If there is no "I", who or what is controlling my animalistic urges?
score:2
The "I" is a survival function of the (unenlightened) human mind & is actually created by the very impulses & urges it seeks to control. (Or otherwise this type of "I" is also created by social or religious conditioning).
For example, sexual urges arise due to hormones & other physical & psychological mechanisms and then, a short time later, the mind thinks: "I feel sexual". Thus, the urge occurs before the "I". The "I" is a product (result) of the urge rather than the producer (cause) of the urge.
A child (not conditioned by its parents or religion about right & wrong) does not attempt to control its impulses & urges. A child simply follows its impulses & urges. It is only later, when the child or adult learns through experience that some of its impulses & urges lead to harming itself or are dangerous that it tries to control its impulses & urges.
However, in reality, it is not the "I" that is trying to control the impulses & urges that have lead to hurt, pain & suffering. In fact, it was not really the "I" that experienced pain & hurt. Instead, it is simply the 'citta' (mind-heart) that experienced hurt & it is simply the wisdom of the citta through feeling hurt that seeks to control impulses & urges. That is why enlightened minds (cittas) do not need an "I". Such enlightened minds are guided by wisdom (i.e. neurological sensitivity) only.
It is like breaking a leg. First the pain of the broken leg arises and, a short time later, the mind thinks "I am hurt". The "I am" is not required for the mind to feel the hurt. The mind itself knows the hurt & the "I am" is extra or the commentary.
That said, this business of "I" is very deep. It is natural for the minds of people to develop the "I". Since months after child birth, most feelings, sensations, urges & impulses have been deemed by the mind to be "I am". This is all part of natural human development. Generally, a mind without a development of "I" (to give it personal & social boundaries) will have some kind of mental illness.
The best Buddhist explanation about the "I" is probably 'Anatta and Rebirth' by Buddhadasa.
The citta (mind) certainly accumulates 'kamma'. An example is a drug addict, which accumulates addiction or craving symptoms for a drug. The drug addict decides to break the addiction and successfully enters into 'cold-turkey'. This shows the person is not the accumulated kamma of drug-addiction since the drug addiction (accumulated kamma) can be broken & cleansed.
Similarly, the teachings (AN 6.63) state the Noble Eightfold Path is the path for the ending of accumulated kamma. Accumulated kamma is also something conditioned & subject to impermanence & change when the conditions that created it are removed.
This is why the teachings (AN 3.61) also state what we experience is not due to past lives but to how the mind responds to (internal & external) sense experience/stimuli in the here-&-now.
For example, a certain kamma in the past may have once hurt us (the mind-heart). But if there is a change in attitude or response towards that kamma, such as regarding that kamma as a "lesson" rather than "hurt", that kamma will stop hurting us.
That is why the teachings state "old kamma" ought to be viewed as the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body & mind (since "old kamma" is only sense stimuli arising in the present).
Therefore, accumulated kamma is not something fixed & static but something that people can learn from, i.e., a teacher.
Upvote:0
Looking at the many aspects of mind and wondering whether they are self or not self at a metaphysical level can lead to a trap of continuous doubt about anatta. It can be better/more skillful to ask if it fits with criteria which the Buddha described for not-self.
One criteria given in the anatta-lakkhana sutta is that something which is not controllable is not-self.
"Form, O monks, is not-self; if form were self, then form would not lead to affliction and it should obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus'; and indeed, O monks, since form is not-self, therefore form leads to affliction and it does not obtain regarding form: 'May my form be thus, may my form not be thus.'
Ask yourself "Is the controller or animalistic urges controllable?", if not then it is not-self.
The second criteria in this passage is that a self would not lead to affliction (dukkha). Instead of asking "Is X a self?" ask yourself "Does self-view of X lead to dukkha?".
Upvote:1
Anything part of a being or if you take the the being as a whole this is not self. If you take your eyes this is not self as there are people without eyes. Likewise even the mind cannot be taken as self as you cannot control your mental feelings / emotions and thoughts. So you cannot take this as self.
Even if you take something as an action is it really done by yourself. If so was the volition the self or your body which was instrumental in doing is the self or is the result of the action the self. In each case none of it you can call self.
