Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Meaning of "anatta"
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
Nam,
First of all, when a moderator tells you that enough is enough, it is polite to listen. Since our conversation was a little off of the original topic, the best thing to do is start another one. It is not polite to simply continue regardless of their warnings. If you would like to further discuss this issue, perhaps we may do it here. Also, I never claimed that the Buddha said "There is no self". What I did say was he said "Sabbe dhamma anatta". If I am wrong, then the Dhammapada is wrong, the Dhamma-niyama Sutta is wrong, etc.
Secondly, I simply offered that not all Buddhist traditions would agree with what you were saying, and proceeded to give some evidence to support my statement. In fact, I would say that most traditions do not assert a self in Nibbana/Nirvana. There is nothing wrong with doing this. It is not shoving anything upon anyone, nor trying to discredit someone, but it is simply clarifiying a generalization. You cannot just make blanket statements like that, and not expect someone to speak up. If you did not not wish to for me to continue with my "own Nikaya "views"...", you could have simply declined to discuss the matter any further. In fact, if you wanted to expound more upon your own personal beliefs, you are more than welcome to begin your own thread.
However, you are now offering up, in my humble opinion, pure nonsense. I have no idea who your friend is, but "anatta" in no way means "infinite" or "uninclined". That makes absolutely no sense. First off, that would make the three characterisitcs of existence dukkha, anicca, and anatta to mean unsatisfactoriness, impermanence, and infinite. While it might not sound too improbable at first glance, it certainly would after you've added it to the Suttas in the place of "not-self" [especially in SN XXII.59]. Secondly, explain what "atta" in means in Pali, and then explain about what the prefix of 'a' means. Any Pali scholar I know would say that "atta" means "self" and the prefix of 'a' in Pali denotes a negative [i.e. not, non]. And finally, if what you are saying is true, that would mean that the Pali Text Society, the Buddhist Publication Society, scholars/monastics Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Ajahn Brahmavamso are all wrong. While certainly possible, I find it highly unlikely.
But, to be fair, if you would like, you can argue your case further here. I will begin by offering some references [with links], and then you may disagree with them, or offer up some of your own. I have done my best to keep my references to those organizations and translators that are very well known, and respected. It would be helpful if you could try to do the same. On the internet, I always look at it as the more credible the source, the more credible the information will probably be. If anybody else wishes to add their thoughts or references [for or against], please feel free to do so.
Jason
First of all, when a moderator tells you that enough is enough, it is polite to listen. Since our conversation was a little off of the original topic, the best thing to do is start another one. It is not polite to simply continue regardless of their warnings. If you would like to further discuss this issue, perhaps we may do it here. Also, I never claimed that the Buddha said "There is no self". What I did say was he said "Sabbe dhamma anatta". If I am wrong, then the Dhammapada is wrong, the Dhamma-niyama Sutta is wrong, etc.
Secondly, I simply offered that not all Buddhist traditions would agree with what you were saying, and proceeded to give some evidence to support my statement. In fact, I would say that most traditions do not assert a self in Nibbana/Nirvana. There is nothing wrong with doing this. It is not shoving anything upon anyone, nor trying to discredit someone, but it is simply clarifiying a generalization. You cannot just make blanket statements like that, and not expect someone to speak up. If you did not not wish to for me to continue with my "own Nikaya "views"...", you could have simply declined to discuss the matter any further. In fact, if you wanted to expound more upon your own personal beliefs, you are more than welcome to begin your own thread.
However, you are now offering up, in my humble opinion, pure nonsense. I have no idea who your friend is, but "anatta" in no way means "infinite" or "uninclined". That makes absolutely no sense. First off, that would make the three characterisitcs of existence dukkha, anicca, and anatta to mean unsatisfactoriness, impermanence, and infinite. While it might not sound too improbable at first glance, it certainly would after you've added it to the Suttas in the place of "not-self" [especially in SN XXII.59]. Secondly, explain what "atta" in means in Pali, and then explain about what the prefix of 'a' means. Any Pali scholar I know would say that "atta" means "self" and the prefix of 'a' in Pali denotes a negative [i.e. not, non]. And finally, if what you are saying is true, that would mean that the Pali Text Society, the Buddhist Publication Society, scholars/monastics Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Ajahn Brahmavamso are all wrong. While certainly possible, I find it highly unlikely.
But, to be fair, if you would like, you can argue your case further here. I will begin by offering some references [with links], and then you may disagree with them, or offer up some of your own. I have done my best to keep my references to those organizations and translators that are very well known, and respected. It would be helpful if you could try to do the same. On the internet, I always look at it as the more credible the source, the more credible the information will probably be. If anybody else wishes to add their thoughts or references [for or against], please feel free to do so.
anattā
'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality,
is the last of the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattā doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance.
This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but the anattā-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattā-vādi, or 'Teacher of Impersonality'.
Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality of all existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of the 4 Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think that it is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbāna, his personality that walks on the Eightfold Path. Thus it is said in Vis.M. XVI:
"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."
"Whosoever is not clear with regard to the conditionally arisen phenomena, and does not comprehend that all the actions are conditioned through ignorance, etc., he thinks that it is an ego that understands or does not understand, that acts or causes to act, that comes to existence at rebirth .... that has the sense-impression, that feels, desires, becomes attached, continues and at rebirth again enters a new existence" (Vis.M. XVII. 117).
