Talk:Theravada/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Disputed

Your understanding of anatta is Mahayanist. The Theravada view is that sankharas are not my self, because I can't control them. Somewhere in the Majjhima Nikaya this is spelt out. A king controls what happens in his kingdom. If you can't control something it can't be yours, let alone yourself. The idea that things have no inherent existence, tho' Theravada might not actually disagree with it, is not what non-self is about. Peter jackson (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

What you said applies to the Nikayas. I believe the Abhidhamma and commentaries are more metaphysical are they not? Mitsube (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, my understanding is NOT Mahayana. What you say is true, that the Sankharas cannot be what 'I' am, they are not 'mine', in the sense that 'I' cannot have control over them. But you miss out something: According to Theravada, there is nothing called 'I'. Nothing, even Nibbana, has an ultimate identity, that is independant.

Read this very carefully, for it captures the Theravada concept of Anatta almost entirely: According to Theravada, anything and everything is an aggregation, or an assemble of a maximum of 5 "things", namely, the Panchaskandha.

Let me explain this by an example: One comes with an axe and chops down a tree and makes a chair out of it. Another hacks it down and burns it to ashes. Starting from the beginning, consider how we would name the entities concerned: First, it's the 'Tree' first, then it's 'Timber', 'Chair', 'Wood', 'Fire' and finally 'Ashes'. Throughout the series of events, the entity formerly known as 'Tree' has changed it's identity several times. There is no abstract identity for anything. That is what Theravada teaches.

Please read the following Suthras, and verify what I say: MN:Anatta Lakkhana Suthra, MN:Sathipattana Suthra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjdrox (talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

An excellent collection of articles covering this topic, plus so many other disputed concepts may be found at this location: http://www.mettanet.org/. I highly recommend reading the article at the following location: http://www.mettanet.org/english/cause-effect.htm.

Nobody's questioning that that's what Theravada teaches. The point is that Theravada calls that anatta only when applied to living beings. Peter jackson (talk) 10:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There! That explains everything, everything. Please purchase a Dhammapada: it is the basic handbook of any Theravadian, (without having read which nobody should even dream of writing nonsense in a public encyclopedia, in my opinion). Read from front to back. Read Abhidhamma, anywhere, any place you like. I propose it as a challenge for you to prove, with your so-called citations, that Theravada, in its entirity, has stated anywhere that "Theravada calls that anatta only when applied to living beings."

"Sabbe sankhaara anicca - Sabbe Sankhara dukkha" says Theravada, but "Sabbe Dhamma Anatta". The latter transtales directly into "all entities are self-less" which means, for your information, all entities including living beings, non-living things (theories, encyclopedias, wikipedians, etc.) and in the broadest sense, all possible forms of existence are self-less.

Let me explain this more: there are two basic questions that arise in this concpet (which, I admit, is not an easy thing to grasp) that deserve explanation in detail.

1. What is meant by the term, 'Anatta'?
2. What has the quality of being 'Anatta'?

Well, here are the answers, in the simplest way I can explain:

1. Anatta means non-self (as Peter was eager to mention, thanks go to him). But the english term itself is cloudy and unclear; what exactly is its meant by being "non-self"? Non-self means "to have no ultimate identity that is not subject to change, and which keeps constant no matter what happens to everything else". Annatta is a transformation of Sanskrit:Anathma, which really is 'Na' + 'Athma' (please refer to a book, any standard book on oriental languages, I am not conducting a linguistic lecture here). In its deepest roots of sense, Athma means "existence", or one's "self". What do we mean by one's "self"? Clearly we are trying to define the basic element of existence of a person, thing or entity. Which is wrong and illusive in Theravada philosophy. What Theravada says is that since everything is subject to change, nothing can have an unchanging, constant "self", or identity.
2. So then, what has the quality of being 'Anatta'? Answer: everything. The attent reader may have deduced this fact by now. Not even Nibbana, the supreme state of freedom that a Buddhist can hope to have, has a "self". Even the existence of Nibbana is decided by the fact that suffering exists. (Using an analogy, what is the state one achieves when he drinks a good load of water after long tireing hours of thirst? Non-thirst, one might say. Even the existence of a state like that is governed by the fact that there is a state called thirst).--Cjdrox (talk) 13:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

For your information, I have purchased several Dhammapadas, along with the rest of the Canon. I've read the whole Canon, along with more than 1/2 the commentaries.

