[Plokiikmol]

Self is also an in-born tendency. The Buddha included it as an anusaya, the tendency towards becoming.

Self is like a survival instinct.

Attā hi attano nātho, ko hi nātho paro siyā;

Self is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be?

Dhammapada

[wentscat]

Originally Posted by Element #10: 2. Not all things have a cause (preceding cause or hetu). For example, ignorance does not.

If ignorance doesn't have a cause, how are we to eliminate it? Although regress of ignorance is infinite, still it has a cause otherwise there would be no escape from ignorance.

[lorrieholdridge]

Although regress of ignorance is infinite, still it has a cause otherwise there would be no escape from ignorance.

Your point has been addressed in posts Reply #18 and Reply #19 above.

Kind regards

[Aleksis]

Originally Posted by ulman Although regress of ignorance is infinite, still it has a cause otherwise there would be no escape from ignorance.

Your point has been addressed in posts Reply #18 and Reply #19 above.

Kind regards

Originally Posted by plogsties #15: If ignorance doesn't have a cause, how are we to eliminate it?

Ye dhammā hetuppabhavā
Tesam hetum Tathāgato āha
Tesañ ca yo nirodho
Evamvādī mahāsamano.

Of things originating with conditions,
The Tathāgata has told the condition,
And what their cessation is.
The Great Recluse speaks thus.

http://nanavira.xtreemhost.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemi d=62#p23"[/url] target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Nanavira Thera: ]
§23 ...To see the Dhamma is to see paticcasamuppāda (as noted in §7), and avijjā is therefore non-seeing of paticcasamuppāda. Avijjāpaccayā sankhārā will thus mean 'paticcasamuppāda depends upon non-seeing of paticcasamuppāda'. Conversely, seeing of paticcasamuppāda is cessation of avijjā, and when paticcasamuppāda is seen it loses its condition ('non-seeing of paticcasamuppāda') and ceases. And this is cessation of all hetuppabhavā dhammā. Thus tesam yo nirodho is cessation of avijjā.

This quotation is quite right But it does not justify your statement that avijja has no cause

Kind regards

[yasalaioqe]

Does the tree exist if I don't see it

Maybe a way forward is to ask do we all see the same tree?

[aabbaDE]

survival instinct.

I haven't repsonded to the various posts but appreciate reading them. I'm still perplexed by the idea that there is no "self", no "I". I understand that even if there is such an entity, we cannot identify it - that is, we cannot point to an area of the brain (or elsewhere) and say this is where "the self" resides.( Actually, without mirrors or other reflecting surfaces, we would not even know what we looked like - we could feel our bodies but this would give a different view than seeing it. Our impression of what "we" are is critically dependent on our sensory sytem.) Saying that all mental constructions are impermanent seems to me not to answer my question. I'll keep reading and thinking about it.

Appealing to a "survival instinct", it seems to me begs the question of what is it that has the survival instinct. Can we indentify this enitity? Or is it another of those items that we, with our limited sensory system, are incapable of "understanding" (perceiving).

[Frogzlovzy]

It is an indictment of self-view, and ultimately selfishness, plogsties. We tend to think of ourselves as being this or that way, but miss how much our self-view constantly changes. And self-view is the root of how we deal with our environment and other people. It's all about "thinking outside of the box" of self-view.

[slima]

Hi Plogsties, I find this essay particularly helpful to explore the issue in a rational manner.


No-self or Not-self?", by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. Access to Insight, June 5, 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/a.../notself2.html

Firstly, not every question does have a answer. And sometimes an answer is not what a question is about. A bit like the koans in Zen Buddhism, but this is by a wise Theravada guy. Ultimately it is about the same thing, irrespective of tradition. Just different ways of how to get there.

BW,

J

[Caursedus]

Thanks for the reference Jan. It helps. I'll probably respond with my reading of it but I want to think about it for awhile.

[irridgita]

1. Mind.

2. Not all things have a cause (preceding cause or hetu). For example, ignorance does not.

Similarly, the law of causality does not have a cause. It is inherent.

Yes... that's it... As always... thanks Element!

[Cengaeas]

By insight, by practising introspection, or simply by experience.

There are kinds of ignorance we have ended via experience.

When we were a baby, we did not know fire burns or hurts. By touching fire, we soon learned it burnt.

The Buddha taught ignorance does not have a cause (hetu) but taught it has food (ahara), namely, the five hindrances.

When the five hindrances remain in the mind, ignorance receives support.

But when the five hindrances are overcome, clarity of mind can manifest to end ignorance.

Kind regards

Direct and clear... without struggle...

[giftplas]

1. Mind.

2. Not all things have a cause (preceding cause or hetu). For example, ignorance does not.

Similarly, the law of causality does not have a cause. It is inherent.

[/quote]

Or is the cause of ignorance Mara?
http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...39348#msg39348

Or is it difficult to determine what comes first?
Or are cause and effect one? (which is the same as what you mean by inherent, I guess)

[TeapseTic]

Or is the cause of ignorance Mara?

That is not what Tan Ajarn is saying.

Or is it difficult to determine what comes first?
Or are cause and effect one? (which is the same as what you mean by inherent, I guess)

Can we kindly exit "teacher mode"?

[TheLucyLee]

Can we kindly exit "teacher mode"?

Agreed.

PM's to continue.

[refdhbgtd]

Or is the cause of ignorance Mara?........etc etc

I was under the impression that 'Mara' - when seen as a representation of negative mental states, is rooted in ignorance/ delusion (avijja), according to the Buddha's teachings....and Element has already given us an explanation of ignorance according to his knowledge of Buddha's teachings.

We have had a thread elsewhere exploring the concept of evil and Mara.

Lets not forget that this is the beginners forum, and post accordingly when you are not a beginner, please,..... and perhaps we can get back to the topic of anatta, if anyone wants to add anything.


Thanks

[Qzmsdoem]

The Buddha did not declare "there is no self". The Buddha pointed out that one cannot point to anything and say, "This is my self, This is what I am."

This is not a declaration about what a person is. The Buddha is trying to move away from such speculations and instead point to the question of how we attach to sense experience and try to make it our own. The Buddha out it this way: 'The eye (and its associated neurosensory systems) sees a visual form (in your example of the tree) and 'eye-consciousness' arises (we become aware of this form of a tree). The meeting of the three (eye, form, eye-consciousness) is called 'eye-contact'. A sensation arises that is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. (In the presence of ignorance) craving arises in response to that sensation, and from that, clinging to that sensation arises. A self-concept arises (the notion of the tree in relation to ourselves, for example, its usefulness to us as a source of food, of beauty, of heat, etc.). The Buddha's teaching of Anatta (*not*-self) is a deconstruction of that self-view that arises in this process, not a nihilistic declaration like "there is no 'you'."


this description reminds me of my toddler twins, when they see something new, they think it is them also. they point to fire and then to themselves. thinking they are the fire. then they learn that fire is hot and gives energy. then they move onto another discovery in the same fashion learning about the world as they go.

[xsexymasterix]

we are just souls in transmigration."

Extract from Annatta and Rebirth by Ajahn Buddhadasa.(Page 6)


One group of people believes that there is self, there is atman, there is a soul which is born as this person. Once the body dies, this thing doesn't die. It goes to a new birth. Most people believe this, they take it as the basis of their beliefs. The Upanishad texts believed this.

In Buddhism, however, there isn't such a thing. Buddhism does not believe there is a self or soul which is born and then dies. Thus, the rebirth of this or that person doesn't occur, because that person doesn't exist here in the first place. This is
called "physical rebirth." It is something that should not be spoken of as "rebirth."

The Lord Buddha forbade his disciples to believe that consciousness or a spirit goes to be born. A certain bhikkhu named Sati stated that “As I understand the Dhamma as taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through samsara (the cycles of birth and death), not another.”

When other monks objected, Sati stubbornly clung to his “pernicious view.” When this was brought to the Buddha’s attention, he himself interviewed Sati. The later repeated his view, to which the Buddha scolded him richly. “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, in many talks have I not stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?”

Clearly, the Buddha did not accept that the “same consciousness” is reborn from life to life.

 http://das-buddhistische-haus.de/pag...nd_Rebirth.pdf

[Rufio]

Mata Devi

As Aloka-D has rightly pointed out, the Buddha did not teach "souls in transmigration", and he admantly, even harshly, refuted claims that he did.


Also, "mata devi" (shakti, lakshmi, see http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mata-Devi/111922978827481 ) is a Hindu deity.

Why are you pushing Hinduism in a Buddhist forum?