FreeSangha - Buddhist Forum

Schools of Buddhism => The Library => Topic started by: Samana Johann on September 26, 2017, 04:49:16 pm

Title: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 26, 2017, 04:49:16 pm
Quote
([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/thanissaro_small.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/index_en.html[/url])

Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself_en.html[/url]), by Thanissaro Bhikkhu (2011; 79pp./241KB) ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/img/pdf_24x18.gif[/url]) ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself_en.pdf[/url])
Five talks on the topic of not-self (anattā), from a ten-day meditation retreat held in France.

German/Deutsch: Formen von Selbst und Nicht-Selbst - Die buddhistischen Lehren über Anatta ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/lib/authors/thanissaro/selvesnotself.html[/url])
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 28, 2017, 03:09:20 am
Hi Samana Johann,

Thanissaro is an eternalist, who has the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul.  He doesn’t ‘get’ anatta. That is, there is no self to be found in the aggregates, and it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.  Instead, he posts a load of ‘strawman arguments’ to defend his position.

So who do you believe, the Buddha or Thanissaro?

:namaste:

Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 28, 2017, 04:10:44 am
Off-Topic: hover if you like

Nyom Francis,

My person is not perfect in English and could have readed all with certain preoccupations, it would be good if Francis would quote indicators that support Francis accusse from the book here. It's not that boring and the long Sutta part attachemt, Francis might nevertheless know already.

It's good to have discussions and previews in the library, since many would rather follow advices of people seeming to hold the same stand. There is a good Sutta, not mentioned by Bhante, maybe later here, after your generous and critical review.

Off-topic: hover if you like
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on September 28, 2017, 04:58:42 am
Thanissaro is an eternalist, who has the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul.  He doesn’t ‘get’ anatta... Instead, he posts a load of ‘strawman arguments’ to defend his position.

Can you provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks

it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

Can you also provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on September 28, 2017, 08:28:10 am
Off-Topic: hover if you like

Nyom Francis,

My person is not perfect in English and could have readed all with certain preoccupations, it would be good if Francis would quote indicators that support Francis accusse from the book here. It's not that boring and the long Sutta part attachemt, Francis might nevertheless know already.

It's good to have discussions and previews in the library, since many would rather follow advices of people seeming to hold the same stand. There is a good Sutta, not mentioned by Bhante, maybe later here, after your generous and critical review.

Off-topic: hover if you like


What would be better is if you could spend time learning English.  You've been posting to English forums for many years- enough that most people would have picked up enough English to be clear.  Throughout Europe, English language classes are mandatory.  Did you sleep though yours?
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on September 28, 2017, 01:47:25 pm
Quote
it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

Can you also provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks

Likewise.  I'd also like to know what the strawman arguments are and why they're strawmen.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: ground on September 28, 2017, 10:48:50 pm
... it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self...
The fabricator works seemelessly  :fu:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 01:46:13 am
Thanissaro is an eternalist, who has the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul.  He doesn’t ‘get’ anatta... Instead, he posts a load of ‘strawman arguments’ to defend his position.

Can you provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks

it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

Can you also provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks

Hi VisuddhiRaptor,

Good to see you posting again.

I didn't realise you were also an eternalist, and Thanissaro fan.

If you don't understand anatta, then I suggest you check out Chapter 6, The Doctrine of No-Soul: Anatta, in a book called 'What the Buddha Taught' by Walpola Rahula.

If you want quotes, try Dhamma Wheel.

:namaste:

Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 01:50:34 am
Quote
it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

Can you also provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks

Likewise.  I'd also like to know what the strawman arguments are and why they're strawmen.

Hi IdleChater,

Have you read the quoted article 'Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta', by Thanissaro Bhikkhu?

It's whole premise is based on strawman arguments.

:namaste:

Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 29, 2017, 02:10:34 am
Off-topic: Don't give Strawmans here Nyom Francis, if not liking that people possible claim you deliberatly lie, but answer or withdraw your comment, of course just if wishing to gain liberation. It does not make Francis looking very beautiful when seeking for support by means of affection or aversion, winning people on another level that the unanswered question. Just that Francis know.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 02:12:31 am
Off-Topic: hover if you like

Nyom Francis,

My person is not perfect in English and could have readed all with certain preoccupations, it would be good if Francis would quote indicators that support Francis accusse from the book here. It's not that boring and the long Sutta part attachemt, Francis might nevertheless know already.

It's good to have discussions and previews in the library, since many would rather follow advices of people seeming to hold the same stand. There is a good Sutta, not mentioned by Bhante, maybe later here, after your generous and critical review.

Off-topic: hover if you like


Hi Samana Johann,

You quoted Thanissaro, not a sutta. Thanissaro is not a Buddha.

The Buddha’s teachings on anatta are found in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (SN 22.59). The sutta is best read in the context of the Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel017.html) translated by Nanamoli Thera.

It also helps if you provide context, in your own words, rather than quoting (or linking to) long slabs of text. Without context, who can say what is Off-Topic.

:namaste:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 29, 2017, 02:47:22 am
Quote
The Four Great References ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji_en.html#fn-38[/url])

7. And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. [37] Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying:

"So be it, Lord."

8-11. Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."


So in reference to this, you have been asked, saying a member of the Savaka Sangha teaches A-Dhamma. Doing such, without having investigated attentive, without proving and without knowing, such lead in not very well situations. So it would be good to stop Strawman buildings and answer the questions you got after reviling a Venerable member of the Sangha even personaly, not only in regard of certain deeds.

It's then done not for other, not for my person, Bhante, or the questioner, but for yourself, possible benefical. So again just a hint.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on September 29, 2017, 03:37:55 am
Quote
it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

Can you also provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks

Likewise.  I'd also like to know what the strawman arguments are and why they're strawmen.

Hi IdleChater,

Have you read the quoted article 'Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta', by Thanissaro Bhikkhu?

It's whole premise is based on strawman arguments.

:namaste:

No time for that.  I'm more interested in what you think on it.  A strawman arguments is meant to refute argument by way of misrepresention - a straw man - of the base argument.  In the case of an article like this it's unlikely that The auther is erecting strawmen.  What's more likely, is that you don't know what a strawman is in the first place, and that's what I'm digging for, not the substance of the article.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 03:39:24 am
Quote
The Four Great References ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji_en.html#fn-38[/url])

7. And there the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Now, bhikkhus, I shall make known to you the four great references. [37] Listen and pay heed to my words." And those bhikkhus answered, saying:

"So be it, Lord."

8-11. Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. But if the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."


So in reference to this, you have been asked, saying a member of the Savaka Sangha teaches A-Dhamma. Doing such, without having investigated attentive, without proving and without knowing, such lead in not very well situations. So it would be good to stop Strawman buildings and answer the questions you got after reviling a Venerable member of the Sangha even personaly, not only in regard of certain deeds.

It's then done not for other, not for my person, Bhante, or the questioner, but for yourself, possible benefical. So again just a hint.


Hi Samana Johann,

I'm not the one building strawman arguments, I leave that to those who don't understand anatta and pursue eternalism.

As said previously, I follow the Buddha's teaching that there is no self to be found in the aggregates (or outside them), and it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self. 

What is your view on anatta?

:namaste:

Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 03:43:37 am
Quote
it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

Can you also provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks

Likewise.  I'd also like to know what the strawman arguments are and why they're strawmen.

Hi IdleChater,

Have you read the quoted article 'Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta', by Thanissaro Bhikkhu?

It's whole premise is based on strawman arguments.

:namaste:

No time for that.  I'm more interested in what you think on it.  A strawman arguments is meant to refute argument by way of misrepresention - a straw man - of the base argument.  In the case of an article like this it's unlikely that The auther is erecting strawmen.  What's more likely, is that you don't know what a strawman is in the first place, and that's what I'm digging for, not the substance of the article.

Hi IdleChater,

If you don’t have the time to read the article, then you are not in a position to comment.

:namaste:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on September 29, 2017, 03:58:33 am
Quote
it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

Can you also provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks

Likewise.  I'd also like to know what the strawman arguments are and why they're strawmen.

Hi IdleChater,

Have you read the quoted article 'Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta', by Thanissaro Bhikkhu?

It's whole premise is based on strawman arguments.

:namaste:

No time for that.  I'm more interested in what you think on it.  A strawman arguments is meant to refute argument by way of misrepresention - a straw man - of the base argument.  In the case of an article like this it's unlikely that The auther is erecting strawmen.  What's more likely, is that you don't know what a strawman is in the first place, and that's what I'm digging for, not the substance of the article.

Hi IdleChater,

If you don’t have the time to read the article, then you are not in a position to comment.

:namaste:

Nonsense.  You erect a strawman by misrepresenting my argument which is to determine if you understand what a strawman is in the first place.

I don't really care about what the author says about self, and it appears you don't either.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 29, 2017, 04:07:40 am
Francis, your debt caused, stays open, how ever Francis tries to build up strawmans. Of course certain question can be made in/on other topics, whether there might be release for Francis or not, who knows, since Francis reviling  will stay a pitfall here, not possible covered, not possible confessed and he could be regarded possible even to be simply greedy of what he holds as his (Dhamma). Just to let Francis know.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 04:09:02 am
Quote
it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

Can you also provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks

Likewise.  I'd also like to know what the strawman arguments are and why they're strawmen.

Hi IdleChater,

Have you read the quoted article 'Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta', by Thanissaro Bhikkhu?

It's whole premise is based on strawman arguments.

:namaste:

No time for that.  I'm more interested in what you think on it.  A strawman arguments is meant to refute argument by way of misrepresention - a straw man - of the base argument.  In the case of an article like this it's unlikely that The auther is erecting strawmen.  What's more likely, is that you don't know what a strawman is in the first place, and that's what I'm digging for, not the substance of the article.

Hi IdleChater,

If you don’t have the time to read the article, then you are not in a position to comment.

:namaste:

Nonsense.  You erect a strawman by misrepresenting my argument which is to determine if you understand what a strawman is in the first place.

I don't really care about what the author says about self, and it appears you don't either.

IdleChater,

That's complete conjecture.

You don't have an argument, and i'm not really sure why you are taking the time to get into a discussion on an article you don't have the time to read.

:namaste:

 
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on September 29, 2017, 04:21:51 am
Quote
it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

Can you also provide some quotes to support this view? Thanks

Likewise.  I'd also like to know what the strawman arguments are and why they're strawmen.

Hi IdleChater,

Have you read the quoted article 'Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta', by Thanissaro Bhikkhu?

It's whole premise is based on strawman arguments.

:namaste:

No time for that.  I'm more interested in what you think on it.  A strawman arguments is meant to refute argument by way of misrepresention - a straw man - of the base argument.  In the case of an article like this it's unlikely that The auther is erecting strawmen.  What's more likely, is that you don't know what a strawman is in the first place, and that's what I'm digging for, not the substance of the article.

Hi IdleChater,

If you don’t have the time to read the article, then you are not in a position to comment.

:namaste:

Nonsense.  You erect a strawman by misrepresenting my argument which is to determine if you understand what a strawman is in the first place.

I don't really care about what the author says about self, and it appears you don't either.

IdleChater,

That's complete conjecture.

You don't have an argument, and i'm not really sure why you are taking the time to get into a discussion on an article you don't have the time to read.

:namaste:

Yes, that was conjecture, but if you think creating a strawman is ok, I can use conjecture.

You've accused a leading scholar of falacy.  I want make sure you understand what that mean.  It's aquery aimed at comment.  Seeking clarification.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 04:23:19 am
Francis, your debt caused, stays open, how ever Francis tries to build up strawmans. Of course certain question can be made in/on other topics, whether there might be release for Francis or not, who knows, since Francis reviling  will stay a pitfall here, not possible covered, not possible confessed and he could be regarded possible even to be simply greedy of what he holds as his (Dhamma). Just to let Francis know.

Hi Samana Johann,

I have no idea what you are saying, except it seems to be derogatory.

My view on the article you quoted is, it was written by an eternalist who is not prepared to tackle the Buddha's unique teaching on anatta due to attachment.   

If you disagree, then share your view on anatta?



:namaste:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 04:37:16 am
Yes, that was conjecture, but if you think creating a strawman is ok, I can use conjecture.

You've accused a leading scholar of falacy.  I want make sure you understand what that mean.  It's aquery aimed at comment.  Seeking clarification.

Hi IdleChater,

More an accusation of misunderstanding.

In my defence, I refer you to the Kalama Sutta.


:namaste:






Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on September 29, 2017, 04:38:04 am
I didn't realise you were also an eternalist, and Thanissaro fan.
You make an allegation that requires evidence or substantiation (regardless of my fanity or non-fanity).

If you don't understand anatta, then I suggest you check out Chapter 6, The Doctrine of No-Soul: Anatta, in a book called 'What the Buddha Taught' by Walpola Rahula.
I never recommend this book. Very overrated.

If you want quotes, try Dhamma Wheel.
You make an allegation that requires evidence or substantiation (regardless of Papanca Wheel).

 :namaste:

Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on September 29, 2017, 04:39:57 am
... it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self...
The fabricator works seemelessly  :fu:

It seems that way. One aggregate working to create the illusion of self (rather than all five).  :namaste:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 04:41:33 am
... it’s the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self...
The fabricator works seemelessly  :fu:

It seems that way. One aggregate working to create the illusion of self (rather than all five).  :namaste:

It's the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on September 29, 2017, 04:44:52 am
The Buddha’s teachings on anatta are found in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (SN 22.59). The sutta is best read in the context of the Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel017.html[/url]) translated by Nanamoli Thera.

This is mistranslated. The sutta is best read translated by N.K.G. Mendis:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html) 
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on September 29, 2017, 04:47:31 am
It's the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

A mind in arupa-jhana has no awareness of the physical body but can still have self-view or self-illusion. This shows the view offered is tenuous.  :curtain:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 04:49:50 am
The Buddha’s teachings on anatta are found in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic (SN 22.59). The sutta is best read in the context of the Three Cardinal Discourses of the Buddha ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel017.html[/url]) translated by Nanamoli Thera.

This is mistranslated. The sutta is best read translated by N.K.G. Mendis:

[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.059.mend.html[/url])


The comment was more about the context of the sutta, as the second sermon given by the Buddha rather than the translation. However, I will read the translated by N.K.G. Mendis. It's noted that you don’t quote Thanissaro’s translation.

:namaste:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on September 29, 2017, 04:51:58 am
It's the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

I trust SN 22.81 (and many other suttas) refutes the above tenuous view:

Quote
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That [self] fabrication is born of that. SN 22.81

 :dharma:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 04:57:42 am
It's the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

A mind in arupa-jhana has no awareness of the physical body but can still have self-view or self-illusion. This shows the view offered is tenuous.  :curtain:

I was referring consciousness (vijnana) in the aggregates.

Are you talking from a practical or theoretical position?


:namaste:



Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: VisuddhiRaptor on September 29, 2017, 05:03:52 am
I was referring consciousness (vijnana) in the aggregates. Are you talking from a practical or theoretical position?

Consciousness does not create the illusion of self. As SN 22.81, Ground & myself explained, it is sankhara aggregate that is related to the illusion of self. Consciousness is pure clear light. It is very easy to see directly consciousness is empty of self. Self is created by *thinking* & associated *emotions*.

Best wishes.  :namaste:

Quote
Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"

"Who, O Lord, feels?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

"Who, O Lord, craves?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of [self] becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

SN 12.2
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 05:11:39 am
It's the aggregates working seamlessly together that create the illusion of self.

I trust SN 22.81 (and many other suttas) refutes the above tenuous view:

Quote
There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication? To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That [self] fabrication is born of that. SN 22.81

 :dharma:

I don't think you understand the aggregates. Rupa is one of the aggregates, but it's the aggregates working together that create the illusion of self. There is no self to be found in side or outside the aggregates. The Buddha taught it’s clinging to the illusion of self, the craving for existence, that is the cause of all the problems in the world.

 :namaste:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on September 29, 2017, 05:17:11 am
Yes, that was conjecture, but if you think creating a strawman is ok, I can use conjecture.

You've accused a leading scholar of falacy.  I want make sure you understand what that mean.  It's aquery aimed at comment.  Seeking clarification.

Hi IdleChater,

More an accusation of misunderstanding.

In my defence, I refer you to the Kalama Sutta.


:namaste:

No, you have made specific charges of eternalism and logical falacy.  You have red no proof for either.  Having made an assertion it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support those assertions.  It's not up to us to do that.

Im' beginning to suspect you don't know what you're talking about.  That's not derogatory, but you can take it that way if you want.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 05:25:08 am
I was referring consciousness (vijnana) in the aggregates. Are you talking from a practical or theoretical position?

Consciousness does not create the illusion of self. As SN 22.81, Ground & myself explained, it is sankhara aggregate that is related to the illusion of self. Consciousness is pure clear light. It is very easy to see directly consciousness is empty of self. Self is created by *thinking* & associated *emotions*.

Best wishes.  :namaste:

Quote
Who, O Lord, has a sense-impression?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One.

"I do not say that 'he has a sense-impression.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who has a sense-impression?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of sense-impression?' And to that the correct reply is: 'The sixfold sense-base is a condition of sense-impression, and sense-impression is the condition of feeling.'"

"Who, O Lord, feels?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he feels.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who feels?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of feeling?' And to that the correct reply is: 'sense-impression is the condition of feeling; and feeling is the condition of craving.'"

"Who, O Lord, craves?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One. "I do not say that 'he craves.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who craves?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging.'"

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of [self] becoming.' Such is the origin of this entire mass of suffering.

SN 12.2

I don't think Thanissaro mentions clear light or "luminous" mind in the quoted article. However, it's is probably a good topic for another discussion. 


Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 05:31:11 am
Yes, that was conjecture, but if you think creating a strawman is ok, I can use conjecture.

You've accused a leading scholar of falacy.  I want make sure you understand what that mean.  It's aquery aimed at comment.  Seeking clarification.

Hi IdleChater,

More an accusation of misunderstanding.

In my defence, I refer you to the Kalama Sutta.


