Moot Responses ...

Give up notions of a self? That is where you lost me! There is no notion that endures beyond this most human one Reducing delusion and ignorance, by grasping and rejecting, that is wisdom to me.

And though it may sound cruel to buddhists, and many other religionists,

love is greater than friendship.

 

Explain, please, your idea or perception of 'love.'

---

I'm not asking for anyone outside of Dejavu to offer their idea or perception of 'love', only Dejavu.

 

I'm going to start by offering quotes from two separate books in the Therava Buddhist teachings. These are not cut-n-paste, so if there's any misspellings then please let me know if they cause confusion.

Samyutta Nikaya
44, Abyakatasamyutta
Connected Discourses on the Undeclared


10th section:

Then the wanderer Vacchagota approached the Blessed One and exchanged greetings with him. When they had concluded their greetings and cordial talk, he sat down to one side and said to him:

"How is it now, Master Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then, Master Gotama, is there no self?"

A second time the Blessed One was silent.

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta rose from his seat and departed.

Then, not long after the wanderer Vacchagotta had left, the Venerable Annanda said to the Blessed One: "Why is it, venerable sir, that when the Blessed One was questioned by the wanderer Vacchagotta, he did not answer?"

"If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?' I had answered, 'There is no self,' this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are eternalists. And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self?' I had answered, 'There is no self,' this would have been siding with those ascetics and brahmins who are annihilationists.

"If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?' I had answered, 'There is a self,' would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that 'all phenomena are nonself'?"

"No, venerable sir."

"And if, when I was asked by him, 'Is there no self?' I had answered, 'There is no self,' the wanderer Vacchagotta, already confused, would have fallen into even greater confusion, thinking, 'It seems that the self I formerly had does not exist now.'"
​

_________

Majjhima Nikaya
44, Culavedalla Sutta
The Shorter Series of Questions and Answers


Second paragraph:

"Lady, 'identity'. What is called identity by the Blessed One?"

"Friend Visakha, these five aggregates affected by clinging are called identity by the Blessed One; that is, the material form aggregate affected by clinging, the feeling aggregate affected by clinging, the perception aggregate affected by clinging, the formations aggregate affected by clinging, and the consciousness aggregate affected by clinging. These five aggregates affected by clinging are called identity by the Blessed One."

Saying, "Good, lady," the lay follower Visakha delighted and rejoiced in the bhikkhuni Dhammadina's words. Then he asked her a further question:

"Lady, 'origin of identity'. What is called origin of identity by the Blessed One?"

"Friend Visakha, it is craving, which brings renewal of being, is accompanied by delight and lust, and delights in this and that; that is, craving for sensual pleasure, craving for being, and craving for non-being. This is called the origin of identity by the Blessed One."

Seventh paragraph:

"Lady, how does identity view come to be?"

"Here, friend Visakha, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form as self, or self as posessed of material form, or material form as in self, or self as in material form. He regards feeling as self, or self as posessed of feeling, or feeling as in self, or self as in feeling. He regards perception as self, or self as posessed of perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception. He regards formations as self, or self as posessed of formations, or formations as in self, or self as in formations. He regards consciousness as self, or self as possessed of consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness. That is how identify view comes to be."
​

The reason I posted these two excerpts from the Theravada Nikaya is to give an example ... example ... of the basic thought of the Theravada Buddhist teaching. You can find, perhaps, the entire Suttas mentioned at http://www.accesstoinsight.org, though those intrepretations will be different than the ones I read while typing. Their meaning, however will be identical.


When positing a self, all one posits is a description of the "aggregates of clinging" as described in the conversation between the nun (bhikkuni) Dhammadina and her former husband Visakha. When you say things as "I exist" what what is being described as existing is forms, feelings, perceptions, fabrications (ideas, mentation, thoughts, mental formations, volition) and consciousness. Not only is one describing these aggregates, one is also describing the depth in which one clings to these notions, of forms, feelings, perceptions, fabrications and consciousness.