Sum total of your past Sankhara give result to the arising of the aggregates. The Sankhara of this moment along with what is there not creates the next. So Karma of Sankhara is not self and you cannot control it as if you own it.
Likewise if you analyse there is nothing worthy of call yourself.
More post
- π No self and individual responsibility
- π I am a buddhist, and i have a harm OCD
- π If you cannot can save others then why is your practice more worthy than anything else?
- π Was Buddha one man?
- π Heart SΕ«tra root in Pali Canon?
- π How should a theravada centre approach the lay people for support?
- π Having trouble meditating long sessions (Physical pain)
- π Can advances in neuroscience help attain enlightenment? Will it make Buddhist traditions obsolete?
- π Conventional versus Ultimate
- π Why does Lama Atisha say those "observing pure conduct" shouldn't take (some) Tantric initiations?
- π A path to another university outside of Buddhism
- π Dependent Origination in terms of conventional truth or teaching (Vohara Desana) and Ultimate truth or teaching (Paramattha Desana)?
- π How did Maitreya become so large and rich?
- π Types of LHA in the tibetan tradition
- π Romantic love and Buddhism
- π Different transmissions for reciting various versions of a same mantra acc. to any of Vajrayana branches
- π Tantric self generation as a deity
- π What are the guides for lay followers, as to how far they should go to be compassionate?
- π Is "ghost month" really a Buddhist concept?
- π Recommendation for Suttas
- π What is meant by "divorcing the view and the action" and why is it considered so dangerous?
- π Question about metta
- π Buddhist view on past lives influencing the present
- π Who are the past Buddhas mentioned in the Canonical Works?
- π Buddhism is practiced in many countries by many different peoples. How do Buddhists in America differ in their beliefs, values
- π Meditation in day to day life
- π Mindfulness, conciousness and directing attention
- π Can a person live by the Dhamma and have another religion as well?
- π How to differentiate between natural vs artificial breathing pattern during meditation?
- π Consciousness, death and reincarnation
Source: stackoverflow.com
Search Posts
Related post
- π If there is no "I", who or what is controlling my animalistic urges?
- π If there is no self what or who is it that gets enlightened?
- π If there be no soul or transmigrating entity that takes rebirth, who or what bears or enjoys the consequences or fruits of karma?
- π Are there buddhists who criticize Eckhart Tolle as it is not really a buddhist teach? If so, what is their critique?
- π What if there was no one to offer food to monastics?
- π What is Buddhist law of marriage ? Is there any?
- π What if there is no rebirth?
- π Is there any mention of child adoption in any Buddhist writings and what is the view on child adoption with regard to Buddhism?
- π Who or what is observing
- π Are there reliable accounts of Buddhists who have remembered past lives?
- π What concordances are there for the Pali Canon?
- π I have some people coming over who practice Buddhism, what should I know?
- π Who are the Buddhas Yet to Come and what Information do we have about them as per Theravada standpoint?
- π What is meant by statement "the one who sees Dhamma sees dependent origination"?
- π What is known about enlightenment before the lifetime of the Buddha? Are there any claims that he was the first?
- π Is there a generally agreed upon idea of what Buddha nature is?
- π If there is no Self , what Self is there to be affected by the karma which non-Self now performs?
- π What else do people who have realized NirvΔαΉa do besides teach?
- π What texts in Buddhism should be read for understanding/ controlling these emotions?
- π Are there any body who achieved Nibbana currently (in the current world)
- π In what Sutta(s) is there a References to Imagine the Body Inside Out and What is Below the Skin
- π What am I doing to my self to make my natural state "I am trapped in pain" (This seems like a must for me and there is nothing I can do about it)
- π What does Buddhism teach on cultivating energy for those who are drowsy?
- π Like a fish in a puddle, what joy is there
- π Who was the buddhist figure who forbade writing what he said, and whose disciples instead wore paper robes?
- π Can there be an action free from the taint of desire? If there can be, what is the nature of that action?
- π What is the (middle length) sutta, where Buddha exposes a monk, who has an ignorant view of non-self?
- π Are there any stories dealing with stalkers or people who violate boundaries in seeking to grow close in the texts?
- π What difference is there in chanting/reciting in the same way as monks?
- π The Buddha who knew there were 31 realm but didn't mention anything about a round earth