Several

Equanimity is not the same as Karuna, Metta and Mudita. You misunderstand the proposition that there is a singular higher self that we are aspects of, not that we each are seperate except by appearance. And I do not suppose that this is a personality, but that it 'remembers' being each of us as if it dreamed us. Each subsequent 'dream' is coloured by the memory of the previous one, we call this Kamma. I have some doubt that it was Buddha himself who emphasised emotions when it clashes with other fundamental ideas. Dependent origination mainly. Is it actually Sutta where you get this idea or someone elses interpretation?

Metta is excellent how ever it is described, what being short of enlightenment can bestow it without clinging? Having purified all except metta, metta itself becomes the obstacle.

Ten wholesome attachments are again preferable but still attachments and must ultimately be abandoned.

I like cats. And my Kung <deleted> is strong.

There are a few theories about this being a 'Goldilocks' universe, certain parameters are 'just right' (not too hot, not too cold) for this cosmos to be the way it is. Here is a quote about that:

Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the Universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today. According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our Universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current Universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the existence of the Multiverse. (Fine-tuned universe, Wikipedia)

Now it is far from determined if this is true and it is used by creationists to prove intelligent design, others claim aliens, the number of parameters varies from one to about 25, some believe it is all just chance. Though it is far from being a solid theorem it is remarkable just how narrow a margin circumstances must fall into for the manifest universe to be the way it is. We're talking quite a few decimal places. A fraction more or less value of various forces and everything would be gas, or a single black hole or higher elements could not form etc. One example (I forget who) said the chance of this exact set of circumstances coming into being was the same as billions of blind men all solving Rubiks cubes simultaneously.

Putting the advent of life aside and just looking at matter (from molecules to galaxies) it seems highly improbable that this universe would be exactly right to create stars, galaxies and higher elements. But only if you assume time is an arrow. There are masses of evidence that precognition is not only possible but common. Time as a dimension is not currently understood. So if what I said before about mind being the basis of all reality is right then it is also possible that manifest reality has organised itself perfectly because it remembers how it is going to be. The universe is not an improbable set of circumstances, but an inevitability. All need for creators or slim probabilities are removed.

Almost any way you look at it, from my idea (around post 106/7) to Stephen Hawking (saying the universe 'selects' its condition) to creationists, mind or awareness is the simplest explaination, though I lean towards it being an unconscious reflex action and creation of the cosmos is an ongoing process, not a one time event.

This fits the interpretation of Anatta, and therefore Anicca. Anything subject to time is impermanent and not self. Mind (Citta) is the uncreated datum existing outside of time, consciousness and matter are manifest aspects of it and subject to time. Time itself, by its very nature, is Anicca.

Death is the end of physical aggregates. Dr. Peter Fenwick has shown that 10% of cardiac arrest victims who died (No cardiac output, no respiration, no brain stem reflexes. Clinical death) and are revived have comparable experiences and even memories of procedures carried out on them when their brain wasn't functioning. Not possible if consciousness is a function of the brain. Many people know when they or loved ones are going to die. Precognition (Abraham Lincon and John Lennon are just two examples). Many people have verifiable memories of previous lives (I knew one guy personally) at a young age. By the age of about 8 yrs people forget their previous existence and wholly become a new persona. It is very highly probable that consciousness survives death, is not temporally restricted and yet is still an aggregate. Part of the psycho-physical complex but not dependent on it.

That which is made from it is Anatta, that which it is made from is Citta.

High probability of higher self (Citta). Stop. We are aspects of it, not it of us. Stop. Investigating by any and all means possible because if investigation and conceptual understanding wasn't at least partly necessary than any animal or insect capable of single pointed concentration could become enlightened. Please stop.

I think its established, or at least highly likely. Mostly because there isn't a definitive answer other than through practice and investigation. That being the act of investigation itself is obviously important, arriving at definition isn't.

Next time on Several's rant, the Death of Goldilocks. Stay tuned.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

You must read the Suttas with discernment. They were written down a long time after the teacher died. He himself predicted the degradation of the Dhamma. He advised us to question and discover for ourselves. This is some of the greatest wisdom in Buddhism. Don't swallow everything you're fed.

I am dismissing out of hand anything that does not fit the framework. Suffering and the end of suffering is the whole of the teaching, according to Buddha. How is cultivation of anything to do with feeling going to fit in there? It will result in clinging and Kamma, unless you're throwing out the dependent origination.

There is nothing about right feeling in any version of the 8 fold path I have heard of. Mindfulness, effort and understanding, which being right thought and right view implies (along with investigation of states, unless you want to abandon the Enlightenment Factors too) at least some level of conceptual understanding of the truth in order to progress towards Nibbana.

Casting away ill-will would logically have more to do with equanimity, that also being an enlightenment factor. I am suspicious that much of the talk about Metta and Karuna are 'layman-pleasing' additions to what otherwise would seem to be a cold and barren teaching to the profane. Too much of current Buddhism is about making laypeople happy, pointless chanting they don't even understand etc. Buddha himself questioned the ability of others to comprehend the truth if his teaching.

It would obviously alter practice from wandering blindly about hoping to stumble on the truth to flying dead-straight towards it like a well aimed arrow. Remember that in Buddhas time people were becoming Arahants in as little as one week. The further in time we get from the Buddha the more degradation of the Dhamma and fewer Arahants who take longer to 'arrive'.

Yes. Completely unnecessary except for thought. They are preferable. Neither Kamma nor feelings are are enlightenment factors. In the dependent origination they result in suffering, death and rebirth.

Can we get back on subject now?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Heh. I actually can't stand grammar.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

 Anyway, that quote is a bit odd. Metta and Karuna have nothing to do with Vipassana, Jhana or Sati. They're not Enlightenment Factors. They're not in the 8 fold path. They are highly laudable states, definitely superior to other options but fundamental? I would have thought Mudita (sympathetic joy) would have gotten a mention too. And if its so fundamental, why is Ananda even asking? Sounds iffy.

What I meant about a christian concept of soul is that it is like an etheric everlasting ego. You're still you just without the meat. Buddha may have been using the term Citta to give his enlightened knowledge of this. You never were you, and always will be.

Practice is what leads to direct experential knowledge. What makes a Buddha is his ability to teach, to do that he needs to put it into words. We then reverse engineer the description. Buddha stated he only taught what was necessary to end suffering. This included more than guidelines on practice. Therefore a conceptual idea is included, even if it is only 'training wheels' until we overcome the need for concept. Practice is unlikely to bear much fruit unless you can recognise what is resulting in benefit or harm. Prior to the experience you need a description.

As i said, Metta and Karuna are impermanent and not self. Anatta seems to be an adjective describing that which causes suffering. If purification of Citta is actually what the practice is about then our task is discovering the true nature of mind. Without a clear aim you will chase your tail until your aggregates drop from exhaustion. Identifying sources of valid information appropriate to the task require discernment necessarily based on knowledge. Buddha constantly encouraged the monks to think; "tell me o monks..." followed by some question. He's not feeding dogma, he's encouraging critical thinking. The dependent origination is a logical progression, the root cause is Avijja, unknowing. The via negativa method of Anatta, finding an answer (by experience) from what it is not is perfectly in tune with this way of investigation. Sherlock Holmes mentioned something about the unusual behaviour of dogs the previous night. Watson commented the dogs had made no noise. "That was the unusual occurence, my dear Watson."

So it does make a difference, as far as I can tell, to investigate the states (enlightenment factor) more than to risk becoming attached to Metta/Karuna (Vedana, "feelings, nothing more than feelings, trying to remember...") despite the fact they are wonderful things.

Okey dokey?

 

Ananda would ask because he is a student.

 

Think of the 8 Fold Path as a high level list.

 

Break it down into lower levels and you will find that the Brahmaviharas (four immeasurables: Metta, Karuna, Mudita & Upekkha) is a purifying practice which fits nicely under "Wisdom" & "Ethical Conduct".

 

 

You take these attitudes into your meditation practice.

It is said that they contain the seeds of being in the "present" as they are a living practice in the present.

They are also the essence of the law of kharma, & right thought (samma sankkalpa, literally 'right commitments').

They are great antidotes to negative mental states such as hatred, avarice, greed, anger, pride & self interest.

 

The four immeasurables were explained in the Path to Purification, a treatise of the Buddhas teachings, written by the godfather of Theravada, Buddhagosa in the 5th century.

 

The Buddha taught his disciples to arouse these four states of mind.    The Buddha, Digha Nikaya 13

 

I found this interesting:

 

While the suttas criticize notions of an eternal, unchanging Self, they see an enlightened being as one whose changing, empirical self is highly developed. One with great self has a mind which is not at the mercy of outside stimuli or its own moods, but is imbued with self-control, and self-contained. The mind of such a one is without boundaries, not limited by attachment or I-identification. One can transform one's self from an "insignificant self" into a "great self" through practices such as loving kindness and mindfulness. The suttas portray one disciple who has developed his mind through loving-kindness saying: "Formerly this mind of mine was limited, but now my mind is immeasurable."

At the culmination of the path is the Arahant, described as "one of developed self" (bhāvit-atto), who has carried the process of personal development and self-reliance to its perfection. Such a person has developed all the good aspects of their personality. An arahant is described as "one with a mind like a diamond", it can "cut" anything and is itself uncuttable; nothing can affect it. The suttas portray "one of developed self" in the following ways:

• Virtue, wisdom, and the meditative and other spiritual faculties are well-developed;
• Body is "developed" and "steadfast";
• Mind is "developed", "steadfast", "well-released" and without ill-will;
• When confronted with objects of the six senses, he or she has equanimity and is not confused, seeing only what is seen, and hearing only what is heard, not mental projections and elaborations such as attachment, desire, and aversion;
• The six senses are "controlled" and "guarded";
• He or she is "self-controlled" (atta-danto) and "with a well-controlled self" (attanā sudantena); and is
• "Unlimited, great, deep, immeasurable, hard to fathom, with much treasure, arisen (like the) ocean."

