YOU CANNOT POST. OUR WEB HOSTING COMPANY DECIDED TO MOVE THE SERVER TO ANOTHER LOCATION. IN THE MEANTIME, YOU CAN VIEW THIS VERSION WHICH DOES NOT ALLOW POSTING AND WILL NOT SAVE ANYTHING YOU DO ONCE THE OTHER SERVER GOES ONLINE.

Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit? - Page 4 - Dhamma Wheel

Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

On the cultivation of insight/wisdom
Freawaru
Posts: 489
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 8:26 pm

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby Freawaru » Fri Feb 19, 2010 3:07 pm


meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby meindzai » Fri Feb 19, 2010 6:21 pm


vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby vinasp » Fri Feb 19, 2010 7:54 pm

Hi everyone,

I wonder if we 'resist' understanding the teachings. When the Buddha says : "Form is not self", we do not want to see it. For so long we have thought: "Form is self".

Why do academics come up with their 'crackpot' theories - like "the Buddha was denying the Brahmanic idea of an eternal, unchanging self". Is it because these same academics need to mis-understand the teachings? After all, they are not seriously
trying to become enlightened - are they?

If these academics can't see that the Buddha was denying any kind of self, then they are blind, and following them is the worst thing that any real Buddhist could do.

Best wishes, Vincent.

seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby seanpdx » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:02 pm


vinasp
Posts: 1675
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:49 pm
Location: Bristol. United Kingdom.

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby vinasp » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:07 pm


rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby rowyourboat » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:10 pm

the Buddha's description of the other's self views

Mahanidana sutta:

(Delineations of a Self)

"To what extent, ânanda, does one delineate when delineating a self? Either delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, delineating a self formless and finite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, delineating a self formless and infinite, one delineates that 'My self is formless and infinite.'

"Now, the one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and finite, either delineates it as possessed of form and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite lies latent [within that person].

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as possessed of form and infinite, either delineates it as possessed of form and infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite lies latent [within that person].

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and finite, either delineates it as formless and finite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite lies latent [within that person].

"The one who, when delineating a self, delineates it as formless and infinite, either delineates it as formless and infinite in the present, or of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death], or he believes that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite lies latent [within that person].

(Non-Delineations of a Self)

"To what extent, ânanda, does one not delineate when not delineating a self? Either not delineating a self possessed of form and finite, one does not delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and finite.' Or, not delineating a self possessed of form and infinite, one does not delineate that 'My self is possessed of form and infinite.' Or, not delineating a self formless and finite, one does not delineate that 'My self is formless and finite.' Or, not delineating a self formless and infinite, one does not delineate that 'My self is formless and infinite.'

"Now, the one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as possessed of form and finite, does not delineate it as possessed of form and finite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and finite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and finite does not lie latent [within that person].

"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as possessed of form and infinite, does not delineate it as possessed of form and infinite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become possessed of form and infinite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self possessed of form and infinite does not lie latent [within that person].

"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as formless and finite, does not delineate it as formless and finite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and finite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and finite does not lie latent [within that person].

"The one who, when not delineating a self, does not delineate it as formless and infinite, does not delineate it as formless and infinite in the present, nor does he delineate it as of such a nature that it will [naturally] become formless and infinite [in the future/after death], nor does he believe that 'Although it is not yet that way, I will convert it into being that way.' This being the case, it is proper to say that a fixed view of a self formless and infinite does not lie latent [within that person].

(Assumptions of a Self)

"To what extent, ânanda, does one assume when assuming a self? Assuming feeling to be the self, one assumes that 'Feeling is my self' [or] 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling]' [or] 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious to feeling, but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now, one who says, 'Feeling is my self,' should be addressed as follows: 'There are these three feelings, my friend -- feelings of pleasure, feelings of pain, and feelings of neither pleasure nor pain. Which of these three feelings do you assume to be the self?' At a moment when a feeling of pleasure is sensed, no feeling of pain or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pleasure is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed. Only a feeling of pain is sensed at that moment. At a moment when a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed, no feeling of pleasure or of pain is sensed. Only a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is sensed at that moment.

"Now, a feeling of pleasure is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. A feeling of neither pleasure nor pain is inconstant, fabricated, dependent on conditions, subject to passing away, dissolution, fading, and cessation. Having sensed a feeling of pleasure as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pleasure, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of pain, 'my self' has perished. Having sensed a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain as 'my self,' then with the cessation of one's very own feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, 'my self' has perished.

