Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4

Thread: Questions About Anatta and Causes

  1. #31
    Global Moderator Esho's Avatar
    Location
    Under the Bodhi Tree
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Element
    1. Mind.

    2. Not all things have a cause (preceding cause or hetu). For example, ignorance does not.

    Similarly, the law of causality does not have a cause. It is inherent.
    Yes... that's it... As always... thanks Element!


  2. #32
    Global Moderator Esho's Avatar
    Location
    Under the Bodhi Tree
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by Element
    By insight, by practising introspection, or simply by experience.

    There are kinds of ignorance we have ended via experience.

    When we were a baby, we did not know fire burns or hurts. By touching fire, we soon learned it burnt.

    The Buddha taught ignorance does not have a cause (hetu) but taught it has food (ahara), namely, the five hindrances.

    When the five hindrances remain in the mind, ignorance receives support.

    But when the five hindrances are overcome, clarity of mind can manifest to end ignorance.

    Kind regards
    Direct and clear... without struggle...


  3. #33
    Forums Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    161
    Quote Originally Posted by Element
    1. Mind.

    2. Not all things have a cause (preceding cause or hetu). For example, ignorance does not.

    Similarly, the law of causality does not have a cause. It is inherent.
    [/quote]

    Or is the cause of ignorance Mara?
    http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...39348#msg39348

    Or is it difficult to determine what comes first?
    Or are cause and effect one? (which is the same as what you mean by inherent, I guess)

  4. #34
    Forums Member stuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    "Oh, Gawd, uh 'nuther Sutta Thumper..."
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by jan
    Or is the cause of ignorance Mara?
    That is not what Tan Ajarn is saying.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan
    Or is it difficult to determine what comes first?
    Or are cause and effect one? (which is the same as what you mean by inherent, I guess)
    Can we kindly exit "teacher mode"?

  5. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by stuka
    Can we kindly exit "teacher mode"?
    Agreed.

    PM's to continue.

  6. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by jan
    Or is the cause of ignorance Mara?........etc etc

    I was under the impression that 'Mara' - when seen as a representation of negative mental states, is rooted in ignorance/ delusion (avijja), according to the Buddha's teachings....and Element has already given us an explanation of ignorance according to his knowledge of Buddha's teachings.

    We have had a thread elsewhere exploring the concept of evil and Mara.

    Lets not forget that this is the beginners forum, and post accordingly when you are not a beginner, please,..... and perhaps we can get back to the topic of anatta, if anyone wants to add anything.


    Thanks

  7. #37
    Forums Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    13
    The Buddha did not declare "there is no self". The Buddha pointed out that one cannot point to anything and say, "This is my self, This is what I am."

    This is not a declaration about what a person is. The Buddha is trying to move away from such speculations and instead point to the question of how we attach to sense experience and try to make it our own. The Buddha out it this way: 'The eye (and its associated neurosensory systems) sees a visual form (in your example of the tree) and 'eye-consciousness' arises (we become aware of this form of a tree). The meeting of the three (eye, form, eye-consciousness) is called 'eye-contact'. A sensation arises that is pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. (In the presence of ignorance) craving arises in response to that sensation, and from that, clinging to that sensation arises. A self-concept arises (the notion of the tree in relation to ourselves, for example, its usefulness to us as a source of food, of beauty, of heat, etc.). The Buddha's teaching of Anatta (*not*-self) is a deconstruction of that self-view that arises in this process, not a nihilistic declaration like "there is no 'you'."


    this description reminds me of my toddler twins, when they see something new, they think it is them also. they point to fire and then to themselves. thinking they are the fire. then they learn that fire is hot and gives energy. then they move onto another discovery in the same fashion learning about the world as they go.

  8. #38
    nirmal
    Guest
    Om Mani Padme Hom

    Mata Devi," We are neither males nor females.We are just souls in transmigration."

    Om Mani Padme Hom

  9. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by nirmal
    we are just souls in transmigration."

    Extract from Annatta and Rebirth by Ajahn Buddhadasa.(Page 6)


    One group of people believes that there is self, there is atman, there is a soul which is born as this person. Once the body dies, this thing doesn't die. It goes to a new birth. Most people believe this, they take it as the basis of their beliefs. The Upanishad texts believed this.

    In Buddhism, however, there isn't such a thing. Buddhism does not believe there is a self or soul which is born and then dies. Thus, the rebirth of this or that person doesn't occur, because that person doesn't exist here in the first place. This is
    called "physical rebirth." It is something that should not be spoken of as "rebirth."

    The Lord Buddha forbade his disciples to believe that consciousness or a spirit goes to be born. A certain bhikkhu named Sati stated that “As I understand the Dhamma as taught by the Blessed One, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through samsara (the cycles of birth and death), not another.”

    When other monks objected, Sati stubbornly clung to his “pernicious view.” When this was brought to the Buddha’s attention, he himself interviewed Sati. The later repeated his view, to which the Buddha scolded him richly. “Misguided man, to whom have you ever known me to teach the Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, in many talks have I not stated consciousness to be dependently arisen, since without a condition there is no origination of consciousness?”

    Clearly, the Buddha did not accept that the “same consciousness” is reborn from life to life.

    http://das-buddhistische-haus.de/pag...nd_Rebirth.pdf

  10. #40
    Forums Member stuka's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    "Oh, Gawd, uh 'nuther Sutta Thumper..."
    Posts
    1,717
    Quote Originally Posted by nirmal
    Mata Devi

    As Aloka-D has rightly pointed out, the Buddha did not teach "souls in transmigration", and he admantly, even harshly, refuted claims that he did.


    Also, "mata devi" (shakti, lakshmi, see http://www.facebook.com/pages/Mata-Devi/111922978827481 ) is a Hindu deity.

    Why are you pushing Hinduism in a Buddhist forum?

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Los Angeles Mexico City London Colombo Kuala Lumpur Sydney
Wed, 1:47 PM Wed, 3:47 PM Wed, 9:47 PM Thu, 3:17 AM Thu, 5:47 AM Thu, 8:47 AM