Controversy In Thai Buddhism

[Xangsamhua]

In the second (2009) edition of Paul Williams’ Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations, there is a short discussion on the dispute among Thai scholars, leading Sangha figures (including a former Phrasangharaja and Phra Buddhadhasa) and representatives of the Dhammakaya movement over the question of whether the Buddha taught that there is a Self, and that the Self is identified with Nibbana.

That leading Thai Buddhists have argued over whether the Buddha taught a strictly not-self doctrine is news to me, but is it in fact well known, and if so, is the dispute continuing?

There seem to be a number of elements to the dispute.

1. The Phrasangharaja in 1939 argued that: “[T]he uniqueness of the Buddhist doctrine of anatta is realized once atta has been attained. The Buddha discovered that nibbana is atta and, only by doing so, was able to say that the five aggregates are anatta…. Nibbana is the purity of an object, it is void of defilements and once it is reached there is no more clinging. As purity it must [be] situate[d] within an object. That object is self…. If nibbana is anatta, then, nibbana is to be rejected and there would be no purpose in practicing the Noble Eightfold Path.”

2. Phra Buddhadhasa and, 25 years later, Phra Dhammapitaka (P. A. Payutto) opposed this point of view, asserting the centrality of the no-self teaching.

3. The Dhammakaya movement appears to agree with the 1939 Phrasangharaja’s view that nibbana is the true self, and also the dhammakaya. Responding to Phra Dhammapitaka in 1995, Phra Rajyanvisith, on behalf of Dhammakaya, argued that “nibbana as the true Self is understood particularly by practitioners of meditation” (in contrast to scholars who do not meditate). (I am quoting Williams p.127 account, not Phra Rajyanvisith directly.) To continue, following Williams' paraphrasing of Phra Rajyanvisith: “Anything which is not-Self is hence also impermanent and suffering. But, it is argued, nirvana is not suffering, nor is it impermanent. It is not possible to have something which is permanent, not-suffering (i.e. is happiness) and yet for it still to be not-Self. Hence it is not not-Self either. It is thus [true, or transcendental] Self.”

4. Williams relies heavily for his account of the issues on the unpublished 2007 MPhil (Bristol University) dissertation of P. Cholvijarn: “Nibbana as Self or Not Self: Some Contemporary Thai Discussions”. He also refers to an article by M. Seeger (2007) “Thai Buddhist Studies and the Authority of the Pali Canon”, in Contemporary Buddhism 8 (1): 1-18.

5. In the Notes to the chapter, Williams refers to the Dhammakaya belief that “there is a series of unconditioned Dhamma-bodies in Dhammakaya meditation” and to this movement’s apparent belief in “a type of nirvana as an actual sphere or dwelling place where the enlightened beings live.” There is quite a bit more detail in the Notes.

6. Referring to Seeger and Cholvijarn, Williams notes that this dispute is not a purely theoretical one. In 1999, “a Buddhist academic who was a critic of the Dhammakaya Foundation’s teachings suffered a fire-bomb attack on his home. For a detailed account of the arguments for the Self perspective in a book published anonymously in 1999, directed particularly at Payutto see Cholvijarn 2007: Ch. 3. Those who get the issue wrong (through teaching not-Self), it is alleged there, may end up in the hells (ibid: 62-3)."

This is all quite new and fascinating to me, but may be old news to some. I’d like to know more.

Edited December 12, 2009 by Xangsamhua

[Samuian]

Why do children generally refer to themselves with their names as in 3.person?

Is the "Self" understood as the "jiva" (immortal essence of a living being) or as "me", "I", Mr./Ms. XYZ?

and what in the 7 heavens could be a "non-Self"?

I think if there is "None", how can there be a "Self" or even a "non-Self"? -

Sorry the impression arises that this is a bit of non-sense!?

Why not take the whole "as is"?

As one, or a whole group of people may be able to change certain characteristics on the surface of the phenomenal world of appearances, but none of the very essences of the world of appearances, as it is it's very own nature, why not just observe "as is" and remain unattached from any identification or allowing any conditioning through it's almost unavoidable daily friction whilst being in contact with this phenomenal world ?

Negating things is like lying, believing in, creating an untruth, which "is not"!

"It is as it is", it always has been and always will be - no matter what!

It's like eating a ripe Mango, why should one restrain one self from enjoying it's flavor,

it's sweetness - nobody has to sell his/her soul for it!

There are many brittle, chapped parts in this doctrine, why to try and negate, ignore the world we live in, the beauty of life itself and it's myriads of appearances?

On the contrary to this I don't want to analyze any of the flagships of this doctrine the over loaden, gold guilded Temples, supposed to be the beacons of this school of thought, belief or name it religion!

To understand that where heat is, is cold, where happiness closest companion is suffering, that this is one of the ground rules of the material worlds, but also the foundation of it's beauty within.

the greater understanding of the "quantum mechanics" of the phenomenal worlds is a good step, why close eyes, ears, feelings, the gates of perception - to perceive what? - nothing ?

to achieve what wisdom, freedom, enlightenment, liberation?

from what?

mental, spritiual suicide - for what to gain?

Nirvana?

just a thought or 2...

Edited December 12, 2009 by Samuian

[bankei]

Anatta is not atta. So to understand anatta you need to know what an atta is. My understanding is an atta is a permanent unchanging thing over and above the 5 skhandas. It is something which survives death, and is reborn etc. The Buddha denied all of this and said there is nothing but the 5 skhandas and they cannot be held to be an atta because they are impermanent, constantly changing.

There is an excellent book by Steven Collins title Selfless Persons. Imagery and Thought in Theravada Buddhism. Collins examines all instances in the Pali Canon where there is talk or mention of a atta, self, jiva etc and also looks at the development of the doctrine of anatta in the later tradition, including commentarial.

The topic of the atta keeps popping up again and again. Even Mahaboowa has been critised as holding erroneous views has he has taught something about an eternal citta.

The Dhammakaya is nothing but a cult. Their main interest is in money and they may try to differentiate themselves slightly from the mainstream to help attract followers. it should not be taken seriously in terms of doctrine - but has to be worried about because of its economic might.

Samuian. I couldn't understand any your post. You did not even address the OPs question

[camerata]

1. The Phrasangharaja in 1939 argued that: “[T]he uniqueness of the Buddhist doctrine of anatta is realized once atta has been attained. The Buddha discovered that nibbana is atta and, only by doing so, was able to say that the five aggregates are anatta…. Nibbana is the purity of an object, it is void of defilements and once it is reached there is no more clinging. As purity it must [be] situate[d] within an object. That object is self…. If nibbana is anatta, then, nibbana is to be rejected and there would be no purpose in practicing the Noble Eightfold Path.”

But where is the scriptural evidence for this unorthodox view that nibbana is atta?

As for Dhammakaya, their central doctrine seems to be taken straight from Mahayana. I don't really see any controversy here.

anattā

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

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

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

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

"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found;

The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there;

Nibbāna is, but not the man that enters it;

The path is, but no traveler on it is seen."

[Xangsamhua]

Paul Williams does go on to say that the Phrasangharaja "states that he agrees with other Buddhists that 'Self' is conventional and a concept. But it is not the conventional concept that he is speaking of here, but its referent, i.e. the actual Self that really exists and is nirvana. To abandon the designation is not to abandon the referent." (Williams, 126, citing Cholvijarn, 13.)

I don't know if that clarifies or ameliorates the Phrasangharaja's position at all; it sounds like Platonic Realism to me. At another point in the Williams text (and I apologize for quoting a text that readers may not have before them), he says that "Those [Thai disputants] who argue for a true Self suggest that the Buddha's teaching of not-Self was intended to encourage the discovery for themselves by his disciples of the true Self by showing what is not the Self. Hence the teaching of not-Self is a stripping away, undertaken also in meditation and revealing the real Self when all that is not Self is removed." (125)

The discussion occurs at the end of Williams' chapter on the Tathagatagarbha. He sees similarities between the aforesaid view and that of the Dhammakaya movement (and others?) and that of the Tatagatagarbha (in East Asian forms of Mahayana rather than the main Tibetan schools).

I can see how one could end up in such a position after thinking about it, but it does seem contrary to the Buddha's teaching (unless there is an esoteric form that he passed on to a select few - a view that is found in some Mahayana schools, and among modern exponents of perennial philosophy (Guenon, Schuon, Coomaraswamy, etc.)).

My original question was not so much which teachings on Self/not-Self are valid according to what we are confident was the Buddha's teaching, but whether this controversy is a live one in Thailand; whether it is widespread; whether it leads to real conflict in the Sangha, etc., or whether it's really a non-issue (water under the bridge) to all except the Dhammakaya movement. One could also ask why Dhammakaya are still accepted within the Thai Sangha if their views are so contrary to Theravada teaching.

[camerata]

My original question was not so much which teachings on Self/not-Self are valid according to what we are confident was the Buddha's teaching, but whether this controversy is a live one in Thailand; whether it is widespread; whether it leads to real conflict in the Sangha, etc., or whether it's really a non-issue (water under the bridge) to all except the Dhammakaya movement.

Non-issue. Which is probably why Williams has to go back as far as 1939 to get anyone of high rank on record as taking such an unorthodox position.

One could also ask why Dhammakaya are still accepted within the Thai Sangha if their views are so contrary to Theravada teaching.

Because they have powerful political connections and a mountain of money.

[phetaroi]

Is talking about "self" the same as talking about a "soul"?

[dutchguest]

I.m.o. it is not a real controversy but more a linguistic confusion.

May be it is better to talk about real self (or soul) and false self (or ego). The false self is an illusion, does not really exist, is a social invention, dependant on place and time. The real self is what is realised when you become enlightened and have dropped all delusions.

As far as I have understood Buddha liked to describe everything in the negative way: empty, extinguised, no self, death (of the mindprocesses, desires, the ego). You can say the same in a positive way and it means the same. In an enlightened state dualisme is overcome, in that state life and death, empty and full, self and no self, everything and nothing are just the polar opposites necessary to keep the mindprocesses going, and they can only function in a dualistic way, else there is nothing, no content.

[phetaroi]

I.m.o. it is not a real controversy but more a linguistic confusion.

I think you may be right in saying it is a linguistic confusion...or at least that's a good way of describing it.

Some of the things in Buddhism that are most difficult to conceptualize may be more semantics.

For example...reincarnation occurs but there is no soul. Then what is the essence the travels from body to the next?

Karma just spontaneously occurs, there is no higher power to levy it. Hmmmmmmmm.

[Yamantaka]

I.m.o. it is not a real controversy but more a linguistic confusion.

I think you may be right in saying it is a linguistic confusion...or at least that's a good way of describing it.

Some of the things in Buddhism that are most difficult to conceptualize may be more semantics.

For example...reincarnation occurs but there is no soul. Then what is the essence the travels from body to the next?

Karma just spontaneously occurs, there is no higher power to levy it. Hmmmmmmmm.

I am probably the most ignorant of all students of the Dharma but my understanding is that karma is more like a law of nature, like gravity or heat rising rather than retribution or reward bestowed by anyone. The soul is more of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept whereas in reincarnation it is the consciousness or train of thought that passes on, although due to our delusion, ignorance and attachment very little of our experiences are remembered in the next life. The most important thing is that as we progress along the path of learning, we begin to see more of the truth. As a parallel, we could think of science in which one begins studying basic biology, chemistry and physics. As some move on in their education, they continue to delve deeper into the realities of the universe like quantum physics and other things far too complicated for most of us. It is the same with Dharma. The initial teachings ready our minds for the more involved and esoteric teachings that we would be unable to comprehend at the beginning. This is why there are prerequisites for taking teachings on emptiness, for instance, and that it is recommended that it not be discussed with those who haven't taken the teachings from a qualified Geshe because of the confusion it can cause to the unprepared mind. Also, the Dharma is not a religion and is not one size fits all in which you must accept every concept in order to benefit from it. It is more of a custom made practice in which each of us can use what makes sense to us comfortably and without mental struggle. As each individual element becomes clear through explanation and meditation, we find ourselves able to grasp others that previously eluded us.

[junglist]

The simple answer is there is no answer and there never really was a question. All will be transparent when the never comes to pass.

[Xangsamhua]

Why do children generally refer to themselves with their names as in 3.person?

Is the "Self" understood as the "jiva" (immortal essence of a living being) or as "me", "I", Mr./Ms. XYZ?

and what in the 7 heavens could be a "non-Self"?

I think if there is "None", how can there be a "Self" or even a "non-Self"? -

Sorry the impression arises that this is a bit of non-sense!?

Why not take the whole "as is"?

As one, or a whole group of people may be able to change certain characteristics on the surface of the phenomenal world of appearances, but none of the very essences of the world of appearances, as it is it's very own nature, why not just observe "as is" and remain unattached from any identification or allowing any conditioning through it's almost unavoidable daily friction whilst being in contact with this phenomenal world ?

Negating things is like lying, believing in, creating an untruth, which "is not"!

"It is as it is", it always has been and always will be - no matter what!

It's like eating a ripe Mango, why should one restrain one self from enjoying it's flavor,

it's sweetness - nobody has to sell his/her soul for it!

There are many brittle, chapped parts in this doctrine, why to try and negate, ignore the world we live in, the beauty of life itself and it's myriads of appearances?

On the contrary to this I don't want to analyze any of the flagships of this doctrine the over loaden, gold guilded Temples, supposed to be the beacons of this school of thought, belief or name it religion!

To understand that where heat is, is cold, where happiness closest companion is suffering, that this is one of the ground rules of the material worlds, but also the foundation of it's beauty within.

the greater understanding of the "quantum mechanics" of the phenomenal worlds is a good step, why close eyes, ears, feelings, the gates of perception - to perceive what? - nothing ?

to achieve what wisdom, freedom, enlightenment, liberation?

from what?

mental, spritiual suicide - for what to gain?

Nirvana?

just a thought or 2...

Yes, analysis taken to extreme leads to non-sense. We found this with logical positivism, which ended up accepting only tautologies as really valid propositions and, as Wittgenstein pointed out, these are non-sense in that they contribute nothing to knowledge. Synthesis, however, "taking the whole as is" in your terms, may lead to a calmer mental condition, but is built on probabilities and, ultimately, faith. Of course we need to accept reasonable synthetic propositions if we want to lead a sane and productive life.

The Buddha was wise in discouraging metaphysical speculation, but he also set it in motion by preaching the doctrine of "not-self" (anatta), and Sariputta was quick to run with it, passing Abhidhamma teaching on to his disciples. Practice may be at the centre of the Buddha's legacy, together with agnosticism towards teachings that cannot be verified by experience or sound knowledge, but in order to know what we are actually practising for, some philosophical propositions must be investigated, mustn't they? Otherwise we are restricted to subjective observation and evaluation of our behaviours and their outcomes.

I suspect that the former Phrasangharaja, the Dhammakaya movement, the Tatagathagarbha schools in China and Tibet and theists generally posit an ultimate self, soul, cause or condition as a tidy way of closing the circle, on the principle that "you have to stop somewhere", to "find closure" to the questions about ultimate existence, first cause, final cause, etc. It's a step too far for "orthodox" Buddhists (IMHO) and atheists, but one that can be hard to resist. Most people in the world take that step. Buddhism is counter-intuitive.

[camerata]

and Sariputta was quick to run with it, passing Abhidhamma teaching on to his disciples.

Well, "according to tradition," he did, after the Buddha had commuted daily to a deva realm to teach it to his mother. I think you can take that with a pinch of salt, though. If it was so important, I wonder why there is so much detail in there that never made it into the suttas and why the Buddha chose to teach it to devas first. Personally, I agree with the historians that nothing but an outline of the Abhidhamma existed in the Buddha's lifetime. I think it was put together later by scholar-monks of an intellectual bent to answer all those nitty gritty questions that aren't dealt with in the suttas. The question is, did they get it right?

[sabaijai]

Yes, analysis taken to extreme leads to non-sense. We found this with logical positivism, which ended up accepting only tautologies as really valid propositions and, as Wittgenstein pointed out, these are non-sense in that they contribute nothing to knowledge. Synthesis, however, "taking the whole as is" in your terms, may lead to a calmer mental condition, but is built on probabilities and, ultimately, faith. Of course we need to accept reasonable synthetic propositions if we want to lead a sane and productive life.

The Buddha was wise in discouraging metaphysical speculation, but he also set it in motion by preaching the doctrine of "not-self" (anatta), and Sariputta was quick to run with it, passing Abhidhamma teaching on to his disciples. Practice may be at the centre of the Buddha's legacy, together with agnosticism towards teachings that cannot be verified by experience or sound knowledge, but in order to know what we are actually practising for, some philosophical propositions must be investigated, mustn't they? Otherwise we are restricted to subjective observation and evaluation of our behaviours and their outcomes.

I suspect that the former Phrasangharaja, the Dhammakaya movement, the Tatagathagarbha schools in China and Tibet and theists generally posit an ultimate self, soul, cause or condition as a tidy way of closing the circle, on the principle that "you have to stop somewhere", to "find closure" to the questions about ultimate existence, first cause, final cause, etc. It's a step too far for "orthodox" Buddhists (IMHO) and atheists, but one that can be hard to resist. Most people in the world take that step. Buddhism is counter-intuitive.

