The Great anattā/anātman debate

[binocular]

If you said "all dhammas are not-Buddha" the comparison would be more accurate to the situation.

To be clear: Do you hold that "all dhammas are not-Buddha" ?

[Coëmgenu]

If you report something, then you should say so, in each instance of reporting. Like the suttas do. So that there is no confusion.

If that's all then I am more than glad to point to the suttas.

All ignorance stems from an ignorance of the 4 noble truths in one way or another.

"And what is dependent co-arising? From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now what is aging and death? Whatever aging, decrepitude, brokenness, graying, wrinkling, decline of life-force, weakening of the faculties of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called aging. Whatever deceasing, passing away, breaking up, disappearance, dying, death, completion of time, break up of the aggregates, casting off of the body, interruption in the life faculty of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called death.

"And what is birth? Whatever birth, taking birth, descent, coming-to-be, coming-forth, appearance of aggregates, & acquisition of [sense] media of the various beings in this or that group of beings, that is called birth.

"And what is becoming? These three are becomings: sensual becoming, form becoming, & formless becoming. This is called becoming.

"And what is clinging/sustenance? These four are clingings: sensuality clinging, view clinging, precept & practice clinging, and doctrine of self clinging. This is called clinging.

"And what is craving? These six are classes of craving: craving for forms, craving for sounds, craving for smells, craving for tastes, craving for tactile sensations, craving for ideas. This is called craving.

"And what is feeling? These six are classes of feeling: feeling born from eye-contact, feeling born from ear-contact, feeling born from nose-contact, feeling born from tongue-contact, feeling born from body-contact, feeling born from intellect-contact. This is called feeling.

"And what is contact? These six are classes of contact: eye-contact, ear-contact, nose-contact, tongue-contact, body-contact, intellect-contact. This is called contact.

"And what are the six sense media? These six are sense media: the eye-medium, the ear-medium, the nose-medium, the tongue-medium, the body-medium, the intellect-medium. These are called the six sense media.

"And what is name-&-form? Feeling, perception, intention, contact, & attention: This is called name. The four great elements, and the form dependent on the four great elements: This is called form. This name & this form are called name-&-form.

"And what is consciousness? These six are classes of consciousness: eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, intellect-consciousness. This is called consciousness.

"And what are fabrications? These three are fabrications: bodily fabrications, verbal fabrications, mental fabrications. These are called fabrications.

"And what is ignorance? Not knowing stress, not knowing the origination of stress, not knowing the cessation of stress, not knowing the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called ignorance.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

(SN 12.2)

The fundamental cause of all suffering here is given as originating, at its core, in ignorance the 4 noble truths.

I take no issue with what the suttas say.
But when someone takes what the suttas say and uses it, without referring to the suttas, or even with such a reference, as a means to win a subtle (or not so subtle) power game -- well, things get funny then, to say the least.

This is not a power game, I am endeavouring to correct a number of misrepresentations of Buddhist teachings, some of which I think are intentional, some of which have come about accidentally, none of which have their initial genesis in this post with you. Several of the misunderstandings here have been on my part. If my speech came off as unduly harsh, I apologize.

Similarly, if I pass something off as Buddhist teaching and it is ridiculously misinterpreted, I would hope that someone comes and corrects me. If I show them the teaching that led me to the wrong-view in question, it is not because I want to fight, it is because I want to find the truth of the matter.

[Coëmgenu]

If you said "all dhammas are not-Buddha" the comparison would be more accurate to the situation.

To be clear: Do you hold that "all dhammas are not-Buddha" ?

Yes and no.

"All dhammas are not-Buddha" is a bit of a nonsensical statement, I put it forward to illustrate the strangeness of trying to disprove no-self teachings based on "what if I said this bicycle was not-Buddha? does it follow that Buddha doesn't exist?".

If, by the word "Buddha", you are looking for a "true self" of the Buddha, then I would say yes: "All dhammas are not-Buddha".

If you are looking for the body, mind, consciousness, of the ascetic Gautama, as he appeared to his followers, then I would say no: "Buddha was a dhamma."

[davidbrainerd]

If you said "all dhammas are not-Buddha" the comparison would be more accurate to the situation.

To be clear: Do you hold that "all dhammas are not-Buddha" ?

Yes and no.

"All dhammas are not-Buddha" is a bit of a nonsensical statement, I put it forward to illustrate the strangeness of trying to disprove no-self teachings based on "what if I said this bicycle was not-Buddha? does it follow that Buddha doesn't exist?".

If, by the word "Buddha", you are looking for a "true self" of the Buddha, then I would say yes: "All dhammas are not-Buddha".

If you are looking for the body, mind, consciousness, of the ascetic Gautama, as he appeared to his followers, then I would say no: "Buddha was a dhamma."

In other words, you would say that Buddha was the 5 aggregates, which is the very position he was against.