While in the case of the first two characteristics it is stated that all formations (sabbe sankhārā) are impermanent and subject to suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states that "all things are not-self" (sabbe dhammā anattā; M. 35, Dhp. 279). This is for emphasizing that the false view of an abiding self or substance is neither applicable to any 'formation' or conditioned phenomenon, nor to Nibbāna, the Unconditioned Element (asankhatā dhātu).
The Anattā-lakkhana Sutta, the 'Discourse on the Characteristic of Not-self', was the second discourse after Enlightenment, preached by the Buddha to his first five disciples, who after hearing it attained to perfect Holiness (arahatta).
The contemplation of not-self (anattānupassanā) leads to the emptiness liberation (suññatā-vimokkha, s. vimokkha). Herein the faculty of wisdom (paññindriya) is outstanding, and one who attains in that way the path of Stream-entry is called a Dhamma-devotee (dhammānusāri; s. ariya-puggala); at the next two stages of sainthood he becomes a vision-attainer (ditthippatta); and at the highest stage, i.e. Holiness, he is called 'liberated by wisdom' (paññā-vimutta).
For further details, see paramattha-sacca, paticca-samuppāda, khandha, ti-lakkhana, nāma-rūpa, patisandhi.
Literature: Anattā-lakkhana Sutta, Vinaya I, 13-14; S.22. 59; tr. in Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha (WHEEL 17). -
Another important text on Anattā is the Discourse on the Snake Simile (Alagaddūpama Sutta, M. 22; tr. in WHEEL 48/49) .
Other texts in "Path". - Further: Anattā and Nibbāna, by Nyanaponika Thera (WHEEL 11);
The Truth of Anattā, by Dr. G. P. Malalasekera (WHEEL 94);
The Three Basic Facts of Existence III: Egolessness (WHEEL 202/204)
Anatta or soul-lessness
This Buddhist doctrine of rebirth should be distinguished from the theory of reincarnation which implies the transmigration of a soul and its invariable material rebirth. Buddhism denies the existence of an unchanging or eternal soul created by a God or emanating from a Divine Essence (Paramatma).
If the immortal soul, which is supposed to be the essence of man, is eternal, there cannot be either a rise or a fall. Besides one cannot understand why "different souls are so variously constituted at the outset."
To prove the existence of endless felicity in an eternal heaven and unending torments in an eternal hell, an immortal soul is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, what is it that is punished in hell or rewarded in heaven?
"It should be said," writes Bertrand Russell, "that the old distinction between soul and body has evaporated quite as much because 'matter' has lost its solidity as mind has lost its spirituality. Psychology is just beginning to be scientific. In the present state of psychology belief in immortality can at any rate claim no support from science."
Buddhists do agree with Russell when he says "there is obviously some reason in which I am the same person as I was yesterday, and, to take an even more obvious example if I simultaneously see a man and hear him speaking, there is some sense in which the 'I' that sees is the same as the 'I' that hears."
Till recently scientists believed in an indivisible and indestructible atom. "For sufficient reasons physicists have reduced this atom to a series of events. For equally good reasons psychologists find that mind has not the identity of a single continuing thing but is a series of occurrences bound together by certain intimate relations. The question of immortality, therefore, has become the question whether these intimate relations exist between occurrences connected with a living body and other occurrence which take place after that body is dead."
As C.E.M. Joad says in "The Meaning of Life," matter has since disintegrated under our very eyes. It is no longer solid; it is no longer enduring; it is no longer determined by compulsive causal laws; and more important than all, it is no longer known.
The so-called atoms, it seems, are both "divisible and destructible." The electrons and protons that compose atoms "can meet and annihilate one another while their persistence, such as it is, is rather that of a wave lacking fixed boundaries, and in process of continual change both as regards shape and position than that of a thing."[11]
Bishop Berkeley who showed that this so-called atom is a metaphysical fiction held that there exists a spiritual substance called the soul.
Hume, for instance, looked into consciousness and perceived that there was nothing except fleeting mental states and concluded that the supposed "permanent ego" is non-existent.
"There are some philosophers," he says, "who imagine we are every moment conscious of what we call 'ourself,' that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence and so we are certain, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call 'myself' I always stumble on some particular perception or other -- of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never catch myself... and never can observe anything but the perception... nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect non-entity."
Bergson says, "All consciousness is time existence; and a conscious state is not a state that endures without changing. It is a change without ceasing, when change ceases it ceases; it is itself nothing but change."
Dealing with this question of soul Prof. James says -- "The soul-theory is a complete superfluity, so far as accounting for the actually verified facts of conscious experience goes. So far no one can be compelled to subscribe to it for definite scientific reasons." In concluding his interesting chapter on the soul he says: "And in this book the provisional solution which we have reached must be the final word: the thoughts themselves are the thinkers."
Watson, a distinguished psychologist, states: "No one has ever touched a soul or has seen one in a test tube or has in any way come into relationship with it as he has with the other objects of his daily experience. Nevertheless to doubt its existence is to become a heretic and once might possibly even had led to the loss of one's head. Even today a man holding a public position dare not question it."
The Buddha anticipated these facts some 2500 years ago.
