.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Several
-
Posts
471 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by Several
-
-
Only if you attach to a theory without ever letting go, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will you experience obstacles.
Anybody can conceptualise the path to liberation. If you had never heard of Buddha or Nibbana what would you be striving for? Buddha clearly says to decide for yourself the veracity of his teaching. Investigation of states is an enlightenment factor, delusion is a hinderance. Pretty obvious really.
Does the eightfold path make the process clear? What is right speech? Right action? You have no idea unless you are enlightened.
As for what others say about getting too cerebral, does the lion care what the sheep are thinking?
Can't most of us learn a first level idea of "right speech" & "right action"? The Sutta is quite detailed.
I was of the belief that our ability to increase our level of understanding of "right speech" & "right action" over time was through the other practices of the 8 fold path, not least of these "awareness", & "concentration".
Each of the suite of practices impacts on and is important towards ones overall practice.
I guess the nub of my questions around this Anatta thread is:
How would you change your practice/life, if you learned you had an enduring unconditioned/permanent Self/Soul vs if you hadn't?
How will all the discussion on Anatta lead to the proof of its existence without first hand experience?
That's not to say that we shouldn't debate and share.
Yep. The 8 fold path is the way to go, to the best of our ability.
It would change what I think, say and do from what may well be a delusion to right thought, right speech etc.
Yep. There's no way any of this will prove there is something beyond the 5 Khandas outside of experience. But you work your way up the mountain. That endeavour will, as most do, begin or adapt according to knowledge.
-
First, death is not inevitable. It is something cells have learned to do. It is therefore an effect, it has a cause, it can be classified as Anicca, it is therefore Anatta. Nibbana is sometimes described as a deathless state. As H.P. Lovecraft said; "That which is not dead can eternal lie, yet with strange aeons even death may die."
Next imagine mind (Citta) to be a stream of light. The photons have a certain amount of energy. They travel in one direction (Apparent time). Positive or negative emotion (Vedana, no distinction) is equivalent to spin of the photons. All human emotions are reduceable to two, love and fear. The entire range of Vedana (happy, sad, angry, wistful etc.) can be seen in terms of positive or negative spin. As light this spin quality appears as colour. No one colour is 'better' than any other in the same way no one emotion is 'better' which is why they are all called Vedana, and in the dependent origination Vedana gives rise to Tanha (Craving). So even the most compassionate and loving being is still producing Kamma.
By this analogy the mind (Citta) present in an Arahant is in a spinless flow state. Probably a 'superposition' where it is neither positive or negative but potentially both simultaneously (Thereby unaffected by time making it esentially 'deathless' and perfectly capable of percieving past and future 'selves' without ever actually being one and is naturally non-dualistic). Something in an indeterminate superposition only becomes determinate when an observer becomes conscious of it, but consciousness is an aggregate (khanda) and is a quality of Citta (mind), not Citta itself. Many in philosophy and science today to assume (as many do, but not all) that consciousness is the organising factor behind manifest reality. And I suspect that all Khandas (bundles, piles, heaps, aggregates) are manifestations of Citta (mind). Physical and mental 'realities' are the same thing. All is mind, it is the forms it assumes that are impermanent, both the organiser (consciousness, Vinanna) and the organised (form, Rupa).
This leads to conclude that the insight gained in vipassana as to the nature of Nama (name, inventory, concept) and Rupa (Manifest physical matter) is a gnosis where Nama/Rupa are in truth simmilar to Wave/Particle duality.
"It is not the flag that moves, nor the wind. It is mind that is moving."
This is why I say Metta and Karuna are unnecessary. It is not our base feelings that make us human, it is sentience. This is why we seek to end the suffering of all Sentient beings, not just the unhappy ones.
Hi Sev.
As the written word can be poorly composed and interpreted in several (pardon the pun
) ways, I'd like to re emphasize that I debate, question, and absorb, not to be adversarial, but to engage, learn, impart.Just to be clear, for what goal is Metta & Karuna unnecessary?
Is it unnecessary for our practice to become Awakenened?
You indicated that Metta & Karuna are unnecessary because they are a form of attachment to feelings and that Enlightened beings are free from attachments.
Is it possible that Metta & Karuna are ideal practices early in in ones path (unenlightened travelers) for a number of reasons, including, minimizing accumulation of negative kharma, and redirecting energies away from the self?