:namaste:

No, you have made specific charges of eternalism and logical falacy.  You have red no proof for either.  Having made an assertion it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support those assertions.  It's not up to us to do that.

Im' beginning to suspect you don't know what you're talking about.  That's not derogatory, but you can take it that way if you want.

IdleChater, I posted my comments on an article that you have not even bothered to read, so I don’t see how you can make those accusations. You can however, accuse me of not fitting your confirmation bias.

:namaste:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 29, 2017, 05:42:19 am
There is no self to be found... outside the aggregates


Just wondering of what Francis understand under outside, what the Buddha understood as outside (of the five aggregats), for the case he had even talked about such, which needs to be doubted, thinking on Sabba-Sutta, since it leads always just to either papanca or not possible to express or aruge it. Let's make a proof. To put fuel into this for those eager in desire of becoming and food for extinction for those desiring for liberation, and of cause also food for those hoping for and end without having just put effort into the path, the Nihilist, Jains, Nigantas.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 05:49:29 am
There is no self to be found... outside the aggregates


Just wondering of what Francis understand under outside, what the Buddha understood as outside (of the five aggregats), for the case he had even talked about such, which needs to be doubted, thinking on Sabba-Sutta, since it leads always just to either papanca or not possible to express or aruge it. Let's make a proof. To put fuel into this for those eager in desire of becoming and food for extinction for those desiring for liberation, and of cause also food for those hoping for and end without having just put effort into the path, the Nihilist, Jains, Nigantas.


Hi Samana Johann,

People often talk about an eternal self (as a sixth aggregate) or an eternal soul that is found outside the aggregates, when they don't get there is no self to be found in the aggregates.
 
:namaste:



Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 29, 2017, 05:56:15 am
Maybe Francis does good to explain what a "self" should mean, to understand his idea about "not-self" better. How does that look like, if possible seen, sensed, perceived?

A quote or reverence supporting the validity of Francis accuse "Thanissaro is an eternalist, who has the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul." did Francis still avoid to give.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 06:09:36 am
Maybe Francis does good to explain what a "self" should mean, to understand his idea about "not-self" better. How does that look like, if possible seen, sensed, perceived?

Samana Johann,

There is no self, just the five aggregates that create the illusion of self. 

From wiki "The five aggregates concept that asserts five factors constitute and completely explain a sentient being’s mental and physical existence. The five aggregates or heaps are: form (or matter or body) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana)

The skandhas refute the idea of a "being or individual", and complements the anatta doctrine of Buddhism which asserts that all things and beings are without self. The anatta and "five aggregates" doctrines are part of the liberating knowledge in Buddhism, wherein one realizes that the "being" is merely made up of a temporary grouping of five aggregates, each of which are "not I, and not myself", and each of the skandha is empty, without substance."

Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 29, 2017, 06:15:16 am
Maybe Francis does good to explain what a "self" should mean, to understand his idea about "not-self" better. How does that look like, if possible seen, sensed, perceived?


Samana Johann,

There is no self, just the five aggregates that create the illusion of self. 

From wiki "The five aggregates concept that asserts five factors constitute and completely explain a sentient being’s mental and physical existence. The five aggregates or heaps are: form (or matter or body) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana)

The skandhas refute the idea of a "being or individual", and complements the anatta doctrine of Buddhism which asserts that all things and beings are without self. The anatta and "five aggregates" doctrines are part of the liberating knowledge in Buddhism, wherein one realizes that the "being" is merely made up of a temporary grouping of five aggregates, each of which are "not I, and not myself", and each of the skandha is empty, without substance."
Aside of the fact that Francis again did not answer, but build up a strawman instead, he might the possible able to quote where the Buddha said either "There is no self" or "There is no self, just the five aggregates that create the illusion of self.", obiviously (had Francis) neither perceived "self" nor "no-self" by himself.

One might think possible valid, that Francis is a follower and practioner of the Jains:

Quote
"And what is the Uposatha of the Jains? There are the contemplatives called the Niganthas (Jains). They get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Lay down the rod with regard to beings who live more than 100 leagues to the east... more than 100 leagues to the west... more than 100 leagues to the north... more than 100 leagues to the south.' Thus they get the disciple to undertake kindness & sympathy to some beings, but not to others.

"On the Uposatha day, they get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Having stripped off all your clothing, say this: "I am nothing by anything or of anything. Thus there is nothing by anything or of anything that is mine."' Yet in spite of that, his parents know of him that 'This is our child.' And he knows of them that 'These are my parents.' His wives & children know of him that 'This is our husband & father.' And he knows of them that 'These are my wives & children.' His workers & slaves know of him that 'This is our master.' And he knows of them that 'These are my workers & slaves.' Thus at a time when he should be persuaded to undertake truthfulness, he is persuaded to undertake falsehood. At the end of the night, he resumes the consumption of his belongings, even though they aren't given back to him. This counts as stealing, I tell you. Such is the Uposatha of the Jains, Visakha. When this Uposatha of the Jains is undertaken, it is not of great fruit or great benefit, not of great glory or great radiance.

(From the Muluposatha Sutta ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.070.than_en.html[/url]))


Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on September 29, 2017, 06:34:28 am
Yes, that was conjecture, but if you think creating a strawman is ok, I can use conjecture.

You've accused a leading scholar of falacy.  I want make sure you understand what that mean.  It's aquery aimed at comment.  Seeking clarification.

Hi IdleChater,

More an accusation of misunderstanding.

In my defence, I refer you to the Kalama Sutta.


:namaste:

No, you have made specific charges of eternalism and logical falacy.  You have red no proof for either.  Having made an assertion it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support those assertions.  It's not up to us to do that.

Im' beginning to suspect you don't know what you're talking about.  That's not derogatory, but you can take it that way if you want.

IdleChater, I posted my comments on an article that you have not even bothered to read, so I don’t see how you can make those accusations. You can however, accuse me of not fitting your confirmation bias.

:namaste:

By making an accusation of logical fallacy, you indicate a willingness to abide by rules  of debate.  One of those rules is that the party making the assertion must provide proof.  So it's not up to me to validate your assertion.  You must provide proof and then I can validate that.  Simply provide evidence of eternalism and strawman argument.  It will give me something to look for when I read the material.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 06:46:23 am
Maybe Francis does good to explain what a "self" should mean, to understand his idea about "not-self" better. How does that look like, if possible seen, sensed, perceived?