According to Buddhism mind is nothing but a complex compound of fleeting mental states. One unit of consciousness consists of three phases -- arising or genesis (uppada) static or development (thiti), and cessation or dissolution (bhanga). Immediately after the cessation stage of a thought moment there occurs the genesis stage of the subsequent thought-moment. Each momentary consciousness of this ever-changing life-process, on passing away, transmits its whole energy, all the indelibly recorded impressions to its successor. Every fresh consciousness consists of the potentialities of its predecessors together with something more. There is therefore, a continuous flow of consciousness like a stream without any interruption. The subsequent thought moment is neither absolutely the same as its predecessor -- since that which goes to make it up is not identical -- nor entirely another -- being the same continuity of kamma energy. Here there is no identical being but there is an identity in process.
Every moment there is birth, every moment there is death. The arising of one thought-moment means the passing away of another thought-moment and vice versa. In the course of one life-time there is momentary rebirth without a soul.
It must not be understood that a consciousness is chopped up in bits and joined together like a train or a chain. But, on the contrary, "it persistently flows on like a river receiving from the tributary streams of sense constant accretions to its flood, and ever dispensing to the world without the thought-stuff it has gathered by the way."[12] It has birth for its source and death for its mouth. The rapidity of the flow is such that hardly is there any standard whereby it can be measured even approximately. However, it pleases the commentators to say that the time duration of one thought-moment is even less than one-billionth part of the time occupied by a flash of lightning.
Here we find a juxtaposition of such fleeting mental states of consciousness opposed to a superposition of such states as some appear to believe. No state once gone ever recurs nor is identical with what goes before. But we worldlings, veiled by the web of illusion, mistake this apparent continuity to be something eternal and go to the extent of introducing an unchanging soul, an atta, the supposed doer and receptacle of all actions to this ever-changing consciousness.
"The so-called being is like a flash of lightning that is resolved into a succession of sparks that follow upon one another with such rapidity that the human retina cannot perceive them separately, nor can the uninstructed conceive of such succession of separate sparks."[13] As the wheel of a cart rests on the ground at one point, so does the being live only for one thought-moment. It is always in the present, and is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. What we shall become is determined by this present thought-moment.
If there is no soul, what is it that is reborn, one might ask.
Well, there is nothing to be reborn.
When life ceases the kammic energy re-materializes itself in another form. As Bhikkhu Silacara says: "Unseen it passes whithersoever the conditions appropriate to its visible manifestation are present. Here showing itself as a tiny gnat or worm, there making its presence known in the dazzling magnificence of a Deva or an Archangel's existence. When one mode of its manifestation ceases it merely passes on, and where suitable circumstances offer, reveals itself afresh in another name or form."
Birth is the arising of the psycho-physical phenomena. Death is merely the temporary end of a temporary phenomenon.
Just as the arising of a physical state is conditioned by a preceding state as its cause, so the appearance of psycho-physical phenomena is conditioned by cause anterior to its birth. As the process of one life-span is possible without a permanent entity passing from one thought-moment to another, so a series of life-processes is possible without an immortal soul to transmigrate from one existence to another.
Buddhism does not totally deny the existence of a personality in an empirical sense. It only attempts to show that it does not exist in an ultimate sense. The Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is santana, i.e., a flux or a continuity. It includes the mental and physical elements as well. The kammic force of each individual binds the elements together. This uninterrupted flux or continuity of psycho-physical phenomenon, which is conditioned by kamma, and not limited only to the present life, but having its source in the beginningless past and its continuation in the future — is the Buddhist substitute for the permanent ego or the immortal soul of other religions.
anatta: Not-self; ownerless.
I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:
"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'
"Feeling is not self...
"Perception is not self...
"[Mental] fabrications are not self...
"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'
"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"...Is perception constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."...
"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"
"Inconstant, lord."
"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"
"Stressful, lord."
"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."
"Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...
"Any fabrications whatsoever...
"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'
"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"
That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through not clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents.
- SN XXII.59
"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.
"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are inconstant.
"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are stressful.
"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are stressful.
"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.
"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self."
- AN III.134
"All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification. - Dhp XX v.279
Jason
0
Comments
Jason,
I alway like to be invited to a party.:cheer: However, have you considered that your might have misundertood "anata.m" (infinite, uninclined) for "anatta.m" (the No-self)?
If this is the case, then there is no point of going further, and I have evidence from a passage from the Digha-nikaya, it says in one of the paragraph: ""invisible infinite consciousness shining everywhere" (Pali: vinnanam anidassanam anatam sabbato prabham). So we know that Anatam can be mistranslated and misunderstood with "Anattam".
Got to keep an open mind, that is why the Buddha says not to take words literally and lot of Patriarchs and Zen masters say not to rely on words merely as they really teach the Ante-word.............this is the only way to see things as they are, using our spiritual mind, and not with our worldly views!:thumbsup:
And BTW, if you insist on debating about the "All" as I think that you think "All" is existence, in that case all I can say is I understand different than you. "All" refers to senses according to Conjoined discourses (see Samyutta-nikaya, IV.15). Dharma here mean things come into world like human body and fleas. Logically speaking this passage say self is not sensory thing. This is my reading. It makes sense to me. Buddha say too that what is suffering is not-self in Conjoined discourses. Does then mean that nirvana is suffering because it is not-self? How then do you explain anomalies?
Thank you for telling me I should study dependent origination.
