Dear DC,
I am not sure who you're responding to, me (Bryan) or Nina. I will give my answer and Nina can give hers.
There are many sources in the Dharma where Buddha talks about what is not the self. None of the aggregates that make up what we consider the "individual" are the self - form, feeling, perception, mental volition and consciousness. I would suggest you read the Alagaddūpama Sutta of the Majjhima Nikāya to see what Buddha has to say about this. The Buddha taught the Dharma of the middle way.. "Existence" and "Non-existence" (or self and not-self) are both extremes - they are inadequate ways of describing reality. As Buddha says in the Kaccānagottasuttaṃ (SN II, 017)
"For the most part this world is dependent on a duality,on the notion of existence or non-existence. But for the
one seeing the origin of the world as it really is, with correct wisdom,
there is no notion of non-existence in regard to the world. And for one who sees the cessation of the world as it
really is with correct wisdom, there is no notion of existence with respect to
the world." (Bodhi, 2000, page 544. The Connected Discourses of the Buddha. Boston: Shambhala).
However we use these concepts of "be" and "self" all the time to relate to each other, communicate and conduct ourselves in the world. They have a certain conventional validity and usefulness (if we don't take them seriously), but no ultimacy.
If a bhikkhu is an arahant, Consummate, with taints destroyed One who bears his final body, He might still say, ‘I speak,’ And he might say, ‘They speak to me’ Skilful, knowing the world’s parlance, He uses such terms as mere expressions.”
(Buddha speaking in the Saṃyutta Nikāya, SN
I 14, Connected Discourses, Bodhi 2000, 102 )
Also when we use terms like "I" and "you" we tend to assume they are real and permanent entities and this leads to affliction through the three poisons of ignorance, craving and hatred. If there is no "I" and "other", there would be no craving and hatred; and when we cease to take the "I" and "other" for granted, the veil of ignorance starts to lift,
Bryan
________________________________
From: DC Wijeratna <
dcwijeratna@...>
To:
Pali@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Mon, December 21, 2009 8:43:00 AM
Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Was the Buddha Obliged to Observe Vinaya Rules?, no 2.
Dear Nina,
Many thanks for your long and prompt response. I have to go slow. I'll take just one point at a time.
N: True, in the ultimate sense there is no person, no self. What we
take for a person is only: citta, cetasika and ruupa, dhammas that
arise and then fall away immediately.
------------ --------- --------- --------- -------
DC: What you say above is contrary to our experience. If there is no 'Nina', with whom am I carrying on this discussion? I did not respond to 'citta, cetasika, and ruupa'.
I responded to a 'human being'.
Nina citta, cetasika and ruupa are just words without a meaning!!!
To carry on a conversation, using a language, we need words and the meaning of words need to agreed (vohaara or sammuti).
Please give mea definition for the words you used above, which I can understand and then agree (or disagree).
What is your authority for saying: what we take for a person is only: citta, cetasika and ruupa, dhammas that
arise and then fall away immediately. I would be grateful to have the Sutta references; the Buddha's own words.
Thank you again for devoting so much time to explain dhamma to me.
With mettaa,
D. G. D. C. Wijeratna
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
__________________________________________________________________
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the boot with the All-new Yahoo! Mail. Click on Options in Mail and switch to New Mail today or register for free at
http://mail.yahoo.ca
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]