Because you're still "plugged in" to nama-rupa. You may not be the car, but if you are plugged into it, and the car crashes, you're going to feel that pain. As long as you're "clinging" or "plugged in", you're tied to that nama-rupa.Maranasati wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 8:51 am There are many valuable comments in this thread which I find useful, but the underlying paradox of why the not-self doctrine cannot be applied here remains for me. Basically, again:
If, as you say, it is true to say: 1) "This nama-rupa (mind-body) is the owner of its actions."
We know that it is skillful to say: 2) "This nama-rupa (mind-body) is not mine, not I."
Then why is it not therefore skillful to say: 3) "I am not the owner of my actions."
[ A is the owner of B ] + [ A is not C ] => [ C is not the owner of B ]
3) Seems to follow logically from 1) and 2), as a combination of a true and a skillful statement, yet it is unskillful. What is the mistake in the above reasoning?
When you're "unplugged" then you're detached, and not clinging, and no longer affected by what happens to nama-rupa.
It's only once you've unplugged/detached that you're no longer affected by what happens to nama-rupa, and coincidentally, you're no longer generating karma.
He discerns thus: "When I confront the source of this suffering with effort, by confronting it with effort [the suffering] fades away.
When the source of this suffering is passively observed, through developing detached awareness, [the suffering] fades away.
The Buddha uses a metaphor of removing the skin off a cow, by destroying the tendons, and then putting the skin on the cows body again, this time unattached.
As long as those tendons (asavas) are attached to your vehicle (nama-rupa) you are the owner of your actions. But when you are detached from your nama-rupa, you are no longer the owner of your actions but it doesn't matter anyway because you're not generating any more karma at that point as you're an Arahant.
- MN 146“Sisters, suppose a skilled butcher or his apprentice were to kill a cow and carve it up with a sharp butcher’s knife. Without damaging the inner mass of flesh and without damaging the outer hide, he would cut, sever, and carve away the inner tendons, sinews, and ligaments with the sharp butcher’s knife. Then having cut, severed, and carved all this away, he would remove the outer hide and cover the cow again with that same hide. Would he be speaking rightly if he were to say: ‘This cow is joined to this hide just as it was before’?”
“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because if that skilled butcher or his apprentice were to kill a cow…and cut, sever, and carve all that away, even though he covers the cow again with that same hide and says: ‘This cow is joined to this hide just as it was before,’ that cow would still be disjoined from that hide.”
“Sisters, I have given this simile in order to convey a meaning. This is the meaning: ‘The inner mass of flesh’ is a term for the six internal bases. ‘The outer hide’ is a term for the six external bases. ‘The inner tendons, sinews, and ligaments’ is a term for delight and lust. ‘The sharp butcher’s knife’ is a term for noble wisdom—the noble wisdom that cuts, severs, and carves away the inner defilements, fetters, and bonds.