 

The 8 fold path is an any level list, you just get better at it. You can construe Metta and the rest as fitting nicely in, but you could also make flying to the moon fit in too.

Taking a dump could just as well be described as 'being in the present'. Maybe even more so. Should I focus on voiding my bowels whilst meditating?

At the end of the Visuddhi Magga Buddhagosa says he hopes to be reborn in a Deva realm. So he doubted his ability to become enlightened and admits thereby that he is most definitely not. Its a good book on meditation written by a scholar.

The Buddha most likely did encourage these four states. He also said don't walk on your heels, wave your arms about or throw stones at swans. We're only supposed to bathe once every 15 days (unless working). Some things are about preferable behaviour.

The Suttas don't seem to be criticizing the eternal Citta. What this quote is talking about is the obvious mundane manifestation of an Arahant as percieved by the unknowing. The insignificant self is an aspect of the great self, not a seperate thing, otherwise you belittle the greater.

The disciple developed his mind through mindfulness. It would not matter if it was Metta or any of the subjects outlined in the Visuddhi Magga.

Nothing you quote after that says Metta or Karuna are necessary in any way. Virtue is behavioural for example. Equanimity is the superior mode of being. Saying that one has developed the 'good aspects of the personality' is incorrect as they would all be Anatta. Personality is ego. To be crude again, its talking about polishing turds.

And where is this 'real world' you refer to? I though you said Nibbana wasn't a place. >_>

 

Well, this also comes back to interpretation/translation.

 

A scholar of Sanskrit & Pali suggests that Nirvana (Sanskrit), Nibbana (Pali) is a verb.

I was joking.

Less distraction. More attention. Being luvvey and compassionate is ok for daily mundane goings on, provided you're not attached to them. They are superfluous to sharpening concentration and mindfulness.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Possibly. That is something that Kathodos (the guy who wrote what I originally posted) said. In fact he quoted that word for word in a youtube video. Lacking full knowledge of the answer I'd guess its almost true, that it could guide us towards the reality, though maybe not make the final push. Like eliminating suspects in a murder case, you still need evidence to prosecute in court, not just because you have one likely candidate. (At least outside of Thailand)

Recently I came across this gentleman on youtube. He is talking about misconceptions in sectarian Buddhism, some of which is very interesting. Particularly his interpretation of Anatta which he says is an adjective and does not preclude the existence of a soul.

Specifically that Buddha would have used the term Natthatta (there is no soul) rather than referring to phenomena as being Anatta (not soul). His position is that Buddha is using a Via Negativa method of describing what the soul is not as it is impossible to describe what it is.

The gentleman is known as [email protected] and posts on youtube as Plotinus Veritas. Here is a link to the webpage on Anatta. It is very scolarly and rather heavy going.

http://kathodos.com/anatta.html

.

 

Perhaps there might also be other reasons why the Buddha wouldn't have used the word Natthatta.

 

 

If it helps, I've also read that Annatta can be a verb.

 

A speaker once indicated that back in the time of the Buddha, one wouldn't ask "what do you believe in", but rather "what do you do".

The consequence of a persons caste or station would be that their actions (work, rituals, speech, & associations) reflect who they are.

Oh so now the app is quoting. Two minutes ago it showed page 15 and 16 as the same. Technology. Humbug.

Anyway, the highest likelihood he didn't say Natthatta is that it is inaccurate. You may have, as have I, come across Anatta as a verb. What I'm driving at is that could be wrong and a device of some Buddhists to claim a no-soul interpretation most likely to define themselves as seperate to other sects. This would be primarily unhelpful in understanding Dhamma by perverting the original teaching, and it was being used to create division in the Sangha making it doubly atrocious. IF the quoted interpretation of Anatta is true then many are spreading teachings that are false and highly unlikely to result in liberation.

Hi Sev.

How can you state:

Probably (Dictionary: "very likely") because its dualistic and causes conceptualisation.

There maybe more reasons why the Buddha wouldn't be drawn.

One possibility is that there may not be anything beyond.

If there isn't (and we don't know), then a reason for not being drawn was that there may not have been any takers.

Why would travelers expend great effort to regularly practice for many years to realize the very best a human could aspire to, when the existing option was simply to believe in Brahmanism, live within the rules, and pray for a higher birth, eventually leading to a place in the house of Brahman?

We can speculate, but it's been said that speculating beyond the real world is fruitless.

Damn this app. It won't quote.

The 'possibility that there may not be anything beyond' is nihilism, not what the Buddha said he taught. One reason for this thread is that the idea of no-soul may be a horrendous mistake. Notice the sharp decline in Arahants relative to the no-soul doctrine spreading. The term Citta could be what we're after. Mind before its consciousness, memory, idea or perception. The Jungian collective unconscious is one other interpretation. If it is the infinite foundation of all manifest phenomena it would be entirely possible to exist as an illusory independent being and as everything everywhere simultaneously. Infinite does not exclude anything. Nibbana could be the realisation that we are that and have never been other.

And where is this 'real world' you refer to? I though you said Nibbana wasn't a place. >_>

Several wrote:

I thought I did reference it Sev.

Post #97.

