Didn't the Buddha say the opposite? "This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self." The consciousness isn't an illusion but it's phrasing is. There can be awareness without the use of me, I, or mine.ground wrote:Consciousnesses do arise in the context of self (consciousness "I", consciousness "me", consciousness "mine").That isn't an illusion isn't it? So consciousnesses may reap what they have sownnrose619 wrote:If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?
all the best,
-Nick
What or who receives kamma's results?
Re: What or who receives kamma's results?
"A silver bird
flies over the autumn lake.
When it has passed,
the lake's surface does not try
to hold on to the image of the bird."
flies over the autumn lake.
When it has passed,
the lake's surface does not try
to hold on to the image of the bird."
Re: What or who receives kamma's results?
The word "You" is being used in a purely conventional sense, and not in an ultimate sense. We need to use conventional terms in speech because there are only four things that are part of ultimate reality, and they are: Rupa, Citta, Cetasika, and Nibbana. If we didn't use conventional terms, it would be impossibly complicated to describe anything in terms of these parts of ultimate reality, so we use conventional terms such as person, me, you, etc... in order to convey information.nrose619 wrote:There's no confusion about the teachings of Anatta.. I know we exist but identity is an illusion, this is the ultimate reality. It's just the way kamma is sometimes described makes me confused. for example "what you do happens to you" well what "you" is that quote referring to? because "you" is saying there is a special identity and separateness. Unless its speaking in relativist terms as a way of teaching..Bakmoon wrote:I think that there is some confusion here about what the teaching of Anatta actually means. A lot of people think it means "I don't exist" but that's not quite right. It means something more along the lines of "My identity is only a concept, and not part of ultimate reality." The things that make a person up are real, but they are all impermanent and arise and cease, just like everything else in this conditioned world. There is no underlying "core" to a person that remains unchanged.nrose619 wrote:If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?
all the best,
-Nick
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
Re: What or who receives kamma's results?
got it , so I guess kamma should be looked at as a combination of a source and actions coming back to that source. Kinda like when you drop a stone in the pond, the stone does not have a special identity but receives the actions of kamma because the results of the action come back to the place the action was initiated.Bakmoon wrote: The word "You" is being used in a purely conventional sense, and not in an ultimate sense. We need to use conventional terms in speech because there are only four things that are part of ultimate reality, and they are: Rupa, Citta, Cetasika, and Nibbana. If we didn't use conventional terms, it would be impossibly complicated to describe anything in terms of these parts of ultimate reality, so we use conventional terms such as person, me, you, etc... in order to convey information.
"A silver bird
flies over the autumn lake.
When it has passed,
the lake's surface does not try
to hold on to the image of the bird."
flies over the autumn lake.
When it has passed,
the lake's surface does not try
to hold on to the image of the bird."
Re: What or who receives kamma's results?
The consciousnesses "I", "me", "mine" are not said to be "yours". But they still arise and that isn't an illusion. So what besides these conciousnesses, i.e. their perpetuated manifestations, may reap what they have sown by means of affirmative thinking, feeling, perceiving?nrose619 wrote:Didn't the Buddha say the opposite? "This is not mine, this is not me, this is not my self."ground wrote:Consciousnesses do arise in the context of self (consciousness "I", consciousness "me", consciousness "mine").That isn't an illusion isn't it? So consciousnesses may reap what they have sownnrose619 wrote:If the "self" is an illusion what receives the results of kamma?
all the best,
-Nick
The phrasing is the consciousness.nrose619 wrote:The consciousness isn't an illusion but it's phrasing is.
Maybe yes, maybe no. Explicit thoughts "I" or "mine" are not decisive but the concomitant sense is.nrose619 wrote: There can be awareness without the use of me, I, or mine.