The negative language of Theravada.

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible in order to double-check alignment to Theravāda orthodoxy.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by Individual »

retrofuturist wrote:Greetings Individual,

"Everything is shared" is something else altogether, and is totally inconsistent with...

AN 5.57: Upajjhatthana Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...

"[This is a fact that] one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained...

"Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...

"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who — whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings — past and future, passing away and re-arising — all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the [factors of the] path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."
...which could be called Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous, right?
So long as it's not the basis for creating a proxy-atman.

Metta,
Retro. :)
Let me see if I follow you.

"Everything is shared" is inconsistent with "I (atman) am the owner of my actions (kamma)" (AN 5.57)

But Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous mind is okay terminology, so long as it's not the basis for creating a proxy-atman.

That is... I say everything is shared, you insist on the Buddha's description of I being the owner of actions.

But then I say, "Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous mind is the true atman," and you say I cannot say this. And yet, if I asked you, "Who owns karma? Is there a self that collects karma?" you would say no.

An analogy... A group of monks decide to build a statue of the Buddha. One monk suggests they make it out of wood, but another monk suggests brass, another monk suggests silver, another suggests gold, and still, another suggests jade. And another says that making a statue is a waste of time. Then they argue over it. Eventually, they decide -- peacefully, amicably -- to go their own separate ways and each make their own Buddha statues, and let laypeople be the judge of which one is most beautiful and appropriate. :)
gabrielbranbury wrote:Isnt our "true nature" no nature. Or rather our true nature is conditioned arising. Buddhas arise in the world by knowing what cannot be known by any characteristics. The world can be known by limitless characteristics which are all conditionally arisen. They all have no self nature and that is their nature thus "Buddha Nature". I do see that this way of teaching is highly prone to problematic interpretations and in my opinion probably only suitable to those who have developed a strong faith in the Buddhas achievements If at all.


Metta


Gabriel
Yes, but "no nature" doesn't mean "nothing" or "non-existence." True nature is emptiness, which isn't simply nothingness, space, or non-existence.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings Individual,
Individual wrote:"Everything is shared" is inconsistent with "I (atman) am the owner of my actions (kamma)" (AN 5.57)
More accurately, my kamma is not the proximate cause for your vipaka... and "me" and "you" are conventional designations, not attas.
Individual wrote: But Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous mind is okay terminology, so long as it's not the basis for creating a proxy-atman.
Yes, although in Theravada there's no conception of Buddha-nature... that's Mahayana.
Individual wrote: That is... I say everything is shared, you insist on the Buddha's description of I being the owner of actions.
See the above point re: kamma and vipaka.
Individual wrote: But then I say, "Buddha-nature, emptiness, and luminous mind is the true atman," and you say I cannot say this. And yet, if I asked you, "Who owns karma? Is there a self that collects karma?" you would say no.
Spot on.

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."
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by mikenz66 »

Individual, Ben,

The thread may have moved on a little from this, but anyway...
Ben wrote: Also, if you look at the canon and look at how the Buddha describes liberation, the translators have used the same linguistic conventions. Be careful that you do not associate negation as being morally or emotionally negative. Also be careful in substituting 'positive' synonyms, that you do not dilute the meaning of what is being said!
Ben might recall some relevant discussion of this we had elsewhere. As Ben says, using a negative construct, like "no suffering" is not being "negative". It's the most succinct and logical way of describing it.

Mike
Element

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by Element »

Individual wrote:
Element wrote:You are sounding like a Mahayanan muni
That is a very lofty compliment.
Sorry Individual. It is not a compliment on a Theravadin forum.
Element

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by Element »

Individual wrote:He didn't say the "teaching". He said the aggregate of virtue, of concentration, discernment, release, and knowledge & vision. It's basically implied that, while teachings and teachers are subject to decay, these aggregates of liberation are eternal (hence the "forgotten" path, "re-discovered" by the Buddha, not merely the "teaching\belief-system created by Buddha,"). Dhamma doesn't always mean the "teaching", but also the truth\practice the teaching is pointing to.
Individual,

You need to re-read the sutta. The sutta states:
"But, Ananda, haven't I already taught you the state of growing different with regard to all things dear & appealing, the state of becoming separate, the state of becoming otherwise? What else is there to expect? It's impossible that one could forbid anything born, existent, fabricated & subject to disintegration from disintegrating.
E
Element

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by Element »

Individual wrote:There is an unnecessary emphasis on particular language there. Our experiences arise co-dependently. You can interpret this as, "Nothing is mine" (the self-construct is arbitrary) or you can say, "Everything is shared," (the other-construct is arbitrary) and it is the same claim.
Individual

This is not the intention of the Buddha's teaching of anatta. The purpose of anatta is to end dukkha.

If everything is 'shared' or 'ours', when the collective good ends, there will be dukkha.

You seem to be mixing the mundane with the supramundane. Metta et al are mundane teachings. :heart:

Maybe you are trying to say: "By anatta, everything is a gift, everything is borrowed but not owned. Life is to be used but not to be possessed".

Kind regards,

Element
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by Individual »

Element wrote:
Individual wrote:There is an unnecessary emphasis on particular language there. Our experiences arise co-dependently. You can interpret this as, "Nothing is mine" (the self-construct is arbitrary) or you can say, "Everything is shared," (the other-construct is arbitrary) and it is the same claim.
Individual

This is not the intention of the Buddha's teaching of anatta. The purpose of anatta is to end dukkha.

If everything is 'shared' or 'ours', when the collective good ends, there will be dukkha.

You seem to be mixing the mundane with the supramundane. Metta et al are mundane teachings. :heart:

Maybe you are trying to say: "By anatta, everything is a gift, everything is borrowed but not owned. Life is to be used but not to be possessed".

Kind regards,

Element
A series of exchanged gifts.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
kc2dpt
Posts: 957
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 3:48 pm

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by kc2dpt »

Individual wrote:Your suffering is my suffering.
If this is true then the Buddha lied when he taught the Third Noble Truth; he did not experience the end of suffering nor did any of the so called arahants... for I still experience suffering.
Individual wrote:An analogy... A group of monks decide to build a statue of the Buddha. One monk suggests they make it out of wood, but another monk suggests brass, another monk suggests silver, another suggests gold, and still, another suggests jade. And another says that making a statue is a waste of time. Then they argue over it. Eventually, they decide -- peacefully, amicably -- to go their own separate ways and each make their own Buddha statues, and let laypeople be the judge of which one is most beautiful and appropriate. :)
Does this analogy signify that you wish to continue to promote a teaching of Atman as Buddhadhamma?
- Peter

Be heedful and you will accomplish your goal.
Element

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by Element »

Individual wrote:A series of exchanged gifts.
Do you mean like the Dhamma Stuka and I taught you, which you are now parroting on BC, where you called S & E "trolls" recently?

The Sangha always give freely and exchange the best of all gifts, which is the Dhamma.

The Sangha are full of metta-karuna but to some, metta-karuna is love of 'self' rather than love of Dhamma.

But still, all gifts are anatta. In Buddhism, there is the practising of purifying gifts, making them void or sunnata.

Even the Mahayanas teach the purification of gifts into emptiness.
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by Individual »

Peter wrote:
Individual wrote:Your suffering is my suffering.
If this is true then the Buddha lied when he taught the Third Noble Truth; he did not experience the end of suffering nor did any of the so called arahants... for I still experience suffering.
Through logic-chopping, one could concoct a variety of dubious inferences to say, "Then the Buddha lied if <insert particular teaching here>." It is peculiar that you'd recognize the absurdity of this when questioning Theravada and yet do exactly that when a different view is put forth. But then, if it's for your own benefit, your own path, who am I to question you?
Peter wrote:
Individual wrote:An analogy... A group of monks decide to build a statue of the Buddha. One monk suggests they make it out of wood, but another monk suggests brass, another monk suggests silver, another suggests gold, and still, another suggests jade. And another says that making a statue is a waste of time. Then they argue over it. Eventually, they decide -- peacefully, amicably -- to go their own separate ways and each make their own Buddha statues, and let laypeople be the judge of which one is most beautiful and appropriate. :)
Does this analogy signify that you wish to continue to promote a teaching of Atman as Buddhadhamma?
No.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by jcsuperstar »

true self in mahayana is tathata (thusness or suchness)

