Let’s assume that the Self and the Mind are two separate entities (based on vippasana meditation teachings and observations during meditation). Now let’s say there arises a “preference” in you for something, and then you chose to do that something based on this “preference”, then was it you who “chose” or was it the mind who “chose it for you”?
Because if the preference arose from your mind, it must be the mind choosing for you instead of you choosing for your mind. Would it then mean that “not having any preference” a ultimate destination or result of truly being liberated? Just like a zen monk mastering having no preference for any kind of food offered?
From Buddhist perspective or the Buddha's perspective, the Self does not exist (its just an illusion we see when the body, the mind and the senses, etc. come together).
And that it's just a mirage. If that's true, then it would mean that this "preference" would have ideally arisen in the mind.
If it has arisen from the mind, and it seems like this preference "inherently existed already" inside you, should we give attention to this preference? And stay attached to it?
Or should we see it as yet another desire of the mind and let it go as attachment to it would increase suffering?
Another question is that if the mind and the Self are supposed to be different entities (I am saying "supposed" because the latter is said to be an illusion), then why does the Buddha say that it is the mind that controls you, and not you who controls your mind?
Is this word "you" being used to just explain to humans, because without this usage of word "you" it would be difficult to explain your relationship with your own mind? This might be the case, otherwise it would be very difficult to communicate about the mind and our "perceived" Self.
Let’s assume that the Self and the Mind are two separate entities (based on vippasana meditation teachings and observations during meditation). Now let’s say there arises a “preference” in you for something, and then you chose to do that something based on this “preference”, then was it you who “chose” or was it the mind who “chose it for you”?
Because if the preference arose from your mind, it must be the mind choosing for you instead of you choosing for your mind. Would it then mean that “not having any preference” a ultimate destination or result of truly being liberated? Just like a zen monk mastering having no preference for any kind of food offered?
From Buddhist perspective or the Buddha's perspective, the Self does not exist (its just an illusion we see when the body, the mind and the senses, etc. come together).
And that it's just a mirage. If that's true, then it would mean that this "preference" would have ideally arisen in the mind.
If it has arisen from the mind, and it seems like this preference "inherently existed already" inside you, should we give attention to this preference? And stay attached to it?
Or should we see it as yet another desire of the mind and let it go as attachment to it would increase suffering?
Another question is that if the mind and the Self are supposed to be different entities (I am saying "supposed" because the latter is said to be an illusion), then why does the Buddha say that it is the mind that controls you, and not you who controls your mind?
Is this word "you" being used to just explain to humans, because without this usage of word "you" it would be difficult to explain your relationship with your own mind? This might be the case, otherwise it would be very difficult to communicate about the mind and our "perceived" Self.