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.
Those, in the main, to whom the Buddha lectured were not strong annihilationists who did not accept the notion of self.
It is more likely that many of the Buddha’s discourses were given to those who leaned towards eternalism. This is the belief that one or more of the khandhas (aggregates, attributes) are the self while the remaining ones make up the world.
It goes without saying that in no discourse did the Buddha argue with anyone who proclaimed the self to be transcendent! One cannot even imagine how it might be possible to refute such a claim, namely, that the self is transcendent to all determinations.
As I hope to make it clear, the Buddha lectured to those who leaned towards eternalism. Following this, we need a good working definition of ‘eternalism’. Here is one taken from Udana Commentary (atthakatha) which is quite clear.
“They [eternalists] declare...”the self” is one khandha amidst the five upadana khandha, the rest “the world” (344).
Those who leaned towards eternalism identified themselves with one of the five khandhas believing, for example, that consciousness, the last khandha, might be the self. In light of this, the Buddha corrected such a view by teaching that the self or, atta, is not a khandhas such as form (rupa).
“There is the case, monk, where a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones -- who has regard for nobles ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma -- does not assume form to be self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form. He does not assume feeling to be self ... does not assume perception to be self ... does not assume fabrications to be self ... He does not assume consciousness to be self, or self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in self, or self as in consciousness” (M.iii.18).
Against the postulate that the Buddha denied the self, the above passage clearly indicates that he did not deny the self. The Buddha is saying no more than what we truly are as a ‘self’ cannot be found in what is impermanent and suffering comprising the five khandhas.
The Buddha’s project was not to convince annihilationists of a transcendent self, but to teach weak eternalists that five khandhas are not the self. In light of the aforementioned this passage makes sense.
“The self liberated (vimuttattâ), it is immovable (thitam), the self immovable (thita-attâ), it is content, whose self is content (santusitattâ), is not agitated. Unagitated, the very self (paccattam) surely attains complete nibbana” (S.iii.53–54).
The context of the above is from a Sutta which deals with one’s engagement with the five khandhas; that one who is engaged with them is not liberated. On the other hand, when the fifth khandha, namely, consciousness or awareness is unestablished, the self is truly liberated.
To sum this up briefly, the Buddha had no interest in lecturing to strong annihilationists who denied the self. Rather his efforts were directed to weak eternalists who believed that one of the five khandhas is the self while the rest make up the world. His aim, therefore, was to introduce weak eternalists to the self which is liberated from the five khandhas, thus eliminating suffering as a result. This is the true 'not-self' doctrine, namely, I am not the khandhas.
Don't forget the other side of the coin. You must also recognize that the 'annihilationism' that the buddha defined was not defined as 'denying the existence of an eternal self'. Annihilationism, as refuted by the buddha, was the belief that upon the death of the body, there was simply extinction. The doctrine of rebirth and the recognition of 4 non-material khandhas, eliminates the possibility of fitting the definition of annihilationism, regardless of what position we take on the issue of atta.
The Buddhist Attitude
The Buddhist attitude to both of these types of view is that they are extremes, neither of which is in fact true. The first type of view is called in Buddhism "the heresy of eternalism" (sassatavaada), while the second is called "the heresy of annihilationism" (ucchedavaada). They both in fact miss the point.
What actually happens according to Buddhism can only be clearly understood if we have some acquaintance with the Buddhist view of the general nature of man. But before considering this (as far as it is relevant to our subject), it may be as well to observe how the Buddhist view can be misinterpreted. If we say, for instance, that in the Buddhist view man is not distinguished from animals by the possession of an "immortal soul," then this looks very like the Modern Secular position. If, on the other hand, it is pointed out that according to Buddhism we reap the rewards and penalties, after death, for our actions in this life, then this looks rather like the Traditional Christian view. If both propositions are stated to be correct, the result looks like a contradiction, though in fact it is not. These misapprehensions about Buddhism result from failure to realize the kind of "optical illusion" which occurs when a middle position is viewed from one of the extremes. If an island is exactly in the middle of a river then from either bank it looks closer to the opposite bank than to the observer. Only an observer on the island can see that it is equidistant. Viewed from the extreme left, any middle position looks much further to the right than it is, and vice versa. The same phenomenon is commonly observable in politics and other walks of life.
In this case, the true Buddhist view is that the impersonal stream of consciousness flows on — impelled by ignorance and craving — from life to life. Though the process is impersonal, the illusion of personality continues as it does in this life.
In terms of Absolute Truth, there is no "immortal soul" that manifests in a succession of bodies, but in terms of the relative truth by which we are normally guided, there is a "being" that is reborn. In order to gain Enlightenment, it is necessary to come to a realization of the situation as it is according to absolute truth; in order to face and begin to understand the problem of death we can, in the first instance, view it in terms of that "relative truth" which normally rules our lives and which has its validity in its own sphere. We need merely, for the present, to remind ourselves that this is but a "provisional" view of things. In this connection, too, we have to observe that we are dealing only with the question of death as it affects the ordinary person, not one who has attained Enlightenment.
We may therefore say that Buddhism, rejecting Annihilationism outright, partly agrees with the Eternalists, to the extent of accepting a form of Survival, without, for the moment, considering the differences further.
The annihilationist doctrine (uccheda-vada) is born from the desire to escape conflict. This may include escape form further rebirths or desiring a state of total destruction which, too, is escapist.
In the Brahmajala Sutta of the Digha-Nikaya there is described some seven types of annihilationists. In the first view the self is said to be composed of material elements which are the combination of father and mother. This self, however, is destroyed with the dissolution of the body. Other annihilationists believed in a self belonging to the sensuous plane which is also annihilated. Another sect believed in a self made-of-mind, this, too, being destroyed with the death of the body. Still others believed in a self which was beyond the plane of ideas of form which extended to the sphere of infinite space. It, too, was subject to eventual destruction. Some contested this and believed the self went even further to the plane of infinite consciousness or to the spheres of no obstruction which was eventually annihilated. The highest stage of annihilationism in which the self was destroyed was an idea and non-idea state.
I think one would be justified in characterizing the annihilationist doctrine (ucchedavada) as an impermanence-only doctrine. Nothing in the way of a perdurable state exists which is free of impermanence, i.e., destruction (uccheda) moment by moment.
Both the heresies of annihilationism and eternalism find their basis in the five aggregates. The annihilationist is said to be of nirattaditthi, that is, the view of soullessness or unsubstantiality in which the self, being dependent upon the five aggregates, is destroyed when the aggregates dissolve. By comparison, the eternalist adheres to attaditthi, which is the belief that one aggregate is the eternal self and the rest are the world.
The Buddha many times said that his self was not connected with the five aggregates to wit it did not fall into either the heresy of annihilationism or eternalism since both were aggregate based.
There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who are speculators about the future, having fixed views about the future, and who put forward various speculative theories about the future in forty-four different ways. On what basis, on what grounds do they do so?"
"There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who proclaim a doctrine of Conscious Post-Mortem Survival, and do so in sixteen different ways. On what basis?
Wrong view numbers 19 - 34: "They declare that the self after death is healthy and conscious and
(1) material, [50] (2) immaterial, [51] (3) both material and immaterial, (4) neither material nor immaterial, (5) finite, (6) infinite, (7) both, (8) neither, (9) of uniform perception, (10) of varied perception, (l1) of limited perception, (12) of unlimited perception, (13) wholly happy, (14) wholly miserable, (15) both, (16) neither."
"These are the sixteen ways in which these ascetics and Brahmins proclaim a doctrine of conscious post-mortem survival. There is no other way."
"This, monks, the Tathágata understands...These, monks, are those other matters, profound, hard to see...which the Tathágata, having realized them by his own super-knowledge, proclaims, and about which those who would truthfully praise the Tathágata would rightly speak."
End Of Second Recitation-Section
"There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who proclaim a doctrine of Unconscious Post-Mortem Survival, and they do so in eight ways. On what basis?"
Wrong view 35 - 42: "They declare that the self after death is healthy and unconscious and (1) material, (2) immaterial, (3) both, (4) neither, (5) finite, (6) infinite, (7) both, (8) neither." [52]
"These are the eight ways in which these ascetics and Brahmins proclaim a doctrine of Unconscious Post-Mortem Survival. There is no other way."
"This, monks, the Tathágata understands...These, monks, are those other matters, profound, hard to see which the Tathágata, having realized them by his own super knowledge, proclaims, and about which those who would truthfully praise the Tathágata would rightly speak."
"There are some ascetics and Brahmins who declare a doctrine of Neither-Conscious- nor-Unconscious Post-Mortem Survival, and they do so in eight ways. On what basis?"
Wrong view 43 - 50: "They declare that the self after death is healthy and neither conscious nor unconscious and (1) material, (2) immaterial, (3) both, (4) neither, (5) finite, (6) infinite, (7) both, (8) neither." [53]
"These are the eight ways in which these ascetics and Brahmins proclaim a doctrine of Neither-Conscious-Nor-Unconscious Post-Mortem Survival. There is no other way."
"This, monks, the Tathágata understands...These, monks, are those other matters, profound, hard to see…which the Tathágata, having realized them by his own super knowledge, proclaims, and about which those who would truthfully praise the Tathágata would rightly speak."
"There are, monks, some ascetics and Brahmins who are Annihilationists, who proclaim the annihilation, destruction and non-existence of beings, and they do so in seven ways. On what basis?"
Wrong view 51: "Here a certain ascetic or Brahmin declares and holds the view: ‘Since this self is material, composed of the four great elements, [54] the product of mother and father, [55] at the breaking up of the body is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death. This is the way in which this self is annihilated.’ That is how some proclaim the annihilation, destruction and non-existence of beings."
Wrong view 52: Another says to him : ‘Sir, there is such a self as you say. I don't deny it. But that self is not wholly annihilated. For there is another self, divine, [56] material, belonging to the sense-sphere, [57] fed on real food. [58] You don't know it or see it, but I do. It is this self that at the breaking-up of the body perishes..." [59]
Wrong view 53: Another says to him : "Sir, there is such a self as you say. I don't deny it. But that self is not wholly annihilated. For there is another self, divine, material, mind made, [60] complete with all its parts, not defective in any sense organ...It is this self that at the breaking-up of the body perishes..."
Wrong view 54: Another says to him : "Sir, there is such a self as you say ... There is another self which, by passing entirely beyond bodily sensations, by the disappearance of all sense of resistance and by non-attraction to the perception of diversity, seeing that space is infinite, has realized the Sphere of Infinite Space. [61] It is this self that at the breaking up of the body perishes. . ."
