Anatta the Adj.

[Several]

Several wrote:

 

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.

They've changed the phone app again. I definitely have no compassion for programmers. Anyway, that quote is a bit odd. Metta and Karuna have nothing to do with Vipassana, Jhana or Sati. They're not Enlightenment Factors. They're not in the 8 fold path. They are highly laudable states, definitely superior to other options but fundamental? I would have thought Mudita (sympathetic joy) would have gotten a mention too. And if its so fundamental, why is Ananda even asking? Sounds iffy.

What I meant about a christian concept of soul is that it is like an etheric everlasting ego. You're still you just without the meat. Buddha may have been using the term Citta to give his enlightened knowledge of this. You never were you, and always will be.

Practice is what leads to direct experential knowledge. What makes a Buddha is his ability to teach, to do that he needs to put it into words. We then reverse engineer the description. Buddha stated he only taught what was necessary to end suffering. This included more than guidelines on practice. Therefore a conceptual idea is included, even if it is only 'training wheels' until we overcome the need for concept. Practice is unlikely to bear much fruit unless you can recognise what is resulting in benefit or harm. Prior to the experience you need a description.

As i said, Metta and Karuna are impermanent and not self. Anatta seems to be an adjective describing that which causes suffering. If purification of Citta is actually what the practice is about then our task is discovering the true nature of mind. Without a clear aim you will chase your tail until your aggregates drop from exhaustion. Identifying sources of valid information appropriate to the task require discernment necessarily based on knowledge. Buddha constantly encouraged the monks to think; "tell me o monks..." followed by some question. He's not feeding dogma, he's encouraging critical thinking. The dependent origination is a logical progression, the root cause is Avijja, unknowing. The via negativa method of Anatta, finding an answer (by experience) from what it is not is perfectly in tune with this way of investigation. Sherlock Holmes mentioned something about the unusual behaviour of dogs the previous night. Watson commented the dogs had made no noise. "That was the unusual occurence, my dear Watson."

So it does make a difference, as far as I can tell, to investigate the states (enlightenment factor) more than to risk becoming attached to Metta/Karuna (Vedana, "feelings, nothing more than feelings, trying to remember...") despite the fact they are wonderful things.

Okey dokey?

[Several]

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.

Damn this app. It won't quote.

The 'possibility that there may not be anything beyond' is nihilism, not what the Buddha said he taught. One reason for this thread is that the idea of no-soul may be a horrendous mistake. Notice the sharp decline in Arahants relative to the no-soul doctrine spreading. The term Citta could be what we're after. Mind before its consciousness, memory, idea or perception. The Jungian collective unconscious is one other interpretation. If it is the infinite foundation of all manifest phenomena it would be entirely possible to exist as an illusory independent being and as everything everywhere simultaneously. Infinite does not exclude anything. Nibbana could be the realisation that we are that and have never been other.

And where is this 'real world' you refer to? I though you said Nibbana wasn't a place. >_>

[Several]

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

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

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.

Oh so now the app is quoting. Two minutes ago it showed page 15 and 16 as the same. Technology. Humbug.

Anyway, the highest likelihood he didn't say Natthatta is that it is inaccurate. You may have, as have I, come across Anatta as a verb. What I'm driving at is that could be wrong and a device of some Buddhists to claim a no-soul interpretation most likely to define themselves as seperate to other sects. This would be primarily unhelpful in understanding Dhamma by perverting the original teaching, and it was being used to create division in the Sangha making it doubly atrocious. IF the quoted interpretation of Anatta is true then many are spreading teachings that are false and highly unlikely to result in liberation.

[weary]

Several, if your hunch about 'non self' versus 'no soul' is true, then essentially, would it be true to say that advaita vedanta has 'got the goods' already - 'tat twam asi' - 'that thou art', and the gradual 'not that', 'not that' process is all we need for enlightenment to take place?

[Several]

Possibly. That is something that Kathodos (the guy who wrote what I originally posted) said. In fact he quoted that word for word in a youtube video. Lacking full knowledge of the answer I'd guess its almost true, that it could guide us towards the reality, though maybe not make the final push. Like eliminating suspects in a murder case, you still need evidence to prosecute in court, not just because you have one likely candidate. (At least outside of Thailand)

[rockyysdt]

Anyway, that quote is a bit odd. Metta and Karuna have nothing to do with Vipassana, Jhana or Sati. They're not Enlightenment Factors. They're not in the 8 fold path. They are highly laudable states, definitely superior to other options but fundamental? I would have thought Mudita (sympathetic joy) would have gotten a mention too. And if its so fundamental, why is Ananda even asking? Sounds iffy.

What I meant about a christian concept of soul is that it is like an etheric everlasting ego. You're still you just without the meat. Buddha may have been using the term Citta to give his enlightened knowledge of this. You never were you, and always will be.

Practice is what leads to direct experential knowledge. What makes a Buddha is his ability to teach, to do that he needs to put it into words. We then reverse engineer the description. Buddha stated he only taught what was necessary to end suffering. This included more than guidelines on practice. Therefore a conceptual idea is included, even if it is only 'training wheels' until we overcome the need for concept. Practice is unlikely to bear much fruit unless you can recognise what is resulting in benefit or harm. Prior to the experience you need a description.

As i said, Metta and Karuna are impermanent and not self. Anatta seems to be an adjective describing that which causes suffering. If purification of Citta is actually what the practice is about then our task is discovering the true nature of mind. Without a clear aim you will chase your tail until your aggregates drop from exhaustion. Identifying sources of valid information appropriate to the task require discernment necessarily based on knowledge. Buddha constantly encouraged the monks to think; "tell me o monks..." followed by some question. He's not feeding dogma, he's encouraging critical thinking. The dependent origination is a logical progression, the root cause is Avijja, unknowing. The via negativa method of Anatta, finding an answer (by experience) from what it is not is perfectly in tune with this way of investigation. Sherlock Holmes mentioned something about the unusual behaviour of dogs the previous night. Watson commented the dogs had made no noise. "That was the unusual occurence, my dear Watson."

So it does make a difference, as far as I can tell, to investigate the states (enlightenment factor) more than to risk becoming attached to Metta/Karuna (Vedana, "feelings, nothing more than feelings, trying to remember...") despite the fact they are wonderful things.

Okey dokey?

Ananda would ask because he is a student.

Think of the 8 Fold Path as a high level list.

Break it down into lower levels and you will find that the Brahmaviharas (four immeasurables: Metta, Karuna, Mudita & Upekkha) is a purifying practice which fits nicely under "Wisdom" & "Ethical Conduct".

You take these attitudes into your meditation practice.

It is said that they contain the seeds of being in the "present" as they are a living practice in the present.

They are also the essence of the law of kharma, & right thought (samma sankkalpa, literally 'right commitments').

They are great antidotes to negative mental states such as hatred, avarice, greed, anger, pride & self interest.

The four immeasurables were explained in the Path to Purification, a treatise of the Buddhas teachings, written by the godfather of Theravada, Buddhagosa in the 5th century.

The Buddha taught his disciples to arouse these four states of mind. The Buddha, Digha Nikaya 13

I found this interesting:

While the suttas criticize notions of an eternal, unchanging Self, they see an enlightened being as one whose changing, empirical self is highly developed. One with great self has a mind which is not at the mercy of outside stimuli or its own moods, but is imbued with self-control, and self-contained. The mind of such a one is without boundaries, not limited by attachment or I-identification. One can transform one's self from an "insignificant self" into a "great self" through practices such as loving kindness and mindfulness. The suttas portray one disciple who has developed his mind through loving-kindness saying: "Formerly this mind of mine was limited, but now my mind is immeasurable."

At the culmination of the path is the Arahant, described as "one of developed self" (bhāvit-atto), who has carried the process of personal development and self-reliance to its perfection. Such a person has developed all the good aspects of their personality. An arahant is described as "one with a mind like a diamond", it can "cut" anything and is itself uncuttable; nothing can affect it. The suttas portray "one of developed self" in the following ways:

• Virtue, wisdom, and the meditative and other spiritual faculties are well-developed;
• Body is "developed" and "steadfast";
• Mind is "developed", "steadfast", "well-released" and without ill-will;
• When confronted with objects of the six senses, he or she has equanimity and is not confused, seeing only what is seen, and hearing only what is heard, not mental projections and elaborations such as attachment, desire, and aversion;
• The six senses are "controlled" and "guarded";
• He or she is "self-controlled" (atta-danto) and "with a well-controlled self" (attanā sudantena); and is
• "Unlimited, great, deep, immeasurable, hard to fathom, with much treasure, arisen (like the) ocean."

Edited September 28, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

And where is this 'real world' you refer to? I though you said Nibbana wasn't a place. >_>

Well, this also comes back to interpretation/translation.

A scholar of Sanskrit & Pali suggests that Nirvana (Sanskrit), Nibbana (Pali) is a verb.

[rockyysdt]

Anyway, the highest likelihood he didn't say Natthatta is that it is inaccurate. You may have, as have I, come across Anatta as a verb. What I'm driving at is that could be wrong and a device of some Buddhists to claim a no-soul interpretation most likely to define themselves as seperate to other sects. This would be primarily unhelpful in understanding Dhamma by perverting the original teaching, and it was being used to create division in the Sangha making it doubly atrocious. IF the quoted interpretation of Anatta is true then many are spreading teachings that are false and highly unlikely to result in liberation.

What I'm interested in is how would it alter your practice?

[Several]

Less distraction. More attention. Being luvvey and compassionate is ok for daily mundane goings on, provided you're not attached to them. They are superfluous to sharpening concentration and mindfulness.

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

[Several]

And where is this 'real world' you refer to? I though you said Nibbana wasn't a place. >_>

 

Well, this also comes back to interpretation/translation.

 

A scholar of Sanskrit & Pali suggests that Nirvana (Sanskrit), Nibbana (Pali) is a verb.

I was joking.

[Several]

 Anyway, that quote is a bit odd. Metta and Karuna have nothing to do with Vipassana, Jhana or Sati. They're not Enlightenment Factors. They're not in the 8 fold path. They are highly laudable states, definitely superior to other options but fundamental? I would have thought Mudita (sympathetic joy) would have gotten a mention too. And if its so fundamental, why is Ananda even asking? Sounds iffy.

What I meant about a christian concept of soul is that it is like an etheric everlasting ego. You're still you just without the meat. Buddha may have been using the term Citta to give his enlightened knowledge of this. You never were you, and always will be.

Practice is what leads to direct experential knowledge. What makes a Buddha is his ability to teach, to do that he needs to put it into words. We then reverse engineer the description. Buddha stated he only taught what was necessary to end suffering. This included more than guidelines on practice. Therefore a conceptual idea is included, even if it is only 'training wheels' until we overcome the need for concept. Practice is unlikely to bear much fruit unless you can recognise what is resulting in benefit or harm. Prior to the experience you need a description.

As i said, Metta and Karuna are impermanent and not self. Anatta seems to be an adjective describing that which causes suffering. If purification of Citta is actually what the practice is about then our task is discovering the true nature of mind. Without a clear aim you will chase your tail until your aggregates drop from exhaustion. Identifying sources of valid information appropriate to the task require discernment necessarily based on knowledge. Buddha constantly encouraged the monks to think; "tell me o monks..." followed by some question. He's not feeding dogma, he's encouraging critical thinking. The dependent origination is a logical progression, the root cause is Avijja, unknowing. The via negativa method of Anatta, finding an answer (by experience) from what it is not is perfectly in tune with this way of investigation. Sherlock Holmes mentioned something about the unusual behaviour of dogs the previous night. Watson commented the dogs had made no noise. "That was the unusual occurence, my dear Watson."

So it does make a difference, as far as I can tell, to investigate the states (enlightenment factor) more than to risk becoming attached to Metta/Karuna (Vedana, "feelings, nothing more than feelings, trying to remember...") despite the fact they are wonderful things.

Okey dokey?

 

Ananda would ask because he is a student.

 

Think of the 8 Fold Path as a high level list.

 

Break it down into lower levels and you will find that the Brahmaviharas (four immeasurables: Metta, Karuna, Mudita & Upekkha) is a purifying practice which fits nicely under "Wisdom" & "Ethical Conduct".

 

 

You take these attitudes into your meditation practice.

It is said that they contain the seeds of being in the "present" as they are a living practice in the present.

They are also the essence of the law of kharma, & right thought (samma sankkalpa, literally 'right commitments').

They are great antidotes to negative mental states such as hatred, avarice, greed, anger, pride & self interest.

 

The four immeasurables were explained in the Path to Purification, a treatise of the Buddhas teachings, written by the godfather of Theravada, Buddhagosa in the 5th century.

 

The Buddha taught his disciples to arouse these four states of mind.    The Buddha, Digha Nikaya 13

 

I found this interesting:

 

While the suttas criticize notions of an eternal, unchanging Self, they see an enlightened being as one whose changing, empirical self is highly developed. One with great self has a mind which is not at the mercy of outside stimuli or its own moods, but is imbued with self-control, and self-contained. The mind of such a one is without boundaries, not limited by attachment or I-identification. One can transform one's self from an "insignificant self" into a "great self" through practices such as loving kindness and mindfulness. The suttas portray one disciple who has developed his mind through loving-kindness saying: "Formerly this mind of mine was limited, but now my mind is immeasurable."

At the culmination of the path is the Arahant, described as "one of developed self" (bhāvit-atto), who has carried the process of personal development and self-reliance to its perfection. Such a person has developed all the good aspects of their personality. An arahant is described as "one with a mind like a diamond", it can "cut" anything and is itself uncuttable; nothing can affect it. The suttas portray "one of developed self" in the following ways:

• Virtue, wisdom, and the meditative and other spiritual faculties are well-developed;
• Body is "developed" and "steadfast";
• Mind is "developed", "steadfast", "well-released" and without ill-will;
• When confronted with objects of the six senses, he or she has equanimity and is not confused, seeing only what is seen, and hearing only what is heard, not mental projections and elaborations such as attachment, desire, and aversion;
• The six senses are "controlled" and "guarded";
• He or she is "self-controlled" (atta-danto) and "with a well-controlled self" (attanā sudantena); and is
• "Unlimited, great, deep, immeasurable, hard to fathom, with much treasure, arisen (like the) ocean."

 

The 8 fold path is an any level list, you just get better at it. You can construe Metta and the rest as fitting nicely in, but you could also make flying to the moon fit in too.

Taking a dump could just as well be described as 'being in the present'. Maybe even more so. Should I focus on voiding my bowels whilst meditating?

At the end of the Visuddhi Magga Buddhagosa says he hopes to be reborn in a Deva realm. So he doubted his ability to become enlightened and admits thereby that he is most definitely not. Its a good book on meditation written by a scholar.

The Buddha most likely did encourage these four states. He also said don't walk on your heels, wave your arms about or throw stones at swans. We're only supposed to bathe once every 15 days (unless working). Some things are about preferable behaviour.

The Suttas don't seem to be criticizing the eternal Citta. What this quote is talking about is the obvious mundane manifestation of an Arahant as percieved by the unknowing. The insignificant self is an aspect of the great self, not a seperate thing, otherwise you belittle the greater.

The disciple developed his mind through mindfulness. It would not matter if it was Metta or any of the subjects outlined in the Visuddhi Magga.

Nothing you quote after that says Metta or Karuna are necessary in any way. Virtue is behavioural for example. Equanimity is the superior mode of being. Saying that one has developed the 'good aspects of the personality' is incorrect as they would all be Anatta. Personality is ego. To be crude again, its talking about polishing turds.

[sabaijai]

And where is this 'real world' you refer to? I though you said Nibbana wasn't a place. >_>

Well, this also comes back to interpretation/translation.

A scholar of Sanskrit & Pali suggests that Nirvana (Sanskrit), Nibbana (Pali) is a verb.

Grammatically speaking, neither Pali term is a verb.

Anatta/anatman (non-soul, not non-self) can be either an adjective or nominative plural, depending on context.

http://buddhism.lib.ntu.edu.tw/lesson/pali/reading/gatha279.htm

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:Pali_declension

[Several]

Heh. I actually can't stand grammar.

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

[rockyysdt]

Less distraction. More attention. Being luvvey and compassionate is ok for daily mundane goings on, provided you're not attached to them. They are superfluous to sharpening concentration and mindfulness.

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

Hi Sev.

Regardless of interpretation, aren't you dismissing what the Buddha advocated?

Buddha to Annanda:

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.

My copy of the Noble Eightfold Path refers to 2 Eightfold Paths.

The "mundane", practiced by worldlings and the "ultra mundane" practiced by "Noble Ones".

Your OP revolves around "right understanding".

How can anything which is mundane be dismissed, when this is all we are capable of understanding whilst un awakened (even defecating, which is a subset of awareness of body) ?

Isn't sharpening concentration & awareness only one facet of the prescribed practice?

The Buddha taught:

1. Right Understanding.
2. Right -Effort.
3. Right Attentiveness.

Concentration & awareness falls into the third.

One of the "Absence of the Five Hindrances:

He has cast away ill-will; H

Edited October 1, 2013 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

Less distraction. More attention. Being luvvey and compassionate is ok for daily mundane goings on, provided you're not attached to them. They are superfluous to sharpening concentration and mindfulness.

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

One of the "Absence of the Five Hindrances:

He has cast away ill-will; He dwells in a heart free from ill-will; cherishing love and compassion toward all living beings, he cleanses his heart from ill-will.

[rockyysdt]

Anyway, the highest likelihood he didn't say Natthatta is that it is inaccurate. You may have, as have I, come across Anatta as a verb. What I'm driving at is that could be wrong and a device of some Buddhists to claim a no-soul interpretation most likely to define themselves as seperate to other sects. This would be primarily unhelpful in understanding Dhamma by perverting the original teaching, and it was being used to create division in the Sangha making it doubly atrocious. IF the quoted interpretation of Anatta is true then many are spreading teachings that are false and highly unlikely to result in liberation.

What I'm interested in is how would it alter your practice?

[rockyysdt]

The Suttas don't seem to be criticizing the eternal Citta. What this quote is talking about is the obvious mundane manifestation of an Arahant as percieved by the unknowing. The insignificant self is an aspect of the great self, not a seperate thing, otherwise you belittle the greater.

The disciple developed his mind through mindfulness. It would not matter if it was Metta or any of the subjects outlined in the Visuddhi Magga.

Nothing you quote after that says Metta or Karuna are necessary in any way. Virtue is behavioural for example. Equanimity is the superior mode of being. Saying that one has developed the 'good aspects of the personality' is incorrect as they would all be Anatta. Personality is ego. To be crude again, its talking about polishing turds.

Are you saying that karmically wholesome actions, thoughts, & feelings are unnecessary?

Sure they are attachments and as such Anatta, but aren't they advocated by the Buddha, and don't they halt the accumulation of negative kharma, and constitute the only thing open to a worldling living in the mundane until the total package of practice propels one into nobility?

Edited October 1, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

You must read the Suttas with discernment. They were written down a long time after the teacher died. He himself predicted the degradation of the Dhamma. He advised us to question and discover for ourselves. This is some of the greatest wisdom in Buddhism. Don't swallow everything you're fed.

I am dismissing out of hand anything that does not fit the framework. Suffering and the end of suffering is the whole of the teaching, according to Buddha. How is cultivation of anything to do with feeling going to fit in there? It will result in clinging and Kamma, unless you're throwing out the dependent origination.

There is nothing about right feeling in any version of the 8 fold path I have heard of. Mindfulness, effort and understanding, which being right thought and right view implies (along with investigation of states, unless you want to abandon the Enlightenment Factors too) at least some level of conceptual understanding of the truth in order to progress towards Nibbana.

Casting away ill-will would logically have more to do with equanimity, that also being an enlightenment factor. I am suspicious that much of the talk about Metta and Karuna are 'layman-pleasing' additions to what otherwise would seem to be a cold and barren teaching to the profane. Too much of current Buddhism is about making laypeople happy, pointless chanting they don't even understand etc. Buddha himself questioned the ability of others to comprehend the truth if his teaching.

It would obviously alter practice from wandering blindly about hoping to stumble on the truth to flying dead-straight towards it like a well aimed arrow. Remember that in Buddhas time people were becoming Arahants in as little as one week. The further in time we get from the Buddha the more degradation of the Dhamma and fewer Arahants who take longer to 'arrive'.

Yes. Completely unnecessary except for thought. They are preferable. Neither Kamma nor feelings are are enlightenment factors. In the dependent origination they result in suffering, death and rebirth.

Can we get back on subject now?

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

[rockyysdt]

You must read the Suttas with discernment. They were written down a long time after the teacher died. He himself predicted the degradation of the Dhamma. He advised us to question and discover for ourselves. This is some of the greatest wisdom in Buddhism. Don't swallow everything you're fed.

I am dismissing out of hand anything that does not fit the framework. Suffering and the end of suffering is the whole of the teaching, according to Buddha. How is cultivation of anything to do with feeling going to fit in there? It will result in clinging and Kamma, unless you're throwing out the dependent origination.

There is nothing about right feeling in any version of the 8 fold path I have heard of. Mindfulness, effort and understanding, which being right thought and right view implies (along with investigation of states, unless you want to abandon the Enlightenment Factors too) at least some level of conceptual understanding of the truth in order to progress towards Nibbana.

Casting away ill-will would logically have more to do with equanimity, that also being an enlightenment factor. I am suspicious that much of the talk about Metta and Karuna are 'layman-pleasing' additions to what otherwise would seem to be a cold and barren teaching to the profane. Too much of current Buddhism is about making laypeople happy, pointless chanting they don't even understand etc. Buddha himself questioned the ability of others to comprehend the truth if his teaching.

It would obviously alter practice from wandering blindly about hoping to stumble on the truth to flying dead-straight towards it like a well aimed arrow. Remember that in Buddhas time people were becoming Arahants in as little as one week. The further in time we get from the Buddha the more degradation of the Dhamma and fewer Arahants who take longer to 'arrive'.

Yes. Completely unnecessary except for thought. They are preferable. Neither Kamma nor feelings are are enlightenment factors. In the dependent origination they result in suffering, death and rebirth.

Can we get back on subject now?

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

Is answering the question, How will establishing that there is a soul alter your practice? on topic?

Edited October 1, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

I think its established, or at least highly likely. Mostly because there isn't a definitive answer other than through practice and investigation. That being the act of investigation itself is obviously important, arriving at definition isn't.

Next time on Several's rant, the Death of Goldilocks. Stay tuned.

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

[rockyysdt]

I think its established, or at least highly likely. Mostly because there isn't a definitive answer other than through practice and investigation. That being the act of investigation itself is obviously important, arriving at definition isn't.

Next time on Several's rant, the Death of Goldilocks. Stay tuned.

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

Have you concluded that there is a higher self/soul/enduring entity attached to us?

How do you investigate its existence?

Edited October 1, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

High probability of higher self (Citta). Stop. We are aspects of it, not it of us. Stop. Investigating by any and all means possible because if investigation and conceptual understanding wasn't at least partly necessary than any animal or insect capable of single pointed concentration could become enlightened. Please stop.

[Several]

There are a few theories about this being a 'Goldilocks' universe, certain parameters are 'just right' (not too hot, not too cold) for this cosmos to be the way it is. Here is a quote about that:

Stephen Hawking, along with Thomas Hertog of CERN, proposed that the Universe's initial conditions consisted of a superposition of many possible initial conditions, only a small fraction of which contributed to the conditions we see today. According to their theory, it is inevitable that we find our Universe's "fine-tuned" physical constants, as the current Universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking the existence of the Multiverse. (Fine-tuned universe, Wikipedia)

Now it is far from determined if this is true and it is used by creationists to prove intelligent design, others claim aliens, the number of parameters varies from one to about 25, some believe it is all just chance. Though it is far from being a solid theorem it is remarkable just how narrow a margin circumstances must fall into for the manifest universe to be the way it is. We're talking quite a few decimal places. A fraction more or less value of various forces and everything would be gas, or a single black hole or higher elements could not form etc. One example (I forget who) said the chance of this exact set of circumstances coming into being was the same as billions of blind men all solving Rubiks cubes simultaneously.

Putting the advent of life aside and just looking at matter (from molecules to galaxies) it seems highly improbable that this universe would be exactly right to create stars, galaxies and higher elements. But only if you assume time is an arrow. There are masses of evidence that precognition is not only possible but common. Time as a dimension is not currently understood. So if what I said before about mind being the basis of all reality is right then it is also possible that manifest reality has organised itself perfectly because it remembers how it is going to be. The universe is not an improbable set of circumstances, but an inevitability. All need for creators or slim probabilities are removed.

Almost any way you look at it, from my idea (around post 106/7) to Stephen Hawking (saying the universe 'selects' its condition) to creationists, mind or awareness is the simplest explaination, though I lean towards it being an unconscious reflex action and creation of the cosmos is an ongoing process, not a one time event.

This fits the interpretation of Anatta, and therefore Anicca. Anything subject to time is impermanent and not self. Mind (Citta) is the uncreated datum existing outside of time, consciousness and matter are manifest aspects of it and subject to time. Time itself, by its very nature, is Anicca.

Death is the end of physical aggregates. Dr. Peter Fenwick has shown that 10% of cardiac arrest victims who died (No cardiac output, no respiration, no brain stem reflexes. Clinical death) and are revived have comparable experiences and even memories of procedures carried out on them when their brain wasn't functioning. Not possible if consciousness is a function of the brain. Many people know when they or loved ones are going to die. Precognition (Abraham Lincon and John Lennon are just two examples). Many people have verifiable memories of previous lives (I knew one guy personally) at a young age. By the age of about 8 yrs people forget their previous existence and wholly become a new persona. It is very highly probable that consciousness survives death, is not temporally restricted and yet is still an aggregate. Part of the psycho-physical complex but not dependent on it.

That which is made from it is Anatta, that which it is made from is Citta.

[lungmi]

O.K.

Your "fighting" is in the way of Lessing------ at a high level, but

you forget "what is what"

Buddha Teaching for my cat. He jumps

in my neck to check what I write to TV specialists.

He looks and agrees.

He wants food and me too.

[Several]

I like cats. And my Kung <deleted> is strong.

Edited October 8, 2013 by Several

[rockyysdt]

You must read the Suttas with discernment. They were written down a long time after the teacher died. He himself predicted the degradation of the Dhamma. He advised us to question and discover for ourselves. This is some of the greatest wisdom in Buddhism. Don't swallow everything you're fed.

I am dismissing out of hand anything that does not fit the framework. Suffering and the end of suffering is the whole of the teaching, according to Buddha. How is cultivation of anything to do with feeling going to fit in there? It will result in clinging and Kamma, unless you're throwing out the dependent origination.

There is nothing about right feeling in any version of the 8 fold path I have heard of. Mindfulness, effort and understanding, which being right thought and right view implies (along with investigation of states, unless you want to abandon the Enlightenment Factors too) at least some level of conceptual understanding of the truth in order to progress towards Nibbana.

Casting away ill-will would logically have more to do with equanimity, that also being an enlightenment factor. I am suspicious that much of the talk about Metta and Karuna are 'layman-pleasing' additions to what otherwise would seem to be a cold and barren teaching to the profane. Too much of current Buddhism is about making laypeople happy, pointless chanting they don't even understand etc. Buddha himself questioned the ability of others to comprehend the truth if his teaching.

It would obviously alter practice from wandering blindly about hoping to stumble on the truth to flying dead-straight towards it like a well aimed arrow. Remember that in Buddhas time people were becoming Arahants in as little as one week. The further in time we get from the Buddha the more degradation of the Dhamma and fewer Arahants who take longer to 'arrive'.

Yes. Completely unnecessary except for thought. They are preferable. Neither Kamma nor feelings are are enlightenment factors. In the dependent origination they result in suffering, death and rebirth.

Can we get back on subject now?

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

Hi Sev.

I've come across the concept of "wholesome attachments".

Desire for Exertion.

Desire for Persistence.

Desire for Concentration.

Desire for the Path.

Desire for Awakening.

All these are attachments to Desire.

Metta is one of the 10 Paramita's (perfection or completeness).

Isn't cultivating these virtues a way of purification, allowing one to live an unobstructed life, free to allow one to reach the goal of Awakening?

I understand the Dalai Lama practices a more accurate (Sanskrit) interpretation of Metta.

Metta, has been interpreted as being "boundless friendliness" rather than loving kindness (less lovey).

Metta has also been described as love without clinging.

You mentioned that we are aspects of the "higher self".

If this is so, then isn't Karuna, Metta, Upekkha, & Mudita ways of respecting the "higher self" of others?

If these virtues were pedestrian why did the Buddha emphasise them considerably?

Can discernment be a slave/filter to our conditioning?

You indicated that understand that knowing if Anatta the higher self exists would help you by focusing your concentration practice towards this as one would a well aimed arrow.

I thought concentration/mindfulness practice is all about experiencing and seeing what is, rather than attaching to an idea and then bathing oneself in that creation.

Edited October 12, 2013 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Ten wholesome attachments are again preferable but still attachments and must ultimately be abandoned.

[Several]

Metta is excellent how ever it is described, what being short of enlightenment can bestow it without clinging? Having purified all except metta, metta itself becomes the obstacle.

[Several]

Equanimity is not the same as Karuna, Metta and Mudita. You misunderstand the proposition that there is a singular higher self that we are aspects of, not that we each are seperate except by appearance. And I do not suppose that this is a personality, but that it 'remembers' being each of us as if it dreamed us. Each subsequent 'dream' is coloured by the memory of the previous one, we call this Kamma. I have some doubt that it was Buddha himself who emphasised emotions when it clashes with other fundamental ideas. Dependent origination mainly. Is it actually Sutta where you get this idea or someone elses interpretation?

[Several]

Again you misunderstand. Investigation is not necessarily pursuant to description. If I am not attached to an 'answer' then what is my motive? I plainly stated that what I am doing is a strategy. Your understanding is coloured by your conditioning. You do not question your own methods. You do not challenge them until they collapse. All rational understanding is futile and can only ever be a shadow of the truth. But we are indoctrinated from a very young age into this farcical mode of conceptualisation which itself becomes the enemy of realisation. This is why Buddha would not be drawn into describing anything ultimate. Our primary habitual response is to create a label and fool ourselves into thinking we understand it. Unfortunately lesser individuals missed the point and chose the unskillful rationalisation that 'ergo there is no soul' and threw the baby out with the bath water. This is not only clinging (to an idea) but is also wrong. Double mistake. Besiege your little conceptual castle until the ramparts collapse. Free the truth imprisoned in the dungeon. Precisely by its own method. Rationality will not go away by sitting around practising breathing (a reflex action you're born with). Its an almost alchemical process of refining, turning the gross lead of ideas into the gold of realisation. Every possible avenue of rational inquiry should be exhausted until you know beyond words 'what is what'. Big deal if I am right or wrong. Any answer only produces more questions. The critical element of consciousness playes a key role in creating our reality and thus you will never experience knowing if you have any recourse to rationality. No matter how accurate your description seems to be. Fight fire with fire until there is nothing left to burn. Meditation alone arrives at nothing but a hiatus.