Page 14 of 24

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:41 am
by binocular
danieLion wrote:In which sutta(s) does the Buddha teach that there is no self?
I'd like you to explain this, please.

That sutta only says that form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness - that that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is not proper to regard as 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'.
That is all it says.
And several other suttas make the same point.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:51 am
by binocular
tiltbillings wrote:Then you did not make your point very clear in the above msg.
Or you didn't read it with enough clarity.
:shrug:

Also, until you reach into the ariya levels, you are going to have a view about "who you really are" whether you want it or not.
And you'll be there to tell me that?
:ugeek:

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:52 am
by Gaoxing
binocular wrote:
danieLion wrote:In which sutta(s) does the Buddha teach that there is no self?
I'd like you to explain this, please.

That sutta only says that form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness - that that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is not proper to regard as 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'.
That is all it says.
And several other suttas make the same point.
OK so what is self then? Does the Buddha say in any sutta what the self is?

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:56 am
by tiltbillings
binocular wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Then you did not make your point very clear in the above msg.
Or you didn't read it with enough clarity.
It is hard to read with clarity that which is written without clarity.

Also, until you reach into the ariya levels, you are going to have a view about "who you really are" whether you want it or not.
And you'll be there to tell me that?
It seems I need not have to worry about it.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 6:57 am
by cooran
I think Dr. Mendis' article is quite clear. There is no self or soul in the Aggregates,nor is there one separate to, or standing behind the Aggregates, in the Teachings of the Blessed One.

Karuna,
Chris

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:07 am
by danieLion
The Buddha doesn't say there is no self in that sutta.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:14 am
by danieLion
Gaoxing wrote:
danieLion wrote:In which sutta(s) does the Buddha teach that there is no self?
Parivatta Sutta
Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta
Maha-nidana Sutta

Have you read the Abhidamma?
The Buddha doesn't say there is no self in any of those suttas or the the parts fo the Abhidhamma I've read. Maybe it's in one of the parts I haven't read? Can you cite those parts for me?
Kindly,
dL

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:28 am
by Gaoxing
danieLion wrote:
Gaoxing wrote:
danieLion wrote:In which sutta(s) does the Buddha teach that there is no self?
Parivatta Sutta
Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta
Maha-nidana Sutta

Have you read the Abhidamma?
The Buddha doesn't say there is no self in any of those suttas or the the parts fo the Abhidhamma I've read. Maybe it's in one of the parts I haven't read? Can you cite those parts for me?
Kindly,
dL
Why do you say he doesn't say there is no self? How and where does he ever say there is a self?

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:51 am
by danieLion
Gaoxing wrote:
binocular wrote:
danieLion wrote:In which sutta(s) does the Buddha teach that there is no self?
I'd like you to explain this, please.

That sutta only says that form, feeling, perception, mental formations, consciousness - that that which is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change, is not proper to regard as 'This is mine, this I am, this is my self'.
That is all it says.
And several other suttas make the same point.
OK so what is self then? Does the Buddha say in any sutta what the self is?
In AN 3.40 the self is one of our governing principles. In SN 22.34, 47.13 and DN 16, the self is a refuge/light/island. In Khp 8 the self controls. In Dhp 160 the self is a mainstay; in Dhp 165, it is that which we do evil by and that which purifies; in Dhp 379 it reproves, examines, guards. In Ud 5.1 it is our dearest love (fiercely so). In Iti 1.33 it is that which Awakens. In Sn 4.4 it's that which we let go of; in Sn 4.14 it is conjured, swells, and then witnesses the Dhamma. In Thag 3.14 it is that which knows the ways we are born.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 7:53 am
by danieLion
Gaoxing wrote:Why do you say he doesn't say there is no self? How and where does he ever say there is a self?
Can you cite one passage where he utters the phrase, "There is no self?" Those passages you cited don't even come close.
Kindly,
dL

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:02 am
by cooran
Hello Daniel, binocular,

Please show us all one Sutta, just one, where the Buddha clearly taught that there was a permanent Self or Soul.

With metta
Chris

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:09 am
by tiltbillings
Talking in terms of actual experience, the Buddha:
  • Bhikkhus, what exists by clinging to what, by adhering to what does view of self arise? … When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, view of self arises. When there is feeling…perception…voltional formations…consciousness, by clinging to consciousness, view of self arises. … Seeing thus… He understands: …there is no more for this state of being. – SN III 185-6.
  • 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
  • It is impossible, it cannot come to pass that a man possessed of (right) view should treat any dhamma as self [atta] – this situation does not occur. MN iii 64
  • ‘”I am’ is derivative upon form … perception … feelings … volitional formation … consciousness’ – S XXII 83/iii 105
  • ‘Bhikkhus, self and self’s property being unapprehendable as true and established, then would not this view “The universe is the self; after death I shall be permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, eternally the same, endure as long as eternity” be the pure perfection of a fool’s idea?’ ‘How not, lord? It would be pure perfection of a fool’s idea.’ MN 22/ I 138
  • "But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?" "This question is not proper," said the Exalted One. I do not teach that there is one who feels. If, however, the question is put thus: 'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]." SN II 1
  • The world, as a rule, is fettered by attachment and clinging to things, and is firmly adhering to them. But the learned and noble disciple does no longer attach himself, cling firmly, adhere and incline to the thoughts: 'I have an attaa,' and he knows: 'Merely dukkha that arises, merely dukkha that vanishes.' SN II 17 SN III 135

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:14 am
by danieLion
cooran wrote:Hello Daniel, binocular,

Please show us all one Sutta, just one, where the Buddha clearly taught that there was a permanent Self or Soul.

With metta
Chris
Hi Chris,
Why would I do that? I'm not talking about the self as permanent or soul (David Hume is instructive here), so please don't put words in my mouth. I agree with the Buddha and William James about the self that even though the self isn't permanent or a soul it is nonetheless real. Just look at all the suttas I just cited.
Kindly,
dL

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:16 am
by danieLion
tiltbillings wrote:Talking in terms of actual experience, the Buddha:
  • Bhikkhus, what exists by clinging to what, by adhering to what does view of self arise? … When there is form, bhikkhus, by clinging to form, by adhering to form, view of self arises. When there is feeling…perception…voltional formations…consciousness, by clinging to consciousness, view of self arises. … Seeing thus… He understands: …there is no more for this state of being. – SN III 185-6.
  • 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
  • It is impossible, it cannot come to pass that a man possessed of (right) view should treat any dhamma as self [atta] – this situation does not occur. MN iii 64
  • ‘”I am’ is derivative upon form … perception … feelings … volitional formation … consciousness’ – S XXII 83/iii 105
  • ‘Bhikkhus, self and self’s property being unapprehendable as true and established, then would not this view “The universe is the self; after death I shall be permanent, stable, eternal, immutable, eternally the same, endure as long as eternity” be the pure perfection of a fool’s idea?’ ‘How not, lord? It would be pure perfection of a fool’s idea.’ MN 22/ I 138
  • "But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?" "This question is not proper," said the Exalted One. I do not teach that there is one who feels. If, however, the question is put thus: 'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]." SN II 1
  • The world, as a rule, is fettered by attachment and clinging to things, and is firmly adhering to them. But the learned and noble disciple does no longer attach himself, cling firmly, adhere and incline to the thoughts: 'I have an attaa,' and he knows: 'Merely dukkha that arises, merely dukkha that vanishes.' SN II 17 SN III 135
No, "there is no self" claim here either; likewise, this topic would not exist without ourselves making it happen.

Re: On Thanissaro Bhikkhu's anatta teachings

Posted: Sat Jun 15, 2013 8:21 am
by Dinsdale
cooran wrote: Please show us all one Sutta, just one, where the Buddha clearly taught that there was a permanent Self or Soul.
But is there a sutta where he clearly taught that there wasn't? In the Ananda Sutta he equates the no-self view with annihilationism, which is wrong view.