Compassion or karuna is at the transcendental and experiential heart of the Buddha's teachings. He was reputedly asked by his personal attendant, Ananda, "Would it be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness and compassion is a part of our practice?" To which the Buddha replied, "No. It would not be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness and compassion is part of our practice. It would be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness and compassion is all of our practice."

The Anguttara Nikaya, the fourth division of the Sutta Pitaka.

In terms of relevance, this is a delicate thing.

Discussing things in isolation can have a censoring effect, particularly when side paths have a connection, influence or affect on the topic.

The relevance is:

"Annatta (Adjective) = Not Self = does not preclude the existence of Soul (you're getting back to me to describe  "a non Christian Soul").

And:

You need knowledge to guide practice. If your knowledge is misguided, so is your practice.

, and my question from this is:

"What difference would it make to your practice?".

In other words if you new whether there is a "non Christian Soul" or whether  there is nothing permanent or unchanging, how would your practice differ?

This went into what practice is and I indicated that practice includes "Metta" & "Karuna" as the Buddha instructed Ananda.

How is this not relevant to your thread?

As it's your thread, I'll fit in with your wishes.

PS: Any underlining, italics, or bold in previous posts were purely ways of attracting your focus in a, now, quite lengthy thread.

They've changed the phone app again. I definitely have no compassion for programmers. Anyway, that quote is a bit odd. Metta and Karuna have nothing to do with Vipassana, Jhana or Sati. They're not Enlightenment Factors. They're not in the 8 fold path. They are highly laudable states, definitely superior to other options but fundamental? I would have thought Mudita (sympathetic joy) would have gotten a mention too. And if its so fundamental, why is Ananda even asking? Sounds iffy.

What I meant about a christian concept of soul is that it is like an etheric everlasting ego. You're still you just without the meat. Buddha may have been using the term Citta to give his enlightened knowledge of this. You never were you, and always will be.

Practice is what leads to direct experential knowledge. What makes a Buddha is his ability to teach, to do that he needs to put it into words. We then reverse engineer the description. Buddha stated he only taught what was necessary to end suffering. This included more than guidelines on practice. Therefore a conceptual idea is included, even if it is only 'training wheels' until we overcome the need for concept. Practice is unlikely to bear much fruit unless you can recognise what is resulting in benefit or harm. Prior to the experience you need a description.

As i said, Metta and Karuna are impermanent and not self. Anatta seems to be an adjective describing that which causes suffering. If purification of Citta is actually what the practice is about then our task is discovering the true nature of mind. Without a clear aim you will chase your tail until your aggregates drop from exhaustion. Identifying sources of valid information appropriate to the task require discernment necessarily based on knowledge. Buddha constantly encouraged the monks to think; "tell me o monks..." followed by some question. He's not feeding dogma, he's encouraging critical thinking. The dependent origination is a logical progression, the root cause is Avijja, unknowing. The via negativa method of Anatta, finding an answer (by experience) from what it is not is perfectly in tune with this way of investigation. Sherlock Holmes mentioned something about the unusual behaviour of dogs the previous night. Watson commented the dogs had made no noise. "That was the unusual occurence, my dear Watson."

So it does make a difference, as far as I can tell, to investigate the states (enlightenment factor) more than to risk becoming attached to Metta/Karuna (Vedana, "feelings, nothing more than feelings, trying to remember...") despite the fact they are wonderful things.

Okey dokey?

As for 'there either is or isn't' something beyond, this is a position Buddha himself wouldn't take. Probably because its dualstic and causes cinceptualisation. I'll get back in a bit, I'm being summoned.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Yes, we have strayed from the path.

@ Rocky, you never referenced your statement that Metta is fundamental, and it isn't relevant to this thread.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

It is incumbent on those who have achieved success in the practice to assist in clearing up the confusion regarding the “no soul” interpretation of the anatta doctrine on the part of those who lack firsthand experience, those prone to altering the teachings to fit their aggregate-bound experience. The “no soul” or “no self” view simply reflects the state of being attached to the aggregates so as long as one is attached one will not understand the detachment the Buddha taught.

Clarity will help unite theory and practice and allow Buddhism to advance, unimpaired by confusion.

 

That's the big kicker.

 

No one seems to come forward to explain.

 

One could say Buddhists who cling to the notion of unconditioned personal soul & everlasting life, are not dissimilar to Christians!

 

On the other hand, to travel with an open mind, and to live life at its very best through practice of the 8 fold path is the best journey.

If you can't overcome the christian interpretation of soul, then yes and the ones who cling to materialistic interpretations are just scholars.

The mind can't be too open. At some point you'd be autistic. There is some discernment required, what is 'right' in the 8 fold path for example. Who is a 'good' friend? Sometimes its the one who disagrees with you.

How was it possible for the Buddha to recall former lives if there was not a continuous individual stream of consciousness that remained in existence over the span of those lifetimes? Continuity of consciousness is necessary for such recall.

The Buddha taught students to cease identifying with the five aggregates. He taught you are not your physical body; not your mind; not your perceptions; not your feelings; not mental imprints. Those qualities are not self. He taught cessation of attachment to those aggregates. The purpose of the practice was to free oneself from attachment and identification with that which was not self, the aggregates.

The practice is ceasing attachment to the aggregates, which begs the question: what ceases attachment? That which can detach from the aggregates must be a non-aggregate being or Buddha whose properties are not the properties of the aggregates.

The Buddha, in his early public lectures, avoided direct statements regarding the Self or Buddha that transcends the aggregates. He avoided describing the result of cessation of attachment to the aggregates. Some mistakenly took this to mean there is no such Self. Why did he appear evasive? First, it is almost impossible to describe a Self that does not have the properties of things. How does one describe that which is completely detached from the aggregates when our language is devoted to describing aggregate properties? The language of thing-ness cannot adequately be used to describe no-thing-ness.

One option was negative or subtractive: describe that which was not the Self. Though we cannot say what a Buddha is we can say what it is not. That is what the Buddha did. In sutra after sutra, he points to the properties of the aggregates and says “this or that is not self.” He used subtractive logic. Take away all properties that do not apply and you are left with a Buddha.

This causes confusion when “that thing is not self” is mistranslated into “there is no self.” When one considers aggregate properties are all that exist one has materialism. And one has nihilism. If one cannot conceive of an existence beyond the aggregates, one cannot conceive of a transcendent Buddha. It is that simple.

The Buddha relied on the practice for clarity. The Self of a Buddha, one who had achieved cessation of attachment to the aggregates, could only be understood firsthand. One cannot convey enlightenment in words; one experiences it directly.

Those who practice diligently and achieve cessation of attachment transcend the aggregates; they find the non-aggregate Self obvious. Those who have not transcended the aggregates may achieve intuitive glimpses but lack certainty. They understand the theory that brings the anatta doctrine in line with reincarnation but lack personal certainty in the matter.

It is incumbent on those who have achieved success in the practice to assist in clearing up the confusion regarding the “no soul” interpretation of the anatta doctrine on the part of those who lack firsthand experience, those prone to altering the teachings to fit their aggregate-bound experience. The “no soul” or “no self” view simply reflects the state of being attached to the aggregates so as long as one is attached one will not understand the detachment the Buddha taught.

Clarity will help unite theory and practice and allow Buddhism to advance, unimpaired by confusion.

 

I don't like the word "enlightenment'.

This is an 18th or 19th century word, which was never used in Buddhas time.

 

The Buddha spoke of "Awakening".

Freedom from attachment to Greed, Aversion & Delusion.

 

Could it be that the Buddha would not be drawn on what Awakening was, as the other option people had was eternal life in the house of Brahman after favorable reincarnation promised more?

Could it be that being free of Greed, Aversion & Delusion was the highest state a man could aspire to, and the heady question of life after death, was unanswerable to those who lived in the physical world, even to the Buddha?

The Buddha did say he was not omnipotent.

 

These are possibilities.

Possibilities we should be open to, as well as the possibility of eternal existence (nibhanna).

 

Nihilism has a number of meanings.

When you speak of it, do you mean:   nothingness, non existence.

 

It seems that to be a nihilist connotes a negative label and something to be avoided.

 

Is it possible that discovering the truth (how things really are) through personal experience, whether it be enduring, or conditioned and ending in death, is so profound that it transcends all including the illusion we live in?

 

How was it possible for the Buddha to recall former lives if there was not a continuous individual stream of consciousness that remained in existence over the span of those lifetimes?

 

There are a number of things attributed to Buddha which conflict.

Do we pick and choose the ones which support our beliefs, or do we realise some may be compromised, and travel with an open mind until we have first hand experience?

 

The Buddha also said that speculating on that which is beyond our world will get one no where.

Yep. The word is not the thing. But an inability to describe does not preculde existence. A rose, for example, is still a rose.

Is vanquishing anger, lust and delusion the objective or are they obstacles to something else? Buddha plainly stated his knowledge was far wider than the way to awakening.

I'll need to find the quote about nihilism (I have to leave the temple to use the internet), but it is a negative term. If I recall rightly Buddha said nihilists were in direct opposition to his teaching. Nihilism is the belief in no-soul.

Buddha spoke of previous lives many, many times. He also seems to be indicating an eternal element that individuals are an aspect of, known by experience rather than concept. That does not mean that the concept cannot lead to the experience.

The speculation will get you nowhere if you are searching for a definitive answer. Practice will get you nowhere if you cannot recognise advantages or pitfalls.

It appears the student is left with a stark choice—either accept the anatta doctrine or accept the teachings on reincarnation. Many who advance the “no soul” view choose to dismiss the Buddha’s teachings. They reconfigure Buddhism to fit with their misinterpretation of the “no soul” anatta doctrine.

A third option exists—study the teachings in an effort to understand how the anatta doctrine is consistent with reincarnation. It makes sense to clear up the apparent conflict rather than toss out major portions of the lessons.

Why should a Buddhist concern himself with finding a solution to this apparent paradox? Practice follows theory—incorrect theory causes the practice to suffer. A student given incorrect theory will find his practice goes nowhere. He will not accrue the benefits the Buddha promised.

The reverse is true as well. In the absence of effective practice texts appear confusing. A vicious circle develops. Lacking correct theory, the practice suffers, which in turn causes study of the theory to suffer. Wrong theory at the outset puts the student in a muddle. Therefore, texts and practice must be united into a coherent whole that results in clarity. This effort begins with an analysis of the apparent paradox.

 

Not necessarily.

 

Under normal circumstances, yes.

 

Isn't it far better to be open about both possibilities?

 

That is,  re birth is moment to moment, or that re birth is moment to moment & body to body, with something common to all (enduring).

 

Choosing one or the other creates an attachment.

Being open allows one to discover truth through awareness and practice.

My understanding is that the 8 fold path gives one ever increasing levels of awareness, so deep and fine, that eventually one becomes aware of the subtleties of truth (Awakened).

 

On the other hand, taking a fixed/rigid view into meditation allows one to implant ideas into their subconscious until it becomes their truth (belief).

A form of self hypnosis.

 

Isn't Concentration & Mindfulness practice a form of slowing things down to allow one to see what already exists?

 

To see what is with an open mind and open heart.

 

Alternatively to grasp onto a fixed view is to spend eternity opening doors looking for something which does not exist is an attachment.

 

I'm of the understanding that Metta & Karuna, without reward, softens the heart, and reduces accumulation of negative kharma whilst being performed, helping one, along with the other practices, to be open to receive the gift of truth.

 

The 8 fold path, free of preconceived ideas.

Are you open about other possibilities? You seem to have decided whats what already. Having stated that based on this possibility (of Anatta being misunderstood) I am exploring a new avenue, which of us is clinging to an interpretation?

If the 8 fold path is what you say, how does Vipassana fit in? There is no right or wrong, just noting. The 8 fold path cannot ever be free of preconceived ideas because it demands discernment between right and wrong and is inherently dualistic. Provided the word Samma is translated correctly it means Buddha is encouraging dualistic thinking.

Self hypnosis is supplying suggestion to the subconscious. You do it all the time you are engaging in internal dialogue. Exploring the veracity of possibilities causes the subconscious to be more aware of what 'could be', and makes the conscious aware of that. Self hypnosis does not turn you into a drone.

Faith or belief is one of the five spiritual faculties.

No, I have never heard anybody say concentration or mindfulness slow things down. Where on earth did you get that idea?

'To see what is with an open mind and open heart' would in Pali relate to Citta (heart/mind). Its a Freudian slip. Subconsciously, you agree with me.

'Grasping onto a fixed view' is, as demonstrated, not me. Who do you think is actually suffering attachment here, Rocky?

And who do you know, have ever heard of, other than the most realised of beings who love without condition? Even Ghandi was attached to the idea of liberation for India. The 8 fold path is part of the way. What about the 10 fold for example? And are you going to ignore so much of what Buddha said just to defend this attachment to Metta? Because if so then Metta becomes your enemy.

 

 

Metta an Karuna are preferable, superior to other options. Not necessary to meditation. Not an enlightenment factor. They'd be fundamental to combatting anger and generally negative modes at first, but would ultimately become hinderences

 

 

But more specifically, if Metta and Karuna are only preferable, & superior to other options, but not necessary, "why did the Buddha say the practice of Metta & Karuna are fundamental, and doesn't your stance conflict with this?

Ok. Reference the quote. I'm confident I can nail it because Uppekah (equanimity) is an enlightenment factor but neither Metta nor Karuna are. Mainly because love, in any form, is one of the major causes of attachment and suffering in life. Karuna requires empathy for one who suffers, and is also a cause of suffering. Furthermore, as they are feelings (Vedana), they arise from a cause and are Anicca and Anatta, impermanent, not self.

I'm not expending much more effort on this as its not relevant to the thread.

Yes, read that one. Funny thing is Access To Insight has nothing on Citta in the subject section. Still one of my favourite sites though.

A pretty detailed explanation of citta can be found here.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

Nothing I've ever read tried to locate citta in any particular part of the body, ie brain or heart.

Of course in Thai, even among Buddhist monks, heart (jai) and citta (jit) are collocated as jit-jai, or 'mind-heart'. In English there's the expression 'heart and mind' which implies a complete state of mind that encompasses both emotions and reason. .

Not sure why it would matter either way; as head or heart, citta behave in the same way. Citta cover the entire territory.

Ok. There are some problems with this. Leaving the provenance of the Abhidhamma alone for this post, just dealing with content relating to mind (Citta) in the literature I've read.

The Abhidhamma postulates 4 ultimate realities: Nibbana (unconditioned), and 3 conditioned (subject to Anicca) matter (rupa), mental factors (Cetasikas), consciousness (Citta).

Consciousness is Vinnana, not Citta.

The Abhidhamma in Practice that you linked to also states; "Citta, Cetasikas and Nibbana are called Nama." Citta is never called Nama (literally,meaning names and relates to Cetasikas alone). This is like stating that its the passengers who carry the train.

It then continues as though Citta, Cittas and consciousness are interchangeable terms, never using the correct term Vinnana for consciousness.

