I want to be like AB. “... the Will is enemy number 1 of your happiness... The Will is like the sadistic prison guard .... The Will is not you. It is totally conditioned. So LET IT GO! .. ” Thank you for the teachings.
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta); Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta, i.e. Bob, Sue, Larry etc.), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern and highly unenlightened writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say and do in fact say, is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata), Supreme-Self (mahatta’), uncaused (samskrta), undying (amara) and eternal (nicca) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real” [Br. Sutra III.2.22]; since it was not for the Buddha, but for the nihilist (natthika), to deny the Soul. For, [SN 3.82] “yad anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”; the extremely descriptive illumination of all thing which are Selfless (anattati) would be both meaningless and a waste of much time for Gotama were (as the foolish commentators espousing Buddhism’s denial of the atman) to clarify and simplify his sermons by outright declaring ‘followers, there is no atman!’, however no such passage exists. The Pali for said passage would be: ‘bhikkhave, natthattati!’; and most certainly such a passage would prove the holy grail and boon for the Theravadin nihilists (materialists) who have ‘protesteth too much’ that Buddhism is one in which the atman is rejected, but to no avail or help to their untenable views and position by the teachings themselves. Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, such as Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism [The Sanchi and Bharut inscriptions (aka the Pillar edicts) unquestionably dated to the middle of the second century B.C.E. push the composition of the 5 Nikayas back to a earlier date by mentioning the word “pañcanekayika” (Five Nikyas), thereby placing the Nikayas as put together (no later than) at a period about half way between the death of the Buddha and the accession of Asoka (before 265 B.C.), as such the 5 Nikayas, the earliest existing texts of Buddhism, must have been well known and well established far earlier than generally perceived. Finally proving the majority of the five Nikayas could not have been composed any later than the very earliest portion of the third century B.C.E.], anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering (that being avijja, or nescience/agnosis), and its ending (avijja).” Further investigation into negative theology is the reference by which one should be directed as to a further understanding of this 'negative' methodology which the term anatta illuminates. It should be noted with great importance that the founder of Advaita Vedanta, Samkara used the term anatman lavishly in the exact same manner as does Buddhism, however in all of time since his passing, none have accused Samkara of espousing a denial of the Atman. Such as: “Atma-anatma vivekah kartavyo bandha nuktaye”-“The wiseman should discriminate between the Atman and the non-Atman (anatman) in order to be liberated.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 152], “Anatman cintanam tyaktva kasmalam duhkah karanam, vintayatmanam ananda rupam yan-mukti karanam.”-”Give up all that is non-Atman (anatman), which is the cause of all misery, think only of the Atman, which is blissful and the locus of all liberation.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 379], “Every qualifying characteristic is, as the non-Atman (anatman), comparable to the empty hand.” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 6.2], “the intellect, its modifications, and objects are the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.9], “The gain of the non-Atman (anatman) is no gain at all. Therefore one should give up the notion that one is the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.44]. In none of the Buddhist suttas is there support for "there is no-atman" theories of anatta . The message is simply to cease regarding the very khandhas in those terms by which the notion of atman has, itself, been so easily misconstrued. As has been shown, detaching oneself from the phenomenal desire for the psycho-physical existence was also a central part of Samkara’s strategy. There is, hence, nothing in the suttas that Samkara, the chief proponent of Advaita Vedanta, would have disagreed with.
The mind feelings and other elements which create the illusion of self, are all ever-changing, and in flux, and hence impermanent, unsatisfactory, no true refuge, and not self
You have to first understand what the buddha meant when he was talking about a self. A self is something that is permanent (soul) and in control. On a deep level we feel we are in control of our life and there is a feeling that there is something permanent about us. The Buddha is saying this is false, we are not in control (hence all the unwanted suffering) and there is nothing permanent about us. That's what he means with Anatta.
My goodness, timestamp 55:29 "...even your mind conciousness is not yours." I found this weird and relaxing sensation in my sense of i, what fun. Thank you!
A wonderful talk ... and less than a thousand views ... great things are mostly neglected, since everyone is under the sway of the ego and the illusions of this world ...
Dhammapada chapter 12 verse 4 "The self is the refuge for the self. What other refuge could there be? With one's self thoroughly tamed, one gains a shelter rare." So Buddha doesn't deny their is a self. His non-self doctrine is just that the body is not the self, because the self is the soul.
+David Brainerd Actually you completely misenterperate this scripture. Dhammapadda Chapter 12 is actually based upon the protection of the identity by cultivating virture.That scripture on "Self" you just pointed out is not based upon the existance of an "eternal soul" Which is a ridicioulas concept. Infact the Buddha was saying that we are our own refuge,no one is our refuge,no God,no so called eternal soul,and no fake Self. But we are our own refuge for wisdom and compassion. Also I am going to point out verses that prove you to be wrong. "By oneself evil is done,its born of Self and self-produced. Evil grinds the unwise one, as diamond does the hardest gem." So what is this verse telling us? The diamond is born of, produced and is sprung from stone. But it cut the precious stone. The evil action is born of, produced by, and sprung from the evil doer. Here is also another verse that means the same thing as your other verse, "Oneself is refuge of oneself,who else indeed could refuge be? By training of oneself one gains a refuge hard to gain." This is actually the verse that you are pointing out,if you research this verse it is basically the same verse,and I shall also tell you what the Buddha was meaning,this is the purport on the verse and what it actually means. The saviour of oneself is one’s own self. What other person could be your saviour? This is a difficult kind of help - being your own saviour. It can be achieved only through self discipline. So no,the Buddha was not making the ridicioulas claim that an "eternal soul" Or God can be the refuge of oneself,but we are our own refuge,for we alone are the only means that can cultivate knowledge and compassion. And no the Buddha was not saying that this No Self is the body while the Soul is eternal,you have no proof the Buddha made such a claim.
+Derek Ward Also,the Buddha did infact deny there was no Self.The Buddha said two things about non-self as follows; 1. A person consists of five aggregates. In the five, there is no permanent entity. 2. In this world either outside or inside, there is no permanent self. In Dhammapada, the Buddha talked about non-self for example;- “Compounded or conditioned things are impermanent”. “Compounded or conditioned things cause suffering”. “Dhamma, in both conditioned and unconditioned things, is non-self”. In the first and second verse, the Buddha used the term of ‘Compounded or conditioned things’, but in the third one, the Buddha used Dhamma. Why did he use different terms? Here is the explanation; ‘Compounded or conditioned things’ means the five aggregates which have connection with either body or mind. ‘Dhamma’ has a broader meaning than the others, it includes everything. The third verse of the Buddha insists that there is no permanent entity in this universe.
Itta Nimulli Oh wait let me guess,you copied this off of the Nirvana Sutra website? I have read the exact same sutras you have mentioned and those are indeed the false translations that have been written by websites,I have researched those sutras and actually have copies of them,and there is no mention of either Self nor Soul. However Buddha did speak upon soul.but not as the supreme refuge. You are using the Buddhas sutras when he spoke about Self and mistranslated it as him talking about the Self being the supreme refuge,When he talked about the Self he talked about it being an impermanent identity. Let me explain.The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should. These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.