When you say things like, "There is no notion that endures beyond this most human one Reducing delusion and ignorance, by grasping and rejecting." I become confused myself on what it is you are saying.

The statement "Reducing delusion and ignorance, by grasping and rejecting", to me seems like you're saying that in order to reduce delusion and ignorance one must first grasp at it, then reject it. If it is not too much trouble, can you please clarify this for me?

"There is no nothing that endures beyond the most human one ..." is not correct view in Buddhism. As, according to Buddhist teaching, nothing endures. The three main views in Buddhism is Anicca (all things are impermanent), Dukkha (there is suffering), and Anatta (non-self).

By allowing ones self to correctly analyze what it is that makes up the notions of self, one sees, or comes to a conclusion that a self does not really exist in the things that make up the idea of a self. The First Noble Truth, the truth of suffering, describes this process of identification of self as a series of events beginning with the idea or notion that we are made of four basic elements. That our sense organs: eyes, ears, nose, mouth and body are made of these elements. That these organs and the objects associated with these organs constitute the production or beginning of form, the first of the aggregates of clinging, the physical aspect of existence.

That because of contact with the objects associated with the sense organs, namely forms with the eye, sounds with the ear, smells with the nose, tastes with the tongue, touch with the body (and thoughts with the mind), we associate feelings (which are of three types) to the sensations that are produced from the contact. These three types of feelings being greed (lust, pleasure, desire), ill-will (pain, anger, hatred), and delusion (ignorance, confusion, neither-one-or-the-other). i.e., clinging to feelings ...

That because of persistent contact between the senses and their associated objects and our moment-to-moment-nonending experience with feelings, we associate perceptions, the idea that what it is we are experiencing is catagorized into this or that group of experience or awareness. i.e., clinging to perceptions ...

That because of persistent catigorization of experiences into perceptions we form mental ideas, or fabrications to what our experiences are. i.e., clinging to fabrications ...

That because of persistent fabrications we develop a consciousness associated with contact between senses and object. i.e., clinging to consciousness ...

And because of persistent application of sense-object consciousness we develop ideas of a persistent self, or an identity that these experiences are our self, that our self is possessed of these experiences, or that these experiences are in our selves, or that our selves are in these experiences.

Cut out the eyes ... do you cease being "self" because the eyes are removed? The eyes are not the self.

Remove the ears ... do you cease being "self" because the ears are removed? The ears are not the self.

Remove the nose ... do you cease being "self" because the nose is not there? The nose is not the self.

Remove the tongue ... do you cease being "self" because the tongue is removed? The tongue is not the self.

Remove the skin from the self, or the part that produces sensation when coming into contact with an object of touch ... do you cease being "self" because this part of the body is no longer present? The body is not the self.

Stop thinking ... does the "self" cease at the cessation of thought? The thoughts are not the self.

The notion then becomes where is the self, where is the experience, where is the experiencer to be found? The self is not the experience, nor is the experience the self. The self is not posessed of the experience, nor is the experience posessed of the self. The self is not in the experience, nor is the experience in the self.

The self is not forms ...

The self is not feelings ...

The self is not perceptions ...

The self is not fabrications ...

The self is not consciousness ...

Yet it is clear that these things can be found, not in the self, rather in the idea or notion of self.

It is in clinging to forms that we develop notions of self, or identity of self, or identify our selves with forms and thus is born identity of self ...

It is in clinging to feelings that we develop notions of self, or identity of self, or identify our selves with feelings and thus is born identity of self ...

It is in clinging to perceptions that we develop notions of self, or identity of self, or identify our selves with perceptions and thus is born identity of self ...

It is in clinging to fabrications that we develop notions of self, or identity of self, or identify our selves with fabrications and thus is born identity of self ...

It is in clinging to consciousness that we develop notions of self, or identity of self, or identify our selves with consciousness and thus is born identity of self ...

According to dependent origination, clinging is a result of craving and craving a result of feelings, and feelings are of three types: greed, ill-will, and delusion.

