retrofuturist wrote: ↑Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:37 am Greetings,
Source?Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 5:05 pm I understand that "There is no self" was unequivocally held by Ven Nanananda.
Here:
(If you don't feel very satisfied with the word "unequivocally", please kindly allow me let you replace it with "undeniably" in the above sentence, exclusively for you.)
- CONCEPT AND REALITY
- >>> Soul / a fundamental error / related to ignorance
page-ix_Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)Buddhism traces the idea of a Soul to a fundamental error in understanding the facts of experience. This ignorance (avijjâ) is reflected to a great extent in the words and concepts in worldly parlance.
- >>> Ego notion / not faithful to facts / a mental aberration of the worldling
page-10_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)The label ‘I’ thus superimposed on the complex contingent process, serves as a convenient fiction of thought or a short-hand device, and is in fact one of the shortest words in many a language. But paradoxically enough, it is the outcome of ‘papañca’ — rather a disconcerting predicament. The paradox is resolved by the fact that the Ego notion is an extension in thought not faithful to facts, being a mental aberration of the worldling.
- >>> the fiction of an Ego
page-12/13_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)The essence of the Buddha’s discourse to the monks in the Madhupindaka Sutta may now be summed up. If one does not entertain Craving, Conceit and Views (tanhâ, mâna, diññhi) with regard to the conditioned phenomena involved in the process of cognition, by resorting to the fiction of an Ego, one is free from the yoke of proliferating concepts and has thereby eradicated the proclivities to all evil mental states which breed conflict both in the individual and in society.
- >>> illusion of an Ego as the agent
page-32_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)From the standpoint of the average worldling, there is an Ego as the agent or mentor behind the sum-total of sense-experience. Its existence is postulated on the basis of a wide variety of Soul-theories, and its reality as an incontrovertible self-evident fact of experience, is readily taken for granted. Even at the end of a thorough introspection, he is often tempted to agree with Descartes in concluding ‘Cogito, ergo sum’ (“I think, therefore, I am”). Thus behind the data of sense experience conditionally arisen, there looms large the illusion of an Ego as the agent.
- >>> illusion of an Ego
page-33_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)The eradication of the illusion of an Ego, has to be accomplished through penetrative wisdom focussed on one’s own personality.
- >>> notion of an ego / root of all sickness
page-33_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)The ‘papañca’ which taints the worldling’s concept of his individuality is none other than the notion of an ego (v. supra 14 - ‘asmîti bhikkhave papañcitam’). This wrong notion is said to be the root of all sickness within the individual and out in the society.
- >>> Chains of illusion as to Self or Soul
page-37_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)
— S. N. I. 14 - 15For him who hath renounced them utterly
Chains of illusion as to Self or Soul
Exist no more, scattered are all such bonds.
He, rich in wisdom hath escaped beyond
Conceits and deemings of the errant mind.
He might say thus: “I say”
“They say it to me”.
So saying he; expert in usages
Of men; aware of the worth of common names
Would speak merely conforming to such use’.
- >>> Void / self
page-70_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)It is in the ‘light’ of this transcendental vision that he declares — as the Buddha did —”Void is this world of anything that is Self or of anything that belongs to Self”
- >>> ‘Attâ’ has to be taken in its subjective sense as the notion of a Soul or an Ego.
page-98_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)The world is called ‘void’ in the sense that it is devoid of a Self or of anything belonging to a Self. It must be noted that the ‘world’ in this definition corresponds to the totality of sense-experience based on the six senses. The implication is therefore that no element of experience can be regarded as one’s Self or as belonging to oneself. ‘Attâ’ has to be taken in its subjective sense as the notion of a Soul or an Ego. Its characteristic is the power to own and control. The Buddha has clarified this fact in the very first sermon he delivered on the characteristics of anattà (Anattalakkhana Sutta, Vin. I. 13, S. N. III. 67).
- >>> illusion of the Ego (attà)
page-99_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)Thus the main prong of attack is levelled at the concept of the Soul as the controlling agent who is capable of experiencing happiness, which necessarily has to be permanent in order to be perfect. It is true that what gives rise to this notion is the idea of permanence or substantiality, but this latter is sufficiently rendered by the term ‘nicca’. The illusion of substantiality is linked with the psychological impulse for happiness (sukha), which in its turn sustains the illusion of the Ego (attà). Now, the Mâdhyamika system often seems to stress this notion of substantiality underlying the illusion of an ‘âtman’, thereby giving an objective twist to that word. As already indicated, the word ‘nicca’ by itself does sufficient justice to this primary notion of substantiality which originates at the cognitive level.
- >>> he [Tathâgata] no longer cherishes the illusion of an Ego
page-113_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)The term ‘Tathâgata’, as much as any other concept, is a convenient linguistic symbol used to comprehend a complex process of conditionally arisen mental and material phenomena. It exists neither in the five aggregates nor outside of them. However, though he is composed of the five aggregates, the Tathâgata has this difference from the ordinary ‘bundles’ of aggregates—the worldlings—that he no longer cherishes the illusion of an Ego and as such he does not cling to any of the five aggregates. As we have already mentioned, this makes him so incomprehensible from the worldling’s standpoint that he is regarded as “deep, immeasurable, unfathomable as is the great ocean.”
- >>> There can be no annihilation since there is no Soul to be annihilated.
page-113_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)Since there is no more clinging there is no more rebirth, but this fact cannot be indicated through the second alternative, because there the term ‘Tathâgata’ has the implicit prejudice of a Soul. To do so would be to leave the door open for the annihilationist view. The charge of annihilation does not arise when one grasps the law of Dependent Arising and the fact that the Buddha merely preached about suffering and its cessation. There can be no annihilation since there is no Soul to be annihilated. Hence the final cessation in Nibbâna is no more lamentable than is the death of an unborn son. There is no room for eternal entities in terms of Tathâgatas, for they are those who comprehend and proclaim the law of Dependent Arising, which is said to endure in the world whether Tathâgatas arise or not.
- >>> mind intrinsically pure / not … soul
page-126_ Concept And Reality (Ven. Nanananda)Moreover, the reference to a mind intrinsically pure is not to be confused with the idea of an absolute entity, like a Soul, already embedded in every being. The luminosity of the mind is a potentiality which becomes a reality only when the necessary conditions are fulfilled. These conditions are collectively called ‘bhâvanâ’, a word which even literally suggests growth.
- >>> Soul / a fundamental error / related to ignorance
- 33 SERMONS ON NIBBĀNA
- >>> self is nothing but a disease
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)The world is in anguish and is enslaved by contact. What it calls self is nothing but a disease. - >>> not a transmigration of a Soul
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)It should be clearly understood that the passage of consciousness from here to a mother’s womb is not a movement from one place to another, as in the case of the body. In reality, it is only a difference of point of view, and not a transmigration of a Soul. In other words, when consciousness leaves this body and comes to stay in a mother’s womb, when it is fully established there, ‘that’ place becomes a ‘this’ place. From the point of view of that consciousness, the ‘there’ becomes a ‘here’. Consequently, from the new point of view, what was earlier a ‘here’, becomes a ‘there’. What was formerly ‘that place’ has now become ‘this place’ and vice versa. That way, what actually is involved here, is a change of point of view. So it does not mean completely leaving one place and going to another, as is usually meant by the journey of an individual. - >>> no Soul or Self to lose
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)The attitude of the noble disciple is then outlined in contrast to the above dogmatic approach, and what follows after it. As for him, he does not approach, grasp, or take up the standpoint of a Self. The word anusaya, latency or ‘lying dormant’, is also brought in here to show that even the proclivity towards such a dogmatic involvement with a Soul or Self, is not there in the noble disciple. But what, then, is his point of view? What arises and ceases is nothing but suffering. There is no Soul or Self to lose, it is only a question of arising and ceasing of suffering. This, then, is the right view.
Thereafter the Buddha summarizes the discourse and brings it to a climax with an impressive declaration of his via media, the middle path based on the formula of dependent arising: - >>> Ālāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta / the present day Hindu Yogins following the philosophy of the Upaniśads
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)Therefore they concluded: ‘This is peaceful, this is excellent, that is neither-percep tion-nor-non-perception’, and came to a halt there. That is why the Buddha rejected even Ālāra Kālāma and Uddaka Rāmaputta and went in search of the stilling of all preparations. So the kind of tranquillity meditation followed by the pre-Buddhistic ascetics, through various higher knowledges and meditative attainments, could never bring about a stilling of all preparations. Why? Because the ignorance underlying those preparations were not discernible to their level of wisdom. In the least, they could not even recognize their sa:khāra nature. They thought that these are only states of a Soul. Therefore, like the present day Hindu Yogins following the philosophy of the Upaniśads, they thought that breathing is just one layer of the self, it is one of the outer rinds of the Soul. - >>> Not only those brahmins and heretics believing in a Soul theory, but even some Buddhist scholars are scared of the term bhavanirodha, fearing that it leads to a nihilistic interpretation of Nibbāna.
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)Nibbāna has been defined as the cessation of existence.17 The Buddha says that when he is preaching about the cessation of existence, some people, particularly the brahmins who cling to a Soul theory, bring up the charge of nihilism against him.18 Not only those brahmins and heretics believing in a Soul theory, but even some Buddhist scholars are scared of the term bhavanirodha, fearing that it leads to a nihilistic interpretation of Nibbāna. That is why they try to mystify Nibbāna in various ways. What is the secret behind this attitude? It is simply the lack of a clear understanding of the unique philosophy made known by the Buddha. Before the advent of the Buddha, the world conceived of existence in terms of a perdurable essence as ‘being’, sat. So the idea of destroying that essence of being was regarded as annihilationism. It was some state of a Soul conceived as ‘I’ and ‘mine’. But according to the law of dependent arising made known by the Buddha, existence is something that depends on grasping, upādānapaccayā bhavo. It is due to grasping that there comes to be an existence. This is the pivotal point in this teaching. - >>> There is no Self or Soul at all to get destroyed
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)Keeping in mind the meaning of the Buddha’s dictum ‘dependent on grasping is existence’, upādānapaccayā bhavo, if one cares to reflect on this little illustration, one would realize that there is actually nothing real to get destroyed. There is no Self or Soul at all to get destroyed. - >>> Soul theory or divine creation. Everything came out of Brahma, and Self is the essence of everything.
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)Before getting down to an analysis of the basic meaning of this discourse, it is worthwhile considering why the Buddha forestalled a possible perplexity among his disciples in the face of a barrage of questions likely to be levelled by other sectarians. Why did he think it fit to prepare the minds of the disciples well in advance of such a situation?
Contemporary ascetics of other sects, notably the brahmins, entertained various views regarding the origin and purpose of ‘all things’. Those who subscribed to a Soul theory, had different answers to questions concerning thing-hood or the essence of a thing. Presumably it was not easy for the monks, with their not-self standpoint, to answer those questions to the satisfaction of other sectarians. That is why those monks confessed their incompetence and begged for guidance.
It was easy for those of other sects to explain away the questions relating to the origin and purpose of things on the basis of their Soul theory or divine creation. Everything came out of Brahma, and Self is the essence of everything. No doubt, such answers were substantial enough to gain acceptance. Even modern philosophers are confronted with the intricate problem of determining the exact criterion of a ‘thing’. What precisely accounts for the thing-hood of a thing? What makes it no-thing? - >>> So then, the essence of all things is not any Self or Soul, as postulated by the brahmins.
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)So then, the essence of all things is not any Self or Soul, as postulated by the brahmins. Deliverance is the essence. In such discourses as the Mahāsāropamasutta, the essence of this entire Dhamma is said to be deliverance.[327] The very emancipation from all this, to be rid of all this, is itself the essence. Some seem to think that the essence is a heaping up of concepts and clinging to them. But that is not the essence of this teaching. It is the ability to penetrate all concepts, thereby transcending them. The deliverance resulting from transcendence is itself the essence. - >>> The Buddha had unequivocally declared that the idea of Soul is the outcome of an utterly foolish view
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)So also in the case of these two alternatives, “the Soul and the body are the same, the Soul is one thing and the body another”. Either way there is a presumption of a Soul, which the Buddha did not subscribe to. The Buddha had unequivocally declared that the idea of Soul is the outcome of an utterly foolish view… - >>> Soul … even this citadel itself the Buddha has described in this discourse as essenceless and hollow,
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)So for the Buddha, consciousness is comparable to a magic show. This is a most extraordinary exposition, not to be found in any other philosophical system, because the Soul theory tries to sit pretty on consciousness when all other foundations are shattered. But then, even this citadel itself the Buddha has described in this discourse as essenceless and hollow, as a magical illusion. Let us now try to clarify for ourselves the full import of this simile of the magic show. - >>> worldlings are prone to take consciousness as a compact unit.
33 Sermons on Nibbana (html file) (Ven. Nanananda)Generally, the worldlings are prone to take consciousness as a compact unit. They regard it as their Self or Soul. When everything else slips out from their grasp, they grasp consciousness as their Soul, because it is invisible.
- >>> self is nothing but a disease
- QUESTIONS-AND-ANSWERS_WEB_EDITION_REV_0-9
- >>> viññāṇa was taken as a unit, and worse, as the Soul
page-22_ Questions & Answers (Web Edition) (Ven. Nanananda)“In all other religions, viññāṇa was taken as a unit, and worse, as the Soul. It is taught that even if everything else is impermanent, this isn’t. And it is taught as that which reaches Brahmā. But the Buddha pointed out that it is a mere illusion. It can’t exist on its own. - >>> Putting an end to ‘re-becoming’ is not tantamount to ‘annihilation’ – for there is nothing to annihilate.
page-110_ Questions & Answers (Web Edition) (Ven. Nanananda)You can easily understand why some Western scholars with the Soul prejudice are taken aback by my rendering of Nibbāna as ‘Extinction’ – going by the fire simile. ‘Bhavanirodha’ is cessation of becoming, by the removal of ‘taṇhā’ which is qualified by the ‘pregnant’ terms ‘ponobhavikā’ (bringing about re-becoming – certainly not re-being!) nandirāgasahagatā (accompanied by delight and lust) and ‘tatratatrābhinandinī’ (delighting now-here-now-there). Putting an end to ‘re-becoming’ is not tantamount to ‘annihilation’ – for there is nothing to annihilate.
- >>> viññāṇa was taken as a unit, and worse, as the Soul
- THE-LAW-OF-DEPENDENT-ARISING_LE_REV_1.0
- >>> "eternalist view by claiming that they have a permanent Soul”
>>> “annihilationist extreme by asserting that they would be no more after death since the body itself is the Soul.”
page-8_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)All those doubts arise because of reasoning in terms of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ based on the personality view. The Buddha has declared that this way of reasoning leads to 62 views. They end up by falling into two extremes. Either they take up the view ‘I exist’ or go on asserting ‘I do not exist’ as regards the future. Thereby, on the one hand they uphold the eternalist view by claiming that they have a permanent Soul or on the other hand they go to the annihilationist extreme by asserting that they would be no more after death since the body itself is the Soul. Brahmajāla Sutta says that in between these two extreme views there are as many as 62 views. All those views get dispelled even by seeing the arising aspect of the conditions. That is the meaning of the first verse. What we have said so far is gleaned from the first verse. Out of the three modes of attending to the Law of Dependent Arising, the first is the direct mode which is concerned with the arising aspect. - >>> The fallacy is pre-Buddhistic. / consciousness as a Self or Soul.
page-99_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)The passage of consciousness is the talking point these days. Particularly, the western psychologists who are in the grip of the personality-view (sakkāyadiṭṭhi) whenever they speak about consciousness have an idea of it as a monolithic whole. They know nothing about name and form. They interpret consciousness as something jumping from one birth to another. This is not a recent development. The fallacy is pre-Buddhistic. Even in the Upanishads of the Brahmins rebirth is explained with the simile of the leech. Think of the way a leech moves from place to place. This is because they conceived of consciousness as a Self or Soul. - >>> "According to the Buddha there is no real Self or Soul to be annihilated.”
page-187_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)We are taking pains to explain all this because quite a lot of misconceptions and wrong views about Nibbāna are rampant in the world today due to a lack of understanding of the depth of this subject. In fact, I think the Brahmins of the Buddha’s time knew more about what the Buddha was speaking of than many Buddhist scholars today. Those Brahmins knew full well that the Nibbāna preached by the Buddha had nothing in it to bolster up the craving for existence – that it meant the cessation of existence. Only thing, they viewed it as tantamount to annihilation. That was their mistake. According to the Buddha there is no real Self or Soul to be annihilated. This is all what the Buddha proclaimed: “Formerly as now, I make known a suffering and its cessation (“Pubbe cāhaṁ etarahi ca dukkhañceva paññapemi dukkhassa ca nirodhaṁ.”) - >>> “He must have been thinking of a soul (ātman) as the one who enjoys all those objects.”
>>> “But the Buddha says that the mind is the resort and that it is the mind which partakes of all those sense objects”
page-215_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)Let me say something more about contact. Now it is a discourse of a different type. A Brahmin named For instance, the eye can only see forms. It cannot hear sounds. The ear can hear but cannot see. They have their own pastures and cannot trespass on other’s pastures. Uṅṅābha is curious to know the resort of all these five senses. He is asking whether there is someone who can partake of all objects received through the five senses. He must have been thinking of a soul (ātman) as the one who enjoys all those objects. But the Buddha says that the mind is the resort and that it is the mind which partakes of all those sense objects (‘. . . mano paṭisaraṇaṁ mano ca nesaṁ gocaravisayaṁ paccanubhoti’). Whatever objects that come through the five external senses are received by the mind. The mind partakes of them. Then the Brahmin asks: “What is the resort of the mind?” The Buddha replies that ‘Sati’ or mindfulness is the resort of the mind. Uṅṅābha’s next question is: “What is the resort of mindfulness?” The Buddha says: “The resort of mindfulness is Deliverance.” Then the Brahmin asks: “What is the resort of Deliverance?” The Buddha’s answer is: “The resort of Deliverance is Nibbāna.” But the Brahmin has yet another question: “Good Gotama, what is the resort of Nibbāna?” Then the Buddha corrects him with these words: “Brahmin you have gone beyond the scope of the question. You were not able to grasp the limit of questioning. Brahmin, this Holy life is to be lived in a way that it gets merged in Nibbāna, that it has Nibbāna as the Goal and consummation.” - >>> Poṭṭhapāda here brings in a self as from nowhere. Why? Because he still has ‘sakkāyadiṭṭhi’ or ‘Personality View’.
>>> The Buddha asked Poṭṭhapāda for a definition of the word ‘self’ because he himself has no conception of a self or soul.
>>> the concept of a ‘self’ … an entirely foolish idea.
page-286_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)“Venerable Sir, is perception a man’s self or is perception one thing and self something else?” Now this is a tricky question the type clever lawyers go on asking. Poṭṭhapāda here brings in a self as from nowhere. Why? Because he still has ‘sakkāyadiṭṭhi’ or ‘Personality View’. He was probably disappointed that the Buddha’s disquisition made no mention of a self. That is why he dragged in the question. Such questions put one in a dilemma. If you give a categorical answer, you get into difficulties. Take for instance a case like this in the law courts. A driver who has never taken intoxicants appears before the judge, but a lawyer wants to get him to admit that he has taken drinks. If the lawyer asks him sternly “Say ‘Yes’ or ‘No’. Are you still drinking or have you stopped it?” – the man would be in a fix. Whether he answers ‘yes’ or ‘no’ he would get caught in the lawyer’s trap. Poṭṭhapāda’s question is also of the same type. But the Buddha didn’t get caught.
“What do you mean by ‘self’, Poṭṭhapāda?”
The Buddha asked Poṭṭhapāda for a definition of the word ‘self’ because he himself has no conception of a self or soul. In discourses like Alagaddūpama Sutta, he called the concept of a ‘self’ an entirely foolish idea. (‘kevala paripūro bāladhammo’)9 which the world is clinging on to. - >>> they attributed it to some non-descript Soul or Self or else they thought that some agent is manipulating perception.
page-298_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)Poṭṭhapāda as well as Citta Hatthisāriputta, are asking the same question which we ourselves would have asked had we not known the Dhamma. It was the same problem that blocked the progress of the yogins. They reached some high level of spiritual development, but they mystified it. They never thought that it is brought about by causes and conditions as shown in this discourse. Instead they attributed it to some non-descript Soul or Self or else they thought that some agent is manipulating perception. Why were they unable to extricate themselves from perception? Because they had not recognized ‘Saṅkhārā’ or preparations. The most distinctive feature of the Dhamma proclaimed by the Buddha is the recognition of the part played by Saṅkhārā – a term that is integral to the Law of Dependent Arising. - >>> It is the Law of Dependent Arising that blasts the view of self or soul.
page-300_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)It is the Law of Dependent Arising that blasts the view of self or soul. From beginning to end this discourse vibrates through and through with the Law of Dependent Arising. This is a marvelous discourse. So you had better bear in mind every one of the similes you have come across. Remember the breaking of ‘sakkāyadiṭṭhi’ or personality view is not something that happens with an audible sound. - >>> eternalists … Their grip on the ‘ Soul’ prevents them from striving for an escape.
>>> Annihilationists … a revulsion towards becoming … They treat this body as the Soul and reject the idea of a life beyond death
page-309_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)The Buddha’s teaching based on the Middle Path, for the cessation of becoming does not appeal to the eternalists who have grasped the Soul theory. Generally those who like becoming, dislike the cessation of becoming. They get drowned in the flood of becoming. They sink in the current of becoming. Their grip on the ‘ Soul’ prevents them from striving for an escape. There is another group called the annihilationists, developing a revulsion towards becoming. (“Bhaven’eva kho pana eke aṭṭiyamānā harāyamānā”). They treat this body as the Soul and reject the idea of a life beyond death. That is an overreaching. This is called ‘vibhava’. They go to the other extreme by denying re-becoming. They are those who overreach. - >>> The notion of the Soul is shattered then and there.
>>> Instead of a Soul what actually exists is a problem of suffering, and its cessation.
>>> That is the Middle Path implied there.
page-312_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)When both views of existence and non-existence are given up, what remains there, is a question of suffering. The notion of the Soul is shattered then and there. Instead of a Soul what actually exists is a problem of suffering, and its cessation. That is the Middle Path implied there. That means there is only the arising and ceasing or samudaya and vaya, free from the extreme views of existence and non-existence. - >>> Soul / eternalists / nihilists
page-312_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)But what we wish to point out is that sammādiṭṭhi embodies the Middle Path of the Paṭicca Samuppāda. It should be clear that there is no absolute existence or absolute non-existence. Instead, there is an arising and a ceasing dependent on causes and conditions. If at all, what arises is an entire mass of suffering, and what ceases is an entire mass of suffering. Towards the end of the Kaccānagotta Sutta, the Buddha further explains that those who hold and cling to the aforementioned extreme views, thereby conceive an idea of a Soul. The eternalists believe in an eternally present Soul while the nihilists imagine that the body is the Soul. The reason for this is their taking up a rigid stand point, their firm grip on a view. - >>> the undirected state (appaṇihita) and the void state with no soul
page-333_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)When you arise from the attainment of cessation – nirodha samāpatti – your attention is focused towards the signless state (animitta), the undirected state (appaṇihita) and the void state with no soul, no continuity (suññata). This is the special message from the Buddha to the world, the significance of which was unknown to the meditators of the time. You could remember this mental state as Vimokkha. - >>> Soul / eternalists … Bhava tanha / nihilists … Vibhava tanha
page-427_The Law of Dependent Arising (Ven. Nanananda)Those are the three characteristics of taṇhā. Then come the three types of craving kāma taṇhā, bhava taṇhā and vibhava taṇhā. Kāma taṇhā is craving for the five sense pleasures. Bhava taṇhā is in short, the longing for the Soul to continue forever as the eternalists advocate. Vibhava taṇhā on the other hand is the craving to cease existence as nihilists teach. That is how craving is classified in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta.
- >>> "eternalist view by claiming that they have a permanent Soul”
- FROM TOPSY TURVYDOM TO WISDOM
- >>> Their complacent belief in a permanent Self is shaken by it to such an extent that they are “for the most part, stricken with fear, dread and terror.”
page-12_From Topsy Turvydom to Wisdom (Ven. Nanananda)The ‘Lion’s Roar’ is a graphic depiction of the impact of the Buddha’s teaching of universal impermanence, on gods and men steeped in delusion. Their complacent belief in a permanent Self is shaken by it to such an extent that they are “for the most part, stricken with fear, dread and terror.” This impressive declaration highlights the unique message a Tathàgata has for the worldlings caught up in the Sa§sâric cycle of births and deaths. It is a clarion call to wake up and see things-as-they-are. - >>> All possible views of Self are traceable to the Five Aggregates of Grasping.
page-21_From Topsy Turvydom to Wisdom (Ven. Nanananda)If one is to rise above that kind of self-deception, one must be prepared to rise above the deception of Self itself.
All possible views of Self are traceable to the Five Aggregates of Grasping. Form, feeling, perception, preparations and consciousness are the five groups which for the sake of grasping are conceived as compact. They are but transient heaps of processes, elusive and delusive by their very nature. There is only a semblance of stability and a conceit of mastery about them.
- >>> Their complacent belief in a permanent Self is shaken by it to such an extent that they are “for the most part, stricken with fear, dread and terror.”
- THE-MAGIC-OF-THE-MIND_REV_4.0
- >>> This kind of reflection leads one into a jungle of views because one has taken for granted the ‘I’.
>>> The two questions of Vacchagotta (S. IV 400f.): ‘Is there a presumptions soul ?’ or ‘Is there no soul ?’ carried the same presumptions born of wrong reflection.
>>> As the Buddha, for his part, had no conception of a soul which is but a figment of the worldling’s imagination, he used to negate it only where it was asserted with specific reference to one or the other of the aggregates.
page-36_ The Magic of the Mind (Ven. Nanananda)In the Sabbasava Sutta (M. I. 8) the Buddha includes these two among the six views which are said to arise in one who wrongly reflects in the following manner: “Was I in the past ? Was I not in the past ? What was I in the past ? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past ? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future ? Having been what, what shall I be in the future ?” Or else, he is doubtful in himself about the present, thus: “Am I ? Am I not ? What am I ? How am I ? Whence has this being come ? Whither will it be bound ?”
This kind of reflection leads one into a jungle of views because one has taken for granted the ‘I’. The proper reflection is in terms of the Four Noble Truths, since all that exists and ceases is suffering.
The two questions of Vacchagotta (S. IV 400f.): ‘Is there a presumptions soul ?’ or ‘Is there no soul ?’ carried the same presumptions born of wrong reflection. Hence the Buddha’s silence. As the Buddha, for his part, had no conception of a soul which is but a figment of the worldling’s imagination, he used to negate it only where it was asserted with specific reference to one or the other of the aggregates. Thus, for instance, before he ventured to answer Potthapada’s question: ‘Is perception a man’s soul or is perception one thing and soul another ?’, he counter- questioned him: ‘What do you mean by a soul ?’
- >>> This kind of reflection leads one into a jungle of views because one has taken for granted the ‘I’.
- TOWARDS_CALM_AND_INSIGHT
- >>> âlàra Kàlàma and Uddaka Ràmaputta
>>> higher Jhanic levels of (sphere of Nothingness) and (sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-perception).
>>> they clung to those mental phenomena as states of some permanent ‘soul’.
page-24_ Towards Calm and Insight (Ven. Nanananda)‘Then what is the provocation for looking upon all dhammas as ‘anattà’? it may be asked. Now, it is said that even pre - Buddhistic sages and as a matter of fact, âlàra Kàlàma and Uddaka Ràmaputta had reached the higher Jhanic levels of Ākiñcaññāyatana (sphere of Nothingness) and ‘Nevasaññānāsaññāyatana’ (sphere of Neither Perception nor Non-perception). The Buddha, soon after his Enlightenment even thought of them as the fittest persons to be taught the Dhamma first, (see Ariyapariyesana S.M.N.) because they had already become acquainted with the sublime levels of ‘sankhàrà’. Blinded with self-bias, those sages, however, were unable to distinguish ‘sankhàràs’ as such and hence they clung to those mental phenomena as states of some permanent ‘soul’.
- >>> âlàra Kàlàma and Uddaka Ràmaputta
