- This topic has 17 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
Spiritual traditions often make the distinction between the outer self and inner self. For example, the Advaita Vedanta states:
jivatman, the individual experiencing self, is ultimately pure awareness mistakingly identified with body and the senses, and non-different (“na aparah”) from Ātman–Brahman, the highest Self or Reality.
The “outer self” makes up the body and mind and is illusory in a sense that it is dynamic, impermanent and leads to suffering but is mistakenly identified as one’s own. But the true self is hidden inside and is unchanging, blissful and pure. The goal is to realize this inner self which is no different from the Brahman, the ultimate reality. Thus,
it proposes that Atman-Brahman (awareness, purusha) alone is ultimately real, and, though unchanging, the cause and origin of the transient phenomenal world (prakriti). In this view, the jivatman or individual self is a mere reflection or limitation of singular Ātman in a multitude of apparent individual bodies. It regards the material world as an ilusory appearance (maya) or “an unreal manifestation (vivarta) of Brahman,” the latter as proposed by the 13th century scholar Prakasatman.
Mahayana School of Buddhism also describes a similar concept known as “Buddha-nature“:
Broadly speaking, it refers to the belief that the luminous mind, “the natural and true state of the mind“, which is pure (visuddhi) mind undefiled by afflictions, is inherently present in every sentient being, and is eternal and unchanging. It will shine forth when it is cleansed of the defilements, that is, when the nature of mind is recognized for what it is.
From this perspective, the true self (witness consciousness or Buddha nature) is within all of us but due to fabrications of the material world, the regular sensory experiences are mistakenly identified as the actual self. The true self transcends the physical world when it is realized and is beyond words.
The Theravada school however seems to take a differing stance. According to this view, there is no hidden core or essence. So I am curious to know why the Buddha rejected the commonly held idea of inner self. In other words, how does one know that the true atman/buddha nature does not exist?
-
Lagrade asked: “How does one know that the true atman/buddha nature does not exist?”
- The concept of “atman” in the Vedas refers to a “soul-type” unchanging, permanent entity in Christianity/Islam. It seems the “Buddha nature” that you quote from Mahayana implies the same.
- The Buddha verified the absence of such an entity by experience. He was able to figure out that all existences are temporary. Not only that, he visited all those realms, too.
Of course, each of us needs to study those doctrines and choose the one that makes sense.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: “Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?”
When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.
“Then is there no self?”
A second time, the Blessed One was silent.
Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.
Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, “Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?”
“Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?”
“No, lord.”
“And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: ‘Does the self I used to have now not exist?'” – Ananda Sutta 44.10
The answer here is straightforward. Buddha did not bother with self- or non-self ideas because they do not directly cause suffering and are not solutions to that suffering. Notions of self and no self are notions of ignorance, to solve ignorance we need to understand real Dhamma that goes to the core of existential problems that are created by ignorance.
So to answer your question “How one does know that true atman/buddha nature does not exist?” – One gets rid of ignorance, knows the true nature of the world, and realizes it can not exist in the real notion of world-mind-perception, until there one will have wrong “idea” that self/buddha nature is nicca, atta and sukha. What “wrongly spiritual” people do in stages – they are disappointed in the material world (yet still clinging to a sense of pleasure) so they move to some kind of religion that correlated with their ignorance and “hopes”, “ideas” (based on ignorance) of future non-material existence, they find psychological solace in that false idea. If they are disappointed with their religion, they try spiritual practices and philosophies like yogas/advaitas/quasi-hindu-“buddhism” like mahayana with the same pattern but here there is a chance for achievement of jhana to which they wrongly cling in ignorance thinking they achieved some kind of freedom from this world but without seeing the full picture and real image of the world ie. real Dhamma they are still trapped in those wrong views.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
So I am curious to know why the Buddha rejected the commonly held idea of inner self. In other words, how does one know that the true atman/buddha nature does not exist?
I don’t think there is any way to directly prove that something does not exist. So we shall use reasoning and our experience. With that being said, I wrote a post about the approach that one could take to test the legitimacy of a theory/doctrine: Building Confidence in Dhamma
- I concluded that Buddha Dhamma passes that test. Do you disagree?
- Try applying it to the Vedic and Mahayana philosophies you referenced. Do they pass the test?
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
Thank you all for your insights! I’ve been doing further research and this thread helped quite a bit.
“I concluded that Buddha Dhamma passes that test. Do you disagree?”
Not at all. You’ve provided compelling arguments that significantly bolster the credibility of Buddha Dhamma. These points are more than sufficient to encourage a seeker to engage with the teachings seriously, at the very least.
“Try applying it to the Vedic and Mahayana philosophies you referenced. Do they pass the test?”Excellent question! It appears that these doctrines might struggle to withstand such rigorous scrutiny. Many of them were derived from pre-existing philosophical systems and subsequently modified by various scholars to align with their own interpretations. This often results in inconsistencies and a lack of coherence. In short, these philosophies do not appear to engage with sensory experiences with the same precision and depth as the Buddha’s teachings, whose insights remain highly credible, as your post effectively demonstrates. Once again, thank you!
-
I would say also that many ignorant people (non-Ariyas) have cognitive problems when asking questions treating them as it’s “material objects” to be discovered while it’s their perception so it creates a certain loop-trap of ignorance and lack of self-reflection.
It’s like asking “How do I know that consciousness exists” or “perception “exists while denying it because can not be “seen” yet it is experienced all the time
-
It’s like asking “How do I know that consciousness exists” or “perception “exists while denying it because can not be “seen” yet it is experienced all the time
I think it has to do with fear of death and uncertainty. I remember telling an evangelical that a theory/doctrine that can’t make reliable predictions lacks credibility. Then they said it can’t be predicted whether I “love” my wife or not and foolishly connected it with the idea of Jesus dying on a cross. “In the beginning, God created heaven and earth..”, unfortunately, the universe is not made up of heaven and earth, but of innumerable planetary systems and galaxies that the Bible does not even come close to explaining.
This got me thinking though, of the mechanism necessary for “consciousness”. The following conditions need to line up for eye-consciousness to manifest:
object (arammana) + light + physical eye + Peripheral Nervous System (PNS) + Central Nervous System (Brain/mana indriya) + chakkhu pasada + hadaya vatthu (attention)
- Light reflects off the object
- Photons are received by eye ball
- Neurons from PNS transfer electric signals to Brain
- Brain converts it into a form that chakkhu pasada can receive
- Mana indriya sends ray signal (kirana) to chakkhu pasada rupa
- chakkhu pasada impinges the hadaya vatthu
- If the person is attentive, awareness manifests at this step
So far it is a plain awareness (vipāka viññāṇa). But if it is an object of interest, the initial attachment is automatic. Then the person can choose to generate conscious thoughts about the object or try to avoid it by distracting themselves. I think this is what causes the perception of ‘I’ or ‘me’. But if a single condition above is removed, awareness of the object can not occur. So it is worth noting that “conscious ability” is never constant. It is virtually non-existent while asleep and highly limited in the embryonic stages, but gradually goes up after birth as the baby grows by consuming food. It is sharpest in adulthood but will go down again in old age. This clearly suggests that there is no well-defined essence like a “soul”.
But I am curious about the mechanism involved in conscious thinking (the part after initial vipāka viññāṇa). A human has a large dense brain but cittas are consciously generated in the hadaya vatthu. Is it possible to know how that works?
-
The seven steps that Taryal wrote are correct.
We can itemize what Taryal wrote after that, too:
8. “So far, it is a plain awareness (vipāka viññāṇa). But if it is an object of interest, the initial attachment is automatic.
9. Then, the person can choose to generate conscious thoughts about the object or try to avoid it by distracting themselves. I think this is what causes the perception of ‘I’ or ‘me’. But if a single condition above is removed, awareness of the object can not occur..”
Let me list a few points to think about:
1. Step 8 is the critical one. As long as one has not removed certain samyojana/anusaya, that mind will automatically attach to the object if it is “an object of interest.” Conscious thinking is NOT involved.
- This is why it is so hard to resist “temptations” and lose “kama raga.”
- To remove that “automatic attachment,” one must fully understand the “true nature” (called “yathābhuta ñāṇa.”)
- That means one must understand why we are attached to specific objects. We experience a “sweet taste” with honey, attractive odors of flowers or sounds, the beauty of a woman, etc.
- The stronger the attachment, the more likely one would like to make the object “mine.”
2. All those enticing experiences arise with “sanna” built into our mental and physical bodies.
- Each species has its own set of “appealing objects.” Of course, some could be overlapping, but there are distinct differences.
- For example, humans and bears find honey sweet, cows find grass appealing, and lions and tigers eat only the flesh of other animals.
3. The basic idea is in several suttas. I will list only two for now: “Saññā Sutta (AN 6.110)“, “Saññānānatta Sutta (sn 14.7),”
- Another is “Saññā Sutta (SN 26.6).” @ 1.3: “Yo kho, bhikkhave, rūpasaññāya uppādo ṭhiti …pe…jarāmaraṇassa pātubhāvo …pe…” means “The arising of (distorted) perception of sights leads to old age and death.” (i.e., suffering).” Note that the English translation there did not even translate the critical second part of the verse.)
- Then, @ 1.5, “Yo ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpasaññāya nirodho …pe…jarāmaraṇassa atthaṅgamo …pe…” meaning “The cessation of (distorted) perception of sights is the ending of old age and death.”
- That distorted saññā is built into our bodies via Paticca Samuppada. Therefore, it cannot be removed. However, understanding this mechanism (i.e., cultivating paññā) leads to breaking the “kama raga“ samyojana. Hence, an Arahant or Anagami would also taste honey to be sweet or a particular woman to be attractive, but their minds will not generate kama raga.
1 user thanked author for this post.
-
1. Step 8 is the critical one. As long as one has not removed certain samyojana/anusaya, that mind will automatically attach to the object if it is “an object of interest.” Conscious thinking is NOT involved.
It is interesting that we talk about a “mind” as if it is a well defined entity, despite knowing that in reality there are only complex manifestations of causes and conditions.
After Step 8, say the person chooses to consciously generate thoughts about the object and walk towards it to “see” it better. Then the following operations would transpire:
- With the aid of kammic energy sustaining the bhava, hadaya vatthu generates cittas.
- Then a signal (kirana) is sent to the mana indriya in the brain
- An electrical activity is generated in the brain which uses energy from food to generate transferrable electrochemical signals
- Via PNS, they are sent to the peripheral parts of the body to cause movement.
- (#3 to 4 takes roughly about 6 seconds (according to Libet’s experiment)
I’d like to confer about the #1 step since the decision is made here. Is there a more detailed mechanism that explains how it happens?
-
1. A mind arises in hadaya vatthu. It is in the manomaya kaya (mental body or the gandhabba).
- In your steps (in the earlier comment), that hadaya vatthu receives the “object” via the cakkhu pasada rupa in step #6.
- Hadaya vatthu is the “seat of the mind,” where thoughts (cittas) arise.
- Those cittas arise (in hadaya vatthu) due to causes and conditions.
- So, we know about the mind as a “defined entity.”
2. Kammic energy is generated only if raga, dosa, moha arise in the cittas.
- Kammic accumulation takes place in two stages. (i) In the “purana kamma” stage, where defiled thoughts arise automatically due to samyojana/anusaya, kammic energies generate are weak; they do not contribute to future bhava (i.e., to bring future rebirths). (ii) If the mind starts focusing on the object, then (after the “tanha paccaya upadana” step in Paticca Samuppada) potent kammic energies (that can bring future rebirths) are generated via conscious thoughts. That is the “nava kamma” stage.
- I don’t know whether you read the post “Purāna and Nava Kamma – Sequence of Kamma Generation.” You probably started reading this website after it was posted on 1/11/24. See “New / Revised Posts.” A series of posts after 11/4/23 focused on a deeper analysis.
3. I do not understand what you are trying to say in steps #1 through #5 in your last comment.
-
“3. I do not understand what you are trying to say in steps #1 through #5 in your last comment.”
I was referring to the process involved in generating conscious thoughts and taking bodily action, essentially to try to understand how a hadaya vatthu can consciously generate citta. Perhaps, it is a fundamental attribute.
Thank you for suggesting the relevant posts. I will get back after I go through them.
-
Hadaya vatthu is the “seat of the mind,” where thoughts (cittas) arise. Those cittas arise (in hadaya vatthu) due to causes and conditions.
Then what makes free will possible for a human at this level then, if it comes down to causes and conditions?
-
Yes. That is a good point.
I should have written that as follows (see my comment on November 28, 2024, at 8:15 pm):
- Those cittas arise (in hadaya vatthu) due to causes and conditions in the “purana kamma” stage. (see #2 below).
- Then, in #2 below, I explained the “purana kamma” and “nava kamma” stages. Kamma accumulation in the “nava kamma” stage happens consciously. This is where we have control of our thoughts while we engage in kamma accumulation via body, speech, and mind (as indicated by kaya, vaci, mano kamma or dasa akusala); see the chart in #4 of “Purāna and Nava Kamma – Sequence of Kamma Generation.”
- I will revise that post to include the above. It is an important point.
Once we abstain from dasa akusala, our minds become increasingly amenable to learning Dhamma. Then, we can understand the whole Paticca Samuppada process. The “automatic occurrence” of the “purana kamma” stage stops when our understanding (paññā) grows and the “mental bonds” of samyojana/anusaya break. See my earlier comment on November 28, 2024, at 9:55 am. There, I wrote:
“Let me list a few points to think about:
1. Step 8 is the critical one. As long as one has not removed certain samyojana/anusaya, that mind will automatically attach to the object if it is “an object of interest.” Conscious thinking is NOT involved.
- This is why it is so hard to resist “temptations” and lose “kama raga.”
- To remove that “automatic attachment,” one must fully understand the “true nature” (called “yathābhuta ñāṇa.”)..”
-
I have revised the post “Purāna and Nava Kamma – Sequence of Kamma Generation.”
- Please don’t hesitate to ask questions. If anything is unclear, I can revise it as needed.
-
Kamma accumulation in the “nava kamma” stage happens consciously. This is where we have control of our thoughts while we engage in kamma accumulation via body, speech, and mind (as indicated by kaya, vaci, mano kamma or dasa akusala);
I see, so at this stage, when a person thinks, is it ultimately the hadaya vatthu that consciously generates citta? I would surmise that thinking involves retrieving info from memory which is also why a permanent like experience is felt.
-
“I see, so at this stage, when a person thinks, is it ultimately the hadaya vatthu that consciously generates citta? “
- Yes. Cittas are always generated in hadaya vatthu.
” I would surmise that thinking involves retrieving info from memory which is also why a permanent like experience is felt.”
- Even a single citta takes into account of memories. That is how the mind recognizes a given person or an object.
- Each citta arises with seven universal cetasika (mental factors): Phassa (contact); vēdanā (feeling); saññā (perception); cētanā (volition); Ekaggata (One-pointedness); jivitindriya (life faculty); manasikāra. Recollection happens via a bit of a complex process (involving the brain) and recognition with saññā. See “Cetasika (Mental Factors).”
- The Buddha stated that the mind is the fastest entity in the world. All of the above (and more) happens within a citta lasting a billionth of a second. Of course, a single citta does not arise by itself. They usually come in packets of 17 cittas, called a “citta vithi.” When we focus on an object, billions of such “citta vithi” can run through a mind in minutes.
-
“Yes. Cittas are always generated in hadaya vatthu.”
Okay! Then a sentient being’s essence could be traced all the way to hadaya vatthu but it is also of anicca nature. I have read that in addition to the 8 pure octad components, vatthu dasaka is also created by kammic energy to form the seat of the mind. Its fundamental property is generating cittas, both automatic and conscious as discussed above. This would be mean that vatthu dasaka is different for different beings, right?
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.