Anatta the Adj.

[Several]

An observation about the current understanding of Dhamma. Warning to the super rational, you will scoff at this.

Mara the great demon frequently assaulted Buddha because he did not want Dhamma to be spread. Buddha eventually dies, much to Maras relief, but Dhamma remains. Buddha stated that understanding of Dhamma would degrade over time until its eventual disappearance 5000 years after his time. It would make sense that Mara would play a part in this, and it would require little more than confounding the meaning of some terms, specifically Anatta. This creates schism in the sangha and makes attaining Nibbana harder because of Wrong View.

I know that the prevailing idea about Mara is that he represents 'inner demons' and is not an actual being in his own right. But he is never spoken of as a metaphor, always as an individual. Buddha used metaphors a lot and he always qualified them with direct explaination. If overcoming a personal inner demon was a key component in attaining Nibbana why did he not clearly explain that?

I have no idea if Mara really exists, I do know that angels and demons exist in every culture everwhere on earth for the entire span of recorded history. There is no actual proof that celestial intelligences do not exist. And bear in mind that "the geatest trick the devil ever pulled was to make people think he did not exist."

[Several]

So. Hands up everyone who actually read the piece on Anatta linked in the first post. If not, write out 100 times; "I will not argue with Several about things I have not researched."

A couple of more points. Citta is not one of the 5 Khandas (piles, bundles, heaps. Called aggregates), it is not form, feeling, perception, mind-objects or consciousness.

"Anatta is the concept that makes Buddhism different to other religions". So what. The truth is beyond mere religious dogma, why can't everybody be right to varying degrees. Percieved difference often creates friction. Arahants exist outside of Buddhism too, as do Pacceka Buddhas. Clinging to an idea because it makes you "different" is attachment. Are we truth seekers or dogma defenders?

The 3 characteristics (Tilakkhana), Anicca, Anatta and Dukkha. That which is Anicca (impermanent) is Anatta (not-self) and is a pain (Dukkha).

Anicca, I think, is generally underestimated. There is an excellent lecture on this called Buddhism and Quantum Physics by Craig Mellow. Basically objects, compound things, do not have a continuous state but are recreated moment to moment in billionths of a second. Not a new idea, but worth remembering. There is no scientific explaination for how objects "remember" to be objects. We can say a thing is comprised of atoms but nobody knows how those atoms remain together making a coherent object. Its a mystery. This relates to Form, Rupa. Component/conditioned things. But does it relate to what the objects are made of? Microscopic particles that blink in and out of existence without apparent cause? Anicca relates to that which is created, exists and then dies.

Time is not a factor for subatomic particles (If I understand correctly), not created, not destroyed, not Anicca. Time is only a factor for component things, objects. (Not being a scientist and having a Thai constantly talking to me isn't helping me explain this very well.)

So, saying that there is no "eternal self" is likely correct because there is no eternity for compound manifestations. But if Citta is on a par with Subatomic particles, the fundamental building block then time is not a factor and that which is eternal is not self.

The Thais are now asking me for lucky numbers, which I always refuse to provide because I don't know any, and making concentration hard. So, I'm off. Remember, 100 lines from all slackers by next time I log on. Thats hand written, not cut and paste.

[rockyysdt]

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

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

One does need to watch their Metta/Karuna.

Your examples are of those who aren't on the middle road.

The trick is not to inflate ones ego by bragging or gaining personal mileage about charity.

It's something that one does out of compassion and care for another.

Without compassion for an others suffering there is no humanity, only self interest.

In terms of over empathizing isn't the key to be concerned rather than worried?

The rules forbidding fun, joviality & tickling.

Aren't these Buddhagosa's fifth century interpretations rather than the reality?

When studying the Buddhas teachings, didn't Buddhagosa see things through early Christian colored eyes?

Edited September 15, 2013 by rockyysdt

[sabaijai]

I studied Pali for two years in university, and grammatically speaking anatta does not mean 'no atman' (or 'no atta' since in Pali the word is atta) or 'no soul'. It means 'non-soul'. There is a subtle difference, just as with the English prefix 'a-' versus 'non-'.

Atman/atta is 'soul', rather than 'self'. You might call it 'spiritual self', just as with the English word 'soul'...

