Not really, I spent at least five hours today reading/listening from MN 9 to MN14.
Well, that’s a bit complicated right now! But in brief, the notion of “conceit” is getting to the psychological wellsprings from which such theories spring.
The details of the theories, of course, are a mere symptom: there is no point in simply replacing one theory with a better one. The best theory is one that leads to a new discovery, and in particular, the realization of letting go.
Whether a theory such as “not-self” is true in any absolute sense is not really the point; the point is whether it leads to letting go.
But—and it seems to me this is a point that is sometimes lost in these debates—this is a general property of the notion of “truth” in early Buddhism, and tells us nothing about the idea of “not-self” in particular.
7 Likes
I have a great respect for these two teachers for their contribution.
1 Like
Great, so let’s get back to the topic!
3 Likes
This can’t be stressed enough and has given rise to many misunderstandings regarding an-atta. In the Upanisads ‘atta/atman’ simply doesn’t mean ‘soul’ in the sense that we ‘understand’ it today. Even within the Upanisads there are different theories about it which range from ‘eternal’ to ‘perishable’. If there is anything that seems to have eternal and blissful qualities to it then it’s brahman.
You don’t have to take my word for it, it just needs reading. The two most important early Upanisads are the Brhadaranyaka and the Chandogya. Right at the beginning at BU 1.2 it says
In the beginning there was nothing here at all. Death alone covered this completely, as did hunger; for what is hunger but death? Then death made up his mind: “Let me equip myself with an atman.”
How is this the description of an eternal, deathless, blissful soul? So the idea of many buddhist interpreters that ‘anatta’ = ‘no-soul’ is an oversimplification, certainly not investigated enough, for first we’d have to find out what is negated here and to which versions of atman the buddhist texts refer to. There are some more detailed studies available, but it needs good reading and forgetting about ones preconceptions.
13 Likes
Good point. Does anatta negate both self and soul in the suttas?
Buddha’s teaching is Akaliko. (timeless)
Hence we should discuss Anatta in the line of today’s world.
By trying to understand Anatta based on what happened in Buddha’s time, we end up with attacking a straw man.
This is a great point. As layfolk, we really don’t need to study the back-and-forth of ancient bahmana-samana bickering to get the main point and get to work, I think. The people around us are not ancient philosophers.
2 Likes
Instead we have the back and forth of contemporary bickering 
But seriously, if the teaching was self-evident why is there any need to discuss or translate? We could just soak up the Pali words through our skin and ‘get to work’. The Buddha spoke to people of flesh and blood in their specific Indic context. Are you seriously doubting the value of contextualizing the dhamma?
3 Likes
Contextualizing is good if you want to do a PHD.
But you don’t need this if you want to attain Nibbana.
1 Like
Certainly there are differences - one can investigate what kind of hairspray they used back then or one can investigate what anatta actually means - as you do.
1 Like
Nope. I kinda dig history, etc.
I’m suggesting that, for practical purposes, people don’t need to be given old & detailed philosophical ideas only to then study Buddhist responses. They need to have their current concepts indicated & explored.
That’s what happened back then, you see?
3 Likes
That’s a good point actually. So the proper parallel question would be
"Who/What do we believe we are ‘deep down’ today? What is our essential nature?"
The cheap buddhist answer would of course be “nobody, there is just emptiness, no ‘me’”. But this would be about reflecting one’s actual life and thinking, not just parroting buddhist formulas.
1 Like
“I think therefore I am” from Des Cartes, might be a start.
For some others it is their body.
It takes some introspection to find out what one identifies with.
We are of course exploring the delusion, not the Truth of the matter. This is important to get to the Truth, initially.
With metta
3 Likes
Do you think it’s worth starting a new thread? I for sure would be interested…
Perhaps Brahmajala Sutta could be a good starting point to understand the present-day views on Atta.
1 Like
“the annihilationists—sectarians who argued that death was the end of consciousness and personal identity—also taught that there is no self, so to simply state this truth might mislead people into thinking that the Buddha was siding with the annihilationists.” -Bhikkhu Ṭhānissaro
I’ve heard elsewhere that the annihilationists did believe in a self just that it was annihilated at death. Did they just identify with ordinary waking consciousness and call it a self - and not identify a self/ātman with the exalted consciousness of samādhi and the metaphysical extrapolation of an eternal essence?
2 Likes
That is why Buddha taught Dependent Origination.
There is Samsara due to dependent origination.
Samsara is not Atta. It is a product of ignorance.
@sugato Are you saying that the Buddha had a theory or notion of “truth” – the test of the truth of a view being whether it leads to letting go?
This theory of truth being somewhat analogous to certain modern ideas in of a good or useful theory?
I’m not following the reasoning. What is meant by “simply replacing one theory with a better one”? In what sense is it “simple”?
Would not better theory lead to better theory – one theory successively being replaced by a better one over and over – until one arrived at “the best theory” … at which point one would “let go”?
Thank you for your help in understanding.
1 Like
Yes, although I’m not sure it’s accurate to call it a “theory”, in that it’s not explicitly articulated like a theory. But underlying everything in the EBTs is the notion of truth as something pragmatic: literally, “the truth shall set you free”. And it seems to me that this is identical with the notion of truth in science, which is inherently probabilistic and approximate.
For example, Newton’s theory is an extremely accurate description of physical reality, and serves as a reliable guide in all kinds of real world situations. But according to Einstein, it’s not exactly true.
However, if I’m building a house, it doesn’t matter at all: Newton is still well within the bounds of accuracy as determined by both my needs and my ability to measure. On the other hand, if I want to send a rocket to Pluto, I have to take into account relativistic effects: Newton alone doesn’t cut it.
But it’s not as if Einstein is 100% either, as quantum theory accounts for some things relativity doesn’t. People think that some day they’ll come up with a theory to resolve all this, but there’s no guarantee it will ever happen; and even if it does, it’s irrelevant if all I want to do is build a house.
Similarly, the notion of “truth” in Buddhism is always oriented on the ending of suffering. There’s no need to assume any kind of “absolute” or “ultimate” truth. And note that, even in the later Theravada tradition that did posit the idea of “absolute” truth, this was not considered necessary for liberation. In the Theravada, either conventional or ultimate truth can suffice.
This is, again, similar to the idea of the Dhamma as a map. Any map must include approximations and inaccuracies. Can there be any “absolutely” accurate map? No, because that would be simply a real-time simulation of the real world. A map is made more useful, not less, by excluding details. All that matters is whether you get to the destination. As long as the map gets you there, it’s accurate enough.
Perhaps I should have used the word “merely” rather than “simply”. I don’t mean to imply that better theories are irrelevant. Indeed, it is surely the sophisticated level of ātman theories that set the stage for the Buddha’s not-self.
I was trying to make the point that having the perfect theory alone doesn’t accomplish anything. A good theory is not defined by whether it is true in an absolute sense, but by whether it succeeds in its purpose, whether it be building a house, or liberation from suffering.
25 Likes