About Attā and The Root of All Things

Discussion
61

It is my understanding that the identification of the binary opposites i.e.

  • dhammas that are dukkha vs dhammas that are sukha
  • dhammas that are anicca vs dhammas that are nicca
  • dhammas that are anattā vs attā

are to give up the triad associated with dukkha to get closer to the triad associated with sukha.

Otherwise these 3 binary (mutually exclusive pairs) of distinctions would be pointless to distinguish between.

Nibbāna is not an anicca dhamma, it is not a dhamma associated with dukkha, it is not a dhamma associated with anattā. This understanding of what nibbāna is not, has been made explicit by the EBTs. Your realization has to lead you to the correct inference of what nibbāna really is.

That is what it sounds like to the unawakened "individual beings (puthijjanas in Pāli, pṛthagjanas in Sanskrit - where “pṛthag” means “separate” i.e. evidently they think there are as many attās as there are sattas).

But to the person with knowledge and wisdom, by what would they distinguish one unconditioned from another unconditioned? And why would they even try to split nibbāna or attā into separate individual nibbānas or attās. What purpose/gain would it be for a Buddha or arahant to recognize a plurality of nibbānas or attās.

My understanding of nibbāna here is inconclusive and tentative, maybe you have a better understanding - but a correct intellectual grasp/understanding of nibbāna is not necessarily the attainment of it.

62

Indeed. There is a paradox here. From the point of view of the unenlightened, attā and anattā are presented as binaries, they therefore cant be independent of one another, they appear to be a pair. But of the two, attā is the original term, an-attā is the derivative term.

63

Hi Skris, I’m sorry to tell you, but Buddha introduced his duality in Paṭhamadvayasutta (SN 35.92)

Not sure that “out of their element” is the best choice for avisayasmin, but Buddha states that there is no other binary (duality) than this.

“Mendicants, I will teach you a duality. “Dvayaṁ vo, bhikkhave, desessāmi. Listen … Taṁ suṇātha.

And what is a duality? Kiñca, bhikkhave, dvayaṁ?

It’s just the eye and sights, the ear and sounds, the nose and smells, the tongue and tastes, the body and touches, and the mind and ideas. Cakkhuñceva rūpā ca, sotañceva saddā ca, ghānañceva gandhā ca, jivhā ceva rasā ca, kāyo ceva phoṭṭhabbā ca, mano ceva dhammā ca— This is called a duality. idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, dvayaṁ.

Mendicants, suppose someone was to say: Yo, bhikkhave, evaṁ vadeyya: ‘I’ll reject this duality and describe another duality.’ They’d have no grounds for that, ‘ahametaṁ dvayaṁ paccakkhāya aññaṁ dvayaṁ paññapessāmī’ti, tassa vācāvatthukamevassa. they’d be stumped by questions, and, in addition, they’d get frustrated. Puṭṭho ca na sampāyeyya. Uttariñca vighātaṁ āpajjeyya.

Why is that? Taṁ kissa hetu? Because they’re out of their element.” Yathā taṁ, bhikkhave, avisayasmin”ti.

1 Like
64

Dvayam can be interpreted either as binary duality (implying mutual opposition) or as pairs (without a mutual opposition).

It is clear that here (in the sutta you’ve quoted from), there is no mutual opposition intended between the eye and sights, ear and sounds etc. So (in my understanding) there is no binary duality intended to be exhaustively defined in this sutta, they are merely sets of two i.e. pairs of sense-organs and their corresponding sense-perceptions.

This Sutta is not, in my understanding, trying to say that there are no other pairs possible - for there do exist millions of other pairs. It is evidently trying to say that recognizing any other pair is not doctrinally relevant for those who are on the path to nibbāna, and therefore other pairs don’t need to be the objects of their focus.

65

I think in English we would say dyad. There is more than one form of dyad. In a hierarchical binary the first principle and its derivative are also a dyad. However, we don’t need to spend time on things like set theory.

The dyadic relation of the salayatana is explained.

Eye consciousness arises dependent on the eye and sights. The meeting of the three is contact. Cakkhuñca paṭicca rūpe ca uppajjati cakkhuviññāṇaṁ. Tiṇṇaṁ saṅgati phasso.

He also specifically defines the salayatana as

And what are the six sense fields? Katamañca, bhikkhave, saḷāyatanaṁ? The sense fields of the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind. Cakkhāyatanaṁ, sotāyatanaṁ, ghānāyatanaṁ, jivhāyatanaṁ, kāyāyatanaṁ, manāyatanaṁ— These are called the six sense fields. idaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, saḷāyatanaṁ.

So I take him to mean with form depending on the eye, eye consciousness arises. To put it another way, it’s because The meeting of the three is contact. And consciousness arises in the eye, ear - cakkhuviññāṇaṁ …

This makes sense to me, because we are conscious both the inner and outer salayatana, and their relation. We know if we aren’t seeing something clearly etc. and squint, or lean closer to look, etc. We can also determine this physically as well, because we know we have rods and cones that enable us to see in colour. We also know that they mature after birth and that infants see in black and white.

From there contact is put into relation with other aggregates and such.

66

Yes but the concept of mutually opposed binary duality is not exhausted here by the saḷāyatanas.

The nicca vs anicca, dukkha vs sukha, anattā vs attā are still recognized despite that sutta’s insistence on there being no other dyads or pairs.

67

Reflexive self in experience is what we call sakkayadithi so, it isn’t The Root of All Things, and in fact Sutta does not deal with it, at least directly. For treatment of self see Brahmajala. Here conceiving is discussed.

68

Things like hot and cold are accounted for in the senses. Again, cold for me coming from Canada could be -32 C, cold for my friend Abraham in Ethiopia is 7 C.

We’ve already been through anatta and atta, and done our best to help you. So if you’re stuck. I guess you’re stuck.

As for dukkha sukha

“Mendicants, if you take pleasure in the eye, you take pleasure in suffering. “Yo, bhikkhave, cakkhuṁ abhinandati, dukkhaṁ so abhinandati. If you take pleasure in suffering, I say you’re not exempt from suffering. Yo dukkhaṁ abhinandati, aparimutto so dukkhasmāti vadāmi.

If you don’t take pleasure in the eye, you don’t take pleasure in suffering. “Yo ca kho, bhikkhave, cakkhuṁ nābhinandati, dukkhaṁ so nābhinandati. If you don’t take pleasure in suffering, I say you’re exempt from suffering. Yo dukkhaṁ nābhinandati, parimutto so dukkhasmāti vadāmi.

Myself, I think conditioned arising rules out permanence and replaces it with something along the lines of “as long as conditions persist.”

I think you have enough here to help you. You just have to start investigating what the suttas say about things like contact, the five aggregates, nama rupa and the relations. I am sure you will figure it out.

69

I was not looking for help. I dont see myself as stuck either. I understand Pali (and Sanskrit near-natively) and I dont need to rely on translations. Understanding Pali or the suttas is not a problem for me.

I was looking for logical bases for the conclusions we derive from reading the suttas - but as @cdpatton says above, we probably shouldn’t be looking to fit everything in the suttas into our logical framework as the suttas are products of a worldview very far removed from ours - perhaps not as far removed from my own Indic worldview, but still not entirely the same either).

1 Like
70

Cultural Studies is becoming a well developed field, with things like post-colonialism, and intersectionality right in the middle of it. Said wrote Orientalism in 1978. If you don’t know it, you might want to look it up. Many people also know The Making of Buddhist Modernism and Oriental Enlightenment: The Encounter Between Asian and Western Thought. But there is plenty, from all sorts of different perspectives near and far.

2 Likes
71

I feel there must be difference between how we experience things via the 6 senses, and how things exist. Via the senses things are never seen as they are, but always how they appear to be for us. How the brain, mind, conditionings construct a reality for us.

But when you think about it, reflect on it, how can there be a perception of change? How can there be impermanence, instability? That must be conceiving. For example: First we conceive a cloud to exist with a certain form, and then we observe that this form changes in time. But that first form does not even really exist at all. Only in our minds, our conceiving of the cloud. Only there things can have a fixed form, identity, atta. This socalled form-changing cloud is merely a conceptual reality. It cannot even be established as real. Likewise its arising and ceasing cannot.
In the end, anicca is an illusion?

