• 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....

apophenia

Well-Known Member
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 :D

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.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
'... 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 :D

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

Well-Known Member
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. :rolleyes:

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

Be your own guru
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

Well-Known Member
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

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
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! o_O (Buddha was right!)
The Likely Cause of Addiction Has Been Discovered, and It Is Not What You Think | Johann Hari
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
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

Well-Known Member
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.
 

Rick O'Shez

Irishman bouncing off walls
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

Be your own guru
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?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
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

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
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.
 
Top