You didnt speak about the unicorn but you have an image of it in your mind to be able to compare another animal against that mental-image and say “this animal is not a unicorn”. If you are comparing an animal to an absurdity, a nullity, a void, then your statement (“this animal is not a ???”) has no meaning and is devoid of truth. You can call an absurdity or a nullity with any name, but you cannot truly exclude what is real from what is absurd, by saying a lion is not that ???. As long as you call a unicorn a unicorn, you mean a unicorn and not anything else. So you are taking the referent as real. Then you declare that it is not real.
If you think the unicorn is unreal (or does not exist) you have a theory about the unicorn. You thereafter claim that you are not theorizing about it, which again is cognitive dissonance.
No, I don’t say “This animal is not a unicorn” in the premise. I said instead in the premise 2 as “A lion is not an unicorn”.
“This animal is not a unicorn” is not in the premise, it’s in the conclusion. You need to rearrange your thoughts more clearly.
As I said, such absurdity, a nullity, a void is the additional premise you make on your theory about unicorn. You are creating obstacle for yourself.
Also, I already told you, such conclusion as: When pointing to a lion and declare “This animal is NOT “an absurdity, a nullity, a void”” has true meaning and not devoid of truth as you are claiming. I am not sure about you but I will definitely NOT consider anyone who declares such conclusion as “deluding himself” or “cognitive dissonance”.
I did not taking the referent as real. I did not declare it is not real either. Those are your own theory about “unicorn” and now you are also making theory about my “cognitive dissonance”.
I did not think the unicorn is unreal either. These kind of statement are not in the premise and not in the conclusion either. You are simply making up theory and impose it on me.
Anyway, you can power up your imagination and work on a “theory” below:
Premise 1: I am pointing to a lion and say “This is a lion.”
Premise 2: A lion is not a corona virus 2019.
Conclusion: This is not a corona virus 2019.
Try to work on your theory in the year before 2019. Try to apply your “theory” to the people who is doing research on corona virus before 2019, are they deluding themselves when they point to a lion and declare “This is not a corona virus 2019”? How about normal people in the year before 2019? And finally, how about normal people in the year 2023?
OK thanks, I wish you all the best. It was a good discussion, but I need to disengage now for I have said all that I intended to say in every way it is possible.
It looks like you are not a native speaker of english and I doubt you’ve really comprehended what I’ve said - I didn’t for for sure comprehend the part where you were talking about ‘humiliating’ your son - so I guess we are talking to cross purposes using words and expressions that the other doesnt comprehend. I don’t know if you can read or understand Pali well or if you are trying to reinterpret canonical terms and expressions that you’ve not been able to grasp fully yet.
Update: Apologies for saying what I’ve said above (whether you are a native speaker of English, and whether you know Pali or not, is certainly none of my business to judge). Please therefore consider those comments of mine retracted, as they were personal in nature.
Again, I have the same impression.
On the other hand, I think I have a good understanding of what you are saying but I just don’t agree with it.
Look at these 2 premises and 1 conclusion again in its simplest form:
Premise 1: X is A.
Premise 2: A is NOT B.
Conclusion: X is NOT B.
While I was saying, unless you can prove “X is NOT A” or “A is B”, you will not be able to bring down the conclusion “X is NOT B”. It does not matter B is true or false or absurd/not real/does not exist/void/nullity as you were trying to claim, the conclusion “X is NOT B” still holds when both the premises are true.
Somehow, you are creating an obstacle for yourself by saying premise 2 is absurd when B is something not real/absurd/void. You also try to bring up some additional assumptions about my mental image about B. Instead of proving “A is B” to falsify premise 2, you try to claim that premise 2 is absurd when B is absurd/void/nullity.
To that concern, I already told you, the premise 2 will simply becomes “A is NOT ‘something that is absurd/void/nullity’”. While we already had premise 1 that anchors A to “X is A”, there is nothing wrong with premise 2; in fact, it becomes clearer that premise 2 is true.
As an exercise, you can try to have a look at the following:
Premise 1: This man is Mr. Anderson.
Premise 2: Mr. Anderson is NOT “Mr. Smith (who was at the crime scene)”.
Conclusion: This man is NOT “Mr. Smith (who was at the crime scene)”.
If anyone uses your approach, he will start saying “Premise 2 is absurd when ‘Mr. Smith (who was at the crime scene)’ is not real/absurd/void/nullity”. However, it can be the case that there was not a crime scene but instead a film scene; or there was nobody named Mr. Smith. According to your approach, it leads to nowhere and you even start claiming about “cognitive dissonance”.
Meanwhile, there is nothing wrong with a flow from premise 1, premise 2 to the conclusion. And the result with the approach I have given to you is: Mr. Anderson’s innocence is intact.
I agree with you on this, and the same saying to you too.
To support what claim? That the Buddha took the ātman for granted (as axiomatic)?
Why do you think you need a sutta to tell you a point about grammar and semantics? I can clarify that no sutta is going to give you that kind of an assertion, because what you need is grammatical clarity, and the suttas are not there to replace grammar, or to fill the semantic void caused by an ignorance of Pali or Sanskrit grammar (and resulting confusions that arise by relying wholly or mainly on translations and/or mistranslations, or loss of meaning that happens as a matter of course when you switch languages).
In other words there is no such text to support your claim. Rather its something you think the Buddha thought, because of your own logic. Of course its quite possible the Buddha didn’t think the way you thought, and so you would disagree with him. Based on what the earliest text say, the Buddha didn’t take the atta as axiomatic. Rather the thought doing that was part of the problem to begin with.
If I affirm to you that “A lion is not a heo. ” I first should expect that you understand what “heo” is, at least in this context. That means “heo” should be identifiable by definition or explanation or understanding, or some other means… Otherwise, you will not understand my statement, and you cannot agree or disagree with the statement.
If your understanding of “heo” in this context is different than mine then you will not be able to agree with me or you will misunderstand my statement, and the communication will be in trouble.
When we say “heo” exists or does not exist, we imply that we and others have a similar understanding of what “heo” is, at least in this context. Therefore, there must be some agreement about what “heo” is before we can make the conversation meaningful. Otherwise, we will talk one way while others may understand the other way.
When we believe that “heo” is unreal, then we can accept that a car is not a “heo” since we all know what “car” is. In this case, we are comparing the unrealness of “heo” with the realness of the car based on our current understanding and belief.
Similarly, when the Buddha refers to ātman and anattā, he was talking about the ātman and anattā that people at the time understood at least in the context of the conversation. If they do not understand what “ātman” or “anattā” is, or they have different understanding of these terms then they will not understand or will misunderstand what the Buddha says.
As I understand, ātman is the ultimate goal of some religious seekers at the time. It normally can be understood as “eternal, imperishable, unchanging, ever-free, never-bound, the realized purpose, liberation, essence, divine and pure,…” At least, it should be the ultimate happiness source from which we can get and be able to control our happiness at will, and the happiness should be lasting as long as we wish for. Otherwise, it is not the ultimate happiness no matter what it is, and if this is not so, it is not the ultimate goal or final destination of a holy life. I think this could be the acceptable aspect of the ātman that people are seeking.
When the Buddha says that “Rūpa is anattā, ” he explains that if rūpa were attā then it wouldn’t lead to affliction, and we should be able to demand that “let my form be thus; let my form not be thus.” Obviously, by saying that, he at least expects that people understand what attā means as above. If people do not understand attā that way, then his explanation has no meaning or is incomprehensible to them.
When the Buddha questions if rūpa is permanent or impermanent, he is showing the stableness of rūpa. Since it is impermanent then it is suffering; therefore, it is not fit to the above goal which should be the ultimate happiness.
We can also see that the Buddha expects the audience to agree that impermanence will lead to suffering. Otherwise, he will not be able to convince the audiences. Why impermanence will lead to suffering? Because impermanence is what will force happiness to change its state no matter if we want it or not. What state will it change to besides suffering?
Saying that form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, consciousness are anattā does not mean that the Buddha proves that there is no attā (which means there is no ultimate happiness in this sense.) In fact, there is ultimate happiness, but it does not come from those five aggregates. If there is no ultimate happiness that means the goal cannot be found, then the holy life is worthless.
The Buddha’s teaching is to find the ultimate happiness which is the end of all sufferings since if there is suffering then it cannot be the ultimate happiness. That is the goal of Buddhism. It is not designed to prove that “I am right and you are wrong.” Therefore, I think the teaching of anattā is not designed to prove that there is no attā, and Hinduism is wrong! I do not believe that the Buddha who already uprooted all conceits would be interested in that. He instead shows us that if we are seeking for attā, we should not cling to the five aggregates. He points the seekers to what he called “Tathagatha” which is what “attā” should be.
I agree. What you wrote above is for the listener, not for the speaker. However, if you read carefully what I wrote, you will see that I did not define “heo” in my premise or conclusion. Furthermore, I don’t have to do so either.
As the listener, if anyone wants to challenge the conclusion “This is not heo” from premise 1 and premise 2, then that person has to come up with the definition (or theory) about “heo”.
This is where I don’t agree. The communication will not be in trouble when the listener states out his definition of “heo”. Afterwards, there will be a “talk”. As in the case with the Buddha, after the listener states out his definition of “self”, there will be a Dhamma talk.
Again, as I said many times above. I do not define “heo” and I do not make any declaration about the existence or non-existence of “heo” in any of the premise or the conclusion. When I say “This is not heo”, that statement is a definition of “This”, that statement is not a definition of “heo”. In contrast, when I say “Heo is not blahblahblah”, then that statement is a definition of “heo”. In the Pali canon, the Buddha never said “Self is not form”, he instead said “Form is not self”. Again, the listener made a definition of “self”, the Buddha didn’t take “self” as granted or axiomatic.
Look again the premise 1, premise 2 and the conclusion. This time with “heo”:
Premise 1: I am pointing to a lion and say “This is a lion.”
Premise 2: A lion is not “heo”.
Conclusion: This is not “heo”.
No matter what “heo” is, “heo” can be conditioned thing, unconditioned thing, inanimate thing, sentient being, a number, an unreal thing, an absurdity. As long as premise 1 and premise 2 are true, the conclusion is true. If the listener wants to challenge premise 2, the listener needs to prove indeed that “A lion is ‘heo’”. In order to do so, the listener has to come up with definition (or theory) about “heo”. Then, we will have a “talk”.
Now back to the situation with self or ātman:
Premise 1: The Buddha pointed to form and say “This is form.”
Premise 2: Form is not self (ātman).
Conclusion: This is not self (ātman).
The Buddha was talking about “This”, he didn’t make any definition about “ātman”.
Meanwhile, @srkris or people in other religion (e.g. Ādi Śaṅkara from Advaita Vedānta) is thinking something like below:
Premise 1: Self exists.
Premise 2: (form, feeling, perception, formation, consciousness) are conditioned.
Premise 3: [neti neti:] Self is not (form, feeling, perception, formation, consciousness).
Conclusion: Self must be unconditioned.
Clearly, the Buddha never said anything remotely like “self is unconditioned”. Explicitly in MN22, Ariṭṭha was heavily criticized by the monks and also by the Buddha. What was Ariṭṭha’s theory? I quote below in MN22:
Now at that time a mendicant called Ariṭṭha, who had previously been a vulture trapper, had the following harmful misconception: “As I understand the Buddha’s teachings, the acts that he says are obstructions are not really obstructions for the one who performs them.”
If anyone has a theory about self as “self is unconditioned”, then of course that person can do all the “obstructions”. The reason is: there can not be any “obstructions” for the “unconditioned”.
So, can we agree that “self is unconditioned” is a harmful theory?
Also, look again of premise 3 of Advaita Vedānta and contrast it with what the Buddha said instead:
(Form, feeling, perception, formation, consciousness) are not self.
There seems to be a few posts in this thread which are a tad on the heated/argumentative side.
I don’t think it’s necessary to point out anyone in particular, I believe if there is a sense of sincerity in your practice, then you’ll know if it’s you.
I am reminded of a story when Ajahn Sumedho was still a junior monk.
As the story goes, Ajahn Sumedho found fault with one of his fellow monastics at the time.
He felt very strongly that his point/s were valid enough, so in the next sangha meeting Ajahn Sumedho brought it upon himself to discuss these faults in the presence of the sangha.
As I understand, Ajahn Chah was away during this meeting. Due to the complaints that were made, the monk in question was very ashamed and consequently disrobed.
When Ajahn Chah returned from his trip and heard what had happened, he spoke to the young Ajahn Sumedho and basically said that ‘you were right in vinaya, but wrong in dhamma’.
Very often we can get swept up in our own self-righteousness and get absolutely convinced to ‘tell that person how it really is/should be’.
When we get to this point, better to just walk away rather than type/say something which we might later regret, don’t believe Mara.
I think the first verse of the metta sutta sums it up nicely.
Kp 9 Metta sutta
Those who are skilled in the meaning of scripture
should practice like this so as to realize the state of peace. Let them be able and upright, very upright, easy to speak to, gentle and humble;
Thanks everyone, let us continue the discussion in a gentle manner
When I affirm: “A lion is not a heo,” I already have an understanding or assumption of what “heo” is, even if I do not define or explain it. If I have no idea what “heo” is, and affirm that “a lion is not a heo” then I already assumed that “ a lion is not a heo.” Now if “heo” means “animal” then my statement or premise is incorrect.
Similarly, if you affirm that “this man is Mr. Anderson” then you already know or have some ideas who is Mr. Anderson. If you do not know who is Mr. Anderson then you cannot say so.
You know Mr. Anderson by his name, his history, or by some other means. At least, you have some idea who is Mr. Anderson, and can identify him at least in your current belief. If you cannot identify Mr. Anderson then you cannot say that “this man is Mr. Anderson.”
When you said “Mr. Anderson is NOT Mr. Smith,” then you already know or have some ideas about who is Mr. Smith, or at least can identify Mr. Smith. If you have no idea who is Mr. Smith then you cannot make that comparison. What if Mr. Smith is in fact Mr. Anderson’s second name? Or Mr. Smith is in fact Mr. Anderson in disguise?
People challenge the conclusion because they may have a different understanding. If you do not clarify your position, then they may assume what you mean using common understanding of the terms, or common sense, or their own assumptions.
When we are giving a talk, we should expect the listeners to be able to understand what we are talking about. If we give a talk, and nobody understands what we are talking about then it is a bad talk; therefore, we should use common terms that listeners can understand, or clarify what we mean by that, then the listeners can agree or disagree with that. If we expect the listeners to do so, then the listeners should be the speakers.
Because you take ātman as self in your current understanding; therefore, you have trouble with the conclusion “self is unconditioned”. That is your current understanding. However, if you take ātman as the ultimate happiness, the final goal of the holy life then it will make more sense. We cannot find ultimate happiness in this conditioned world, and the ultimate happiness or the final goal of the holy life should be the unconditioned or Nibanna.
Well, I did not do as you did. As I said many times, after I made premise 1, I made premise 2: “A lion is not ‘heo’”, at that time, I did NOT have an understanding or assumption of what “heo” is. Honestly speaking, until now, it stays that way, I still do not have an understanding or assumption of what “heo” is. When you bring up the word “heo”, to me, it only has meaning to you. It only has meaning to me until you define it.
Precisely, if “heo” means “animal” then premise 2 is incorrect (Of course, you will have to do some work to convince me that “heo” is “animal”). It happens when you define “heo” and after we have a “talk”.
I can declare incorrect statements and incorrect conclusion. The reason is: I do not have the power of the Buddha to understand all sentient being’s tendency. The Buddha’s power covers every sentient being’s definition of “self”. It is reflected right in DN1. That’s why his premise 2 can not be incorrect while I couldn’t do the same.
Precisely again, it happens when you come up with definition of “Mr. Smith”. My premise 2 can stand or can fall based on your definition. However, the situation is different with the Buddha’s statement due to his special power.
Precisely again. That’s why we have a lot of Dhamma talks when people with different ideas of “self” come to talk with the Buddha.
Precisely again, you have a different definition of “self”. If you were at the time of the Buddha, you maybe had come to talk with him. You will have something like:
Form is not ātman.
Feeling is not ātman.
Perception is not ātman.
Formation is not ātman.
Consciousness is not ātman.
ātman is the ultimate happiness.
I can’t tell how the Buddha will react to your definition precisely because I don’t have the Buddha’s power. Below is just my pathetic attempt:
Just my own imagination: Maybe, yes, only maybe, the Buddha will ask you something like “This ātman, how do you know it is ultimate happiness?”. Then you are most likely have to answer something like “Because it is permanent, so sir, no more suffering. That’s why it is ultimate happiness”.
Then maybe the Buddha will ask you “When you were still young, not knowing much with little wisdom, you did unwholesome actions, was this ātman not affected? Until your life ends, if you ever do unwholesome actions, will this ātman not be affected?”. Then you are most likely have to answer something like “No sir, because it is permanent”.
Then maybe the Buddha will ask you “If other people believes you, will they not be hesitated anymore to do unwholesome actions? If that’s the case, is it not true that they will bring harm (suffering) to themselves?”
Again, I emphasize that above story is just my imagination. Maybe it can convince you to drop your definition/theory of “self” or maybe it won’t. The Buddha definitely would have given you a much better Dhamma talk to drop your definition/theory of “self”. When your definition/theory of “self” is dropped, maybe you would have gotten enlightenment too.
What do you mean “that”? I never say the mainstream understanding of ātman is the unconditioned or Nibbana. However, if I take ātman as the ultimate goal of a holy life for some religious seekers, then it should be the ultimate happiness. Of course, this is what they are looking for, and it is their ultimate goal, and they call it ātman regardless of how they understand it. They may define and understand it as this or that based on their understanding. Each school may define ātman differently depending on how they see it. However, most of them take ātman as their final goal.
When I take “ātman” as the ultimate happiness, the final goal. I never refer to “self” or reject it. It is irrelevant in this context. The ātman in this case is not the mainstream understanding of ātman.
When I search for the ultimate happiness, I can call it “ātman” or something else. As long as everybody understands that term means the goal, the ultimate happiness of the seekers then the term serves its purpose.
As I understand, it is similar to “Tathagatha” in Buddhism. To me, ātman or Tathagatha are just labels for reference to the final goal. If we do not like the word ātman as the final goal for Buddhism, we can change it to Tathagatha or something else that is more familiar to us.
My focus is the ultimate happiness, the final goal of a religious seeker, not about the definition of a term and if it is defined and understood correctly or not. Since the final goal as I understood is unconditioned, indescribable, unidentifiable, the label is just for communication purposes. As long as the audience understands what I refer to, then the label serves its purpose.
Moreover, I never say ātman or Tathagatha is Nibbana if you read my previous posts. I say that Nibbana is “the unconditioned”, and it is achieved when all conditions cease. When all conditions cease, we reach the unconditioned, or we can say that we attain Nibbana. At this time, we no longer be “Mr. A,” we are free from all conditions, and are unidentifiable. Let’s call it “Tathagatha” if we do not like the term “ātman.” However, this does not mean that we become Nibbana! In fact, Nibbana is the requirement to reach this.
I understand what I said is not popular, and it is unique. I never see anybody seeing this way, so if you trust the experts then you can follow them. However, take this as a grain of salt, but do not reject it. You may someday find something that is usable from it if you do not reject it. If not, it is also a good exercise to validate your current understanding.
I think most educated people in the West know the difference between moksa and nibbana and recognize they are not the same. This wasn’t always the case. Early Western interpretations were that Buddhism was just another Hindu sect, basically. Over time, we’ve come to realize that Buddhism is its own systematic philosophy with its own religious life. This took us a long time to learn. However, the darsana actually recognize this. Buddhism is considered one of the heterodox schools. It does not accept authority of the sruti. It’s more than that, but there you have it.
It definitely helps to read the source texts in the original, to be able to see the internal logic and thought world the texts inhabit.
It’s inevitable that translators color their translations, it is to be expected. But earlier ones did have much less understanding of the whole Buddhist project than more recent ones.
One only needs to look at recent translations of, say, the Odyssey and Beowulf to see how differently the texts can be approached.
On a minuscule scale, look at the above discussion on the opening lines of the Metta Sutta. How differently they can be rendered! .
It’s through only relying on translators that we see debates on things like the difference between ‘no self’ and ‘non self’, a distinction entirely absent in the source text.
Oh yeh. Compression. We dealt with it in Heian Court Poetry. Especially the poetry of Ono no Komachi, one of the six poetic geniuses of Japan. Which poem, you ask. This one. It’s been identified as containing the first trace of the medieval aesthetic, long before medieval times existed. Looks simple on the surface, especially because most of this is hiragana, but it is super-explosive. However, don’t look at me to demonstrate the pyrotechnics. It’s not worth me translating it. I had good teachers who knew their stuff.
|花の色は|hana no iro wa|
|うつりにけりな|utsurinikeri na|
|いたづらに|itazura ni|
|わが身世にふる|wa ga mi yo ni furu|
|ながめせしまに|nagame seshi ma ni|
,