There cannot be any direct knowledge, i believe, of the anatta, dukkha and anicca aspect of what we perceive. For example the body that is once born on a certain moment and consist of molecules etc.
But i think it is possible to have a direct knowledge of the coming and going of the perception of this body which is something completely different. This perceived body is not rupa but nama. The rupa body remains after not perceiving it.

Anicca, dukkha and anatta, i feel, can only relate to our subjectieve experiences, perceptions, how we perceive ourselves and the world. To subjectivity. To what the senses, brain, mind fabricate as our reality. Not to some objective reality.

All remains subjective. It is not that the body and world really ceases when our perception of it ceases.
But at least with cessation we get a direct understanding that our perceptions any moment here and now arise and cease. That is not many given, certainly not in a non-theoretical manner.

I think, ontologically there are is not really change, impermanence, instabiility, inconstancy. Such ideas are merely part of conceiving a reality. Conceiving is an illness, it distorts. One can make skillfully use of it but in the end it must be abandoned. There is no wisdom in any insight. Insight seems to rely on conceiving and conceit.

72

Yes, i agree. That is safe to say.

For me it lives this way that when you see formations as anatta, as not-self, also as coming and going, the identification with it gradually weakens. Your sense of ‘this is me’ around it weakens. And that is also when you start to see that this has never been dependend on those formations.

Formations are less and less seen as who or what you are. And quit naturally one stops investing in that. One lets go. And at the same time when this happens one notices that nothing of worth really gets lost, only suffering. It is not like one looses oneself or somethings fundamental to oneself when one becomes more dispassionate, less on fire, windy, extreme, greedy, eager, fanatic.
One becomes more oneself. It just works this way i believe. When water is gradually purified it also becomes more itself. Water purified does not change into something else. Likewise mind. Mind cannot change into something else. It can only become less burdened or even more burdened.

One can, as it were, only be a friend to oneself and others and the world or not. Investing in attachment, fanaticims, passion, eagerness, fire, wind, one is not a friend to oneself, others and the world. While becoming more dispassionate not oneself get lost but burden, dukkha.

The defilements are like bagage and bagage ways heavy on body and mind. But when it is dropped, nothing really changes but that burden of bagage gets lost. Nibbana is free of bagage. Free of bagage means bhava nirodha.

73

If I may, from a logical point of view:

To infer the existence of x because the negation of x is illogical.

If x is negated from all dhammas, then for what reason is it inferred that there exists an x that is not predicated of some dhamma?

Not all conceptual polarities have existential counterparts; for example, fiction vs. non-fiction.

74

Pj Yuktavadin - is a nice name. If you meant to use that name as a meaningful referent for a person who speaks logic, the appropriate name to use would rather be yuktivādin

Do you mean to say fictitious things dont exist, but non-fictitious things exist, yet the distinction between fictitious and non-fictitious things is a valid distinction?

So you are suggesting that the attā is a pali term that means fictitious, and anattā correspondingly means non-fictitious?

Is that how the word attā and anattā are used in the Pali canon?

The Buddha therefore (according to this logic) in order to get rid of the reality of dukkha, anicca and anattā was ostensibly suggesting the escape into a fictional state of nibbāna where the unreality of nicca, sukha and attā would provide the necessary relief from dukkha?

75

Thanks for correcting the nickname. I didn’t know. I’ll try to fix it.

Yes. Santa Claus doesn’t need to exist for there to be a distinction between Santa Claus and not Santa Claus.

When we say dhammas are not atta, we are saying dhammas are annata. Same thing.

No. Even nibbana is annata as it was already show, but it’s not dukkha because nibbana without residue is cessation of consciousness, etc.

76

Agree.

Actually, it’s the absence of these.

1 Like
77

There is not much reason to rely on how we experience things, i feel.

For example, while mental (mind-) consciousness presents us the idea of ‘i choose’, subconscious processes have done this already for us. Mental consciousness provides us with the idea ‘I choose’ or ‘i instigate this emotion’, I am wise, i have insight…'. Stories. Stories are only to provide us with a notion of control, rulership, grip. Survival tools.

Mind-consciousness seems an invention of nature to provide us with an illusionairy understanding of what drives us, who we are, what we are, how things arise and cease. It is a story teller. Stories are like carrots for the nose. We can believe the stories or not. Wisdom and insight are also part of the story telling of mind consciousness.

