"You may well accept, monks, the assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair. (But) do you see, monks, any such assumption of a self-theory?" — "No, Lord." — "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el048.html
"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'
"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...
"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html
retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Coyote,
The Buddha's analysis of atman doesn't deal in metaphysical propositions (i.e. Self, No Self) beyond real or possible experience.
Whenever anatta is mentioned, it is always mentioned with reference to something, and in fact applies to the not-self-ness of all dhammas.
Because all formed dhammas are impermanent (anicca), it is possible to see that any thing experienced is impermanent and consequently, should not be regarded as self.
By not finding anything within your experience that is permanent, you know the Buddha was right.
marc108 wrote:I've struggled with this myself. Prior to my exposure to Buddhism, I was in a Upanishadic Yogic tradition.
My personal opinion is that one not need take either the Buddha or the Upanishads as intellectually authoritative, and to do so without a commitment to experimentally proving it to yourself is really limiting your own personal progress ... intellectual speculations about these things will only lead to frustration, because they both 'make sense' but speculation is inherently devoid of direct, personal experiences that will allow you to prove or disprove these ideas for yourself.
What you need to do is make a serious commitment to the practice, and see if you can find anything inside that resembles a permanent unending entity.
Coyote wrote:I wonder if you wouldn't mind sharing how you came from the upanishadic tradition to Buddhism, as your understanding might be relevant here.
Coyote wrote:However, isn't it more the sense of "I" itself or the experiencer that is considered the atman of upanishadic thought?
Coyote wrote:Hi everyone,
I thought of making my own thread but since this one is already here I won't bother.
I too have trouble understanding anatta. Not so much the doctrine itself, which seems to be essential in Buddhism as it explains perfectly the reasons why craving exists in a theoretical sense.
But why it matters in terms of personal practice.
It seems that the buddha just comes along saying that the search for a "true self" or permanent entity that was the foundation of pre-Buddhist spirituality in India is a complete misunderstanding, and I just don't get why. From where I am sitting there may as well be a self as a no self. Neither is something that I can see for myself at this time. It seems to come down to who I take as more authoritative - the Buddha or the writers of the Upanishads. In terms of deciding where to start on one's spiritual path it seems a pretty crucial question and yet there seems to be no way of evaluating whether the Buddha's analysis of the Atman as being a product of craving is true or not.
So, any practical insight as to how I can "know for myself" that the Buddha was right in his analysis of the Atman?
Coyote wrote:So, any practical insight as to how I can "know for myself" that the Buddha was right in his analysis of the Atman?
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests