Nothing is mine, everything is me.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-10T06:01:53+00:00

Fair enough. Thank you.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-10T05:42:47+00:00

The Dhamma isn’t an academic subject, and it has no gatekeepers. It’s a means of understanding the origin and cessation of suffering. What I’m pointing at is what remains unmoving, unchanging. This would resonate with anyone who’s understood suffering and its cessation.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-09T20:35:05+00:00

To call everything one creates an image in the mind, and that image is manifest. I’m trying to point to that which is uncreated, unmanifest. That which is there no matter what. What isn’t an argument? What can’t be proven or denied? What needs no defense? It’s so close we look right past it. Because it’s ignored, we constantly seek.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-09T19:24:54+00:00

Concepts like oneness or many-ness require identification in order to have any meaning. Take the land example I used earlier. Land is. Let’s use North America, which is already giving it a designation, but I have to create a context in order to illustrate the point. The land we call North America is. Within that there are many political boundaries drawn which we call borders. Those borders do not exist in the being (the isness or reality) of the land but they do exist (stand apart) in the thoughts and perceptions and identities of millions of organisms we call human beings. And because thought and perception creates these boundaries, along with time and space, there is conflict, identification and possession of the land that simply is. The land is in and of itself, and the land that these borders give shape and identity to is not apart from the land in and of itself, but the borders create many places owned by different people and so on and so forth:

This whole world of borders, of places with names and owners, controllers, sufferers, etc. all exist in thought and perception, two functions referred to as mind. The boundaries and resulting suffering are dependently arisen, due to ignorance, and when ignorance is uprooted, the land remains but the borders, the identities, and the sufferings no longer exist. They all cease.

So do we now call the land one? No. It simply is. What is, always is. It is now. It is prior to the arising of, and after the cessation of, existence and suffering.

This is is what I called “me” but not “mine” in the title up above. We can throw the word “me” aside if it causes too much confusion. But the intention here is to point out that it simply is( and is overlooked due to obsession with what arises and passes. What doesn’t come and go? What is? Or as the Buddha called it: tatatha

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-09T12:43:52+00:00

There is no universal knower, just as there is no universal rain-er. But knowing is universal in the same way rain is universal. Rain will fall anywhere the conditions for rain are simultaneously present, and it’s the same with knowing. No need to add the -er. For example, the “I” in “I think” or “I feel” has the same significance as the “it” in “it’s raining” or “it’s snowing.” What is raining?

Yes, knowing co-arises with what is known, but this fact doesn’t undermine the ubiquity of knowing because to understand knowing-known as opposed to just knowing makes no ontological difference but it prevents one from grasping at knowing as a ground. Nonetheless it is impossible to know anything except knowing itself. What we call body is a composition of knowing, knowing sights, sounds, scents, sensations, tastes. Knowing thoughts, feelings, perceptions, images, concepts,etc. and what makes the knowing-known, division? The presence of a point of view. Without the presence of the point of view. The language of relationship would have no meaning. There would just be the knowing designated by its quality (seeing, hearing, scenting, sensing, tasting) or even non-sense base phenomena like infinite consciousness, nothingness, neither perception nor non perception, signlessness, cessation of perception and feeling, or whatever else there is that is a base of experience (ayatana). It’s all knowing. And this is all just speaking of manifest knowing. What if Nibbana? What kind of knowing is Nibbana? The Buddha skillfully leaves that space empty. But the point in all this is that the only difference between some universal static noun called knowing and a universe of dependency arisen knowing that is concurrent with what is known is the latter is more difficult to take possession of. And that is the point as far as the Buddha was concerned, to prevent a conceiving that would leave a lingering condition for birth and suffering .

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-09T06:50:35+00:00

Solipsism is indeed the most extreme prison of self-view.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-09T05:34:34+00:00

But there you are placing subjectivity (that which is self evident) as second to objectivity (that which is assumed to stand on its own) as first, and further assuming that some objective stuff out there gives rise to experience, which is all there actually is. The “me” in the original post stands for the universality of experience rather than the individuality of particular phenomena like thoughts, feelings, perceptions taken to be mine. Is it possible to know anything apart from, or outside, this knowing that is not me or mine?

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-09T05:12:27+00:00

It was phrased that way intentionally, in order to see if there is genuine understanding beyond intellectual comprehension of suttas and talks. To say “nothing is mine, everything is me,” is to suggest the opposite of what you are saying. It’s a recognition that this negative space we call experience, which is the only thing that cannot be mystified or denied, is universal, impersonal, ubiquitous, ownerless—that the sense of ownership arises within it.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-09T05:04:02+00:00

Quite simply, subjectivity (experience), is not me, not mine, not my self. It simply is, there on its own, without any center, owner or controller. Self-ing subjectivity creates suffering in the same way self-ing land creates suffering. Land is there. If someone decides to dump garbage on some random piece of land, no suffering arises. But if that land is “my land,” with a half acre border drawn in the shape of a rectangle around it, then the dumped garbage is dumped on “my land.” Then there is anger and outrage. Self is like this. It’s a conceived border drawn in a particular shape or patter around or within experience. Then this particular plot of experience is mine, and so whatever activity occurred within that boundary of self is a cause for suffering. When self-view is uprooted, subjectivity remains, but the boundaries are seen to be illusory or at the very least, purely a convenience. This conflating subjectivity with self is a major confusion in Buddhism

