Idappaccayata, anicca and anatta


That’s a useful distinction between faith and evident truth, and its one which is often blurred.
Its like trying to do a piece of research with a predetermined conclusion, you then have to set the starting assumptions in a particular way to get the answer you want. Or deciding in advance what you’re going to discover, and then designing a method to find it, one which excludes inconvenient sources of data.
Confirmation bias.


Einstein was a brilliant man. Apply the above logic. Its a reasonable and justified conclusion especially if you have tested out his hypotheses and was shown time and again that they turn out to be valid.

I do. And no one needs to tell me I cannot express my faith in a Buddhist forum as much as I like!

I’m not talking about the finding aspect. Whatever you consider to be the self has to be an either experienced or not something you have experienced. If you haven’t experienced it, it is its even less meaningful. If you have experienced it, then it should persist day and night.

Atman according to modern advaita teachings doesn’t need to be experienced as part of the khandas at all. Whether it’s permanent or lasts millisecond is irrelevant.


Like Nibbana, Atman isn’t a khandha.
My point is that your permanence test for self has no logical basis, particularly given the lack of clarity about what “self” is actually referring to.


Yes, but how do you even know its not pure speculation if it cannot be experienced. If it can be experienced it is khanda.

Well if ‘you’ exists only in fits and starts, whatever that is, isn’t fit to be called a self. It must exist continuously, and not only when you are watching it.

Well seeing as you are happily refuting arguments about the self, you must exactly know what it is.


With your logic Nibbana is as much speculation as Atman.

There no reason why the experience of self has to continuous, this is just another arbitrary requirement.

You still haven’t explained which “self” you’re actually refuting, all you’re doing is imposing arbitrary criteria.
There are at least 3 options, each of which could have different criteria:

  1. Sense of self, ie self-view.
  2. Conventional self, ie personality.
  3. Atman.


maybe this website can explain Anatta


Thanks. I’m familiar with the arguments, the problem is that I don’t find them entirely convincing - some of them look contrived, and some look like strawman arguments.
Also I think there is often a lack of clarity on what exactly anatta is supposed to be negating, and the suttas are by no means consistent on this point.


So in a way you say Buddha was wrong in his teaching?

Non self the way i understand it means there is no soul or physical body that can be called self, since nothing is permanent. Just look at our body from birth until death. it is changing all the time. it is not permanent, and when we die the body fall apart.
what we experience as self when we are in human body is not permanent, it is always changing.

in my understanding the only thing we in a way would take with us from life time to life time in rebirth is the karma. But i can be wrong on this


Isn’t it strange that of all the religions the Buddhists seem to know best what the ‘soul’ is? The logic seems to be “The soul is what the Buddha said atta/atman isn’t”. In Christianity and Judaism at least the soul is a great mystery. But Buddhists are very nonchalant in saying “Sure, that soul-thing, of which these non-Buddhists think that it is permanent, or whatever”.

Why don’t we forget the not-helpful concepts of ‘self’ or ‘soul’ and look more closely at what the Buddha actually rejected with atman?


Personally i have no doubt in Buddhas teaching.


I’m just going to remind people that this is an EBT site, and as per the guidelines it is for discussions using EBTs as the basis.

Views and opinions and beliefs have their place, but ultimately that’s all they are. This is not a place to convince others of ones views being right or wrong.

It is time to bring this topic back in line with guidelines please :slight_smile:


Maybe, that’s not a good advice. Because the Buddha actually advised monk to study and memorize DO.

“Learn that exposition of the teaching (DO), memorize it, and remember it. That exposition of the teaching is beneficial and relates to the fundamentals of the spiritual life.” SN12.45

“It’s incredible, sir, it’s amazing, in that this dependent origination is deep and appears deep, yet to me it seems as plain as can be.”
“Don’t say that, Ānanda, don’t say that! This dependent origination is deep and appears deep. It is because of not understanding and not penetrating this teaching that this population has become tangled like string, knotted like a ball of thread, and matted like rushes and reeds, and it doesn’t escape the places of loss, the bad places, the underworld, transmigration." DN15

Both DO and NEP are equally important to know because they are the 4NT. DO covers the 2nd and 3rd noble truth while NEP is the 4th noble truth. The five aggregates is the 1st noble truth (description of the problem). AN3.61

“The noble truth of suffering should be completely understood. The noble truth of the origin of suffering should be given up. The noble truth of the cessation of suffering should be realized. The noble truth of the practice that leads to the cessation of suffering should be developed.” SN56.29


I am speaking practically. The Satipatthana sutta is stated by the Buddha to be the direct path, what is required is practice. Under the fourth foundation, five sets of essential categories are listed and they do not include dependent origination. DN 22 has an expanded description of the four noble truths. All that has to be understood with the second and third noble truths is that attachment to samsara produces suffering, while releasing attachment from conditioned phenomena results in liberation from suffering. Experiencing this is the primary task.

“Therefore your duty is the contemplation, ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress.’ Your duty is the contemplation, ‘This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.’”—SN 56. 102-113


So this is a single-fold path?:slightly_smiling_face:


The Buddha is distinguishing the path of mindfulness from the forked paths of jhana or loving-kindness, which can go all the way to nibbana, or result in fortunate rebirth.


What’s ‘forked’ about this.


Nothing can be said about the wall in itself, apart from interacting with it. Everything we know about the wall comes from interacting with it. In that sense, wall is more a verb than a noun. If I punch a wall, solidity is what happens when my hand and the wall meet. Solidity is not the self of the wall, as it requires interaction between the wall and something else to manifest.

EDIT: Which reminds me of the Zen koan: “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” :slight_smile:


I think we’ve already discussed this at length. Do you feel you have something more to add? :smiley:


The topic came up, but I don’t see that there was an open-minded discussion tbh.


I can’t sink into doubt and perhaps you can’t sink into certainty :expressionless:.