though what you're saying is very unclearToVincent wrote: Now Cappuccino, I think you are too obnubilated by the annihilationist/eternalist dichotomy, so as to deflect subtle nuances.
Buddhism and What it Offers
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
Nuance, nuance, my dear friend.cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 4:23 pmthough what you're saying is very unclearToVincent wrote: Now Cappuccino, I think you are too obnubilated by the annihilationist/eternalist dichotomy, so as to deflect subtle nuances.
You say that "the teaching isn't "no-self"".
However, what Buddha does not want to argue about with Vachagotta, in SN 44.10, is that there is "no self" - but that's what he declares all along. To wit, what Ananda summarizes as:
1. All dhamma are not self.
2. There is no continuity (संतन् saṃtan) in self.
Which is exactly what "no-self", and the illusion of a self is all about.
If Buddha remains silent, it is only because Vachagotta, the eternalist, is waiting for an answer pertaining to eternalism vs. annihiliationism. And this is how I see you interpret it also.
Because you are always keen towards that dichotomy.
The Teaching IS "no-self". And not "the teaching isn't "no-self"", as you say. But one has to avert that Eternalism vs. Annihiliationism stand.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
well you entirely miss the point of being silent about no-selfToVincent wrote: The Teaching IS "no-self". And not "the teaching isn't "no-self"", as you say.
you're not silent about no-self, hence you confuse the issue
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
Yes I know. I should have remained silent WITH YOU.cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:10 pm you're not silent about no-self, hence you confuse the issue[/i]
I am so stupid!
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
by saying "there is no self" you imply annihilation
rather than thinking more appropriately
rather than thinking more appropriately
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
Have I ever implied that?
And here it goes again, that forlorn dichotomy.
Cappuccino 's fixation on the annihilationist view.
Saying "there is no self" does not necessarily imply annihilation.
These are the two views of the annihilationists adressed by the Buddha.The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another.
SN 12.46
"I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, and it will not be for me".
SN 22.81
What the Buddha says is that:
((He) teaches the Dhamma by the middle: ‘With ignorance as condition, volitional formations come to be; with volitional formations as condition, consciousness…. Such is the origin of this whole mass of suffering.
Note that this latter extract appears also in SN 12.15, which is concerned by the "world" - that is to say the world of senses. So we are here in an avijja (avijjādhātu) , sankhara and viññāṇa, like the ones that occur in satta, in SN 22.47 - https://justpaste.it/vyhx
And this is exactly what I show in my previous posts.
The maintenance of conciousness, etc.
That is to say the non-continuity of the flow. The not-one's owness (alien nature= anicca), and impermanence (anicca) of the dhammas; and consequently the "not-self" nature of the all shebang.
This is a bit different from the "The one who acts is one, the one who experiences the result is another" - or - "I might not be,... ; I will not be" views of the annihilationists. Isn't it?
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
it does imply, which is why Buddha was silentToVincent wrote:Have I ever implied that?cappuccino wrote: by saying "there is no self" you imply annihilation
Saying "there is no self" does not necessarily imply annihilation.
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
?!?!?!?!?!?cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:47 pmit does imply, which is why Buddha was silentToVincent wrote:Have I ever implied that?cappuccino wrote: by saying "there is no self" you imply annihilation
Saying "there is no self" does not necessarily imply annihilation.
As I said before, Buddha remained silent, because Vachagotta was waiting for an annihilationist kind of answer.
You mix up Buddhist's "not-self", with annihilationist's "not self" - and you make a fixation.
That's your kamma; not mine.
I'm off!
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'
On Self, No Self, and Not-self
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
So you're saying the self exists, but continuity of self doesn't exist?ToVincent wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:23 pmYes I know. I should have remained silent WITH YOU.cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 5:10 pm you're not silent about no-self, hence you confuse the issue[/i]
I am so stupid!
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
you should read the scripturesalfa wrote: So you're saying the self exists
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
Absolutely not.
What the Dhamma says is that there is no continuity, and that this continuity is the illusion. (SN 22.95)
Nothing among the khandhas (or the internal ayatanani) should be regarded as self or belonging to a self (e. g. SN 22.89 (SN 35.85)), (nor blissful) - which continuity (and blissfulness) was supposed to be the intrinsic nature of a self in the Indian philosophy of the time of Buddha.
I have explained that for years now. But for some reason that I do understand, the fact has been swiped under the Upanishadic rug of this forum - and "cleaned up" with much "logorrheanic" trivial red herring. search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&sid= ... 0&start=15
What SN 22.95 is actually saying, is that this continuity is an illusion (santāno, māyāyaṃ), and that consciousness is a stand, a foundation, for that illusion (māyūpamañca viññāṇaṃ).
So what Buddha says is that the "world" [the internal ayatanani (eye, ear,... mano) - forms - the internal ayatanani-consciousness - the internal ayatanani-contact, and whatever feeling arises with the internal ayatanani-contact as condition (SN 35.82)] is empty of self and what belongs to self.
If Buddha had say to Vachagotta, "there is no self" (SN 44.10), this is what he would have meant.
However what Vachagotta would have understood by "there is no self", would have been about the "non-existence" of a self - which was the usual annihilationist view. Vachagotta would have remained in his narrow minded frame of Eternalism vs. Annihilationism (see also SN 44.08 - where Vachagotta seems to understand absolugely nada; if only that all Buddha's disciples say the same thing).
So Buddha remained silent.
.
.
In this world, there are many people acting and yearning for the Mara's world; some for the Brahma's world; and very few for the Unborn.
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
How?seeker242 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 10:54 amI would say it's also relevant to people who want or aspire to be committed Buddhists.binocular wrote: ↑Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:19 amThis type of thinking is relevant only to a committed Buddhist. But certainly not to an outsider who isn't even sure whether the historical Buddha existed or not.seeker242 wrote: ↑Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:53 pmPeople often fail to recognize that this also requires that the Buddha himself was just plain ignorant, or just lying. I don't know about others, but I find it a heck of a lot easier to believe in rebirth, than it is to believe the Buddha himself was just an ignorant fool or liar.
By taking for granted that the historical Buddha existed and attained enlightenment?
By relying on inherently questionable historical evidence to jump to the conclusion that the historical Buddha existed and attained enlightenment, and that the Theravada tradition as you know it and choose is the one which has the most correct understanding of the Buddha's teachings?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
but you're not silent, you say "there is no self"ToVincent wrote: So Buddha remained silent.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Buddhism and What it Offers
faith accepts the teachingbinocular wrote: How?
By taking for granted that the historical Buddha existed and attained enlightenment?
By relying on inherently questionable historical evidence