Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #26. Buddhism, post #13.5 (26.2.12.5):
by samsarictravelling » Wed Feb 13, 2019 8:50 am
The below post is at Dhamma Wheel message board, in the Discussion 'My view of anatta. By samsarictravelling/Ai (Dinh) Le.' ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509&start=135 ):
There is no soul which goes from one life to another. How do we exist without a soul (atman)? What continues from one life to another? I boldface some parts, of my copy & paste of some parts of Bhikkhu Bodhi's 'Rebirth' writing:
___________________________________________________________________________________
BUDDHISM AND HINDUISM COMPARED
The word "Samsara" means literally "continuing on", "wandering on". It signifies the repetitive cycle of birth, ageing, death and rebirth.
Now though Buddhism and Hinduism share the concept of rebirth, the Buddhist concept differs in details from the Hindu doctrine. The doctrine of rebirth as understood in Hinduism involves a permanent soul, a conscious entity which transmigrates from one body to another. The soul inhabits a given body and at death, the soul casts that body off and goes on to assume another body. The famous Hindu classic, the Bhagavad Gita, compares this to a man who might take off one suit of clothing and put on another. The man remains the same but the suits of clothing are different. In the same way the soul remains the same but the psycho-physical organism it takes up differs from life to life.
The Buddhist term for rebirth in Pali is "punabbhava" which means "again existence". Buddhism sees rebirth not as the transmigration of a conscious entity but as the repeated occurrence of the process of existence. There is a continuity, a transmission of influence, a causal connection between one life and another. But there is no soul, no permanent entity which transmigrates from one life to another.
REBIRTH WITHOUT A TRANSMIGRATING SOUL
The concept of rebirth without a transmigrating soul commonly raises the question: How can we speak of ourselves as having lived past lives if there is no soul, no single life going through these many lives? To answer this we have to understand the nature of individual identity in a single lifetime. The Buddha explains that what we really are is a functionally unified combination of five aggregates. The five aggregates fall into two groups. First there is a material process, which is a current of material energy. Then there is a mental process, a current of mental happenings. Both these currents consist of factors that are subject to momentary arising and passing away. The mind is a series of mental acts made up of feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousnes. These mental acts are called in Pali "cittas". Each citta arises, breaks up and passes away. When it breaks up it does not leave any traces behind. It does not have any core or inner essence that remains. But as soon as the citta breaks up, immediately afterwards there arises another citta. Thus we find the mind as a succession of cittas, or series of momentary acts of consciousness.
Now when each citta falls away it transmits to its successor whatever impression has been recorded on itself, whatever experience it has undergone. Its perceptions, emotions and volitional force are passed on to the next citta, and thus all experiences we undergo leave their imprint on the onward flow of consciousness, on the "cittasantana", the continuum of mind. This transmission of influence, this causal continuity, gives us our continued identity. We remain the same person through the whole lifetime because of this continuity.
...
PRESERVATION OF IDENTITY ILLUSTRATED
An illustration may help us understand how this preservation of, identity can take place without the transmigration of any "self-identifiable" entity. Suppose we have a candle burning at 8 o'clock. If we come back in an hour, at 9 o'clock, we see that the candle is still burning, and we say that it is the same candle. This statement is completely valid from the standpoint of conventional linguistic usage. But if we examine this matter close-up we'll see that at every moment the candle is burning different particles of wax, every moment it is burning a different section of wick, different molecules of oxygen. Thus the wax, wick and the oxygen being burnt are always different from moment to moment, and yet because the moments of flame link together in a continuum, one moment of flame giving rise to the next, we still say it is the same flame. But actually the flame is different from moment to moment. The flame itself is an entirely different phenomenon. It is conditioned by wax, the wick and air, and apart from them there is nothing.
SIMILE OF THE CANDLE
We can apply this simile to the case of rebirth. The body of the candle is like the physical body of the person. The wick might be compared to the sense faculties that function as the support for the process of consciousness. The particles of oxygen are like the sense objects and the flame is like consciousness. Consciousness always arises with the physical body as its support. It always arises through a particular sense faculty, eg. eye, ear, nose, etc. It always has an object, e.g. sight, sound, etc. The body, sense faculty and the object keep constantly changing and therefore consciousness and the mental factors are constantly changing. But because each act of mind follows in sequence and passes on the contents to the following, we speak of the body and mind compound as being the same person. When the body loses its vitality and death takes place, that is like the first candle coming to an end. The transmission of the flame to the next candle, that is like the passing on of the current of consciousness to the next life. When the mental continuum takes up the new body, that is like the flame of the old candle passing on to the new candle.
https://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha058.htm
___________________________________________________________________________________
This is another 'candle' teaching that I read or got somewhere (from memory, so can have got it incorrect in a way, or not) I heard somewhere years ago, I think -- cannot remember who said it (maybe it's also Bhikkhu Bodhi's???), or if it was even from Theravada tradition (meaning, it could have been from some other type of Buddhism, or Buddhism in general), but it sounds like a simplified version of the candle simile above, but in regards to 'next rebirth' part only:
What passes from one life to the next? Like a candle flame lighting a new candle, it is like that: this life (first candle flame) has a connection with the next life (new candle's flame was created by the old candle's flame). The new candle flame is not the same flame as the old candle flame, but they are not totally different flames, either, because the old candle flame created the new candle flame.
samsarictravelling
Wednesday, 13 February 2019
25.2.12.4 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #25. Buddhism, post #13.4: Majjhima Nikaya 95 (Canki Sutta) and declaring 'This is my conviction' ('I believe'), and my freedom.
Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #25. Buddhism, post #13.4 (25.2.12.4):
The below post is at Dhamma Wheel message board, in the Discussion 'My view of anatta. By samsarictravelling/Ai (Dinh) Le.' ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509&start=135 ):
The below post is at Dhamma Wheel message board, in the Discussion 'My view of anatta. By samsarictravelling/Ai (Dinh) Le.' ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509&start=135 ):
I think I made a mistake in my writing of the recent past. It is just only one mistake, though. I cannot edit that writing now, because Dhamma Wheel message board does not allow it sometimes. So I will repost the whole writing with the correction, and also even more earlier past posts of mine and cappuccino's that the correction relates to.
It's just one mistake about 'soul' as a term for being the 'spiritual truth of life', whereby I mistakenly defined it for the section about 'if you take it from the Theravada Buddhism faith (religion)'. This 'soul' was actually, I think, defining for an earlier time in this discussion where it was said that 'soul is a mystery', whereby I personally related it to a view of spirituality I came to in the not too distant past (and still hold that it may have some truth in it to what reality is all about, but it is still only a speculation, not a conviction of belief), which would not be the view of mainstream Theravada Buddhism, I am guessing...
So, the whole writing again, but with the correction and additions:
I said:
Then you replied:
Then I replied:
Then you replied:
Then I replied:
Then you replied:
Now, I will respond to that:
Yes, soul (atman) and nibbana are different.
But let's go to an earlier point in this anatta discussion I created, when you said 'soul is a mystery' (it is found in a copy and paste above). It meant to me, some secret idea I have of the soul (or it can be capitalized as 'Soul'), which would be a non-Theravada Buddhism idea, at least, I guess... This secret idea -- meaning I don't want to share it publicly -- is an idea I thought up of. But because it is just an idea, not negated or proven because I am not enlightened -- meaning, I am not enlightened and therefore do not know really what reality (or you can capitalize it as 'Reality') is -- I don't have to feel I am heretical for having liked that idea, because I am not convinced in the truth of that idea.
Then right after that discussion of 'soul' (where I defined it personally as my secret idea of what soul/Soul is (but which I have no conviction in)), I started talking about the Theravada Buddhism faith (religion). I said 'When you have realized nibbana (streamwinner, once-returner, never-returner, or arhatshipship) you'll experience that reality, whether you call it now 'soul', 'Soul', or 'nibbana'.
What I think I meant by it is:
Sure, Theravada Buddhism says there's no atman, and the Ultimate Reality is Nibbana, which is also without a soul. You take that on your faith in Theravada Buddhism, if you want. But if I look at it objectively -- not by faith, but by my own experience as an unenlightened person -- I don't really know if Theravada Buddhism is speaking the truth about what reality is. So, I could say -- because I am not enlightened and don't know reality for myself, and not going by faith in Theravada Buddhism -- is that Nibbana actually might be Soul, or Atman (note I capitalized the word to become Soul (Atman) to specify it as Ultimate Reality, to distinguish it from the atman (soul) of the individual). I don't know. I really don't know.
But going with Theravada Buddhism, that belief of Nibbana being Atman is 'heretical', when Theravada Buddhism says 'All dhammas are without a soul' (dhammas includes both the conditioned and the Unconditioned -- the Unconditioned being Nibbana).
I am saying: As long as we are not enlightened, we cannot say we know what reality really is (is it Christianity, is it one kind of scientific belief when we die we just turn to dust (also called 'materialism'?), is it Mahayana Buddhism, is it Theravada Buddhism, is it Islam? etc)
Continuing on: So all we can say is "I believe". This is the teaching that says to say "I believe" when you don't know for sure: the Majjhima Nikaya 95 (Canki Sutta):
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
In the same sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 95): What you believe can turn out either true or false:
Okay, but you can still say you have faith ('saddha'?), also translated as 'conviction', I think. You have conviction maybe because of kamma from past life and/or seeing well behaved monks and/or reasoning out the Dhamma as being reasonable.
Continuing on: So then you, let's say, out of reasoning the Dhamma, you find the belief in a God (like in Christianity), is unreasonable. This is 'conviction'/'faith' ('saddha'?) in Theravada Buddhism, not the 'blind faith' you might find elsewhere.
As for me, I have not reasoned out the Dhamma yet whereby I can come to the conclusion that reality cannot be other possiblitites, like Nibbana might be the Soul (Atman), or there is a soul (atman).
I only say there is no atman (soul), and that there is no Soul (Atman) when I teach Theravada Buddhism, because that's what mainstream Theravada Buddhism teaches.
As for my own personal views, I don't know for sure what life really is -- what reality really is -- and like to be intellectually objective (in my way), so I could say: there may or may not be an atman (soul), there may or may not be a Soul (Atman).
But because I like Theravada Buddhism, I can say subjectively -- instead of talking in my way of objectively -- that there is no atman (soul), and nibbana is without a soul/Soul, either.
samsarictravelling
Monday, 11 February 2019
24.2.16 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #24. Buddhism, post #17: I MAY HAVE JUST FIGURED OUT THE ANANDA SUTTA!!!
Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #24. Buddhism, post #17 (24.2.16):
The original location where I posted this writing of mine:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33628
by samsarictravelling » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:40 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta, Bhikkhu Dhammanando, Cappuccino, Aloka, DNS (David N. Snyder), retrofuturist, DooDoot, and everyone else:
Before I get to my writing, here are three different translations of the Ananda Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 44.10 (SN 44.10)):
Bhikkhu Bodhi: https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/bodhi
Bhikkhu Sujato: https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato
Thanissaro Bhikkhu: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN44_10.html
Now, my writing:
I was just pondering over my ideas of the Ananda Sutta, and I think I might have figured out what the Ananda Sutta means. But if what I found is not really the case with the Ananda Sutta, this posting would be just an interesting fallacy. I don't know which one it is.
I had to go back on the computer right now to share it, because what if no one else ever published this idea, and then suddenly someone thought up of this same idea at around this same time I thought it up, but because I never went to the computer and shared it with the whole world, but they did, they would get the credit. LOL. So I had to right away type it on Dhamma Wheel message board to seal my possible credit of finding this.
Here it is:
If we break the sutta into four propositions, with two propositions labelled 1 and 2, and the other 2 propositions labelled A and B, they are:
1) Transmigration from one life to the next.
2) No transmigration from one life to the next.
A) There is an atman (soul).
B) There is no atman (soul).
If we pair all the possibilities:
1A,1B,2A,2B.
They are written out as, and explained by me:
1A) Transmigration from one life to the next, and there is an atman (soul): This is the definition of Eternalism, the the Hindu belief of reincarnation, whereby there is a atman that transmigrates from one life to the next. I know, I am uneducated, so maybe instead of saying 'Hindu belief', I should say Brahmanic belief, or Vedic belief??! I'm not sure, so I'll just use 'Hindu belief'. If any one corrects me on my terminology (using 'Hindu belief'), please give a understandable explanation.
1B) Transmigration from one life to the next, and there is no atman (soul). This is the definition for the Theravada Buddhism belief of rebirth, whereby there is no atman (soul) involved in the transmigration from one life to the next. This transmigration from one life to the next is due to the workings of Dependent Origination (the 12 links of Dependent Origination).
2A) No transmigration from one life to the next, and there is an atman (soul). This would be the definition of what Vacchagotta would have experienced if the Buddha replied 'Yes' to his question 'Is there no self?'; Vacchagotta believed he had an atman (soul), and if Buddha had answered 'Yes' to his question of 'Is there no self?', Vacchagotta would have become confused thinking something like: 'I thought I had an atman (soul), but now, because the Buddha said I do not have an atman (soul), I am instead just going to die and nothing else will happen; I don't know which is true'.
2B) No transmigration from one life to the next, and there is no atman (soul). This would be the definition of Annihilationism, the belief there is only one life, and no atman (soul). When we die, that's all there is to it. We were just a physical body and mind, with no abiding atman (soul) inside, and nothing else happens when our physical body dies. We have no more consciousness of anything when we die.
You see what makes my explanation of the Ananda Sutta here possibly remarkable, is that I broke things into all the possible components, and then arranged them in all the possible combinations; there are four possible components (1,2,A,B), and four possible arrangements (1A,1B,2A,2B); this is the analytical way of Theravada Buddhism, right?
And the other point to why this is remarkable: these four possible propositions (1A,1B,2A,2B) give a 'rule' as to what Vacchagotta's confusion -- if the Buddha answered 'Yes' to his question 'Is there no self?' -- could be explained as: 2A) No transmigration from one life to the next, and there is an atman (soul). It gives a 'rule', because do you think Theravada Buddhists like to analyze things into all possible combinations? I just tried to interpret what one of the combinations (2A) could mean ('could mean', because just my own words; not saying it is the truth of what the Ananda Sutta is saying).
That's all. What do you all think?
samsarictravelling
The original location where I posted this writing of mine:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33628
by samsarictravelling » Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:40 pm
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta, Bhikkhu Dhammanando, Cappuccino, Aloka, DNS (David N. Snyder), retrofuturist, DooDoot, and everyone else:
Before I get to my writing, here are three different translations of the Ananda Sutta (Samyutta Nikaya 44.10 (SN 44.10)):
Bhikkhu Bodhi: https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/bodhi
Bhikkhu Sujato: https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/sujato
Thanissaro Bhikkhu: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN44_10.html
Now, my writing:
I was just pondering over my ideas of the Ananda Sutta, and I think I might have figured out what the Ananda Sutta means. But if what I found is not really the case with the Ananda Sutta, this posting would be just an interesting fallacy. I don't know which one it is.
I had to go back on the computer right now to share it, because what if no one else ever published this idea, and then suddenly someone thought up of this same idea at around this same time I thought it up, but because I never went to the computer and shared it with the whole world, but they did, they would get the credit. LOL. So I had to right away type it on Dhamma Wheel message board to seal my possible credit of finding this.
Here it is:
If we break the sutta into four propositions, with two propositions labelled 1 and 2, and the other 2 propositions labelled A and B, they are:
1) Transmigration from one life to the next.
2) No transmigration from one life to the next.
A) There is an atman (soul).
B) There is no atman (soul).
If we pair all the possibilities:
1A,1B,2A,2B.
They are written out as, and explained by me:
1A) Transmigration from one life to the next, and there is an atman (soul): This is the definition of Eternalism, the the Hindu belief of reincarnation, whereby there is a atman that transmigrates from one life to the next. I know, I am uneducated, so maybe instead of saying 'Hindu belief', I should say Brahmanic belief, or Vedic belief??! I'm not sure, so I'll just use 'Hindu belief'. If any one corrects me on my terminology (using 'Hindu belief'), please give a understandable explanation.
1B) Transmigration from one life to the next, and there is no atman (soul). This is the definition for the Theravada Buddhism belief of rebirth, whereby there is no atman (soul) involved in the transmigration from one life to the next. This transmigration from one life to the next is due to the workings of Dependent Origination (the 12 links of Dependent Origination).
2A) No transmigration from one life to the next, and there is an atman (soul). This would be the definition of what Vacchagotta would have experienced if the Buddha replied 'Yes' to his question 'Is there no self?'; Vacchagotta believed he had an atman (soul), and if Buddha had answered 'Yes' to his question of 'Is there no self?', Vacchagotta would have become confused thinking something like: 'I thought I had an atman (soul), but now, because the Buddha said I do not have an atman (soul), I am instead just going to die and nothing else will happen; I don't know which is true'.
2B) No transmigration from one life to the next, and there is no atman (soul). This would be the definition of Annihilationism, the belief there is only one life, and no atman (soul). When we die, that's all there is to it. We were just a physical body and mind, with no abiding atman (soul) inside, and nothing else happens when our physical body dies. We have no more consciousness of anything when we die.
You see what makes my explanation of the Ananda Sutta here possibly remarkable, is that I broke things into all the possible components, and then arranged them in all the possible combinations; there are four possible components (1,2,A,B), and four possible arrangements (1A,1B,2A,2B); this is the analytical way of Theravada Buddhism, right?
And the other point to why this is remarkable: these four possible propositions (1A,1B,2A,2B) give a 'rule' as to what Vacchagotta's confusion -- if the Buddha answered 'Yes' to his question 'Is there no self?' -- could be explained as: 2A) No transmigration from one life to the next, and there is an atman (soul). It gives a 'rule', because do you think Theravada Buddhists like to analyze things into all possible combinations? I just tried to interpret what one of the combinations (2A) could mean ('could mean', because just my own words; not saying it is the truth of what the Ananda Sutta is saying).
That's all. What do you all think?
samsarictravelling
23.2.15 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #23. Buddhism, post #16: Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta,'no self' believers,& my idea of "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination".
Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #23. Buddhism, post #16 (23.2.15):
Original source of this post is at 'Dhamma Wheel' message board:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33622
by samsarictravelling » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:16 am
Hey again, Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta and everyone,
I am not a follower of Thanissaro Bhikkhu, but for the last week or so, I reviewed some of his anatta writings -- I did not read all of it, because that's boring. :D
I also read the Ananda Sutta and tried to understand it.
I don't know if Thanissaro Bhikkhu teaches his 'Not-self strategy (anatta strategy)' like the below I write, but what I write below is another way of using the Buddha's teaching for emancipation.
Mind you, I am not enlightened at all. But here's my take on how one could be enlightened 'here-and-now':
The 12 links of Dependent Origination is between Eternalism and Annihilationism.
What is Eternalism? The belief that one exists after death and continues from life to life with a soul (atman).
What is Annihilationism? The belief we only have this here one life, and when we die, we just turn to dust. Nothing happens after we die. Our body is the only self we have, and when we die, our self is forever gone. Sort of like the scientific view of life, am I correct? Maybe some (or maybe even many?) scientists believe in some kind of after-life, but the general belief about science is that science teaches we are gone forever when we die, right?
These are the two extremes that Buddha did not teach (Eternalism and Annihilationism). What did the Buddha teach? He taught a way that one could call 'in-between' these two. It accepts Eternalism's belief in continuing from one life after another, but does not believe in a soul (atman). It accepts Annihilationism's claim we have no soul (atman), but does not believe we just die and that's it; instead we go from one life to the next (rebirth).
This middle way belief -- going from one life to another, but without a soul (atman) -- happens because of, according to the Buddha, Dependent Origination.
What is Dependent Origination? It is the 12 links of Dependent Origination.
We create reality through the 12 links of Dependent Origination. For example: from craving, comes clinging (upadana); from clinging comes existence (bhava); from existence, comes birth (jati).
We can attain Nibbana right here-and-now if we destroy the succession of the links. For example: if we give up craving, then no clinging; if no clinging, then no existence; if no existence, then no birth.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu does not need 'anatta' to be a belief of 'no self', because a belief would be a craving. And craving would lead to clinging, etc, which in the end creates reality (samsara).
Thanissaro Bhikkhu instead gives up any belief, because any belief is a craving. And when he gives up all craving, all clinging is given up, etc, which in the end gives up birth. Birth given up, there is the experience of Nibbana here-and-now.
So Thanissaro Bhikkhu's way is a way to experience Nibbana here-and-now by destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination.
This could be what Thanissaro Bhikkhu is trying to do. Or I could be wrong.
If Thanissaro Bhikkhu does not teach this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination", then maybe others who do not follow Thanissaro Bhikkhu -- that means, basically, any Theravada Buddhists who hold the 'there is no self' belief -- do actually do this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination" to experience Nibbana here-and-now. They could believe in 'there is no self' while doing this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination" and successfully attain enlightenment? I am not sure. 'There is no self' is a belief. Maybe they could successfully attain enlightenment doing this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination" while holding on to the 'there is no self' belief.
Back to Thanissaro Bhikkhu and his followers: if they do this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination", they differ from those that do this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination" who hold a 'there is no self' belief (they are mentioned in the last paragraph). How do they differ? Thanissaro Bhikkhu and his followers do not hold any beliefs of 'there is no self' nor 'there is a self' -- because all beliefs are cravings and must be relinquished -- while they do this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination".
I'll say it again: I do not know if Thanissaro Bhikkhu and his followers who have their 'Not-self strategy (anatta strategy)' do this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination" (which is just an idea of mine).
samsarictravelling
Original source of this post is at 'Dhamma Wheel' message board:
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33622
by samsarictravelling » Mon Feb 11, 2019 7:16 am
Hey again, Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta and everyone,
I am not a follower of Thanissaro Bhikkhu, but for the last week or so, I reviewed some of his anatta writings -- I did not read all of it, because that's boring. :D
I also read the Ananda Sutta and tried to understand it.
