Anatta the Adj.

[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.

Sentience: Sense, perception not involving intelligence or mental perception;

Although experiencing sentience will unveil many things, whilst we are attached to feelings, mind & thought, don't we need vehicles (8 fold path, karuna & metta) to travel towards our goal?

Although Karuna & Metta can be ego traps, can't all aspects of Buddhist practice lead to traps?

These traps lay at every turn:

• Promise of immortality.
• To live in the greatest state of being (Nibhanna).
• Ego inflation through charity.
• Ego inflation via high order calling.
• Elitism.
• Attachment to blissful states.

Should existence of traps (inflation of ego) stop us from travel?

Edited September 22, 2013 by rockyysdt

[lungmi]

1.- Ich bin ( I am)

2. Aber ich habe mich nicht. ( But I don't have me)

3. Deshalb werden wir erst. (Therefore we become at first)

This is the introduction of a marxist philosopher in his book for

his students at the Tübingen University.in Germany.

It fits with the Teaching of the Buddha.

All thinking processes are dialectical.

prajñña is very often translated as wisdom. But the meaning of the indo-european root is connaissance transcendante - prognosis.

For the dialectial process:

1.I have connaissance (thesis)

2. I have connaissance about my lack of connaissance. (antithesis)

3. I have connaissance about the way to reduce my lack of connaissance. (synthesis)

[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.

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.

I only asked because I have studied Sanskrit and Pali myself, and I did graduate level research on the socio-cultural dynamics at play in the Ganges Plain around the time of the Buddha. Certainly there are Brahmin texts that describe a kind of orthodox ideal where Brahmins are unquestioned authorities on all things earthly and transcendent but whether this had any reflection in reality is highly doubtful. Even to speak of “Brahmin rule” would seem to be misleading. My understanding, from a variety of sources, is that things were much more fluid and tolerant. The Pali suttas themselves seem to bear this out.

I’m not familiar with John Peacock’s work, though a quick search revealed that he is a lecturer in Buddhist Psychology at the Oxford Mindfulness Center, a somewhat different title than you gave him (I don’t doubt his academic credentials). Still, his historical view, as you report it, seems to be a markedly heterodox one. I would recommend the work of another Oxford scholar, Richard Gombrich, for some insight into how early Buddhist teachings fit into the wider religious-philosophical context of ancient India. An excellent example is “How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings”.

Of course, the whole idea of using textual sources to determine what “original” Buddhism looked like has turned out to be very problematic. Gregory Schopen is the scholar best known for questioning the overemphasis on textual studies in studies of early Buddhism. His book “Bones, Stones and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Budddhism in India” tears down many assumptions upon which earlier scholarship was based. Of course, there is as yet no extant “Buddhist” archaeological record of the earliest period, and so texts are all we have to go by. But still we have to be very careful in our assumptions and very provisional in our conclusions.

Sorry for taking this thread on a detour. If anyone wants to talk ancient Indian history or early Buddhist historiography maybe we could start a new thread?

[rockyysdt]

I only asked because I have studied Sanskrit and Pali myself, and I did graduate level research on the socio-cultural dynamics at play in the Ganges Plain around the time of the Buddha. Certainly there are Brahmin texts that describe a kind of orthodox ideal where Brahmins are unquestioned authorities on all things earthly and transcendent but whether this had any reflection in reality is highly doubtful. Even to speak of “Brahmin rule” would seem to be misleading. My understanding, from a variety of sources, is that things were much more fluid and tolerant. The Pali suttas themselves seem to bear this out.

I’m not familiar with John Peacock’s work, though a quick search revealed that he is a lecturer in Buddhist Psychology at the Oxford Mindfulness Center, a somewhat different title than you gave him (I don’t doubt his academic credentials). Still, his historical view, as you report it, seems to be a markedly heterodox one. I would recommend the work of another Oxford scholar, Richard Gombrich, for some insight into how early Buddhist teachings fit into the wider religious-philosophical context of ancient India. An excellent example is “How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings”.

Of course, the whole idea of using textual sources to determine what “original” Buddhism looked like has turned out to be very problematic. Gregory Schopen is the scholar best known for questioning the overemphasis on textual studies in studies of early Buddhism. His book “Bones, Stones and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Budddhism in India” tears down many assumptions upon which earlier scholarship was based. Of course, there is as yet no extant “Buddhist” archaeological record of the earliest period, and so texts are all we have to go by. But still we have to be very careful in our assumptions and very provisional in our conclusions.

Sorry for taking this thread on a detour. If anyone wants to talk ancient Indian history or early Buddhist historiography maybe we could start a new thread?

Thanks C D.

Your reply is appreciated and I believe on topic in terms of the period the Buddha lived in and how it may have influenced his teachings including the meaning of Anatta.

Apparently John Peacock has been involved at least 2 universities and currently lists his background as:

Dr John Peacock is both a Buddhist scholar and practitioner and has taught meditation for thirty years and Buddhist studies at the University of Bristol for ten years.

Dr Peacock teaches on the Masters in MBCT at the University of Oxford.

He also chairs the Board of Trustees and is an Associate Director of the Oxford Mindfulness Centre which is recognized by Oxford University.

Your references and thoughts are important.

Before coming to any conclusion, one should investigate from a wide range of sources.

As you say, we have to be very careful in our assumptions and very provisional in our conclusions.

The beauty of John Peacocks lectures is that he offers alternative interpretations of what the Buddha might have been actually teaching and supports this with his knowledge of Sanskrit/Pali and study of early texts.

This allows me to travel with an open mind, and thus, not fall into the trap of aligning with a single view of what the Buddha might have been teaching.

If you did have time, I welcome you to listen to the following talks.

http://www.audiodharma.org/series/207/talk/2602/

With your background, It would give us an opportunity to assess and validate or challenge these teachings.

The focus is on very early pre Theravadan Buddhist teaching, challenging Sanskrit & Pali interpretations, and life during the Buddhas life under Brahman influence/rule.

Interpretation is vital if we are to properly attempt to understand the Buddhas teaching of Anatta.

Edited September 23, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I only asked because I have studied Sanskrit and Pali myself, and I did graduate level research on the socio-cultural dynamics at play in the Ganges Plain around the time of the Buddha. Certainly there are Brahmin texts that describe a kind of orthodox ideal where Brahmins are unquestioned authorities on all things earthly and transcendent but whether this had any reflection in reality is highly doubtful. Even to speak of “Brahmin rule” would seem to be misleading. My understanding, from a variety of sources, is that things were much more fluid and tolerant. The Pali suttas themselves seem to bear this out.

Here is a sample of the flavor of life under Brahman religion which revolved around the caste system, reincarnation and eventually ascending into the house of Brahman:

In earlier days, it was customary to marry in the same castes. If anyone dares to disobey the rules of the society, he was confined to severe punishments

Whole community was barred from keeping any relation with the family where inter caste marriage had taken place

Customs and religions practiced were so strict and merciless that even sometimes the boy and girl were hacked to death by their own family members due to the pressures from the society.

Who so ever dare for the inter-caste marriage face the consequences in terms of violence, social boycott, family boycott and death of the boys and girls ( honour killing).

Caste not only dictates one’s occupation, but dietary habits and interaction with members of other castes as well. Members of a high caste enjoy more wealth and opportunities while members of a low caste perform menial jobs. Outside of the caste system are the Untouchables. Untouchable jobs, such as toilet cleaning and garbage removal, require them to be in contact with bodily fluids. They are therefore considered polluted and not to be touched. The importance of purity in the body and food is found in early Sanskrit literature. Untouchables have separate entrances to homes and must drink from separate wells. They are considered to be in a permanent state of impurity.

It suggests a very rigid world order in which every facet of life is pre destined and those who oppose it would be dealt with.

New ideas, including the Buddhas teaching that even Brahman himself was in Samsara, along with the rest of us, wouldn't have been taken lightly.

Edited September 23, 2013 by rockyysdt

[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.

 

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?

Ooh. Underlining. Better respond.

Metta an Karuna are preferable, superior to other options. Not necessary to meditation. Not an enlightenment factor. They'd be fundamental to combatting anger and generally negative modes at first, but would ultimately become hinderences

[Several]

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.

Yep. The 8 fold path is the way to go, to the best of our ability.

It would change what I think, say and do from what may well be a delusion to right thought, right speech etc.

Yep. There's no way any of this will prove there is something beyond the 5 Khandas outside of experience. But you work your way up the mountain. That endeavour will, as most do, begin or adapt according to knowledge.

[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.

Sentience: Sense, perception not involving intelligence or mental perception;

Although experiencing sentience will unveil many things, whilst we are attached to feelings, mind & thought, don't we need vehicles (8 fold path, karuna & metta) to travel towards our goal?

Although Karuna & Metta can be ego traps, can't all aspects of Buddhist practice lead to traps?

These traps lay at every turn:

• Promise of immortality.
  
• 
  
• To live in the greatest state of being (Nibhanna).
  
• 
  
• Ego inflation through charity.
  
• 
  
• Ego inflation via high order calling.
  
• 
  
• Elitism.
  
• 
  
• Attachment to blissful states.
  

Should existence of traps (inflation of ego) stop us from travel?

Probably why Sati (mindfulness) is so important.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Several

[Several]

 

 

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.

 

 

I only asked because I have studied Sanskrit and Pali myself, and I did graduate level research on the socio-cultural dynamics at play in the Ganges Plain around the time of the Buddha. Certainly there are Brahmin texts that describe a kind of orthodox ideal where Brahmins are unquestioned authorities on all things earthly and transcendent but whether this had any reflection in reality is highly doubtful. Even to speak of “Brahmin rule” would seem to be misleading. My understanding, from a variety of sources, is that things were much more fluid and tolerant. The Pali suttas themselves seem to bear this out.

 

I’m not familiar with John Peacock’s work, though a quick search revealed that he is a lecturer in Buddhist Psychology at the Oxford Mindfulness Center, a somewhat different title than you gave him (I don’t doubt his academic credentials). Still, his historical view, as you report it, seems to be a markedly heterodox one. I would recommend the work of another Oxford scholar, Richard Gombrich, for some insight into how early Buddhist teachings fit into the wider religious-philosophical context of ancient India. An excellent example is “How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings”.

 

Of course, the whole idea of using textual sources to determine what “original” Buddhism looked like has turned out to be very problematic. Gregory Schopen is the scholar best known for questioning the overemphasis on textual studies in studies of early Buddhism. His book “Bones, Stones and Buddhist Monks: Collected Papers on the Archaeology, Epigraphy, and Texts of Monastic Budddhism in India” tears down many assumptions upon which earlier scholarship was based. Of course, there is as yet no extant “Buddhist” archaeological record of the earliest period, and so texts are all we have to go by. But still we have to be very careful in our assumptions and very provisional in our conclusions.

 

Sorry for taking this thread on a detour. If anyone wants to talk ancient Indian history or early Buddhist historiography maybe we could start a new thread?

 

Nice. I like archaeology, though much of it is highly questionable. And you're right about the questionableness of texts too. I try sticking to the 5 nikayas mentioned on the Ashokan pillars as they'd seem the most authentic, and other Indian texts go back much further than Buddha though the subject matter is not that different.

I was under the impression that challenging the Brahmin supremacy could be deadly also. You're saying it wasn't that bad? I guess Buddha did live a long life, assuming 80 was long back then. Ah well. More research.

[Several]

Something I found somewhere on the web. I think its an excerpt from a book. Sorry I can't be more specific.

Under the Tree

The Buddhist Paradox

In contemporary discussions of Buddhism we encounter those who interpret the anatta doctrine to mean there is “no soul” or “no self.” They put forth a version of Buddhism consistent with the philosophy of materialism. This interpretation contradicts teachings on reincarnation and karma and goes against the Buddha’s admonitions against materialism.

A question illustrates the conflict: if there is no being (soul or Self) that continues beyond body death who or what experiences the rebirth of which the Buddha speaks?

It appears the student is left with a stark choice—either accept the anatta doctrine or accept the teachings on reincarnation. Many who advance the “no soul” view choose to dismiss the Buddha’s teachings. They reconfigure Buddhism to fit with their misinterpretation of the “no soul” anatta doctrine.

A third option exists—study the teachings in an effort to understand how the anatta doctrine is consistent with reincarnation. It makes sense to clear up the apparent conflict rather than toss out major portions of the lessons.

Why should a Buddhist concern himself with finding a solution to this apparent paradox? Practice follows theory—incorrect theory causes the practice to suffer. A student given incorrect theory will find his practice goes nowhere. He will not accrue the benefits the Buddha promised.

The reverse is true as well. In the absence of effective practice texts appear confusing. A vicious circle develops. Lacking correct theory, the practice suffers, which in turn causes study of the theory to suffer. Wrong theory at the outset puts the student in a muddle. Therefore, texts and practice must be united into a coherent whole that results in clarity. This effort begins with an analysis of the apparent paradox.

Those who interpret the anatta doctrine to mean “no soul” or “no self” argue that within the aggregate that is a human being there is no soul or real self. They argue all views of self are illusory; there is no enduring soul.

In contrast, the Buddha points out we are not the body, not material objects, and not the things to which we become attached. The Buddha taught there are things which are “not self” and “not soul.” A spiritual Self exists that is not equivalent to any material fabrication.

Those holding the “no soul” view argue a person is comprised only of the aggregates (skandhas): 1) material processes, 2) feeling, 3) perception, 4) mental formations, and 5) consciousness. In the “no soul” interpretation a being that transcends the aggregates does not exist. The aggregates are all that exist. All aspects of a person are impermanent and transitory: nothing survives the dissolution of aggregates upon body death.

The “no soul” adherents dismiss reincarnation in spite of the Buddha’s teachings that include his recall of former lives. In the Buddha’s view, a being, an enlightened Buddha, transcends the aggregates. An enlightened Buddha is an immaterial being that does not possess the properties of the aggregates. This immaterial non-aggregate Self is capable of rebirth.

The “no soul” adherents attempt to get around the dilemma by describing rebirth as a process of aggregates reforming on their own. In this view, the material universe forms and re forms in an ongoing play of material causes. In other words, only the aggregates exist, nothing more.

The Buddha, however, postulates transcendent consciousness or Buddha consciousness beyond the aggregates. He does not limit the analysis to impermanent properties. The non-aggregate being is a Buddha who has achieved detachment from the aggregates.

But isn’t consciousness one of the aggregates? In Buddhism there are categories of consciousness, six in some schools, eight in others. There is aggregate consciousness and non-aggregate consciousness. Aggregate consciousness consists of mental imprints formed as a result of contact with material forms. Buddha consciousness arises after cessation of attachment to the aggregates.

Matthieu Ricard (The Monk and the Philosopher) addresses this when he speaks of both the moment-to-moment stream of impermanent events and the continuous individual stream of consciousness. This “individual stream of consciousness” describes a “self” or “soul” beyond the aggregates. When awakened this is a Buddha.

How was it possible for the Buddha to recall former lives if there was not a continuous individual stream of consciousness that remained in existence over the span of those lifetimes? Continuity of consciousness is necessary for such recall.
The Buddha taught students to cease identifying with the five aggregates. He taught you are not your physical body; not your mind; not your perceptions; not your feelings; not mental imprints. Those qualities are not self. He taught cessation of attachment to those aggregates. The purpose of the practice was to free oneself from attachment and identification with that which was not self, the aggregates.

The practice is ceasing attachment to the aggregates, which begs the question: what ceases attachment? That which can detach from the aggregates must be a non-aggregate being or Buddha whose properties are not the properties of the aggregates.

The Buddha, in his early public lectures, avoided direct statements regarding the Self or Buddha that transcends the aggregates. He avoided describing the result of cessation of attachment to the aggregates. Some mistakenly took this to mean there is no such Self. Why did he appear evasive? First, it is almost impossible to describe a Self that does not have the properties of things. How does one describe that which is completely detached from the aggregates when our language is devoted to describing aggregate properties? The language of thing-ness cannot adequately be used to describe no-thing-ness.

One option was negative or subtractive: describe that which was not the Self. Though we cannot say what a Buddha is we can say what it is not. That is what the Buddha did. In sutra after sutra, he points to the properties of the aggregates and says “this or that is not self.” He used subtractive logic. Take away all properties that do not apply and you are left with a Buddha.

This causes confusion when “that thing is not self” is mistranslated into “there is no self.” When one considers aggregate properties are all that exist one has materialism. And one has nihilism. If one cannot conceive of an existence beyond the aggregates, one cannot conceive of a transcendent Buddha. It is that simple.

The Buddha relied on the practice for clarity. The Self of a Buddha, one who had achieved cessation of attachment to the aggregates, could only be understood firsthand. One cannot convey enlightenment in words; one experiences it directly.

Those who practice diligently and achieve cessation of attachment transcend the aggregates; they find the non-aggregate Self obvious. Those who have not transcended the aggregates may achieve intuitive glimpses but lack certainty. They understand the theory that brings the anatta doctrine in line with reincarnation but lack personal certainty in the matter.

It is incumbent on those who have achieved success in the practice to assist in clearing up the confusion regarding the “no soul” interpretation of the anatta doctrine on the part of those who lack firsthand experience, those prone to altering the teachings to fit their aggregate-bound experience. The “no soul” or “no self” view simply reflects the state of being attached to the aggregates so as long as one is attached one will not understand the detachment the Buddha taught.
Clarity will help unite theory and practice and allow Buddhism to advance, unimpaired by confusion.

Source: http://visitunderthetree.com/philosophical-roots/philosophy/the-buddhist-paradox/

Edited September 25, 2013 by camerata
Added source link

[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.

Ok. There are some problems with this. Leaving the provenance of the Abhidhamma alone for this post, just dealing with content relating to mind (Citta) in the literature I've read.

The Abhidhamma postulates 4 ultimate realities: Nibbana (unconditioned), and 3 conditioned (subject to Anicca) matter (rupa), mental factors (Cetasikas), consciousness (Citta).

Consciousness is Vinnana, not Citta.

The Abhidhamma in Practice that you linked to also states; "Citta, Cetasikas and Nibbana are called Nama." Citta is never called Nama (literally,meaning names and relates to Cetasikas alone). This is like stating that its the passengers who carry the train.

It then continues as though Citta, Cittas and consciousness are interchangeable terms, never using the correct term Vinnana for consciousness.

The PED states that of 150 occurences of the term Citta in the Nikayas only 3 instances are plural and referring to thoughts (the Cittas or mind-moments of the Abhidhamma interpretation), all other occurences are singular (Citta) and refer to 'heart' (Not the organ, but as in 'heart and soul').

So the Abhidhamma is saying that the way the term is used 1.5% of the time in the original words of the Buddha is the dominant meaning. Highly unlikely.

As for proposing that Citta is conditioned phenomena, or Anicca;

Anguttara Sutta

"Whatever forms... 5 Khandas... these he sees to be without permanence, as Anicca, as Dhukka... as empty... as Selfless (Anattata)... so he turns the Citta away from these 5 Khandas. Therein he gathers the Citta within the realm of immortality. This is tranquility... that which is most excellent."

(From Plotinus Veritas youtube video on Citta)

This quite clearly defines Citta as not being one of the 5 Khandas. Thoughts, consciousness, yes. Conditioned, Anicca. But not Citta.

Unfortunately this means I'm disagreeing with Abhidhamma, so if anybody is looking for me, I'll be waiting behind the Kalama Sutta.

Edited September 24, 2013 by Several

[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?

Ooh. Underlining. Better respond.

Metta an Karuna are preferable, superior to other options. Not necessary to meditation. Not an enlightenment factor. They'd be fundamental to combatting anger and generally negative modes at first, but would ultimately become hinderences

But more specifically, if Metta and Karuna are only preferable, & superior to other options, but not necessary, "why did the Buddha say the practice of Metta & Karuna are fundamental, and doesn't your stance conflict with this?

[rockyysdt]

It appears the student is left with a stark choice—either accept the anatta doctrine or accept the teachings on reincarnation. Many who advance the “no soul” view choose to dismiss the Buddha’s teachings. They reconfigure Buddhism to fit with their misinterpretation of the “no soul” anatta doctrine.

A third option exists—study the teachings in an effort to understand how the anatta doctrine is consistent with reincarnation. It makes sense to clear up the apparent conflict rather than toss out major portions of the lessons.

Why should a Buddhist concern himself with finding a solution to this apparent paradox? Practice follows theory—incorrect theory causes the practice to suffer. A student given incorrect theory will find his practice goes nowhere. He will not accrue the benefits the Buddha promised.

The reverse is true as well. In the absence of effective practice texts appear confusing. A vicious circle develops. Lacking correct theory, the practice suffers, which in turn causes study of the theory to suffer. Wrong theory at the outset puts the student in a muddle. Therefore, texts and practice must be united into a coherent whole that results in clarity. This effort begins with an analysis of the apparent paradox.

Not necessarily.

Under normal circumstances, yes.

Isn't it far better to be open about both possibilities?

That is, re birth is moment to moment, or that re birth is moment to moment & body to body, with something common to all (enduring).

Choosing one or the other creates an attachment.

Being open allows one to discover truth through awareness and practice.

My understanding is that the 8 fold path gives one ever increasing levels of awareness, so deep and fine, that eventually one becomes aware of the subtleties of truth (Awakened).

On the other hand, taking a fixed/rigid view into meditation allows one to implant ideas into their subconscious until it becomes their truth (belief).

A form of self hypnosis.

Isn't Concentration & Mindfulness practice a form of slowing things down to allow one to see what already exists?

To see what is with an open mind and open heart.

Alternatively to grasp onto a fixed view is to spend eternity opening doors looking for something which does not exist is an attachment.

I'm of the understanding that Metta & Karuna, without reward, softens the heart, and reduces accumulation of negative kharma whilst being performed, helping one, along with the other practices, to be open to receive the gift of truth.

The 8 fold path, free of preconceived ideas.

Edited September 24, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

How was it possible for the Buddha to recall former lives if there was not a continuous individual stream of consciousness that remained in existence over the span of those lifetimes? Continuity of consciousness is necessary for such recall.

The Buddha taught students to cease identifying with the five aggregates. He taught you are not your physical body; not your mind; not your perceptions; not your feelings; not mental imprints. Those qualities are not self. He taught cessation of attachment to those aggregates. The purpose of the practice was to free oneself from attachment and identification with that which was not self, the aggregates.

The practice is ceasing attachment to the aggregates, which begs the question: what ceases attachment? That which can detach from the aggregates must be a non-aggregate being or Buddha whose properties are not the properties of the aggregates.

The Buddha, in his early public lectures, avoided direct statements regarding the Self or Buddha that transcends the aggregates. He avoided describing the result of cessation of attachment to the aggregates. Some mistakenly took this to mean there is no such Self. Why did he appear evasive? First, it is almost impossible to describe a Self that does not have the properties of things. How does one describe that which is completely detached from the aggregates when our language is devoted to describing aggregate properties? The language of thing-ness cannot adequately be used to describe no-thing-ness.

One option was negative or subtractive: describe that which was not the Self. Though we cannot say what a Buddha is we can say what it is not. That is what the Buddha did. In sutra after sutra, he points to the properties of the aggregates and says “this or that is not self.” He used subtractive logic. Take away all properties that do not apply and you are left with a Buddha.

This causes confusion when “that thing is not self” is mistranslated into “there is no self.” When one considers aggregate properties are all that exist one has materialism. And one has nihilism. If one cannot conceive of an existence beyond the aggregates, one cannot conceive of a transcendent Buddha. It is that simple.

The Buddha relied on the practice for clarity. The Self of a Buddha, one who had achieved cessation of attachment to the aggregates, could only be understood firsthand. One cannot convey enlightenment in words; one experiences it directly.

Those who practice diligently and achieve cessation of attachment transcend the aggregates; they find the non-aggregate Self obvious. Those who have not transcended the aggregates may achieve intuitive glimpses but lack certainty. They understand the theory that brings the anatta doctrine in line with reincarnation but lack personal certainty in the matter.

It is incumbent on those who have achieved success in the practice to assist in clearing up the confusion regarding the “no soul” interpretation of the anatta doctrine on the part of those who lack firsthand experience, those prone to altering the teachings to fit their aggregate-bound experience. The “no soul” or “no self” view simply reflects the state of being attached to the aggregates so as long as one is attached one will not understand the detachment the Buddha taught.

Clarity will help unite theory and practice and allow Buddhism to advance, unimpaired by confusion.

I don't like the word "enlightenment'.

This is an 18th or 19th century word, which was never used in Buddhas time.

The Buddha spoke of "Awakening".

Freedom from attachment to Greed, Aversion & Delusion.

Could it be that the Buddha would not be drawn on what Awakening was, as the other option people had was eternal life in the house of Brahman after favorable reincarnation promised more?

Could it be that being free of Greed, Aversion & Delusion was the highest state a man could aspire to, and the heady question of life after death, was unanswerable to those who lived in the physical world, even to the Buddha?

The Buddha did say he was not omnipotent.

These are possibilities.

Possibilities we should be open to, as well as the possibility of eternal existence (nibhanna).

Nihilism has a number of meanings.

When you speak of it, do you mean: nothingness, non existence.

It seems that to be a nihilist connotes a negative label and something to be avoided.

Is it possible that discovering the truth (how things really are) through personal experience, whether it be enduring, or conditioned and ending in death, is so profound that it transcends all including the illusion we live in?

How was it possible for the Buddha to recall former lives if there was not a continuous individual stream of consciousness that remained in existence over the span of those lifetimes?

There are a number of things attributed to Buddha which conflict.

Do we pick and choose the ones which support our beliefs, or do we realise some may be compromised, and travel with an open mind until we have first hand experience?

The Buddha also said that speculating on that which is beyond our world will get one no where.

Edited September 24, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

It is incumbent on those who have achieved success in the practice to assist in clearing up the confusion regarding the “no soul” interpretation of the anatta doctrine on the part of those who lack firsthand experience, those prone to altering the teachings to fit their aggregate-bound experience. The “no soul” or “no self” view simply reflects the state of being attached to the aggregates so as long as one is attached one will not understand the detachment the Buddha taught.

Clarity will help unite theory and practice and allow Buddhism to advance, unimpaired by confusion.

That's the big kicker.

No one seems to come forward to explain.

One could say Buddhists who cling to the notion of unconditioned personal soul & everlasting life, are not dissimilar to Christians!

On the other hand, to travel with an open mind, and to live life at its very best through practice of the 8 fold path is the best journey.

[cm das]

I only asked because I have studied Sanskrit and Pali myself, and I did graduate level research on the socio-cultural dynamics at play in the Ganges Plain around the time of the Buddha. Certainly there are Brahmin texts that describe a kind of orthodox ideal where Brahmins are unquestioned authorities on all things earthly and transcendent but whether this had any reflection in reality is highly doubtful. Even to speak of “Brahmin rule” would seem to be misleading. My understanding, from a variety of sources, is that things were much more fluid and tolerant. The Pali suttas themselves seem to bear this out.

Here is a sample of the flavor of life under Brahman religion which revolved around the caste system, reincarnation and eventually ascending into the house of Brahman:

In earlier days, it was customary to marry in the same castes. If anyone dares to disobey the rules of the society, he was confined to severe punishments

Whole community was barred from keeping any relation with the family where inter caste marriage had taken place

Customs and religions practiced were so strict and merciless that even sometimes the boy and girl were hacked to death by their own family members due to the pressures from the society.

Who so ever dare for the inter-caste marriage face the consequences in terms of violence, social boycott, family boycott and death of the boys and girls ( honour killing).

Caste not only dictates one’s occupation, but dietary habits and interaction with members of other castes as well. Members of a high caste enjoy more wealth and opportunities while members of a low caste perform menial jobs. Outside of the caste system are the Untouchables. Untouchable jobs, such as toilet cleaning and garbage removal, require them to be in contact with bodily fluids. They are therefore considered polluted and not to be touched. The importance of purity in the body and food is found in early Sanskrit literature. Untouchables have separate entrances to homes and must drink from separate wells. They are considered to be in a permanent state of impurity.

It suggests a very rigid world order in which every facet of life is pre destined and those who oppose it would be dealt with.

New ideas, including the Buddhas teaching that even Brahman himself was in Samsara, along with the rest of us, wouldn't have been taken lightly.

There are a few points I'd make in response to the excerpt you have given describing the caste system. First, we need to be careful not to confuse the terms caste (jati) and class (varna). The division of Aryan society into 4 classes or varnas (brahmin, kshatriya, vaishya, shudra) is a very old model and would have been relevant at the time of the Buddha. The caste system as most of us know it is a much later and more rigid system which was overlaid onto the varna system but does not correspond to it perfectly. So if we're talking about the society of the Ganges plain at the time of the Buddha, we should be aware of this distinction.

Second, there are many old Sanskrit texts full of very strict prescriptions and proscriptions regarding the roles and duties of each of the varnas. Some of these texts may even go back to around the time of the Buddha. But we should ask ourselves if there's any justification for taking these texts at face value. To paraphrase A.L. Basham, these texts were written by Brahmins and reflected their ideal world-view but we don't have any good reason to think that they were actually reflective of reality. In fact, many historians of ancient India use the Buddhist Pali literature as evidence to the contrary - that social interactions in reality were more relaxed than the uptight Brahmin authors would have liked. To put it another way, the Brahmin legal and social texts are seen as normative in nature, while the Buddhist texts are interpreted as more descriptive in their picture of society. You can argue over these interpretations but I think that the reasoning is fairly sound.

Third, there are geographical considerations to take into account. In the 4th & 5th centuries BCE, society in the area around Magadha (modern Bihar) was likely very different from that of the Aryan "heartland" in the Punjab. Classical Brahmin literature largely came from the more traditional, conservative culture of the northwest. Meanwhile, in the east there were different peoples, different cultures and different forms of government. The Aryan civilization was relatively new on the scene in this area. In this kind of frontier zone, old societal rules didn't apply nearly as strictly. There are even explicit references in the Brahminical literature that describe the areas to the east (i.e. the Buddha's territory) as not yet purified. So to paint a picture of life in Magadha based on texts from the Punjab might be like imagining life in Tombstone based on a portrait of 19th century Boston.

[Several]

 

 

Metta an Karuna are preferable, superior to other options. Not necessary to meditation. Not an enlightenment factor. They'd be fundamental to combatting anger and generally negative modes at first, but would ultimately become hinderences

 

 

But more specifically, if Metta and Karuna are only preferable, & superior to other options, but not necessary, "why did the Buddha say the practice of Metta & Karuna are fundamental, and doesn't your stance conflict with this?

Ok. Reference the quote. I'm confident I can nail it because Uppekah (equanimity) is an enlightenment factor but neither Metta nor Karuna are. Mainly because love, in any form, is one of the major causes of attachment and suffering in life. Karuna requires empathy for one who suffers, and is also a cause of suffering. Furthermore, as they are feelings (Vedana), they arise from a cause and are Anicca and Anatta, impermanent, not self.

I'm not expending much more effort on this as its not relevant to the thread.

[Several]

It appears the student is left with a stark choice—either accept the anatta doctrine or accept the teachings on reincarnation. Many who advance the “no soul” view choose to dismiss the Buddha’s teachings. They reconfigure Buddhism to fit with their misinterpretation of the “no soul” anatta doctrine.

A third option exists—study the teachings in an effort to understand how the anatta doctrine is consistent with reincarnation. It makes sense to clear up the apparent conflict rather than toss out major portions of the lessons.

Why should a Buddhist concern himself with finding a solution to this apparent paradox? Practice follows theory—incorrect theory causes the practice to suffer. A student given incorrect theory will find his practice goes nowhere. He will not accrue the benefits the Buddha promised.

The reverse is true as well. In the absence of effective practice texts appear confusing. A vicious circle develops. Lacking correct theory, the practice suffers, which in turn causes study of the theory to suffer. Wrong theory at the outset puts the student in a muddle. Therefore, texts and practice must be united into a coherent whole that results in clarity. This effort begins with an analysis of the apparent paradox.

 

Not necessarily.

 

Under normal circumstances, yes.

 

Isn't it far better to be open about both possibilities?

 

That is,  re birth is moment to moment, or that re birth is moment to moment & body to body, with something common to all (enduring).

 

Choosing one or the other creates an attachment.

Being open allows one to discover truth through awareness and practice.

My understanding is that the 8 fold path gives one ever increasing levels of awareness, so deep and fine, that eventually one becomes aware of the subtleties of truth (Awakened).

 

On the other hand, taking a fixed/rigid view into meditation allows one to implant ideas into their subconscious until it becomes their truth (belief).

A form of self hypnosis.

 

Isn't Concentration & Mindfulness practice a form of slowing things down to allow one to see what already exists?

 

To see what is with an open mind and open heart.

 

Alternatively to grasp onto a fixed view is to spend eternity opening doors looking for something which does not exist is an attachment.

 

I'm of the understanding that Metta & Karuna, without reward, softens the heart, and reduces accumulation of negative kharma whilst being performed, helping one, along with the other practices, to be open to receive the gift of truth.

 

The 8 fold path, free of preconceived ideas.

Are you open about other possibilities? You seem to have decided whats what already. Having stated that based on this possibility (of Anatta being misunderstood) I am exploring a new avenue, which of us is clinging to an interpretation?

If the 8 fold path is what you say, how does Vipassana fit in? There is no right or wrong, just noting. The 8 fold path cannot ever be free of preconceived ideas because it demands discernment between right and wrong and is inherently dualistic. Provided the word Samma is translated correctly it means Buddha is encouraging dualistic thinking.

Self hypnosis is supplying suggestion to the subconscious. You do it all the time you are engaging in internal dialogue. Exploring the veracity of possibilities causes the subconscious to be more aware of what 'could be', and makes the conscious aware of that. Self hypnosis does not turn you into a drone.

Faith or belief is one of the five spiritual faculties.

No, I have never heard anybody say concentration or mindfulness slow things down. Where on earth did you get that idea?

'To see what is with an open mind and open heart' would in Pali relate to Citta (heart/mind). Its a Freudian slip. Subconsciously, you agree with me.

'Grasping onto a fixed view' is, as demonstrated, not me. Who do you think is actually suffering attachment here, Rocky?

And who do you know, have ever heard of, other than the most realised of beings who love without condition? Even Ghandi was attached to the idea of liberation for India. The 8 fold path is part of the way. What about the 10 fold for example? And are you going to ignore so much of what Buddha said just to defend this attachment to Metta? Because if so then Metta becomes your enemy.

[Several]

How was it possible for the Buddha to recall former lives if there was not a continuous individual stream of consciousness that remained in existence over the span of those lifetimes? Continuity of consciousness is necessary for such recall.

The Buddha taught students to cease identifying with the five aggregates. He taught you are not your physical body; not your mind; not your perceptions; not your feelings; not mental imprints. Those qualities are not self. He taught cessation of attachment to those aggregates. The purpose of the practice was to free oneself from attachment and identification with that which was not self, the aggregates.

The practice is ceasing attachment to the aggregates, which begs the question: what ceases attachment? That which can detach from the aggregates must be a non-aggregate being or Buddha whose properties are not the properties of the aggregates.

The Buddha, in his early public lectures, avoided direct statements regarding the Self or Buddha that transcends the aggregates. He avoided describing the result of cessation of attachment to the aggregates. Some mistakenly took this to mean there is no such Self. Why did he appear evasive? First, it is almost impossible to describe a Self that does not have the properties of things. How does one describe that which is completely detached from the aggregates when our language is devoted to describing aggregate properties? The language of thing-ness cannot adequately be used to describe no-thing-ness.

One option was negative or subtractive: describe that which was not the Self. Though we cannot say what a Buddha is we can say what it is not. That is what the Buddha did. In sutra after sutra, he points to the properties of the aggregates and says “this or that is not self.” He used subtractive logic. Take away all properties that do not apply and you are left with a Buddha.

This causes confusion when “that thing is not self” is mistranslated into “there is no self.” When one considers aggregate properties are all that exist one has materialism. And one has nihilism. If one cannot conceive of an existence beyond the aggregates, one cannot conceive of a transcendent Buddha. It is that simple.

The Buddha relied on the practice for clarity. The Self of a Buddha, one who had achieved cessation of attachment to the aggregates, could only be understood firsthand. One cannot convey enlightenment in words; one experiences it directly.

Those who practice diligently and achieve cessation of attachment transcend the aggregates; they find the non-aggregate Self obvious. Those who have not transcended the aggregates may achieve intuitive glimpses but lack certainty. They understand the theory that brings the anatta doctrine in line with reincarnation but lack personal certainty in the matter.

It is incumbent on those who have achieved success in the practice to assist in clearing up the confusion regarding the “no soul” interpretation of the anatta doctrine on the part of those who lack firsthand experience, those prone to altering the teachings to fit their aggregate-bound experience. The “no soul” or “no self” view simply reflects the state of being attached to the aggregates so as long as one is attached one will not understand the detachment the Buddha taught.

Clarity will help unite theory and practice and allow Buddhism to advance, unimpaired by confusion.

 

I don't like the word "enlightenment'.

This is an 18th or 19th century word, which was never used in Buddhas time.

 

The Buddha spoke of "Awakening".

Freedom from attachment to Greed, Aversion & Delusion.

 

Could it be that the Buddha would not be drawn on what Awakening was, as the other option people had was eternal life in the house of Brahman after favorable reincarnation promised more?

Could it be that being free of Greed, Aversion & Delusion was the highest state a man could aspire to, and the heady question of life after death, was unanswerable to those who lived in the physical world, even to the Buddha?

The Buddha did say he was not omnipotent.

 

These are possibilities.

Possibilities we should be open to, as well as the possibility of eternal existence (nibhanna).

 

Nihilism has a number of meanings.

When you speak of it, do you mean:   nothingness, non existence.

 

It seems that to be a nihilist connotes a negative label and something to be avoided.

 

Is it possible that discovering the truth (how things really are) through personal experience, whether it be enduring, or conditioned and ending in death, is so profound that it transcends all including the illusion we live in?

 

How was it possible for the Buddha to recall former lives if there was not a continuous individual stream of consciousness that remained in existence over the span of those lifetimes?

 

There are a number of things attributed to Buddha which conflict.

Do we pick and choose the ones which support our beliefs, or do we realise some may be compromised, and travel with an open mind until we have first hand experience?

 

The Buddha also said that speculating on that which is beyond our world will get one no where.

Yep. The word is not the thing. But an inability to describe does not preculde existence. A rose, for example, is still a rose.

Is vanquishing anger, lust and delusion the objective or are they obstacles to something else? Buddha plainly stated his knowledge was far wider than the way to awakening.

I'll need to find the quote about nihilism (I have to leave the temple to use the internet), but it is a negative term. If I recall rightly Buddha said nihilists were in direct opposition to his teaching. Nihilism is the belief in no-soul.

Buddha spoke of previous lives many, many times. He also seems to be indicating an eternal element that individuals are an aspect of, known by experience rather than concept. That does not mean that the concept cannot lead to the experience.

The speculation will get you nowhere if you are searching for a definitive answer. Practice will get you nowhere if you cannot recognise advantages or pitfalls.

[Several]

It is incumbent on those who have achieved success in the practice to assist in clearing up the confusion regarding the “no soul” interpretation of the anatta doctrine on the part of those who lack firsthand experience, those prone to altering the teachings to fit their aggregate-bound experience. The “no soul” or “no self” view simply reflects the state of being attached to the aggregates so as long as one is attached one will not understand the detachment the Buddha taught.

Clarity will help unite theory and practice and allow Buddhism to advance, unimpaired by confusion.

 

That's the big kicker.

 

No one seems to come forward to explain.

 

One could say Buddhists who cling to the notion of unconditioned personal soul & everlasting life, are not dissimilar to Christians!

 

On the other hand, to travel with an open mind, and to live life at its very best through practice of the 8 fold path is the best journey.

If you can't overcome the christian interpretation of soul, then yes and the ones who cling to materialistic interpretations are just scholars.

The mind can't be too open. At some point you'd be autistic. There is some discernment required, what is 'right' in the 8 fold path for example. Who is a 'good' friend? Sometimes its the one who disagrees with you.

[rockyysdt]

Metta an Karuna are preferable, superior to other options. Not necessary to meditation. Not an enlightenment factor. They'd be fundamental to combatting anger and generally negative modes at first, but would ultimately become hinderences

But more specifically, if Metta and Karuna are only preferable, & superior to other options, but not necessary, "why did the Buddha say the practice of Metta & Karuna are fundamental, and doesn't your stance conflict with this?

Ok. Reference the quote. I'm confident I can nail it because Uppekah (equanimity) is an enlightenment factor but neither Metta nor Karuna are. Mainly because love, in any form, is one of the major causes of attachment and suffering in life. Karuna requires empathy for one who suffers, and is also a cause of suffering. Furthermore, as they are feelings (Vedana), they arise from a cause and are Anicca and Anatta, impermanent, not self.

I'm not expending much more effort on this as its not relevant to the thread.

These discussions we have, often covering important facets of Buddhism, are partially my way of learning and developing.

I'm also extremely fortunate to have practicing Monks providing input to my path.

I'm happy to drop Metta and Karuna.

It's just that you never really answered the question.

That is, why did the Buddha say their practice was fundamental?

[rockyysdt]

It appears the student is left with a stark choice—either accept the anatta doctrine or accept the teachings on reincarnation. Many who advance the “no soul” view choose to dismiss the Buddha’s teachings. They reconfigure Buddhism to fit with their misinterpretation of the “no soul” anatta doctrine.

A third option exists—study the teachings in an effort to understand how the anatta doctrine is consistent with reincarnation. It makes sense to clear up the apparent conflict rather than toss out major portions of the lessons.

Why should a Buddhist concern himself with finding a solution to this apparent paradox? Practice follows theory—incorrect theory causes the practice to suffer. A student given incorrect theory will find his practice goes nowhere. He will not accrue the benefits the Buddha promised.

The reverse is true as well. In the absence of effective practice texts appear confusing. A vicious circle develops. Lacking correct theory, the practice suffers, which in turn causes study of the theory to suffer. Wrong theory at the outset puts the student in a muddle. Therefore, texts and practice must be united into a coherent whole that results in clarity. This effort begins with an analysis of the apparent paradox.

Not necessarily.

Under normal circumstances, yes.

Isn't it far better to be open about both possibilities?

That is, re birth is moment to moment, or that re birth is moment to moment & body to body, with something common to all (enduring).

Choosing one or the other creates an attachment.

Being open allows one to discover truth through awareness and practice.

My understanding is that the 8 fold path gives one ever increasing levels of awareness, so deep and fine, that eventually one becomes aware of the subtleties of truth (Awakened).

On the other hand, taking a fixed/rigid view into meditation allows one to implant ideas into their subconscious until it becomes their truth (belief).

A form of self hypnosis.

Isn't Concentration & Mindfulness practice a form of slowing things down to allow one to see what already exists?

To see what is with an open mind and open heart.

Alternatively to grasp onto a fixed view is to spend eternity opening doors looking for something which does not exist is an attachment.

I'm of the understanding that Metta & Karuna, without reward, softens the heart, and reduces accumulation of negative kharma whilst being performed, helping one, along with the other practices, to be open to receive the gift of truth.

The 8 fold path, free of preconceived ideas.

Are you open about other possibilities? You seem to have decided whats what already. Having stated that based on this possibility (of Anatta being misunderstood) I am exploring a new avenue, which of us is clinging to an interpretation?

If the 8 fold path is what you say, how does Vipassana fit in? There is no right or wrong, just noting. The 8 fold path cannot ever be free of preconceived ideas because it demands discernment between right and wrong and is inherently dualistic. Provided the word Samma is translated correctly it means Buddha is encouraging dualistic thinking.

Self hypnosis is supplying suggestion to the subconscious. You do it all the time you are engaging in internal dialogue. Exploring the veracity of possibilities causes the subconscious to be more aware of what 'could be', and makes the conscious aware of that. Self hypnosis does not turn you into a drone.

Faith or belief is one of the five spiritual faculties.

No, I have never heard anybody say concentration or mindfulness slow things down. Where on earth did you get that idea?

'To see what is with an open mind and open heart' would in Pali relate to Citta (heart/mind). Its a Freudian slip. Subconsciously, you agree with me.

'Grasping onto a fixed view' is, as demonstrated, not me. Who do you think is actually suffering attachment here, Rocky?

And who do you know, have ever heard of, other than the most realised of beings who love without condition? Even Ghandi was attached to the idea of liberation for India. The 8 fold path is part of the way. What about the 10 fold for example? And are you going to ignore so much of what Buddha said just to defend this attachment to Metta? Because if so then Metta becomes your enemy.

Hi Sev.

I thought I was open to the possibilities.

That is, there is either something beyond this world (permanent & unconditioned) or there isn't.

What I meant by slowing things down (poor choice of words) was the "stillness" we achieve through "concentrated awareness practice (sitting).

The stillness which allows a deeper level of awareness.

Awareness which we often miss due to the speed at which we live our lives, often missing out on what is really happening to us and around us.

Sorry, poor choice of words.

I'm just trying to understand why the Buddha would profess an important view.

Not a defense, but a reaching out to ask if someone might be able to explain the Buddhas position.

[rockyysdt]

It is incumbent on those who have achieved success in the practice to assist in clearing up the confusion regarding the “no soul” interpretation of the anatta doctrine on the part of those who lack firsthand experience, those prone to altering the teachings to fit their aggregate-bound experience. The “no soul” or “no self” view simply reflects the state of being attached to the aggregates so as long as one is attached one will not understand the detachment the Buddha taught.

Clarity will help unite theory and practice and allow Buddhism to advance, unimpaired by confusion.

That's the big kicker.

No one seems to come forward to explain.

One could say Buddhists who cling to the notion of unconditioned personal soul & everlasting life, are not dissimilar to Christians!

On the other hand, to travel with an open mind, and to live life at its very best through practice of the 8 fold path is the best journey.

If you can't overcome the christian interpretation of soul, then yes and the ones who cling to materialistic interpretations are just scholars.

The mind can't be too open. At some point you'd be autistic. There is some discernment required, what is 'right' in the 8 fold path for example. Who is a 'good' friend? Sometimes its the one who disagrees with you.

I thought the not negotiable attributes would be "permanent & unconditioned".

Can I ask you what you might consider a better model for soul?

[sabaijai]

Seems like we're going way off topic here!

[Several]

Yes, we have strayed from the path.

@ Rocky, you never referenced your statement that Metta is fundamental, and it isn't relevant to this thread.

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

[Several]

As for 'there either is or isn't' something beyond, this is a position Buddha himself wouldn't take. Probably because its dualstic and causes cinceptualisation. I'll get back in a bit, I'm being summoned.

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

[rockyysdt]

Yes, we have strayed from the path.

@ Rocky, you never referenced your statement that Metta is fundamental, and it isn't relevant to this thread.

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

I thought I did reference it Sev.

Post #97.

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."

The Anguttara Nikaya, the fourth division of the Sutta Pitaka.

In terms of relevance, this is a delicate thing.

Discussing things in isolation can have a censoring effect, particularly when side paths have a connection, influence or affect on the topic.

The relevance is:

"Annatta (Adjective) = Not Self = does not preclude the existence of Soul (you're getting back to me to describe "a non Christian Soul").

And:

You need knowledge to guide practice. If your knowledge is misguided, so is your practice.

, and my question from this is:

"What difference would it make to your practice?".

In other words if you new whether there is a "non Christian Soul" or whether there is nothing permanent or unchanging, how would your practice differ?

This went into what practice is and I indicated that practice includes "Metta" & "Karuna" as the Buddha instructed Ananda.

How is this not relevant to your thread?

As it's your thread, I'll fit in with your wishes.

PS: Any underlining, italics, or bold in previous posts were purely ways of attracting your focus in a, now, quite lengthy thread.

Edited September 27, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

As for 'there either is or isn't' something beyond, this is a position Buddha himself wouldn't take. Probably because its dualstic and causes conceptualisation. I'll get back in a bit, I'm being summoned.

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

Hi Sev.

How can you state:

Probably (Dictionary: "very likely") because its dualistic and causes conceptualisation.

There maybe more reasons why the Buddha wouldn't be drawn.

One possibility is that there may not be anything beyond.

If there isn't (and we don't know), then a reason for not being drawn was that there may not have been any takers.

Why would travelers expend great effort to regularly practice for many years to realize the very best a human could aspire to, when the existing option was simply to believe in Brahmanism, live within the rules, and pray for a higher birth, eventually leading to a place in the house of Brahman?

We can speculate, but it's been said that speculating beyond the real world is fruitless.

Edited September 27, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Purge out the things belonging to the past;

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

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

You will be one who wanders forth serene.

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

For one who is by death oppressed there is

No safety seen in children, father, friends

Or others close to one. A shelter true

Amongst one's kinsfolk one does never find.

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

Hi S J.

Whenever there are two or more, something will need to invariably be presented last.

Could it also be that each component is equal/necessary under normal circumstances (given there are short cuts such as your example)?

[rockyysdt]

Recently I came across this gentleman on youtube. He is talking about misconceptions in sectarian Buddhism, some of which is very interesting. Particularly his interpretation of Anatta which he says is an adjective and does not preclude the existence of a soul.

Specifically that Buddha would have used the term Natthatta (there is no soul) rather than referring to phenomena as being Anatta (not soul). His position is that Buddha is using a Via Negativa method of describing what the soul is not as it is impossible to describe what it is.

The gentleman is known as [email protected] and posts on youtube as Plotinus Veritas. Here is a link to the webpage on Anatta. It is very scolarly and rather heavy going.

http://kathodos.com/anatta.html

.

Perhaps there might also be other reasons why the Buddha wouldn't have used the word Natthatta.

If it helps, I've also read that Annatta can be a verb.

A speaker once indicated that back in the time of the Buddha, one wouldn't ask "what do you believe in", but rather "what do you do".

The consequence of a persons caste or station would be that their actions (work, rituals, speech, & associations) reflect who they are.