So, conditioned phenomena are anatta or 'non-soul'. Whether that means there exists unconditioned atman/atta is never clarified in the Tipitaka.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu goes into the difference in some detail here. Although he uses 'self' rather than 'soul', he makes a clear distinction between no-self and non-self.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

[Several]

Yes, read that one. Funny thing is Access To Insight has nothing on Citta in the subject section. Still one of my favourite sites though.

[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.

 

One does need to watch their Metta/Karuna.

Your examples are of those who aren't on the middle road.

 

The trick is not to inflate ones ego by bragging or gaining personal mileage about charity.

 

It's something that one does out of compassion and care for another.

Without compassion for an others suffering there is no humanity, only self interest.

 

In terms of over empathizing isn't the key to be concerned rather than worried?

 

 

The rules forbidding fun, joviality & tickling.

Aren't these Buddhagosa's fifth century interpretations rather than the reality?

When studying the Buddhas teachings, didn't Buddhagosa see things through early Christian colored eyes?

You tend to have a black-and-white view of things. "Without compassion there is no humanity, only self interest"? Says who? You also do that with the rebirth idea, or at least seem to. Its either moment to moment or life to life? It could well be both.

Concern or worry is Vedana and entirely superfluous to the action of helping. It is a useless waste of effort which could be better spent acting. For example finding the stupid tortoise spending most of its time on its back in the desert surrounded by hordes of monks wondering whether to turn it over or not. Do you break down crying in lamentation over its plight, seeing a simmilarity in your situations? That we are all tortoises in peril on way or another? Or do you kick it upright an continue on your way, thus freeing all and sundry from suffering?

Quite a bit of vinaya is about avoiding fun. I do indulge, as is obvious in my choice of words when posting. Sometimes. Its not just Buddhagosa.

[rockyysdt]

You tend to have a black-and-white view of things. "Without compassion there is no humanity, only self interest"? Says who? You also do that with the rebirth idea, or at least seem to. Its either moment to moment or life to life? It could well be both.

Concern or worry is Vedana and entirely superfluous to the action of helping. It is a useless waste of effort which could be better spent acting. For example finding the stupid tortoise spending most of its time on its back in the desert surrounded by hordes of monks wondering whether to turn it over or not. Do you break down crying in lamentation over its plight, seeing a similarity in your situations? That we are all tortoises in peril on way or another? Or do you kick it upright an continue on your way, thus freeing all and sundry from suffering?

Quite a bit of vinaya is about avoiding fun. I do indulge, as is obvious in my choice of words when posting. Sometimes. Its not just Buddhagosa.

How does that sit with the Honeyball Sutta?

I thought "concern" is quite different to "worry".

Compassion or karuna is at the transcendental and experiential heart of the Buddha's teachings. He was reputedly asked by his personal attendant, Ananda, "Would it be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness and compassion is a part of our practice?" To which the Buddha replied, "No. It would not be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness and compassion is part of our practice. It would be true to say that the cultivation of loving kindness and compassion is all of our practice."

Compassion is that which makes the heart of the good move at the pain of others. It crushes and destroys the pain of others; thus, it is called compassion. It is called compassion because it shelters and embraces the distressed. - The Buddha.

Until we are Awakened, being without compassion and empathy is a dangerous trait.

[rockyysdt]

An observation about the current understanding of Dhamma. Warning to the super rational, you will scoff at this.

Mara the great demon frequently assaulted Buddha because he did not want Dhamma to be spread. Buddha eventually dies, much to Maras relief, but Dhamma remains. Buddha stated that understanding of Dhamma would degrade over time until its eventual disappearance 5000 years after his time. It would make sense that Mara would play a part in this, and it would require little more than confounding the meaning of some terms, specifically Anatta. This creates schism in the sangha and makes attaining Nibbana harder because of Wrong View.

I know that the prevailing idea about Mara is that he represents 'inner demons' and is not an actual being in his own right. But he is never spoken of as a metaphor, always as an individual. Buddha used metaphors a lot and he always qualified them with direct explaination. If overcoming a personal inner demon was a key component in attaining Nibbana why did he not clearly explain that?

I have no idea if Mara really exists, I do know that angels and demons exist in every culture everywhere on earth for the entire span of recorded history. There is no actual proof that celestial intelligences do not exist. And bear in mind that "the geatest trick the devil ever pulled was to make people think he did not exist."

Do you mean that "stories" of angels and demons exist in every culture rather than they actually exist?

[rockyysdt]

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

Hi Sev.

I'll put my hand up about reading the original link on the opening post.

You've indicated that understanding "Anatta" is fundamental to Buddhism.

Apart from the acceptance that Anatta is "non self" rather than "no self", why is the existence of soul or permanent/unconditioned self important to Buddhism?

Is a promise of eternal life ones goal, or is the journey more important?

If a traveler places their entire life's work on belief (e.g: the earth is flat), then this can be their undoing.

That which is beyond this world is unfathomable to those who live in this world.

The "Tevijja Sutta" points to the uselessness of that which is beyond the physical.

To strive with the goal of arriving at a state superior to that of Brahman is to have an attachment that can't be rivaled.

As "Nibbana" is a verb, Awakening is a process, not a big bang event.

We practice to keep this process ongoing, and not end, as there is no place to end up (Nibbana not a place).

Awakening is linked to the word "Bodi" = to wake.

Aren't the Buddhas teachings all about our journey and about our compassion to our fellow man, and about the ending of suffering?

Not only our suffering, but the suffering of those around us.

Isn't the only way to find out what "Anatta" means is through practice culminating in an ever increasing level of Awakening?

And finally, how would ones practice differ if there is an enduring soul vs no enduring soul?

Edited September 18, 2013 by rockyysdt

[cm das]

Anyone found to dispute Brahmanism was met with death.

Sorry to sidetrack this interesting discussion but I wonder what sources you have to support statements like this.

[sabaijai]

Yes, read that one. Funny thing is Access To Insight has nothing on Citta in the subject section. Still one of my favourite sites though.

A pretty detailed explanation of citta can be found here.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

Nothing I've ever read tried to locate citta in any particular part of the body, ie brain or heart.

Of course in Thai, even among Buddhist monks, heart (jai) and citta (jit) are collocated as jit-jai, or 'mind-heart'. In English there's the expression 'heart and mind' which implies a complete state of mind that encompasses both emotions and reason. .

Not sure why it would matter either way; as head or heart, citta behave in the same way. Citta cover the entire territory.

[Several]

 

 

Until we are Awakened, being without compassion and empathy is a dangerous trait.

 

Why? If you know the difference between beneficial and harmful action why do you need to feel it?

[Several]

 

Do you mean that "stories" of angels and demons exist in every culture rather than they actually exist?

I mean that in the case of a being as potentially powerful as a Deva or Asura only a fool would disregard their possible existence out of hand.

[Several]

 

Hi Sev.

 

I'll put my hand up about reading the original link on the opening post.

 

You've indicated that understanding "Anatta" is fundamental to Buddhism.

 

Apart from the acceptance that Anatta is "non self" rather than "no self", why is the existence of soul or permanent/unconditioned self important to Buddhism?

 

Is a promise of eternal life ones goal, or is the journey more important?

 

If a traveler places their entire life's work on belief (e.g: the earth is flat), then this can be their undoing.

 

 

 

That which is beyond this world is unfathomable to those who live in this world.

The "Tevijja Sutta" points to the uselessness of that which is beyond the physical.

 

 

To strive with the goal of arriving at a state superior to that of Brahman is to have an attachment that can't be rivaled.

 

As "Nibbana" is a verb, Awakening is a process, not a big bang event.

We practice to keep this process ongoing, and not end, as there is no place to end up (Nibbana not a place).

 

Awakening is linked to the word "Bodi" = to wake.

 

 

Aren't the Buddhas teachings all about our journey and about our compassion to our fellow man, and about the ending of suffering?

Not only our suffering, but the suffering of those around us.

 

Isn't the only way to find out what "Anatta" means is through practice culminating in an ever increasing level of Awakening?

 

 

And finally, how would ones practice differ if there is an enduring soul vs no enduring soul?

One of the three main hinderances is delusion, misplaced understanding. One of the seven enlightenment factors is investigation of states. Not sitting around hoping to stumble on the answer by accident. You are unlikely to hit the target if you don't know what you're shooting at.

If your subconscious is being fed the message that it isn't important to know what you're striving for then you are only employing a small percentage of your cerebral potential in attaining the goal, you will fall short of the mark.

My next couple of posts should give a better view of what I'm getting at, you seem to underestimate my perspective.

[Several]

Yes, read that one. Funny thing is Access To Insight has nothing on Citta in the subject section. Still one of my favourite sites though.

 

A pretty detailed explanation of citta can be found here. 

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

 

Nothing I've ever read tried to locate citta in any particular part of the body, ie brain or heart.

 

Of course in Thai, even among Buddhist monks, heart (jai) and citta (jit) are collocated as jit-jai, or 'mind-heart'. In English there's the expression 'heart and mind' which implies a complete state of mind that encompasses both emotions and reason. . 

 

Not sure why it would matter either way; as head or heart, citta behave in the same way. Citta cover the entire territory.

Its Atman thats located in the heart, not Citta. I've downloaded that page to read later. Thanks for that. Next up, the way Several sees it...

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Several]

First, death is not inevitable. It is something cells have learned to do. It is therefore an effect, it has a cause, it can be classified as Anicca, it is therefore Anatta. Nibbana is sometimes described as a deathless state. As H.P. Lovecraft said; "That which is not dead can eternal lie, yet with strange aeons even death may die."

Next imagine mind (Citta) to be a stream of light. The photons have a certain amount of energy. They travel in one direction (Apparent time). Positive or negative emotion (Vedana, no distinction) is equivalent to spin of the photons. All human emotions are reduceable to two, love and fear. The entire range of Vedana (happy, sad, angry, wistful etc.) can be seen in terms of positive or negative spin. As light this spin quality appears as colour. No one colour is 'better' than any other in the same way no one emotion is 'better' which is why they are all called Vedana, and in the dependent origination Vedana gives rise to Tanha (Craving). So even the most compassionate and loving being is still producing Kamma.

By this analogy the mind (Citta) present in an Arahant is in a spinless flow state. Probably a 'superposition' where it is neither positive or negative but potentially both simultaneously (Thereby unaffected by time making it esentially 'deathless' and perfectly capable of percieving past and future 'selves' without ever actually being one and is naturally non-dualistic). Something in an indeterminate superposition only becomes determinate when an observer becomes conscious of it, but consciousness is an aggregate (khanda) and is a quality of Citta (mind), not Citta itself. Many in philosophy and science today to assume (as many do, but not all) that consciousness is the organising factor behind manifest reality. And I suspect that all Khandas (bundles, piles, heaps, aggregates) are manifestations of Citta (mind). Physical and mental 'realities' are the same thing. All is mind, it is the forms it assumes that are impermanent, both the organiser (consciousness, Vinanna) and the organised (form, Rupa).

This leads to conclude that the insight gained in vipassana as to the nature of Nama (name, inventory, concept) and Rupa (Manifest physical matter) is a gnosis where Nama/Rupa are in truth simmilar to Wave/Particle duality.

"It is not the flag that moves, nor the wind. It is mind that is moving."

This is why I say Metta and Karuna are unnecessary. It is not our base feelings that make us human, it is sentience. This is why we seek to end the suffering of all Sentient beings, not just the unhappy ones.

[Several]

As I said before nobody knows how molecules arrange themselves into objects. If consciousness is organising middle order objects (thats IF, but I lean towards this idea) and determining the state of particles in a superposition, what makes people assume it is only human consciousness or observation doing this? A tree falling in a forest will make a noise due to physics, not observation. That cat of Shroedingers is dead because he gassed it and the cat was there when it died. Its not indeterminate, its inanimate.

(Parental advisory. Skeptics may find the following ideas disturbing and should only proceed with adult supervision.)

The creation of the universe is often attributed to gods who achieve this feat with a word, breath or thought (Not that I agree, if gods exist they are also creations). Light and water are major themes. During the process other beings are created, humans are one of the last. If you choose to believe in an evolutionary standpoint homo sapiens sapiens are a very recent addition. There is a high statistical probability of extra-terrestrial life, regardless of their ability to come here (completely ignoring thousands of examples of evidence that they have/do). Consciousness is most probably everywhere you look.

If manifest reality is an impermanent aggregate of Citta then this implies that mind is non-local. Consciousness is also an aggregate giving the impression of self. We cannot see the wood for the trees.

More than that, its sentience doing the arranging. You can be conscious of something in a superposition, but it becomes determinate once an observer recognises what state it is in. In Autralian Aboriginal mythology after the world is created by the Rainbow Serpent all of manifest reality existed in the Dreamtime. Everything existed in a superposition, not quite this or that but potentially both. It is only later with the ascent of rationality that the world 'solidifies' and the Dreaming receeds from our waking world.

Buddha advised to not consider the origin of the cosmos, maybe for the same reason he shied away from the term Atman/Atta. If Citta (mind) is the true basis of all reality, Lux et Veritas, then there is no seperate self. It is all self. And the fracture into individuals is an illusion, a trick of the light, and sentience is as much a property of manifest reality as is the light itself (which may be why Jesus wants you for a sun-beam).

Buddha worked towards the liberation of all sentient beings, not just homo sapiens, but it does imply individuals. If Nibbana is a conscious return to the undivided totality of mind he is really trying to awaken the entire universe.

"I found a door to which there was no key,

A veil past which I could not see,

Some talk a little while of me and thee, it seemed,

And then no more of thee, or me."

(Rubaiyat, Omar Kayam)

[rockyysdt]

This is why I say Metta and Karuna are unnecessary. It is not our base feelings that make us human, it is sentience. This is why we seek to end the suffering of all Sentient beings, not just the unhappy ones.

Hi Sev.

I know you're onto a big thing which sounds technically pretty exciting.

Give me a while to digest it before I respond.

Know that I might appear two dimensional, but in a forum forum, it can be difficult to fully detail my position whilst on the hop (work 12 hour days).

The absence of a view doesn't mean that I don't support it.

By giving front page on certain stances, is not the the exclusion of other views, but my way of showcasing things which have taken a back seat on the stage.

At this point, can I ask?

You skip over the broad picture I paint and single out minor passages.

Is it possible to answer the other points which are more pertinent to what I've been saying.

For example, if the Buddha talks about the importance of Metta & Karuna, where do we stand here?

[rockyysdt]

One of the three main hinderances is delusion, misplaced understanding. One of the seven enlightenment factors is investigation of states. Not sitting around hoping to stumble on the answer by accident. You are unlikely to hit the target if you don't know what you're shooting at.

If your subconscious is being fed the message that it isn't important to know what you're striving for then you are only employing a small percentage of your cerebral potential in attaining the goal, you will fall short of the mark.

My next couple of posts should give a better view of what I'm getting at, you seem to underestimate my perspective.

Conversely, if you speculate on that which is beyond knowing, aren't you betting your house against some theory?

If your journey is colored by hypothesis aren't you pre-judging what it's all about?

[rockyysdt]

One of the three main hinderances is delusion, misplaced understanding. One of the seven enlightenment factors is investigation of states. Not sitting around hoping to stumble on the answer by accident. You are unlikely to hit the target if you don't know what you're shooting at.

If your subconscious is being fed the message that it isn't important to know what you're striving for then you are only employing a small percentage of your cerebral potential in attaining the goal, you will fall short of the mark.

To the extent that we should find out for ourselves what the Buddha actually taught, yes.

To speculate and attach oneself to theories is to place an obstacle in our path.

Who amongst us can decide which theory and what aspect of quantum mechanics we should embrace?

How will this make the target any clearer?

Who amongst us can decide what the target is?

Didn't the Buddha make the process of Awakening clear through the eightfold path?

Haven't others said that getting too cerebral isn't the way, but rather through personal experience of practice?

How can anyone, through speculation, come to know or understand that which is beyond this world, if that is what you strive for?

Edited September 20, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Anyone found to dispute Brahmanism was met with death.

Sorry to sidetrack this interesting discussion but I wonder what sources you have to support statements like this.

My initial source is from lecturer and Head of Language at Oxford University, John Peacock.

He specialises in ancient languages including Pali, & Sanskrit (used in ancient Brahminical times)..