So it is Greed, Ill-Will and Delusion we must reject, get rid of, cut off, stop, cease without further application ... reject.

"that is wisdom to me. ..."

This is wisdom to me!

Love?
It's not the other person one loves ... it's the feelings the other person allows one to experience that one loves ...

It's not the other thing one loves ... it's the feelings the other thing allows one to experience that one loves ...

It's not God that one loves ... it is the feelings ones belief in God or gods gives them that they love ...

It's not your parents you love ... it is the experience of feelings your parents give you that you love ...

You don't love anyone or anything ... you only love the feelings you experience when you are in posession of the thing of your object of love ...

One is only in love with their own form, their own feelings, their own perceptions, their own fabrications, their own consciousness ... not the other person, place, or thing.

So, "Love" is just another word for "Craving".

Friendship is important because with good friends one has a tendency to lead good and virtuous lives. Likewise with unvirtuous friends one has a tendency to lead bad and unvirtuous lives.

"And though it may sound cruel to buddhists, and many other religionists ..."

The only thing that sounds cruel to me is how can anyone be in love with their own pain, their own sorrow, their own despair, their own lamentations, their own grief ... their own suffering ... ???

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Is it reason? Thought, the crown of feeling that compels us to action, and to all lesser events of emotion. Is it power? The arch desire of life capable of subsuming itself and destroying us. Is is nature itself? Everything escaping description, demanding we wait upon it indefinitely in the describing.

My idea of love is an idea at any rate. The superhuman. I must be lacking.

 

I see ...

So what you have to offer is poetry ...

Fair enough ...

Accepted ...

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Self is love! Every danger, every hope, all human future.

Yes, in love with even their own suffering, not from the heart--but for it! The whole self is necessary. A self that loves itself so completely that it is completely free to all selves. But here I speak of things I do not know!

 

Then my response of "Bull Shit" to what you said before this quote is a moot response ...

 

But you would agree that self is love?

 

Depends on what kind of response you expect me to give.

I believe I stated earlier that I find the whole "Love" thing to be nothing more than another name for "Craving."

And as such, I don't have feelings one way or another for the entire "Love" concept other than it is nothing more than another form of "sensual desire". And by "sensual desire" I mean that which is desirous or pleasing to the senses, and as such is a product of greed, which leads to ill-will and as such something to be uprooted, reject, gotten rid of, cut off, stopped, ceased without further application ...

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

I do not follow your reasoning that what is desirous to the senses is necessarily a product of greed.

 

Sorry ...

It's not necessairly a line of reasoning exclusive to me. That is, not "mine". It is, however a common understanding to Buddhism that pleasant feelings are the cause of desire, lust and greed. And that painful feelings are the cause of aversion, anger and hate. And that neutral feelings, or feelings that are neither pleasant-nor-painful, are the cause of ignorance, confusion, delusion. It is also the common understanding in Buddhism that the effect of feeling is craving.

So ... giving that it is the presence of the sense organs, whose sole purpose is to "sense" their given surrounding via contact with the object of the sense, then that which is "sense"-ual (sensual) is a product of the senses coming into contact with an object associated with that sense. When the two come into contact a "sense"-ation (sensation) occurs, or arises. When a sensation arrises, we immediately associate feelings with it and feelings come in three types: greed, ill-will, and delusion.

So "sensual" can refer to either feelings of greed (desire, lust, or pleasure), ill-will (aversion, anger, or hatred), or delusion (ignorance, or confusion), but is really nothing more than sensations without the application of feelings.

Thus "desire of the senses" or "desirous to the senses" (as you put it) is a craving for feelings of greed, desire, lust or pleasure.

It can also be a craving for feelings of ill-will, aversion, anger or hatred. Or, craving for feelings of delusion, ignorance, or confusion. Since ill-will and delusion are also feelings, and the effect of Feeling is Craving. Ill-Will is a craving away from the object of painful feelings. And Delusion is a craving for neglect of the object of neutral feelings (neither-painful-nor-pleasant).

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

You intimate that love, and all feeling is

What on earth would remain?!

My words: "There is no notion that endures beyond this most human one"

What notion could endure longer than "Self"?!

 

Yes ... exactly ...

Self doesn't endure beyond the concept we fuel it with ...

Self is only a conceived notion based on feelings, craving, clinging, existence ... and existence itself is a product of clinging, clinging a product of craving, craving a product of feelings and feelings are of three types: greed, ill-will and delusion.

If it appears I'm repeating myself, then it may be because I am ... for a reason.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

"If, Ananda, when I was asked by the wanderer Vacchagotta, 'Is there a self?' I had answered, 'There is a self,' would this have been consistent on my part with the arising of the knowledge that 'all phenomena are nonself'?"

does this mean, as it sounds to me that it might, and that it might is one of the things that i love, that the buddhist possition, is in aggreement with my own feelings that we live in, what is for the most part, a universe that is NOT personal, nor needs to be?

by nonpersonal i don't mean that powerful nontangable awairnessess can't exist, but rather that existence neither depends upon nor begins and ends with them. that nearly all, if not all, that happens or has happened, does NOT require some 'directing' mind or intelligence.

=^^=
.../\...

 

I'm sorry? Nothing would remain.

That is like saying we cease to exist when we sleep and are unconscious, but it's beside the point, which is that of all ideas, self is naturally
the most enduring idea having to stand as it does before all others. I don't need to be told that we die.

It may be, or is? Would you mind telling me the reason? Do you desire to live? To die? To be free of such desire?

 

Your reasoning is not uncommon for a non-Buddhist. And this is what I like about meeting others who are not Buddhist, but have the same ideas (not to be mistaken with ideals) as a Buddhist.

From what I understand, awareness is base, or a basic part of the entire process of mind. According to some of the teachings I have come across, a Cita is a mind moment that is nothing but pure awareness. It neither knows or is cognizant, only aware. Mind exists in a continuous stream of cita, or mind moments. Once one of the senses and its associated object come into contact many such cita's arrise in response to the contact. This continuous stream of basic awareness is where sensation arises. It is when we cling to these moments that appear that we start forming feelings of either like, dislike, or neutrality (neither-like-nor-dislike), so in essence we form ideas, feelings, perceptions, mentality, consciousness because of a non-stop continuous strream of awarenesses ... so when it is said that "mind exists in a continuous stream of mind moments (cita), then it literally means that when the stream stops, mind stops.

From the teaching of Dependent Origination, existence is dependent on clinging, clinging dependent on craving, and craving dependent on feelings, feelings on contact, contact on the presence of the six senses, the six senses on mental and physical formations, mind and form on consciousness, consciousness on volition (karma - action/reaction), and finally volition is dependent on ignorance.

So if you're asking me if I have strong belief in the idea that existence is not dependent on, nor has its beginning or ending with non-tangible awareness, I might have to say that according to Dependent Origination it does. However, if you are asking that we need not use non-tangible awareness as a basis of a beginning or ending to existence, then I would have to agree ... but the thing is ... we do ... moment-to-moment ... perhaps many hundred times per second.

The whole idea of dependent origination is like a causal chain. Break one link in the chain and everything from the broken link on falls off.

To continue dependent origination from existence ... birth depends on existence, and death depends on birth. (Second Noble Truth.) When there is no birth, there is no death. When there is no existence, there is no birth. When there is no clinging, there is no existence. ... When there is no ignorance, there is no volition. (Third Noble Truth.)

You don't have to be a Buddhist to come to a realization to the truth of suffering, or a realization to the origin of suffering, or a realization of the cessation of suffering, or the path that leads to the cessation of suffering. It just so happens that Buddhism is the only one that openly proclaim these ideas and goes about presenting teachings that lead one's awareness or understanding to self-realization to the truth of our views and perceptions of reality itself.

A Buddha became aware of these things. A solitary realizer becomes aware of these things. Both become enlightened, self-realized beings without the teachings of a Buddha, or Buddhism.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

Yes ... exactly ...