Is it possible to avoid the trap of an inflated ego for those who are charitable by following the other elements of the 8 fold path?
Can one gain great insight by padding ones ego and experiencing first hand the consequences through mindfulness/awareness?
We are all at different levels in our journey.
Why did the Buddha say the practice of Metta & Karuna fundamental?
Ooh. Underlining. Better respond.
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
-
By the way the use of Quantum Mechanics in the previous posts is just as an illustration. My reasons for starting this thread are more strategic than scientific.
-
Speculation can guide practice and concept, view and thought. As you said realisation is gradual rather than a big bang. Begin with an idea, measurements and estimates, planning and preparation, strategy and execution. Where does this begin if not with an idea?
-
To the extent that we should find out for ourselves what the Buddha actually taught, yes.
To speculate and attach oneself to theories is to place an obstacle in our path.
Who amongst us can decide which theory and what aspect of quantum mechanics we should embrace?
How will this make the target any clearer?
Who amongst us can decide what the target is?
Didn't the Buddha make the process of Awakening clear through the eightfold path?
Haven't others said that getting too cerebral isn't the way, but rather through personal experience of practice?
How can anyone, through speculation, come to know or understand that which is beyond this world, if that is what you strive for?
Only if you attach to a theory without ever letting go, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will you experience obstacles.
Anybody can conceptualise the path to liberation. If you had never heard of Buddha or Nibbana what would you be striving for? Buddha clearly says to decide for yourself the veracity of his teaching. Investigation of states is an enlightenment factor, delusion is a hinderance. Pretty obvious really.
Does the eightfold path make the process clear? What is right speech? Right action? You have no idea unless you are enlightened.
As for what others say about getting too cerebral, does the lion care what the sheep are thinking?
-
Conversely, if you speculate on that which is beyond knowing, aren't you betting your house against some theory?
If your journey is colored by hypothesis aren't you pre-judging what it's all about?
Nah. Thrashing out ideas is good for all. Accepting what you're told at face value isn't. Don't just swallow what you're fed just because it comes from some person or institution with a pretty title. What bet am I making? I'm not stating absolute facts, just musing on possibilities. Nothing to lose. If it proves wrong, I gain by correction. If right, I gain confirmation I'm on the path. Is my journey coloured or guided? I'm not so attached I can't drop anything at a moments notice.
-
You skip over the broad picture I paint and single out minor passages.
Is it possible to answer the other points which are more pertinent to what I've been saying.
For example, if the Buddha talks about the importance of Metta & Karuna, where do we stand here?
Dealt with in the two longer posts I put up.
-
As I said before nobody knows how molecules arrange themselves into objects. If consciousness is organising middle order objects (thats IF, but I lean towards this idea) and determining the state of particles in a superposition, what makes people assume it is only human consciousness or observation doing this? A tree falling in a forest will make a noise due to physics, not observation. That cat of Shroedingers is dead because he gassed it and the cat was there when it died. Its not indeterminate, its inanimate.
(Parental advisory. Skeptics may find the following ideas disturbing and should only proceed with adult supervision.)
The creation of the universe is often attributed to gods who achieve this feat with a word, breath or thought (Not that I agree, if gods exist they are also creations). Light and water are major themes. During the process other beings are created, humans are one of the last. If you choose to believe in an evolutionary standpoint homo sapiens sapiens are a very recent addition. There is a high statistical probability of extra-terrestrial life, regardless of their ability to come here (completely ignoring thousands of examples of evidence that they have/do). Consciousness is most probably everywhere you look.
If manifest reality is an impermanent aggregate of Citta then this implies that mind is non-local. Consciousness is also an aggregate giving the impression of self. We cannot see the wood for the trees.
More than that, its sentience doing the arranging. You can be conscious of something in a superposition, but it becomes determinate once an observer recognises what state it is in. In Autralian Aboriginal mythology after the world is created by the Rainbow Serpent all of manifest reality existed in the Dreamtime. Everything existed in a superposition, not quite this or that but potentially both. It is only later with the ascent of rationality that the world 'solidifies' and the Dreaming receeds from our waking world.
Buddha advised to not consider the origin of the cosmos, maybe for the same reason he shied away from the term Atman/Atta. If Citta (mind) is the true basis of all reality, Lux et Veritas, then there is no seperate self. It is all self. And the fracture into individuals is an illusion, a trick of the light, and sentience is as much a property of manifest reality as is the light itself (which may be why Jesus wants you for a sun-beam).
Buddha worked towards the liberation of all sentient beings, not just homo sapiens, but it does imply individuals. If Nibbana is a conscious return to the undivided totality of mind he is really trying to awaken the entire universe.
"I found a door to which there was no key,
A veil past which I could not see,
Some talk a little while of me and thee, it seemed,
And then no more of thee, or me."
(Rubaiyat, Omar Kayam)
-
First, death is not inevitable. It is something cells have learned to do. It is therefore an effect, it has a cause, it can be classified as Anicca, it is therefore Anatta. Nibbana is sometimes described as a deathless state. As H.P. Lovecraft said; "That which is not dead can eternal lie, yet with strange aeons even death may die."
Next imagine mind (Citta) to be a stream of light. The photons have a certain amount of energy. They travel in one direction (Apparent time). Positive or negative emotion (Vedana, no distinction) is equivalent to spin of the photons. All human emotions are reduceable to two, love and fear. The entire range of Vedana (happy, sad, angry, wistful etc.) can be seen in terms of positive or negative spin. As light this spin quality appears as colour. No one colour is 'better' than any other in the same way no one emotion is 'better' which is why they are all called Vedana, and in the dependent origination Vedana gives rise to Tanha (Craving). So even the most compassionate and loving being is still producing Kamma.
By this analogy the mind (Citta) present in an Arahant is in a spinless flow state. Probably a 'superposition' where it is neither positive or negative but potentially both simultaneously (Thereby unaffected by time making it esentially 'deathless' and perfectly capable of percieving past and future 'selves' without ever actually being one and is naturally non-dualistic). Something in an indeterminate superposition only becomes determinate when an observer becomes conscious of it, but consciousness is an aggregate (khanda) and is a quality of Citta (mind), not Citta itself. Many in philosophy and science today to assume (as many do, but not all) that consciousness is the organising factor behind manifest reality. And I suspect that all Khandas (bundles, piles, heaps, aggregates) are manifestations of Citta (mind). Physical and mental 'realities' are the same thing. All is mind, it is the forms it assumes that are impermanent, both the organiser (consciousness, Vinanna) and the organised (form, Rupa).
This leads to conclude that the insight gained in vipassana as to the nature of Nama (name, inventory, concept) and Rupa (Manifest physical matter) is a gnosis where Nama/Rupa are in truth simmilar to Wave/Particle duality.
"It is not the flag that moves, nor the wind. It is mind that is moving."
This is why I say Metta and Karuna are unnecessary. It is not our base feelings that make us human, it is sentience. This is why we seek to end the suffering of all Sentient beings, not just the unhappy ones.
-
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.
Its Atman thats located in the heart, not Citta. I've downloaded that page to read later. Thanks for that. Next up, the way Several sees it...
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app
-
Hi Sev.
I'll put my hand up about reading the original link on the opening post.
You've indicated that understanding "Anatta" is fundamental to Buddhism.
Apart from the acceptance that Anatta is "non self" rather than "no self", why is the existence of soul or permanent/unconditioned self important to Buddhism?
Is a promise of eternal life ones goal, or is the journey more important?
If a traveler places their entire life's work on belief (e.g: the earth is flat), then this can be their undoing.
That which is beyond this world is unfathomable to those who live in this world.
The "Tevijja Sutta" points to the uselessness of that which is beyond the physical.
To strive with the goal of arriving at a state superior to that of Brahman is to have an attachment that can't be rivaled.
As "Nibbana" is a verb, Awakening is a process, not a big bang event.
We practice to keep this process ongoing, and not end, as there is no place to end up (Nibbana not a place).
Awakening is linked to the word "Bodi" = to wake.
Aren't the Buddhas teachings all about our journey and about our compassion to our fellow man, and about the ending of suffering?
Not only our suffering, but the suffering of those around us.
Isn't the only way to find out what "Anatta" means is through practice culminating in an ever increasing level of Awakening?
And finally, how would ones practice differ if there is an enduring soul vs no enduring soul?
One of the three main hinderances is delusion, misplaced understanding. One of the seven enlightenment factors is investigation of states. Not sitting around hoping to stumble on the answer by accident. You are unlikely to hit the target if you don't know what you're shooting at.
If your subconscious is being fed the message that it isn't important to know what you're striving for then you are only employing a small percentage of your cerebral potential in attaining the goal, you will fall short of the mark.
My next couple of posts should give a better view of what I'm getting at, you seem to underestimate my perspective.
-
Do you mean that "stories" of angels and demons exist in every culture rather than they actually exist?
I mean that in the case of a being as potentially powerful as a Deva or Asura only a fool would disregard their possible existence out of hand.
-
Until we are Awakened, being without compassion and empathy is a dangerous trait.
Why? If you know the difference between beneficial and harmful action why do you need to feel it?
-
Sorry, was that peacock or poppycock? The laughing Buddha idea is just that. An idea. There are quite a few rules forbidding fun, joviality, tickling samaneras or seeking entertainment. He would not have been setting much of an example by telling the monks to avoid any form of humour and then joking about it. What Peacock is doing is called projection. I'm guessing he likes a bit of a joke himself?
As for Metta/Karuna they do not automatically reduce ego. In fact quite a few generous and charitable people are unbareably pious about it and it is often used as a kind if social qualifier. "Look at me, aren't I good" behaviour. Too much compassion causes suffering when empathising too closely with some poor unfortunate. Remember that an Arahant is beyond both positive and negative emotions. You don't get that way by indulging.
One does need to watch their Metta/Karuna.
Your examples are of those who aren't on the middle road.
The trick is not to inflate ones ego by bragging or gaining personal mileage about charity.
It's something that one does out of compassion and care for another.
Without compassion for an others suffering there is no humanity, only self interest.
In terms of over empathizing isn't the key to be concerned rather than worried?
The rules forbidding fun, joviality & tickling.
Aren't these Buddhagosa's fifth century interpretations rather than the reality?
When studying the Buddhas teachings, didn't Buddhagosa see things through early Christian colored eyes?
You tend to have a black-and-white view of things. "Without compassion there is no humanity, only self interest"? Says who? You also do that with the rebirth idea, or at least seem to. Its either moment to moment or life to life? It could well be both.
Concern or worry is Vedana and entirely superfluous to the action of helping. It is a useless waste of effort which could be better spent acting. For example finding the stupid tortoise spending most of its time on its back in the desert surrounded by hordes of monks wondering whether to turn it over or not. Do you break down crying in lamentation over its plight, seeing a simmilarity in your situations? That we are all tortoises in peril on way or another? Or do you kick it upright an continue on your way, thus freeing all and sundry from suffering?
Quite a bit of vinaya is about avoiding fun. I do indulge, as is obvious in my choice of words when posting. Sometimes. Its not just Buddhagosa.
-
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.
-
So. Hands up everyone who actually read the piece on Anatta linked in the first post. If not, write out 100 times; "I will not argue with Several about things I have not researched."
A couple of more points. Citta is not one of the 5 Khandas (piles, bundles, heaps. Called aggregates), it is not form, feeling, perception, mind-objects or consciousness.
"Anatta is the concept that makes Buddhism different to other religions". So what. The truth is beyond mere religious dogma, why can't everybody be right to varying degrees. Percieved difference often creates friction. Arahants exist outside of Buddhism too, as do Pacceka Buddhas. Clinging to an idea because it makes you "different" is attachment. Are we truth seekers or dogma defenders?
The 3 characteristics (Tilakkhana), Anicca, Anatta and Dukkha. That which is Anicca (impermanent) is Anatta (not-self) and is a pain (Dukkha).
Anicca, I think, is generally underestimated. There is an excellent lecture on this called Buddhism and Quantum Physics by Craig Mellow. Basically objects, compound things, do not have a continuous state but are recreated moment to moment in billionths of a second. Not a new idea, but worth remembering. There is no scientific explaination for how objects "remember" to be objects. We can say a thing is comprised of atoms but nobody knows how those atoms remain together making a coherent object. Its a mystery. This relates to Form, Rupa. Component/conditioned things. But does it relate to what the objects are made of? Microscopic particles that blink in and out of existence without apparent cause? Anicca relates to that which is created, exists and then dies.
Time is not a factor for subatomic particles (If I understand correctly), not created, not destroyed, not Anicca. Time is only a factor for component things, objects. (Not being a scientist and having a Thai constantly talking to me isn't helping me explain this very well.)
