Did Buddha ask us to treat five aggregate as "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 10685
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Did Buddha ask us to treat five aggregate as "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self?

Post by DooDoot »

mjaviem wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:05 pm What does sunnata mean?
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. SN 35.85
SarathW wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 8:01 am In the same way, there is no self in absolute terms but there is self in conventional terms.
"Convention" is a teaching for Arahants (SN 1.25) rather than for puthujjana. The puthujjana that only knows self will probably use the "convention" teaching to maintain self rather than give up self.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
SarathW
Posts: 15670
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Did Buddha ask us to treat five aggregate as "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self?

Post by SarathW »

Bundokji wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 3:09 pm I think the second statement is trickier than the first. In the first statement, the Buddha is linking right understanding with regarding consciousness as: "This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self." so, the statement is assertive in a way.

The second statement is a bit trickier because it raises a set of questions that are framed to be answered as either/or. The monks answered by the negative. Usually, either/or questions has to with volition, and both answers have their own explanatory powers as well as their limitations.

Let us assume that the monks answered by the positive how would this explain phenomena?
1- "Is consciousness permanent or impermanent?" — "permanent, venerable sir."
Consciousness can be said to be permanent when thought of as a non-local phenomena. Assume you do not know the path from point A to point B, you can ask another person, and rely on his/her verbal formation to reach your destination. Same things can be said about the legal property of individuals after death. By asking "which consciousness that continues?" one is attempting to localize it in order to negate it.
2- "Now is what is impermanent pleasant or painful?" — "Pleasing, venerable sir.?
What is impermanent can be said to be pleasing. The end of pain for example is pleasing. If it were not pleasing, people would not have sought new beginnings. It provides people with purpose and meaning. What is permanent on the other hand implies stagnation and boredom, not what is dynamic and playful.
3- "Now is what is impermanent, what is painful since subject to change, fit to be regarded thus: 'This is mine, this is I, this is my self'"? — "Yes, venerable sir."
Regarding it as mine, I or myself is a cause for changing it. If something is painful, and i take ownership of it, i seek to turn it into pleasure, or more enduring if it is pleasurable,

The above goes against the grain of the quoted sutta not only in answering the three questions in the positive, but in finding no necessary logical connection between the three and answering each question individually. The logical connection between the three questions is a by-product of answering them in the negative.

The moral of the story: every volitional action has a shadow, even when presented by the Buddha himself.
:goodpost:
This is exactly how you have to study Buddhism.
I hope we will continue this topic in line with this thought process.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
pegembara
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Did Buddha ask us to treat five aggregate as "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self?

Post by pegembara »

mjaviem wrote: Thu Apr 15, 2021 2:05 pm What does sunnata mean? What's the sunnatta teaching?
Sunnata means a lack of inherent existence ie. anatta or corelessness.

For example-

What is the ear?
Is it the ear drum, ear canal, the fleshy part, ear bones, the nerves or brain?
Without its parts, there is no ear!
So the ear is dependent on its parts. It is empty!

What about the eye?
What is it really without the eyeball, the lens, the iris, the aqueous or vitreous humours, retina, nerves and brain?
There is actually no eye! Its "existence" is dependent on the presence of all those things. That's sunnata.
Some of its parts.

What about a fire?
Same thing. It is dependent on conditions that don't inherently exist. It is also empty.
Without the conditions, it just goes out. It doesn't go anywhere. Not unbound but just goes out.

A being is likewise sunna -form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness - the five aggregates.

Satta Sutta: A Being
"Just as when boys or girls are playing with little sand castles:[4] as long as they are not free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, that's how long they have fun with those sand castles, enjoy them, treasure them, feel possessive of them. But when they become free from passion, desire, love, thirst, fever, & craving for those little sand castles, then they smash them, scatter them, demolish them with their hands or feet and make them unfit for play.

"In the same way, Radha, you too should smash, scatter, & demolish form, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for form.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish feeling, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for feeling.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish perception, and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for perception.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish fabrications, and make them unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for fabrications.

"You should smash, scatter, & demolish consciousness and make it unfit for play. Practice for the ending of craving for consciousness — for the ending of craving, Radha, is Unbinding."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Why now do you assume 'a being'?
Mara, have you grasped a view?
This is a heap of sheer constructions:
Here no being is found.

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .bodh.html
So by convention, there is a person called mjaviem who posts and responds to posts and messages.
Form is like a glob of foam;
feeling, a bubble;
perception, a mirage;
fabrications, a banana tree;
consciousness, a magic trick —
this has been taught
by the Kinsman of the Sun.
However you observe them,
appropriately examine them,
they're empty, void
to whoever sees them
appropriately.


https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
It is this voidness that is the single highest teaching of the Buddha, so
much so that in the Saṁyutta-nikāya the Buddha says that there are no
words spoken by the Tathāgata that are not concerned with suññatā. He
says, in this discourse (sutta), that the most profound teachings are those
dealing with voidness and that everything else is superficial. Only the
teaching of suññatā is so profound that an enlightened Tathāgata must
appear in the world in order to teach it. Other matters are superficial and
don’t require a Tathāgata’s appearance.

Please think this over. Contemplate it, observe it, and ponder it until
you perceive that all things display the characteristic of suññatā. It’s just
that we can’t see
. So who is to blame but ourselves? There’s a Zen koan that
says, “An ancient pine tree is proclaiming the Dhamma.” Even that old pine
tree is displaying suññatā, the voidness that it shares with all things, but
people don’t see it. They don’t hear its Dhamma teaching, its ceaseless
proclamation of voidness. This, then, is the word suññatā in its first
meaning, which concerns all things.

Heartwood of the Bodhi Tree: The Buddha's Teaching on Voidness
http://www.buddhadasa.org/files/pdf/Hea ... hadasa.pdf
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Did Buddha ask us to treat five aggregate as "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self?