Samana Johann,

There is no self, just the five aggregates that create the illusion of self. 

From wiki "The five aggregates concept that asserts five factors constitute and completely explain a sentient being’s mental and physical existence. The five aggregates or heaps are: form (or matter or body) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana)

The skandhas refute the idea of a "being or individual", and complements the anatta doctrine of Buddhism which asserts that all things and beings are without self. The anatta and "five aggregates" doctrines are part of the liberating knowledge in Buddhism, wherein one realizes that the "being" is merely made up of a temporary grouping of five aggregates, each of which are "not I, and not myself", and each of the skandha is empty, without substance."
Aside of the fact that Francis again did not answer, but build up a strawman instead, he might the possible able to quote where the Buddha said either "There is no self" or "There is no self, just the five aggregates that create the illusion of self.", obiviously (had Francis) neither perceived "self" nor "no-self" by himself.

One might think possible valid, that Francis is a follower and practioner of the Jains:

Quote
"And what is the Uposatha of the Jains? There are the contemplatives called the Niganthas (Jains). They get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Lay down the rod with regard to beings who live more than 100 leagues to the east... more than 100 leagues to the west... more than 100 leagues to the north... more than 100 leagues to the south.' Thus they get the disciple to undertake kindness & sympathy to some beings, but not to others.

"On the Uposatha day, they get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Having stripped off all your clothing, say this: "I am nothing by anything or of anything. Thus there is nothing by anything or of anything that is mine."' Yet in spite of that, his parents know of him that 'This is our child.' And he knows of them that 'These are my parents.' His wives & children know of him that 'This is our husband & father.' And he knows of them that 'These are my wives & children.' His workers & slaves know of him that 'This is our master.' And he knows of them that 'These are my workers & slaves.' Thus at a time when he should be persuaded to undertake truthfulness, he is persuaded to undertake falsehood. At the end of the night, he resumes the consumption of his belongings, even though they aren't given back to him. This counts as stealing, I tell you. Such is the Uposatha of the Jains, Visakha. When this Uposatha of the Jains is undertaken, it is not of great fruit or great benefit, not of great glory or great radiance.

(From the Muluposatha Sutta ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.070.than_en.html[/url]))




Samana Johann,

Now, lets be fair here.

I did answer you question as posted, before you decided to add (edited in) a second part to your last post. It does you no credit to suggest otherwise, not cool to manipulate posts like that. Ok!

The Buddha's teaching on anatta can be found in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic" (SN 22.59).

And no, I'm not a Jain.


Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 06:47:39 am
Yes, that was conjecture, but if you think creating a strawman is ok, I can use conjecture.

You've accused a leading scholar of falacy.  I want make sure you understand what that mean.  It's aquery aimed at comment.  Seeking clarification.

Hi IdleChater,

More an accusation of misunderstanding.

In my defence, I refer you to the Kalama Sutta.


:namaste:

No, you have made specific charges of eternalism and logical falacy.  You have red no proof for either.  Having made an assertion it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support those assertions.  It's not up to us to do that.

Im' beginning to suspect you don't know what you're talking about.  That's not derogatory, but you can take it that way if you want.

IdleChater, I posted my comments on an article that you have not even bothered to read, so I don’t see how you can make those accusations. You can however, accuse me of not fitting your confirmation bias.

:namaste:

By making an accusation of logical fallacy, you indicate a willingness to abide by rules  of debate.  One of those rules is that the party making the assertion must provide proof.  So it's not up to me to validate your assertion.  You must provide proof and then I can validate that.  Simply provide evidence of eternalism and strawman argument.  It will give me something to look for when I read the material.

You read, we talk.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on September 29, 2017, 06:59:11 am
Yes, that was conjecture, but if you think creating a strawman is ok, I can use conjecture.

You've accused a leading scholar of falacy.  I want make sure you understand what that mean.  It's aquery aimed at comment.  Seeking clarification.

Hi IdleChater,

More an accusation of misunderstanding.

In my defence, I refer you to the Kalama Sutta.


:namaste:

No, you have made specific charges of eternalism and logical falacy.  You have red no proof for either.  Having made an assertion it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support those assertions.  It's not up to us to do that.

Im' beginning to suspect you don't know what you're talking about.  That's not derogatory, but you can take it that way if you want.

IdleChater, I posted my comments on an article that you have not even bothered to read, so I don’t see how you can make those accusations. You can however, accuse me of not fitting your confirmation bias.

:namaste:

By making an accusation of logical fallacy, you indicate a willingness to abide by rules  of debate.  One of those rules is that the party making the assertion must provide proof.  So it's not up to me to validate your assertion.  You must provide proof and then I can validate that.  Simply provide evidence of eternalism and strawman argument.  It will give me something to look for when I read the material.

You read, we talk.

Then I can take it that you really have no proof of your assertion and they are without merit. Put crudely, you're full of @#$&.  Not surprising.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 07:35:16 am
Yes, that was conjecture, but if you think creating a strawman is ok, I can use conjecture.

You've accused a leading scholar of falacy.  I want make sure you understand what that mean.  It's aquery aimed at comment.  Seeking clarification.

Hi IdleChater,

More an accusation of misunderstanding.

In my defence, I refer you to the Kalama Sutta.


:namaste:

No, you have made specific charges of eternalism and logical falacy.  You have red no proof for either.  Having made an assertion it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support those assertions.  It's not up to us to do that.

Im' beginning to suspect you don't know what you're talking about.  That's not derogatory, but you can take it that way if you want.

IdleChater, I posted my comments on an article that you have not even bothered to read, so I don’t see how you can make those accusations. You can however, accuse me of not fitting your confirmation bias.

:namaste:

By making an accusation of logical fallacy, you indicate a willingness to abide by rules  of debate.  One of those rules is that the party making the assertion must provide proof.  So it's not up to me to validate your assertion.  You must provide proof and then I can validate that.  Simply provide evidence of eternalism and strawman argument.  It will give me something to look for when I read the material.

