Mixing
Why the view “I am the owner of my karma†not contradict anatta?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do" when this seems to contradict anatta?
Isn't thinking "I am X" contradicting the teaching of anatta?
There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. SN 22.93. Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?
Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "there's no self in this body and mind doing anything"? What's the consequence of this view?
From AN 5.57:
“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished.
personal-practice karma anatman
asked Aug 27 at 1:36
ruben2020
12.6k21137
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do" when this seems to contradict anatta?
Isn't thinking "I am X" contradicting the teaching of anatta?
There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. SN 22.93. Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?
Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "there's no self in this body and mind doing anything"? What's the consequence of this view?
From AN 5.57:
“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished.
personal-practice karma anatman
asked Aug 27 at 1:36
ruben2020
12.6k21137
1
appears contradictory to me too.
– Dheeraj Verma
Aug 27 at 2:25
Anatta = 'Not-Selt', Anatta != 'No-Self',
– Bodhi Walker
Aug 27 at 4:33
Yes. So "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" is not self, isn't it?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 4:43
You can see how the word “anatta†got translated incorrectly as “no-selfâ€Âby carefully examining the different usages of the word “atta“. There is “atta†which is different from “attĆ(with a “long a at the end). Anatta is the opposite of “atta†not of “attÄ“. AnÄÂtma (which is a Sanskrit word not used by the Buddha and could be translated as “no-selfâ€Â), has been misinterpreted as anatta.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:38
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do" when this seems to contradict anatta?
Isn't thinking "I am X" contradicting the teaching of anatta?
There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. SN 22.93. Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?
Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "there's no self in this body and mind doing anything"? What's the consequence of this view?
From AN 5.57:
“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished.
personal-practice karma anatman
asked Aug 27 at 1:36
ruben2020
12.6k21137
Why did the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "I am the owner of my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma, good or bad, that I do" when this seems to contradict anatta?
Isn't thinking "I am X" contradicting the teaching of anatta?
There are suttas where the Buddha advised not to associate the five aggregates with the self e.g. SN 22.93. Aren't these two teachings contradictory? Isn't "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" a mental fabrication (sankhara) that we shouldn't associate our self with?
Why didn't the Buddha advise lay people and monks to think, "there's no self in this body and mind doing anything"? What's the consequence of this view?
From AN 5.57:
“And for the sake of what benefit should a woman or a man, a
householder or one gone forth, often reflect thus: ‘I am the owner of
my kamma, the heir of my kamma; I have kamma as my origin, kamma as my
relative, kamma as my resort; I will be the heir of whatever kamma,
good or bad, that I do’? People engage in misconduct by body, speech,
and mind. But when one often reflects upon this theme, such misconduct
is either completely abandoned or diminished.
personal-practice karma anatman
asked Aug 27 at 1:36
ruben2020
12.6k21137
edited Aug 27 at 2:31
asked Aug 27 at 1:36
ruben2020
12.6k21137
asked Aug 27 at 1:36
ruben2020
12.6k21137
asked Aug 27 at 1:36
ruben2020
12.6k21137
12.6k21137
1
appears contradictory to me too.
– Dheeraj Verma
Aug 27 at 2:25
Anatta = 'Not-Selt', Anatta != 'No-Self',
– Bodhi Walker
Aug 27 at 4:33
Yes. So "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" is not self, isn't it?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 4:43
You can see how the word “anatta†got translated incorrectly as “no-selfâ€Âby carefully examining the different usages of the word “atta“. There is “atta†which is different from “attĆ(with a “long a at the end). Anatta is the opposite of “atta†not of “attÄ“. AnÄÂtma (which is a Sanskrit word not used by the Buddha and could be translated as “no-selfâ€Â), has been misinterpreted as anatta.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:38
add a comment |Â
1
appears contradictory to me too.
– Dheeraj Verma
Aug 27 at 2:25
Anatta = 'Not-Selt', Anatta != 'No-Self',
– Bodhi Walker
Aug 27 at 4:33
Yes. So "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" is not self, isn't it?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 4:43
You can see how the word “anatta†got translated incorrectly as “no-selfâ€Âby carefully examining the different usages of the word “atta“. There is “atta†which is different from “attĆ(with a “long a at the end). Anatta is the opposite of “atta†not of “attÄ“. AnÄÂtma (which is a Sanskrit word not used by the Buddha and could be translated as “no-selfâ€Â), has been misinterpreted as anatta.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:38
1
1
appears contradictory to me too.