Post by mjaviem »

pegembara wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:47 am ...
Many, many thanks.
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
SarathW
Posts: 15670
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Did Buddha ask us to treat five aggregate as "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self?

Post by SarathW »

mjaviem wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:33 am
pegembara wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:47 am ...
Many, many thanks.
Yes it is a good posting.
Does this mean that there is no Buddha to be found anywhere?
What about the living Buddha?
What about the Buddha after Parinibbana?
Is Buddha like a child playing with the sand castles?
Sand castles are demolished but the children are still there!
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
pegembara
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Did Buddha ask us to treat five aggregate as "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self?

Post by pegembara »

SarathW wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:18 am
mjaviem wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 2:33 am
pegembara wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 1:47 am ...
Many, many thanks.
Yes it is a good posting.
Does this mean that there is no Buddha to be found anywhere?
What about the living Buddha?
What about the Buddha after Parinibbana?
Is Buddha like a child playing with the sand castles?
Sand castles are demolished but the children are still there!
The worldlings/puthujannas are like children playing with sandcastles. The Buddha is like a parent watching the child playing, Himself being once a child. The Buddha has wokened up to the true nature of existence.

As adults, we know the true nature of sandcastles but when talking to children those sandcastles are real as far as they are concerned.
They exist only because of conditions ie. sand, shape, cohesion etc. Of course, the children are still there... after all, it is only a simile.
But in 10-20 years time are the children still there! Where did they go? Did they ever exist?

You know when the Tibetan monks made those very intricate sand mandalas taking the time and effort sometimes for weeks only to destroy them. The message to me is clear. The empty nature of those things that we cherish is only there due to conditions and is empty of true existence and is impermanent.

Once seen, the disenchantment and dispassion is automatic.
There is no refuge in the conditioned/created.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
mjaviem
Posts: 298
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2020 5:06 pm

Re: Did Buddha ask us to treat five aggregate as "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self?

Post by mjaviem »

SarathW wrote: Fri Apr 16, 2021 3:18 am ...
Does this mean that there is no Buddha to be found anywhere?
What about the living Buddha?
What about the Buddha after Parinibbana?
Is Buddha like a child playing with the sand castles?
Sand castles are demolished but the children are still there!
Enough, SarathW! Why do you want to see his foul body? One who sees the Dhamma sees him; one who sees him sees the Dhamma. For in seeing the Dhamma, SarathW, one sees him; and in seeing him, one sees the Dhamma.

And you can refer to SN.22.87 :P
Namo Tassa Bhagavato Arahato Sammā Sambuddhassa
whynotme
Posts: 666
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: Did Buddha ask us to treat five aggregate as "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self?

Post by whynotme »

The Buddha says there's no self in 5 aggregates and there's no self without 5 aggregates. Looking from this, it seems there's no self at all, but there's still a true self.

The problem is the sense of self only exist with 5 aggregates. Without 5 aggregates, even the self exists, it can not be called the self, that's the problem. It can not be said, I am exist without any feeling, or any thought, so the sense of self needs 5 aggregates.

5 aggregates is like a mirror. Without a mirror, you exist but there isn't any way to see that you exist. With a mirror, you know you exist. Without 5 aggregates, it can not be said I am.

So the true self exists, but to be called the self, it needs 5 aggregates. That's why in the sutta it's said that there is no self without 5 aggregates, it doesn't mean there's no self at all. Without aggregates, the self is called nibbana. But nibbana is actually true self if you can get above the strictly meaning of the word.

This is the hard point to understand, if you grasp the sutta strictly, then you'll misunderstand it. To be called the self, it needs both the momentary self (5 aggregates) and individual self (nibbanna), that's the sense of self. But the momentary self alone is not the self, while the true self alone cannot be called self. That's why Tathagata can't be said exist after death, the self without aggregates is called nibbana, the blow out.
Please stop following me
pegembara
Posts: 2008
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Did Buddha ask us to treat five aggregate as "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self?

Post by pegembara »

whynotme wrote: Mon Apr 19, 2021 5:21 am The Buddha says there's no self in 5 aggregates and there's no self without 5 aggregates. Looking from this, it seems there's no self at all, but there's still a true self.

The problem is the sense of self only exist with 5 aggregates. Without 5 aggregates, even the self exists, it can not be called the self, that's the problem. It can not be said, I am exist without any feeling, or any thought, so the sense of self needs 5 aggregates.

5 aggregates is like a mirror. Without a mirror, you exist but there isn't any way to see that you exist. With a mirror, you know you exist. Without 5 aggregates, it can not be said I am.

So the true self exists, but to be called the self, it needs 5 aggregates. That's why in the sutta it's said that there is no self without 5 aggregates, it doesn't mean there's no self at all. Without aggregates, the self is called nibbana. But nibbana is actually true self if you can get above the strictly meaning of the word.

This is the hard point to understand, if you grasp the sutta strictly, then you'll misunderstand it. To be called the self, it needs both the momentary self (5 aggregates) and individual self (nibbanna), that's the sense of self. But the momentary self alone is not the self, while the true self alone cannot be called self. That's why Tathagata can't be said exist after death, the self without aggregates is called nibbana, the blow out.
Nibbana - the Uncreated, Unconstructed, Unfabricated, Unconditioned. Most definitely not the five aggregates which are only present under certain conditions.
The problem is not who we are, but our belief and identification with what we are not.

That's where the suffering is, that's where we feel misery and depression and despair.

It's our identity with everything that is not ourselves that is dukkha.



When you identify with that which is unsatisfactory, you're going to be dissatisfied and discontented it's obvious, isn't it?

http://www.truelittlemonk.com/inter/content/1195
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Post Reply