Does anatta look like a fabrication of the Theravada sect, as it also follows their doctrine? Maybe it is a wrong understanding of the teaching?PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 10:47 amNo, trying to clear the mind from 'bad' thoughts is a practice which causes a lot of suffering, since we are not the creator of our thoughts. Although our thoughts are influenced by our mental state, we are never in control. Trying to be in control, is trying to go against anatta, which is the core of the Buddha's teaching. If I would be in control, I would not be anatta, since there would be something that is in control, which would be me. So although certain practices like meditation, or having an easy lifestyle, influence our thoughts, trying to be in control is a cause of suffering, since you never are. It will lead to compulsively trying to get rid of 'bad' thoughts, and every time a 'bad' thought enters the mind, it is perceived as bad, because one believes that an Arahant doesn't have 'bad' thoughts. It is a wrong understanding of the teaching, and this sutta looks like a fabrication of the Theravada sect, since it follows their doctrine.nirodh27 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 4:30 pmHi Peter,PeterC86 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 9:24 am
Since we are not the master or creator of our thoughts, what is stated in this sutta is nonsense. If what in the sutta is stated were so, we would not be anatta. Since this wouldn't comply with the three marks of existence, it is safe to say that the words in that sutta are not the Buddha's words.
I don't think that the sutta means what you think you mean. It is evident that with mental training and mental wisdom the mind passes from an unruly beast without direction prey to the senses to a collected, controlled mind with a clear direction. Have you ever had a thought that you didn't want to have, but you still had like temptations about sensuality? Probably yes. The Buddha before full-enlightenement was tempted too as well.
With the wisdom and the mental training of the Arahant, the Arahant will not have this problem anymore. That doesn't mean that conditioned things like thoughts will magically become under our control and happiness.
Do arahants have thoughts?
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
Hi Peter,
I would use "unskillful" thoughts. And that requires a lot of effort, sometimes some Dukkha too. But it also brings long-term welfare and happiness. 3/4 of the Nikayas are about mental training and removing bad thoughts (from envy to "I am") and intentions. It is unlikely that we would agree about the teaching of Anatta since for me is the careful dismanting of a bad thought/idea as well. I simply go for personal experience: clearing unskillful thoughts is the most important thing to do and it removes tons of Dukkha and some effort and some distress are a small price to pay for it in the long-run. And my only dukkha about this is that I've not done it more and more efficiently as the sutta prescribes.
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
Sounds like an excellent way to absolve yourself of responsibility regarding a dismal mental state and, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, declare yourself enlightened.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 10:47 amAlthough our thoughts are influenced by our mental state, we are never in control. Trying to be in control, is trying to go against anatta, which is the core of the Buddha's teaching. If I would be in control, I would not be anatta, since there would be something that is in control, which would be me.
What is the Uncreated?
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
Sublime & free, what is that obscured Eternity?
It is the Undying, the Bright, the Isle.
It is an Ocean, a Secret: Reality.
Both life and oblivion, it is Nirvāṇa.
- cappuccino
- Posts: 12879
- Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
- Contact:
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
All the best.nirodh27 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 1:49 pmHi Peter,
I would use "unskillful" thoughts. And that requires a lot of effort, sometimes some Dukkha too. But it also brings long-term welfare and happiness. 3/4 of the Nikayas are about mental training and removing bad thoughts (from envy to "I am") and intentions. It is unlikely that we would agree about the teaching of Anatta since for me is the careful dismanting of a bad thought/idea as well. I simply go for personal experience: clearing unskillful thoughts is the most important thing to do and it removes tons of Dukkha and some effort and some distress are a small price to pay for it in the long-run. And my only dukkha about this is that I've not done it more and more efficiently as the sutta prescribes.
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
What could go wrong!?Coëmgenu wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 5:07 pmSounds like an excellent way to absolve yourself of responsibility regarding a dismal mental state and, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, declare yourself enlightened.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 10:47 amAlthough our thoughts are influenced by our mental state, we are never in control. Trying to be in control, is trying to go against anatta, which is the core of the Buddha's teaching. If I would be in control, I would not be anatta, since there would be something that is in control, which would be me.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
Well, the signless is there as one of the highest levels of attainment and insight in the suttas and Theravāda. Theravāda also recognises the emptiness of substance in the world. The earth element, for example, has no substance. There is no "earth" which bears the quality of "hard", it's just for Theravāda this quality is real whilst for Mahāyāna it can't ultimately be said to be real or unreal. It's up to you to decide what the implications are when substance is taken out of experience. Both the Arahant and Bodhisatta come to know the Emptiness, Signless and Nothingness/Wishless. How then are they realising different things, in the end?riceandcashews wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 2:54 pm
This sounds like mahayana emptiness. I'm not opposed to this reading, but is emptiness of this sort in the tipitaka?
The benefit is in the letting go of absolutely everything, even views.Obviously experience being empty of a self as in a personality/subjective conscious agency is central to the tipitaka, but is there a role in the tipitaka that emptiness of the world/of essence in general plays in the path? What is its purpose as a teaching other than to reveal the emptiness of self/personality/subjective conscious agency? Put another way, is there a benefit on the path to thinking of the world as empty of essence in the same way that there is a benefit on the path to thinking of the self as empty of essence? If so, what is that benefit?
You are still thinking of it ontologically rather than epistemologically. The Arahant understands that everything we experience isn't a substance. If there is a substance behind it all is a meaningless question, according to the Buddha, because all we can know is our sense experience (SN 35.23). The Arahant understands that our experience is one of dependently originated things, not independent substances. On such an understanding they then understand (another word for "see") how our experience is empty of atta, empty of anything worth holding onto and empty signs. They still have experiences, but ultimately, they can't say if these are real or not. All they can know is conventional. That is the ultimate understanding IMO. They understand the concepts we apply to experience, and so are no longer deluded by them. Using concepts is fine. Giving life to them due to our ignorance, craving and views is the problem.I think the question still remains unanswered though: if signlessness/thoughtlessness is a characteristic of nirvana, then why wouldn't an arahant abiding in nirvana abide without signs/thoughts? Surely they can produce speech as a useful illusion to benefit mundane beings, but this would suggest to me that they don't need to use conventional language to think, especially since conventional language is subject to misrepresenting the nature of self. Unless you have a different interpretation of the meaning of signlessness other than thoughtlessness/beyond the representation of language?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
Since it has a perfect parallel in the Sarvāstivādin texts, this hypothesis is unlikely.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
Exactly, thank you for adding this sutta reference. Maybe Samvara can make up his mind with this reference, weighing it up against MN20.cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:46 pm"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
No, it doesn't do anything to make my mind up. There are hundreds of references in the Nikayas to anattā, and hundreds of references to gaining control of the mind. You seem to think that these two are incompatible, and that the latter are somehow invalid. I'm asking why, if you maintain the incompatibility, the invalidity does not apply to the former.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:32 pmExactly, thank you for adding this sutta reference. Maybe Samvara can make up his mind with this reference, weighing it up against MN20.cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:46 pm"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
You normally retreat into equivocation and claim that your own statements are meaningless (citations provided) but let's see...
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
Personally I'm a bit more optimistic about how much of the Buddha's teachings survived the centuries, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I assume you also don't think your own understanding can be known to be in line with what the Buddha was pointing to as well?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
I cannot help you read. All the best.Sam Vara wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:46 pmNo, it doesn't do anything to make my mind up. There are hundreds of references in the Nikayas to anattā, and hundreds of references to gaining control of the mind. You seem to think that these two are incompatible, and that the latter are somehow invalid. I'm asking why, if you maintain the incompatibility, the invalidity does not apply to the former.PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 9:32 pmExactly, thank you for adding this sutta reference. Maybe Samvara can make up his mind with this reference, weighing it up against MN20.cappuccino wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 8:46 pm
"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'
Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic
You normally retreat into equivocation and claim that your own statements are meaningless (citations provided) but let's see...
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
All the best.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 10:01 pmPersonally I'm a bit more optimistic about how much of the Buddha's teachings survived the centuries, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I assume you also don't think your own understanding can be known to be in line with what the Buddha was pointing to as well?
Re: Do arahants have thoughts?
It's a simple question. Do you think we moderns can know anything about what the Buddha taught or not. If so, how?PeterC86 wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 10:17 pmAll the best.Ceisiwr wrote: ↑Sat Nov 26, 2022 10:01 pmPersonally I'm a bit more optimistic about how much of the Buddha's teachings survived the centuries, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I assume you also don't think your own understanding can be known to be in line with what the Buddha was pointing to as well?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”