DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**avaissema** · 05-08-2011, 12:34 PM

I think this has to do more with what door one comes in through to the dharma (dhamma) than anything else. I always heard the terms "ultimate reality" and "non-dual" used, so it is very natural for me to use these terms when referring to "no such thing as "me" and "mine".

When somebody says there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine", then of course, this comes as a surprise to most people, who are likely to point to themselves and say, "well, here I am". So naturally the question arises, "if you claim there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine" then why is that? How can that be true? On what basis is this true?"

But that's not really what the Buddha said. He said "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self." It's a whole lot simpler than a categorical "there is not such thing...", which can legitimately be challenged logically. Again, the Buddha was concerned not with metaphysics of ontology, but a practical method to find peace of mind.

From this, an analytical approach reveals that whatever can be thought of as "me" and "mine" is merely a series of temporary events involving various things (sources of physical input, as in the case of material objects, and mental input as in the case of thoughts) and those things are also essentially temporary events involving other things, and so on, and so on infinitely. The Buddha takes a simpler approach: "this is impermanent, this is not my self, this can lead to suffering."

"Ultimately", meaning where it is impossible to go any further, or where distinctions become moot, where we see that all conditions arise interdependently. There is no self because there is no other and vice versa. There is no "me" and "mine" means there is nothing intrinsically arising that can be found to be "me" and "mine" . And all the advaitaist/nondualist head-tripping isn't really necessary with the Buddha's approach. And we can see the Buddha speaking of self and other precisely in such teachings as the Veludvareyya Sutta: "...what is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too". And while some conditions arise interdependently (namarupa and vinnanam come to mind), not all do -- which is what makes paticcasamuppada work at all. Without the arising of upadna, there is no arising of bhava, and no jati and no dukkha. But again we see the difference between a metaphysical interpretation of paticcasamuppada (which the Buddha did not teach), and the practical approach to alleviating suffering that he taught.

For me, this is not complicated. But perhaps, I don't know, maybe for you somebody else it conjures up all sorts of metaphysical meanings. That is how the phrase is used widely in the Buddhist world. I don't use the phrase at all in connection with the Dhamma, precisely because it is loaded up with extraneous metaphysical and "supernatural" assumptions.

05-08-2011, 12:34 PM	#15
avaissema Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 466 Senior Member	I think this has to do more with what door one comes in through to the dharma (dhamma) than anything else. I always heard the terms "ultimate reality" and "non-dual" used, so it is very natural for me to use these terms when referring to "no such thing as "me" and "mine". When somebody says there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine", then of course, this comes as a surprise to most people, who are likely to point to themselves and say, "well, here I am". So naturally the question arises, "if you claim there is "no such thing as "me" and "mine" then why is that? How can that be true? On what basis is this true?" But that's not really what the Buddha said. He said "this is not me, this is not mine, this is not my self." It's a whole lot simpler than a categorical "there is not such thing...", which can legitimately be challenged logically. Again, the Buddha was concerned not with metaphysics of ontology, but a practical method to find peace of mind. From this, an analytical approach reveals that whatever can be thought of as "me" and "mine" is merely a series of temporary events involving various things (sources of physical input, as in the case of material objects, and mental input as in the case of thoughts) and those things are also essentially temporary events involving other things, and so on, and so on infinitely. The Buddha takes a simpler approach: "this is impermanent, this is not my self, this can lead to suffering." "Ultimately", meaning where it is impossible to go any further, or where distinctions become moot, where we see that all conditions arise interdependently. There is no self because there is no other and vice versa. There is no "me" and "mine" means there is nothing intrinsically arising that can be found to be "me" and "mine" . And all the advaitaist/nondualist head-tripping isn't really necessary with the Buddha's approach. And we can see the Buddha speaking of self and other precisely in such teachings as the Veludvareyya Sutta: "...what is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too". And while some conditions arise interdependently (namarupa and vinnanam come to mind), not all do -- which is what makes paticcasamuppada work at all. Without the arising of upadna, there is no arising of bhava, and no jati and no dukkha. But again we see the difference between a metaphysical interpretation of paticcasamuppada (which the Buddha did not teach), and the practical approach to alleviating suffering that he taught. For me, this is not complicated. But perhaps, I don't know, maybe for you somebody else it conjures up all sorts of metaphysical meanings. That is how the phrase is used widely in the Buddhist world. I don't use the phrase at all in connection with the Dhamma, precisely because it is loaded up with extraneous metaphysical and "supernatural" assumptions.
	Quote