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:
samsarictravelling wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 11, 2019 8:14 am
auto wrote: ↑
Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:25 am
...
i don't know about Thanissaro Bhikku,
--that aside
http://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/a/attan
Attan，（m．） & atta （the latter is the form used in compn．） [Vedic ātman，not to Gr．a]νemos = Lat．animus，but to Gr．a）tmόs steam，Ohg．ātum breath，Ags．aepm]．-- I．Inflection．（1） of attan- （n．stem）; the foll．cases are the most freq．：Acc．attānaṁ D．I，13，185; S．I，24; Sn．132，451．-- Gen．Dat．attano Sn．334，592 etc．，also as Abl．A．III，337 （attano ca parato ca as regards himself and others）．-- Instr．Abl．attanā S．I，24; Sn．132，451; DhA．II，75; PvA．15，214 etc．On use of attanā see below III，1 C．-- Loc．attani S．V，177; A．I，149 （attanī metri causa）; II，52 （anattani）; III，181; M．I，138; Sn．666，756，784; Vbh．376 （an°）．-- （2） of atta- （a-stem） we find the foll．cases：Acc．attaṁ Dh．379．-- Instr．attena S．IV，54．-- Abl．attato S．I，188; Ps．I，143; II，48; Vbh．336．
Meanings．1．The soul as postulated in the animistic theories held in N India in the 6th and 7th cent．B．C．It is described in the Upanishads as a small creature，in shape like a man，dwelling in ordinary times in the heart．It escapes from the body in sleep or trance; when it returns to the body life and motion reappear．It escapes from the body at death，then continues to carry on an everlasting life of its own．For numerous other details see Rh．D．Theory of Soul in the Upanishads J R A S 1899．Bt．India 251--255．Buddhism repudiated all such theories，thus differing from other religions．Sixteen such theories about the soul D．I，31．Seven other theories D．I，34．Three others D．I，186/7．A “soul＂ according to general belief was some thing permanent，unchangeable，not affected by sorrow S．IV，54 = Kvu 67; Vin．I，14; M．I，138．See also M．I，233; III，265，271; S．II，17，109; III，135; A．I，284; II，164，171; V，188; S．IV，400．Cp．ātuman，tuma，puggala，jīva，satta，pāṇa and nāma-rūpa．
anattā （n．and predicative adj．） not a soul，without a soul．Most freq．in combn． with dukkha & anicca -- （1） as noun：S．III，141 （°anupassin）; IV，49; V，345 （°saññin）; A．II，52 = Ps．II，80 （anattani anattā; opp．to anattani attā，the opinion of the micchādiṭṭhigatā sattā）; Dh．279; Ps．II，37，45 sq．（°anupassanā），106 （yaṁ aniccañ ca dukkhañ ca taṁ anattā）; DhA．III，406 （°lakkhaṇa）．-- （2） as adj．（pred．）：S．IV，152 sq．; S．IV，166; S．IV，130 sq．，148 sq．; Vin．I，13 = S．III，66 = Nd2 680 Q 1; S．III，20 sq．; 178 sq．，196 sq．; sabbe dhammā anattā Vin．V，86; S．III，133; IV，28，401．
the soul theory is repudiated, because they are weak, wavered from how originally is meant. You can't entirely say there is no self or soul. The soul is doing something similar what is presented in these theories. Also read the general belief that soul is unchanging, permanent..
-
even in practice when you do progress, then after sleep you need do somethings again because sleep makes things go back, also you need guard etc to not make mistakes what when made then only sleep can undo.
and when you come aware then there returns something to body.
anattā could refer to that you don't have a soul, as you have to get it. Peeps believe they have a soul, but they don't have it; they need aquire it.
Thank you for your reply. The below is atman, correct or incorrect?
The soul as postulated in the animistic theories held in N India in the 6th and 7th cent．B．C．It is described in the Upanishads as a small creature，in shape like a man，dwelling in ordinary times in the heart．It escapes from the body in sleep or trance; when it returns to the body life and motion reappear．It escapes from the body at death，then continues to carry on an everlasting life of its own．For numerous other details see Rh．D．Theory of Soul in the Upanishads
And Buddhism repudiated the above described 'atman', correct or incorrect?:
Buddhism repudiated all such theories，thus differing from other religions
samsarictravelling
Then you replied:
cappuccino wrote: ↑
Mon Feb 11, 2019 9:58 am
samsarictravelling wrote:The soul
And Buddhism repudiated the above described 'atman', correct or incorrect?
soul is a mystery
Then I replied:
Thank you for your reply.
Yes... there are miracles that happen not just in Theravada Buddhism, or Hinduism.
Like some Christians seeing visions of Mary (I think it's 'Mary' I read stories about visions -- including massive groups of people seeing the same vision -- in a book; I'm not Christian so am not sure if it was 'Mary') or whatever divine-like beings. Life is a mystery.
samsarictravelling
Then you replied:
no, soul is a mystery that cannot be solved
in that sense, a mystery
Then I replied:
Let's go with the Theravada Buddhism faith (religion), and I'll say this:
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'. When you realize nibbana, you'll know what it is not.
I've never realized any attainment (streamwinner, once-returner, never-returner, or arhatship), so that's still a mystery.
I'm not even enlightened in any spiritual way even under streamwinnership.
I, at present, just have knowledge and maybe some wisdom, and a little meditation experience (but no high meditation level).
samsarictravelling
Then you replied:
soul and Nirvana are different concepts
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):
"But to what extent, Master Gotama, is there the safeguarding of the truth? To what extent does one safeguard the truth? We ask Master Gotama about the safeguarding of the truth."
"If a person has conviction, his statement, 'This is my conviction,' safeguards the truth. But he doesn't yet come to the definite conclusion that 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' To this extent, Bharadvaja, there is the safeguarding of the truth. To this extent one safeguards the truth. I describe this as the safeguarding of the truth. But it is not yet an awakening to the truth.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
In the same sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 95): What you believe can turn out either true or false:
There are five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Which five? Conviction, liking, unbroken tradition, reasoning by analogy, & an agreement through pondering views. These are the five things that can turn out in two ways in the here-&-now. Now some things are firmly held in conviction and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not firmly held in conviction, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. Some things are well-liked... truly an unbroken tradition... well-reasoned... Some things are well-pondered and yet vain, empty, & false. Some things are not well-pondered, and yet they are genuine, factual, & unmistaken. In these cases it isn't proper for a knowledgeable person who safeguards the truth to come to a definite conclusion, 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless."
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
No comments:
Post a Comment