Rather than accepting Buddhist translations found in the Pali Canon by past figures such as Buddhagosa in the 5th century AD, he is able to interpret for himself first hand what the Buddha may have been saying.

Let me come back to you on this.

Edited September 20, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

 

You skip over the broad picture I paint and single out minor passages.

 

 

Is it possible to answer the other points which are more pertinent to what I've been saying.

 

For example, if the Buddha talks about the importance of Metta & Karuna, where do we stand here?

Dealt with in the two longer posts I put up.

[Several]

 

 

Conversely, if you speculate on that which is beyond knowing, aren't you betting your house against some theory?

 

If your journey is colored by hypothesis aren't you pre-judging what it's all about?

Nah. Thrashing out ideas is good for all. Accepting what you're told at face value isn't. Don't just swallow what you're fed just because it comes from some person or institution with a pretty title. What bet am I making? I'm not stating absolute facts, just musing on possibilities. Nothing to lose. If it proves wrong, I gain by correction. If right, I gain confirmation I'm on the path. Is my journey coloured or guided? I'm not so attached I can't drop anything at a moments notice.

[Several]

 

To the extent that we should find out for ourselves what the Buddha actually taught, yes.

 

To speculate and attach oneself to theories is to place an obstacle in our path.

 

Who amongst us can decide which theory and what aspect of quantum mechanics we should embrace?

How will this make the target any clearer?

 

Who amongst us can decide what the target is?

 

Didn't the Buddha make the process of Awakening clear through the eightfold path?

 

Haven't others said that getting too cerebral isn't the way, but rather through personal experience of practice?

 

 

How can anyone, through speculation, come to know or understand that which is beyond this world, if that is what you strive for?

Only if you attach to a theory without ever letting go, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will you experience obstacles.

Anybody can conceptualise the path to liberation. If you had never heard of Buddha or Nibbana what would you be striving for? Buddha clearly says to decide for yourself the veracity of his teaching. Investigation of states is an enlightenment factor, delusion is a hinderance. Pretty obvious really.

Does the eightfold path make the process clear? What is right speech? Right action? You have no idea unless you are enlightened.

As for what others say about getting too cerebral, does the lion care what the sheep are thinking?

[Several]

Speculation can guide practice and concept, view and thought. As you said realisation is gradual rather than a big bang. Begin with an idea, measurements and estimates, planning and preparation, strategy and execution. Where does this begin if not with an idea?

[Several]

By the way the use of Quantum Mechanics in the previous posts is just as an illustration. My reasons for starting this thread are more strategic than scientific.

[lungmi]

Anyone found to dispute Brahmanism was met with death.

Sorry to sidetrack this interesting discussion but I wonder what sources you have to support statements like this.

My initial source is from lecturer and Head of Language at Oxford University, John Peacock.

He specialises in ancient languages including Pali, & Sanskrit (used in ancient Brahminical times)..

Rather than accepting Buddhist translations found in the Pali Canon by past figures such as Buddhagosa in the 5th century AD, he is able to interpret for himself first hand what the Buddha may have been saying.

Let me come back to you on this.

http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/Lambert-Schmithausen.15.0.html

The Doctor Father of Dr Martin Seeger

[rockyysdt]

Anyone found to dispute Brahmanism was met with death.

Sorry to sidetrack this interesting discussion but I wonder what sources you have to support statements like this.

My initial source is from lecturer and Head of Language at Oxford University, John Peacock.

He specialises in ancient languages including Pali, & Sanskrit (used in ancient Brahminical times)..

Rather than accepting Buddhist translations found in the Pali Canon by past figures such as Buddhagosa in the 5th century AD, he is able to interpret for himself first hand what the Buddha may have been saying.

Let me come back to you on this.

http://www.buddhismuskunde.uni-hamburg.de/Lambert-Schmithausen.15.0.html

The Doctor Father of Dr Martin Seeger

Thanks L.

Quite extensive research/ contribution.

Mindfully speaking, I gain a number of things from this link.

A second and/or third source of life under Brahman rule, circa 500 BC, would be handy.

Edited September 21, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

First, death is not inevitable. It is something cells have learned to do. It is therefore an effect, it has a cause, it can be classified as Anicca, it is therefore Anatta. Nibbana is sometimes described as a deathless state. As H.P. Lovecraft said; "That which is not dead can eternal lie, yet with strange aeons even death may die."

Next imagine mind (Citta) to be a stream of light. The photons have a certain amount of energy. They travel in one direction (Apparent time). Positive or negative emotion (Vedana, no distinction) is equivalent to spin of the photons. All human emotions are reduceable to two, love and fear. The entire range of Vedana (happy, sad, angry, wistful etc.) can be seen in terms of positive or negative spin. As light this spin quality appears as colour. No one colour is 'better' than any other in the same way no one emotion is 'better' which is why they are all called Vedana, and in the dependent origination Vedana gives rise to Tanha (Craving). So even the most compassionate and loving being is still producing Kamma.

By this analogy the mind (Citta) present in an Arahant is in a spinless flow state. Probably a 'superposition' where it is neither positive or negative but potentially both simultaneously (Thereby unaffected by time making it esentially 'deathless' and perfectly capable of percieving past and future 'selves' without ever actually being one and is naturally non-dualistic). Something in an indeterminate superposition only becomes determinate when an observer becomes conscious of it, but consciousness is an aggregate (khanda) and is a quality of Citta (mind), not Citta itself. Many in philosophy and science today to assume (as many do, but not all) that consciousness is the organising factor behind manifest reality. And I suspect that all Khandas (bundles, piles, heaps, aggregates) are manifestations of Citta (mind). Physical and mental 'realities' are the same thing. All is mind, it is the forms it assumes that are impermanent, both the organiser (consciousness, Vinanna) and the organised (form, Rupa).

This leads to conclude that the insight gained in vipassana as to the nature of Nama (name, inventory, concept) and Rupa (Manifest physical matter) is a gnosis where Nama/Rupa are in truth simmilar to Wave/Particle duality.

"It is not the flag that moves, nor the wind. It is mind that is moving."

This is why I say Metta and Karuna are unnecessary. It is not our base feelings that make us human, it is sentience. This is why we seek to end the suffering of all Sentient beings, not just the unhappy ones.

Hi Sev.

As the written word can be poorly composed and interpreted in several (pardon the pun ) ways, I'd like to re emphasize that I debate, question, and absorb, not to be adversarial, but to engage, learn, impart.

Just to be clear, for what goal is Metta & Karuna unnecessary?

Is it unnecessary for our practice to become Awakenened?

You indicated that Metta & Karuna are unnecessary because they are a form of attachment to feelings and that Enlightened beings are free from attachments.

Is it possible that Metta & Karuna are ideal practices early in in ones path (unenlightened travelers) for a number of reasons, including, minimizing accumulation of negative kharma, and redirecting energies away from the self?

Is it possible to avoid the trap of an inflated ego for those who are charitable by following the other elements of the 8 fold path?

Can one gain great insight by padding ones ego and experiencing first hand the consequences through mindfulness/awareness?

We are all at different levels in our journey.

Why did the Buddha say the practice of Metta & Karuna fundamental?

[rockyysdt]

Only if you attach to a theory without ever letting go, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, will you experience obstacles.

Anybody can conceptualise the path to liberation. If you had never heard of Buddha or Nibbana what would you be striving for? Buddha clearly says to decide for yourself the veracity of his teaching. Investigation of states is an enlightenment factor, delusion is a hinderance. Pretty obvious really.

Does the eightfold path make the process clear? What is right speech? Right action? You have no idea unless you are enlightened.

As for what others say about getting too cerebral, does the lion care what the sheep are thinking?

Can't most of us learn a first level idea of "right speech" & "right action"? The Sutta is quite detailed.

I was of the belief that our ability to increase our level of understanding of "right speech" & "right action" over time was through the other practices of the 8 fold path, not least of these "awareness", & "concentration".

Each of the suite of practices impacts on and is important towards ones overall practice.

I guess the nub of my questions around this Anatta thread is:

How would you change your practice/life, if you learned you had an enduring unconditioned/permanent Self/Soul vs if you hadn't?

How will all the discussion on Anatta lead to the proof of its existence without first hand experience?

That's not to say that we shouldn't debate and share.