Basic buddhist concepts analysed in a Christian website

Dawnfirstlight

12 Dec 12, 09:31

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

God can certainly create humans who are not capable of sinning i.e. do not endow humans with free will. But this comes at a great cost. Humans will be no different from robots and there will not be any meaningful reciprocal relationship to speak of between God and human. It will just be like a relationship between a man and his potted plant. You can water it and care for it with all the love and attention you can give it but it will never reciprocate your affections. It's a one sided thing.

There's a Chinese saying "å�ä¸�æ•™ï¼Œçˆ¶ä¹‹è¿‡“ã€‚ Meaning it is the fault of the father when his son goes astray.

BroInChrist

12 Dec 12, 09:46

Originally posted by Dawnfirstlight:

There's a Chinese saying "å�ä¸�æ•™ï¼Œçˆ¶ä¹‹è¿‡“ã€‚ Meaning it is the fault of the father when his son goes astray.

I think the correct Chinese saying is

å…»ä¸�æ•™ï¼Œçˆ¶ä¹‹è¿‡ã€‚æ•™ä¸�ä¸¥ï¼Œå¸ˆä¹‹æƒ°ã€‚å�ä¸�å¦ï¼Œé�žæ‰€å®œã€‚å¹¼ä¸�å¦ï¼Œè€�ä½•ä¸ºã€‚

The meaning is that just feeding but not teaching would mean that the father is at fault. Teaching without discipline is the laziness of the teacher. Children not learning is not right. Not learning from young then what will become of old?

Aik TC

12 Dec 12, 10:07

Originally posted by 2009novice:

I think the discussion is helpful only if some buddhist concepts are misinterpreted... but pointless to debate the fundamental difference about buddhism and christianity...

It is precisely that there is such a wide fundamental difference and contradiction between the Buddhist and Christian (Based on BrolnChrist comments) in the interpretation and understanding on the subject of ‘Self’ that I have to raised the Buddhist point of views.

Aik TC

12 Dec 12, 10:17

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

1. You have understood correctly! Yes, on his own man can NEVER earn enough merit to be made right with God. That's the reason why sacrifices are required throughout the OT. Without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. Another being must take your sins and atone for them so you can live. But the blood of bulls and sheep are only temporary and a shadow. Only a perfect sinless man can make that perfect sacrifice that forever satisfy the holiness and justice of God. Which is why the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace and not by works, so that no one can boast.

2. Perhaps you can further clarify on what Buddhism teaches as I think I am hearing different views here. It seems that there are three views in Buddhism, Self, No-Self, and Not-Self?

3. By my understanding, love, compassion and mercy can only come from self-conscious and self-aware beings. It is either true that the Self exists or it does not. In Christianity it is not the liberation from self that is the issue, but the liberation from sin.

Only a perfect sinless man can make that perfect sacrifice that forever satisfy the holiness and justice of God. Which is why the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace and not by works, so that no one can boast.

As far as Buddhism is concerned, by grace alone salvation cannot be reached. It can only be attained not just by faith alone but through the purification of body, mind and the development of wisdom. When one have attained to such state there is nothing to be boast about.

Perhaps you can further clarify on what Buddhism teaches as I think I am hearing different views here. It seems that there are three views in Buddhism, Self, No-Self, and Not-Self?

‘Self’ as I have pointed out above is the 5 aggregates that make up the physical and mental constitutions all human being. It is impermanent and in a constant state of changes. It is just a conventional interpretation. No Self or Not Self? Read this explanation if it is of interest to you.

No-self or Not-self?

by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.

These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.

So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.

In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

It is either true that the Self exists or it does not. In Christianity it is not the liberation from self that is the issue, but the liberation from sin.

It would be best if you can elaborate for me more on what exactly is the ‘Self’ in the Christian concept, otherwise we will just be going about speaking on thing each of us interpreted very differently.

BroInChrist

12 Dec 12, 10:23

Originally posted by Aik TC:

It is precisely that there is such a wide fundamental difference and contradiction between the Buddhist and Christian (Based on BrolnChrist comments) in the interpretation and understanding on the subject of ‘Self’ that I have to raised the Buddhist point of views.

The Christian affirms the existence of Self.

The Buddhist denies the existence of Self.

Can you clarify if my understanding of Buddhism in this aspect is correct? Or is it something like for Buddhism the self prima facie exists, but in reality it does not i.e. just an illusion?

BroInChrist

12 Dec 12, 10:39

Originally posted by Aik TC:

Only a perfect sinless man can make that perfect sacrifice that forever satisfy the holiness and justice of God. Which is why the Bible teaches that salvation is by grace and not by works, so that no one can boast.

As far as Buddhism is concerned, by grace alone salvation cannot be reached. It can only be attained not just by faith alone but through the purification of body, mind and the development of wisdom. When one have attained to such state there is nothing to be boast about.

Perhaps you can further clarify on what Buddhism teaches as I think I am hearing different views here. It seems that there are three views in Buddhism, Self, No-Self, and Not-Self?

