Several

Wrong. You're only talking from a personal view, and you're only half right about that. You need knowledge to guide practice. If your knowledge is misguided, so is your practice. This is way more than semantics. The entire structure of Theraveda is based on a certain interpretation of Anatta. If the angry man in the video is right then we can pretty much fling anything any Theravedin has said or written in the last 1500 years out of the window.

Are you applying this to my whole statement or if not then which part?

All of us talk from our personal views.....

Yeah, sorry. That did read a bit stronger than I intended.

Yes, I think right view will align all effort in the right direction. So...

Bhikkhu Bodhi:

These universal characteristics [not-self, impermanence, unsatisfactoriness] have to be understood in two stages: first intellectually, by reflection; and thereafter by direct insight or realisation through insight meditation. When we explain these intellectually, we should not make this a substitute for practice, but only take it as a guideline for understanding what has to be seen by the actual practice of insight meditation.

But in light of what Kathodos is saying it is not so much having the right view as disqualifying the wrong ones.

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

Which is from his site. These are the things that Anatta is an adjective of. So perhaps the goal is not describable. Buddha stated that Nibbana was not to be described or arrived at by speculation or reasoning, but he could say what it was not.

It boils down to this. Perhaps we are mistaken in believing Anatta is a thing by itself, when really it is only describing what Nibbana is not.

Also Fred the way you use the word Anatta is what mr. Angry is arguing against. That which can be found is Anatta, not that which finds. 'Objective negation culminates in subjective gnosis' is something he says. The noting of vipassana is the objective negation. Not this, not that. This will lead ultimately to subjective gnosis. Insight.

So what Buddha may have been saying is 'these things are not my soul' (Anatta), but he never said 'there is no soul' (Natthatta).

Or maybe we just differ. No matter. I feel this is worth investigation in both theory and practice.

Wrong. You're only talking from a personal view, and you're only half right about that. You need knowledge to guide practice. If your knowledge is misguided, so is your practice. This is way more than semantics. The entire structure of Theraveda is based on a certain interpretation of Anatta. If the angry man in the video is right then we can pretty much fling anything any Theravedin has said or written in the last 1500 years out of the window.

Yeah, I realise its both risky and a bit heavy going. I don't want to cause an argument as Anatta is a core idea in Buddhism. But I do like to get to the bottom of things. If what this guy is saying is in any way true I want to know about it. Is there a soul that I am an aspect of? Does this possibility have something to do with the abundance of Arahants in Buddhas time as opposed to now?

The scripture guides the practice. I like to check if I'm barking up the right bodhi tree.

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.

Though this man is an excellent scholar, he does not appear to actually follow any of the teachings, particularly avoiding wrong speech. So I warn you he is extremely rude about modern Buddhism, and he seems to hate Theraveda in particular. None the less I would be interested to hear learned opinion on this matter.

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

I will only be able to respond to this topic infrequently as I'm cutting down on internet usage for Vassa.

True. I sang and played in a band. One of the hardest things I ever did was give that up.

 

Ouch real non attachment then.

 

In memoriam.

 

Cool. Never heard that before. If you see Van tell him that the sound of one hand clapping is the same as the other one.

Excellent.

True. I sang and played in a band. One of the hardest things I ever did was give that up.

Well I've just had the option removed. An old computer erased my sd card so, no music. Should've kept my mouth shut.

annica

Bless you.

Well I've just had the option removed. An old computer erased my sd card so, no music. Should've kept my mouth shut.

I've found that when you have a song repeating in your head if you actually play the song (again youtube is handy), it stops.

"Stop that singing!"

"But father..."

The thing itself is not a problem, so yes it is the attachment which causes suffering. I'm actually a big fan of crazy wisdom, for enlightened beings. The majority are not but indulge in all sorts of behaviour based on "well such and such did this and he was enlightened."

As for the intimacy issue,  (a) it is ok for married couples to partake but again I'm thinking that only a tiny percentage can do it without hindering progress. I do not believe it is sinful, only distracting. Like music.

Though we follow the middle way it is very thin and easy to deviate from. There is nothing inherently evil about anything other than what we ourselves percieve in a thing. Even money is just paper, coins and digits. It has no value other than that we agree upon. ( The things in the world are as they are, music is sounds, intimacy is neurochemicals released into the system, gold and jewels are bricks and pebbles. But their existence in our thoughts and fellings is a different thing altogether. Bricks and pebbles are affluence and social standing. ©. Oxytocin and endorphin addiction is the highest state two humans can hope for, sounds are memories and feelings and ten thousand other things.

Thus a spoon is not a spoon and a rose is still a rose even if it has no name.

 

a :  What is it about marriage which makes partaking OK (just curious)?   I also know of it not being OK within many marriages. It's expected practice within such marriages being a catalyst for divorce.

 

b : Everything in the world is just something.  I shared the title with an elderly Indian Buddhist this afternoon to elicit another point of view. She indicated for non Monks music is fine, providing it is good music. She specifically excluded "rap", causing me to break out in laughter. There is genuinely good music, but there is also music which you either like or dislike causing it to be considered good or not good. 

 

c : Until we experience true Awakening we won't ever know if there is something higher (metaphysical), than our fathom long carcass and its chemical soup.

The relationship question is highly complex and as you say, marriage is no guarantee of bliss. Abstinence is just the simplest solution.

Some rap music is ok. Check out Hill Top Hoods from Australia. But seriously, saying which music is ok is like saying which colour is the best. Its down to individual songs and taste. Even Mozart had his off days. If the music you listen to creates a strong emotional response then probably better to leave it alone if engaging in serious practice.

Having faith that genuine teachers know of these higher things, metaphysical or not, must suffice until direct personal knowledge becomes a reality.

The thing itself is not a problem, so yes it is the attachment which causes suffering. I'm actually a big fan of crazy wisdom, for enlightened beings. The majority are not but indulge in all sorts of behaviour based on "well such and such did this and he was enlightened."

As for the intimacy issue, it is ok for married couples to partake but again I'm thinking that only a tiny percentage can do it without hindering progress. I do not believe it is sinful, only distracting. Like music.

Though we follow the middle way it is very thin and easy to deviate from. There is nothing inherently evil about anything other than what we ourselves percieve in a thing. Even money is just paper, coins and digits. It has no value other than that we agree upon. The things in the world are as they are, music is sounds, intimacy is neurochemicals released into the system, gold and jewels are bricks and pebbles. But their existence in our thoughts and fellings is a different thing altogether. Bricks and pebbles are affluence and social standing. Oxytocin and endorphin addiction is the highest state two humans can hope for, sounds are memories and feelings and ten thousand other things.

Thus a spoon is not a spoon and a rose is still a rose even if it has no name.

Then we could also argue that sex is an exquisite form of communication also, and that intoxicants assist in the appreciation of either. They are things we abandon as it becomes impossible to ascend the hieghts of practice if we are carrying their weight, so to speak.

And before anyone mentions smoking, I've quit. It was also an attachment.

I think not. Chanting is plenty, and though originally to recall the teachings it has changed into something else. I like the call to prayer in Islam, like love songs to god. But the Christian way of having anything from a guitar to a whole band playing cheesy ineptly written 'feel good' tunes is just one step behind the Wiggles. That and Gospel choirs are simply entertainment. It cheapens any religion to kowtow to public liking for amusing bite-sized experiences that create emotional attachment in a short enough time to not overly challenge the attention span.

I like all kinds of music, from Slipknot and Tool to Paganini. I no longer listen to more than one hour in a week, if that. It is distracting and is designed to provoke an emotional response whether through content or association with a memory. So though I truly believe that the creation of music is one of humanities greatest accomplishments, by its very nature it has no place in Buddhism. We are here to end suffering, not entertain.

It sounds counter-intuitive but Martial discipline helps to progress quicker. Bear with me. Now, I'm not talking about aggression or harm. More like Aikido, except the opponent is the ego. If we approach defeating our ego from a philosophical perspective then we have all the time in the world. Returning to scriptures, questioning teachers, watching the clock rather than the subject during meditation, the luxury of complaining about lack of progress. We hope that over time we'll accrue ability and we gauge progress by comparison to others.

This is fine at first, but eventually the training wheels must come off. If your ego was a regular opponent who, like Kato in the Pink Panther movies, attacked you at unexpected moments how well do you think you would fare in combat if you opened a book or wander off to clarify some obscure point with a superior before you react?

The maneuvers of ego are immediate and must be dealt with immediately. The attitude of 'having time' to improve means you will run out of it. There is no time, only now. One reason Gotama was successful was due to his being from a warrior caste. Death became a reality and it drove him forward.

Learn the techniques, study the suttas, internalise them beyond mere ideas and pursue the goal with ruthless determination. Anything else will fall short of the mark.

Absolutely. But an advantage to changung positions is that it makes it easier to identify that which does not change, and it challenges the habit of being who you believed yourself to be making the persona easier to discard.

Hi Rocky. It isn't for me to claim any achievements in insight, but for teachers to gauge any perceptible progress. I am less angry which is achievement enough, believe me. I would urge you not to give up. By doubting yourself you may in fact be subconsciously reinforcing the idea that 'it cannot be accomplished'. Please try to remain open to the possibility of sudden realisation. We have all the pieces, allow the order to manifest itself.

Is it worth trying? Well if not this, then what else? I would rather die with a smile in the sun halfway up a mountain than with a tear in the shadows at its base.

Seems to me, anyone that disagrees with your specific point of view, you regard as abuse.

 

John Lennon in his song Imagine also hoped that all religion would end. Is that an abusive song? I also said that it was my opinion, an opinion shared by quite a lot of people that believe the world would be a better place without it.

 

With your above statement, you are abusing all people that claim to have been abducted by aliens.

 

I didn't tell you to shut-up. I said "put-up, or shut-up"; a rather well known colloquialism that originated in poker games.

 

Seems your manners could use improvement, too.

 

Very typical of religious people. Question any of their beliefs and they throw their teddy in the corner.

 

Maybe you should try and be less easily bruised as you're coming over as a whiny, little girl (that was some very mild abuse, but, you started it).

Ah, if only you knew. Hilarious.

Ironically, this is also a microcosm of the wider world. Disciplines and ideologies bumping heads and misunderstanding each other. You are an educated and well informed person within your field desiring that humanity is freed from superstition. Kudos. You are, I am also guessing, employed in a field which is of benefit to society. I percieve myself to be in the same position. Science and Buddhism are both, ideally, concerned with getting at the truth. This indicates travelling towards it rather than being there already, so for lack of actual personal knowledge of ultimate truth we are forced to surmise what that truth might be and which method is most effective to get there.

But rather than pursuing our own ways and comparing our experiences for the greater good, our energy is wasted on bickering and ad hominem assaults far too often. This is seemingly caused by various authors and well known personalities promoting their ideas at the expense of others. This can be seen form either view from R. Dawkins to D. Chopra. I have a tendancy to attack positions I deem unproductive to the evolution of consciousness, even when I am wrong. Too many Kung <deleted> movies in my youth. Nobody's perfect.

However, through practice outlined by the Buddha I have found, so far, that everything he directs us to do to end suffering works. As have millions before me. I am sure the effects of this practice are scientifically verifiable. When Buddhism reached China and Japan it was decided that it was rather 'top heavy' by the Taoist influenced teachers and the end reasult is the stripped- down but still effective Zen methods of today. I can see no reason why Scientific and Buddhist methods cannot assist each other. Eg, science can measure that which is most effective in meditation and tell us when we're on the right track or simply half-asleep. Buddhism can help scientists control emotional responses, such as the difference between gaining results for truth or for ego.

To put it back in our microcosm; Sorry Karen. Can you help me find my teddy?

Heh. Fair enough.

As Bravo pointed out (between abuses)

Please show me one instance of my abusing anyone on this thread. You imply multiple abuses.

Are you not, as a monk, supposed to stick to truth?

Put up or shut-up.

You said you would lump me in with alien abductees after you misread what I posted, which I consider an insult. Telling me to shut up I also consider an insult. Hoping Buddhism will die out is insulting to a very large percentage of the entire country. I can't be bothered wading through all your other self-riteous posts to point out to you your lack of manners. Also your complete lack of authority precludes you ordering anyone to do anything. And that, madam, is the truth.

Excellent. Rig Veda. I'll need to have a look at that.

I do agree with you, practice makes perfect, but there's no harm in determining a scientific approach. What is Abhidhamma after all? As Bravo pointed out (between abuses) the western world is turning to an increasingly rational methodology. They listen to the opinions of skeptics such as Dikkie Dawkins and Rikky Jervais. The comedian, and mr. Jervais, are exactly the right kind of people to make real practitioners keep our noses to the grindstone. To belabour the point, the behaviour of certain monks in the media is in part due to a lack of scrutiny.

The universe is one, seemingly comprised of many parts. In response our understanding has fractured into a plethora of disciplines which now argue amongst themselves as to the nature of it all. But the universe is still one, a single song. The truth should be evident in all disciplines enabling us to play that song like an orchestra.

For us who are here now the attainments can be had through practice, but for those who are to come after only the records of our experiences can guide them as we are directed by our predecessors. Creating harmony through cooperation of the disciplines not only sets a good example and helps both parties to grow, it may refine the method and enlighten the goals of all.