Hi Pegeambara,
pegembara wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:22 am
Even the 'I am' or 'I exist' perception/thought is impermanent and not self. "I am" not the five aggregates nor other than the five aggregates. All dependently arisen,
not truly existent.
I would change it in:
Even the 'I am' or 'I exist' perception/thought is impermanent and not self. "I am" not the five aggregates nor other than the five aggregates. All dependently arisen, and that's it
To stay true to the willingness of the Buddha of a Teaching that doesn't cause quarrelling with anyone in the world. There's no need to define something as
truly existent or not. What's the point in it? What changes in terms of the Drawbacks? The self is an acquisition of an aggregate (or a group of them) as "me,mine" or is out of your domain and so foolish teaching. It stays as long as you acquire and it ends if you don't acquire. This is the kind of existence that is worth talking and is in the milieu of the self-evident, impossible to negate kind of discussion:
When this was said, a certain bhikkhu asked the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent externally?”
“There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone thinks thus: ‘Alas, I had it! Alas, I have it no longer! Alas, may I have it! Alas, I do not get it!’ Then he sorrows, grieves, and laments, he weeps beating his breast and becomes distraught. That is how there is agitation about what is non-existent externally.”
This is a straightforward example of something non-existent simply in the sense "it is there
no more", in the sense that arised, persisted, and passed away.
"“Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards feeling thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards perception thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards formations thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, sought, mentally pondered thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—this too he regards thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’"
“Since he regards them thus, he is not agitated about what is non-existent (read in the sense that "it is not there anymore").
One has dismantled conceit, feeling "I am that", in any conceivable way, from acquisitions of the body to acquisitions of foolish teachings. So it is not agitated by what is not there, but was there before (conceit/self-view/asmi mana). I think this kind of thinking helps to dismantle
if one wants to more than reflecting on what is truly existent. One have to be radical in his dependantly arisen approach: stop the accumulation, the building of the sand-castles and start the cessation, the dismanting on the same sand-castles seen as unfit to play. Only then, you will not be agitated from what is not there anymore: conceit and ignorance-contact.