Open discussion: The meaning of "anatta"

[Elohim]

Nam,

First of all, when a moderator tells you that enough is enough, it is polite to listen. Since our conversation was a little off of the original topic, the best thing to do is start another one. It is not polite to simply continue regardless of their warnings. If you would like to further discuss this issue, perhaps we may do it here. Also, I never claimed that the Buddha said "There is no self". What I did say was he said "Sabbe dhamma anatta". If I am wrong, then the Dhammapada is wrong, the Dhamma-niyama Sutta is wrong, etc.

Secondly, I simply offered that not all Buddhist traditions would agree with what you were saying, and proceeded to give some evidence to support my statement. In fact, I would say that most traditions do not assert a self in Nibbana/Nirvana. There is nothing wrong with doing this. It is not shoving anything upon anyone, nor trying to discredit someone, but it is simply clarifiying a generalization. You cannot just make blanket statements like that, and not expect someone to speak up. If you did not not wish to for me to continue with my "own Nikaya "views"...", you could have simply declined to discuss the matter any further. In fact, if you wanted to expound more upon your own personal beliefs, you are more than welcome to begin your own thread.

However, you are now offering up, in my humble opinion, pure nonsense. I have no idea who your friend is, but "anatta" in no way means "infinite" or "uninclined". That makes absolutely no sense. First off, that would make the three characterisitcs of existence dukkha, anicca, and anatta to mean unsatisfactoriness, impermanence, and infinite. While it might not sound too improbable at first glance, it certainly would after you've added it to the Suttas in the place of "not-self" [especially in SN XXII.59]. Secondly, explain what "atta" in means in Pali, and then explain about what the prefix of 'a' means. Any Pali scholar I know would say that "atta" means "self" and the prefix of 'a' in Pali denotes a negative . And finally, if what you are saying is true, that would mean that the Pali Text Society (http://www.palitext.com/), the Buddhist Publication Society (http://www.bps.lk/), scholars/monastics Bhikkhu Bodhi (http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/trilogy.htm), Thanissaro Bhikkhu (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html), and Ajahn Brahmavamso (http://www.bswa.org/modules/icontent/index.php?page=49&PHPSESSID=890886fdebc5ba7c133569ad70d2f26f) are all wrong. While certainly possible, I find it highly unlikely.

But, to be fair, if you would like, you can argue your case further here. I will begin by offering some references [with links], and then you may disagree with them, or offer up some of your own. I have done my best to keep my references to those organizations and translators that are very well known, and respected. It would be helpful if you could try to do the same. On the internet, I always look at it as the more credible the source, the more credible the information will [i]probably be. If anybody else wishes to add their thoughts or references [for or against], please feel free to do so.


anattā (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/anatta.htm)

'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality,

is the last of the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattā doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance.

This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but the anattā-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattā-vādi, or 'Teacher of Impersonality'.

Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality of all existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of the 4 Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think that it is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbāna, his personality that walks on the Eightfold Path. Thus it is said in Vis.M. XVI:



"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;
Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;
The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."


"Whosoever is not clear with regard to the conditionally arisen phenomena, and does not comprehend that all the actions are conditioned through ignorance, etc., he thinks that it is an ego that understands or does not understand, that acts or causes to act, that comes to existence at rebirth .... that has the sense-impression, that feels, desires, becomes attached, continues and at rebirth again enters a new existence" (Vis.M. XVII. 117).

While in the case of the first two characteristics it is stated that all formations (sabbe sankhārā) are impermanent and subject to suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states that "all things are not-self" (sabbe dhammā anattā; M. 35, Dhp. 279). This is for emphasizing that the false view of an abiding self or substance is neither applicable to any 'formation' or conditioned phenomenon, nor to Nibbāna, the Unconditioned Element (asankhatā dhātu).

The Anattā-lakkhana Sutta, the 'Discourse on the Characteristic of Not-self', was the second discourse after Enlightenment, preached by the Buddha to his first five disciples, who after hearing it attained to perfect Holiness (arahatta).

The contemplation of not-self (anattānupassanā) leads to the emptiness liberation (suññatā-vimokkha, s. vimokkha). Herein the faculty of wisdom (paññindriya) is outstanding, and one who attains in that way the path of Stream-entry is called a Dhamma-devotee (dhammānusāri; s. ariya-puggala); at the next two stages of sainthood he becomes a vision-attainer (ditthippatta); and at the highest stage, i.e. Holiness, he is called 'liberated by wisdom' (paññā-vimutta).

For further details, see paramattha-sacca, paticca-samuppāda, khandha, ti-lakkhana, nāma-rūpa, patisandhi.

Literature: Anattā-lakkhana Sutta, Vinaya I, 13-14; S.22. 59; tr. in Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha (WHEEL 17). -

Another important text on Anattā is the Discourse on the Snake Simile (Alagaddūpama Sutta, M. 22; tr. in WHEEL 48/49) .

Other texts in "Path". - Further: Anattā and Nibbāna, by Nyanaponika Thera (WHEEL 11);

The Truth of Anattā, by Dr. G. P. Malalasekera (WHEEL 94);

The Three Basic Facts of Existence III: Egolessness (WHEEL 202/204)

Anatta or soul-lessness (http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm)

This Buddhist doctrine of rebirth should be distinguished from the theory of reincarnation which implies the transmigration of a soul and its invariable material rebirth. Buddhism denies the existence of an unchanging or eternal soul created by a God or emanating from a Divine Essence (Paramatma).

If the immortal soul, which is supposed to be the essence of man, is eternal, there cannot be either a rise or a fall. Besides one cannot understand why "different souls are so variously constituted at the outset."


To prove the existence of endless felicity in an eternal heaven and unending torments in an eternal hell, an immortal soul is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, what is it that is punished in hell or rewarded in heaven?


"It should be said," writes Bertrand Russell, "that the old distinction between soul and body has evaporated quite as much because 'matter' has lost its solidity as mind has lost its spirituality. Psychology is just beginning to be scientific. In the present state of psychology belief in immortality can at any rate claim no support from science."


Buddhists do agree with Russell when he says "there is obviously some reason in which I am the same person as I was yesterday, and, to take an even more obvious example if I simultaneously see a man and hear him speaking, there is some sense in which the 'I' that sees is the same as the 'I' that hears."


Till recently scientists believed in an indivisible and indestructible atom. "For sufficient reasons physicists have reduced this atom to a series of events. For equally good reasons psychologists find that mind has not the identity of a single continuing thing but is a series of occurrences bound together by certain intimate relations. The question of immortality, therefore, has become the question whether these intimate relations exist between occurrences connected with a living body and other occurrence which take place after that body is dead."


As C.E.M. Joad says in "The Meaning of Life," matter has since disintegrated under our very eyes. It is no longer solid; it is no longer enduring; it is no longer determined by compulsive causal laws; and more important than all, it is no longer known.


The so-called atoms, it seems, are both "divisible and destructible." The electrons and protons that compose atoms "can meet and annihilate one another while their persistence, such as it is, is rather that of a wave lacking fixed boundaries, and in process of continual change both as regards shape and position than that of a thing."[11]


Bishop Berkeley who showed that this so-called atom is a metaphysical fiction held that there exists a spiritual substance called the soul.


Hume, for instance, looked into consciousness and perceived that there was nothing except fleeting mental states and concluded that the supposed "permanent ego" is non-existent.


"There are some philosophers," he says, "who imagine we are every moment conscious of what we call 'ourself,' that we feel its existence and its continuance in existence and so we are certain, both of its perfect identity and simplicity. For my part, when I enter most intimately into what I call 'myself' I always stumble on some particular perception or other -- of heat or cold, light or shade, love or hatred, pain or pleasure. I never catch myself... and never can observe anything but the perception... nor do I conceive what is further requisite to make me a perfect non-entity."


Bergson says, "All consciousness is time existence; and a conscious state is not a state that endures without changing. It is a change without ceasing, when change ceases it ceases; it is itself nothing but change."


Dealing with this question of soul Prof. James says -- "The soul-theory is a complete superfluity, so far as accounting for the actually verified facts of conscious experience goes. So far no one can be compelled to subscribe to it for definite scientific reasons." In concluding his interesting chapter on the soul he says: "And in this book the provisional solution which we have reached must be the final word: the thoughts themselves are the thinkers."


Watson, a distinguished psychologist, states: "No one has ever touched a soul or has seen one in a test tube or has in any way come into relationship with it as he has with the other objects of his daily experience. Nevertheless to doubt its existence is to become a heretic and once might possibly even had led to the loss of one's head. Even today a man holding a public position dare not question it."


The Buddha anticipated these facts some 2500 years ago.


According to Buddhism mind is nothing but a complex compound of fleeting mental states. One unit of consciousness consists of three phases -- arising or genesis (uppada) static or development (thiti), and cessation or dissolution (bhanga). Immediately after the cessation stage of a thought moment there occurs the genesis stage of the subsequent thought-moment. Each momentary consciousness of this ever-changing life-process, on passing away, transmits its whole energy, all the indelibly recorded impressions to its successor. Every fresh consciousness consists of the potentialities of its predecessors together with something more. There is therefore, a continuous flow of consciousness like a stream without any interruption. The subsequent thought moment is neither absolutely the same as its predecessor -- since that which goes to make it up is not identical -- nor entirely another -- being the same continuity of kamma energy. Here there is no identical being but there is an identity in process.


Every moment there is birth, every moment there is death. The arising of one thought-moment means the passing away of another thought-moment and vice versa. In the course of one life-time there is momentary rebirth without a soul.


It must not be understood that a consciousness is chopped up in bits and joined together like a train or a chain. But, on the contrary, "it persistently flows on like a river receiving from the tributary streams of sense constant accretions to its flood, and ever dispensing to the world without the thought-stuff it has gathered by the way."[12] It has birth for its source and death for its mouth. The rapidity of the flow is such that hardly is there any standard whereby it can be measured even approximately. However, it pleases the commentators to say that the time duration of one thought-moment is even less than one-billionth part of the time occupied by a flash of lightning.