I don't know if Thanissaro Bhikkhu teaches his 'Not-self strategy (anatta strategy)' like the below I write, but what I write below is another way of using the Buddha's teaching for emancipation.
Mind you, I am not enlightened at all. But here's my take on how one could be enlightened 'here-and-now':
The 12 links of Dependent Origination is between Eternalism and Annihilationism.
What is Eternalism? The belief that one exists after death and continues from life to life with a soul (atman).
What is Annihilationism? The belief we only have this here one life, and when we die, we just turn to dust. Nothing happens after we die. Our body is the only self we have, and when we die, our self is forever gone. Sort of like the scientific view of life, am I correct? Maybe some (or maybe even many?) scientists believe in some kind of after-life, but the general belief about science is that science teaches we are gone forever when we die, right?
These are the two extremes that Buddha did not teach (Eternalism and Annihilationism). What did the Buddha teach? He taught a way that one could call 'in-between' these two. It accepts Eternalism's belief in continuing from one life after another, but does not believe in a soul (atman). It accepts Annihilationism's claim we have no soul (atman), but does not believe we just die and that's it; instead we go from one life to the next (rebirth).
This middle way belief -- going from one life to another, but without a soul (atman) -- happens because of, according to the Buddha, Dependent Origination.
What is Dependent Origination? It is the 12 links of Dependent Origination.
We create reality through the 12 links of Dependent Origination. For example: from craving, comes clinging (upadana); from clinging comes existence (bhava); from existence, comes birth (jati).
We can attain Nibbana right here-and-now if we destroy the succession of the links. For example: if we give up craving, then no clinging; if no clinging, then no existence; if no existence, then no birth.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu does not need 'anatta' to be a belief of 'no self', because a belief would be a craving. And craving would lead to clinging, etc, which in the end creates reality (samsara).
Thanissaro Bhikkhu instead gives up any belief, because any belief is a craving. And when he gives up all craving, all clinging is given up, etc, which in the end gives up birth. Birth given up, there is the experience of Nibbana here-and-now.
So Thanissaro Bhikkhu's way is a way to experience Nibbana here-and-now by destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination.
This could be what Thanissaro Bhikkhu is trying to do. Or I could be wrong.
If Thanissaro Bhikkhu does not teach this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination", then maybe others who do not follow Thanissaro Bhikkhu -- that means, basically, any Theravada Buddhists who hold the 'there is no self' belief -- do actually do this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination" to experience Nibbana here-and-now. They could believe in 'there is no self' while doing this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination" and successfully attain enlightenment? I am not sure. 'There is no self' is a belief. Maybe they could successfully attain enlightenment doing this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination" while holding on to the 'there is no self' belief.
Back to Thanissaro Bhikkhu and his followers: if they do this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination", they differ from those that do this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination" who hold a 'there is no self' belief (they are mentioned in the last paragraph). How do they differ? Thanissaro Bhikkhu and his followers do not hold any beliefs of 'there is no self' nor 'there is a self' -- because all beliefs are cravings and must be relinquished -- while they do this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination".
I'll say it again: I do not know if Thanissaro Bhikkhu and his followers who have their 'Not-self strategy (anatta strategy)' do this "destroying the successive links of Dependent Origination" (which is just an idea of mine).
samsarictravelling
Sunday, 3 February 2019
22.2.14 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #22. Buddhism, post #15: The historical Vedic religion (also known as Vedism, Brahmanism, Vedic Brahmanism, and ancient Hinduism)
Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #22. Buddhism, post #15 (22.2.14):
Harappan Culture
For starters, it's believed that the first hints of Hinduism came from the Harappa people, a culture that inhabited the Indus River Valley of India around the year 4000 B.C. As time progressed, the formerly isolated Harappan culture came under invasion by outside people groups. One of these people groups were groups of Indo-Europeans, also known as Aryans.
As these Aryans invaded, they brought with them their faith known as Vedism. Many historians assert that when the Harappan faith mixed with the Aryan's Vedism, Hinduism was born.
As a religion, Hinduism is polytheistic. In other words, Hinduism believes in more than one god. Being very different from many Western belief systems, Hinduism doesn't hold to the concept of heaven. Instead, its goal is what they call moksha, the release from the cycle of rebirth and death. With this brief summary of Hinduism in ancient India, we now turn our attention to Buddhism.
Siddhartha Gautama
Quite ironically, perhaps, the founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama, started out as a Hindu. For this reason, Buddhism is often referred to as an off-shoot of Hinduism. Known to the world as Buddha, Gautama is believed to have been a wealthy Indian prince. However, just like the rather hazy information surrounding Hinduism, the founding of Buddhism is also rather unclear. In fact, the birth of Gautama is sometimes placed around 480 B.C., while others place it around 463 B.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Vedic religion
The historical Vedic religion (also known as Vedism, Brahmanism, Vedic Brahmanism, and ancient Hinduism[note 1]) refers to the religious ideas and practices among Indo-Aryan-speaking peoples of ancient India after about 1500 BCE.[2][3][4]
note 1: Scholars such as Jan Gonda have used the term ancient Hinduism, distinguishing it from "recent Hinduism". These terms are chronologically differentiated. According to the Encyclopædia Britannica from the Vedic religion emerged Brahmanism, a religious tradition of ancient India. It states, "Brahmanism emphasized the rites performed by, and the status of, the Brahman, or priestly, class as well as speculation about Brahman (the Absolute reality) as theorized in the Upanishads (speculative philosophical texts that are considered to be part of the Vedas, or scriptures)."[1]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vedic religion
Vedic religion, also called Vedism, the religion of the ancient Indo-European-speaking peoples who entered India about 1500 BCE from the region of present-day Iran. It takes its name from the collections of sacred texts known as the Vedas. Vedism is the oldest stratum of religious activity in India for which there exist written materials. It was one of the major traditions that shaped Hinduism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vedas
The Vedas (/ˈveɪdəz, ˈviː-/;[1] Sanskrit: वेद veda, "knowledge") are a large body of religious texts originating in ancient India. Composed in Vedic Sanskrit, the texts constitute the oldest layer of Sanskrit literature and the oldest scriptures of Hinduism.[2][3]
...
