Anatta the Adj.

[rockyysdt]

Then it appears the most powerful "aggregate" we forum members seem to attach to is:

• Mental formations (Saṅkhāra).

all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object.

That we should observe our attachment to the need to rationalize and to the need to seek answers through logic.

That we should begin by getting serious about keeping the precepts and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

That we should also be charitable to others (metta, karuna) and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

The positive of our attachment is that it flushes out gems such as "Chrisartists" insights.

Edited September 1, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

 

The key to the Buddha's pronouncements on anatta is to be found in the 12-step formula for dependent origination: with ignorance, as condition, volitional formations arise.......etc.

 

This formula is a gloss on the second noble truth, which states that suffering has an origin. The formula is also sometimes presented in reverse, to explain the cessation of suffering, which glosses the third noble truth: with the cessation of x, y cannot arise....etc.

 

So, if we are to achieve liberation from suffering, the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination must be broken, i.e. there must be cessation of each element in the chain. This is *only* possible if there can be change. And what has to change? The aggregates. The Buddha's target in his pronouncements on anatta pertain to a view of the self (note: not the soul, but the self) that holds the self to be permanent and unchanging. If one adheres to this view, one will never be able to change, so one will never be able to sever the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination, so one will never be able to achieve liberation from suffering.

 

The Buddha's purpose in speaking about anatta is negative. He wants to show us what the self is *not*, so that we will see that we can change, so that the way will be open to us to achieve liberation from suffering. The Buddha makes no positive pronouncements at all of a metaphysical nature on any of a wide variety of topics. This is because they are not relevant to the overarching goal of achieving liberation from suffering. His strategy is one of methodological phemonenology. He takes what we experience directly and does not go beyond that, because that is all that is relevant to achieving liberation from suffering.

 

So, the Buddha speaks of not-self. he does not speak of not-soul. He makes no positive pronouncements on self or soul because they are not relevant. (Though he would not endorse any view of a soul, because the traditional way of conceiving of a soul is that it is permanent and unchanging.)

 

I recommend that people do not read commentaries on the original teachings of the Buddha if this can be avoided. it is best to read the original words for yourself. Ponder them and practise. With more pondering will come better with practice. With more practice will come better insight and understanding, which will in turn lead to better practise. I recommend reading the Nikayas in this order: Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Dighya Nikaya, then the Anguttara Nikaya.

 

p.s. This is copyright material (copyrighted to me). Please respect the copyright. As far as I  know, nobody else has made this methodological point about the doctrine of no-self, methodological phenomenology, and the formula for dependent origination. 

True enough. The original post was about work by a scholar using only those nikayas and that use of the word Anatta is an adjective describing what self is not. I think the word soul is actually quite 'fluffy' and imprecise and has connotations from many other faiths confusing the issue. I probably should avoid using it.

So in pondering it, or making an investigation of states, you are correct that Buddha remained silent on the matter of the existence of self, but he also remained silent when asked if there was no self. Furthermore Buddha remained silent when he assented to something such as an invitation. Is it possible he is alluding to something? He never outright denies the existence of self and only speaks of what self is not.

Ultimate realisation is a matter of experience, as shown by Buddhas doubt in the ability of others to achieve it after his Nibbana. Rationality is most probably an obstacle that can only be exhausted rather than circumvented, hence the value of pursuing theory is in causing its own collapse and forcing us into a position where immediate apprehension of truth is the only recourse rather that reliance on a surrogate understanding.

Just as an aside, it isn't the done thing to copyright Dhamma. I like what you write though. Sadhu.

 

The point is that it is a necessary condition of achieving liberation from suffering that all the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination be severed and that each element in the chain cease to be. It is a necessary condition for *that* to occur, that the aggregates be able to change and cease. it is a necessary condition for *that* to occur that the aggregates not comprise self in any way. The Buddha therefore explains that the aggregates have nothing to do with self. That's all. There is no need to consider anything else. Once one has realised that the aggregates are not-self, one has opened the gate to the path to liberation. Then you have to follow it.

 

Books on dhamma are copyrighted. My point about the *purpose* of arguing for not-self in relation to the formula for dependent origination, plus the point about methodological phenomenology, will form part of a book that I am writing. I need to make a living, so I need to protect the ideas. Copyrighting does not mean that people cannot use the ideas. It does mean that they cannot pass them off as their own. However, the problem on the forum is that it is anonymous, so if you tell anyone else, you cannot tell them who wrote the text. So, please take note of the ideas, but do not pass them on without acknowledgement. I didn't need to tell you about these things, but I chose to do so to help.

 

p.s. You are making things too complicated. The Buddha's words are hard to understand, but the answers are simple. I recommend that you search for simple interpretations such that everything makes sense together. In addition, proceed step by step. Do not try to understand everything at once. Start at the beginning and proceed step by step. Practice will lead to understanding. Understanding will lead to further practice. Further practice will lead to further understanding, and so on. Step by step.

 

Do not forget that some of the Buddha's teachings are very deep. Different levels of depth will reveal themselves at different stages along the path. So, for example, take the First Noble Truth, which says that there is suffering. The Buddha says that we need to understand this truth. However, we will not understand it fully until we reach the end of the path. All of us can start, because all of us have a rough and ready notion of what suffering is. Yet we need to revisit this truth as we go on and progress through all the steps. Once we have eliminated gross types of suffering and we begin to understand how the formula for dependent origination works, we will begin to realise more subtle levels of suffering, caused by more subtle aspects of the fetters that bind us. Eventually, for one who has achieved liberation, the full meaning of the First Noble Truth will have revealed itself. Yet for us beginners, there is no point trying to understand everything at once. We can't do it. We have to proceed slowly, step by step. We need to form our preliminary understanding of the Four Noble Truths, then begin to practice in a simple way. Try to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, first by following the five lay precepts. Observe what happens to yourself and deeper understanding will come; for example, deeper understanding of the five precepts will come, with respect to what kind of behaviour and attitude is necessary to make progress.

Yes, which is fine at the beginning, but you will come to realise that the intellectual understanding is what is getting in the way. Truth is not a description. Hence the silence of Buddha on the matter. But we cannot simply drop the conceptual approach to understanding as the mind will not accept it. All the meditation and practice is partly preperation for the shock of realisation. A spiritual experience you are not ready for can be a cataclysmic event. But part of that preparation is overloading the rational brain, the only way to overcome it.

Its fine to seek simple explainations if you want to kid yourself you understand, but then why did Buddha doubt the ability of others to apprehend the truth if it was simple? Because it is beyond concept, it is direct experience.

And I have to follow the eight-fold path. I'm a monk.

[Several]

Then it appears the most powerful  "aggregate" we forum members seem to attach to is:

 

• Mental formations (Saṅkhāra).

 

all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object.

 

 

That we should observe our attachment to the need to rationalize and to the need to seek answers through logic.

 

 

That we should begin by getting serious about keeping the precepts and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

That we should also be charitable to others (metta, karuna) and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

 

 

 

The positive of our attachment is that it flushes out gems such as "Chrisartists" insights.

Logic won't cut it. Rationality won't dent it. Descriptions can't catch it. Now say what it is.

[rockyysdt]

Then it appears the most powerful "aggregate" we forum members seem to attach to is:

• Mental formations (Saṅkhāra).

all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object.

That we should observe our attachment to the need to rationalize and to the need to seek answers through logic.

That we should begin by getting serious about keeping the precepts and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

That we should also be charitable to others (metta, karuna) and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

The positive of our attachment is that it flushes out gems such as "Chrisartists" insights.

Logic won't cut it. Rationality won't dent it. Descriptions can't catch it. Now say what it is.

It can't be described nor understood logically.

It's agreed that we must experience it for ourselves.

But doesn't:

That we should begin by getting serious about keeping the precepts and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

That we should also be charitable to others (metta, karuna) and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

make sense?

[lungmi]

The copyright problems of Chrisartist are outside the understanding of Dana as gift of the Dhamma.

[chrisartist]

The copyright problems of Chrisartist are outside the understanding of Dana as gift of the Dhamma.

But this is not my problem. Dhamma books are copyrighted. Have a look at the front of dhamma books. You will find copyright notices. Yet there is another issue. Dhamma cannot be copyrighted. This is correct. But *commentaries* on dhamma can be copyrighted, because they are not themselves dhamma.

I think that in principle, you are right: nothing to do with dhamma should be copyrighted. However, we do not live in a world that can accept this. If the world changes, and more and more people try to follow dhamma, copyright will not be necessary. Copyrighted books on dhamma spread the word so that more and more people will try to follow dhamma. After a certain point, there will no longer be copyright. This is Buddhism on a societal scale. it is like the raft that we ride on the journey towards liberation; when it is no longer needed, we discard it.

(If you feed me every day while I write my book and pay my rent and make sure that I have shoes and simple clothes, I will give up the copyright. Otherwise, not.)

[chrisartist]

@ rockyysdt:

"Then it appears the most powerful "aggregate" we forum members seem to attach to is:
Mental formations (Saṅkhāra).
all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object.
That we should observe our attachment to the need to rationalize and to the need to seek answers through logic."

First, remarks on sankhara. Sankhara are threefold: behaviour, speech and thought. The Buddha construes them as "tendencies", which translates to habitual behaviour, which in extreme cases translates to addictions. All of these arise due to craving. The mental formations should, I think, be construed as motivational factors (usually translated in the Nikayas as "volitional formations), not just any mental contents, because mental contents in general is covered by the mental objects of consciousness. The carrying out of volitional formations in the realms of behaviour and speech reinforce those in thought, and those in thought reinforce those in behaviour and speech. Volitional formations also come in degrees of area of effect. At one end of the scale, we might have a craving to arrange all the peas on our plate in a prefect triangle. The area of effect of this volitional formation is small: it pertains only to the arrangement of cooked peas that have been presented for consumption. it would be classed by western medical practitioners as a compulsive-obsessive disorder (which, when you think about it, is not very important or informative; it merely says that someone wants to do something and can't seem to stop doing it.) These volitional formations with a small area of effect are indications that deeper-rooted volitional formations are at work that have a wider range of effect and that cause volitional formations with a narrower area of effect.

To see how this works, consider the case of a desire for security. This has a vast area of effect and pervades one's entire life, if one has it. What will a person do who wants to be secure? They'll want shelter, clothing and food. yet they can't rely on the community to provide these things because such reliance is not secure; the community might withhold access. So they will need access to shelter, clothing and food that is independent of the community, so they will need some money. So they will need a job. Yet not just any job will do. It has to be a stable, secure job because the inflow of money has to be secure. (Note that we have now arrived at a volitional formation that has a medium area of effect, because the search for a secure job will affect quite a lot of one's life; not as much as the overarching desire for security, yet more than counting one's coins in the attic every night.)

Pretty soon, the seeker after security will start thinking that a stable, secure job is not enough to guarantee security. Things probably won't go wrong, but still, what if they did? There thus arises a need to stockpile cash in case of emergencies, which means that the security seeker will need a job that pays more money. Better-paid jobs typically induce greater stress and require longer hours (more suffering). And just how much stockpiled cash is enough, anyway? Surely it is better to to get as much as possible, just to make sure, from the point of view of the security seeker. The security seeker will soon find himself working all hours of the day, unable to switch off from the job, and neglecting family and friends. In response to the ever-increasing stress, the security seeker is likely to engage in activities that he mistakenly believes will alleviate stress, such as heavy drinking, smoking and gambling.

Meanwhile, the security seeker is likely to create problems for himself concerning shelter, clothing and food. Renting in an up-market neighbourhood is safer, i.e. more secure, than renting in a housing estate. Then, surely having one's own home is more secure than renting, because there is no danger of eviction. Again, some houses are safer (more secure) than others and houses in the more secure areas cost more, so the security seeker will need yet more money. Then, what about some burglar alarms and CCTV to protect one's house and belongings? Of course, we also need to have enough clothing. The desire for enough clothing is not benign. In extreme cases, the security seeker will acquire more clothing than she could ever wear. A good example of this is Imelda Marcos (widow of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos), who was found to have collected no fewer than 2,700 pairs of shoes. And what about food? The security seeker will want to ensure that he doesn't run out of food, so he will find himself going on shopping trips to buy vast quantities of canned and dried food, and a massive refrigerator-freezer complex in which to store fresh fruit, meat and vegetables. and ready-made frozen meals.

Meanwhile, what sort of relationships is the security seeker going to have with other human beings? he needs to feel secure in relationships, and that means he needs to make sure that the other person will behave as he expects them to behave, that they won't neglect him and that they won't leave. Such an attitude is likely to lead to fits of jealousy, rage, anxiety and depression. In addition, the security seeker will resort to subtle mechanisms of psychological control (for example, promising "rewards" in return for "good" behaviour, or withholding affection unless "good" behaviour manifests), or, in extreme cases, physical control (for example, beatings or not allowing a partner or offspring to go outside the house.)

The craving for security, this very deep volitional formation, comes in many varying degrees of intensity. Consequently, it will affect different people differently. People's genetic make-up, their karma from previous lives, and their environmental background will also have a bearing. However, it will now be clear that volitional formations can have varying ranges of effect and that the most deeply rooted of them for example, the desire for security, can affect the whole of one's life and will create a massive, complex interacting web or network of suffering that can seem impossible to escape from.

I have used just one example of a deeply rooted volitional formation. There are others. each of us needs to identify our volitional formations, which lead to craving and attachment, and root them out.

Second, how to proceed? Focusing on volitional formations is one place to start. Yet there are other starting points and beginning with volitional formations might be difficult. As I mentioned above, a massive web or network of suffering is created, and this web involves volitional formations, consciousness of objects (both "external" and mental), feelings, our conceptual scheme, our cravings and our attachments; in short, the entirety of the things that are stated in the formula for dependent origination. I find that a good place to start is the precepts (whether this be 5, 8, 10 or 227). When we try to follow even the five lay precepts, we are already following the eightfold path. To follow the precepts, we will need (at first embryonic, later more and more sophisticated and stronger) right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. When we are practising, we will find things that are difficult for us. whatever it is, it will be difficult for us because we have an underlying craving. We should focus attention on the thing that is most difficult for us and proceed step by step to change our lives so that we can eradicate the underlying craving. Trying to follow the precepts (5,8, 10 or 227) is a good way to identify cravings. we can then work to eliminate the cravings.

There are many ways to proceed, many starting points, but progress is not linear. Remember that there is a whole complex mass, network, web of suffering, which is created by a whole complex mass, network, web of mutually connecting elements in the chain of the formula for dependent origination. Each link in the chain has thousands of facets. We need to address them all, step by step, over a period of time. Progress will be gradual, yet inexorable for one who persists and follows the Buddha's methods.

Mindfulness meditation can help us to identify and delve deeply into the areas that each of us finds problematic. Meditation need not be simply sitting. Meditation takes many forms; the important thing is the focus of attention. I find that writing a journal is a good meditative practice for me. I have been writing a journal every day for the last five years. every morning, I write until I have nothing more to write. Writing is good because it is a right-brain activity, the creative side of the brain. Right-brain activity is characterised by alpha brain waves, which means that you are in a calmer state. I write with a fountain pen, because the very act of making this pen make the right marks on paper is a meditative practice. After a while, dhamma-related ideas begin to flow and I can identify and analyse areas that are problematic for me. As progress along the path continues, meditation can arise in many other areas of life, even when walking in a busy shopping centre or riding the bus. everyday life becomes the arena of meditation as we become fully mindful. As regards specific areas, Chinese painting, calligraphy, archery, golf, snooker, tai chi, martial arts and other active pursuits are well-known for their benefits with respect to meditation.

"Contemplating the body as a body...... feelings as feelings.........mind as mind..........mind-objects as mind-objects" Here, we are invited to introspect and see the arising and passing away of phenomena, to recognise their impermanence. Yet this is not all. We are invited to observe the complex network of causes and conditions as well, so that we can see the mechanism by which suffering arises, so that we can then dismantle it.

Each person will start and progress in a different way. You need to find your own way.

"That we should observe our attachment to the need to rationalize and to the need to seek answers through logic."

Much of what the Buddha says is presented in terms of conditions. Although it is not strictly correct, a good way for us to think of this is in terms of cause and effect. Rather than analyse *logically*, we should analyse our behaviour in terms of causes and effects. we identify an effect that we don't want, and we identify and eliminate its cause. In this context, remember that there is a vast network of causes and conditions. we will have succeeded only when we have identified and eliminated *all* of the causes of suffering. at the beginning and on later stages of the path, we might eliminate a cause, only to find that another destructive behaviour takes its place (for example, we give up drinking, only to find that we start surfing the internet 10 hours a day.) This is because we have not identified and eliminated a deep-rooted volitional formation that has a wide area of effect. we remove a cause further up the chain, but the deep, underlying cause is still operative. Sometimes logical analysis is good, sometimes not. We need to avoid the "thicket of views".

"That we should begin by getting serious about keeping the precepts and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.
That we should also be charitable to others (metta, karuna) and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight."

Working on ourselves and working on compassion towards others are two sides of the same coin. Working on ourselves will require that we start to be compassionate towards others. For example, if we are working on anger, we will need to understand and become compassionate towards others. Working on being compassionate towards others will require that we work on ourselves. For example, if we want to be compassionate, we cannot be so if we are angry do not understand the minds of others.

However, working on compassion first can be dangerous. We should work on ourselves first. At the beginning, we should only extend compassion towards others in ways that we are absolutely certain will be right. If we keep a crow in a cage to try to keep it safe, the crow will die. If we let a budgerigar out of a cage that it has lived in from birth, it will be unable to survive, perhaps being killed by other birds. To be compassionate, we need to understand the minds and needs of others, and to do that, we need to have achieved clarity of our own minds, so that we can assess situations without obstructions.

Edited September 4, 2013 by chrisartist

[lungmi]

The e-book center of P.A. Payutto

All is free. You have the work of one of best Buddhist scholar in the world.

http://www.watnyanaves.net.

You have a limited view by writing your book.

If you want to give some new aspects to the interpretations of the Buddha's Teaching,

then your are welcome in the community of path-followers.

If you need your book to buy some shoes it's the wrong path. If you are really convicted by your intention you can walk bare-foot.

I agree with some points of your postings.

[chrisartist]

The e-book center of P.A. Payutto

All is free. You have the work of one of best Buddhist scholar in the world.

http://www.watnyanaves.net.

You have a limited view by writing your book.

If you want to give some new aspects to the interpretations of the Buddha's Teaching,

then your are welcome in the community of path-followers.

If you need your book to buy some shoes it's the wrong path. If you are really convicted by your intention you can walk bare-foot.

I agree with some points of your postings.

We each need to do the best that we can. I am doing the best that I can. if you don't like it, I cannot do anything at the present time. We will need to wait until I progress further along the path. I wish you luck in your journey towards compassion. The next time I see a bare-footed person traversing the dangerous footpaths of Thailand, I will know it is you, because I know that you would not advise me to go barefoot unless you already went barefoot.

I have one of P.A Payutto's books, Good, Evil and Beyond, Karma in the Buddha's Teaching. I bought it. it cost me 210 Baht about 10 years ago. There is a copyright notice in it.

Edited September 4, 2013 by chrisartist

[chrisartist]

The key to the Buddha's pronouncements on anatta is to be found in the 12-step formula for dependent origination: with ignorance, as condition, volitional formations arise.......etc.

This formula is a gloss on the second noble truth, which states that suffering has an origin. The formula is also sometimes presented in reverse, to explain the cessation of suffering, which glosses the third noble truth: with the cessation of x, y cannot arise....etc.

So, if we are to achieve liberation from suffering, the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination must be broken, i.e. there must be cessation of each element in the chain. This is *only* possible if there can be change. And what has to change? The aggregates. The Buddha's target in his pronouncements on anatta pertain to a view of the self (note: not the soul, but the self) that holds the self to be permanent and unchanging. If one adheres to this view, one will never be able to change, so one will never be able to sever the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination, so one will never be able to achieve liberation from suffering.

The Buddha's purpose in speaking about anatta is negative. He wants to show us what the self is *not*, so that we will see that we can change, so that the way will be open to us to achieve liberation from suffering. The Buddha makes no positive pronouncements at all of a metaphysical nature on any of a wide variety of topics. This is because they are not relevant to the overarching goal of achieving liberation from suffering. His strategy is one of methodological phemonenology. He takes what we experience directly and does not go beyond that, because that is all that is relevant to achieving liberation from suffering.

So, the Buddha speaks of not-self. he does not speak of not-soul. He makes no positive pronouncements on self or soul because they are not relevant. (Though he would not endorse any view of a soul, because the traditional way of conceiving of a soul is that it is permanent and unchanging.)

I recommend that people do not read commentaries on the original teachings of the Buddha if this can be avoided. it is best to read the original words for yourself. Ponder them and practise. With more pondering will come better with practice. With more practice will come better insight and understanding, which will in turn lead to better practise. I recommend reading the Nikayas in this order: Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Dighya Nikaya, then the Anguttara Nikaya.

p.s. This is copyright material (copyrighted to me). Please respect the copyright. As far as I know, nobody else has made this methodological point about the doctrine of no-self, methodological phenomenology, and the formula for dependent origination.

True enough. The original post was about work by a scholar using only those nikayas and that use of the word Anatta is an adjective describing what self is not. I think the word soul is actually quite 'fluffy' and imprecise and has connotations from many other faiths confusing the issue. I probably should avoid using it.

So in pondering it, or making an investigation of states, you are correct that Buddha remained silent on the matter of the existence of self, but he also remained silent when asked if there was no self. Furthermore Buddha remained silent when he assented to something such as an invitation. Is it possible he is alluding to something? He never outright denies the existence of self and only speaks of what self is not.

Ultimate realisation is a matter of experience, as shown by Buddhas doubt in the ability of others to achieve it after his Nibbana. Rationality is most probably an obstacle that can only be exhausted rather than circumvented, hence the value of pursuing theory is in causing its own collapse and forcing us into a position where immediate apprehension of truth is the only recourse rather that reliance on a surrogate understanding.

Just as an aside, it isn't the done thing to copyright Dhamma. I like what you write though. Sadhu.

The point is that it is a necessary condition of achieving liberation from suffering that all the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination be severed and that each element in the chain cease to be. It is a necessary condition for *that* to occur, that the aggregates be able to change and cease. it is a necessary condition for *that* to occur that the aggregates not comprise self in any way. The Buddha therefore explains that the aggregates have nothing to do with self. That's all. There is no need to consider anything else. Once one has realised that the aggregates are not-self, one has opened the gate to the path to liberation. Then you have to follow it.

Books on dhamma are copyrighted. My point about the *purpose* of arguing for not-self in relation to the formula for dependent origination, plus the point about methodological phenomenology, will form part of a book that I am writing. I need to make a living, so I need to protect the ideas. Copyrighting does not mean that people cannot use the ideas. It does mean that they cannot pass them off as their own. However, the problem on the forum is that it is anonymous, so if you tell anyone else, you cannot tell them who wrote the text. So, please take note of the ideas, but do not pass them on without acknowledgement. I didn't need to tell you about these things, but I chose to do so to help.

p.s. You are making things too complicated. The Buddha's words are hard to understand, but the answers are simple. I recommend that you search for simple interpretations such that everything makes sense together. In addition, proceed step by step. Do not try to understand everything at once. Start at the beginning and proceed step by step. Practice will lead to understanding. Understanding will lead to further practice. Further practice will lead to further understanding, and so on. Step by step.