No ... it is not ... because when you sleep, your ears still hear, your nose still smells, your body still feels, your tongue still tastes, your mind still thinks, and because your eyes are closed to external stimulii then your mind provides that through the process of mental images which lead to dreaming. Your "self" as you call it is still aware of its existence, or still craves and clings to notions of awareness of its existence. It still craves forms, it still craves feelings, it still craves perceptions, still craves mental volition, still craves consciousness.

The idea of self is enduring ... yes ... it is craving forms that the idea of identifying with self originates. it is the craving feelings that the idea of identifying with self originates. it is the craving of perceptions that the idea of identifying with self originates. it is the craving of fabrications that the idea of identifying with self originates. it is the craving of consciousness that the idea of identifying with self originates. In essence, it is forms->feelings->perceptions->volition->consciousness where the idea of identifying with self originates, it is these "aggregates of clinging". These aggregates are not the self, but the idea of self is within the aggregates.

But that idea itself must sometime come to an end ...

So it is not the "self" one constantly refers to, rather forms, feelings, perceptions, fabrications and consciousness that is in constant referral. The idea of self (the fabrication of self)does not exist outside this description, yet this description, this "aggregates of clinging" is not the self.

Perhaps not ... but you should have a need to know that there need no longer be any idea or concept of death ... there need no longer be any death ... however, your own ideas and opinions will come to your rescue and quite possibly create within you confusion as to how this is accomplished.

The reason for what?

Like all beings, while still living in this realm of existence, I desire happiness.

If I were to say, "Yes I desire to live," then you would accuse me of still, with intention, crave and cling to desires of notions of a truly existing self.

If I were to say, "No, I dont desire to live," then you would accuse me of being mentally unstable and might even think that I harbor feelings of ill-will towards myself to the point of wanting to end my existence.

Besides, desiring to be free of desire is still desire, a redundant cycle ...

To be free of such desires as greed, ill-will and delusion ... yes ...

The rest will fall as it may ...

When there is no more birth, there is no death. This chain is broken.

When there is no more existence, there is no more birth. This chain is broken.

When there is no more clinging, there is no more existence. This chain is broken.

When there is no more craving, there is no more clinging. This chain is broken.

When there is no more feelings, there is no more craving. This chain is broken. And feelings are of three types: greed, ill-will, and delusion.

When there is no more contact, there is no more feeling. This chain is broken.

When there is no longer any need for the six senses, there is no more contact. This chain is broken.

When there is no Mental and Physical formations, no name and form, there is no longer any need for the six senses. This chain is broken.

When there is no consciousness there is no more mental and physical formations. This chain is broken.

When there is no volition (karma/kamma - action/reaction), there is no more consciousness. This chain is broken.

When there is no ignorance, there is no more volition. The entire link of dependent origination is now broken.

With the uprooting of ignorance, there is no more existence, there is no more birth, there is no more death. This does not mean one ceases to exist at that moment. Ones present state of existence is a product of past actions. One cannot escape their past actions. They are still owners to their actions, still heir to their actions. And as such, once the volitional formations that gave rise to the body are finished, once the body desolves, once the consciousness ceases in the body, once the volitions that gave rise to consiousness are no longer present in the body, then there will be no more rebirth, no more continuation in the cycle of samsara.

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

How doesn't it mean one ceases to exist if there is no more existence? I am sure we speak very different languages.

Are you not an ascetic annihilationist?

 

That's a silly question ...

Why would I be?

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

 

I'm sure we speak the same language. I believe one of two possibilities exist here. Either you know nothing of which you are speaking, in which case you wouldn't know to call me an "ascetic annihilationist." Or, you are being theatrical and pretending you don't know what you're talking about.

Only thing I can't get, yet, is why and what's in it for you?

I also take it that since Dejavu represents something repeated, then you are a returning banned individual whose MO was to do what you're doing now, or perhaps worse since you were banned to begin with ...

So ...

What's up, Deja?

HTML:

HTML:

HTML:

HTML: