There were early examples of those rejecting it still being accepted as Theravadins.
And in modern times, what authority is considering them as being non-Theravadin?
Abhidhamma historical origins
Re: Abhidhamma historical origins
You are equating satta with the five aggregates and next you say aggregates are an-atta. While what Sutta say is that the satta can be spoken of when there is delight, relishing(nandi). Take the mn 1 sutta,
Remove craving and there is no rebirth. Satta is not mentioned, instead there is awakening.https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato wrote: Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,
‘Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti—
and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies.
iti viditvā ‘bhavā jāti bhūtassa jarāmaraṇan’ti.
Take some other Sutta what tell chanda(craving) is awakening factor. Craving is for satta to arise. Awakening is the X in equation what needs be found where the satta is the constant. Satta = X.https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato wrote:That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say.”
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, ‘tathāgato sabbaso taṇhānaṁ khayā virāgā nirodhā cāgā paṭinissaggā anuttaraṁ sammāsambodhiṁ abhisambuddho’ti vadāmī”ti.
Re: Abhidhamma historical origins
generating aggregates could mean,
identity(sakkaya) are the five clinging aggregates. And maññati is this process of becoming which(continued existence) will be where rebirth is coming about,https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato wrote:They perceive earth as earth.
pathaviṁ pathavito sañjānāti;
But then they identify with earth, they identify regarding earth, they identify as earth, they identify that ‘earth is mine’, they take pleasure in earth.
pathaviṁ pathavito saññatvā pathaviṁ maññati, pathaviyā maññati, pathavito maññati, pathaviṁ meti maññati, pathaviṁ abhinandati.
i don't think there are distortions or contradictions.https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato wrote:and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies.
iti viditvā ‘bhavā jāti bhūtassa jarāmaraṇan’ti.
Re: Abhidhamma historical origins
It is clearly that Buddha didn't taught that a so-called Being contains soul or self in whatsoever sense. Sorry, I couldn't buy your idea of soul or atta as stated in many of your previous posts.auto wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 2:42 pmYou are equating satta with the five aggregates and next you say aggregates are an-atta. While what Sutta say is that the satta can be spoken of when there is delight, relishing(nandi). Take the mn 1 sutta,Remove craving and there is no rebirth. Satta is not mentioned, instead there is awakening.https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato wrote: Because he has understood that relishing is the root of suffering,
‘Nandī dukkhassa mūlan’ti—
and that rebirth comes from continued existence; whoever has come to be gets old and dies.
iti viditvā ‘bhavā jāti bhūtassa jarāmaraṇan’ti.Take some other Sutta what tell chanda(craving) is awakening factor. Craving is for satta to arise. Awakening is the X in equation what needs be found where the satta is the constant. Satta = X.https://suttacentral.net/mn1/en/sujato wrote:That’s why the Realized One—with the ending, fading away, cessation, giving up, and letting go of all cravings—has awakened to the supreme perfect Awakening, I say.”
Tasmātiha, bhikkhave, ‘tathāgato sabbaso taṇhānaṁ khayā virāgā nirodhā cāgā paṭinissaggā anuttaraṁ sammāsambodhiṁ abhisambuddho’ti vadāmī”ti.
The so-called being eg: Human, animals, Devas, etc. just a combination of 5 aggregates affected by clinging, which is brought forth by means of Dependent Origination. Here there is neither Soul theory nor Annihilism ideology needed. Craving (Tanha) is not the being or self, it is just a conditioned factor that in turn conditions clinging (Upadana), which is turn conditioning becoming (Bhava), and again it conditions birth (Jati) again and again, lives after lives, wandering in Samsara non-stop. And this so-called being (aka all of us) are experiencing impermanence and sufferings in our daily lives. Since these aggregates are impermanent and bound for sufferings, we can't possibly think that: "Etam mama, eso hamasmi, eso me attati".
And this is why Buddha said a proper mindset should be developed towards these aggregates, that: "Netam mama, neso hamasmi, na me so attati."
And it seems you are making another term by changing "Anatta" into "An-atta"... that's just so off.
I am talking about Anatta or "not-self". Not sure if you are really read Anatta-related topics before.
Really not a fan of both "there is a self" and "there is no self", perhaps this gives better introduction.
Anatta and the concept of soul
Quote "Remove craving and there is no rebirth" :
Well, easier said than done. But it is true, if a person can remove three cravings: Craving for sensuality, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming; then he/she will get to Enlightenment.
Quote "Take some other Sutta what tell chanda(craving) is awakening factor. " :
This Chanda is very different from tanha or other forms of chanda craving. This is Dhammacchanda, the desire or striving for Enlightenment. You need to see clearly that there is a distinction here.
Hiriottappasampannā,
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
sukkadhammasamāhitā;
Santo sappurisā loke,
devadhammāti vuccare.
https://suttacentral.net/ja6/en/chalmer ... ight=false
Re: Abhidhamma historical origins
Not sure why you make a step to remove from satta the essence what makes it to be a satta. Wouldn't it be a different term than satta then?
namarupa is the person according to the abhidhamma. I think i have read from visuddhimagga that the namarupa resides in sense bases. It complies with the Sutta's derived-form: cattle, foxes, children. These are the namarupa/inclinations, embryos conceived, not just rupa. And we can also know that it is the mind what explores, samsarati's.
why would it? if you think i said something like that then you simply misread
You are continuing not making difference between satta, sakkaya and sakkaya ditthi. Sakkaya ditthi is the view about taking khandas as your self.
I didn't, i just made the - to highlight it: no-self
I am familiar with the there is no self to begin with and the claim that it is not annihilationism. Perhaps we can use it as common ground for now when you speak of no self?
Re: Abhidhamma historical origins
I can see the distinction is there:Ontheway wrote: ↑Tue Sep 21, 2021 3:32 pm Quote "Take some other Sutta what tell chanda(craving) is awakening factor. " :
This Chanda is very different from tanha or other forms of chanda craving. This is Dhammacchanda, the desire or striving for Enlightenment. You need to see clearly that there is a distinction here.
chanda is your own fabricated effort instead of relying on khandhas for tanha to arise.