DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Conditioned Existence is devoid of any unchanging, inherent self-nature?

**AriaDesser** · 06-29-2011, 07:56 PM

Hi,

Does this basically just mean that everything in existence, including ourselves, are constantly in the process of change and therefore nothing remains fixed from one moment to the next? Is this what the term 'non-self' means?

Hi Aasha,
Good question. Essentially you are asking about two different things, hence the confusion perhaps.

If we investigate phenomena in order to establish whether they exist in a particular way, then this will result in an opinion, as any conclusions we reach are intellectually generated - even if we think that we are 100% correct in our conclusions. I don't take issue with this, as we need to make assumptions of all kinds to make sense of our lives and function.

Anatta, or not-self is (in truth) not a statement of 'ultimate reality' in an intellectual way. It is a direct realisation and there is a vast difference between the two, even if it seems that they are pointing at exactly the same thing. Thinking "all is not-self" won't have any real effect on the defilements. 'Seeing' it however helps eradicate them, as we no longer take ownership of them or nurture them as 'ours'.

Within the Mahayana system we can run into the same problem. When people claim that everything is "empty of inherent existence", it is mainly seen as an ontological statement of how things "in reality" exist. Then we can conclude that everything is empty and feel good about it. Same problem though, it won't lessen greed, anger or ignorance.

If you look with more care at what some teachers are trying to convey, you will also see that it describes a process, not an ontology. Self-grasping mind habitually imputes self or other onto raw sense data. It's an innate process, as even animals do this. It's clear that this process is a function of our mind and nothing else.

This is the real meaning of this "emptiness". Not a statement of "being", rather a discovery that the attributes we impute are all from our own side, not from the object itself. Thus, self and other are empty of possessing the attributes we impute onto them. They are not empty in an ontological sense, as to claim such is paradoxically to impute another attribute! Understanding this lessens the habitual function of the self-grasping mind.

I hope this helps clear some confusion. Perhaps it's just made it worse

Namaste
Kris

06-29-2011, 07:56 PM	#9
AriaDesser Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 433 Senior Member	Hi, Does this basically just mean that everything in existence, including ourselves, are constantly in the process of change and therefore nothing remains fixed from one moment to the next? Is this what the term 'non-self' means? Hi Aasha, Good question. Essentially you are asking about two different things, hence the confusion perhaps. If we investigate phenomena in order to establish whether they exist in a particular way, then this will result in an opinion, as any conclusions we reach are intellectually generated - even if we think that we are 100% correct in our conclusions. I don't take issue with this, as we need to make assumptions of all kinds to make sense of our lives and function. Anatta, or not-self is (in truth) not a statement of 'ultimate reality' in an intellectual way. It is a direct realisation and there is a vast difference between the two, even if it seems that they are pointing at exactly the same thing. Thinking "all is not-self" won't have any real effect on the defilements. 'Seeing' it however helps eradicate them, as we no longer take ownership of them or nurture them as 'ours'. Within the Mahayana system we can run into the same problem. When people claim that everything is "empty of inherent existence", it is mainly seen as an ontological statement of how things "in reality" exist. Then we can conclude that everything is empty and feel good about it. Same problem though, it won't lessen greed, anger or ignorance. If you look with more care at what some teachers are trying to convey, you will also see that it describes a process, not an ontology. Self-grasping mind habitually imputes self or other onto raw sense data. It's an innate process, as even animals do this. It's clear that this process is a function of our mind and nothing else. This is the real meaning of this "emptiness". Not a statement of "being", rather a discovery that the attributes we impute are all from our own side, not from the object itself. Thus, self and other are empty of possessing the attributes we impute onto them. They are not empty in an ontological sense, as to claim such is paradoxically to impute another attribute! Understanding this lessens the habitual function of the self-grasping mind. I hope this helps clear some confusion. Perhaps it's just made it worse Namaste Kris
	Quote