How Do You Interpret This?

[phetaroi]

"As Ajahn Sumedho says: Investigate these until you fully understand that all that rises passes away and is not self. Then there’s no grasping of anything as being oneself, and you are free form that desire to know yourself as a quality or a substance."

[mauGR1]

If it doesn't sound too obvious, less attachments, more freedom..I know, it's too obvious.

[Brucenkhamen]

It's pretty standard Buddhist fare, I'm not sure it can be paraphrased any more clearly.

[Trickcyclist]

We are part of the universal consciousness. Nothing material is relevant.

[phetaroi]

We are part of the universal consciousness. Nothing material is relevant.

Personally, I've yet to meet a single person who lives that way.

[Brucenkhamen]

We are part of the universal consciousness. Nothing material is relevant.

Personally, I've yet to meet a single person who lives that way.

I haven't met any married people who live that way either.

[phetaroi]

We are part of the universal consciousness. Nothing material is relevant.

Personally, I've yet to meet a single person who lives that way.

I haven't met any married people who live that way either.

I can't determine if you're clinging to sarcasm or humor.

[IMA_FARANG]

"As Ajahn Sumedho says: Investigate these until you fully understand that all that rises passes away and is not self. Then there’s no grasping of anything as being oneself, and you are free form that desire to know yourself as a quality or a substance."

I understand it to mean:

Investigate these... (the ojects of the matierial world, the "myriad forms" as they are sometimes called)...until you fully understand that all that rises... (I would say here "arises")... passes away ...(they are all transient)... and is not self. ... (these myriad forms have no self-existant origination, they are all dependent on each other. They have no inherent self-existant nature)

Then there is no grasping...(holding on to or also known as "atachment to form")... of anything as being oneself...(no identification of that thing with your ego)...and you are free from... (typing error there, it should be from not form)...that desire to know yourself as a quality or substance.

------------------------------

He is talking about becoming detached from the matierial world, the myriad forms until you reach that state where you no longer identify yourself in terms of those objects, but are able to "sit quietly, doing nothing" without grasping (attachment) to those matierial objects, or a desire to posess them.

[phetaroi]

"As Ajahn Sumedho says: Investigate these until you fully understand that all that rises passes away and is not self. Then there’s no grasping of anything as being oneself, and you are free form that desire to know yourself as a quality or a substance."

I understand it to mean:

Investigate these... (the ojects of the matierial world, the "myriad forms" as they are sometimes called)...until you fully understand that all that rises... (I would say here "arises")... passes away ...(they are all transient)... and is not self. ... (these myriad forms have no self-existant origination, they are all dependent on each other. They have no inherent self-existant nature)

Then there is no grasping...(holding on to or also known as "atachment to form")... of anything as being oneself...(no identification of that thing with your ego)...and you are free from... (typing error there, it should be from not form)...that desire to know yourself as a quality or substance.

------------------------------

He is talking about becoming detached from the matierial world, the myriad forms until you reach that state where you no longer identify yourself in terms of those objects, but are able to "sit quietly, doing nothing" without grasping (attachment) to those matierial objects, or a desire to posess them.

I guess what particularly interested me was another article I was reading which suggested that Buddha was using "no self" as a teaching/practicing element because it would intellectually help one move toward nibanna BUT that Buddha did not actually say there was "no self"...and actually seems to imply otherwise. If this were correct, it would help alleviate the confusion that arises when one tries to explain rebirths but no "soul" (although personally, I think it's the vocabulary -- soul -- that causes the problem).

[fabianfred]

I do not think it is meant to be interpreted as no-self.... but no-(permanent unchanging) self..

[rockyysdt]

I guess what particularly interested me was another article I was reading which suggested that Buddha was using "no self" as a teaching/practicing element because it would intellectually help one move toward nibanna BUT that Buddha did not actually say there was "no self"...and actually seems to imply otherwise. If this were correct, it would help alleviate the confusion that arises when one tries to explain rebirths but no "soul" (although personally, I think it's the vocabulary -- soul -- that causes the problem).

We can only speculate as this question is beyond our level of consciousness & understanding.

Your answer lies in regular practice of "samatha" or concentration, &"vipassana" or mindfulness, which will deepen your consciousness & lead to heightened awareness & insight.

The answer will only come with regular practice & commitment.

Edited May 13, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Brucenkhamen]

I guess what particularly interested me was another article I was reading which suggested that Buddha was using "no self" as a teaching/practicing element because it would intellectually help one move toward nibanna BUT that Buddha did not actually say there was "no self"...and actually seems to imply otherwise. If this were correct, it would help alleviate the confusion that arises when one tries to explain rebirths but no "soul" (although personally, I think it's the vocabulary -- soul -- that causes the problem).

The practice is to understand that everything we experience is "not self", whether there is a central core somewhere in there that might really be what you could call a self is beside the point. The point is that whatever we perceive as some kind of permanent-ish self is not what we think it to be and that is the cause of much of our suffering.

[Xangsamhua]

What is the source of the quote? Looking quickly at the original post, I had the idea it was from Ajahn Sumedho, but it's someone quoting him and I can't find the source.

Did Ajahn Sumedho really say "all that rises passes away and is not self"? I have the idea that "self" normally refers to a misconception of the nature of a person, not to all phenomena, which are impermanent and empty. A person has a mind and tends to identify the mind through its attributes and aggregates with enduring identity; hence a "self". Phenomena do not think of themselves in this way; hence the term "self" is not relevant to them. They are simply "empty". ("Form is empty; emptiness is form" - Heart Sutra) I understand, though, that some of the Mahayana sages (e.g. Nagarjuna) have used the term "self" in denying that phenomena have "self".

