telling parents about renunciation

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

auto wrote: Wed Sep 08, 2021 1:47 pm ... about renunciation ...


:bow:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by auto »

DiamondNgXZ wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:44 am Advice to auto: renounce the wrong view that self exist, or that Buddha taught that self exist. You can happily admit that you don't see it personally yet, but at least intellectually admit that Buddha taught no self doctrine and it's meant to be understood for enlightenment to happen.
what is the pali term for exits you use there? hoti?

also can you cite the Sutta where Buddha says so. Asking this because i think there is a Sutta saying its not ok to hold a view of no self because there are those who believe there is a self. Other words opinions are classed above positions like: there is a self or there is no self.

That said, also post what the view(ditthi) is.
auto
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Dec 21, 2017 12:02 pm

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by auto »

DiamondNgXZ wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:13 am Do let your teachers who would ordain you know that you don't believe in no self. They wouldn't be able to ordain you unless you intellectually accept no self.

Edit: Sorry, not grounds for not ordaining you, but as a novice, it's ground for expulsion, see below.
Giving up worldly pleasurers, while still retaining supporters. Otherwise there is no clause for to expel. The clause is when i still allow atta to arise by relying on those sensual pleasures i gave up. Hereby the supporters are those who themselves provide those pleasures, namely the sense organs.

Its a mere explanation why for me ordaining for real sounds like overdoing the things, would feel like a stand up comedy i take part in. I'm sure you feel that same way about me, i don't fit there.
DiamondNgXZ
Posts: 390
Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2021 5:40 am

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by DiamondNgXZ »

cappuccino wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 1:43 pm
DiamondNgXZ wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:13 am you don’t believe in no self.
On Self, No Self, and Not-self

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then … Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question … ?"

If I — being asked … if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism.

Ananda Sutta
Only Venerable Thanissaro makes that distingtion. See the Pali word anatta, how to put in no self vs not self in there? They are the same thing. To avoid no self view is to allow a little bit of space, then the delusion of self can easily invade and say something else is the true self. All dhammas are not self, is not different from there's no self.

The only reason Vaccagotta got the different answer from the others, is because of his particular personality who can misunderstood no self to mean annihilationism.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19941
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by mikenz66 »

DiamondNgXZ wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:06 pm Only Venerable Thanissaro makes that distingtion. See the Pali word anatta, how to put in no self vs not self in there? They are the same thing. To avoid no self view is to allow a little bit of space, then the delusion of self can easily invade and say something else is the true self. All dhammas are not self, is not different from there's no self.

The only reason Vaccagotta got the different answer from the others, is because of his particular personality who can misunderstood no self to mean annihilationism.
Indeed, one can can easily read the sutta to see that. See also this essay by Bhikkhu Sujato: https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on ... gies/11836

:heart:
Mike
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

DiamondNgXZ wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:06 pm
Only Venerable Thanissaro makes that distingtion. See the Pali word anatta, how to put in no self vs not self in there? They are the same thing. To avoid no self view is to allow a little bit of space, then the delusion of self can easily invade and say something else is the true self. All dhammas are not self, is not different from there's no self.

The only reason Vaccagotta got the different answer from the others, is because of his particular personality who can misunderstood no self to mean annihilationism.
I would say that there is a difference, which is what Thanissaro Bhikkhu alludes to.

Not-self : Pragmatic insight strategy

No-self : Metaphysical speculative view

The former is an insight practice and knowledge to be perceived and applied to experience to release clinging. The latter is a metaphysical belief that requires faith to adhere to in the beginning.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by cappuccino »

If I — being asked … if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism.

Ananda Sutta
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by DooDoot »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:26 pm would say that there is a difference, which is what Thanissaro Bhikkhu alludes to.