Mind-consciousness is a great magician. Its function seems to be that we believe these stories about wisdom, understanding, knowledge and vision, insight, because then we can enjoy life, have some sense of autonomy, rulership, grip. etc. In the end it is always about grip-seeking. Attachment. Not about letting go.

But i believe Nibbana is different. That is peace beyond understanding.

It is not so difficult to see that one is never in ones element with wisdom, insight, knowlegde and vision. Because there is always some weakness in it, some gap, something that does not hold.
But if one lets go of all knowledge and vision, one is always in ones element (asankhata dhatu). One does not have to defend nor reject anything. Nor uphold or protect anything. I think almost always knowledge and vision only contributes to conceit and strenghtens the idea of atta.

Knowledge and vision is also not the goal in Dhamma! But buddhist make this the goal. There is a constant comptetion about knowledge and vision. Constant fire, agitation. And no person with knowledge and vision is ever in its element, right? There is no stronger ground for fire, agitation, despair, misery then knowlegde and vision.

In Sutta Nipata i see a Buddha who was very aware of this. But i think gradually knowledge and vision became for his pupils more important then the goal, letting go, Nibbana, detachment. In that knowledge and vision they felt there is the Dhamma, there is the Buddha and there Buddhism differs from other religions etc. They forget the goal.

1 Like
78

HI Green,

Buddhism isn’t philosophical nihilism.

In SN 35.15, SN 35.16 Buddha states that wisdom is critical to Awakening.

“Mendicants, I went in search of the eye’s gratification, “Cakkhussāhaṁ, bhikkhave, assādapariyesanaṁ acariṁ. and I found it. Yo cakkhussa assādo tadajjhagamaṁ. I’ve seen clearly with wisdom the full extent of the eye’s gratification. Yāvatā cakkhussa assādo paññāya me so sudiṭṭho.

I went in search of the eye’s drawback, Cakkhussāhaṁ, bhikkhave, ādīnavapariyesanaṁ acariṁ. and I found it. Yo cakkhussa ādīnavo tadajjhagamaṁ. I’ve seen clearly with wisdom the full extent of the eye’s drawback. Yāvatā cakkhussa ādīnavo paññāya me so sudiṭṭho.

I went in search of escape from the eye, Cakkhussāhaṁ, bhikkhave, nissaraṇapariyesanaṁ acariṁ. and I found it. Yaṁ cakkhussa nissaraṇaṁ tadajjhagamaṁ. I’ve seen clearly with wisdom the full extent of escape from the eye. Yāvatā cakkhussa nissaraṇaṁ, paññāya me taṁ sudiṭṭhaṁ.

Knowledge and vision arose in me: Ñāṇañca pana me dassanaṁ udapādi: ‘My freedom is unshakable; this is my last rebirth; now there’ll be no more future lives.’” ‘akuppā me vimutti, ayamantimā jāti, natthi dāni punabbhavo’”ti.

In SN 35.18 and SN 35.18 Buddha states that there is gratification, wretchedness and escape from the senses, because if there were not people wouldn’t become aroused, disillusioned and find escape.

“Mendicants, if there were no gratification in the eye, sentient beings wouldn’t be aroused by it. “No cedaṁ, bhikkhave, cakkhussa assādo abhavissa, nayidaṁ sattā cakkhusmiṁ sārajjeyyuṁ. But since there is gratification in the eye, sentient beings are aroused by it. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi cakkhussa assādo tasmā sattā cakkhusmiṁ sārajjanti.

If the eye had no drawback, sentient beings wouldn’t grow disillusioned with it. No cedaṁ, bhikkhave, cakkhussa ādīnavo abhavissa, nayidaṁ sattā cakkhusmiṁ nibbindeyyuṁ. But since the eye has a drawback, sentient beings do grow disillusioned with it. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi cakkhussa ādīnavo tasmā sattā cakkhusmiṁ nibbindanti.

If there were no escape from the eye, sentient beings wouldn’t escape from it. No cedaṁ, bhikkhave, cakkhussa nissaraṇaṁ abhavissa, nayidaṁ sattā cakkhusmā nissareyyuṁ. But since there is an escape from the eye, sentient beings do escape from it. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, atthi cakkhussa nissaraṇaṁ tasmā sattā cakkhusmā nissaranti.

