Timeline for Did the Buddha according to the suttas mean anything else by the word "self" beyond simply the aspect of control/power?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 5, 2018 at 16:20 | comment | added | Jones | To say that the horse isn't a unicorn is merely to tell me that I will be better served to look for information about horses. I could argue with you that a unicorn is the same thing as a horse, and you could get pulled into that argument. But it does not change the facts, which are that I am better served learning about equine care by searching by info about horses. It is like the Buddha is telling you to stop googling about unicorns in order to learn what to feed your animal. | |
| Dec 5, 2018 at 16:12 | comment | added | Jones | So I see the issue, you and I fundamentally disagree about one detail. "It implies that there is something called "self" that exists in some sense." I disagree. I can argue with you that a horse is a unicorn, and you can point to it and say "that is not a unicorn, that is a horse" and you have not in any way validated that unicorns are real things that exist. You have simply given me correct information which will better serve me if I need to learn what to feed the horse, for example, while searching for info about unicorns would not serve me. Does that make more sense to you? | |
| Dec 4, 2018 at 22:48 | comment | added | Jones | I get the impression that you have a specific meaning in mind more specific than how I am understanding it when you ask about why he said to regard things as not-self. Is it about the phrasing? Why he didn't say "this is not what the self is"? | |
| Dec 4, 2018 at 22:44 | comment | added | Jones | My understanding has been that he saw people taking these things as those details and trying to fit them into this 'collage' which wouldn't work. Then people would try to live their lives by following this 'collage' and they would stumble and experience all the things related to dependent origination. To stop trying to put these details together is a necessary but not sufficient step towards getting enlightened. To keep this collage of meshed together beliefs is to try to live your life by a map which is incorrect. Does that address your question, or have I missed what you meant? | |
| Dec 4, 2018 at 21:57 | comment | added | Jones | If I changed "they don't fit together into this true concept of 'self'" to "they don't fit together into some 'true' concept of 'self" would that be clearer? | |
| Dec 4, 2018 at 21:56 | comment | added | Jones | There is not a "true concept" of "self"-- the details people try to put into it don't work with it the way they expect it to. They have a vague and internally inconsistent idea of it, but they think it is a true concept or that it is at least something that has a true concept, even if they haven't yet understood it. The Buddha teaches otherwise. | |
| Dec 4, 2018 at 21:48 | history | answered | Jones | CC BY-SA 4.0 |