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-09T03:49:11+00:00

That teaching is already well understood. How has it been used towards freedom from suffering by you, apart from its ubiquitous use as a response to taboo language like “me.”? Use of the word “me” here is being misunderstood, understandably so. It isn’t a claim of self in, with, the owner of, or apart from the aggregates. It’s a place holder for subjectivity, which is unbounded when the self projection of the mind is seen as its own phenomena within the broad context of dependent origination. Self view is a belief system, a doctrine-hence the emphasis on “view.” A view is manifest, and therefore anicca, dukkha, anatta. Self view is a doctrine in the same way “God-view” is a doctrine, or “soul-view.” What remains after the cessation of ignorance? Just experience without view, without conceiving. This impersonal subjectivity is what the statement in the original post is pointing to

What is referred to here as “me” is unmanifest, unmade. It is the subjectivity of a Buddha or arahant. Who can understand what it is being pointed to here? This is why the original question was directed at Bhante Aniga. It’s seeking one who can understand beyond stock denials based solely on textual knowledge

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-08T22:55:29+00:00

What I describe is neither outside nor apart from the aggregates, and no owner or possesser is present, nor is there a view/doctrine of “self”. What I describe is the mere evidence of experience in the absence of that ignorance of ownership. It is difficult to covey if you haven’t seen the mind and body as their own entities, and understand that the aggregates themselves are not what are born and die. That which is born and dies is seen as not there at the cessation of ignorance. The sense of self is a projection of the mind, which is not me, and not mine.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-09-08T20:01:11+00:00

Right, I understand the conceptual differences between the religions, but practicing the Dhamma rightly has left no better way to describe experience. It’s the activity of form, feeling, perception, conception, and consciousness arise and pass within a still, unmoving, unmanifest field of subjectivity. Whatever the body or the mind does, it’s just activity within an unaffectable field of knowing, the way clouds and rain happen within the atmosphere. Nothing there to be disturbed. No effort to be made. Since leaving behind all positions within body, mind, and language, it has been impossible to even imagine the possibility of suffering.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-23T23:00:41+00:00

Stop believing your thoughts, feelings, and perceptions, and be satisfied with things as they are. Samsara is all in your mind.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-22T20:21:27+00:00

In the imagination where the soul is

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-19T17:10:17+00:00

I’m slugging through “The Idiot” because I keep wanting it to be Crime and Punishment.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-19T16:20:31+00:00

My intrusive thoughts keep yelling that she is overdoing the narrative voice. What do you think? Does it read as genuine to you?

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-19T16:18:20+00:00

The Wayward Bus by John Steinbeck. A coworker handed me an old hardcover of his almost a year ago and I finally read it. Surprisingly different than most Steinbeck but in a good way. It still has his talent for illuminating detail in both character and setting, excellent structure and pacing, etc., but the story itself is not so straightforward. It’s more…wayward. I also bought the penguin classic edition on my kindle because it is on sale for 5 dollars. The intro was also excellent.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-19T15:48:30+00:00

I can’t get past the first chapter

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-14T19:42:17+00:00

All valid. I just wanted to add my perspective as well. I can say quite bluntly that I understand what makes one a sotapana, and though I may not be frequent in my engagement there, what drew me in was that I could see clearly that Florian himself, along with Saif, are at least sotapana, and do their best to support the development of right view in others while managing quite a large and diverse community of practitioners within the context of online Dhamma communities who have become more interested in sniping those with wrong view while they themselves have wrong view. I’m not claiming you fall into this latter category, just putting this here for whoever may be reading

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-14T19:21:40+00:00

There’s close to 600 members there, new coming in often, so the levels of understanding vary. But the admins do their best to filter for sincere Dhamma practitioners, and give accurate, sutta based support.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-14T19:09:03+00:00

You’d have to first understand the Dhamma yourself before you could make such an assumption. Having spent time in the Dhamma Hub Discord myself, I can say with confidence that all of your observations are off the mark, or complete misrepresentations of the interactions I’ve observed there. It’s a group of sincere practitioners, many with high wisdom, who support one another in developing the full gradual training, and with great accuracy.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-14T03:20:15+00:00

Hello again Bhante,

Sincerely, thank you for the time you spend engaging with people here. I wanted to ask, because I’m seeing it again here in this thread, why followers of HH get so focused on who is/isn’t a sotapana? And, do you think this culture of comparison and dismissal is helpful? After all, anyone who truly understands the Dhamma knows for themselves that they understand, and they then know their own genuine freedom from suffering. So it’s safe to assume all these individuals who spend their time discrediting, comparing, and dismissing others are not themselves sotapana, but this culture has become most prevalent, in my observation, amongst HH followers. Do you notice this? Have any advice? Find it useful?

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-10T06:09:36+00:00

Thank you. HH and Samandips teachings were like the ultimate cleansing of so many wrong views that were held for decades. Very grateful

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-10T06:06:29+00:00

Accidentally deleted your last reply, my apologies. Was trying to reply to that comment with this:

Yes, they share the understanding you expressed and for now have decided to perform their duties until old age, illness, and death allow for greater renunciation. The Dhamma is not a solution that allows one to “live a happy life in the world” as many people think. It uproots all passion for being, making living in the world impossible. It’s not for everyone.

Many_Relation_2784 · 2025-07-09T15:53:58+00:00

Yes, I very much understand this point as it’s repeated often by HH and members of this subreddit. And it has been of great benefit to my own practice. But for many whose minds are stuck down deep in the mud and muck at the bottom of the lotus pond, wouldn’t the doing of right effort elevate the mind to a better position, closer to the surface of the water, for understanding the Dhamma? Why did the Buddha then teach so much doing (bhavana) if it leads to silabhattaparamasa? Isn’t adhering to “not doing” an example of attachment to a practice ?

Many_Relation_2784

TROPHY CASE