On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by binocular »

acinteyyo wrote:
binocular wrote:In that case, why claim that there is no ontological self?
This is the point I was trying to make. There is no ground for such a claim. Maybe one can compare this to discussions about the existence or non-existence of God. There is no ground to base one's claims on, neither that god exists nor that god doesn't exist, thus a wise person doesn't concern oneself with such speculative views at all because it lacks a foundation in the first place.
But in Buddhism, the major schools hold that there is no ontological self.

How can that be??!

And since any idea of atta is derived from the khandhas
Can you provide a reference for this?

Because if we are to believe that any idea of atta is derived from the khandas, then we're also saying, among other things, that either God did not reveal Himself and His teachings, or that nobody who is currently living or present is familiar with God's revelation.
Namely, many doctrines of atta come from the theists.
Making claims about doctrines of atta can by implication be making claims about God. (!)

MN 22“Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it.
Interestingly, from some theistic perspectives, this isn't necessarily bad in and of itself.

Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair can also be of the "spiritual kind" as opposed to the ordinary kind- something like renunciate grief as opposed to householder grief, where renunciate grief is higher and nobler than householder grief.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by tiltbillings »

binocular wrote:
And since any idea of atta is derived from the khandhas
Can you provide a reference for this?
  • Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. Which five? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person -- who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma -- assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.... Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) -- 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' -- do not occur to him." SN III 46
Because if we are to believe that any idea of atta is derived from the khandas, then we're also saying, among other things, that either God did not reveal Himself and His teachings, or that nobody who is currently living or present is familiar with God's revelation.
Namely, many doctrines of atta come from the theists.
Making claims about doctrines of atta can by implication be making claims about God. (!)
  • "The assumption that a God is the cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in the eternal self (atman, i.e. permanent spiritual substance, essence or personality); but that belief has to be abandoned, if one has clearly understood that everything is impermanent and subject to suffering." Abhidharmakosha 5, 8 vol IV, p 19
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by tiltbillings »

binocular wrote:
And since any idea of atta is derived from the khandhas
Can you provide a reference for this?
See:
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 00#p249412
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by binocular »

reflection wrote:It may seem like poor reasoning, but that's because it's not reasoning. It's not an argument. The dhamma is not about winning a discussion, or finding the best sutta quotes, it is about investigating our experience. And people sometimes forget that in discussions such as this.
The problem with our "experience" is that it is so utterly vague, unreliable, all over the place, changeable.

But in terms of arguments, to say something exists that you can't see or infer is of course the weak argument, not the opposite.
And nobody here is doing that.

It's simply that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

My advise is to see if there is a consciousness of something else than the six senses. I say people won't find it. Perhaps only in metaphysical ideas, but not in actual experiences.
Many theists categorically disagree with this. They believe to have God consciousness, consciousness of God, which is something else than the six senses.
Are you saying they are all deluded?

Because this is the kind of problem one necessarily runs into the moment one elevates one's current (!) experience on the pedestal of the highest standard of knowledge (whether one is a theist or an atheist or whichever).
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by binocular »

tiltbillings wrote:
binocular wrote:
And since any idea of atta is derived from the khandhas
Can you provide a reference for this?
  • Monks, whatever contemplatives or priests who assume in various ways when assuming a self, all assume the five clinging-aggregates, or a certain one of them. Which five? There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person -- who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma -- assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.... Owing to the fading of ignorance and the arising of clear knowing, (the thoughts) -- 'I am,' 'I am this,' 'I shall be,' 'I shall not be,' 'I shall be possessed of form,' 'I shall be formless,' 'I shall be percipient (conscious),' 'I shall be non-percipient,' and 'I shall be neither percipient nor non-percipient' -- do not occur to him." SN III 46
Yes, those who assume in various ways. There may be problems for those who assume, this is well-established.
The passage you quoted doesn't say anything about people who might have revelation from God.

Because if we are to believe that any idea of atta is derived from the khandas, then we're also saying, among other things, that either God did not reveal Himself and His teachings, or that nobody who is currently living or present is familiar with God's revelation.
Namely, many doctrines of atta come from the theists.
Making claims about doctrines of atta can by implication be making claims about God. (!)
  • "The assumption that a God is the cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in the eternal self (atman, i.e. permanent spiritual substance, essence or personality); but that belief has to be abandoned, if one has clearly understood that everything is impermanent and subject to suffering." Abhidharmakosha 5, 8 vol IV, p 19
Leaving aside that you had to go to the Abhidharmakosha for this - the statement you quoted sounds like a truism. Not sure what to do with it.

Moreover, since the phrase used is "a God" that, to me, already suggests that the author/translator was working out of a fairly generalized idea of God (which is bound to lead to problems). ("A God" is a contradiction in terms as much as "a Barack Obama" is a contradiction in terms, unless we are talking about caricatures/imitators.)


AN 3.61 -
"Having approached the brahmans & contemplatives who hold that... 'Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation,' I said to them: 'Is it true that you hold that... "Whatever a person experiences... is all caused by a supreme being's act of creation?"' Thus asked by me, they admitted, 'Yes.' Then I said to them, 'Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of a supreme being's act of creation. A person is a thief... unchaste... a liar... a divisive speaker... a harsh speaker... an idle chatterer... greedy... malicious... a holder of wrong views because of a supreme being's act of creation.' When one falls back on creation by a supreme being as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort [at the thought], 'This should be done. This shouldn't be done.' When one can't pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn't be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my second righteous refutation of those brahmans & contemplatives who hold to such teachings, such views.
is sometimes offered as an argument against theism.
But on closer look, it is an argument only against some kinds of theism, such as the Calvinist doctrine, but not all theistic doctrines (that maintain that God is the Supreme Cause). Some Hindu theistic doctrines seem impossible to refute.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by acinteyyo »

binocular wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:
binocular wrote:In that case, why claim that there is no ontological self?
This is the point I was trying to make. There is no ground for such a claim. Maybe one can compare this to discussions about the existence or non-existence of God. There is no ground to base one's claims on, neither that god exists nor that god doesn't exist, thus a wise person doesn't concern oneself with such speculative views at all because it lacks a foundation in the first place.
But in Buddhism, the major schools hold that there is no ontological self.

How can that be??!
Do they? I don't know for sure. I would rather say the major schools hold the view that what is commonly considered the self is a delusion. Anything else may be implied more or less...
binocular wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:And since any idea of atta is derived from the khandhas
Can you provide a reference for this?
see Tilt's great answers above
binocular wrote:Because if we are to believe that any idea of atta is derived from the khandas, then we're also saying, among other things, that either God did not reveal Himself and His teachings, or that nobody who is currently living or present is familiar with God's revelation. Namely, many doctrines of atta come from the theists.
Making claims about doctrines of atta can by implication be making claims about God. (!)
You aren't to believe anything. You have to understand and see directly for yourself that anything which you assumes, every experience you experience consists of the five aggregates. The five aggregates encompass the whole range of experience. Anything else lies beyond range and no statement can be made about what lies beyond range. It's as simple as this. The borderline of the ability of insight starts beyond the aggregates.

Edit:
binocular wrote:The passage you quoted (tiltbillings quoted SN III 46) doesn't say anything about people who might have revelation from God.
Either God is beyond range, which means no statement whatsoever can be made about God or God lies within range of the five aggregates and then is to be considered not-self, impermanent and suffering.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Last edited by acinteyyo on Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by binocular »

acinteyyo wrote:But it is what the Buddha taught. Let's see what's everything, the All.

Next thing is to see that the all, everything, the eye&froms, ear&sounds, nose&aromas, tongue&flavors, body&tactile sensations, intellect&ideas are not-self.

And finally the Buddha tells us what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification. Namely practice treating everything as not-self.
Alright. But I like the Buddha's formulation better.


Other than that, what you quoted is still not in discord with some theistic atta doctrines. As I've already mentioned, the Hare Krishnas have an atta doctrine that doesn't seem to be in discord with the Pali Canon.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by acinteyyo »

binocular wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:But it is what the Buddha taught. Let's see what's everything, the All.

Next thing is to see that the all, everything, the eye&froms, ear&sounds, nose&aromas, tongue&flavors, body&tactile sensations, intellect&ideas are not-self.

And finally the Buddha tells us what is the path of practice leading to the cessation of self-identification. Namely practice treating everything as not-self.
Alright. But I like the Buddha's formulation better.
I didn't add anything but the word "everything" to the formulation of the Buddha, where it is said "the All" in the quoted Suttas.
binocular wrote:Other than that, what you quoted is still not in discord with some theistic atta doctrines. As I've already mentioned, the Hare Krishnas have an atta doctrine that doesn't seem to be in discord with the Pali Canon.
I would bet on it that it probably is in discord. But anyway this is not the place to discuss that and I don't bet.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by binocular »

acinteyyo wrote:
binocular wrote:Other than that, what you quoted is still not in discord with some theistic atta doctrines. As I've already mentioned, the Hare Krishnas have an atta doctrine that doesn't seem to be in discord with the Pali Canon.
I would bet on it that it probably is in discord. But anyway this is not the place to discuss that and I don't bet.
It is relevant inasmuch we are talking about the doctrine of no ontological self as being "the truth about how things really are."
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by acinteyyo »

binocular wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:
binocular wrote:Other than that, what you quoted is still not in discord with some theistic atta doctrines. As I've already mentioned, the Hare Krishnas have an atta doctrine that doesn't seem to be in discord with the Pali Canon.
I would bet on it that it probably is in discord. But anyway this is not the place to discuss that and I don't bet.
It is relevant inasmuch we are talking about the doctrine of no ontological self as being "the truth about how things really are."
I'm not talking about the doctrine of no ontological self as being the truth about how things really are. Neither do I approve that such a doctrine is about how things really are.
The point I'm trying to make clear is that any doctrine of self leads to confusion. It doesn't matter whether it's a doctrine of "there is" a self or a doctrine of "there is" no self or the self "is" like this or that or the self "is not" like this or that.
It's important to get the frame of reference correctly. Anything considered being the self (permanent and so on) within the All is to ignore the characteristics of the All as being impermanent, not-self (not mine, not me, not what I am) and stressful.
Anything else lies beyond range and it isn't appropriate to consider what is beyond range in the first place.
Understanding that one starts to let go of those deceptive doctrines.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10163
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by Spiny Norman »

acinteyyo wrote:Anything else lies beyond range and it isn't appropriate to consider what is beyond range in the first place.
I agree with you, but what about "sabbe dhamma anatta"? Some people seem to regard that as an ontological statement.
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Thu Jun 27, 2013 12:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Zom
Posts: 2712
Joined: Fri May 08, 2009 6:38 pm
Location: Russia, Saint-Petersburg
Contact:

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by Zom »

I agree with you, but what about the statement "sabbe dhamma anatta"? Isn't that also a view?
It is. But this is a right view, not wrong view 8-)
User avatar
acinteyyo
Posts: 1706
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:48 am
Location: Bavaria / Germany

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by acinteyyo »

Spiny Norman wrote:
acinteyyo wrote:Anything else lies beyond range and it isn't appropriate to consider what is beyond range in the first place.
I agree with you, but what about "sabbe dhamma anatta"? Some people seem to regard that as an ontological statement.
Generally speaking there is no problem with ontological statements as long as they're concerned with what lies within range of experience.
About "sabbe dhamma anatta" one shouldn't consider this statement without the other two which belong together. It's

sabbe sankhara anicca
sabbe sankhara dukkha
sabbe dhamma anatta

All conditioned things, all formations (sankhara) are impermanent (anicca), stressfull (dukkha) and not-self (anatta). One might wonder why the third statement is dhamma not sankhara. It is dhamma because otherwise one could think the uncondtioned (ashankhata) could then be considered as self (atta). The unconditioned is a synonym for nibbana and the word dhamma comprises the conditioned as well as the unconditioned. Therefore "sabbe dhamma anatta" is to be understood as all conditioned things, all fabrications are not-self and even nibbana, the unconditioned is not-self.

best wishes, acinteyyo
Thag 1.20. Ajita - I do not fear death; nor do I long for life. I’ll lay down this body, aware and mindful.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by kirk5a »

The khandhas totally obscure the Dhamma,
and that's where we go wrong. We waste our time
in watching khandhas so that we don't see
the Dhamma that, though greater than the khandhas,
seems like dust."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/mun/ballad.html
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
User avatar
reflection
Posts: 1116
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Post by reflection »

binocular wrote:
reflection wrote:It may seem like poor reasoning, but that's because it's not reasoning. It's not an argument. The dhamma is not about winning a discussion, or finding the best sutta quotes, it is about investigating our experience. And people sometimes forget that in discussions such as this.
The problem with our "experience" is that it is so utterly vague, unreliable, all over the place, changeable.

But in terms of arguments, to say something exists that you can't see or infer is of course the weak argument, not the opposite.
And nobody here is doing that.

It's simply that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

My advise is to see if there is a consciousness of something else than the six senses. I say people won't find it. Perhaps only in metaphysical ideas, but not in actual experiences.
Many theists categorically disagree with this. They believe to have God consciousness, consciousness of God, which is something else than the six senses.
Are you saying they are all deluded?

Because this is the kind of problem one necessarily runs into the moment one elevates one's current (!) experience on the pedestal of the highest standard of knowledge (whether one is a theist or an atheist or whichever).
Your own experience is all you've got, it's all you have to work with. It may be vague and all over the place for some people, but I'd say that can be seen as a first indicator of it being not self, not controllable. Of course in our meditation ideally it is not vague and all over the place and it becomes more clear what's what and what's not.

And by looking deeply like this, for me, the existence of something like the old Viking gods is more likely than the existence of a sort of seventh consciousness. Why? The gods may hide themselves, but if the outside-of-aggregates-consciousness would exist, it would be for me to experience. And I don't. And well, frankly I think nobody does and people mistake some form of mind-consciousness as God consciousness or nibbana consciousness. So you may be thinking I'm not saying people are wrong. In a sense yes, but mainly I'm just saying to look again. Of course, they may say the same to me, but I don't think that's a problem or putting our experience on a pedestal. I'm not trying to win a debate or being the knower of it all. There is no use in that. But what views and way of investigating makes me peaceful, I feel I should share sometimes.
Post Reply