Existence in any realm is inherently imperfect and unsatisfactory All conditioned things (saṃskāra) are impermanent (anitya) and duḥkha, and all conditioned and unconditioned things (dharma) are without self (anātma) Could some one explain this Buddhist principle to me? Its from the Basic Points Unifying the Theravāda and the Mahāyāna* I understand the terms as follows: The delusion called attachment to existence has to be abandoned by under standing the true nature of life in the light of the knowledge of the First Noble Truth-viz. Suffering (in Pali, Dukkha). This understanding is conducive to progress on the Noble Eightfold Path. samskara: structures within the unconscious that are the basis for all worldly activities and future rebirth duhka: suffering anātma: absence of soul So is he saying that to abandon suffering one must discard that which does not exist, ie the soul? It appears to be similar to this: "The Ego-illusion is the cause of all passions and defilements" worte Santideva in his classic "Bodhichariyavatara". ----------------------------------- *the Buddhist document created in 1967 during the First Congress of the World Buddhist Sangha Council (WBSC), where its founder Secretary-General, the late Venerable Pandita Pimbure Sorata Thera, requested the Ven. Walpola Rahula to present a concise formula for the unification of all the different buddhist traditions.
impossible the semantics presupposes notions of perfection and satisfaction. the implication is the ideals exists the confusion arises when attempting to localize the shit furthermore a self is required to postulate a no self a logical contradiction /skins siddhartha
Yes, the illusion of self causes suffering. Abandoning the self would be the Eastern equivalent to giving yourself up completely to the will of God, not expecting any particular thing, but accepting what comes.
define self it is differing defs that has to be reconciled my self is a thought, not a person the emanation from which, is yet unknown who the fuck are you, spidey?
The earliest Buddhism of the founder seeks to abandon suffering by abandoning rebirth into the physical world. And this can only be attained by transcending one's attachment to the physical world...while you are here.
There is no self continuing through time. There are just phenomena. Event. Event. Event. There is a habit to think that the same self is present and receiving impressions of what is outside it. Things happen to this self. This self touches objects. But there are no objects and no self. There is just events. It is a habit to think of someone experiencing rather than simply that experience happens. Everything in experience, that's the Buddha. Objects and the self are ideas about the continuity of what actually are just sense impressions that seem the same over time - especially if one isn't paying close attention - but they aren't. PS. I'm not a Buddhist, but I liked the challenge. Perhaps a Buddhist can come and correct me if it seems necessary.
As I said, I'm not a Buddhist and have no interest in discarding what I don't think is an illusion. But I answered from impressions I've gotten over the years. For example: I think a case can be made that Buddhism is not saying there is no self that continues through time - sorry about the bunched up negatives, but in a sense they reflect the cautiousness of Buddhist assertions. There is a self, but it has no qualities and certainly none of the qualities we tend to attribute to selves. It is sort of like a region of experience.
No i understand your point actually, thanks for that. I am a Hindu myself, and i am familiar with something called Neti Neti technique in Advaita vedanta where they discard all the things to describe attributes of Brahman (Brahm in actual pronunciation). But basically anatma is absence of "ego-self" or any differentiation ? Just needs some more clarification, if its not much of a bother. Rick
absence of 'ego-self' sounds less challenging to me. Depends on what you mean by ego. But my experience of mystical Hinduism is pretty similar to Buddhism. There really is no me with this or that memory, tastes, qualities. There is just _____________, fill in the deity blank (Shiva, Brahma, Parvati, etc.) Both make a case for passing forms and the pain that is caused by identifying with illusory (Hinduism) seemingly permanent or continuous (Buddhism) qualities. Hinduism often seeks to fill the region of experience with love (bhakti) or the deity, whereas Buddhism, it seems to me, is a little cooler. Just experience the region of experience and don't get all worked up. So to me Hinduism focuses more on letting the all flow through you ecstatically. Where Buddhism dissolves the differences at the boundary by getting you to just observe and via that stop identifying and having habits, including what most people call ego. Both are heavy assaults - on a conceptual level and otherwise - to the whole, My name is __________, I live here and I do this, I like this, when I was five I. Though in both you can say these things, of course, but is the detailing of passing shapes and not meant in the same essential way most of us mean them.
Somwhat, I can never get "worked up" (that is only expression of avoidance of thoughts) its amazing and weird though, I have gone through phases of personal growth with this forum ( I may have only 3k+ posts, but i joined this forum way back in days when there were not many people around) ... I do understand the point of view though. Rick
I didn't mean it critically. But hey, I've chanted with Hindus. I mean it felt like at any moment we were going to tear our clothes off and act as avatars for Shiva and parvati, or maybe Kali. My experiences with Buddhists are not like that. Anecdotal evidence, of course.