The Vedas are among the oldest sacred texts.[35][36] The Samhitas date to roughly 1700–1100 BCE,[37] and the "circum-Vedic" texts, as well as the redaction of the Samhitas, date to c. 1000–500 BCE, resulting in a Vedic period, spanning the mid 2nd to mid 1st millennium BCE, or the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age.[38] The Vedic period reaches its peak only after the composition of the mantra texts, with the establishment of the various shakhas all over Northern India which annotated the mantra samhitas with Brahmana discussions of their meaning, and reaches its end in the age of Buddha and Panini and the rise of the Mahajanapadas (archaeologically, Northern Black Polished Ware). Michael Witzel gives a time span of c. 1500 to c. 500–400 BCE. ...
The Upanishads reflect the last composed layer of texts in the Vedas. They are commonly referred to as Vedānta, variously interpreted to mean either the "last chapters, parts of the Vedas" or "the object, the highest purpose of the Veda".[124] The concepts of Brahman (Ultimate Reality) and Ātman (Soul, Self) are central ideas in all the Upanishads,[125][126] and "Know your Ātman" their thematic focus.[126][127] The Upanishads are the foundation of Hindu philosophical thought and its diverse traditions.[61][128] Of the Vedic corpus, they alone are widely known, and the central ideas of the Upanishads have influenced the diverse traditions of Hinduism.[61][129]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upanishads
More than 200 Upanishads are known, of which the first dozen or so are the oldest and most important and are referred to as the principal or main (mukhya) Upanishads.[15][16] The mukhya Upanishads are found mostly in the concluding part of the Brahmanas and Aranyakas[17] and were, for centuries, memorized by each generation and passed down orally. The early Upanishads all predate the Common Era, five[note 6] of them in all likelihood pre-Buddhist (6th century BCE),[18] down to the Maurya period.[19] Of the remainder, 95 Upanishads are part of the Muktika canon, composed from about the last centuries of 1st-millennium BCE through about 15th-century CE.[20][21] New Upanishads, beyond the 108 in the Muktika canon, continued to be composed through the early modern and modern era,[22] though often dealing with subjects which are unconnected to the Vedas.[23]
21.2.12.3 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #21. Buddhism, post #13.3: CONTINUATION OF My view of anatta. By samsarictravelling/Ai (Dinh) Le.
Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #18. Buddhism, post #13.3 (21.2.12.3):
The below post is at Dhamma Wheel message board ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509&start=90 ):
by samsarictravelling » Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:07 am
Dhammanando wrote: ↑
...
All according to Bhikkhu Bodhi on the Vacchagotta incident:
or because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold)
So the Buddha does not declare “There is no self” not because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold)...but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self.
What this means (to me) is the "Not-self strategy" as taught by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is rejected by the Buddha, because the Buddha did not teach anatta as a strategy of perception devoid of ontological implications.
Also:
The Buddha declares that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhammā anattā), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since “all phenomena” includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.
So the Buddha (according to Bhikkhu Bodhi in the above quote) does say there is no self anywhere, both in the conditioned (samsara) and unconditioned (nibbana). Again: The unconditioned -- nibbana is the one and only unconditioned thing -- also should not be regarded as self (I would capitalize it, and say the unconditioned is not to be regarded as Self).
In contrast, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says the Buddha never said there was a self, nor no self. The Buddha (according to Bhikkhu Bodhi in the above quote) does say there is no self anywhere, so Thanissaro Bhikkhu is wrong with his anatta doctrine.
But to keep things in line with truth, I would say: Because I myself do not know for sure (and also I am not enlightened), Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta doctrine and Bhikkhu Bodhi's annatta doctrine can co-exist if one group says to the other group "I believe" when they do not know for sure, not "It is exactly as I say, and I know it to be so" when they themselves really do not know for sure.
This may or may not have been the note I read in the past! Thank you, for either case (may or may not have been the note).
samsarictravelling
The below post is at Dhamma Wheel message board ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509&start=90 ):
by samsarictravelling » Sun Feb 03, 2019 3:07 am
Dhammanando wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:50 am
I think he would be more likely to call it an untenable interpretation rather than using a confrontational term like "heresy". His actual words in an endnote to the sutta in question:...
All according to Bhikkhu Bodhi on the Vacchagotta incident:
or because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold)
So the Buddha does not declare “There is no self” not because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold)...but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self.
What this means (to me) is the "Not-self strategy" as taught by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is rejected by the Buddha, because the Buddha did not teach anatta as a strategy of perception devoid of ontological implications.
Also:
The Buddha declares that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhammā anattā), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since “all phenomena” includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.
So the Buddha (according to Bhikkhu Bodhi in the above quote) does say there is no self anywhere, both in the conditioned (samsara) and unconditioned (nibbana). Again: The unconditioned -- nibbana is the one and only unconditioned thing -- also should not be regarded as self (I would capitalize it, and say the unconditioned is not to be regarded as Self).
In contrast, Thanissaro Bhikkhu says the Buddha never said there was a self, nor no self. The Buddha (according to Bhikkhu Bodhi in the above quote) does say there is no self anywhere, so Thanissaro Bhikkhu is wrong with his anatta doctrine.
But to keep things in line with truth, I would say: Because I myself do not know for sure (and also I am not enlightened), Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta doctrine and Bhikkhu Bodhi's annatta doctrine can co-exist if one group says to the other group "I believe" when they do not know for sure, not "It is exactly as I say, and I know it to be so" when they themselves really do not know for sure.
This may or may not have been the note I read in the past! Thank you, for either case (may or may not have been the note).
samsarictravelling
20.2.12.2 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #20. Buddhism, post #13.2: CONTINUATION OF My view of anatta. By samsarictravelling/Ai (Dinh) Le.
Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #18. Buddhism, post #13.2 (20.2.12.2):
The below post is at Dhamma Wheel message board ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509&start=75 ):
by Dhammanando » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:50 am
samsarictravelling wrote: ↑
So, you read the note from one of Bhikkhu Bodhi's Nikayas-translated-into-English books, like I did? And/or you heard Bhikkhu Bodhi say this also (that anatta as a strategy is heresy) somewhere else?
I think he would be more likely to call it an untenable interpretation rather than using a confrontational term like "heresy". His actual words in an endnote to the sutta in question:
Probably this means that Vacchagotta would have interpreted the Buddha’s denial as a rejection of his empirical personality, which (on account of his inclination towards views of self) he would have been identifying as a self. We should carefully heed the two reasons the Buddha does not declare, “There is no self”: not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhammā anattā), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since “all phenomena” includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.
The below post is at Dhamma Wheel message board ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509&start=75 ):
by Dhammanando » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:50 am
samsarictravelling wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:15 am
So, you read the note from one of Bhikkhu Bodhi's Nikayas-translated-into-English books, like I did? And/or you heard Bhikkhu Bodhi say this also (that anatta as a strategy is heresy) somewhere else?
I think he would be more likely to call it an untenable interpretation rather than using a confrontational term like "heresy". His actual words in an endnote to the sutta in question:
Probably this means that Vacchagotta would have interpreted the Buddha’s denial as a rejection of his empirical personality, which (on account of his inclination towards views of self) he would have been identifying as a self. We should carefully heed the two reasons the Buddha does not declare, “There is no self”: not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is concerned only with delineating “a strategy of perception” devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that “all phenomena are nonself” (sabbe dhammā anattā), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since “all phenomena” includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.
19.2.13 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #19. Buddhism, post #14: I removed Thanissaro Bhikkhu's image from my facebook banner.
Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #19. Buddhism, post #14 (19.2.13):
Everyone,
I removed Thanissaro Bhikkhu's image from my facebook banner.
samsarictravelling
Thursday, 31 January 2019
18.2.12.1 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #18. Buddhism, post #13.1: CONTINUATION OF My view of anatta. By samsarictravelling/Ai (Dinh) Le.
Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #18. Buddhism, post #13.1 (18.2.12.1):
The below post is at Dhamma Wheel message board ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509 ):
Okay, I'm not getting paid for this, but hopefully I will get something back in the future for this.
May what I say benefit my family members and myself with worldly prosperity, worldly happiness, and spiritual growth and happiness.
Here goes:
Here I go explaining anatta:
All conditioned things are impermanent, changing (anicca).
What is anicca, that is dukkha. How is that? For example, when some family member passes away, suffering (dukkha) results.
What is dukkha, that is anatta. Why? Dukkha results because you have no control over it. If your atman (soul) was in control, dukkha could not be the result.
Side note: Also because things are anicca, there is anatta. Anicca means everything is conditional, due to cause and effect. And if everything is conditional, due to cause and effect, there can be no such thing as the atman as the Hindus believed. What is the atman belief of the Hindus? The Hindus believed in an unchanging, permanent soul (atman) that resides in a person. If everything is changing (anicca) according to Theravada Buddhism, there can be no element in existence that could exist as an unchanging, permanent soul (atman) like the Hindus believed.
'What is anatta, one should see it as it really is, with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' Why? If something is anatta -- it includes the idea of anicca (impermanence) -- then you could see it as mine for now, but not mine forever; I may be this way now (I am), but I may become a different personality later;this is definitely not the self/soul (atman) that the Hindus believed, because you cannot control a suffering aspect when it arises, and a second reason as well, that it is anicca (See side note above). What does it mean 'you cannot control a suffering aspect when it arises'? Because what is dukkha, that is anatta (mentioned above already, but now I will explain more). Dukkha means that aspect is not atman. If that aspect were atman, dukkha could not arise for that aspect. Why? Atman means an unchanging, permanent, soul, that is in control. If atman existed for that aspect, there would be control over the aspect, power over the aspect, and that means when one has absoulute control over an aspect, one would will it to not cause suffering, right? Who, if they can, would allow suffering to arise? If you had an unchanging, permanent soul that was in control, you would not allow dukkha to arise. But according to Theravada Buddhism, because there exists the experience of suffering, there is no atman, at least in that aspect where you are suffering. Theravada Buddhism (or maybe Buddhism in general???) would go on to say everything can be seen as dukkha, so everything is anatta...
There is a self in the mundane sense. So I exist as Ai Le (or 'samsarictravelling' is another name I am known as). But in the ultimate sense, there is no self because there is no unchanging, permanent soul (atman) that resides in a person, as the Hindus believe. According to what I believe: there is a changing self that goes from one life to the next, but this self has no unchanging, permanent soul/essence (atman) like the Hindus believe. Again: this self that goes from one existence to another is changing, and like I said, is not an unchanging, permanent atman like the Hindus believe.
