Have I understood Non-Self correctly?

[tiltbillings]

I can't be sure, but the "i got it" feeling can be the beginning of grasping.

One very well may have gotten something of value, and one may then grasp onto it. In light of this, I do like this story:

• After only a year and a half of practice at Wat Ba Pong, one American [Jack Kornfield] asked and received permission [from Ajahn Chah] to travel and study with other Thai and Burmese teachers. A year or two later, he returned full of tales of his travels, of many months of extraordinary and intensive practice and of a number of remarkable experiences. . . . Then the Western monk went to the cottage of Achaan Sumedho, the senior Western disciple of Achaan Chah, and told all his stories and adventures, his new understandings and great insights into practice. Sumedho listened in silence and prepared afternoon tea from the roots of certain forest plants. When the stories were completed and the insights recounted, Sumedho smiled and said, "Ah, how wonderful. Something else to let go of."

[Bundokji]

Thanks for sharing the story tilt

[Kamran]

Don't kill The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs is an idiom I use to remind myself not to get distracted by insights that come up in the practice but to stick with the process that generates insights.

[Herbie]

What are your thoughts on this? Am I understanding non-self correctly or have I gone full bonkers?

"Correctly" can only refer to a given convention and that certainly is Theravada convention in your case. So those having fully understood and adopted Theravada convention should assess whether your expressions comply.

[practitioner]

The author of A Map of Journey emphasizes insight instead of thinking.

Since insight to "not-self" cannot be attained through thinking or intellectualizing, try not to think about not-self. Let vipassana lead you to the realization of not-self. Too much thinking hinders meditation.

When realized, your mind will automatically operate the way a not-Self mind would operate.

[Janalanda]

it must come naturally through deep meditative insight..or quantum physics If it doesn't reduce suffering, then it's not worth pursuing...the Buddha did advise not to spend too long on questions you can't answer.

There are many question that are useless but this is not at all one of them. In fact, contemplation about this topic is said to be the reason for achieving stream-entry http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/stud ... tream.html

What I seem to be intellectually stuck on, is how certain atoms come together in an attempt to survive, but others do not, such as those in a rock which simply come together. This force ("clinging, craving") separates living from the non-living. However, I do not see this force as something that a person can look at and see directly at least not with an unenlightened mind. I wouldn't say it's permanent either because this force would be extinguished upon parinibbana. At any rate, it can hardly be said to be an inherent self because it can easily be created by other causes and conditions.

They "come together" in an attempt to survive through the process of Pratītyasamutpāda. But they don't actually "come together" because they were like that from the beginning. The self been "attached" to the body is not something that happened at a certain point. Things are like that from the beginning.

And the rocks, trees, bodies that you see are not real either. They are just phenomenons that appeared and ceased according to conditions. But you still assume there is something "solid" behind a thought, something "solid" behind the seen. This means you should continue to contemplate the subject until:

" 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 connection with that. When there is no you in connection with 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."[2]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

[R1111 = rightviewftw]

Hello all,

As I see it, everything is just a collection of impermanent parts interacting together. There is no "person" or inherent entity in there, just parts interacting. What makes these parts come together to form something living as opposed to a rock for example, is the force of craving, which is conditioned and when the aggregates separate at death, this craving goes on to bring more aggregates together in certain ways based on it's kamma. Consciousness, thoughts, awareness, etc, are all just parts of this grand, moving, mosaic we call life. Nothing has an inherent existence since each part is connected to, affects, and depends on the other parts.

It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself when you say that everything is a collection of impermanent "parts" yet differentiating between a living thing and a rock. Which also makes me wonder what you mean by parts and if you are postulating a sort of existing of these parts.

What are your thoughts on this? Am I understanding non-self correctly or have I gone full bonkers?

My thoughts are that there is only experience of conventional reality (concepts). Things are not ultimately real. One shouldnt really think about Anatta too much and certainly not form any views. You cant truly understand either impermanence, suffering or non-self without becoming enlightened. So when you think i think i understand either of those, ask yourself if you are enlightened, if not then you probably dont quite get it yet.

[Saoshun]

You do not understand no-self correctly. The only way to understand no self is to realize it before understanding.

[practitioner]

I understand why you are trying to intellectualize not-self. It is fine, but ultimately not-self is not knowledge you can possess. It is experiential knowledge to be attained via practice. Knowing cannot change our ways but experiencing it will change our ways.

[bodom]

If you can't understand non self then at least try too understand non selfishness.

[spacenick]

when the aggregates separate at death, this craving goes on to bring more aggregates together in certain ways based on it's kamma. Consciousness, thoughts, awareness, etc, are all just parts of this grand, moving, mosaic we call life

What I understand from this is that you seem to be thinking that there are actual aggregates "out there", and that these parts have inherent existence (and that, okay, maybe the self is illusional, but still made of these 'real' parts that connect together in a grand mosaic)

We always end up debating about existence vs non-existence. But as far as we're concerned, there's just the interplay of consciousness with nama/rupa. Sensory input & perception. Have a look at the Bahiya Sutta

That's also the very reason why we are all here. Because we have taken a stand (a ditthi) about our existence. And that's why the best ditthi to counteract any ditthi is samma ditthi: the view that every thing is inconstant, therefore painful. Something that is painful (dukkha) is out of control. Something that is out of control cannot possibly one's self. It is a ditthi that destroys itself in the last analysis (it is extremely light).

Keep at it!

[Maarten]

The best way to understand it is: all the Khandas are out of control.
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

With metta,

Maarten

[Chula]

I think this might be a relevant for you:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html