– Dheeraj Verma
Aug 27 at 2:25
appears contradictory to me too.
– Dheeraj Verma
Aug 27 at 2:25
Anatta = 'Not-Selt', Anatta != 'No-Self',
– Bodhi Walker
Aug 27 at 4:33
Anatta = 'Not-Selt', Anatta != 'No-Self',
– Bodhi Walker
Aug 27 at 4:33
Yes. So "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" is not self, isn't it?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 4:43
Yes. So "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" is not self, isn't it?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 4:43
You can see how the word “anatta†got translated incorrectly as “no-selfâ€Âby carefully examining the different usages of the word “atta“. There is “atta†which is different from “attĆ(with a “long a at the end). Anatta is the opposite of “atta†not of “attÄ“. AnÄÂtma (which is a Sanskrit word not used by the Buddha and could be translated as “no-selfâ€Â), has been misinterpreted as anatta.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:38
You can see how the word “anatta†got translated incorrectly as “no-selfâ€Âby carefully examining the different usages of the word “atta“. There is “atta†which is different from “attĆ(with a “long a at the end). Anatta is the opposite of “atta†not of “attÄ“. AnÄÂtma (which is a Sanskrit word not used by the Buddha and could be translated as “no-selfâ€Â), has been misinterpreted as anatta.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:38
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level.
The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.
Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.
answered Aug 27 at 4:54
Sankha Kulathantille
22.4k11453
What is 'Vipassana' to you? I can say without any doubt that such kind of “vipassana†as practiced by almost everyone of you cannot lead to Nibbana.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:53
@SapthaVisuddhi who are you referring to when you say "almost everyone of you"? I wouldn't make such gross generalizations. :)
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 13:13
Please do not take it in a personal way Sankha. I said it in the light of "Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail" (SN 13.1). If you and I have got things right, we must be very much in this Noble Eightfold Path. Once in this Path, one knows exactly where one is (eg. a non-returner or not). We are nowhere close to any of the stages b'cos we have got things very wrong.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 13:36
No I didnt take it personally. Just pointing out that gross generalizations are usually inacurate
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 17:21
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Because we unenlightened worldlings act, say, and think anything and everything in terms of "I", "mine", and "myself" anyway; regardless of whether He teaches AN 5.57 or not. So He might as well teach and speak in the language that we worldlings can parse while still not attaining enlightenment just yet. And just for kicks, imagine if AN 5.57 said the opposite, how the worldlings would interpret, and the potential consequences? "a householder or one gone forth, often refelct thus: 'I am NOT the owner of my kamma, NOT the heir of my kamma; NOT kamma as my orgin, etc." Now, SN 22.93 is different in that its' strictly for monks, there's no "householders", nor "any man or woman" mentioned like in AN 5.57. Another important point worth noticing is that the 2 statements of the 2 suttas are not contradicting each other: "I am the owner of my kamma" vs. "The Five Aggregates are not the self". It's only contradicting if one automatically equates the "I" in AN 5.57 to be the same as the "self".
answered Aug 27 at 2:26
santa100
4,725312
Are you saying that SN 22.93 is not applicable to lay people?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 2:53
Not necessary, because there'll always be lay folks who're way more advanced than monks. But the overrall message should be clear and you know that.
– santa100
Aug 27 at 3:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
On one hand I feel it is a way to make it easier to be represented and understood by laypeople or beginners.
On the other hand, the concept of Anatta can be interpreted as "no permanent nature of self". This concept needs to be fully understood as part of reaching enlightenment, but at the same time, this doesn't contradict to an individual being an owner of respective Kamma, if Kamma was created.
answered Aug 27 at 2:39
Krizalid_13190
2377
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As you yourself have said many times Ruben anatta does not mean no self exists. The self exists and so does karma. There is no contradiction whatsoever with anatta or shunyata. Moreover, it is silly to think the Buddha said we should not believe that we exist or the self does not exist.
The problem, as always, is when we say the self exists or karma exists we fall to the extreme of inherent existence. And when we hear anatta we think, “Oh, the Buddha said we don’t inherently exist so we must not exist at all!†Why? Because we have been fooled by our own ignorance since beginningless time thinking that the options are inherent existence or nihilism.
There is no problem or contradiction with “I am the owner of my karma†as long as we don’t fall to the extremes. Of course, since we are lowly sentient beings we inevitably do.
So what is the truth? As Shantideva said it is like an illusory being owning illusory karma.
See the third example in this question: Looking for mentions of karma related to actions taken while dreaming
I think the questions are closely related.
answered Aug 27 at 4:49
Yeshe Tenley
1,471221
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It is atta-anuditthi as well for the ordinary people.
But for the noble one it is anatta-anuditthi.
Because it depends on their understood of atta/anatta. It is not depends on words "my/mine/me/I". therefore, in tipitaka, Buddha and the other noble ones still say those words after enlightened.
answered Aug 27 at 10:06
Bonn
2,7121214
add a comment |Â
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
5 Answers
5
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
2
down vote
This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level.
The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.
Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.
answered Aug 27 at 4:54
Sankha Kulathantille
22.4k11453
What is 'Vipassana' to you? I can say without any doubt that such kind of “vipassana†as practiced by almost everyone of you cannot lead to Nibbana.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:53
@SapthaVisuddhi who are you referring to when you say "almost everyone of you"? I wouldn't make such gross generalizations. :)
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 13:13
Please do not take it in a personal way Sankha. I said it in the light of "Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail" (SN 13.1). If you and I have got things right, we must be very much in this Noble Eightfold Path. Once in this Path, one knows exactly where one is (eg. a non-returner or not). We are nowhere close to any of the stages b'cos we have got things very wrong.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 13:36
No I didnt take it personally. Just pointing out that gross generalizations are usually inacurate
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 17:21
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level.
The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.
Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.
answered Aug 27 at 4:54
Sankha Kulathantille
22.4k11453
What is 'Vipassana' to you? I can say without any doubt that such kind of “vipassana†as practiced by almost everyone of you cannot lead to Nibbana.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:53
@SapthaVisuddhi who are you referring to when you say "almost everyone of you"? I wouldn't make such gross generalizations. :)
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 13:13
Please do not take it in a personal way Sankha. I said it in the light of "Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail" (SN 13.1). If you and I have got things right, we must be very much in this Noble Eightfold Path. Once in this Path, one knows exactly where one is (eg. a non-returner or not). We are nowhere close to any of the stages b'cos we have got things very wrong.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 13:36
No I didnt take it personally. Just pointing out that gross generalizations are usually inacurate
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 17:21
add a comment |Â
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level.
The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.
Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.
answered Aug 27 at 4:54
Sankha Kulathantille
22.4k11453
This is how you practice equanimity (upekkha). It's the one of the four divine abodes. Just like in Metta(loving-kindness) meditation where you say "may I/my parents/relatives/friends be happy, well, free from suffering etc.", Upekkha meditation is also practiced at a conceptual level.
The purpose of Upekkha meditation is to cultivate equanimity in the mind. It does not lead to realization of Anatta nor enlightenment unless you turn it into Vipassana at some point.
Anatta is at the level of ultimate reality. That is for advanced practitioners of Buddhism. Trying to teach Anatta to everyone regardless of their mental maturity will not be productive as many will endup being more confused than they already are. That's why there are teachings in Buddhism that help you develop the mind at a conceptual level where you are familiar and comfortable. It is important not to mix up these teachings with the teachings of ultimate reality.
answered Aug 27 at 4:54
Sankha Kulathantille
22.4k11453
edited Aug 27 at 5:08
answered Aug 27 at 4:54
Sankha Kulathantille
22.4k11453
answered Aug 27 at 4:54
Sankha Kulathantille
22.4k11453
answered Aug 27 at 4:54
Sankha Kulathantille
22.4k11453
22.4k11453
What is 'Vipassana' to you? I can say without any doubt that such kind of “vipassana†as practiced by almost everyone of you cannot lead to Nibbana.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:53
@SapthaVisuddhi who are you referring to when you say "almost everyone of you"? I wouldn't make such gross generalizations. :)
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 13:13
Please do not take it in a personal way Sankha. I said it in the light of "Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail" (SN 13.1). If you and I have got things right, we must be very much in this Noble Eightfold Path. Once in this Path, one knows exactly where one is (eg. a non-returner or not). We are nowhere close to any of the stages b'cos we have got things very wrong.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 13:36
No I didnt take it personally. Just pointing out that gross generalizations are usually inacurate
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 17:21
add a comment |Â
What is 'Vipassana' to you? I can say without any doubt that such kind of “vipassana†as practiced by almost everyone of you cannot lead to Nibbana.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:53
@SapthaVisuddhi who are you referring to when you say "almost everyone of you"? I wouldn't make such gross generalizations. :)
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 13:13
Please do not take it in a personal way Sankha. I said it in the light of "Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail" (SN 13.1). If you and I have got things right, we must be very much in this Noble Eightfold Path. Once in this Path, one knows exactly where one is (eg. a non-returner or not). We are nowhere close to any of the stages b'cos we have got things very wrong.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 13:36
No I didnt take it personally. Just pointing out that gross generalizations are usually inacurate
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 17:21
What is 'Vipassana' to you? I can say without any doubt that such kind of “vipassana†as practiced by almost everyone of you cannot lead to Nibbana.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:53
What is 'Vipassana' to you? I can say without any doubt that such kind of “vipassana†as practiced by almost everyone of you cannot lead to Nibbana.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:53
@SapthaVisuddhi who are you referring to when you say "almost everyone of you"? I wouldn't make such gross generalizations. :)
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 13:13
@SapthaVisuddhi who are you referring to when you say "almost everyone of you"? I wouldn't make such gross generalizations. :)
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 13:13
Please do not take it in a personal way Sankha. I said it in the light of "Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail" (SN 13.1). If you and I have got things right, we must be very much in this Noble Eightfold Path. Once in this Path, one knows exactly where one is (eg. a non-returner or not). We are nowhere close to any of the stages b'cos we have got things very wrong.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 13:36
Please do not take it in a personal way Sankha. I said it in the light of "Nakhasikha Sutta: The Tip of the Fingernail" (SN 13.1). If you and I have got things right, we must be very much in this Noble Eightfold Path. Once in this Path, one knows exactly where one is (eg. a non-returner or not). We are nowhere close to any of the stages b'cos we have got things very wrong.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 13:36
No I didnt take it personally. Just pointing out that gross generalizations are usually inacurate
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 17:21
No I didnt take it personally. Just pointing out that gross generalizations are usually inacurate
– Sankha Kulathantille
Aug 27 at 17:21
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Because we unenlightened worldlings act, say, and think anything and everything in terms of "I", "mine", and "myself" anyway; regardless of whether He teaches AN 5.57 or not. So He might as well teach and speak in the language that we worldlings can parse while still not attaining enlightenment just yet. And just for kicks, imagine if AN 5.57 said the opposite, how the worldlings would interpret, and the potential consequences? "a householder or one gone forth, often refelct thus: 'I am NOT the owner of my kamma, NOT the heir of my kamma; NOT kamma as my orgin, etc." Now, SN 22.93 is different in that its' strictly for monks, there's no "householders", nor "any man or woman" mentioned like in AN 5.57. Another important point worth noticing is that the 2 statements of the 2 suttas are not contradicting each other: "I am the owner of my kamma" vs. "The Five Aggregates are not the self". It's only contradicting if one automatically equates the "I" in AN 5.57 to be the same as the "self".
answered Aug 27 at 2:26
santa100
4,725312
Are you saying that SN 22.93 is not applicable to lay people?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 2:53
Not necessary, because there'll always be lay folks who're way more advanced than monks. But the overrall message should be clear and you know that.
– santa100
Aug 27 at 3:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
Because we unenlightened worldlings act, say, and think anything and everything in terms of "I", "mine", and "myself" anyway; regardless of whether He teaches AN 5.57 or not. So He might as well teach and speak in the language that we worldlings can parse while still not attaining enlightenment just yet. And just for kicks, imagine if AN 5.57 said the opposite, how the worldlings would interpret, and the potential consequences? "a householder or one gone forth, often refelct thus: 'I am NOT the owner of my kamma, NOT the heir of my kamma; NOT kamma as my orgin, etc." Now, SN 22.93 is different in that its' strictly for monks, there's no "householders", nor "any man or woman" mentioned like in AN 5.57. Another important point worth noticing is that the 2 statements of the 2 suttas are not contradicting each other: "I am the owner of my kamma" vs. "The Five Aggregates are not the self". It's only contradicting if one automatically equates the "I" in AN 5.57 to be the same as the "self".
answered Aug 27 at 2:26
santa100
4,725312
Are you saying that SN 22.93 is not applicable to lay people?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 2:53
Not necessary, because there'll always be lay folks who're way more advanced than monks. But the overrall message should be clear and you know that.
– santa100
Aug 27 at 3:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
Because we unenlightened worldlings act, say, and think anything and everything in terms of "I", "mine", and "myself" anyway; regardless of whether He teaches AN 5.57 or not. So He might as well teach and speak in the language that we worldlings can parse while still not attaining enlightenment just yet. And just for kicks, imagine if AN 5.57 said the opposite, how the worldlings would interpret, and the potential consequences? "a householder or one gone forth, often refelct thus: 'I am NOT the owner of my kamma, NOT the heir of my kamma; NOT kamma as my orgin, etc." Now, SN 22.93 is different in that its' strictly for monks, there's no "householders", nor "any man or woman" mentioned like in AN 5.57. Another important point worth noticing is that the 2 statements of the 2 suttas are not contradicting each other: "I am the owner of my kamma" vs. "The Five Aggregates are not the self". It's only contradicting if one automatically equates the "I" in AN 5.57 to be the same as the "self".
answered Aug 27 at 2:26
santa100
4,725312
Because we unenlightened worldlings act, say, and think anything and everything in terms of "I", "mine", and "myself" anyway; regardless of whether He teaches AN 5.57 or not. So He might as well teach and speak in the language that we worldlings can parse while still not attaining enlightenment just yet. And just for kicks, imagine if AN 5.57 said the opposite, how the worldlings would interpret, and the potential consequences? "a householder or one gone forth, often refelct thus: 'I am NOT the owner of my kamma, NOT the heir of my kamma; NOT kamma as my orgin, etc." Now, SN 22.93 is different in that its' strictly for monks, there's no "householders", nor "any man or woman" mentioned like in AN 5.57. Another important point worth noticing is that the 2 statements of the 2 suttas are not contradicting each other: "I am the owner of my kamma" vs. "The Five Aggregates are not the self". It's only contradicting if one automatically equates the "I" in AN 5.57 to be the same as the "self".
answered Aug 27 at 2:26
santa100
4,725312
edited Aug 27 at 3:32
answered Aug 27 at 2:26
santa100
4,725312
answered Aug 27 at 2:26
santa100
4,725312
answered Aug 27 at 2:26
santa100
4,725312
4,725312
Are you saying that SN 22.93 is not applicable to lay people?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 2:53
Not necessary, because there'll always be lay folks who're way more advanced than monks. But the overrall message should be clear and you know that.
– santa100
Aug 27 at 3:14
add a comment |Â
Are you saying that SN 22.93 is not applicable to lay people?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 2:53
Not necessary, because there'll always be lay folks who're way more advanced than monks. But the overrall message should be clear and you know that.
– santa100
Aug 27 at 3:14
Are you saying that SN 22.93 is not applicable to lay people?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 2:53
Are you saying that SN 22.93 is not applicable to lay people?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 2:53
Not necessary, because there'll always be lay folks who're way more advanced than monks. But the overrall message should be clear and you know that.
– santa100
Aug 27 at 3:14
Not necessary, because there'll always be lay folks who're way more advanced than monks. But the overrall message should be clear and you know that.
– santa100
Aug 27 at 3:14
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
On one hand I feel it is a way to make it easier to be represented and understood by laypeople or beginners.
On the other hand, the concept of Anatta can be interpreted as "no permanent nature of self". This concept needs to be fully understood as part of reaching enlightenment, but at the same time, this doesn't contradict to an individual being an owner of respective Kamma, if Kamma was created.
answered Aug 27 at 2:39
Krizalid_13190
2377
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
On one hand I feel it is a way to make it easier to be represented and understood by laypeople or beginners.
On the other hand, the concept of Anatta can be interpreted as "no permanent nature of self". This concept needs to be fully understood as part of reaching enlightenment, but at the same time, this doesn't contradict to an individual being an owner of respective Kamma, if Kamma was created.
answered Aug 27 at 2:39
Krizalid_13190
2377
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
On one hand I feel it is a way to make it easier to be represented and understood by laypeople or beginners.
On the other hand, the concept of Anatta can be interpreted as "no permanent nature of self". This concept needs to be fully understood as part of reaching enlightenment, but at the same time, this doesn't contradict to an individual being an owner of respective Kamma, if Kamma was created.
answered Aug 27 at 2:39
Krizalid_13190
2377
On one hand I feel it is a way to make it easier to be represented and understood by laypeople or beginners.
On the other hand, the concept of Anatta can be interpreted as "no permanent nature of self". This concept needs to be fully understood as part of reaching enlightenment, but at the same time, this doesn't contradict to an individual being an owner of respective Kamma, if Kamma was created.
answered Aug 27 at 2:39
Krizalid_13190
2377
answered Aug 27 at 2:39
Krizalid_13190
2377
answered Aug 27 at 2:39
Krizalid_13190
2377
answered Aug 27 at 2:39
Krizalid_13190
2377
2377
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As you yourself have said many times Ruben anatta does not mean no self exists. The self exists and so does karma. There is no contradiction whatsoever with anatta or shunyata. Moreover, it is silly to think the Buddha said we should not believe that we exist or the self does not exist.
The problem, as always, is when we say the self exists or karma exists we fall to the extreme of inherent existence. And when we hear anatta we think, “Oh, the Buddha said we don’t inherently exist so we must not exist at all!†Why? Because we have been fooled by our own ignorance since beginningless time thinking that the options are inherent existence or nihilism.
There is no problem or contradiction with “I am the owner of my karma†as long as we don’t fall to the extremes. Of course, since we are lowly sentient beings we inevitably do.
So what is the truth? As Shantideva said it is like an illusory being owning illusory karma.
See the third example in this question: Looking for mentions of karma related to actions taken while dreaming
I think the questions are closely related.
answered Aug 27 at 4:49
Yeshe Tenley
1,471221
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
As you yourself have said many times Ruben anatta does not mean no self exists. The self exists and so does karma. There is no contradiction whatsoever with anatta or shunyata. Moreover, it is silly to think the Buddha said we should not believe that we exist or the self does not exist.
The problem, as always, is when we say the self exists or karma exists we fall to the extreme of inherent existence. And when we hear anatta we think, “Oh, the Buddha said we don’t inherently exist so we must not exist at all!†Why? Because we have been fooled by our own ignorance since beginningless time thinking that the options are inherent existence or nihilism.
There is no problem or contradiction with “I am the owner of my karma†as long as we don’t fall to the extremes. Of course, since we are lowly sentient beings we inevitably do.
So what is the truth? As Shantideva said it is like an illusory being owning illusory karma.
See the third example in this question: Looking for mentions of karma related to actions taken while dreaming
I think the questions are closely related.
answered Aug 27 at 4:49
Yeshe Tenley
1,471221
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
As you yourself have said many times Ruben anatta does not mean no self exists. The self exists and so does karma. There is no contradiction whatsoever with anatta or shunyata. Moreover, it is silly to think the Buddha said we should not believe that we exist or the self does not exist.
The problem, as always, is when we say the self exists or karma exists we fall to the extreme of inherent existence. And when we hear anatta we think, “Oh, the Buddha said we don’t inherently exist so we must not exist at all!†Why? Because we have been fooled by our own ignorance since beginningless time thinking that the options are inherent existence or nihilism.
There is no problem or contradiction with “I am the owner of my karma†as long as we don’t fall to the extremes. Of course, since we are lowly sentient beings we inevitably do.
So what is the truth? As Shantideva said it is like an illusory being owning illusory karma.
See the third example in this question: Looking for mentions of karma related to actions taken while dreaming
I think the questions are closely related.
answered Aug 27 at 4:49
Yeshe Tenley
1,471221
As you yourself have said many times Ruben anatta does not mean no self exists. The self exists and so does karma. There is no contradiction whatsoever with anatta or shunyata. Moreover, it is silly to think the Buddha said we should not believe that we exist or the self does not exist.
The problem, as always, is when we say the self exists or karma exists we fall to the extreme of inherent existence. And when we hear anatta we think, “Oh, the Buddha said we don’t inherently exist so we must not exist at all!†Why? Because we have been fooled by our own ignorance since beginningless time thinking that the options are inherent existence or nihilism.
There is no problem or contradiction with “I am the owner of my karma†as long as we don’t fall to the extremes. Of course, since we are lowly sentient beings we inevitably do.
So what is the truth? As Shantideva said it is like an illusory being owning illusory karma.
See the third example in this question: Looking for mentions of karma related to actions taken while dreaming
I think the questions are closely related.
answered Aug 27 at 4:49
Yeshe Tenley
1,471221
edited Aug 27 at 4:55
answered Aug 27 at 4:49
Yeshe Tenley
1,471221
answered Aug 27 at 4:49
Yeshe Tenley
1,471221
answered Aug 27 at 4:49
Yeshe Tenley
1,471221
1,471221
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It is atta-anuditthi as well for the ordinary people.
But for the noble one it is anatta-anuditthi.
Because it depends on their understood of atta/anatta. It is not depends on words "my/mine/me/I". therefore, in tipitaka, Buddha and the other noble ones still say those words after enlightened.
answered Aug 27 at 10:06
Bonn
2,7121214
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
It is atta-anuditthi as well for the ordinary people.
But for the noble one it is anatta-anuditthi.
Because it depends on their understood of atta/anatta. It is not depends on words "my/mine/me/I". therefore, in tipitaka, Buddha and the other noble ones still say those words after enlightened.
answered Aug 27 at 10:06
Bonn
2,7121214
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
It is atta-anuditthi as well for the ordinary people.
But for the noble one it is anatta-anuditthi.
Because it depends on their understood of atta/anatta. It is not depends on words "my/mine/me/I". therefore, in tipitaka, Buddha and the other noble ones still say those words after enlightened.
answered Aug 27 at 10:06
Bonn
2,7121214
It is atta-anuditthi as well for the ordinary people.
But for the noble one it is anatta-anuditthi.
Because it depends on their understood of atta/anatta. It is not depends on words "my/mine/me/I". therefore, in tipitaka, Buddha and the other noble ones still say those words after enlightened.
answered Aug 27 at 10:06
Bonn
2,7121214
edited Aug 27 at 10:12
answered Aug 27 at 10:06
Bonn
2,7121214
answered Aug 27 at 10:06
Bonn
2,7121214
answered Aug 27 at 10:06
Bonn
2,7121214
2,7121214
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f28946%2fwhy-the-view-i-am-the-owner-of-my-karma-not-contradict-anatta%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
1
appears contradictory to me too.
– Dheeraj Verma
Aug 27 at 2:25
Anatta = 'Not-Selt', Anatta != 'No-Self',
– Bodhi Walker
Aug 27 at 4:33
Yes. So "owner of kamma, heir of kamma" is not self, isn't it?
– ruben2020
Aug 27 at 4:43
You can see how the word “anatta†got translated incorrectly as “no-selfâ€Âby carefully examining the different usages of the word “atta“. There is “atta†which is different from “attĆ(with a “long a at the end). Anatta is the opposite of “atta†not of “attÄ“. AnÄÂtma (which is a Sanskrit word not used by the Buddha and could be translated as “no-selfâ€Â), has been misinterpreted as anatta.
– Saptha Visuddhi
Aug 27 at 11:38