‘Self’ as I have pointed out above is the 5 aggregates that make up the physical and mental constitutions all human being. It is impermanent and in a constant state of changes. It is just a conventional interpretation. No Self or Not Self? Read this explanation if it is of interest to you.

No-self or Not-self?

by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 1996–2011

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers.

The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.

These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.

So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging — the residual sense of self-identification — that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.

In this sense, the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

It is either true that the Self exists or it does not. In Christianity it is not the liberation from self that is the issue, but the liberation from sin.

It would be best if you can elaborate for me more on what exactly is the ‘Self’ in the Christian concept, otherwise we will just be going about speaking on thing each of us interpreted very differently.

If I am not wrong, the article says that the Buddha set aside the question of whether the self exists or not, i.e. refuses to answer because the answer will lead to suffering and stress. Personally I would take issue with a refusal to answer because the consequences of the answer (whether leading to stress or suffering or not) is distinct from the answer itself. One can always answer a question with a yes or a no, provided one knows the answer.

For the Christian, the self is simply the "I", as in myself, yourself, himself, herself. It refers to the self-aware and self-conscious individual, the person. It is really not that complicated. It is the everyday usage of the meaning.

BroInChrist

12 Dec 12, 11:06

Originally posted by Aik TC:

As far as Buddhism is concerned, by grace alone salvation cannot be reached. It can only be attained not just by faith alone but through the purification of body, mind and the development of wisdom. When one have attained to such state there is nothing to be boast about.

I understand that Buddhism denies that salvation is by grace but that it is by some personal works of merit, something that one has to attain to. However, this is the part where Christianity says that works-salvation cannot be reached, simply because there is nothing we can do (since we have a sinful nature) to get right with a holy God.

When the Bible says that salvation is by grace and not by works so that none may boast it means that no one can say that he did it on his own i.e. that he earned his salvation by doing such and such. Salvation is a gift. No one earns a gift, it is simply given to him by the sender to be freely accepted or rejected. Thus when the sinner repents and receives the free gift of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the Bible says that he is a new creation.

Aik TC

12 Dec 12, 11:50

Hi BrolnChrist .......

Can you clarify if my understanding of Buddhism in this aspect is correct? Or is it something like for Buddhism the self prima facie exists, but in reality it does not i.e. just an illusion?

The Self is very real in our everyday life. In Buddhist term it is just a conventional Truth. It is an illusion in the Buddhist teaching of Ultimate Truth.

If I am not wrong, the article says that the Buddha set aside the question of whether the self exists or not, i.e. refuses to answer because the answer will lead to suffering and stress. Personally I would take issue with a refusal to answer because the consequences of the answer (whether leading to stress or suffering or not) is distinct from the answer itself. One can always answer a question with a yes or a no, provided one knows the answer.

No, it goes on to said more than that. By the way, there are 14 inexpressibles which the Buddha refused to assent to as it is dialectical. It would raise more questions and lead on to more metaphysical speculation without any definite conclusion. That is not what the Buddha teaches, which is the cessation of suffering. To the Buddha, it is like a man struck by an arrow and instead of asking for treatment, he want to know where the arrow come from, what is it make of and more. He would likely be dead before he received any treatment.

I understand that Buddhism denies that salvation is by grace but that it is by some personal works of merit, something that one has to attain to. However, this is the part where Christianity says that works-salvation cannot be reached, simply because there is nothing we can do (since we have a sinful nature) to get right with a holy God.

To the Buddhists we are not just sinful by nature, there are also goodness in us. Sinful nature can be purified.

When the Bible says that salvation is by grace and not by works so that none may boast it means that no one can say that he did it on his own i.e. that he earned his salvation by doing such and such. Salvation is a gift. No one earns a gift, it is simply given to him by the sender to be freely accepted or rejected. Thus when the sinner repents and receives the free gift of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the Bible says that he is a new creation.

Again to the Buddhist, salvation is not a gift that can just be given. We have to work towards attaining it.

Thanks anyway for providing us here with some of your Christian thoughts. Appreciate it.

BroInChrist

12 Dec 12, 12:23

Originally posted by Aik TC:

Hi BrolnChrist .......

Can you clarify if my understanding of Buddhism in this aspect is correct? Or is it something like for Buddhism the self prima facie exists, but in reality it does not i.e. just an illusion?

The Self is very real in our everyday life. In Buddhist term it is just a conventional Truth. It is an illusion in the Buddhist teaching of Ultimate Truth.

If I am not wrong, the article says that the Buddha set aside the question of whether the self exists or not, i.e. refuses to answer because the answer will lead to suffering and stress. Personally I would take issue with a refusal to answer because the consequences of the answer (whether leading to stress or suffering or not) is distinct from the answer itself. One can always answer a question with a yes or a no, provided one knows the answer.

No, it goes on to said more than that. By the way, there are 14 inexpressibles which the Buddha refused to assent to as it is dialectical. It would raise more questions and lead on to more metaphysical speculation without any definite conclusion. That is not what the Buddha teaches, which is the cessation of suffering. To the Buddha, it is like a man struck by an arrow and instead of asking for treatment, he want to know where the arrow come from, what is it make of and more. He would likely be dead before he received any treatment.

I understand that Buddhism denies that salvation is by grace but that it is by some personal works of merit, something that one has to attain to. However, this is the part where Christianity says that works-salvation cannot be reached, simply because there is nothing we can do (since we have a sinful nature) to get right with a holy God.

To the Buddhists we are not just sinful by nature, there are also goodness in us. Sinful nature can be purified.

When the Bible says that salvation is by grace and not by works so that none may boast it means that no one can say that he did it on his own i.e. that he earned his salvation by doing such and such. Salvation is a gift. No one earns a gift, it is simply given to him by the sender to be freely accepted or rejected. Thus when the sinner repents and receives the free gift of salvation by grace alone through faith alone, the Bible says that he is a new creation.

Again to the Buddhist, salvation is not a gift that can just be given. We have to work towards attaining it.

Thanks anyway for providing us here with some of your Christian thoughts. Appreciate it.

I appreciate the time you take to dialogue with me over this.

1. What would be the difference/distinction between conventional truth and ultimate truth in Buddhism? If the self is an illusion, then any perception of it as being real would be some form of delusion, wouldn't it?

2. Regarding the analogy of the man shot by an arrow, it is an interesting one. While it is more pertinent that one gets treatment for the wound, it doesn't necessarily render irrelevant who shot the arrow and where the arrow comes from, and if the arrow is poisoned, knowing such details would certainly help in getting the right antidote. And even if the wounded person eventually dies, knowing such information will further the cause of justice.

3. The Christian does not say there is no good in man. But it says that being good is not good enough to be saved. One needs to be morally perfect. But since moral perfection is impossible, we cannot save ourselves. We cannot purify ourselves. We need a "cleansing agent", i.e. the blood of Christ.

4. I think we both appreciate the contrary views regarding how one can be saved. For Christianity it is salvation by grace not works, for Buddhism it is salvation by works not grace. For Christianity salvation is a gift, for Buddhism salvation is a reward, so to speak.

Aik TC

12 Dec 12, 13:12

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

I appreciate the time you take to dialogue with me over this.

1. What would be the difference/distinction between conventional truth and ultimate truth in Buddhism? If the self is an illusion, then any perception of it as being real would be some form of delusion, wouldn't it?

2. Regarding the analogy of the man shot by an arrow, it is an interesting one. While it is more pertinent that one gets treatment for the wound, it doesn't necessarily render irrelevant who shot the arrow and where the arrow comes from, and if the arrow is poisoned, knowing such details would certainly help in getting the right antidote. And even if the wounded person eventually dies, knowing such information will further the cause of justice.

3. The Christian does not say there is no good in man. But it says that being good is not good enough to be saved. One needs to be morally perfect. But since moral perfection is impossible, we cannot save ourselves. We cannot purify ourselves. We need a "cleansing agent", i.e. the blood of Christ.

4. I think we both appreciate the contrary views regarding how one can be saved. For Christianity it is salvation by grace not works, for Buddhism it is salvation by works not grace. For Christianity salvation is a gift, for Buddhism salvation is a reward, so to speak.

What would be the difference/distinction between conventional truth and ultimate truth in Buddhism? If the self is an illusion, then any perception of it as being real would be some form of delusion, wouldn't it?

There are many articles available on the internet on this Buddhist subject. Here is one. If you do have the time, you can read up on it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Regarding the analogy of the man shot by an arrow, it is an interesting one. While it is more pertinent that one gets treatment for the wound, it doesn't necessarily render irrelevant who shot the arrow and where the arrow comes from, and if the arrow is poisoned, knowing such details would certainly help in getting the right antidote. And even if the wounded person eventually dies, knowing such information will further the cause of justice.

That is not the underlying message

The Christian does not say there is no good in man. But it says that being good is not good enough to be saved. One needs to be morally perfect. But since moral perfection is impossible, we cannot save ourselves. We cannot purify ourselves. We need a "cleansing agent", i.e. the blood of Christ.

Moral perfection is not an impossibility to Buddhists. Granted that most of us may never be able to do so in just one lifetime. In Buddhism, we have the 3 path of purifications to work on to arrived at it. Moral purification is just one of the paths which have to be practiced in conjunction with the other 2 path of purifications. Of course, we also do have the more detail form of the 6 Perfections which do lead to moral perfection.

An Eternal Now

12 Dec 12, 14:21

No-self does not deny self. It just means the self is a convention, check this out:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/06/eternalism-nihilism-and-middle-way.html

Eternalism, Nihilism and the Middle Way

Posted by: An Eternal Now

The Buddha rejected the extremes of eternalism and nihilism and taught the middle way which is free from extremes. This post examines what each of these mean with pictorial aid.

Water

Eternalism

There is a water. Water truly exists. Hydrogen and oxygen are attributes of the water.

Nihilism

The water does not exist. OR The water that exists now annihilates later.

Middle Way

Co-dependently arisen hydrogen and oxygen are empty of water, but is conventionally called water. Hydrogen and oxygen are not attributes of an entity "water" (no such thing can be pinned down), not contained by an entity called "water", nor is there a "water" that is "made up of" hydrogen and oxygen. Rather, two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms co-dependently arising ARE what is conventionally imputed as water.

Self

Eternalism

Self view is the held position that there is a self. Self truly exists. Self may be seen as attributeless (as some attributeless pure consciousness as in advaita), or a self that owns or contains attributes, or an agent that manifests, owns, observes, or controls, its aggregates. The precise view of self varies from eternal, partially eternal, to nihilistic (for a lengthy discourse by Buddha on the numerous "thicket of views", refer to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html). From an eternalist perspective, the self remains unchanged despite the changes in life. It remains unchanged even after bodily death. It is either seen as the unchanging self [as an individual soul], or the Self [as an infinite Self or Presence] that is unaffected by the passing aggregates or phenomena.

Nihilism

The self does not exist. OR The self in this life annihilates upon death. There is no karma, cause and effect, or rebirth.

Middle Way

Co-dependently arisen five aggregates are empty of self, but is conventionally called self. Seeing is not a self seeing, but is simply the experience being seen. Volition is not via a doer, but is simply action-activity-process, co-dependently arisen. Consciousness is not a self, it is simply auditory consciousness manifested dependent on ear, sound and attention, so on and so forth. Taste of chocolate has nothing to do with a taster but is simply the process or seamless activity of biting, tongue touching chocolate, consciousness of taste, etc. Ultimately, whatever dependently originates is also empty of any true existence (five aggregates are also empty) - but appearances are not denied.

Now replace "water" or "self" with anything - mind, matter, Buddha-nature, Truth, awareness, cars, houses, atoms, universe, etc. All applies the same way.

Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, all dharmas are spoken of as no dharmas. Therefore they are called dharmas."

Anuradha Sutta: "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

Ted Biringer: "...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind."

Thusness (2008): The key is in "emptiness" so that there is complete non abiding and (non-)staying (thus avoiding eternalism) and "luminosity" so that there is aliveness and clarity without falling into nihilism.

Note: does that mean that conventionally self truly exists? No. Conventional truths are not in fact true nor existing but are merely deluded projections as a result of ignorance. Five aggregates are deludedly conceived as a self. Such a self may conventionally be considered true, yet there is actually no truth to it. It is merely a false name used by the enlightened for pragmatic purpose, but taken to be true and existing by the ignorant. Nagarjuna: "Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not reject the rest as false?"

The diagrams are inspired by Julian Baggini's speech on Ted talk: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/05/is-there-you.html

Labels: Anatta, Dependent Origination, Emptiness 11 comments | |

An Eternal Now

12 Dec 12, 14:27

Aik TC, I don't agree with Thanissaro Bhikkhu's interpretation, nor is his positions generally supported by the standard orthodox teachings or the teachings of Buddha.

Do keep this in mind:

‘’We should carefully heed the two reasons that the Buddha does not declare, ‘’There is no self’’: not because he recognizes a transcendent self of some kind (as some interpreters allege), or because he is concerned only with delineating ‘’a strategy of perception’’ devoid of ontological implications (as others hold), but (i) because such a mode of expression was used by the annihilationists, and the Buddha wanted to avoid aligning his teaching with theirs; and (ii) because he wished to avoid causing confusion in those already attached to the idea of self. The Buddha declares that ‘all phenomena are nonself’’ (sabbe dhamma anatta), which means that if one seeks a self anywhere one will not find one. Since ‘’all phenomena’’ includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned, this precludes an utterly transcendent, ineffable self.
Part of Note 385 on Page 1457 of The Connected Discourses of the Buddha (A New Translation of the Samyutta Nikaya by Bhikkhu Bodhi).

.................

It is ironic that Thanissaro's outright attack on Orthodox theravada is now being held up as some type of New Orthodox position.
I have little time so I hope this old post from Dhammanando is sufficient to explain:
http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index. ... 3364&st=60
Citing the relevant suttas is unlikely to be persuasive for Thanissaro would simply interpret them differently or else would translate them differently so as to make them support his view. A good example of this is the following passage from the AlagaddÅ«pamasutta, which is one of the starkest and most uncompromising assertions of the non-existence of self.... until Thanissaro gets his hands on it:

attani ca attaniye ca saccato thetato anupalabbhamÄ�ne
(MN. 22; also cited in the KathÄ�vatthu's debate on the puggalavÄ�da, Kvu. 68)

And here are some extracts from an old article of mine discussing this phrase...

First I cite seven translations of it:

Dhammanando:
"...since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self..."

ÑÄ�á¹‡amoli/Bodhi:
"...since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established..."

Thanissaro:
"...where a self or what belongs to self are not pinned down as a truth or reality..."