Do not forget that some of the Buddha's teachings are very deep. Different levels of depth will reveal themselves at different stages along the path. So, for example, take the First Noble Truth, which says that there is suffering. The Buddha says that we need to understand this truth. However, we will not understand it fully until we reach the end of the path. All of us can start, because all of us have a rough and ready notion of what suffering is. Yet we need to revisit this truth as we go on and progress through all the steps. Once we have eliminated gross types of suffering and we begin to understand how the formula for dependent origination works, we will begin to realise more subtle levels of suffering, caused by more subtle aspects of the fetters that bind us. Eventually, for one who has achieved liberation, the full meaning of the First Noble Truth will have revealed itself. Yet for us beginners, there is no point trying to understand everything at once. We can't do it. We have to proceed slowly, step by step. We need to form our preliminary understanding of the Four Noble Truths, then begin to practice in a simple way. Try to follow the Noble Eightfold Path, first by following the five lay precepts. Observe what happens to yourself and deeper understanding will come; for example, deeper understanding of the five precepts will come, with respect to what kind of behaviour and attitude is necessary to make progress.

Yes, which is fine at the beginning, but you will come to realise that the intellectual understanding is what is getting in the way. Truth is not a description. Hence the silence of Buddha on the matter. But we cannot simply drop the conceptual approach to understanding as the mind will not accept it. All the meditation and practice is partly preperation for the shock of realisation. A spiritual experience you are not ready for can be a cataclysmic event. But part of that preparation is overloading the rational brain, the only way to overcome it.

Its fine to seek simple explainations if you want to kid yourself you understand, but then why did Buddha doubt the ability of others to apprehend the truth if it was simple? Because it is beyond concept, it is direct experience.

And I have to follow the eight-fold path. I'm a monk.

To engage with you at the level at which you wish to engage:

not-self is self

nibbana is samsara

other is self

self is other

nothingness is not nothing, existence is not existence

All is manifestation from different perspectives.

Why are you asking a question about this on the forum? If you seek direct realisation, please seek it. if you have already had direct realisation, please point the way for guidance. Note that direct realisation of these things is an important step towards enlightenment, but it will not result in liberation unless all intermediate stages have been followed, step by step, because if not, the causal, conditional chains will still be acting.

"Its fine to seek simple explainations if you want to kid yourself you understand, but then why did Buddha doubt the ability of others to apprehend the truth if it was simple? Because it is beyond concept, it is direct experience."

----The formula F = ma in Newtonian dynamics is very simple and easy to understand, but very difficult to arrive at. it is easy to doubt the ability of people to aprehend the truth of F = ma on their own, without careful prompting, and many will not have the ability.

"And I have to follow the eight-fold path. I'm a monk."

----Okay. I understand. Yet by following even the five lay precepts, never mind the precepts followed by an ordained monk, you are thereby following the eightfold path.

[chrisartist]

@lungmi

I don't have any obligation whatsoever to tell you what I am about to tell you, but I am tired of your critical attitude, so I will. The book that I am writing will actually not be a straight dhamma book. It will be a contribution to the philosophical academic literature on Buddhism. Its target readership will be university professors who are versed in both western and Buddhist philosophy. The target readership will thus not be the general public. It will be a miniscule portion of the overall population: about 5,000 people worldwide, the majority of whom will have PhDs. This will be copyrighted and I have no qualms about this whatsoever, given its content.

I am also working on issues of dhamma. When I have enough material, I will set up a charity and open a website. The content will be free, but there will be an option to donate. The donations will provide me with living expenses so that I can continue the work, and all remaining funds will be used to send people who don't have enough money to study Mahayana Buddhism at Tibetan Buddhist centres worldwide.

On P.A. Payutto's website: what do you think he lives on? Air? Thai Buddhist monks receive many donations. many of them are very rich. it is not uncommon for Thai monks to have cars worth over US$100,000. Buddhism is a business in Thailand. it is *big* business. it is a multimillion dollar business. Now, of course, you will reply that it shouldn;t be. of course it shouldn't be. But in the light of it, please stop criticising me because I want enough money to live on. *All* serious practitioners of Buddhism rely on donations.

I am indifferent as to whether or not you agree with any of the points that I have made. They were not directed at you. They were directed towards another person: what I wrote, and the precise way in which I wrote it, was directed towards them and not you.

Now please go and work on your own problems and leave other people to work on theirs.

Edited September 4, 2013 by chrisartist

[lungmi]

Good answer but not sufficient.

Dr. Martin Seeger ( google him) was my student in my grammar school. He followed me to Thailand to study Buddhism. PhD with Prof.Dr.Lambert Schmithausen (worldwide the top of Pali experts)

My son, his best friend, MA University Leiden, PhD University Bristol (number 3 for Buddhist studies in the world - Paul Williams-) for Chinese History and Buddhism,

now Postgraduated Research Fellow for Chinese History and Philology at Academia Sinica in Taipeh.

My own problems, yes you are right, I have give food to my cat. Tomorrow I have to go in my Wat as barefoot-doctor to give some acuponcture needles

to a Hill Tribe Chief, outside medical care in our Province.

[Several]

 

Then it appears the most powerful  "aggregate" we forum members seem to attach to is:

 

• Mental formations (Saṅkhāra).

 

all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object.

 

 

That we should observe our attachment to the need to rationalize and to the need to seek answers through logic.

 

 

That we should begin by getting serious about keeping the precepts and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

That we should also be charitable to others (metta, karuna) and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

 

 

 

The positive of our attachment is that it flushes out gems such as "Chrisartists" insights.

 

Logic won't cut it. Rationality won't dent it. Descriptions can't catch it. Now say what it is.

 

 

It can't be described nor understood logically.

It's agreed that we must experience it for ourselves.

 

But doesn't:   

 

That we should begin by getting serious about keeping the precepts and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

That we should also be charitable to others (metta, karuna) and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

 

make sense?

Insight is gained from mindfulness, not just these examples.

[Several]

Kinda wishing I'd not mentioned copyright. Too late now. My original point was about the translation of Anatta in light of what a certain scholar said. Why ask such a thing Christartist poses? To hear learned opinion on it. To wear it out. To drive understanding beyond the merely scholastic. Buddha ridiculed a very learned monk for being an 'empty pot', having only memorised the lines. No offence, but the phd's I have met tend to not be very insightful.

The good old eight fold has right view and right thought, a quarter of it devoted to conceptual thinking. We are also warned against delusion (with lust and anger) which is also conceptual. So I surmise that there is a good reason for coming to the best possible understanding of what Buddha, not his commentators, was saying. Rocky asked what difference does it make? Most likely the difference between success and failure.

Bluntly, those denying that there is any more to Buddhism that gaining the meager realisation that there is a difference between nama and rupa are nihilists. Due to the way Anatta is viewed, Buddhism is becoming very backward looking. Not this, not that. Not enough forward looking, how do I attain this undescribable deathless state?

So words do fail, but I think I need them to fail, be driven into the ground and pounded into dust so my psyche has no other recourse or trick or delusion to turn to and must perforce apprehend the truth directly.

There is method in my madness. Apologies if I ramble, I have flu and am exhausted.

Gotta say, I respect a man who still uses a fountain pen and mentions archery in the same post. In fact, I love you all, wonderful people.

[rockyysdt]

@ rockyysdt:

"Then it appears the most powerful "aggregate" we forum members seem to attach to is:

Mental formations (Saṅkhāra).

all types of mental habits, thoughts, ideas, opinions, prejudices, compulsions, and decisions triggered by an object.

That we should observe our attachment to the need to rationalize and to the need to seek answers through logic."

First, remarks on sankhara. Sankhara are threefold: behaviour, speech and thought. The Buddha construes them as "tendencies", which translates to habitual behaviour, which in extreme cases translates to addictions. All of these arise due to craving. The mental formations should, I think, be construed as motivational factors (usually translated in the Nikayas as "volitional formations), not just any mental contents, because mental contents in general is covered by the mental objects of consciousness. The carrying out of volitional formations in the realms of behaviour and speech reinforce those in thought, and those in thought reinforce those in behaviour and speech. Volitional formations also come in degrees of area of effect. At one end of the scale, we might have a craving to arrange all the peas on our plate in a prefect triangle. The area of effect of this volitional formation is small: it pertains only to the arrangement of cooked peas that have been presented for consumption. it would be classed by western medical practitioners as a compulsive-obsessive disorder (which, when you think about it, is not very important or informative; it merely says that someone wants to do something and can't seem to stop doing it.) These volitional formations with a small area of effect are indications that deeper-rooted volitional formations are at work that have a wider range of effect and that cause volitional formations with a narrower area of effect.

