Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Understanding Anatta

13»

Comments

  • Sabbe Sankhara Anicca - Sabbe Sankhara Dukkha - Sabbe Dhamma Anatta
    The 5 aggregates are conditioned and not self.
    That which is unconditioned which is included in the term dhamma is also not self.

    Advaita - The unconditioned is your True Self. Brahman can never be known as an object of experience because it is the very subject that experiences everything. It is untouched by aging and death. Brahman is at best described as that infinite, omnipresent, omnipotent, incorporeal, impersonal, transcendent reality that is the divine ground of all Being. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Ontology_-_The_nature_of_being] Brahman sounds very similar to nibbana except that in Buddhism it is also nor self.

    Self has nowhere to hide.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    Sabbe Sankhara Anicca - Sabbe Sankhara Dukkha - Sabbe Dhamma Anatta
    The 5 aggregates are conditioned and not self.
    That which is unconditioned which is included in the term dhamma is also not self.
    Self has nowhere to hide.
    :thumbup:
  • Porpoise
    In this passage the Buddha is advising that we should not "own" the aggregates or regard them as self. He doesn't seem to be saying that we have a self though.
    To say of each aggregate 'this is mine' (etam mama) is to be in the grip of craving which naturally causes suffering insofar as each aggregate is suffering. To think of each aggregate, 'I am this' (eso aham asmi) is to be in the grip of pride. To think of each aggregate 'this is my self' (eso me attâ) is to be caught in the grip of wrong view.

    To infer from this that we don't have a self (natthattâ) is incorrect. The Buddha has never taught the self to be an aggregate or there is no self (nathattâ)



  • SabreSabre Veteran
    edited June 2012
    Sabre,
    That's what you said before. It isn't anywhere in your quote, but ok... my question is, what would that 'atta' be? Considering for example
    Attâ or pure Mind cannot be approached with the aggregates or khandhas. To confuse attâ with the aggregates is, in fact, eternalism (and to deny the self, natthattâ, is annihilationism). How we enter the world that transcends the aggregates is through dhyana/jhana.

    In the jhanas there is still consciousness, and some volitional aspects at least in the first jhana. So it is not transcending the aggregates.

    That's why my question to you was, how would you describe any experience if it is not the aggregates? What exists outside of the aggregates? What would that be? You reply with a name 'pure mind', but I mean, what could it be REALLY. And does it make sense?

    No need to convince me. Neither am I trying to argue you. Just for your consideration.

    Metta!
  • Sabre, In the fouth jhana the adept turn his mind away from the five aggregates. He then focuses his mind on the undying element (amatadhatu), and attains nibbana (cp. M.i.435-6). Incidentally, in the Samannaphalasutta of the Digha-Nikaya in the fourth jhana a spiritual body is made (manomayakaya).
  • I'm not taking sides in this, but just to point out that 'REALLY' might not be so strong as it seems.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    The Buddha has never taught...there is no self (nathattâ)
    "Sabbe dhamma anatta" seems like a pretty clear statement that there is no self to be found anywhere, either in the conditioned or the unconditioned.
  • DairyLamaDairyLama Veteran Veteran
    He then focuses his mind on the undying element (amatadhatu), and attains nibbana
    So what is the deathless element? It doesn't sound like a thing or a place.
  • Porpoise:

    "Some translate the phrase sabbe dhamma literally as "all phenomena" (both compound and non-compound). This is not true. According to Lord Buddha's Teaching in the Dhammapada Pali text, as interpreted by the original arahant commentators and by the most recent translators (Carter and Palihawadana 1987), the words sabbe dhamma , in this context, refer only to the Five Aggregates . These are sankhara or compounds. Thus, the reference excludes pure, non-compound aspects of nature such as nibbana" (The Heart of Dhammakaya by Jayabhirato Bhikkhu).

    And,

    "Tattha sabbe dhammâti pañcakkhandhâ eva adhippetâ" (Dhammapada Atthakatha). (Trans. That “sabbe dhammâ” is the five aggregates is thus understood..)

    Porpoise, you are going to have to go the specific PTS citation that I have provided; then read the Pali if you have further problems. Maybe you can find it online. It is the Maha-Malunkyasutta (no. 64) from the Majjhima-Nikaya.



  • Porpoise, So what is the deathless element? This might help.

    "Tapussa, because of hearing the Tathagata, has come to utmost supreme transcendence, has seen utmost deathlessness and has his being in the realization of the deathless itself" (A.iii.451). (Trans. I.B. Horner)
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    What is deathless (undying)? That which is unborn. These describe Nirvana because Nirvana is the description of the realization of Emptiness. It's not a thing and not a realm, but is beyond existence and non-existence.
  • "Light-bringers, dhamma-speakers, open the door
    Of the deathless, set free many folk from bondage" (Itivuttaka [III, iv, v]).
Sign In or Register to comment.