Bodhi vs Ṭhānissaro debate

Discussion
102

I find the self/no self thing interesting.

The Buddha refuted the Brahmanical atta. How close does the Advaita ‘Self’ conform to the Brahmanican atta? Is there much significant difference?

I see Ramana Maharishi and Nisargadatta Maharaj as probably arahants. And yet they talked of a Self. So I expect that while the Buddhist view is very skilful, the Advaita view also seems to be very skilful. Even teachers like Papaji of Lucknow (H. W. L. Poonja) seemed to fairly clearly be stream enterers, and he had a good ability of guiding people to stream entry, even if he seemed to be limited to that and unable to guide people further on the path (due to his own limited awakening).

Due to this, I cannot readily believe that someone must have the view that there is no ‘self’. After all, these are just words, and our view depends on the subtleties of how we hold such views - how they effect our minds. Whether they cause clinging or not. They are after all only linguistic concepts when written down, so it is very clearly not merely the words that matter. And it would seem that the way the words have been formed in Advaita, in combination with their practices, is such that it can enable the same process of awakening as the Buddhist words and practices.

103

I sometimes wonder whether there is much difference between the view of Nibbana as a transcendent reality, and the view of Atman/Brahma as a transcendent reality, given that they both appear to describe something beyond or beneath the personal.

1 Like
104

What makes you think that?

105

I certainly understand the temptation to draw equivalences between certain expressions of advaita vedānta and Early Buddhism.

The two systems though, operate with quite different ontological and epistemological models and I wonder if this would be possible if Nibbāna and Ātman-as-Brahman really referred to the same reality (or, if the full realisation of each were equivalent).

106

I’m not sure, I was thinking more of the different ways that different traditions explain substantially similar experiences. IMO it’s all rather subjective.

1 Like
107

Anyone have a PDF for Bhikkhu Bodhi’s paper?

108

The Buddha refuted the idea of the self in body and mind…including consciousness. It seems like “Brahman” in Advaita is usually defined as consciousness, in which case it could not be the equivalent of Nibbana. That said, I have heard of some non-duality teachers speak of a state beyond consciousness, which sounds more compatible with what the Buddha taught.

109

Perhaps this?

https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?t=21602

110

No, Atman/Brahma is more like an object of consciousness. Is Nibbana an object of consciousness?

111
  1. Reading what they have taught.
  2. Hearing and seeing them on video, how they are and how they interact and how and what they express.
  3. The effect they have had on people around them, many of them attaining stream entry, from what I can tell from listening to their awakening experiences, what that was like, how it changed their feelings and views and so on.

Perhaps especially since Advaita would not exist without Buddhism. It’s a result of Brahmanism+Buddhism.

112

Hmmm… the paper by Bodhi is called “Anattā as Strategy and Ontology”. Have not been able to find it by itself.

113

Or the Bhikkhuni “debate,” or, or… :joy: They have a lot of ongoing disagreements :popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

:clap::clap::clap:

:thinking: Isn’t seeing Nibbāna exactly what dissillusions you? And MN1 makes quite clear that Nibbāna is not to be clung to or even delighted in (!)

What exactly is an “eer”? :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: /Claims Thanissaro, Sujato didn’t read the suttas. Proceeds to misquote the suttas/ :woman_facepalming::roll_eyes:

:clap: Thanks for your awesome response!

Thank you! :heart_eyes:

1 Like
114

So sorry if the following is a very naive question. I have not got very much experience with the suttas. Anyway…

In the suttas we often see the Buddha question the mendicants in this way:

What do you think, mendicants? Is form permanent or impermanent?” “Impermanent, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “Suffering, sir.” “But if it’s impermanent, suffering, and perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” “No, sir.” … (This is repeated for the other aggregates.)

So what happens if I replace ‘form’ with ‘Nibbana’? Then I get something like:

What do you think, mendicants? Is Nibbana permanent or impermanent?” “permanent, sir.” “But if it’s permanent, is it suffering or happiness?” “happiness, sir.” “But if it’s permanent, happiness, and non-perishable, is it fit to be regarded thus: ‘This is mine, I am this, this is my self’?” “Yes, sir.”

And there is that understanding in the suttas of one ‘attaining’ Nibbana isn’t there?

I can’t seem to make this connection when I read MN1, but it’s quite long and difficult for me to follow well. I wonder if you could give me the quote or quotes from the sutta that supports these understandings please?

Edit: I have found this now, see below. Thank you.

115

I think the thrust of MN1 is that with a self-referential view, things will not be fully understood and clearly seen. It’s like when you hear some news and immediately ask “How will this effect ME?”, perhaps not then clearly understanding what you’ve just heard, or not seeing the wider implications.

2 Likes
116

Oops. Sorry. It’s right at the end.

He directly knows extinguishment as extinguishment. But he doesn’t identify with extinguishment, he doesn’t identify regarding extinguishment, he doesn’t identify as extinguishment, he doesn’t identify that ‘extinguishment is mine’, he doesn’t take pleasure in extinguishment. Why is that? Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering, and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies. That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say.”

2 Likes
117

Also look at the Bhikkhu Bodhi translation for this section of MN1 where the formula is “is”, “in”, “apart from” and “mine”, respectively. These are various ways of relating to something.

2 Likes
118

It’s pretty typical for non-duality teachers to talk about some sort of primordial consciousness being the “true self.” I do, however, get the impression that Nisargadatta Maharaj went further than other Advaita teachers to go to a place beyond consciousness (called “prior to consciousness”).

1 Like
119

respectful greetings Bhante Sujato,
May I please know what was the approximate date , that these events happened? The Wat Ram Poeng retreat you did? Do you recall the name of the lay teacher at Wat Ram Poeng please? I would like to know.
The Wat Nanachat arrival.
metta

Rakkhita Samanera

1 Like
120

Hi Ven,

I was in Wat Ram Poeng in 1992. The abbot was Ajahn Banyat, since deceased. Kate and Tunat (not sure how he spells it) led the English-speaking teachers. The assistant teacher I was closest with was named Jamie, I think; I believe he ordained some time later, but disrobed. There was also a monk teacher of Abhidhamma, but I think we just called him Pra Ajahn!

And BTW, how are things at Nanachat? I assume you’re all on lockdown!

2 Likes
121

Oh, small world. At my first Mahanikaya ordination in 1987, Ajahn Banyat was one of the two ācāriyas, Kate was the one who offered the robes, and Kate’s husband-to-be, Thanat (still a monk at the time) was the one who talked me into switching over from the Dhammayuttika Nikaya.

2 Likes