[squicscor]

You think it is possible to realize anatta by reasoning?

I remember at least one Pali sutta in which the Buddha said that some monks are capable of the highest attainments through meditation and others through reasoning, and that both paths should be equally regarded. I'd have a hard time finding that sutta now, but I'll give it a try, if you like.

Edit: Or maybe my memory fails... http://books.google.com/books?id=JBb...ddhism&f=false Edit 2: Related, I think-

Paths to Nirvana in the Pali canon

In the Visuddhimagga, Ch. I, v. 6 (Buddhaghosa & Ñāṇamoli, 1999, pp. 6–7), Buddhaghosa identifies various options within the Pali canon for pursuing a path to nirvana,[33] including:
1.by insight (vipassana) alone (see Dh. 277)[34]
2.by jhana and understanding (see Dh. 372)[35]
3.by deeds, vision and righteousness (see MN iii.262)[36]
4.by virtue, consciousness and understanding (7SN i.13)[37]
5.by virtue, understanding, concentration and effort (see SN i.53)[38]
6.by the four foundations of mindfulness (see Satipatthana Sutta, DN ii.290)[39]

Depending on one's analysis, each of these options could be seen as a reframing of the Buddha's Threefold Training of virtue, mental development[40] and wisdom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana...the_Pali_canon

But I am straying off-topic a bit. The question was about realizing anatta, not nibbana. I'm not sure how anatta could be realized without reasoning, but I think I'll stop short of saying that it is sufficient in itself. I think the two kinds of knowledge are distinct, one cerebral and the other visceral, for lack of a better word.

What do you think, Deshy?

[iodillalm]

I'm not sure how anatta could be realized without reasoning

Hi FBM,
I don't see how anatta can be "realized" with reasoning. Reasoning can bring us to some kind of conclusion, or even firm conviction, but it's not in the same league as realization.

In my opinion, Buddha didn't set out up front to present a formal doctrine based on something he'd reasoned out. He reported what he actually discovered - no more, no less.

The mistake is to treat anatta like a philosophical stance or a kind of ontology, an "ultimate" as opposed to... whatever...

[NerbuitW]

Does "reasoning" equates to "pariyatti" as the theoretical understanding of the Dhamma?

I think that a wholesome practice should include theory, practice and realization: "pariyatti", "patipatti" and "pativedha".

[Immerymopay]

Hi FBM,
I don't see how anatta can be "realized" with reasoning. Reasoning can bring us to some kind of conclusion, or even firm conviction, but it's not in the same league as realization.

In my opinion, Buddha didn't set out up front to present a formal doctrine based on something he'd reasoned out. He reported what he actually discovered - no more, no less.

The mistake is to treat anatta like a philosophical stance or a kind of ontology, an "ultimate" as opposed to... whatever...

I also value what I termed the "visceral" grasp of anatta over the purely intellectual one, but since inner experience is necessarily private, it can only be discussed, described or taught with language, which is subject to reasoned analysis. I'm not sure how any of the Dhamma could have been taught and advanced without reasoning. Reasoning alone may or may not be sufficient. People have various talents, and there's more than one road to Rome.

24. Scholars and Meditators

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Venerable Mahacunda was dwelling at Sahajati among the Ceti people. There he addressed the monks thus:

“Friends, there are monks who are keen on Dhamma [47] and they disparage those monks who are meditators, saying: ’Look at those monks! They think, “We are meditating, we are meditating!” And so they meditate to and meditate fro, meditate up and meditate down! [48] What, then, do they meditate about and why do they meditate?’ Thereby neither these monks keen on Dhamma nor the meditators will be pleased, and they will not be practising for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, for the good of the multitude, for the welfare and happiness of devas and humans. [49]

“Then, friends, there are meditating monks who disparage the monks who are keen on Dhamma, saying: ’Look at those monks! They think, “We are Dhamma-experts, we are Dhamma-experts!” And therefore they are conceited, puffed up and vain; they are talkative and voluble. They are devoid of mindfulness and clear comprehension, and they lack concentration; their thoughts wander and their senses are uncontrolled. What then makes them Dhamma-experts, why and how are they Dhamma-experts?’ Thereby neither these meditating monks nor those keen on Dhamma will be pleased, and they will not be practising for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, for the good of the multitude, for the welfare and happiness of devas and humans.

“There are Dhamma-experts who praise only monks who are also Dhamma-experts but not those who are meditators. And there are meditators who praise only those monks who are also meditators but not those who are Dhamma-experts. Thereby neither of them will be pleased, and they will not be practising for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, for the good of the multitude, for the welfare and happiness of devas and humans.

“Therefore, friends, you should train yourselves thus: ’Though we ourselves are Dhamma-experts, we will praise also those monks who are meditators.’ And why? Such outstanding persons are rare in the world who have personal experience of the deathless element (Nibbana).

“And the other monks, too, should train themselves thus: ’Though we ourselves are meditators, we will praise also those monks who are Dhamma-experts.’ And why? Such outstanding persons are rare in the world who can by their wisdom clearly understand a difficult subject.”

(6:46) http://www.bps.lk/olib/wh/wh208-p.ht...sandMeditators

[luffyplayaz]

Agree FBM ... reasoning reality is a lot like this, from my recall from a Sutta ( Sn 588 ) describes, I think ...

for, however they think it to be,
it turns out to be otherwise;
such is the difference:
look at the way of the world!

[TodeImmabbedo]

Yeah, I think it's a good idea to not put all your eggs in one basket, generally. Study and practice go together for me. Either one without the other, and things start to get out of kilter, in my experience.

For me, studying and applying reasoning to the suttas has been immensely helpful in separating out what's actually in the suttas from all the sayings falsely attributed to the Buddha. It also helps avoid pessimism, nihilism, eternalism, etc, and lots of other pitfalls. BUT, if all I did was read and analyze them in an academic way, without applying them to my behavior, that would be mostly a waste of time.

[Janarealiti]

I remember at least one Pali sutta in which the Buddha said that some monks are capable of the highest attainments through meditation and others through reasoning, and that both paths should be equally regarded. I'd have a hard time finding that sutta now, but I'll give it a try, if you like.

Edit: Or maybe my memory fails...

Edit 2: Related, I think-



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana...the_Pali_canon

But I am straying off-topic a bit. The question was about realizing anatta, not nibbana. I'm not sure how anatta could be realized without reasoning, but I think I'll stop short of saying that it is sufficient in itself. I think the two kinds of knowledge are distinct, one cerebral and the other visceral, for lack of a better word.

What do you think, Deshy?

Can you quote the sutta please? As far as I know, vipassana is done on a mind already established in samadhi. The Buddha explained wisdom to be achieved in three steps. Sila (morality), samadhi (mental stillness), and then wisdom.

It can be possible to get a general idea of anatta through intellectual reasoning but this is like professing the taste of an apple without really tasting one. To actually know, you need to experience through jhana (according to suttas).

[bWn4h8QD]

Can you quote the sutta please?

I guess I'm going to have to punt this one. I started looking through my copies of the Canon, but it was a needle-in-a-haystack. The closest thing I could find online is the "Scholars and Meditators" thing I posted above.

As far as I know, vipassana is done on a mind already established in samadhi. The Buddha explained wisdom to be achieved in three steps. Sila (morality), samadhi (mental stillness), and then wisdom.

It can be possible to get a general idea of anatta through intellectual reasoning but this is like professing the taste of an apple without really tasting one. To actually know, you need to experience through jhana (according to suttas). The question may be on how that samadhi and those jhanas are brought about. Reading or listening to the teachings can put one in a meditative state. It happens to me regularly. Focus, reflection, absorption, even rapture, sometimes. I don't think all progress is made only when one is sitting cross-legged. I'm not convinced that that's the only way to sila, samadhi and panna.

[triardwonvada]

Agree with , again, FBM. Seems to be clues in those moments when I am aware, 'gee, that guy was rude ', or whatever.

[Nutpoode]

Reading or listening to the teachings can put one in a meditative state. It happens to me regularly. Focus, reflection, absorption, even rapture, sometimes. I don't think all progress is made only when one is sitting cross-legged. I'm not convinced that that's the only way to sila, samadhi and panna.

I can tell about this experience when I first started with the Pali teachings. Sometimes the peaceful contemplation of the message of a Pali Sutta is enough. Agree.

[Tusethede]

Only in knowing that nothing is can anything be.

[deandrecooke]

It can be possible to get a general idea of anatta through intellectual reasoning but this is like professing the taste of an apple without really tasting one

Personally I've found that my current understanding of anatta has been arrived at through a combination of intellectual reasoning and meditation practice.

Its also my opinion that eventually meditation doesn't just take place on the cushion but that meditation and post-meditation will merge together with other insights one has gathered through one's practice on the path.

[GarryPaterson]

Personally I've found that my current understanding of anatta has been arrived at through a combination of intellectual reasoning and meditation practice.

Sure, I believe that both are needed. Bhikkhu Boddhi, in his long and thoughtful commentary to DN1 is cautious about giving all to meditation in the cushion because, and I agree, if there is some sort of delusion, something not understood by intellectual reasoning, insight, contemplation of dhamma, this delusion can be brought into meditation and, being a very personal experience, hard to transmit and to put into test, meditation will be about such delusive understanding. Meditators will tell about a self, about heavenly realms found "there" or whatever. So meditation can become a fetter and lead to further wrong understandings.

Its also my opinion that eventually meditation doesn't just take place on the cushion but that meditation and post-meditation will merge together with other insights one has gathered through one's practice on the path. Yes, and IMO, that is what is meditation for. To teach mind to behave when we are dealing with daily life issues.

[Misebeita]

I don't think all progress is made only when one is sitting cross-legged.

I didn't imply that. What I'm saying is, direct experience is not the same as intellectual reasoning. That doesn't mean reading and listening to Dhamma is trivial

[standaman]

I didn't imply that. What I'm saying is, direct experience is not the same as intellectual reasoning. That doesn't mean reading and listening to Dhamma is trivial

Sorry if it looked like I implied that you meant that. I wasn't trying to make a straw man. Maybe I misunderstood your point in asking whether or not intellectual understanding was sufficient.

If I can push a little further, what's the difference between direct experience and reasoning, anyway? Ultimatley, there is the direct experience of the mental activity that we call reasoning. Distinguishing between the perception of intellectual mental activity from, say, vision or hearing, seems a bit ungrounded to me. Who or what is doing the experiencing of any of it?

If, by intellectual effort alone, one understands that Self is an illusion and is thereby released from that illusion and all that it incurs, in what way is that insufficient? I may never be able to say definitively whether or not intellectual understanding is sufficient, because I've already done so much meditation on the topic, but at the same time, that experience makes me question the conventional distinction between the experience of intellectual mental activity and the experience of, say, the breath, the experience of which is just as mental, ultimately. The function of the brain is to think just as that of the lungs is to breathe, and detached observation of either seems to me to be of equal (potential) value.

Another way of approaching the question is that, if reading and studying the suttas guides our meditative experience in crucial ways, then how can either be said to be less sufficient than the other? Seems more likely that both are required. Maybe the Buddha arrived at anatta independently, but he wasn't working in intellectual or meditative isolation, either. The suttas describe some of his intellectual effort on the way to his 'Eureka!' moment.

Ultimately, of course, one person's direct experience is not available to others. No matter what we do, we have to describe experience in language, which is an intellectual activity. In my mind, intellectual activity is the raft that takes you across the river, and clinging to it after the crossing is pointless. Nevertheless, you need it to cross the river.

Again, sorry if I've misunderstood your point and am responding to something you never intended in the first place.

[ulnanVti]

Ultimately, of course, one person's direct experience is not available to others. No matter what we do, we have to describe experience in language, which is an intellectual activity. In my mind, intellectual activity is the raft that takes you across the river, and clinging to it after the crossing is pointless. Nevertheless, you need it to cross the river

Hi FBM,

What about non-verbal awareness /clarity/emptiness and so on experienced in meditation when there is no thought - and which cannot easily be described with language ? Perhaps sometimes its better not to even try to describe it.....or do you disagree?

[Mehntswx]

Perhaps sometimes its better not to even try to describe it.....or do you disagree?

Sure, it is difficult to describe it even for others. Sometimes metaphorical language and symbolism could be of some help if one wishes to communicate the meditative experience. But yes, sometimes is better just to be aware about that meditative state.

[DenisLevvin]

What about non-verbal awareness /clarity/emptiness and so on experienced in meditation when there is no thought and which cannot easily be described with language ? Perhaps sometimes its better not to even try to describe it.....or do you disagree?

I usually don't try to describe it, actually, so I guess I agree. I wonder if this is what Siddhartha was struggling with when he initially decided not to teach? Anyway, language is useful if it points in a helpful way. I know I definitely benefit from being pointed in a good direction. There is, though, the problem with focusing on the finger instead of what it's pointing at, but academics and meditators both are subject to that, I think. Of course, as always, I could be wrong. I'm not even asserting that I'm right, actually. Just describing what I see from this perspective. I wouldn't expect everyone to see the same thing, because every perspective is unique.

[tramadolwithall]

I wonder if this is what Siddhartha was struggling with when he initially decided not to teach?

Possibly - but I'm sure the Buddha's struggle was probably way beyond my humble level of understanding anyway!

[Sillaycheg]

Possibly - but I'm sure the Buddha's struggle was probably way beyond my humble level of understanding anyway!

Maybe, but surely not more than you're capable of, eh? After all, Siddhartha was just as human as the rest of us.