction conditioned by which pleasure and pain arise internally.


According to SN 12.38, the anusayas belong to saṅkhārā, and it seems to suggest from its progressively refined graduation that the anusayas are the most subtle and persistent of the saṅkhārā. Now, if SN 12.25 which captures the coarsest expression of volition in the form of abhisaṅkharoti allows for this to be constructed unawares, how much more so for the subtlest of volition such as the latent tendencies?

Although I am in favour of the interpretation of the Aggregates as experiential bodies, I do not think I'm prepared to limit "experience" to the conscious receptive. The saṅkhārakkhandha is clearly reactive, the sequel to bare contact. You are probably correct that the anusayas operate at the sub-rational level, but SN 12.25 does allow them to sneak up on us and drive emotional responses without us being aware. I think that is why mindfulness practice is critical, not because it furnishes us with the rationalisation to understand the latent tendencies, but more to the point, it brings awareness fully on the defilements, especially in the contemplation of states.

:anjali:

Pls excuse the terseness of my query yesterday. Lying supine with a tiny Android competing with the telly for my attention does make me economise my words...
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1432
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am


Return to Theravāda for the modern world

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests