DooDoot wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 1:25 am
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pmFirstly, I’m not an expert on Hinduism or Atman, but I’ve been reading some of the Hindu views on Atman, which the Buddha seems to reject in the Suttas, or is he??
The Buddha was concerned with the sense of "possessiveness" aka "attachment". The Buddha was concerned with not regarding things as "I" and "mine" because such possessiveness & attachment is suffering (stressful).
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pmThe Upanishads (Katha Upanisad) talk about 2 selves, 1. the separate Ego self, and, 2. the indivisible Atman self.
Why don't you kindly quote the Upanishads and provide a link. Thanks. Also, the Upanishads are never mentioned in the Pali suttas thus appear were either not known in the Buddha's geographical region or were not composed until after the Buddha. The Pali suttas only mention the four Veda.
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm They say that the separate self Is illusion, impermanent and suffering, whereas the indivisible self is reality, permanent, bliss.
In Buddhism there is no invisible self. The Pali suttas say any type of consciousness, either gross or subtle, is not a self (SN 22.59); its only an element (dhatu) of nature (MN 115). The Pali suttas say "unity", "oneness" or "the indivisible" is not-self (MN 1).
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm1. Did the Buddha, in the Suttas, ever differentiate between the 2 selves talked of in the Upanishads?
No.
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm He says that what is impermanent, is unsatisfying and not-self, which would seem to be rejecting the Upanishad impermanent ego self
Yes. Any type of mental experience, be it gross or subtle, is not-self. Nibbana, the supreme thing, is not-self. Everything without exception is not-self.
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm, but I cannot see if he rejects the Upanishad permanent Atman self anywhere??
Buddha reject self in everything, including Nibbana, the supreme thing. Refer to MN 1; DN 1; Dhp 279,
SN 3.136, etc.
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pmDoes he say what is permanent is suffering?
No. Nibbana is permanent and not suffering. But Nibbana is something real. Where as any idea or concept of "self" is merely that; namely, a concept, idea, label, etc. Please look into your own mind. "Self" is a thought or label. There is no "self" without imputing a name, label, concept or idea. Thus ideas & concepts are not permanent.
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pmSo, is it the case that the Buddha refused to answer questions about the self (SN:44.10) as they do not lead to the end of suffering, and he therefore did not say that there is, or is not a self??
No. In the discussion in SN 44.10, the term "
anatta" ("not-self") is never mentioned. In SN 44.10, Vacchagotta asks about "
atthattā" and "
natthattā".
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm And, where he is refusing to answer, are the questions relating to both the Upanishad ego impermanent self and the Atman permanent self, or just the permanent Atman self?
No. Irrelevant. In SN 44.10, the wanderer asks: "
Am I a self?". "
Am I not a self?". Vacchagotta never asked a question that was free from self-view. If Vacchagotta asked: "
Are the five aggregates self?", the Buddha would have probably answered.
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm Perhaps it would help to know what kind of self Vacchagotta believed, In and was asking about.
In SN 44.10, Vacchagotta asked:
“kiṃ nu kho, bho gotama, atthattā”ti?
Does the self exist?
“Kiṃ pana, bho gotama, natthattā”ti?
Does the self non-exist?
However, these questions were obviously more complicated & "personal" than as simply translated above because the Buddha said to Ananda:
if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist’, Vacchagotta —who is already confused— would have got even more confused, thinking:‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’”
Thus, as I posted, Vacchagotta, who was not fluent in Buddhism thus his words do not represent Buddhism, probably asked: "
Am I a self?". "
Am I not a self?".
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm From a Hindu website; The experience of Atman
This is false. There is no Atman. I do not even have to read the text to say there is no such thing as Atman, apart from imagination & conceptualizing.
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm It can only be experienced when all the sensory activity ceases to have an impact on the mind, when the mind itself is freed from the movement of thoughts and sense objects, and the torment of desires, which are the prime cause of all human activity and suffering, and subsides into quietude.
Correct. But the above experience is not "Atman". The above experience is peace, stillness, clarity, etc (aka nibbana). However, if the tendency to desires has not been uprooted & destoyed, it is final Nibbana but only a taste of nibbana.
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm The experience of the Self arises "When the mind and the five senses are stilled and when the intellect is stilled ....They say that Yoga is complete stillness in which one enters that state of Oneness."
No. The illusion, experience or impression of "Oneness" may arise but there is no "Self" arising. "Self" is always an "idea" or "concept". The mind may certainly feel "One" but the idea of "Self", "Atman", "Brahma" or "God" is a significant
discursive departure from "Oneness".
DarrenM wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:25 pm 1. How would the Buddha explain this experience?. Is it similar to any meditative attainments the Buddha described? Or would he explain it as a Fabrication?
Yes. It is a fabrication (with a lower case "f", as explained explicitly in SN 22.81). The fabrication of "Atman", "God", etc, is for minds unable to be Void (
Sunnata).
markandeya wrote: ↑Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:04 pmIts a bit like walking into a protestant church and asking what they think of Catholics
The fabrication of "Atman", "Brahman", "God", etc, is for mind unable to be Void (Sunnata). It is like when little children cling to parents or authority figures.