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.
I have added Anavesesa to my ignore list for the time being, so I will no longer be able to read or respond to his/her posts. I do this for multiple reasons, but mostly for his insults. I'm having a hard time finding anything that is helpful in understanding his POV between all the smearing, slamming & accusations. If you want to talk to me, Anavasesa, please PM me.
I can understand Anavasesa's strong language can be off-putting. Part of me doesn't like to be called disgusting, either. But sometimes things really are subjectively disgusting to a person. It is like saying "that idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth," or even "that really sticks in my craw," which somehow sound milder but it is the same subjective reaction. It is more polite, however, to let that remain unexpressed and stick to the point itself. By deleting "disgusting," federica, you have demonstrated quite well that the substantial message is not lost without such language. So even though I generally don't like moderators editing posts just on principle, I think your action contains a valuable lesson and for that I commend it.
And the point he/she made is worthy, and it has been discussed before in this thread, even recently. But this aspect of Dhp 277-279 has not yet been so clearly pointed out until Anavasesa did.
Firstly, it has been noted that very clearly to add "conditioned or unconditioned" to any translation of "sabbe dhamma anatta" is an obvious gloss. The words which specify conditioned or unconditioned do not occur, and it is clearly placed there to deliberately emphasize an interpretive choice on the breadth of "sabbe dhamma." Recent posts have shown that the argument against this interpretive gloss is significant. But even more easy is it to see Anavasesa's point that these three statements (sabbe sankhara...sabbe sankhara...sabbe dhamma) have thus been so clearly taken out of context, made to stand unqualified and alone when in the original text they do not stand alone and unelaborated; that context is that sabbe sankhara and sabbe dhamma are linked in this passage to suffering, which one turns away from as the path to purity. Nibbana is not such a thing to be considered as linked with suffering and for turning away from.
And yet, this thread is about anatta vs. atta, not nibbana. If my arm gets cut off & I see that I no longer have an arm, that does not mean that I now have some 'arm essense.' Nibbana is the same way as it is the cutting off of the cankers. It cannot be described in a purely positive or negative sense. Also, I really don't see how the 'sabbe dhamma anatta' line is actually being taken out of context or necessarily misapplied (except for taking nibbana as included in 'sabbe dhamma'). BTW, it also found in AN 3.134, not just the Dhammapada.
I would like to say that if anybody says that Nibbana is full of suffering, they really don't know what the heck they're talking about, regardless of their opinion/stance on the atta issue. I don't really recall anyone stating such a thing at any point.
Additionally, as the word dhamma is expressed in the final line, rather than sankhara (formations), then we should recognize some sort of distinction here. I do not find it necessarily exclude unconditioned dhammas from 'sabbe dhamma' either.
Sankhárá are first, volitions; secondly, what form the formed; and thirdly, the five aggregates, the living being. Volitions, thus, are what form the formed; and what is formed is the living being. Combining these, we get a single phrase, 'volitions form the living being', which covers all three meanings. This we shall take as expressing the general sense of sankhárá. The emphasis, in particular contexts, on any one of these three aspects may be more than on the others, as the quotations show; but if the general sense is entirely forgotten in such contexts, the essential background connecting different uses of the word sankhaárá is lost; and many passages, thus isolated, become hard to understand. If the context does not indicate any one particular aspect, then sankhárá may be understood in its general sense.
...
In these quotations, and in many other passages, dhammá -- here translated as the neutral word 'things' -- means anything that can be the object of mind-consciousness (as opposed to eye-consciousness and so on), or in brief, 'objects of the mind'.
The second quotation shows that dhammá, as objects of the mind, are impermanent. Nibbána, being permanent, is clearly not an object of the mind; for if it were, consciousness and nibbána would both cease together, and lust, hate, and delusion, would return to plague an Arahat upon his death -- a strange state of affairs.
...
From the discussion in the last paragraph, it is apparent that dhammá as 'elements of mental analysis' represents what is common to both dhammá as 'objects of the mind' and dhammá as 'experiences' (in its widest sense); for 'elements of mental analysis' are experiences that have become objects of the analysing mind. We can now formulate a general sense of dhammá that is valid at least within the range of meanings indicated by the Suttas that have been considered: dhammá are 'objects of mental analysis'. This general sense has been derived, not as an exact definition of dhammá, but as a guide to the implication of sabbe dhammá anattá.
When this result is applied, sabbe dhammá anattá becomes 'all objects of mental analysis are not-self'. Since attá, or self, arises in the first place merely as a delusive figment of the mind, and is then attributed by the deluded mind to its objects -- 'the five aggregates of clinging or one of them' --, a statement that mental analysis finds no attá in any of its objects is equivalent to an absolute denial of attá. Remembering this, and also the fact that the mind is the only means there is of investigating anything at all, the foregoing interpretation of sabbe dhammá anattá may not seem unreasonable.[d]
The eye, Ánanda, is void of self and of anything to do with self: forms are void of self and of anything to do with self: eye consciousness is void of self and of anything to do with self: eye-contact is void of self and of anything to do with self: whatever feeling arises conditioned by eye-contact, whether pleasant or painful or neither painful nor pleasant, that too is void of self and of anything to do with self.
The ear is void...: sounds are void....
The nose is void...: smells are void....
The tongue is void...: tastes are void....
The body is void...: touches are void....
The mind is void...: things are void....
Since, Ánanda, it is void of self and of anything to do with self, therefore 'The world is void', it is said.
Thus the Buddha analyses the world into forty-two dhammá, and finds no self. There is no mention, be it noted, of nibbána.
What more remains to be said? We have sabbe sankhárá aniccá because change is the characteristic of sankhárá, a synthesis, a process involving time: sabbe sankhárá dukkhá because suffering is a characteristic of change: and sabbe dhammá anattá because dhamma implies an analysis, a tally of the state of affairs at a given moment, in which no self can be found.
If a length of cable is looked at sideways, the strands can be traced without difficulty from end to end, but it is hard to tell how many there are, and to make sure that not one is overlooked. Sabbe sankárá aniccá is existence seen sideways, as a process: impermanence is easy to observe, but can we be certain there is no hidden core of self inside? If a cross-section of the same cable is looked at, although the strands cannot be seen as they run through the cable they can be counted immediately, and not one will pass unnoticed. Sabbe dhammá anattá is existence seen in cross section, as a state: although impermanence is not immediately not evident, a hidden core of self inside would be noticed at once.
Matter, monks, is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perception is impermanent, formations are impermanent, consciousness is impermanent; Matter, monks, is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is nor-self, formations are not-self, consciousness is not-self: all formations are impermanent; all things are not-self.
Seen as sankhárá, the five aggregates are aniccá, seen as dhammá, they are anattá. Existence -- the five aggregates -- may be looked at, like the cable, in one way or in another: but in whichever way it is looked at, it is still anicca, dukkha, and anattá.
Interesting stuff.
_/\_
metta
P.S.-Anavesasa,
I have taken you off ignore, just so you know. Apparently, I was a bit grumpy this morning & my coffee hadn't kicked in yet.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, the issue left for debate is whether or not Nibbana can be regarded as a Self/Soul or somehow reveals some sort of a Self/Soul. I would say the former is negated by the argument that it would be complicating the uncomplicated. So that leaves us with the latter, which really cannot be speculated upon.
So, I am left once again at the point in where I realise I am not at the level of practice to make any such speculations or statements either way, having not realised Nibbana.
Still, as I said before, this is just my opinion which is, itself, anicca, dukkha & anatta.
Anyway, as far as I can tell, the issue left for debate is whether or not Nibbana can be regarded as a Self/Soul or somehow reveals some sort of a Self/Soul. I would say the former is negated by the argument that it would be complicating the uncomplicated. So that leaves us with the latter, which really cannot be speculated upon.
So, I am left once again at the point in where I realise I am not at the level of practice to make any such speculations or statements either way, having not realised Nibbana.
Still, as I said before, this is just my opinion which is, itself, anicca, dukkha & anatta.
hi not1not2
I dont think that there is such debate you indicate.
But i think that someone start to talk about that nibbana is anatta.
Why to complicated thing witch such thing?
Why to complicate buddhism with doctrine "no self"
We all know that we are exist, we are us.
And we know that nibbana are we still us, but free from suffering.
Our citta will be still citta, but totally calm, not agited, free from delusion, free from all defilment.
Why to complicated with denying self or even subject as such?
Samsara and ignorance is compared by Buddha with thorn in stuck in flash?
So, to make end to to pain one should this thorn pull out. This is end of suffering.
WHy then one should it complicated with statementent "there is no flesh,no sufferer"?
2. Very friendly and innocently i want to ask you, what do you think when you say that your body, or even opion is anatta. Thanx
& by not-self I mean devoid of substantiality & does not exist independently (from its own side). It is also does not constitute me & should not even be regarded as 'mine' (though it is difficult to get around wording statements without the 'my'). I also cannot say that I wish my opinion to be thus & have it be this. My opinion is what it is. I think that the way I treat the word anatta is different than you & I think maybe this is at the root of a lot of our debate. Perhaps I am using the term too loosely & too closely to the idea of shunyata. I guess I should contemplate & research this matter.
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.
Actually, there is no debate on this issue, and it is not an issue, at least for those having fun in reading Nāgārjuna.
Do we all agree that one of the fundamental meanings of śūnyatā is nairātmya - along with nihsvabhāvatva and pratītya-samutpāda? If yes, then please pay attention to Dharma-saṃgraha XLI.
Under No 7 in the list we find asaṃskṛta śūnyatā, i.e., the emptiness of all "unconditioned dharmas", including nirvāṇa. Which means that they are also marked by nairātmya.