Wrong view 55: Another says to him : "There is another self which, by passing entirely beyond the Sphere of Infinite Space, seeing that consciousness is infinite, has realized the Sphere of Infinite Consciousness. It is this self that at the breaking-up of the body perishes..."
Wrong view 56: Another says to him : "There is another self which, by passing entirely beyond the Sphere of Infinite Consciousness, seeing that there is no thing, has realized the Sphere of No-Thing-ness. It is this self that at the breaking-up of the body perishes..."
Wrong view 57: Another says to him: "Sir, there is such a self as you say. I don't deny it. But that self is not wholly annihilated. For there is another self which, by passing entirely beyond the Sphere of No-Thing-ness and seeing : This is peaceful, this is sublime, has realized the Sphere of Neither Perception-Nor-Non-Perception. You don't know it or see it, but I do. It is this self that at the breaking-up of the body is annihilated and perishes, and does not exist after death. This is the way in which the self is completely annihilated." That is how some proclaim the annihilation, destruction and non-existence of beings.
"These are the seven ways in which these ascetics and Brahmins proclaim a doctrine of annihilation, destruction and non-existence of beings...There is no other way."
"This, monks, the Tathágata understands ... These, monks, are those other matters, profound, hard to see, which the Tathágata, having realized them by his own super-knowledge, proclaims, and about which those who would truthfully praise the Tathágata would rightly speak."
---
"When those ascetics and Brahmins who are speculators about the past, the future, or both, having fixed views, put forward views in sixty-two different ways, that is conditioned by contact."
"That all of these (Eternalists and the rest) should experience that feeling without contact is impossible."
"With regard to all of these …, they experience these feelings by repeated contact through the six sense-bases; [71]feeling conditions craving; craving conditions clinging; clinging conditions becoming; becoming conditions birth; birth conditions ageing and death, sorrow, lamentation, sadness and distress. When, monks, a monk understands as they really are the arising and passing away of the six bases of contact, their attraction and peril, and the deliverance from them, he knows that which goes beyond all these views."[72]
"Whatever ascetics and Brahmins who are speculators about the past or the future or both, having fixed views on the matter and put forth speculative views about it, these are all trapped in the net with its sixty-two divisions, and wherever they emerge and try to get out, they are caught and held in this net. Just as a skilled fisherman or his apprentice might cover a small piece of water with a fine-meshed net, thinking : ‘Whatever larger creatures there may be in this water, they are all trapped in the net, caught, and held in the net’, so it is with all these : they are trapped and caught in this net."
"Monks, the body of the Tathágata stands with the link that bound it to becoming cut. [73] As long as the body subsists, Devas and humans will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of the life-span, Devas and humans will see him no more. Monks, just as when the stalk of a bunch of mangoes has been cut, all the mangoes on it go with it, just so the Tathágata's link with becoming has been cut. As long as the body subsists, Devas and humans will see him. But at the breaking-up of the body and the exhaustion of the life-span, Devas and humans will see him no more."
At these words the Venerable Ánanda said to the Lord : "It is marvelous, Lord, it is wonderful. What is the name of this exposition of Dhamma?"
"Ánanda, you may remember this exposition of Dhamma as the Net of Advantage, the Net of Dhamma, the Supreme Net, the Net of Views, or as the Incomparable Victory in Battle."
Thus the Lord spoke, and the monks rejoiced and were delighted at his words. And as this exposition was being proclaimed, the ten-thousand world-system shook.
In other words, to all sides of this debate, 'shut up and sit down'. Quit speculating and forming views. 'There is a self' is a view. 'There is not a self' is a view. That's it. Quit clinging to mental designations of any sort. Whether there is or is not something to be regarded as a self is irrelevent.
It might have been Dogen who said the following:
'Do not seek Reality, it will suffice to do away with views'
What a wonderful debate to find on my return. Thank you all. Another proof of the value of the resource and blessing that this site has become.
The question of self/non-self is a crucial one in the discussion of the Dharma in the post-Enlightenment West, where the self is glorified and set above the community, the teaching or, even, the other. That it should raise such heat among us as well is highly significant and I have enjoyed the hours that I have spent following (and not following) the arguments, references and quotations in this thread - a real gift to the insomniac.
In the end, as Elohim has demonstrated, there is no 'proof' either way, there is only belief/opinion that this or that translation and interpretation is correct. That such beliefs are founded on texts rather than on experience is what leads to dissention. After nearly six decades of reading, in more than half-a-dozen languages, I have begun to realise that the written word is extremely dangerous, capable of instant misinterpretation and entirely contingent on the meaning attributed by the reader!
In the end, the blessings of the Third Noble Truth, the end of stess, arises not from reading, writing, teaching or learning. As has been quoted above:
Maataa-pitu-upa.t.thaana"m
putta-daarassa sa"ngaho
Anaakulaa ca kammantaa
etam-ma"ngalam-uttama"m.
Support for one's parents, assistance to one's wife & children,
Jobs that are not left unfinished:
This is the highest good fortune.
As another teacher is reported as saying, a couple of millennia ago, "Go and do likewise."
good thread. The atta/anatta stuff is core stuff in Buddha sasana...
But i somehow miss the new post from Bobby_Lanier and Vacchagota:-))
They were excellent.
Maybe what had to be said, was said. Who had ear to hear, heared..
Especially Vacchagota, i agree with 90%with him, and i admire his patitent and and the exert on eleborated argumentation and supported with original Buddha teaching.
I can not understand why so many people could not understand him.
If only they express their disagreement it would fair. But i see often how their argumentation turn to ad hominem allusion and insinuation.
What is intersted feature of argumentation - their arguments what Buddha taught through (very oftern poor) interpreation of other scholars or monks, it seems also thei are dependent on it.
Very little they rely on their own reason and on Buddha teaching in suttas, and if someone something quote he inteprete it through glasses of preconception of ideology"no atta, no subject."
It is unbelievable, schoolars like Nyanaponika and Rahula constructed quite different buddhism. They say that Budda said something which he was not said, they even deceive with false reference to sutta..
It is shame..
How many people here speak form their experince? Yet they make impression of absolute certainty about there is no self or subjet outside 5skandhas.
Ofcourse no everyone pretend such certainty, but i speak also from expreince from other forums.
So, read more sutta and then practise on basic of samma dithi or the practise will be poor.
And they should ask if such understanding or view bring benefit or no.(kamama sutta):rocker:
I hate to admit it, but your very first post kind of put me off.
I think Bobby and Vach both made some excellent points and comments regarding their thoughts and other peoples' comments.
It has been my experience that people who fall into the "there is a self" realm typically come in here ridiculing or demeaning those who's beliefs do not follow the "there is a self" mentality. Then all hell breaks lose for some reason.
I hope that your first impression isn't a negative one. I also hope that you realize that people on here are able to have debates regarding different ideologies without it turning ugly.
Welcome - hope you enjoy your stay.
-bf
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2006
Welcome, anavasesa....
The whole thread is one of debate and discussion....Nobody HAS to agree with anyone....it's a question of trial, discovery and exploration....and understanding that whilst we hold views, they should be as flexible and supple as a reed in the wind.....iThere is nothing absolutely Right, nor is there anything absolutely Wrong.....in many discussions, some have stuck by their opinions, and others have revised their views after further exprience...Life is, after all, a wondrous learning curve.....:)
Welcome, A. I see you must have found this thread from the reference to it in the websangha forum.
Although this thread has been long-inactive, I am interested to read what you have to say on the 10% you disagree with me on. It should be very fascinating.
Have i said that someone has to agree with someone else?:-)
This stress i feel from orthodoxians.
I have talked about understanding. I can you understand ant therefor not agree.
And i see that some exert very little work and struggle to understand Vaccha f.e.
and that people despite they all proclamatin "attasarana" dont rely on theri own judgment and reason, dont rely what they see in suttas. That is all.
Welcome, A. I see you must have found this thread from the reference to it in the websangha forum.
Although this thread has been long-inactive, I am interested to read what you have to say on the 10% you disagree with me on. It should be very fascinating.
in friendliness,
V.
:bigclap:
This thread is much better and more free then on websangha whitout annoying moderators, people here are more open, but not enough either:-)
I think most of them i feel respect.
To say 100% agree it would could look like c*nspiracy:-)
Certainly, i would find (maybe) what i dont quite agree or see a little diffrent. Now it does not occur me anything.-)
It is unbelievable, schoolars like Nyanaponika and Rahula constructed quite different buddhism. They say that Budda said something which he was not said, they even deceive with false reference to sutta..
It is shame..
I think it is statements such as these that cause a lot of conflict (which causes a lot of the moderators to be 'annoying' elsewhere). I would suggest not calling them liars. Perhaps it would do you well to reflect on the other possibilities, including the one that they have based their understandings off of experience as well.
And if you're going to bother with such accusatory statements towards venerated buddhists, it would be best if you cited specific examples of how their translation was wrong & in what manner they have deceived people.
Also, please understand that there is legitimate argument over whether & when 'atta' is being used in its conventional, reflexive sense & when it is being used in some sort of transcendental or eternal sense. While you may say that 'attasaranam' supports your view, I may counter with the buddha's statement that 'the whole of the holy life can be found within this fathom long body' rather than outside of it. So, while you may state that we simply don't understand what Vacch is getting at, I would suggest that it is more along the lines of disagreement. I would also suggest that we are all referencing our own personal experience to the best of our abilities (not just some of us). Please don't make assumptions.
I think it is statements such as these that cause a lot of conflict (which causes a lot of the moderators to be 'annoying' elsewhere). I would suggest not calling them liars. Perhaps it would do you well to reflect on the other possibilities, including the one that they have based their understandings off of experience as well. (1)
And if you're going to bother with such accusatory statements towards venerated buddhists, it would be best if you cited specific examples of how their translation was wrong & in what manner they have deceived people. (2)
Also, please understand that there is legitimate argument over whether & when 'atta' is being used in its conventional, reflexive sense & when it is being used in some sort of transcendental or eternal sense. While you may say that 'attasaranam' supports your view, I may counter with the buddha's statement that 'the whole of the holy life can be found within this fathom long body' rather than outside of it. So, while you may state that we simply don't understand what Vacch is getting at, I would suggest that it is more along the lines of disagreement. I would also suggest that we are all referencing our own personal experience to the best of our abilities (not just some of us). Please don't make assumptions.
Thanks
_/\_
metta
Hi,
1)I will say, what i see or think. i dont want deform my tongue and pretend anything.
I like direct style.
I hope you are free to say what you want too.
Haven to you read the analysis of rahula article from Vacchagata? There were striking proof of deceiving or misleading either from ignorance or deliberatly in order to promote their ideology. For me is not venereble who hold so strong to sakkaya-ditthi and spread it wide.