So, saying that there is no "eternal self" is likely correct because there is no eternity for compound manifestations. But if Citta is on a par with Subatomic particles, the fundamental building block then time is not a factor and that which is eternal is not self.
The Thais are now asking me for lucky numbers, which I always refuse to provide because I don't know any, and making concentration hard. So, I'm off. Remember, 100 lines from all slackers by next time I log on. Thats hand written, not cut and paste.
-
An observation about the current understanding of Dhamma. Warning to the super rational, you will scoff at this.
Mara the great demon frequently assaulted Buddha because he did not want Dhamma to be spread. Buddha eventually dies, much to Maras relief, but Dhamma remains. Buddha stated that understanding of Dhamma would degrade over time until its eventual disappearance 5000 years after his time. It would make sense that Mara would play a part in this, and it would require little more than confounding the meaning of some terms, specifically Anatta. This creates schism in the sangha and makes attaining Nibbana harder because of Wrong View.
I know that the prevailing idea about Mara is that he represents 'inner demons' and is not an actual being in his own right. But he is never spoken of as a metaphor, always as an individual. Buddha used metaphors a lot and he always qualified them with direct explaination. If overcoming a personal inner demon was a key component in attaining Nibbana why did he not clearly explain that?
I have no idea if Mara really exists, I do know that angels and demons exist in every culture everwhere on earth for the entire span of recorded history. There is no actual proof that celestial intelligences do not exist. And bear in mind that "the geatest trick the devil ever pulled was to make people think he did not exist."
-
The key to the Buddha's pronouncements on anatta is to be found in the 12-step formula for dependent origination: with ignorance, as condition, volitional formations arise.......etc.
This formula is a gloss on the second noble truth, which states that suffering has an origin. The formula is also sometimes presented in reverse, to explain the cessation of suffering, which glosses the third noble truth: with the cessation of x, y cannot arise....etc.
So, if we are to achieve liberation from suffering, the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination must be broken, i.e. there must be cessation of each element in the chain. This is *only* possible if there can be change. And what has to change? The aggregates. The Buddha's target in his pronouncements on anatta pertain to a view of the self (note: not the soul, but the self) that holds the self to be permanent and unchanging. If one adheres to this view, one will never be able to change, so one will never be able to sever the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination, so one will never be able to achieve liberation from suffering.
The Buddha's purpose in speaking about anatta is negative. He wants to show us what the self is *not*, so that we will see that we can change, so that the way will be open to us to achieve liberation from suffering. The Buddha makes no positive pronouncements at all of a metaphysical nature on any of a wide variety of topics. This is because they are not relevant to the overarching goal of achieving liberation from suffering. His strategy is one of methodological phemonenology. He takes what we experience directly and does not go beyond that, because that is all that is relevant to achieving liberation from suffering.
So, the Buddha speaks of not-self. he does not speak of not-soul. He makes no positive pronouncements on self or soul because they are not relevant. (Though he would not endorse any view of a soul, because the traditional way of conceiving of a soul is that it is permanent and unchanging.)
I recommend that people do not read commentaries on the original teachings of the Buddha if this can be avoided. it is best to read the original words for yourself. Ponder them and practise. With more pondering will come better with practice. With more practice will come better insight and understanding, which will in turn lead to better practise. I recommend reading the Nikayas in this order: Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Dighya Nikaya, then the Anguttara Nikaya.
p.s. This is copyright material (copyrighted to me). Please respect the copyright. As far as I know, nobody else has made this methodological point about the doctrine of no-self, methodological phenomenology, and the formula for dependent origination.
I do like what you have written here, but I'm going to make a couple of observations. If you break all the links in the series of the Dependent Orinination, what happens at Avijja? Who or what is ignorant or unkowing? Where do you go once this link is broken?
It is possible Buddha did not make pronouncements on self or soul to avoid conceptualisation as opposed to direct insight?
True that Buddha would not comment on some subjects, remember there is a Sutta (I forget which) where he takes a handful of leaves and compares that goodly cotchell to the knowledge pertaining to liberation, whereas the vast remainder of leaves still in the trees he compares to the rest of his knowledge. Just because he did not say something does not mean it cannot be known.
And if you reccomend that people do not read commentaries, why are you writing one?
-
Here is Plotinus Veritas list of the 22 things that Anatta is an adjective of. I'd like to say that he allows all this work to be distributed freely, and he has done a lot of work. Right or wrong it is thought-provoking and encourages closer study of my understanding of Dhamma. It has also caused me to open this thread so others can contend or support this interpretation in the same manner as the monks and scholars of old would debate to sharpen understanding.
I will reiterate that correct understanding of Anatta is absolutely central to Buddhism. There is no more important a topic than this. If the prevailing understanding is that it means 'no self' and if we are wrong, then we are misrepresenting the Buddhas teaching.
As a monk I followed the 'no soul' position both from what I learned and from my interpretation of previous experience. Now I am re-examining both in light of what Anatta could really mean. That rather than a finger pointing at the moon, it is only pointing at the things the moon is not. Our duty as monks is to end suffering. How can I effect this when all I can promise is annihilation of some aggregates at the end of a kammic roller-coaster ride? Especially if that is not the whole truth?
How can I point towards the dark side of the moon?
ALL 22 THINGS THAT ARE SAID TO BE ANATTA (i.e. “devoid of/without Selfhood/Soul” in Sutta)
Ru’pa form
vedana’ feelings
sañña’ perceptions
san’kha’ra’ impulses
viñña’n.a sentience/consciousness
sabba (aggregates/ “the all”)
cakkhu eye
cakkhuviñña’n.a visual mental-forms
cakkhusamphasso vision contact
tan.ha’ lusts-desires
mano mind/mentation
manoviñña’n.a mental formations
manosamphasso mental contact
Sota ear
gha’na nose
jivha’ tongue
ka’yo body
ra’go lusts
kot.t.hika cell "body-cell"
asa’rakat.t.hena’ unreal and foul
asubham. disgusting
asubha’niccadukkha’ti disgusting, impermanent and suffering
-
Sorry, was that peacock or poppycock? The laughing Buddha idea is just that. An idea. There are quite a few rules forbidding fun, joviality, tickling samaneras or seeking entertainment. He would not have been setting much of an example by telling the monks to avoid any form of humour and then joking about it. What Peacock is doing is called projection. I'm guessing he likes a bit of a joke himself?
As for Metta/Karuna they do not automatically reduce ego. In fact quite a few generous and charitable people are unbareably pious about it and it is often used as a kind if social qualifier. "Look at me, aren't I good" behaviour. Too much compassion causes suffering when empathising too closely with some poor unfortunate. Remember that an Arahant is beyond both positive and negative emotions. You don't get that way by indulging.
-
Thats the concept we're mostly told. But its Nathatta (I think. Need to check) that means no atman, not Anatta which is 'without atman', hence it being an adjective. It always occurs in relation to something which Buddha is describing as 'not self' rather than as a thing itself. The 'no soul' interpretation does not come from Buddha but from an argument between sects later over this very question. The 'no soul' ideology won but that does not mean it is correct.
If the translations above are accurate then the interpretation of Citta would have been adapted to fit the 'no soul' ideology.
I'm just keeping an open mind.
This is definitely the best way.
In his lectures, John Peacock opened to question many interpretations slavishly followed today.
Living with an open mind is the best way.
Personal experience, whilst living a life filled with Metta/Karuna, adherence to the precepts, and practice of concentration/awareness are the way to go.
Everything is on the table, including re birth moment to moment vs life to life.
This could be your only incarnation.
Live it to its fullest.
I'm attempting to review the micro.
Things like, "Rightful Speech".
With attention to the micro, the macro will unfold.
Then again, perhaps not. Having an open mind is good to a point. You cannot be open to everything or there would be no Sila. Being Mindful is best, and to hell with the majorities ability to maintain it. No one of us is the majority, 'normal' is a myth, only you can save you.
Metta and Karuna are nice but unnecessary. They are just preferable attitudes to hate and selfishness.
You're not living to the fullest if you're only dealing with the micro. Death is close for every being at any age, there is no time to hope the macro will take care of itself.
"The best strategy deals with the entire system."
Sun Tzu.
-
Yes. As above, so below. Another reason to research these things is the 7 Bojjhangas, one of which is Investigation of States (or Law), Dhammavicaya Sambojjhanga. It is as important to ask questions, seek wise council etc as it is to practice. And of course the ever popular Kalama Sutta advising us to find out for ourselves and not just follow the herd.
The idea that Buddha adapted his teaching to appease the Brhamin theology is weak. He was warrior caste and would never have been accepted by them no matter what he said.
The use of Citta in place of Atman is likely precisely because of the previous connotations attributed to the term (as with the term 'soul' which has too many conflicting ideas associated with it making the word almost useless). Metaphors like charoits, conceptual ideas such as a small mannequin or man-shaped figure residing in the heart being the Atman most likely detract from this thing that cannot be conceptualised, and is only known by what it is not.
The glaring problem is that to deny Atman totally, declaring there is no soul, is nihilism and therefore heresy. Luckily, being Buddhists, nobody gets burned.
I would like to know why Thai monks refer to themselves as Atama (this soul) if the prevailing belief is that there is no soul. Apparently in the past Thai monks referred to themselves as Rup (from Rupa, body). Any ideas?
So, from my own 'investigation of states' I am in serious doubt about the 'no soul' ideology. From a doctrinal position it is untenable. The games afoot Watson.
-
You're right Sheryl, I dislike the term soul and do not think it indicates something eternal any more than a Deva is, rather just longer lived than this quick flesh. But this is what I'm asking, does Anatta really mean 'it is not' or 'it is not this'. Correct understanding of it is fundamental to Buddhas teaching.
anatta means "no atta" i.e. there is no atta (atman) as that term was understood in those days.
Citta is to me quite clearly of a different meaning than atta. Citta seems to have been a term in widespread usage (as it still is today in the Hindic languages) whereas atta/atman was a specific religious concept.
Observation of citta is one of the 4 sattipattanas, never any question that it exists...but it is marked by the 3 characteristics iof existence (dukka, anatta, anicca) the same as all other conditioned phenomena.
Thats the concept we're mostly told. But its Nathatta (I think. Need to check) that means no atman, not Anatta which is 'without atman', hence it being an adjective. It always occurs in relation to something which Buddha is describing as 'not self' rather than as a thing itself. The 'no soul' interpretation does not come from Buddha but from an argument between sects later over this very question. The 'no soul' ideology won but that does not mean it is correct.
If the translations above are accurate then the interpretation of Citta would have been adapted to fit the 'no soul' ideology.
I'm just keeping an open mind.
-
So, here is another offering from Plotinus (aka Ken Wheeler I discovered) where he is translating the term Citta as mind/soul. I'm no ancient (or modern) languages expert and rely on the PED for Pali translations, which actually translates the word as Heart (when used as singular) more than thoughts (plural). The term heart refers to feelings rather than the organ. "Have a heart", "Knock the heart out of" and in one place it specifically says "Heart and soul." as an example.
I seem to recall a few ancient cultures (Egyptians for one) placing the psyche in the heart rather than the brain. So it may be possible that the concept of Anatta is taken too far and Buddha did not just say what it was not, but if these following translations are correct he quite plainly stated what it is. As I think I said before, he never said there is no soul, he only said it cannot be found. He also refused to describe Nibbana. Ken aslo places Citta as existing before Avijja in translating DN 2.81 putting it outside the Dependent Origination.
Take it away, Kenneth...
THE MIND (citta) IN BUDDHIST SUTTA
SN 3.234 The Aggregate Sutra. At Savatthi “Followers, the desire and lust for formations is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for feelings is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for cognition is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for experiences is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for vinnana is a defilement of the citta. But, followers, when one abandons the defilements of the citta regarding these five stations (aggregates), then ones citta inclines towards renunciation. Ones citta is made pliable and firm in renunciation by direct gnosis.
DN 1.81 “citta recollects past lives”
SN 3.45 “Vinnana is impermanent (and the other 4 aggregates). What is impermanent is suffering”
SN 3.61 “The Aryan Eightfold Path is making cessation of Vinnana (and the other khandas)…that being sammaditthi….sammasamadhi”
MN 1.197 Followers, the Brahma life is not lived for sake of gains, honors, or acclaim; nor is it lived for virtuousness, nor for absorptions, nor for gnosis and insight. This Brahma life is lived for the sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind (citta) alone, which is the quintessential final core.
AN 2.29 “within the sovereign mind one is established in the supreme Soul”
DN 2.81 ”Through Perfection becomes wisdom’s fulfillment of the mind (citta) freed from all defilements. That is-desire defilements, becomings defilements, and ignorance defilements.
This passage shows that citta pre-exists Avijja and is synonymous with the soul (atta’).
DN 2.233 "the light of mind (citta)"
SN 5.158 Maha’puriso, Maha’puriso I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Maha’puriso mean?” “A liberated mind (citta)-Soul, I say Shariputra, this is a Maha’puriso. Without a liberated mind (citta)-Soul Shariputra, one is not a Maha’puriso
AN 1.282 He gathers the mind (citta) inside the immortal realm”
SN 5.371 His mind (citta) after death goes to the supernal realm” SN 5.371
MN 1.36 Citta is said to be originally pure.
MN 1.114 They will find their Souls at peace, they will find tranquility of mind (citta)
MN 1.140 With the emancipated mind (citta) of a follower, bhikkhus, neither the god Indra, nor Brahma devas, nor Pajapati can discern him, [bemusing themselves that] “This is the basis for the Tathagata’s mind (citta).” How is this so? Within this Dhamma, followers, the Tathagata is without any mark by which to make a claim about him.
MN 1.213 Friend Shariputra, a follower delights in solitariness, and in delighting in solitariness he tranquilizes the mind (citta) in yoking it to the very Soul, he does not neglect his jhanas, he is endowed with insights, and perfectly devoid of the profane.
MN 1.235 A follower who has an emancipated mind (citta) possesses three transcendental qualities: transcendental illumination, transcendental mastery of the light, transcendental liberation.
MN 1.239 When suffering and feelings arise upon him, it does not penetrate into his mind (citta) since his mind (citta) is Soul become.
MN 1.249 When my steadfast mind (citta) was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then I directed my mind (citta) towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. I knew thusly as it truly was such that: This is suffering, this is the source of suffering, this is the subjugation of suffering and this is the path of illumination leading away from all suffering.
MN 1.249 When my discourse is completed, Aggivessana, I make absorbed my mind (citta)upon the sign of my very Soul wherein I remain fixed, am subdued, and make it as unto this singleness. This is the bliss I perpetually reside within.
MN 1.279 When his steadfast mind (citta) was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then he directs his mind (citta) towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. Knowing thus and seeing thus his mind (citta) is emancipated from sensual desires, his mind (citta) is emancipated from becoming, his mind (citta) is emancipated from ignorance.
AVIJJA (agnosis/ignorance) is 1st in paticca samuppada (contingent manifestation); the only thing in Buddhism which is antecedent/prior to Avijja is the Citta.
MN 1.296 Friend, how many contingencies are there for the perfection of making unmanifest the emancipation of mind (citta)? Two contingencies: turning away from determinately manifest phenomena and turning towards the unmanifest realm.
MN 1.298 Emancipation of the mind (citta) is the highest supernal.
MN 1.298 Of all types of unmanifest emancipations of mind (citta), the fixed unshakable emancipation of the mind (citta) is the highest supernal.
MN 1.298 The fixed unshakable emancipation of the mind (citta) is devoid of lusts, devoid of hate, and devoid of delusions.
MN 1.301 What is Samadhi for? Samadhi, friend, is for making the mind (citta) sovereign. (cittassa ekaggata’)
MN 1.301 When the mind (citta) is made to become, one gains Suchness of Soul.
Pat.isambhida’magga Att. 1.236 “To bring to unification the mind (citta) is to be fixed upon the Soul”
3.72 Followers, the Aryan mind (citta) is the taintless mind (citta) with which the Aryan path is endowed with
Pat.isambhida’magga Att. 1.236 “To bring to unification the mind (citta) is to be fixed upon the Soul”
Suttanipata Att. 2.410 “Mind (citta) has insight into the Soul”
Theragatha Att. #2 2.151 “The mind (citta) is the Soul”
Itivuttaka Att. 1.168. “The Supreme Soul is the mind (citta) yoked to steadfastness; the steadfast mind (citta) is dedicated to the Soul”
Sagathavagga Att. 1.237 “The Soul is the mind (citta)”
Sagathavagga Att. 1.112 “The mind (citta) envisions the Soul”
Maha'vagga Att. 3.118 “Followers, the Aryan mind (citta) is the mind (citta) without taints with which the Aryan path is endowed with; is the Aryan path made become”
MN 1.511 “For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto sentience.
) ways, I'd like to re emphasize that I debate, question, and absorb, not to be adversarial, but to engage, learn, impart.
Anatta the Adj.
in Buddhism
Posted · Edited by Several
Probably why Sati (mindfulness) is so important.