Now, the difference between sankhara & dhamma is clearly explained in the commentaries, 7 stated briefly in the Parivara. Dhamma includes nirvana & pannatti. Sankhara doesn't. Nirvana is not oneself, tho' it's not impermanent & not suffering. It is in a sense permanent, tho' more accurately ouside time. It can be described as happy (nibbanam paramam sukham: Dhammapada). Pannatti are neither permanent nor impermanent, as they don't really exist. Similarly they aren't really either happy or unhappy. But they're not oneself. Peter jackson (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If you really have read the Pali commentries, good, that indeed is a good starting point, because if you have read the Pali Canon, you cannot deny the following Gathas, which I'm going to cite to prove that Anatta applies not only to living beings.

  "Sabbe sankhara aniccathi - Yadaa pannaya passathi
   Atha nibbindathi dukkhe - Esa maggo visuddhiya

   Sabbe sankhara aniccathi - Yadaa pannaya passathi
   Atha nibbindathi dukkhe - Esa maggo visuddhiya

   Sabbe sankhara aniccathi - Yadaa pannaya passathi
   Atha nibbindathi dukkhe - Esa maggo visuddhiya"

The translation goes: "If one realises that all sankharas (all that is the result of a Hetu [root cause] and Pacca [other causes] are subject to Change, he becomes free from suffering; that, is the pathway to cleansing". (I hate word-to-word translations, but here I have no choice but to endure this tedium.) The second goes much the same as well, with the replacement of "Dukkha" (suffering, or rather, having the quality of suffering), for "Anicca" in the first. But that is not where the subtlity comes in.

Read the third: please explain to me why it uses "Sabbe Dhamma" (all entities), instead of "Sabbe sankhara" (all that is the result of a cause)? --Cjdrox (talk) 03:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I just did, immediately before your remarks. Please try to get into the habit of reading what people say before replying. Peter jackson (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not in the habit of commenting about someone with having read nothing what he or she have said. No, you still have not explained anything. Explaining is not mere translation. What is Dhamma? What is Pannatti? What is Nibbana? Dhamma includes nirvana & pannatti. Sankhara doesn't.: I suppose that it is your limit of understanding. Do you know that by saying that, you have accepted the fact that there can be nothing that does not have the quality of being 'Anatta'? For example, can you please name something that comes under neither 'Dhamma' nor 'Sankhara'? (In fact there can be nothing that does not come under any of those categories.). Do you deny the translation I gave? Do you deny the sources?

If you are still able to hold to the opinion that Anatta applies only to living beings, then you should be able to prove it. Having you said that I provide no citations, I put up some excellent translations of some truly comprehensive Suttas, the best translations I could find on the Web. Now it is your turn. Pali Canon is the most authoritative text on Theravada. I propose it as a challenge for you to come up with any Pali text (please, not another "modern" book) that says (or even implies) that the concept Anatta applies only to living beings.--Cjdrox (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

1. It's not up to me to prove anything. WP policy requires you, as the person who wants to add things to the article, to prove them.
2. The type of proof it requires is quite specific. Read WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS & WP:PSTS.
3. If you want to assert in the article that the theravada teaching is such-&-such, then you must supply an independent scholarly source that clearly says so. No individual or organization has the authority to speak for the whole of Theravada.
4. If you merely want to assert in the article that there is a significant body of opinion within Theravada, then a Theravada source can be cited, but it must be a major 1, as defined in WP:RS, & it must be a secondary source, ie not the Pali Canon. Scriptures are always open to interpretation, can be taken out of context, may appear to contradict each other &c.
5. Certainly the doctrine is that everything is anatta. That doesn't mean it has no self, in the Mahayana sense you take it. It means it isn't my self, or yours ... N'etam mama, n'eso 'ham asmi, n'eso me atta.

Peter jackson (talk) 10:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the conflict comes through one point: that Teravada Suttas (and Abhidhamma, to a considerable extent) treats the term Anatta as being relavant to living beings, most of the time. But when you move on to Suttas that deal specifically with the concept, it is obvious that the term has its applicability on both living and non-living entities. It is there, word-by-word in the Pali text, and no one in his right mind can give an alternate translation.

Plus, whenever the Pali Canon discusses Annatta as being a quality of all possible entities and forms of existence, it turns the talk back to living beings being Anatta. This apparent lack of discussion on Anatta being a quality that applies to non-living beings is perfectly understandable, for Theravada is there for the cessation of suffering. This apparent minority of discussions on Anatta specifically as a universal quality, coupled with a vast majority of text that deals with Anatta as a quality relavant to living beings, may lead a person into get that Anatta is a quality that applies only to living beings. But that does not invalidate the original meaning.

To summarize, Anatta can be explained as "not my self" and so on. But it is not limited to that meaning. There is no conflict on that; if there was, I would certainly turn to secondary sources.--Cjdrox (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest you hve a good look thro' the archives for this talk page? You'll find a variety of people being just as dogmatic as you, but with different dogmas. Can you see why WP policy is to avoid taking sides in religious disputes? Peter jackson (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I will take a leaf out of your book and say: May I suggest you have a good look through the history of Pali Canon and its commentaries again? You'll find a variety of people being just as deviating and innovative as you, but with different ideas. Can you see why it has been the policy of Theravadins over decades for not to try and explain things in Pali Canon, but to provide supplements to it? I agree with WP policies, but iWP policies do not extend to the level of evident misdirection about a topic through obvious lack of fluency about a topic, particularly one about which there exists a comprehensive literature.--Cjdrox (talk) 13:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by decades. What are commentaries if not explanations? Do you just mean recnt decades?

You just continue with your endless dogmatic assertions that you're right without citing a single source that clearly & explicitly states what you're claiming. Peter jackson (talk) 10:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I am getting tired of this discussion, but I have no choice. Read this very carefully:

1. You asked what I am claiming: I claim against what you told about Anatta being a quality that applies only to living beings (among a dozen other rubbish which I cannot even imagine where Peter found them in the Pali Canon).
2. What are my sources? The Pali Canon. Period. I provided ample references in this very section.
3. Why don't I cite additional sources? Because the topic in question is dealt with thoroughly and exhastively in the Pali Canon that there can in fact be no controversy. If there were, then it would be necessary that I provide additional scholarly sources. Actually, the topic in question is discussed word-to-word, in several forms, including even a Q & A form in the Pali Canon. I provided the best translations I could find on the Web; the only reason I did not put them up as refernces is that I waited for a NPOV comment about them from dear Mr. Jackson (which he did not do, eventually).

And now it's my turn to ask a single, simple question from Mr. Peter Jackson: can you please, please come up with a single source from the Pali Canon to prove what you claimed (that Anatta applies only to living beings) ?--Cjdrox (talk) 06:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Paying homage to: One opinion is not relevant here, thought the external link is alright

Hm. Austerlitz -- 88.75.69.0 (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Venerable text from theravada of Burma

"Once upon time, when the Bodhisattva was a monkey king, he encountered a brahman ho had fallen into a deep gorge. Having decided to rescue the poor fellow, the Bodhisattva threw the brahman on his back and carried him out of the crevasse. The Bodhisattva became very tired under this heavy load, so reaching a safe place, he promptly fell asleep in the brahman's lap. Now, all along the brahman had been thinking how pleased his family would be if he were to give them some monkey flesh for dinner. So grabbing a big rock he struck the sleeping monkey on the head. The monkey king, covered in blood gushing from his head, crawled a short distance and cried out, "Oh... there are still people like this in the world!" But still, being a bodhisattva, he remained determined to lead the brahman safely to his village, even though the forest was filled with lions and other dangerous animals. "Even if you see a tiger, don't worry," said the monkey, "I'll take you to your village. Just follow the path of blood dripping from my head." And so saying, the monkey king led the brahman to his village."

— The Tale of the Bodhisattva Monkey King and the Brahman, Ledi Sayadaw's Uttamapurisa Dipani

books.google.it/books?id=Y5jaJ7Sei9EC&q=monkey+flesh#search--Aryadeva (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ultimate Reality

This is to prove that your fear of confusing the reader is unfounded as the word is widely used in Theravada circle. It is even used by scholar/monk from Sri Lanka. Don’t tell me your half-baked view is more superior than theirs. Below citation is only sourced from accesstoinsight website, I have not searched other Theravadin website yet.

The Pali word for ultimate reality is paramattha dhamma. Ultimate true is paramattha sacca.

