Atman, Other-Emptiness, and other Buddhists

[crossfire]

Existence is not a thing in of itself. It is merely a term for something the mind has discriminated. To speak of existence apart from things that have been discriminated as existing in some manner is fruitless, in my opinion.

I can't frubal you again.
Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (2)

Thus have I heard. At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika's monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing... the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbana, and those bhikkhus... were intent on listening to Dhamma.

Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:

The uninclined is hard to see, The truth is not easy to see; Craving is penetrated by one who knows, For one who sees there is nothing.​

 

[crossfire]

Existence is not a thing in of itself. It is merely a term for something the mind has discriminated. To speak of existence apart from things that have been discriminated as existing in some manner is fruitless, in my opinion.

Actually, I wouldn't say that such speculation is fruitless. The fruit you get is madness and vexation! {Fruit loops, anyone?}

 

[Elector]

Does it really matter, as it is not relevant to Unbinding?

Pranams,

Unbinding? Moksha, you mean? Of course it matters. Now that I take it you concede to the fact that "Existence has inherent existence", perhaps it may be relevant to point out to the fact that Brahman/Atman is defined as Sat (Existence).

Existence is not a thing in of itself. It is merely a term for something the mind has discriminated. To speak of existence apart from things that have been discriminated as existing in some manner is fruitless, in my opinion.

Pranams,

So you mean to say that "Existence" is the property of things, correct? Doesn't that amount to saying that "objects can still exist, even though they lose their existence"? Just like the chair - even with the lose of its color - remains to be an existing chair.

 

[crossfire]

Pranams,

Unbinding? Moksha, you mean? Of course it matters. Now that I take it you concede to the fact that "Existence has inherent existence", perhaps it may be relevant to point out to the fact that Brahman/Atman is defined as Sat (Existence).

No I don't.

 

[von bek]

Pranams,

So you mean to say that "Existence" is the property of things, correct? Doesn't that amount to saying that "objects can still exist, even though they lose their existence"? Just like the chair - even with the lose of its color - remains to be an existing chair.

Well, the Buddhist point is that an object such as a chair does not exist in an inherent manner. What we call a chair is a combination of parts that are labeled as such but in of themselves do not make a chair. Chair is a label. Its "existence" is momentary. No chair can be found that exists inhernently as a chair without cause. If you consider existence as a property of an object, that property only exists as long as the object endures. With it gone, what existence is there to speak of?

 

[Sees]

I think this is why Buddha used the words and teachings he did specifically to get people to let go of preconceptions. Still today there is an unceasing effort to make it Hinduism through and through.

 

[von bek]

I think this is why Buddha used the words and teachings he did specifically to get people to let go of preconceptions. Still today there is an unceasing effort to make it Hinduism through and through.

:bow:

 

[Poeticus]

Still today there is an unceasing effort to make it Hinduism through and through.

But, Buddhism cannot be Hinduism.​

It is not of the astika.​

Hindu syncretists attempt a similar move
with Jainism, Cārvāka/Lokāyata, also...​

...but unbeknownst to them, such a move
is quite misappropriating and dishonest.​

 

[von bek]

I respect Hinduism. But, Hinduism is not Buddhism. They are two different paths. I do not understand why people wish to call themselves Buddhists while arguing that the core teachings of Buddhism are either irrelevant or false. If someone told me they were a Muslim and in the very next sentence said they worshipped Jesus as god, I would be terribly confused...

 

[Sees]

I agree...wouldn't have it any other way

The oddest thing is the history of conversions in the different kingdoms of the region making any sense if what the Buddha taught was basically the same as many others of the time and region. It would make no sense. To me the very presence of Buddhism all over the world refutes it.

But, Buddhism cannot be Hinduism.​

It is not of the astika.​

Hindu syncretists attempt a similar move
with Jainism, Cārvāka/Lokāyata, also...​

...but unbeknownst to them, such a move
is quite misappropriating and dishonest.​

 

[Twilight Hue]

So this does not answer my question, I repeat: Is Existence devoid of inherent existence?

It would be good to examine the inherent quality giving rise to the question.

 

[LuisDantas]

I have noticed. Someone became angry.

That is bound to happen when one attempts to distort the core teachings of a path, don't you think?

Particularly when it happens on its own DIR.

 

[LuisDantas]

Has anyone noticed how things get more "personal" whenever atman/anatta is brought up?

There are those who have a great deal of emotional investment in the idea that different paths must somehow agree.

 

[LuisDantas]

Calm down man. The communication is a thread, for example. If there were no common thread there would be no understanding of each other. No understanding of Buddha also.

So, are you?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I think this is why Buddha used the words and teachings he did specifically to get people to let go of preconceptions. Still today there is an unceasing effort to make it Hinduism through and through.

I respect Hinduism. But, Hinduism is not Buddhism. They are two different paths. I do not understand why people wish to call themselves Buddhists while arguing that the core teachings of Buddhism are either irrelevant or false. If someone told me they were a Muslim and in the very next sentence said they worshipped Jesus as god, I would be terribly confused...

These.

 

[crossfire]

I can't frubal you again.
Nibbāna Sutta: Parinibbana (2)

Thus have I heard. At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the Jeta Wood at Anathapindika's monastery. On that occasion the Lord was instructing... the bhikkhus with a Dhamma talk connected with Nibbana, and those bhikkhus... were intent on listening to Dhamma.

Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:

The uninclined is hard to see, The truth is not easy to see; Craving is penetrated by one who knows, For one who sees there is nothing.​

Interesting. Here's the Pali for the actual utterance above.

"Duddasaṃ anataṃ nāma na hi saccaṃ sudassanaṃ,
Paṭividdhā tanhā jānato passato natthi kiñcanaṃ"ti.​

Ud_utf8

Notice how the word translated as "uninclined" is "anata(m) {from a + namati; bend or "share out"}

"natthi" is a slogan used by skeptics and nihilists, kiñcana means "something" but is only used in negative sentences.

Pali Text Society Dictionary stuff:
The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary
The Pali Text Society's Pali-English dictionary
I'll hide the Pali Dictionary entries to save space

Spoiler: Pali Text Society Dictionary Definitions

Atthitā


Atthitā (f.) [f. abstr. fr. atthi cp. atthibhāva] state of being, existence, being, reality M i.486; S ii.17 (˚añ c˚ eva natthitañ ca to be and not to be); iii.135; J v.110 (kassaci atthitaŋ vā natthitaŋ vā jānāhi see if there is anybody or not); DhsA 394. -- Often in abl. atthitāya by reason of, on account of, this being so DhA iii.344 (idamatthitāya under this condition) PvA 94, 97, 143.
Atthin

Natthika


Natthika (adj. -- n.) [Sk. nāstika] one who professes the motto of "natthi," a sceptic, nihilist S i.96; usually in cpds.
-- diṭṭhi scepticism, nihilistic view, heresy Sn 243 (=micchāditthi Com.); VvA 342; PvA 244; -- vāda one who professes a nihilistic doctrine S iii.73; M i.403; A ii.31; PvA 215 (+micchādiṭṭhika).

Kiñcana


Kiñcana (adj. -- nt.) [ki&#331;+cana, equal to ki&#331;+ci, indef. pron.] only in neg. sentences: something, anything. From the freq. context in the older texts it has assumed the moral implication of something that sticks or adheres to the character of a man, and which he must get rid of, if he wants to attain to a higher moral condition. <-> Def. as the 3 impurities of character (r&#257;ga, dosa, moha) at D iii.217; M i.298; S iv.297; Vbh 368; Nd2 206b (adding m&#257;na, di&#7789;&#7789;hi, kilesa, duccarita); as obstruction (palibujjhana), consisting in r&#257;ga, etc. at DhA iii.258 (on Dh 200). Kh&#299;&#7751;a -- sa&#331;s&#257;ro na c'atthi kiñcana&#331; "he has destroyed sa&#331;s&#257;ra and there is no obstruction (for him)" Th 1, 306. n'&#257;ha&#331; kassaci kiñcana&#331; tasmi&#331; na ca mama katthaci kiñcana&#331; n'atthi "I am not part of anything (i. e. associated with anything), and herein for me there is no attachment to anything" A ii.177.<-> akiñcana (adj.) having nothing Miln 220. -- In special sense "being without a moral stain," def. at Nd2 5 as not having the above (3 or 7) impurities. Thus freq. an attribute of an Arahant: "yassa pure ca pacch&#257; ca majjhe ca n'atthi kiñcana&#331; akiñcana&#331; an&#257;d&#257;na&#331; tam aha&#331; br&#363;mi br&#257;hma&#7751;an" Dh 421=Sn 645, cf. Th i. 537; k&#257;me akiñcano "not attached to k&#257;ma" as Ep. of a kh&#299;&#7751;&#257;sava A v.232 sq.=253 sq. Often combd with an&#257;d&#257;na: Dh 421; Sn 620, 645, 1094. -- Akiñcano k&#257;mabhave asatto "having nothing and not attached to the world of rebirths" Vin i.36; Sn 176, 1059; -- akiñcana&#331; nânupatanti dukkh&#257; "ill does not befall him who has nothing" S i.23. -- sakiñcana (adj.) full of worldly attachment Sn 620=DA 246.

I feel like such a geekster now. :cover:

 

[atanu]

That is bound to happen when one attempts to distort the core teachings of a path, don't you think?

Particularly when it happens on its own DIR.

Not really. Anger is not necessary. One can easily say that a non-Buddhist is not welcome. Or, alternatively make the directory blue, if required.

And pointing out "the shunya cannot be devoid of the Seer" is, not a distortion. The point is highlighted below in Nibbana sutra. Extending the anatta and anicca to the Nirvana and the Seer of the Nirvana is not the teaching of Buddha, IMO. Further, I think, some sutra-s cited by Ekanta, were brushed aside. Then am I distorting?

Nibb&#257;na Sutta: Parinibbana (2)

...Then, on realizing its significance, the Lord uttered on that occasion this inspired utterance:

The uninclined is hard to see, The truth is not easy to see; Craving is penetrated by one who knows, For one who sees there is nothing.

Best.

 

[Elector]

Pranams,

No I don't.

You would deny the most universal basic axiom: Existence exists? Please do provide reasons as to why you think so.

Well, the Buddhist point is that an object such as a chair does not exist in an inherent manner. What we call a chair is a combination of parts that are labeled as such but in of themselves do not make a chair.

You miss my argument. I am not disputing the fact that the chair (or any object for that matter) lacks inherent existence. I am asking whether Existence lacks inherent existence.

Chair is a label.

A label on what? Doesn't a "label" entail a substratum?

Its "existence" is momentary.

Yes, but is Existence affected when the chair is affected?

No chair can be found that exists inhernently as a chair without cause.

I agree. Does Existence have a cause?

If you consider existence as a property of an object, that property only exists as long as the object endures. With it gone, what existence is there to speak of?

I was trying to refute your claim that existence is a property of objects...
Let me repeat what I said, if Existence is the property of things then Existence's existence depends on (existing) objects (which is a contradiction), and an existing object can still exist without Existence (which is a contradiction).
Put in simple words, ask yourself what is the difference between a chair and an existing chair? (If "existence" is a property it must add something, a quality, to an object that distinguishes it from the rest of objects...)

 

[crossfire]

Pranams,


You would deny the most universal basic axiom: Existence exists? Please do provide reasons as to why you think so.

Being of the Taoist bent, I'm going to quote Chuang Tzu, but will hide it since this is the Buddhism DIR:
The Complete Works of Chuang Tzu translated by Burton Watson, Terebess Asia Online (TAO)

Spoiler: Chuang Tzu 2 quote

The torch of chaos and doubt - this is what the sage steers by.11 So he does not use things but relegates all to the constant. This is what it means to use clarity.

Now I am going to make a statement here. I don't know whether it fits into the category of other people's statements or not. But whether it fits into their category or whether it doesn't, it obviously fits into some category. So in that respect it is no different from their statements. However, let me try making my statement.

There is a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning. There is being. There is nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be nonbeing. Suddenly there is nonbeing. But I do not know, when it comes to nonbeing, which is really being and which is nonbeing. Now I have just said something. But I don't know whether what I have said has really said something or whether it hasn't said something.

My emphasis is on change and skeptisim, not on establishing unchanging absolutism or eternalism with words, as when you get to this point, anything one can say is going to be a distortion.

 

[Elector]

Pranams,

Being of the Taoist bent, I'm going to quote Chuang Tzu, but will hide it since this is the Buddhism DIR:

...which does not prove anything...

...There is nonbeing...Suddenly there is nonbeing...

In other words, non-existence exists.

My emphasis is on change and skeptisim, not on establishing unchanging absolutism or eternalism with words, as when you get to this point, anything one can say is going to be a distortion.

If my question is bothering you, then I apologize and I will stop questioning you. But don't make it sound like I'm presenting some dogma (absolutism/eternalism), because the sole thing that I have been trying to prove is "Existence exists" (which actually does not need any proof since it is self-evident), to which you continuously fail to present a meaningful refutation.