Buddhism: The 4NT-8FP is Problem-Solving Technique in Life

[Joyousperson]

In my personal experience, the original Buddhist teachings are the religious tradition that has the best grasp on the human mind and the origin of discontent: its conclusions hold up surprisingly well even from the vantage point of the most advanced mind sciences, even if its more supernatural concepts (which were directly indebted to the vedic cultural background in which Buddhism arose) are clearly as mythical ad those of other religions.

What I struggle with is the notion that permanence would be desirable to begin with. Of course, biological life itself is a sort of "clinging to structures and struggling for permanence", but it's also built around the notion of constant change. Permanence is death. A state where all chemical reactions have run their course, everything remains in its current configuration. Life requires constant reconfiguration, right down to the cellular level.
So, I'm not really looking for permanence, but only a bit of continuity within the roughly 70+ years I'll spend here, if everything goes well.

The fundamentals of the original Buddhist teachings are not as mythical as those of other religions before it.

Before Buddhism there was already a long tradition of the vedic religions which was then at least 10,000 years prior and Jainism, plus other non-theistic Hindu spirituality.
After searching through the above practices, Guatama realized from his experience, the older traditions were not effective to the ultimate. Therefrom he relied on the latter [Jainism] to make a 180 degrees paradigm shift from Vedic Hinduism, i.e. from atman [self] to anatman [no self] plus introducing a problem solving technique for life as in the OP.

However this 180 degrees turn was too advance for the general public and thus the religion has to compromise its fundamentals with common practices, like idols, statutes, prayers with offerings, etc., and even rebirth and salvation in some cases.

The impulse of permanence is a necessary evolved impulse to facilitate survival but while it has its pros, it also has its cons. Buddhism do not denounce permanence at the ordinary level, but highlight the concept of impermanence [Anicca] as a core concept as a central doctrine. The fact is 'change is the only constant' thus it would only bring dukkha if one's cling to an impossible absolute permanence, especially that of the permanence of the soul till eternity.

Buddhism-proper without a religious baggage would be the optimal Problem Solving Technique of Life [OP] for humanity in the future since every aspects of it can be verified objectivity via Science and philosophical rationality.

 

[ananda]

... Guatama realized from his experience, the older traditions were not effective to the ultimate. Therefrom he relied on the latter [Jainism] to make a 180 degrees paradigm shift from Vedic Hinduism, i.e. from atman [self] to anatman [no self] plus introducing a problem solving technique for life as in the OP...

The early Buddhist Pali texts speaks of "anatta", not "anatman" (Sanskrit). "Anatta" refers to not-self, not no-self.

The Buddha in those texts taught that "the view that I have a self ... or the view I have no self" are both equally wrong (e.g. MN 2, MN 22, SN 44.10, etc.)

 

[Joyousperson]

The early Buddhist Pali texts speaks of "anatta", not "anatman". "Anatta" refers to not-self, not no-self.

The 'atman' concept existed 10,000 years prior to Buddhism, thus it is very logical to refer to 'anatman' as its opposite.

I understand you are pro Theravada School but the fact is Buddhism started in Northern India long before it was spread to Theravadism in Sri Lanka which is more than 3500 km down South.
Note this timeline of Buddhism.
Timeline of Buddhism - Wikipedia

 

[ananda]

The 'atman' existed 10,000 years prior to Buddhism, thus it is very logical to refer to anatman as its opposite.

As I understand the Pali texts, the view that one has no self is just as unskillful as the view that one has a self. This is because both views involve attachment, and it is attachment that perpetuates dependent origination, and the cycle of suffering. Therefore the Buddha refocused his attention on deconstructing attachment by understanding not-self ... not by rejecting self.

I understand you are pro the Theravada School but the fact is Buddhism started in Northern India long before it was spread to Theravadism in Sri Lanka.
Note this timeline of Buddhism.
Timeline of Buddhism - Wikipedia

I follow the early Buddhist texts, but I'm not pro-Theravada.

 

[Joyousperson]

As I understand the Pali texts, the view that one has no self is just as unskillful as the view that one has a self. This is because both views involve attachment, and it is attachment that perpetuates dependent origination, and the cycle of suffering. Therefore the Buddha refocused his attention on deconstructing attachment by understanding not-self ... not by rejecting self.

As I see it, there is no difference between self and no-self or non-self. Difference is only in semantics, not in principle.
What is critical is one should not be attached [via 8FPs] to any of the concept, i.e. self or no-self.

Note the Buddhist Tetralemma;
Tetralemma - Wikipedia

1. p
2. no p or non-p
3. p and non-p
4. Neither p or non-p
​

Point 3 and ultimately 4 signify ultimate non-attachment within the complementarity of p and no-p.

I follow the early Buddhist texts, but I'm not pro-Theravada.

The early Buddhist texts are not likely Pali, but more likely sanskrit, thus the term 'anatman' is appropriate.
If you are not into Theravadism, then which early Buddhism.
As I understand early Buddhism is Indian Buddhism from which the Theravada Schools and Mahayana schools had branched out.

With the reign of the Buddhist Mauryan Emperor Ashoka, the Buddhist community split into two branches: the Mahāsāṃghika and the Sthaviravāda, each of which spread throughout India and split into numerous sub-sects.[5] In modern times, two major branches of Buddhism exist: the Theravāda in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia, and the Mahāyāna throughout the Himalayas and East Asia.
History of Buddhism in India - Wikipedia​

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

For me, realizing the impermanence of "self" is probably the most vital aspect of Buddhism, and the one I can connect to the most.

 

[Joyousperson]

For me, realizing the impermanence of "self" is probably the most vital aspect of Buddhism, and the one I can connect to the most.

Great.

If you have not, I suggest exploring the 12 Nidanas and Dependent Origination.

Buddhism is like a sport which require the development of skills that need the right practices to strengthen one's mental power to deal and manage [not necessary getting rid of the problem all the time] with whatever problems on face in life, plus the ability to improve on one's well being within one's own control and will power.

 

[ananda]

As I see it, there is no difference between self and no-self or non-self. Difference is only in semantics, not in principle.

There is a vast difference, IMO.

"Not-self" refers to an ongoing, evaluative understanding in samatha-vipassana that there is no permanence in anything we can observe & these things are therefore unworthy of being considered "self". This results in a gradual detachment away from samsaric objects and towards nibbana.

"No-self" however refers to an absolute position asserting omniscient knowledge that there is no self. IMO this doctrine unfortunately resulted in an embracement of "crazy wisdom" teachings, the nonsensical, and deplorable behavior found in some later sects, and their subsequent abandonment of the Noble Eightfold Path.

If you are not into Theravadism, then which early Buddhism.

Early Buddhism, in my eyes, is what is taught in the earliest Pali texts - the Nikayas.

Theravada today generally accepts the Nikayas along with later commentaries (such as the Visuddhimaga) and other sub-commentaries as authoritative.

 

[Joyousperson]

There is a vast difference, IMO.

"Not-self" refers to an ongoing, evaluative understanding in samatha-vipassana that there is no permanence in anything we can observe & these things are therefore unworthy of being considered "self". This results in a gradual detachment away from samsaric objects and towards nibbana.

"No-self" however refers to an absolute position asserting omniscient knowledge that there is no self. IMO this doctrine unfortunately resulted in an embracement of "crazy wisdom" teachings, the nonsensical, and deplorable behavior found in some later sects, and their subsequent abandonment of the Noble Eightfold Path.

Btw, my understanding of Buddhism-proper is not confine to your sort of early-Buddhism.

In my case, it depend on how one defines the 'self'.

In most theistic religion [as with Hindu theism], the "self" of concern [or atman of the Gita, e.g.] refers the intact 'soul' that is claimed to be permanent and survives physical death into other realms or reincarnate into other entities [animals, spirits, etc.].
In this case, Buddhism claims the opposite, there is no such self or soul that survives physical death.

In another perspective, Buddhism recognize the secular self, i.e. when one identify as 'myself' yourself, his_self, herself, and the likes. Such a secular self is impermanent.

Early Buddhism, in my eyes, is what is taught in the earliest Pali texts - the Nikayas.

Theravada today generally accepts the Nikayas along with later commentaries (such as the Visuddhimaga) and other sub-commentaries as authoritative.

I believe your view of early-Buddhism tends toward the Pali-Theravada line.

In my understanding of Buddhism, I take into account everything that is related to Buddhism starting from Gautama Buddha, i.e. the three major schools, Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana and the various branches. I see a common thread within the 3 main schools with their respective variations.