My ideas and comments on Buddhism - Page 6



Suresh Wanayalae Why people need a creator? Why they don't understand this simple rule of existence:

Our observable universe have 68.3% dark energy, 26.8% dark matter and 4.9% ordinary matter.

Three things created the Universe:

1.) Existence with Non-Existence (dark energy/68.3%) = Imagine a ball appear and disappear. It means, the ball and space use the same place.
2.) Existence (space) = Imagine a ball. 
3.) Non-Existence (dark matter and ordinary matter 26.8%+4.9%) = Imagine a ball size of space (without the ball ).

Existence with Non-Existence (dark energy) = 68.3% 

Non-Existence (dark matter and ordinary matter) 26.8%+4.9% = 31.7%

Existence (space) = X

Now Find the X.

-------------------------------------
Answer:

Existence with Non-Existence (dark energy) = 68.3% 

Don't you see that Dark Energy is two times larger than Dark Matter + Ordinary Matter?

Non-Existence (dark matter and ordinary matter) 26.8%+4.9% = 31.7%

But why?

Answer:
Existence took the other 50% from it.

Eg: Existence (space) = 68.3% - 31.7% = 36.6%

https://bauddha-tharka.blogspot.com/.../existence-of...Manage

Existence Of The Universe Without A Creator - Replies - Page 1
Creation of the Universe Explained by Suresh Madusanka http://bauddha-tharka.blogspot.com/p/i-have-theory-and-mathematical-formu...
BAUDDHA-THARKA.BLOGSPOT.COM

1

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview17h
Francisco Helio Gomez Palma So, if you put all those things together then there is a creator?
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply13h
Suresh Wanayalae Francisco Helio Gomez Palma No creator. Everything is natural. 
Those three things no need a creator. And those things forever exists everywhere.

1.) Existence with Non-Existence (dark energy/68.3%) = Imagine a ball appear and disappear. It means, the ball and space use the same place.
2.) Existence (space) = Imagine a ball. 
3.) Non-Existence (dark matter and ordinary matter 26.8%+4.9%) = Imagine a ball size of space (without the ball ).
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply2h
Francisco Helio Gomez Palma Suresh Wanayalae that is what is... and whatever created that is the creator... call it energy, call it contrast... it does not matter since something created it... now tell me what created everything you speak of!
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply2h
Suresh Wanayalae Francisco Helio Gomez Palma You didn't get the point yet. 
You can't call it a creation. You have to call it existence with non-existence. That is the point. existence or non-existence is not a creation. You can learn more about it from here: https://bauddha-tharka.blogspot.com/.../existence-of...

There were not a beginning to create anything. There were always existence and non-existence. If you can't understand it I don't want to argue with you.Manage

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview57m

Suresh Wanayalae It is only a cyclic proccess. It doesn't have a beginning or a creation. And still happens.
This is a proof of my theory: The Quantum Experiment that Broke Reality https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-MNSLsjjdo
But scientists still can't explain it....See MoreManage


The Quantum Experiment that Broke Reality | Space Time | PBS…
The double slit experiment radically changed…
YOUTUBE.COM

LikeShow more reactions
ReplyRemove Preview24m

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Islamophobia" and "killing of apostates" are two sides of the same coin. A man who left Islam exposes the truth.
Mohamed said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a married man who commits adultery; and one who leaves his religion” (Al-Bukhaari, 6878; Muslim, 1676)
1.2K Views
Maxmud Careys ZIONIST agents just pouring out there nonsense , nobody leaves islam in the first place except he is hired by enemies of islam
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply35w

Suresh Wanayalae So why this?:

See what happens to the poor Ex-Muslims in many Muslim countries:

Some Muslim countries impose the death penalty or a prison sentence for apostasy from Islam, or ban non-Muslims from proselytizing . (apostasy: the abandonment or renunciation of a religious or political belief or principle.)

