Anatta - a hindrance?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by tiltbillings »

bharadwaja wrote: That means the Buddha denied nibbana, and I don't agree with that statement. Since suffering arises from identifying oneself (atta) with what one is not (anatta), the release from suffering is the realization that the self is unconditioned/unobjectifiable.
Still waiting for you to show us, using the Buddha's words, that Buddha actually taught an atta and that he equated it with nibbana. You have repeatedly given us your opinion on this, but nothing solid from the Dhamma of the Buddha.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by tiltbillings »

bharadwaja wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:ancientbuddhism in a number of msgs in this thread has conducted a master class on this subject of the Buddha's response to the Vedic/Brahmanical traditions, and, bharadwaja, you have either ignored what he posted or simply side-stepped what was eloquently and skillfully shown to us. The value of this thread has been not in your statements, but in what others, such ancientbuddhism, have written in response.
I am not going to answer his questions of how close/far Buddhism was to the conventional Vedic religion --- in this thread. That needs a separate thread because it is not the topic this thread is for, please let me know once a separate thread is created so I can explain my thoughts on that topic there.
Sorry, but I don't think you are anywhere close to being capable of addressing what ancientbuddhism has said. You don't even understand what has happened. He did not pose questions to you. He simply demolished your position.
This topic is about anatta being a hindrance to nibbana (atta realization).
Yes, and his msgs are directly to that point, but that went right over your head.
What I have so far gleaned from the replies I have received is that Buddhism completely denies atta because not denying atta keeps one in Saṃsāra -- and that anatta is conducive to (or identical with) nibbāna -- and therefore one should consider anatta as the goal of Buddhism.

Please correct me if the underlined not what is claimed by some/all those who have opposed me substantively.
You repeatedly evade questions put to you and the points in response to your stated opinions. You really have not read what was written to you very well, but you are rather attached to your delusional form of Buddhism to the extent you really do see what others who disagree with you are actually writing to you.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by daverupa »

bharadwaja wrote:So what we need to do to make the discussion meaningful -- is to not start with what the Buddha didn't say and focus on what he did say.
And what did he not say?

"Nibbana is self-realization" or anything even close.

And what did he say?
sabbe dhammā anattā
That's what was said. This means that it's not possible to experience a Self anywhere, there can be no percept that is a Self, and with respect to selves and the individuated beings which abound, these are not Self, such is not to be found ever.
bharadwaja wrote:I have to agree. There is no self
Very good! :toast: I am glad you have come to understand that this other individual was holding things incorrectly, with confusion:
bharadwaja wrote:nibbana (atta realization)
I'm sure you'll agree, sometimes these wrong ideas can get so very stuck in the mind. It's good to see learning occur.
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by bharadwaja »

greenjuice wrote:Sure, where did the Buddha say that "compounded" is synonimous with "anatta"?
Greenjuice that equation is for puthujjanas. I am not willing to argue that with you, for we will go round and round in circles.

To you I claim the Buddha did not deny atta (or say that atta is different from nibbana). That's all.
Last edited by bharadwaja on Sat Jun 14, 2014 4:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Unrul3r
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:29 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by Unrul3r »

bharadwaja wrote: What I do not agree with, however is the idea that the Buddha completely denied atta. That means the Buddha denied nibbana, and I don't agree with that statement. Since suffering arises from identifying oneself (atta) with what one is not (anatta), the release from suffering is the realization that the self is unconditioned/unobjectifiable.
As far as I know, the Buddha didn't completely deny atta but he also didn't affirm it precisely because it leads to suffering. Saying nibbāna is yourself leads to precisely the argumentation seen in this topic. Why try to define nibbāna as atta in the first place? Why not leave it as nibbāna?
ancientbuddhism wrote:To the appropriate listener[s] the Tathāgata most defiantly denied the Ātman as something that does not exist (asat), and as a ‘thing of idiots’ (bāladhammo).
I've never seen a reference similar to that, could you provide? As far as I know, trying to answer questions about self will always lead astray precisely because they come from inappropriate attention. There is no "the Tathāgata most defiantly denied the Ātman as something that does not exist" because it would come from inappropriate attention, which the Buddha didn't have. As far as I know, the Buddha always questioned on this matter, he never gave an answer in regards to self. The only place I've seen something resembling to what you are saying is in MN 22:
MN 22 wrote:“Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—would it not be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?”
But in this case the Buddha is referring from an experiential point of view, not ontological. He is not stating "Ātman as something that does not exist", he is using a phenomenological word such as apprehended\found (anupalabbhamāne). Not finding something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means that you haven't found it or that trying to find it is useless. There's no commitment, as far as I know. Could you provide another reference, ancientbuddhism?

:anjali:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by tiltbillings »

bharadwaja wrote:
greenjuice wrote:Sure, where did the Buddha say that "compounded" is synonimous with "anatta"?
Greenjuice that equation is for puthujjanas. I am not willing to argue that with you, for we will go round and round in circles.

To you I claim the Buddha did not deny atta (or say that atta is different from nibbana). That's all.
You were asked a very direct question here, and you just did what you do so well -- evaded answering it. If you are the arhat you claim to be and master of all things Pali as you claim to be, then answering the question put to you would be very easy, but you choose to play games here. In other words, you are being a troll.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by bharadwaja »

Unrul3r wrote:Why try to define nibbāna as atta in the first place? Why not leave it as nibbāna?
Indeed, the need to say that nibbana is not-different from atta would not arise if people didn't misrepresent the Buddha as an atta-denier.
:anjali:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by tiltbillings »

bharadwaja wrote:
Unrul3r wrote:Why try to define nibbāna as atta in the first place? Why not leave it as nibbāna?
Indeed, the need to say that nibbana is not-different from atta would not arise if people didn't misrepresent the Buddha as an atta-denier.
:anjali:
And what you mean by atta? How did the Buddha define atta?
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by bharadwaja »

tiltbillings wrote:And what you mean by atta? How did the Buddha define atta?
I define atta as the reflexive pronoun whose realization constitutes nibbana.

However what most people call "I" is not the real "I". What is "not I" is called anatta. Clinging to anatta thinking it is atta is the surest way to not attain nibbana.

What I've just said is Buddhism.
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by ancientbuddhism »

Unrul3r wrote:I've never seen a reference similar to that, could you provide?


You may have missed these:
ancientbuddhism wrote:I have already given references to the Tathāgata’s denial of Ātman here, here, here, here and here on this thread.
Please read carefully Norman and Gombrich’s papers cited.
Unrul3r wrote:As far as I know, trying to answer questions about self will always lead astray precisely because they come from inappropriate attention.


Yes, for the puthujjana. The noble disciple is not on the same footing.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
Unrul3r
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2010 6:29 pm
Location: Porto, Portugal

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by Unrul3r »

ancientbuddhism wrote:
Unrul3r wrote:I've never seen a reference similar to that, could you provide?


You may have missed these:
ancientbuddhism wrote:I have already given references to the Tathāgata’s denial of Ātman here, here, here, here and here on this thread.
Please read carefully Norman and Gombrich’s papers cited.
I just see Upanishads, Norman & Gombrich quotes, not suttas. If there is some sort of claim by the Buddha such as "There is no self" please reference it directly.

The Suttanipata is very clear in regards to views. The Buddha wouldn't cling to "There is no self". Saying "There is no self" will only create conflict with those who hold "There is a self". If your view is that "the Tathāgata most defiantly denied the Ātman as something that does not exist (asat)", I just hope you won't get into argumentation with those who oppose it.

:anjali:
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by tiltbillings »

bharadwaja wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And what you mean by atta? How did the Buddha define atta?
I define atta as the reflexive pronoun whose realization constitutes nibbana.
That makes no sense. We realize the "reflexive pronoun" and that is nibbana. Say who other than you?
However what most people call "I" is not the real "I". What is "not I" is called anatta. Clinging to anatta thinking it is atta is the surest way to not attain nibbana
.And the 'real "I"' is what?
What I've just said is Buddhism.
So you claim, repeatedly, but you have not shown thisto be the case. It is just your opinion based upon your opinion, it would seem. You are the arhat and Pali master here. You need to do better.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
bharadwaja
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by bharadwaja »

tiltbillings wrote:That makes no sense. We realize the "reflexive pronoun" and that is nibbana.
I realize who I (atta) am by understanding all that I'm not (anatta). The realization is called nibbana.
And the 'real "I"' is what?
What it really is needs to be realized. Nibbana cannot be donated to someone in a sentence.
User avatar
ancientbuddhism
Posts: 887
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
Location: Cyberia

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by ancientbuddhism »

Unrul3r wrote:
ancientbuddhism wrote:
Unrul3r wrote:I've never seen a reference similar to that, could you provide?


You may have missed these:
ancientbuddhism wrote:I have already given references to the Tathāgata’s denial of Ātman here, here, here, here and here on this thread.
Please read carefully Norman and Gombrich’s papers cited.
I just see Upanishads, Norman & Gombrich quotes, not suttas. If there is some sort of claim by the Buddha such as "There is no self" please reference it directly....
I thought I had studied and cited those references adequately. Yet all that you find in them is “Upanishads, Norman & Gombrich quotes, not suttas …”

It is easy for ATI weenies to post suttas. Understanding the context and unpacking the meaning is quite another matter.
I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854

Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)

A Handful of Leaves
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Anatta - a hindrance?

Post by tiltbillings »

bharadwaja wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:That makes no sense. We realize the "reflexive pronoun" and that is nibbana.
I realize who I (atta) am by understanding all that I'm not (anatta). The realization is called nibbana.
And who are you?
And the 'real "I"' is what?
What it really is needs to be realized. Nibbana cannot be donated to someone in a sentence.
In other words, you are just talking and talking and talking, but notably there is no real reference to the Buddha's teaching in all your talking.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply