Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
....well, not according to this guy anyway. Watch this 5 minute intro. and tell me what you think.
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The suttas don't negate atman....
- Thread starter Rick O'Shez
- Start date
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram mr norman ji
I listened to this and the two following , .
...what there are no little people in my telivision set , ...hold on I dont have a telivision set , ...excuse me but I found him hard to follow it is the super fast American accent and the in your face manner of speaking ,
and a bit naughty calling people idiot Buddhists ....But I have to agree with him , not that they are idiots , but that there is too much clinging to oppinion , and not enough tine spent on the cushion or off the cussion contemplating instead of enjoying some stress releif ,
also he made some excelent comments about westerners who rejected Christianity looking to inforce their own desire for a god-less-ness or a soul-less-ness , ....
yes if one reads between the lines of many translations one finds so much conjecture , so much trying to fit the doctrine into a set of beleifs that we find credible , ...but that is not what Buddha taught , he tried to streach the mind to tear it away from this habitual pattern of thinking ..and clinging and thinking and clinging , ...instead there is a tendancy to find some new focus for ones clinging a doctrine to hold on to , ...
no that wasnt what Buddha intended of that I am sure .
and yes he gives many examples of others who think likewise some of these being Indian swamis who dont even approach things through the same chanels of enquiry , not through the examination of texts in a academic manner but from a deeper philosopical understanding of sanskrit , ...and hold on lets think about this carefully , should thee realy be such a divide between Vedic and Buddhist thought , ..or was this just engineered , this has to be examined , who put the divide there and why ?
this will no doubt be some what of a contentious thread , and you have put it in theravada , .....
my appologies if my veiw ruffles feathers , ....
I listened to this and the two following , .
...what there are no little people in my telivision set , ...hold on I dont have a telivision set , ...excuse me but I found him hard to follow it is the super fast American accent and the in your face manner of speaking ,
and a bit naughty calling people idiot Buddhists ....But I have to agree with him , not that they are idiots , but that there is too much clinging to oppinion , and not enough tine spent on the cushion or off the cussion contemplating instead of enjoying some stress releif ,
also he made some excelent comments about westerners who rejected Christianity looking to inforce their own desire for a god-less-ness or a soul-less-ness , ....
yes if one reads between the lines of many translations one finds so much conjecture , so much trying to fit the doctrine into a set of beleifs that we find credible , ...but that is not what Buddha taught , he tried to streach the mind to tear it away from this habitual pattern of thinking ..and clinging and thinking and clinging , ...instead there is a tendancy to find some new focus for ones clinging a doctrine to hold on to , ...
no that wasnt what Buddha intended of that I am sure .
and yes he gives many examples of others who think likewise some of these being Indian swamis who dont even approach things through the same chanels of enquiry , not through the examination of texts in a academic manner but from a deeper philosopical understanding of sanskrit , ...and hold on lets think about this carefully , should thee realy be such a divide between Vedic and Buddhist thought , ..or was this just engineered , this has to be examined , who put the divide there and why ?
this will no doubt be some what of a contentious thread , and you have put it in theravada , .....
my appologies if my veiw ruffles feathers , ....
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
In those terms the anatta doctrine does appear to be the Buddha's pivotal innovation, the teaching that differentiated him from prevailing ideas at the time.
A question like this rests on sutta interpretation, which I thought might not be of much interest to colleagues in other schools.
To me this guys ideas look idiosyncratic to say the least, but I'd be interested to hear what others think.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram
personaly I feel he has addopted a poor manner of presenting his argument which is more likely to upset people than to encorage them to look into the situation further , ....
the most important point he inadvertantly raises is that of clinging , Buddha himself encoraged meditiation as a means of realisation not clinging to interpretations , ....to question interpretation is perfectly healthy , yet Buddhism itself has been plagued by arguments brought about by by clinging .
personaly I feel he has addopted a poor manner of presenting his argument which is more likely to upset people than to encorage them to look into the situation further , ....
the most important point he inadvertantly raises is that of clinging , Buddha himself encoraged meditiation as a means of realisation not clinging to interpretations , ....to question interpretation is perfectly healthy , yet Buddhism itself has been plagued by arguments brought about by by clinging .
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Sure, and the Buddha often advised against speculation on imponderables. Though this looks like rejection of a fundamental Buddhist teaching.
Anatta was a superb innovation. It encourages people to focus on practical matters and to avoid the trappings of beliefs in souls and afterlives. Attachment to the perception of individual existence is even today a major hazzard to religious practice.
Not coincidentally, it also opens the way to the core teaching of Buddhism: Pratītyasamutpāda, or Interdependent Origination.
It is a shame that so few people understand its significance.
Heck, it is a shame that other religious doctrines did not develop their own versions of Anatta yet. Pretty much all are in bad need of both Anatta and Pratitasamutpada.
As for the video... the guy is focusing a lot on scripture, never a good idea. One would expect the main doctrine to transcend scripture, as is perhaps even unavoidable. He also strikes me as literally unable of accepting anatta, and way too insistent on claiming that he is fully informed and aware of what the Nikayas actually say - which by itself leads me to doubt that he is,
But even if I had good reason to trust his word, I have no reason to trust his understanding and a lot of reason to challenge it when it comes to Anatta and Interdependent Origination.
Not coincidentally, it also opens the way to the core teaching of Buddhism: Pratītyasamutpāda, or Interdependent Origination.
It is a shame that so few people understand its significance.
Heck, it is a shame that other religious doctrines did not develop their own versions of Anatta yet. Pretty much all are in bad need of both Anatta and Pratitasamutpada.