In SN 35.25 Buddha teaches the method for giving up the all by “direct knowledge and complete understanding”

“Mendicants, I will teach you the principle for giving up the all by direct knowledge and complete understanding. “Sabbaṁ abhiññā pariññā pahānāya vo, bhikkhave, dhammaṁ desessāmi. Listen … Taṁ suṇātha.

And what is the principle for giving up the all by direct knowledge and complete understanding? Katamo ca, bhikkhave, sabbaṁ abhiññā pariññā pahānāya dhammo?

The eye should be given up by direct knowledge and complete understanding. Sights should be given up by direct knowledge and complete understanding. Eye consciousness should be given up by direct knowledge and complete understanding. Eye contact should be given up by direct knowledge and complete understanding. The painful, pleasant, or neutral feeling that arises conditioned by eye contact should be given up by direct knowledge and complete understanding. Cakkhuṁ, bhikkhave, abhiññā pariññā pahātabbaṁ, rūpā abhiññā pariññā pahātabbā, cakkhuviññāṇaṁ abhiññā pariññā pahātabbaṁ, cakkhusamphasso abhiññā pariññā pahātabbo, yampidaṁ cakkhusamphassapaccayā uppajjati vedayitaṁ sukhaṁ vā dukkhaṁ vā adukkhamasukhaṁ vā tampi abhiññā pariññā pahātabbaṁ …pe…

In SN 35. 27 he states without directly knowing and completely understanding the all, without dispassion for it and giving it up, you can’t end suffering

“Mendicants, without directly knowing and completely understanding the all, without dispassion for it and giving it up, you can’t end suffering. “Sabbaṁ, bhikkhave, anabhijānaṁ aparijānaṁ avirājayaṁ appajahaṁ abhabbo dukkhakkhayāya.

And what is the all, without directly knowing and completely understanding which, without dispassion for it and giving it up, you can’t end suffering? Kiñca, bhikkhave, sabbaṁ anabhijānaṁ aparijānaṁ avirājayaṁ appajahaṁ abhabbo dukkhakkhayāya?

The eye, sights, eye consciousness, and things knowable by eye consciousness. Yañca, bhikkhave, cakkhu, ye ca rūpā, yañca cakkhuviññāṇaṁ, ye ca cakkhuviññāṇaviññātabbā dhammā …pe…

2 Likes
80

I flagged your post because i feel it is inappropriate you frame my writing as nihilism.

81

I didn’t frame your writing as nihilism. I said that Buddhism isn’t philosophical nihilism and gave you texts demonstrating that wisdom is critical to Awakening.

Buddha repeats throughout the suttas that wisdom and vision are critical to Awakening and the cessation of suffering. In SN 36.25 he also indicates that his Awakening to feelings is new wisdom.

“‘These are the feelings.’ Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another. “‘Imā vedanā’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṁ udapādi, ñāṇaṁ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādi.

‘This is the origin of feeling.’ … ‘Ayaṁ vedanāsamudayo’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṁ udapādi …pe… āloko udapādi.

‘This is the practice that leads to the origin of feeling.’ … ‘Ayaṁ vedanāsamudayagāminī paṭipadā’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṁ udapādi …pe…

‘This is the cessation of feeling.’ … ‘ayaṁ vedanānirodho’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṁ udapādi …pe…

‘This is the practice that leads to the cessation of feeling.’ … ‘ayaṁ vedanānirodhagāminī paṭipadā’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṁ udapādi …pe…

‘This is the gratification of feeling.’ … ‘ayaṁ vedanāya assādo’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu …pe…

‘This is the drawback of feeling.’ … ‘ayaṁ vedanāya ādīnavo’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu …pe…

‘This is the escape from feeling.’ Such was the vision, knowledge, wisdom, realization, and light that arose in me regarding teachings not learned before from another.” ‘idaṁ kho nissaraṇan’ti me, bhikkhave, pubbe ananussutesu dhammesu cakkhuṁ udapādi, ñāṇaṁ udapādi, paññā udapādi, vijjā udapādi, āloko udapādī”ti.