Not-self : Pragmatic insight strategy

No-self : Metaphysical speculative view

The former is an insight practice and knowledge to be perceived and applied to experience to release clinging. The latter is a metaphysical belief that requires faith to adhere to in the beginning.
The above sounds wrong. AN 3.136 per SC (AN 3.134 per ATI) say all things are not-self regardless of perception of this permanent natural law.
“Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

“The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self.”

https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/thanissaro
Bhikkhu Sujato already took the time to debunk Thanissaro's Not-Self Strategy, where Thanissaro appeared to mistaken the ideas of Vaccagottta in SN 44.10 with the doctrine of the Buddha. :smile:
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

DooDoot wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:00 am
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:26 pm would say that there is a difference, which is what Thanissaro Bhikkhu alludes to.

Not-self : Pragmatic insight strategy

No-self : Metaphysical speculative view

The former is an insight practice and knowledge to be perceived and applied to experience to release clinging. The latter is a metaphysical belief that requires faith to adhere to in the beginning.
The above sounds wrong. AN 3.136 per SC (AN 3.134 per ATI) say all things are not-self regardless of perception of this permanent natural law.
“Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

“The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self.”

https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/thanissaro
Bhikkhu Sujato already took the time to debunk Thanissaro's Not-Self Strategy, where Thanissaro appeared to mistaken the ideas of Vaccagottta in SN 44.10 with the doctrine of the Buddha. :smile:
Just because phenomena are not self doesn't mean one will automatically perceive it.
It has to be developed as a perception still. The not-self strategy and method is the correct approach.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by DooDoot »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:29 pm Just because phenomena are not self doesn't mean one will automatically perceive it.
Irrelevant.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
User avatar
confusedlayman
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:16 am
Location: Human Realm (as of now)

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by confusedlayman »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:29 pm
DooDoot wrote: Fri Sep 17, 2021 7:00 am
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 11:26 pm would say that there is a difference, which is what Thanissaro Bhikkhu alludes to.

Not-self : Pragmatic insight strategy

No-self : Metaphysical speculative view

The former is an insight practice and knowledge to be perceived and applied to experience to release clinging. The latter is a metaphysical belief that requires faith to adhere to in the beginning.
The above sounds wrong. AN 3.136 per SC (AN 3.134 per ATI) say all things are not-self regardless of perception of this permanent natural law.
“Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands—this steadfastness of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma: All phenomena are not-self.

“The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, & makes it plain: All phenomena are not-self.”

https://suttacentral.net/an3.136/en/thanissaro
Bhikkhu Sujato already took the time to debunk Thanissaro's Not-Self Strategy, where Thanissaro appeared to mistaken the ideas of Vaccagottta in SN 44.10 with the doctrine of the Buddha. :smile:
Just because phenomena are not self doesn't mean one will automatically perceive it.
It has to be developed as a perception still. The not-self strategy and method is the correct approach.
if u see it once u see it for remaining life... the thing is do see directly instead of intellectual pondering. one who saw consciousness as impermanent will never see it as permanent. once seeing will cut of wrong views. but we need jhana
I may be slow learner but im at least learning...
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 3:20 am
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sat Sep 18, 2021 1:29 pm Just because phenomena are not self doesn't mean one will automatically perceive it.
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant how?
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 12032
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by DooDoot »

Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 7:25 am Irrelevant how?
Not-self is primarily 'ontological'. Its only a valid "strategy" because it accords with objective reality.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.

https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
Cause_and_Effect
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2021 7:39 am

Re: telling parents about renunciation

Post by Cause_and_Effect »

DooDoot wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 7:33 am
Cause_and_Effect wrote: Sun Sep 19, 2021 7:25 am Irrelevant how?
Not-self is primarily 'ontological'. Its only a valid "strategy" because it accords with objective reality.
Well obviously. But plenty of our perceptions are not in accordance with reality. Our usual perception is to take the aggregates as self. So it is a strategy to perceive them as not-self to reduce clinging.
Whether there is an ontological 'ultimate self' is beyond the scope of the practice and a speculative view until one attains Nibbana.
"Therein monks, that Dimension should be known wherein the eye ceases and the perception of forms fades away...the ear... the nose...the tongue... the body ceases and the perception of touch fades away...

That Dimension should be known wherein mentality ceases and the perception of mind-objects fades away.
That Dimension should be known; that Dimension should be known."


(S. IV. 98) - The Dimension beyond the All
Post Reply