B.C. Law:
"...But both soul and that which belongs to soul being in truth, and forever, impossible to be known..."

I.B. Horner:
"But if Self and what belongs to Self, although actually existing are incomprehensible..."

MahÄ�makut Tipiá¹aka:
"...meua attÄ� lae borikhÄ�n neuang duai attÄ� bukkhon theu ao mai dai, doey khwÄ�m pen khong jing, doey khwÄ�m pen khong thae..."

MahÄ�chulalongkorn Tipiá¹aka:
"...meua thang ton lae khong thii neuang kap ton ja yang hen mai dai, doey khwÄ�m pen khong jing, doey khwÄ�m pen khong thae..."

Then my comments:

Of the seven renderings above, those of Horner and Law are completely off the map, while the remaining five are more or less defensible so far as purely philological considerations go.

There are two key terms in the passage that give rise to disagreement: firstly, the participle "anupalabbhamÄ�ne"; secondly, the phrase "saccato thetato". How one conceives the meaning of these will determine how one interprets the passage; and how one interprets the passage will determine how one goes about translating it. The problem, of course, is that every translator's interpretation of the above phrases will be determined - or at least influenced - by his prior assumptions about the Buddha's teaching.

Let's start with anupalabbhamÄ�ne. This is the present participle of the passive form of the verb upalabhati, inflected in the locative case. In front of it is placed the negative particle na ('not'), which changes to an- in accordance with the rules of euphonic junction.

Upalabhati means to obtain, get or find. So in the passive voice it would mean to be obtained, gotten or found. With the addition of the negative particle 'na' the meaning would be "not to be found."

Here's one familiar example of the verb, to be found in every Indian logic textbook:

vañjhÄ�ya putto na upalabbhati.
"A son of a barren woman is not to be found."

(Or as western philosophers would phrase it, " 'Son of a barren woman' does not obtain."). Elsewhere the same will be predicated of "horns of a hare", "flowers in the sky", etc.

And here arises the first point of controversy among translators and interpreters of this sutta: does the phrase "not to be obtained" mean the same as "not exist"? ÑÄ�á¹‡amoli, Bodhi and myself would answer yes. A mystically-inclined monk like Thanissaro would answer no. Unsurprisingly Thanissaro has chosen a rendering ("not pinned down") that stresses the epistemic or cognitive, and would tend to imply that a self does (or at least might) exist, but one that is too inscrutable to say anything about.

To continue, when the verb na upalabbhati is made into a present participle, the meaning would be "non-obtaining" (or more precisely, a "not-being-obtained-ness"). When this present participle is inflected in the locative case, then various meanings are possible, and here arises the second point of controversy. What function does the locative have in this context? There are three possibilities:

Spatial or situational stipulative: "Where there is a non-obtaining of self..."
Temporal stipulative: "When there is a non-obtaining of self...."
Causative: "Because there is a non-obtaining of self..."

ÑÄ�á¹‡amoli, Bodhi and I of course favour the causative, for the other two would leave a loophole that there might be some time or place where self does obtain. Thanissaro of course favours a reading that will leave his mysticism intact. So here too it's a case of our prior assumptions determining how we translate.

Now for "saccato thetato". Sacca means true or a truth; theta means sure, firm, or reliable, or something that has these features. Adding the suffix -to turns these words into adverbs. Here I'm not really sure about the relative merits of the above translations, or even if there is a difference between "X does not obtain as a truth" or "X does not in truth obtain." Not that this matters greatly; the crux of the matter is obviously the word anupalabbhamÄ�ne. The difference between my old rendering and the ÑÄ�á¹‡amoli/Bodhi one is that I had taken saccato thetato to be an adverbial qualification of anupalabbhamÄ�ne, whereas ÑÄ�á¹‡amoli and Bodhi make it more like an adjectival qualification of "self and what belongs to self." I now think that their rendering is more likely to be correct. At least it seems to accord better with the á¹¬Ä«kÄ� to this sutta.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu

An Eternal Now

12 Dec 12, 14:34

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

I understand that Buddhism denies that salvation is by grace but that it is by some personal works of merit, something that one has to attain to.

No. It is not by personal works of merit that we gain liberation from samsara. Merits can only lead you as far as a rebirth in one of the higher planes including so called 'heaven' (which in Buddhist worldview are not eternal places despite their long life).

Buddhism is far from being just a teaching about morality. Morality is just a part of it.

The highest bliss of Nirvana which is achieved in the ending of all mental afflictions (craving, aversion/aggression and delusion) driving the mass of suffering or the cycle of rebirth in samsara, is achievable through the development of wisdom or insight.

This is why Buddhist practice is more about Awareness, more about discovering the true nature of mind in meditation which leads to liberation. We become aware of the luminous/bright [vivid, aware, cognizant] and empty nature of our minds. We become mindful and aware of our every experience until we penetrate their impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self nature. This leads to dispassion and letting go.

