An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:59 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 6:18 pm

You've asked me to read the article and adress the arguments presented in it. I have did so in an intelectually honest way and I have not left out even a single argument made in it.
I beg to differ. You made eight separate posts critiquing an article you didn't read, despite being advised to. Throughout, your posts mainly consisted of rehashed arguments which you are happy with (spaghetti monster, bushmen see a car, computer software) which had nothing to do with the substance of the article, yet which were presented as if they were conclusive.

I'm happy to discuss the article with you, but you need to stop acting as if you have all the answers, slow down a bit, and present me with a point from the articles (there are three of them) that you think is somehow unsound. Then we can see if Bill Vallicella actually said it, and what, if anything, is wrong with it.

Circle5
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:33 pm

pyluyten wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:47 pm
I agree we can consider life to be programed, since world is determined by conditions.

Regarding your critique of the "wounded arm" argument, i'm not sure what you mean by the fact that, once dead, there is no more body. Obviously when one defines Self as life, as soon as death occur there is no more Self.

"The reality we can measure" - I mean we can measure how long people live, how long a baby needs to grow up, how much we eat, we can measure the fact the body fights against intruders like virus or bacteria. We can measure the capacity of the body to create new cells. We can measure how much close is my body to the body of Gandhi, Attila, or algae. This is the advantage of this definition : the definition might be challenged, so we can reply to what is the self this way : "a self takes that long to become a self", "it lives that long", "it consumes that quantity of its envrionment", "it does reproduce itself that many times", "it is capable of running at this speed for that time",.
Since generally people do not deny biology, this should lead people to critique and say the Self is to be found somewhere else :

This way there is a frontier for this debate, and actually i even belive defining self = body = life clarifies that real debate regarding self are
* dualist, that believe there is a physical world and a psychical world (i guess we can say nama rupa)
* free will partisan, who will reject that biology is the unique explanation for brain->decision.

If there is a debate regarding Self, here it is : the Self would be outside the material world (outside Science) and somewhat outside of conditions (once agan outside Science). Otherwise the self is just as i wrote, the body : this makes everyone bored to death =)
I find noting wrong in what you wrote, except for calling the organism a self and trying to change the common understanding of what people mean wen they say "self". Sure, the being is made out of 5 aggregates, they all work perfectly together, etc. but why should we call it a self instead of an organism ? In the same way, we can call an airplane a self. We can even call an ecosystem a self by this definition. But what would be the point ? It would only lead to confusion in comunication between people.

When people say there is a self, they reffer to a thing that is seeing all these 5 aggreates that make up a being. They feel that "this consciousness" or "this body" or "this organism as a whole" "is me" or "is mine". And this only happens in humans above age 2 and in 5-10 species of animals. It does not happen in airplanes or in computers, it does not happen in the vast majority o animals that do not posses self view.

The difference here is for example: In a human there might arise suffering. Then there will arise the thought "I am suffering". There will arise the taught that there is something that suffers. On the other hand, in a primitive animal that does not posses self view, there will be just suffering that arises. This suffering that arises in the primitive animal is just like a window popping up on a computer. There is no-one suffering, there is just suffering arising and that's it. But, in an adult human organism, when suffering arises, there might also arise the thought "it is me that suffers. There is a me that suffers, it is not just suffering that arises".

And why is it, that in adult humans we see this phenomenon happening ? Why does this thought that there is a self that suffers arise ? What could be the reason for the appearence of this thought ? 8-)

Circle5
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:38 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 8:59 pm
I beg to differ. You made eight separate posts critiquing an article you didn't read, despite being advised to. Throughout, your posts mainly consisted of rehashed arguments which you are happy with (spaghetti monster, bushmen see a car, computer software) which had nothing to do with the substance of the article, yet which were presented as if they were conclusive.
I have made posts responding to other posts made in this topic, one of them containing a quote from that article. I have responded to that quote.