That sounds about right. Buddhism is full of holes, logically speaking. The Abhidhamma is the only pitaka that makes a real attempt at being air-tight but is so abstruse that most logicians would give up on it before arriving at a full analysis.

I once came across a book in India called The Problem of Mind in Buddhism that illuminated the holes from the perspective of academic (Western) philosophy. Never saw the book again.

Until one experiences the truth of anatta, it's just intriguing rhetoric.

[bankei]

Is talking about "self" the same as talking about a "soul"?

I think there may be subtle differences between a self (atta) and a soul (jiva) - but I am not sure. But both would be denied by the Buddha as there is nothing outside the 5 khandhas (ขันธ์. they are body, sensation, perception, volition, and consciousness) and even they are impermanet, constantly in flux.

[bankei]

There is a wikipedia article on anatta which mentions the Dhammakaya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

[Xangsamhua]

That sounds about right. Buddhism is full of holes, logically speaking. The Abhidhamma is the only pitaka that makes a real attempt at being air-tight but is so abstruse that most logicians would give up on it before arriving at a full analysis.

I once came across a book in India called The Problem of Mind in Buddhism that illuminated the holes from the perspective of academic (Western) philosophy. Never saw the book again.

Until one experiences the truth of anatta, it's just intriguing rhetoric.

There is, in fact, a fair amount around on Buddhist logic, ontology and epistemology. A quick google revealed the following: http://www.formalontology.it/buddhist-philosophy.htm, but I wonder if the "holes" are not so much in the logic, as in the ontology.

My impression is that Buddhist logicians have been meticulous, but the doctrine of not-Self, to which they apply their logicians' razor, leads to apparently ridiculous conclusions. Bodhisattvas never attain nirvana; the Buddha on attaining nirvana must be less compassionate than a bodhisattva; there is nothing to be attained; there is nothing and no one to attain it; if you think you're enlightened, you're not, etc. No wonder the Zen masters had a field day with their koans.

Of course, the doctrine of an essential Self is hardly unproblematic. Like the mind, it can be seen as a "category mistake". Where is the self? Where is the mind?

I guess the Buddha taught the doctrine of not-Self because, in stripping away the ego and the intuited continuing and permanent "self", one is more likely to transcend particularities, attachments and, perhaps, in Siddhartha's context, the stultifying hubris of caste and Brahmin pretension.

Another poster (Junglist) suggested (I think) that any answers we seek simply become more questions. Perhaps that's right: constant questioning, such as that of Malunkyaputta, is best met with silence. Better just to practise. Or, perhaps, because the mind is inquisitive, analytical and the like, the questions can be part of the practice, a kind of mental stretching exercise, but constrained by awareness that there are no solutions in cogitation alone.

Or maybe not. Maybe better just to switch off our intellects altogether, disengage. (As Augustine said though:"Give me [chastity and continence], but not yet"; there's a couple of books I want to read first.)

[Xangsamhua]

There is a wikipedia article on anatta which mentions the Dhammakaya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

Hmm. Not a very attractive presentation of the joys of not-Self awareness:

Try imagining yourself standing in an empty room. You look around and see only empty space — everywhere. Absolutely nothing occupies that space — except you, standing in the middle of the room. Admiring its emptiness, you forget about yourself. You forget that you occupy a central position in that space. How then can the room be empty? As long as someone remains in the room, it is not truly empty. When you finally realize that the room can never be truly empty until you depart, that is the moment when that fundamental delusion about your true self disintegrates, and the pure, delusion-free mind arises.

Once the mind has let go of phenomena of every sort, the mind appears supremely empty; but the one who admires the emptiness, who is awestruck by the emptiness, that one still survives. The self as reference point which is the essence of all false knowing, remains integrated into the mind’s knowing essence. This self-perspective is the primary delusion. Its presence represents the difference between the subtle emptiness of the radiant mind and the transcendent emptiness of the pure mind, free of all forms of delusion. Self is the real impediment. As soon as it disintegrates and disappears, no more impediments remain. Transcendent emptiness appears. As in the case of a person in an empty room, we can say that the mind is truly empty only when the self leaves for good. This transcendent emptiness is a total and permanent disengagement that requires no further effort to maintain.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu, quoted (at length) in the Wikipedia article cited above.

"As soon as it disintegrates and disappears, no more impediments remain" - impediments to what? "Transcendent emptiness appears" .... appears? "Emptiness" appears? (Wittgenstein: "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.") Perhaps, with respect to anatta, it's better to remain silent.