Itta Nimulli And yet you clearly take false information from websites such as Nirvana Sutra,that claim there is a Self,if you clearly understood and read the Sutras on the discourse of Self,you would understand in the illusorary mind there is a Self,but however this Self is made up of five skandhas,however these skandhas are empty,because they have been formed through sense gratification and conciousness. However these senses are impermanent,and are constanly changing. Either through growing more and more with the body,or these senses fade away as they grow old. Now you may say that the senses are not equal to the eternal spirit soul,but however they are quite similar. How you ask? As the mind and its senses grow even older through the proccess of impermanence,the individual creates a form of refuge,a house where the mind and its senses can reside in,out of fear of destruction and changing of these senses,the mind creates illusions such as Self,Soul,And God. Each of these illusions are created by the human mind,and its senses.However at the hour of death,mostly the individual forgets the idea of refuge,and clings to the senses. When they cling to the senses,this is indication that the idea of Self is fading. Therefore each of these senses which create an idea of Self are impermanent,and are empy. One should not seek refuge in a Supreme Lord,nor in the Self. One should cultivate compassion through refuge of themselves. 1. The five skandhas are impermanent. 2. If there was a self, it would be permanent. 3. A person is no more than the five skandhas (this is the exhaustiveness claim). 4. Therefore there is no self. When one attains Nirvana,most believe they have attained the supreme state of mind,that brings forth all happiness,destruction of distress,and peaceful thinking. However none of these are true,One does not attain nor does he enter Nirvana,the spiritually realized man or woman when entering the supreme state does not attain it,because one attains Nirvana not by cultivating wisdom or spiritual truth through words of Buddha or words of other spiritual gurus and teachers,but rather when he destroys the senses,and the idea of Self or Soul. Nirvana is not the gain of peace,but rather it is the fading away of all senses.Therefore in Nirvana there can be no room for Self. The Buddha’s teaching points us away from looking for the self, or trying to understand or improve the self. Instead it suggests that we pay attention to the fear, desire, ambition, and clinging that motivate the building of self identity. Perhaps we feel that we are defective in some way, and that our meditation practice will help us make or find a better self. Can we instead find the particular suffering that is connected with wanting to improve the self? Liberation entails releasing our suffering, not avoiding it, seeking relief from it or compensating for it. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we dwell on our suffering, either; or that suffering never ceases. Indeed, the third Noble Truth reminds us that there is a cessation to suffering.Here in the modern West, this ancient Indian definition of the Self does not have much, if any, meaning. However, we have our own notions of what the self is or what it needs to be. Therefore your idea or concept of eternal Self is refutable and undeniable a trespass on the basis on the path of Realization.
+Itta Nimulli "Eisntein was Enstein since he born. it is his unchanging self" Tell me,in the womb of Einstiens mother did he have a form of conciousness? Did he realize that his name would be Einstine? And what is your proof that he is eternally unchangeable? Einstine was a child,his senses growing more intact with his conciousness. Did Einstine know what his senses were at birth? Did his senses not start out as small seeds and grow into plants of desire? And at the hour of death did his senses not fail him as he was hopelesly sick on his deathbead? Tell me,are any of the elements you see here remain the same? In evolution itself changes occured through natural occurances.The idea that he identified with his self eternally is foolishness. From Birth,To Youth,To Old Age,To Death the senses grow even greater and even weaker than before. Therefore his "Self" is not eternal. If his Self were to be eternal his senses would be strong from the very begegining,And you must understand at child birth a child hardly has any contact with his senses,he can barely understand matter,barely taste,barely comprehend his own mind,and yet as he grows into a young man his senses grow even further,and at the hour of death the old man once again can hardly taste,hardly comprehend,hardly understand the matter of his own mind. If this "Self" Were to be eternal from the very beginning the baby would have a full sense of conciousness,he would know what taste is like,know what matter is like,know all that is to know in the mind of a fully developed human being,yet it is clearly seen the senses are always changing moment to moment. Now tell me,Is this Self true,eternal,never changing,full of opulence and joy? And yet clearly these senses themselves grow stronger and fade away.Therefore,there is no Self.
Do you read Pali, sir? Do you know how many times Sakamune quoted the ADJECTIVE Anatta in the Nikayas, i mean, did you read the Pali Canon? Do you know what Brahmayama is? You turned an ADJECTIVE into a proper NOUN because of your historical ignorance... If X is not A, If X is not B, If X is not C: so I can't say that X doesn't exist. You are not good in logic, sorry.
I want to be like AB. “... the Will is enemy number 1 of your happiness... The Will is like the sadistic prison guard .... The Will is not you. It is totally conditioned. So LET IT GO! .. ” Thank you for the teachings.
Remember the third conceit noone is the same 😉
"Nothing is worth keeping. Its just another burden."
one thing is worth keeping. Sati.
@Tashiro Sato bingo
Awesome. Thank you very much for posting. 17:00-20:00 was just what I needed.
Thankyou so much I've been struggling with self /non self.
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na me so atta); this, and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) predicated of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta); Identical with the Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma hi martyah [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] “The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto”. For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but what it is not. There is never and nowhere in sutra, a ‘doctrine of no-Soul’, but a doctrine of what the Soul is not (form is anatta, feelings are anatta, etc.). It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical “self” in the very meaning of “my-self” (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta, i.e. Bob, Sue, Larry etc.), one might say in accordance with the command ‘denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what modern and highly unenlightened writers mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say and do in fact say, is that the Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata), Supreme-Self (mahatta’), uncaused (samskrta), undying (amara) and eternal (nicca) of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta’, “This/these are not my Soul” (na me so atta’= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are peculiarly apposite, “Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real” [Br. Sutra III.2.22]; since it was not for the Buddha, but for the nihilist (natthika), to deny the Soul. For, [SN 3.82] “yad anatta….na me so atta, “what is anatta…(means) that is not my Atman”; the extremely descriptive illumination of all thing which are Selfless (anattati) would be both meaningless and a waste of much time for Gotama were (as the foolish commentators espousing Buddhism’s denial of the atman) to clarify and simplify his sermons by outright declaring ‘followers, there is no atman!’, however no such passage exists. The Pali for said passage would be: ‘bhikkhave, natthattati!’; and most certainly such a passage would prove the holy grail and boon for the Theravadin nihilists (materialists) who have ‘protesteth too much’ that Buddhism is one in which the atman is rejected, but to no avail or help to their untenable views and position by the teachings themselves.
Outside of going into the doctrines of later schisms of Buddhism, such as Sarvastivada, Theravada, Vajrayana, Madhyamika, and lastly Zen, the oldest existing texts (Nikayas) of Buddhism which predate all these later schools of Buddhism [The Sanchi and Bharut inscriptions (aka the Pillar edicts) unquestionably dated to the middle of the second century B.C.E. push the composition of the 5 Nikayas back to a earlier date by mentioning the word “pañcanekayika” (Five Nikyas), thereby placing the Nikayas as put together (no later than) at a period about half way between the death of the Buddha and the accession of Asoka (before 265 B.C.), as such the 5 Nikayas, the earliest existing texts of Buddhism, must have been well known and well established far earlier than generally
perceived. Finally proving the majority of the five Nikayas could not have been composed any later than the very earliest portion of the third century B.C.E.], anatta is never used pejoratively in any sense in the Nikayas by Gotama the Buddha, who himself has said: [MN 1.140] “Both formerly and now, I’ve never been a nihilist (vinayika), never been one who teaches the annihilation of a being, rather taught only the source of suffering (that being avijja, or nescience/agnosis), and its ending (avijja).” Further investigation into negative theology is the reference by which one should be directed as to a further understanding of this 'negative' methodology which the term anatta illuminates. It should be noted with great importance that the founder of Advaita Vedanta, Samkara used the term anatman lavishly in the exact same manner as does Buddhism, however in all of time since his passing, none have accused Samkara of espousing a denial of the Atman. Such as: “Atma-anatma vivekah kartavyo bandha nuktaye”-“The wiseman should discriminate between the Atman and the non-Atman (anatman) in order to be liberated.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 152], “Anatman cintanam tyaktva kasmalam duhkah karanam, vintayatmanam ananda rupam yan-mukti karanam.”-”Give up all that is non-Atman (anatman), which is the cause of all misery, think only of the Atman, which is blissful and the locus of all liberation.” [Vivekacudamani of Samkara v. 379], “Every qualifying characteristic is, as the non-Atman (anatman), comparable to the empty hand.” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 6.2], “the intellect, its modifications, and objects are the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.9], “The gain of the non-Atman (anatman) is no gain at all. Therefore one should give up the notion that one is the non-Atman (anatman).” [Upadisa Sahasri of Samkara v. 14.44]. In none of the Buddhist suttas is there support for "there is no-atman" theories of anatta . The message is simply to cease regarding the very khandhas in those terms by which the notion of atman has, itself, been so easily misconstrued. As has been shown, detaching oneself from the phenomenal desire for the psycho-physical existence was also a central part of Samkara’s strategy. There is, hence, nothing in the suttas that Samkara, the chief proponent of Advaita Vedanta, would have disagreed with.
The mind feelings and other elements which create the illusion of self, are all ever-changing, and in flux, and hence impermanent, unsatisfactory, no true refuge, and not self
You have to first understand what the buddha meant when he was talking about a self. A self is something that is permanent (soul) and in control. On a deep level we feel we are in control of our life and there is a feeling that there is something permanent about us. The Buddha is saying this is false, we are not in control (hence all the unwanted suffering) and there is nothing permanent about us. That's what he means with Anatta.
I screenshot this to be a study guide. Thank you.
Correct
Nah. The doctrine of Non self of the Buddha has nothing and COMPLETELY NO RELATIONS with Hinduism. STOP TRYING TO MIX THEM UP.
Excellent talk .really funny . I liked the tadpole and the frog story!
My goodness, timestamp 55:29 "...even your mind conciousness is not yours." I found this weird and relaxing sensation in my sense of i, what fun. Thank you!
Yes it is. Your consciousness arises due to a cause and subsides. There's no controller involved
thanks for the great talk
Thank you deeply Bhante 🙏🙏🙏☀️😊🌺🌼🌸🙏🙏
Gosh, that was lovely!
Wonderful, thankyou, sadhu!
Thank you!
Yes stillness and relaxation makes you happy
"When you are at peace, you have everything you ever wanted" (!)
Very good talk!!
thankyou
3 types of Ego:
1) I am better
1) I am worse
3) I am the same
or in other words, I am something
there is the 4. "I AM" and this on is the first and all others in the midle
Very wise words.
A wonderful talk ... and less than a thousand views ... great things are mostly neglected, since everyone is under the sway of the ego and the illusions of this world ...
8 years on…hope all is well dr.
your will is the enemy number one of your happiness ..
Shaolin Soccer is quite a funny movie.
The word "will" has been often used here. Can anyone please tell me what the equivalent word in Pali is ?
Extremely radical.
Extremely humorous.
Sadhu, sadhu, sadhu
wanting just leads to more wanting...
The self is mind made by conditioning,its an Idea thats all, not real, but what knows that, is very real..
This is where hinduism and buddhism fights. Self vs no self
Sadhu
I don't think he quite got to what happens in the 4th level. Can anyone shed some light on that?
Does he meet online?
Ok then, iam thinking whats the difference from sleep
Dhammapada chapter 12 verse 4 "The self is the refuge for the self. What other refuge could there be? With one's self thoroughly tamed, one gains a shelter rare." So Buddha doesn't deny their is a self. His non-self doctrine is just that the body is not the self, because the self is the soul.
+David Brainerd Actually you completely misenterperate this scripture. Dhammapadda Chapter 12 is actually based upon the protection of the identity by cultivating virture.That scripture on "Self" you just pointed out is not based upon the existance of an "eternal soul" Which is a ridicioulas concept. Infact the Buddha was saying that we are our own refuge,no one is our refuge,no God,no so called eternal soul,and no fake Self. But we are our own refuge for wisdom and compassion. Also I am going to point out verses that prove you to be wrong. "By oneself evil is done,its born of Self and self-produced. Evil grinds the unwise one, as diamond does the hardest gem." So what is this verse telling us? The diamond is born of, produced and is sprung from stone. But it cut the precious stone. The evil action is born of, produced by, and sprung from the evil doer. Here is also another verse that means the same thing as your other verse, "Oneself is refuge of oneself,who else indeed could refuge be? By training of oneself one gains a refuge hard to gain." This is actually the verse that you are pointing out,if you research this verse it is basically the same verse,and I shall also tell you what the Buddha was meaning,this is the purport on the verse and what it actually means. The saviour of oneself is one’s own self. What other person could be your saviour? This is a difficult kind of help - being your own saviour. It can be achieved only through self discipline. So no,the Buddha was not making the ridicioulas claim that an "eternal soul" Or God can be the refuge of oneself,but we are our own refuge,for we alone are the only means that can cultivate knowledge and compassion. And no the Buddha was not saying that this No Self is the body while the Soul is eternal,you have no proof the Buddha made such a claim.
+Derek Ward Also,the Buddha did infact deny there was no Self.The Buddha said two things about non-self as follows;
1. A person consists of five aggregates. In the five, there is no permanent entity.
2. In this world either outside or inside, there is no permanent self.
In Dhammapada, the Buddha talked about non-self for example;-
“Compounded or conditioned things are impermanent”.
“Compounded or conditioned things cause suffering”.
“Dhamma, in both conditioned and unconditioned things, is non-self”.
In the first and second verse, the Buddha used the term of ‘Compounded or conditioned things’, but in the third one, the Buddha used Dhamma. Why did he use different terms? Here is the explanation; ‘Compounded or conditioned things’ means the five aggregates which have connection with either body or mind. ‘Dhamma’ has a broader meaning than the others, it includes everything. The third verse of the Buddha insists that there is no permanent entity in this universe.
Itta Nimulli Oh wait let me guess,you copied this off of the Nirvana Sutra website? I have read the exact same sutras you have mentioned and those are indeed the false translations that have been written by websites,I have researched those sutras and actually have copies of them,and there is no mention of either Self nor Soul. However Buddha did speak upon soul.but not as the supreme refuge. You are using the Buddhas sutras when he spoke about Self and mistranslated it as him talking about the Self being the supreme refuge,When he talked about the Self he talked about it being an impermanent identity. Let me explain.The Buddha divided all questions into four classes: those that deserve a categorical (straight yes or no) answer; those that deserve an analytical answer, defining and qualifying the terms of the question; those that deserve a counter-question, putting the ball back in the questioner's court; and those that deserve to be put aside. The last class of question consists of those that don't lead to the end of suffering and stress. The first duty of a teacher, when asked a question, is to figure out which class the question belongs to, and then to respond in the appropriate way. You don't, for example, say yes or no to a question that should be put aside. If you are the person asking the question and you get an answer, you should then determine how far the answer should be interpreted. The Buddha said that there are two types of people who misrepresent him: those who draw inferences from statements that shouldn't have inferences drawn from them, and those who don't draw inferences from those that should.
These are the basic ground rules for interpreting the Buddha's teachings, but if we look at the way most writers treat the anatta doctrine, we find these ground rules ignored. Some writers try to qualify the no-self interpretation by saying that the Buddha denied the existence of an eternal self or a separate self, but this is to give an analytical answer to a question that the Buddha showed should be put aside. Others try to draw inferences from the few statements in the discourse that seem to imply that there is no self, but it seems safe to assume that if one forces those statements to give an answer to a question that should be put aside, one is drawing inferences where they shouldn't be drawn.
Itta Nimulli And yet you clearly take false information from websites such as Nirvana Sutra,that claim there is a Self,if you clearly understood and read the Sutras on the discourse of Self,you would understand in the illusorary mind there is a Self,but however this Self is made up of five skandhas,however these skandhas are empty,because they have been formed through sense gratification and conciousness. However these senses are impermanent,and are constanly changing. Either through growing more and more with the body,or these senses fade away as they grow old. Now you may say that the senses are not equal to the eternal spirit soul,but however they are quite similar. How you ask? As the mind and its senses grow even older through the proccess of impermanence,the individual creates a form of refuge,a house where the mind and its senses can reside in,out of fear of destruction and changing of these senses,the mind creates illusions such as Self,Soul,And God. Each of these illusions are created by the human mind,and its senses.However at the hour of death,mostly the individual forgets the idea of refuge,and clings to the senses. When they cling to the senses,this is indication that the idea of Self is fading. Therefore each of these senses which create an idea of Self are impermanent,and are empy. One should not seek refuge in a Supreme Lord,nor in the Self. One should cultivate compassion through refuge of themselves. 1. The five skandhas are impermanent.