As for the video... the guy is focusing a lot on scripture, never a good idea. One would expect the main doctrine to transcend scripture, as is perhaps even unavoidable. He also strikes me as literally unable of accepting anatta, and way too insistent on claiming that he is fully informed and aware of what the Nikayas actually say - which by itself leads me to doubt that he is,
But even if I had good reason to trust his word, I have no reason to trust his understanding and a lot of reason to challenge it when it comes to Anatta and Interdependent Origination.
Last edited:
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Yes, and I suspect that attachment is the reason why some would like to "smuggle in" an atman to the Buddha's teaching.
There's an interesting discussion of this on page 41 of "What the Buddha taught".
http://www.dhammaweb.net/books/Dr_Walpola_Rahula_What_the_Buddha_Taught.pdf
I agree. Come to think of it, some people might also just feel unconfortable with disagreements with others on this particular point.
Odd as it is that Christianity, Islam and even Hinduism have for the most part failed to develop their own understandings of Anatta, it seems to be what happened.
Odd as it is that Christianity, Islam and even Hinduism have for the most part failed to develop their own understandings of Anatta, it seems to be what happened.
The Buddha taught for 50 years, one of the reasons he shared what he learned was to liberate us all from the suffering that arises from clinging to the conception of a self. It is a shame that that there are those who wish to reattach that ball-and-chain to us. No thanks. The guy in that video can keep his doctrines of soul and self, they only lead to continued suffering. There is no liberating insight in what he is trying to say.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
Self-proclaimed sounds just about right.
No. In context, self proclaimed means calling yourself an expert or master in such and such a subject. If I tell you I am the greatest chef in the world, that is self proclaimed. If you tell other people I am the greatest chef in the world, that is different. Please note, self proclaimed does not necessarily mean you are wrong; but, if you are only saying it about yourself, others will be less likely to take you claim seriously. In the above example of cooking, my self proclamation of being the greatest chef is not as impressive to others as it would be if you say I am the best...
Much more than that. Buddha rejected the caste system, the racial prejudice, the sexism, and the rituals and mantras in use at that time. Very revolutionary.
See the water snake simile where Buddha talks about the devas, Indra, the Brahmans, and Pajapati and their search for the basis of consciousness (or the Atman.) It's an obvious reference to the story in the Chandogya Upanishad. (Buddha says it's untraceable in this reference.)
Alagaddupama Sutta: The Water-Snake Simile
Now that I think about it, a lot of the justification for the caste system, sexism, and racial prejudice is based on speculation regarding Atman and the precise outworkings of karma. Pointing out that atman is untraceable would be one way to negate the arguments justifying prejudice and caste and sexist abuse without destroying the idea of atman.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
I've now watched 3 of the videos. I think this guy is right on.
His point is that the scripture states that the collections are anatta.
He correctly points out that Buddha did not say 'there is no self'. He said there is no self in the collections, the aggregates.
And as he rightly points out, no self whatsoever means no nibbana, no liberation - and no-one who is an object of your compassion either. Why would Gautama even bother to save non-entities from suffering ? That would be utterly ridiculous. Whose suffering would end ? Aggregates which are in themselves nothing ?
Why would you even bother with buddhism and compassion if all there is ... is nothing at all ?
Traleg Rinpoche affirmed this to me as his understanding in this way - he said that the first stage of mahamudra (the teaching he used) is to make the differentiation between sem (conceptual mind) and rigpa (awareness). In answer to my question as to whether or not rigpa is then the goal, he said no, rigpa is the portal to the Transcendent Reality.
The Self, in other words. Being. The Soul.
Put simply -
The Soul is Greater than the Hum of its Parts
The idea that avidya describes realisation is a direct consequence of that. Knowledge (vidya) is always of the Parts. The aggregates.
So realisation is NOT KNOWLEDGE.
His point is that the scripture states that the collections are anatta.
He correctly points out that Buddha did not say 'there is no self'. He said there is no self in the collections, the aggregates.
And as he rightly points out, no self whatsoever means no nibbana, no liberation - and no-one who is an object of your compassion either. Why would Gautama even bother to save non-entities from suffering ? That would be utterly ridiculous. Whose suffering would end ? Aggregates which are in themselves nothing ?
Why would you even bother with buddhism and compassion if all there is ... is nothing at all ?
Traleg Rinpoche affirmed this to me as his understanding in this way - he said that the first stage of mahamudra (the teaching he used) is to make the differentiation between sem (conceptual mind) and rigpa (awareness). In answer to my question as to whether or not rigpa is then the goal, he said no, rigpa is the portal to the Transcendent Reality.
The Self, in other words. Being. The Soul.
Put simply -
The Soul is Greater than the Hum of its Parts
The idea that avidya describes realisation is a direct consequence of that. Knowledge (vidya) is always of the Parts. The aggregates.
So realisation is NOT KNOWLEDGE.
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
I can think of sutta passages which might point to Nibbana as a transcendent reality, but none which express this in terms of a self or soul.
apophenia
Well-Known Member
That is more about the wrong ideas of self and soul, which are disposed of. - specifically 'a soul' or 'the soul'. Self as an entity. Etc.
It is impossible to use those words in a way which does not invoke the errors Gautama sought to remedy. I even used one of those errors myself in my previous post. mentioning 'the soul'. It is a linguistic problem as much as anything else.
So I generally never use them.
The path is not leading to a 'linguistically correct' conceptual solution. It leads to the subject (self, if you like) not identified as object(s) perceived or conceptualised .
Here's a question for you (in a few forms) -
What is buddha-nature ?
Who is awakened ?
Who is suffering ?
Who is craving ? Who has aversion ?
?
Please, some simple answers to all or any of those questions...
Last edited:
Buddha called these "ideas unfit for attention" that leads to a thicket of views" that becomes a hindrance to liberation from dukkha in this sutta:
Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations