Sensory Clarity - 1 of 2 - No Self As Thing
There is a famous scripture.
Which serves as a Buddhist FA Q?
FAQ document.
Or might be in some ways looked upon us a Buddhist catechism and it's called the questions of King Melinda. It's in the pali literature, Melinda was a historical person.
And uh Interestingly enough, although his questions are recorded in Buddhist literature preserved in SE Asia.
King Melinda was a Westerner.
He was King Monandrous.
Who was
Heart of what was left in northwest India after Alexander the Great died there were these Greek.
Rulers.
We say India but this is India in its broadest sense it would now be part of Afghanistan actually but Rea where his Kingdom was centered and this is sort of early dialogue between E and West.
Because he asked a series of questions to a Buddhist monk named Nagasena.
Before this whole discussion starts nagasena asks the King are you willing to have a discussion with me and perhaps have disagreements. And whatever and even debate are you willing to do it, the way an academic would do it.
Or are you going to do it, the way a King would do it.
And how to say this is what do you mean is it well if academics have a disagreement in one sort of gets the better of the other shows them to be incorrect, it's just.
You know they just accept that if the King is shown to be incorrect. He executes you so which way are you going to do it like an academic or like he's like you're going to do it like a kid. I'm outta here. You may have been and are hot, but he wasn't stupid OK with regards to the preservation of his nose.
So.
The King says who? Are you and whatever and he says. Well, I'm called Nagasena, but there is no thing called magazine.
Then the King tries to sort of trip him up on something and so that nagasena makes this metaphor. That's very famous in Buddhist literature. He says well your Majesty when you arrived here? How did you get here? Well, I was in my chariot?
And then he goes through all the different parts of the Chariot.
And he says, well is there really a thing called the Chariot.
Is?
Are the wheels the chariot at the hub the bed. The axletree you know? The yolk etc? Etc goes through all these parts and the King has to agree no that's not the Chariot That's not the Chariot and then not as in a says. And it's the same with us. There's just rupa.
Vaden our sons now thanks Kara and Pigeon.
That doesn't constitute a self called Nagasena.
And the Kings sort of gets it in this in this scripture says OK.
You're right you know you went on that one. I guess I can see your point. The point being that Chariot as a thing is just a convention.
Actually, I find the are Hot Magazine's argument.
Unconvincing.
Myself.
Does that sound arrogant and irreverent?
If it were really, really, really convincing.
Then all the philosophers of the world would be saying.
These guys are right.
But in fact, there's a lot of philosophical objections to this argument.
If you get some professional philosophers in and let them get to work on it, OK, they might really tearing apart.
I think he's right there is no thing called itself, but not just quite sure that this particular metaphor clinches it as a proof.
The way.
It is portrayed is doing in the scripture.
And I would like to clinch it for the world, so that there are no quibbles and our objections and everybody agrees can't deny that.
I would like to suggest.
Another way to.
Another angle of attack on this idea, I agree with the idea.
And I think it is one of the most important ideas in the history of the world.
One of the things that.
Is noticeable in this argument is?
That Rupa means the physical body. It's not a sensory experience. We know it exists through a sensory experience, but it's not being.
Presented as a sensory experience.
Being presented as a concept body as matter.
Samskaras are not direct sensory experiences for most meditators, they can be for some meditators you can directly experience it consciousness as.
An entity in its own right as opposed to consciousness in a certain flavors such as taught side soundfield image talk that's not ordinarily experienced by most meditators.
What if we?
Just take the parts that are direct sensory experience.
Why would we want to do that because well direct sensory experience as opposed to concepts?
Can be brain damaged?
My idea is let's take.
Either broadly beta not to me.
Body that is to say physical and emotional sensations, so that would be touch field.
As they do within the Cubicin Lenny Edge or let's really look at the most gripping part of ETA now, which is the emotional type pleasures and pains that we go through.
Just take the field part and let's make sanjna or concept, not a concept, but a sensory experience image talk.
So let's sort of.
Streamline the model.
To feel image talk.
Now I didn't just.
Like pull this out of nowhere.
There is an implication in my original School of Buddhism, Xinggan, which is a form of a driana.
That.
The sense of self arises through mental image internal dog and body sensations because the practices that are done in Xinggan to have an experience of Oneness with the deity involve the physical physical type sensations in the form of mood Roz.
Mental images when you visualize the deity in front and also yourself as a deity. Then you visualize your surroundings as the Palace of beginning.
And you replace your internal talk with the Montrae.
And then you get the emotional feeling of the deity whatever that tone is.
So there's an implication that.
Body image talk broadly.
And feel image talk more narrowly that these are sort of natural.
Building blocks of identity.
If People.
Tease apart the feel image talk, which is there's nothing conceptual in that that's completely a sensory skill.
They get the same insight. Oh, there's just feeling Woodstock. There's no thing called the self here.
So that's the way I have People work with this.
Now instead of using a classic metaphor of the chariot I use a?
Much more homey like.
Like your TV set or a computer monitor not the.
Not the liquid crystal once but the the CRT ones.
That's my metaphor.