As for the article, I have adressed every single paragraph from it one by one. When there were 2 different ideas in the same paragraph, I have addressed each one of them individually.

If you feel any of my arguments is flawed, then feel free to show me which one. Is it my comment on paragraph 2 ? Is it the comment on paragraph 3 ? etc. Same as I have done with each idea from that article, you too should take every paragraph of my post and show what is wrong with it, if you feel something I said there is incorrect.

That is how debates go. If I were to tell you "the article is wrong" and leave it like that, without addresing a single point from it, would you feel that I would be acting in a decent and honest way ?

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:14 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:38 pm
I have made posts responding to other posts made in this topic, one of them containing a quote from that article. I have responded to that quote.
You made eight posts (seven on this thread) addressing ideas that you thought were contained in the article, before you had read it. I can list them if you like.
If you feel any of my arguments is flawed, then feel free to show me which one. Is it my comment on paragraph 2 ? Is it the comment on paragraph 3 ?
Well, let's start out small. Here's what you said:
The argument is that there is a self, or a giant monkey, or an evil banana, or a god, that is hidden somewhere so deep that nobody can even make an argument for it. But, the fact that nobody can make an argument for it, does not mean it does not exist. It is in a way a defense of a giant spaggete monster. You can't disprove the giant spaggete monster, so it might very well exist. This is not a new argument, it has been used by Christians and many others. It's the good old defense of the giant spagghete monster.
This is flawed because it is not an accurate summary of anything that is said in the article, and attempts unsuccessfully to conflate one idea with another idea which is not applicable. The article does not claim that anything is "hidden so deep". Thus it cannot be the case that it claims that a variety of phenomena are so hidden. Nor does the article claim anywhere that nobody can make an argument. Nor does it make the possible existence of something dependent upon someone not making an argument for it. It is not in any way a defense of a "giant spaghetti monster". This trope is used to make the case that the burden of proof is upon those who make unverifiable claims, yet nobody in the article is making such claims. The last two sentences are hand-waving without adding substance, which is just as well, because the flaws above relate to just four sentences.

Circle5
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 » Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:46 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:14 pm
This is flawed because it is not an accurate summary of anything that is said in the article, and attempts unsuccessfully to conflate one idea with another idea which is not applicable. The article does not claim that anything is "hidden so deep". Thus it cannot be the case that it claims that a variety of phenomena are so hidden. Nor does the article claim anywhere that nobody can make an argument. Nor does it make the possible existence of something dependent upon someone not making an argument for it. It is not in any way a defense of a "giant spaghetti monster". This trope is used to make the case that the burden of proof is upon those who make unverifiable claims, yet nobody in the article is making such claims. The last two sentences are hand-waving without adding substance, which is just as well, because the flaws above relate to just four sentences.
The article contains 2 main ideas and one of them is this defense of the spaggete monster. The article argues against the idea that if no self can be found through direct experience or through any other means, then it doesn't mean a self can not exist from a logical point of view. And this is indeed correct. The fact that nobody can find this self that some believe exists, does not prove that a self does not exist. It might very well exist. Same as the spaggete monster might very well exist.

But like it or not, this is called the classic defense of the spaggete monster. It's true, the spaggete monster might very well exist, there is nothing that makes it logically impossible to be so. It has not and can not ever be refuted.

But yet, the burned o proof is on you. If one believes a self might exist, then he should try to present some evidence. The evidence does not need to be direct, it can also be done through means of inference. One might say "I feel that this experience is mine, therefore there might be a self, otherwise why would such a feeling arise ?" This is how you can try to provide evidence through means of inference.

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Sam Vara » Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:30 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:46 pm

The article contains 2 main ideas and one of them is this defense of the spaggete monster. The article argues against the idea that if no self can be found through direct experience or through any other means, then it doesn't mean a self can not exist from a logical point of view. And this is indeed correct. The fact that nobody can find this self that some believe exists, does not prove that a self does not exist. It might very well exist. Same as the spaggete monster might very well exist.
Wrong again, I'm afraid. The article does not "argue against the idea that if no self can be found...then it doesn't mean a self can not exist..." You say that there is an idea that if no self can be found, then it doesn't mean that a self cannot exist. That's actually close to what Vallicella is arguing; not the same thing, but close enough for now. He says "The nonexistence of what one fails to find does not logically follow from one's failing to find it."
So the article doesn't argue against that, does it?

Note also your misunderstanding of the "spaghetti monster" idea:
the Flying Spaghetti Monster is often used as a contemporary version of Russell's teapot—an argument that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon those who make unfalsifiable claims, not on those who reject them.
(Wikipedia)

Here, nobody is making unfalsifiable claims. Falsification can only apply to objects of experience (i.e. is my experience this way, or that way) but Vallicella never suggests that the self might be an object of experience. So you are deploying the FSM trope inappropriately.
But yet, the burned o proof is on you. If one believes a self might exist, then he should try to present some evidence.
Slow down, Circle5. Remember what we are doing? I'm just demonstrating your failure to understand one small bit of one of the articles, as you requested. I'm not trying to prove a self exists. Try to stay focused.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1911
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by No_Mind » Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:17 am

Circle5 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:49 pm
No_Mind wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:48 pm

You said to forget what opinion Buddha had and present our own. I present my Hin-Budd understanding.

We are a bunch of concentric sheaths.

Annamaya Kosha - The physical body (eats, breathes, sleeps, excretes).
Pranayama Kosha - Life force inside the physical body.
Manomaya Kosha - Mind is inside the life force.
Vijnanamaya Kosha - Awareness is inside the mind.
Anandamaya Kosha - Bliss is inside awareness.
The undying, unchanging, eternal soul is inside bliss. The five Koshas or sheaths are us and inside them all is atman.

from Taittiriya Upanishad
Oh boy, but you forgot so many circles out of the picture. You forgot the evil banana circle. You forgot the life-force inside the evil banana. You forgot the bliss inside the happy invisible monkey, and so many more. Why 7 circles ? Because it's a lucky number ? Why not 777 circles, to be even more lucky ?

This is like a bunch of bushman debating the spirit pushing cars. One might say there is an elephant spirit. Another might say it is a tiger spirit. Another one will come and say that the tiger is big, that it is actually blue, that is is a happy tiger not a sad tiger, that it is a wise tiger not a stupid one, etc. etc. etc. Same as people can say there is a god and that good is good or bad, that it is either an old man with a beard or a ball of light or something, etc.

First, establish weather there is a tiger spirit or not. Saying it's a happy tiger spirit that is also wise and benevolent does not prove it's existence.
I misunderstood you. I believe you said you wanted individual opinion. I never knew you wanted to know them so you could be sarcastic.

People far, far more enlightened than you have appreciated wisdom contained in the Upanishads. Waste of time answering illiterate trolls.
Circle5 wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 5:49 pm
There is an old famous ship that is still sailing (I can't remember the name, DNS posted in another topic). Every piece of it has been changed over time. Is it the same ship, or is it a different ship ? Well, it's neither the same neither different, same as with rebirth. As a matter of fact, No-Mind of today is neither the same neither different than No-Mind when he was a baby. It's not even the same as No-Mind from 8 years ago, since every cell in a human changes every 8 years if I am not mistaken.
No it is not sailing and probably never did except in thought experiment. It is a paradox called The ship of Theseus

:namaste:
Last edited by No_Mind on Wed Feb 07, 2018 1:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
I know one thing: that I know nothing

Circle5
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:35 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:30 pm
Here, nobody is making unfalsifiable claims. Falsification can only apply to objects of experience (i.e. is my experience this way, or that way) but Vallicella never suggests that the self might be an object of experience. So you are deploying the FSM trope inappropriately.
The problem regarding the self, like it or not, is identical to that of the spagghete monster. It is an imaginary friend, as long as no kind of evidence is presented for it's existence. You can't say "it is an invisible thing that is subject of experience, therefore it needs to arguments, no evidence, no nothing to prove it's existence, we just take it for granted because I say so" - nope, it doesn't work like that. You need to provide at least some sort of evidence for this thing that you consider might be subject of experience. How do I know there is a subject of experience there ? What evidence do you have for it ?

But this is not how we can get to the hearth of the problem. In order to get to the hearth of the problem, we need to ask: why does self-view exist in humans above age 2 ? What makes this opinion that there is a self, or that there might be a self, arise in the first place ? Why doesn't the opinion that there is no self arise ? There must be something that makes us believe there is a self, there must be an inference that we are making. Based on that inference, the opinion that there is a self arises.

That is the hearth of the problem.

chownah
Posts: 7497
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by chownah » Wed Feb 07, 2018 2:12 am

The problem is not that the opinion that there is a self arises...the problem is that through ignorance we accept that opinion as being fact and we interpret eveything in our experience in terms of that ignorance and this interpretation then distorts our sense perceptions so that they even further support that ignorance.

Maybe studying Dependent Origination would be instructive.
chownah

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Sam Vara » Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:27 am

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:35 am

The problem regarding the self, like it or not, is identical to that of the spagghete monster. It is an imaginary friend, as long as no kind of evidence is presented for it's existence. You can't say "it is an invisible thing that is subject of experience, therefore it needs to arguments, no evidence, no nothing to prove it's existence, we just take it for granted because I say so" - nope, it doesn't work like that. You need to provide at least some sort of evidence for this thing that you consider might be subject of experience. How do I know there is a subject of experience there ? What evidence do you have for it ?

But this is not how we can get to the hearth of the problem. In order to get to the hearth of the problem, we need to ask: why does self-view exist in humans above age 2 ? What makes this opinion that there is a self, or that there might be a self, arise in the first place ? Why doesn't the opinion that there is no self arise ? There must be something that makes us believe there is a self, there must be an inference that we are making. Based on that inference, the opinion that there is a self arises.

That is the hearth of the problem.
I'm sure you think there is a "heart of the problem", but you'll have to talk to someone else about it, I'm afraid. You appear not to understand what is said to you, and you are now reverting to repetitive assertion of a small number of stock phrases and ideas. Earlier, you said:
Answering all of than with "you understood nothing, go re-read the article, bye bye" is not the way I have responded to you before. If you respond like that to a person, do not expect any better in return.
On the basis of the above exchange, I don't expect any better. How could your response be any worse?

pegembara
Posts: 1290
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by pegembara » Wed Feb 07, 2018 8:16 am

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:35 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:30 pm
Here, nobody is making unfalsifiable claims. Falsification can only apply to objects of experience (i.e. is my experience this way, or that way) but Vallicella never suggests that the self might be an object of experience. So you are deploying the FSM trope inappropriately.
The problem regarding the self, like it or not, is identical to that of the spagghete monster. It is an imaginary friend, as long as no kind of evidence is presented for it's existence. You can't say "it is an invisible thing that is subject of experience, therefore it needs to arguments, no evidence, no nothing to prove it's existence, we just take it for granted because I say so" - nope, it doesn't work like that. You need to provide at least some sort of evidence for this thing that you consider might be subject of experience. How do I know there is a subject of experience there ? What evidence do you have for it ?

But this is not how we can get to the hearth of the problem. In order to get to the hearth of the problem, we need to ask: why does self-view exist in humans above age 2 ? What makes this opinion that there is a self, or that there might be a self, arise in the first place ? Why doesn't the opinion that there is no self arise ? There must be something that makes us believe there is a self, there must be an inference that we are making. Based on that inference, the opinion that there is a self arises.

