Dependent origination

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Not at all.

Also, what is the teaching on not-self?

It is a teaching against the Atman, of there being a soul, that there is an aspect of you made of up things residing in some place.

What it isn't is a teaching that you are not your emotions, your body, etc. All of those things are aspects of you be it conventional or absolute.. depending on the view.

Except that is exactly what the Buddha taught. Nor did the Buddha teach against anything per se.

Why don’t you just go and create your own cult religion, rather than twist Buddhist teachings?

What a bizarre person you seem to be I wouldn’t go around insisting that Jesus didn’t preach what he did. If I disagreed, I would just say I don’t follow the tradition.

Jl

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Here is an excellent article. It is a much longer version than the one above.

Selves & Not-self
The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta
by
Thanissaro Bhikkhu


The five aggregates or heaps are: form (or material image, impression) (rupa), sensations (or feelings, received from form) (vedana), perceptions (samjna), mental activity or formations (sankhara), and consciousness (vijnana)

You have just quoted a teaching by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Buddha’s words, which says that your idea is a misinterpretation (#3)

If you want to argue, at least read your sources. It’s a little silly to argue that a banana is an apple, and then quote an article which says a banana is not an apple. Then use that as your rationale.

It appears you’re just randomly googling and ignoring the clear facts of Buddhist teachings. Given you said this is an excellent article, and the article calls what you say an error, will you finally have a moment of self honesty, or not?

Here’s your quote:

But because these popular misinterpretations are so pervasive, it's important that we look at them in some detail, to see why they are misinterpretations: how they misunderstand the Buddha's approach and place obstacles in the path. Otherwise, it's all too easy for us to fall into these misunderstandings ourselves.

...

The third misinterpretation is similar to the first, but it introduces the idea that a self, to be a true self, has to be permanent. According to this interpretation, the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are, but these five aggregates don't really qualify to be called a self because they aren't permanent. They're just processes. In other words, No, you don't have a self, but, Yes, you're a bunch of processes; the aggregates are what you are.

None of these interpretations fit in with the Buddha's actual teachings, or his actual approach to the question of whether there is or is not a self. They misrepresent the Buddha both for formal reasons — the fact that they give an analytical answer to a question the Buddha put aside — and for reasons of content: They don't fit in with what the Buddha actually had to say on the topic of self and not-self.

As for the third misinterpretation — that the five aggregates aren't a self because they aren't permanent, but nevertheless the five aggregates are what you are — the Buddha says repeatedly that it's not fitting to identify the aggregates as "what I am" [§19]. As we will see later, he explains the five aggregates as the raw material from which you create your sense of self, but that it's not skillful to think that they constitute what you are.

I repeat:

The Buddha says repeatedly that it's not fitting to identify the aggregates as "what I am"
It's not skillful to think that the five aggregates constitute what you are.

The article then explores in much more detail how we should go about this inquiry.

Not through negation, nor believing. It’s a nuanced topic, and one where people can misunderstand without genuine, experienced and Buddhist guidance.

The Buddha specifically says the five aggregates are not-self.

Jl

Originally Posted by Gem

I'm merely pointing out how what you say here directly contradicts the suttas which are supposedly Buddhas teaching.

The article he quoted specifically said the five aggregates are not self, and to say otherwise is incorrect,

I guess jonesboy never read the article, or the other thousand teachings saying the five aggregates are not self - including feelings, form, thoughts etc.

Jl

[Gem]

Originally Posted by janielee

Except that is exactly what the Buddha taught. Nor did the Buddha teach against anything per se.

Why don’t you just go and create your own cult religion, rather than twist Buddhist teachings?

What a bizarre person you seem to be,

Jl

Yes, according to the suttas, Buddha said, emphatically, in no uncertain terms, that the aforementioned aggregates are regarded as not myself. However, since I already quoted the relevant sutta in which this was said, and that teaching has been dismissed as teaching that (the phenomena) is not myself, even though it said that exactly, it is upon those who dismissed it to show where Buddha taught that you are the emotions (or any other phenomena). Since this teaching does not exist, and the former one does, we can be quite certain that Buddha's position on the matter is not-self, and, not myself. His statements in this regard are not ambiguous in any way, so it's not disputed between the various interpretations. Hence, all the Buddhists concur with what is made clear in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta and other key texts.

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes, according to the suttas, Buddha said, emphatically, in no uncertain terms, that the aforementioned aggregates are regarded as not myself. However, since I already quoted the relevant sutta in which this was said, and that teaching has been dismissed as teaching that (the phenomena) is not myself, even though it said that exactly, it is upon those who dismissed it to show where Buddha taught that you are the emotions (or any other phenomena). Since this teaching does not exist, and the former one does, we can be quite certain that Buddha's position on the matter is not-self, and, not myself. His statements in this regard are not ambiguous in any way, so it's not disputed between the various interpretations. Hence, all the Buddhists concur with what is made clear in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta and other key texts.

Yes

As I said to jonesboy 59 pages back Anatta is a fundamental premise and basis of all Buddhist teachings across every Buddhist school that exists

He’s seen evidence of this through sutras, teachings, Dharmawheel conversations (a Buddhist forum), ad nauseum.

I’m not clear as to why he is so comfortable to misrepresent the Buddhist teachings quite willingly. Why would one do that to something they claim to love?

What I do sympathize with, however, is it’s not skilful to deny our feelings etc, but the Buddha, through Anatta, never taught that either.

The teaching jonesboy quoted above (and which jonesboy said is very good) specifically says aggregates are not self, consistent with Buddha’s teachings. The teaching goes into much more depth about different ways to utilize Anatta.

jonesboy googled the words but I suspect didn’t bother to read what it was saying. Perhaps he was in a rush.

As i said in the post above, Anatta is not a theory to ascribe to, it’s a fundamental practice and imo, more an encouragement to reflect, understand and penetrate the truth of Anatta in and through ones life, as joy, freedom, transcendence.

Jl

[django]

Originally Posted by janielee

You have just quoted a teaching by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Buddha’s words, which says that your idea is a misinterpretation (#3)

If you want to argue, at least read your sources. It’s a little silly to argue that a banana is an apple, and then quote an article which says a banana is not an apple. Then use that as your rationale.

It appears you’re just randomly googling and ignoring the clear facts of Buddhist teachings. Given you said this is an excellent article, and the article calls what you say an error, will you finally have a moment of self honesty, or not?

Here’s your quote:



The Buddha specifically says the five aggregates are not-self.

Jl

This reminds me a bit of the kosha’s that are not deemed to be the self in yoga. To identify as the body, the mind or emotions, the one that discerns, or bliss, is all ‘Neti Neti’, we are not that, but of course yoga differs from Buddhism in believing that there is actually a true self deeper than these things which it is right to identify with.

I think it’s pertinent to realise that the Buddha did grow up in a Hindu environment, and his conclusions are likely to be a modification of earlier Indian beliefs - in this case only a modification of the true self as not self even.

Probably simplistic, but this is what your post made me think of, and it emphasises a history of this particular concept, to not identify ourselves as the various things that people do mistakenly identify ourselves as.

Ime, the Buddha’s teachings and the truth of Anatta realized, brings tremendous joy, freedom and transcendence.

This holy life is lived for the abandonment of becoming.

This is the path to the end of dukkha.

And freedom, liberation in this lifetime.

In Buddhism, I believe, that we don’t care so much about the words or the explanation; what we care about most is that the person comes to know the truth for themselves

This is a place of freedom, peace and no doubt.

Jl

[Gem]

Originally Posted by janielee

Yes

As I said to jonesboy 59 pages back Anatta is a fundamental premise and basis of all Buddhist teachings across every Buddhist school that exists

He’s seen evidence of this through sutras, teachings, Dharmawheel conversations (a Buddhist forum), ad nauseum.

I’m not clear as to why he is so comfortable to misrepresent the Buddhist teachings quite willingly. Why would one do that to something they claim to love?

What I do sympathize with, however, is it’s not skilful to deny our feelings etc, but the Buddha, through Anatta, never taught that either.

The teaching jonesboy quoted above (and which jonesboy said is very good) specifically says aggregates are not self, consistent with Buddha’s teachings. The teaching goes into much more depth about different ways to utilize Anatta.

jonesboy googled the words but I suspect didn’t bother to read what it was saying. Perhaps he was in a rush.

As i said in the post above, Anatta is not a theory to ascribe to, it’s a fundamental practice and imo, more an encouragement to reflect, understand and penetrate the truth of Anatta in and through ones life, as joy, freedom, transcendence.

Jl

There are also other suttas where these teachings are said, so it isn't just an aside within Buddhist philosophy. The Alagaddupama Sutta says the same thing in more detail. The Samanupassana Sutta, also, as well as the Khemaka Sutta... and several other instances... so the base premise is the error when the thought I am this and I am not that renders some notion of self theory.


Hence in the meditation, one observes the feeling, the thought, as it is in itself, not as I am that or not that per se as an a right or wrong answer, but discerning if in fact there is self nature there, and when the self referential thought ceases altogether, the primal distress that arises from me, my, mine, and I ends.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by janielee

You have just quoted a teaching by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Buddha’s words, which says that your idea is a misinterpretation (#3)

If you want to argue, at least read your sources. It’s a little silly to argue that a banana is an apple, and then quote an article which says a banana is not an apple. Then use that as your rationale.

It appears you’re just randomly googling and ignoring the clear facts of Buddhist teachings. Given you said this is an excellent article, and the article calls what you say an error, will you finally have a moment of self honesty, or not?

It is real easy to have a debate without attacking other people.



Here’s your quote:



I repeat:

The Buddha says repeatedly that it's not fitting to identify the aggregates as "what I am"
It's not skillful to think that the five aggregates constitute what you are.

The article then explores in much more detail how we should go about this inquiry.

Not through negation, nor believing. It’s a nuanced topic, and one where people can misunderstand without genuine, experienced and Buddhist guidance.

The Buddha specifically says the five aggregates are not-self.

Jl

I did not say the aggregates make up a self, so you are not understanding what I am saying or what the Buddha is saying.

The third misinterpretation is similar to the first, but it introduces the idea that a self, to be a true self, has to be permanent. According to this interpretation, the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are, but these five aggregates don't really qualify to be called a self because they aren't permanent. They're just processes. In other words, No, you don't have a self, but, Yes, you're a bunch of processes; the aggregates are what you are.

As I said earlier your emotions are not separate from you. They are not permanent and are therefore not a true self.

Next.

As for the third misinterpretation — that the five aggregates aren't a self because they aren't permanent, but nevertheless the five aggregates are what you are — the Buddha says repeatedly that it's not fitting to identify the aggregates as "what I am" [§19]. As we will see later, he explains the five aggregates as the raw material from which you create your sense of self,[b] but that it's not skillful to think that they constitute what you are[/B

It is the attachment to them that creates the ego soul, the sense of self. The aggregates are not permanent so therefore are not a self.

Now as they are not permanent it does say they are not a part of you, they just don't qualify as a self. Nothing does in Buddhism, that doesn't mean it isn't all a part of you.

Maybe the Lankavatara Sutra will help with the attachment point.

Then said Mahamati to the Blessed One: Why is it that the ignorant are given up to discrimination and the wise are not?

The Blessed One replied: it is because the ignorant cling to names, signs and ideas; as their minds move along these channels they feed on multiplicities of objects and fall into the notion of an ego-soul and what belongs to it; they make discriminations of good and bad among appearances and cling to the agreeable. As they thus cling there is a reversion to ignorance, and karma born of greed, anger and folly, is accumulated. As the accumulation of karma goes on they become imprisoned in a cocoon of discrimination and are thenceforth unable to free themselves from the round of birth and death.

Because of folly they do not understand that all things are like Maya, like the reflection of the moon in water, that there is no self-substance to be imagined as an ego-soul and its belongings, and that all their definite ideas rise from their false discriminations of what exists only as it is seen of the mind itself. They do not realize that things have nothing to do with qualify and qualifying, nor with the course of birth, abiding and destruction, and instead they assert that they are born of a creator, of time, of atoms, of some celestial spirit. It is because the ignorant are given up to discrimination that they move along with the stream of appearances, but it is not so with the wise.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes, according to the suttas, Buddha said, emphatically, in no uncertain terms, that the aforementioned aggregates are regarded as not myself. However, since I already quoted the relevant sutta in which this was said, and that teaching has been dismissed as teaching that (the phenomena) is not myself, even though it said that exactly, it is upon those who dismissed it to show where Buddha taught that you are the emotions (or any other phenomena). Since this teaching does not exist, and the former one does, we can be quite certain that Buddha's position on the matter is not-self, and, not myself. His statements in this regard are not ambiguous in any way, so it's not disputed between the various interpretations. Hence, all the Buddhists concur with what is made clear in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta and other key texts.

Not a self that makes up a permanent being or a permanent aspect.

Why? Because the aggregates are not permanent.. but nowhere does it say that is not an aspect of you. As a matter of fact he says exactly that.

The third misinterpretation is similar to the first, but it introduces the idea that a self, to be a true self, has to be permanent. According to this interpretation, the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are, but these five aggregates don't really qualify to be called a self because they aren't permanent.

Now go back and read that again. Don't skip over "the Buddha is affirming that the five aggregates are what you are".

But "to be a true self, has to be permanent" "but these five aggregates don't really qualify to be called a self because they aren't permanent."

Simple and easy to understand.