I have also noticed that you not very politate and quite disdainful to some people whose someone else also hold in respect
Buddha also stated the yellow robe dont make monk venereble or respektful. His criterion was far more strictly and pertains of whose eradicatd completly 3poisons or live accordence middle way.
2) No, i dont have to cite any examples.
The example was given by Vacchagata.
I dont speak not about translations, i speak about their comments and essay. Translation then can suffer from it as well, but this is not now the point.
As to Nyanaponika misleading glossary and views, he also dont trouble with citing from suttas where Buddha literelly stated "there is no self" there is nothig out 5skkandas".
If it of such importence and such stuning truth why didnot Buddha stressed and repeat like repated statement about anatta?
Just the opposite. He literally explicitly call view "no self" as nihilism, as heresy, as nonsense. And hudred time were convincing us that 5skandhas are painful, we should detached from them, to find solid, and safe refuge in nibbana or atta. He alone was the example who cross the river of samsara and 5skandhas.
If one would be 5skandhas or one of them, holy life would not be possible.
NOW:
Also, please understand that there is legitimate argument over whether & when 'atta' is being used in its conventional
:-)))
And you please understand, that i found NO legitimate argument over that "atta" is used merely conventional. My reason, my expriences, my checking up of suttas sayi, it is nonsnes and absurd statement someone who has eyes full sand.
I would not afford to assert something which i have not examined and understood.
And if you say, that atta is uses in "conventional " way, that teaching of anatta is also convetional, and have no absolute validity!
And all term including nibbana, amata, bliss can be also convetinal, so this is only proof of seculasation and profanation of dhamma.
Anyway I dont say, that it has never reflexive meaning(but what is the core of reflexivness:-)), that it has alwayes metafysical meaning, but it related to subject which is to be detached from 5skandhas, from word.
And i would like to answer also with your sentence: referencing our own personal experience to the best of our abilities (not just some of us). Please don't make assumptions.
I have already met with my "transcendtal self".
And such "self" has nothing to do with 5skandhas.
So just for some who lack this experince, they are so hesitent. Are such people who lack this obviously experience more wiser?
Just as a clarification, I hold the opinion (at this point) that clinging to any view of self is unskillful as views are simply mental formations. This means the view of 'there is no self' too. Not just the other way. In my understanding, trying to ascertain the truth in such a manner is pointless & bound for failure.
In fact, this whole question seems rather pointless as far as my practice is concerned & I have no reason to assert any view on anatta beyond "form is not-self, etc." That includes a view that this is a via negativa teaching on what the 'self' actually is. If it does exist it is beyond the grasp of consciousness & certainly beyond any sort of conceptualization. With this in mind, I am currently attempting to remain silent on this issue, as any conclusion I attempt to draw, is simply a drawn conclusion (in other words, a mental fabrication). It is also non-essential to the path, imo.
So, I won't debate that you 'met your Self' although I would be interested in hearing what exactly you meant by such a statement. I would also state that I have conversed with individuals whose experience has confirmed the illusory nature of what we normally regard as 'self' and have not asserted any sort of 'higher self' in its place. So, going off of the experience of others (and even my own) is a questionable basis for any conclusion on this subject.
Ok, i see you have shift to reasonable and pracital position.
But i think a few month ago, you were an advocate of "no self".
So when understand that "no dithi" is false then, you must agree with me that Nyanatyloka failed trap of false view, didno he?
But atta is just subjet of experinence, the source of sati. If i speak with you i try to speak with atta. How can i talk to body, to feeling, perception, formation, sensual perception??
I speak to whom who know he is alive.
There is no mystery on this stage. But also this "self" some therevadin reject.
But people dont know what they actually are, the know thery are alive, but not know what are they, from where the feeling come.
Their mind is perturbed, unclean, confused and dull, therefor they can not see "oneself"
It is like sun hidden behind the clouds. Dim light is here, but no know see the source of it, and the radiance of sun is also limited. But the sun really exist.
So the cloud are our kilesas, we should remove from us, then the natural state or source of our self become more clearer and clerer.
Here we start to reveal the mystery of us, formlessness, depth, power of what is actually our awareness (citta) or self.
But the start point is to learn discerning what we are not. That we can see cleary. This the method of Buddha and not only Buddha, yoga, advaita as well.
So we should not declare what is atta look like, but there is basic predicite and basic that there is atta,subjet which could start to understand what is it not.
Then intuitivly and from contemplation and meditation one start to understand and feel the vastness of ourself, the nature of our mind(citta)
to sum it up.
It is like small bay of see. It could seem to limited by banks or even it could seem it is only a river or lake or mesuareble lake, but if one start to investigete where does it lead, he well find that is lake is in fact the ocean, unmeasurable ocean.
But the water which is to be investigeted is always here wheter we think it small or vast.
To deny existenc of water means to get stuck on sandbuck. To get stuck in view, there bay is only lake mean not to start investige and stay sting to the bay.
So one need not reject atta to stay on solid empirical ground.
One need not reject atta or atman in sense of upanishad and metafysical superiority to stay on solid empirical ground.
For it is experience of many sages, which induce trust, and Buddha called this experince nibbanam.
If there would not be any transcendency,the spiritual path has no sense,all would be destined to perish, and spirituality would be only theatre for society
One need not coin the doctrine of ultimate atta to admit it logical the real existence.
There is only herery in suttas - and this sakkaya-ditthi.
But if one can already gained the knowledge or glimpses of it and intuitivly understand fully,it that he can speak about it more particular sense, without doubt of it, but of course that does not mean full enlightenemt or full knowledge.
This all cases not contradict.
with metta.
ps- in fact there would be no need to trying to prove existence "atta" if there would not be any denials of "atta" of subject at all, who can be liberated and not anihilited.
And such liberation of subject in final stages does not mean that it is something personal at all, for it is byond all form either physical or mental! Therefor this is called cittavimutti.
Actually, my position has not really shifted all that much. My point is that I no longer find this debate to be worthwhile. I think what happens in this debate is that one side declares, 'there is a self', the other side refutes it & then is taken to be stating the position that 'there is no self.' This happens the other way around too. That is why I feel this debate is largely unskillful & is non-essential. I have no need to say that the Buddha was teaching of a Self beyond the khandas through via negativa (neti, neti). Nor do I have the need to say otherwise. And it seems that as soon as one side says something one way or another, they are immediately accused of either eternalism or nihilism. Basically, it seems that any absolute expression either way is not the point of the teaching of anatta.
Now, that said, I would like to clarify that I still feel that there is no way to establish a self or that the Buddha implied any such thing. So, in that sense, I can say with some confidence that I don't think that Buddhism necessarily teaches the same thing as the Upanishads and other Hindu paths such as Advaita. However I cannot say whether or not the refutation of various views of Atta in the suttas completely covers the Upanishadic view (as this was arguably a later development).
My main problem is when others try to merge the paths and say they are teaching the same thing (or non-thing). I don't think the people have gone far enough into those respective paths to really be able to say such a thing with any authority.
Also, 'sabbe dhamma anatta' covers citta, sati & Nibbanna in my understanding, so I don't think they can be regarded as a self. I also am not sure whether what's left can be regarded as a self either. As far as I can tell, even if you could regard any experience as such, there would be no point in arguing with others who acheived the same state who did not choose to regard anything as a 'self'. After all, 'self' is just a word/concept. It may be useful (for some) as an expedient means to a dissolution of ego, but ultimately I do not see it as anything more than that. However, in the Buddhist path, I think such language is avoided intentionally, and simply is not necessary.
I also don't wish to declare what was not declared by the Buddha. Perhaps you can argue that some individuals on the not-self side have gone to far in their speech. However, I do tend to favor their expression over the Self side, as the former seems to have less negative side affects (at least for me) and does seem to be more technically correct (& less vague for that matter). Still, as I said before, Clinging to views aka view dependency of any sort is spoken against by the Buddha, so while I favor the not-self side, I do so for practical reasons, rather than to make some sort of ontological declaration. I would also like to suggest that it is difficult to determine to what level the Buddhists you have questioned cling to such views. It is, for that reason, difficult to determine whether (and to what extent) they have actually commited any offenses or spoken falsely.
Hmmm... I guess be it Self or no Self, the gist here is to take it as there is no Self - not clinging onto the concept of a Self.. :rockon: In practice, I don't really feel that the Soul is in me... More as moving bits of information that make up my consciousness in my inflated head..
you contradict your self very good:-) You first state, "i have no opionions" than you start to explain why do you hold the view" there is no self all over:-)
Also, 'sabbe dhamma anatta' covers citta, sati & Nibbanna in my understanding, so I don't think they can be regarded as a self.
How do you know that sabbe dhamma cover citta, or mainly nibbana?? What is a context of this sentence?
Experince? no.
Accepted interpretion from others? yes.
And if not only hold the view like parrot, which would be unskillful (sure?), then you have it because you understand it.
And if you understand it, then you will be able to explain it, will you not?
In suttas are always anatta in conection with 5skandhas, with what is conditioned.
WHY suddenly here should be nibbana dhamma, and why should be nibbana be anatta? WHY Buddha NO WHERE literally stated "nibbana is anata"??!!
Please will you give explanation?
2. What dou you mean if you say that something is anata , no self, no i ?
I hope you find it these question not disruptive but the challenge to make yourself more clear and transparent.
Thank you.
you contradict your self very good:-) You first state, "i have no opionions" than you start to explain why do you hold the view" there is no self all over:-)
Please re-read my last post. If you read it, you will notice that I simply stated my preference, which was largely a practical one, not an ontological declaration. I also stated that, while I have a definite preference, I don't even consider that preference to be ultimately true & I certainly don't consider myself bound by it. I just (at this time) see more problems with the view you are proclaiming than the one I prefer. Honestly, re-read my statements & please note that I do not agree that there is any contradiction. I'm really not trying to be tricky.
Also, in regard to the 'sabbe dhamma anatta' thing, nibbana is regarded as an asamskrita (unconditioned) dhamma in other sections of the Tipitaka, so it follows that it would fit my understanding. Now, I have heard there is some debate over the significance of sabbe in that statement, but I have not really heard any solid arguments to go against my conclusions on this subject.
And the context of this sentence is
"sabbe sankhara anicca,
sabbe sankhara dukkha,
sabbe dhamma anatta."
I don't remember the sutta reference, but it has been previously referenced in this thread. I may look for it later, but I imagine you could find it in a google search.
Anyway, as I have said repeatedly, I no longer find much value from this debate. I really don't think it matters, & my practice is not at the point where I can determine any non-speculative conclusions, so I am taking this whole thing with a big grain of salt. I suggest that others do likewise. Until you reach stages of highly developed concentration, there is really no point in going beyond the 'form is anatta, etc' teaching in either direction, and that is arguable that the buddha advised us not to do so anyway. In other words, I think that doing so is beyond the intention of the Buddha & until I see something suggesting otherwise, I'm not really going to put much salt into this debate.