That is the hearth of the problem.
So the argument is that the existence of consciousness in itself implies a self, that it can not exist without a self ? There is this assumption that there must be a self beneath, to which this consciousness belongs to. The assumption that it's not just consciousness existing and changing all the time like the software of a computer, or like the things displayed on the screen of a computer. The assumption that this consciousness is not just a part of the engine, but belongs to someone.

It certainly feels like this is so, doesn't it ? ;) It certainly feels like this consciousness is mine, and not simply a string of pieces changing one after the other, moment after moment, that belong to no one, but are the same as images changing on a computer screen. It really feels like this consciousness is mine ;) There is that feeling there, nobody can deny it...
The problem is not seeing that consciousness is discrete/digital like zeros and ones but instead as a continuous stream/analogue. That stream is then taken as some kind of a self in the sense that there is some "thing" persisting instead of arising and passing away. Somewhat like watching the whole movie instead of individual frames.

One ingenious way to break down this sense of continuity is to classify the 6 classes of consciousness as in https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html and giving them somewhat equal value.

The other approach is by direct experience of impermanence. That consciousness is not a stream.
"If anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the eye are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The eye is the self.' So the eye is not-self.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
“Friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, still, in relation to the five aggregates subject to clinging, there lingers in him a residual conceit ‘I am,’ a desire ‘I am,’ an underlying tendency ‘I am’ that has not yet been uprooted. Sometime later he dwells contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging: ‘Such is form, such its origin, such its passing away; such is feeling … such is perception … such are volitional formations … such is consciousness, such its origin, such its passing away.’ As he dwells thus contemplating rise and fall in the five aggregates subject to clinging, the residual conceit ‘I am,’ the desire ‘I am,’ the underlying tendency ‘I am’ that had not yet been uprooted—this comes to be uprooted.

https://suttacentral.net/en/sn22.89
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.

binocular
Posts: 5638
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by binocular » Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:20 am

Sam Vara wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:19 am
binocular wrote:
Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:05 am
Sam Vara wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 10:46 pm
Still, if the mountain won't come to Muhammed, then Muhammed will have to go to the mountain.
A turn of the phrase, sure -- but why would Mohammad need to go to the mountain in the first place?
In this particular case, the mountain (circle5) asked for contributions to a debate. One such contribution was on another thread, courtesy of Mohammed (me). So Mohammed didn't have a need, but merely a willingness to trek to the foothills.
Actually, I meant that the discussion about anatta is the mountain.

It's this basic point that seems to be often overlooked in these discussions: Why would we have to discuss anatta in the first place? I'm not asking this as a rhetorical question, but as a real one. What's really in this for one? What does one hope to accomplish by discussing this issue?


Compare:
Zom wrote:
Mon Feb 05, 2018 7:27 pm
How do you think one's practice should be informed by considerations of anatta?
Good question - and a complex one, not so easy to answer in short. Perceptions and reasonings on this matter is just a small part of actual practice (though important) and it doesn't affect all the practice taken as a whole. Actually, one can completely ignore this topic up to spiritual level of Alara Kalama or, lets say, ascetic Bahiya. They knew nothing about anatta, and still, succeeded greatly in spiritual life. Anatta - I'd say - is not so much about practice but more about insight. If you have this insight, if you have this understanding, it lessens your clingings, lessens your conceit, lessens your ignorance and distorted perceptions (vipallasa) and certain bad qualities stemmed from those - thus it is easier to practice other things. However, I strongly doubt you can "practice" anatta itself. Yes, you can learn how to change your perceptions from distorted into correct, but this alone won't give much. Reflecting on this topic shouldn't take too much time. Take suttas. Buddha gave lecture, and either his listeners understood it, or they did not. So either you ll get it - or not. If not, then better leave it aside, or you will enter "the thicket of views". You can pick it up later, maybe, when your mind will be more clean, I don't know -) When you'll be more wise, more open-minded, less biased.
vs.
robertk wrote:
The Dhamma, when properly understood will absolutely improve daily life : calmer , deeper understanding and all the joy that goes with that.
However, as you well articulated, many newcomers and even older hands get caught up in an idealistic chase, hoping to dampen natural wants and so on.

