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.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.
Anatta - a hindrance?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
>> 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
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
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
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.bharadwaja wrote: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.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.
Yes, and his msgs are directly to that point, but that went right over your head.This topic is about anatta being a hindrance to nibbana (atta realization).
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.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.
>> 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
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
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
And what did he not say?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.
"Nibbana is self-realization" or anything even close.
And what did he say?
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.sabbe dhammā anattā
Very good! I am glad you have come to understand that this other individual was holding things incorrectly, with confusion:bharadwaja wrote:I have to agree. There is no self
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.bharadwaja wrote:nibbana (atta realization)
- "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]
- bharadwaja
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
Greenjuice that equation is for puthujjanas. I am not willing to argue that with you, for we will go round and round in circles.greenjuice wrote:Sure, where did the Buddha say that "compounded" is synonimous with "anatta"?
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.
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
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?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.
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: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).
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?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?”
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
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.bharadwaja wrote:Greenjuice that equation is for puthujjanas. I am not willing to argue that with you, for we will go round and round in circles.greenjuice wrote:Sure, where did the Buddha say that "compounded" is synonimous with "anatta"?
To you I claim the Buddha did not deny atta (or say that atta is different from nibbana). That's all.
>> 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
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
- bharadwaja
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
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.Unrul3r wrote:Why try to define nibbāna as atta in the first place? Why not leave it as nibbāna?
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
And what you mean by atta? How did the Buddha define atta?bharadwaja wrote: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.Unrul3r wrote:Why try to define nibbāna as atta in the first place? Why not leave it as nibbāna?
>> 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
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
- bharadwaja
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
I define atta as the reflexive pronoun whose realization constitutes nibbana.tiltbillings wrote:And what you mean by atta? How did the Buddha define atta?
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.
- ancientbuddhism
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
- Location: Cyberia
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
Unrul3r wrote:I've never seen a reference similar to that, could you provide?
You may have missed these:
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
Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)
A Handful of Leaves
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
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.ancientbuddhism wrote:Unrul3r wrote:I've never seen a reference similar to that, could you provide?
You may have missed these:
Please read carefully Norman and Gombrich’s papers cited.
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.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
That makes no sense. We realize the "reflexive pronoun" and that is nibbana. Say who other than you?bharadwaja wrote:I define atta as the reflexive pronoun whose realization constitutes nibbana.tiltbillings wrote:And what you mean by atta? How did the Buddha define atta?
.And the 'real "I"' is what?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
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.What I've just said is Buddhism.
>> 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
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
- bharadwaja
- Posts: 205
- Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2013 1:20 pm
- Location: London, UK
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
I realize who I (atta) am by understanding all that I'm not (anatta). The realization is called nibbana.tiltbillings wrote:That makes no sense. We realize the "reflexive pronoun" and that is nibbana.
What it really is needs to be realized. Nibbana cannot be donated to someone in a sentence.And the 'real "I"' is what?
- ancientbuddhism
- Posts: 887
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:53 pm
- Location: Cyberia
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
I thought I had studied and cited those references adequately. Yet all that you find in them is “Upanishads, Norman & Gombrich quotes, not suttas …”Unrul3r wrote: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....ancientbuddhism wrote:Unrul3r wrote:I've never seen a reference similar to that, could you provide?
You may have missed these:
Please read carefully Norman and Gombrich’s papers cited.
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
Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)
A Handful of Leaves
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: Anatta - a hindrance?
And who are you?bharadwaja wrote:I realize who I (atta) am by understanding all that I'm not (anatta). The realization is called nibbana.tiltbillings wrote:That makes no sense. We realize the "reflexive pronoun" and that is nibbana.
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.What it really is needs to be realized. Nibbana cannot be donated to someone in a sentence.And the 'real "I"' is what?
>> 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
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