Also, in regard to the 'sabbe dhamma anatta' thing, nibbana is regarded as an asamskrita (unconditioned) dhamma in other sections of the Tipitaka, so it follows that it would fit my understanding. Now, I have heard there is some debate over the significance of sabbe in that statement, but I have not really heard any solid arguments to go against my conclusions on this subject.
And the context of this sentence is
"sabbe sankhara anicca,
sabbe sankhara dukkha,
sabbe dhamma anatta."
I don't remember the sutta reference, but it has been previously referenced in this thread. I may look for it later, but I imagine you could find it in a google search.
Earlier in the thread I cited Thanissaro's note from the Sabba sutta as a fairly strong argument against inclusion of Nibbana within the scope of Sabbe Dhamma. You say you have not heard any solid arguments, so if Thanissaro's brief comments did not convince you, maybe you would appreciate the following article that I read in connection with a thread on another web forum about "sabbe dhamma anatta". Although the author most certainly does not advocate for self in or as Nibbana, his case against including Nibbana in "sabbe dhamma anatta" is very strong, broadly supported (broad in breadth of sutta examination) and much more thoroughly examined than in Thanissaro's brief notes. I just wanted to post the link, as I believe you will find it very valuable, interesting, and quite sympathetic to your view. Obviously I do not fully agree with the author's thinking on self, but from one point of view I can see he is not far from the mark. http://www.quangduc.com/English/psychology/16nirvana.html
in friendliness,
V.
p.s. Was looking to confirm this, which has not proven fruitful since it seems the atthakathas are not in very good circulation, but I have heard that the commentary to this passage (in Dhp: sabbe dhamma anatta) states unequivocally that by "sabbe dhamma" the five khandhas are meant (clearly not including non-conditioned dhammas).
Also, in regard to the 'sabbe dhamma anatta' thing, nibbana is regarded as an asamskrita (unconditioned) dhamma in other sections of the Tipitaka, so it follows that it would fit my understanding. Now, I have heard there is some debate over the significance of sabbe in that statement, but I have not really heard any solid arguments to go against my conclusions on this subject.
And the context of this sentence is
"sabbe sankhara anicca,
sabbe sankhara dukkha,
sabbe dhamma anatta."
I don't remember the sutta reference, but it has been previously referenced in this thread. I may look for it later, but I imagine you could find it in a google search.
Anyway, as I have said repeatedly, I no longer find much value from this debate. I really don't think it matters, & my practice is not at the point where I can determine any non-speculative conclusions, so I am taking this whole thing with a big grain of salt. I suggest that others do likewise. Until you reach stages of highly developed concentration, there is really no point in going beyond the 'form is anatta, etc' teaching in either direction, and that is arguable that the buddha advised us not to do so anyway. In other words, I think that doing so is beyond the intention of the Buddha & until I see something suggesting otherwise, I'm not really going to put much salt into this debate.
_/\_
metta
Hi not1not2,
hi, this is not in any sutta!
I wanted the proper context from sutta.
And i wanted you to explaint how do understand this.
What do you mean if you say this anata, it is no "atta", this is not me, not i?
It is pitty, that you are overlooking my arguments, and dont express to them, and ignore my questions.
Anyway, as I have said repeatedly, I no longer find much value from this debate.
?? Have you anyone to compell you to participate on this diskussion?
The topic is given and i am expressing myself to this topic.
If dont find the value in this debate, and have you clear position in all, then you dont have to continue.
is it right?
hi, this is not in any sutta!
I wanted the proper context from sutta.
And i wanted you to explaint how do understand this.
What do you mean if you say this anata, it is no "atta", this is not me, not i?
It is pitty, that you are overlooking my arguments, and dont express to them, and ignore my questions.
Anyway, as I have said repeatedly, I no longer find much value from this debate.
?? Have you anyone to compell you to participate on this diskussion?
The topic is given and i am expressing myself to this topic.
If dont find the value in this debate, and have you clear position in all, then you dont have to continue.
is it right?
Honestly, I really don't know what to say to you anymore. I have explained my position pretty exhaustively. It seems you are not really getting what I'm saying. I am not simply 'overlooking' your arguments. I'm not even going to bother to reiterate what I've already said. It seems to me that there are some communication barriers right now & I'm not sure how to resolve them.
Also, it seems as though you are challenging me to an exhaustive debate. As I have said, while I have my opinions on the subject, I do not consider myself to be able to make any definite conclusions at this stage of my practice (so why should I bother 'proving' my position?). I have attempted to do so in the past, and I have realized the fruitlessness of attempting to prove either side of this debate. I really don't think it can be done.
Now, the recent article linked by Vacchagotta does elucidate on the 'sabbe dhamma' issue & seems to indicate that the usage of dhamma may not necessarily be meant to include nibbana by giving an example where dhamma was used in a manner which definitely excluded nibbana as a dhamma. Still, the article goes on to explain that nibbana still cannot the suttas (in my understanding) tend to assert that giving any further explanation or qualities to nibbana is to 'complicate the uncomplicated'. The idea is that to give qualities to nibbana is, by definition, a wrong approach as Nibbana is beyond the scope of mental qualification. The only definite conclusion that can definitely be said about nibbana is that it is a cessation of the aggregates. Additionally, you will find little support in the suttas or in commentaries which suggest anything even close to nibbana being atta. Basically, I have no reason to make any such equation and (at least for the time being) I consider any extrapolation beyond saying 'form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.' to be unnecessary & arguably misguided. That applies to my own opinion as well.
I understand you will disagree with me, but honestly this issue seems more of a hindrance to my practice than a boon. At least for the time being (perhaps I will reapproach it later). I simply felt compelled to defend the other side of the issue. You can criticize it all you want & you may even discredit it. Nonetheless, the invalidation of the other side of this issue does not mean that your side is correct. Also, I will favor the explanations of those who have dedicated their lives to the path and have acheived some of the higher fruits, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi & the like, over the opinions of anyone else on this forum, myself included.
Additionally, your first post on this subject was attacking Venerables, saying they were being deceitful without even referencing Vacchagotta's posts/analysis & how they support such a conclusion (you still have not really explained this). I respect Vacchagotta & his opinion, but I'm not sure his comments can be considered an authoritative condemnation of these venerables as deceiving the Buddhist masses or spreading wrong view. That may be your opinion, but you do need to support such attacks with your own reasoning, not simply fall back on posts by Vacch from several months ago.
That is what started my involvement in this. Then you started pointing accusations at me, so I defended myself. Honestly, I don't really want to be put on trial here or aggressively cross-examined. Sorry.
Also, you saying you 'met your Self' is not proof of your position, and you would have to explain this much further if you want to regard it as such. Otherwise, why don't you start providing some sutta references & give some elucidation as to why your interpretation of the Pali is superior or desirable to the currently accepted translations & commentaries by Venerables & respected scholars.
_/\_
metta
P.S.-I do have my own opinions on this subject that I feel are well supported. However, as opinions are conditioned formations, they are impermanent, unsatisfactory & non-substantial. That is why I do not cling to them even though I still have them. I suggest you regard your opinions & conclusions in a similar manner (if you want to be faithful to the buddhas teachings).
I'm getting a little tired of this passive-aggressive behavior.
This isn't www.convert-to-my-buddhism.com. In fact, the owner of this site has stated on multiple occassions that this site is for people new to Buddhism. There are plenty of sites on the internet for pontificating - unless participation in those forums has already been exhausted.
So at some point everyone is just going to have to realize that people have varying views about this "self/no-self" crap again.
You can state your point or your thoughts.
You can even read other people's thoughts or comments.
Doing so in a fashion that is denigrating or is passive-aggresively attacking someone elses thoughts or opinions is something I'm very tired of in this same old "self" -vs- "no-self" crap.
Continously trying to drag someone into a debate by mocking them or demeaning what they've said ON A SITE THAT IS FOR PEOPLE NEW TO BUDDHISM is something I'm getting very tired of.
So... in short - since we could all work on using Right Speech, Right Intention, Right Mindfulness, etc. ...
BTW, Buddhafoot. I checked that link & it didn't work (www.convert-to-my-buddhism.com). Perhaps you should report the problem to the Administrator or something?
Re-read the commentary. It is certainly interesting & does seem to support the idea pretty well that nibbana is not necessarily included in 'sabbe dhamma'. I will refrain from using this passage as an authoritative argument anymore. Still, the end of the passage does seem to support that nibbana cannot be regarded as atta, regardless.
spoken by Buddha or by later commentators?:scratch:
Why not, we can then let us set out the analysis of this analogy, but from sutta:-)
Oh please, what is this 'desire' of authority? All that exists are commentaries or recollections at best. From what I understand the words of the Buddha were written some 500-600 years after the Buddha's passing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Were not the original texts were written and rewritten on leaves?
As I studied this system I saw a numberical system for easy recollection due to the nature that the techings were passed on by oral tradition.
-3- sources of refuge from suffering
-4- noble truths
-5- skandhas
then there's a skip to
-8-fold path. Who can say that it wasn't originally a 6 fold path?
Buddhism IMO is an open dialogue ( the Dhamma ) free of preconceptions, and this can only be possible because one becomes aware that there is only 'what is' and that their preconceptions and the rest are not the "living dhamma" but history. I think the Buddha would have had has words scribed verbatim and passed down if he meant otherwise.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2006
* As with all things, this discussion is impermanent, and will soon be usurped by something also worthy of attention. However, it bears noting that I have taken an interest in developments..... *
I hope yall don't hnk I'm trolling. I was redaing through this part of the thread and I wanted to comment.
Thanks for your patience.
Oh please, all that exists are commentaries or recollections at best. From what I understand the words of the Buddha were written some 500-600 years after the Buddha's passing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Were not the original texts were written and rewritten on leaves?
As I studied this system I saw a numberical system for easy recollection due to the nature that the techings were passed on by oral tradition.
-3- sources of refuge from suffering
-4- noble truths
-5- skandhas
then there's a skip to
-8-fold path. Who can say that it wasn't originally a 6 fold path?
Buddhism IMO is an open dialogue dialogue ( the Dhamma ) free of preconceptions, and this can only be possible because one becomes aware that there is only 'what is' and that their preconceptions and the rest are not the "living dhamma" but history. I think the Buddha would have had has words scribed verbatim and passed down if he meant otherwise.
I hope yall don't think I'm trolling. I was redaing through this part of the thread and I wanted to comment.
Thanks for your patience.
Oh please, what is this 'desire' of authority? All that exists are commentaries or recollections at best. From what I understand the words of the Buddha were written some 500-600 years after the Buddha's passing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Were not the original texts were written and rewritten on leaves?
As I studied this system I saw a numberical system for easy recollection due to the nature that the techings were passed on by oral tradition.
-3- sources of refuge from suffering
-4- noble truths
-5- skandhas
then there's a skip to
-8-fold path. Who can say that it wasn't originally a 6 fold path?
Buddhism IMO is an open dialogue ( the Dhamma ) free of preconceptions, and this can only be possible because one becomes aware that there is only 'what is' and that their preconceptions and the rest are not the "living dhamma" but history. I think the Buddha would have had has words scribed verbatim and passed down if he meant otherwise.
You make a great point.
If one is going to go through the written teachings of Buddha - you probably should have been there hanging out with him to get the exact wording.
Even Christians who go on about "the word of God" have to remember that someone wrote this stuff after the passing of Christ - even the Gospels don't match word for word and it's the same damn story! Later, people who were given the task, decided which books would be included in "the Bible" and which ones weren't. Who were they to decide which tellings actually made it into this "Bible" thing they came up with!?!?!?!
If one is going to go through the written teachings of Buddha - you probably should have been there hanging out with him to get the exact wording.
Even Christians who go on about "the word of God" have to remember that someone wrote this stuff after the passing of Christ - even the Gospels don't match word for word and it's the same damn story! Later, people who were given the task, decided which books would be included in "the Bible" and which ones weren't. Who were they to decide which tellings actually made it into this "Bible" thing they came up with!?!?!?!
-bf
I think that the literalist attitude of recent Christrian exegesis, with its emphasis on "inerrancy" has tended to skew the Western attitude to sacred texts. It is very different from the way in which holy stories are used within other traditions.
But it has been my experience that ministers will start tearing apart the Bible - "from the Greek this" or "from the Hebrew that" ...
The story or lesson become secondary to someone else trying to jockey the scriptures around to meet their purpose.
I think the story and the teaching is what is most important.
An old story speaks about a similar problem. A devoted meditator, after years concentrating on a particular mantra, had attained enough insight to begin teaching. The student's humility was far from perfect, but the teachers at the monastery were not worried.
A few years of successful teaching left the meditator with no thoughts about learning from anyone; but upon hearing about a famous hermit living nearby, the opportunity was too exciting to be passed up.
The hermit lived alone on an island at the middle of a lake, so the meditator hired a man with a boat to row across to the island. The meditator was very respectful of the old hermit. As they shared some tea made with herbs the meditator asked him about his spiritual practice. The old man said he had no spiritual practice, except for a mantra which he repeated all the time to himself. The meditator was pleased: the hermit was using the same mantra he used himself -- but when the hermit spoke the mantra aloud, the meditator was horrified!
"What's wrong?" asked the hermit.
"I don't know what to say. I'm afraid you've wasted your whole life! You are pronouncing the mantra incorrectly!"
"Oh, Dear! That is terrible. How should I say it?"
The meditator gave the correct pronunciation, and the old hermit was very grateful, asking to be left alone so he could get started right away. On the way back across the lake the meditator, now confirmed as an accomplished teacher, was pondering the sad fate of the hermit.
"It's so fortunate that I came along. At least he will have a little time to practice correctly before he dies." Just then, the meditator noticed that the boatman was looking quite shocked, and turned to see the hermit standing respectfully on the water, next to the boat.
"Excuse me, please. I hate to bother you, but I've forgotten the correct pronunciation again. Would you please repeat it for me?"
"You obviously don't need it," stammered the meditator; but the old man persisted in his polite request until the meditator relented and told him again the way he thought the mantra should be pronounced.
The old hermit was saying the mantra very carefully, slowly, over and over, as he walked across the surface of the water back to the island.
BTW, Buddhafoot. I checked that link & it didn't work (www.convert-to-my-buddhism.com). Perhaps you should report the problem to the Administrator or something?
:P
_/\_
metta
Funny boy.
You've been hanging around that jerk, Buddhafoot too long.
The Buddha regarded soul-speculation as useless and illusory. He once said, 'Only through ignorance and delusion do men indulge in the dream that their souls are separate and self-existing entities. Their heart still clings to Self. They are anxious about heaven and they seek the pleasure of Self in heaven. Thus they cannot see the bliss of righteousness and the immortality of truth.' Selfish ideas appear in man's mind due to his conception of Self and craving for existence.
To understand the Anatta doctrine, one must understand that the eternal soul theory _ 'I have a soul' _ and the material theory _ 'I have no soul' _are both obstacles to self-realization or salvation. They arise from the misconception 'I AM'. Hence, to understand the Anatta doctrine, one must not cling to any opinion or views on soul-theory; rather, one must try to see things objectively as they are and without any mental projections. One must learn to see the so-called 'I' or Soul or Self for what it really is : merely a combination of changing forces.
The belief in soul or Self and the Creator God, is so strongly rooted in the minds of many people that they cannot imagine why the Buddha did not accept these two issues which are indispensable to many religions. In fact some people got a shock or became nervous and tried to show their emotion when they heard that the Buddha rejected these two concepts. That is the main reason why to many unbiased scholars and psychologists Buddhism stands unique when compared to all the other religions. At the same time, some other scholars who appreciate the various other aspects of Buddhism thought that Buddhism would be enriched by deliberately re-interpreting the Buddha word 'Atta' in order to introduce the concept of Soul and Self into Buddhism. The Buddha was aware of this unsatisfactoriness of man and the conceptual upheaval regarding this belief.
All conditioned things are impermanent,
All conditioned things are Dukka,Suffering,
All conditioned or unconditioned things
are soulless or selfless. (Dhammapada 277, 278, 279)
2.If to translate the term Atta as soul, we can call it straight the "God". If we say, that body is not God it will also right.
3.Buddha nowhere denied god creator - Brahma. He even visited and talked with him.
4. There is substantial difference between Brahma-god "creator" and Brahman. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman) Brahman was and is ultimate reality, formless, ineffeble, dethless beyond all samsara.
If someone achieved nibbana Buddha called such arhant also "bhrahman-become"
5.
qoute: According to Buddhism there is no reason to believe that there is an eternal soul that comes from heaven or that is created by itself and that will transmigrate or proceed straight away either to heaven or hell after death.
Where did Buddha say it?
Maybe the author regarded Buddha to met and refuted christians dogmas, and wants also misuse Buddha as cadgel on christians doctrine and belief. But in Buddha´s times such primitive belief regarding the "soul" did not occur.
But what is fact and Buddha taught- there is samsara- samsara means the human undergos constantly rebirth. And regarding to karma he goes to heaven or to human realm or even in hell. This is fact, which we can find suttas.
Buddha was not intersted on creating abstract ideology - "there is no soul", or compelled people to accept there is no soul to denying others loofty philosophy as path to liberation.
Just the opposite.
Buddha´s teaching about anatta was strictly practical - body, feelings, pereception, etc. is no Atta - is not self, it is not my, this i am not One should come and see on his own "eyes" the truth,and on this basis one should stop identify with them!
No one think about, that body is his soul, or his feel is his soul.
Soul in most cases stand for hiegher spirit, divine sparkle, which animate the human being and impart man, or as spiritual force which also animate man or is responsible for psychic properties.
It is nonsense say that Buddha rejected soul as such, because the human being is animated by living force, it would be like to reject body.
And human being has deep inside divine qualities. Of course such soul also should not have been atta.
What is such "soul" capable we can read in Kevatta sutta.
So what would be the point that Buddha taugth that 5skandhas are not soul in this sense?
The ignorance of sakkaya ditthi and asminama could flourish further.
NO. atta is just atta. Atta is not idea or formation.
As water is different from stone,alike the atta is diffrent from 5skhandas.
6.Therefor Buddha wast not the teacher who taught " what we call ego, self, soul, personality, etc., are merely conventional terms that do not refer to any real, independent entity."
NO.He did not taught any conventional anatta. He taught there is no atta in ego at all, there is no atta in 5skandhas. From not knowing this truth the ingorance arise, the ego arise.
quote:A prominent author, W.S. Wily, once said, 'The existence of the immortal in man is becoming increasingly discredited under the influence of the dominant schools of modern thought.' The belief in the immortality of the soul is a dogma that is contradicted by the most solid, empirical truth.
And what say this "empirical truth or position" about existence of nibbana? Buddha speak cleary about deahtless (synonynum for immortal) "realm".
This is the knowlidge wich come throgh exctinction of ignorance, ignorance of inentifing with 5skandhas.
7.The purported qoute from dhammapada is deception (and dhamma here dont mean unconditioned thing!) It is inadmissible to pull off 1sentece from one verse, then again, and again and assemble it as independent new verse! This unfair tactic which some ucchedavind dressing like monks use.
It is like to take first noble truth, or better one sentence from it and say: this is all what Buddha taught.
So to make thing straight:
Dhammapada
277-279
When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are inconstant' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.
When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are stressful' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.
When you see with discernment,
'All phenomena are not-self' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity
(thanissaro)
or
277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
(Buddharakkhita)
Here dhamma are thing, which are subdued to suffering and one should turn away from them. Would someone dare to say that unconditined nibbana is full of suffering and should turn away from it??
NO.
So, please, people, dont let be manipulated.
This babble is quite good ilustration which reflect the belief of many buddhist today, the materialistic, secular tendencies and hostile attitude toward all transcendental, divine, pure, utmost based on rumours
I think, this work is derivation and statements of work of some scholars and therevadist (ucchedavadist) monks, for i have read there the same or approximate statements and argumentation in their work and comments
This article is great ilustration what will the "new buddhist" untrainend and unlearned, common people draw and yield from their work.
With the greatest respect, Anavasesa, the author of the quotation that Brigid shared is identified as K.Sri Dhammananda. I have done a 'Google' search on the Venerable Dhammananda: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/
You will be able to satisfy yourself that he wrote according to his own orthodoxy as, no doubt, so do you.
It is unfortunate that you give us little clue as to your own bona fides. Normally, this would be of little account but you make absolutist stements. I, for one, would greatly appreciate an outline of the personal or academic route that you have taken in order to arrive at such certainty.
BTW, whilst I might agree or diagree with the quotation or your own post, I would advise that the word "disgusting" adds little to the debate.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited August 2006
* You took the words right out of my mouth Simon.
Before I am prepared to accept the submission of one more post, anywhere, from Anavasesa, I too would like to know with which authority he - or she - speaks.
Secondly, I am editting his post, so that the reference to 'disgusting' has now been removed. *
Comments
It is more likely that many of the Buddha’s discourses were given to those who leaned towards eternalism. This is the belief that one or more of the khandhas (aggregates, attributes) are the self while the remaining ones make up the world.
It goes without saying that in no discourse did the Buddha argue with anyone who proclaimed the self to be transcendent! One cannot even imagine how it might be possible to refute such a claim, namely, that the self is transcendent to all determinations.
As I hope to make it clear, the Buddha lectured to those who leaned towards eternalism. Following this, we need a good working definition of ‘eternalism’. Here is one taken from Udana Commentary (atthakatha) which is quite clear.
Those who leaned towards eternalism identified themselves with one of the five khandhas believing, for example, that consciousness, the last khandha, might be the self. In light of this, the Buddha corrected such a view by teaching that the self or, atta, is not a khandhas such as form (rupa).
Against the postulate that the Buddha denied the self, the above passage clearly indicates that he did not deny the self. The Buddha is saying no more than what we truly are as a ‘self’ cannot be found in what is impermanent and suffering comprising the five khandhas.
The Buddha’s project was not to convince annihilationists of a transcendent self, but to teach weak eternalists that five khandhas are not the self. In light of the aforementioned this passage makes sense.
The context of the above is from a Sutta which deals with one’s engagement with the five khandhas; that one who is engaged with them is not liberated. On the other hand, when the fifth khandha, namely, consciousness or awareness is unestablished, the self is truly liberated.
To sum this up briefly, the Buddha had no interest in lecturing to strong annihilationists who denied the self. Rather his efforts were directed to weak eternalists who believed that one of the five khandhas is the self while the rest make up the world. His aim, therefore, was to introduce weak eternalists to the self which is liberated from the five khandhas, thus eliminating suffering as a result. This is the true 'not-self' doctrine, namely, I am not the khandhas.
Love ya all,
Bobby
Here's a related article from access to insight:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/walshe/wheel261.html
_/\_
metta
In the Brahmajala Sutta of the Digha-Nikaya there is described some seven types of annihilationists. In the first view the self is said to be composed of material elements which are the combination of father and mother. This self, however, is destroyed with the dissolution of the body. Other annihilationists believed in a self belonging to the sensuous plane which is also annihilated. Another sect believed in a self made-of-mind, this, too, being destroyed with the death of the body. Still others believed in a self which was beyond the plane of ideas of form which extended to the sphere of infinite space. It, too, was subject to eventual destruction. Some contested this and believed the self went even further to the plane of infinite consciousness or to the spheres of no obstruction which was eventually annihilated. The highest stage of annihilationism in which the self was destroyed was an idea and non-idea state.
I think one would be justified in characterizing the annihilationist doctrine (ucchedavada) as an impermanence-only doctrine. Nothing in the way of a perdurable state exists which is free of impermanence, i.e., destruction (uccheda) moment by moment.
Both the heresies of annihilationism and eternalism find their basis in the five aggregates. The annihilationist is said to be of nirattaditthi, that is, the view of soullessness or unsubstantiality in which the self, being dependent upon the five aggregates, is destroyed when the aggregates dissolve. By comparison, the eternalist adheres to attaditthi, which is the belief that one aggregate is the eternal self and the rest are the world.
The Buddha many times said that his self was not connected with the five aggregates to wit it did not fall into either the heresy of annihilationism or eternalism since both were aggregate based.
Love ya all,
Bobby
http://www.buddhistinformation.com/ida_b_wells_memorial_sutra_library/brahmajala_sutta.htm
In other words, to all sides of this debate, 'shut up and sit down'. Quit speculating and forming views. 'There is a self' is a view. 'There is not a self' is a view. That's it. Quit clinging to mental designations of any sort. Whether there is or is not something to be regarded as a self is irrelevent.
It might have been Dogen who said the following:
'Do not seek Reality, it will suffice to do away with views'
_/\_
metta
The question of self/non-self is a crucial one in the discussion of the Dharma in the post-Enlightenment West, where the self is glorified and set above the community, the teaching or, even, the other. That it should raise such heat among us as well is highly significant and I have enjoyed the hours that I have spent following (and not following) the arguments, references and quotations in this thread - a real gift to the insomniac.
In the end, as Elohim has demonstrated, there is no 'proof' either way, there is only belief/opinion that this or that translation and interpretation is correct. That such beliefs are founded on texts rather than on experience is what leads to dissention. After nearly six decades of reading, in more than half-a-dozen languages, I have begun to realise that the written word is extremely dangerous, capable of instant misinterpretation and entirely contingent on the meaning attributed by the reader!
In the end, the blessings of the Third Noble Truth, the end of stess, arises not from reading, writing, teaching or learning. As has been quoted above:
Maataa-pitu-upa.t.thaana"m
putta-daarassa sa"ngaho
Anaakulaa ca kammantaa
etam-ma"ngalam-uttama"m.
Support for one's parents, assistance to one's wife & children,
Jobs that are not left unfinished:
This is the highest good fortune.
As another teacher is reported as saying, a couple of millennia ago, "Go and do likewise."
good thread. The atta/anatta stuff is core stuff in Buddha sasana...
But i somehow miss the new post from Bobby_Lanier and Vacchagota:-))
They were excellent.
Maybe what had to be said, was said. Who had ear to hear, heared..
Especially Vacchagota, i agree with 90%with him, and i admire his patitent and and the exert on eleborated argumentation and supported with original Buddha teaching.
I can not understand why so many people could not understand him.
If only they express their disagreement it would fair. But i see often how their argumentation turn to ad hominem allusion and insinuation.
What is intersted feature of argumentation - their arguments what Buddha taught through (very oftern poor) interpreation of other scholars or monks, it seems also thei are dependent on it.
Very little they rely on their own reason and on Buddha teaching in suttas, and if someone something quote he inteprete it through glasses of preconception of ideology"no atta, no subject."
It is unbelievable, schoolars like Nyanaponika and Rahula constructed quite different buddhism. They say that Budda said something which he was not said, they even deceive with false reference to sutta..
It is shame..
How many people here speak form their experince? Yet they make impression of absolute certainty about there is no self or subjet outside 5skandhas.
Ofcourse no everyone pretend such certainty, but i speak also from expreince from other forums.
So, read more sutta and then practise on basic of samma dithi or the practise will be poor.
And they should ask if such understanding or view bring benefit or no.(kamama sutta):rocker:
Welcome the the site.
I hate to admit it, but your very first post kind of put me off.
I think Bobby and Vach both made some excellent points and comments regarding their thoughts and other peoples' comments.
It has been my experience that people who fall into the "there is a self" realm typically come in here ridiculing or demeaning those who's beliefs do not follow the "there is a self" mentality. Then all hell breaks lose for some reason.
I hope that your first impression isn't a negative one. I also hope that you realize that people on here are able to have debates regarding different ideologies without it turning ugly.
Welcome - hope you enjoy your stay.
-bf
The whole thread is one of debate and discussion....Nobody HAS to agree with anyone....it's a question of trial, discovery and exploration....and understanding that whilst we hold views, they should be as flexible and supple as a reed in the wind.....iThere is nothing absolutely Right, nor is there anything absolutely Wrong.....in many discussions, some have stuck by their opinions, and others have revised their views after further exprience...Life is, after all, a wondrous learning curve.....:)
Thank you for your input.
Welcome, A. I see you must have found this thread from the reference to it in the websangha forum.
Although this thread has been long-inactive, I am interested to read what you have to say on the 10% you disagree with me on.
in friendliness,
V.
Have i said that someone has to agree with someone else?:-)
This stress i feel from orthodoxians.
I have talked about understanding. I can you understand ant therefor not agree.
And i see that some exert very little work and struggle to understand Vaccha f.e.
and that people despite they all proclamatin "attasarana" dont rely on theri own judgment and reason, dont rely what they see in suttas. That is all.
:bigclap:
This thread is much better and more free then on websangha whitout annoying moderators, people here are more open, but not enough either:-)
I think most of them i feel respect.
To say 100% agree it would could look like c*nspiracy:-)
Certainly, i would find (maybe) what i dont quite agree or see a little diffrent. Now it does not occur me anything.-)
I think it is statements such as these that cause a lot of conflict (which causes a lot of the moderators to be 'annoying' elsewhere). I would suggest not calling them liars. Perhaps it would do you well to reflect on the other possibilities, including the one that they have based their understandings off of experience as well.
And if you're going to bother with such accusatory statements towards venerated buddhists, it would be best if you cited specific examples of how their translation was wrong & in what manner they have deceived people.
Also, please understand that there is legitimate argument over whether & when 'atta' is being used in its conventional, reflexive sense & when it is being used in some sort of transcendental or eternal sense. While you may say that 'attasaranam' supports your view, I may counter with the buddha's statement that 'the whole of the holy life can be found within this fathom long body' rather than outside of it. So, while you may state that we simply don't understand what Vacch is getting at, I would suggest that it is more along the lines of disagreement. I would also suggest that we are all referencing our own personal experience to the best of our abilities (not just some of us). Please don't make assumptions.
Thanks
_/\_
metta
Hi,
1)I will say, what i see or think. i dont want deform my tongue and pretend anything.
I like direct style.
I hope you are free to say what you want too.
Haven to you read the analysis of rahula article from Vacchagata? There were striking proof of deceiving or misleading either from ignorance or deliberatly in order to promote their ideology.
For me is not venereble who hold so strong to sakkaya-ditthi and spread it wide.
I have also noticed that you not very politate and quite disdainful to some people whose someone else also hold in respect
Buddha also stated the yellow robe dont make monk venereble or respektful. His criterion was far more strictly and pertains of whose eradicatd completly 3poisons or live accordence middle way.
2) No, i dont have to cite any examples.
The example was given by Vacchagata.
I dont speak not about translations, i speak about their comments and essay. Translation then can suffer from it as well, but this is not now the point.
As to Nyanaponika misleading glossary and views, he also dont trouble with citing from suttas where Buddha literelly stated "there is no self" there is nothig out 5skkandas".
If it of such importence and such stuning truth why didnot Buddha stressed and repeat like repated statement about anatta?
Just the opposite. He literally explicitly call view "no self" as nihilism, as heresy, as nonsense. And hudred time were convincing us that 5skandhas are painful, we should detached from them, to find solid, and safe refuge in nibbana or atta. He alone was the example who cross the river of samsara and 5skandhas.
If one would be 5skandhas or one of them, holy life would not be possible.
NOW:
Also, please understand that there is legitimate argument over whether & when 'atta' is being used in its conventional
:-)))
And you please understand, that i found NO legitimate argument over that "atta" is used merely conventional. My reason, my expriences, my checking up of suttas sayi, it is nonsnes and absurd statement someone who has eyes full sand.
I would not afford to assert something which i have not examined and understood.