To see how this works, consider the case of a desire for security. This has a vast area of effect and pervades one's entire life, if one has it. What will a person do who wants to be secure? They'll want shelter, clothing and food. yet they can't rely on the community to provide these things because such reliance is not secure; the community might withhold access. So they will need access to shelter, clothing and food that is independent of the community, so they will need some money. So they will need a job. Yet not just any job will do. It has to be a stable, secure job because the inflow of money has to be secure. (Note that we have now arrived at a volitional formation that has a medium area of effect, because the search for a secure job will affect quite a lot of one's life; not as much as the overarching desire for security, yet more than counting one's coins in the attic every night.)

Pretty soon, the seeker after security will start thinking that a stable, secure job is not enough to guarantee security. Things probably won't go wrong, but still, what if they did? There thus arises a need to stockpile cash in case of emergencies, which means that the security seeker will need a job that pays more money. Better-paid jobs typically induce greater stress and require longer hours (more suffering). And just how much stockpiled cash is enough, anyway? Surely it is better to to get as much as possible, just to make sure, from the point of view of the security seeker. The security seeker will soon find himself working all hours of the day, unable to switch off from the job, and neglecting family and friends. In response to the ever-increasing stress, the security seeker is likely to engage in activities that he mistakenly believes will alleviate stress, such as heavy drinking, smoking and gambling.

Meanwhile, the security seeker is likely to create problems for himself concerning shelter, clothing and food. Renting in an up-market neighbourhood is safer, i.e. more secure, than renting in a housing estate. Then, surely having one's own home is more secure than renting, because there is no danger of eviction. Again, some houses are safer (more secure) than others and houses in the more secure areas cost more, so the security seeker will need yet more money. Then, what about some burglar alarms and CCTV to protect one's house and belongings? Of course, we also need to have enough clothing. The desire for enough clothing is not benign. In extreme cases, the security seeker will acquire more clothing than she could ever wear. A good example of this is Imelda Marcos (widow of former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos), who was found to have collected no fewer than 2,700 pairs of shoes. And what about food? The security seeker will want to ensure that he doesn't run out of food, so he will find himself going on shopping trips to buy vast quantities of canned and dried food, and a massive refrigerator-freezer complex in which to store fresh fruit, meat and vegetables. and ready-made frozen meals.

Meanwhile, what sort of relationships is the security seeker going to have with other human beings? he needs to feel secure in relationships, and that means he needs to make sure that the other person will behave as he expects them to behave, that they won't neglect him and that they won't leave. Such an attitude is likely to lead to fits of jealousy, rage, anxiety and depression. In addition, the security seeker will resort to subtle mechanisms of psychological control (for example, promising "rewards" in return for "good" behaviour, or withholding affection unless "good" behaviour manifests), or, in extreme cases, physical control (for example, beatings or not allowing a partner or offspring to go outside the house.)

The craving for security, this very deep volitional formation, comes in many varying degrees of intensity. Consequently, it will affect different people differently. People's genetic make-up, their karma from previous lives, and their environmental background will also have a bearing. However, it will now be clear that volitional formations can have varying ranges of effect and that the most deeply rooted of them for example, the desire for security, can affect the whole of one's life and will create a massive, complex interacting web or network of suffering that can seem impossible to escape from.

I have used just one example of a deeply rooted volitional formation. There are others. each of us needs to identify our volitional formations, which lead to craving and attachment, and root them out.

Second, how to proceed? Focusing on volitional formations is one place to start. Yet there are other starting points and beginning with volitional formations might be difficult. As I mentioned above, a massive web or network of suffering is created, and this web involves volitional formations, consciousness of objects (both "external" and mental), feelings, our conceptual scheme, our cravings and our attachments; in short, the entirety of the things that are stated in the formula for dependent origination. I find that a good place to start is the precepts (whether this be 5, 8, 10 or 227). When we try to follow even the five lay precepts, we are already following the eightfold path. To follow the precepts, we will need (at first embryonic, later more and more sophisticated and stronger) right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. When we are practising, we will find things that are difficult for us. whatever it is, it will be difficult for us because we have an underlying craving. We should focus attention on the thing that is most difficult for us and proceed step by step to change our lives so that we can eradicate the underlying craving. Trying to follow the precepts (5,8, 10 or 227) is a good way to identify cravings. we can then work to eliminate the cravings.

There are many ways to proceed, many starting points, but progress is not linear. Remember that there is a whole complex mass, network, web of suffering, which is created by a whole complex mass, network, web of mutually connecting elements in the chain of the formula for dependent origination. Each link in the chain has thousands of facets. We need to address them all, step by step, over a period of time. Progress will be gradual, yet inexorable for one who persists and follows the Buddha's methods.

Mindfulness meditation can help us to identify and delve deeply into the areas that each of us finds problematic. Meditation need not be simply sitting. Meditation takes many forms; the important thing is the focus of attention. I find that writing a journal is a good meditative practice for me. I have been writing a journal every day for the last five years. every morning, I write until I have nothing more to write. Writing is good because it is a right-brain activity, the creative side of the brain. Right-brain activity is characterised by alpha brain waves, which means that you are in a calmer state. I write with a fountain pen, because the very act of making this pen make the right marks on paper is a meditative practice. After a while, dhamma-related ideas begin to flow and I can identify and analyse areas that are problematic for me. As progress along the path continues, meditation can arise in many other areas of life, even when walking in a busy shopping centre or riding the bus. everyday life becomes the arena of meditation as we become fully mindful. As regards specific areas, Chinese painting, calligraphy, archery, golf, snooker, tai chi, martial arts and other active pursuits are well-known for their benefits with respect to meditation.

"Contemplating the body as a body...... feelings as feelings.........mind as mind..........mind-objects as mind-objects" Here, we are invited to introspect and see the arising and passing away of phenomena, to recognise their impermanence. Yet this is not all. We are invited to observe the complex network of causes and conditions as well, so that we can see the mechanism by which suffering arises, so that we can then dismantle it.

Each person will start and progress in a different way. You need to find your own way.

"That we should observe our attachment to the need to rationalize and to the need to seek answers through logic."

Much of what the Buddha says is presented in terms of conditions. Although it is not strictly correct, a good way for us to think of this is in terms of cause and effect. Rather than analyse *logically*, we should analyse our behaviour in terms of causes and effects. we identify an effect that we don't want, and we identify and eliminate its cause. In this context, remember that there is a vast network of causes and conditions. we will have succeeded only when we have identified and eliminated *all* of the causes of suffering. at the beginning and on later stages of the path, we might eliminate a cause, only to find that another destructive behaviour takes its place (for example, we give up drinking, only to find that we start surfing the internet 10 hours a day.) This is because we have not identified and eliminated a deep-rooted volitional formation that has a wide area of effect. we remove a cause further up the chain, but the deep, underlying cause is still operative. Sometimes logical analysis is good, sometimes not. We need to avoid the "thicket of views".

"That we should begin by getting serious about keeping the precepts and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight.

That we should also be charitable to others (metta, karuna) and to be mindful of changes such conduct brings us, in order to gain insight."

Working on ourselves and working on compassion towards others are two sides of the same coin. Working on ourselves will require that we start to be compassionate towards others. For example, if we are working on anger, we will need to understand and become compassionate towards others. Working on being compassionate towards others will require that we work on ourselves. For example, if we want to be compassionate, we cannot be so if we are angry do not understand the minds of others.

However, working on compassion first can be dangerous. We should work on ourselves first. At the beginning, we should only extend compassion towards others in ways that we are absolutely certain will be right. If we keep a crow in a cage to try to keep it safe, the crow will die. If we let a budgerigar out of a cage that it has lived in from birth, it will be unable to survive, perhaps being killed by other birds. To be compassionate, we need to understand the minds and needs of others, and to do that, we need to have achieved clarity of our own minds, so that we can assess situations without obstructions.

That which you paint is good.

I see the largest obstacle as being faithful to the regular practice.

Overcoming our conditioning to arrive at a point from which our momentum will continue to carry us is the greatest hurdle.

Knowing is not enough.

There must be regular faithful practice.

The subject you and Lungmi have been having is a little sticky In terms of Ethical Conduct (Right Livelihood) & Karuna/Metta (compassion).

At a higher level, we must become free of Aversion, Greed, & Delusion.

Forgetting what others do, is it possible that making an income on insight associated with Dharma might be compromising Ethical Conduct (Right Livelihood) & Karuna/Metta (compassion)?

That is, directly profiting from information which could assist others in achieving the ultimate goal.

In my journeys, I avoid any Organisations/Sanghas which profit from the teaching of Dharma.

Could your small volitional formation to seek income from your insights in order to provide security, have the power of becoming a deep volitional formation?

If you have knowledge through insight which could help countless travel their path more successfully, then won't your profiting from this by its very nature place an obstacle in the way of your ability to express Karuna/Metta?

Even though your insight is not Dharma, but a commentary, is this a technical point?

Is it placing you in a position where you are profiting from another's progress?

If you have attachment to security, can't a modest level be gained from other forms of income, whilst you maximise your experience of Karuna/Metta by freely assisting others on their journey through the teaching of your insight?

Edited September 6, 2013 by rockyysdt

[lungmi]

Calm, cool, clear, clean (Tan Buddhadasa,)

I gave this Teaching to my "fighter" (Olympic Wrestling) when he was nominated for the Word Championship.of Juniors.

I know him and followed him as medical coach when he started for wrestling at the age of 6.

All the years I supported him with massage and Thai medicine... and small Buddha Teaching.

By Fakebook we had communication.

Now he is Number 5 in the world in his domain (17 years old).

The ways are different. Everyone has to choose his own way.

By the way: I'm Karate, T'ai ch'i, KungFu addicted.

Edited September 6, 2013 by lungmi

[lungmi]

Chris artist:

On P.A. Payutto's website: what do you think he lives on? Air? Thai Buddhist monks receive many donations. many of them are very rich. it is not uncommon for Thai monks to have cars worth over US$100,000. Buddhism is a business in Thailand. it is *big* business. it is a multimillion dollar business. Now, of course, you will reply that it shouldn;t be. of course it shouldn't be. But in the light of it, please stop criticising me because I want enough money to live on. *All* serious practitioners of Buddhism rely on donations.

----

Your ignorance about P.A. Payutto disqualify you to write a book about Buddhism.

Come make a retreat in my jungle. Law of Nature (Dhamma), spitting cobras, wild pigs and so on. Then you will understand the Dhamma.

[Sheryl]

I think it is essential to understand the Buddha's words in the context in which they were spoken.

Anatta means literally no/not - atta (or atman, in sanskrit). That refers to a very specific concept of "soul" prevalent in Hindu teachings of those times. The Buddha taught to a Hindu audience, just as Jesus taught to a Jewish one, and the teachings of both were very much geared towards correcting mistaken understandings/emphases in the prevailing religion and also to presenting concepts to people versed in those religions.

To try to relate that teaching to a non-Hindu definition of "soul" is already to get into difficulties.

Anicca goes along with anatta, the two are inextricably intertwined and to my understand the teaching very clearly does deny the existence of a permanent, eternal and eternally unchanging self or self essence, something that could migrate from life to life and still be described as the same....or for that matter something that could be described as a consistent unchanged "I" even within this life. It is quite possible to perceive the truth of this through meditation, here and now. At the same time, one will also quickly recognize that while it is true that there is no permanent fixed unchanging "I", one has the persistent delusion of one. All that, can be realized first hand.

Now whether or not this truth means there is no type of "soul" as westerners use the term, depends entirely on what one means by "soul".

[Several]

You're right Sheryl, I dislike the term soul and do not think it indicates something eternal any more than a Deva is, rather just longer lived than this quick flesh. But this is what I'm asking, does Anatta really mean 'it is not' or 'it is not this'. Correct understanding of it is fundamental to Buddhas teaching.

[Several]

So, here is another offering from Plotinus (aka Ken Wheeler I discovered) where he is translating the term Citta as mind/soul. I'm no ancient (or modern) languages expert and rely on the PED for Pali translations, which actually translates the word as Heart (when used as singular) more than thoughts (plural). The term heart refers to feelings rather than the organ. "Have a heart", "Knock the heart out of" and in one place it specifically says "Heart and soul." as an example.

I seem to recall a few ancient cultures (Egyptians for one) placing the psyche in the heart rather than the brain. So it may be possible that the concept of Anatta is taken too far and Buddha did not just say what it was not, but if these following translations are correct he quite plainly stated what it is. As I think I said before, he never said there is no soul, he only said it cannot be found. He also refused to describe Nibbana. Ken aslo places Citta as existing before Avijja in translating DN 2.81 putting it outside the Dependent Origination.

Take it away, Kenneth...

THE MIND (citta) IN BUDDHIST SUTTA

SN 3.234 The Aggregate Sutra. At Savatthi “Followers, the desire and lust for formations is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for feelings is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for cognition is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for experiences is a defilement of the citta, the desire and lust for vinnana is a defilement of the citta. But, followers, when one abandons the defilements of the citta regarding these five stations (aggregates), then ones citta inclines towards renunciation. Ones citta is made pliable and firm in renunciation by direct gnosis.

DN 1.81 “citta recollects past lives”

SN 3.45 “Vinnana is impermanent (and the other 4 aggregates). What is impermanent is suffering”

SN 3.61 “The Aryan Eightfold Path is making cessation of Vinnana (and the other khandas)…that being sammaditthi….sammasamadhi”

MN 1.197 Followers, the Brahma life is not lived for sake of gains, honors, or acclaim; nor is it lived for virtuousness, nor for absorptions, nor for gnosis and insight. This Brahma life is lived for the sole preeminent purpose of emancipation of the mind (citta) alone, which is the quintessential final core.

AN 2.29  “within the sovereign mind one is established in the supreme Soul”

DN 2.81 ”Through Perfection becomes wisdom’s fulfillment of the mind (citta) freed from all defilements. That is-desire defilements, becomings defilements, and ignorance defilements.

This passage shows that citta pre-exists Avijja and is synonymous with the soul (atta’).

DN 2.233 "the light of mind (citta)"

SN 5.158 Maha’puriso, Maha’puriso I hear said venerable. What pray tell does Maha’puriso mean?” “A liberated mind (citta)-Soul, I say Shariputra, this is a Maha’puriso. Without a liberated mind (citta)-Soul Shariputra, one is not a Maha’puriso

AN 1.282  He gathers the mind (citta) inside the immortal realm”

SN 5.371 His mind (citta) after death goes to the supernal realm” SN 5.371

MN 1.36  Citta is said to be originally pure.

MN 1.114 They will find their Souls at peace, they will find tranquility of mind (citta)

MN 1.140 With the emancipated mind (citta) of a follower, bhikkhus, neither the god Indra, nor Brahma devas, nor Pajapati can discern him, [bemusing themselves that] “This is the basis for the Tathagata’s mind (citta).” How is this so? Within this Dhamma, followers, the Tathagata is without any mark by which to make a claim about him.

MN 1.213 Friend Shariputra, a follower delights in solitariness, and in delighting in solitariness he tranquilizes the mind (citta) in yoking it to the very Soul, he does not neglect his jhanas, he is endowed with insights, and perfectly devoid of the profane.

MN 1.235 A follower who has an emancipated mind (citta) possesses three transcendental qualities: transcendental illumination, transcendental mastery of the light, transcendental liberation.

MN 1.239 When suffering and feelings arise upon him, it does not penetrate into his mind (citta) since his mind (citta) is Soul become.

MN 1.249 When my steadfast mind (citta) was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then I directed my mind (citta) towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. I knew thusly as it truly was such that: This is suffering, this is the source of suffering, this is the subjugation of suffering and this is the path of illumination leading away from all suffering.

MN 1.249 When my discourse is completed, Aggivessana, I make absorbed my mind (citta)upon the sign of my very Soul wherein I remain fixed, am subdued, and make it as unto this singleness. This is the bliss I perpetually reside within.

MN 1.279 When his steadfast mind (citta) was perfectly purified, perfectly illumined, stainless, utterly perfect, pliable, sturdy, fixed, and everlastingly determinate then he directs his mind (citta) towards the gnosis of the destruction of defilements. Knowing thus and seeing thus his mind (citta) is emancipated from sensual desires, his mind (citta) is emancipated from becoming, his mind (citta) is emancipated from ignorance.

AVIJJA (agnosis/ignorance) is 1st in paticca samuppada (contingent manifestation); the only thing in Buddhism which is antecedent/prior to Avijja is the Citta.

MN 1.296 Friend, how many contingencies are there for the perfection of making unmanifest the emancipation of mind (citta)? Two contingencies: turning away from determinately manifest phenomena and turning towards the unmanifest realm.

MN 1.298 Emancipation of the mind (citta) is the highest supernal.

MN 1.298 Of all types of unmanifest emancipations of mind (citta), the fixed unshakable emancipation of the mind (citta) is the highest supernal.

MN 1.298 The fixed unshakable emancipation of the mind (citta) is devoid of lusts, devoid of hate, and devoid of delusions.

MN 1.301 What is Samadhi for? Samadhi, friend, is for making the mind (citta) sovereign. (cittassa ekaggata’)

MN 1.301 When the mind (citta) is made to become, one gains Suchness of Soul.

Pat.isambhida’magga Att. 1.236  “To bring to unification the mind (citta) is to be fixed upon the Soul”

3.72 Followers, the Aryan mind (citta) is the taintless mind (citta) with which the Aryan path is endowed with

Pat.isambhida’magga Att. 1.236  “To bring to unification the mind (citta) is to be fixed upon the Soul”

Suttanipata Att. 2.410  “Mind (citta) has insight into the Soul”

Theragatha Att. #2 2.151 “The mind (citta) is the Soul”

Itivuttaka Att. 1.168. “The Supreme Soul is the mind (citta) yoked to steadfastness; the steadfast mind (citta) is dedicated to the Soul”

Sagathavagga Att. 1.237 “The Soul is the mind (citta)”

Sagathavagga Att. 1.112 “The mind (citta) envisions the Soul”

Maha'vagga Att. 3.118  “Followers, the Aryan mind (citta) is the mind (citta) without taints with which the Aryan path is endowed with; is the Aryan path made become”

MN 1.511 “For a long time I have been cheated, tricked and hoodwinked by my citta. For when grasping, I have been grasping onto form, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto feelings, , for when grasping, I have been grasping onto perceptions, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto experiences, for when grasping, I have been grasping onto sentience.

 

[Sheryl]

You're right Sheryl, I dislike the term soul and do not think it indicates something eternal any more than a Deva is, rather just longer lived than this quick flesh. But this is what I'm asking, does Anatta really mean 'it is not' or 'it is not this'. Correct understanding of it is fundamental to Buddhas teaching.

anatta means "no atta" i.e. there is no atta (atman) as that term was understood in those days.

Citta is to me quite clearly of a different meaning than atta. Citta seems to have been a term in widespread usage (as it still is today in the Hindic languages) whereas atta/atman was a specific religious concept.

Observation of citta is one of the 4 sattipattanas, never any question that it exists...but it is marked by the 3 characteristics iof existence (dukka, anatta, anicca) the same as all other conditioned phenomena.

[Several]

You're right Sheryl, I dislike the term soul and do not think it indicates something eternal any more than a Deva is, rather just longer lived than this quick flesh. But this is what I'm asking, does Anatta really mean 'it is not' or 'it is not this'. Correct understanding of it is fundamental to Buddhas teaching.

 

anatta means "no atta" i.e. there is no atta (atman) as that term was understood in those days.

 

Citta is to me quite clearly of a different meaning than atta. Citta seems to have been a term in widespread usage (as it still is today in the Hindic languages) whereas atta/atman was a specific  religious concept.

 

Observation of citta is one of the 4 sattipattanas, never any question that it exists...but it is marked by the 3 characteristics iof existence (dukka, anatta, anicca) the same as all other conditioned phenomena.

 

Thats the concept we're mostly told. But its Nathatta (I think. Need to check) that means no atman, not Anatta which is 'without atman', hence it being an adjective. It always occurs in relation to something which Buddha is describing as 'not self' rather than as a thing itself. The 'no soul' interpretation does not come from Buddha but from an argument between sects later over this very question. The 'no soul' ideology won but that does not mean it is correct.

If the translations above are accurate then the interpretation of Citta would have been adapted to fit the 'no soul' ideology.

I'm just keeping an open mind.

[rockyysdt]

Thats the concept we're mostly told. But its Nathatta (I think. Need to check) that means no atman, not Anatta which is 'without atman', hence it being an adjective. It always occurs in relation to something which Buddha is describing as 'not self' rather than as a thing itself. The 'no soul' interpretation does not come from Buddha but from an argument between sects later over this very question. The 'no soul' ideology won but that does not mean it is correct.

If the translations above are accurate then the interpretation of Citta would have been adapted to fit the 'no soul' ideology.

I'm just keeping an open mind.

This is definitely the best way.

In his lectures, John Peacock opened to question many interpretations slavishly followed today.

Living with an open mind is the best way.

Personal experience, whilst living a life filled with Metta/Karuna, adherence to the precepts, and practice of concentration/awareness are the way to go.

Everything is on the table, including re birth moment to moment vs life to life.

This could be your only incarnation.

Live it to its fullest.

I'm attempting to review the micro.

Things like, "Rightful Speech".

With attention to the micro, the macro will unfold.

Edited September 10, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Yes. As above, so below. Another reason to research these things is the 7 Bojjhangas, one of which is Investigation of States (or Law), Dhammavicaya Sambojjhanga. It is as important to ask questions, seek wise council etc as it is to practice. And of course the ever popular Kalama Sutta advising us to find out for ourselves and not just follow the herd.

The idea that Buddha adapted his teaching to appease the Brhamin theology is weak. He was warrior caste and would never have been accepted by them no matter what he said.

The use of Citta in place of Atman is likely precisely because of the previous connotations attributed to the term (as with the term 'soul' which has too many conflicting ideas associated with it making the word almost useless). Metaphors like charoits, conceptual ideas such as a small mannequin or man-shaped figure residing in the heart being the Atman most likely detract from this thing that cannot be conceptualised, and is only known by what it is not.

The glaring problem is that to deny Atman totally, declaring there is no soul, is nihilism and therefore heresy. Luckily, being Buddhists, nobody gets burned.

I would like to know why Thai monks refer to themselves as Atama (this soul) if the prevailing belief is that there is no soul. Apparently in the past Thai monks referred to themselves as Rup (from Rupa, body). Any ideas?

So, from my own 'investigation of states' I am in serious doubt about the 'no soul' ideology. From a doctrinal position it is untenable. The games afoot Watson.

[Several]

 

Thats the concept we're mostly told. But its Nathatta (I think. Need to check) that means no atman, not Anatta which is 'without atman', hence it being an adjective. It always occurs in relation to something which Buddha is describing as 'not self' rather than as a thing itself. The 'no soul' interpretation does not come from Buddha but from an argument between sects later over this very question. The 'no soul' ideology won but that does not mean it is correct.

If the translations above are accurate then the interpretation of Citta would have been adapted to fit the 'no soul' ideology.

I'm just keeping an open mind.

 

 

This is definitely the best way.

 

In his lectures, John Peacock opened to question many interpretations slavishly followed today.

 

Living with an open mind is the best way.

 

 

Personal experience, whilst living a life filled with Metta/Karuna, adherence to the precepts, and practice of concentration/awareness are the way to go.

 

Everything is on the table, including re birth moment to moment vs life to life.

 

This could be your only incarnation.

Live it to its fullest.

 

I'm attempting to review the micro.

Things like, "Rightful Speech".

 

With attention to the micro, the macro will unfold.

Then again, perhaps not. Having an open mind is good to a point. You cannot be open to everything or there would be no Sila. Being Mindful is best, and to hell with the majorities ability to maintain it. No one of us is the majority, 'normal' is a myth, only you can save you.

Metta and Karuna are nice but unnecessary. They are just preferable attitudes to hate and selfishness.

You're not living to the fullest if you're only dealing with the micro. Death is close for every being at any age, there is no time to hope the macro will take care of itself.

"The best strategy deals with the entire system."

Sun Tzu.

[rockyysdt]

Then again, perhaps not. Having an open mind is good to a point. You cannot be open to everything or there would be no Sila. Being Mindful is best, and to hell with the majorities ability to maintain it. No one of us is the majority, 'normal' is a myth, only you can save you.

Metta and Karuna are nice but unnecessary. They are just preferable attitudes to hate and selfishness.

You're not living to the fullest if you're only dealing with the micro. Death is close for every being at any age, there is no time to hope the macro will take care of itself.

"The best strategy deals with the entire system."

Sun Tzu.

Hi Sev.

What comes to mind, is that there are things which fall within our experience/knowledge/awareness and things currently beyond it.

John Peacock taught that the benefit of Metta/Karuna (as well as a vehicle to help fellow man), is that it removes the focus on "self/I/me/ego".

When we turn our attention to the plight of others we diminish the "self".

For this reason Metta/Karuna goes beyond being a preferable attitude.

For me, dealing with the micro isn't exclusive, but addresses the business end of practice.

I suspect many practitioners, stuck in the goal, might forget the detail.

Having said that, looking at the entire system is also important.

As long as we don't forget the low hanging fruit.

What are your thoughts.

[rockyysdt]

The idea that Buddha adapted his teaching to appease the Brahmin theology is weak. He was warrior caste and would never have been accepted by them no matter what he said.

So, from my own 'investigation of states' I am in serious doubt about the 'no soul' ideology. From a doctrinal position it is untenable. The games afoot Watson.

I don't think appeasement was the goal, nor what occurred.

Each party interpreted what they wanted to hear.

He "Took the Mickey", whilst the Brahmanists interpreted it as aligning with their beliefs.

John Peacocks study of the Buddha, found him to be a man with a sense of humor, far from the serious demeanor of many contemporary practitioners.

The purpose was not appeasement, but survival, whilst being true to his teaching.

Anyone found to dispute Brahmanism was met with death.

Warrior caste or not, if he had died that would have put a huge dampener on things.

He appeared to go along Brahman (head God), but taught that even he was outside of "Awakening/Nirvana".

He was able to demote the Devas by placing them in Samsara along with the rest of us.

This taught us that Brahman was not important, but the Brahmanists read things differently.

His teachings were eloquent.

Edited September 13, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Sorry, was that peacock or poppycock? The laughing Buddha idea is just that. An idea. There are quite a few rules forbidding fun, joviality, tickling samaneras or seeking entertainment. He would not have been setting much of an example by telling the monks to avoid any form of humour and then joking about it. What Peacock is doing is called projection. I'm guessing he likes a bit of a joke himself?

As for Metta/Karuna they do not automatically reduce ego. In fact quite a few generous and charitable people are unbareably pious about it and it is often used as a kind if social qualifier. "Look at me, aren't I good" behaviour. Too much compassion causes suffering when empathising too closely with some poor unfortunate. Remember that an Arahant is beyond both positive and negative emotions. You don't get that way by indulging.

[Several]

Here is Plotinus Veritas list of the 22 things that Anatta is an adjective of. I'd like to say that he allows all this work to be distributed freely, and he has done a lot of work. Right or wrong it is thought-provoking and encourages closer study of my understanding of Dhamma. It has also caused me to open this thread so others can contend or support this interpretation in the same manner as the monks and scholars of old would debate to sharpen understanding.

I will reiterate that correct understanding of Anatta is absolutely central to Buddhism. There is no more important a topic than this. If the prevailing understanding is that it means 'no self' and if we are wrong, then we are misrepresenting the Buddhas teaching.

As a monk I followed the 'no soul' position both from what I learned and from my interpretation of previous experience. Now I am re-examining both in light of what Anatta could really mean. That rather than a finger pointing at the moon, it is only pointing at the things the moon is not. Our duty as monks is to end suffering. How can I effect this when all I can promise is annihilation of some aggregates at the end of a kammic roller-coaster ride? Especially if that is not the whole truth?

How can I point towards the dark side of the moon?

ALL 22 THINGS THAT ARE SAID TO BE ANATTA (i.e. “devoid of/without Selfhood/Soul” in Sutta)

Ru’pa  form

vedana’  feelings

sañña’   perceptions

san’kha’ra’   impulses

viñña’n.a   sentience/consciousness

sabba (aggregates/ “the all”)

cakkhu   eye

cakkhuviñña’n.a   visual mental-forms

cakkhusamphasso  vision contact

tan.ha’   lusts-desires

mano   mind/mentation

manoviñña’n.a   mental formations

manosamphasso   mental contact

Sota   ear

gha’na    nose

jivha’   tongue

ka’yo  body

ra’go   lusts

kot.t.hika   cell  "body-cell"

asa’rakat.t.hena’   unreal and foul

asubham.     disgusting

asubha’niccadukkha’ti    disgusting, impermanent and suffering

[Several]

The key to the Buddha's pronouncements on anatta is to be found in the 12-step formula for dependent origination: with ignorance, as condition, volitional formations arise.......etc.

 

This formula is a gloss on the second noble truth, which states that suffering has an origin. The formula is also sometimes presented in reverse, to explain the cessation of suffering, which glosses the third noble truth: with the cessation of x, y cannot arise....etc.

 

So, if we are to achieve liberation from suffering, the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination must be broken, i.e. there must be cessation of each element in the chain. This is *only* possible if there can be change. And what has to change? The aggregates. The Buddha's target in his pronouncements on anatta pertain to a view of the self (note: not the soul, but the self) that holds the self to be permanent and unchanging. If one adheres to this view, one will never be able to change, so one will never be able to sever the links in the chain of the formula for dependent origination, so one will never be able to achieve liberation from suffering.

 

The Buddha's purpose in speaking about anatta is negative. He wants to show us what the self is *not*, so that we will see that we can change, so that the way will be open to us to achieve liberation from suffering. The Buddha makes no positive pronouncements at all of a metaphysical nature on any of a wide variety of topics. This is because they are not relevant to the overarching goal of achieving liberation from suffering. His strategy is one of methodological phemonenology. He takes what we experience directly and does not go beyond that, because that is all that is relevant to achieving liberation from suffering.

 

So, the Buddha speaks of not-self. he does not speak of not-soul. He makes no positive pronouncements on self or soul because they are not relevant. (Though he would not endorse any view of a soul, because the traditional way of conceiving of a soul is that it is permanent and unchanging.)

 

I recommend that people do not read commentaries on the original teachings of the Buddha if this can be avoided. it is best to read the original words for yourself. Ponder them and practise. With more pondering will come better with practice. With more practice will come better insight and understanding, which will in turn lead to better practise. I recommend reading the Nikayas in this order: Majjhima Nikaya, Samyutta Nikaya, Dighya Nikaya, then the Anguttara Nikaya.

 

p.s. This is copyright material (copyrighted to me). Please respect the copyright. As far as I  know, nobody else has made this methodological point about the doctrine of no-self, methodological phenomenology, and the formula for dependent origination. 

I do like what you have written here, but I'm going to make a couple of observations. If you break all the links in the series of the Dependent Orinination, what happens at Avijja? Who or what is ignorant or unkowing? Where do you go once this link is broken?

It is possible Buddha did not make pronouncements on self or soul to avoid conceptualisation as opposed to direct insight?

True that Buddha would not comment on some subjects, remember there is a Sutta (I forget which) where he takes a handful of leaves and compares that goodly cotchell to the knowledge pertaining to liberation, whereas the vast remainder of leaves still in the trees he compares to the rest of his knowledge. Just because he did not say something does not mean it cannot be known.

And if you reccomend that people do not read commentaries, why are you writing one?