The term Tathata in the Mahayana tradition is seen as representing the base reality and can be used to terminate the use of words. A 5th century Chinese Mahayana scripture entitled "The Awakening of Faith in the Mahayana" describes the concept more fully: "In its very origin suchness is of itself endowed with sublime attributes. It manifests the highest wisdom which shines throughout the world, it has true knowledge and a mind resting simply in its own being. It is eternal, blissful, its own self-being and the purest simplicity; it is invigorating, immutable, free... Because it possesses all these attributes and is deprived of nothing, it is designated both as the Womb of Tathagata and the Dharma Body of Tathagata

Tathata as a central concept of Mahayana Buddhism, expresses the appreciation of reality within a unique moment. As no moment is exactly the same, each one can be savored for what occurs at that precise time. Tathata is often best revealed in the mundane, such as noticing the way the wind blows through a field of grass, or watching someone's face light up as they smile. Shakyamuni Buddha transmitted the awareness of Tathata directly to Mahakasyapa in what has come to be rendered in English as the Flower Sermon. As Molloy[1]states, "We know we are experiencing the 'thatness' of reality when we experience something and say to ourselves, 'Yes, that's it; that is the way things are.' In the moment, we recognize that reality is wondrously beautiful but also that its patterns are fragile and passing."

1^ Molloy, M. "Experiencing The World's Religions." page 130. Mayfield Publishing Co., 1999.

Within the Mahayana branch of Buddhism, there exists an important class of sutras (influential upon Ch'an and Zen Buddhism), generally known as Tathagatagarbha sutras ("Buddha-Matrix" or "Buddha-Embryo" sutras), a number of which affirm that, in contradistinction to the impermanent "mundane self" of the five "skandhas"(the physical and mental components of the mutable ego), there does exist an eternal True Self, which is in fact none other than the Buddha himself in his ultimate "Nirvanic" nature. This is the "true self" in the self of each being, the ideal personality, attainable by all beings due to their inborn potential for enlightenment. The "tathagatagarbha"/Buddha nature does not represent a substantial self (atman); rather, it is a positive language and expression of "sunyata" (emptiness) and represents the potentiality to realize Buddhahood through Buddhist practices; the intention of the teaching of 'tathagatagarbha'/Buddha nature is soteriological rather than theoretical.
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
Element

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by Element »

Individual wrote:
Peter wrote:
Individual wrote:Your suffering is my suffering.
If this is true then the Buddha lied when he taught the Third Noble Truth; he did not experience the end of suffering nor did any of the so called arahants... for I still experience suffering.
Through logic-chopping, one could concoct a variety of dubious inferences ....
The Buddha did not chop either wood, vegetables or logic. Whilst most of us still suffer, Buddha did not suffer. The Buddha said:
28. Just as one upon the summit of a mountain beholds the groundlings, even so when the wise man casts away heedlessness by heedfulness and ascends the high tower of wisdom, this sorrowless sage beholds the sorrowing and foolish multitude.

Dhammapada
E
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

In regards to the original question,

As I understand it, Buddhism is a path of inner and outer renunciation at the most basic level and beyond. Hence the use of negative language seems logical to me. We're used to thinking in terms of gaining things. We want to accumulate money, posessions, insight, wisdom, merit, and so on. But I think that the language of gaining or adding is skillful means. In TB there's a practice called chod that involves visualizing giving up our very bodies, the thing that we cherish and want the most. To me, buddhism really seems to be about breaking, unbinding, even negating.

:namaste:
User avatar
Ngawang Drolma.
Posts: 805
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 7:38 pm

Re: The negative language of Theravada.

Post by Ngawang Drolma. »

retrofuturist wrote: Repeat after me... "not self, not I, not mine" :reading:

That applies to all mindstates, including a luminous one.

:meditate:

Metta,
Retro. :)
:clap:
Post Reply