Under No 13 we find also sarvadharma-śūnyatā - emptiness of ALL dharmas, not only of the saṃskṛta-dharmas, whose emptiness is specifically declared under No 6.
The fact that the fat Devadatta is not seen to eat during the day doesn't mean that he is not eating during the night either.
Actually, there is no debate on this issue, and it is not an issue, at least for those having fun in reading Nāgārjuna.
Do we all agree that one of the fundamental meanings of śūnyatā is nairātmya - along with nihsvabhāvatva and pratītya-samutpāda? If yes, then please pay attention to Dharma-saṃgraha XLI.
Under No 7 in the list we find asaṃskṛta śūnyatā, i.e., the emptiness of all "unconditioned dharmas", including nirvāṇa. Which means that they are also marked by nairātmya.
Under No 13 we find also sarvadharma-śūnyatā - emptiness of ALL dharmas, not only of the saṃskṛta-dharmas, whose emptiness is specifically declared under No 6.
The fact that the fat Devadatta is not seen to eat during the day doesn't mean that he is not eating during the night either.
Could you elaborate on the term 'nihsvabhāvatva'. I recognize some of the root words, such as svabhava but I really don't know this term. Also, what is the difference between 'nairātmya' and anatma?
Additionally, do you know a link to Dharma-saṃgraha XLI? I am not familiar with this text.
Many of us here (or am I just writing for myself?) are 'Buddhists' rather than 'Buddhologists'. Therefore I beg you to stoop to our level and provide such translations as you deem appropriate, either within your core text or as footnotes.
You will, no doubt, as a teacher, understand that a lesson which is incomprehensible to the student may be worse than useless.
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
...This is precisely why my contribution in this thread is limited to merely overseeing suitable phrasing and content of posts, rather than engaging or participatig in the gist of the discussion. We are after all, in forum 202, and quite frankly, discussions of this timbre are way over my head, and leave me reeling.
And I know I am not alone.
Whereas I may have once considered myself backward, stupid or witless - I am now merely conscious that some approaches are not for me.
I don't often say anything in this thread because it's usually beyond my understanding but when I was reading through the website I referenced in my last post and came across that bit I posted I just thought I might try to enter the conversation with a small contribution of something I could understand. You're response to my post made me feel pretty bad and very unwelcome. I don't understand why you had to be mean and why you're more interested in arguing about the minutiae of interpreting extremely subtle and often obscure points than you are in following the basic tenets of the Noble Eightfold Path.
I have no vested interest when it comes to either side of this debate. It makes absolutely no difference to my practice whatsoever. As a beginner to Buddhism I'm well aware that I don't really know very much but there's one thing I do know; it's better to be kind than right.
Reminds me of one lecturer at Oxford. His task was to lead us through Old French. By the end of the third week, there were so few of us at his lectures that no one dared not attend! He would say things like: "You'll remember, from your Old Welsh, that........." and go off into yet another piece of total incomprehensibility. A pity, because the the actual texts we were studying were fascinating.
At another level, I can understand that a Buddhologist like Imago may find the exercise of translation to be a betrayal of the 'original' text. The same thing happens when we approach any writings in a language other than our own. As the Italians remind us, traduttore traditore (the translator is a traitor).
One problem that arises for me is the question of authenticity, which seems to be at the heart of Imago's objections to our naive simplicity. This same problem exists in Christian scriptural exegesis: the language in which the founder's words are recorded may or may not be the actual language used at the time. How often we are reminded that the Christian gospels and the Buddhist sutras were written down long after the departure of the speaker.
When I first started to read Buddhsit scriptures, I took for granted that the Pali canon represented the best redaction of the Buddha's own words in his original tongue. Since then, I have read a number of philological historians, particularly from the sub-continent, who challenge this belief, suggesting the Pali was not spoken (or written) until some time after the Buddha's death. If this is true, we must accept that we are at additional removes from the direct experience, and, even, of its first expression at Sarnath. In the same way, we are far removed from the actual words of Jesus, or Abraham Lincoln (whose address at Gettysburg has been tidied up after the event).
I would lie if I say that the above argument from authority has no flaws. It certainly has, and the basic flaw is the different interpretations of sunyata in post-Nagarjunian Tathagatagarbha. They would interpret Emptiness of asamskrta-dharmas (including nirvana, and especially tathata) as emptiness of the empirical characteristics of all samskrta-dharmas, so the two nirodhas (cessations, i.e., the two types of nirvana) and some other three added-on asamskrtas would be declared empty of anityatva (temporaryness), duhkhatva (sorrow), klesatva (defilement), and anatmatva (lack of Self).
But this was not the interpretation of Nagarjuna as laid down in Dharma-samgraha. So better then to have a look at all the 20 sunyatas, and then read the detailed commentary of Ven. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche on what Candrakirti had to say in his Madhyamakavatara, the section on the 20 Emptinesses.
Would you care to grace us with an expression of your personal take on sunyatta? Is it a Nagarjunian one or anti-Nagarjuna?
I have found the following comment very useful:
.....the first appearance of the term in the karika .... is in section four. Nagarjuna has just spent the first seven verses of this section discussing the relation of the five psychophysical aggregates to their causes, concluding that
cause and effect are neither identical nor different and that there is no self- nature in any of the aggregates . He concludes the examination by saying that:
"when an analysis is made in terms of emptiness, whosoever were to address a refutation, all that is left unrefuted by him will be equal to what is yet to be proved.
"When an explanation in terms of emptiness is given, whosoever were to address a censure, all that is left uncensured by him will be equal to what is yet to be proved."
(karika IV.8-9)
(The crypticness of these verses is not the fault of the translation, for other translations are equally or more unclear.) What Nagarjuna seems to be saying here is that the concept of emptiness, when used as a method of negation, is exhaustive. When an analysis is made in terms of emptiness, all bases have been covered and no loopholes remain. Nagarjuna's negation of self-nature is thorough, and the burden of proof for further analysis lies with the opponent. When an explanation in terms of emptiness is given, there is no room for criticism by the opponent. The Madhyamika description of all things as empty is also exhaustive, and anyone offering a positive counter theory must provide an equally-exhaustive metaphysic.
I dont think that there is such debate you indicate.
But i think that someone start to talk about that nibbana is anatta.
Why to complicated thing witch such thing?
Why to complicate buddhism with doctrine "no self"
For that matter, why complicate buddhism with a doctrine of "self"? The buddha said many times that he only taught two things: suffering & the end of suffering. That is why I have stated that I really don't think this issue is essential to practice.
We all know that we are exist, we are us.
And we know that nibbana are we still us, but free from suffering.
Our citta will be still citta, but totally calm, not agited, free from delusion, free from all defilment.
Why to complicated with denying self or even subject as such?
Mind is born with thoughts, consciousness with formations. When thoughts cease, where is mind? When formations cease, can anything such as consciousness be found?
And there is no denying or affirming self, just seeing 'self' for what it is. Anything more than that is a complication. To illustrate:
Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"
Samsara and ignorance is compared by Buddha with thorn in stuck in flash?
So, to make end to to pain one should this thorn pull out. This is end of suffering.
WHy then one should it complicated with statementent "there is no flesh,no sufferer"?
The buddha said 'there is suffering' not a 'there is sufferer.' This is a very important distinction. But he also never said there wasn't flesh (materiality/rupa). Once again, the key here is not an absolute denial, but a proper recognition of what sort of reality the 'sufferer' is. The general argument is that the 'sufferer' is simply a mental fabrication based on sense impressions. It exists, but only as an appearance. The key is to quit feeding this appearance by cutting off its nutriment (all the processes which lead to it). This is unbinding. Beyond this, there is no point asserting either Atta or Anatta as some absolute reality. Both are fabrications themselves. Both have their own usefulness & limitations.
It is rather middle-Nagarjunian. As far as cover semantics is concerned, I adore Nagarjuna - see the translation of Svabhava Pariksa - he is the perfect combination of poet and logician. But when the things come to matters of transcendental logic, i.e., to exposing the axiomatic logic of inference, then he fails to produce coherent picture - and rigorous analysis might be justified in representing him as the Alternative Buddha rather than the Second Buddha.
It is rather middle-Nagarjunian. As far as cover semantics is concerned, I adore Nagarjuna - see the translation of Svabhava Pariksa - he is the perfect combination of poet and logician. But when the things come to matters of transcendental logic, i.e., to exposing the axiomatic logic of inference, then he fails to produce coherent picture - and rigorous analysis might be justified in representing him as the Alternative Buddha rather than the Second Buddha.
And yet, this thread is about anatta vs. atta, not nibbana. If my arm gets cut off & I see that I no longer have an arm, that does not mean that I now have some 'arm essense.' Nibbana is the same way as it is the cutting off of the cankers. It cannot be described in a purely positive or negative sense. Also, I really don't see how the 'sabbe dhamma anatta' line is actually being taken out of context or necessarily misapplied (except for taking nibbana as included in 'sabbe dhamma'). BTW, it also found in AN 3.134, not just the Dhammapada.
I understand that the triad occurs elsewhere...only as quoted it was given as from dhammapada, where it does contains the very clarifying lines which Anasavesa rightly though gruffly pointed out.
I think your analogy about the arm imprecisely describes the opposing view. When you lose your arm and you survive it, you (hopefully) say "I don't have one of my arms now, but that does not change who I am. I am still a real person, and I still want to make the best of my time." In this sense to affirm the attan, even if only in a negative way as I have attempted to do here, would not be comparable in your analogy at all to an invisible essence of an arm, but rather to the fact that despite having lost your arm, you are still a person. To say "there is no self" is almost the same as to say, by your analogy, that when the arm is cut off, the person too, is cut off, because there is no person separable from the arm. You and I have definitely come to an understanding on this, and I can admire your middle-ground view since, even though you cannot bring yourself to affirm the self even in a negative way (neti, neti), I know you see the problems with "no-self," so between you and I there is very little disagreement on "no-self". I just have not come across a way of advocating "there is no self" which does not find itself implying, despite probably all best intentions, an ucchedavada (annihilationist) or sakkaya view. I know that to you, my advocacy of self in the Buddha's teachings may then appear to be very lopsided and not in the middle. To me it is right in the middle (between aggregated being and total non-being) But I see it as the only non-contradictory way of interpreting much of what is said of self. For no-self or even no-view-of-self interpretation, there would certainly be far fewer contradictions or interpretive question marks if the Buddha would never have said anything about self (attan) whatsoever. But he did, and more often than many would like us to think. And I think, for myself, that the Buddha's teachings are resolved into a more useful whole if I interpret these statements and mentions of self to refer to a very practically real self which is not any one or any combination of the khandhas.
I apologize if all this is just a redundancy on much of what has been said earlier in the thread.
I think your analogy about the arm imprecisely describes the opposing view. When you lose your arm and you survive it, you (hopefully) say "I don't have one of my arms now, but that does not change who I am. I am still a real person, and I still want to make the best of my time." In this sense to affirm the attan, even if only in a negative way as I have attempted to do here, would not be comparable in your analogy at all to an invisible essence of an arm, but rather to the fact that despite having lost your arm, you are still a person. To say "there is no self" is almost the same as to say, by your analogy, that when the arm is cut off, the person too, is cut off, because there is no person separable from the arm.
My point was here was as to how Nibbana is regarded. It does not really state anything either way about the person or the self. And considering Nibbana in terms of the 6 sense spheres we have, as Thanissaro stated in the commentary you linked, gone beyond range. Any implications either way about self in regards to Nibbana is complicating the uncomplicated.
I'm not sure if you thought I was saying otherwise, but I thought I'd clarify anyway.
not1not2 The buddha said 'there is suffering' not a 'there is sufferer.' This is a very important distinction.
It is like patient and his desease. If say there is a disease, does it mean there no patient, and no human at all?
Is realy impornt to stress for inteligent people that there patient is subject of treatment?
If there is no suffering and no sufferer, why all suffer?
And who will no suffer?
Buddha speak very explicitly : "I am awaken"
He does not say"there is awaken".
Very intersting shift, is not?
No, i am lookin forward to apply the same logic.
I was referring to the wording of the first noble truth.
Certainly the Buddha used the words I & you, he & she quite a great deal. I am not denying that. My point really comes down to the question you are asking.
"Who is suffering and who awakens?"
My point is that no conceptual analysis can really answer this question and that we should take the advice of the Buddha that it cannot be said that we have a self/are a self or that we don't have a self/aren't a self, as these are all mental constructions/fabrications. In other words, 'you' have to get a direct answer which requires doing away with all of this mental analysis, which is not ultimately reliable or satisfying.
Once again, here is a Zen presentation of this conundrum:
Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"
I was referring to the wording of the first noble truth.
Certainly the Buddha used the words I & you, he & she quite a great deal. I am not denying that. My point really comes down to the question you are asking.
"Who is suffering and who awakens?"
My point is that no conceptual analysis can really answer this question and that we should take the advice of the Buddha that it cannot be said that we have a self/are a self or that we don't have a self/aren't a self, as these are all mental constructions/fabrications. In other words, 'you' have to get a direct answer which requires doing away with all of this mental analysis, which is not ultimately reliable or satisfying.
Once again, here is a Zen presentation of this conundrum:
Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"
_/\_
metta
So,
were you sometimes by doctor? Or if someone say, there is pain in my leg. He is actually enlightement, is he not?:-))
In other words- you dont know who suffr in you. You dont know yourself. That is the problem.
Do you think, that when you started talk or think -fabricated "I am not i, am not self, there is no sufferer" you stop to suffer?
If Buddha talked about aging- He also dont think there is no body or person which age?
Or he would use the word "ager"?
See, some words and ideas implicantly include some preconditions..or they are unthinkable,which are so obvious, no must them mention.
So it seems to me that you contiunee in complicated that thing.
You fabricated thickit of unlogic statements, which is based on seeking proofs in play with words.
However,you you still suffer.. How is it possible?
Dont you think that you still are stuck in concepts and formation?
How do you want to seek the way out, if you also reject "self" which is free, independent.
You have said that if you hold nibbana as anata, it si practical.
But i dont see any practical use of it.
I dont see any practical use in deniyng subject of sufering - "self" or "i".
To forbid to call the subject with name, or to speak about subject complettly, or to remove the name for subject, this is not solution,but useless hindrance, to name thing with their names.
But i see very practical Buddha teaching, the way of awereness and discernement. Discernment i from what is no i or self, so one comes ot know oneself, and clense his mind from clinging to aggregate of clinging.
5skandhas are not complete anatomy of living being. They are groups of clinging.
What is clinging? Can stone cling? or can it bone, liver, skin, feeling, thougth cling? no.
There is mind -citta which cling. And such citta, if develop sati, alertness and knowing and could stop to cling, could be thus what is it
Once again, I feel there is some fundamental disconnect in our attempts at communication.
I say that I think that giving an answer on this is unnecessary & so I don't want to take a side. Then you say I have shifted my position, so I explain that I have basically the same position, I just don't cling to it. Then you say I am contradicting myself. So I explain why I don't agree with your position and favor my own, clinging to neither as authoritative.
Now you are saying that I deny the conventional 'self'.
Sorry, but I don't. I believe that their is something we regard as a 'self' which is a fluctuating process of interdependent factors. However, when put up to analysis there is no substantial underlying 'self' essence or core of being apart from those fluctuating, interdependent factors.
So, conventionally we have this thing we call a self that can take the form of I, you, we, he, she and all sorts of various pronouns. It also takes the form of doctor, patient, etc. However, there is no underlying, eternally unchanging core of any of those things apart from the fluctuating, interdependent factors that co-mingle, giving the appearance of all of those pronouns & even job titles.
Does that make sense?
Beyond that, I don't think it matters to much to my practice whether or not there is some Atta in the Upanishadic sense. And even if 'Neti, neti' is truly being taught by the Buddha, then I don't think we need to assert an atta anyway to achieve the same effect.
not1not2I say that I think that giving an answer on this is unnecessary & so I don't want to take a side.
It is intristing, although buddhsim is path of deep psychology and knowledge and not of pure belief, you call the most central question as unnecessary.
So, why do judge it? Why dont you speak accordence to to truth:
"I dont know answers on these question"
I think in rigth speach belong just this straight expression and not clever sophisticated avoding.
Why is then for many to elaborete long list of argument that there is "no soul",intersting that this is necessary answer;
It is really suspective if someone speaks about arising and passing away of process, has nothing or dont know what or who does it observe. And even treat as if dont exist at all!
You saying there was murder, but no witness of this. Welcome in absurdistan.
not1not2
Sorry, but I don't. I believe that their is something we regard as a 'self' which is a fluctuating process of interdependent factors. However, when put up to analysis there is no substantial underlying 'self' essence or core of being apart from those fluctuating, interdependent factors.
You lie. You have never done such analysis.
You you put up to analysis, you will find nibbanam as Buddha did.
Nibbana is reality, which does not change, is unconditioned, interdependent.
Really shame, that you undermine the very foundation of Buddha teaching and his experience
not1not2 I believe that their is something we regard as a 'self' which is a fluctuating process of interdependent factors.
And what is this conventional "self"? How does look like? you only beliefe? so again there is no sure knowing?
If there is only conventional self, this is as to say there is no self at all, no one who suffer,and so on, then Where is basis for holy life if all is samsaric element?
No. Buddha taught resolutly, 5skandhas are not self. If you construct then some convetional "real " self then you are totaly ignore Buddha teaching.
But it seems to me, as yet,you are satisfied with verious beliefs and views..and not knowing and seeing the truth..
Then i dont understand why someone promulgate his thoughts.. Self-confirmation?
ps- i hope you will have a good coffee:-)
Accept this a little poking my post as friendly stimulation for you thinking and practise. I think you can get from you more then learned theories and beliefs..
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
You lie. You have never done such analysis.
You you put up to analysis, you will find nibbanam as Buddha did.
Nibbana is reality, which does not change, is unconditioned, interdependent.
Really shame, that you undermine the very foundation of Buddha teaching and his experience
* I am really, desperately, earnestly hoping that this phrasing and language is purely and simply indicative of your inexperience with English language usage, Anavasesa, because if it isn't, it is exactly and precisely the kind of verbal approach I have tried to indicate to you, is unacceptable and direspectful.... *
ps- i hope you will have a good coffee:-)
Accept this a little poking my post as friendly stimulation for you thinking and practise. I think you can get from you more then learned theories and beliefs..
*I would respectfully ask all contributing members to temporarily cease discussion until Anavasesa has clarified by which authority and schooling he presumes to speak.
Anavasesa has provided no credentials or clues as to his whereabouts, identity or education in these matters, inspite of being asked to do so, more than once. Until Anavasesa is willing to be more open and forthcoming with regard to the above, I would request this discussion be suspended. *
Forgive me, Anavasesa. I am somewhat confused by what you are arguing for.
Are you saying that, subtending the 5skandas, is an Observer, an ultimate 'self', which is not to be confused with the 5skandas but without which they would not arise?
Is this somewhat similar to Ramana Maharshi's "existence-consciousness-bliss"?
I find the same notion in Assagioli and psychosynthesis but is it Buddhist?
Sorry, Fede. We posted at the same time. I should like to leave mine there in order to clarify.
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
*Fine, but I really do not want Anavasesa to be distracted from my request to refrain from further input until he has satisfactorily reponded to my post, #280 above.... *
*I would respectfully ask all contributing members to temporarily cease discussion until Anavasesa has clarified by which authority and schooling he presumes to speak.
Anavasesa has provided no credentials or clues as to his whereabouts, identity or education in these matters, inspite of being asked to do so, more than once. Until Anavasesa is willing to be more open and forthcoming with regard to the above, I would request this discussion be suspended. *
Hi, Federica,
I did not know to participate on this disscusion i need any authorisation, or acadamic degree or any permisson from "official authorities" (us mentaliy today??) :-))
So firstly, i think we are intersted in thoughts and developing our wisdom.
If you think that wisdom or knowledge need any diploma to be valid, then you are astrayd. I will suppose you dont bear such ideas. Then i dont see any sense in you requests:-)
And secondly, when we are on buddhist forum, let put down the also serious question - what academic background have Buddha Gotama?:-)).
In order to others dont suffer from suspention in continuuty of this thread due to my "duty" answer these neccessary question i will answer:
My acadimic background - is citta, interest in buddhism and seeking truth and a few years of practise.
Bye
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
*I didn't say you needed authorisation or permission from authorities, I asked BY who's authority you speak....In other words, just where have you managed to obtain all this information with which you contribute?
You see, here in the West, when you join a group of people, it is usually considered a polite gesture to introduce yourself, and tell them a bit about yourself....
You need no diplomas, qualifications or certificates of any kind to join in here. Just a modicum of respect, politeness and the desire to be on an equal footing with everyone, and to recognise that they are the same, and as deserving as you
Due to his fathers' careful ministrations, I would venture to suggest that the Buddha (Siddharta Gauthama) probably had quite an intense and structured education, given his position....I'm certain that this knowledge and education stimulated him to both seek and find his path...
Developing thoughts and Wisdom is commendable. Providing Compassion and Love are included in equal measures.
So where are you from? How old are you? What school of Buddhism do you follow? How long have you been practising Buddhism,and studying it? *
If it is I would like to say that the most central issue that the Buddha taught is not Atta vs anatta, but rather the 4NT truths. All else is secondary. If you feel otherwise, I would like you to support such an assertion.
If it is not alright, then please feel free to delete this post.
Thanks
_/\_
metta
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
* No, let's not.
Would you be so good as to please answer my questions? *
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
* I've been on forum now for around 20 minutes.So has anavasesa. I noticed he had been frequenting this thread, has obviously read my comments, but declined to contribute further, or anwer my questions.
As far as I am concerned, therefore, he has chosen to not communicate in a way that is either co-operative or communal.
I further communicated with him privately, but have received no joy in that department either.
I am frankly at a loss as to understand his reticence or reluctance to be more forthcoming. The discussion is once again, open to members.
EDIT NOTE:
I now propose to leave this thread well and truly alone.
If members have any comments or opinions they would like me to consider, they may do so by PM'ing me.
I would like it noted, however, that being a Moderator is not always an easy task. I have acted in the best interests of all members concerned, and attempted to implement some order. Whilst I am prepared to consider all POV, I would respectfully indicate that to publicly argue with, or to ignore Moderator's comments is not advisable.
If it is I would like to say that the most central issue that the Buddha taught is not Atta vs anatta, but rather the 4NT truths. All else is secondary. If you feel otherwise, I would like you to support such an assertion.
If it is not alright, then please feel free to delete this post.
Thanks
_/\_
metta
Exactly not1not2.
Buddha taught 4noble truth. And why?
For benifit of atta!
For benefit of ourself.
Therefor atta v anatta is artifically created contradiction by propagators of absolute anatta - the teaching about "no atta"
8fold path is included in 4th. And 8fold path including samma ditthi, samma thinking.
And this imho what we are trying to solve here on this thread.
I should like to repost my question, somewhat edited:
Forgive me, Anavasesa. I am somewhat confused by what you are arguing for.
Are you saying that, subtending the 5skandas, is an Observer, an ultimate 'self', which is not to be confused with the 5skandas but without which they would not arise?
Is this somewhat similar to Ramana Maharshi's "existence-consciousness-bliss"?
I find the same notion in Assagioli and psychosynthesis but is it yours? and is it Buddhist?
Buddha taught 4noble truth. And why?
For benifit of atta!
For benefit of ourself.
Therefor atta v anatta is artifically created contradiction by propagators of absolute anatta - the teaching about "no atta"
8fold path is included in 4th. And 8fold path including samma ditthi, samma thinking.
And this imho what we are trying to solve here on this thread.
Sure to benefit ourselves. However, the question in debate is not over the existence of our conventional selves, but rather whether buddha taught a 'via negativa' (Neti, neti) of some Transcendent Atta or not, & the extent to which the positions we take on this subject affects our practice. My opinion is that this debate does not affect the practice of buddhism in a positive way & that making any imputations that he did or did not teach a Transcendental Atta is just forming a view to be relinquished at a later time.
Now, in regards to Samma Ditthi, the following is what the Buddha said (among other things):
"And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view.
There is more to Samma Ditthi, but this is the basis of, it in my understanding. And whether or not there is validity to your idea of self, the buddha made it clear that holding a view in regards to the self is to be avoided in the Brahmajala sutta as well as others.
As far as 'right thinking' is concerned, is this an expansion on right view, or is it related to one of the other 7 aspects of the 8-fold path ( right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration)?
I can't be the only one who continues to ask the questions about 'self'. I hear the arguments and I understand how Buddhist thought deconstructs 'self' only to find nothing. The paradoxes do not, for so much, go away.
If there is suffering, how can it be that there is no sufferer?
What is the basis of this "I" that sits or suffers or sleeps or types? I am so slow and hesitant on the path that the emptiness still seems to me to be dynamic, even 'personal' in some sense.
Perhaps, Not1not2, your own practice has led you to dissolution of all personality, memory, sense input and interpretation, to the elimination of the 5skandas. My own has yet to find such absence but, rather, a sense closer to Ramana Maharshi's description. But I know that I have far to go.
I can't be the only one who continues to ask the questions about 'self'. I hear the arguments and I understand how Buddhist thought deconstructs 'self' only to find nothing. The paradoxes do not, for so much, go away.
If there is suffering, how can it be that there is no sufferer?
What is the basis of this "I" that sits or suffers or sleeps or types? I am so slow and hesitant on the path that the emptiness still seems to me to be dynamic, even 'personal' in some sense.
Perhaps, Not1not2, your own practice has led you to dissolution of all personality, memory, sense input and interpretation, to the elimination of the 5skandas. My own has yet to find such absence but, rather, a sense closer to Ramana Maharshi's description. But I know that I have far to go.
I certainly have not realized the dissolution of the khandas. And I certainly have not completely denied that there is such thing as a person. However, I contemplate things in terms of both the conventional (phenomena) level and the ultimate (pnuemena) level. At the conventional level I do not deny the person. On the ultimate level, a person is just the play & flux of interdependent factors (khandas, 6 sense bases, 12 links of dependent origination). And on the ulimate level, nothing more can be said (or thought for that matter) that ultimately holds up to rigorous analysis (following the work of Nagarjuna). And that includes even the distinction between the conventional & ultimate (hence my username), as well as my own positions & statements. All concepts, by their very nature are useful, but limited in scope & application. Once their usefulness is exhausted, there is no point carrying them around anymore.
For this reason & others, the only real value I find in this debate is the extent to which it exposes the usefulness & limitations of all the positions we are taking on this matter. I don't think it is desirable to come to any solid, ontological conclusion on this matter, but rather this should be considered a rigourous analysis of what the buddha was really getting at & how it leads to the cessation of dukkha. And I think that everyone on this thread has been attempting to do just that.
I can't be the only one who continues to ask the questions about 'self'. I hear the arguments and I understand how Buddhist thought deconstructs 'self' only to find nothing. The paradoxes do not, for so much, go away.
If there is suffering, how can it be that there is no sufferer?
What is the basis of this "I" that sits or suffers or sleeps or types? I am so slow and hesitant on the path that the emptiness still seems to me to be dynamic, even 'personal' in some sense.
Simon, all,
I understand that your past spiritual experiences, especially those concerning Christianity and various other theistic religions, will influence your take on many of these issues, the ways in which you frame your questions, as well as the ways in which you search for your answers. As much as I would like to try and answer your questions in more detail, with appropriate Sutta quotations and so forth, I am afraid that you will take offense. Nevertheless, to help others who come to Buddhism and ask questions about self, I would like to try and answer as simplistically as I can.
While these questions may be important in most world religions, they do not find such an important place in Buddhism. Most beliefs rest upon the assumption that there has to be something there in the first place — a spiritual core, soul, entity, self, essence, et cetera — and that our path is to simply discover what that animating and vital principle is. The Buddha, in his many years of teaching, asked his followers to drop those questions altogether, and focus instead on comprehending stress, abandoning its cause, realizing its cessation, and developing the path leading to that cessation.
The Buddha never directed his followers to chase after “the one who suffers”. It is hard for the intellect, which is conditioned and a part of the conventional being, to realize how there can be suffering and yet no sufferer to be found. That is why the path of practice he taught eventually leads one to transcend mere conceptualizations, and open one to experience the gateway of liberation: whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of ceasing. The basis for this "I" is avijja. The five khandhas, if seen with wisdom, are not so much things as they are activities.
I am not sure if you will find any of these references as helpful as I have, but I would like to share them with you nonetheless. They deal directly with what I am trying to say in the simplest of terms, and are far more articulate than I ever could be:
I understand that your past spiritual experiences, especially those concerning Christianity and various other theistic religions, will influence your take on many of these issues, the ways in which you frame your questions, as well as the ways in which you search for your answers. As much as I would like to try and answer your questions in more detail, with appropriate Sutta quotations and so forth, I am afraid that you will take offense. Nevertheless, to help others who come to Buddhism and ask questions about self, I would like to try and answer as simplistically as I can.
While these questions may be important in most world religions, they do not find such an important place in Buddhism. Most beliefs rest upon the assumption that there has to be something there in the first place — a spiritual core, soul, entity, self, essence, et cetera — and that our path is to simply discover what that animating and vital principle is. The Buddha, in his many years of teaching, asked his followers to drop those questions altogether, and focus instead on comprehending stress, abandoning its cause, realizing its cessation, and developing the path leading to that cessation.
The Buddha never directed his followers to chase after “the one who suffers”. It is hard for the intellect, which is conditioned and a part of the conventional being, to realize how there can be suffering and yet no sufferer to be found. That is why the path of practice he taught eventually leads one to transcend mere conceptualizations, and open one to experience the gateway of liberation: whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of ceasing. The basis for this "I" is avijja. The five khandhas, if seen with wisdom, are not so much things as they are activities.
Regards,
Jason
You are quite right, Jason, that my own experience is the context out of which I function. And I recognise that the Buddha is reported as having spoken out very strongly against pursuing some of the questions that I ask. My problem is that this is too close, for me, to the sort of 'vatican' approach that I find stultifying.
It seems to me that Buddhism is the broadest 'church' that it is possible to envision. More so, even, than the Church of England! And, in both cases, the core beliefs are very sparse and very general.
I would have been disappointed had you not brought some orthodoxy to this debate. My intention is not to claim that I can match your understanding of fundamental Buddhist positions and I really do rejoice when you can point us to specific references.
I hope that my previous post was not taken in a negative way whatsoever, as I was in no way trying to insult your beliefs or experiences. I would never wish to do such a thing either consciously or otherwise. Please believe me when I say that.
Whether or not what I said was considered "orthodox", it is what I have come to understand the Buddha's overall message to be. To me, it does not seem that the Buddha — as recorded in the Pali Canon — spoke out against asking these questions in the spirit of being stultifying as much as he simply saw that they did not lead to the end of suffering. If these types of questions could lead one to the end of suffering, then by his own admission (SN 56.31), the Buddha would have taught them to his disciples.
People were never forbidden to ask these sorts of questions, and if one were so inclined they were free to explore them as much as they liked (much like Vacchagotta the wanderer); however, the Buddha did teach that these sorts of questions would lead to a thicket of wrong views (MN 72). I certainly do not claim to have some sort of superior knowledge, especially concerning Dhamma, but I do wish to share what I believe the Buddha was trying to convey with those who might not be as familiar with these texts.
In other words, when people bring up these questions in such a way as to fit them into their Buddhist practice, I simply worry that they are doing the exact opposite of what the Buddha suggested his followers should do to truly end suffering.
Elohim, In other words, when people bring up these questions in such a way as to fit them into their Buddhist practice
Can you please specify what kind of question you are speaking about?
It seem a little to me, that you confuse the central question on core of human being with useless or redundent question wich just divert attention from inward investigation.
And you alone have mention that the cause of suffering is avijja. So we must come to vijja.
Remebmer what amazing knowledge Buddha got every night after his very englightenment.
Of course, certain knowledge is not possible gain by mere ratinonal or conceptual thinking.
But no everyone is not depedent on such limited tool. One has also intuition, and when come someone with real knowledge of something one can to regonize or understand the value of such knowledge.
And it seems to me, the is very modern - ignorance (in broad sense) change for allegedly wisdom that as Buddhist we are supposed not to ask certain question:-)
But the question is either wrong build up or someone has not know the answer.
Certainly one could also evalute that such question is not important for holy life or is out of reach our present abilities then drop from such question is very reasonable.
Now i speak of question like - how many galaxies are in universe, how the devas from such heaven dress or speak.
But what is very important or usable to know - fyzical laws, or law of karma, or to know that earth is not pancake, this means on hieger level "vertical" knowlege, that thera many spheres, devas and gods, and this is what Buddha also taught others.
One need the proper universal or cosmological perspektive.
From this the deeper and hiegher understanding develop and can more easily to drop cling to earth as something singular, and one can from such universal compleation or cotenplation of universe gain realy deep impuls for motivation and proper practise.
To profess buddhism is nice, but it need not neccessary mean to enter on holy path.
So the intent is finally the most important thing.
If Buddha have no such deep intent to find path out of samsara, to find what is unborn, pure, byond pain and death,he did not become a Buddha.
Elohim, In other words, when people bring up these questions in such a way as to fit them into their Buddhist practice
Can you please specify what kind of question you are speaking about?
It seem a little to me, that you confuse the central question on core of human being with useless or redundent question wich just divert attention from inward investigation.
And you alone have mention that the cause of suffering is avijja. So we must come to vijja.
Remebmer what amazing knowledge Buddha got every night after his very englightenment.
Of course, certain knowledge is not possible gain by mere ratinonal or conceptual thinking.
But no everyone is not depedent on such limited tool. One has also intuition, and when come someone with real knowledge of something one can to regonize or understand the value of such knowledge.
And it seems to me, the is very modern - ignorance (in broad sense) change for allegedly wisdom that as Buddhist we are supposed not to ask certain question:-)
But the question is either wrong build up or someone has not know the answer.
Certainly one could also evalute that such question is not important for holy life or is out of reach our present abilities then drop from such question is very reasonable.
Now i speak of question like - how many galaxies are in universe, how the devas from such heaven dress or speak.
But what is very important or usable to know - fyzical laws, or law of karma, or to know that earth is not pancake, this means on hieger level "vertical" knowlege, that thera many spheres, devas and gods, and this is what Buddha also taught others.
One need the proper universal or cosmological perspektive.
From this the deeper and hiegher understanding develop and can more easily to drop cling to earth as something singular, and one can from such universal compleation or cotenplation of universe gain realy deep impuls for motivation and proper practise.
To profess buddhism is nice, but it need not neccessary mean to enter on holy path.
So the intent is finally the most important thing.
If Buddha have no such deep intent to find path out of samsara, to find what is unborn, pure, byond pain and death,he did not become a Buddha.
I think what Jason is getting at was expressed in his link to MN 72:
"Does Master Gotama have any position at all?"
"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with. What a Tathagata sees is this: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is feeling, such its origin, such its disappearance; such is perception... such are mental fabrications... such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' Because of this, I say, a Tathagata — with the ending, fading out, cessation, renunciation, & relinquishment of all construings, all excogitations, all I-making & mine-making & obsession with conceit — is, through lack of clinging/sustenance, released."
In this one short snippet we see both the Buddha's definition of Samma Ditthi (Right View) and that the Buddha favors thinking in terms of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness rather than engaging into speculation. Also, while intuition is largely what guides on this path, it is not the measure which the buddha advised to evaluate things by:
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.
...
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.
"Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.
Now, if this view of yours leads you out of suffering, then fine. The extent to which brings about skillful qualities & reduces unskillful qualities, is the extent to which it is in line with the Buddha's teaching. The extent to which it doesn't, is the extent to which it is not. Now, if you feel that your understanding of this fits perfectly into this approach for you, then I'm not really going to argue, even if I disagree with it logically. For me, your view does not do these things, and even mine has it's problems & shortcomings for me. I have found this line of thinking & debate to have exhausted most of its value for me.
To clarify, I simply wanted to try and get a few points across which I felt were important concerning all of these questions of self in a Buddhist context (albeit a predominately Theravada based one). I am not trying to argue that anyone’s beliefs and experiences are “wrong” per se, but I am trying to point out that they might be based upon previous experiences that are heavily influenced by various theistic faiths and doctrines—some of which are completely irrelevant in the Buddha’s dispensation. The reason I say this is that the majority of these faiths and doctrines are predicated upon a different set of assumptions, assumptions that the Buddha predominately had his followers avoid altogether because he viewed them as inappropriate attention in that they do not lead to the end of suffering (MN 2). In essence, I am not trying to argue against anyone’s experiences as much as I am trying to articulate how they could better relate to the Buddha’s teachings in the context of how we frame our questions—some of which the Buddha said are simply not worth asking. If you are of the mind to disagree with the way I present the Buddha's teachings, you are free to express your concerns and criticisms; however, I do not wish to be drawn into another atta versus anatta debate—therefore, you may have the last word if you so wish.
Comments
Anyway, some of you folks might want to check out this thread over at E-Sangha:
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=33900
Especially this post by Retrofuturist:
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=33900&st=42#
Thanks.
_/\_
metta
I can understand Anavasesa's strong language can be off-putting. Part of me doesn't like to be called disgusting, either. But sometimes things really are subjectively disgusting to a person. It is like saying "that idea leaves a bad taste in my mouth," or even "that really sticks in my craw," which somehow sound milder but it is the same subjective reaction. It is more polite, however, to let that remain unexpressed and stick to the point itself. By deleting "disgusting," federica, you have demonstrated quite well that the substantial message is not lost without such language. So even though I generally don't like moderators editing posts just on principle, I think your action contains a valuable lesson and for that I commend it.
And the point he/she made is worthy, and it has been discussed before in this thread, even recently. But this aspect of Dhp 277-279 has not yet been so clearly pointed out until Anavasesa did.
Firstly, it has been noted that very clearly to add "conditioned or unconditioned" to any translation of "sabbe dhamma anatta" is an obvious gloss. The words which specify conditioned or unconditioned do not occur, and it is clearly placed there to deliberately emphasize an interpretive choice on the breadth of "sabbe dhamma." Recent posts have shown that the argument against this interpretive gloss is significant. But even more easy is it to see Anavasesa's point that these three statements (sabbe sankhara...sabbe sankhara...sabbe dhamma) have thus been so clearly taken out of context, made to stand unqualified and alone when in the original text they do not stand alone and unelaborated; that context is that sabbe sankhara and sabbe dhamma are linked in this passage to suffering, which one turns away from as the path to purity. Nibbana is not such a thing to be considered as linked with suffering and for turning away from.
in friendliness,
V.
I would like to say that if anybody says that Nibbana is full of suffering, they really don't know what the heck they're talking about, regardless of their opinion/stance on the atta issue. I don't really recall anyone stating such a thing at any point.
Additionally, as the word dhamma is expressed in the final line, rather than sankhara (formations), then we should recognize some sort of distinction here. I do not find it necessarily exclude unconditioned dhammas from 'sabbe dhamma' either.
http://www.quangduc.com/English/psychology/16nirvana.html
Interesting stuff.
_/\_
metta
P.S.-Anavesasa,
I have taken you off ignore, just so you know. Apparently, I was a bit grumpy this morning & my coffee hadn't kicked in yet.
So, I am left once again at the point in where I realise I am not at the level of practice to make any such speculations or statements either way, having not realised Nibbana.
Still, as I said before, this is just my opinion which is, itself, anicca, dukkha & anatta.
_/\_
metta
hi not1not2
I dont think that there is such debate you indicate.
But i think that someone start to talk about that nibbana is anatta.
Why to complicated thing witch such thing?
Why to complicate buddhism with doctrine "no self"
We all know that we are exist, we are us.
And we know that nibbana are we still us, but free from suffering.
Our citta will be still citta, but totally calm, not agited, free from delusion, free from all defilment.
Why to complicated with denying self or even subject as such?
Samsara and ignorance is compared by Buddha with thorn in stuck in flash?
So, to make end to to pain one should this thorn pull out. This is end of suffering.
WHy then one should it complicated with statementent "there is no flesh,no sufferer"?
2. Very friendly and innocently i want to ask you, what do you think when you say that your body, or even opion is anatta. Thanx
Body is a formation (sankhara) as are opinions. They are also dhammas. So, it follows that they are anicca, dukkha & anatta.
_/\_
metta
_/\_
metta
Actually, there is no debate on this issue, and it is not an issue, at least for those having fun in reading Nāgārjuna.
Do we all agree that one of the fundamental meanings of śūnyatā is nairātmya - along with nihsvabhāvatva and pratītya-samutpāda? If yes, then please pay attention to Dharma-saṃgraha XLI.
Under No 7 in the list we find asaṃskṛta śūnyatā, i.e., the emptiness of all "unconditioned dharmas", including nirvāṇa. Which means that they are also marked by nairātmya.
Under No 13 we find also sarvadharma-śūnyatā - emptiness of ALL dharmas, not only of the saṃskṛta-dharmas, whose emptiness is specifically declared under No 6.
The fact that the fat Devadatta is not seen to eat during the day doesn't mean that he is not eating during the night either.
Could you elaborate on the term 'nihsvabhāvatva'. I recognize some of the root words, such as svabhava but I really don't know this term. Also, what is the difference between 'nairātmya' and anatma?
Additionally, do you know a link to Dharma-saṃgraha XLI? I am not familiar with this text.
Thanks in advance.
_/\_
metta
Many of us here (or am I just writing for myself?) are 'Buddhists' rather than 'Buddhologists'. Therefore I beg you to stoop to our level and provide such translations as you deem appropriate, either within your core text or as footnotes.
You will, no doubt, as a teacher, understand that a lesson which is incomprehensible to the student may be worse than useless.
And I know I am not alone.
Whereas I may have once considered myself backward, stupid or witless - I am now merely conscious that some approaches are not for me.
Full-stop.
Period.
End of story.
I don't often say anything in this thread because it's usually beyond my understanding but when I was reading through the website I referenced in my last post and came across that bit I posted I just thought I might try to enter the conversation with a small contribution of something I could understand. You're response to my post made me feel pretty bad and very unwelcome. I don't understand why you had to be mean and why you're more interested in arguing about the minutiae of interpreting extremely subtle and often obscure points than you are in following the basic tenets of the Noble Eightfold Path.
I have no vested interest when it comes to either side of this debate. It makes absolutely no difference to my practice whatsoever. As a beginner to Buddhism I'm well aware that I don't really know very much but there's one thing I do know; it's better to be kind than right.
At another level, I can understand that a Buddhologist like Imago may find the exercise of translation to be a betrayal of the 'original' text. The same thing happens when we approach any writings in a language other than our own. As the Italians remind us, traduttore traditore (the translator is a traitor).
One problem that arises for me is the question of authenticity, which seems to be at the heart of Imago's objections to our naive simplicity. This same problem exists in Christian scriptural exegesis: the language in which the founder's words are recorded may or may not be the actual language used at the time. How often we are reminded that the Christian gospels and the Buddhist sutras were written down long after the departure of the speaker.
When I first started to read Buddhsit scriptures, I took for granted that the Pali canon represented the best redaction of the Buddha's own words in his original tongue. Since then, I have read a number of philological historians, particularly from the sub-continent, who challenge this belief, suggesting the Pali was not spoken (or written) until some time after the Buddha's death. If this is true, we must accept that we are at additional removes from the direct experience, and, even, of its first expression at Sarnath. In the same way, we are far removed from the actual words of Jesus, or Abraham Lincoln (whose address at Gettysburg has been tidied up after the event).
I would lie if I say that the above argument from authority has no flaws. It certainly has, and the basic flaw is the different interpretations of sunyata in post-Nagarjunian Tathagatagarbha. They would interpret Emptiness of asamskrta-dharmas (including nirvana, and especially tathata) as emptiness of the empirical characteristics of all samskrta-dharmas, so the two nirodhas (cessations, i.e., the two types of nirvana) and some other three added-on asamskrtas would be declared empty of anityatva (temporaryness), duhkhatva (sorrow), klesatva (defilement), and anatmatva (lack of Self).
But this was not the interpretation of Nagarjuna as laid down in Dharma-samgraha. So better then to have a look at all the 20 sunyatas, and then read the detailed commentary of Ven. Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamtso Rinpoche on what Candrakirti had to say in his Madhyamakavatara, the section on the 20 Emptinesses.
Would you care to grace us with an expression of your personal take on sunyatta? Is it a Nagarjunian one or anti-Nagarjuna?
I have found the following comment very useful:
Additionally, do you have a good reading list on Nagarjuna?
I just reread this & thought I would comment:
For that matter, why complicate buddhism with a doctrine of "self"? The buddha said many times that he only taught two things: suffering & the end of suffering. That is why I have stated that I really don't think this issue is essential to practice.
Mind is born with thoughts, consciousness with formations. When thoughts cease, where is mind? When formations cease, can anything such as consciousness be found?
And there is no denying or affirming self, just seeing 'self' for what it is. Anything more than that is a complication. To illustrate:
The buddha said 'there is suffering' not a 'there is sufferer.' This is a very important distinction. But he also never said there wasn't flesh (materiality/rupa). Once again, the key here is not an absolute denial, but a proper recognition of what sort of reality the 'sufferer' is. The general argument is that the 'sufferer' is simply a mental fabrication based on sense impressions. It exists, but only as an appearance. The key is to quit feeding this appearance by cutting off its nutriment (all the processes which lead to it). This is unbinding. Beyond this, there is no point asserting either Atta or Anatta as some absolute reality. Both are fabrications themselves. Both have their own usefulness & limitations.
_/\_
metta
An interesting (imo) article on Nagarjuna:
Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought
by Jay L. Garfield and Graham Priest
_/\_
metta
I understand that the triad occurs elsewhere...only as quoted it was given as from dhammapada, where it does contains the very clarifying lines which Anasavesa rightly though gruffly pointed out.
I think your analogy about the arm imprecisely describes the opposing view. When you lose your arm and you survive it, you (hopefully) say "I don't have one of my arms now, but that does not change who I am. I am still a real person, and I still want to make the best of my time." In this sense to affirm the attan, even if only in a negative way as I have attempted to do here, would not be comparable in your analogy at all to an invisible essence of an arm, but rather to the fact that despite having lost your arm, you are still a person. To say "there is no self" is almost the same as to say, by your analogy, that when the arm is cut off, the person too, is cut off, because there is no person separable from the arm. You and I have definitely come to an understanding on this, and I can admire your middle-ground view since, even though you cannot bring yourself to affirm the self even in a negative way (neti, neti), I know you see the problems with "no-self," so between you and I there is very little disagreement on "no-self". I just have not come across a way of advocating "there is no self" which does not find itself implying, despite probably all best intentions, an ucchedavada (annihilationist) or sakkaya view. I know that to you, my advocacy of self in the Buddha's teachings may then appear to be very lopsided and not in the middle. To me it is right in the middle (between aggregated being and total non-being) But I see it as the only non-contradictory way of interpreting much of what is said of self. For no-self or even no-view-of-self interpretation, there would certainly be far fewer contradictions or interpretive question marks if the Buddha would never have said anything about self (attan) whatsoever. But he did, and more often than many would like us to think. And I think, for myself, that the Buddha's teachings are resolved into a more useful whole if I interpret these statements and mentions of self to refer to a very practically real self which is not any one or any combination of the khandhas.
I apologize if all this is just a redundancy on much of what has been said earlier in the thread.
in friendliness,
V.
Thanks for your response.