Here we find a juxtaposition of such fleeting mental states of consciousness opposed to a superposition of such states as some appear to believe. No state once gone ever recurs nor is identical with what goes before. But we worldlings, veiled by the web of illusion, mistake this apparent continuity to be something eternal and go to the extent of introducing an unchanging soul, an atta, the supposed doer and receptacle of all actions to this ever-changing consciousness.


"The so-called being is like a flash of lightning that is resolved into a succession of sparks that follow upon one another with such rapidity that the human retina cannot perceive them separately, nor can the uninstructed conceive of such succession of separate sparks."[13] As the wheel of a cart rests on the ground at one point, so does the being live only for one thought-moment. It is always in the present, and is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. What we shall become is determined by this present thought-moment.


If there is no soul, what is it that is reborn, one might ask.

Well, there is nothing to be reborn.

When life ceases the kammic energy re-materializes itself in another form. As Bhikkhu Silacara says: "Unseen it passes whithersoever the conditions appropriate to its visible manifestation are present. Here showing itself as a tiny gnat or worm, there making its presence known in the dazzling magnificence of a Deva or an Archangel's existence. When one mode of its manifestation ceases it merely passes on, and where suitable circumstances offer, reveals itself afresh in another name or form."


Birth is the arising of the psycho-physical phenomena. Death is merely the temporary end of a temporary phenomenon.


Just as the arising of a physical state is conditioned by a preceding state as its cause, so the appearance of psycho-physical phenomena is conditioned by cause anterior to its birth. As the process of one life-span is possible without a permanent entity passing from one thought-moment to another, so a series of life-processes is possible without an immortal soul to transmigrate from one existence to another.


Buddhism does not totally deny the existence of a personality in an empirical sense. It only attempts to show that it does not exist in an ultimate sense. The Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is santana, i.e., a flux or a continuity. It includes the mental and physical elements as well. The kammic force of each individual binds the elements together. This uninterrupted flux or continuity of psycho-physical phenomenon, which is conditioned by kamma, and not limited only to the present life, but having its source in the beginningless past and its continuation in the future — is the Buddhist substitute for the permanent ego or the immortal soul of other religions.

anatta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html): Not-self; ownerless.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Varanasi in the Game Refuge at Isipatana. There he addressed the group of five monks:

"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.'

"Feeling is not self...

"Perception is not self...

"[Mental] fabrications are not self...

"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"...Is feeling constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"...Is perception constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"...Are fabrications constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?"

"Inconstant, lord."

"And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?"

"Stressful, lord."

"And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any body whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the group of five monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the group of five monks, through not clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents.

- SN XXII.59 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn-22-059-tb0.html)

"Monks, whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are inconstant.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are inconstant.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All processes are stressful.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All processes are stressful.

"Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands — this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

"The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self."

- AN III.134 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an03-134.html)

"All things are not-self" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification. - Dhp XX v.279 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/khuddaka/dhp/ab0/dhp-20-ab0.html)

:)

Jason

[NamThien2006]

Nam,

First of all, when a moderator tells you that enough is enough, it is polite to listen. Since our conversation was a little off of the original topic, the best thing to do is start another one. It is not polite to simply continue regardless of their warnings. If you would like to further discuss this issue, perhaps we may do it here. Also, I never claimed that the Buddha said "There is no self". What I did say was he said "Sabbe dhamma anatta". If I am wrong, then the Dhammapada is wrong, the Dhamma-niyama Sutta is wrong, etc.

Secondly, I simply offered that not all Buddhist traditions would agree with what you were saying, and proceeded to give some evidence to support my statement. In fact, I would say that most traditions do not assert a self in Nibbana/Nirvana. There is nothing wrong with doing this. It is not shoving anything upon anyone, nor trying to discredit someone, but it is simply clarifiying a generalization. You cannot just make blanket statements like that, and not expect someone to speak up. If you did not not wish to for me to continue with my "own Nikaya "views"...", you could have simply declined to discuss the matter any further. In fact, if you wanted to expound more upon your own personal beliefs, you are more than welcome to begin your own thread.

However, you are now offering up, in my humble opinion, pure nonsense. I have no idea who your friend is, but "anatta" in no way means "infinite" or "uninclined". That makes absolutely no sense. First off, that would make the three characterisitcs of existence dukkha, anicca, and anatta to mean unsatisfactoriness, impermanence, and infinite. While it might not sound too improbable at first glance, it certainly would after you've added it to the Suttas in the place of "not-self" [especially in SN XXII.59]. Secondly, explain what "atta" in means in Pali, and then explain about what the prefix of 'a' means. Any Pali scholar I know would say that "atta" means "self" and the prefix of 'a' in Pali denotes a negative . And finally, if what you are saying is true, that would mean that the Pali Text Society (http://www.palitext.com/), the Buddhist Publication Society (http://www.bps.lk/), scholars/monastics Bhikkhu Bodhi (http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/trilogy.htm), Thanissaro Bhikkhu (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html), and Ajahn Brahmavamso (http://www.bswa.org/modules/icontent/index.php?page=49&PHPSESSID=890886fdebc5ba7c133569ad70d2f26f) are all wrong. While certainly possible, I find it highly unlikely.

But, to be fair, if you would like, you can argue your case further here. I will begin by offering some references [with links], and then you may disagree with them, or offer up some of your own. I have done my best to keep my references to those organizations and translators that are very well known, and respected. It would be helpful if you could try to do the same. On the internet, I always look at it as the more credible the source, the more credible the information will [i]probably be. If anybody else wishes to add their thoughts or references [for or against], please feel free to do so.














:)

Jason


Jason,

I alway like to be invited to a party.:cheer: However, have you considered that your might have misundertood "anata.m" (infinite, uninclined) for "anatta.m" (the No-self)?

If this is the case, then there is no point of going further, and I have evidence from a passage from the Digha-nikaya, it says in one of the paragraph: ""invisible infinite consciousness shining everywhere" (Pali: vinnanam anidassanam anatam sabbato prabham). So we know that Anatam can be mistranslated and misunderstood with "Anattam".

Got to keep an open mind, that is why the Buddha says not to take words literally and lot of Patriarchs and Zen masters say not to rely on words merely as they really teach the Ante-word.............this is the only way to see things as they are, using our spiritual mind, and not with our worldly views!:thumbsup:

And BTW, if you insist on debating about the "All" as I think that you think "All" is existence, in that case all I can say is I understand different than you. "All" refers to senses according to Conjoined discourses (see Samyutta-nikaya, IV.15). Dharma here mean things come into world like human body and fleas. Logically speaking this passage say self is not sensory thing. This is my reading. It makes sense to me. Buddha say too that what is suffering is not-self in Conjoined discourses. Does then mean that nirvana is suffering because it is not-self? How then do you explain anomalies?

Thank you for telling me I should study dependent origination. :) I do it Mahayana way. This means reality is seen by Buddha in two ways. First way, is dependent origination. This is the world of becoming. Dependent origination means relative world which is impermanent and empty. Second way is to see nirvana. Nirvana is unconditioned and not empty. It does not arise or cessate. This is the pure Dharmakaya of the Tathagata.

Regards,


Znam

[Elohim]

Nam,

First of all, we were talking about anatta in the last thread. If you are now talking about anatam, which appears to be the case, I don't understand where this comes from. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing, so I am a little confused by it. I never once mentioned anatam, so how could I confuse it with anatta? Pehaps you simply threw that in there to have a little fun. If this is indeed the case, then I guess we do not have anything else to discuss about that matter. It was simply a misunderstanding on my part. As for your quote, you should really post a link to it so that people know where it comes from, and the controversy that surrounds HH G.K.U.T.D.

As for the "All" [which is in reference to the five aggregates], we were not debating that as far as I am aware. I don't believe that I was insisting on debating it either. I certainly used it on a few occasions, but that was definitely not the sole focus of my posts. If you would like to, though, I would be more than happy to discuss the five khandhas with you in more detail. Although, I will say that nothing is inherently suffering unless there is clinging involved. The Buddha himself still had his body for forty-five years after his Awakening, yet the Buddha was free from suffering. How could this be? There was simply no longer any sustenence for suffering to arise. I find it interesting how "upadana" means "clinging" as well as "sustenence".

And finally, in the Suttas, the Buddha teaches that Nibbana is synonymous with sunnata. Which, coincidentally, is also the "Mahayana way" as well. In fact, they stress the Buddha's doctrine of emptiness much more than most Theravadins. I can put you into contact with someone who is a Mahayanist that can discuss this with you further if you unconvinced by me. I know that he would do a far better job than I since my field of study centers around the Pali Canon. However, one paragraph from the Pali Canon that demonstrates this is:

[The Buddha is talking about Nibbana here]

"Ananda, whatever contemplatives and priests who in the past entered and remained in an emptiness that was pure, superior, and unsurpassed, they all entered and remained in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, and unsurpassed. Whatever contemplatives and priests who in the future will enter and remain in an emptiness that will be pure, superior, and unsurpassed, they all will enter and remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, and unsurpassed. Whatever contemplatives and priests who at present enter and remain in an emptiness that is pure, superior, and unsurpassed, they all enter and remain in this very same emptiness that is pure, superior, and unsurpassed.

"Therefore, Ananda, you should train yourselves: 'We will enter and remain in the emptiness that is pure, superior, and unsurpassed.'"

- MN 121 (http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebsut016.htm)


Here is also the definition of "sunnata" according to Nyanatiloka Mahathera in case anybody is interested:

suñña (adj.), suññatā (noun) (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sunna.htm)

void (ness), empty (emptiness).

As a doctrinal term it refers, in Theravāda, exclusively to the anattā doctrine,.i.e. the unsubstantiality of all phenomena: "Void is the world ... because it is void of a self and anything belonging to a self" (suññam attena vā attaniyena vā; S. XXXV, 85); also stated of the 5 groups of existence (khandha, q.v.) in the same text.

See also M. 43, M. 106. - In CNidd. (quoted in Vis.M. XXI, 55), it is said: "Eye ... mind, visual objects ... mind-objects, visual consciousness ... mind-consciousness, corporeality ... consciousness, etc., are void of self and anything belonging to a self; void of permanency and of anything lasting, eternal or immutable.. They are coreless: without a core of permanency, or core of happiness or core of self." -

In M. 121, the voiding of the mind of the cankers, in the attainment of Arahatship, is regarded as the "fully purified and incomparably highest (concept of) voidness. -

See Sn.v.1119; M.121; M.122 (WHEEL 87); Pts.M. II: Suñña-kathā; Vis.M. XXI, 53ff.

:)

Jason

[federica]

* Nam, there is no reason or precedent for you to introduce a counter argument suggesting that Elohim is confusing two completely different subjects.
You are clearly what is known as 'flaming' or trolling' and I am advising you now, IN THE STRONGEST TERMS POSSIBLE, that deliberate attempts to provoke discussions based on groundless suppositions on your part, merely for the sake of argument, will result in the censure or removal of your posts, or of you being forcibly requested to leave. *

[Elohim]

Fede,

Nobody was using anatam, either in our posts or the quotes used, so who knows where that came from. Maybe he was just grasping at straws because he simply could not prove me wrong [as of yet at least], or maybe he did really think that. Perhaps Nam was just having some fun. In either case, "no harm, no foul" as we always say.

:)

Jason

[NamThien2006]

Nam,

First of all, we were talking about anatta in the last thread. If you are now talking about anatam, which appears to be the case, I don't understand where this comes from.

You might be reading a mistranslation which is in the Udana at Chapter VIII verse ii. The passage reads correctly, "Hard to see: the uninclined (ANATA.M). It doesn't read "Hard to see; the No Self." This, by the way, is from the Nibbana section (number 2) of the Patali Villagers Chapter.




That has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing, so I am a little confused by it. I never once mentioned anatam,

There is not a single Sutta that says no-self is Nirvana. I said that in the Udana that the uninclined is anatam, not annatta as some jerks translate.

so how could I confuse it with anatta? Pehaps you simply threw that in there to have a little fun. If this is indeed the case, then I guess we do not have anything else to discuss about that matter. It was simply a misunderstanding on my part. As for your quote, you should really post a link to it so that people know where it comes from, and the controversy that surrounds HH G.K.U.T.D.

As for the "All" [which is in reference to the five aggregates], we were not debating that as far as I am aware. I don't believe that I was insisting on debating it either. I certainly used it on a few occasions, but that was definitely not the sole focus of my posts. If you would like to, though, I would be more than happy to discuss the five khandhas with you in more detail. Although, I will say that nothing is inherently suffering unless there is clinging involved. The Buddha himself still had his body for forty-five years after his Awakening, yet the Buddha was free from suffering. How could this be? There was simply no longer any sustenence for suffering to arise. I find it interesting how "upadana" means "clinging" as well as "sustenence".

And finally, in the Suttas, the Buddha teaches that Nibbana is synonymous with sunnata. Which, coincidentally, is also the "Mahayana way" as well. In fact, they stress the Buddha's doctrine of emptiness much more than most Theravadins. I can put you into contact with someone who is a Mahayanist that can discuss this with you further if you unconvinced by me. I know that he would do a far better job than I since my field of study centers around the Pali Canon. However, one paragraph from the Pali Canon that demonstrates this is:




Here is also the definition of "sunnata" according to Nyanatiloka Mahathera in case anybody is interested:

I read that you are merely talking about Anatta.m, where are you heading? BTW, your personal interpretation of "Sunnata" is incorrect also. The Buddha has stated that the Aggregates are empty in later Mahayana, reread the Heart Sutra and find out.

:)

Jason

Regards,


Znam

[NamThien2006]

* Nam, there is no reason or precedent for you to introduce a counter argument suggesting that Elohim is confusing two completely different subjects.
You are clearly what is known as 'flaming' or trolling' and I am advising you now, IN THE STRONGEST TERMS POSSIBLE, that deliberate attempts to provoke discussions based on groundless suppositions on your part, merely for the sake of argument, will result in the censure or removal of your posts, or of you being forcibly requested to leave. *

Federica,

I am not here to debate over a single word that Elohim might have read and misunderstood. I merely point out the the possible error in the translation and I doubt that he cares to investigate about it. BTW, I like to remind you that I have not break any forum rules as indicated when I PM you. And where in the rules that say that I can not disagree with other member post?

Buddha never teach No-self, Buddha says No-self is the aggregate, that is all....to think Nibbana is No-self is like taking Jesus out of Christianity.

And I am offended that you classified my post as "trolling".........I have passage to back up my arguments, and I urge anyone who think Buddha teaches the No-self, let see the evidence of that claim then!

Buddha teaches compassion and understanding, please dont jump the gun too quickly, let be impartial here.

If you want the forum to be one-sided, why not join the communist as this is NOT how a democracy works.

Regards,



Nam

[Knitwitch]

Whoever said this was a democracy?

[Elohim]

Nam,

Please refresh my memory, where did I ever use a quote from, or even mention Udana VIII.2 (http://pratyeka.org/a2i/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud8-02.html)?

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi, in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Now at that time the Blessed One was instructing urging, rousing, and encouraging the monks with Dhamma-talk concerned with Unbinding. The monks -- receptive, attentive, focusing their entire awareness, lending ear -- listened to the Dhamma.
Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

It's hard to see the unaffected,
for the truth isn't easily seen.
Craving is pierced
in one who knows;
For one who sees,
there is nothing.

And by the way, it was not my personal interpretation of "sunnata". It was the interpretation of the Blessed One [MN 121 (http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebsut016.htm)], along with a complimentary definition (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sunna.htm) by the Venerable Nyanatiloka Mahathera.

:)

Jason

[NamThien2006]

Nam,

Please refresh my memory, where did I ever use a quote from, or even mention Udana VIII.2 (http://pratyeka.org/a2i/canon/sutta/khuddaka/udana/ud8-02.html)?


Since your post generallyclaims that the Buddha taught the No-self, look at the content of your posts, Jason. I reply with the evidence that the Buddha did not say Nibbana is a No-self, correct? How can this mistake happen other than a mistranslation?........How can the Buddha says No-self and then he says in the Udana that the Self is really Unmade?

Reading the Sutra is one thing, understanding it with intuition is another, do investigate fully before you make statement that Buddha teaches No-self


And by the way, it was not my personal interpretation of "sunnata". It was the interpretation of the Blessed One [MN 121 (http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebsut016.htm)], along with a complimentary definition (http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sunna.htm) by the Venerable Nyanatiloka Mahathera.

Being there, done that, Jason........one possible argument is Sunnata is the Self, as most modern day Buddhist schools claim.
:)

Jason


Regards,


:hohum:

[Elohim]

Nam,

First of all, the Buddha said many time, and in many places "sabbe dhamma anatta", and that was what we were originally discussing. We were not discussing Udana VIII.2 in any way, shape, or form. So, no matter what outrageous claims you may wish to make, please do not say that I said something I obviously did not say.

Secondly, Udana VIII.2 does not say that Nibbana is a "self". When the Buddha refers to Nibbana as "the Unborn", that simply means that it is unconditioned. Being unconditioned simply means that it is free from the characteristics of conditioned phenomena [dukkha and anicca], but not anatta dhamma[/i] anatta" [b]NOT "sabbe sankhara anatta"]. Udana VIII.2 in no way states that Nibbana is a "self". If you wish to infer that, you certainly may, but making such inferences is, in my opinion, baseless.

And lastly, if you believe that sunnata (emptiness or voidness) is a "self", then you are more of a fool that I could have possibly imagined. I would encourage you [and anyone else for that matter] to read this (http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha196.htm) collection of talks on sunnata by Ajahn Buddhadasa.

:)

Jason

[federica]

If you want the forum to be one-sided, why not join the communist as this is NOT how a democracy works.

Regards,
Nam

* Nam, As Knitwitch quite accurately pointed out to you, this isn't a democracy. What I say, as Moderator, goes.
I would thank you to not take issue with my Moderator comments, as if you continue, i will ask you to leave. *

[NamThien2006]

Nam,

First of all, the Buddha said many time, and in many places "sabbe dhamma anatta", and that was what we were originally discussing. We were not discussing Udana VIII.2 in any way, shape, or form. So, no matter what outrageous claims you may wish to make, please do not say that I said something I obviously did not say.

Secondly, Udana VIII.2 does not say that Nibbana is a "self". When the Buddha refers to Nibbana as "the Unborn", that simply means that it is unconditioned. Being unconditioned simply means that it is free from the characteristics of conditioned phenomena [dukkha and anicca], but not anatta dhamma[/i] anatta" [b]NOT "sabbe sankhara anatta"]. Udana VIII.2 in no way states that Nibbana is a "self". If you wish to infer that, you certainly may, but making such inferences is, in my opinion, baseless.

And lastly, if you believe that sunnata (emptiness or voidness) is a "self", then you are more of a fool that I could have possibly imagined. I would encourage you [and anyone else for that matter] to read this (http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha196.htm) collection of talks on sunnata by Ajahn Buddhadasa.

:)

Jason

Jason,

Read the context of the message, this is what I wrote: "Being there, done that, Jason........one possible argument is Sunnata is the Self, as most modern day Buddhist schools claim."

I was saying most modern day Buddhist schools teachSunnata as the self, heck some of them say emptiness is the Self. And please refrain from calling people fool on this forum.

Federica, did you catch this?..........

I am under constant threat of being bannished from this forum, which I tell you Jason, a no lost for me, but I hope that some Buddhists here would see your own "views" about Buddhism and question your motive, you might be destroying Buddhism and not realizing it.

BTW, when one take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, what do you think they are taking refuge in, in nothingness?.....but this is what most ill informed Buddhist believe, like yourself.