You read, we talk.

Then I can take it that you really have no proof of your assertion and they are without merit. Put crudely, you're full of @#$&.  Not surprising.

The discussion is about the quoted article. I read the article and made comments, so you really need to read the article before you can go around making accusations like that. And put it crudely, there is no excuse for resorting to ad-hom because you are too lazy to read the article.



Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 29, 2017, 07:50:24 am
Maybe Francis does good to explain what a "self" should mean, to understand his idea about "not-self" better. How does that look like, if possible seen, sensed, perceived?


Samana Johann,

There is no self, just the five aggregates that create the illusion of self. 

From wiki "The five aggregates concept that asserts five factors constitute and completely explain a sentient being’s mental and physical existence. The five aggregates or heaps are: form (or matter or body) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana)

The skandhas refute the idea of a "being or individual", and complements the anatta doctrine of Buddhism which asserts that all things and beings are without self. The anatta and "five aggregates" doctrines are part of the liberating knowledge in Buddhism, wherein one realizes that the "being" is merely made up of a temporary grouping of five aggregates, each of which are "not I, and not myself", and each of the skandha is empty, without substance."
Aside of the fact that Francis again did not answer, but build up a strawman instead, he might the possible able to quote where the Buddha said either "There is no self" or "There is no self, just the five aggregates that create the illusion of self.", obiviously (had Francis) neither perceived "self" nor "no-self" by himself.

One might think possible valid, that Francis is a follower and practioner of the Jains:

Quote
"And what is the Uposatha of the Jains? There are the contemplatives called the Niganthas (Jains). They get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Lay down the rod with regard to beings who live more than 100 leagues to the east... more than 100 leagues to the west... more than 100 leagues to the north... more than 100 leagues to the south.' Thus they get the disciple to undertake kindness & sympathy to some beings, but not to others.

"On the Uposatha day, they get their disciple to undertake the following practice: 'Here, my good man. Having stripped off all your clothing, say this: "I am nothing by anything or of anything. Thus there is nothing by anything or of anything that is mine."' Yet in spite of that, his parents know of him that 'This is our child.' And he knows of them that 'These are my parents.' His wives & children know of him that 'This is our husband & father.' And he knows of them that 'These are my wives & children.' His workers & slaves know of him that 'This is our master.' And he knows of them that 'These are my workers & slaves.' Thus at a time when he should be persuaded to undertake truthfulness, he is persuaded to undertake falsehood. At the end of the night, he resumes the consumption of his belongings, even though they aren't given back to him. This counts as stealing, I tell you. Such is the Uposatha of the Jains, Visakha. When this Uposatha of the Jains is undertaken, it is not of great fruit or great benefit, not of great glory or great radiance.

(From the Muluposatha Sutta ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.070.than_en.html[/url]))




Samana Johann,

Now, lets be fair here.

I did answer you question as posted, before you decided to add (edited in) a second part to your last post. It does you no credit to suggest otherwise, not cool to manipulate posts like that. Ok!

The Buddha's teaching on anatta can be found in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic" (SN 22.59).

And no, I'm not a Jain.




Why should my person do such, being unfair, or what ever Francis possible builds up on strawmans, to avoid answering simple questions to support his saying that reviled Bhante Thanissaro. There is no problem in AN 22.59 and in "the five aggregats are anatta."

That touches how ever, not a little if "there is" a self or not, neither inwardly nor outwardly, since such thought is an obstacle "it-self" and such thoughts and questions are therefore always having been put aside by the Buddha, as well as he had suggested his disciples to do so for the sake of awakening.

As for the notion of self, he explained how such arises and decays.

And not much more or lesser "to be (is), or not to be (is not), is no question", Bhante, conform with the teachings of the Buddha, usually teaches and explains with the certain readings from the Canon, as it is found in the OP-post linked book, as well, as far as my person has perceived.

"there is no self to be found in the aggregates," like Francis mixed in his possible try of insulting, is what Bhante usually, following the Buddha (who expressed it maybe more like: "rupa is anatta..., five khandhas anatta", not even much speaking about the meaning of anatta or atta, how such looks like...) teaches, not more or lesser, as far as my person perceived.

What Bhante Thanissaro did in this book, is to explain how notions of "self" (sense, grasp-worthy) and "not-self" (no[n]sense, not-grasp-worthy) can be used, are used, to gain awakening, of what is actually the only purpose of the Buddhas teaching, what he taught.

An nobody told that Francis is a Jain, so that he needs to say "I am not...", but it was said, that it could be possible valid assumed, that he follows the Nigantha, practices in line with the Jains, or his aggregats, if liking to avoid expressing or assuming a doer behind Francis here.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 29, 2017, 08:07:10 am
The discussion is about the quoted article. I read the article and made comments, so you really need to read the article before you can go around making accusations like that. And put it crudely, there is no excuse for resorting to ad-hom because you are too lazy to read the article.

No. The current off-topic discussion - of what Francis has been liberal to judge (saying something like "who knows what is offtopic") -, is about Francis possible ,now explicit including the OP-linked book as source to say such things he did in his 1.post here.
And given that some of those asking Francis to bring up any reference that supports his claim(s), his dispraise, have read the book, it seems to be seldom to pick someone out and calling him lazy, as it appears as another strawman to avoid answers. If he is lazy or not, is not the point here.

It's not possible to assume where Francis could have found his assuming, that Bhante Thanissaro is or teaches eternalism,lasting soul... and that the book provides such as well.

So it's clear that everybody with that much given, might possible, and as so far valid, say: "Francis is simple a slanderer of the Noble Ones and their disciples", and such would not be good for Francis. Therefore, again the hints, possibility to relativate, or even excuse a possible misunderstanding, he could take on. No demand, not a "must" without regard "...that, this is possible avoided...". The deed has been done anyway, but could possible be avoided to do in future, if seen is not so good for one self and possible for others as well, not only thinking, but also expressing verbal.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: francis on September 29, 2017, 08:20:22 am
The discussion is about the quoted article. I read the article and made comments, so you really need to read the article before you can go around making accusations like that. And put it crudely, there is no excuse for resorting to ad-hom because you are too lazy to read the article.

