Self in Theravada

What do they believe? What do you think? Talk about religion as it exists today.
User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:36 am
Location: Hollywood, Florida

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by Ananda » Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:26 am

So you thought I forgot your other unanswered question.

How do you know that dogs aren't already in hell?

I love dogs as well, other people's dogs.
~Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by iskander » Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:34 am

Ananda wrote:...How do you know that dogs aren't already in hell?
?

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:36 am
Location: Hollywood, Florida

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by Ananda » Sun Mar 26, 2017 5:41 am

iskander wrote:
Ananda wrote:...How do you know that dogs aren't already in hell?
?

In Theravada Buddhism heaven, earth and hell are here as well as there!


"The Thirty-one Planes of Existence", edited by Access to Insight. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... /loka.html .
~Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by iskander » Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:28 am

Yes, Theravada is hell here and there.
But why does Theravada pretend that it is not the dictatorship of the one God? God is Hashem, Allah, Vishnu ... and Kamma.
The laws of God control the behaviour of the living humanity thorough its representatives, and also the same laws determine who will be punished and who will be rewarded in the afterlife ( there)


Gautama went to the hell there, because he stuck his penis into a woman's vagina : kamma is a natural law like gravity and what is done must have an effect.

Thomas Aquinas is the incarnation of Gautama :thumbdown:

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:36 am
Location: Hollywood, Florida

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by Ananda » Sun Mar 26, 2017 7:47 am

Because kamma can be comprehended and ended without recourse to a God or gods however one is free to pick favorites to assist one onward to liberation from dukka.

Actually, illicit sex in Theravada for a lay follower is the most liberal you will find amongst major religions.
_______________________________________________________________
" (3) Abstaining from sexual misconduct (kamesu miccha-cara veramani)

He avoids sexual misconduct and abstains from it. He has no intercourse with such persons as are still under the protection of father, mother, brother, sister or relatives, nor with married women, nor with female convicts, nor lastly, with betrothed girls.[32]

The guiding purposes of this precept, from the ethical standpoint, are to protect marital relations from outside disruption and to promote trust and fidelity within the marital union. From the spiritual standpoint it helps curb the expansive tendency of sexual desire and thus is a step in the direction of renunciation, which reaches its consummation in the observance of celibacy (brahmacariya) binding on monks and nuns. But for laypeople the precept enjoins abstaining from sexual relations with an illicit partner. The primary transgression is entering into full sexual union, but all other sexual involvements of a less complete kind may be considered secondary infringements.

The main question raised by the precept concerns who is to count as an illicit partner. The Buddha's statement defines the illicit partner from the perspective of the man, but later treatises elaborate the matter for both sexes.[33]

For a man, three kinds of women are considered illicit partners:

(1) A woman who is married to another man. This includes, besides a woman already married to a man, a woman who is not his legal wife but is generally recognized as his consort, who lives with him or is kept by him or is in some way acknowledged as his partner. All these women are illicit partners for men other than their own husbands. This class would also include a woman engaged to another man. But a widow or divorced woman is not out of bounds, provided she is not excluded for other reasons.

(2) A woman still under protection. This is a girl or woman who is under the protection of her mother, father, relatives, or others rightfully entitled to be her guardians. This provision rules out elopements or secret marriages contrary to the wishes of the protecting party.

(3) A woman prohibited by convention. This includes close female relatives forbidden as partners by social tradition, nuns and other women under a vow of celibacy, and those prohibited as partners by the law of the land.

From the standpoint of a woman, two kinds of men are considered illicit partners:

(1) For a married woman any man other than her husband is out of bounds. Thus a married woman violates the precept if she breaks her vow of fidelity to her husband. But a widow or divorcee is free to remarry.

(2) For any woman any man forbidden by convention, such as close relatives and those under a vow of celibacy, is an illicit partner.

Besides these, any case of forced, violent, or coercive sexual union constitutes a transgression. But in such a case the violation falls only on the offender, not on the one compelled to submit.

The positive virtue corresponding to the abstinence is, for laypeople, marital fidelity. Husband and wife should each be faithful and devoted to the other, content with the relationship, and should not risk a breakup to the union by seeking outside partners. The principle does not, however, confine sexual relations to the marital union. It is flexible enough to allow for variations depending on social convention. The essential purpose, as was said, is to prevent sexual relations which are hurtful to others. When mature independent people, though unmarried, enter into a sexual relationship through free consent, so long as no other person is intentionally harmed, no breach of the training factor is involved.

Ordained monks and nuns, including men and women who have undertaken the eight or ten precepts, are obliged to observe celibacy. They must abstain not only from sexual misconduct, but from all sexual involvements, at least during the period of their vows. The holy life at its highest aims at complete purity in thought, word, and deed, and this requires turning back the tide of sexual desire"

"The Noble Eightfold Path: The Way to the End of Suffering", by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 30 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... toend.html .
~Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by iskander » Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:01 am

Ananda wrote:Because kamma can be comprehended and ended without recourse to a God or gods however one is free to pick favorites to assist one onward to liberation from dukka

Dukkha functions in Theravada as the fall of Adam and Eve functions in the religions of the book. Dukkha is a fallen condition which needs special laws and the aid of people in order for humanity to reach the end of samsara. The imagery, the words and the people are different one from another, but they convey the same message.

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:36 am
Location: Hollywood, Florida

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by Ananda » Sun Mar 26, 2017 8:43 am

Visuddhi Magga states there is no known beginning when ignorance and craving were not!

"Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.

In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct"

"Buddhism and the God-idea", by Nyanaponika Thera. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 10 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... didea.html .
~Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!

iskander
Posts: 2091
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 12:38 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by iskander » Sun Mar 26, 2017 9:14 am

OK fine

davidbrainerd
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2017 7:37 pm

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by davidbrainerd » Mon Apr 10, 2017 8:43 pm

Ananda wrote:Visuddhi Magga states there is no known beginning when ignorance and craving were not!

"Quite contradictory views have been expressed in Western literature on the attitude of Buddhism toward the concept of God and gods. From a study of the discourses of the Buddha preserved in the Pali canon, it will be seen that the idea of a personal deity, a creator god conceived to be eternal and omnipotent, is incompatible with the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, conceptions of an impersonal godhead of any description, such as world-soul, etc., are excluded by the Buddha's teachings on Anatta, non-self or unsubstantiality.

In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct"

"Buddhism and the God-idea", by Nyanaponika Thera. Access to Insight (Legacy Edition), 10 November 2013, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... didea.html .
As far as the Theravada canon outside the Dhammapada, that's apparently correct. As far as the Dhammapada, much of this falls away. It seems to clearly teach the existence of the self, that Nirvana is an actual realm not just obliteration, even seems to suggest a creator God (the house builder). The statement "I wondered through many lives seeking the house-builder. Now I have found you. You will never build me a house again for my mind goes to the unconditioned (nirvana) and I have cut off craving" is clearly not addressing craving as the house-builder (as orthodox Theravadan interpretation claims) for it is telling someone that it cut off craving. "Hey house builder I have cut off craving" is not equal to "Hey craving, I've cut you off." Also, "One does not ride to the uncharted land (nirvana) on elephants, but one gets there on the well tamed self" does not deny the existence of self, but demands the existence of self, it is the self that gets to nirvana by taming itself. So it is very clear that the Dhammapada and the rest of Theravada scripture are at odds with each other. If one were to read the Dhammapada first, with no knowledge of the rest (as I did in Novemember of 2015) and then invest in buying the giant volumes of the suttas (as I did in January of 2016) one would be extremely shocked (as I was) and disappointed to find that Buddhism as portrayed in the broader suttas is nothing like the Dhammapada. The Gnostic-esque Buddhism of the Dhammapada, defeating a Demiurge (the house builder) by breaking a cycle of reincarnation and escaping to a spiritual realm, is shat upon by the rest of the suttas which present a dreary circular logic that amounts to "no view is correct, the world is not eternal, yet had no beginning, you have no self, yet don't have no self, there is reincarnation yet not really, this is about escaping a cycle of reincarnation except its not, nothing is true, you're always wrong, Buddha always speaks out of two asses at once, and just when you think something in Buddhism makes sense here we are to tell you that we can't allow that." Its pure spiritual tryranny. If anyone reads the Dhammpada and likes it, STOP THERE, and don't waste your time reading the broader suttas, they're worthless. Kinda of like trying to harmonize the Bible, I spent a year trying to harmonize the broader sutta pitaka with the Dhammapada, only to find that the suttas are simply an unsalvageable mass of corruption. There are some nice illustrations in them (about deer and so forth), but stay the hell away from the no-self BS if you know what's good for you. The very main idea of the suttas is demolished by their no-self theory, because Buddha's main point that the body is not the self is clearly intended to point to the soul as the self, but the idiots that compiled the canon use all their energy to ensure you won't be allowed to believe that.

User avatar
Ananda
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri Mar 17, 2017 5:36 am
Location: Hollywood, Florida

Re: Self in Theravada

Post by Ananda » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:38 pm

154. O house-builder, you are seen! You will not build this house again. For your rafters are broken and your ridgepole shattered. My mind has reached the Unconditioned; I have attained the destruction of craving. [13]


13.(vv. 153-154) According to the commentary, these verses are the Buddha's "Song of Victory," his first utterance after his Enlightenment. The house is individualized existence in samsara, the house-builder craving, the rafters the passions and the ridge-pole ignorance.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .budd.html
~Oh dear! Oh dear! I shall be too late!

Post Reply