Regards,
Znam
First of all, we were talking about anatta in the last thread. If you are now talking about anatam, which appears to be the case, I don't understand where this comes from. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing, so I am a little confused by it. I never once mentioned anatam, so how could I confuse it with anatta? Pehaps you simply threw that in there to have a little fun. If this is indeed the case, then I guess we do not have anything else to discuss about that matter. It was simply a misunderstanding on my part. As for your quote, you should really post a link to it so that people know where it comes from, and the controversy that surrounds HH G.K.U.T.D.
As for the "All" [which is in reference to the five aggregates], we were not debating that as far as I am aware. I don't believe that I was insisting on debating it either. I certainly used it on a few occasions, but that was definitely not the sole focus of my posts. If you would like to, though, I would be more than happy to discuss the five khandhas with you in more detail. Although, I will say that nothing is inherently suffering unless there is clinging involved. The Buddha himself still had his body for forty-five years after his Awakening, yet the Buddha was free from suffering. How could this be? There was simply no longer any sustenence for suffering to arise. I find it interesting how "upadana" means "clinging" as well as "sustenence".
And finally, in the Suttas, the Buddha teaches that Nibbana is synonymous with sunnata. Which, coincidentally, is also the "Mahayana way" as well. In fact, they stress the Buddha's doctrine of emptiness much more than most Theravadins. I can put you into contact with someone who is a Mahayanist that can discuss this with you further if you unconvinced by me. I know that he would do a far better job than I since my field of study centers around the Pali Canon. However, one paragraph from the Pali Canon that demonstrates this is:
Here is also the definition of "sunnata" according to Nyanatiloka Mahathera in case anybody is interested:
Jason
You are clearly what is known as 'flaming' or trolling' and I am advising you now, IN THE STRONGEST TERMS POSSIBLE, that deliberate attempts to provoke discussions based on groundless suppositions on your part, merely for the sake of argument, will result in the censure or removal of your posts, or of you being forcibly requested to leave. *
Nobody was using anatam, either in our posts or the quotes used, so who knows where that came from. Maybe he was just grasping at straws because he simply could not prove me wrong [as of yet at least], or maybe he did really think that. Perhaps Nam was just having some fun. In either case, "no harm, no foul" as we always say.
Jason
Regards,
Znam
Federica,
I am not here to debate over a single word that Elohim might have read and misunderstood. I merely point out the the possible error in the translation and I doubt that he cares to investigate about it. BTW, I like to remind you that I have not break any forum rules as indicated when I PM you. And where in the rules that say that I can not disagree with other member post?
Buddha never teach No-self, Buddha says No-self is the aggregate, that is all....to think Nibbana is No-self is like taking Jesus out of Christianity.
And I am offended that you classified my post as "trolling".........I have passage to back up my arguments, and I urge anyone who think Buddha teaches the No-self, let see the evidence of that claim then!
Buddha teaches compassion and understanding, please dont jump the gun too quickly, let be impartial here.
If you want the forum to be one-sided, why not join the communist as this is NOT how a democracy works.
Regards,
Nam
Please refresh my memory, where did I ever use a quote from, or even mention Udana VIII.2?
And by the way, it was not my personal interpretation of "sunnata". It was the interpretation of the Blessed One url=http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebsut016.htm]MN 121[/url, along with a complimentary definition by the Venerable Nyanatiloka Mahathera.
Jason
Regards,
:hohum:
First of all, the Buddha said many time, and in many places "sabbe dhamma anatta", and that was what we were originally discussing. We were not discussing Udana VIII.2 in any way, shape, or form. So, no matter what outrageous claims you may wish to make, please do not say that I said something I obviously did not say.
Secondly, Udana VIII.2 does not say that Nibbana is a "self". When the Buddha refers to Nibbana as "the Unborn", that simply means that it is unconditioned. Being unconditioned simply means that it is free from the characteristics of conditioned phenomena [dukkha and anicca], but not anatta [because it's "sabbe dhamma anatta" NOT "sabbe sankhara anatta"]. Udana VIII.2 in no way states that Nibbana is a "self". If you wish to infer that, you certainly may, but making such inferences is, in my opinion, baseless.
And lastly, if you believe that sunnata (emptiness or voidness) is a "self", then you are more of a fool that I could have possibly imagined. I would encourage you [and anyone else for that matter] to read this collection of talks on sunnata by Ajahn Buddhadasa.
Jason
I would thank you to not take issue with my Moderator comments, as if you continue, i will ask you to leave. *
Jason,
Read the context of the message, this is what I wrote: "Being there, done that, Jason........one possible argument is Sunnata is the Self, as most modern day Buddhist schools claim."
I was saying most modern day Buddhist schools teachSunnata as the self, heck some of them say emptiness is the Self. And please refrain from calling people fool on this forum.
Federica, did you catch this?..........
I am under constant threat of being bannished from this forum, which I tell you Jason, a no lost for me, but I hope that some Buddhists here would see your own "views" about Buddhism and question your motive, you might be destroying Buddhism and not realizing it.
BTW, when one take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, what do you think they are taking refuge in, in nothingness?.....but this is what most ill informed Buddhist believe, like yourself.
Sutra says that Dharma is not destroyed by any outsider, it is destroyed from people within. You aint gonna get brownnies point winning an argument, since you are deeply rooted in the belief that the Buddha teach no-self......and Jason, the enemy is no one but yourself, get a grip, dude.:tongue2:
Regards,
Znam
If this was a democracy, we'd all be moderators. And even in a democracy, there's still an elected government to decide on behalf of others. I'm here in that capacity, but sometimes, I have to make a decision, based on many facts, that ultimately is for the good of everyone.
I trust this clarifies the matter.
Second that, YM. We seem to have had a spate of newcomers on here throwing their weight around and then whingeing when they are asked not to. And they always pick on the very people the rest of us want to listen to, thus taking up their time and depriving us of more productive conversation.
And yes, I have a couple of people on ignore because I just can't bear their drivel but it is a shame to have to do this.
Obviously not, lovie!:winkc:
regards,
X
I have never heard of any Buddhist school or tradition claiming that sunnata is the "self". I do not believe that the majority of modern day Buddhist schools claim this either. The only school or tradition of Buddhism that I have heard of claiming anything to be the "self" is Dark Zen. Much of what you post actually resembles their particular take on Buddhism. In fact, the link that you provided in the Cuckoo Nest Buddhism thread is one of their publications. It is just one of the many pieces of evidence that makes me suspicious of you being a part of that group [possibely along with our good friend mujaku].
The only thing that I will refrain from doing is allowing people like you to take over Buddhist forums simply because you think that you can b.s. your way into convincing everyone that most modern day Buddhist traditions are false. It is funny how the Theravada tradition is always the first target. Just one example of this can be found in some of the articles from The Zennist. You might fool some people, but you certainly do not fool me. I have played along with your little game only to systematically refute all of your baseless accusations. Perhaps the anomosity towards Theravada Buddhism is their vast collection of teachings. It's too hard to discredit each one individually, so you just go for the entire tradition!
If the administrator of this forum believes me to be "destroying" Buddhism, or to be acting in an inappropriate, I will gladly change my behaviour, or refrain from ever posting here again. I respect his wishes [regardless if they were for or against my own personal views, opinions, and ideas] and authority on this site implicitly. I only offer my opinions and advice here because I believe that my knowledge of Theravada Buddhism may help those that are new to it. I am not participating in this discussion with you to win any brownie points, I am here to simply weasel out your obfuscated agenda. It is more than clear to me what that is, and I now see why so many forums end up banning people like you.
I certainly don't have any problems with people interpreting the Buddha's teachings any way they wish, but I do have a problem when they make blanket statemets, baseless accusations, and exhibit unruly behaviour while representing that as true Buddhism. I'm sorry, but I just call 'em like I see 'em.
Jason
Thanks for that... I was just curious. I understand... sorry about the email thing being closed... I'm not exactly sure why.. I think I turned it off
ps: Appreciate your site
Dear Nam
thank you for your invitation, will drop by
thanks all
Hope
No Xrayman - still reading you loud and clear - and I have nothing against nice drivel - it's spiteful ego-fuelled drivel I don't want to read.
Although I am not sorry to see NamThien2006 banned, due to his confrontational and tricky ways, I am sorry to see his alter-ego, M Bolden, go, since I saw a better role in that character. I must say that I reallly enjoyed what Embolden had to say, and took him as a sincere seeker. I may have been wrong, but who knows?
Also, we all have a role to play, and —who knows— some people might be better suited with playing a couple until they find the right one. (Ahem.)
______________________________________
______________________________________
Meditate by emptying yourself and letting the universe fill you.
and so is.... well she knows who she is. And I'm not telling.
hint:canflag:
:winkc:
Yes. See this post.
Jason
Hey Jason,
Maybe he was trying out the 12 archtypes that Jung proposed??????:bigclap:
Fede,
Jason
First of all, I'd like to say this is always a very interesting topic. Let's discuss it without making it personal. I believe the Buddha advocated that we investigate his teachings for ourselves. Which leads to differing views. If I post anything contrary to your view, I only do so to say it is what seems right TO ME. You can take it or leave it. I'll preface my further remarks that I have tended to agree with nam in this debate whenever his words have been germane to the topic.
I chose to reply to this particular post because from my point of view I believe it misses that "emptiness" in the teachings of the Buddha is a term that pivots on one's reference point. In other words, it is not an absolute term in itself but it depends on context. Strickly speaking, "sunna" in Pali basically means "empty". But the question is always "what is empty of what?" The Buddha in his teaching is always carefully mindful of this consideration such that in my studies of the suttas I have found basically two "kinds" of sunnata described, different not in the pivotal meaning of "empty" but different in reference point, which makes all the difference. Actually, the definition you quoted recognizes this distinction, only I feel that your post tends to conflate them as meaning the same thing between contexts. The most common context is cited in the first part of the definition, namely that the world is empty of self (or anything that pertains to self). I interpret that this word is used mainly to describe that the world is of no value to the savaka, and not to be clung to, not to be valued as self or as pertaining to self. It is also basically synonymous with the other two of the three marks: anatta(not-self) and anicca(impermanent), and this is how this issue remains critical to an understanding of the significance of anatta in the Buddha's teaching.
