According to this gentelman all Buddhism is wrong due to miss-understood about Anata

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: According to this gentelman all Buddhism is wrong due to miss-understood about Anata

Post by pegembara »

Even the 'I am' or 'I exist' perception/thought is impermanent and not self. "I am" not the five aggregates nor other than the five aggregates. All dependently arisen, not truly existent.
"Friends, it's not that I say 'I am form,' nor do I say 'I am something other than form.' It's not that I say, 'I am feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness,' nor do I say, 'I am something other than consciousness.' With regard to these five clinging-aggregates, 'I am' has not been overcome, although I don't assume that 'I am this.'

"In the same way, friends, even though a noble disciple has abandoned the five lower fetters, he still has with regard to the five clinging-aggregates a lingering residual 'I am' conceit, an 'I am' desire, an 'I am' obsession. But at a later time he keeps focusing on the phenomena of arising & passing away with regard to the five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origin, such its disappearance. Such is feeling... Such is perception... Such are fabrications... Such is consciousness, such its origin, such its disappearance.' As he keeps focusing on the arising & passing away of these five clinging-aggregates, the lingering residual 'I am' conceit, 'I am' desire, 'I am' obsession is fully obliterated."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
All that can be known including Nibbana is not self -'That you are not'
Sabbe dhamma anatta
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Milinda
Posts: 78
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:26 pm

Re: According to this gentelman all Buddhism is wrong due to miss-understood about Anata

Post by Milinda »

https://discourse.suttacentral.net/t/su ... oul/8460/5

It seems like these interpretations are not new.

This quote is said by this symphatic bald:

This supreme Brahmā vehicle [the 8fold Path] arises in oneself.
Etadattani sambhūtaṃ, brahmayānaṃ anuttaraṃ

I guess a viable (creative!) translation could be
“This supreme vehicle of Brahman arises in the atman”

While you can take ‘atman’ with a wink, the translation should really be ‘Brahman’, and not ‘Brahmā’ because not the deity is meant here.
User avatar
Mahabrahma
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
Location: Krishnaloka :).
Contact:

Re: According to this gentelman all Buddhism is wrong due to miss-understood about Anata

Post by Mahabrahma »

I think it is referring to Brahma [Intelligent] Practices when it mentions the Brahma Vehicle. I have read about Brahma Practices before.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.

-Dhammapada.
User avatar
Mahabrahma
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
Location: Krishnaloka :).
Contact:

Re: According to this gentelman all Buddhism is wrong due to miss-understood about Anata

Post by Mahabrahma »

From a Buddhist Dictionary:

brahma practice [梵行] ( brahma-charyā or brahma-charya;  bon-gyō): Pure practice, or Buddhist practices of a pure nature. Brahma practice refers specifically to the practice of observing precepts, and especially to observing the precept of eliminating one’s sexual desires. Monks were required to observe the discipline of celibacy and refrain from all sexual relationships and acts. Brahma practice refers to such a way of life, but in a broader sense, it refers to those practices aimed at freeing oneself from all earthly desires.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.

-Dhammapada.
User avatar
Mahabrahma
Posts: 2232
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2020 6:02 am
Location: Krishnaloka :).
Contact:

Re: According to this gentelman all Buddhism is wrong due to miss-understood about Anata

Post by Mahabrahma »

"Brahman" itself is not a Buddhist term except when the Tathagata would speak about other Spiritual Traditions, describing "Brahmins" who were unfit for their duty. These were Brahmins in name only, and during the Buddha's time there were too much of them

Although in the Vaishnava culture initiation as a True "Brahman" comes to one when they are fully understanding of God. That is not a cheap or empty thing. A real Vaishnava Saint would not initiate someone as Brahman until they outwardly and inwardly, and intrinsically understood God, Brahman, or Parabrahman fully. That is the actual measure of the term, and it is a Spiritual designation. Real Vaishnavas deal only with the things of God, so the original meaning of things is still retained over many thousands of years.

Any Buddha can be considered Brahman, and I don't think the World-Honored Ones fear of being labeled as those who understand God perfectly, for their understanding of all subject matters is perfect. Don't assign a red flag to this as if I'm preaching Verna Ashram to Buddhists (the subdivisions of work and Spiritual subdivisions of mankind that were prevalent in ancient Vedic Society). I believe everyone is equal, and I follow the Buddhist Path. However I highly respect the Vaishnava and Advaita Vedantic Paths, and I follow them as well. And my utmost Path is the Lotus Sutra, which leads me to Theravada Buddhism as well, and also includes all forms of genuine Buddhism. Om.
That sage who has perfect insight,
at the summit of spiritual perfection:
that’s who I call a brahmin.

-Dhammapada.
Pulsar
Posts: 2641
Joined: Tue Feb 05, 2019 6:52 pm

Re: According to this gentelman all Buddhism is wrong due to miss-understood about Anata

Post by Pulsar »

Retro wrote
There's no need to watch this Ken bloke expound his thoughts.
It's really quite simple - any phenomena (dhamma) is not-self (anatta).
  • If something isn't phenomenal, i.e. experienced/experienceable, or giving rise to phenomena, then it's irrelevant in this Dhamma.
Any compulsion to fill in the gaps beyond that is just the obsession of views (AN 7.12) and should be abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
The brilliance of the Palmyra stump simile! But that brilliance is lost on many Buddhists. That is the
tragedy of Buddhism. People continuously want to create conditions that give rise to the self or an identification of a self. Most love to name the rupas arising in the mind, via the sense consciousness (eye, ear etc) i.e. Nama-Rupa. If they don't they feel they will fall into an abyss.
That dependency is like an addict's dependency on Opium.
Thanks Retro for introducing sanity in to the thread, sanity of simplicity.
With love :candle:
User avatar
nirodh27
Posts: 681
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:31 pm

Re: According to this gentelman all Buddhism is wrong due to miss-understood about Anata

Post by nirodh27 »

Hi Pegeambara,
pegembara wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:22 am Even the 'I am' or 'I exist' perception/thought is impermanent and not self. "I am" not the five aggregates nor other than the five aggregates. All dependently arisen, not truly existent.
I would change it in:
Even the 'I am' or 'I exist' perception/thought is impermanent and not self. "I am" not the five aggregates nor other than the five aggregates. All dependently arisen, and that's it
To stay true to the willingness of the Buddha of a Teaching that doesn't cause quarrelling with anyone in the world. There's no need to define something as truly existent or not. What's the point in it? What changes in terms of the Drawbacks? The self is an acquisition of an aggregate (or a group of them) as "me,mine" or is out of your domain and so foolish teaching. It stays as long as you acquire and it ends if you don't acquire. This is the kind of existence that is worth talking and is in the milieu of the self-evident, impossible to negate kind of discussion:
When this was said, a certain bhikkhu asked the Blessed One: “Venerable sir, can there be agitation about what is non-existent externally?”

“There can be, bhikkhu,” the Blessed One said. “Here, bhikkhu, someone thinks thus: ‘Alas, I had it! Alas, I have it no longer! Alas, may I have it! Alas, I do not get it!’ Then he sorrows, grieves, and laments, he weeps beating his breast and becomes distraught. That is how there is agitation about what is non-existent externally.”
This is a straightforward example of something non-existent simply in the sense "it is there no more", in the sense that arised, persisted, and passed away.
"“Bhikkhus, a well-taught noble disciple who has regard for noble ones and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, who has regard for true men and is skilled and disciplined in their Dhamma, regards material form thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards feeling thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards perception thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards formations thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ He regards what is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, encountered, sought, mentally pondered thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ And this standpoint for views, namely, ‘That which is the self is the world; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity’—this too he regards thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’"

“Since he regards them thus, he is not agitated about what is non-existent (read in the sense that "it is not there anymore").
One has dismantled conceit, feeling "I am that", in any conceivable way, from acquisitions of the body to acquisitions of foolish teachings. So it is not agitated by what is not there, but was there before (conceit/self-view/asmi mana). I think this kind of thinking helps to dismantle if one wants to more than reflecting on what is truly existent. One have to be radical in his dependantly arisen approach: stop the accumulation, the building of the sand-castles and start the cessation, the dismanting on the same sand-castles seen as unfit to play. Only then, you will not be agitated from what is not there anymore: conceit and ignorance-contact.
pegembara
Posts: 3465
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: According to this gentelman all Buddhism is wrong due to miss-understood about Anata

Post by pegembara »

nirodh27 wrote: Thu Feb 02, 2023 5:42 pm
pegembara wrote: Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:22 am Even the 'I am' or 'I exist' perception/thought is impermanent and not self. "I am" not the five aggregates nor other than the five aggregates. All dependently arisen, not truly existent.
I would change it in:
Even the 'I am' or 'I exist' perception/thought is impermanent and not self. "I am" not the five aggregates nor other than the five aggregates. All dependently arisen, and that's it
Even the 'I am' or 'I exist' perception/thought is impermanent and not self. "I am" not the five aggregates nor other than the five aggregates. All dependently arisen.

That's all there is. Just so.

:toast:
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
Post Reply