Green’s original post reminds me of this Bhagavad Gita description:
Chapter 2, Text 24:
This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried. He is everlasting, all-pervading, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.
PURPORT
All these qualifications of the atomic soul definitely prove that the individual soul is eternally the atomic particle of the spirit whole, and he remains the same atom eternally, without change. The theory of monism is very difficult to apply in this case, because the individual soul is never expected to become one homogeneously. After liberation from material contamination, the atomic soul may prefer to remain as a spiritual spark in the effulgent rays of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but the intelligent souls enter into the spiritual planets to associate with the Personality of Godhead.
The word sarva-gatah (all-pervading) is significant because there is no doubt that living entities are all over God’s creation. They live on the land, in the water, in the air, within the earth and even within fire. The belief that they are sterilized in fire is not acceptable, because it is clearly stated here that the soul cannot be burned by fire. Therefore, there is no doubt that there are living entities also in the sun planet with suitable bodies to live there. If the sun globe is uninhabited, then the word sarva-gatah—living everywhere—becomes meaningless.
In this Indian Epic many strong and powerful ideas have been brought to light. I am not one to argue with it, but following Buddhadhamma we can sense a deeper understanding of Emancipation from Form and so called “being.” There’s always more to our Spiritual Journey.
That is just untrue. You seem to be speaking for everyone rather than just yourself.
This is wrong
No we can’t agree. And you don’t need to be an arahant to understand that this is a valid way of seeing the world. You don’t need to be an arahant to move to that perspective.
Let’s try from the opposite end. I’ve got a tale of two Stus. Let’s call them Present Stu and Past Stu. Past Stu has chosen to lie in the sun, Present Stu has got sunburn. Your suggestion seems to be that Past Stu is the same as Present Stu, but let’s look at the aspect of control. Can Present Stu control Past Stu so that Past Stu doesn’t lie in the sun? No. There is nothing that Present Stu can do to affect the choices of Past Stu. Past Stu (with their lovely un-sunburnt body) has gone. So in this very important respect (i.e. control) Present Stu is not the same as Past Stu. Knowing that this is the case Present Stu acknowledges that Past Stu lay in the sun and caused Present Stu to suffer. Present Stu forgives Past Stu, knowing that Past Stu was a bit of an idiot who didn’t know what they were doing and in any case Past Stu is beyond Present Stus control. Present Stu learns from what has happened and they let it go. It’s easy to let those past actions go when we know that it’s beyond our control. And finally, of course we are never Past Stu, we’re always Present Stu.
So we can look kindly on our past selves, as we would look kindly on a child who has made a mistake. We can’t control what they did, they are gone now, gone for ever, never to return. Then it’s easy to let them off and let them go; to be freed from their failures and successes.
And we know that now is the time to be kind to our future selves, so we make the best choices we can. May all the future selves be happy. May they all be free of sunburn.
I don’t know if it’s wise, but this continual letting off/letting go is a lovely way to live. The consequences of viewing the world in this way is much better than the way I was taught to as a child, so it’s maybe a little wiser than that. In any case once you have this view, in the words of the great Dhamma master Shaggy, you can say:
For me this is not about making people feel guilty for what they have done, nor about washing away a sense of ownership of choices and deeds.
The only context for me is actual experience. I have indeed no experience that I change in some essential or fundamental way. Ofcourse the body changes, views change, certain passions, habits but I do not feel i essentially change. I do not know that feeling. It is alien to me.
If other people tell me i have changed, i know what they mean, but there is also something that has not changed at all.
Buddhist here seem to see this as failure in wisdom, in view, in meditation, in truth, in depth. All failure.
In any discussion about this, this judgement dominates the discussion. I feel, we are not able to discuss this without this judgement of failure in view. I feel that is not easy.
It makes me feel like all participants here live with a notion that the one who is in the sun, is different from the one who feels the pain of sunburn while taking a shower in the evening. But how honest and truthful is this. Is that really what people know? You seem to imply…yes, that is what they know…but i, indeed, do not believe this. And, i also believe it is not wise at all.
Anyway, It seems to be a huge taboe to communicate openly and honestly about this. And this is probably because a notion of something stable, constant, is such a taboe for many buddhist here. It is immediately judged as some failure.
Well, I do not believe that a notion of something stable and constant is failure in view. I believe it is the opposite. A notion of only change, that is failure in view.
For what its worth, i do not think in terms of an atomic soul.
What i try to avoid is immediately judging any notion of the stable and constant as wrong, failure in view. I feel, many participant show this respons. I do not feel this is conducive to understanding, wisdom, investigation.
@Jayarava Paging you here for a clarification if I may.
Seeing how anatta is to be understood as “without self”, what’s the proper way to understand atthi ajātaṁ, abhūtaṁ, akataṁi asaṅkhataṁ?
Ven. Sujato translates them as “That which is free of rebirth, free of what has been produced, made, and conditioned.” which I think is the correct way to understand these.
The reading that is “unborn, unproduced, unmade, unconditioned” brings up such christian notions or an eternal, unchanging core.
You may like this quote from two of A. Char’s students.
There is a quality of pure awareness that is not fazed by fleeting thoughts, emotions, or sense impressions, explain Ajahn Amaro and Ajahn Pasanno. Even when they are together, pure awareness and the conditioned realm are always separate.
Q: What is “it” that arises in dependence on conditions?
A: It is dharmas that arise in dependence on conditions.
Q: What are dharmas?
A: Dharmas are the objects of the manas.
That is to say, dharmas are not metaphysical entities, not objective, but rather they are epistemic entities and subjective. In effect, a dharma is a sensory experience. Theravādins tend to use “citta” here because that was the preferred term in their Abhidhamma. But dharma is the more general term.
There is an epistemic difference between having an experience and not having an experience; and between having experiences generally and not having them.
A dharma that arises from a condition is said to be “a dharma with a condition” (saṃskṛta-dharma). (instrumental tatpuruṣa compound).
Buddhists discovered is a state, known as “extinction” (nirvāṇa) or “absence” (śūnyatā) in which no dharmas arise.
This state is known as “the dharma without a condition” (asaṃskṛta-dharma).
When the condition is present, the effect arises (imasmin sati, idam hoti). When the condition is absent, then sensory experience does not arise (imasmin asati, idam na hoti).
When all conditions for the arising of experience are absent, no dharmas arise. That is to say we have no sensory experiences (as in death).
We can bring about a state of extinction by withdrawing attention from the sensorium, which is what most Buddhist meditation technique aim at. Even tantric sadhanas explicitly state that one should begin visualising and audiating from a state of absence.
This state of extinction or absence is directly responsible for the sotorieology of Buddhism.
Buddhist soteriology can be expressed as an escape from the rounds of rebirth.
The rounds of rebirth are driven by karma; and karma is “conscious intention” (cetanāhaṃ kammaṃ vadāmi. AN 6.63).
One of the side effects of deep meditation is the submergence of the sense of self (or its eradication if you like). It is only having attained this that one’s actions cease to be guided by conscious intention.
Thus attaining “the dharma without a condition” is the key to deliverance (vimokṣa). If there were no dharma without a condition, liberation would not be possible.
Q: What are some common synonyms of “arising” in Buddhism?
A: As well as “arisen” (utpāda) dharma or “having a condition” (saṃskṛta) that arises might be said to “be born” (jāta), or “become” (bhūta), or "made (kṛta).
So the text in question says that [in the normal course of events] dharmas are conditioned. Because of experiencing conditioned dharmas we (automatically) make karma and thus we are repetitively reborn. The good news is that that there is a state of absence of sensory experience in which dharmas do not arise, are not born, do not existent, and are not manufactured. And because this state exists, liberation from experience is possible; and by analogy, liberation from rebirth is possible. And having attained this state, we no longer make karma and thus our liberation is guaranteed (this ability seems to transfer from life to life).
I think Sujato has reproduced an orthodox Theravādvin view of this text. Which is fair enough, even if he is an apostate these days. But this view has never made any sense to me. I’ve read many explanations of this text in the last 30 years and none of them made sense to me (repeatedly having this experience with Buddhist doctrines has been formative for me).
Reading Buddhist doctrines as though they are concerned with epistemology or phenomenology (particularly the phenomenon of absence) seems to be by far the most fruitful approach in terms of both making sense of obscure passage and in terms of practical applications.
Asankhata does not bring up this notion in me. Asankhata points according the sutta’s to what has not the characteristics to arise, cease and change (AN3.47) It is opposed to sankhata, what is arising, ceasing and changing.
But both elements must be known (MN115)
It does not make much sense, i believe, to think about asankhata as something eternally existent. Because it cannot be seen as something that has come into existence (or is arisen).
And to think about asankhata as a core, i do not even know how?
The idea that Christians see the soul as some core, an atta, is questionable. Maybe in a simplistic way, like one can also literally see mind as a stream.
But if i see how the mystics talk about the soul it is more used in the sense that mind, via the soul, takes part in the unborn wisdom and purity of God. The light of the soul washes away all sins, like entering the noble stream washes away all defilements.
I believe, in both cases it is about the holy mind. A stream connected to dispassion, purity, not with ego, not with ego’s desires and needs. It can also be called Bodhi-citta.
But in the end, i believe, it is about honouring purity, touching it, making this connection. This holiness all beings take part in. Doctrinal there might be huge differences but i believe that the stream is just the same. We are connected with purity, with dispassion, with a calling that is not the voice of ego, with a stream or will that differs from the usual drifts that are part our disposition. Beyond any state of existence (bhava).
The beautiful, the amazing, state of Grace, Buddha, the God/Brahma-like, the Gracious One.
Pretty much how it makes sense to me as well. But that was a brilliant thoroughly analysis good sir, thanks a lot for taking the time to fancy my request.
I am not sure if cetana really only refers to conscious intentions. I do not think so.
The cetana suttas, (SN12.38 -40) seem to relate it to three kinds of volition: intentions, plans and also to …“what you have underlying tendencies for”
I feel this means : suppose you die unconscious. Then there are no conscious plans and intentions, but one cannot say that there is no volition and no kammic activity. There are still subconscious tendencies active. Even unconscious the body and mind show protective volition. And the volition that those anusaya represent will give rise to a rebirth moment.
"Mendicants, what you intend or plan, and what you have underlying tendencies for become a support for the continuation of consciousness. When this support exists, consciousness becomes established. When consciousness is established and grows, there is rebirth into a new state of existence in the future
That is why those 7 anusaya are so extremely important and must all be ended/uprooted.
Our lifes are not suported by a conscious stream and also rebirth does not depend on this.
In a sense, conscious intentions and plans often only feed the anusaya, the deeper ground for volition.
And that is what is most important in the rebirth proces.
It doesn’t need to only refer to one thing. Few words only refer to one thing. Rather it only has to mean what I say it means in this context.
And you cannot refute this conjecture by arguing that it means something else in a different context. Because that is a different context. And context is important.
A belief is a feeling about an idea, yes.
Buddhism is was and always will be pluralistic, that is to say that Buddhists have usually had a dozen different reactions to any given element of doctrine and we don’t always have to insist on strict Theravāda orthodoxy.
I hope that you can see that when you say things like this and express it in this way, it comes across as if you think we are lying to you. I think that it is not surprising that you get a little push back for expressing this in this way.
One of the things that I really like about the Buddhism that we find in the EBTs is that we are allowed, even encouraged to experiment with these sorts of views in our practice. We are told that our views, our perceptions are mailable, that we can move from one view point to another. We can perceive things in a different way.
To do this we first get a stable foundation in our precepts, and by doing that, we and everyone around us is protected. Don’t let go of your precepts and all will be good. After that we brighten up our mind. Then we can have some fun with our views, we can try and see what the Buddha was trying to get at—see if they work for us—we can play with them and see where they lead. But we do have to actually move into these views wholeheartedly to see this. Ultimately, these are only views, but I have found that experimenting in this way is wholesome and useful for spiritual growth
Maybe you have taken up these sorts of views that you now dismiss; maybe you have fully engaged with them over a long period of time and you have come to the conclusion that they lead to a bad destination? If this is the case, then I ask you to bear with us while we do our own experiments. But on the other hand, maybe you have dismissed these experiments without giving them a go? In which case, I suggest that you maybe try giving them a go. Who knows? It might be fun.
Cetana is described in the cetana sutta’s. It just refers to the kind of volition that drives our way of thinking, speaking and acting. And this is not always, almost never, a concious intention or plan but often it is just a tendency (anusaya that is triggered)
It is easy to see this translation is not oke:
‘Deeds should be known. And their source, diversity, result, cessation, and the practice that leads to their cessation should be known.’ That’s what I said, but why did I say it? It is intention that I call deeds. For after making a choice one acts by way of body, speech, and mind.
This is not true. One also acts by way of body, speech and mind as result of tendencies. And that happens much more then as result of some conscious intention.
Many people see a spider or some mosquito and pets…dead. This is often a tendency.
Almost all our speech and acts are related to tendencies.
This why the cetana sutta also mentions tendencies.
If one has a tendency to harm other beings, even as a child, that also means that dark kamma is produced. One does not have to be clearly aware of ones own tendencies or make a very conscious decision to harm beings.
What is an intentional act? If a child has a habit, a tendency to hurt beings, and that happens, is this innocent? Is the child protected by its innocence? Does he/she not become the owner of dark kamma.
Is this deed per change? Can we say that is harming it is not willed?
EBT does not even suggest that a Buddha believes he will not reap results of deeds but some other person, some other me. Buddha was acutely aware that if he would start to teach, and no person would understand or follow him, that would turn out tiresome, burdensome for him. There is not any reason to believes a Buddha it is another me who reaps the results. This also would make memery of former lifes impossible.
I am very flexible but not regarding what is true and not true. It is just not true that it is wise to think that someone else or another me reaps the results of deeds. Ownership of deeds is no theory.
Such ideas that one does not reap the result of deeds that does not make one responsible.
I am afraid we cannot openly discuss things. I notice there are so many things on your heart.
Also bad experiences with buddhist. And I do not want to be such a person.
I sincery believe it is not oke to think about cetana in terms of only conscious intentions.
But if share such things people always think i only want to argue.
What can I do about it?
You do realise that that is literally an example of where other people (who don’t understand him) are affecting the Buddha. But seriously, sure he uses conventions such as ‘I am going on alms round, when I get back I’ll eat the food’, but that’s not the view, that’s just convention.
How so? Could you explain the mechanism for recollection of past lives and why it requires a ‘me’ that continues unchanged through time in order for it to work? If you’ve got any references that would be cool
So, if a think about how tiresome it will be for me to particapte in a marathon, how much pains and trouble i will have to bear, that certainly shows I have sakkaya ditthi, mana, avijja, attachment to a doctrine of self, me making, mine making, my self making. But if a Buddha does the same when he thinks about the troubles he will meet when starting to teach, he is pure, undefiled, freed for any sense of self, free of conceiving a tired me, free of mine-making, freed?
I think it is
Your ideas is that there are during a day billions different me’s and even more during a week, year and life. How can one have memories of former lifes this way? It were all experiences of a different me?
How does this work if there are really different me’s?
But seriously, sure he uses conventions such as ‘I am going on alms round, when I get back I’ll eat the food’, but that’s not the view, that’s just convention.