The second meaning, namely that " M. 121, the voiding of the mind of the cankers, in the attainment of Arahatship, is regarded as the "fully purified and incomparably highest (concept of) voidness. -" is separate from the former meaning. So, to describe nibbana as an "emptiness" is precisely using this latter reference point (the Arhat's mind emptied of the asavas) and not referring to the same context as the former. If we read carefully what is explicity stated, we see that in the former case when we ask "if A is empty of X what are the terms A and X?" the answer is "the term A in this case is The World and the term X in this case is Self or what pertains to Self". Likewise, we see in the latter usage of emptiness (the "highest"), the answer is that the term A is the mind of the Arhat and the term X is the asavas. It is not the same meaning because it is not the same terms/context/reference point. Surely the meaning "empty" as divorced from all reference points is always the same, but when you change reference points the overall meaning of the statement changes. As in "That store does not sell (is empty of) food." does not mean the same thing as "I am not hungry (am empty of hunger)", to say that Nibbana is emptiness is not to say the same thing as to say that the world is empty of Self: as inappropriate as it would be to say in the example "the store is empty(of food), I am empty(of hunger), therefore I am empty of food" so is it inappropriate to say "the world is empty(of Self), The Arhat is empty(of asavas), therefore the Arhat is empty of Self. If this would be the case we could say validly, simply by reversing the direction of the conflation, that beings ("sabba" is defined in terms of personal experience as sattva) in general are all empty of asavas already and therefore all are arhats and there is no suffering nor path leading to cessation of suffering. But we cannot say that validly, because we all know and experience that we suffer and are not free of the asavas. Further, the Arhat per se is never, to my knowledge, described as anatta. Or anicca.
All these considerations are complimented by the teaching that this "sabba" which the Buddha teaches as sunna, anicca, anatta, can and should be abandoned and surpassed by the Arhat:
"The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned..." (so on with all other dhammas included in "the all")--SN XXXV.24
"For whom nothing in the world is his own, who doesn't grieve over what is not, who doesn't enter into dhammas, he is said to be at peace." --SNIV.10
"As a water bead on a lotus leaf, as water on a red lily, does not adhere, so the sage
does not adhere to the seen, the heard, or the sensed; for, cleansed, he doesn't construe in connection with the seen, the heard, or the sensed." SNIV.6
V.
"Vacchagotta" in the discourses of the Buddha was one of the "wanderers" or "itinerants", so I suppose the title "seeker" is appropriate.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn44-008.html
So yes, I should have referred to you, maybe as "wanderer"....
I, personally am enjoying my Wander.... and seeking is a club-forum thing, so join the club!
I definitely agree that the Buddha often used a single term in more than one way. This is quite evident to anyone that has studied Pali. However, to me it doesn't matter where one pivots, there is still no "self" to be found in Buddhism. If you agree with Nam, and by this I mean his promotion of the idea that there is indeed a "self" to be found, then I will simply have to take your advice and leave it. I do not wish to go through such a discussion again. If you agreement with Nam stems from another point, however, I would be interested in hearing more. In either case, welcome to the forum.
Jason
It's an indisputable fact of experience - of our direct, immediate perception - that all things are empty of self. Yet we think and believe and act and hope otherwise. It's by holding onto this notion of self - and we hold it most dear - that we live in defiance of Reality.
This is the means by which we suffer, and suffer greatly. It hurts to defy Reality.
- Steve Hagen - Buddhism Plain and Simple
I believe you.
Bang on.
Well it isn't - it is still liquid but a very very viscous liquid that we can't see moving, if you stood it up for a thousand years it would eventually all end up at the bottom. Lead is the same.
When the Old Feller explained THAT to me, I began to see how things are not as we are accustomed to seeing them .... but don't go banging you fist on the glass just to prove a point.
Hello all,
Don't quote me on this, though its been theorised that if our protons, neutrons, and electrons moved faster than those that make up "solid" objects, we would be able to pass straight through them.
Someone who's a genius (ZM, Jason, BF, Brian, et al) will be able to tell me if this is a sound theory or not?:rockon:
Thanks for the welcome. I posted what I did because I felt that a cornerstone of your view of the denial of Self altogether was the conflating of the two contexts of "sunna" as meaning the same thing. I tried to show how they don't. Even though you seemed to agree the meaning is different, it doesn't seem to have affected your view, which is obviously okay. Your prerogative.
Far be it from me to assert yet another false theory of self. Yet, I find the total denial of Self common amongst Buddhists untenable even from the basic standpoint of the discourse of the Pali Nikayas. Firstly, I should get it out of the way: to assert a "'self' to be found" is an absurdity from the beginning (to "find" requires that the object to be found not be ourselves, who find it), and I don't find it occurring in nam's (or the Buddha's) discourse. I simply find that those who outright and absolutely deny Self are going further than the Buddha is recorded to have been willing...and thus they very likely go too far. The various forms of Self-denying ("There is no Self", "I have no Self," "'Self' is only the khandhas which break up upon death") are all specifically disavowed by the Buddha. They entail the "annihiliationist" (uchedavada) view which includes a kind of nihilism (natthika). Thus, returning to the open discussion of the meaning of the term, anatta does not mean "no-self", a strange translation which nullifies its predicative value and turns it into a general term encompassing an absolute denial, but rather "not-self" or "non-self" by virtue of its usage as a predicative of "the world" ie the five aggregates. (compare to mitra: friend and amitra: non-friend/enemy...amitra does not mean "there is no friend" or even "friendless") Couple with this the suprisingly frequent usages of the word "Self" (in compounds and singly) in a positive context (even associated with such utmost values as Nibbana), and I find you have a strong case against a total denial of Self in the Buddha's teaching.
I fully understand that this is not acceptable to one who has invested in "no-self" a great deal of reflection, insight, belief, and effort (believe it or not, I used to be one who believed and strove to actualize my understanding of "no-self", but has since found that in my own judgement I had made a mistake). It's just the way I see it.
V.
You are welcome for the welcome.
From my understanding, the Buddha does indeed teach that to have any view or position of a self is something to be abandoned. That means that there is no thought, view, or position that I have a self, I don't have a self, the self is the same as the mind/body, the self is different from the mind/body, the self is in the mind/body, or the self is outside of the mind/body:
However, if one were to say that the Buddha's teachings simply amount to annihilationism without there being a self of some sort present [as some people might want to say] is incorrect. Why? Because the Buddha said that he taught the Middle Way, the way characterized by paticca-samuppada (dependent co-arising), which in its simplest form is expressed as this/that conditionality:
The Buddha's teachings are between the two extremes of eternalism and annihilationism. So, in his doctrine of the Middle Way, the views of "I have a self" and "I have no self", along with everything else in between, simply do not apply. However, from this perspective, the three characteristics of dukkha (stress), anicca (impermanence), and anatta (not-self) certainly do. That is why I believe that the Buddha was silent when Vacchagotta asked him point blank if there was or wasn't a self; the very question itself was simply inappropriate:
That is merely my understanding, though. It is up to each individual to search through the vast collection of teachings, and apply that to what they find in their meditation practices to discover these answers for themselves. It is only by direct insight into these questions that we can incline towards the Deathless, not through intellectual speculation. And, that is as far as I wish to pursue this topic.
May we all reach the other shore.
Jason
May I also add, after rereading your post, that you quite possibly don't understand my view, as you seem to imply.
When trying to correct Nam's initial suggestion that in general, Buddhism teaches that Nibbana is a self and/or where all phenomena originates from [including the five aggregates], I simply offered some evidence to the contrary. That was all. If you are unaware of the original conversation from whence this topic sprang, I would like to point you towards this particular thread: The Meaning of Being Mindful posts #23-50
On a side note, in the Buddha's teachings on paticca-samuppada (dependent co-arising), avijja (ignorance) conditions the arising of the five khandhas (aggregates):
In this context, if we review Nam's posts, we can see a discrepency between what he was offering as a generalized view of Buddhism, and what is in the Pali Canon.
If Nibbana was the "essence of self" where "all things arise", including the five aggregates, as Nam suggests, then it would also have to imply that according to the Pali Canon, Nibbana is synonymous with ignorance. That, of course, is not possible since Nibbana is described by the Buddha in SN XXXVIII.1 as being the extinction of lobha (greed), dosa (hatred), and moha (delusion), with the root of all three being avijja (ignorance).
So, I hope that this helps to explain exactly where I was coming from, and clarifies my view just a little bit better.
Jason
To be honest, it didn't really matter to me who he was. What was truly important to me was giving the necessary evidence to the others on the forum that what he was presenting was not true for all traditions of Buddhism, especially the Theravada tradition. If he hadn't implied that his views were held by the majority of Buddhist traditions in general, then I probably wouldn't have even bothered responding to him.
Jason
What the Buddha Never Taught
Take care all
_/\_
metta
_/\_
metta
When you say this Elohim it raises some questions.
First of all, the academic evidence is not in that the Buddha denied the self is clearest terms. Pande cautiously observes:
As to how the Buddha used the term "view" in various contexts needs to be presented with more precision. What do we make of "view" in this passage from the Sutta-Nipata?
The Buddha could have easily said, "Deny the self, Mogharaja. Only then will you cross over." However we note that the denial is qualified. The commentary to this passage seems to clear up the problem of "view of self".
This is no more evident than in this passage from the Samyutta Nikaya:
To sum this up in plain language: people generally mistake their body to be the self. The Buddha said the body's form, for example, is not the self. Form is an attribute (khandhas). The self is, therefore, what the body is not (i.e., the self is not an attribute). To believe otherwise is to have a view of self in which the body is believed to be the self.
Love ya all,
Bobby
I understood a few things a little better after looking at those posts. Firstly that Nam very probably was indeed AEH in disguise, as one poster pointed out...only guessing from the inconsistent verbal patterns. But the issue in question of "Nibbana as the Essence of Self" can be very confusing, being mainly an interpretation based on texts in conjunction with differing personal intuitions. From that discussion its hard for me to sort out what Nam's view is and what you think his view is. I can only really offer the way I see it, which is probably not quite the same as either.
That thread being closed, we should probably not dwell too much on what was said there and stick to this particular conversation (is it a conversation? I though you said you were done). It does shed some light on the motivation for your comments on emptiness (which I still feel I have shown to be fraught with a mistaken conflation). The way I see it, we should by all means stick to the traditional definition of Nibbana as the extinction, stopping, uprooting, annihilation of the asavas (alternatively shown to be the Arhat as emptied of them). Traditionally, we don't ask "what's left" after Nibbana because Nibbana, being beyond phenomena, is not really phenomenally demonstrable in the same way as, for example, how the tree in the backyard looks without all its leaves. Exactly here, in the transcendence of Nibbana from what we know as the phenomenal world (loka, sabbe dhamma) we might mention, is the context for the great "tetralemma" as applied to the "existence"(phenomenality) or "non-existence"(total annihilation) of the Tathagata/Arhat after Parinibbana without remainder. Of the Arhat after Nibbana we simply don't have the same points of reference so we cannot make the assertions of existence or non-existence or the alternatives. If it is said that Mara cannot find the Arhat, its very probable he cannot be shown to us, and so the "what's left" is simply outside the range of phenomenal inquiry.