The following countries have criminal statutes that forbid apostasy :
(*Note that apostasy from other religions to Islam is legal in all countries indicated below)

~ Afghanistan – illegal (death penalty, although the U.S. and other coalition members have put pressure that has prevented recent executions)
~ Egypt – illegal (3 years' imprisonment)
~ Iran – illegal (death penalty)
~ Jordan – possibly illegal (fine, jail, child custody loss, marriage annulment) although officials claim otherwise, convictions are recorded for apostasy
~ Malaysia – illegal in five of 13 states (fine, imprisonment, and flogging)
~ Mauritania – illegal (death penalty if still apostate after 3 days)
~ Morocco – illegal to proselytise conversion (15 years' imprisonment) Only country not listed by Pew.
~ Oman – legal in criminal code, but according to the family code, a father can lose custody of his child
~ Pakistan – illegal (death penalty since 2007)
~ Qatar – illegal (death penalty)
~ Saudi Arabia – illegal (death penalty, although there have been no recently reported executions)
~ Somalia – illegal (death penalty)
~ Sudan – illegal (death penalty, although there have only been recent reports of torture, and not of execution)
~ United Arab Emirates – illegal (3 years' imprisonment, flogging)
~ Yemen – illegal (death penalty)

3
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply35w
Maxmud Careys Suresh Wanayalae there is no real ex muslims those people are zionist infiltrators 
first note there is person who leaves islam unless he/she is vert bad 
no muslim who knows why he a muslim will leave islam since islam is the truth 
so those people must be bad people and they should be dealt with
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply35w

Suresh Wanayalae Maxmud Careys This is the truth:

Mahasatipatthana Sutta Practice (briefly).

Practice this fourfold establishing of awareness:

Thinking about the Body:

i.) Breathing (process) is not me. Nor my soul.

ii.) Postures (Eg: stay sitting down, stay standing, stay sleeping) are not me. Nor my soul.

iii.) Behaviors (Eg: walking, eating, dressing, sleeping ) are not me. Nor my soul.

iv.) Obnoxiousness and the 32 dirty body parts (hair, flesh, heart, blood, skin, teeth etc) are not me. Nor my soul.

v.) Earth (pruṭhavī), Liquid) (āpa), Fire (teja), Air (vāyu), Space (ākāsa) Primary Elements (dhātu) are not me. Nor my soul.

vi.) Decaying and completely vanishing body is not me. Nor my soul.

Thinking about the Mind:

i.) Changing Sensations (changing pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations) are not me. Nor my soul.

ii.) Changing Anger, Greed, and Delusion or Ignorance are not me. Nor my soul.

iii.) Changing Sensual desires (Kamachanda), Anger (Vyapada), Sloth & torpor / Depression (Thinamidda), Restlessness & Worry (Uddhaccha Kukkuccha), Doubt/suspicion (Vicikiccha) are not me. Nor my soul.

iv.) Changing Matter or Form (rupa), Sensation or Feeling (vedana), Perception and/or cognition (sanna), Volition or Mental Formation (sankara), Consciousness (vinnana) are not me. Nor my soul.

v.) Changing combinational results arisen by meeting Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body, Mind with Form, Sound, Touch, Taste, and Odor or Smell are not me. Nor my soul.

vi.) Seeing the changing Mindfulness (sati), Investigation of the nature of reality (dhamma vicaya), Energy/determination (viriya), Joy or rapture (preethi), Relaxation or tranquility (passaddhi), Concentration/ Clear awareness (samadhi), Equanimity (upekkha) (Seven Factors of Enlightenment (sapta bodhyanga)).

(Mahasatipatthana Sutta translated briefly by myself (Suresh Madusanka).

This is what the Lord Buddha said about the Mahasatipatthana Sutta:

The Results of the Establishing of Awareness:

"Indeed, monks, whoever practices this fourfold establishing of awareness in this manner for seven years, he may expect one of two results: in this very life highest wisdom or, if a substratum of aggregates remains, the stage of non-returner.

It is for this reason that it was said: “This is the one and only way, monks, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the extinguishing of suffering and grief, for walking on the path of truth, for the realization of nibbana: that is to say, the fourfold establishing of awareness.”
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply18h
James Carney Have you considered that maybe your just a total cunt?

2
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply7h
Suresh Ranrahas Forexsigs Maybe I'm an Artificial Intelligence. 
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply37m



Shane B

Buddha reincarnated

2



镜云和

Once reaching Buddha, there is no such thing called reincarnation!



