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.
We need to use what is authentically skilful, not what is historical and superseded/inappropriate dogma.
I don't understand this comment. What's wrong with going back to early Buddhism?
And speaking of early Buddhism, I came across some articles that say that early Bon in Tibet actually came from early Buddhism practiced in the oasis towns bordering Tibet to the north, and from Bactria, to the west. It seeped in through Kashmir, and from the north, long before Buddhism was officially introduced. I find that very intriguing. But after Mahayana/Tantric Buddhism came to Tibet, Bon was heavily influenced by that, so the earliest Buddhist influences were superceded by a later Buddhism. Still, perhaps based on ancient texts (?) experts apparently are able to identify the early elements in it, which differ from the Vajrayana aspects.
@SpinyNorman said:
Why not just say "Buddhahood" then?
Life wasn't meant to be easy @Spiny life wasn't meant to be easy
I know, we had it hard, we never had tautology and synonyms, sheer luxury....
3
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Another problem I could see with the term is that it could imply that our individuality is fake when really it is a tool without which we would have no way of experiencing.
Sometimes I think some of us use Buddhism as an escape rather than a way of living.
Not sure if that last sentence really applies or if it just popped in there as a projection.
Will have to explore, I guess.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@David said:
Sometimes I think some of us use Buddhism as an escape rather than a way of living.
I think that Buddhism is more a way of shaping our lives than escaping them. If I look at what I do differently as a Buddhist, it is more a question of being much more aware of what I choose to absorb than leaving things behind.
@David said:
Another problem I could see with the term is that it could imply that our individuality is fake when really it is a tool without which we would have no way of experiencing.
It's more hinting at something hidden to me than negating something entirely.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
Sometimes I think some of us use Buddhism as an escape rather than a way of living.
I think that Buddhism is more a way of shaping our lives than escaping them. If I look at what I do differently as a Buddhist, it is more a question of being much more aware of what I choose to absorb than leaving things behind.
@SpinyNorman said:
Why not just say "Buddhahood" then?
The Theravadans can, and do. So can Mahayanists, but the term "True Self", I believe, is in the MahaParinirvana Sutras, so we are to believe it was the Buddha who came up with it, not some later commentators, or others trying to sneak a "soul" concept into Buddhism, or a Cosmic Consciousness concept, or Atman/Brahman/whatever. He must have had his reasons for coining and using that term.
His Noddliness or I should say His Noodliness aka The Flying Speghetti Monster are both non-existent. However just like the notion of an emptied self or True Being, we can talk about them. How then does an empty of self being, a Bodhi Buddha Buddy aka our True Shellfish experience Buddha Hoody awakening?
From experience during meditative insight, we eventually know that True Self is not to be found in the aggregates of dependent origination. No Self there. The awakened Buddha is our True Nature, our Real Being. It is not a cructacean construction. Not a figment of His Noodlinesses imagination.
It is a bit like Nothing else.
... And now back to the rebirth and endless cycle of truth and untruth ...
"True nature" sounds nearer the mark. Not sure about "Real Being", which implies something solid beneath illusory being, like an Atman.
"Ultimate Nature" sounds a little pretentious, and it could be the name of a TV wildlife documentary series.
@SpinyNorman said:
"True nature" sounds nearer the mark. Not sure about "Real Being", which implies something solid beneath illusory being, like an Atman.
"Ultimate Nature" sounds a little pretentious, and it could be the name of a TV wildlife documentary series.
in this thread, there are some posts which say it is not like Atman or it is not Atman. So can you please let me know what are the qualities/attributes of Atman? since i do not know about it, that is why I am asking. the only thing which I have read about it in Bhagwad Geeta is that Atman cannot be experienced by the 5 physical senses and it cannot be thought about too. So a thought came to my mind then what is Atman, which I have found some people to say it is not like Atman/it does not exist. I am not saying that Atman exists as I do not know what Atman is. But how can somebody surely say that Atman does not exist, when what is Atman exactly cannot be defined? Or if there is any URL which describes what Atman is, then please share with me as I would like to read it. Thanks in advance.
@misecmisc1 said:But how can somebody surely say that Atman does not exist, when what is Atman exactly cannot be defined? Or if there is any URL which describes what Atman is, then please share with me as I would like to read it. Thanks in advance.
@misecmisc1 said:But how can somebody surely say that Atman does not exist, when what is Atman exactly cannot be defined? Or if there is any URL which describes what Atman is, then please share with me as I would like to read it. Thanks in advance.
these words does not describe - What an Atman actually is? Saying Atman refers to a self inside us - does not mean anything. the next question is - What is this self?
This Wiki article is probably more relevant to the discussion we've been having here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)
You need to select the Buddhism tab on the main site, second on the list.
I go with the early Buddhist view because it looks like the original teaching. It seems that ideas of "True Self" were added in later by some schools.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@misecmisc1 said:But how can somebody surely say that Atman does not exist, when what is Atman exactly cannot be defined? Or if there is any URL which describes what Atman is, then please share with me as I would like to read it. Thanks in advance.
these words does not describe - What an Atman actually is? Saying Atman refers to a self inside us - does not mean anything. the next question is - What is this self?
A tricky part can be found at the end of the second paragraph when clicking on Atman (Buddhism) in Spinys last link.
When Buddhists talk of an Atman or true self, we are not referencing an individual being but the whole process of being so it is not at all the same as a "soul" which is what is meant by "self".
There is no reason to confuse true self with a Hindu Atman because it is a Buddhist perspective. The terminology should be updated to make it all more logical though.
No-self, non-self, true self... Sometimes we mean the individual, sometimes we mean sunyata itself, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Teachings on emptiness and no-self are confusing to many and some want to keep it that way, be sure, lol.
There are actually some people walking around right now thinking they don't exist. That's it's all a big trick. The problem is, for a trick like that to work, there needs to be a mind to deceive.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I go with the early Buddhist view because it looks like the original teaching. It seems that ideas of "True Self" were added in later by some schools.
I think the label was added later but the idea was just being expounded on.
I don't think Buddha wanted us to invest too much time believing or not believing in eternity though. I hear a call for agnosticism in his lessons on the extreme views but I find it fun to think about.
I am speculating on the idea that there is also another reason why the Buddha was silent when asked if there was a self.
Words are actions and action is karma. Maybe he was conveying a message that there is a conditioned self as long as there is karma and thus you cannot answer that question with words. Just thinking out loud.
@namarupa said:> I am speculating on the idea that there is also another reason why the Buddha was silent when asked if there was a self.
Yes, he felt that speculating about a self wasn't a fruitful line of enquiry. On the other hand he repeatedly said there is no self "in" the aggregates, and there is nothing in the suttas which suggests a self "in" Nibbana.
I go with the early Buddhist view because it looks like the original teaching. It seems that ideas of "True Self" were added in later by some schools.
I think the label was added later but the idea was just being expounded on.
I don't think Buddha wanted us to invest too much time believing or not believing in eternity though. I hear a call for agnosticism in his lessons on the extreme views but I find it fun to think about.
Yes, some ideas were developed, for example anatta becoming sunyata. But the notion of a "True Self" are not found in early Buddhism.
Yes, some ideas were developed, for example anatta becoming sunyata. But the notion of a "True Self" are not found in early Buddhism.
Is Mahayana (or Zen) part of early Buddhism?
No, and as others have observed it would seem that Zen was heavily influenced by Taoism.
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
Mahayana really came together about 150 - 200 years after the Buddha's passing into Parinibbana.
I think sub-divisions of other schools came progressively later.
But I'm probably incorrect....
The challenge is trying to extricate the essence of Buddhaharma from all the subsequent accretions and cross-pollination. I would suggest the essence is liberation from suffering, based on insight into conditionality.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Who would have thought we'd have to sift through dogma to figure out if we exist or not?
@namarupa said:> I am speculating on the idea that there is also another reason why the Buddha was silent when asked if there was a self.
He was far from silent on the issue in the suttas, repeatedly affirming that there is no self "in" the aggregates. And "sabbe dhamma anatta" is generally taken to confirm that there is no self "in" Nibbana either. And of course there are suttas like the Bahiya Sutta, where Nibbana is equated with there being "no you there".
There was one occasion in the suttas where he didn't commit to an answer, but that seems to have been more about not further confusing the questioner.
@David said:
Who would have thought we'd have to sift through dogma to figure out if we exist or not?
Hilarious!
Why hilarious? This is a Buddhist forum so it's reasonable to discuss Buddhist teachings.
One of those teachings is that dependent arising is the middle way between existence and non-existence, so again we are back to conditionality. These are not beliefs to be taken on, but theories to be investigated in our own experience.
Anyway, if you can find a "true self" or soul, perhaps you could tell us what it is like?
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
I think many misunderstand the Bahiya Sutta.
He's telling Bahiya not to take things personally and telling him to train himself (his what?) to take himself out of the equation and just be.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
Who would have thought we'd have to sift through dogma to figure out if we exist or not?
Hilarious!
Why hilarious? This is a Buddhist forum so it's reasonable to discuss Buddhist teachings.
One of those teachings is that dependent arising is the middle way between existence and non-existence, so again we are back to conditionality. These are not beliefs to be taken on, but theories to be investigated in our own experience.
Who's own experience?
Anyway, if you can find a "true self" or soul, perhaps you could tell us what it is like?
Please quote me as saying I have found a soul.
You don't have to make stuff up just because you don't like my take.
Anywho... I'm off to work and used up all my cell data.
Here is the relevant passage from the Bahiya Sutta for reference:
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
@David said:
Please quote me as saying I have found a soul.
It might be mine.
I sold mine for a tin of sardines to a nice red man with a pitch fork and awesome barbecue skills ...
Quite frankly I never used it, not sure what it was if anything ...
@David said:
Who would have thought we'd have to sift through dogma to figure out if we exist or not?
Hilarious!
Why hilarious? This is a Buddhist forum so it's reasonable to discuss Buddhist teachings.
One of those teachings is that dependent arising is the middle way between existence and non-existence, so again we are back to conditionality. These are not beliefs to be taken on, but theories to be investigated in our own experience.
Who's own experience?
Anyway, if you can find a "true self" or soul, perhaps you could tell us what it is like?
Please quote me as saying I have found a soul.
You don't have to make stuff up just because you don't like my take.
Anywho... I'm off to work and used up all my cell data.
Eh? How am I making stuff up? You seem to have an ongoing problem with anatta, so I asked if you could find a true self or soul. It's a reasonable question.
So can you find a true self or soul?
As for your "take" it often sounds more like Taoism than Buddhism.
@lobster said: I sold mine for a tin of sardines to a nice red man with a pitch fork and awesome barbecue skills ...
Quite frankly I never used it, not sure what it was if anything ...
Is it like an inner sole or something more fishy?
Clearly you are lost to Cod. Selling your sole is one thing, but don't part with your winkles.
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
@SpinyNorman said:
Here is the relevant passage from the Bahiya Sutta for reference:
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
Well, yes. I wouldn't have said what I did if I didn't know the sutta.
You are missing the context with skipping to where Buddha finally gives the lesson to Bahiya though. Bahiya was too impatient. He first interrupted the meditation session and then thoughtlessly interrupted the Buddha during alms collection.
Maybe he was a relative?
Sorry I couldn't resist.
He was so personally invested in the question that he thought it was so important as to warrant intrusion but it wasn't and he had to wait.
Buddha told him not to get so personally invested and gives him a tip on how to do so. He tells Bahiya to train his self to take himself out of the equation.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
Who would have thought we'd have to sift through dogma to figure out if we exist or not?
Hilarious!
Why hilarious? This is a Buddhist forum so it's reasonable to discuss Buddhist teachings.
One of those teachings is that dependent arising is the middle way between existence and non-existence, so again we are back to conditionality. These are not beliefs to be taken on, but theories to be investigated in our own experience.
Who's own experience?
Anyway, if you can find a "true self" or soul, perhaps you could tell us what it is like?
Please quote me as saying I have found a soul.
You don't have to make stuff up just because you don't like my take.
Anywho... I'm off to work and used up all my cell data.
Eh? How am I making stuff up? You seem to have an ongoing problem with anatta, so I asked if you could find a true self or soul. It's a reasonable question.
Actually, you are confused, sorry. I have no problem at all and I've constantly said I don't think there is an eternal "self" or "soul".
You are the one with the comprehension issues or else you're just pretending to have read my posts. It's ok to skim, I don't care.
So can you find a true self or soul?
Why don't you read my earlier posts on this thread before asking me to repeat myself.
As for your "take" it often sounds more like Taoism than Buddhism.
Only because you are stuck on terminology and they work well together if all the woo woo is left out of it.
My take shouldn't be confused with belief at any time either as I have no beliefs.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
edited August 2016
I think the idea is to train to be more selfless, not to train ourselves out of existence.
What would be the point of compassion?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
I think the idea is to train to be more selfless, not to train ourselves out of existence.
What would be the point of compassion?
I feel like its been said again and again that sunyata is about something between a solid existence and non existence. That the two truths acknowledge the conventional world while still getting at the heart of the way reality truly is. For there to be two truths we have to actually think and talk about the second truth too.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I think the idea is to train to be more selfless, not to train ourselves out of existence.
What would be the point of compassion?
I feel like its been said again and again that sunyata is about something between a solid existence and non existence. That the two truths acknowledge the conventional world while still getting at the heart of the way reality truly is. For there to be two truths we have to actually think and talk about the second truth too.
Again, I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. You're preaching to the choir.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
I think the idea is to train to be more selfless, not to train ourselves out of existence.
What would be the point of compassion?
I feel like its been said again and again that sunyata is about something between a solid existence and non existence. That the two truths acknowledge the conventional world while still getting at the heart of the way reality truly is. For there to be two truths we have to actually think and talk about the second truth too.
Again, I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. You're preaching to the choir.
Well, you keep referring to this talk of emptiness as meaning non existence.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
I think the idea is to train to be more selfless, not to train ourselves out of existence.
What would be the point of compassion?
I feel like its been said again and again that sunyata is about something between a solid existence and non existence. That the two truths acknowledge the conventional world while still getting at the heart of the way reality truly is. For there to be two truths we have to actually think and talk about the second truth too.
Again, I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. You're preaching to the choir.
Well, you keep referring to this talk of emptiness as meaning non existence.
Not me. Emptiness is the potential for change as far as I ever claim. Emptiness as non-existence of the temporary individual is the point I am countering, not making.
Say that three times fast.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@David said:
I think the idea is to train to be more selfless, not to train ourselves out of existence.
What would be the point of compassion?
I feel like its been said again and again that sunyata is about something between a solid existence and non existence. That the two truths acknowledge the conventional world while still getting at the heart of the way reality truly is. For there to be two truths we have to actually think and talk about the second truth too.
Again, I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. You're preaching to the choir.
Well, you keep referring to this talk of emptiness as meaning non existence.
Not me. Emptiness is the potential for change as far as I ever claim. Emptiness as non-existence of the temporary individual is the point I am countering, not making.
Say that three times fast.
I haven't read anything said recently as saying the conventional self doesn't exist. I think maybe you are reading into things more than is there.
When there is talk of negating the self I take it to mean the innate view of the world that we all have. Not the intellectual idea of a changing, conventional self.
I'm going to let it go now. I don't think you're really getting the whole picture here but I can see we can't come to an agreement, so I think I'll just agree to disagree.
0
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@person said:> I feel like its been said again and again that sunyata is about something between a solid existence and non existence.
Or you could say how we see ourselves, and how we actually are.
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Comments
I don't understand this comment. What's wrong with going back to early Buddhism?
And speaking of early Buddhism, I came across some articles that say that early Bon in Tibet actually came from early Buddhism practiced in the oasis towns bordering Tibet to the north, and from Bactria, to the west. It seeped in through Kashmir, and from the north, long before Buddhism was officially introduced. I find that very intriguing. But after Mahayana/Tantric Buddhism came to Tibet, Bon was heavily influenced by that, so the earliest Buddhist influences were superceded by a later Buddhism. Still, perhaps based on ancient texts (?) experts apparently are able to identify the early elements in it, which differ from the Vajrayana aspects.
Nothing. If it is useful, go back, forward or sideways.
Just as you can describe the True Self as:
Or: :all of the above"
Life wasn't meant to be easy @Spiny life wasn't meant to be easy
so will replacing True Self with Buddhahood solve the problem? the next question would arise then - what is Buddhahood?
does the question - who am I? - makes any sense?
"Who am I?" Oi dunno.
I know, we had it hard, we never had tautology and synonyms, sheer luxury....
Another problem I could see with the term is that it could imply that our individuality is fake when really it is a tool without which we would have no way of experiencing.
Sometimes I think some of us use Buddhism as an escape rather than a way of living.
Not sure if that last sentence really applies or if it just popped in there as a projection.
Will have to explore, I guess.
I think that Buddhism is more a way of shaping our lives than escaping them. If I look at what I do differently as a Buddhist, it is more a question of being much more aware of what I choose to absorb than leaving things behind.
It's more hinting at something hidden to me than negating something entirely.
Oh, for sure.
I was just thinking out loud.
The Theravadans can, and do. So can Mahayanists, but the term "True Self", I believe, is in the MahaParinirvana Sutras, so we are to believe it was the Buddha who came up with it, not some later commentators, or others trying to sneak a "soul" concept into Buddhism, or a Cosmic Consciousness concept, or Atman/Brahman/whatever. He must have had his reasons for coining and using that term.
His Noddliness or I should say His Noodliness aka The Flying Speghetti Monster are both non-existent. However just like the notion of an emptied self or True Being, we can talk about them. How then does an empty of self being, a Bodhi Buddha Buddy aka our True Shellfish
experience Buddha Hoody awakening?
From experience during meditative insight, we eventually know that True Self is not to be found in the aggregates of dependent origination. No Self there. The awakened Buddha is our True Nature, our Real Being. It is not a cructacean construction. Not a figment of His Noodlinesses imagination.
It is a bit like Nothing else.
... And now back to the rebirth and endless cycle of truth and untruth ...
@SpinyNorman How do the terms "True Nature" or "Real Being" grab you? Or "Ultimate Nature"? Who needs a self, anyway?
"True nature" sounds nearer the mark. Not sure about "Real Being", which implies something solid beneath illusory being, like an Atman.
"Ultimate Nature" sounds a little pretentious, and it could be the name of a TV wildlife documentary series.
in this thread, there are some posts which say it is not like Atman or it is not Atman. So can you please let me know what are the qualities/attributes of Atman? since i do not know about it, that is why I am asking. the only thing which I have read about it in Bhagwad Geeta is that Atman cannot be experienced by the 5 physical senses and it cannot be thought about too. So a thought came to my mind then what is Atman, which I have found some people to say it is not like Atman/it does not exist. I am not saying that Atman exists as I do not know what Atman is. But how can somebody surely say that Atman does not exist, when what is Atman exactly cannot be defined? Or if there is any URL which describes what Atman is, then please share with me as I would like to read it. Thanks in advance.
This Wiki article is OK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Hinduism)
these words does not describe - What an Atman actually is? Saying Atman refers to a self inside us - does not mean anything. the next question is - What is this self?
This Wiki article is probably more relevant to the discussion we've been having here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ātman_(Buddhism)
You need to select the Buddhism tab on the main site, second on the list.
I go with the early Buddhist view because it looks like the original teaching. It seems that ideas of "True Self" were added in later by some schools.
A tricky part can be found at the end of the second paragraph when clicking on Atman (Buddhism) in Spinys last link.
When Buddhists talk of an Atman or true self, we are not referencing an individual being but the whole process of being so it is not at all the same as a "soul" which is what is meant by "self".
There is no reason to confuse true self with a Hindu Atman because it is a Buddhist perspective. The terminology should be updated to make it all more logical though.
No-self, non-self, true self... Sometimes we mean the individual, sometimes we mean sunyata itself, yadda, yadda, yadda.
Teachings on emptiness and no-self are confusing to many and some want to keep it that way, be sure, lol.
There are actually some people walking around right now thinking they don't exist. That's it's all a big trick. The problem is, for a trick like that to work, there needs to be a mind to deceive.
I think the label was added later but the idea was just being expounded on.
I don't think Buddha wanted us to invest too much time believing or not believing in eternity though. I hear a call for agnosticism in his lessons on the extreme views but I find it fun to think about.
I am speculating on the idea that there is also another reason why the Buddha was silent when asked if there was a self.
Words are actions and action is karma. Maybe he was conveying a message that there is a conditioned self as long as there is karma and thus you cannot answer that question with words. Just thinking out loud.
Yes, he felt that speculating about a self wasn't a fruitful line of enquiry. On the other hand he repeatedly said there is no self "in" the aggregates, and there is nothing in the suttas which suggests a self "in" Nibbana.
Yes, some ideas were developed, for example anatta becoming sunyata. But the notion of a "True Self" are not found in early Buddhism.
Is Mahayana (or Zen) part of early Buddhism?
No, and as others have observed it would seem that Zen was heavily influenced by Taoism.
Mahayana really came together about 150 - 200 years after the Buddha's passing into Parinibbana.
I think sub-divisions of other schools came progressively later.
But I'm probably incorrect....
The challenge is trying to extricate the essence of Buddhaharma from all the subsequent accretions and cross-pollination. I would suggest the essence is liberation from suffering, based on insight into conditionality.
