Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby lyndon taylor » Mon Aug 05, 2013 9:51 pm

You seem to have it xxx backwards, "have a little less faith in yourself, and a little more faith in Buddhism" would be my take on it, unless you value your opinion above the Buddha's, in which case I have to ask why are you here????
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community that has so generously given me so much, sincerely former monk John
User avatar
lyndon taylor
 
Posts: 866
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, Southern California, USA

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby reflection » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:44 am

It'll probably be much more fruitful to discuss the question "do the suttas teach a soul?" instead, or "how do we find the answer to the soul/no soul dilemma on a practical level?". That's probably better because it doesn't get personal - also considering the venerable to is not here to defend himself.

Personally I don't really care about venerable Thanissaro's view any more than the view of any other person on earth. I just hope many people find the real Dhamma and will be able to live it. And that we could all get along.

:hello:
User avatar
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby SarathW » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:02 am

reflection wrote:It'll probably be much more fruitful to discuss the question "do the suttas teach a soul?" instead, or "how do we find the answer to the soul/no soul dilemma on a practical level?". That's better because it doesn't get personal - especially considering the venerable to is not here to defend himself.

Personally I don't really care about venerable Thanissaro's view any more than the view of any other person on earth. I just hope many people find the real Dhamma and will be able to live it. And that we could all get along.

:hello:

Well said. :twothumbsup:
SarathW
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby Anagarika » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:27 am

Personally I don't really care about venerable Thanissaro's view any more than the view of any other person on earth.


Respectfully, my only comment is that in a world of 'Buddhist' snake oil sales, phonies and fraudsters in western Buddhism, we really need dedicated people like Ven. Thanissaro. Most of us here have a really good head on our shoulders....however, could you imagine navigating the Suttas without accesstoinsight.org? Or Bhikkhu Bodhi's masterful translations, or the interpretations of Ajahn Brahm, Ven. Gunaratana, and others? I'm profoundly thankful for the tireless scholarship that Ven. Thanissaro provides. He writes with great energy, opens the windows and doors of this difficult area of Dhamma study to us, and then gives away for free these gems he has written. I'd be adrift in a sea of texts, suffering analysis paralysis were it not for the tomes that Ajahn Geoff has made freely available.

I'll throw in a high five for Dhamma Wheel, its founder and all of the members/contributors. My knowledge (or lack thereof) of Dhamma is light years ahead were I otherwise left to struggle alone with this stuff.
User avatar
Anagarika
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby SarathW » Tue Aug 06, 2013 1:54 am

Hi BS
I agree with you. :)
SarathW
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby chownah » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:00 am

Thanisarro's beliefs are interesting to talk about but like some other posters here they are not central to my practice.

The assertion that Thanisarro's writings include the concept of a soul have been around for a long time and I'm pretty sure that he knows about them.....has he responded anywhere to those assertions?
chownah
chownah
 
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby manas » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:04 am

mal4mac wrote:“In his essay “No-self or Not-self?” he makes it clear that his understanding of the teaching of anatta is that there is, in fact, an eternal soul, but that nothing that is part of our time-space continuum is part of that soul, and so we must learn not to be attached to anything in this samsaric world.


Malmac,

I don't know how you draw such a conclusion, but you have clearly misunderstood what he is getting at in the essay. The teaching on anatta is subtle and can take some time to grasp. But while striving to comprehend it, do beware of putting words into the mouths of respected Dhamma teachers, because Thanissaro Bhikkhu did not and does not say what you wrote (just above). I highly recommend listening to the entire talk entitled "Anatta - 1 of 3", here is the link: http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/16/ You might need to scroll down a little to find it.

That might set you straight regarding the question you ask in your original post.

kind regards
manas :anjali:
User avatar
manas
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby Sylvester » Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:14 am

To be fair to those who grumble about Ven T's "unestablished consciousness", this is what Ven T has to say about the post-Awakening consciousness that lives happily ever after -

from footnote 2 to his translation of MN 38 - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

The Pali here is, Nanu mayā moghapurisa anekapariyāyena paṭiccasamuppannaṃ viññāṇaṃ vuttaṃ, 'Aññatra paccayā n'atthi viññāṇassa sambhavoti?'

If the first part of this sentence were a complete sentence, its syntax — putting the topic of what is described in the accusative (paṭiccasamuppannaṃ viññāṇaṃ), followed by the word vuttaṃ ("described") plus the speaker in the instrumental (mayā) — could be translated in line with either of two patterns.

An example of the first pattern is in SN 12.24: Paṭiccasamuppannaṃ kho ānanda dukkhaṃ vuttaṃ mayā — "Ānanda, stress has been described by me as dependently co-arisen." In other words, the pattern is: "X has been described as Y by the speaker."

An example of the second pattern is in AN 3.74: Sekhampi kho mahānāma sīlaṃ vuttaṃ bhagavatā, asekhampi sīlaṃ vuttaṃ bhagavatā — "Mahānāma, the virtue of one in training has been described by the Blessed One, and the virtue of one beyond training has been described by the Blessed One." This pattern is: "X has been described by the speaker." Another example of this pattern is in SN 41.2: Idaṃ kho gahapati dhātu-nānattaṃ vuttaṃ bhagavatā: cakkhu-dhātu, rūpa-dhātu, cakkhu-viññāṇa-dhātu... mano-dhātu, dhamma-dhātu, mano-viññāṇa-dhātu —"Householder, this diversity of properties has been described by the Blessed One: eye-property, form property, eye-consciousness property... intellect-property, idea property, intellect-consciousness property." Again: "X has been described by the speaker."

To make a literal translation of the entire passage here in line with the first pattern would yield: "Worthless man, hasn't consciousness been described as dependently co-arisen by me in many ways (that), 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'?"

To make a literal translation in line with the second pattern would yield: "Worthless man, hasn't dependently co-arisen consciousness been described by me in many ways (that), 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'?"

The translator of MLS renders the sentence both ways. When it earlier appears in the mouths of the monks reprimanding Sāti, she renders it in line with the first pattern: "For, reverend Sāti, in many a figure is conditioned genesis spoken of in connection with consciousness by the Lord, saying: 'Apart from condition there is no origination of consciousness.'" When the sentence appears in the Buddha's mouth, she renders it in line with the second pattern: "Foolish man, has not consciousness generated by conditions been spoken of in many a figure by me, saying: Apart from condition there is no origination of consciousness?"

The translators of MLDB consistently follow the first pattern in rendering this sentence: "Misguided man, have I not stated in many ways consciousness to be dependently arisen since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?" (It might be noted that this rendering inserts a "since" where there is none in the Pali, and ignores the quotation marks (ti) around the sentence beginning, "Apart from" or "without." More on this below.)

The substantive difference in these two patterns is that the first could be taken as implying that all consciousness is dependently co-arisen, whereas the second states explicitly that the Buddha's words, "Apart from condition there is no origination of consciousness," apply specifically to one type of consciousness — consciousness arising in dependence on the co-arising of conditions — leaving open the possibility that there is another type of consciousness to which these words do not apply.

Arguing from translations rendered in line with the first pattern, people have asserted that the two passages in the Canon (in DN 11 and MN 49) referring to consciousness without surface are not in keeping with the principle, expressed here, that all consciousness is dependently co-arisen. Thus, the argument continues, those two passages cannot be accepted as coming genuinely from the Buddha, whereas this passage in MN 38 definitely can.

There are three main problems with this argument. The first is that, throughout the suttas, when consciousness as an active agent is discussed without modifiers, it is always with reference to the consciousness aggregate, as that is the sort of consciousness occurring within the territory delimited by the way the Buddha explicitly defines the term, "all" (see SN 35.23). That is clearly the topic of discussion here. Consciousness without surface (see note 1) is discussed explicitly only in passages where the Buddha is citing the superiority of his attainment over that of brahmas: In knowing this sort of consciousness, which performs no active role and lies outside of the term "all" (MN 49), he knows something that brahmas do not. At the same time, to lie outside of the consciousness aggregate, it would also have to lie outside of the dimensions of time and space, as that aggregate is defined as covering all consciousness "past, future, and present... far and near" (SN 22.59). Because the consciousness discussed in this sutta is an active agent, functions within the dimensions of time and space, and definitely lies within the term "all," all references can be understood to apply solely to the consciousness aggregate. What this means is that even if we were to follow the first pattern in translating this sentence — if it were a sentence — we would not have to adopt the argument drawn from it; the people advancing this argument force the passage to say more than it actually says when taken in the context of the suttas as a whole.

Second, it is a poor interpretative strategy to give unnecessary privilege to one passage of the Canon at the expense of two others when we have no way of proving which passages in the suttas are most authentic. This is especially true in light of the fact that the passage here — even if we took it as a complete sentence — would not demand a single, unequivocal interpretation. To force such an interpretation on it, knowing that that would discredit other passages as inauthentic, is unfair to the texts.

The third problem with the argument for using this passage to reject DN 11 and MN 49, however, is the most telling: The first part of the above sentence is not a complete sentence. It is followed by a passage in quotation marks: 'Aññatra paccayā n'atthi viññāṇassa sambhavoti?' The only way to make sense of this punctuation is to take this passage in quotation marks as constituting what is said (vuttaṃ) about X as named in the first part of the sentence. In other words, this constitutes the description that the Buddha has made about dependently-coarisen consciousness. The second pattern is the only one that make sense in this context: "Worthless man, hasn't dependently co-arisen consciousness been described by me in many ways (that), 'Apart from a requisite condition, there is no coming-into-play of consciousness'?"

Thus it is clear that the Buddha here is discussing dependently co-arisen consciousness in a way that does not preclude the possibility that there is also a consciousness that lies beyond the six sense-media, is not dependently co-arisen, and is neither momentary nor eternal, as it stands outside the dimension of time.


There was a discussion of this translation here - viewtopic.php?f=25&t=10017
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby mal4mac » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:17 am

manas wrote:
mal4mac wrote:“In his essay “No-self or Not-self?” he makes it clear that his understanding of the teaching of anatta is that there is, in fact, an eternal soul, but that nothing that is part of our time-space continuum is part of that soul, and so we must learn not to be attached to anything in this samsaric world.


Malmac,

I don't know how you draw such a conclusion, but you have clearly misunderstood what he is getting at in the essay.


I did not draw such a conclusion, if you read my original post you will see that this was a quote from Tom Pepper. At the time of posting I hadn't even read the essay!

If you read down the thread then you'll see I actually then read the essay, and say that I don't see how Tom could have drawn these conclusions from the essay.

mal4mac wrote: The teaching on anatta is subtle and can take some time to grasp. But while striving to comprehend it, do beware of putting words into the mouths of respected Dhamma teachers, because Thanissaro Bhikkhu did not and does not say what you wrote (just above). I highly recommend listening to the entire talk...


You might want to address these remarks to Tom Pepper.

I don't like listening to talks, reading is quicker (!) Can you summarise his argument to show why Tom is wrong?

kind regards
Mal
mal4mac
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby mal4mac » Tue Aug 06, 2013 8:57 am

reflection wrote:It'll probably be much more fruitful to discuss the question "do the suttas teach a soul?" instead, or "how do we find the answer to the soul/no soul dilemma on a practical level?"...


It was fruitful for me to discuss the question "Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?". Though I agree it's more fruitful to discuss the question "do the suttas teach a soul?" and "how do we find the answer to the soul/no soul dilemma on a practical level?".

Someone quoted "Consciousness without surface, endless, radiant all around... (MN 49, trans. Thanissaro, 2007)"

If a consciousness is endless in time then it's a soul, but "endless" in this quote might just refer to space, and might just be a hyperbole... as you might say "the endless plain stretched out before me", when the plain is certainly not really endless.

Wikipedia: "If the word "soul" simply refers to an incorporeal component in living things that can continue after death, then Buddhism does not deny the existence of the soul." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul#Buddhism

Seems conclusive, but do we trust Wikipedia?

Can everyone agree on the OED definition of soul as "immaterial part of man, held to survive death"? If so, anyone saying "soul is a Christian concept" is using the wrong definition...
mal4mac
 
Posts: 95
Joined: Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:47 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby cooran » Tue Aug 06, 2013 9:07 am

Hello all,

This may be of interest.

Is there an Eternal Soul? - Ven. K. Sri Dhammananda Maha Thera
http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/115.htm

With metta,
Chris
---The trouble is that you think you have time---
---Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe---
---It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---
User avatar
cooran
 
Posts: 7613
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:32 pm
Location: Queensland, Australia

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby socratessmith » Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:37 pm

Do the Pali suttas teach atman--soul, unconditioned mind, or something effectively like it? Yes and no. "The Buddha" of the suttas is a literary concoction. Sure, the basis of that concoction is a historical figure and his historical teachings. But the sum total of "The Buddha" and "The Buddha's teachings" in the Pali canon is a literary melange. Many different, often opposing, Buddhist groups left their hand smudges on the canon. Any but the most faithful can see that. Buddhists are like Christians and Muslims when it comes to their "sacred" texts: largely ignorant of the actual history of textual formation.

So, one group of monks has "The Buddha" posit things like a pristine, unconditioned consciousness free of all adventitious defilements, while another has him posit the impossibility of such an Upanishadic-type of persisting entity. Of course, there are also positions in between.

This complexity of the canonical formation may explain in part why contemporary Buddhist teachers like Geoff are such eel-wrigglers: they must reconcile logically irreconcilable positions. That they do so, of course, only reveals their ignorance concerning the various contingencies canonical/doctrinal formation.
socratessmith
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 2:15 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby daverupa » Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:46 pm

socratessmith wrote:Do the Pali suttas teach atman--soul, unconditioned mind, or something effectively like it? Yes and no.


Strictly no. But, find us some passages, let's have a discussion of these primary sources.

socratessmith wrote:...Any but the most faithful can see that.


Bluster and claims without support. It's a banal and fruitless way to approach a forum.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4177
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby Anagarika » Tue Aug 06, 2013 7:53 pm

socratessmith wrote:Do the Pali suttas teach atman--soul, unconditioned mind, or something effectively like it? Yes and no. "The Buddha" of the suttas is a literary concoction. Sure, the basis of that concoction is a historical figure and his historical teachings. But the sum total of "The Buddha" and "The Buddha's teachings" in the Pali canon is a literary melange. Many different, often opposing, Buddhist groups left their hand smudges on the canon. Any but the most faithful can see that. Buddhists are like Christians and Muslims when it comes to their "sacred" texts: largely ignorant of the actual history of textual formation.

So, one group of monks has "The Buddha" posit things like a pristine, unconditioned consciousness free of all adventitious defilements, while another has him posit the impossibility of such an Upanishadic-type of persisting entity. Of course, there are also positions in between.

This complexity of the canonical formation may explain in part why contemporary Buddhist teachers like Geoff are such eel-wrigglers: they must reconcile logically irreconcilable positions. That they do so, of course, only reveals their ignorance concerning the various contingencies canonical/doctrinal formation.


At the end of the day, I think you're trying to pin Ven. Thanissaro down to a philosophical and metaphysical position on anatta that he does not propound. I get the sense that you're trying to be critical of him, by creating a false position and then slamming him for the very same invented false position. Many Buddhist writers have described anatta in terms that do not resemble a soul, but do suggest: "that Buddhism denies the existence of a permanent or static entity that remains constant behind the changing bodily and non-bodily components of a living being. Reportedly, the Buddha reprimanded a disciple who thought that in the process of rebirth the same consciousness is reborn without change.[7] Just as the body changes from moment to moment, so thoughts come and go; and according to the anattā doctrine, there is no permanent conscious substance that experiences these thoughts, as in Cartesianism: rather, conscious thoughts simply arise and perish with no "thinker" behind them.[8] When the body dies, the incorporeal mental processes continue and are reborn in a new body.[4] Because the mental processes are constantly changing, the new being is neither exactly the same as, nor completely different from, the being that died.[9]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta

What Ven. Thanissaro seems to do is to couch anatta doctrine as a not-self strategy, or a way of defining anatta in terms that are otherwise undefinable in conventional terms. Certainly not definable as a soul, the way that that term is commonly used. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tself.html

What seems to be necessary of an understanding of Ven. Thanissaro is that he discusses anatta in a way that is opposite to what the OP posits. What Ajahn Geoff suggests is: "Buddha taught the anatta or not-self doctrine, not as a metaphysical assertion, but as a strategy for gaining release from suffering: If one uses the concept of not-self to dis-identify oneself from all phenomena, one goes beyond the reach of all suffering & stress."

These are the words straight from the horse's mouth: The OP suggests metaphysics at work, however, Ven. Thanisarro takes us away from the metaphysical quarrel into a realm of a key Dhammic strategy to find release. Quarreling about souls, self, and not-self is just another form of clinging, which brings suffering.
User avatar
Anagarika
 
Posts: 611
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2011 11:25 pm

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby Benjamin » Tue Aug 06, 2013 11:10 pm

Thanissaro Bhikku has said himself on audio recording that viññanam anidassanam is the consciousness of nibbana.

The Five Aggregates - Thanissaro Bhikku

At one hour and 30 minutes in (1:30:00), you will find viññanam anidassanam brought up. I suggest you listen until at least 1:40:00, but to be honest the whole talk is quite interesting.

The real question is, does this opinion of his really match up to a soul? "Consciousness without surface" is a pretty empty self if you ask me, so I don't see the big deal personally.

I don't mention this to try and frame Ven. Thanissaro in a bad light, just to point out that he has made these statements.

Metta,
Benjamin
"Don't believe everything you read."
-The Buddha
User avatar
Benjamin
 
Posts: 217
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:41 am
Location: The United States

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby pegembara » Wed Aug 07, 2013 2:58 am

I don't see TB stating anywhere that this unestablished consciousness is some kind ultimate eternal self.

The second point is that nirvana, from the very beginning, was realized through unestablished consciousness — one that doesn’t come or go or stay in place. There’s no way that anything unestablished can get stuck anywhere at all, for it’s not only non-localized but also undefined.

Wherever there’s attachment, that’s where you get defined as a being. You create an identity there, and in so doing you’re limited there. Even if the “there” is an infinite sense of awareness grounding, surrounding, or permeating everything else, it’s still limited, for “grounding” and so forth are aspects of place. Wherever there’s place, no matter how subtle, passion lies latent, looking for more food to feed on.

This is why the consciousness of nirvana is said to be “without surface” (anidassanam), for it doesn’t land. Because the consciousness-aggregate covers only consciousness that is near or far, past, present, or future — i.e., in connection with space and time — consciousness without surface is not included in the aggregates. It’s not eternal because eternity is a function of time. And because non-local also means undefined, the Buddha insisted that an awakened person — unlike ordinary people — can’t be located or defined in any relation to the aggregates in this life; after death, he/she can’t be described as existing, not existing, neither, or both, because descriptions can apply only to definable things.

With no you here or there or between the two, you obviously can’t use the verb “enter” or “reach” to describe this realization, even metaphorically. Maybe we should make the word nirvana into a verb itself: “When there is no you in connection with that, you nirvana.” That way we can indicate that unbinding is an action unlike any other, and we can head off any mistaken notion about getting “stuck” in total freedom.” Thanissaro Bhikkhu


https://mettarefuge.wordpress.com/2010/ ... t-a-place/
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
pegembara
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby SarathW » Wed Aug 07, 2013 4:18 am

I can’t find any reason to think that Ven. T is believe in a soul, by reading the following article.


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... iness.html
SarathW
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby Sylvester » Wed Aug 07, 2013 5:13 am

So, if this "unestablished consciousness" exists but is not-self, does it lead to affliction or not?

The problem with his "unestablished consciousness" translation is that it totally ignores a gigantic clue in SN 12.38 on the subject. In that sutta, the subject is patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa from this passage -

Ārammaṇe asati patiṭṭhā viññāṇassa na hoti.

There being no support, there is no establishment of consciousness.


The subject/noun is not consciousness, but the establishment of consciousness. This is glaringly obvious to anyone who's prepared to see that viññāṇa/consciousness has been inflected into a genitive case, which makes it subordinate to another noun via a case relation.

He's translating appatiṭṭha as if it were an adjective of consciousness, but the sutta leaves one in no doubt that the noun in question is not consciousness but "establishment", ie the process that leads to the rebirth potential being crystallised within a certain bhava.

All this needless proliferation.
Sylvester
 
Posts: 1519
Joined: Tue Mar 10, 2009 9:57 am

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby manas » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:36 am

mal4mac wrote:
manas wrote:I don't know how you draw such a conclusion, but you have clearly misunderstood what he is getting at in the essay.


I did not draw such a conclusion, if you read my original post you will see that this was a quote from Tom Pepper. At the time of posting I hadn't even read the essay!
kind regards
Mal


OOPS! :embarassed:

My apologies to you Mal, I don't have the best eyesight and so didn't see the quotation marks around the statement in the OP, plus I suspect I was overtired as well, when I misconstrued who had actually said what!

Need better glasses, and more sleep :coffee:

metta
manas
:anjali:
User avatar
manas
 
Posts: 2129
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: Does Thanissaro Bhikkhu believe in a soul?

Postby pegembara » Wed Aug 07, 2013 6:44 am

Image


A dog or a small child looks into a mirror and thinks there is another being inside. A grownup sees the image and sees himself in the mirror. An enlightened person doesn't see himself in the mirror. He knows that which stares back is not who he really is. There is no looker. Just that appearance alone is! In seeing just the seen, no seer.
"To see that there is really no mirror other than the on-going reflection due to our emptiness nature. Neither is there a mirror to cling to as the background reality nor a maya to escape from. Beyond these two extreme lies the middle path."


Now viññāṇaṃ anidassanaṃ is a reference to the nature of the released consciousness of an arahant. It does not reflect anything. To be more precise, it does not reflect a nāma-rūpa, or name-and-form. An ordinary individual sees a nāma-rūpa, when he reflects, which he calls 'I' and 'mine'. It is like the reflection of that dog, which sees its own delusive reflection in the water. A non-arahant, upon reflection, sees name-and-form, which however he mistakes to be his self. With the notion of 'I' and 'mine' he falls into delusion with regard to it. But the arahant's consciousness is an unestablished consciousness.

A non-ara­hant's consciousness is established on name-and-form. The unestablished consciousness is that which is free from name-and-form and is unestablished on name-and-form. The established con­sciousness, upon reflection, reflects name-and-form, on which it is established, whereas the unestablished consciousness does not find a name-and-form as a reality. The arahant has no attachments or en­tanglements in regard to name-and-form. In short, it is a sort of pene­tration of name-and-form, without getting entangled in it. This is how we have to un­ravel the meaning of the expression anidassana vinnnam.

Bhikkhu Nanananda
http://www.beyondthenet.net/calm/nibbana07.htm


Some controversy over viññanam anidassanam, a synonym for Nibbana, the unconditioned consciousness, non-temporal, the consciousness that is outside of everything and includes it all. Theravadin extremists argue that this leads to the idea of a soul and the god/creator thing we’re familiar with from church conditioning. I’m reminded that all the Teachings were intended to be tools to assist in our awakening. We don’t attach to them, develop a clear mind, let go and see for ourselves.

Aj Amaro- Attending to the Deathless
http://dhammafootsteps.wordpress.com/2013/02/
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
pegembara
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

PreviousNext

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tuchopotila and 6 guests