An important question to BUDHISTS about BUDHISM

[swarm]

The need for proof lies with the one making the claim for existence. Things are assumed not to exist until proven otherwise.

Unicorns, souls, tooth fairies, gods, etc. all are assumed not to exist until there is firm evidence to the contrary.

 

[one_raven]

The need for proof lies with the one making the claim for existence. Things are assumed not to exist until proven otherwise.

Unicorns, souls, tooth fairies, gods, etc. all are assumed not to exist until there is firm evidence to the contrary.

What are you talking about?
Who is trying to prove anything exists?

Again, I think you are getting hung up on the silly concept of a transcedental soul distinct and separate from us.
That is not what I am talking about nor is that necessarily what the Atman is, as I pointed out.

 

[swarm]

I think you are getting hung up on the silly concept of a transcedental soul distinct and separate from us.

No, I don't really care which silly notion of soul is being put forth. If you posit any notion of soul you need to show what that is.

If its just another word for "self," we don't need any more.

 

[lixluke]

Hi there,
I really appreciate and like the concepts of BUDHISM. But, i have trouble understanding one important concept which Budha taught us.

• 
  Budhism says that there is no SOUL, no SELF and it is only an illusion. At the same time, BUDHISM talks about re-incarnation. What does Budha mean when he talks about re-incarnation?

• 
  If there is no soul, no self and no re-incarnation (i guess budhism even says there is no GOD as we perceive it today) how can we teach our generation to be good and behave properly? I believe that, it is the concept of GOD and the fear of unknown which puts the responsibility squarely on the lap of many uneducated people and make them behave properly in the society.
  Fear of unknown is what keeps most of the people from becoming barbarics. Don't you think so?

Please educate me on this point. I highly appreciate everyone for their responses. Thank you all.

The idea is that there is no self independent of anything. Everything is one. Thus, there is no separation in terms of self.

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

I think someone called it decadence.

 

[one_raven]

This was one of my favorite discussions I have had at this place, so I decided to try and give it a rebirth and see if anyone is interested in delving into it.

 

[one_raven]

From: Majjhima Nikaya 2: Sabbasava Sutta — All the Fermentations

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... does not discern what ideas are fit for attention, or what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas fit for attention, and attends (instead) to ideas unfit for attention... This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established,

or the view I have no self...

or the view It is precisely because of self that I perceive self...

or the view It is precisely because of self that I perceive not-self...

or the view It is precisely because of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established,

or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower which is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine which is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity.

This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the un-instructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair. He is not freed from stress, I say.

The well-taught disciple of the noble ones... discerns what ideas are fit for attention, and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention, and attends (instead) to ideas fit for attention... He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origin of stress... This is the stopping of stress... This is the way leading to the stopping of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, uncertainty and adherence to precepts & practices.

 

[Thoreau]

The need for proof lies with the one making the claim for existence. Things are assumed not to exist until proven otherwise.

Unicorns, souls, tooth fairies, gods, etc. all are assumed not to exist until there is firm evidence to the contrary.

Ok, so where is the question????

 

[one_raven]

Ok, so where is the question????

Did Siddhartha claim there was no self as a matter of metaphysical or onotlogical truth, or did he not take a position on whether or not the self exists and simply consider anatta a skillful strategy?

 

[Search & Destroy]

Did Siddhartha claim there was no self as a matter of metaphysical or onotlogical truth, or did he not take a position on whether or not the self exists and simply consider anatta a skillful strategy?

BuddhaScript2.3 Generated Unanswerable question error. Execute command unAskQuestion()

 

[swarm]

Did Siddhartha claim there was no self as a matter of metaphysical or onotlogical truth, or did he not take a position on whether or not the self exists and simply consider anatta a skillful strategy?

The Brahmajala Sutta in the Digha Nikaya (Long Discourses) covers some of this. As with many suttas it should make matters clear as mud.

Synopsis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)

 

[one_raven]

The Brahmajala Sutta in the Digha Nikaya (Long Discourses) covers some of this. As with many suttas it should make matters clear as mud.

Synopsis here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmajala_Sutta_(Theravada)

Checking it out now - slow day at work.

 

[one_raven]

Access To Insight does not have this Sutta.
Do you know anything of This Translation?
I will always use Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations if they are available, and am not sure who else's can compare.

 

[swarm]

Access To Insight does not have this Sutta.
Do you know anything of This Translation?
I will always use Thanissaro Bhikkhu's translations if they are available, and am not sure who else's can compare.

Access to Insight only has selected discourses of the Digha Nikaya, but not DN1.

That translation seems as good as any, for another try here: http://www.leighb.com/suttas.htm

For the complete Digha Nikaya Access to Insight recommends Maurice Walshe's The Long Discourses of the Buddha: A Translation of the Digha Nikaya (formerly titled: Thus Have I Heard) (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 1987).