Who would have thought we'd have to sift through dogma to figure out if we exist or not?
Hilarious!
He was far from silent on the issue in the suttas, repeatedly affirming that there is no self "in" the aggregates. And "sabbe dhamma anatta" is generally taken to confirm that there is no self "in" Nibbana either. And of course there are suttas like the Bahiya Sutta, where Nibbana is equated with there being "no you there".
There was one occasion in the suttas where he didn't commit to an answer, but that seems to have been more about not further confusing the questioner.
Why hilarious? This is a Buddhist forum so it's reasonable to discuss Buddhist teachings.
One of those teachings is that dependent arising is the middle way between existence and non-existence, so again we are back to conditionality. These are not beliefs to be taken on, but theories to be investigated in our own experience.
Anyway, if you can find a "true self" or soul, perhaps you could tell us what it is like?
I think many misunderstand the Bahiya Sutta.
He's telling Bahiya not to take things personally and telling him to train himself (his what?) to take himself out of the equation and just be.
Who's own experience?
Please quote me as saying I have found a soul.
You don't have to make stuff up just because you don't like my take.
Anywho... I'm off to work and used up all my cell data.
Here is the relevant passage from the Bahiya Sutta for reference:
"Then, Bāhiya, you should train yourself thus: In reference to the seen, there will be only the seen. In reference to the heard, only the heard. In reference to the sensed, only the sensed. In reference to the cognized, only the cognized. That is how you should train yourself. When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.than.html
It might be mine.
I sold mine for a tin of sardines to a nice red man with a pitch fork and awesome barbecue skills ...
Quite frankly I never used it, not sure what it was if anything ...
Is it like an inner sole or something more fishy?
Eh? How am I making stuff up? You seem to have an ongoing problem with anatta, so I asked if you could find a true self or soul. It's a reasonable question.
So can you find a true self or soul?
As for your "take" it often sounds more like Taoism than Buddhism.
Clearly you are lost to Cod. Selling your sole is one thing, but don't part with your winkles.
What is our true self?
The me who isn't me.
Well, yes. I wouldn't have said what I did if I didn't know the sutta.
You are missing the context with skipping to where Buddha finally gives the lesson to Bahiya though. Bahiya was too impatient. He first interrupted the meditation session and then thoughtlessly interrupted the Buddha during alms collection.
Maybe he was a relative?
Sorry I couldn't resist.
He was so personally invested in the question that he thought it was so important as to warrant intrusion but it wasn't and he had to wait.
Buddha told him not to get so personally invested and gives him a tip on how to do so. He tells Bahiya to train his self to take himself out of the equation.
Actually, you are confused, sorry. I have no problem at all and I've constantly said I don't think there is an eternal "self" or "soul".
You are the one with the comprehension issues or else you're just pretending to have read my posts. It's ok to skim, I don't care.
Why don't you read my earlier posts on this thread before asking me to repeat myself.
Only because you are stuck on terminology and they work well together if all the woo woo is left out of it.
My take shouldn't be confused with belief at any time either as I have no beliefs.
I think the idea is to train to be more selfless, not to train ourselves out of existence.
What would be the point of compassion?
I feel like its been said again and again that sunyata is about something between a solid existence and non existence. That the two truths acknowledge the conventional world while still getting at the heart of the way reality truly is. For there to be two truths we have to actually think and talk about the second truth too.
Again, I have no idea what you're trying to argue here. You're preaching to the choir.
Well, you keep referring to this talk of emptiness as meaning non existence.
Not me. Emptiness is the potential for change as far as I ever claim. Emptiness as non-existence of the temporary individual is the point I am countering, not making.
Say that three times fast.
I haven't read anything said recently as saying the conventional self doesn't exist. I think maybe you are reading into things more than is there.
When there is talk of negating the self I take it to mean the innate view of the world that we all have. Not the intellectual idea of a changing, conventional self.
I'm going to let it go now. I don't think you're really getting the whole picture here but I can see we can't come to an agreement, so I think I'll just agree to disagree.
@person,
Perhaps a good idea as I don't think you get what Spiny is saying either.
Maybe you are both saying the same thing but it doesn't sound like it to me.
It is sometimes difficult to tell what you believe and don't believe, or what you are arguing about.
Or you could say how we see ourselves, and how we actually are.
Right back at ya.