The thing is, is that the first step is attentuating wrong views, especially the idea of self and soul- and if that can be done then life will be pretty rosy from then on.

Much , much later comes the reduction of sense desires..
viewtopic.php?f=24&t=30808&p=449133
Every person we save is one less zombie to fight. -- World War Z

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Sam Vara » Wed Feb 07, 2018 11:08 am

binocular wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 10:20 am

Actually, I meant that the discussion about anatta is the mountain.

It's this basic point that seems to be often overlooked in these discussions: Why would we have to discuss anatta in the first place? I'm not asking this as a rhetorical question, but as a real one. What's really in this for one? What does one hope to accomplish by discussing this issue?
Ah, sorry - we were talking at cross purposes!

Is your question about whether we concern ourselves with the concept of anatta at the start of the path rather than at the end of it (Zom, for example, thinks that it's something that one "gets" in a later stage of the practice, and is best left alone until then; whereas Robert thinks that gaining a correct understanding early on will profitably inform the practice thereafter)? Or is your question about why people discuss it at all (given that robert and Zom seem to have two different views as to what it is)?

Both are very good questions, but can you say which one you mean?

Circle5
Posts: 894
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:14 am

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Circle5 » Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:02 pm

Sam Vara wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 7:27 am
I'm sure you think there is a "heart of the problem", but you'll have to talk to someone else about it, I'm afraid. You appear not to understand what is said to you, and you are now reverting to repetitive assertion of a small number of stock phrases and ideas. Earlier, you said:
Answering all of than with "you understood nothing, go re-read the article, bye bye" is not the way I have responded to you before. If you respond like that to a person, do not expect any better in return.
On the basis of the above exchange, I don't expect any better. How could your response be any worse?
If you want somebody to respond, first you have to say something. If you say nothing, it's impossible for me to respond. Explain why something that is subject of experience not object of experience does not require any proof for it's existence and is therefore different than the spaggete monster. You made a statement, I made a statement in return. When you will make an argument, I will be able to respond with an argument in return.
It's this basic point that seems to be often overlooked in these discussions: Why would we have to discuss anatta in the first place? I'm not asking this as a rhetorical question, but as a real one. What's really in this for one? What does one hope to accomplish by discussing this issue?
There are hundreds of cases of people attaining stream entry in the suttas. All did it in the same way, all did it at the start of the path. Right View is the first step of the path. There was even a serial killed who did it, just a couple of hours after being explained the higher dhamma by the Buddha. We see in the suttas that first thing the Buddha did is explain this to people, he didn't post-pone it until some later stage, telling them to do something else until then.
Is your question about whether we concern ourselves with the concept of anatta at the start of the path rather than at the end of it (Zom, for example, thinks that it's something that one "gets" in a later stage of the practice, and is best left alone until then; whereas Robert thinks that gaining a correct understanding early on will profitably inform the practice thereafter)? Or is your question about why people discuss it at all (given that robert and Zom seem to have two different views as to what it is)?

Both are very good questions, but can you say which one you mean?
I don't know from where you've got the idead that that is Zom opinion. Take a look at this: viewtopic.php?t=23716

User avatar
Sam Vara
Posts: 4302
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Sussex, U.K.

Re: An unique experiment - First time on a buddhist forum

Post by Sam Vara » Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:16 pm

Circle5 wrote:
Wed Feb 07, 2018 12:02 pm

If you want somebody to respond, first you have to say something. If you say nothing, it's impossible for me to respond.
Or first I have to direct you to three articles where someone is saying something. You responded to that, and I said that you hadn't understood it. You asked me to elaborate, which I did, but you just ignored it and reverted to unrelated assertion.

Well, it's certainly been a unique experiment!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DarrenM, Google [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 31 guests