Anatta and Dukkha

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Bundokji
Posts: 2437
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Bundokji » Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:30 am

Germann wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 2:02 pm
If no one is suffering, why is it suffering?
Am i being unfair to you when i believe that your question on this thread is not too different from your question on the other thread about the mathematical impossibility of the Theravadin model of the universe?

What are the similarities between the two? You take a certain aspect/notion of the teachings (Anatta), then you reduce it to your own definition by negating other possible interpretations (ontology), then you make wrong conclusions (If no one is suffering, why is it suffering?).

An ontological approach to Anatta is one possibility, but not the only possibility. Anatta can be equally understood as a driver of action (detachment), or an interpretation of how things are, or simply, introducing the possibility of a different way of being in the world where there is no suffering.

Reducing Anatta to ontology serves the purpose of highlighting a contradiction when there is none. An ontological interpretation of Anatta implies that the meaning of Anatta takes effect whether the individual practitioner knows it directly or does not know it directly, akin to saying that the moon exists whether we see it or we don't. If Anatta is an ontological reality, according to the context of your question, then differentiating between those who know it and those who don't is not valid. Both should not suffer, therefore, Anatta is proven wrong according to the context of your question.

Unless you begin to analyze the hidden assumptions in your questions and see them for what they are (mere assumptions which are not necessary) it is very likely to continue this way.

All in my opinion.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.

sentinel
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2017 1:26 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by sentinel » Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:47 am

budo wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:09 am


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
Am I understand correctly , God exists , if I can't prove that God does not exist then God does exists right ?
:coffee:

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

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by budo » Fri Jun 07, 2019 11:03 am

sentinel wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 10:47 am
budo wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:09 am


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
Am I understand correctly , God exists , if I can't prove that God does not exist then God does exists right ?
You can't say that God (or the self) exists because someone can't prove God (or the self) doesn't exist.

Likewise, you can't say superman exists because someone can't prove superman doesn't exist.

Germann is trying to say the self exists because you can't prove the self doesn't exist.

Proving non-existence is a logical fallacy, you can only prove existence.

To prove something you need to prove its existence, you need to find evidence or logical inferences that God exists.

So in short, you can't ask people to prove non-existence of something, only existence of something. Otherwise I can make anything up, I can say prove to me that a 10 headed monster with 100 tails doesn't exist in some random cave. Instead, the onus is on me to provide you evidence that it DOES exist.

auto
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by auto » Fri Jun 07, 2019 12:15 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Thu Jun 06, 2019 4:48 pm
If all is dependently arisen from causes and conditions, then there is nothing that can be said to ultimately exist. Not even suffering exists, let alone a thing called a self. The path is the grounds of realization for developing the aptitude for sunyata.
The All is sense organs and their objects.
Feelings are known by the consciousness but it is you who is experiencing them.

Consciousness descend from the brain to body and you can detect it on breath to cultivate it as of mindfulness of breathing. It is thanks to that consciousness you can do mindfulness of breathing(the contents of it like heavy, lightness which is rupa then next step feelings..)

Other thing to consider is,
the DO cessation path is done by you, naturally things doesn't cease they will continue to arise and reproduce, old age and die.

also it is you who personally attains the freedom from rebirth.

also vinnanam anidassam, consciousness without characteristics, attributes what would make that consciousness evident and by the general term what consciousness does is it knows. What is known is is beyond or apart the All.

http://dictionary.sutta.org/browse/n/nidassana
Nidassana,(nt.) [Sk.nidarśana,ni+dassana] “pointing at” evidence,example,comparison,apposition,attribute,characteristic; sign,term D.I,223 (a° with no attribute); III,217 (id.); S.IV,370 (id.); A.IV,305 sq.(nīla°,pīta° etc.); Sn.137; Vbh.13,64,70 sq.(sa°,a°); VvA.12,13; PvA.26,121 (pucchanākāra°) 226 (paccakkhabhūtaṁ n.“sign,token”).(Page 358)

User avatar
Jerafreyr
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:22 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Jerafreyr » Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:12 pm

I have no desire to beat this dead horse further. If by you, you mean something that is dependently arisen then fine.

The entire chain of DO is illusory from ignorance to contact to birth. All of it is unreal and illusory.

auto
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by auto » Fri Jun 07, 2019 3:19 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:12 pm
I have no desire to beat this dead horse further. If by you, you mean something that is dependently arisen then fine.

The entire chain of DO is illusory from ignorance to contact to birth. All of it is unreal and illusory.
i afraid you can't stand what is coming next. As of retracting male organ so that there will be female organ instead.

User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 16989
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by mikenz66 » Fri Jun 07, 2019 5:38 pm

Hi Budo,
budo wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:09 am
No, it's not up to the individual. You cannot prove non-existence in logical debate.
While I agree with your overall argument in this case, I don't think the above statement is correct.

What you can or cannot prove depends on the axioms that you start with. With the usual axioms of mathematics you can prove, for example, the non-existence of a real number that is the square root of minus one.

:heart:
Mike

auto
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by auto » Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:05 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Fri Jun 07, 2019 1:12 pm
I have no desire to beat this dead horse further. If by you, you mean something that is dependently arisen then fine.

The entire chain of DO is illusory from ignorance to contact to birth. All of it is unreal and illusory.
i try again,

The sakkāya diṭṭhi definition should be that that it includes rebirth view. If you say there is no self then that would imply there is no rebirth.
Also take into account that you gain freedom from rebirth and that doesn't say that rebirth doesn't exist or that exist only for deluded ignorant beings.

How there is rebirth if there is no one to be rebirthed after first path attainment?

You can also ask who is having sensual desires even before realizing there is no self, because when you have no self then there still will be sensual desires.

User avatar
Jerafreyr
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:22 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Jerafreyr » Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:39 pm

auto wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:05 pm
How there is rebirth if there is no one to be rebirthed after first path attainment?.
Through karmic imprints. The power of preceding causes still has a foothold within the citta.

auto
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by auto » Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:54 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 2:39 pm
auto wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 1:05 pm
How there is rebirth if there is no one to be rebirthed after first path attainment?.
Through karmic imprints. The power of preceding causes still has a foothold within the citta.
are you suggesting that this flesh body will rebirth?

when you are deluded ignorant then what is it what takes rebirth?
Last edited by auto on Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jerafreyr
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:22 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Jerafreyr » Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:06 pm

No. Citta is the part of mind shaped by karmic imprinting (habitual tendencies and intuitive knowledge).

auto
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by auto » Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:36 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:06 pm
No. Citta is the part of mind shaped by karmic imprinting (habitual tendencies and intuitive knowledge).
aren't it this way that when body breaks up then you will be in afterlife as a ghost?

gandhabba lowest heavenly being who is looking where to take birth it will find suitable womb and incarnates.




From where did you learned that there is no self? how did you got to know it?
Last edited by auto on Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jerafreyr
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:22 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Jerafreyr » Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:42 pm

Is a soul a sixth khanda or is it part of the five?

auto
Posts: 1179
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by auto » Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:47 pm

Jerafreyr wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:42 pm
Is a soul a sixth khanda or is it part of the five?
soul is the shining luminous one what enters the body. Soul is not the body. I think it can't be defined by khandhas so it is not 6th nor any of these.

edit
if it is then soul is consciousness, belongs to consciousness group.

User avatar
Jerafreyr
Posts: 86
Joined: Sun Apr 21, 2019 1:22 am

Re: Anatta and Dukkha

Post by Jerafreyr » Sun Jun 09, 2019 4:00 pm

auto wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:47 pm
soul is the shining luminous one what enters the body. Soul is not the body. I think it can't be defined by khandhas so it is not 6th nor any of these.
Buddha stated the consciousness is the khanda that takes rebirth. He also stated the consciousness doesn't remain the same.
auto wrote:
Sun Jun 09, 2019 3:36 pm

From where did you learned that there is no self? how did you got to know it?
Through the words of awakened ones, through analytical contemplation, and from reflecting on my own practice. There doesn't need to be a self for awareness to manifest. Adding a self to the mix is what westerners call a security blanket.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Aniccato, Bag of Bones, thepea and 246 guests