Sutra says that Dharma is not destroyed by any outsider, it is destroyed from people within. You aint gonna get brownnies point winning an argument, since you are deeply rooted in the belief that the Buddha teach no-self......and Jason, the enemy is no one but yourself, get a grip, dude.:tongue2:

Regards,


Znam

[hope]

* Nam, As Knitwitch quite accurately pointed out to you, this isn't a democracy. What I say, as Moderator, goes.
I would thank you to not take issue with my Moderator comments, as if you continue, i will ask you to leave. *

:) sigh... I really thought it was a democracy... ah well..

[YogaMama]

Maybe you should go back to your friends site, Nam? You have hardly been around here long enough to really know the people here. Jason has been a wonderful teacher to all of us and the moderators are some of the best around. I would hardly want to go to a Buddhist forum where arguments are allowed until you are "blue in the face". Hardly makes for a nice, friendly environment. We have plenty of adult conversations here without having to argue.

[federica]

* Sorry to answer you on forum Hope, but you have closed the option for private messaging or e-mail...
If this was a democracy, we'd all be moderators. And even in a democracy, there's still an elected government to decide on behalf of others. I'm here in that capacity, but sometimes, I have to make a decision, based on many facts, that ultimately is for the good of everyone.

I trust this clarifies the matter. *

[Knitwitch]

Maybe you should go back to your friends site, Nam? You have hardly been around here long enough to really know the people here. Jason has been a wonderful teacher to all of us and the moderators are some of the best around. I would hardly want to go to a Buddhist forum where arguments are allowed until you are "blue in the face". Hardly makes for a nice, friendly environment. We have plenty of adult conversations here without having to argue.

Second that, YM. We seem to have had a spate of newcomers on here throwing their weight around and then whingeing when they are asked not to. And they always pick on the very people the rest of us want to listen to, thus taking up their time and depriving us of more productive conversation.

And yes, I have a couple of people on ignore because I just can't bear their drivel but it is a shame to have to do this.

[YogaMama]

Am I one of those people on your "ignore" list?? ;)

[Knitwitch]

Am I one of those people on your "ignore" list?? ;)

Obviously not, lovie!:winkc:

[Xrayman]

what about me? drivel? mmm I suppose I do go on..

regards,
X

[Elohim]

Nam,

I have never heard of any Buddhist school or tradition claiming that sunnata is the "self". I do not believe that the majority of modern day Buddhist schools claim this either. The only school or tradition of Buddhism that I have heard of claiming anything to be the "self" is Dark Zen (http://www.darkzen.com/). Much of what you post actually resembles their particular take on Buddhism. In fact, the link that you provided in the Cuckoo Nest Buddhism (http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1252) thread is one of their publications. It is just one of the many pieces of evidence that makes me suspicious of you being a part of that group [possibely along with our good friend mujaku].

The only thing that I will refrain from doing is allowing people like you to take over Buddhist forums simply because you think that you can b.s. your way into convincing everyone that most modern day Buddhist traditions are false. It is funny how the Theravada tradition is always the first target. Just one example of this can be found in some of the articles from The Zennist (http://journals.aol.com/thezennist/TheBuddhist). You might fool some people, but you certainly do not fool me. I have played along with your little game only to systematically refute all of your baseless accusations. Perhaps the anomosity towards Theravada Buddhism is their vast collection of teachings. It's too hard to discredit each one individually, so you just go for the entire tradition!

If the administrator of this forum believes me to be "destroying" Buddhism, or to be acting in an inappropriate, I will gladly change my behaviour, or refrain from ever posting here again. I respect his wishes [regardless if they were for or against my own personal views, opinions, and ideas] and authority on this site implicitly. I only offer my opinions and advice here because I believe that my knowledge of Theravada Buddhism may help those that are new to it. I am not participating in this discussion with you to win any brownie points, I am here to simply weasel out your obfuscated agenda. It is more than clear to me what that is, and I now see why so many forums end up banning people like you.

I certainly don't have any problems with people interpreting the Buddha's teachings any way they wish, but I do have a problem when they make blanket statemets, baseless accusations, and exhibit unruly behaviour while representing that as true Buddhism. I'm sorry, but I just call 'em like I see 'em.

:)

Jason

[hope]

Dear Federica
Thanks for that... I was just curious. I understand... sorry about the email thing being closed... I'm not exactly sure why.. I think I turned it off :(
ps: Appreciate your site :) really I do! and thanks for having me here :)

Dear Nam
thank you for your invitation, will drop by

thanks all
Hope

[Knitwitch]

what about me? drivel? mmm I suppose I do go on..

regards,
X

No Xrayman - still reading you loud and clear - and I have nothing against nice drivel - it's spiteful ego-fuelled drivel I don't want to read.

[Nirvana]

Xrayman, you're cool under the collar. I seriously doubt anyone has you on his or her Ignore List. I think most of us here pull up a thread when they see that you've posted.

Although I am not sorry to see NamThien2006 banned, due to his confrontational and tricky ways, I am sorry to see his alter-ego, M Bolden, go, since I saw a better role in that character. I must say that I reallly enjoyed what Embolden had to say, and took him as a sincere seeker. I may have been wrong, but who knows?

Also, we all have a role to play, and —who knows— some people might be better suited with playing a couple until they find the right one. (Ahem.)
______________________________________
______________________________________

"BE KIND" - the religion of ShangriLa--from the movie, "Lost Horizon"

Meditate by emptying yourself and letting the universe fill you.


(Idea stolen from YogaMama.)

[Xrayman]

oh cool. You're on my buddy list, Nirvy.




and so is.... well she knows who she is. And I'm not telling.

hint:canflag:

:winkc:

[YogaMama]

Were M Bloden and Nam really the same person??

[Elohim]

Yoda,

Yes. See this (http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showpost.php?p=23037&postcount=79) post.

:)

Jason

[Esau]

Yoda,

Yes. See this (http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showpost.php?p=23037&postcount=79) post.

:)

Jason

Hey Jason,
Maybe he was trying out the 12 archtypes that Jung proposed??????:bigclap:

[federica]

Anatta day, anatta dollar..........:grin: :type:

[Elohim]

Esau,

:lol:

Fede,

:lol:

Jason

[Vacchagotta]

Nam,

First of all, we were talking about anatta in the last thread. If you are now talking about anatam, which appears to be the case, I don't understand where this comes from. That has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing, so I am a little confused by it. I never once mentioned anatam, so how could I confuse it with anatta? Pehaps you simply threw that in there to have a little fun. If this is indeed the case, then I guess we do not have anything else to discuss about that matter. It was simply a misunderstanding on my part. As for your quote, you should really post a link to it so that people know where it comes from, and the controversy that surrounds HH G.K.U.T.D.

As for the "All" [which is in reference to the five aggregates], we were not debating that as far as I am aware. I don't believe that I was insisting on debating it either. I certainly used it on a few occasions, but that was definitely not the sole focus of my posts. If you would like to, though, I would be more than happy to discuss the five khandhas with you in more detail. Although, I will say that nothing is inherently suffering unless there is clinging involved. The Buddha himself still had his body for forty-five years after his Awakening, yet the Buddha was free from suffering. How could this be? There was simply no longer any sustenence for suffering to arise. I find it interesting how "upadana" means "clinging" as well as "sustenence".

And finally, in the Suttas, the Buddha teaches that Nibbana is synonymous with sunnata. Which, coincidentally, is also the "Mahayana way" as well. In fact, they stress the Buddha's doctrine of emptiness much more than most Theravadins. I can put you into contact with someone who is a Mahayanist that can discuss this with you further if you unconvinced by me. I know that he would do a far better job than I since my field of study centers around the Pali Canon. However, one paragraph from the Pali Canon that demonstrates this is:




Here is also the definition of "sunnata" according to Nyanatiloka Mahathera in case anybody is interested:



:)

Jason

First of all, I'd like to say this is always a very interesting topic. Let's discuss it without making it personal. I believe the Buddha advocated that we investigate his teachings for ourselves. Which leads to differing views. If I post anything contrary to your view, I only do so to say it is what seems right TO ME. You can take it or leave it. I'll preface my further remarks that I have tended to agree with nam in this debate whenever his words have been germane to the topic.

I chose to reply to this particular post because from my point of view I believe it misses that "emptiness" in the teachings of the Buddha is a term that pivots on one's reference point. In other words, it is not an absolute term in itself but it depends on context. Strickly speaking, "sunna" in Pali basically means "empty". But the question is always "what is empty of what?" The Buddha in his teaching is always carefully mindful of this consideration such that in my studies of the suttas I have found basically two "kinds" of sunnata described, different not in the pivotal meaning of "empty" but different in reference point, which makes all the difference. Actually, the definition you quoted recognizes this distinction, only I feel that your post tends to conflate them as meaning the same thing between contexts. The most common context is cited in the first part of the definition, namely that the world is empty of self (or anything that pertains to self). I interpret that this word is used mainly to describe that the world is of no value to the savaka, and not to be clung to, not to be valued as self or as pertaining to self. It is also basically synonymous with the other two of the three marks: anatta(not-self) and anicca(impermanent), and this is how this issue remains critical to an understanding of the significance of anatta in the Buddha's teaching.

The second meaning, namely that " M. 121, the voiding of the mind of the cankers, in the attainment of Arahatship, is regarded as the "fully purified and incomparably highest (concept of) voidness. -" is separate from the former meaning. So, to describe nibbana as an "emptiness" is precisely using this latter reference point (the Arhat's mind emptied of the asavas) and not referring to the same context as the former. If we read carefully what is explicity stated, we see that in the former case when we ask "if A is empty of X what are the terms A and X?" the answer is "the term A in this case is The World and the term X in this case is Self or what pertains to Self". Likewise, we see in the latter usage of emptiness (the "highest"), the answer is that the term A is the mind of the Arhat and the term X is the asavas. It is not the same meaning because it is not the same terms/context/reference point. Surely the meaning "empty" as divorced from all reference points is always the same, but when you change reference points the overall meaning of the statement changes. As in "That store does not sell (is empty of) food." does not mean the same thing as "I am not hungry (am empty of hunger)", to say that Nibbana is emptiness is not to say the same thing as to say that the world is empty of Self: as inappropriate as it would be to say in the example "the store is empty(of food), I am empty(of hunger), therefore I am empty of food" so is it inappropriate to say "the world is empty(of Self), The Arhat is empty(of asavas), therefore the Arhat is empty of Self. If this would be the case we could say validly, simply by reversing the direction of the conflation, that beings ("sabba" is defined in terms of personal experience as sattva) in general are all empty of asavas already and therefore all are arhats and there is no suffering nor path leading to cessation of suffering. But we cannot say that validly, because we all know and experience that we suffer and are not free of the asavas. Further, the Arhat per se is never, to my knowledge, described as anatta. Or anicca.

All these considerations are complimented by the teaching that this "sabba" which the Buddha teaches as sunna, anicca, anatta, can and should be abandoned and surpassed by the Arhat:
"The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned..." (so on with all other dhammas included in "the all")--SN XXXV.24

"For whom nothing in the world is his own, who doesn't grieve over what is not, who doesn't enter into dhammas, he is said to be at peace." --SNIV.10

"As a water bead on a lotus leaf, as water on a red lily, does not adhere, so the sage
does not adhere to the seen, the heard, or the sensed; for, cleansed, he doesn't construe in connection with the seen, the heard, or the sensed." SNIV.6

V.

[federica]

Welcome Vacchagotta... or 'Seeker' - !

[Vacchagotta]

Thank you, federica!
"Vacchagotta" in the discourses of the Buddha was one of the "wanderers" or "itinerants", so I suppose the title "seeker" is appropriate. :D

[federica]

New members with "dharma-sounding" names (!) - I always look them up, in case there's a good old link... sure enough, when I typed in vacchagotta' to my Googlesearch, I got this, first and foremost.....

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn44-008.html

So yes, I should have referred to you, maybe as "wanderer"....

I, personally am enjoying my Wander.... and seeking is a club-forum thing, so join the club!

[Elohim]

Vacchagotta,

I definitely agree that the Buddha often used a single term in more than one way. This is quite evident to anyone that has studied Pali. However, to me it doesn't matter where one pivots, there is still no "self" to be found in Buddhism. If you agree with Nam, and by this I mean his promotion of the idea that there is indeed a "self" to be found, then I will simply have to take your advice and leave it. I do not wish to go through such a discussion again. If you agreement with Nam stems from another point, however, I would be interested in hearing more. In either case, welcome to the forum.

:)

Jason

[zenmonk_genryu]

Whatever you can point to - a physical thing, a person, a thought, an emotion - all are without self. All of them change. Even memory shows nothing but flux and change. There's nothing, no component of mind or body, that isn't in constant flux. Whether we talk about our physical body, or the bodies of the natural world - animals, plants, stones, lakes, raindrops, stars - or the objects of our purposeful world - chairs, windows, milk cartons, and sewing needles - we find nothing but flux and change. Every atom, every miniscule part of the universe, is nothing other than movement and change. The same is true of our mental experience, our feelings, thoughts and images.

It's an indisputable fact of experience - of our direct, immediate perception - that all things are empty of self. Yet we think and believe and act and hope otherwise. It's by holding onto this notion of self - and we hold it most dear - that we live in defiance of Reality.

This is the means by which we suffer, and suffer greatly. It hurts to defy Reality.

- Steve Hagen - Buddhism Plain and Simple

[federica]

Once again ZenMonk - and in all sincerity...

I believe you.

Bang on.

[Knitwitch]

Something that has helped me understand this is the nature of glass - what is glass? It's solid right? Bang your fist on the window and tell me it isn't - go on!

Well it isn't - it is still liquid but a very very viscous liquid that we can't see moving, if you stood it up for a thousand years it would eventually all end up at the bottom. Lead is the same.

When the Old Feller explained THAT to me, I began to see how things are not as we are accustomed to seeing them .... but don't go banging you fist on the glass just to prove a point.

[Esau]

Something that has helped me understand this is the nature of glass - what is glass? It's solid right? Bang your fist on the window and tell me it isn't - go on!

Well it isn't - it is still liquid but a very very viscous liquid that we can't see moving, if you stood it up for a thousand years it would eventually all end up at the bottom. Lead is the same.

When the Old Feller explained THAT to me, I began to see how things are not as we are accustomed to seeing them .... but don't go banging you fist on the glass just to prove a point.

Hello all,
Don't quote me on this, though its been theorised that if our protons, neutrons, and electrons moved faster than those that make up "solid" objects, we would be able to pass straight through them.
Someone who's a genius (ZM, Jason, BF, Brian, et al) will be able to tell me if this is a sound theory or not?:rockon:

[Vacchagotta]

Vacchagotta,

I definitely agree that the Buddha often used a single term in more than one way. This is quite evident to anyone that has studied Pali. However, to me it doesn't matter where one pivots, there is still no "self" to be found in Buddhism. If you agree with Nam, and by this I mean his promotion of the idea that there is indeed a "self" to be found, then I will simply have to take your advice and leave it. I do not wish to go through such a discussion again. If you agreement with Nam stems from another point, however, I would be interested in hearing more. In either case, welcome to the forum.

:)

Jason

Thanks for the welcome. I posted what I did because I felt that a cornerstone of your view of the denial of Self altogether was the conflating of the two contexts of "sunna" as meaning the same thing. I tried to show how they don't. Even though you seemed to agree the meaning is different, it doesn't seem to have affected your view, which is obviously okay. Your prerogative. :) I simply didn't want the point to be lost.
Far be it from me to assert yet another false theory of self. Yet, I find the total denial of Self common amongst Buddhists untenable even from the basic standpoint of the discourse of the Pali Nikayas. Firstly, I should get it out of the way: to assert a "'self' to be found" is an absurdity from the beginning (to "find" requires that the object to be found not be ourselves, who find it), and I don't find it occurring in nam's (or the Buddha's) discourse. I simply find that those who outright and absolutely deny Self are going further than the Buddha is recorded to have been willing...and thus they very likely go too far. The various forms of Self-denying ("There is no Self", "I have no Self," "'Self' is only the khandhas which break up upon death") are all specifically disavowed by the Buddha. They entail the "annihiliationist" (uchedavada) view which includes a kind of nihilism (natthika). Thus, returning to the open discussion of the meaning of the term, anatta does not mean "no-self", a strange translation which nullifies its predicative value and turns it into a general term encompassing an absolute denial, but rather "not-self" or "non-self" by virtue of its usage as a predicative of "the world" ie the five aggregates. (compare to mitra: friend and amitra: non-friend/enemy...amitra does not mean "there is no friend" or even "friendless") Couple with this the suprisingly frequent usages of the word "Self" (in compounds and singly) in a positive context (even associated with such utmost values as Nibbana), and I find you have a strong case against a total denial of Self in the Buddha's teaching.

I fully understand that this is not acceptable to one who has invested in "no-self" a great deal of reflection, insight, belief, and effort (believe it or not, I used to be one who believed and strove to actualize my understanding of "no-self", but has since found that in my own judgement I had made a mistake). It's just the way I see it.

V.

[Elohim]

Vacchagotta,

You are welcome for the welcome.

From my understanding, the Buddha does indeed teach that to have any view or position of a self is something to be abandoned. That means that there is no thought, view, or position that I have a self, I don't have a self, the self is the same as the mind/body, the self is different from the mind/body, the self is in the mind/body, or the self is outside of the mind/body:

Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is not eternal' [along with 'the cosmos is finite', 'the cosmos is infinite', 'the soul & the body are the same', 'the soul is one thing and the body another', 'after death a Tathagata exists', 'after death a Tathagata does not exist', 'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist', 'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'] is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding. - MN 72 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-072-tb0.html)

However, if one were to say that the Buddha's teachings simply amount to annihilationism without there being a self of some sort present [as some people might want to say] is incorrect. Why? Because the Buddha said that he taught the Middle Way, the way characterized by paticca-samuppada (dependent co-arising), which in its simplest form is expressed as this/that conditionality:

When this is; that is.
From the arising of this comes the arising of that.
When this isn't; that isn't.
From the stopping of this comes the stopping of that.

- A.X.92

The Buddha's teachings are between the two extremes of eternalism and annihilationism. So, in his doctrine of the Middle Way, the views of "I have a self" and "I have no self", along with everything else in between, simply do not apply. However, from this perspective, the three characteristics of dukkha (stress), anicca (impermanence), and anatta (not-self) certainly do. That is why I believe that the Buddha was silent when Vacchagotta asked him point blank if there was or wasn't a self; the very question itself was simply inappropriate:

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" - SN XLIV.10 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn44-010.html)

That is merely my understanding, though. It is up to each individual to search through the vast collection of teachings, and apply that to what they find in their meditation practices to discover these answers for themselves. It is only by direct insight into these questions that we can incline towards the Deathless, not through intellectual speculation. And, that is as far as I wish to pursue this topic.

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" - SN XXII.59 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn-22-059-tb0.html)

May we all reach the other shore.

:)

Jason

[Elohim]

Vacchagotta,

May I also add, after rereading your post, that you quite possibly don't understand my view, as you seem to imply.

When trying to correct Nam's initial suggestion that in general, Buddhism teaches that Nibbana is a self and/or where all phenomena originates from , I simply offered some evidence to the contrary. That was all. If you are unaware of the original conversation from whence this topic sprang, I would like to point you towards this particular thread: The Meaning of Being Mindful posts #23-50 (http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=411&page=3)

On a side note, in the Buddha's teachings on paticca-samuppada (dependent co-arising), avijja (ignorance) conditions the arising of the five khandhas (aggregates):

And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

...

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth. - SN XII.2 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn-12-002-tb0.html#dependent)

In this context, if we review Nam's posts, we can see a discrepency between what he was offering as a generalized view of Buddhism, and what is in the Pali Canon.

If Nibbana was the "essence of self" where "all things arise", including the five aggregates, as Nam suggests, then it would also have to imply that according to the Pali Canon, Nibbana is synonymous with ignorance. That, of course, is not possible since Nibbana is described by the Buddha in SN XXXVIII.1 as being the [i]extinction of lobha (greed), dosa (hatred), and moha (delusion), with the root of all three being avijja (ignorance).

So, I hope that this helps to explain exactly where I was coming from, and clarifies my view just a little bit better.

:)

Jason

[zenmonk_genryu]

You realise that Nam was AE?

[Elohim]

Genryu,

To be honest, it didn't really matter to me who he was. What was truly important to me was giving the necessary evidence to the others on the forum that what he was presenting was not true for all traditions of Buddhism, especially the Theravada tradition. If he hadn't implied that his views were held by the majority of Buddhist traditions in general, then I probably wouldn't have even bothered responding to him.

:)

Jason

[zenmonk_genryu]

Quite so. In fact it's not a position held by any Buddhist tradition. Thank you for the clarification.

[not1not2]

Here's a good article related to the exchange earlier in the thread:
What the Buddha Never Taught (http://www.watflorida.org/What%20the%20Buddha%20Never%20Taught.htm)

Take care all

_/\_
metta

[not1not2]

An excerpt from the link:

The setting of the ‘Mahaparinibbana Sutta’ is about facts concerning the Buddha’s last days, including his final instructions to his followers. Here he is admonishing them to rely on their own effort, to ‘strive on’ and apply the doctrine in their lives. The inference of ‘atta’ as ‘Brahman/Absolute’ is completely foreign to this passage, which is borne out when the Buddha went on to say, “Kathañcánanda, bhikkhu attadípo viharati attasarano anaññasarano, dhammadípo dhammasarano anaññasarano?” “And how, Ánanda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge?” The Buddha then went on to describe the Satipatthána, the four foundations of mindfulness; contemplation of the body, feelings, mind, and meditation objects, a theme the Buddha often taught on. Here he is saying to make the Dhamma (doctrine) of Satipatthána as one’s refuge, again no mention of ‘attán’ ~ ‘Brahman/Absolute’ as refuge. Furthermore, it is in the last line of this passage where the Buddha describes the result of Dhamma (doctrine) as refuge: “Those bhikkhus of mine, Ánanda, who now or after I am gone, abide as an island unto themselves,…‘it is they who will become the highest, if they have the desire to learn." ("tamatagge me te, ánanda, bhikkhu bhavissanti ye keci sikkhákámá'ti.”) Here the Pali word ‘Tamatagge’ = “the highest”, having cut every bondage of darkness, those bhikkhus will be on the very summit (ati-agge). Again there is no mention of attán ~ Self as refuge.

In Majjhima Nikaya, Vacchagotta the wanderer asks the Buddha, “Does the Master Gotama hold any speculative view at all?” The Buddha replied, “Vaccha, ‘speculative view’ (ditthigata lit. ‘theories’) is something that the Tathágata has put away. For the Tathágata, Vaccha, has seen this: Such is the material form, such its origin, such its disappearance;...'such is feeling... 'such is perception… such are mental formations… such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.’ Therefore, I say, with the destruction, fading away, cessation, giving up and relinquishing of all conceiving, all excogitations, all I-making, all mine-making, and the underlying tendency to conceit, the Tathágata is liberated through not clinging.” [5]

But in response to the above and many similar statements by the Buddha, Coomaraswamy and Horner, just as George Grimm in his above mentioned “Great Syllogism”, insist that the Buddha’s denial of ‘atta’ intrinsic to the khandhas is really an affirmation of the mahá-atmán ~ “Great Self”. They argue that although the Buddha stated that the five-bases are not ‘attá’, that he never specifically denied the ‘Átman’. They claim that Buddha was only directing us to see the real Self behind the personal ego, a view identical to that found in the Upanishads, reasoning that Buddha’s denial of the khandhas possessing an everlasting ‘atta’ indicates that He affirmed the true ‘Átman’ by default, i.e. when Buddha said, ‘form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness is not-self’ these scholars make the following argument: “But a moment’s consideration of the logic of the words will show that they (the listeners) assume the reality of a Self that is not any one or all of the ‘things’ that are denied of it.” With regard to this claim the following statements by the Buddha, found in the Dhammapada [6] should be considered:

The Three Characteristics (tilakkhana): ~ Dhp. 22.277-279

277. “Sabbe sankhárá aniccá”ti, yadá paññáya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyá.
“ When you see with discernment, ‘All conditioned things are impermanent’; you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity.
278. “Sabbe sankhárá dukkhá”ti, yadá paññáya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyá.
“ When you see with discernment, ‘All conditioned things are suffering’; you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity.
279. “Sabbe dhammá anattá”ti, yadá paññáya passati; atha nibbindati dukkhe, esa maggo visuddhiyá.
“ When you see with discernment, ‘All things, manifest or un-manifest, are not-self’; you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity.”

The first line states, “All conditioned things (sankhárá) are impermanent…” The second line, “All conditioned things are suffering…” The third line, however, is different. Here, the Buddha does not use the word ‘sankhárá’ (formations, ‘conditioned things’) but ‘dhammá’ instead. The definition of ‘dhammá’ covers a broad range, from Doctrine or Law to nature and all phenomena. Here it is referring to 'all phenomenal reality', both tangible and evanescent ~ dhamma-nijjívatá , i.e. everything cognizable and hidden, translating this line as, “All things, (manifest or un-manifest), are not-self…” This means that even ‘Nibbána’, which is ‘asankhárá’ ~ unconditioned, is also anattá ~ without permanant self. This statement unequivocally denies the ‘attá’ ~ self or Self/Absolute of any kind, even in enlightenment, even in Nibbána.

The Buddha's teaching states clearly that ‘personality-belief’ ~ sakkáya-ditthi, or ‘ego-illusion’ ~ atta-ditthi, is wrong-view ~ miccha-ditthi, that will lead to craving, vexation and suffering, and that wrong views must be rejected because they are a source of corrupted aspirations and conduct.

In the Brahmajala Sutta (also called Ditthijala, ‘net of views’), the Buddha discusses at length 62 categories of wrong views pertaining to speculation of the past, future, both past and future and beliefs adhering or relating to these, one of which is the belief that there exists an eternal self or soul:

“ …Thus, bhikkhus, when those ascetics and Brahmins who are Eternalists (sassata-váda) proclaim the eternity of the self ‘attan’ and the world ‘loka’ in the four ways, that is merely the feeling of those who do not know and see, the worry and vacillation of those immersed in craving.” [7]

Furthermore, The Buddha stated that if there existed any amount of permanent self-existence ~ attabháva, that his Doctrine would be impracticable:

“...Monk, there is no materiality whatsoever, no feeling…no perception…no formations of the mind…no consciousness whatsoever that is permanent, everlasting, eternal, unchanging or identically abiding for eternity.

Then the Bleesed One took up a bit of cowdung in his hand and said to that monk: “Monk, there is not even this much of permanent, everlasting, eternal, unchanging individual self-existence (attabháva), identically abiding for eternity. If even this much of permanent, everlasting, eternal, unchanging individual self-existence, identically abiding for eternity could be found, then this living the renounced life for the eradication of suffering would not be conceivable. But because there is not even this much of permanent, everlasting, eternal, unchanging individual self-existence, identically abiding for eternity, this living the renounced life for the eradication of suffering is conceivable...” [8]


_/\_
metta

[Bobby_Lanier]

Although I am qualified to speak somewhat as a theologian rather than as a Buddhist expert, I have found that some of my colleagues are not as cocksure, as are many non-academic Buddhists, that the Buddha categorically denied the self.

When you say this Elohim it raises some questions.

From my understanding, the Buddha does indeed teach that to have any view or position of a self is something to be abandoned.

First of all, the academic evidence is not in that the Buddha denied the self is clearest terms. Pande cautiously observes:


“The doctrine [of an-atman] denies that there is in the physical or mental realms anything which may properly be called one’s “self” since everywhere within them impermanence and dependence rule. This of itself does not mean the denial of all “self” whatever, but only of the phenomenality of the “Self”. What is usually denied is that any of the khandhas may be the Attâ, not the existence of the Attâ as such."

As to how the Buddha used the term "view" in various contexts needs to be presented with more precision. What do we make of "view" in this passage from the Sutta-Nipata?

Regard the world as void (suññato lokam), Mogharaja, ever mindful, uproot the wrong view of self (atttânudditthim), thus you will be one who has crossed over death, the Lord of Death does not see one who thus regards the world.

The Buddha could have easily said, "Deny the self, Mogharaja. Only then will you cross over." However we note that the denial is qualified. The commentary to this passage seems to clear up the problem of "view of self".

Destruction (uhaccati) of view of self (attanuditthi) means removing the view that one’s being is the body (sakkayaditthi).

This is no more evident than in this passage from the Samyutta Nikaya:

"The instructed noble disciple....does not regard form as self or self as possessing form, or form as in self, or self as in form [ditto with the rest of the khandhas]. It is in such a way that the view of the body as self does not come to be (Evam kho, gahapati, sakkayaditthi na hoti'ti)" (S. iv. 287).

To sum this up in plain language: people generally mistake their body to be the self. The Buddha said the body's form, for example, is not the self. Form is an attribute (khandhas). The self is, therefore, what the body is not (i.e., the self is not an attribute). To believe otherwise is to have a view of self in which the body is believed to be the self.

Love ya all,

Bobby

[Vacchagotta]

Vacchagotta,

May I also add, after rereading your post, that you quite possibly don't understand my view, as you seem to imply.

When trying to correct Nam's initial suggestion that in general, Buddhism teaches that Nibbana is a self and/or where all phenomena originates from , I simply offered some evidence to the contrary. That was all. If you are unaware of the original conversation from whence this topic sprang, I would like to point you towards this particular thread: The Meaning of Being Mindful posts #23-50 (http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=411&page=3)

On a side note, in the Buddha's teachings on paticca-samuppada (dependent co-arising), avijja (ignorance) conditions the arising of the five khandhas (aggregates):



In this context, if we review Nam's posts, we can see a discrepency between what he was offering as a generalized view of Buddhism, and what is in the Pali Canon.

