Anatta the Adj.

[Several]

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.

[asdecas]

Clearly you are interested in the more abstruse, intellectual aspects of Buddhism. Thai Visa may not be the best place to seek a discussion on this, but good luck.

[Several]

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.

[fabianfred]

The only way to KNOW the true meaning is to meditate...... and by this I mean practice the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (vipassana).

Arguing about semantics is ridiculous.

We can intellectually understand something by reading about it, thinking about it, arguing about it...but we can only really know when we experience it.

Vipassana shows us that all things are impermanent, fleeting, changing and subject to natural laws, therefore no able to be controlled by us.

Anatta does not mean there is no me....just no permanent, unchanging me.

[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.

[Several]

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.

[sabaijai]

What Several is saying, I think, is that it's all about right view.

Which is the horse and which is the cart, between right view and right concentration, is a question that has been bugging Buddhist practitioners for centuries.

In some circles of Buddhist opinion, meditation without right view cannot yield sati, ie awareness, which is necessary and sufficient for stream entry, ie cutting the fetters.

In the strong form of this argument, held by Adhidhammists for example, all the other 'rights' in the 8-Fold Path fall into place only when Right View arises. In the weak form, all the rights must be present for attainment and they start with ____________ (fill in the blank).

Many Buddhist adepts and scholars divide the 8-Fold Path into three stages, Wisdom (beginning with Right View), Morality/Ethical Conduct (beginning with Right Speech) and Samadhi (beginning with Right Effort), a scheme that places Right Concentration, in the very last 'fold'.

In the Tipitaka it is said that some reach stream entry merely by hearing dhamma. From the Satipatthana Sutta (transl by Ajahn Thanissaro):

With analytical knowledge did Santati reach arahantship after hearing this stanza:

Purge out the things belonging to the past;

Let there be naught in the world to rise in future times.

If what's twixt past and future you don't grasp,

You will be one who wanders forth serene.

Patacara reached the fruition of the first stage of arahantship after hearing the following:

For one who is by death oppressed there is

No safety seen in children, father, friends

Or others close to one. A shelter true

Amongst one's kinsfolk one does never find.

Some people will respond that this sort of awakening is not possible in the present age. Yet even in Thailand there are said to be such cases.

[Several]

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.

[fabianfred]

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.....

[rockyysdt]

If you accept what Plotinus Veritas is suggesting how would your practice alter?

[rockyysdt]

Many Buddhist adepts and scholars divide the 8-Fold Path into three stages, Wisdom (beginning with Right View), Morality/Ethical Conduct (beginning with Right Speech) and Samadhi (beginning with Right Effort), a scheme that places Right Concentration, in the very last 'fold'.

Alternatively, could it be that all three are equally important, being applications rather than stages?

My understanding has been that wisdom (right view) grows with Samadhi.

Without Samadhi, Wisdom cannot deepen.

In other words, reading about what wisdom is, is not the same as experiencing insight of what wisdom is.

Edited August 5, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

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.

My view is that the greater reason why few become Awakened is due to the powerful nature of conditioning.

Unfortunately all of us have delusion.

Delusion, by its very nature, means we are blind to it.

It is difficult to overcome if you cannot see it.

I'll step out on a limb here.

I can see elements of delusion in all of us (posters).

You can also see elements of delusion in me, through my posts.

Without one who is awakened to personally guide us, it is extremely difficult to mount the summit.

[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.

[Several]

 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.

 

 

My view is that the greater reason why few become Awakened is due to the powerful nature of conditioning.

 

Unfortunately all of us have delusion.

Delusion, by its very nature, means we are blind to it.

 

It is difficult to overcome if you cannot see it.

 

 

I'll step out on a limb here.

 

I can see elements of delusion in all of us (posters).

You can also see elements of delusion in me, through my posts.

 

 

Without one who is awakened to personally guide us, it is extremely difficult to mount the summit.

But is asking deluded? Or simply saying one does not know? Isn't delusion a belief in the unproven/unexperienced? Perhaps both are groping in the dark for the lightswitch.

It is true that others can often see that which is right under our noses. But this is exactly why I am asking. If the analogy is ascending a mountain, then I am in need of a Tenzing Norgae.

The question of whether it is possible that we do have a soul is, as Fred says, only truly answered by direct experience. (The author says that it is not eternal, by the way, but does not qualify the statement.) But practice is conditionef by belief. In lieu of experience we need faith that Buddha is right, and his directions are viable.

It also has wider ramifications. Are the majority of Buddhists wrong about Anatta? And will that affect practice? Because if we are wrong, that itself is delusion. And there are those who have lost loved ones. I was recently questioned about the hereafter by a woman who lost a five month old baby. What do you say to the distraught? We are supposed to alleviate suffering, not compound it.

I say again, I intend to get to the bottom of this matter. Both for myself and for others.

[rockyysdt]

But is asking deluded? Or simply saying one does not know? Isn't delusion a belief in the unproven/unexperienced? Perhaps both are groping in the dark for the lightswitch.

It is true that others can often see that which is right under our noses. But this is exactly why I am asking. If the analogy is ascending a mountain, then I am in need of a Tenzing Norgae.

The question of whether it is possible that we do have a soul is, as Fred says, only truly answered by direct experience. (The author says that it is not eternal, by the way, but does not qualify the statement.) But practice is conditionef by belief. In lieu of experience we need faith that Buddha is right, and his directions are viable.

It also has wider ramifications. Are the majority of Buddhists wrong about Anatta? And will that affect practice? Because if we are wrong, that itself is delusion. And there are those who have lost loved ones. I was recently questioned about the hereafter by a woman who lost a five month old baby. What do you say to the distraught? We are supposed to alleviate suffering, not compound it.

I say again, I intend to get to the bottom of this matter. Both for myself and for others.

Any reference to delusion was not aimed at your valid questioning, but was my suggested reason as to why not many reach arahantship these days.

Without direct knowledge of what the Buddha actually taught, attachment to any interpretations down the ages are all subject to questioning/verification as the Buddha rightly taught.

Your question now suggests several (pardon the pun) interpretations of what it is to "Awaken".

Coming back to the revelation in Plotinus Veritas work, if it is so, how would you alter practice?

In terms of what one would say to those who have lost loved ones, how can we say anything?

When we look for metaphysical explanations we get nowhere.

Anything not rooted in this world is straying outside our habitat, and we get nowhere.

Without personal experience in that which is metaphysical(if it exists) there are no answers.

As has been

Edited August 6, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I was recently questioned about the hereafter by a woman who lost a five month old baby. What do you say to the distraught?

There was neither existence or no existence then?

Neither the world, nor the sky that was beyond it?

What lay enveloped and where?

Any who gave it protection?

Was water there deep and unfathomable?

There was no death there, nor immortality.

Nor of night nor day was there any sign.

The one (Brahman) breathed by self impulse.

Other than that there was nothing whatsoever.

Darkness was concealed by darkness there.

And all of this was indiscriminate chaos.

That one which had been covered by the void, through the might of tapas (the fire behind creation) breathed behind the cosmos.

In the beginning there was desire which was the primal germ of all minds.

For the sages searching in their hearts for wisdom found in the non existence the kin of existence.

Their divided line extended transversely.

What was below it and what was above it?

There was the sea bearer.

There were the mighty forces.

There were impulses from below, forward movement from beyond.

Who really knows and who can declare it here?

Whence was it born, and whence came this creation?

The Devas are much later than this world's production.

Then who knows from whence it came into being?

That from which this creation came into being?

Perhaps it formed itself or perhaps it didn't?

He who surveys it in the highest region.

Only he truly knows it, or maybe he doesn't?

There is no answer.

There is only practice.

Practice true to ones heart, as deep as delusion will allow.

From this, glimmers of personal experience.

Waste not one moment, for diligent practice.

Practice unfettered by attachment.