In addition to 'doing good, avoiding evil', the rather unique teaching of Buddhism is that it stresses also or even more on the 'purification of mind'. But this 'purification of mind' is not an endless endeavor or a kind of 'work'. Rather, purification of mind happens through the arising of wisdom, so it is awareness that naturally leads to the purification of mind and not through mental efforts or acts of suppression. Liberation in Buddhism is not by works or by grace, but by wisdom.

Not only has the Buddha achieved liberation, thousands of his students then have achieved liberation, and countless until today have also achieved liberation.

p.s. if you achieve Nirvana, it is also impossible that you will commit an immoral act, not because you uphold precepts/rules very well, but simply because the mental afflictions driving immorality: craving, aggression/ill-will, and delusion, has been ended in Wisdom-Awareness. Morality becomes secondary, albeit also important, and is actually automatically fulfilled as your path of wisdom grows.

Weychin

12 Dec 12, 14:45

When a person lumps and identifies with "Self", when one have to witness what happens when we references ourselves, our interactions revolving around "Self". The cumulative effect of centering our worldview around "Self" carries over at point of death, where clinging over "Self" persist, identifying the consciousness with an identity as "Soul", which reifies one's existence. However, examining oneself within this lifetime, one will realise one consciousness is conditioned more so by one's present life, and one's "Self", that on an identity of the present life rather than with some karmic propensities from previous life! One cannot animate a dead body by infusing "Soul", it has to be born of living beings. A "Soul" may inhabit a living body, it may leave a living body, but it does not reanimate a dead body! Soul is not central to one identity but created by "Self" consciousness! Only with a body with aggregates is then that we can identify with "Self". If you investigate further, you even realise that "Self" is formed when only our mental faculties are fully functional, as in thinking and acting out of our free will as an individual.

Weychin

12 Dec 12, 15:06

In each lives that we live, we carry the karmic propensities we created due to our clinging to "Self" consciousness, and it attracts to a forming life which attracts such propensities. Breaking out of samsara means breaking out of this habit of clinging to "Self" in which ever names we care to label. Even with a relationship with God also means attachment to "Self" exist.

An Eternal Now

12 Dec 12, 15:07

Yes. The sense of self is constructed, it is built. That deluded sense [not reality] of "Self" is formed out of delusion, out of a mental habit of referencing with what we mistakenly view as a 'substantial self' (I, me) and 'that which belongs to self' (mine). The sense of 'self' matures as a person grows up.

As insight of anatta arises, we realize there never was a doer apart from a deed or a thinker apart from a thought or a seer apart from seeing/sight.

Then action arises not out of self-consciousness, there is no self-consciousness of an entity apart from action but instead whole being is just action. There is still free flow of will and intentionality but not pertaining to any self.

An Eternal Now

12 Dec 12, 15:08

Originally posted by Weychin:

Even with a relationship with God also means attachment to “Self” exist.

A relationship with God, a surrendering to God, can lead to a point of transcending attachment to personality into an experienced of being lived by the higher power, however it is not yet the same as realizing anatta.

My old self has been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me. So I live in this earthly body by trusting in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. - Galatians 2:20

BroInChrist

13 Dec 12, 10:16

Originally posted by Aik TC:

What would be the difference/distinction between conventional truth and ultimate truth in Buddhism? If the self is an illusion, then any perception of it as being real would be some form of delusion, wouldn't it?

There are many articles available on the internet on this Buddhist subject. Here is one. If you do have the time, you can read up on it. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine

Regarding the analogy of the man shot by an arrow, it is an interesting one. While it is more pertinent that one gets treatment for the wound, it doesn't necessarily render irrelevant who shot the arrow and where the arrow comes from, and if the arrow is poisoned, knowing such details would certainly help in getting the right antidote. And even if the wounded person eventually dies, knowing such information will further the cause of justice.

That is not the underlying message

The Christian does not say there is no good in man. But it says that being good is not good enough to be saved. One needs to be morally perfect. But since moral perfection is impossible, we cannot save ourselves. We cannot purify ourselves. We need a "cleansing agent", i.e. the blood of Christ.

Moral perfection is not an impossibility to Buddhists. Granted that most of us may never be able to do so in just one lifetime. In Buddhism, we have the 3 path of purifications to work on to arrived at it. Moral purification is just one of the paths which have to be practiced in conjunction with the other 2 path of purifications. Of course, we also do have the more detail form of the 6 Perfections which do lead to moral perfection.

Wiki says that the conventional truth may be interpreted as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result. It is constituted by the appearances of mistaken awareness. Conventional truth would be the appearance that includes a duality of apprehender and apprehended, and objects perceived within that. Ultimate truths, are phenomena free from the duality of apprehender and apprehended.

Would you like to clarify that further? It would seem that Buddhism holds that conventional truth can be false, but ultimate truth is..well...truth i.e. what is.

In Christianity the distinction is between truth and error.

Re the point about the arrow analogy, what would be the underlying message? It would seem to me that you may have taken an either/or approach, i.e. don't ask or get treatment. I think it can be a both/and approach.