This unchanging, permanent atman of the Hindus is the same type of soul the Christians believe in, do you think so?
samsarictravelling
17.2.12 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #17. Buddhism, post #13: My view of anatta. By samsarictravelling/Ai (Dinh) Le.
Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #17. Buddhism, post #13 (17.2.12):
I posted the below post at Dhamma Wheel message board ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509 ):
I guess what I write below is my view of what anatta means basically to me. I say "guess" because I am not pondering how much truth in what I write "spontaneously" as what I actually believe -- it actually may be what I might really believe, but cannot truthfully say for sure:
If you go to my http://facebook.com/aidinhle , you will see Thanissaro Bhikkhu has the middle prominent position in my banner.
Thanissaro Bhikkhu has helped me gain a self-powered life through his translation of the Majjhima Nikaya 61 ( https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html ), and his discriminating (analytical) teachings helped me, too, so I am paying my gratitude to him in putting his image in my banner. Thanissaro Bhikkhu, though, I do not follow.
My name samsarictravelling, I will now explain what it means.
If I called myself samsarictraveller, it would sound better, but does not convey the idea there is no self.
In the Visuddhimagga, it is said something like this:
Suffering, but no sufferer.
Actions, but no doer.
Nibbana, but no one who enters it.
The path, but no one on it is seen.
So, likewise: no traveller, just travelling.
I do not believe in an unchanging soul (atman), like the Hindus believe.
All dhammas -- dhammas encompasses all the conditioned (samsara) and the only one Unconditioned thing: nibbana -- are anatta;not-self;without a soul/Soul.
samsarictravelling/Ai (Dinh) Le
Wednesday, 30 January 2019
16.2.11 Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #16. Buddhism, post #12: Difference between the Kalama Sutta in Pali Canon and its Chinese parallel.
Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #16. Buddhism, post #12 (16.2.11):
I originally posted this at the Dhamma Wheel message board ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33475&start=15 ):
I actually found on the internet at this Wisdom Publications website (is it a real Wisdom Publications website, or not?) that they have the Introduction to The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha (Anguttara Nikaya English translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi) online, and it does include the passage about the Kalama Sutta and its Chinese parallel. It is found almost to the bottom of the webpage:
INTRODUCTION
...
The Chinese Parallels
...
An intriguing divergence between the two traditions occurs in a discourse widely known as the Kālāma Sutta, which records the Buddha’s advice to the people of Kesaputta. In contemporary Buddhist circles it has become almost de rigueur to regard the Kālāma Sutta as the essential Buddhist text, almost equal in importance to the discourse on the four noble truths. The sutta is held up as proof that the Buddha anticipated Western empiricism, free inquiry, and the scientific method, that he endorsed the personal determination of truth. Though until the late nineteenth century this sutta was just one small hill in the mountain range of the Nikāyas, since the start of the twentieth century it has become one of the most commonly quoted Buddhist texts, offered as the key to convince those with modernist leanings that the Buddha was their forerunner. However, the Chinese parallel to the Kālāma Sutta, MĀ 16 (at T I 438b13‒439c22), is quite different. Here the Buddha does not ask the Kālāmas to resolve their doubts by judging matters for themselves. Instead, he advises them not to give rise to doubt and perpexity at all. He tells them point blank: “You yourselves do not have pure wisdom with which to know whether there is an afterlife or not. You yourselves do not have pure wisdom to know which deeds are transgressions and which are not transgressions.” He then explains to them the three unwholesome roots of kamma, how they lead to moral transgressions, and the ten courses of wholesome kamma.
SOURCE: https://www.wisdompubs.org/book/numerical-discourses-buddha/introduction
samsarictravelling
I originally posted this at the Dhamma Wheel message board ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33475&start=15 ):
I actually found on the internet at this Wisdom Publications website (is it a real Wisdom Publications website, or not?) that they have the Introduction to The Numerical Discourses of the Buddha (Anguttara Nikaya English translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi) online, and it does include the passage about the Kalama Sutta and its Chinese parallel. It is found almost to the bottom of the webpage:
INTRODUCTION
...
The Chinese Parallels
...
An intriguing divergence between the two traditions occurs in a discourse widely known as the Kālāma Sutta, which records the Buddha’s advice to the people of Kesaputta. In contemporary Buddhist circles it has become almost de rigueur to regard the Kālāma Sutta as the essential Buddhist text, almost equal in importance to the discourse on the four noble truths. The sutta is held up as proof that the Buddha anticipated Western empiricism, free inquiry, and the scientific method, that he endorsed the personal determination of truth. Though until the late nineteenth century this sutta was just one small hill in the mountain range of the Nikāyas, since the start of the twentieth century it has become one of the most commonly quoted Buddhist texts, offered as the key to convince those with modernist leanings that the Buddha was their forerunner. However, the Chinese parallel to the Kālāma Sutta, MĀ 16 (at T I 438b13‒439c22), is quite different. Here the Buddha does not ask the Kālāmas to resolve their doubts by judging matters for themselves. Instead, he advises them not to give rise to doubt and perpexity at all. He tells them point blank: “You yourselves do not have pure wisdom with which to know whether there is an afterlife or not. You yourselves do not have pure wisdom to know which deeds are transgressions and which are not transgressions.” He then explains to them the three unwholesome roots of kamma, how they lead to moral transgressions, and the ten courses of wholesome kamma.
SOURCE: https://www.wisdompubs.org/book/numerical-discourses-buddha/introduction
samsarictravelling
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)