[sabaijai]

There is, in fact, a fair amount around on Buddhist logic, ontology and epistemology. A quick google revealed the following: http://www.formalontology.it/buddhist-philosophy.htm, but I wonder if the "holes" are not so much in the logic, as in the ontology.

Maybe better just to switch off our intellects altogether, disengage. (As Augustine said though:"Give me [chastity and continence], but not yet"; there's a couple of books I want to read first.)

Yes there are plenty of books that fill the holes in the Tipitaka itself, but they are commentaries. The holes would be apparent to any second-year student of philosophy.

And there are more than a few brilliant modern-day treatises on anatta. Just not sure how helpful they really are. As the sources in your list demonstrate, they certainly don't form any consensus.

I don't think logic, or lack thereof, need be an obstacle to Buddhist practice, which ultimately requires a certain leap of faith. To me a bigger obstacle comes in trying to make the system completely logical in the western sense. There's always a 'you' pushing for the logic and as long there is a 'you,' there can be no right view, according to Buddhism.

[phetaroi]

It seems to me that there are holes in any religion or philosophy, which perhaps is an advantage as it encourages open-minded people to truly contemplate the religion/philosophy. For religious extremists, there is little effort to really contemplate the questions and answers...to them it is all in stone and they only find what they want to find. All that, of course, is aside from the contemplation that goes along with your travels along the path.

I will admit that I cannot get away from the concept of "soul", as I define it -- and that is that essence that to me must exist if there is any form of rebirth.

I will also admit that I simply cannot buy the concept of karma, without a higher power causing/creating it. Otherwise it seems far too spontaneous to be logical. It just happens, just doesn't cut it with me.

Having said that, it doesn't seem to me that having those two "blocks" prevents me, or anyone, from practicing Buddhist principles.

[agent69]

I will admit that I cannot get away from the concept of "soul", as I define it -- and that is that essence that to me must exist if there is any form of rebirth.

It is gonna be hard to prove, isn't it, this soul & reincarnation thing? If one cannot remember the past lives, will there still be the concept of rebirth? Sounds like a falling tree in a forest, doesn't it?

I will also admit that I simply cannot buy the concept of karma, without a higher power causing/creating it. Otherwise it seems far too spontaneous to be logical. It just happens, just doesn't cut it with me.

When someone is harming someone, it causes someone chain reaction. The victim (their loved ones and others) may seek revenge (well, most but the wise ones do). And if there were souls, the grudges could be carried over to other lives.

This way of thinking seems to work well for me because it helps me see the reason for everything that happens in this world. There are always reasons or events that lead to an event. Most people react to an event without consideration of why it happened. When someone consider looked at an event they might understand the reason of it. And perhaps this might lead them to compassion and forgiveness.

[phetaroi]

I will also admit that I simply cannot buy the concept of karma, without a higher power causing/creating it. Otherwise it seems far too spontaneous to be logical. It just happens, just doesn't cut it with me.

When someone is harming someone, it causes someone chain reaction. The victim (their loved ones and others) may seek revenge (well, most but the wise ones do). And if there were souls, the grudges could be carried over to other lives.

This way of thinking seems to work well for me because it helps me see the reason for everything that happens in this world. There are always reasons or events that lead to an event. Most people react to an event without consideration of why it happened. When someone consider looked at an event they might understand the reason of it. And perhaps this might lead them to compassion and forgiveness.

I think that some karmic events are logical. Revenge, as you mention, is a good example.

But on the far other end of the spectrum, just for example, a karmic event that occurs in separate lives (for example, a person is handicapped in this life because it is bad karma from a previous life).

[sleepyjohn]

Xangsamhua,

have you ever come across the Pugdalavadins (hope I've got the spelling right).....whose name comes from pugdala (person) if I remember right? It was a very considerable sized movement on the Indian sub continent.

The Pugdalavadins thought it a good idea to acknowledge the "experience" of self. They battled it out on this with other schools for a long time, those others holding that they had lost their way on this issue and were suggesting something outside the 5 skandhas.

It is clear from the scripts however that the Pugdas were using this "self" in a heuristic way, using the pugdala as a prajnapti (leading to knowledge).

Someone else from just this....whoops last....century comes to mind.....so recent a friend of mine stayed with him. Nisargadatta, the author of the thoughts compiled in "I am That", reiterates about looking for the "true self". So much so it seems to be his central thrust. It seemed a bit at odds with Buddhism until I realised he was also using (I believe) the "self" in a heuristic way. I believe he was trying to help people see the self as utterly non-separate, one's "self" being continuous and not really starting or stopping anywhere.

To complete the circle on the posts above, if you look at Nirvana as a truly complete state of non-separation, well you might therefore call it the self!

cheers John

Edited December 22, 2009 by sleepyjohn

[camerata]

To complete the circle on the posts above, if you look at Nirvana as a truly complete state of non-separation, well you might therefore call it the self!

You could, but why would any Buddhist want to? In fact you could call a lot of things "self," but the point of the Buddha's teaching was that we shouldn't be attached to the idea of a self - whatever form it takes. I believe that's why he didn't go into a lot of detail about it in the suttas. Once you start talking about it, the talking never ends. Better to leave the concept alone. Just thinking about a self reinforces the idea of it.

Last week I had the odd experience of meeting a schoolfriend I'd seen briefly 35 years ago but hadn't spent any time with for 40 years. If he had sat opposite me in a restaurant for an hour I wouldn't have recognized him, but we'd arranged this get-together. It was like talking to a different person, but one who had the essence of the person I knew 40 years ago. Because of the shared memories and a couple of traits (timbre of voice, hometown accent), my mind tended to assume it was "the same person as before," but in fact most of him - mentally and physically - had changed a lot. It certainly makes you think about the common assumption of a continuous, unchanging self.

[Samuian]

I.m.o. it is not a real controversy but more a linguistic confusion.

I think you may be right in saying it is a linguistic confusion...or at least that's a good way of describing it.

Some of the things in Buddhism that are most difficult to conceptualize may be more semantics.

For example...reincarnation occurs but there is no soul. Then what is the essence the travels from body to the next?

Karma just spontaneously occurs, there is no higher power to levy it. Hmmmmmmmm.

I am probably the most ignorant of all students of the Dharma but my understanding is that karma is more like a law of nature, like gravity or heat rising rather than retribution or reward bestowed by anyone. The soul is more of a Judeo-Christian-Islamic concept whereas in reincarnation it is the consciousness or train of thought that passes on, although due to our delusion, ignorance and attachment very little of our experiences are remembered in the next life. The most important thing is that as we progress along the path of learning, we begin to see more of the truth. As a parallel, we could think of science in which one begins studying basic biology, chemistry and physics. As some move on in their education, they continue to delve deeper into the realities of the universe like quantum physics and other things far too complicated for most of us. It is the same with Dharma. The initial teachings ready our minds for the more involved and esoteric teachings that we would be unable to comprehend at the beginning. This is why there are prerequisites for taking teachings on emptiness, for instance, and that it is recommended that it not be discussed with those who haven't taken the teachings from a qualified Geshe because of the confusion it can cause to the unprepared mind. Also, the Dharma is not a religion and is not one size fits all in which you must accept every concept in order to benefit from it. It is more of a custom made practice in which each of us can use what makes sense to us comfortably and without mental struggle. As each individual element becomes clear through explanation and meditation, we find ourselves able to grasp others that previously eluded us.

and beware of the "bunch of monkey's" or "the horses drawing the chariot" by ordinary laypeople usually referred to as me, I: Mr. Me Myself aka Mr.Brown - Stock Trader is only a reflection of the conditioning of the "city with the 9 Gates" also understood as the "gates of perception"!

it's all mind stuff- sit down or walk, exercise mindfulness and wathc the breath, when ever "it" wanders off, bring "it" back to watch the breath - in - out, in - out listen to it, never stop listen!

NO intellectual interaction will ever be able to name that which has no name, no substance, no appearance, no steadiness, no face, no number, no weight, no measure, no size, no category.....!

it's immeasurable, omniscient, all pervading, formless and yet fills it all, from this full all this full has come, it's veryessence is emptiness - simply don't even try - breathe one, two, in - out, two, in - out, two, in - out, two, in - out, two, in - out, two, in - out, two, in - out, two, in - out, two, in - out, two, in - out, two, in - out, ...everything else is WASTE OF <deleted>' time!

Idle talk to feed the ego, it's this "me" craving for confirmation of it's presumed "existence", no "fodder" no "I", no "me"....

[Xangsamhua]

Xangsamhua,

have you ever come across the Pugdalavadins (hope I've got the spelling right).....whose name comes from pugdala (person) if I remember right? It was a very considerable sized movement on the Indian sub continent.

