The "idea of Self (and self)" is responsible for the making of the "I".

The pervasive Self implies a satta that considers it-self (self) as part of the Self.
This appropriation of nāmarūpa's khandhas triggers the sensuous functionalities (indriyas) of the internal āyatanāni.

The process of appropriation should have stopped as soon as satta's internal sphere of senses had realised the compounded and impermanent nature of nāmarupa's khandhas (form, feeling, perception, intention and consciousness) - as well as the fact that these khandhas do not belong to us.
Namely that, when there was the first descent of the sensual-indriyas, mano, and dhammas; satta should have known that nāmarūpa's khandhas were co-arisen, impermanent, unowned, and a cause of dukkha. That should have sufficed to end the vitiated process. But things did not end that way.

Instead, the process created more intentions on the part of satta; and it even created more sattas.

Note: Form is purely a nāmarūpa khandha. Feeling, perception and intention are also nāmarūpa's, but inherited from saṅkhāra nidāna. Consciousness establishes itself in the latter khandhas of nāmarūpa.

Consciousness should have remained intact (aniddassana viññāṇa – consciousness without feature, without signs – luminous all around); with just that necessary adjustment that it knew now that "it is not good"; that it yields dukkha. And the process would have stopped at once. But consciousness got soiled by the element of consciousness that was asking for more. And this “asking for more” became a sensual habit. And consciousness continued to established itself, in a recursive manner, in the khandhas of nāmarūpa.

This "idea of Self" that is so dear to the Hindus, is also deeply ingrained, (though unconsciously,) in our western culture.
We do appropriate what is not ours, unconsciously; “unwakenly”. 
We build a functional sense-consciousness from a raw sense-consciousness, because of the "idea of self". Instead of seeing it as follows:

Whatever consciousness, in the past, future or present, internal or external, rough or fine, unexalted or exalted, at a distance or in close proximity, all that consciousness `is not mine, am not in it, it is not my self.' He sees this, according to what has come to be, with right discernment.
Yaṃ kiñci viññāṇaṃ atītānāgatapaccuppannaṃ ajjhattaṃ vā bahiddhā vā oḷārikaṃ vā sukhumaṃ vā hīnaṃ vā paṇītaṃ vā yaṃ dūre santike vā, sabbaṃ viññāṇaṃ: ‘netaṃ mama, nesohamasmi, na meso attā’ti evametaṃ yathābhūtaṃ sammappaññāya passati, said Buddha.
AN 3.133

How to escape self-view is here in the suttas. 

Note this particular excerpt:

For a young tender infant lying prone does not even have the impression‘identity,’ so how could identity view arise in him? Yet the underlying tendency to identity view lies within him.
Daharassa hi, mālukyaputta, kumārassa mandassa uttānaseyyakassa sakkāyotipi na hoti, kuto panassa uppajjissati sakkāyadiṭṭhi? Anusetvevassa sakkāyadiṭṭhānusayo.
MN64

The "idea of self" is an anusaya (latent tendency), whose notion is that there is no such self. And whose notion Buddha did realise (actualised) through abhiññā (direct knowledge).

The "idea of self" becomes conscious through hearing the dhamma taught by Buddha (simile of the swimmer in MN64).
----
Please refer to that conversation on the Self and the "I". 

________

Let's summarize that again.

So you see a tree (and we will stick to that particular example).

What you see is the form that nāmarūpa has created (derived) from the elements (see the definition of name & form in SN 12.2). "Elements" which are the table of elements we study in chemistry; just rounded up to earth, fire, water and air.
So what you see with your eye (in the internal sphere of senses- bāhirāni āyatanāni,) are the signs-of-the-form of the tree, within the external sphere of senses-bāhirāni āyatanāni (see the diagram). The tree is a form (rūpa), that is derived from the compounded elements of rūpa, in nāmarūpa.

You are using the internal, to experience the external spheres of senses (saḷāyatana). 

Nāmarūpa also creates satta (man/woman). Why does nāmarūpa create satta?
Because it needs a feedback on what it has created. Nāmarūpa wants "to know," through an ultimate sensual actualisation, how good is that created thing (the tree). And that is the role of satta, and its internal spheres of senses (āyatanas).
"Tell me, through consciousness, if it's good or not?", says namarūpa.
Indeed, if you have understood the principle of SN 12.65 (the vitiated process), nāmarūpa should not say: “tell me through consciousness ...”; but instead: “tell consciousness if this is good or not”. Then consciousness establishes itself in nāmarūpa's khandhas - and so goes the recursive process.
It is because there is the “element of ignorance” that is passed to consciousness, that things do not go beyond, and just turns back at nāmarūpa, in a recursive process. If there was vijja (ultimate knowledge,) then the process would go on to still the saṅkhāras, in Saṅkhāra nidāna; and that would be nibbāna. But instead, consciousness gets established in nāmarūpa once again.

In saḷāyatana, when the eye, (that is part of the internal āyatana,) sees the signs-of-the-form of the tree, (in the external āyatana,) it first sees the co-arisen elements of nāmarūpa's tree. It sees the signs and details (nimitta & nānubyañja) of that tree. Even when you touch the tree, you only touch the signs and details of that tree. The sensual (touching) part of the form (rūpa) that is the tree.

No sense-functionality (indriya) has yet been triggered on the part of your eye. No mind (mano) is there to process the dhammas. There is no element of ignorance (avijjādhāthu) yet (as per SN 22.47 ).

The dhammas (that is to say: contact [see again the definition of nāmarūpa in SN 12.2]; the intention  nāmarūpa has towards you and the other sattas, that you to see that tree; the feeling that nāmarūpa puts in that tree, the perception it has of it, and the consciousness established in its khandhas); all these dhammas have not yet reached you plainly, until the eye-indriya (the eye faculty/function) has descended in your eye-āyatana. Particularly the feeling khandha.
Nāmarūpa has made contact with you; it has intention. The tree vehiculates its feeling, etc.

---

It is only because we have an "idea" of self" that the eye-indriya descend in the eye-āyatana. 
What is that "idea of self" all about, then?
To summarize, the "idea of self" is the delusion that the part (self/atta) is a whole (Self/Atta), and should pervade and return to that whole. This is what the Vedists awakened to; and what the rest of the world believes in, "unconsciously" or not. A deluded sense of "Universalism". A sense of continuity; a sense of permanency.

This is far from what Buddha awakened to.

Because we appropriate fallaciously the khandhas of nāmarūpa, says Buddha, we have the notion of an "I".

It ensues: the descent of the indriyas; of mano (the mind/intellect); the processing of the dhammas (in the external sphere of senses) by mano; and the aftermath of ignorance (of the "second order").

Why "second order"? 

Because that ignorance has the particularity of becoming the ignorance of dukkha (first Noble truth). What was just, at inception, an ignorance of ?, becomes the ignorance of dukkha; because we haven't realized, at once, that the notion of an "I" yields dukkha: 

"And what, bhikkhus, is ignorance? Not knowing suffering, not knowing the origin of suffering, not knowing the cessation of suffering, not knowing the way leading to the cessation of suffering. This is called ignorance.", says Buddha in SN 12.2.

Note: Logically, knowing dukkha should answer the ? question as: "no good! - dismiss!" - end of Ignorance of the "first order". 
The notion of the “I” is the same than the notion of the ?; namely: dukkka. Like the notion, (the truth) of a seed is the tree, once actualised; the notion of “?” and “I” are both dukkha.
“?” is the seed and “I” is the tree in this analogy. “I” is just the actualisation, the “making real” of the “?”. The actualisation through sensuality; through a sensual experience.

How to stop the "idea of self", then?

By insight, from knowledge according to what have become (yathā-bhūta-ñāṇa-dassana). By knowing that everything brought into being, is fabricated, willed, and dependently originated. This is the knowledge of the process of paṭiccasamuppāda.
Then the second thing is to see that these things are impermanent. That they arise, keep going on and change, then fade away.
By knowing the origin and passing away of the six bases of contact (phassāyatana), their satisfaction, unsatisfactoriness, and the escape from them. By knowing the origin and passing away of the khandhas (all of them). 
In other words, to see with correct discernment, as they have come to be, this dependent origination and these dependently arisen phenomena.

Notice in AN 3.76, that kamma ripening in the sensuality-element (kāmadhātu), form-element (rūpadhātu), and formless-element (arūpadhātu), implies a spiritual progression from a lower to a middling, then a refined element.
So the knowledge of "what has become" in each of these elements is the progression to follow. 

---

And "when virtues are present, not gone wrong in virtues, concentration is not deceptive. When concentration is present, not gone wrong in concentration; insight, from knowledge according to what have become (yathābhūtañāṇadassana), is not deceptive.", says Buddha in AN 7.65

So how to restrain the indriyas, so as to get virtuous?

In the case of our eye-indriya, "having seen a form with the eye, the bhikkhu does not grasp at the sign or the details. Since, if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye, evil unwholesome states such as covetousness and grief, (that would come [together] into play (sambhavanti) - AN 3.69,) might assail him; so he practises restraint, guards the faculty of the eye, and achieves restraint over the faculty of the eye," says Buddha in DN2.

________

"When is there thinking with the idea of self?"

From SN 22.47, (which has quite a good number of close parallels in Chinese,) we can infer that the "idea of self" is a latent "thinking" that has satta look at signs (from nāmarūpa's khandhas and dhammas) in bāhirāni āyatnāni (external sphere of sense,) as self.

Why is this latent thing around?

Because, Vedists, and later on Hindus; as well as other cultures, do believe in a universal "body" that pervades all things in a continuous and permanent manner. 
Buddha did see this concept as delusion; for everything is impermanent. He even told the bhikkhus that nibbana was not self in MN1. 

That is the "idea of self". But it has some development. For the "I" becomes "I am". "Aham" becomes "aham asmi".

The contact generated by nāmarūpa (contact is a constituent of nāmarūpa - see the diagram); this contact between the form and the eye is raw eye-consciousness. 
What satta experiences first are nāmarūpa's khandhas' signs; and he/her appropriates them. Satta's experience is, (through  this latent "idea of self",) "his/her experience".
So this notion of an "I" triggers the descent of the indriyanas (indriyānaṃ avakkanti hoti).
And the indriyanas sets off the mind (mano) and the dhammas*; and ensues the element of ignorance (avijjādhātu).
*Note: The dhammas are, for instance, the dhammas you find in MN 10; namely:
- The five hindrances,
- The five clinging-aggregates,
- The six external & internal ayatanas (ajjhattikabāhiresu āyatanesu),
- The seven enlightenment factors,

Raw eye-consciousness (a.k.a. "is known",) becomes a "thinking" consciousness with mano, so to speak; or should we say a consciousness thought upon. Plus a sensual-consciousness on the part of the eye, the nose, etc.

It is when the ignorance-contact ensues, that the "I am" occurs says SN 22.47. The clinging khandhas are at their full exercise. "I" has become "I am": ‘I am this’, ‘this I will be’ ... etc.

Why is the "idea of self" a latent "thinking"?

Because it is not a thinking of mano proper; but more a "thinking" of Citta (perception & feeling). A latent perceived and felt tendency; based on a latent ignorance, which is not an ignorance of contact..

Note: SN 12.10 allows to understand how the vitiated process depicted in SN 12.65 works. The vitiated process in which we are trapped.

Understanding that satta "does" something for nāmarūpa, to who it belongs; and at the same time have a somewhat freedom is not something easy to understand.
Yet, this freedom is the key to knowledge for nāmarūpa; and also it's end. The freedom that nāmarūpa is granting satta is a necessity; (yet a possible cause of its own extinction). People who are doing A.I. (artificial intelligence) can "somewhat" apprehend that. I say "somewhat"; because they have not yet understood the real danger of A.I.

By discriminating (pañña) and seeing with his/her own mind (citta), satta has the "power" to differentiate itself.
"Picking the signs (nimitta) of our own mind (citta)."
SN 47.8 (with parallel).

I am not much about making modern science stick to Buddhism concepts; but we must admit that quantum theory has much in commun with them.

There seems to be evidence of an object/observer entanglement, explained by the recursive process of "wordly*" paṭiccasamuppāda in SN 12.65  and SN 12.10. The importance of the observer is undeniably predominant in the process. At several levels; and paradoxically for some.
* The Bhuddist's ”world” (SN 35.82 )

As we have seen before, the “element of ignorance” comes right after the descent of the indriyas. (cakkhu-indriya, … pe …, manindriya) - SN 22.47 – This might be considered the inception of dukkha. And the “mine” stuff begins after ignorance-contact.
My take is that "picking the signs of his own mind" (sakassa cittassa nimittaṃ uggaṇhātī) in SN 47.8 has to do with picking the signs of our own feelings and perceptions. Isn't citta all about feeling and perception in MN 44 (cittasaṅkhāra).
Paradoxically, the "I" that is not "ours", has this degree of freedom that nāmarūpa grants it, as a necessity. The necessity for nāmarūpa, to know from a somewhat autonomous third party. And this is part of the escape. The fact that nāmarūpa has to grant some paradoxical freedom to satta is the possibility of an escape.

The saṅkhāras born of the ignorance of dukkha in SN 12.10, are paradoxically a means to the escape. The nutriments (AN 10.61) of this ignorance - [Sensory desire (kāmacchanda); Ill-will (vyāpāda; also spelled byāpāda); Sloth-torpor (thīnamiddha); Restlessness-worry (uddhacca-kukkucca); Doubt (vicikicchā)] - must be set aside by our own intention; so that our own feelings and perceptions born of ignorance-contact, feeds the new saṅkhāras (cetanas,) free of these five hindrances (nivaranani,) to consciousness. And when the taints (āsava) are finally abandoned, there is no more establishing of consciousness in nāmarūpa.

It is important to understand that the element of ignorance is a cause for cetanas (SN 22.47) - And - that the cetanas (thoughts, maññana, papañcas) as clinging khandha (feeling > perception > cetana > consciousness) feed the element of consciousness in viññāṇa nidāna.  These are two different types of cetanas.
The first one induces existence (bhava). The second one induces the maintenance of consciousness. 
In between comes free will, and the possibility for an escape (through mano).

The process is: Element of ignorance (āvijjadhāthu) > saṅkhāras (cetanas) > sense-consciousness > contact > feeling > perception > intention (cetana) > dathu-consciousness (in viññāṇa nidāna)-(see SN 35.121 (see also SN 12.62 & MN 28)).

This is, evidently, only a part of the process to liberation. A good way to have mindfulness and clear comprehension, and nice pleasant dwellings in this very life.

To summarize:
The entanglement between nāmarūpa and the sattas; whose sattas feed nāmarūpa back with cetanas though consciousness, is the reality we are fed with, through the recursive process in SN 12.65.
In other words, "you never get what you want; but part of what you get is what you have asked ("cetanized") for. You are entangled as an observer into the spacetimemattering of the Bhuddist "world" (SN 35.82 ,) as Niels Bohr would have put it. And you shape that world and your world. And that is exactly what SN 12.65 is supposed to mean.

 "Picking the signs (nimitta) of our own mind (citta)" - SN 47.8 - and the following sutta, among others, are pretty straithforward about having our “own” khandhas; if we ever own anything. Why would they be called "clinging khandhas" anyway?
These suttas are EBTs and have their parallels. Which makes them a pretty accurate testimony of Buddha's words.
:::::::::::::::
So too, bhikkhus, the uninstructed worldling … regards perception as self, or self as possessing perception, or perception as in self, or self as in perception. That perception of his disintegrates and he thereby meets with calamity and disaster.
... saññāṇaṃ attato samanupassati, saññāṇavantaṃ vā attānaṃ; attani vā saññāṇaṃ, saññāṇasmiṃ vā attānaṃ. Tassa taṃ saññāṇaṃ palujjati. So tatonidānaṃ anayabyasanaṃ āpajjati.
(idem with the other khandas).
SN 22.93
::::::::::::::
Tassa taṃ saññāṇaṃ palujjati, sounds like the idea of a self is disintegrating something, that is certainly not nāmarūpa's khandhas. That something seems to be “his” - the uninstructed bhikkhu's perception.

If that something was nāmarūpa's khandhas (perception), then there would be nothing more. Nāmarūpa's khandha (perception) would be disintegrated by the mere idea of self. And the idea of self would be the solution to our problem of dukkha.

But that would be an absolutely absurd logic.

So there is to be some perception that belongs to the bhikkhu.

________
.

Next
Home