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