Anatta and Dukkha

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by budo » Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:20 pm

Germann wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:05 pm
Srilankaputra wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:14 pm
But, at least I am subject to suffering. And I do want to get out of suffering.
Do you exist?
Metaphysical questions are wrong view. You're not going to disprove Buddhism by going down a line of thinking that's irrelevant to Buddhism.

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by budo » Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:21 pm

Germann wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:54 pm
An example of suffering: physical pain after achieving arahant status.
But not after achieving parnibbana.

User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 3117
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by cappuccino » Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:55 pm

I would say stress is dukkha

yet that isn't easily understood

alfa
Posts: 393
Joined: Fri Mar 18, 2011 4:43 pm
Location: India

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by alfa » Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:49 am

Germann wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:02 pm
If no one is suffering, why is it suffering?
There is suffering. There is no permanent, unchanging entity that's suffering.

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Germann » Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:59 am

Dan74-MkII wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:09 pm
Germann wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:04 pm
Dan74-MkII wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:44 pm
Suffering is precisely the lack of this realisation that there is no one suffering. Once we really get it, there is no more suffering.
Who are we?
For as long as we experience as 'we', we speak of 'we'. Even after, it can be convenient to use 'I' and 'we'.
Talking about people is talking about something that doesn't exist, so suffering doesn't become someone else's. And if no one is suffering, why is it suffering? Obviously, this suffering is purely nominal.

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Germann » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:01 am

alfa wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 2:49 am
Germann wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:02 pm
If no one is suffering, why is it suffering?
There is suffering. There is no permanent, unchanging entity that's suffering.
Nominally, since no one really suffers: no one really does. In fact, suffering is not suffering.

User avatar
Germann
Posts: 415
Joined: Thu Mar 07, 2019 2:24 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Germann » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:04 am

budo wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:20 pm
Germann wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:05 pm
Srilankaputra wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:14 pm
But, at least I am subject to suffering. And I do want to get out of suffering.
Do you exist?
Metaphysical questions are wrong view. You're not going to disprove Buddhism by going down a line of thinking that's irrelevant to Buddhism.
When no one exists, to talk about suffering is pure metaphysics.

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 6411
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by DooDoot » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:13 am

Germann wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:02 pm
If no one is suffering, why is it suffering?
The above question appears completely wrong & mixed up (backwards).

When there is no view or idea of "self", there can be no suffering. But when there is the view or idea of "self" or "some one", there will be suffering.

Why is there suffering? Because of ideas of "some one" (rather than the view of "no one").

The genuine realisation or experience of "anatta" cannot exist together with the "arising of dukkha".
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati

sentinel
Posts: 2411
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by sentinel » Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:59 am

According to first noble truth , there is suffering . When the Wrong Notion of " I " being Cleared , the root cause uprooted and gradually suffering ends .
:coffee:

User avatar
Dan74-MkII
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:22 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Dan74-MkII » Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:13 am

Germann wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:59 am
Dan74-MkII wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 5:09 pm
Germann wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:04 pm

Who are we?
For as long as we experience as 'we', we speak of 'we'. Even after, it can be convenient to use 'I' and 'we'.
Talking about people is talking about something that doesn't exist, so suffering doesn't become someone else's. And if no one is suffering, why is it suffering? Obviously, this suffering is purely nominal.
Suffering is real, it is experienced. It is just not necessary. But the kammic patterns have their momentum, the habit is entrenched.

No one needs to suffer for there to be suffering. Just like experience in general does not need an experiencer.

Virgo
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 10:52 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Virgo » Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:55 am

The Hunger Site

________________

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by budo » Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:10 am

Germann wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 4:04 am
budo wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 8:20 pm
Germann wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 3:05 pm

Do you exist?
Metaphysical questions are wrong view. You're not going to disprove Buddhism by going down a line of thinking that's irrelevant to Buddhism.
When no one exists, to talk about suffering is pure metaphysics.
Then according to your thinking, self driving cars cannot move since there is no driver.

There was an original programmer who programmed those cars, likewise your programming is in your genetics.

Regardless, self driving cars still move without a driver, and you also move without a self.

Besides, where does your "self" end, and where does the rest of the world begin?

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by budo » Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:58 am

Fyi, if you want to be logical without violating fallacies, the onus is on you to prove the self exists, not on others to prove the self doesn't exist.

For the same reason I can't ask you to prove that superman doesn't exist.

You cannot ask someone to prove non-existence, only existence.

Hence questions like proving if God exists (but not non-existance).

So the onus is on you to prove the self exists.

(Which btw is still irrelevant to the topic of Buddhism since it's a metaphysical question, but I'm willing to play along)

sentinel
Posts: 2411
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by sentinel » Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:25 am

budo wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:58 am
Fyi, if you want to be logical without violating fallacies, the onus is on you to prove the self exists, not on others to prove the self doesn't exist.

For the same reason I can't ask you to prove that superman doesn't exist.

You cannot ask someone to prove non-existence, only existence.

Hence questions like proving if God exists (but not non-existance).

So the onus is on you to prove the self exists.

(Which btw is still irrelevant to the topic of Buddhism since it's a metaphysical question, but I'm willing to play along)
Actually , it is a two way ticket . It is all up to individual , if one believes in God one takes everything in existence to be a kind of prove that most logical all came from creator .
If one think in term of everything originated from matter then that's just fine . Both valid .
:coffee:

budo
Posts: 1752
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 12:16 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by budo » Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:09 am

sentinel wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 8:25 am
budo wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 7:58 am
Fyi, if you want to be logical without violating fallacies, the onus is on you to prove the self exists, not on others to prove the self doesn't exist.

For the same reason I can't ask you to prove that superman doesn't exist.

You cannot ask someone to prove non-existence, only existence.

Hence questions like proving if God exists (but not non-existance).

So the onus is on you to prove the self exists.

(Which btw is still irrelevant to the topic of Buddhism since it's a metaphysical question, but I'm willing to play along)
Actually , it is a two way ticket . It is all up to individual , if one believes in God one takes everything in existence to be a kind of prove that most logical all came from creator .
If one think in term of everything originated from matter then that's just fine . Both valid .
No, it's not up to the individual. You cannot prove non-existence in logical debate.

We have something called Burden of Proof.

Proving a negative, or "Evidence of Absence" is a logical fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of ... a_negative

Logical Form:

I cannot prove that X exists, so you prove that it doesn’t.

If you can’t, X exists.

Example #1:

God exists. Until you can prove otherwise, I will continue to believe that he does.
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/too ... -Existence

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: one_awakening and 144 guests