The Buddhis Anatman Theory

[Guest guest]

> . " You, monks! You should know that the

> Tathàgata, the Worthy, the Completely Enlightened One,

> perfect in wisdom and conduct, the Well Gone, the

> knower of the world, unsurpassed, the tamer of men,

> teacher of men and gods, and the World Honored One is

> also so. He is a great doctor who has appeared in the

> world, defeating all of the heretical doctors,

>

 

P: Hey Lewis! Thanks, very interesting. I was sort of

missing your stimulating input. Let's see, it seems

to me either the Buddha did not write this sutra, or

he was really a very vain person. Would a liberated

being hip such ridiculous string of compliments on himself?

Sounds like that was written by a follower out to magnify

his teachers credentials.

>

> L: Does this sound like the Advaita Vedantic Self?

>

P: It seems to me that the concept of Self, is already

a case of painting legs on a snake. Obviously there

is existence, or the concept of self could not appear or be

entertained. Is it not this concept of self if stripped down

to its barest, a particularization of existence? And is not

such particularization the very source of all illusion?

>

> How would it be different?

>

> Does it matter to you?

>

P: It does matter to someone out to carve an eternal niche

for himself. Self exist as a particularization of existence,

out of greed for life we want to confer everlastingness to it,

and there lies the rub.

>

> Lewis

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- Pedsie2 wrote:

 

 

> > > In a message dated 4/1/05 9:05:15 AM,

 

 

> lbb10 writes:

 

 

> > > > . " You, monks! You should know that the

> > Tathàgata, the Worthy, the Completely Enlightened

> One,

> > perfect in wisdom and conduct, the Well Gone, the

> > knower of the world, unsurpassed, the tamer of

> men,

> > teacher of men and gods, and the World Honored One

> is

> > also so. He is a great doctor who has appeared in

> the

> > world, defeating all of the heretical doctors,

> > > > P: Hey Lewis! Thanks, very interesting. I

was sort

> of

> missing your stimulating input. Let's see, it

> seems

> to me either the Buddha did not write this sutra, or

> he was really a very vain person. Would a liberated

> being hip such ridiculous string of compliments on

> himself?

> Sounds like that was written by a follower out to

> magnify

> his teachers credentials.

 

 

L: Buddha did not write it. Based on Sankrit writings,

at least nine translators in China and Tibet

translated, the sutra over many years producing four

extant texts.

 

 

> > > > L: Does this sound like the Advaita Vedantic

Self?

> > > P: It seems to me that the concept of Self, is

> already

> a case of painting legs on a snake. Obviously there

> is existence, or the concept of self could not

> appear or be

> entertained. Is it not this concept of self if

> stripped down

> to its barest, a particularization of existence? And

> is not

> such particularization the very source of all

> illusion?

 

L: Yes. As soon as a description is made in words that

is always and unavoidably the case. From experience, a

reduction and isolation is made and a concept formed.

Experience itself is a reduction from a larger

experiential context, usually unrecognized and beyond

awareness. So any concept is at least twice removed

from its original context. All concepts can only be

pointers of one kind and quality or another and so on.

The Self and No-Self are such pointers.

 

A concept is only an illusion if it is mistaken for

what it was intended to point to, believed in as

" real, " which leads to delusions and delusional

behavior. Otherwise it is something to use, to

communicate with, a short hand for common

understanding, or for temporary and provisional ones

used to get something done.

 

The problem with concepts is that they are dependent

on other concepts to elucidate their content. What are

the Self or No Self doctrines? The words themselves,

capitals or no, cannot elucidate themselves and more

concepts are needed to do so and then a world of

concepts is created around it or for it or both.

Scriptures, teachings, books, postings, etc, are these

worlds. We seek that which is spoken of in these

abstract conceptual worlds and try to somehow

experience the concepts. That is always a fatal error.

Or we search the concepts to see if they correspond to

our experiences to justify them or approve them. This

also a fatal error.

 

 

> > How would it be different?

> > > > Does it matter to you?

> > > P: It does matter to someone out to carve an

eternal

> niche

> for himself. Self exist as a particularization of

> existence,

> out of greed for life we want to confer

> everlastingness to it,

> and there lies the rub.

>

 

Yes and No Self also exists as a particularization of

experience and it is held onto for whatever reasons

one can conjure. Grasping and clinging to No Self,

which is usually done to avoid the sense of the

personal experience and the sense of personal

responsibility for one's disturbing inner experiences

and outer behavior. And there lies the rub in one

way, and one way only, for the No Self dogmatists.

 

The Buddha introduced the Tath & #257;gatagarbha concept

to counterbalance the monks drunkeness on the

emptiness and No Self Doctrines. This undermined their

certainty in the No Self doctrine while allowing them

to take a middle path where Self/No Self concepts are

of no concern.

 

There is no agreement to my knowlegde on what the

Tath & #257;gatagarbha concept points to. Is it a

monistic atman? Is it an inherent, immutable, capacity

to become a Tathagata? Or a pure original mind or

primordial being or any of the other interpretations

of it by Buddhists and Buddhologists?

 

The answer will be of little importance to an adept.

For the finger pointing to the moon is not the moon.

For others it will be a struggle to know, well " What

exactly is Tath & #257;gatagarbha? " It is not possible

to know since there is not enough to go on and most of

it is interpretation of ambiguous words in the various

sutras and interpretations of those and more again.

Then there are the various schools and lineages

favoring one interpretation over others.

 

I found Buddha's story of the King and the doctor more

interesting than the issue of Self, No Self and

Tath & #257;gatagarbha and the Buddha's method of

teaching. If you haven't read the Lamentations please

do. The link is given below. Read the whole of

Lamentations if you can. If not you can go straight to

the story beginning on page 35 in the middle of the

page. You will find that to understand the story you

have to read at least two or three pages before it

begins.

 

 

http://villa.lakes.com/cdpatton/Dharma/Canon/T0375(1-6).pdf

 

 

Lewis

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.

http://personals.