Throw off the shackles of greed, aversion, and delusion.

Perhaps it is awakening from these, in our lifetime.

Perhaps it is reunification with our real self.

Perhaps it is reunification with a universal awareness.

Who knows and who can answer?

We can only live in the present.

Everything, other than diligent practice is irrelevant.

Practice which will take us to complete levels of awareness in the present.

Edited August 6, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

But is asking deluded? Or simply saying one does not know? Isn't delusion a belief in the unproven/unexperienced? Perhaps both are groping in the dark for the lightswitch.

It is true that others can often see that which is right under our noses. But this is exactly why I am asking. If the analogy is ascending a mountain, then I am in need of a Tenzing Norgae.

The question of whether it is possible that we do have a soul is, as Fred says, only truly answered by direct experience. (The author says that it is not eternal, by the way, but does not qualify the statement.) But practice is conditionef by belief. In lieu of experience we need faith that Buddha is right, and his directions are viable.

It also has wider ramifications. Are the majority of Buddhists wrong about Anatta? And will that affect practice? Because if we are wrong, that itself is delusion. And there are those who have lost loved ones. I was recently questioned about the hereafter by a woman who lost a five month old baby. What do you say to the distraught? We are supposed to alleviate suffering, not compound it.

I say again, I intend to get to the bottom of this matter. Both for myself and for others.

This part is a very delicate situation.

Wearing cloth (Bikkhus robes) and presiding in a Monastery gives an outward appearance of religion (belief - worship - life after death - transcendence), something which the Buddha did not intend.

My understanding is that the intention of Bikkhuhood was to offer the opportunity to practice full time, whilst being supported by the community.

Nowadays Bikkhus give the appearance of clergy and are called upon to preside over ceremony, ritual, matters of the spirit, life after death and so on.

To offer comfort to a grieving mother, with the assurance that her lost child lives on, is this truth, or is this a soothing of her ego?

Can any of us assure her that her child lives on?

Should we concentrate on that which we know, that of practice of a path of discovery of what is?

My previous post about the origin of the world was a round about way of saying, "all who a grounded in the physical, can never know that of the metaphysical, without first hand experience".

Does assuring another of something we cannot know break a core precept?

Do things metaphysical (soul, spirit) alter how we practice Right Wisdom, Right Conduct, & Right Concentration in the Physical?

Edited August 7, 2013 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

The Wisdom/Morality/Concentration sequence interpretation is quite common at least academically. There are other ways of ordering it, just reporting on one as a counterpoint to the idea the meditation comes first, or that meditation is necessary and sufficient for sati to arise.

For me it's instructive to listen to the views from all angles, assuming that you trust the sources. The perspective cline runs the gamut from meditation as the be-all, end-all, to no meditation necessary, all depending on how you interpret the Satipatthana Sutta, and for some, how important you find the Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Strict interpreters of the latter two texts say that meditation itself doesn't directly cause the conditions for sati to arise, just as waiting for a bus doesn't cause it to arrive.

Many people I have met along the way have said that sati arose not when they were practising sitting, standing, lying or walking meditation but rather while engaging in an otherwise-mundane activity (ie when they stopped waiting for the bus). Yet all meditated at some point in their personal history. All studied dhamma under capable masters.

In such cases, which is the horse and which is the cart? Strictly speaking it's impossible to say as correlation alone doesn't imply causality.

Right view proponents,argue that whether sati/awarness arises during 'meditation' or during 'non-meditation', it is a result of discerning nama and rupa, It is never a direct result of meditation technique.

Continuing in this vein, although awareness means being aware of something, it's not being aware of the four foundations of mindfulness (body, feeling, mind, dhamma) per se; it's seeing and understanding that they arise and fall away, that they are impermanent, insubstantial and unsatisfactory. It is a coming to an understanding, an arrival at right view.

It's accomplished empirically, by observing the natural world, not by engendering mystical power. To some who follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, your posture is irrelevant. The breathing pace is irrelevant. These things may be altered to suit your mood or your desires, but they don't produce sati in and of themselves. More plainly put, sati arises in spite of all your physical attempts to create the conditions. When right view is present, sati may arise.

In my own 'practice' I take this view to have more validity than the view that says the more you 'meditate', the closer you get to stream entry. Like Aj Cha is famous for saying, 'Chickens can sit a very long time,' or something to that effect. There is a great intuitive appeal to assigning primacy to meditation which is not necessarily borne out in the Tipitaka.

'Meditation', like 'enlightenment', may be a rather inadequate word to describe the process. The only thing in the Noble Eightfold Path that comes close to corresponding to the notion of 'meditation' is Samadhi/Concentration. Yet that brings calm and tranquillity, not wisdom. Some Westerners use the word 'vipassana' instead, ie, 'vipassana' has become synonymous with 'meditation'. But vipassana is a an experience, not a technique. Sitting still watching your mind, body etc is not vipassana. Vipassana is the result, literally 'special insight'. And it's not listed in the Noble Eightfold Path.

For some reason many people seem to think that Samma-Samadhi (Right Concentration) is more important than Samma-Ditthi (Right View) but at the very least it seems they should be considered of equal importance. Not to mention Right Livelihood etc.

.

Many Buddhist adepts and scholars divide the 8-Fold Path into three stages, Wisdom (beginning with Right View), Morality/Ethical Conduct (beginning with Right Speech) and Samadhi (beginning with Right Effort), a scheme that places Right Concentration, in the very last 'fold'.

Alternatively, could it be that all three are equally important, being applications rather than stages?

My understanding has been that wisdom (right view) grows with Samadhi.

Without Samadhi, Wisdom cannot deepen.

In other words, reading about what wisdom is, is not the same as experiencing insight of what wisdom is.

[rockyysdt]

The Wisdom/Morality/Concentration sequence interpretation is quite common at least academically. There are other ways of ordering it, just reporting on one as a counterpoint to the idea the meditation comes first, or that meditation is necessary and sufficient for sati to arise.

For me it's instructive to listen to the views from all angles, assuming that you trust the sources. The perspective cline runs the gamut from meditation as the be-all, end-all, to no meditation necessary, all depending on how you interpret the Satipatthana Sutta, and for some, how important you find the Abhidhamma Pitaka.

Strict interpreters of the latter two texts say that meditation itself doesn't directly cause the conditions for sati to arise, just as waiting for a bus doesn't cause it to arrive.

Many people I have met along the way have said that sati arose not when they were practising sitting, standing, lying or walking meditation but rather while engaging in an otherwise-mundane activity (ie when they stopped waiting for the bus). Yet all meditated at some point in their personal history. All studied dhamma under capable masters.

In such cases, which is the horse and which is the cart? Strictly speaking it's impossible to say as correlation alone doesn't imply causality.

Right view proponents,argue that whether sati/awarness arises during 'meditation' or during 'non-meditation', it is a result of discerning nama and rupa, It is never a direct result of meditation technique.

Continuing in this vein, although awareness means being aware of something, it's not being aware of the four foundations of mindfulness (body, feeling, mind, dhamma) per se; it's seeing and understanding that they arise and fall away, that they are impermanent, insubstantial and unsatisfactory. It is a coming to an understanding, an arrival at right view.

It's accomplished empirically, by observing the natural world, not by engendering mystical power. To some who follow this line of thought to its logical conclusion, your posture is irrelevant. The breathing pace is irrelevant. These things may be altered to suit your mood or your desires, but they don't produce sati in and of themselves. More plainly put, sati arises in spite of all your physical attempts to create the conditions. When right view is present, sati may arise.

In my own 'practice' I take this view to have more validity than the view that says the more you 'meditate', the closer you get to stream entry. Like Aj Cha is famous for saying, 'Chickens can sit a very long time,' or something to that effect. There is a great intuitive appeal to assigning primacy to meditation which is not necessarily borne out in the Tipitaka.

'Meditation', like 'enlightenment', may be a rather inadequate word to describe the process. The only thing in the Noble Eightfold Path that comes close to corresponding to the notion of 'meditation' is Samadhi/Concentration. Yet that brings calm and tranquillity, not wisdom. Some Westerners use the word 'vipassana' instead, ie, 'vipassana' has become synonymous with 'meditation'. But vipassana is a an experience, not a technique. Sitting still watching your mind, body etc is not vipassana. Vipassana is the result, literally 'special insight'. And it's not listed in the Noble Eightfold Path.

For some reason many people seem to think that Samma-Samadhi (Right Concentration) is more important than Samma-Ditthi (Right View) but at the very least it seems they should be considered of equal importance. Not to mention Right Livelihood etc.

Doesn't regular "concentration" & "awareness" practice allow one to gradually develop a state in which one is able to better discern Nama & Rupa?

Although Sati may not arise during a sitting session, hasn't the regular practice of meditation and awareness/mindfulness brought one to a state which cultivates it?

Shouldn't we subscribe to all three sections of the path as important parts of the whole?

Isn't the wisdom we study an interpretation of another?

Don't we facilitate insight of wisdom, Nama & Rupa, when we regularly practice Concentration & Mindfulness?

Sati may not arise during a sit, but doesn't the state it cultivates over time give us the poise and balance to see things we otherwise miss?

In terms of trusting sources, we are all at sea and subject to much interpretation, and re interpretation over the centuries.

I agree that balance of all three parts of practice is important, but are you advocating that Concentration/Awareness practice is not important or unnecessary?

Edited August 8, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

 But is asking deluded? Or simply saying one does not know? Isn't delusion a belief in the unproven/unexperienced? Perhaps both are groping in the dark for the lightswitch.

It is true that others can often see that which is right under our noses. But this is exactly why I am asking. If the analogy is ascending a mountain, then I am in need of a Tenzing Norgae.

The question of whether it is possible that we do have a soul is, as Fred says, only truly answered by direct experience. (The author says that it is not eternal, by the way, but does not qualify the statement.) But practice is conditionef by belief. In lieu of experience we need faith that Buddha is right, and his directions are viable.

It also has wider ramifications. Are the majority of Buddhists wrong about Anatta? And will that affect practice? Because if we are wrong, that itself is delusion. And there are those who have lost loved ones. I was recently questioned about the hereafter by a woman who lost a five month old baby. What do you say to the distraught? We are supposed to alleviate suffering, not compound it.

I say again, I intend to get to the bottom of this matter. Both for myself and for others.

 

 

Any reference to delusion was not aimed at your valid questioning, but was my suggested reason as to why not many reach arahantship these days.

 

Without direct knowledge of what the Buddha actually taught, attachment to any interpretations down the ages are all subject to questioning/verification as the Buddha rightly taught.

 

 

Your question now suggests several (pardon the pun) interpretations of what it is to "Awaken".

 

 

Coming back to the revelation in Plotinus Veritas work, if it is so, how would you alter practice?

 

In terms of what one would say to those who have lost loved ones, how can we say anything?

 

When we look for metaphysical explanations we get nowhere.

Anything not rooted in this world is straying outside our habitat, and we get nowhere.

Without personal experience in that which is metaphysical(if it exists) there are no answers.

 

 

 

As has been

No problem, I didn't think that your delsion comment was aimed at me. I don't see any difference between physical or metaphysical explainations. They both exist within samsara and either continue that or aim at escaping it.

[Several]

 

 I was recently questioned about the hereafter by a woman who lost a five month old baby. What do you say to the distraught?

 

 

There was neither existence or no existence then?

Neither the world, nor the sky that was beyond it?

What lay enveloped and where?

Any who gave it protection?

Was water there deep and unfathomable?

There was no death there, nor immortality.

Nor of night nor day was there any sign.

The one (Brahman) breathed by self impulse.

Other than that there was nothing whatsoever.

Darkness was concealed by darkness there.

And all of this was indiscriminate chaos.

That one which had been covered by the void, through the might of tapas (the fire behind creation) breathed behind the cosmos.

In the beginning there was desire which was the primal germ of all minds.

For the sages searching in their hearts for wisdom found in the non existence the kin of existence.

Their divided line extended transversely.

What was below it and what was above it?

There was the sea bearer.

There were the mighty forces.

There were impulses from below, forward movement from beyond.

Who really knows and who can declare it here?

Whence was it born, and whence came this creation?

The Devas are much later than this world's production.

Then who knows from whence it came into being?

That from which this creation came into being?

Perhaps it formed itself or perhaps it didn't?

He who surveys it in the highest region.

Only he truly knows it, or maybe he doesn't?

 

 

There is no answer.

There is only practice.

Practice true to ones heart, as deep as delusion will allow.

From this, glimmers of personal experience.

Waste not one moment, for diligent practice.

Practice unfettered by attachment.

 

Throw off the shackles of greed, aversion, and delusion.

 

Perhaps it is awakening from these, in our lifetime.

Perhaps it is reunification with our real self.

Perhaps it is reunification with a universal awareness.

Who knows and who can answer?

 

We can only live in the present.

Everything, other than diligent practice is irrelevant.

Practice which will take us to complete levels of awareness in the present.

This is down to the interpretation of 'he'. In a negative sense 'who is he?' says there is no one. In a positive sense it says there is one who knows it, seek him. There is only one instance of the Buddha being questioned about Anatta in the Suttas and he remained silent as to whether there is an answer. He told Ananda if he answered 'there is no soul' then it is nihilism, but if he answered 'there is a soul' then it is eternalism, also an erroneous view. So there is an answer, just not one that can be verbalised.

[Several]

 

But is asking deluded? Or simply saying one does not know? Isn't delusion a belief in the unproven/unexperienced? Perhaps both are groping in the dark for the lightswitch.

It is true that others can often see that which is right under our noses. But this is exactly why I am asking. If the analogy is ascending a mountain, then I am in need of a Tenzing Norgae.

The question of whether it is possible that we do have a soul is, as Fred says, only truly answered by direct experience. (The author says that it is not eternal, by the way, but does not qualify the statement.) But practice is conditionef by belief. In lieu of experience we need faith that Buddha is right, and his directions are viable.

It also has wider ramifications. Are the majority of Buddhists wrong about Anatta? And will that affect practice? Because if we are wrong, that itself is delusion. And there are those who have lost loved ones. I was recently questioned about the hereafter by a woman who lost a five month old baby. What do you say to the distraught? We are supposed to alleviate suffering, not compound it.

I say again, I intend to get to the bottom of this matter. Both for myself and for others.

 

 

This part is a very delicate situation.

 

Wearing cloth (Bikkhus robes) and presiding in a Monastery gives an outward  appearance of religion (belief - worship - life after death - transcendence), something which the Buddha did not intend.

 

My understanding is that the intention of Bikkhuhood was to offer the opportunity to practice full time, whilst being supported by the community.

 

Nowadays Bikkhus give the appearance of clergy and are called upon to preside over ceremony, ritual, matters of the spirit, life after death and so on.

 

 

To offer comfort to a grieving mother, with the assurance that her lost child lives on, is this truth, or is this a soothing of her ego?

 

Can any of us assure her that her child lives on?

 

Should we concentrate on that which we know, that of practice of a path of discovery of what is?

 

My previous post about the origin of the world was a round about way of saying, "all who a grounded in the physical, can never know that of the metaphysical, without first hand experience".

 

Does assuring another of something we cannot know break a core precept?

 

Do things metaphysical (soul, spirit) alter how we practice Right Wisdom, Right Conduct, & Right Concentration in the Physical?

I disagree. There is the mustard seed story of Buddha helping a grieving mother. It is our job to end suffering. I tell her the truth, that we do not know about the hereafter but that we do not deny it with any certainty. The metaphysical is simply the unknown. That does not mean it does not exist.

