Buddhagosa

[Element]

In an ultimate sense though there is no sufferer because there is no real self. To me it does keep with what the buddha said;

"it is only suffering that arises and it is only suffering that ceases"

Hi Craig

I must disagree.

In a practical sense, if a mind realises 'no real self', it would be free from suffering.

When 'self' arises, suffering arises; when 'self' ceases, suffering ceases.

This is the Buddha's practical teaching for our personal salvation. This is the Noble Truths.

Kind regards,

Element

[Element]

I would like to stick a very-uneducated oar in the water here. As an old, lazy Zennie, I don't mean to offend anyone.

As I say, I don't want to disrespect anyone with these words. I just liked "there is no sufferer, only suffering."

G'day Genkaku

I don't want to disrespect anyone with these words either, but I would imagine an old, lazy Zennie would like "there is no sufferer, only suffering."

This phrase is classic Californian Zen.

Be happy. Have fun.

Element

[genkaku]

This phrase is classic Californian Zen.

And quite possibly classic Buddhism from a time l-o-n-g before California was even a twinkle in its daddy's eye.

[Element]

And quite possibly classic Buddhism from a time l-o-n-g before California was even a twinkle in its daddy's eye.

For me, the phrase is nihilistic. It is the view of "all is empty, thus why do anything and do everything".

From a Mahanyana perspective however, the phrase is evangelical. It can help people at the time they must face a real challenge. [EDIT: Comments about brainwashing removed. - Retro. ] One day it may bear fruit.

For example, a nuclear holocaust. All the material & sensual delights destroyed. Family destroyed. All alone. If we have heard about emptiness enough, we may resign ourselves to the fact, all is empty.

[Ceisiwr]

What about if you just take the first bit, "there is no sufferer"

This is correct because there is no real "I" to suffer is there not?

[appicchato]

For me, the phrase is nihilistic. It is the view of "all is empty, thus why do anything and do everything".

Not quite...your view, maybe, but not necessarily anyone else's...and while the Buddha did say that 'this world is empty', he didn't throw his hands in the air and say 'why do anything?'...

Be well...

[Element]

...and while the Buddha did say that 'this world is empty', he didn't throw his hands in the air and say 'why do anything?'...

The Buddha said the 'world is empty' so listerners would free their minds of selfing and dukkha. There cannot be suffering in a mind that has realised emptiness. That is impossible. That is natural law or ultimate truth. There cannot be suffering without a sufferer. That is impossible. All suffering is rooted in the delusion or illusion of "self". Whilst the world is empty of "real selves", it is full of "delusionary selves". These delusionary selves are suffering.

Regarding "doing", there are two kinds of doing. The "doing" I was referring to is not the "doing" your were referring to Appicchato.

With metta

Element

[cooran]

Hello Element,

What are you definitions of nihilism, annihilationism, eternalism?

I don't use the term nihilism at all - and I don't recall where the Buddha ever used it either.

"From: A Dictionary of Buddhism | Date: 2004 | Author: DAMIEN KEOWN | A Dictionary of Buddhism 2004, originally published by Oxford University Press 2004.
uccheda-vāda (Skt., the teaching of cutting off). Also known as uccheda-dṛṣṭi, ‘the doctrine of Annihilationism’, one of the ‘two extremes’ condemned by the Buddha. This is the view that there is no rebirth or fruition of karma, and that the individual is utterly annihilated at death. It is considered especially pernicious since it encourages moral irresponsibility and hedonism. The Buddha raised two objections to this notion: that it is disproved by recollection of past lives, and it implies the existence of a self (ātman) that is destroyed at death. The other extreme view is Eternalism (śāśvata-vāda).śāśvata-vāda (Skt.; Pāli, sassatavāda). Eternalism, one of the two ‘extreme views’ condemned by the Buddha, the other being Annihilationism (uccheda-vāda). Eternalism postulates the existence of a self (ātman) that is eternal and unchanging, while the latter postulates the existence of a self that is cut off and utterly destroyed at death. According to the Buddha, both of these two extremes misrepresent the reality of the situation and the truth of the matter is to be found by reference to the principle of the ‘Middle Way’ (madhyamā-pratipad). Thus the self is neither eternal nor is it cut off at death: rather there is a dynamic continuity of the individual from one life to the next."

How does your understanding hold up, if you considered that there never was a self in the first place - either to be annihilated or to continue on unchanging? .... all that exists are latent tendencies and kammic accumulations - no me, no you, no one.

metta
Chris

[Ceisiwr]

The buddhas said "the world is void of a self or anything pertaining to a self"

The line "there is no sufferer only suffering" seems in line with this as the suffering that rises does not have a self.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings everyone,

What are you definitions of nihilism, annihilationism, eternalism?

I don't use the term nihilism at all - and I don't recall where the Buddha ever used it either.

The Buddha argued against nihilism in MN 60: Apannaka Sutta in paragraphs 5-12 (Bhikkhu Bodhi translation).

Metta,
Retro.

[Element]

Hello Element,

What are you definitions of nihilism, annihilationism, eternalism?

Hello Chris,

If you wish to ask me a question or discuss a matter with me, please refer to the suttas.

Further, the topic has already been discussed elsewhere. You can find my views there. Try the search function.

Thank you

Element

[Element]

The buddhas said "the world is void of a self or anything pertaining to a self"

The line "there is no sufferer only suffering" seems in line with this as the suffering that rises does not have a self.

Hi Craig

'Self' is delusion. Thus if we see with right wisdom a child having a tantrum, we see that child is empty of self. It does not have a real self. However, that child's mind is full of delusion. It has delusion. That delusion is real. The delusion in that child's mind gives rise to the view it is a self. The child's mind is obsessively thinking: "I want this", "this is mine", "you cannot do this to me". The child's mind is under the influence of self belief.

If the world was void of self as you are inferring, the Buddha would not have taught his disciples to free their minds of 'self-belief". In the sutta, the Buddha states:

And what is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self? The eye is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Forms... Eye-consciousness... Eye-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self.

"The ear is empty...

"The nose is empty...

"The tongue is empty...

"The body is empty...

"The intellect is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Ideas... Intellect-consciousness... Intellect-contact is empty of a self or of anything pertaining to a self. Thus it is said that the world is empty."

Buddha said in SN 35.68: "What is the world?" The eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind and associated sense spheres are the world.

The Buddha has exhorted us to examine the emptiness of the individual dhammas mentioned above, such as the eye, ear, etc. The Buddha did not state there was one mass of convoluted and entwined dukkha dhammas and that mass is empty. What can be clearly seen as empty, the Buddha advised was empty. Buddha did not teach as below:

Becoming's Wheel reveals no known beginning;
No maker, no experiencer there;
Void with a twelvefold voidness, and nowhere
It ever halts; for ever it is spinning.

Kind regards

Element

[robertk]

Whilst all things are inherently void of self, the follow teaching is not the Buddha's intent regarding dependent origination and voidness:

Becoming's Wheel reveals no known beginning;
No maker, no experiencer there;
Void with a twelvefold voidness, and nowhere
It ever halts; for ever it is spinning.

Buddha's intent was to use voidness to end the wheel rather than capitulate like the evangelical Mahayanas do that the wheel is void. This is the same as teaching: "We are all sinners but Jesus loves us". Instead of freeing our lives from sin, we just capitulate and say: "Jesus loves me".

For the Lord Buddha, voidness was a synonym for the ending of the wheel and not the wheel itself.

Buddha said voidness is void of sensuality, void of becomng and void of ignorance. (MN 121) Buddha thus said voidness is void of the wheel.

Buddhaghosa's voidness may hold to the ultimate nature of unenlightened beings but it is not inner enlightenment nor the Buddha's intention of expounding these dhammas.

As the saying goes: "Three strikes and your out". This exposition of Buddhaghosa does not even pass go. No $200. No cigar.

The citation from Buddhaghosa is certainly true Dhamma. Perhaps you are the one who is lost?

[Element]

The citation from Buddhaghosa is certainly true Dhamma. Perhaps you are the one who is lost?

The citation to me from Buddhaghosa is philosophical non-sense.

When Ananda said to the Buddha: "I have heard the world is empty", Buddha did not reply the world is empty.

Buddha provided an exercise for accuracy of insight or dhammavicaya. Buddha advised Ananda the various sense spheres were empty so they could be examined one by one.

Buddha did not want Ananda holding broad generalisations that were not the genuine accurate detailed meticulous insight and did not lead to the cessation of dukkha.

The citation to me from Buddhaghosa is absolute philosophical non-sense and I am not lost.

A wheel spinning around is not the end of dukkha and is thus not void.

[tiltbillings]

The citation from Buddhaghosa is certainly true Dhamma. Perhaps you are the one who is lost?

The citation to me from Buddhaghosa is philosophical non-sense.

When Ananda said to the Buddha: "I have heard the world is empty", Buddha did not reply the world is empty.

Buddha provided an exercise for accuracy of insight or dhammavicaya. Buddha advised Ananda the various sense spheres were empty so they could be examined one by one.

Buddha did not want Ananda holding broad generalisations that were not the genuine accurate detailed meticulous insight.

The citation to me from Buddhaghosa is absolute philosophical non-sense and I am not lost.

Before this devolves into a gainsaying match, I would suggest that it very likely that you two will not come to an agreement, but in the mean time rather than mere gainsaying, present arguments for your positions using the suttas (since you both likely agree on the veracity of them). Give us poor readers something to chew on, rather than: "You are wrong." "No, you are wrong."