But I at least feel that naturally if Nibbana is that kind of stripping away of defilements for the sake of ease (sukha)," in my very self" (paccattamyeva parinibbayati), then in Nibbana, in having thoroughly turned away from clinging to that of what I once considered my personality, in having quite thoroughly gotten rid of any view of what I am, I am more (most) completely "myself", whatever in fact I am (begging the question: I am myself!). You can see that that speaks fairly directly to my comments about the two contextually distinct meanings of "emptiness" being discussed. It is probably only in this sense that Nibbana could possibly be considered "the essence of Self", though from your prior comments it is easy to go on from there and make mistakes which interpret it as a reification of Nibbana as "a" Self in some concrete way to insert into a line of logic that asserts Nibbana is identical to ignorance. We could probably clear up the confusion by amending the assertion to "Nibbana is the return to Self-essence" or something like that.
Now, going to paticca-samupada in this context, we might say that birth and death arise from myself because I am the locus of avijja, of ignorance. That is I, whatever I am, (I am not the khandhas!) am ignorant, and from there the whole snowball gets rolling. So we turn around what you said was the logical conclusion (if Nibbana is the essence of self and Self is the ground from which birth and death arise, then Nibbana is ignorance.) and instead say that since ignorance, together with the other defilements, is not the essence of Self but merely an attitude that I may exhibit or rid myself of, then Nibbana is the ridding of myself of that attitude and thus ignorance and Nibbana are opposed, not the same.
If I may risk extending the idea too much by reference to analogies, we may compare Nibbana to purified gold free of "defilements" or impurities. Going back to gold in its natural state (as we found it), we know gold in itself is gold and non-gold is non-gold, but, gold and non-gold are all mixed up and certainly we cannot define the non-gold as an impurity if this were not the case (we can only see the defilement of gold where there is gold). This is the case of Self being bound to aggregated existence by ignorance. But, even though we can fairly acceptably say that the state of gold as purified from its defilements is identical to that gold as-it-is (is the essence of gold), we do not say that the purified Gold is the same as the impurities once mixed up with it.
in friendship,
V.
In regards to the bolded, I think it's actually the other way around. In other words, avijja is the locus of 'I am'/'I-maker' or the Ahamkara of Samkhya philosophy. Paticca Samupadda appears to demonstrate that 'myself' and 'yourself' are only provisional terms used by the mind to discriminate one dhamma from another, and that birth, death and becoming (bhavana) are secondary to avijja. So saying that 'you' are the basis of avijja, which is the basis of 'you' is quite circular, imo. Nowhere in paticca samupadda (to my knowledge) do this 'myself' exist without the prerequisite condition of avijja. In fact, in my understanding, that is the entire gist of the teaching on paticca samupadda.
With that said, I think your logic is all based on this assumption that this 'you' has any existent qualities without avijja. This just seems like backwards buddhist logic to me, and also is possibly circular logic.
regards
_/\_
metta
Academic evidence doesn't really do the Buddha's teachings justice. Beyond just being studied, these teachings were meant to be put into practice as well. Without the compliments of observing the precepts, meditation, and direct insight into phenomena, nobody's understanding of what the Buddha taught will ever be complete. We must remember that the Buddha said that his teachings were not to be used to simply argue with other contemplatives, but they were to be skillfully put into practice. To only focus on one side of the practice or the other destroys this carefully constructed balance designed by the Buddha.
What the Buddha seems to be teaching in regards to 'anatta' is that, anywhere whatsoever that you may look for a permanent, ever-lasting self, you will simply find yourself grasping at unsatisfactoriness and inconstancy out of ignorance. The conditioned world is ruled by conditionality, not by a hidden self. For example, the Buddha went on to explain that not only was the body not-self, but the mind was not-self as well. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are not-self because they are unsatisfactory and inconstant. But, the Buddha doesn't just stop there. He continues to explain that if one were to say:
So, while the question remains open if there is actually 'something' there or not, to even speculate as to the answer is clearly going against the Buddha's teachings. Everything that we can possibly experience in this body and mind of ours is unsatisfactory and inconstant, therefore, everything that we can possibly experience in this body and mind is also said to be not-self. However, when looking beyond this body and mind for an eternal essence that can be viewed or grasped onto as a self is impossible. As the Buddha said, such a thing lies beyond range. A search in that direction only leads one to grief.
When people try to use Nibbana as an example of what lies beyond range, but can be experienced at some point, they also forget to include the various teachings concerning that attainment. For one, to even experience Nibbana, all forms of self view must be abandoned. There is no longer any thoughts of "I", "me", or "mine". To intellectually try and uncover a self in that experience is merely trying to complicate the uncomplicated. As the Venerable Sariputta explained when he was asked if there was anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres:
That is why I do not enjoy delving to deeply into this particular topic. It is ultimately unskillful, and considered by the Buddha himself to be inappropriate attention. Our focus is taken off of the immediate practice, and instead becomes lost within speculative thoughts about the various views of self. It is a trap that the noble disciple must learn to avoid, for it only leads one to more suffering, more becoming, more craving, and it does not lead one to the abandoning of ignorance, abandoning of craving, Nibbana. As the Buddha cautioned his followers in regards to these kinds of inappropriate attention thus:
That is why words tend to fail when it comes to the meaning of 'anatta'.
Jason