Now what is this reality which appears when the delusion is removed? The ultimate reality is the Unconditioned, called also the Unborn, the Unoriginated, the Uncreated, and the Uncompounded. We can, inadequately and not very accurately, describe it as a positive state of being. It is characterized by supreme bliss and complete freedom from suffering and is so utterly different from ordinary existence that no real description of it can be given. The Unconditioned can be indicated — up to a point — only by stating what it is not; for it is beyond words and beyond thought. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bullen/bl042.html Much time must usually elapse before the virtue of wisdom has become strong enough to support a vigorous insight into the true nature of reality http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/conze/wheel065.html

One might gain the impression from this account, that it needed Ananda's intense and clever arguments to change the Buddha's mind. But an awakened one's mind cannot be changed, because he is always in touch with absolute reality. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/hecker/wheel273.html

So, vipassana, insight-meditation techniques of the Buddha, are designed to enable us to penetrate our illusions about the nature of reality which are perpetuated by our inaccurate perception of the world and ourselves. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel301.html

The second commentarial theme that can be helpful to us in developing our own understanding of the ultimate nature of reality is the working of the law of kammic cause and effect http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel349.html

As practice progresses, we will find that by letting go of our preconceived ideas on how and where dukkha can be avoided, we come upon uncharted landscapes within ourselves, which provide a totally new concept of life, its purpose, its value and its ultimate reality. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khema/allofus.html

The more we know of the Dhamma, the more we can watch whether we comply with its guidelines. There is no blame attached to our inability to do so. But the least we can do is to know the guidelines and know where we're making mistakes. Then we practice to get nearer and nearer to absolute reality, until one day we will actually be the Dhamma. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/khema/herenow.html

The Ultimate Realities The Abhidhamma deals with realities existing in an ultimate sense, called in Pali paramattha dhammaa. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

Nibbaana is the fourth ultimate reality (paramattha dhamma). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/mendis/wheel322.html

upon the understanding of the nature of reality that separates http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nanamoli/wheel390.html

Then by the power of samadhi, concentrative thought, thus won, he turns his mind to the understanding of reality in the highest sense http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/piyadassi/wheel001.html

These aggregates are constantly changing, but so swiftly that they appear to retain a distinctive identity — hence the conventional notions of "you" and "I." But such words and ideas are only conveniences which do not accord with ultimate reality http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/price/bl096.html

As long as we are willing to compromise with our obsessions we have not fully understood the Buddha's teaching about the nature of reality http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/price/bl092.html

Before we can begin to grasp the nature of Reality, which is transcendental, we must first grasp the nature of the mundane http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/various/wheel294.html

The real basis of Buddhism is full knowledge of the truth of reality. If one knows this truth then no teaching is necessary. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/chah/atasteof.html

A study by Bhikkhu Nanananda, Concept and Reality, gives extensive coverage to the term "papañca".58 He puts forward the view that it is linked with the final stage of sense cognition and that it signifies a "a spreading out, a proliferation" in the realm of concepts, a tendency for the conceptual process to run riot and obscure the true reality of things. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/harris/wheel392.html

Sawadeekrap (talk) 00:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The technical sense from the Abhidhamma can only be understood in the context of the theory of momentariness, when it refers to momentarily existing real atomic elements. If the context is not clear then "ultimate reality" just by itself means brahman or something like that. In the sense of "ultimate reality is inexpressible". This statements is objectionable. Mitsube (talk) 03:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a kind request for Sawadeekrap, can you please describe something in one or two sentences (as a recap) for me? What exactly do you mean by Ultimate Reality, in this section? Because although your translation is 100% correct, the accuracy depends also on what context you used it?--Cjdrox (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

This slightly modified paragraph will be restore into the article

It is believed that unenlightened beings are under the influence of the defilements, unenlightened beings cling to them through ignorance of the truth. But in reality, those mental defilements are nothing more than taints that have afflicted the mind and create suffering and stress. It is also believed that unenlightened beings cling to the body, assuming it as their own “Self”, but in reality the body is an impermanent phenomenon formed from the 4 basic elements (often characterized by Earth, Water, Fire and Air) and after death the body will decompose and disperse. The mental defilements' frequent instigation and manipulation of the mind is believed to have prevented the mind from seeing the true nature of reality.

In the deep state of jhana, the five physical sense doors will close or become muted, the mental defilements will be suppressed, and wholesome mental traits will become strengthened. In this state, the mind can be used to investigate and gain insight into the true nature of reality.

Simply learning or believing in the true nature of reality as expounded by the Buddha is not enough, the awakening can only be achieved if the individual personally knows it by direct experience and realizes it for themselves. They will have to follow and practice the Noble Eightfold Path as taught by the Buddha to discover the reality for themselves.

i will soon restore the above modified paragraph into the article. You need to tell me which part of it need to be reword, unsuitable or is not valid, so that proper amendment can be made. You also must give me the valid reason for the changes.

p.s: Instead of trying to edit the Theravada page with your half-baked knowledge, why don’t you spend more time reading ALL of the articles & Suttas in the accesstosinsight website. It can help you increase your knowledge.Sawadeekrap (talk) 00:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I already know everything you have quoted. I still object to "parasites", "ultimate reality", and your way of putting the idea that one is not one's thoughts. Your version is confusing and sounds like something it's not. Mitsube (talk) 03:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You mean Buddha teach that one thoughts is "Self" & your mental fabrication is Self, discursive thinking is Self? This is not what the Buddha teach. To avoid, your so callled confusion...what ever that may be, as u can see above I already the reword the defilement part, it no longer refer to 'Self'. For the word "Parasite": How do u describe "Mara the demons of defilement" who reside in other realm but has the power thru his army to distort our mind? and their livehood is to go inside our mind & stir it. If Mara is not Parasite then what is the other suitable word that can be use? The word "ultimate reality" have been used in Theravada circle to describe their doctrine, you don't have the right to ban the word from being use to describe their doctrine, anyway the altenative is to use "true nature of reality". Sawadeekrap (talk) 04:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to "true nature of reality." Mara is a metaphor. Are you saying that the mind is originally pure and is only infested by external forces? I too can quote Maha Boowa:

When referring to the original citta, the Buddha stated: Pabhassaramidam cittam bhikkhave. Pabhassara means radiant, it does not mean pure. His reasoning is absolutely correct; it is impossible to argue against it. Had the Buddha equated the original citta with the pure citta, one could immediately object: "If the citta was originally pure, why then should it be born at all?" The Arahant, who has purified his citta, is one who never comes to birth again. If his citta were originally pure, why then would he need to purify it? This would be the obvious objection: What reason would there be to purify it?

Mitsube (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Mara is real beings, similar to devas, brama & etc. Only modern buddhist would claimed Mara is a metaphor, they just too embarrass to claim that Mara is real. I'm glad that u quote Maha Boowa, here is another quote from Maha Boowa:

Once infested with defilements you'll never be able to find Dhamma or anything essential within the heart. How on earth are you going to find any peace?http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/thai/boowa/tolastbr.html

fyi, one of the reasons I use the word "Infest" in wiki is because it have been used by Maha Boowa to describe the defilement. May be u should go to Thailand & start arguing with him. Anyway, i would change the "parasites" to "taints" & the "infested" have been change to "afflicted". Sawadeekrap (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The normal state is to be somewhat afflicted, he is referring to a major infestation as is clear from the language surrounding that passage, and it makes sense in that context. I don't think I could argue with Maha Boowa ... Mitsube (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When Maha Boowaa use the word "infest", he don't mean the original citta is pure. No Theravada teacher ever claim the original citta is pure. It is used for the sake of conveying the msg that the defilement need to be uprooted. Most of them don't bother about the argument whether Buddhism is philosophy or Religion. I also don't bother about it. You are into the semantic arguement. If there no more issue with the text tommorow i would put the above paragraph it into the article.Sawadeekrap (talk) 09:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The connotations of the English words are very important. Subtle is the doctrine. Mitsube (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

A theoritical tricky point: can Sawadeekrap please explain what you mean by Deep state of jhana here? Because you say that "In the deep state of jhana, the five physical sense doors will close or become muted". I can only assume that you're speaking of Nirodha Samapatti, the deepest level of jhana, because there is no other way that the physical doors close completely, as you said.--Cjdrox (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

i will change it to "In the state of jhana, the five physical sense doors will fade, the mental defilements will be suppressed, and wholesome mental traits will become strengthened. The mind can then be used to investigate and gain insight into the true nature of reality." Sawadeekrap (talk) 05:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems OK to me; I specially like that part about "The mental defilements will be 'suppresed'". Can you please include (or at least cross-reference) to the three states of defilements, Anusaya (suppressed), Pariyuttana(arising) and Vitikkama(active)? Coz I feel this is the best place where it can be mentioned without confusion.--Cjdrox (talk) 03:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Added new paragraph: "There are three stages of defilements. During the stage of passivity the defilements lies dormant at the base of the mental continuum as latent tendencies (anusaya), but through the impact of sensory stimulus it will manifest (pariyutthana) itself to the surface of consciousness in the form of unwholesome thoughts, emotions, and volitions. If they gather additional strenght, the defilement will reach the dangerous stage of transgression (vitikkama), which will then involve physical or vocal actions." Sawadeekrap (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)