"Thus he assumes, assuming in the immediate present a self inconstant, entangled in pleasure and pain, subject to arising and passing away, he who says, 'Feeling is my self.' Thus in this manner, ânanda, one does not see fit to assume feeling to be the self.

"As for the person who says, 'Feeling is not the self: My self is oblivious [to feeling],' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, where nothing whatsoever is sensed (experienced) at all, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

"No, lord."

"Thus in this manner, ânanda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Feeling is not my self: My self is oblivious [to feeling].'

"As for the person who says, 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' he should be addressed as follows: 'My friend, should feelings altogether and every way stop without remainder, then with feeling completely not existing, owing to the cessation of feeling, would there be the thought, "I am"?'"

"No, lord."

"Thus in this manner, ânanda, one does not see fit to assume that 'Neither is feeling my self, nor is my self oblivious [to feeling], but rather my self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling.'

"Now, ânanda, in as far as a monk does not assume feeling to be the self, nor the self as oblivious, nor that 'My self feels, in that my self is subject to feeling,' then, not assuming in this way, he is not sustained by anything (does not cling to anything) in the world. Unsustained, he is not agitated. Unagitated, he is totally unbound right within. He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"If anyone were to say with regard to a monk whose mind is thus released that 'The Tathagata exists after death,' is his view, that would be mistaken; that 'The Tathagata does not exist after death'...that 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death'...that 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death' is his view, that would be mistaken. Why? Having directly known the extent of designation and the extent of the objects of designation, the extent of expression and the extent of the objects of expression, the extent of description and the extent of the objects of description, the extent of discernment and the extent of the objects of discernment, the extent to which the cycle revolves: Having directly known that, the monk is released. [To say that,] 'The monk released, having directly known that, does not see, does not know is his opinion,' that would be mistaken.

http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/ ... na-e2.html
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha

seanpdx
Posts: 281
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby seanpdx » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:17 pm


User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23012
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby tiltbillings » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:33 pm


meindzai
Posts: 595
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 8:10 pm

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby meindzai » Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:48 pm

If there is any intent to discover the truth, I don't think aking blanket statements about either "Buddhists" or "academics" is a very good starting point. I'm thankful for the contributions on both sides of the spectrum. And keep in mind that there are people that are both.

-M

User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby jcsuperstar » Sat Feb 20, 2010 6:47 am

สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat

User avatar
polarbear101
Posts: 964
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Location: California

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby polarbear101 » Wed Apr 18, 2012 12:25 am

If everyone goes back to the beginning of this topic and clicks on the link to the subject that this spawned from you can find several links to papers by Johannes Bronkworst, one is Self and Meditation, more significant is a long one called Two Traditions of Meditation In Ancient India, and another I haven't read yet called The Two Sources of Indian Asceticism. The two traditions of meditation in Ancient India provides a compelling argument that we need to look very hard at the material we have on the Buddha. It suggests that there is no specifiable insight in the Buddha's enlightenment, rather it is really the first 4 jhanas that lead to psychological change that allows this deep insight to occur. To make matters worse, buddhism had been thoroughly infected by other meditation practices like jainism and other forms of asceticism according to Bronworst. Also, I have insight into the fact that all I am is an amalgamation of processes, that doesn't mean I've been liberated which is what i suspect is meant by insight. So, anatta is something that can bring insight but it would only be liberating if experienced in the right way or meditative state if it at all. Under Bronkworst's proposition, we need to attain the 4 jhanas (dhyanas) and then liberation can be gained. This of course goes to The Great Jhana Debate which is another thread on here. Seriously though, everyone should read Two Traditions of Meditation In Ancient India I'll post the url

http://my.unil.ch/serval/document/BIB_A88A22EFD384.pdf - Two Traditions of Meditation In Ancient India

also

http://my.unil.ch/serval/document/BIB_EE3F136F6108.pdf - Self and Meditation in Indian Buddhism
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."

"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."

rowyourboat
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sat Jan 03, 2009 5:29 pm
Location: London, UK

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby rowyourboat » Wed Apr 18, 2012 1:42 pm

I found 'Two traditions of meditation' a rather misinformed acount of Buddhist practice. For example in his first 'contradiction' he assumes arupa jhana as a non-percipient state, when they are percipient of internal phenomena.
With Metta

Karuna
Mudita
& Upekkha

dhamma follower
Posts: 350
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 5:48 am

Re: Anatta as the basis for insight - What object? What benefit?

Postby dhamma follower » Sun Apr 22, 2012 2:50 pm



Return to “Vipassanā / Satipaṭṭhāna Bhāvana”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests

Google Saffron, Theravada Search Engine

cron