Questions about Buddhism (tradition, soul, mission, doctrine, experience)

[anonymous_4_200_2006]

**************** I posted a post similiar to this -- the only difference is I had to take out
the URLs and replace them with notes of where the things are, because this forum
does not allow to put URLs unless one has posted a minimum of 15 posts -- at the
Yahoo! Group 'buddha-direct', but message is waiting for approval by moderator(s) to
be posted there, I guess ****************:

Samahita (I was anonymous_3_17_2006, and anonymous_4_11_2006; this
anonymous_4_200_2006 was trying to make an ID using the day's date --
April 20 -- as the ID name, but I added one more zero by accident, I
guess, so it is '...4_200...', instead of '...4_20...'),

Please verify.

You believe the buddha taught 'no self', right? 'No self' meaning no
self, not 'not self', right?

Thanissaro does not believe Buddha taught 'no self', right, or wrong?

************************************************** *
************************************************** *
************************************************** *

See the writing found in the General Index of accesstoinsight.org, under 'Anatta (not-self)':

The Not-self Strategy
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu

Books on Buddhism often state that the Buddha's most basic
metaphysical tenet is that there is no soul or self. However, a
survey of the discourses in the Pali canon — the earliest extant
record of the Buddha's teachings — suggests that the Buddha taught
the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but
as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the
concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one
goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress. As for what lies
beyond suffering & stress, the Canon states that although it may be
experienced, it lies beyond the range of description, and thus such
descriptions as "self" or "not-self" would not apply.

,,,

************************************************** *
************************************************** *
************************************************** *

According to buddhism is Thanissaro correct or not?

************************************************** *
************************************************** *
************************************************** *

Here is something I wish to say, but may be not true:

If anatta is emptiness, this emptiness is the same emptiness as in
Mahayana buddhism. The perfection of wisdom -- 'prajnaparamita' -- is
the coursing in anatta/emptiness. There is no self, others according
to the anatta doctrine and the prajnaparamita literature.

But if Thanissaro is correct saying the buddha never implied there is
no self (I emphasize: NO self), then there is doubt.

from,
anonymous_4_200_2006

[Engyo]

Anonymous -

This is a matter of discussion between many Buddhists, and between many Buddhist schools and traditions. I don't believe any one person (or even tradition) can speak for all of Buddhism.

I will need to look for it, but somewhere I saw a very nice explanation of the difference between *no self* and *not self*.

All of this is also dependent on one's definition of exactly what *self* means, of course.

[anonymous_4_200_2006]

Originally Posted by Engyo

Anonymous -

This is a matter of discussion between many Buddhists, and between many Buddhist schools and traditions. I don't believe any one person (or even tradition) can speak for all of Buddhism.

I will need to look for it, but somewhere I saw a very nice explanation of the difference between *no self* and *not self*.

All of this is also dependent on one's definition of exactly what *self* means, of course.

********** I am adding this ... **********:

There are two sides to this debate (but I could be wrong):

1. Anatta means 'no self'. The buddha taught there was no self/no soul. I think Bhikkhu Samahita is on this side.

2. Anatta does not mean 'no self', but 'not self' ('not', instead of 'no'). The buddha did not teach there was no self. Instead the buddha taught 'not self'. The buddha's anatta teaching is the teaching to see 'not self' in everything we come upon, as to let go of everything; that implies letting go of views of 'there is a self', and 'there is no self' ('there is no self' would be the first side that I said Bhikkhu Samahita was on maybe). Thanissaro Bhikkhu is on this side I think.

**********************************
**********************************
**********************************

I now add the 'prajnaparamita' doctrine to this "fight"/argument:

Prajnaparamita ('prefect wisdom' or 'the perfection of wisdom' in english) is a Mahayana doctrine.

Walpola Rahula has said that the anatta doctrine is same as the teaching of emptiness in Mahayana (or something like that he said?)? Therefore, I made the statement (though it may be an untrue statement) that anatta=emptiness=prajnaparamita.

The prajnaparamita doctrine says there is no being, no others, which I say (though it may be untrue) is the same thing as 'there is no self' (the first side of the anatta debate); so that means prajnaparamita doctrine is the on the first side of the anatta debate.

**********************************
**********************************
**********************************

So to conclude, but it may be untrue what I say, there are two sides:

1. anatta=no self=emptiness=prajnaparamita. Walpola Rahula and Bhikkhu Samahita are on this side.

2. anatta=not self=let go of all views, including 'there is a self' and 'there is no self'. Thanissaro Bhikkhu is on this side.

from,
anonymous

[anonymous_4_200_2006]

********** I am adding this ... **********:

I don't really know what 'prajnaparamita' teaches -- I'm pretty uneducated. I just thought that Thanissaro could actually be acceptable by 'prajnaparamita'. When one courses in (also, you could say 'when one stands in'?) prajnaparamita, you do not course in anything. Well placed, because without a place to stand on. LOL. This stuff is found in the prajnaparamita teachings, like the Astasahasrika Prajnaparamita Sutra. Again, I'm pretty stupid, don't know what the prajnaparmita teachings really say...

Thanissaro does not course in 'I have a self', 'I have no self', which are views. Prajnaparamita teaches to not course in anything. So Thanissaro may be pointing to the moon (Thanissaro is pointing to emptiness). Whatever.

[Engyo]

Anonymous -

I don't view these as "sides". I view them as just different ways that teachers choose to help us understand some of these concepts. Since we are not talking about quantifiable scientific stuff, all any of us can do is describe it to the best of our ability. Reminiscent of the blind men and the elephant, if you see what I mean.

To me, no self and not self are like looking at anatta from two different angles. From one direction it looks this way, and from another direction, it looks like that. I guess what I am trying to say is that neither is right or wrong, and the teachers who describe it this way are neither right nor wrong. Right and wrong come from an individuals' understanding, after all.

I hope this is helpful.............

[Sinks Canyon]

Schools of buddhism vary as much as the books that have been left out of the "Bible" for Christians vary.

There are no sacred texts nor books with the Bible...I do not believe the schools to enlightenment can in anyway be associated with religion. There is no leader, there is no God, there is no external controls to enlightenment as there are in religions.

Buddhism is a self-taught way of becoming more compassionate with the sole purpose of entering into the energy which is inside each living thing.

My apologies. This sounds so dogmatic and harsh. These are solely my opinions. I do not represent the thoughts of anyone else.

I again apologize for the harsh sounding tone in my words.

[zenzero]

Friends,
If one cares to understand it must be understood that the TRUTH can only be transmitted through silence and any words are used to explain truth it is falsified.
Cause words needs the use of the MIND and Truth is where the same mind is STILL.
The same reason most importance has been given to LIVE Master whose presence itself is the learning; learning/understanding/transmission of the Truth through silence.
The same reason Debates will have no end ever the mind will be present and the mind will alwsys have two sides to any take and the pendulum will keep moving side to side never staying in the MIDDLE. The Middle is what Buddha talked about where it is neither this side nor that. Truth is there in the middle. In your centre/middle. No need to look anywhere, just inside your very centre/middle it lies.
Silence your mind and truth will appear clearly. It never left only the mind clods it.
Clear the mind and see for yourself.
Love & rgds

[michaelm]

and yet you are using words to say this.

[zenzero]

[quote]Michaelm
and yet you are using words to say this.

The same reason Lao Tzu mentions in the very first stanza of Tao Te Ching.
Truth ones spoken, does not remain so as the mind makes it into an object.
Silence is the best medium of transimmision when both the giver and the receiver becomes ONE. duality is no more.
Love & rgds

[Vfr]

I cannot comment on who is right or wrong. I will just give my opinion.

Personally I do not spend much time on this subject of no self, no me, emptiness, mind - no mind and the like. I just accept what is and I'm done with it. It makes great fuel for the 'over thinkers' among us.

The concept of no self is of course mandatory to accept if one is dedicated to escaping samsara with their Buddhist practice as I will go into at the end of this post. But for the vast part of the Buddhist population, they do not have such a dedicated practice. In this case, just believe whatever you wish ... you exist or you don't exist...but whatever you believe be at peace with it and do not 'force the belief' onto yourself. A successful practice should always be natural and authentic.

Over thinking blinds us to living right, for when a man's mind is concentrated he is blind. Over thinking is also a great escape from thoughts of death or to pull us out of the ugly lives we have created for ourselves. A man or woman can spend their whole life pondering no self and emptiness and never come to a satisfactory answer and then one day they die. Yes, emptiness was an important question is such a life, as their life they lived or actually the life they did not live was indeed empty. I once heard a lecture by Alan Watts where he quoted Anton Van Leeuwenhoek (The father of the microscope) "The mystery of life is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be experienced." Yes, we need to do some time in contemplation, but for the most part a flourishing life is spent 'actually living' and not just 'thinking about' living.

The reason that this debate of self or no self comes up is that we exist only temporally with our body due to the law of impermanence. But such extreme views as 'no self' and 'no mind' must be balanced with how things really are in the physical world if we wish to live within society and to be at peace. Confused Buddhists wishing to be at peace with this subject can balance the 2 extremes of existence and non existence with a middle path. From extreme views of no existence to convectional ideas of existence, we get a blend of the two to see how things really are in our life - we exist temporality but not ultimately. (at least not in our present form) It is the same with a river for example. the river is never the same from millisecond to millisecond, yet just because it is in flux it does not mean it is not real or exist. Just because it died up does not mean it never existed.

For enlightenment we need to seek a place of 'self without self. What does that mean? We need to transcend our own little fixed and limited conceptions of how things are in order to see the big picture. Protagoras, an early 5th century BCE philosopher said, "Man is the measure of all things" As such, within your own little sphere of life, you as well as I, are each our own measure of all things. We need to absorb life and make some sense of it to try and be at peace. But to be successful at it we need to develop a good vipassana practice of seeing things clearly in terms of impermanence, suffering and non-self. Seeing things for what they are helps prevent further uprising of new passions from ignorance. With any interpretation of phenomena whether spiritual or mundane there are 3 things that come to play:

1) Observing signs.

2) The interpretation of those signs in the mind

3) The expression of the interpretation of the signs in words either spoken, written or visual communication.

If one does not go beyond self and all the attachments and prejudices, likes and dislikes contained within that self, then one will have hard time getting at the true nature of things. The 'interpretation of signs' is where most people get lost. They lose themselves as Psychologist William James pointed out by 'confusing thinking time with just rearranging their prejudices.' One time a discussion came up at eSangha at the women corner about the possibility of a woman finding enlightenment. She recounted how when she asked her teacher if a woman can ever reach enlightenment the teacher told her no. As she was perplexed, she continued questioning the teacher until he told her in essence that a woman cannot reach enlightenment until she transcends the concept of being a woman. Or as I told you in the beginning...self without self. If we look at the average woman what does she do in the morning? She spends a half hour putting on a mask to be something that she is not. Can such a person reach enlightenment? (No) Is makeup up all that is holding her back from enlightenment? (NO) If makeup was the only issue, men would have it made. But we each carry our own self with us and define our lives with who we 'think' we are via this conception of self. And for men, they define life and self for the most part tough their penis, whereas most women define self though beauty.

This 'delusion of self' will be seen in the hate mail I get from women from this post. Some women will see only what their 'self' wants them to see and nothing more. Other women are more clear thinking in nature and can see truth without obscuring it with their own prejudices. Delusional persons concentrate on personalties, whereas persons not of this deluded nature concentrate on truths. When we invest excessive time and energies in acquiring or building attachments to self, these attachments become veritable extensions of our being and come to define us for ourselves as well as define who we are for others. When these attachments take on this role we become susceptible to pain via these extensions. If the person, place or thing we are attached to gets rebuked it is a personal rebuke on us, if they get damaged or defaced so goes the defacement and damage to our very being. The ancient Greek philosophers knew that when passion rules the mind, that the only job left for reason is that of the subservient task to find cleaver ways to satisfy the passions. They called it "putting passion before reason."

Passions are rooted in the self and the self is always is in flux which accounts for the rise and fall of these passions.

Whereas, truth is stable - for the truth is that which does not change.

No self is a concept that was meant to help dispel one of ego based attachments as well as attachments whether they be material attachments or concepts. It is also used to detach one from ideas of an eternal life in the hereafter. With regard to an immortal soul. no one can definitively answer that question. Sure we all have opinions, but as the famous saying Clint Eastwood used in his 'Dirty Harry' series, "Opinions are like ******** - everyone got one." My own tool for peace is the tool of acceptance coupled with mindfulness. I have worked to create a practice for me that seeks change first and if no change is possible it readily accepts what is. In this case, if an immortal soul or spirit is the truth I accept it, if an immortal soul or spirit is not the truth I accept it. But in either case I know that no man, except the ego based individual that claims to be God can claim to answer this question.

For practitioners that cannot move as freely in all directions as I do, they must work to disassociate self form self and convince themselves that a self does not exist. And in this way they can find peace with the no soul theory. This topic is complicated somewhat since Buddhist generally believe in no self, yet they believe in reincarnation and the accumulation and transference of karma. If there is nothing that survives death, then there is no entity or spirit that will be reincarnated. Sure, the reincarnation is in a different form than the previous, but it still carries the seed of karmic debt or surplus from original owners previous carnations. If death is ultimate in Buddhist eyes, they would have no fear of future pain in future lives. One could do as one wishes in this life with no fear of future retributions. But is fear all that drives you to do good?

These "fear based" reasons for being a Buddhist, Christian or any other faith are not authentic or natural. The persons actions are based on fear or negative consequences otherwise they would not do them. My actions are based on inner peace and if I stray - there goes my peace - it is my choice. Take away the fear of pain of karma or hell and you have a different person? A truly virtuous life remains the same irrespective of such fears and is not based on them. You see much over thinking going on when the topics of dependent or conditional arising and the like. Don't get lost is such things. Align right actions with a right life and you will have no need for such fears. Ground your practice in peace and not in fear and if not then feel free to stay grounded in fear and not in peace.

end page 1