In Christianity, moral perfection means that a person has never sinned against God throughout his entire life. Which is why I mentioned that it is impossible to attain moral perfection. The Bible also says that it is appointed for man to die once and after that to face judgement, so this means that there is no second chance at life, one life is all we have got.

BroInChrist

13 Dec 12, 10:19

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

No-self does not deny self. It just means the self is a convention, check this out:

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/06/eternalism-nihilism-and-middle-way.html

Eternalism, Nihilism and the Middle Way

Posted by: An Eternal Now

The Buddha rejected the extremes of eternalism and nihilism and taught the middle way which is free from extremes. This post examines what each of these mean with pictorial aid.

Water

Eternalism

There is a water. Water truly exists. Hydrogen and oxygen are attributes of the water.

Nihilism

The water does not exist. OR The water that exists now annihilates later.

Middle Way

Co-dependently arisen hydrogen and oxygen are empty of water, but is conventionally called water. Hydrogen and oxygen are not attributes of an entity "water" (no such thing can be pinned down), not contained by an entity called "water", nor is there a "water" that is "made up of" hydrogen and oxygen. Rather, two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms co-dependently arising ARE what is conventionally imputed as water.

Self

Eternalism

Self view is the held position that there is a self. Self truly exists. Self may be seen as attributeless (as some attributeless pure consciousness as in advaita), or a self that owns or contains attributes, or an agent that manifests, owns, observes, or controls, its aggregates. The precise view of self varies from eternal, partially eternal, to nihilistic (for a lengthy discourse by Buddha on the numerous "thicket of views", refer to http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.01.0.bodh.html). From an eternalist perspective, the self remains unchanged despite the changes in life. It remains unchanged even after bodily death. It is either seen as the unchanging self [as an individual soul], or the Self [as an infinite Self or Presence] that is unaffected by the passing aggregates or phenomena.

Nihilism

The self does not exist. OR The self in this life annihilates upon death. There is no karma, cause and effect, or rebirth.

Middle Way

Co-dependently arisen five aggregates are empty of self, but is conventionally called self. Seeing is not a self seeing, but is simply the experience being seen. Volition is not via a doer, but is simply action-activity-process, co-dependently arisen. Consciousness is not a self, it is simply auditory consciousness manifested dependent on ear, sound and attention, so on and so forth. Taste of chocolate has nothing to do with a taster but is simply the process or seamless activity of biting, tongue touching chocolate, consciousness of taste, etc. Ultimately, whatever dependently originates is also empty of any true existence (five aggregates are also empty) - but appearances are not denied.

Now replace "water" or "self" with anything - mind, matter, Buddha-nature, Truth, awareness, cars, houses, atoms, universe, etc. All applies the same way.

Diamond Sutra: "Subhuti, all dharmas are spoken of as no dharmas. Therefore they are called dharmas."

Anuradha Sutta: "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"

Ted Biringer: "...According to Dogen, this “oceanic-body” does not contain the myriad forms, nor is it made up of myriad forms – it is the myriad forms themselves. The same instruction is provided at the beginning of Shobogenzo, Gabyo (pictured rice-cakes) where, he asserts that, “as all Buddhas are enlightenment” (sho, or honsho), so too, “all dharmas are enlightenment” which he says does not mean they are simply “one” nature or mind."

Thusness (2008): The key is in "emptiness" so that there is complete non abiding and (non-)staying (thus avoiding eternalism) and "luminosity" so that there is aliveness and clarity without falling into nihilism.

Note: does that mean that conventionally self truly exists? No. Conventional truths are not in fact true nor existing but are merely deluded projections as a result of ignorance. Five aggregates are deludedly conceived as a self. Such a self may conventionally be considered true, yet there is actually no truth to it. It is merely a false name used by the enlightened for pragmatic purpose, but taken to be true and existing by the ignorant. Nagarjuna: "Since the Jina proclaims that nirvana alone is true, what wise person would not reject the rest as false?"

The diagrams are inspired by Julian Baggini's speech on Ted talk: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2012/05/is-there-you.html

Labels: Anatta, Dependent Origination, Emptiness 11 comments | |

Thanks for the article.

Correct me if I am wrong, the article seems to affirm that conventional truths are in fact delusions, i.e. false.

BroInChrist

13 Dec 12, 10:25

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

No. It is not by personal works of merit that we gain liberation from samsara. Merits can only lead you as far as a rebirth in one of the higher planes including so called 'heaven' (which in Buddhist worldview are not eternal places despite their long life).

Buddhism is far from being just a teaching about morality. Morality is just a part of it.

The highest bliss of Nirvana which is achieved in the ending of all mental afflictions (craving, aversion/aggression and delusion) driving the mass of suffering or the cycle of rebirth in samsara, is achievable through the development of wisdom or insight.

This is why Buddhist practice is more about Awareness, more about discovering the true nature of mind in meditation which leads to liberation. We become aware of the luminous/bright [vivid, aware, cognizant] and empty nature of our minds. We become mindful and aware of our every experience until we penetrate their impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not-self nature. This leads to dispassion and letting go.