The PED states that of 150 occurences of the term Citta in the Nikayas only 3 instances are plural and referring to thoughts (the Cittas or mind-moments of the Abhidhamma interpretation), all other occurences are singular (Citta) and refer to 'heart' (Not the organ, but as in 'heart and soul').

So the Abhidhamma is saying that the way the term is used 1.5% of the time in the original words of the Buddha is the dominant meaning. Highly unlikely.

As for proposing that Citta is conditioned phenomena, or Anicca;

Anguttara Sutta

"Whatever forms... 5 Khandas... these he sees to be without permanence, as Anicca, as Dhukka... as empty... as Selfless (Anattata)... so he turns the Citta away from these 5 Khandas. Therein he gathers the Citta within the realm of immortality. This is tranquility... that which is most excellent."

(From Plotinus Veritas youtube video on Citta)

This quite clearly defines Citta as not being one of the 5 Khandas. Thoughts, consciousness, yes. Conditioned, Anicca. But not Citta.

Unfortunately this means I'm disagreeing with Abhidhamma, so if anybody is looking for me, I'll be waiting behind the Kalama Sutta.

Something I found somewhere on the web. I think its an excerpt from a book. Sorry I can't be more specific.

Under the Tree

The Buddhist Paradox

In contemporary discussions of Buddhism we encounter those who interpret the anatta doctrine to mean there is “no soul” or “no self.” They put forth a version of Buddhism consistent with the philosophy of materialism. This interpretation contradicts teachings on reincarnation and karma and goes against the Buddha’s admonitions against materialism.

A question illustrates the conflict: if there is no being (soul or Self) that continues beyond body death who or what experiences the rebirth of which the Buddha speaks?

It appears the student is left with a stark choice—either accept the anatta doctrine or accept the teachings on reincarnation. Many who advance the “no soul” view choose to dismiss the Buddha’s teachings. They reconfigure Buddhism to fit with their misinterpretation of the “no soul” anatta doctrine.

A third option exists—study the teachings in an effort to understand how the anatta doctrine is consistent with reincarnation. It makes sense to clear up the apparent conflict rather than toss out major portions of the lessons.

Why should a Buddhist concern himself with finding a solution to this apparent paradox? Practice follows theory—incorrect theory causes the practice to suffer. A student given incorrect theory will find his practice goes nowhere. He will not accrue the benefits the Buddha promised.

The reverse is true as well. In the absence of effective practice texts appear confusing. A vicious circle develops. Lacking correct theory, the practice suffers, which in turn causes study of the theory to suffer. Wrong theory at the outset puts the student in a muddle. Therefore, texts and practice must be united into a coherent whole that results in clarity. This effort begins with an analysis of the apparent paradox.

Those who interpret the anatta doctrine to mean “no soul” or “no self” argue that within the aggregate that is a human being there is no soul or real self. They argue all views of self are illusory; there is no enduring soul.

In contrast, the Buddha points out we are not the body, not material objects, and not the things to which we become attached. The Buddha taught there are things which are “not self” and “not soul.” A spiritual Self exists that is not equivalent to any material fabrication.

Those holding the “no soul” view argue a person is comprised only of the aggregates (skandhas): 1) material processes, 2) feeling, 3) perception, 4) mental formations, and 5) consciousness. In the “no soul” interpretation a being that transcends the aggregates does not exist. The aggregates are all that exist. All aspects of a person are impermanent and transitory: nothing survives the dissolution of aggregates upon body death.

The “no soul” adherents dismiss reincarnation in spite of the Buddha’s teachings that include his recall of former lives. In the Buddha’s view, a being, an enlightened Buddha, transcends the aggregates. An enlightened Buddha is an immaterial being that does not possess the properties of the aggregates. This immaterial non-aggregate Self is capable of rebirth.

The “no soul” adherents attempt to get around the dilemma by describing rebirth as a process of aggregates reforming on their own. In this view, the material universe forms and re forms in an ongoing play of material causes. In other words, only the aggregates exist, nothing more.

The Buddha, however, postulates transcendent consciousness or Buddha consciousness beyond the aggregates. He does not limit the analysis to impermanent properties. The non-aggregate being is a Buddha who has achieved detachment from the aggregates.

But isn’t consciousness one of the aggregates? In Buddhism there are categories of consciousness, six in some schools, eight in others. There is aggregate consciousness and non-aggregate consciousness. Aggregate consciousness consists of mental imprints formed as a result of contact with material forms. Buddha consciousness arises after cessation of attachment to the aggregates.

Matthieu Ricard (The Monk and the Philosopher) addresses this when he speaks of both the moment-to-moment stream of impermanent events and the continuous individual stream of consciousness. This “individual stream of consciousness” describes a “self” or “soul” beyond the aggregates. When awakened this is a Buddha.

How was it possible for the Buddha to recall former lives if there was not a continuous individual stream of consciousness that remained in existence over the span of those lifetimes? Continuity of consciousness is necessary for such recall.
The Buddha taught students to cease identifying with the five aggregates. He taught you are not your physical body; not your mind; not your perceptions; not your feelings; not mental imprints. Those qualities are not self. He taught cessation of attachment to those aggregates. The purpose of the practice was to free oneself from attachment and identification with that which was not self, the aggregates.

The practice is ceasing attachment to the aggregates, which begs the question: what ceases attachment? That which can detach from the aggregates must be a non-aggregate being or Buddha whose properties are not the properties of the aggregates.

The Buddha, in his early public lectures, avoided direct statements regarding the Self or Buddha that transcends the aggregates. He avoided describing the result of cessation of attachment to the aggregates. Some mistakenly took this to mean there is no such Self. Why did he appear evasive? First, it is almost impossible to describe a Self that does not have the properties of things. How does one describe that which is completely detached from the aggregates when our language is devoted to describing aggregate properties? The language of thing-ness cannot adequately be used to describe no-thing-ness.

One option was negative or subtractive: describe that which was not the Self. Though we cannot say what a Buddha is we can say what it is not. That is what the Buddha did. In sutra after sutra, he points to the properties of the aggregates and says “this or that is not self.” He used subtractive logic. Take away all properties that do not apply and you are left with a Buddha.

This causes confusion when “that thing is not self” is mistranslated into “there is no self.” When one considers aggregate properties are all that exist one has materialism. And one has nihilism. If one cannot conceive of an existence beyond the aggregates, one cannot conceive of a transcendent Buddha. It is that simple.

The Buddha relied on the practice for clarity. The Self of a Buddha, one who had achieved cessation of attachment to the aggregates, could only be understood firsthand. One cannot convey enlightenment in words; one experiences it directly.

Those who practice diligently and achieve cessation of attachment transcend the aggregates; they find the non-aggregate Self obvious. Those who have not transcended the aggregates may achieve intuitive glimpses but lack certainty. They understand the theory that brings the anatta doctrine in line with reincarnation but lack personal certainty in the matter.

It is incumbent on those who have achieved success in the practice to assist in clearing up the confusion regarding the “no soul” interpretation of the anatta doctrine on the part of those who lack firsthand experience, those prone to altering the teachings to fit their aggregate-bound experience. The “no soul” or “no self” view simply reflects the state of being attached to the aggregates so as long as one is attached one will not understand the detachment the Buddha taught.
Clarity will help unite theory and practice and allow Buddhism to advance, unimpaired by confusion.

Source: http://visitunderthetree.com/philosophical-roots/philosophy/the-buddhist-paradox/

 

 

Anyone found to dispute Brahmanism was met with death.

 

Sorry to sidetrack this interesting discussion but I wonder what sources you have to support statements like this.

 

 

My initial source is from lecturer and Head of Language at Oxford University, John Peacock.

 

He specialises in ancient languages including Pali, & Sanskrit (used in ancient Brahminical times)..

 

Rather than accepting Buddhist translations found in the Pali Canon by past figures such as Buddhagosa in the 5th century AD, he is able to interpret for himself first hand what the Buddha may have been saying.

 

Let me come back to you on this.

 

 

I only asked because I have studied Sanskrit and Pali myself, and I did graduate level research on the socio-cultural dynamics at play in the Ganges Plain around the time of the Buddha. Certainly there are Brahmin texts that describe a kind of orthodox ideal where Brahmins are unquestioned authorities on all things earthly and transcendent but whether this had any reflection in reality is highly doubtful. Even to speak of “Brahmin rule” would seem to be misleading. My understanding, from a variety of sources, is that things were much more fluid and tolerant. The Pali suttas themselves seem to bear this out.

 

I’m not familiar with John Peacock’s work, though a quick search revealed that he is a lecturer in Buddhist Psychology at the Oxford Mindfulness Center, a somewhat different title than you gave him (I don’t doubt his academic credentials). Still, his historical view, as you report it, seems to be a markedly heterodox one. I would recommend the work of another Oxford scholar, Richard Gombrich, for some insight into how early Buddhist teachings fit into the wider religious-philosophical context of ancient India. An excellent example is “How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings”.

 

Of course, the whole idea of using textual sources to determine what “original” Buddhism looked like has turned out to be very problematic. Gregory Schopen is the scholar best known for questioning the overemphasis on textual studies in studies of early Buddhism. His book “Bones, Stones and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Budddhism in India” tears down many assumptions upon which earlier scholarship was based. Of course, there is as yet no extant “Buddhist” archaeological record of the earliest period, and so texts are all we have to go by. But still we have to be very careful in our assumptions and very provisional in our conclusions.

 

Sorry for taking this thread on a detour. If anyone wants to talk ancient Indian history or early Buddhist historiography maybe we could start a new thread?

 

Nice. I like archaeology, though much of it is highly questionable. And you're right about the questionableness of texts too. I try sticking to the 5 nikayas mentioned on the Ashokan pillars as they'd seem the most authentic, and other Indian texts go back much further than Buddha though the subject matter is not that different.

I was under the impression that challenging the Brahmin supremacy could be deadly also. You're saying it wasn't that bad? I guess Buddha did live a long life, assuming 80 was long back then. Ah well. More research.