Just a quick clarification:
My point was here was as to how Nibbana is regarded. It does not really state anything either way about the person or the self. And considering Nibbana in terms of the 6 sense spheres we have, as Thanissaro stated in the commentary you linked, gone beyond range. Any implications either way about self in regards to Nibbana is complicating the uncomplicated.
I'm not sure if you thought I was saying otherwise, but I thought I'd clarify anyway.
_/\_
metta
Thank you for this link!
Muuu!!
_/\_
metta
The buddha said 'there is suffering' not a 'there is sufferer.' This is a very important distinction.
It is like patient and his desease. If say there is a disease, does it mean there no patient, and no human at all?
Is realy impornt to stress for inteligent people that there patient is subject of treatment?
If there is no suffering and no sufferer, why all suffer?
And who will no suffer?
Buddha speak very explicitly : "I am awaken"
He does not say"there is awaken".
Very intersting shift, is not?
No, i am lookin forward to apply the same logic.
Certainly the Buddha used the words I & you, he & she quite a great deal. I am not denying that. My point really comes down to the question you are asking.
"Who is suffering and who awakens?"
My point is that no conceptual analysis can really answer this question and that we should take the advice of the Buddha that it cannot be said that we have a self/are a self or that we don't have a self/aren't a self, as these are all mental constructions/fabrications. In other words, 'you' have to get a direct answer which requires doing away with all of this mental analysis, which is not ultimately reliable or satisfying.
Once again, here is a Zen presentation of this conundrum:
_/\_
metta
So,
were you sometimes by doctor? Or if someone say, there is pain in my leg. He is actually enlightement, is he not?:-))
In other words- you dont know who suffr in you. You dont know yourself. That is the problem.
Do you think, that when you started talk or think -fabricated "I am not i, am not self, there is no sufferer" you stop to suffer?
If Buddha talked about aging- He also dont think there is no body or person which age?
Or he would use the word "ager"?
See, some words and ideas implicantly include some preconditions..or they are unthinkable,which are so obvious, no must them mention.
So it seems to me that you contiunee in complicated that thing.
You fabricated thickit of unlogic statements, which is based on seeking proofs in play with words.
However,you you still suffer.. How is it possible?
Dont you think that you still are stuck in concepts and formation?
How do you want to seek the way out, if you also reject "self" which is free, independent.
You have said that if you hold nibbana as anata, it si practical.
But i dont see any practical use of it.
I dont see any practical use in deniyng subject of sufering - "self" or "i".
To forbid to call the subject with name, or to speak about subject complettly, or to remove the name for subject, this is not solution,but useless hindrance, to name thing with their names.
But i see very practical Buddha teaching, the way of awereness and discernement. Discernment i from what is no i or self, so one comes ot know oneself, and clense his mind from clinging to aggregate of clinging.
5skandhas are not complete anatomy of living being. They are groups of clinging.
What is clinging? Can stone cling? or can it bone, liver, skin, feeling, thougth cling? no.
There is mind -citta which cling. And such citta, if develop sati, alertness and knowing and could stop to cling, could be thus what is it
I say that I think that giving an answer on this is unnecessary & so I don't want to take a side. Then you say I have shifted my position, so I explain that I have basically the same position, I just don't cling to it. Then you say I am contradicting myself. So I explain why I don't agree with your position and favor my own, clinging to neither as authoritative.
Now you are saying that I deny the conventional 'self'.
Sorry, but I don't. I believe that their is something we regard as a 'self' which is a fluctuating process of interdependent factors. However, when put up to analysis there is no substantial underlying 'self' essence or core of being apart from those fluctuating, interdependent factors.
So, conventionally we have this thing we call a self that can take the form of I, you, we, he, she and all sorts of various pronouns. It also takes the form of doctor, patient, etc. However, there is no underlying, eternally unchanging core of any of those things apart from the fluctuating, interdependent factors that co-mingle, giving the appearance of all of those pronouns & even job titles.
Does that make sense?
Beyond that, I don't think it matters to much to my practice whether or not there is some Atta in the Upanishadic sense. And even if 'Neti, neti' is truly being taught by the Buddha, then I don't think we need to assert an atta anyway to achieve the same effect.
_/\_
metta
It is intristing, although buddhsim is path of deep psychology and knowledge and not of pure belief, you call the most central question as unnecessary.
So, why do judge it? Why dont you speak accordence to to truth:
"I dont know answers on these question"
I think in rigth speach belong just this straight expression and not clever sophisticated avoding.
Why is then for many to elaborete long list of argument that there is "no soul",intersting that this is necessary answer;
It is really suspective if someone speaks about arising and passing away of process, has nothing or dont know what or who does it observe. And even treat as if dont exist at all!
You saying there was murder, but no witness of this. Welcome in absurdistan.
not1not2
Sorry, but I don't. I believe that their is something we regard as a 'self' which is a fluctuating process of interdependent factors. However, when put up to analysis there is no substantial underlying 'self' essence or core of being apart from those fluctuating, interdependent factors.
You lie. You have never done such analysis.
You you put up to analysis, you will find nibbanam as Buddha did.
Nibbana is reality, which does not change, is unconditioned, interdependent.
Really shame, that you undermine the very foundation of Buddha teaching and his experience
not1not2 I believe that their is something we regard as a 'self' which is a fluctuating process of interdependent factors.
And what is this conventional "self"? How does look like? you only beliefe? so again there is no sure knowing?
If there is only conventional self, this is as to say there is no self at all, no one who suffer,and so on, then Where is basis for holy life if all is samsaric element?
No. Buddha taught resolutly, 5skandhas are not self. If you construct then some convetional "real " self then you are totaly ignore Buddha teaching.
But it seems to me, as yet,you are satisfied with verious beliefs and views..and not knowing and seeing the truth..
Then i dont understand why someone promulgate his thoughts.. Self-confirmation?
ps- i hope you will have a good coffee:-)
Accept this a little poking my post as friendly stimulation for you thinking and practise. I think you can get from you more then learned theories and beliefs..
* I am really, desperately, earnestly hoping that this phrasing and language is purely and simply indicative of your inexperience with English language usage, Anavasesa, because if it isn't, it is exactly and precisely the kind of verbal approach I have tried to indicate to you, is unacceptable and direspectful.... *
*I would respectfully ask all contributing members to temporarily cease discussion until Anavasesa has clarified by which authority and schooling he presumes to speak.
Anavasesa has provided no credentials or clues as to his whereabouts, identity or education in these matters, inspite of being asked to do so, more than once. Until Anavasesa is willing to be more open and forthcoming with regard to the above, I would request this discussion be suspended. *
Are you saying that, subtending the 5skandas, is an Observer, an ultimate 'self', which is not to be confused with the 5skandas but without which they would not arise?
Is this somewhat similar to Ramana Maharshi's "existence-consciousness-bliss"?
I find the same notion in Assagioli and psychosynthesis but is it Buddhist?
Hi, Federica,
I did not know to participate on this disscusion i need any authorisation, or acadamic degree or any permisson from "official authorities" (us mentaliy today??) :-))
So firstly, i think we are intersted in thoughts and developing our wisdom.
If you think that wisdom or knowledge need any diploma to be valid, then you are astrayd. I will suppose you dont bear such ideas. Then i dont see any sense in you requests:-)
And secondly, when we are on buddhist forum, let put down the also serious question - what academic background have Buddha Gotama?:-)).
In order to others dont suffer from suspention in continuuty of this thread due to my "duty" answer these neccessary question i will answer:
My acadimic background - is citta, interest in buddhism and seeking truth and a few years of practise.
Bye
You see, here in the West, when you join a group of people, it is usually considered a polite gesture to introduce yourself, and tell them a bit about yourself....
You need no diplomas, qualifications or certificates of any kind to join in here. Just a modicum of respect, politeness and the desire to be on an equal footing with everyone, and to recognise that they are the same, and as deserving as you
Due to his fathers' careful ministrations, I would venture to suggest that the Buddha (Siddharta Gauthama) probably had quite an intense and structured education, given his position....I'm certain that this knowledge and education stimulated him to both seek and find his path...
Developing thoughts and Wisdom is commendable. Providing Compassion and Love are included in equal measures.
So where are you from? How old are you? What school of Buddhism do you follow? How long have you been practising Buddhism,and studying it? *
If it is I would like to say that the most central issue that the Buddha taught is not Atta vs anatta, but rather the 4NT truths. All else is secondary. If you feel otherwise, I would like you to support such an assertion.
If it is not alright, then please feel free to delete this post.
Thanks
_/\_
metta
Would you be so good as to please answer my questions? *
As far as I am concerned, therefore, he has chosen to not communicate in a way that is either co-operative or communal.
I further communicated with him privately, but have received no joy in that department either.
I am frankly at a loss as to understand his reticence or reluctance to be more forthcoming. The discussion is once again, open to members.
EDIT NOTE:
I now propose to leave this thread well and truly alone.
If members have any comments or opinions they would like me to consider, they may do so by PM'ing me.
I would like it noted, however, that being a Moderator is not always an easy task. I have acted in the best interests of all members concerned, and attempted to implement some order. Whilst I am prepared to consider all POV, I would respectfully indicate that to publicly argue with, or to ignore Moderator's comments is not advisable.
Thank you. *
Exactly not1not2.
Buddha taught 4noble truth. And why?
For benifit of atta!
For benefit of ourself.
Therefor atta v anatta is artifically created contradiction by propagators of absolute anatta - the teaching about "no atta"
8fold path is included in 4th. And 8fold path including samma ditthi, samma thinking.
And this imho what we are trying to solve here on this thread.
Forgive me, Anavasesa. I am somewhat confused by what you are arguing for.
Are you saying that, subtending the 5skandas, is an Observer, an ultimate 'self', which is not to be confused with the 5skandas but without which they would not arise?
Is this somewhat similar to Ramana Maharshi's "existence-consciousness-bliss"?
I find the same notion in Assagioli and psychosynthesis but is it yours? and is it Buddhist?
Sure to benefit ourselves. However, the question in debate is not over the existence of our conventional selves, but rather whether buddha taught a 'via negativa' (Neti, neti) of some Transcendent Atta or not, & the extent to which the positions we take on this subject affects our practice. My opinion is that this debate does not affect the practice of buddhism in a positive way & that making any imputations that he did or did not teach a Transcendental Atta is just forming a view to be relinquished at a later time.
Now, in regards to Samma Ditthi, the following is what the Buddha said (among other things):
There is more to Samma Ditthi, but this is the basis of, it in my understanding. And whether or not there is validity to your idea of self, the buddha made it clear that holding a view in regards to the self is to be avoided in the Brahmajala sutta as well as others.
As far as 'right thinking' is concerned, is this an expansion on right view, or is it related to one of the other 7 aspects of the 8-fold path ( right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration)?
thanks
_/\_
metta
If there is suffering, how can it be that there is no sufferer?
What is the basis of this "I" that sits or suffers or sleeps or types? I am so slow and hesitant on the path that the emptiness still seems to me to be dynamic, even 'personal' in some sense.
Perhaps, Not1not2, your own practice has led you to dissolution of all personality, memory, sense input and interpretation, to the elimination of the 5skandas. My own has yet to find such absence but, rather, a sense closer to Ramana Maharshi's description. But I know that I have far to go.
I certainly have not realized the dissolution of the khandas. And I certainly have not completely denied that there is such thing as a person. However, I contemplate things in terms of both the conventional (phenomena) level and the ultimate (pnuemena) level. At the conventional level I do not deny the person. On the ultimate level, a person is just the play & flux of interdependent factors (khandas, 6 sense bases, 12 links of dependent origination). And on the ulimate level, nothing more can be said (or thought for that matter) that ultimately holds up to rigorous analysis (following the work of Nagarjuna). And that includes even the distinction between the conventional & ultimate (hence my username), as well as my own positions & statements. All concepts, by their very nature are useful, but limited in scope & application. Once their usefulness is exhausted, there is no point carrying them around anymore.
For this reason & others, the only real value I find in this debate is the extent to which it exposes the usefulness & limitations of all the positions we are taking on this matter. I don't think it is desirable to come to any solid, ontological conclusion on this matter, but rather this should be considered a rigourous analysis of what the buddha was really getting at & how it leads to the cessation of dukkha. And I think that everyone on this thread has been attempting to do just that.
thanks
_/\_
metta
Simon, all,
I understand that your past spiritual experiences, especially those concerning Christianity and various other theistic religions, will influence your take on many of these issues, the ways in which you frame your questions, as well as the ways in which you search for your answers. As much as I would like to try and answer your questions in more detail, with appropriate Sutta quotations and so forth, I am afraid that you will take offense. Nevertheless, to help others who come to Buddhism and ask questions about self, I would like to try and answer as simplistically as I can.
While these questions may be important in most world religions, they do not find such an important place in Buddhism. Most beliefs rest upon the assumption that there has to be something there in the first place — a spiritual core, soul, entity, self, essence, et cetera — and that our path is to simply discover what that animating and vital principle is. The Buddha, in his many years of teaching, asked his followers to drop those questions altogether, and focus instead on comprehending stress, abandoning its cause, realizing its cessation, and developing the path leading to that cessation.
The Buddha never directed his followers to chase after “the one who suffers”. It is hard for the intellect, which is conditioned and a part of the conventional being, to realize how there can be suffering and yet no sufferer to be found. That is why the path of practice he taught eventually leads one to transcend mere conceptualizations, and open one to experience the gateway of liberation: whatever has the nature of arising, all that has the nature of ceasing. The basis for this "I" is avijja. The five khandhas, if seen with wisdom, are not so much things as they are activities.
Regards,
Jason
I am not sure if you will find any of these references as helpful as I have, but I would like to share them with you nonetheless. They deal directly with what I am trying to say in the simplest of terms, and are far more articulate than I ever could be:
Untangling the Present
The Integrity of Emptiness
The Five Aggregates
The Four Nutriments of Life
Regards,
Jason
You are quite right, Jason, that my own experience is the context out of which I function. And I recognise that the Buddha is reported as having spoken out very strongly against pursuing some of the questions that I ask. My problem is that this is too close, for me, to the sort of 'vatican' approach that I find stultifying.
It seems to me that Buddhism is the broadest 'church' that it is possible to envision. More so, even, than the Church of England! And, in both cases, the core beliefs are very sparse and very general.
I would have been disappointed had you not brought some orthodoxy to this debate. My intention is not to claim that I can match your understanding of fundamental Buddhist positions and I really do rejoice when you can point us to specific references.
I hope that my previous post was not taken in a negative way whatsoever, as I was in no way trying to insult your beliefs or experiences. I would never wish to do such a thing either consciously or otherwise. Please believe me when I say that.
Whether or not what I said was considered "orthodox", it is what I have come to understand the Buddha's overall message to be. To me, it does not seem that the Buddha — as recorded in the Pali Canon — spoke out against asking these questions in the spirit of being stultifying as much as he simply saw that they did not lead to the end of suffering. If these types of questions could lead one to the end of suffering, then by his own admission (SN 56.31), the Buddha would have taught them to his disciples.
People were never forbidden to ask these sorts of questions, and if one were so inclined they were free to explore them as much as they liked (much like Vacchagotta the wanderer); however, the Buddha did teach that these sorts of questions would lead to a thicket of wrong views (MN 72). I certainly do not claim to have some sort of superior knowledge, especially concerning Dhamma, but I do wish to share what I believe the Buddha was trying to convey with those who might not be as familiar with these texts.
In other words, when people bring up these questions in such a way as to fit them into their Buddhist practice, I simply worry that they are doing the exact opposite of what the Buddha suggested his followers should do to truly end suffering.
Jason
In other words, when people bring up these questions in such a way as to fit them into their Buddhist practice
Can you please specify what kind of question you are speaking about?
It seem a little to me, that you confuse the central question on core of human being with useless or redundent question wich just divert attention from inward investigation.
And you alone have mention that the cause of suffering is avijja. So we must come to vijja.
Remebmer what amazing knowledge Buddha got every night after his very englightenment.
Of course, certain knowledge is not possible gain by mere ratinonal or conceptual thinking.
But no everyone is not depedent on such limited tool. One has also intuition, and when come someone with real knowledge of something one can to regonize or understand the value of such knowledge.
And it seems to me, the is very modern - ignorance (in broad sense) change for allegedly wisdom that as Buddhist we are supposed not to ask certain question:-)
But the question is either wrong build up or someone has not know the answer.
Certainly one could also evalute that such question is not important for holy life or is out of reach our present abilities then drop from such question is very reasonable.
Now i speak of question like - how many galaxies are in universe, how the devas from such heaven dress or speak.
But what is very important or usable to know - fyzical laws, or law of karma, or to know that earth is not pancake, this means on hieger level "vertical" knowlege, that thera many spheres, devas and gods, and this is what Buddha also taught others.
One need the proper universal or cosmological perspektive.
From this the deeper and hiegher understanding develop and can more easily to drop cling to earth as something singular, and one can from such universal compleation or cotenplation of universe gain realy deep impuls for motivation and proper practise.
To profess buddhism is nice, but it need not neccessary mean to enter on holy path.
So the intent is finally the most important thing.
If Buddha have no such deep intent to find path out of samsara, to find what is unborn, pure, byond pain and death,he did not become a Buddha.
I think what Jason is getting at was expressed in his link to MN 72:
In this one short snippet we see both the Buddha's definition of Samma Ditthi (Right View) and that the Buddha favors thinking in terms of the Four Foundations of Mindfulness rather than engaging into speculation. Also, while intuition is largely what guides on this path, it is not the measure which the buddha advised to evaluate things by:
Now, if this view of yours leads you out of suffering, then fine. The extent to which brings about skillful qualities & reduces unskillful qualities, is the extent to which it is in line with the Buddha's teaching. The extent to which it doesn't, is the extent to which it is not. Now, if you feel that your understanding of this fits perfectly into this approach for you, then I'm not really going to argue, even if I disagree with it logically. For me, your view does not do these things, and even mine has it's problems & shortcomings for me. I have found this line of thinking & debate to have exhausted most of its value for me.
Anyway, take care. I wish the best in your path.
_/\_
metta
To clarify, I simply wanted to try and get a few points across which I felt were important concerning all of these questions of self in a Buddhist context (albeit a predominately Theravada based one). I am not trying to argue that anyone’s beliefs and experiences are “wrong” per se, but I am trying to point out that they might be based upon previous experiences that are heavily influenced by various theistic faiths and doctrines—some of which are completely irrelevant in the Buddha’s dispensation. The reason I say this is that the majority of these faiths and doctrines are predicated upon a different set of assumptions, assumptions that the Buddha predominately had his followers avoid altogether because he viewed them as inappropriate attention in that they do not lead to the end of suffering (MN 2). In essence, I am not trying to argue against anyone’s experiences as much as I am trying to articulate how they could better relate to the Buddha’s teachings in the context of how we frame our questions—some of which the Buddha said are simply not worth asking. If you are of the mind to disagree with the way I present the Buddha's teachings, you are free to express your concerns and criticisms; however, I do not wish to be drawn into another atta versus anatta debate—therefore, you may have the last word if you so wish.
Respectfully,
Jason