Suresh Madusanka

Buddhas don't reincarnate. Buddha or "Awakened One" ("Buddha" is also sometimes translated as "The Enlightened One") was not a god or a human being. A Brahmin asked: Sir, what then are you? Buddha replied: "I have eliminated all those corruptions that would make me a god, a water spirit, a yakka, or a human being. Brahmin, just as a lotus, though born and grown in the water, rises up and stands unsoiled by the water, so, though born and grown in the world, I have overcome the world and dwell unsoiled by the world. Consider me a Buddha, an awakened one.“ There are traditionally three types of Buddha, the most important of which is the Samma Sammbuddha (Skt, Samyaksam Buddha) or Universal Buddha. A Pacceka Buddha (Skt, Pratekya Buddha) is someone who has become enlightened purely through his or her own wisdom (without the instruction of a Universal Buddha) but who cannot or chooses not to teach the Dharma to others. A Savaka Buddha (Skt, Sravaka Buddha) is a person who has become enlightened through acquaintance with the teaching of a Universal Buddha. Gautam Buddha was the last Buddha. And another Buddha will come within this aeon after the current Buddhism disappear. I guess the "Ram Bahadur Bomjon (Nepal: little buddha https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDho1Y8MekE)" is praticing meditation to be a Sravaka Buddha (Arhat) or a Pacceka Buddha. But it takes aeons (Kalpa) of practice to be a Samma Sammbuddha or a Pacceka Buddha. Siddhārtha Gautama (Bodhisatva) renounced His princely pleasures in his 29th year and practiced meditation around 6 years until he won the great Victory and became the Teacher of gods and men (Samma Sammbuddha).
Show less


Shane B

Suresh Madusanka ok thanks but I think the Buddha took this form to put back the balance in the universe because I believe that Church and it's followers has thrown the universe in to problems they are trying to converting Hindus and Buddhist so that is why I believe the Buddha came back because of a lack of dharma
Show less


Suresh Madusanka

Buddha is not a God. And he ended his birth. But there are Gods in heaven waiting to be Buddhas, We call them Bodisathwas. Currently there is a Maitriya Bodhisatwa in Thusitha heaven, and he send Bodhisathwas to our human world to protect the current Buddhism. The boy (Ram Bahadur) is also a Bodhisathwa who practice to be a Buddha to end his life after helping more people to end suffering.
Show less






Suresh Wanayalae is feeling excited.
New Member16 hrs
Need to Attain Nirvana? Answer:
Accourding to Buddhism we have an illusion about an existence of a permanent soul. The following practice can remove that illusion and then we will not reborn:
Mahasatipatthana Sutta Practice (briefly).
Practice this fourfold establishing of awareness:
Thinking about the Body:
i.) Breathing (process) is not me, not mine. Nor my soul. It is impermanent (anitya), suffering (dukkha), non-soul/non-self (anātma or anattā).
ii.) Postures (Eg: stay sitting down, stay standing, stay sleeping) are not me, not mine. Nor my soul. Those are impermanent (anitya), suffering (dukkha), non-soul/non-self (anātma or anattā).
iii.) Behaviors (Eg: walking, eating, dressing, sleeping ) are not me, not mine. Nor my soul. Those are impermanent, suffering, non-soul.
iv.) Obnoxiousness and the 32 dirty body parts (hair, flesh, heart, blood, skin, teeth etc) are not me, not mine. Nor my soul. Those are impermanent, suffering, non-soul.
v.) Earth (pruṭhavī), Liquid) (āpa), Fire (teja), Air (vāyu), Space (ākāsa) (Primary Elements (dhātu)) are not me, not mine. Nor my soul. Those are impermanent, suffering, non-soul.
vi.) Decaying and completely vanishing body (dead body) is not me, not mine. Nor my soul. It is impermanent, suffering, non-soul.
Thinking about the Mind:
i.) Changing Sensations (changing pleasant, unpleasant and neutral sensations) are not me, not mine. Nor my soul. Those are impermanent, suffering, non-soul.
ii.) Changing Intentions (Anger, Greed, and Delusion or Ignorance) are not me, not mine. Nor my soul. Those are impermanent, suffering, non-soul.
iii.) Changing Sensual desires (Kamachanda), Anger/ill will (Vyapada), Sloth & torpor / Depression (Thinamidda), Restlessness & Worry (Uddhaccha Kukkuccha), Doubt/suspicion (Vicikiccha) (Five Hindrances (nīvaraṇa)) are not me, not mine. Nor my soul. Those are impermanent, suffering, non-soul.
iv.) Changing Matter or Form (rupa), Sensation or Feeling (vedana), Perception and/or cognition (sanna), Volition or Mental Formation (sankara), Consciousness (vinnana) (The Five Aggregates Of Clinging (upadana-skandha)) are not me, not mine. Nor my soul. Those are impermanent, suffering, non-soul.
v.) Changing combinational results arisen by meeting Eye, Ear, Nose, Tongue, Body, Mind with Form, Sound, Odor or Smell, Taste, Touch and Thoughts are not me, not mine. Nor my soul. Those are impermanent, suffering, non-soul.
vi.) Seeing the changing Mindfulness (sati), Investigation of the nature of reality (dhamma vicaya), Energy/determination (viriya), Joy or rapture (preethi), Relaxation or tranquility (passaddhi), Concentration/ Clear awareness (samadhi), Equanimity (upekkha) (Seven Factors of Enlightenment (sapta bodhyanga)).
(Mahasatipatthana Sutta translated briefly by myself (Suresh Madusanka.) and it is not a perfect translation or a summary.
This is what the Lord Buddha said about the Mahasatipatthana Sutta:
The Results of the Establishing of Awareness:
"Indeed, monks, whoever practices this fourfold establishing of awareness in this manner for seven years, he may expect one of two results: in this very life highest wisdom or, if a substratum of aggregates remains, the stage of non-returner.
It is for this reason that it was said: “This is the one and only way, monks, for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow and lamentation, for the extinguishing of suffering and grief, for walking on the path of truth, for the realization of nibbana: that is to say, the fourfold establishing of awareness.”
Comments

Suresh WanayalaeYou and 203 others joined Buddhism within the last two weeks. I didn't get the description or introduction from Satipatthana Sutta. And I have not used any description. As much as I know the illusion is what cause the rebirth, because we can't remove greed before we remove illusion. So I just used the first phrase to point it.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply13h

ἀγάπη φιλόσοφος You put out terms like "non-self" which are not Buddhist so they are not lead to the same fruit Buddha described. I know not many people know recognize those this day so please here is description so you can understand it better.

https://puredhamma.net/.../anicca.../anicca-dukkha-anatta/
Manage

LikeShow more reactions
Reply13hEdited

Suresh WanayalaeYou and 203 others joined Buddhism within the last two weeks. Don't worry about words. The word 'non-self' is similar to non-soul. Some people use both words to explain the same meaning. 

This is why we say that there is no-self or no-soul:
There are 5 aggregates that make a soul. Those are:

Matter or Form (rupa), Sensation or Feeling (vedana), Perception and/or cognition (sanna), Volition or Mental Formation (sankara), Consciousness (vinnana) (The Five Aggregates Of Clinging (upadana-skandha)) 

So there is not a single entity that we can call a soul, or a self.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply13h

ἀγάπη φιλόσοφος I think you did not understand what I said. there is no such thing as "no soul" or "non self" etc. those are micca ditthi (wrong views). Unless you believe that rupa and arupas are "non self" you are in the state of denial which will not results in insight.

all the best with metta. 🙏
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply13h

Suresh WanayalaeYou and 203 others joined Buddhism within the last two weeks. I can understand what you say. But the Buddhism explains about impermanence (anitya), suffering (dukkha), non-soul/non-self (anātma or anattā). I guess you got the wrong meaning. I didn't say that there is not a soul that doesn't cause to make a rebirth after the death. That soul is a formed soul. So if we need to stop continuation of that formed soul, we have to research each and every part of the body and mind to find a soul to understand whether it exists or not. And we have to check each and every part of the body and mind where we can't find a soul. It doesn't say that the entire body and mind is not a soul. It just says that each and every parts of the body and mind are not a soul. And that is how we can stop the formed soul identifying itself as a different entity. And that is what we call Enlightenment (Stoping Rebirth). There is no real me inside enjoying or suffering, but we think we enjoy or suffer. That is what the illusion. And the illusion is what hide the reality from Greed. That is why we can't remove greed before we remove the illusion.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply13h

ἀγάπη φιλόσοφος Suresh Wanayalae You got it wrong. This is not what is enlightenment and this is not what Buddha taught. You can believe whatever you want but please do not add more to the confusion which already haunted Buddhism with all sides. 
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply12h

Suresh WanayalaeYou and 203 others joined Buddhism within the last two weeks. A being is composed only of these Five Aggregates (Matter, Sensation, Perception, Mental Formation/Volitional activities/Karma, Consciousness) nothing more... nowhere ... was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being.
Buddha denied the existence of Atman, Soul, etc. within man or without, or anywhere else in the universe. To illustrate, three quotes from the Dhammapada (# 5,6 & 7 of chapter XX; verses 277, 278, 279)

But if you are a Mahayana Buddhist, then you may have learned it in a different way. 

This term "dhamma" includes not only the conditioned things and states, but also the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvana... there is no Self, no Atman, not only in the Five Aggregates, but nowhere else outside them or apart from them... there is no self either in the individual or in dhammas - parallel belief in Mahayana Buddhist philosophy
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply3hEdited

Michael Hernandez Dukkha arises when anicca is grasped as having atman an essence or "thingness" that gives them an inherence or intrinsic value.
This idea of inherence is ignorance. 
Things have no inherent existence apart from inferred value which is a volitional mental formation.
This does not however negate life and the will of life to live. 
"To live", is the purpose of life. Without such there is no assertion of existence beyond.


1
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply1h





Michael Hernandez "No-self (anatta) means that there is no permanent, unchanging entity in anything animate or inanimate. With regard to the animate, this implies the absence of a soul which either emanated from a divine source or was created by a divine being. Biblical religions bless only the human being in the whole of the animal kingdom with this soul. The No-self doctrine is found only in the teaching of the Buddha. At least an intellectual grasp of this characteristic of existence is needed to appreciate the Buddha's teaching. It is only when insight is gained in this respect that progress can be made along the Path to full enlightenment"
"In the discourse, the Buddha said that, with reference to any of the aggregates, because there is no self ('soul'), "


1
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply8h

Michael Hernandez "What the Buddha Taught

by Walpola Rahula, Grove Press, New York, 1959 
Chapter VI The Doctrine of No-Soul: ANATTA
Atman vs. Anatta"
http://www.mahabodhi.org/intro/anatta.htm
Manage

1

LoveShow more reactions
Reply8h

Michael Hernandez "And here's the Buddha's response: "Ānanda, 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 and contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul".
Selves & Not-self

The Buddhist Teaching on Anatta

by

Thanissaro Bhikkhu

© 2011
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply8h

ἀγάπη φιλόσοφος Not self or non self or no self are not Buddhist teachings.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply8h

Suresh WanayalaeYou and 203 others joined Buddhism within the last two weeks. The Buddha remains silent when Vacchagotta asks him: "... is there an Atman?" "...is there no Atman?"

The Buddha's reasons are:

If "yes" to "there is a self," ...siding with the eternalistic theory; ... contradictory to "all dhammas are without self."
If "yes" to "there is no self," ...siding with the annihilationist theory; ... more confused...

The Buddha's View:

Not to hold the annihilationist theory of "I have no self"; nor the eternalist theory of "I have a self"... cuz both are fetters (chains, confinements)
...Try to see things objectively as they are without any mental projections, to see that what we call "I", or "being", is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are working together interdependently in a flux of momentary change within the law of cause and effect, and that there is nothing permanent, everlasting, and unchanging in the whole of existence.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply3h





Michael Hernandez ἀγάπη φιλόσοφος
Saying, "not self", is not teaching of the Buddha is like looking at the horizon and saying the earth is flat.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply2h

Michael Hernandez Having read though your lengthy redefining of the Three Marks of Existence, aniccā, dukkhā, anattā,
I fail to see any conclusion.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply1hEdited

Michael Hernandez I read it already. 
Other scholars disagree with your interpretation.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply1hEdited

Suresh WanayalaeYou and 203 others joined Buddhism within the last two weeks. I'm a Sinhalese, and the Pali Tipitaka was written with Sinhala script. So I can understand what you say, and they say (your link). The meaning Anatta is similar to Anartha (No Meaning). But most of the books use it as Anatma (No Soul). And I don't know what it really means. If you say that it was a wrong translation, we have to correct it. But the Buddha didn't like to use the word Non-soul, only because some people can misunderstand it. Because we have an formed soul. Buddha said the Dhamma has no soul. And dhamma is not a single entity. And that is what I was saying. You can use the meaning of this word Anatta as both 'No meaning' or 'No soul' when you refer the parts of the body and mind. But it may not better to say that our mind is not a soul, because it is a formed soul. However the soul is an active formation. And it becomes an innactive and seperated form after the Nirvana.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply50mEdited

ἀγάπη φιλόσοφος Suresh Wanayalae you can believe what you want but this is hinduistic interpretation of the Buddhism, it got nothing to do with Dhamma. 🙏☺️

