The suttas don't negate atman....

[apophenia]

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.

'... clinging to the conception of a self '

Replaced with

'clinging to the conception of no self'

How is that an improvement ?

This is discussed in the text Crossfire refers to here ...

Buddha called these "ideas unfit for attention" that lead to a thicket of views" in this sutta:
Sabbasava Sutta: All the Fermentations

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'


"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this:This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This is why the view is best expressed apophatically.

I asked the questions I asked in the previous post, because they will reveal the inadequacy- the uselessness - of any ideas about 'self' - including the idea that there is no self - which is the most popular form of clinging in the world of buddhist philosophy.

Crossfire beat me to the punchline

Which is fortunate, because now we have the relevant sutta, saving me from the heresies of expressing it in my own way, based on experience. ROFLMIO (laughing my identity off)


Back to the main point here - the view that Gautama taught that there is no self is plain wrong.
He saw the tendency to cling to a thicket of views, including the view I have no self.

That particular form of clinging is worn like a badge of honor by those who missed the point.

Surely no-one is sitting in what they presume is samadhi, thinking "aah ! No self !" or, "aah ! the unborn Brahman !"

Well, actually ... based on what they say ... seems so.

 

[crossfire]

'... clinging to the conception of a self '

Replaced with

'clinging to the conception of no self'

How is that an improvement ?
<...>


This is why the view is best expressed apophatically.

I asked the questions I asked in the previous post, because they will reveal the inadequacy- the uselessness - of any ideas about 'self' - including the idea that there is no self - which is the most popular form of clinging in the world of buddhist philosophy.

Crossfire beat me to the punchline

Which is fortunate, because now we have the relevant sutta, saving me from the heresies of expressing it in my own way, based on experience. ROFLMIO (laughing my identity off)


Back to the main point here - the view that Gautama taught that there is no self is plain wrong.
He saw the tendency to cling to a thicket of views, including the view I have no self.

That particular form of clinging is worn like a badge of honor by those who missed the point.

Surely no-one is sitting in what they presume is samadhi, thinking "aah ! No self !" or, "aah ! the unborn Brahman !"

Well, actually ... based on what they say ... seems so.

Dhammapada XII: Attavagga: The Self is a nice chapter of the Dhammapada.
Attavagga: The Self
Do we fight about the meaning of the title of the sutta, and miss all of the good stuff in this chapter?

 

[apophenia]

Do we fight about the meaning of the title of the sutta, and miss all of the good stuff in this chapter?

Of course we do.

It's about personal freedom. Isn't it ? Getting rid of Jesus and Allah.! Who cares what Gautama said ? The main thing is to be free of ... whatever, you know ?

Being free of whatever you know. Sweet. Avidya.

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Anatta or illusion, maya. What difference?

 

[Aupmanyav]

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.

Pointing out that atman is untraceable also makes the working of karma difficult in Buddhism. Why does karmas attach to a new form without any reason? Of course, Buddha said do not dwell on that because it does not help in alleviation of duhkha.

 

[apophenia]

Anatta or illusion, maya. What difference?

No difference.

Anatta defines the nature of illusion - attribution of self to momentary dependent arisings.

One could argue that even momentary dependent arisings are Brahman I suppose, but that would only inflame pointless conceptualisation, from a buddhist point of view. And that would be an obstacle to 'going beyond' the illusion.

 

[crossfire]

Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta

Pointing out that atman is untraceable also makes the working of karma difficult in Buddhism. Why does karmas attach to a new form without any reason? Of course, Buddha said do not dwell on that because it does not help in alleviation of duhkha.

Karmas are habitual patterns of fiery craving when it comes to rebirth. (See also dependent co-arising)
Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta

 

[crossfire]

Pointing out that atman is untraceable also makes the working of karma difficult in Buddhism. Why does karmas attach to a new form without any reason? Of course, Buddha said do not dwell on that because it does not help in alleviation of duhkha.

As an aside, if you treat tanha as the craving of addiction, this study on rats and morphine addiction suggests that by reducing dukkha, one also reduces tanha! (Buddha was right!)
The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think | Johann Hari

 

[LuisDantas]

Pointing out that atman is untraceable also makes the working of karma difficult in Buddhism. Why does karmas attach to a new form without any reason?

Are you asking whether Karma is personal? Because I don't think it is.

 

[von bek]

Pointing out that atman is untraceable also makes the working of karma difficult in Buddhism. Why does karmas attach to a new form without any reason? Of course, Buddha said do not dwell on that because it does not help in alleviation of duhkha.

But it does not "attach" without any reason. Past kamma is one of the conditioning factors of present form, connected by dependent origination.

 

[apophenia]

As an aside, if you treat tanha as the craving of addiction, this study on rats and morphine addiction suggests that by reducing dukkha, one also reduces tanha! (Buddha was right!)
The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think | Johann Hari

wonderful

thanks for that

 

[Aupmanyav]

Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta

Karmas are habitual patterns of fiery craving when it comes to rebirth. (See also dependent co-arising)
Kutuhalasala Sutta: With Vacchagotta

It seems what Gautama Shakyaputta said satisfied Vacchagotta (perhaps Vatsagupta in Sanskrit), but it does not satisfy Aupmanyav Kailasaputta.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Are you asking whether Karma is personal? Because I don't think it is.

Then what is wrong and in going ahead and murder? Not your problem.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then what is wrong and in going ahead and murder? Not your problem.

Of course it is my problem. It just isn't exclusively mine.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Pointing out that atman is untraceable also makes the working of karma difficult in Buddhism.

I think it makes sense when expressed in terms of dependent arising. So the "you" of tomorrow will arise in dependence on the "you" of today. The "you" of tomorrow will be different, but it will experience the consequences of actions done by the "you" of today ( and of all the previous "yous" ).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why the 'you of today' should bear the consequences of the 'you of yesterday' when there is no connection between the two. Is not that unfair?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Why the 'you of today' should bear the consequences of the 'you of yesterday' when there is no connection between the two. Is not that unfair?

It's not a case of fair or unfair, it's just dependent arising, how things are.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Again, as I said in my post 33, how does my karmas matter to me when someone else with no connection to me, is going to bear the consequences?

 

[LuisDantas]

Why the 'you of today' should bear the consequences of the 'you of yesterday' when there is no connection between the two. Is not that unfair?

Things are as they are. Fairness is sought from there.

 

[LuisDantas]

Again, as I said in my post 33, how does my karmas matter to me when someone else with no connection to me, is going to bear the consequences?

Eh. That is exactly why it matters that much more.

As a matter of fact, that is why Dharma itself is so necessary.