Moderator note: The following msgs were pulled from this thread: http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15952" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; The reason for doing so is that this topic has the potential for ballooning considerably and potentially derailing its parent thread. Also, this topic is quite interesting in its own right deserves to have it own thread.
(Also, do not pay attention to the time stamp.)
The Burden
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
The Burden
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: The Burden
Dear DF,
An= not. It doesn't mean "no".
Natthi = no.
So no atta would be natthatta rather than anatta.
Buddha didn't reject puggalo.
Furthermore, what is negated is Atta/Atman in the context of 5th century BC India. I wonder if what they considered to be Atman is anything close to what soulless materialists, or secular people of today call "self".
I think that atman is more like homunculus in western philosophy.
Buddha teaches anatta. An+Atta.dhamma follower wrote:It should be formulated differently: it is the underlying idea of a self who can make certain dhammas to arise at certain time that motivates a formal practice.
An= not. It doesn't mean "no".
Natthi = no.
So no atta would be natthatta rather than anatta.
Buddha didn't reject puggalo.
Furthermore, what is negated is Atta/Atman in the context of 5th century BC India. I wonder if what they considered to be Atman is anything close to what soulless materialists, or secular people of today call "self".
I think that atman is more like homunculus in western philosophy.
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: The Burden
Yes, I think in the context of Buddhism, "self" is more properly seen as an agent that is permanent and unchanging. I seem to vaguely recall that in Thai, anatta is translated into something like a lack of control. Maybe that is where the confusion arise in this debate?Alex123 wrote: Furthermore, what is negated is Atta/Atman in the context of 5th century BC India. I wonder if what the considered to be Atman is anything close to what soulless materialists, or secular people of today call self.
Re: The Burden
Hello Beeblebrox,
And who here truly believes in a permanent and unchanging agent? How many people down the street believe in that (when precisely asked)? None.beeblebrox wrote:Yes, I think in the context of Buddhism, "self" is more properly seen as an agent that is permanent and unchanging.Alex123 wrote: Furthermore, what is negated is Atta/Atman in the context of 5th century BC India. I wonder if what the considered to be Atman is anything close to what soulless materialists, or secular people of today call self.
-
- Posts: 939
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm
Re: The Burden
Hi Alex,Alex123 wrote:Hello Beeblebrox,
And who here truly believes in a permanent and unchanging agent? How many people down the street believe in that (when precisely asked)? None.beeblebrox wrote:Yes, I think in the context of Buddhism, "self" is more properly seen as an agent that is permanent and unchanging.Alex123 wrote: Furthermore, what is negated is Atta/Atman in the context of 5th century BC India. I wonder if what the considered to be Atman is anything close to what soulless materialists, or secular people of today call self.
I think you're right. I've actually contemplated on this point myself several times, and one explanation that popped in my mind (though might be implausible) was that the extent of the Buddha's liberation hasn't been fully comprehended. By the practitioners, that is.
Re: The Burden
Hi Alex123Alex123 wrote:Dear DF,
Buddha teaches anatta. An+Atta.dhamma follower wrote:It should be formulated differently: it is the underlying idea of a self who can make certain dhammas to arise at certain time that motivates a formal practice.
An= not. It doesn't mean "no".
Natthi = no.
So no atta would be natthatta rather than anatta.
Buddha didn't reject puggalo.
Furthermore, what is negated is Atta/Atman in the context of 5th century BC India. I wonder if what they considered to be Atman is anything close to what soulless materialists, or secular people of today call "self".
I think that atman is more like homunculus in western philosophy.
I think you may be on rather dodgy ground here.
Last edited by Mr Man on Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Burden
That's because our sense of self is nebulous and unstable.Alex123 wrote:
And who here truly believes in a permanent and unchanging agent? How many people down the street believe in that (when precisely asked)? None.
Re: The Burden
Mr Man wrote:That's because our sense of self is nebulous and unstable.Alex123 wrote:
And who here truly believes in a permanent and unchanging agent? How many people down the street believe in that (when precisely asked)? None.
Maybe Atman (in the context of 5th BC India) means something more than a mere empiric self.
Chariot (or car), as emergent property of its parts - does exist.
Re: The Burden
I don't know exactly what atman refered to in 5th BC India but I'm sure that the sense of "I", "me", "my", "mine" was much the same then as it is today and was a source of suffering then as it is now.Alex123 wrote:Mr Man wrote:That's because our sense of self is nebulous and unstable.Alex123 wrote:
And who here truly believes in a permanent and unchanging agent? How many people down the street believe in that (when precisely asked)? None.
Maybe Atman (in the context of 5th BC India) means something more than a mere empiric self.
Chariot (or car), as emergent property of its parts - does exist.
I'm not going to argue the existence of a car but it's existence is conditional and dependent.
Re: The Burden
What is the difference between Atta and Puggalo?Mr Man wrote:I don't know exactly what atman refered to in 5th BC India but I'm sure that the sense of "I", "me", "my", "mine" was much the same then as it is today and was a source of suffering then as it is now.
I'm not going to argue the existence of a car but it's existence is conditional and dependent.
The Buddha disproved Atta by pointing to the fact that 5 aggregates are inconstant and unsatisfactory. This wouldn't even refute the wrong idea of a Christian idea of a soul (that changes and can suffer), much less and empiric person.
- "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name.SN22.22
Re: The Burden
Hi Alex123, I'm not sure what the difference between Atta and Puggalo is as I do not understand Pali. Also the conversation is also possibly taking me out of my intellectual depth and taking the thread off topic but I would be interested on what others make of this.Alex123 wrote:What is the difference between Atta and Puggalo?Mr Man wrote:I don't know exactly what atman refered to in 5th BC India but I'm sure that the sense of "I", "me", "my", "mine" was much the same then as it is today and was a source of suffering then as it is now.
I'm not going to argue the existence of a car but it's existence is conditional and dependent.
The Buddha disproved Atta by pointing to the fact that 5 aggregates are inconstant and unsatisfactory. This wouldn't even refute the wrong idea of a Christian idea of a soul (that changes and can suffer), much less and empiric person.
- "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name.SN22.22
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: The Burden
That is really an interesting and useful sutta. It be well worth moving this sub-discussion to its own thread. Do you two having objections?Alex123 wrote:What is the difference between Atta and Puggalo?Mr Man wrote:I don't know exactly what atman refered to in 5th BC India but I'm sure that the sense of "I", "me", "my", "mine" was much the same then as it is today and was a source of suffering then as it is now.
I'm not going to argue the existence of a car but it's existence is conditional and dependent.
The Buddha disproved Atta by pointing to the fact that 5 aggregates are inconstant and unsatisfactory. This wouldn't even refute the wrong idea of a Christian idea of a soul (that changes and can suffer), much less and empiric person.
- "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name.SN22.22
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Re: The Burden
No problem. You can move it if you want.tiltbillings wrote:That is really an interesting and useful sutta. It be well worth moving this sub-discussion to its own thread. Do you two having objections?Alex123 wrote:What is the difference between Atta and Puggalo?Mr Man wrote:I don't know exactly what atman refered to in 5th BC India but I'm sure that the sense of "I", "me", "my", "mine" was much the same then as it is today and was a source of suffering then as it is now.
I'm not going to argue the existence of a car but it's existence is conditional and dependent.
The Buddha disproved Atta by pointing to the fact that 5 aggregates are inconstant and unsatisfactory. This wouldn't even refute the wrong idea of a Christian idea of a soul (that changes and can suffer), much less and empiric person.
- "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name.SN22.22
While Buddha seems to reject Atta, He did not reject a person that does so and so. This makes argument about "nothing can be be done because there is no person, only dhammas" to be problematic. I think that is possible to analyze the world analytically AND synthetically.
Last edited by Alex123 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: The Burden
Not me. I'm also interested in Alex123's comment at Wed Jan 30, 2013 2:02 pmtiltbillings wrote:That is really an interesting and useful sutta. It be well worth moving this sub-discussion to its own thread. Do you two having objections?Alex123 wrote:What is the difference between Atta and Puggalo?Mr Man wrote:I don't know exactly what atman refered to in 5th BC India but I'm sure that the sense of "I", "me", "my", "mine" was much the same then as it is today and was a source of suffering then as it is now.
I'm not going to argue the existence of a car but it's existence is conditional and dependent.
The Buddha disproved Atta by pointing to the fact that 5 aggregates are inconstant and unsatisfactory. This wouldn't even refute the wrong idea of a Christian idea of a soul (that changes and can suffer), much less and empiric person.
- "And which is the carrier of the burden? 'The person,' it should be said. This venerable one with such a name, such a clan-name.SN22.22
Re: The Burden
Basically what I am talking about here is that the argument "there is no person,... thus who can develop wisdom or sati?" seem to be shaky. Saying that 5 aggregates are not Atta, is NOT saying that there is no person that is conditioned, anicca, dukkha, and anatta that practices and develops wisdom or sati.