What's atta?

I've heard of anatta and atman. Which are no-self and self. My view on no self is the total dissolution of the ego, where our mind stops identifying with that delusion. I'm not pretending to have reached that state, I only have an intellectual understanding of what it is.

Just because there's no evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't mean He doesn't exist.


Brahmavamso's assertion nonetheless only makes sense to one who cannot see past that speculative/superstitious perspective. To one who is not attached to that view, it's pure gobbledygook.

...you are debating with me about what the Buddha taught, and you don't know this?

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...milies/sad.gif

As always Pink beautifully said.

More like "non-self". Thinking in terms of totalities tends toward extremism. This is a developmental process, not a "either/or", "black/white" endeavor.

Is there a possibility some people might be attached to the opposite of the notion of being superstitious?

Bottom line though, none of this matters, like you've pointed out and we all agree. Thanks for replying. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...ilies/grin.gif


With metta,
Jack

That's what I don't understand, I'm not debating. Honest, you guys come on strong, hence my question from trike, about whether answers are being engineered for me, sort of assuming, my stance.

We do???

Well, about not worrying about abstract concepts, and the importance being on practice.

"Some people"...? Let us please discuss issues and leave the personal innuendo behind.

Bottom line though, none of this matters, like you've pointed out and we all agree. Sure this matters. It goes to the heart of what the meaning of the Buddhadhamma is. Is it about practical liberation from suffering, or is it just another pack of superstitions and empty platitudes?

What do you call this, then?:

If it does, what's the point, and things like suicide, would be just fine?

What was the Buddha talking about when he talked of rebirth then? He did talk of rebirth, and of samsara.

Ok, I think i'm beginning to understand what you have been saying all this time.

Excerpts from an MN 38 commentary found here:

Bhikkhu Sàti is clearly influenced by the Buddha's teaching of rebirth. If there is rebirth, there
must be someone or something that is reborn; and that, ultimately, I am. Because if there is no-one
who is reborn, then who experiences the result of good or bad actions? The Buddha rejects the
notion that some-one is reborn; but then there must be some-thing, and this clearly is
consciousness. Bhikkhu Sàti says, "it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders, not
another." Remaining the same long enough to be reborn, consciousness is permanent, and
therefore "my" ultimate identity must be found in consciousness. It all makes sense. Certainly this
logic would make perfect sense to the sages of the Upanisads, for whom this ultimate
consciousness, and this ultimate identity, is called àtman (self).

But it does not make sense to the Buddha, who declares, "have I not stated in many discourses
that consciousness is dependently arisen (pañiccasamupanna vi¤¤àõa), since without a condition
(paccaya) consciousness does not come into being?" It is not "this same consciousness" that runs
and wanders at all, for at any moment - at this moment - the consciousness which we experience,
and with which we identify, has arisen because of a condition, and it ceases because of a
condition. But I don't believe I ever said that it is a self that gets reborn, the way I understood it was it was a rekindling of something inside, but not a permanent thing. Maybe that's me identifying with a self again. How do I explain it, lets say, that every being is made up of vibrations, and this vibration is a life force, which makes up the physical self and the mind, at death, do these vibrations move on?

Or do you think even that is just identifying with a self? It can't be, because the way I've understood it all this time, is that identification of a self is purely in the mind, and there is experience outside that.

Um, questions. http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...ilies/grin.gif

Apologies, I felt a similar vibe from your posts, which is my fault.

What is atta? You never told me. Does it mean truth?

Another pack of superstitions? I'm getting that vibe from you again, my fault again.

So what are "superstitions"?

This is a question...?

He did talk of rebirth, and of samsara. Yo originally asked what people thought. When you got answers, you began to challenge them and present arguments. That is debate.

Hiyah Jack,

Lets not worry too much about imagining that there are 'vibes' huh? http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...ilies/wink.gif

This seems like an interesting discussion.

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...lies/hands.gif