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

**FUNALA** · 11-12-2011, 09:06 AM

Hello Element,

the Buddha said:

If anyone were to say, 'The mind is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the mind are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The mind is the self.' So the mind is not-self.

If anyone were to say, 'mind objects are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of mind objects are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Mind objects are the self.' So mind objects are not-self.

If anyone were to say, 'The mind consciousness is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of mind consciousness are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Mind consciousness is the self.' So mind consciousness is not-self.

If anyone were to say, 'Feeling [at the mind] is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of feelings is discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self.' So feelings [at the mind] is not-self. The Buddha have used reductionism in order to understand the "self" and concluded that there is no such a thing as a permenant self.

For those who are not familiar with the term: Reductionism is an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of thier parts.

A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole or even of every proper part of the whole. For instance, both Oxygen and Hydrogen are gases, but when they interact together they produce water (H2O). Another example is when you add two odd numbers (1+1) then you come up with an even number (=2).

What i am trying to say is, maybe our bodies, emotions, minds and consciousness are all impermenant, but when we add them together the final product can be something totally different which is our identity (the self).

I hope you and other members can reflect on the above.

Regards,
Bundokji

11-12-2011, 09:06 AM	#33
FUNALA Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 539 Senior Member	Hello Element, the Buddha said: If anyone were to say, 'The mind is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the mind are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The mind is the self.' So the mind is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'mind objects are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of mind objects are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Mind objects are the self.' So mind objects are not-self. If anyone were to say, 'The mind consciousness is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of mind consciousness are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Mind consciousness is the self.' So mind consciousness is not-self. If anyone were to say, 'Feeling [at the mind] is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of feelings is discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Feeling is the self.' So feelings [at the mind] is not-self. The Buddha have used reductionism in order to understand the "self" and concluded that there is no such a thing as a permenant self. For those who are not familiar with the term: Reductionism is an approach to understanding the nature of complex things by reducing them to the interactions of thier parts. A fallacy of composition arises when one infers that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole or even of every proper part of the whole. For instance, both Oxygen and Hydrogen are gases, but when they interact together they produce water (H2O). Another example is when you add two odd numbers (1+1) then you come up with an even number (=2). What i am trying to say is, maybe our bodies, emotions, minds and consciousness are all impermenant, but when we add them together the final product can be something totally different which is our identity (the self). I hope you and other members can reflect on the above. Regards, Bundokji
	Quote