Do you really exist over time?

[NAD]

There is a ‘you’ and a ‘me’ that exists and goes from life to life, but it isn’t a ‘Self’ in the way the Buddha was talking about. The Buddha was saying that ‘you’ or ‘me’ are not a ‘Self’ as ’we’ are not permanent. ‘Me’ and ‘you’ are impermanent, so therefore ‘we’ are not a ‘Self’.

There is no ‘Self’ to be found within ‘you’ or ‘me’. ‘We’ are ‘not self’.

‘You’ and ‘me’ travel the round of Samsara but forget that we have existed, and at the end of it all when/if ‘we’ become Arahants, then Rebirth and Kamma will cease and no longer exist for………………

[cappuccino]

There is no ‘Self’

Sorry… this implies annihilation


And hence was not taught

[NAD]

There is no ‘Self’

Sorry… this implies annihilation


And hence was not taught

Is there is a ‘Self’ within Cappuccino?

[cappuccino]

Is there is a ‘Self’ within Cappuccino?

On Self, No Self, and Not-self

[NAD]

Is there is a ‘Self’ within Cappuccino?

On Self, No Self, and Not-self

Thanks for the straight answer, Cappagotta.

[NAD]

To be fair if you did believe in a ‘Self’ you probably would have said so by now as you’ve been asked many times.

Now, where I have stated that there is no ‘Self’ to be found within ‘me’ or ‘you’ I don’t think the Buddha would have disagreed with that. ‘We’ are an impermanent collection of the five aggregates. I am saying that there is no ‘Self’ to be found among the aggregates.

Do you disagree with that assertion Cap?

[auto]

To be fair if you did believe in a ‘Self’ you probably would have said so by now as you’ve been asked many times.

Now, where I have stated that there is no ‘Self’ to be found within ‘me’ or ‘you’ I don’t think the Buddha would have disagreed with that. ‘We’ are an impermanent collection of the five aggregates. I am saying that there is no ‘Self’ to be found among the aggregates.

Do you disagree with that assertion Cap?

Its the clinging aggregates. 4th aggregate.
Form.. is the corresponding type of consciousness what manifests.. and what type of grasping aggregate it is depends on what this consciousness arose.

When a space is enclosed by sticks, creepers, grass, and mud it becomes known as a ‘building’.
In the same way, when a space is enclosed by bones, sinews, flesh, and skin it becomes known as a ‘form’.
..
But when the eye is intact internally and exterior sights come into range and there is corresponding engagement, there is the manifestation of the corresponding type of consciousness.
The form produced in this way is included in the grasping aggregate of form. The feeling, perception, choices, and consciousness produced in this way are each included in the corresponding grasping aggregate.

I think its way more difficult to stop thinking the sakkaya is not self than just calling there is no self.

[auto]

https://rychappell.substack.com/p/do-yo ... -over-time

Though the author (Chappell) at the link above isn't Buddhist, I suspect that modern academic philosophy was influenced by Buddhism. I believe that the Buddha was the first or one of the first major "philosophers" to assert that the self isn't real. I don't necessarily agree with all of Chappell's assertions, but he raises some interesting questions.

"Parfit argues that we do not endure, or exist through time, in quite the way that we ordinarily suppose. "

its the same identity.

This seems like a genuine—and important—question. We may mock the idea of metaphysical name-tags for groups and merely physical objects, but things seem different when it comes to conscious minds: surely there’s a fact of the matter whether the person who steps out of the teletransporter is really me or just a replica.

if to think you going to do something, its not empty thought, there is formed a subtle body consisting of countless particles. It doesn't exist on positive reality where existence can be affirmed tho, and that same body is used to produce a feeling in the physical body.

pretty much,

This way of thinking seems implicitly to presuppose the Featureless Cartesian View that an immaterial mind or soul contains our thoughts/experiences and grounds our identity.

per some texts i have seen the negative spirit can be merged with positive spirit and the 3rd is what is the visible one and can pick up objects etc.

[cappuccino]

I am saying that there is no ‘Self’ to be found among the aggregates.

Do you disagree with that assertion Cap?

The body is not self, that’s fine

[pegembara]

The you that doesn't change doesn't exist.
The one who experiences is not separate from the experience.
The "you" that was born, ages and dies (and gets reborn/reincarnates) exists only in your mind.

[NAD]

I am saying that there is no ‘Self’ to be found among the aggregates.

Do you disagree with that assertion Cap?

The body is not self, that’s fine

What about the mind, or consciousness?

[cappuccino]

What about the mind, or consciousness?

not self

[NAD]

What about the mind, or consciousness?

not self

That leaves nothing to be a ‘Self’ inside the body or mind/ consciousness.

Would you say that anything outside of these is ‘not self?’

[cappuccino]

That leaves nothing to be a ‘Self’

Thinking no self implies annihilation


Not self does not

[NAD]

That leaves nothing to be a ‘Self’

Thinking no self implies annihilation


Not self does not

Okay thanks Cappuccino, so your view is that of the five aggregates being ‘not self’, and you do not think in terms of a ‘Self’ or of ‘No Self’, or put another way in terms of ‘Eternalism’, or ‘Annihilationism’?, ie how you read the Ananda Sutta.