The Pugdalavadins thought it a good idea to acknowledge the "experience" of self. They battled it out on this with other schools for a long time, those others holding that they had lost their way on this issue and were suggesting something outside the 5 skandhas.

It is clear from the scripts however that the Pugdas were using this "self" in a heuristic way, using the pugdala as a prajnapti (leading to knowledge).

cheers John

Thanks for this, John.

For those who are really interested in this question there's an interesting and comprehensive (and rather long) post and discussion at the New Buddhist forum: http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?p=12424

An extract gives readers an idea:

As for the Puggalavadins, they went by the same Suttas as the other accepted schools of Buddhism, and they were not necessarily deemed 'heretical' at the time of their existence. It is reported that their sect covered much of India before the decline of Buddhism in that area. They had simply held to a different interpretation of the Buddha's teaching on anatta. There was much debate at that time as to what the Buddha was really pointing at, with Sutta references as evidence for both sides. (One such reference is the 'person' referenced in the Bhara Sutta.) Beyond this debate, however, their methods of attainment were as far as we know the same. No matter what the 'truth' about anatta was, each school had the same practice - the Noble Eightfold Path.

This brings me to my point. It seems that even today, unnoticed by most, certain Theravada and Mahayana sects have views and teachings that mirror the ancient Puggalavadins. If you pay close attention to certain Thai forest masters and what they teach, for example, you will see a striking resemblance to the Puggalavadins. Now, I am not saying in any way that they believe in or teach about a 'self' as the Puggalavadins did, but they do seem to teach in a way that leaves the question open. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, for example, teaches The Not-self Strategy along with quotes like this from the Five Piles of Bricks:

"Other passages mention a consciousness in this freedom — "without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning (MN 49). In this it differs from the consciousness-khandha, which depends on the six sense spheres and can be described in such terms as near or far, past, present, or future. Consciousness without feature is thus the awareness of Awakening. And the freedom of this awareness carries over even when the awakened person returns to ordinary consciousness."

There are others who are even more suspect, some which take the citta (mind) as being the eternal property (or so it often appears from their talks/books in any case). The point I guess is: Are the Puggalavadin's views, albeit subtly, still around today?

To me, Ajarn Thanissaro's language: "without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning..." etc. is the kind of thing that has alienated me from Catholic theology in recent years (I now broadly subscribe to Don Cupitt's non-realist views). It sounds too much like the theologian's (e.g. Tillich's "God beyond God") or the late medieval mystics' God ("nameless, infinite, beyond the grasp of logical concepts").

Reading an introduction to the Upanishads this morning, I noted that the Vedic writers were quite content to speak of Brahman, the Absolute, as either Being or Non-Being. Much of the discourse with which the Buddha would have been familiar was based in the Vedas. Perhaps it doesn't really matter, for heuristic purposes - which you suggest may have been the Pugdalavadins' motivation - if one thinks in terms of anatta or atta as the generative source of being – whether process without substance (causation) or ineffable unconditioned substance (Brahman). The former may be better, though, in terms of overcoming the ego and practising the eightfold path.

[bankei]

Ajahn Thanissaro's views on noself are considered to be heretical by many.

[camerata]

Ajahn Thanissaro's views on noself are considered to be heretical by many.

From what I've read, his teachers Ajahn Fuang and Ajahn Lee had similar ideas.

[Svenn]

To me, Ajarn Thanissaro's language: "without feature or surface, without end, luminous all around" — lying outside of time and space, experienced when the six sense spheres stop functioning..."

Reading an introduction to the Upanishads this morning, I noted that the Vedic writers were quite content to speak of Brahman, the Absolute, as either Being or Non-Being.

Ajahn Thanissaro's views on noself are considered to be heretical by many.

Thanissaro's above comment is considered heretical? I can think of dozens of over references to nirvana, sambodhi, brahman, etc in the Vedas, Theravada texts, and Zen texts with the exact same language as that.... I can dig some of them up if anyone's interested.

I've stated before that I believe the Brahman or 'atman' of some of the more advanced Vedas is one and the same as Buddhism's 'anatman.' Disregarding surface semantic differences between the words used in the different traditions, they all are very clearly are talking about some sort of superconscious state where differentiation, and conseqently time and space, are negated.

Edited December 29, 2009 by Svenn

[bankei]

There were long discussions on the now defunct esangha discussion list. I never participated but did read a few threads. I think it had to do with Thanissaro's not self strategy from memory.