How can there be no-self when there seems to be a self?

What ‘Golden Age’ are you talking about?

Congratulations, you found 1 scholar! How many more would laugh at the idea that the suttas show the Buddha didn’t teach rebirth?

:laughing:

:laughing:

:laughing:

The suttas use dozens of words which are translated as ‘rebirth’. The Buddha certainly taught something translated as ‘re-birth’. However, it may not be what you imagine it to be.

Worse, the Buddha taught craving for ‘re-birth’ is blameworthy. :cherry_blossom:

[quote=“Deeele, post:168, topic:5041”]
How many more…[/quote]

Many ‘re-births’ in these words. The many laughing ‘beings’ (‘satta’) imagined in the mind sounds like it could mean ‘re-birth’. Each new birth brings suffering. Cycling in myriad births.

:cow2:

1 Like

Hi Brother_Joe,
I see your point now, thanks for the reply.

How fortunate truth is not decided by majority vote, if it were, the worldlings would certainly have a monopoly.

1 Like

Unfortunately I don’t accept the common (puthujana) translation of rūpa as ‘body’ (or materiality). Certainly body is one kind of rūpa, but following what is seemingly the Buddha’s definition https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.48:

Whatever kind of form there is, whether past, future, or present, internal or external, gross or subtle, inferior or superior, far or near: this is called the form aggregate.

‘body’ (Kāya in Pāli) would be a: present, internal, gross, inferior(depending), near form.

Applying his definition, it seems to me that what is sometimes ‘translated’ as ‘mental phenomena’ (dhammā), would be included under the form aggregate. A mental image, would be a present, internal, subtle, inferior(depending), near form.

I know this is not the traditional explanation and don’t need to hear the traditional explanation one more time.

Regarding anything as ‘soul’, for me, has the meaning of ‘one’s essence’, ‘one’s true (unchanging) self’, ‘one’s essential self’, ‘the ultimate truth’.

best wishes

I agree in theory, but monks have been imprisoned for not agreeing with the (current government) majority party line in some ‘Buddhist’ countries and I often feel judged and dismissed by monks, which is equivalent to a Sanghadisesa offence punishment.

Yes, you have understood my meaning.

With each identification comes a world (world-view), with certain expectations and beliefs taken to be truth.

Well, no one is expected to uncritically embrace all Buddhisms because one is interested in one of them.

I just wanted to offer whatever contextualization I could for your inquiries about the Dalai Lama, since those are inquiries about a very different Buddhist school, and I don’t see them highly represented on this forum. I was once very interested in studying Gelug Buddhism but ultimately it wasn’t for me.

I am not altogether exceptionally interested in becoming a Chan Buddhist either.

@Brother_Joe

The paradox is to consider an atta when there is no atta. As in starting with something apparently true, that leads to unacceptable conclusions.
As in SN 12.61
You understood me right.

As far as the “factual inevitability of my opinion”, I have to say that I just got that from SN 22.47 - which I consider one of the major sutta.
I don’t know if it is a “late” sutta - as you like to sweep off any sutta that does not fit your peculiar and quite distorted views - but it has two quite strict parallels in the Agamas, as you can see.
So facts are here to stay. Maybe “late” facts in your opinion; but hard facts anyway. So our opinions will be to gauge the validity of yours.

However you haven’t answered anything about the hard fact of a “doer” in SN 24.6 and AN 6.38 (see also here). Are these again “late” suttas in your belief? - Something to be “swept off” as well?.
So please, tell us about the latter, before you speak about anything else; would you?.

P.S
I am = aham asmi - which has the being (asmi), taken as I (aham). This is Indian philosophy 101.
Please refer also to Aristotle’s “Categories” to see what “being” (asmi) means in this sense. This is a universal concept in all philosophies; so don’t worry. In our case [viz. paṭiccasamuppāda], this being is “said-of and present-in” - (viz., an accidental (aka non-substantial) universal).
In other word, a "being (asmi), “said of nāmarūpa and present in satta”, for what concerns us.
So you might understand better this passage in SN 22.85

Your opinion remains dear to me, as long as I can give you mine.

That might be the paradox to you even though you don’t express it that way, but as I read the suttas as ‘it is a misconception to view something as attā (soul) when it does not have the qualities of attā’

Thanks for showing your unkindness in your assumptions about my actions/motivations and your judgements about my views.

I found that link very interesting laying various parallels together.

I really don’t know why you would assume I would dismiss any particular sutta from the First Four Nikayas.

I’m sorry. I don’t understand why you are raising this point. I don’t accept what I believe is a later doctrine that is action but no doer. I believe there is action and there is a doer of action who will receive results of action done.

I don’t believe in your judgements of what are hard facts. Even if I did, I choose to follow the training the Buddha gave to express my opinion as just that. So, I would say “I believe this is a hard fact…” not ‘this is a hard fact’, which is how all dogma are presented. E.g. ‘the world is flat’. It was stated by the Church as a hard fact, the truth.

best wishes

No.

Myth of the flat Earth

1 Like

Thanks .

With Metta .

[quote=“Dhammanando, pst:179, topic:5041, full:true”]

No.
[omitted information about historical flat-earth misconceptions]
[/quote]Indeed. Christopher Columbus also believed the world to be round (he was not suicidal!).

He also called the Natives “Indians” because that terminology in vogue for anyone who hailed from the “the Indies” at the time, not because he thought he was definitely in India. None of this makes him a better person, or absolves various horrible things he did, but it sets him in his proper historical context.

This historical usage of the term “Indies” survives today in the contemporary name “the West Indies”, which is located in the New World, no where near India or Indonesia, which I think was called, during colonial times, the “Dutch East Indies”.

Apologies for piggybacking off of your post. I thought I might add some further common historical misconceptions, since you were quicker on the draw than I to point out the flat-earth misconception, which even I was taught in public school in the 90s, long after there was an excuse for teaching such things.

3 Likes

SN 22.48 does not provide a definition of form. Instead, it only distinguishes between mere aggregates & clung to aggregates. For example, if you won’t share your lunch with another person, this is clinging to form as “my lunch”. :cake:

Definitions of rupa are found in SN 12.2, SN 22.79 & MN 62, which appear obviously to refer to materiality. :bike:

The four 4 great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form.

“And why, bhikkhus, do you call it form? ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form. Deformed by what? Deformed by cold, deformed by heat, deformed by hunger, deformed by thirst, deformed by contact with flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, and serpents. ‘It is deformed,’ bhikkhus, therefore it is called form.

“Yaṁ kiñci Rāhula ajjhattaṁ paccattaṁ
“Whatever there is, Rāhula, that is inside, in oneself,

kakkhalaṁ kharigataṁ upādinnaṁ, seyyathīdaṁ:
that is hard or has become solid, and is attached to, like this:

kesā, lomā, nakhā, dantā, taco,
head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin,

maṁsaṁ, nahārū, aṭṭhī, aṭṭhimiñjā, vakkaṁ,
flesh, sinews, bones, bone-marrow, kidneys,

hadayaṁ, yakanaṁ, kilomakaṁ, pihakaṁ, papphāsaṁ,
heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs,

antaṁ, antaguṇaṁ, udariyaṁ, karīsaṁ -
intestines, mesentery, undigested food, excrement -

yaṁ vā panaññam-pi kiñci ajjhattaṁ paccattaṁ
or whatever else there is that is inside, in oneself,

kakkhalaṁ kharigataṁ upādinnaṁ,
that is hard, or has become solid, and is attached to,

ayaṁ vuccati Rāhula ajjhattikā paṭhavīdhātu.
that, Rāhula, is called the internal earth element.

It’s evidence, not proof. There’s also the fact that the records show that no or a tiny minority of historical Buddhist thinkers have rejected rebirth. Original 18 schools, how many rejected rebirth? Zero. The redactors of the Canon did not reject rebirth. And certainly not all of them were worldlings nor those who came before them.

Again, this reminds me of climate change denial. A mountain of evidence and near-unanimous agreement by experts but people still hold up the contrary argument as more likely.

How do you decide what is one birth and what is another? Based on religious view? On age? On preferences? It seems to be an arbitrary means of classification. There’s no clear line between one “birth” and the next so you have to come up with your own criteria to decide that.

OTOH, the straightforward meaning of birth is clearly visible. Though there is debate on when a new life first begins in the womb, it’s obvious that the process of birth results in a ‘new’ being to this world. And of course the straightforward meaning is explicitly validated in the texts.

[quote]If he wants, he recollects his manifold past lives (lit: previous homes), i.e., one birth, two births, three births, four, five, ten, twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, one hundred, one thousand, one hundred thousand, many aeons of cosmic contraction, many aeons of cosmic expansion, many aeons of cosmic contraction and expansion, [recollecting], ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure and pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.’ Thus he remembers his manifold past lives in their modes and details.

AN 3.101[/quote]

"The property of form, householder, is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of form, it is said to be living at home. The property of feeling… perception… fabrication is the home of consciousness. When consciousness is in bondage through passion to the property of fabrication, it is said to be dwelling at home.

And how, householder, does one roam about in an abode? By diffusion and confinement in the abode consisting in the sign of forms, one is called one who roams about in an abode. By diffusion and confinement in the abode consisting in the sign of sounds … the sign of odours … the sign of tastes … the sign of tactile objects … the sign of mental phenomena, one is called one who roams about in an abode.

SN 22.3

:grinning:

Sister, since I was born in the noble birth, I do not recall intentionally killing a living being. MN 86

persons is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, regards form as self. That regarding, bhikkhus, is a formation. That formation—what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced? When the uninstructed worldling is contacted by a feeling born of ignorance-contact, craving arises: thence that formation is born. SN 22.81

In human bodies in themselves, nothing distinctive can be found. Distinction among human beings is purely verbal designation….For name & clan are assigned, originating in conventions…MN 98

And which is the carrier of the burden? ‘The person,’ it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name. This is called the carrier of the burden. SN 22.22

There are these four nutriments for the maintenance of beings who have come into being or for the support of those in search of a place to be born. Which four? Physical food, gross or refined; contact as the second, intellectual intention the third, and consciousness the fourth. SN 12.63

Ajahn Buddhadasa said:

People language is used by the ordinary people who don’t
understand Dhamma very well and by those worldly people who are so
dense that they are blind to everything but material things. Then,
there is the language which is spoken by those who understand reality
(Dhamma), especially those who know and understand reality in the
ultimate sense. This is another kind of language.
:grinning:

“Why now do you assume ‘a being’?
Mara, is that your speculative view?
This is a heap of sheer formations:
Here no being is found.

_ “Just as, with an assemblage of parts,_
The word ‘chariot’ is used,
So, when the aggregates exist,
There is the convention ‘a being.’

SN 5.10

[quote=“Mkoll, post:184, topic:5041”]
Though there is debate on when a new life first begins in the womb[/quote]
Not in the suttas.

At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who recollect their manifold past abodes all recollect the five aggregates subject to clinging or a certain one among them. What five?

“When recollecting thus, bhikkhus: ‘I had such form in the past,’ it is just form that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a feeling in the past,’ it is just feeling that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such a perception in the past,’ it is just perception that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such volitional formations in the past,’ it is just volitional formations that one recollects. When recollecting: ‘I had such consciousness in the past,’ it is just consciousness that one recollects.

SN 22.79

“‘A being,’ lord. ‘A being,’ it’s said. To what extent is one said to be ‘a being’?”

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for form, Radha: when one is caught up[1] there, tied up[2] there, one is said to be ‘a being.’[3]

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for feeling… perception… fabrications…

"Any desire, passion, delight, or craving for consciousness, Radha: when one is caught up there, tied up there, one is said to be ‘a being.’

SN 23.2

Certainly, the straightforward meaning is explicitly validated in the texts but this does not appear to be the meaning purported by @Mkoll :grinning: :laughing:

Religion is conducted by respected monks, who via preaching, generate faith in the puthujjana so puthujjana does not engage in sexual misconduct & other sins that lead to a hellish, ghostly & animalish world. It is the role of the monk to preach & the role of the puthujjana to follow the teaching (rather than preach the teaching).

Mary said to Jesus,

“What are your disciples like?”

He said, "They are like little children living in a field that is not theirs

But meanwhile they are drunk. When they shake off their wine, then they will repent & change their ways."

:heart_eyes: :anjal:

It seems like your approach is to cherry-pick certain words and phrases and give contrived explanations of them to fit the conclusion you have already chosen, while also ignoring others that don’t fit that conclusion and for which an explanation can’t be contrived. Instead of weighing the evidence on its own merits, the scales are tipped toward the view already decided upon.

Hi, I am new to this forum but I thought I’d give give my perspective on your question. Needless to say I speak for nobody else but my own small perspective.

Last things first. Buddha nature in Mahayana, as I have come to understand it, refers to the pure potential for any being (capable of) practicing the Dhamma to attain enlightenment. That is to to say, it is intimately connected with no-self, and impermanence. It is precisely because the khandas are subject to change and do not contain an unchangeable, identity-conferring, inner essence that that they can change from being unliberated into being liberated. That very ability to become enlightened is the Buddha nature, and not some substantial essence. It think this kind of language was constructed in order to combat the tendency for people to misinterpret the traditional description of the Dhamma as being nihilist. But it isn’t found in the nikayas, and it comes with it’s own set of potential misinterpretations.

Awareness, even in Mahayana Buddhism is an abstraction. I can have visual awareness, auditory awareness, mind awareness, etc., but in each and every case I am experiencing something concrete. It is like the term “weather”. When I actually experience weather it always has a concrete form, like rain or sunshine or snow. Weather is a general or abstract term referring to all kinds of weather, but weather is always of a kind. There is no such thing as “pure weather” apart from kinds of weather. In the same way there is no “pure awareness” or “pure consciousness” (I am using the terms as synonyms) apart from specific kinds of experiences. This is true even of deep and subtle states of awareness conditioned through meditation.

The idea of a pure substrate awareness, the unchangeable mental screen on which appearances appear is a Hindu concept, not Buddhist, and does not even qualify as a valid realization although it may be used as a stepping stone to further insight, since it helps overcome the idea of a small self located within the body. However, if it is not seen through (there is no screen, the awareness is an aspect of the appearance), it becomes a stumbling block towards stream entry. Once again, this is simply my small perspective on this particular issue.

When it comes to memory, even if it is personal in the sense that I cannot remember your past and you cannot remember my past and we are separate in a co-dependent kind of way, that does not make it a self or a permanent essence. See, the idea of “me” implies the idea of “not me”. You could not distinguish “my memories” without reference to memories that are “not mine”. This is because that is. A person born deaf has no idea what silence is, but from the perspective of someone who can hear, she lives in constant silence. Only when she can hear is she able to distinguish silence from sound. Silence is empty.

Even the “no self” is a conditioned teaching, and depends on the misconception of a self. If we were all born in a realm where nobody constructs a sense of a substantial self, without past life memories of a time when we were deluded, a world where nobody constructs a false sense of self either as the CEO inside the head, the eternal unchangable identity/essence, the experiencer of experiences, etc…, then there would be no need for a teaching of “no self” and it would indeed be completely without meaning since nobody would have an idea of what this misconception meant. This, I think, is what Nagarjuna meant by “emptiness is empty”.

BTW, I also discovered that I am a total noob in this forum. I didn’t even see the 181 replies before I wrote this. Oh well. I’m not going to delete it, so here goes.

6 Likes

thanks for that.

Of course, I think you could find something to replace it. I notice you didn’t offer anything.

Might I try, ‘the earth was the centre of the universe and the other planets revolved around it.’