If Nibbana was the "essence of self" where "all things arise", including the five aggregates, as Nam suggests, then it would also have to imply that according to the Pali Canon, Nibbana is synonymous with ignorance. That, of course, is not possible since Nibbana is described by the Buddha in SN XXXVIII.1 as being the [i]extinction of lobha (greed), dosa (hatred), and moha (delusion), with the root of all three being avijja (ignorance).

So, I hope that this helps to explain exactly where I was coming from, and clarifies my view just a little bit better.

:)

Jason


I understood a few things a little better after looking at those posts. Firstly that Nam very probably was indeed AEH in disguise, as one poster pointed out...only guessing from the inconsistent verbal patterns. But the issue in question of "Nibbana as the Essence of Self" can be very confusing, being mainly an interpretation based on texts in conjunction with differing personal intuitions. From that discussion its hard for me to sort out what Nam's view is and what you think his view is. I can only really offer the way I see it, which is probably not quite the same as either.

That thread being closed, we should probably not dwell too much on what was said there and stick to this particular conversation (is it a conversation? I though you said you were done). It does shed some light on the motivation for your comments on emptiness (which I still feel I have shown to be fraught with a mistaken conflation). The way I see it, we should by all means stick to the traditional definition of Nibbana as the extinction, stopping, uprooting, annihilation of the asavas (alternatively shown to be the Arhat as emptied of them). Traditionally, we don't ask "what's left" after Nibbana because Nibbana, being beyond phenomena, is not really phenomenally demonstrable in the same way as, for example, how the tree in the backyard looks without all its leaves. Exactly here, in the transcendence of Nibbana from what we know as the phenomenal world (loka, sabbe dhamma) we might mention, is the context for the great "tetralemma" as applied to the "existence"(phenomenality) or "non-existence"(total annihilation) of the Tathagata/Arhat after Parinibbana without remainder. Of the Arhat after Nibbana we simply don't have the same points of reference so we cannot make the assertions of existence or non-existence or the alternatives. If it is said that Mara cannot find the Arhat, its very probable he cannot be shown to us, and so the "what's left" is simply outside the range of phenomenal inquiry.

But I at least feel that naturally if Nibbana is that kind of stripping away of defilements for the sake of ease (sukha)," in my very self" (paccattamyeva parinibbayati), then in Nibbana, in having thoroughly turned away from clinging to that of what I once considered my personality, in having quite thoroughly gotten rid of any view of what I am, I am more (most) completely "myself", whatever in fact I am (begging the question: I am myself!). You can see that that speaks fairly directly to my comments about the two contextually distinct meanings of "emptiness" being discussed. It is probably only in this sense that Nibbana could possibly be considered "the essence of Self", though from your prior comments it is easy to go on from there and make mistakes which interpret it as a reification of Nibbana as "a" Self in some concrete way to insert into a line of logic that asserts Nibbana is identical to ignorance. We could probably clear up the confusion by amending the assertion to "Nibbana is the return to Self-essence" or something like that.

Now, going to paticca-samupada in this context, we might say that birth and death arise from myself because I am the locus of avijja, of ignorance. That is I, whatever I am, (I am not the khandhas!) am ignorant, and from there the whole snowball gets rolling. So we turn around what you said was the logical conclusion (if Nibbana is the essence of self and Self is the ground from which birth and death arise, then Nibbana is ignorance.) and instead say that since ignorance, together with the other defilements, is not the essence of Self but merely an attitude that I may exhibit or rid myself of, then Nibbana is the ridding of myself of that attitude and thus ignorance and Nibbana are opposed, not the same.

If I may risk extending the idea too much by reference to analogies, we may compare Nibbana to purified gold free of "defilements" or impurities. Going back to gold in its natural state (as we found it), we know gold in itself is gold and non-gold is non-gold, but, gold and non-gold are all mixed up and certainly we cannot define the non-gold as an impurity if this were not the case (we can only see the defilement of gold where there is gold). This is the case of Self being bound to aggregated existence by ignorance. But, even though we can fairly acceptably say that the state of gold as purified from its defilements is identical to that gold as-it-is (is the essence of gold), we do not say that the purified Gold is the same as the impurities once mixed up with it.

in friendship,
V.

[not1not2]

Now, going to paticca-samupada in this context, we might say that birth and death arise from myself because I am the locus of avijja, of ignorance. That is I, whatever I am, (I am not the khandhas!) am ignorant, and from there the whole snowball gets rolling. So we turn around what you said was the logical conclusion (if Nibbana is the essence of self and Self is the ground from which birth and death arise, then Nibbana is ignorance.) and instead say that since ignorance, together with the other defilements, is not the essence of Self but merely an attitude that I may exhibit or rid myself of, then Nibbana is the ridding of myself of that attitude and thus ignorance and Nibbana are opposed, not the same.

In regards to the bolded, I think it's actually the other way around. In other words, avijja is the locus of 'I am'/'I-maker' or the Ahamkara of Samkhya philosophy. Paticca Samupadda appears to demonstrate that 'myself' and 'yourself' are only provisional terms used by the mind to discriminate one dhamma from another, and that birth, death and becoming (bhavana) are secondary to avijja. So saying that 'you' are the basis of avijja, which is the basis of 'you' is quite circular, imo. Nowhere in paticca samupadda (to my knowledge) do this 'myself' exist without the prerequisite condition of avijja. In fact, in my understanding, that is the entire gist of the teaching on paticca samupadda.

With that said, I think your logic is all based on this assumption that this 'you' has any existent qualities without avijja. This just seems like backwards buddhist logic to me, and also is possibly circular logic.

regards

_/\_
metta

[Elohim]

Bobby,

Academic evidence doesn't really do the Buddha's teachings justice. Beyond just being studied, these teachings were meant to be put into practice as well. Without the compliments of observing the precepts, meditation, and direct insight into phenomena, nobody's understanding of what the Buddha taught will ever be complete. We must remember that the Buddha said that his teachings were not to be used to simply argue with other contemplatives, but they were to be skillfully put into practice. To only focus on one side of the practice or the other destroys this carefully constructed balance designed by the Buddha.

What the Buddha seems to be teaching in regards to 'anatta' is that, anywhere whatsoever that you may look for a permanent, ever-lasting self, you will simply find yourself grasping at unsatisfactoriness and inconstancy out of ignorance. The conditioned world is ruled by conditionality, not by a hidden self. For example, the Buddha went on to explain that not only was the body not-self, but the mind was not-self as well. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are not-self because they are unsatisfactory and inconstant. But, the Buddha doesn't just stop there. He continues to explain that if one were to say:

'Repudiating this All [referring to the five aggregates], I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range. - SN XXXV.23 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn35-023.html)

So, while the question remains open if there is actually 'something' there or not, to even speculate as to the answer is clearly going against the Buddha's teachings. Everything that we can possibly experience in this body and mind of ours is unsatisfactory and inconstant, therefore, everything that we can possibly experience in this body and mind is also said to be not-self. However, when looking beyond this body and mind for an eternal essence that can be viewed or grasped onto as a self is impossible. As the Buddha said, such a thing lies beyond range. A search in that direction only leads one to grief.

When people try to use Nibbana as an example of what lies beyond range, but can be experienced at some point, they also forget to include the various teachings concerning that attainment. For one, to even experience Nibbana, all forms of self view must be abandoned. There is no longer any thoughts of "I", "me", or "mine". To intellectually try and uncover a self in that experience is merely trying to complicate the uncomplicated. As the Venerable Sariputta explained when he was asked if there was anything remaining or not remaining (or both, or neither) after the cessation of the six sense spheres:

"The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' complicates non-complication. The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' complicates non-complication. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far complication goes. However far complication goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of complication. - AN IV.174 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an04-174.html)

That is why I do not enjoy delving to deeply into this particular topic. It is ultimately unskillful, and considered by the Buddha himself to be inappropriate attention. Our focus is taken off of the immediate practice, and instead becomes lost within speculative thoughts about the various views of self. It is a trap that the noble disciple must learn to avoid, for it only leads one to more suffering, more becoming, more craving, and it does not lead one to the abandoning of ignorance, abandoning of craving, Nibbana. As the Buddha cautioned his followers in regards to these kinds of inappropriate attention thus:

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. - MN 2 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn-002-tb0.html)

That is why words tend to fail when it comes to the meaning of 'anatta'.

:)

Jason

[Vacchagotta]

In regards to the bolded, I think it's actually the other way around. In other words, avijja is the locus of 'I am'/'I-maker' or the Ahamkara of Samkhya philosophy. Paticca Samupadda appears to demonstrate that 'myself' and 'yourself' are only provisional terms used by the mind to discriminate one dhamma from another, and that birth, death and becoming (bhavana) are secondary to avijja. So saying that 'you' are the basis of avijja, which is the basis of 'you' is quite circular, imo. Nowhere in paticca samupadda (to my knowledge) do this 'myself' exist without the prerequisite condition of avijja. In fact, in my understanding, that is the entire gist of the teaching on paticca samupadda.

With that said, I think your logic is all based on this assumption that this 'you' has any existent qualities without avijja. This just seems like backwards buddhist logic to me, and also is possibly circular logic.

regards

_/\_
metta

It is not really circular because I did not assert that attan comes to be through avijja. That ahamkara is an expression of ignorance does not really change "what" the attan is when free of such definitive clinging. It's also important to point out that you attributed the assumption of existent qualites without avijja to my view, but I never said that. What I'm trying to say is pretty much the opposite. that we can't pin those on attan, because those belong to the phenomenality which was given rise to through paticca samupada and are not intrinsic to Self but may be left behind (which is Nibbana). I am sure that most people will say "well, then it doesn't exist". But, face to face with how the Buddha defines various ditthi, particularly the annihilationist views, it's not an acceptable conclusion to my way of looking at it.

Important to remember that when we speculate back prior to avijja we're getting into "forbidden" territory. All kinds of confusion can ensue.

[Vacchagotta]

Well said, Jason.

My main argument is that far too many Buddhists believe that the Buddha's teachings on anatta encourage them to adopt the views "I have no Self" "There is no Self" or "'Self' is only the aggregates which break up on death") by default when clearly and explicitly he discourages this conclusion.

A great number of Buddhists would take all that you had written in that last post and add a conclusion like "therefore, it's clear that the Buddha denied the Self and it's clear to me there is no Self".

All the Buddha taught is of suffering and the way to the freedom from suffering.

[Elohim]

All,

I mainly continued this discussion to make clear the meanings and intentions behind my previous posts. I simply felt that they were unclear to some, and hence taken out of context. My only goal was to attempt to fix that. Now that I feel confident that I have clarified my position to the best of my ability, you may make of it what you wish. I have no desire to prove myself 'right', or to prove my views as being 'correct'. If you find my words to be in error, then please do your best to correct them. As for myself, I am content that my current understanding is in line with the Dhamma, but I am taking the time to study the entire Samyutta Nikaya, so I am open to the possibility of it being otherwise. Until such time, however, what more can I offer?

Sincerely,

Jason

[Vacchagotta]

"Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is not eternal' [along with 'the cosmos is finite', 'the cosmos is infinite', 'the soul & the body are the same', 'the soul is one thing and the body another', 'after death a Tathagata exists', 'after death a Tathagata does not exist', 'after death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist', 'after death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist'] is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding. - MN 72"

It helps here to be aware that the word which is here translated as "soul" is jiva, not attan. Jiva is probably most appropriately referred to as "vitality" or the perennially mysterious property of being alive.

[Will]

Here is a snip from an excellent talk - Using non-self to let goby Ajahn Brahmavamso. I bolded his clear statement that supports the traditional, correct view that there is no self. Ponder on it all.

For every statement of Buddha's that might suggest otherwise, there are many that are clear - there is no self.
=====================


I did say in an earlier talk that it's through wisdom power that you get very deep in meditation not through mere willpower and a little bit of insight, a little bit of understanding. Seeing this process from a different perspective has enormous power to quieten the mind down, and so I wanted to especially emphasise this in the latter part of this talk how anatta can be used in this process of meditation. But first of all, just the meaning of anatta should be apprehended by us and it's one of those subjects, or the subject in Buddhism, which to many people is very hard to understand and to get your mind around, and that by itself is a good point for insight to arise. Why in many parts of Buddhism when we come to the teaching of anatta there's something inside us which rebels? That is the illusion of self getting uncomfortable. This is stirring up something which is very deeply rooted inside us and something which does not want to even contemplate anatta, non-self, and that is a symptom of the whole problem. The Buddha was very uncompromising when he taught anatta and it's one of the reasons why people find it a bit difficult because there's no way around. When you read the Buddha's teachings, there's no way around coming to the conclusion that there is no-one in here. There is no controller. There is no knower. There is no doer. There is no self, no soul, no being. And this uncompromising conclusion which you get from looking at the teachings causes you to actually investigate because so much other teachings of the Buddha seem to be so powerful, so deep, so true, so effective, and this one, seems to be the hard one. It is the hard one because on the realisation of anatta, of uncovering the illusion of self that, the whole path towards enlightenment revolves. This is the insight, the discovery, the understanding which changes one from just being a person who wanders around the samsara, lifetime after lifetime, to one who is on the way out of the samsara, inevitably, certainly, surely bound for Nibbana. It's the crux, the fulcrum, of the whole practice. Why is it difficult to see? It's difficult to see because we don't want to see it, but at least we can get a handle on what the Buddha was talking about, because first of all that he asked you to not look at anatta from a philosophical point of view - which is one of the big mistakes as we intellectualise it - but to start looking at anatta from the practical point of view: how it affects our views, perceptions, thoughts, in particular, to look at what do we take to be a self, a soul, a me. And this is where we really get to grip with this teaching of anatta: how we use it. Instead of thinking "is there a self?" or "who am I?", you say "what do I perceive my self to be? What do I perceive is mine? What do I think is me? What do I think is mine? What do I know? What do I view as me? What do I view as mine?". And here the Buddha started taking apart this illusion bit by bit.

[Hanna]

In short, the five clinging-aggregates are not-self because they are unsatisfactory and inconstant.

(Sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know where else to put it (or if I even should) and I've seen it before but never had any people to ask.)

"Inconstant > not-self" seems pretty obvious, but "unsatisfactory > not-self" just doesn't make any kind of sense at all to me. It's like saying "I need haircut, therefore the sofa cannot stand on one leg". :wtf:

[not1not2]

Originally Posted by Elohim
In short, the five clinging-aggregates are not-self because they are unsatisfactory and inconstant.

(Sorry for being offtopic, but I don't know where else to put it (or if I even should) and I've seen it before but never had any people to ask.)

"Inconstant > not-self" seems pretty obvious, but "unsatisfactory > not-self" just doesn't make any kind of sense at all to me. It's like saying "I need haircut, therefore the sofa cannot stand on one leg".

Here we are talking about the 3 dharma seals, aka the 3 marks of existence, anicca (impermanent), dukkha (unsatisfactoriness) and anatta (not-self or without self). It seems to be regarded by the buddha that any working or meaningful definition of a 'self' implies permanence and that it is not subject to dukkha. What is being said here is that the aggregates do not meet these conditions, which would be necessary to be the considered 'self' in anything other than a provisional sense.

Also, saying that something is anatta means that it is without any fundamental or independent reality apart from conditions.

Does this help??

_/\_
metta

[Elohim]

aquula,

"There are these three forms of stressfulness, my friend: the stressfulness of pain, the stressfulness of fabrication, the stressfulness of change. These are the three forms of stressfulness." - SN XXXVIII.14 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn38-014.html)

This is one of the main points to be understood in realization of the First Noble Truth (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/index.html). The tilakkhana (three characteristics of existence: dukkha, anicca, and anatta) are present in all conditioned things. The Buddha teaches that whatever is anicca (inconstant), that is whatever is subject to change and conditionality, is dukkha (stressful). To hold onto anything that is inconstant, subject to change, break-up, and dissolution is a cause for suffering. Why, then, would you want cling to something that is impermanent, and by it's very nature stressful, as a self? Perhaps listening to The Three Characteristics (http://www.audiodharma.org/mp3files/2003-03-30_ThanissaroBhikkhu_ThreeCharacteristics.mp3) and The Five Aggregates (http://www.audiodharma.org/mp3files/2003-03-29_ThanissaroBhikkhu_FiveAggregates.mp3) by Thanissaro Bhikkhu might help to improve your understanding as to why the Buddha said:

"Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with what is not loved is stressful, separation from what is loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful. - AN VI.63 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/anguttara/an06-063.html#part-6)

:)

Jason

[Vacchagotta]

aqqula,

I hope my comments on this detail could help you clarify for yourself why this statement (why what is dukkha cannot be considered "myself") is useful.
The way I understand it, this amounts to a practical teaching. Let's look at it. We say that what is impermanent is dukkha because, having clung to it, when it changes or is annihilated that causes pain for us...and even if the thing is temporarily stable, we have an anxiety for it based on its impermanence. But why is dukkha unacceptable as self? If (for instance) something is myself or necessarily pertaining to myself, but it is also dukkha in the way the aggregates are dukkha("unsatisfactory" is one choice of translation for dukkha: more popular is just "suffering"), then that would mean that no matter how hard I tried or what I did, I could never ever escape or eliminate suffering, because that suffering is necessarily part of who I really am. Since half of the four noble truths refer to the liberation from suffering, for the Buddha, such a notion is very unacceptable.

[Vacchagotta]

Will,
you wrote (emphasis mine):
"Here is a snip from an excellent talk - Using non-self to let goby Ajahn Brahmavamso. I bolded his clear statement that supports the traditional, correct view that there is no self. Ponder on it all.

For every statement of Buddha's that might suggest otherwise, there are many that are clear - there is no self."

In making the above statements you ignore or contradict Buddha's teaching such as the following:
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

[zenmonk_genryu]

The problem is the view, not that there is no self. If it's an opinion and not direct insight, it doesn't contain the reality of what's being spoken about.

[not1not2]

It is not really circular because I did not assert that attan comes to be through avijja. That ahamkara is an expression of ignorance does not really change "what" the attan is when free of such definitive clinging. It's also important to point out that you attributed the assumption of existent qualites without avijja to my view, but I never said that. What I'm trying to say is pretty much the opposite. that we can't pin those on attan, because those belong to the phenomenality which was given rise to through paticca samupada and are not intrinsic to Self but may be left behind (which is Nibbana). I am sure that most people will say "well, then it doesn't exist". But, face to face with how the Buddha defines various ditthi, particularly the annihilationist views, it's not an acceptable conclusion to my way of looking at it.

Important to remember that when we speculate back prior to avijja we're getting into "forbidden" territory. All kinds of confusion can ensue.

By the way you are stating your arguments, saying the 'I am the locus of Avijja', it appears you are stepping into that forbidden ground. Then, by the way I am stating my arguments, it sounds like I am saying there is no self prior to avijja.

The way I understand it is that 'self' and 'no-self' do not apply and are irrelevent to Awakening. They are provisional terms which apply to the mental formations skandha (samskara). Even the thought "I am" is a just a thought. Taking on the view of 'I am' indicates clinging to this mental formation, and is therefore a source of dukkha. The thought 'there is no self' is just a thought. Taking on the view of 'there is no self' indicates clinging to this mental formation, and is therefore also a source of dukkha.

It is also important to note that the buddha said holding to the view that 'there is no self' is worse than holding onto the view that 'there is a self'. Basically this whole argument is worthless if we are just using it to establish a view one way or the other, neither way, or both ways. Establishing a view of any sort is to misunderstand the teaching of anicca and dukkha, imo.

I have heard this analogy (in the context of Zen buddhism):
In eternalism they say 'there is a cat'.
In nihilism they say 'there is no cat'.
In Zen we say 'meow'.

Not a perfect analogy, but I still like it.