And if you say, that atta is uses in "conventional " way, that teaching of anatta is also convetional, and have no absolute validity!
And all term including nibbana, amata, bliss can be also convetinal, so this is only proof of seculasation and profanation of dhamma.
Anyway I dont say, that it has never reflexive meaning(but what is the core of reflexivness:-)), that it has alwayes metafysical meaning, but it related to subject which is to be detached from 5skandhas, from word.
And i would like to answer also with your sentence:
referencing our own personal experience to the best of our abilities (not just some of us). Please don't make assumptions.
I have already met with my "transcendtal self".
And such "self" has nothing to do with 5skandhas.
So just for some who lack this experince, they are so hesitent. Are such people who lack this obviously experience more wiser?
Live in peace.
A.
I have accounted with intersting document:
1000top words in suttas.
What do you think that attano and various compound of it were ranked?:-))
And how many times "natthatta" no atta?:-)
In fact, this whole question seems rather pointless as far as my practice is concerned & I have no reason to assert any view on anatta beyond "form is not-self, etc." That includes a view that this is a via negativa teaching on what the 'self' actually is. If it does exist it is beyond the grasp of consciousness & certainly beyond any sort of conceptualization. With this in mind, I am currently attempting to remain silent on this issue, as any conclusion I attempt to draw, is simply a drawn conclusion (in other words, a mental fabrication). It is also non-essential to the path, imo.
So, I won't debate that you 'met your Self' although I would be interested in hearing what exactly you meant by such a statement. I would also state that I have conversed with individuals whose experience has confirmed the illusory nature of what we normally regard as 'self' and have not asserted any sort of 'higher self' in its place. So, going off of the experience of others (and even my own) is a questionable basis for any conclusion on this subject.
_/\_
metta
Ok, i see you have shift to reasonable and pracital position.
But i think a few month ago, you were an advocate of "no self".
So when understand that "no dithi" is false then, you must agree with me that Nyanatyloka failed trap of false view, didno he?
But atta is just subjet of experinence, the source of sati. If i speak with you i try to speak with atta. How can i talk to body, to feeling, perception, formation, sensual perception??
I speak to whom who know he is alive.
There is no mystery on this stage. But also this "self" some therevadin reject.
But people dont know what they actually are, the know thery are alive, but not know what are they, from where the feeling come.
Their mind is perturbed, unclean, confused and dull, therefor they can not see "oneself"
It is like sun hidden behind the clouds. Dim light is here, but no know see the source of it, and the radiance of sun is also limited. But the sun really exist.
So the cloud are our kilesas, we should remove from us, then the natural state or source of our self become more clearer and clerer.
Here we start to reveal the mystery of us, formlessness, depth, power of what is actually our awareness (citta) or self.
But the start point is to learn discerning what we are not. That we can see cleary. This the method of Buddha and not only Buddha, yoga, advaita as well.
So we should not declare what is atta look like, but there is basic predicite and basic that there is atta,subjet which could start to understand what is it not.
Then intuitivly and from contemplation and meditation one start to understand and feel the vastness of ourself, the nature of our mind(citta)
to sum it up.
It is like small bay of see. It could seem to limited by banks or even it could seem it is only a river or lake or mesuareble lake, but if one start to investigete where does it lead, he well find that is lake is in fact the ocean, unmeasurable ocean.
But the water which is to be investigeted is always here wheter we think it small or vast.
To deny existenc of water means to get stuck on sandbuck. To get stuck in view, there bay is only lake mean not to start investige and stay sting to the bay.
So one need not reject atta to stay on solid empirical ground.
One need not reject atta or atman in sense of upanishad and metafysical superiority to stay on solid empirical ground.
For it is experience of many sages, which induce trust, and Buddha called this experince nibbanam.
If there would not be any transcendency,the spiritual path has no sense,all would be destined to perish, and spirituality would be only theatre for society
One need not coin the doctrine of ultimate atta to admit it logical the real existence.
There is only herery in suttas - and this sakkaya-ditthi.
But if one can already gained the knowledge or glimpses of it and intuitivly understand fully,it that he can speak about it more particular sense, without doubt of it, but of course that does not mean full enlightenemt or full knowledge.
This all cases not contradict.
with metta.
ps- in fact there would be no need to trying to prove existence "atta" if there would not be any denials of "atta" of subject at all, who can be liberated and not anihilited.
And such liberation of subject in final stages does not mean that it is something personal at all, for it is byond all form either physical or mental! Therefor this is called cittavimutti.
A.
Now, that said, I would like to clarify that I still feel that there is no way to establish a self or that the Buddha implied any such thing. So, in that sense, I can say with some confidence that I don't think that Buddhism necessarily teaches the same thing as the Upanishads and other Hindu paths such as Advaita. However I cannot say whether or not the refutation of various views of Atta in the suttas completely covers the Upanishadic view (as this was arguably a later development).
My main problem is when others try to merge the paths and say they are teaching the same thing (or non-thing). I don't think the people have gone far enough into those respective paths to really be able to say such a thing with any authority.
Also, 'sabbe dhamma anatta' covers citta, sati & Nibbanna in my understanding, so I don't think they can be regarded as a self. I also am not sure whether what's left can be regarded as a self either. As far as I can tell, even if you could regard any experience as such, there would be no point in arguing with others who acheived the same state who did not choose to regard anything as a 'self'. After all, 'self' is just a word/concept. It may be useful (for some) as an expedient means to a dissolution of ego, but ultimately I do not see it as anything more than that. However, in the Buddhist path, I think such language is avoided intentionally, and simply is not necessary.
I also don't wish to declare what was not declared by the Buddha. Perhaps you can argue that some individuals on the not-self side have gone to far in their speech. However, I do tend to favor their expression over the Self side, as the former seems to have less negative side affects (at least for me) and does seem to be more technically correct (& less vague for that matter). Still, as I said before, Clinging to views aka view dependency of any sort is spoken against by the Buddha, so while I favor the not-self side, I do so for practical reasons, rather than to make some sort of ontological declaration. I would also like to suggest that it is difficult to determine to what level the Buddhists you have questioned cling to such views. It is, for that reason, difficult to determine whether (and to what extent) they have actually commited any offenses or spoken falsely.
_/\_
metta
_/\_
metta
you contradict your self very good:-) You first state, "i have no opionions" than you start to explain why do you hold the view" there is no self all over:-)
Also, 'sabbe dhamma anatta' covers citta, sati & Nibbanna in my understanding, so I don't think they can be regarded as a self.
How do you know that sabbe dhamma cover citta, or mainly nibbana??
What is a context of this sentence?
Experince? no.
Accepted interpretion from others? yes.
And if not only hold the view like parrot, which would be unskillful (sure?), then you have it because you understand it.
And if you understand it, then you will be able to explain it, will you not?
In suttas are always anatta in conection with 5skandhas, with what is conditioned.
WHY suddenly here should be nibbana dhamma, and why should be nibbana be anatta?
WHY Buddha NO WHERE literally stated "nibbana is anata"??!!
Please will you give explanation?
2. What dou you mean if you say that something is anata , no self, no i ?
I hope you find it these question not disruptive but the challenge to make yourself more clear and transparent.
Thank you.
spoken by Buddha or by later commentators?:scratch:
Why not, we can then let us set out the analysis of this analogy, but from sutta:-)
Please re-read my last post. If you read it, you will notice that I simply stated my preference, which was largely a practical one, not an ontological declaration. I also stated that, while I have a definite preference, I don't even consider that preference to be ultimately true & I certainly don't consider myself bound by it. I just (at this time) see more problems with the view you are proclaiming than the one I prefer. Honestly, re-read my statements & please note that I do not agree that there is any contradiction. I'm really not trying to be tricky.
Also, in regard to the 'sabbe dhamma anatta' thing, nibbana is regarded as an asamskrita (unconditioned) dhamma in other sections of the Tipitaka, so it follows that it would fit my understanding. Now, I have heard there is some debate over the significance of sabbe in that statement, but I have not really heard any solid arguments to go against my conclusions on this subject.
And the context of this sentence is
"sabbe sankhara anicca,
sabbe sankhara dukkha,
sabbe dhamma anatta."
I don't remember the sutta reference, but it has been previously referenced in this thread. I may look for it later, but I imagine you could find it in a google search.
Anyway, as I have said repeatedly, I no longer find much value from this debate. I really don't think it matters, & my practice is not at the point where I can determine any non-speculative conclusions, so I am taking this whole thing with a big grain of salt. I suggest that others do likewise. Until you reach stages of highly developed concentration, there is really no point in going beyond the 'form is anatta, etc' teaching in either direction, and that is arguable that the buddha advised us not to do so anyway. In other words, I think that doing so is beyond the intention of the Buddha & until I see something suggesting otherwise, I'm not really going to put much salt into this debate.
_/\_
metta
Earlier in the thread I cited Thanissaro's note from the Sabba sutta as a fairly strong argument against inclusion of Nibbana within the scope of Sabbe Dhamma. You say you have not heard any solid arguments, so if Thanissaro's brief comments did not convince you, maybe you would appreciate the following article that I read in connection with a thread on another web forum about "sabbe dhamma anatta". Although the author most certainly does not advocate for self in or as Nibbana, his case against including Nibbana in "sabbe dhamma anatta" is very strong, broadly supported (broad in breadth of sutta examination) and much more thoroughly examined than in Thanissaro's brief notes. I just wanted to post the link, as I believe you will find it very valuable, interesting, and quite sympathetic to your view. Obviously I do not fully agree with the author's thinking on self, but from one point of view I can see he is not far from the mark.
http://www.quangduc.com/English/psychology/16nirvana.html
in friendliness,
V.
p.s. Was looking to confirm this, which has not proven fruitful since it seems the atthakathas are not in very good circulation, but I have heard that the commentary to this passage (in Dhp: sabbe dhamma anatta) states unequivocally that by "sabbe dhamma" the five khandhas are meant (clearly not including non-conditioned dhammas).
_/\_
metta
Hi not1not2,
hi, this is not in any sutta!
I wanted the proper context from sutta.
And i wanted you to explaint how do understand this.
What do you mean if you say this anata, it is no "atta", this is not me, not i?
It is pitty, that you are overlooking my arguments, and dont express to them, and ignore my questions.
Anyway, as I have said repeatedly, I no longer find much value from this debate.
?? Have you anyone to compell you to participate on this diskussion?
The topic is given and i am expressing myself to this topic.
If dont find the value in this debate, and have you clear position in all, then you dont have to continue.
is it right?
Honestly, I really don't know what to say to you anymore. I have explained my position pretty exhaustively. It seems you are not really getting what I'm saying. I am not simply 'overlooking' your arguments. I'm not even going to bother to reiterate what I've already said. It seems to me that there are some communication barriers right now & I'm not sure how to resolve them.
Also, it seems as though you are challenging me to an exhaustive debate. As I have said, while I have my opinions on the subject, I do not consider myself to be able to make any definite conclusions at this stage of my practice (so why should I bother 'proving' my position?). I have attempted to do so in the past, and I have realized the fruitlessness of attempting to prove either side of this debate. I really don't think it can be done.
Now, the recent article linked by Vacchagotta does elucidate on the 'sabbe dhamma' issue & seems to indicate that the usage of dhamma may not necessarily be meant to include nibbana by giving an example where dhamma was used in a manner which definitely excluded nibbana as a dhamma. Still, the article goes on to explain that nibbana still cannot the suttas (in my understanding) tend to assert that giving any further explanation or qualities to nibbana is to 'complicate the uncomplicated'. The idea is that to give qualities to nibbana is, by definition, a wrong approach as Nibbana is beyond the scope of mental qualification. The only definite conclusion that can definitely be said about nibbana is that it is a cessation of the aggregates. Additionally, you will find little support in the suttas or in commentaries which suggest anything even close to nibbana being atta. Basically, I have no reason to make any such equation and (at least for the time being) I consider any extrapolation beyond saying 'form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.' to be unnecessary & arguably misguided. That applies to my own opinion as well.
I understand you will disagree with me, but honestly this issue seems more of a hindrance to my practice than a boon. At least for the time being (perhaps I will reapproach it later). I simply felt compelled to defend the other side of the issue. You can criticize it all you want & you may even discredit it. Nonetheless, the invalidation of the other side of this issue does not mean that your side is correct. Also, I will favor the explanations of those who have dedicated their lives to the path and have acheived some of the higher fruits, such as Bhikkhu Bodhi & the like, over the opinions of anyone else on this forum, myself included.
_/\_
metta
That is what started my involvement in this. Then you started pointing accusations at me, so I defended myself. Honestly, I don't really want to be put on trial here or aggressively cross-examined. Sorry.
Also, you saying you 'met your Self' is not proof of your position, and you would have to explain this much further if you want to regard it as such. Otherwise, why don't you start providing some sutta references & give some elucidation as to why your interpretation of the Pali is superior or desirable to the currently accepted translations & commentaries by Venerables & respected scholars.
_/\_
metta
P.S.-I do have my own opinions on this subject that I feel are well supported. However, as opinions are conditioned formations, they are impermanent, unsatisfactory & non-substantial. That is why I do not cling to them even though I still have them. I suggest you regard your opinions & conclusions in a similar manner (if you want to be faithful to the buddhas teachings).
This isn't www.convert-to-my-buddhism.com. In fact, the owner of this site has stated on multiple occassions that this site is for people new to Buddhism. There are plenty of sites on the internet for pontificating - unless participation in those forums has already been exhausted.
So at some point everyone is just going to have to realize that people have varying views about this "self/no-self" crap again.
-bf
Who am I referring to? I'm not going to say.
Let's just say that:
You can state your point or your thoughts.
You can even read other people's thoughts or comments.
Doing so in a fashion that is denigrating or is passive-aggresively attacking someone elses thoughts or opinions is something I'm very tired of in this same old "self" -vs- "no-self" crap.
Continously trying to drag someone into a debate by mocking them or demeaning what they've said ON A SITE THAT IS FOR PEOPLE NEW TO BUDDHISM is something I'm getting very tired of.
So... in short - since we could all work on using Right Speech, Right Intention, Right Mindfulness, etc. ...
If you read this and the shoe fits... wear it.
-bf
Not1Not2,
It would be faster if I just linked you directly to the Sabba Sutta. Thanissaro's comments are in the footnote.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html
in friendliness,
V.
Okey dokie. Thanks
_/\_
metta
P.S.-I enjoyed the article you linked in your last post.
-bf
:P
_/\_
metta
_/\_
metta
Thanks for your patience.
Oh please, what is this 'desire' of authority? All that exists are commentaries or recollections at best. From what I understand the words of the Buddha were written some 500-600 years after the Buddha's passing. Correct me if I'm wrong. Were not the original texts were written and rewritten on leaves?
As I studied this system I saw a numberical system for easy recollection due to the nature that the techings were passed on by oral tradition.
-3- sources of refuge from suffering
-4- noble truths
-5- skandhas
then there's a skip to
-8-fold path. Who can say that it wasn't originally a 6 fold path?
Buddhism IMO is an open dialogue ( the Dhamma ) free of preconceptions, and this can only be possible because one becomes aware that there is only 'what is' and that their preconceptions and the rest are not the "living dhamma" but history. I think the Buddha would have had has words scribed verbatim and passed down if he meant otherwise.
No trolling assumed. You might want to check out this article though (the first part about the 3 councils especially). Just an FYI:
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html
_/\_
metta
You make a great point.
If one is going to go through the written teachings of Buddha - you probably should have been there hanging out with him to get the exact wording.
Even Christians who go on about "the word of God" have to remember that someone wrote this stuff after the passing of Christ - even the Gospels don't match word for word and it's the same damn story! Later, people who were given the task, decided which books would be included in "the Bible" and which ones weren't. Who were they to decide which tellings actually made it into this "Bible" thing they came up with!?!?!?!
-bf
I think that the literalist attitude of recent Christrian exegesis, with its emphasis on "inerrancy" has tended to skew the Western attitude to sacred texts. It is very different from the way in which holy stories are used within other traditions.
But it has been my experience that ministers will start tearing apart the Bible - "from the Greek this" or "from the Hebrew that" ...
The story or lesson become secondary to someone else trying to jockey the scriptures around to meet their purpose.
I think the story and the teaching is what is most important.
-bf
Funny boy.
You've been hanging around that jerk, Buddhafoot too long.
-bf
From this website.
2.If to translate the term Atta as soul, we can call it straight the "God". If we say, that body is not God it will also right.
3.Buddha nowhere denied god creator - Brahma. He even visited and talked with him.
4. There is substantial difference between Brahma-god "creator" and Brahman. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahman) Brahman was and is ultimate reality, formless, ineffeble, dethless beyond all samsara.
If someone achieved nibbana Buddha called such arhant also "bhrahman-become"
5.
qoute: According to Buddhism there is no reason to believe that there is an eternal soul that comes from heaven or that is created by itself and that will transmigrate or proceed straight away either to heaven or hell after death.
Where did Buddha say it?
Maybe the author regarded Buddha to met and refuted christians dogmas, and wants also misuse Buddha as cadgel on christians doctrine and belief. But in Buddha´s times such primitive belief regarding the "soul" did not occur.
But what is fact and Buddha taught- there is samsara- samsara means the human undergos constantly rebirth. And regarding to karma he goes to heaven or to human realm or even in hell. This is fact, which we can find suttas.
Buddha was not intersted on creating abstract ideology - "there is no soul", or compelled people to accept there is no soul to denying others loofty philosophy as path to liberation.
Just the opposite.
Buddha´s teaching about anatta was strictly practical - body, feelings, pereception, etc. is no Atta - is not self, it is not my, this i am not One should come and see on his own "eyes" the truth,and on this basis one should stop identify with them!
No one think about, that body is his soul, or his feel is his soul.
Soul in most cases stand for hiegher spirit, divine sparkle, which animate the human being and impart man, or as spiritual force which also animate man or is responsible for psychic properties.
It is nonsense say that Buddha rejected soul as such, because the human being is animated by living force, it would be like to reject body.
And human being has deep inside divine qualities. Of course such soul also should not have been atta.
What is such "soul" capable we can read in Kevatta sutta.
So what would be the point that Buddha taugth that 5skandhas are not soul in this sense?
The ignorance of sakkaya ditthi and asminama could flourish further.
NO. atta is just atta. Atta is not idea or formation.
As water is different from stone,alike the atta is diffrent from 5skhandas.
6.Therefor Buddha wast not the teacher who taught " what we call ego, self, soul, personality, etc., are merely conventional terms that do not refer to any real, independent entity."
NO.He did not taught any conventional anatta. He taught there is no atta in ego at all, there is no atta in 5skandhas. From not knowing this truth the ingorance arise, the ego arise.
quote:A prominent author, W.S. Wily, once said, 'The existence of the immortal in man is becoming increasingly discredited under the influence of the dominant schools of modern thought.' The belief in the immortality of the soul is a dogma that is contradicted by the most solid, empirical truth.
And what say this "empirical truth or position" about existence of nibbana?
Buddha speak cleary about deahtless (synonynum for immortal) "realm".
This is the knowlidge wich come throgh exctinction of ignorance, ignorance of inentifing with 5skandhas.
7.The purported qoute from dhammapada is deception (and dhamma here dont mean unconditioned thing!)
It is inadmissible to pull off 1sentece from one verse, then again, and again and assemble it as independent new verse! This unfair tactic which some ucchedavind dressing like monks use.
It is like to take first noble truth, or better one sentence from it and say: this is all what Buddha taught.
So to make thing straight:
Dhammapada
277-279
When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are inconstant' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.
When you see with discernment,
'All fabrications are stressful' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity.
When you see with discernment,
'All phenomena are not-self' —
you grow disenchanted with stress.
This is the path
to purity
(thanissaro)
or
277. "All conditioned things are impermanent" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
278. "All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
279. "All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
(Buddharakkhita)
Here dhamma are thing, which are subdued to suffering and one should turn away from them.
Would someone dare to say that unconditined nibbana is full of suffering and should turn away from it??
NO.
So, please, people, dont let be manipulated.
This babble is quite good ilustration which reflect the belief of many buddhist today, the materialistic, secular tendencies and hostile attitude toward all transcendental, divine, pure, utmost based on rumours
I think, this work is derivation and statements of work of some scholars and therevadist (ucchedavadist) monks, for i have read there the same or approximate statements and argumentation in their work and comments
This article is great ilustration what will the "new buddhist" untrainend and unlearned, common people draw and yield from their work.
Let us turn to origin teaching in suttas
http://www.ksridhammananda.com/
You will be able to satisfy yourself that he wrote according to his own orthodoxy as, no doubt, so do you.
It is unfortunate that you give us little clue as to your own bona fides. Normally, this would be of little account but you make absolutist stements. I, for one, would greatly appreciate an outline of the personal or academic route that you have taken in order to arrive at such certainty.
BTW, whilst I might agree or diagree with the quotation or your own post, I would advise that the word "disgusting" adds little to the debate.
Before I am prepared to accept the submission of one more post, anywhere, from Anavasesa, I too would like to know with which authority he - or she - speaks.
Secondly, I am editting his post, so that the reference to 'disgusting' has now been removed. *