[Goofaholix]

Have you noticed how what is being said is introduced with "I have heard that on one occasion" ? The speaker doesn't assume to speak on his own authority, but reports what he has heard.

In other words, they didn't just make it up.

[Coëmgenu]

If you said "all dhammas are not-Buddha" the comparison would be more accurate to the situation.

To be clear: Do you hold that "all dhammas are not-Buddha" ?

Yes and no.

"All dhammas are not-Buddha" is a bit of a nonsensical statement, I put it forward to illustrate the strangeness of trying to disprove no-self teachings based on "what if I said this bicycle was not-Buddha? does it follow that Buddha doesn't exist?".

If, by the word "Buddha", you are looking for a "true self" of the Buddha, then I would say yes: "All dhammas are not-Buddha".

If you are looking for the body, mind, consciousness, of the ascetic Gautama, as he appeared to his followers, then I would say no: "Buddha was a dhamma."

In other words, you would say that Buddha was the 5 aggregates, which is the very position he was against.

Read the whole thing over again and start again before you misrepresent my answer. If you are looking for a "true self" of the Buddha, then the answer is yes: "All dhammas are not-Buddha".

If you are looking merely for Buddha as a historical figure, as a material object, solely as a human being, devoid of his Awakening, or, to sum it up, if you are looking only for the Buddha's aggregates, then the answer is no: "Buddha was a dhamma."

[davidbrainerd]

Have you noticed how what is being said is introduced with "I have heard that on one occasion" ? The speaker doesn't assume to speak on his own authority, but reports what he has heard.

In other words, they didn't just make it up.

Yet they never heard Buddha say there is no self, just that phenomina are not-the-self. They must have had really bad hearing, because everyone with a modicum of authority in modern Buddhism just knows Buddha said there is no self.

[Goofaholix]

In other words, you would say that Buddha was the 5 aggregates, which is the very position he was against.

Please provide a quote that illustrates the Buddha was against enlightened people being composed of 5 aggregates.

After his enlightenment he taught for about 40 years with a body, I don't see how he could do that without feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness being in operation.

[Goofaholix]

Yet they never heard Buddha say there is no self, just that phenomina are not-the-self.

You are correct.

That's not licence to make stuff up.

They must have had really bad hearing, because everyone with a modicum of authority in modern Buddhism just knows Buddha said there is no self.

I can't say I've noticed this, can you certain that their message is that there is no self period rather than there is no self in the Buddhist teachings?

[binocular]

I can't say I've noticed this, can you certain that their message is that there is no self period rather than there is no self in the Buddhist teachings?

If they specify themselves as Buddhist monks, or Buddhist teachers, or Buddhist practitioners in general, and they say there is no self, period,
then this also counts as saying "there is no self in the Buddhist teachings."

One cannot call oneself a Buddhist just like that, and expect that this should have no consequences.

[Goofaholix]

One cannot call oneself a Buddhist just like that, and expect that this should have no consequences.

Give me an example of such consequences having taken place.

[Coëmgenu]

In other words, you would say that Buddha was the 5 aggregates, which is the very position he was against.

Please provide a quote that illustrates the Buddha was against enlightened people being composed of 5 aggregates.

After his enlightenment he taught for about 40 years with a body, I don't see how he could do that without feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness being in operation.

I suspect the misunderstanding here comes about due to the fact that the mind of the Buddha transcends the 5 aggregate-consciousnesses (ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, etc).

The misreading might be wrongly conflating transcending the aggregates with not having them altogether.

[Goofaholix]

the mind of the Buddha transcends the 5 aggregate

I don't know what would mean other than transcending the natural human to identify with them with self view.

The misreading might be wrongly conflating transcending the aggregates with not having them altogether.

That would be pretty naive.

[Coëmgenu]

the mind of the Buddha transcends the 5 aggregate

I don't know what would mean other than transcending the natural human to identify with them with self view.

I was more referring to the conceptual differentiation between the consciousnesses generated by the aggregates. By "transcended" I just meant that the mind of the Buddha was undifferentiated, inasmuch as it was not conceptually divided into 5-consciousnesses. I think its easy to mix up transcending the 5 consciousnesses derived from the 5 aggregates and not possessing 5 aggregates at all.

The misreading might be wrongly conflating transcending the aggregates with not having them altogether.

That would be pretty naive.[/quote]

If it seems like I have insulted binocular by suggesting that this is a possible reasoning behind the misunderstanding earlier:

In other words, you would say that Buddha was the 5 aggregates, which is the very position he was against.

By implying he was naive, that was not my intention.

[davidbrainerd]

I suspect the misunderstanding here comes about due to the fact that the mind of the Buddha transcends the 5 aggregate-consciousnesses (ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, etc).

The misreading might be wrongly conflating transcending the aggregates with not having them altogether.

A mind that transcends the aggregates would be a true self. If your mind transcends the aggregates but still "has" them, then you haven't achieved parinibbana yet.