“If there were a self, monks, would there be my self’s property?” — “So it is, Lord.” — “Or if there is a self’s property, would there by my self?” — “So it is, Lord.” — “Since in truth and in fact, self and self’s property do not obtain, O monks, then this ground for views, ‘The universe is the Self. That I shall be after death; permanent, stable, eternal, immutable; eternally the same shall I abide, in that very condition’ — is it not, monks, an entirely and perfectly foolish idea?” — "What else should it be, Lord? It is an entirely and perfectly foolish idea.
What is self ? What is soul ?
- equilibrium
- Posts: 522
- Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 11:07 am
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
MN22:.....
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
A virtuous monk, Kotthita my friend, should attend in an appropriate way to the five clinging-aggregates as inconstant… not-self.
For it is possible that a virtuous monk, attending in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant… not-self, would realize the fruit of stream-entry.
What is it that attends in an appropriate way and what is it that views the 5 aggregates as anicca and not self?"'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. In reference to what was it said? Dependent on the eye & forms there arises consciousness at the eye. Dependent on the ear & sounds there arises consciousness at the ear. Dependent on the nose & aromas there arises consciousness at the nose. Dependent on the tongue & flavors there arises consciousness at the tongue. Dependent on the body & tactile sensations there arises consciousness at the body. Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. 'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the third sextet.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
SABBE SANKHARA ANICCA
SABBE DHAMMA ANATTA
40. "Therefore, monks, give up whatever is not yours.[45] Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Feeling is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long bring you welfare and happiness. Perception is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Mental formations are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Consciousness is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness.[46]
41. "What do you think, monks: if people were to carry away the grass, sticks, branches and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burnt them or did with them what they pleased, would you think: These people carry us away, or burn us, or do with us as they please?" — "No, Lord." — "Why not?" Because, Lord, that is neither our self nor the property of our self." — "So, too, monks, give up what is not yours! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nypo.html
Last edited by pegembara on Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:30 am, edited 3 times in total.
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
For anyone who has studied the Abrahamic +/- any of the pythagorean, platonic, peripatetic or stoic traditions anatta translated as "no soul" is puzzling. What these traditions call "soul" (of course there are differences among them) is encompassed by consciousness, determination, perception, feeling, maybe even rupa, all six sense bases, vitality, heat, etc in Buddhism. Of course they know nothing of paticca samuppada and that's the difference.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
[/quote]40. "Therefore, monks, give up whatever is not yours.[45] Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Feeling is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long bring you welfare and happiness. Perception is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Mental formations are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Consciousness is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness.[46]
41. "What do you think, monks: if people were to carry away the grass, sticks, branches and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burnt them or did with them what they pleased, would you think: These people carry us away, or burn us, or do with us as they please?" — "No, Lord." — "Why not?" Because, Lord, that is neither our self nor the property of our self." — "So, too, monks, give up what is not yours! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nypo.html
How long is a long time ? For an arahant , upon the breakup of the physical body ,
If you do not have the 5 aggregates anymore ,
What welfare and happiness is there to be , to whom exactly ?
-
- Posts: 1011
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 3:12 am
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
To say then that the Pythagorean and Platonic know nothing of paticca samuppada is silly. paticca samuppada merely means because you're still clinging you're still in the cycle. that's it. Dependent arising = because these conditions exist, these other things arise. Because you cling to existence in the world, a new body for you arises.aflatun wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:56 am For anyone who has studied the Abrahamic +/- any of the pythagorean, platonic, peripatetic or stoic traditions anatta translated as "no soul" is puzzling. What these traditions call "soul" (of course there are differences among them) is encompassed by consciousness, determination, perception, feeling, maybe even rupa, all six sense bases, vitality, heat, etc in Buddhism. Of course they know nothing of paticca samuppada and that's the difference.
paticca samuppada can then be described in actuality as the process of the embodiment* of the soul, with soul being the thing that clings but NOT the conventional identity which is formed by the combo of body and soul held together by delusion that the body is the self. Where there is clinging to the material, the next thing arises, and soon the soul is controlling a body = paticca samuppada. paticca samuppada is not a magic wand floating around creating people with no existences, nor is clinging an agentless agent.
*= not necessarily in the sense of entering, but of linking to one by grasping/clinging
-
- Posts: 10157
- Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
- Location: Andromeda looks nice
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Yes. Clinging aggregates are a subset of aggregates generally. It is the clinging aggregates which cease.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
davidbrainerd wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:51 amTo say then that the Pythagorean and Platonic know nothing of paticca samuppada is silly. paticca samuppada merely means because you're still clinging you're still in the cycle. that's it. Dependent arising = because these conditions exist, these other things arise. Because you cling to existence in the world, a new body for you arises.aflatun wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:56 am For anyone who has studied the Abrahamic +/- any of the pythagorean, platonic, peripatetic or stoic traditions anatta translated as "no soul" is puzzling. What these traditions call "soul" (of course there are differences among them) is encompassed by consciousness, determination, perception, feeling, maybe even rupa, all six sense bases, vitality, heat, etc in Buddhism. Of course they know nothing of paticca samuppada and that's the difference.
paticca samuppada can then be described in actuality as the process of the embodiment* of the soul, with soul being the thing that clings but NOT the conventional identity which is formed by the combo of body and soul held together by delusion that the body is the self. Where there is clinging to the material, the next thing arises, and soon the soul is controlling a body = paticca samuppada. paticca samuppada is not a magic wand floating around creating people with no existences, nor is clinging an agentless agent.
*= not necessarily in the sense of entering, but of linking to one by grasping/clinging
I don't know what aflatun is really thinking when he makes this statement. DO is illusory, held together by wrong views. The Buddha rightly describes DO, but the ultimate truth is something altogether different. Men like Parmenides, Socrates, Plotinus, I dare say, and many others, were great masters who expressed themselves differently than Buddha but no less effectively, IMO.
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
How long is a long time ? For an arahant , upon the breakup of the physical body ,James Tan wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:52 am
40. "Therefore, monks, give up whatever is not yours.[45] Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Feeling is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long bring you welfare and happiness. Perception is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Mental formations are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. Consciousness is not yours. Give it up! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness.[46]
41. "What do you think, monks: if people were to carry away the grass, sticks, branches and leaves in this Jeta Grove, or burnt them or did with them what they pleased, would you think: These people carry us away, or burn us, or do with us as they please?" — "No, Lord." — "Why not?" Because, Lord, that is neither our self nor the property of our self." — "So, too, monks, give up what is not yours! Your giving it up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness. What is it that is not yours? Corporeality... feeling... perception... mental formations... consciousness are not yours. Give them up! Your giving them up will for a long time bring you welfare and happiness."
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .nypo.html
If you do not have the 5 aggregates anymore ,
What welfare and happiness is there to be , to whom exactly ?
[/quote]
As long as the 5 aggregates are present. When the aggregates finally break up, all that is not relished will go out like a lamp extinguished.
One gone to the far shore
without clinging
without effluent
his task completed,
welcomes the ending of life,
as if freed from a place of execution.
Adhimutta and the bandits
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
The Blessed One would never say that on the dissolution of the body the saint who has lost all depravity is annihilated,
perishes, and does not exist after death.
Yamaka Sutta
perishes, and does not exist after death.
Yamaka Sutta
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
If you read PS as meaning "because you're still clinging you're still in the cycle. that's it." then sure, its silly. Since I don't read it as "that's it" I maintain what I said.davidbrainerd wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 7:51 amTo say then that the Pythagorean and Platonic know nothing of paticca samuppada is silly. paticca samuppada merely means because you're still clinging you're still in the cycle. that's it. Dependent arising = because these conditions exist, these other things arise. Because you cling to existence in the world, a new body for you arises.aflatun wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:56 am For anyone who has studied the Abrahamic +/- any of the pythagorean, platonic, peripatetic or stoic traditions anatta translated as "no soul" is puzzling. What these traditions call "soul" (of course there are differences among them) is encompassed by consciousness, determination, perception, feeling, maybe even rupa, all six sense bases, vitality, heat, etc in Buddhism. Of course they know nothing of paticca samuppada and that's the difference.
paticca samuppada can then be described in actuality as the process of the embodiment* of the soul, with soul being the thing that clings but NOT the conventional identity which is formed by the combo of body and soul held together by delusion that the body is the self. Where there is clinging to the material, the next thing arises, and soon the soul is controlling a body = paticca samuppada. paticca samuppada is not a magic wand floating around creating people with no existences, nor is clinging an agentless agent.
*= not necessarily in the sense of entering, but of linking to one by grasping/clinging
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Aflatun is thinking exactly what he said! What makes Dhamma the Dhamma IMO is PS. I don't agree that the ultimate truth is something altogether different***Saengnapha wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:40 am I don't know what aflatun is really thinking when he makes this statement. DO is illusory, held together by wrong views. The Buddha rightly describes DO, but the ultimate truth is something altogether different. Men like Parmenides, Socrates, Plotinus, I dare say, and many others, were great masters who expressed themselves differently than Buddha but no less effectively, IMO.
I studied and applied myself to Plotinus, Plato, Parmenides for a very long time, with a lot of help from scholars who were also practitioners. I meant no disrespect, and I'm fairly certain I hold those folks in higher regard than most everyone around here, probably yourself included.
Anyway this is entirely off topic at this point and we should likely stop or take it elsewhere.
*** Since you like Nagarjuna, if Plotinus had written MMK XXII.16 it would say:
"That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
The One is the nature of the Thus-Gone.
The One is the nature of the world."
But in fact it says:
"That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Being thus gone is the nature of the thus gone.
The nature of the world is self.
The nature of the world is self.
-
- Posts: 1350
- Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:17 am
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Aflatun,aflatun wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:01 pmAflatun is thinking exactly what he said! What makes Dhamma the Dhamma IMO is PS. I don't agree that the ultimate truth is something altogether different***Saengnapha wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:40 am I don't know what aflatun is really thinking when he makes this statement. DO is illusory, held together by wrong views. The Buddha rightly describes DO, but the ultimate truth is something altogether different. Men like Parmenides, Socrates, Plotinus, I dare say, and many others, were great masters who expressed themselves differently than Buddha but no less effectively, IMO.
I studied and applied myself to Plotinus, Plato, Parmenides for a very long time, with a lot of help from scholars who were also practitioners. I meant no disrespect, and I'm fairly certain I hold those folks in higher regard than most everyone around here, probably yourself included.
Anyway this is entirely off topic at this point and we should likely stop or take it elsewhere.
*** Since you like Nagarjuna, if Plotinus had written MMK XXII.16 it would say:
"That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
The One is the nature of the Thus-Gone.
The One is the nature of the world."
But in fact it says:
"That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Every system/model has a rabbit hole. That hole allows the transcendence of conventional perception. It allows the transcendence of itself. Unless this takes place, there is just debate, endlessly....................
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
#woke
“Life is swept along, short is the life span; no shelters exist for one who has reached old age. Seeing clearly this danger in death, a seeker of peace should drop the world’s bait.” SN 1.3
Re: What is self ? What is soul ?
Who is debating? And what's your point?Saengnapha wrote: ↑Thu Mar 08, 2018 4:16 amAflatun,aflatun wrote: ↑Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:01 pmAflatun is thinking exactly what he said! What makes Dhamma the Dhamma IMO is PS. I don't agree that the ultimate truth is something altogether different***Saengnapha wrote: ↑Mon Mar 05, 2018 9:40 am I don't know what aflatun is really thinking when he makes this statement. DO is illusory, held together by wrong views. The Buddha rightly describes DO, but the ultimate truth is something altogether different. Men like Parmenides, Socrates, Plotinus, I dare say, and many others, were great masters who expressed themselves differently than Buddha but no less effectively, IMO.
I studied and applied myself to Plotinus, Plato, Parmenides for a very long time, with a lot of help from scholars who were also practitioners. I meant no disrespect, and I'm fairly certain I hold those folks in higher regard than most everyone around here, probably yourself included.
Anyway this is entirely off topic at this point and we should likely stop or take it elsewhere.
*** Since you like Nagarjuna, if Plotinus had written MMK XXII.16 it would say:
"That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
The One is the nature of the Thus-Gone.
The One is the nature of the world."
But in fact it says:
"That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Every system/model has a rabbit hole. That hole allows the transcendence of conventional perception. It allows the transcendence of itself. Unless this takes place, there is just debate, endlessly....................
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53
"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.
That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."
Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16