In addition to 'doing good, avoiding evil', the rather unique teaching of Buddhism is that it stresses also or even more on the 'purification of mind'. But this 'purification of mind' is not an endless endeavor or a kind of 'work'. Rather, purification of mind happens through the arising of wisdom, so it is awareness that naturally leads to the purification of mind and not through mental efforts or acts of suppression. Liberation in Buddhism is not by works or by grace, but by wisdom.

Not only has the Buddha achieved liberation, thousands of his students then have achieved liberation, and countless until today have also achieved liberation.

p.s. if you achieve Nirvana, it is also impossible that you will commit an immoral act, not because you uphold precepts/rules very well, but simply because the mental afflictions driving immorality: craving, aggression/ill-will, and delusion, has been ended in Wisdom-Awareness. Morality becomes secondary, albeit also important, and is actually automatically fulfilled as your path of wisdom grows.

Interesting. So in Buddhism it is neither salvation by works or grace, but by wisdom.

I take wisdom to mean proper application of knowledge leading to good results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom

BroInChrist

13 Dec 12, 10:46

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

Yes. The sense of self is constructed, it is built. That deluded sense [not reality] of "Self" is formed out of delusion, out of a mental habit of referencing with what we mistakenly view as a 'substantial self' (I, me) and 'that which belongs to self' (mine). The sense of 'self' matures as a person grows up.

As insight of anatta arises, we realize there never was a doer apart from a deed or a thinker apart from a thought or a seer apart from seeing/sight.

Then action arises not out of self-consciousness, there is no self-consciousness of an entity apart from action but instead whole being is just action. There is still free flow of will and intentionality but not pertaining to any self.

A couple of points to clarify.

1. Re the point about never a doer apart from a deed etc. My understanding is that it is more a distinction between a noun and a verb. I don't mean to offend but why would that be regarded as some kind of insight or realisation?

2. You mentioned that there is free flow of will and intentionality but not pertaining to any self. What does that mean? Wouldn't the mention of will and intentionality presupposes a self at the least?

An Eternal Now

13 Dec 12, 13:57

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

Thanks for the article.

Correct me if I am wrong, the article seems to affirm that conventional truths are in fact delusions, i.e. false.

True in the conventional sense, false in the ultimate sense.

For example we impute the label 'weather' but there is no really existing thing called 'weather' apart from everchanging clouds, rain, wind, lightning etc.

'Weather' is a mere convention, an imputation, a label - it is not a 'thing' with a 'core' or 'essence' that can be pinned down. It is empty of any substantially existing entity to be pinned down or located anywhere.

The same goes for 'self' or anything at all in the world.

An Eternal Now

13 Dec 12, 14:07

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

Interesting. So in Buddhism it is neither salvation by works or grace, but by wisdom.

I take wisdom to mean proper application of knowledge leading to good results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisdom

Yes but not conceptual knowledge. It is non-conceptual knowledge in a kind of meditative, intuitive, pre-conceptual Seeing of what is already the case.

Our moderator Thusness writes his realization here: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.sg/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

An Eternal Now

13 Dec 12, 14:10

Originally posted by BroInChrist:

A couple of points to clarify.

1. Re the point about never a doer apart from a deed etc. My understanding is that it is more a distinction between a noun and a verb. I don't mean to offend but why would that be regarded as some kind of insight or realisation?

2. You mentioned that there is free flow of will and intentionality but not pertaining to any self. What does that mean? Wouldn't the mention of will and intentionality presupposes a self at the least?

Most people feel that they are an independent separate Self distinct from their experiences, perceptions and action. They feel alienated, self-contracted, distant from the world as a result and they become attached to the sense of I, me, and mine. This is a root cause of delusion and attachment.

It can be realized that in reality, there never was a seer apart from the act of seeing/seen, a doer apart from an action, hearer apart from heard, etc.

The experience is one of at-oneness with everything but there is not even an 'I' left to 'feel' the at oneness. Instead there is just one act of perception, one action, happening as crystal clarity without any self, separation or division.

Athletes do sometimes feel this 'oneness' but only temporarily, even though intentionality is totally factored into their total exertion in action, there is no self consciousness but his entire being is exerted as that intentionality+action. After realization, that feeling can become sort of permanent. And total exertion becomes a natural path of practice.

BroInChrist

13 Dec 12, 14:54

Originally posted by An Eternal Now:

True in the conventional sense, false in the ultimate sense.

For example we impute the label 'weather' but there is no really existing thing called 'weather' apart from everchanging clouds, rain, wind, lightning etc.

'Weather' is a mere convention, an imputation, a label - it is not a 'thing' with a 'core' or 'essence' that can be pinned down. It is empty of any substantially existing entity to be pinned down or located anywhere.

The same goes for 'self' or anything at all in the world.

Then how would you assess or know whether anything that is said in any statement is true in the conventional or ultimate sense? What is the criteria for judgment that is itself not subject to the conventional/ultimate truth distinction?