Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
pulga
Posts: 1501
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 3:02 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by pulga »

If Paglia were to see that she'd have a heart attack.
"Dhammā=Ideas. This is the clue to much of the Buddha's teaching." ~ Ven. Ñanavira, Commonplace Book
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by Mr Man »

socratessmith wrote:Jeebus Crikes, all of this text citation. All of these minute details. All of this classical Buddhist eel-wriggling. This rubric from Cruel Theory | Sublime Practice may be useful. I assume most of you will cry "too obscure!" or "too French!" or whatever. But maybe one or two of you will see the merit of the basic contention, and be thereby helped. (And before you accuse me of sour grapes: I am fluent in reading Pali.)
I'm not sure if you haven't just come here to try and sell some books or gain converts. You're not one of the authors are you?
socratessmith
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by socratessmith »

Mr. Man and Pulga:

Completely predictable, and useless, Buddhist responses to a feasible argument directly related to a practice you both frequently engage in.

Throw away your Buddhist books and use your brains!
User avatar
Mr Man
Posts: 4016
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2011 8:42 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by Mr Man »

socratessmith wrote:Mr. Man and Pulga:

Completely predictable, and useless, Buddhist responses to a feasible argument directly related to a practice you both frequently engage in.

Throw away your Buddhist books and use your brains!
Hi socratessmith
I'm not sure how my post/un-answered question could be seen as a "Buddhist" response to your own post, which to me seemed like gobbledegook. Have you just come to make evangelical proclamations and peacock your superior intelligence? What was the point you were trying to make in the last post and what is x-Buddhism?
socratessmith
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by socratessmith »

Mr. Man. Never mind.
fabianfred
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Mar 24, 2009 7:06 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by fabianfred »

OMG! The millions of words written about the 'Non-self, No self, not self' thing..... we all have our own understanding about it, or idea of what it means.
It is something so profound that only a Buddha can understand and then teach it.....and what does he teach? Not to discuss and think about it...but to do the practice.....vipassana meditation....and the knowledge will come to you.....experiential knowledge....not intellectual postulations.
If you people spent as much time on the cushion as on the forums you wouldn't need this website.
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Socrates Smith,

:offtopic:

Your post that people are responding to is horrendously off-topic.... it would be removed from view were it not for the fact we'd then have to remove the responses to it. We may yet have to do that...

Please focus, and keep off-topic conceptual proliferation to a minimum.

:focus:

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Sylvester
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by Sylvester »

pulga wrote:Ajahn Amaro, The Island:
It is significant that, when the Buddha makes such statements as these, he uses a different Pali verb ‘to be’ than the usual one. The vast majority of uses of
the verb employ the Pali ‘hoti’; this is the ordinary type of being, implying existence in time and space: I am happy; she is a fine horse; the house is small; the days are long. In these passages just quoted, when the Buddha makes his rare
but emphatic metaphysical statements, he uses the verb ‘atthi’ instead. It still means ‘to be’ but some Buddhist scholars (notably Peter Harvey) insist that there
is a different order of being implied: that it points to a reality which transcends the customary bounds of time, space, duality and individuality.
Warder makes a similar distinction between the verbs as and in his Introduction to Pali. (cf. pgs 30-31)

Hi pulga

I'm a little puzzled by your assertion above. Are you saying that Warder's description of the as and verbs shows that as verbs are employed in metaphysical statements. I could not find this in the 2nd and 3rd editions of Warder, so unless I've missed something rather esoteric in the 1st ed, this is what Warder says at pp 30 -31 of those 2 editions -
The Verb as

The verb as, " to be ” , asserts with emphasis the existence of
something or somebody. (On the other hand hoti is not emphatic
and is used also to state attributes : the minister is a priest,
etc., and of something which happens or “ becomes ” : a man
is/becomes pleased, etc. The usual and more emphatic verb
for “ becomes ” , " comes into existence ” , however, is uppajjati
third conjugation : see Lesson 10). The verb as is very
irregular ; the present tense is as follows :—

Singular Plural
3rd person atthi santi
2nd person asi attha
1st person asmi or amhi amha
(sometimes amhā)
Let's not forget that whatever is said of the verbs would also apply to the bhū verbs, which figure most prominently as bhūta. There is nothing quite distinct between as and bhū (in terms of purported transcendentalness in the former and mundaneness in the latter), going by the SN 22.62 analysis that looks at one such bhū verb (ie pātubhūta (become made manifest)) -
Yaṃ, bhikkhave, rūpaṃ jātaṃ pātubhūtaṃ, ‘atthī’ti tassa saṅkhā, ‘atthī’ti tassa samaññā, ‘atthī’ti tassa paññatti; na tassa saṅkhā ‘ahosī’ti, na tassa saṅkhā ‘bhavissatī’’’ti.

Whatever form, bhikkhus, has been born, has become manifest: the term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the term ‘was’ or the term ‘will be.’
Given that the 3 scenarios in SN 22.62 are also discussed in the Ananda Sutta (2) you cited (SN 22.38), I have a bit of a difficulty understanding your point -
In the Suttas the present -- which is described as the manifestation of pancakhandha -- exists, the past and future do not exist (cf. Ánandasutta SN 22.38). But note the plasticity of the present, i.e. the thickness it has depending upon what is manifest (the 'present' moment, the 'present' minute, the 'present' hour, etc.). We're dealing with different orders of being. The present which transcends time is that of a higher order than the temporal parts that constitute it, and while the past and the future cannot be said to exist as particulars they get a footing in existence by being a part of something else - another set of pancakhandha - of just that higher order: a part to whole relationship. The present always exists: even when dealing with particulars within time, the present is equiprimordial with the past and the future: the present is "real", the past and future "imaginary" . And of course any whole is a part of something else of a yet higher order.
Is this perhaps informed by Ven Nanavira's conception of ākālika? I ask not to dismiss, but simply to acknowledge that I'm too dense to cut through his very dense writings on this.
User avatar
Crazy cloud
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 8:55 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by Crazy cloud »

socratessmith wrote:Mr. Man and Pulga:

Completely predictable, and useless, Buddhist responses to a feasible argument directly related to a practice you both frequently engage in.

Throw away your Buddhist books and use your brains!
Hi and good morning - I'v no idea what that post was all about, but in my present reading, a book of good old buddhist-wisdom (collection of Ajhan Chas teachings) - he points out many times, that books and all this babbeling about the teachings is not wise, in fact I get the feeling he ment that it was down right stupid. So I partially agree with you that its about time to not throw away the books (it's easier to just let it go on the nearest table, easier than trowing it away ..) And start doing the real job, witch is to sit down and not read your own brain, but read directly from the heart.

So, maybe the best thing to do, is to let go of books neatly on the table - throw away the brain, and stay put with our hearts in silence

Metta

:smile:
If you didn't care
What happened to me
And I didn't care for you

We would zig-zag our way
Through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain

Wondering which of the
Buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing
- Roger Waters
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by chownah »

Socratessmith,
Perhaps a more politically acceptable expression of your point can be found in the Kalama Sutta:

The criterion for acceptance
10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Is this a rough approximation of your point?
chownah
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by mal4mac »

Crazy cloud wrote: Hi and good morning - I'v no idea what that post was all about, but in my present reading, a book of good old buddhist-wisdom (collection of Ajhan Chas teachings) - he points out many times, that books and all this babbeling about the teachings is not wise...
Well why are you reading his book? Why are you adding to the "babble"?

Actually accusing us of "babble" is rather insulting. I think we're all asking questions and making points, having an intelligent conversation.
Crazy cloud wrote: So, maybe the best thing to do, is to let go of books neatly on the table - throw away the brain, ...
And maybe it isn't.

How do I determine if it is the best thing to do or not? I guess I can meditate, but I can only do that for a short time each day. What about the rest of the day? It seems to me useful to use the brain to try and become clearer about important issues, to read books, like the "What the Buddha taught" , and ask questions, like "Is there a soul, or soul-like thing?"

So are you saying we should just throw away "What the Buddha taught", and stop asking any questions?
- Mal
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by mal4mac »

chownah wrote: The criterion for acceptance
10. "... 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.
Some people, who are said by many to be wise, believe there is a soul; other people, also said by many to be wise, do not believe in a soul. How do I find out who is wise?
- Mal
User avatar
Crazy cloud
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 8:55 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by Crazy cloud »

mal4mac wrote:
Crazy cloud wrote:

So are you saying we should just throw away "What the Buddha taught", and stop asking any questions?
I just pointed out to what a great teacher has said about talk the talk, and walking the walk, and to me it sounds wise. Maybe i reacted a bit to swift of the words about "throwing away buddistbooks"- it sounded to me like an insult to the teachings it self, and none of us should use words like that about the greatest gifts of all. And maybe you reacted a little to swift on the word "babbeling", witch wasnt ment to hurt anybody in spesific.

And with that said - thanks for pointing out my lack of mindfulnes

metta

:smile:
If you didn't care
What happened to me
And I didn't care for you

We would zig-zag our way
Through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain

Wondering which of the
Buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing
- Roger Waters
mal4mac
Posts: 370
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by mal4mac »

Crazy cloud wrote: I just pointed out to what a great teacher has said...
You said that, "he points out many times, that books and all this babbeling about the teachings is not wise". Then you admitted you were unwise to say that ditching the books was bad. So do you now disagree with Ajahn Chah?

I've read some great things about Ajahn Chah, and read some great quotes from him, "still forest pool", and all that. So in this case, I'm guessing that either he had a bad day, no one is perfect, or *you* had a bad day. I can imagine some yuppies babbling on about Buddhism, was he talking about them, or was he really talking about the type of conversation going on in this thread?
And maybe you reacted a little to swift on the word "babbling",...
I don't think I did. If I'm putting down serious thoughts then being accused of "babbling" is about as hurtful as anyone can be to me, far worse than a kick in the groin.
- Mal
User avatar
Crazy cloud
Posts: 930
Joined: Sun May 12, 2013 8:55 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Post by Crazy cloud »

mal4mac wrote:
Crazy cloud wrote: I just pointed out to what a great teacher has said...
You said that, "he points out many times, that books and all this babbeling about the teachings is not wise". Then you admitted you were unwise to say that ditching the books was bad. So do you now disagree with Ajahn Chah?

I've read some great things about Ajahn Chah, and read some great quotes from him, "still forest pool", and all that. So in this case, I'm guessing that either he had a bad day, no one is perfect, or *you* had a bad day. I can imagine some yuppies babbling on about Buddhism, was he talking about them, or was he really talking about the type of conversation going on in this thread?
And maybe you reacted a little to swift on the word "babbling",...
I don't think I did. If I'm putting down serious thoughts then being accused of "babbling" is about as hurtful as anyone can be to me, far worse than a kick in the groin.
I said that "babbling" was illchosen word of me, and that I'v reacted to swift and therefore unwise when seeing the word "throw away" put together with "Buddha" or "The three Jewels".

Ven Ajhan Cha, didn't use that word (to my knowledge), but have said different things to different audiences. laypeople get their "scoldings" about doubting and reluctanse to follow the teachings in a more sincere ways - and his own monks get a bit more harsh scoldings, for their lack og sticking to the task, and not use precious time with socialising with each other, and make endless debates about the teachings. He says that these activities is futile, and brings us all more away from progressing, and eventually many of those chose to disrobe at the end. He also mention a few scholar monks that seek his advice and his way of teaching the dhamma- and they were not spared at all, and on one instance mentioned he refused scholars to join in, because their mind was set on the words alone, and not on reading the truth of hearts by meditation.

I'm truly sorry about my wrongdoings, witch have made sufferings for you. No, its not a bad day, just lack of mindfulness on an average nice day - but at lest I have found out where the word "babbling" came from - so here it is (love his poems and wisdom btw):

A master's handiwork cannot be measured
But still priests wag their tongues explaining the "Way" and babbling about "Zen."
This old monk has never cared for false piety
And my nose wrinkles at the dark smell of incense before the Buddha.

(Ikkyu Sojun)
If you didn't care
What happened to me
And I didn't care for you

We would zig-zag our way
Through the boredom and pain
Occasionally glancing up through the rain

Wondering which of the
Buggers to blame
And watching for pigs on the wing
- Roger Waters
Post Reply