We do not have formed soul but manomaya kaya. There are many mistakes in your reasoning, please learn pure dhamma from the site I gave you, become Sotapanna and the rest will be clear.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply53mEdited

Michael Hernandez You cannot "know" you have something or anything you cannot examine by the 5 senses.
That is called, "speculation". 
It is useless on the path. 
"Not self" is a practice.
"Not self" is not a thing but the practice of not finding a thing that is "me", "mine" or
"myself".
"Soul", "ego", "manomaya kaya", 
Cannot be found on examination.
They are volitional mental fabrications.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply42m

Michael Hernandez "Not-Self", is the practice of understanding this cyclic existence, this Samsara, 
is illusory and without true self.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply38m

ἀγάπη φιλόσοφος Michael Hernandez Manomaya can be find just keep your hand close for a second and slowly move back and close again you will feel manomaya kaya.

Not self is not practice but developing ignorance. Buddha never spoke about "not self" but by getting rid of hate, greed and lust not illusion of self or whatever you think. It's sad to see how people degenerate Dhamma without fully understanding it 
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply35m

Suresh WanayalaeYou and 203 others joined Buddhism within the last two weeks. ἀγάπη φιλόσοφος, the formed soul is similar to manomaya kaya, because it use Matter or Form (rupa), Sensation or Feeling (vedana), Perception and/or cognition (sanna), Volition or Mental Formation (sankara), Consciousness (vinnana) to form. But as much as I know about Buddhism Theravada buddhism reject the existence of a manomaya kaya, because it sounds like a different life form. But the formed soul don't have a life between a rebirth, but it takes few milliseconds to catch the next birth. The next birth can be a God, Human, Animal, Ghost (manomaya kaya).
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply24mEdited





Michael Hernandez Your interpretation is quite difficult to understand. 
Not clear at all
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply1h

ἀγάπη φιλόσοφος It's not, you just get used to wrong things that why it seems hard.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply1h

Michael Hernandez Can you briefly explain your definition of, "anatta"?
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply1h

ἀγάπη φιλόσοφος You need to understand the rest to anatta make sense but it's mean literally being hopeless in the process of rebirth. 🙏
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply1h





Suresh WanayalaeYou and 203 others joined Buddhism within the last two weeks. I'm a Sinhalese, and the Pali Tipitaka was written with Sinhala script. So I can understand what you say, and they say (your link). The meaning Anatta is similar to Anartha (No Meaning). But most of the books use it as Anatma (No Soul). And I don't know what it really means. If you say that it was a wrong translation, we have to correct it. But the Buddha didn't like to use the word Non-soul, only because some people can misunderstand it. Because we have an formed soul. Buddha said the Dhamma has no soul. And dhamma is not a single entity. And that is what I was saying. You can use the meaning of this word Anatta as both 'No meaning' or 'No soul' when you refer the parts of the body and mind. But it may not better to say that our mind is not a soul, because it is a formed soul. However the soul is an active formation. And it becomes an innactive and seperated form after the Nirvana.
Manage


LikeShow more reactions
Reply49mEdited


Suresh WanayalaeYou and 201 others joined Buddhism within the last two weeks. I guess it is better to use both 'non-self' and 'non-significant-self' words together when we describe the word 'Anatta'. 🙏🙏🙏
Manage


Like
Reply1m

Michael Hernandez Sensory experience is not self.
Manage
Like
Reply1d
Suresh Wanayalae Michael Hernandez , sensory experience is not self, but when we say that we don't have a self or a soul it can lead to a misunderstanding if we think that there is nothing which can cause to continue the sensory experience after the death. So we have to be careful when we use the word non-self or non-soul (Skt: Anatman). If the meaning of the Pali word Anatta (අනත්‍ථ or අනත්ත) is “with no refuge” or “without essence”, and NOT “no-self”, then it is difficult to say that Anatta is non-self. Maybe the Pali: Anatta is not equal to Skt: Anatman. I guess the meaning of the word Anatta is similar to the word 'non-beneficial' too. And maybe there is not a big problem if we use the word non-self when we use the word Anatta, but I think it is better to use both non-self and non-beneficial words together when we use the word Anatta. Maybe there is something between self and non-self, and I guess it is like 'non-significant-self'. 🙏🙏🙏
Manage
Like
Reply1mEdited

No comments:

Post a Comment

We highly admire your helpful comments on our posts.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)