2. If there was a self, it would be permanent.
3. A person is no more than the five skandhas (this is the exhaustiveness claim).
4. Therefore there is no self.
When one attains Nirvana,most believe they have attained the supreme state of mind,that brings forth all happiness,destruction of distress,and peaceful thinking. However none of these are true,One does not attain nor does he enter Nirvana,the spiritually realized man or woman when entering the supreme state does not attain it,because one attains Nirvana not by cultivating wisdom or spiritual truth through words of Buddha or words of other spiritual gurus and teachers,but rather when he destroys the senses,and the idea of Self or Soul. Nirvana is not the gain of peace,but rather it is the fading away of all senses.Therefore in Nirvana there can be no room for Self. The Buddha’s teaching points us away from looking for the self, or trying to understand or improve the self. Instead it suggests that we pay attention to the fear, desire, ambition, and clinging that motivate the building of self identity. Perhaps we feel that we are defective in some way, and that our meditation practice will help us make or find a better self. Can we instead find the particular suffering that is connected with wanting to improve the self? Liberation entails releasing our suffering, not avoiding it, seeking relief from it or compensating for it. This doesn’t necessarily mean that we dwell on our suffering, either; or that suffering never ceases. Indeed, the third Noble Truth reminds us that there is a cessation to suffering.Here in the modern West, this ancient Indian definition of the Self does not have much, if any, meaning. However, we have our own notions of what the self is or what it needs to be. Therefore your idea or concept of eternal Self is refutable and undeniable a trespass on the basis on the path of Realization.
+Itta Nimulli "Eisntein was Enstein since he born. it is his unchanging self" Tell me,in the womb of Einstiens mother did he have a form of conciousness? Did he realize that his name would be Einstine? And what is your proof that he is eternally unchangeable? Einstine was a child,his senses growing more intact with his conciousness. Did Einstine know what his senses were at birth? Did his senses not start out as small seeds and grow into plants of desire? And at the hour of death did his senses not fail him as he was hopelesly sick on his deathbead? Tell me,are any of the elements you see here remain the same? In evolution itself changes occured through natural occurances.The idea that he identified with his self eternally is foolishness. From Birth,To Youth,To Old Age,To Death the senses grow even greater and even weaker than before. Therefore his "Self" is not eternal. If his Self were to be eternal his senses would be strong from the very begegining,And you must understand at child birth a child hardly has any contact with his senses,he can barely understand matter,barely taste,barely comprehend his own mind,and yet as he grows into a young man his senses grow even further,and at the hour of death the old man once again can hardly taste,hardly comprehend,hardly understand the matter of his own mind. If this "Self" Were to be eternal from the very beginning the baby would have a full sense of conciousness,he would know what taste is like,know what matter is like,know all that is to know in the mind of a fully developed human being,yet it is clearly seen the senses are always changing moment to moment. Now tell me,Is this Self true,eternal,never changing,full of opulence and joy? And yet clearly these senses themselves grow stronger and fade away.Therefore,there is no Self.
Do you read Pali, sir? Do you know how many times Sakamune quoted the ADJECTIVE Anatta in the Nikayas, i mean, did you read the Pali Canon? Do you know what Brahmayama is? You turned an ADJECTIVE into a proper NOUN because of your historical ignorance... If X is not A, If X is not B, If X is not C: so I can't say that X doesn't exist. You are not good in logic, sorry.
yes, you sound like a 'winer', not a 'winner' ... emblems and words, bolstering the ego ...