No. The current off-topic discussion - of what Francis has been liberal to judge (saying something like "who knows what is offtopic") -, is about Francis possible ,now explicit including the OP-linked book as source to say such things he did in his 1.post here.
And given that some of those asking Francis to bring up any reference that supports his claim(s), his dispraise, have read the book, it seems to be seldom to pick someone out and calling him lazy, as it appears as another strawman to avoid answers. If he is lazy or not, is not the point here.

It's not possible to assume where Francis could have found his assuming, that Bhante Thanissaro is or teaches eternalism,lasting soul... and that the book provides such as well.

So it's clear that everybody with that much given, might possible and valide day: "Francis is simple a slanderer of the Noble Ones and their disciples", and such would not be good for Francis. Therefore, again the hints.

Samana Johann,

I think I have explained my position. Though, it helps if you provide context, in your own words, rather than quoting (or linking to) long slabs of text.

Without context, who can say what is off-topic and who are Noble Ones.

Instead of criticising my view, perhaps you could explain your own view on anatta.

:namaste:
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on September 29, 2017, 08:49:10 am
Yes, that was conjecture, but if you think creating a strawman is ok, I can use conjecture.

You've accused a leading scholar of falacy.  I want make sure you understand what that mean.  It's aquery aimed at comment.  Seeking clarification.

Hi IdleChater,

More an accusation of misunderstanding.

In my defence, I refer you to the Kalama Sutta.


:namaste:

No, you have made specific charges of eternalism and logical falacy.  You have red no proof for either.  Having made an assertion it is your responsibility to provide evidence to support those assertions.  It's not up to us to do that.

Im' beginning to suspect you don't know what you're talking about.  That's not derogatory, but you can take it that way if you want.

IdleChater, I posted my comments on an article that you have not even bothered to read, so I don’t see how you can make those accusations. You can however, accuse me of not fitting your confirmation bias.

:namaste:

By making an accusation of logical fallacy, you indicate a willingness to abide by rules  of debate.  One of those rules is that the party making the assertion must provide proof.  So it's not up to me to validate your assertion.  You must provide proof and then I can validate that.  Simply provide evidence of eternalism and strawman argument.  It will give me something to look for when I read the material.

You read, we talk.

Then I can take it that you really have no proof of your assertion and they are without merit. Put crudely, you're full of @#$&.  Not surprising.

The discussion is about the quoted article. I read the article and made comments, so you really need to read the article before you can go around making accusations like that. And put it crudely, there is no excuse for resorting to ad-hom because you are too lazy to read the article.

Read article on lunch break.  Happy now?  Cough up the evidence of your assertions.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 29, 2017, 09:05:42 am
The discussion is about the quoted article. I read the article and made comments, so you really need to read the article before you can go around making accusations like that. And put it crudely, there is no excuse for resorting to ad-hom because you are too lazy to read the article.

No. The current off-topic discussion - of what Francis has been liberal to judge (saying something like "who knows what is offtopic") -, is about Francis possible ,now explicit including the OP-linked book as source to say such things he did in his 1.post here.
And given that some of those asking Francis to bring up any reference that supports his claim(s), his dispraise, have read the book, it seems to be seldom to pick someone out and calling him lazy, as it appears as another strawman to avoid answers. If he is lazy or not, is not the point here.

It's not possible to assume where Francis could have found his assuming, that Bhante Thanissaro is or teaches eternalism,lasting soul... and that the book provides such as well.

So it's clear that everybody with that much given, might possible and valide day: "Francis is simple a slanderer of the Noble Ones and their disciples", and such would not be good for Francis. Therefore, again the hints.

Samana Johann,

I think I have explained my position. Though, it helps if you provide context, in your own words, rather than quoting (or linking to) long slabs of text.

Without context, who can say what is off-topic and who are Noble Ones.

Instead of criticising my view, perhaps you could explain your own view on anatta.

:namaste:


How to have an own view of anatta? And how could one have a view/stand, or criticis. Francis may hold on of what ever he likes, and desires to appear.

Better ask the Buddha, or is seeing and perceiving, a Noble Disciple, willing or able to teach or tell you about "self" and "not-self" and its benefical use on the path to awakening, of course Francis can hold on of his stands and views, possible dispraise/praise what should be blamed/praised and vici versa.

Beings are the owner of their actions... no way to help them, or do the work for them. Maybe one likes to trust "google" which says, that they do for you.

Btw, the usual reason why coming to certain views or stands in trusting in such, rather to seek for in line with the Dhamma.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Dairy Lama on September 30, 2017, 06:27:28 am
"Sabbe dhamma anatta" = "there is no self in the created or the uncreated".

This seems pretty clear to me.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on September 30, 2017, 08:16:30 am
In regard of the book? Bhante Thanissaro? Self-views generell, or of what of the many developed topics here, Norman?

Let Atma (my person) throw another stone into the discussion, and yes, that context of "that's" clear might even get more clear: What is the meaning of Anicca and Anatta? (https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/22957/12162)

That corresponds also well to this "tiny" distinction:
Quote
anattā ([url]http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/a/anatta.htm[/url])

While in the case of the first two characteristics it is stated that all formations (sabbe sankhārā) are impermanent and subject to suffering, the corresponding text for the third characteristic states that "all things are not-self" (sabbe dhammā anattā; M. 35, Dhp. 279). This is for emphasizing that the false view of an abiding self or substance is neither applicable to any 'formation' or conditioned phenomenon, nor to Nibbāna, the Unconditioned Element (asankhatā dhātu).
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Dairy Lama on October 01, 2017, 02:51:42 am
My view on the article you quoted is, it was written by an eternalist who is not prepared to tackle the Buddha's unique teaching on anatta due to attachment.   

I'm not that familiar with Thanissaro's views.  In what sense is he an eternalist?
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on October 01, 2017, 03:27:55 am
Thought it might be proper to count also Bhante Thanissaros research on the question "all dhammas (phenomenas), include or not Nibbana" (althought it would not necessary generally, taken the alternative meaning of anattha, anicca:

Quote
Commentary to AN 10.58 ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an10/an10.058.than_en.html[/url])

According to the Commentary to AN 8.83 (which covers the first eight of the ten questions given here), "all phenomena" (sabbe dhamma) here means the five aggregates. These are rooted in desire, it says, because the desire to act (and thus create kamma) is what underlies their existence. The Commentary's interpretation here seems to be an expansion on MN 109, in which the five clinging-aggregates are said to be rooted in desire, an assertion echoed in SN 42.11, which states that suffering & stress are rooted in desire. Here, all the aggregates — whether affected by clinging or not — are said to be rooted in desire.

The Commentary goes on to say that the statement, "All phenomena are rooted in desire," deals exclusively with worldly phenomena, whereas the remaining statements about all phenomena cover both worldly and transcendent phenomena. There seems less reason to follow the Commentary's first assertion here, in that the noble eightfold path, when brought to maturity, counts as transcendent, and it is obviously rooted in a skillful form of desire.

As for the transcendent in its ultimate form, the phrase "all phenomena" as used in this sutta does not cover Unbinding, as Unbinding is not rooted in anything and, as the final statement indicates, it constitutes the final end of all phenomena. Thus this sutta would seem to belong to the group of suttas that would not classify Unbinding as a phenomenon. (On this question, see the note to AN 3.134.)


Quote
Commentary to AN 3.134 ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than_en.html#fn-1[/url])

The suttas are inconsistent on the question of whether Unbinding counts as a phenomenon (dhamma). Iti 90, among others, states clearly that it is. AN 10.58, however, calls Unbinding the ending of all phenomena. Sn 5.6 quotes the Buddha as calling the attainment of the goal the transcending of all phenomena, just as Sn 4.6 and Sn 4.10 state that the arahant has transcended dispassion, said to be the highest phenomenon. If the former definition applies here, Unbinding would be not-self. If the latter, the word phenomenon (as more inclusive than fabrication) would apply to the non-returner's experience of the Deathless (see AN 9.36). The arahant's experience of Unbinding would be neither self nor not-self, as it lies beyond all designations (see DN 15).


The matter as detail has been touched in the book as well, if remembering proper, and of course it just about the use of "selfes and not-selfes" to go beyound.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Dairy Lama on October 01, 2017, 04:03:34 am

Quote
Commentary to AN 3.134 ([url]http://zugangzureinsicht.org/html/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.134.than_en.html#fn-1[/url])

The suttas are inconsistent on the question of whether Unbinding counts as a phenomenon (dhamma). Iti 90, among others, states clearly that it is. AN 10.58, however, calls Unbinding the ending of all phenomena. Sn 5.6 quotes the Buddha as calling the attainment of the goal the transcending of all phenomena, just as Sn 4.6 and Sn 4.10 state that the arahant has transcended dispassion, said to be the highest phenomenon. If the former definition applies here, Unbinding would be not-self. If the latter, the word phenomenon (as more inclusive than fabrication) would apply to the non-returner's experience of the Deathless (see AN 9.36). The arahant's experience of Unbinding would be neither self nor not-self, as it lies beyond all designations (see DN 15).



The Unconditioned is an epithet for Nibbana, as compared to the sankharas, which are conditioned.  This strongly suggests that "dhamma" here includes both the conditioned ( sankhara ) and the unconditioned ( Nibbana ).

"Sabbe sankhara anicca, sabbe sankhara dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta"

Relevant discussion here: https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=16264
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on October 01, 2017, 04:36:37 am
Off-topic: hover if you like

There is a lot of atta (sense) and nicca (reality) in the khandhas "sometimes". Not conventional sure in regard of beyond, nibbana, unbinding, deathless...
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on October 01, 2017, 03:42:43 pm
My view on the article you quoted is, it was written by an eternalist who is not prepared to tackle the Buddha's unique teaching on anatta due to attachment.   

I'm not that familiar with Thanissaro's views.  In what sense is he an eternalist?

Wll, it seems that's an asertion francis isn't willing to defend, even if you've read the article.  I did that, at francis' insistance, even though my qustion regarding Thanissaro's eternalism had nothing to do with the article.  This is because his assessment of Thanissaro apparently has nothing to do with it, either.

Anyway I read the article.  I didn't read anything there that would lead me to believe he was an eternalist.  So, I renewed my challenge and it comes as no surprise that Francis won't rise to the occaision and defend his assertion as he should.

People whose teachings on emptiness or self/not self suggest a possibility  of continuity are often accused of eternalism by those with little or no understanding on the subject.  I don't know why Fancis feels that way but it appears that it has nothing to do with the article, which is puzzling.
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: meez on October 03, 2017, 08:31:40 am
Samana:  You're doing the hover thing again.  Do you recall the post saying not to do that?
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Samana Johann on October 03, 2017, 08:43:15 am
Off-Topic: hover if you like
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Dairy Lama on October 05, 2017, 01:24:03 am
"What is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' This is the emptiness mind-release."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html)


"Insofar as it is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self: Thus it is said, Ananda, that the world is empty."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.085.than.html)
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Chaz on October 05, 2017, 03:10:08 pm
"What is the emptiness mind-release? There is the case where a monk, having gone into the wilderness, to the root of a tree or into an empty dwelling, considers this: 'This is empty of self or of anything pertaining to self.' This is the emptiness mind-release."
[url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html[/url] ([url]http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.043.than.html[/url])


Seems like you've aken some liverty here, Norm.

The text you cite at accesstoinsight.org uses the word "awareness" where you use "mind".  Care to explain?
Title: Re: Selves & Not-self: The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
Post by: Dairy Lama on October 06, 2017, 01:16:42 am
Another interesting sutta passage which describes the cessation of self-view:

"Herein, Bahiya, you should train yourself thus: 'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.' In this way you should train yourself, Bahiya.
"When, Bahiya, for you in the seen is merely what is seen... in the cognized is merely what is cognized, then, Bahiya, you will not be 'with that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'with that,' then, Bahiya, you will not be 'in that.' When, Bahiya, you are not 'in that,' then, Bahiya, you will be neither here nor beyond nor in between the two. Just this is the end of suffering."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.1.10.irel.html)
SimplePortal 2.3.3 © 2008-2010, SimplePortal