But what of the mind itself? Though the aggregates can all be seen to be impermanent and lacking self, what of the actual mind to which these aggregates are attributed? If the aggregates are clearly conditioned by previous karma and the mechanism of cause and effect, is the mind itself also conditioned in this way? Or is the mind in fact unconditioned and, therefore, "real" and enduring? If it is, then could one say that nirvana is truly "in the mind" and could be attained in this lifetime by fully awakening from the delusions of samsara and attaining a purified mind instead?

Alternatively, one could argue that there is no "mind", only aggregates and mental operations, and that all talk about the mind is just hot air, based on a category mistake. Are we obliged to posit a mind in order to explain the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness), or is the "mind" simply the aggregates in action?

[phetaroi]

What is the source of the quote? Looking quickly at the original post, I had the idea it was from Ajahn Sumedho, but it's someone quoting him and I can't find the source.

Did Ajahn Sumedho really say "all that rises passes away and is not self"? I have the idea that "self" normally refers to a misconception of the nature of a person, not to all phenomena, which are impermanent and empty. A person has a mind and tends to identify the mind through its attributes and aggregates with enduring identity; hence a "self". Phenomena do not think of themselves in this way; hence the term "self" is not relevant to them. They are simply "empty". ("Form is empty; emptiness is form" - Heart Sutra) I understand, though, that some of the Mahayana sages (e.g. Nagarjuna) have used the term "self" in denying that phenomena have "self".

But what of the mind itself? Though the aggregates can all be seen to be impermanent and lacking self, what of the actual mind to which these aggregates are attributed? If the aggregates are clearly conditioned by previous karma and the mechanism of cause and effect, is the mind itself also conditioned in this way? Or is the mind in fact unconditioned and, therefore, "real" and enduring? If it is, then could one say that nirvana is truly "in the mind" and could be attained in this lifetime by fully awakening from the delusions of samsara and attaining a purified mind instead?

Alternatively, one could argue that there is no "mind", only aggregates and mental operations, and that all talk about the mind is just hot air, based on a category mistake. Are we obliged to posit a mind in order to explain the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness), or is the "mind" simply the aggregates in action?

http://www.buddhanet.net/anattamed.htm

[Xangsamhua]

What is the source of the quote? Looking quickly at the original post, I had the idea it was from Ajahn Sumedho, but it's someone quoting him and I can't find the source.

Did Ajahn Sumedho really say "all that rises passes away and is not self"? I have the idea that "self" normally refers to a misconception of the nature of a person, not to all phenomena, which are impermanent and empty. A person has a mind and tends to identify the mind through its attributes and aggregates with enduring identity; hence a "self". Phenomena do not think of themselves in this way; hence the term "self" is not relevant to them. They are simply "empty". ("Form is empty; emptiness is form" - Heart Sutra) I understand, though, that some of the Mahayana sages (e.g. Nagarjuna) have used the term "self" in denying that phenomena have "self".

But what of the mind itself? Though the aggregates can all be seen to be impermanent and lacking self, what of the actual mind to which these aggregates are attributed? If the aggregates are clearly conditioned by previous karma and the mechanism of cause and effect, is the mind itself also conditioned in this way? Or is the mind in fact unconditioned and, therefore, "real" and enduring? If it is, then could one say that nirvana is truly "in the mind" and could be attained in this lifetime by fully awakening from the delusions of samsara and attaining a purified mind instead?

Alternatively, one could argue that there is no "mind", only aggregates and mental operations, and that all talk about the mind is just hot air, based on a category mistake. Are we obliged to posit a mind in order to explain the aggregates (form, feeling, perception, volition and consciousness), or is the "mind" simply the aggregates in action?

http://www.buddhanet.net/anattamed.htm

Thank you Phetaroi. It looks a very interesting article and written from a personal perspective. I shall read it later today. It seems the author started out as an occupational therapist, but is now more focused on study and application of mindfulness. (http://www.uq.edu.au/hprc/index.html?page=89189) I also gather from a quick google search that meditation is used in yoga applications to occupational therapy. All very interesting, especially for me as a Queenslander and looking for Sangha possibilities when I return to that God-gifted part of the world. Dr Kang draws on the Tibetan tradition and is connected with the Langri Tangpa Centre in Brisbane.

All very interesting. However, I was probably nitpicking again (and from a position of relative ignorance) when I sort of questioned Ajahn Sumedho's use of the word "self" in respect of "all that rises and passes away". The context shows that he is really referring to the aggregates/skhandas rather than phenomena/dharmas in general, though his statement is, of course, orthodox in regard to non-conscious phenomena as well. I guess I just like to focus on "emptiness" with respect to phenomena and "non-self" with regard to conscious and "self-aware" beings.

I hope that you and all Bangkok-based members of the Buddhism forum are staying safe and sound at this difficult time in which Thailand's collective karma is working itself out with ego and violence.

[proto]

 ...and you are free from... (typing error there, it should be from not form)...that desire to know yourself as a quality or substance.

Thanks. I was reading this thread with objections to the part: "you are free form that desire to know yourself as a quality or a substance" on my mind. Assuming your correction is correct, I have no objection left. - In case 'form' should represent the correct sequence of characters, I would relate more to something like: "you are free form that DO NOT desire to know yourself as a quality or a substance" .