[Several]

But this is one thing I get from Anatta being an adjective. What is discerning Nama/Rupa other than recognising they are Anatta? So 'who' is it that recognises?

[rockyysdt]

I disagree. There is the mustard seed story of Buddha helping a grieving mother. It is our job to end suffering. I tell her the truth, that we do not know about the hereafter but that we do not deny it with any certainty. The metaphysical is simply the unknown. That does not mean it does not exist.

Reading your reply, I agree with you.

My concern was not to tell her that her son definitely lives on.

Until we gain knowledge, we should remain open to possibility.

In this way you can reassure her, but to assert one way or another as fact without personal knowledge or proof could be an issue.

[rockyysdt]

But this is one thing I get from Anatta being an adjective. What is discerning Nama/Rupa other than recognising they are Anatta? So 'who' is it that recognises?

Does it matter?

[Several]

I think so. As Ajahn Cha says about chickens, if its just a case of sitting around waiting unadvisedly we'd all be enlightened.

Take archery. The practice is advised by knowledge. The knowledge alone will not strike the mark, the practice alone will not strike the mark consistently.

Actually I'm a little surprised that you think understanding (or striving for) is ineffectual but smoking is.

I could go on, but I won't.

[Several]

Also the 'cannot say it is, cannot say it isn't' connundrum of Anatta reminds me of the Zen Koan method. Irrational propositions that one cannot answer, and cannot not answer. The 'red hot ball you can neither spit out or swallow'.

[Several]

And just to compound matters, what of Anicca? Generally understood as impermanence, but Thanissaro translates it as inconstant. This puts me in mind of quamtum mechanics in that subatomic particles have no definite position. All manifest phenomena is not only subject to arising, maintaining and decay, but its very existence is only an inconstant probability. All this is Anatta and not deathless and the root cause of suffering.

[rockyysdt]

I think so. As Ajahn Cha says about chickens, if its just a case of sitting around waiting unadvisedly we'd all be enlightened.

Take archery. The practice is advised by knowledge. The knowledge alone will not strike the mark, the practice alone will not strike the mark consistently.

Actually I'm a little surprised that you think understanding (or striving for) is ineffectual but smoking is.

I could go on, but I won't.

I guess this is a drawback of a forum based dialogue.

Without detailed expression I'm not fully understood.

I'm not against striving for knowledge and understanding, but was more interested in an answer.

To ask you "why does it matter" was my way of getting your ideas on "why it matters & how it would affect your practice"?

Edited August 10, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

And just to compound matters, what of Anicca? Generally understood as impermanence, but Thanissaro translates it as inconstant. This puts me in mind of quamtum mechanics in that subatomic particles have no definite position. All manifest phenomena is not only subject to arising, maintaining and decay, but its very existence is only an inconstant probability. All this is Anatta and not deathless and the root cause of suffering.

Interpretation has always got in the way.

Incorrect interpretation has the potential of causing many to waste their lives in fruitless practice.

I like the 8 fold path (practice) free of an end destination (enlightenment) as a way of improving ones life.

Ditch the rigid ideas, and travel with an open mind.

Live in the present with the full potential which prajna, sila, & samadhi can bring.

If it takes me to full on awakening as it did for the Buddha, then this is a bonus.

The study of what the Buddha actually taught is highly recommended.

For example, seminars given by scholars of Pali & Sanskrit have given me alternative views of what the Buddha was teaching.

Such knowledge has broadened my views and made me less inflexible.

I'm not only open to orthodox Buddhist belief of re birth to many lives, but also understand the other possibility.

That the Buddha was teaching people to wake up and free themselves from superstition, religion, custom & conditioning and to live free from these shackles in a physical world.

That belief in soul & metaphysical afterlife was attachment to ego and superstition, just as it is for Christians (that would surely be a shocker for those grasping at eternal life through stream entry).

Edited August 10, 2013 by rockyysdt