Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Practice According to the Dhamma (Pa.tipatti)

Expand Messages
  • Ken H
    Hi Robert E, ... ... KH: What, in your opinion, does that leave? If there is no eternal soul then what is there, a temporary soul? ... KH: It might be
    Message 1 of 483 , May 6, 2013
      Hi Robert E,

      ----
      <. . .>
      > RE: 1. I do think the Buddha clearly says that there is no self in the sense of an inner entity or eternal soul. The idea of such an inner entity or soul was and still is called the Atman in Hinduism, and this is thought of as the "real Self" in Hindu philosophy. When the Buddha says that all things are "no-Self" or "not-Self," he is saying that in all the things of life no such Atman can be found.
      ----

      KH: What, in your opinion, does that leave? If there is no eternal soul then what is there, a temporary soul?

      ----------------------
      > RE: In addition, the Buddha gives a very specific analysis of the other main meaning of self, that is, the personal self or personality. He clearly demonstrates in the most skillful way that the personal self or personality is made up of the kandhas, a series of impersonal, selfless mechanical processes.
      ----------------------

      KH: It might be clear to you, but to me the opposite is clear. There is no self that is made up of khandhas or anything else. There is just the khandhas (nama and rupa).

      ---------------------
      > RE: It is precisely his point that no personal self can be found in what is ordinarily thought of as the actions and perceptions of the individual person.

      > By calling these processes kandhas or "heaps," he not only denies them selfhoold but insults them, as if they are stacks of junk or dirt that arise due to conditions.

      > 2. My own sense from years of pondering these concepts and inspecting my own experience is that there is no central self directing anything, just volitions and thoughts of this or that arising from moment to moment; and that those things that appear to be "personal" to "me," such as my house or my pets or whatever, are just given a personal status by virtue of attachment and clinging, not by any real ownership of anything.

      > Anyway, that's 'my' take on 'my' personal 'disbelief' in 'Atta/Atman.'
      ----------------------

      KH: Thanks, but I won't be buying. :-)

      The meaning of atta is not restricted to the Atman of Hindu mythology. Any idea of something existing in addition to the presently arisen fleeting, uncontrollable, conditioned dhammas is atta belief. What you and Howard see as "dhammas in relation" for example, is an illusion of atta. Belief in it is atta belief. There is no self or "stream" or "complex web" etc., made of khandhas.

      Ken H
    • jonoabb
      Hi Rob E RE: Hi Jon. RE: I will get into the next part about the Satipatthana sutta later, as I need to look at it to continue the discussion. J: Glad to
      Message 483 of 483 , Oct 1, 2013

        Hi Rob E

         

        RE: Hi Jon. 


        > RE: I will get into the next part about the Satipatthana sutta later, as I need to look at it to continue the discussion.


        > J:  Glad to hear you'll be checking out the text of the sutta for a change!! :-))


        RE:

        :-)  I appreciate what I desperately hope is your humor here, and if so, is very funny. 


        I will get back to you with the usual sutta quotes as soon as I can.  :-)


        Very very funny, Jon.   ; - /


        Best,

        Rob  E.


        - - - - - - - - - -


        J:  You may have forgotten in the confusion over the new format that you have already come back with a quote from the Satipatthana Sutta.  My reply to your message can be found here:

        http://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/dhammastudygroup/conversations/messages/133161


        Jon

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.