No soul, consciousness confused?

[user99]

Conditional?

[Ontheway]

It is Paṭiccasamuppāda.

[cappuccino]

the sutta goes on to show how consciousness actually should be regarded, and it is not the eternalistic model of consciousness that you advocate.

I accept consciousness will cease


whatever that means

the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'

[Spiny Norman]

"Sabbe dhamma anatta".

There is no self in the created or the uncreated.
.

[auto]

"Sabbe dhamma anatta".

There is no self in the created or the uncreated.
.

A feeling capable being can produce a being what has the attributes of the deeds done: Rubbing hands together one gets pleasant warm feeling. Pleasant warm feeling is felt internally = ajjhattam, a being within a being, citta rooted in greed... And then comes the part of taking pleasure in it.
The teachings(4 noble truths) are meant for the feeling capable being to stop taking pleasure, and instead go for the cessation of being what was created to personally come extinguished instead of sensual pleasure. One needs assume that there is unborn, which is same with conditionally produced.

When one who feels creates a corresponding life-form, with the attributes of either good or bad deeds—
Yaṁ kho, bhikkhave, vediyamāno tajjaṁ tajjaṁ attabhāvaṁ abhinibbatteti puññabhāgiyaṁ vā apuññabhāgiyaṁ vā,
this is called the result of feelings.
ayaṁ vuccati, bhikkhave, vedanānaṁ vipāko.

[cappuccino]

There is no self in the created or the uncreated.

On Self, No Self, and Not-self

[asahi]

The Buddha didnt emphasised on what happens to Tathagata or arahant after the breakups of the body , hence it is irrelevant to state positively or negatively on it .

[Spiny Norman]

There is no self in the created or the uncreated.

On Self, No Self, and Not-self

Not relevant. It's clear from the suttas that the aggregates are not self, and also that Nibbana is not self. Anatta negates Atman.

[cappuccino]

Not relevant.

As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Ananda Sutta

[mjaviem]

... Anatta negates Atman.

Ok, but such certainty is not helping.

[Spiny Norman]

... Anatta negates Atman.

Ok, but such certainty is not helping.

Clarity on such a basic issue is useful, IMO.
Suggesting that the Buddha taught about a true self or Atman only leads to confusion.

[cappuccino]

Suggesting that the Buddha taught about a true self or Atman only leads to confusion.

self and no self are the extremes


Buddha taught the middle

[Spiny Norman]

Suggesting that the Buddha taught about a true self or Atman only leads to confusion.

self and no self are the extremes


Buddha taught the middle

The Buddha's middle way was dependent arising, or conditionality. This teaching excludes the possibility of Atman or soul, anything unchanging or eternal.

[cappuccino]

…

No-self or Not-self?

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

[mikenz66]

Not relevant.

As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Ananda Sutta

The rest of the sutta makes the reason clear:

“When Vacchagotta asked me whether the self does not exist absolutely, if I had answered that ‘the self does not exist absolutely’, Vacchagotta—who is already confused—would have got even more confused, thinking:

‘It seems that the self that I once had no longer exists.’”
https://suttacentral.net/sn44.10/en/suj ... ript=latin

See this discussion:
https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/on ... gies/11836


Mike