Guest guest Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 Just a note and some questions on the Buddhist doctrine of No-Self/Anatman. Before he died, Buddha told his disciples of a pedagogical ploy he employed through a story of two doctors, a king and his subjects and then reasserted the notion of the Self. The quote below is Buddha's conclusion. ......... " 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, who proclaims to those in the four assemblies, saying, `I am the king of doctors!' Because he wishes to suppress the heretics he proclaims, `There is no self, no person, sentient beings, soul, development, knowledge, perception, doer, or receiver.' " Monks, you should know that the heretics have said that the self is like the insect who eats wood, mates, and makes offspring merely. This is why the Tathàgata proclaims that in the Buddha's Dharma there is no self. It is for the sake of taming sentient beings, knowing the occasion, and that such selflessness has its causes and conditions. He also says that there is a self. He is like that excellent doctor who well knew the elixirs that were medicinal and not medicinal. It is not like that self the ordinary man reckons to be his own or the ordinary confused person who reckons that he has a self. Some have said that it is as large as the thumb and finger, some that it is like the mustard seed, some that it is like an atom. The Tathàgata says that the self is not like any of these. This is why he says that things are selfless. Really it is not that there is no self. What is the self? If something is the true, real, eternal, the master, that rests upon the nature of being unchanging, this is called the self. Just as that great doctor well understood the medicinal elixir, the Tathàgata is also so. For the sake of sentient beings, he says there really is a self. You and the four assemblies must thus cultivate the Dharma. " Taken from the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra ( " Nirvana Sutra. " ) You can find the full story in 3. Lamentations at: http://villa.lakes.com/cdpatton/Dharma/Canon/T0375(1-6).pdf In this sutra, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, he also admonished the monks to desist from teaching the doctrine of no-self as dogma. The Dalai Lama prefers to stand on an implicit no-Self doctrine by insisting on interpendence and impermanence over anything deemed unconditioned and eternal. " I feel there is tremendous convergence and a potential for mutual enrichment through dialogue between the Buddhist and Christian traditions, especially in the areas of ethics and spiritual practice, such as the practices of compassion, love, meditation, and the enhancement of tolerance. And I feel that this dialogue could go very far and reach a deep level of understanding. But when it comes to a philosophical or metaphysical dialogue I feel that we must part company. The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a philosophical standpoint in which the central thought is the principle of interdependence, how all things and events come into being purely as a result of interactions between causes and conditions. Within that philosophical worldview it is almost impossible to have any room for an atemporal, eternal, absolute truth. Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept of a divine Creation. Similarly, for a Christian whose entire metaphysical worldview is based on a belief in the Creation and a divine Creator, the idea that all things and events arise out of mere interaction between causes and conditions has no place within that worldview. So in the realm of metaphysics it becomes problematic at a certain point, and the two traditions must diverge. " Dalai Lama. 1996. " The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus. " Boston: Wisdom Publications. pp. 81-82. Thich Nhat Hanh, an internationally known Vietnamese Buddhist monk and promoter of mindfulness has a different view, one that conforms with the " Nirvana Sutra. " " His [the Buddha’s] reaction to the corruption among the Vedic priests, for example, was thorough-going. The notion of Atman, Self, which was at the center of Vedic beliefs, was the cause of much of the social injustice of the day–the caste system, the terrible treatment of the untouchables, and the monopolization of spiritual teachings by those who enjoyed the best material conditions and yet were hardly spiritual at all. In reaction, the Buddha emphasized the teachings of non- Atman (non-self). He said, “Things are empty of a separate, independent self. If you look for the self of a flower, you will see that it is empty.” But when Buddhists began worshipping the idea of emptiness, he said, “It is worse if you get caught in the non-self of a flower than if you believe in the self of a flower.” The Buddha did not present an absolute doctrine. His teaching of non-self was offered in the context of his time. It was an instrument for meditation. But many Buddhists since then have gotten caught by the idea of non-self. They confuse the means and the end, the raft and the shore, the finger pointing to the moon and the moon. There is something more important than non-self. It is the freedom from the notions of both self and non-self. For a Buddhist to be attached to any doctrine, even a Buddhist one, is to betray the Buddha. It is not words and concepts which are important. What is important is our insight into the nature of reality and our way of responding to reality. Hanh, T. N. 1995. " Living Buddha, Living Christ. " N.Y.: Riverhead Books. pp. 54-55. All of this point out that all beings are possessors of the buddha-dh & #257;tu or tath & #257;gatagarbha, a Buddha-nature. It is seen that this Buddha-nature can be an inherent capacity to achieve buddhahood or the original, primordial or pristine pure existing nature inherent in everything or a pure nature hidden and obscured by obstructions created by the mind, whether they be intellectual, cognitive, emotional, perceptual or moral. Does this sound like the Advaita Vedantic Self? How would it be different? Does it matter to you? Lewis Messenger Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun. http://www.advision.webevents./emoticontest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 Nisargadatta , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: > Just a note and some questions on the Buddhist > doctrine of No-Self/Anatman. > > > Before he died, Buddha told his disciples of a > pedagogical ploy he employed through a story of two > doctors, a king and his subjects and then reasserted > the notion of the Self. The quote below is Buddha's > conclusion. > > ........ " You, monks! You should know that the > Tath�gata, 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, who > proclaims to those in the four assemblies, saying, `I > am the king of doctors!' Because he wishes to > suppress the heretics he proclaims, `There is no self, > no person, sentient beings, soul, development, > knowledge, perception, doer, or receiver.' > > " Monks, you should know that the heretics have said > that the self is like the insect who eats wood, mates, > and makes offspring merely. This is why the Tath�gata > proclaims that in the Buddha's Dharma there is no > self. It is for the sake of taming sentient beings, > knowing the occasion, and that such selflessness has > its causes and conditions. He also says that there is > a self. He is like that excellent doctor who well knew > the elixirs that were medicinal and not medicinal. It > is not like that self the ordinary man reckons to be > his own or the ordinary confused person who reckons > that he has a self. Some have said that it is as large > as the thumb and finger, some that it is like the > mustard seed, some that it is like an atom. The > Tath�gata says that the self is not like any of these. > This is why he says that things are selfless. Really > it is not that there is no self. What is the self? If > something is the true, real, eternal, the master, that > rests upon the nature of being unchanging, this is > called the self. Just as that great doctor well > understood the medicinal elixir, the Tath�gata is also > so. For the sake of sentient beings, he says there > really is a self. You and the four assemblies must > thus cultivate the Dharma. " > > Taken from the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra > ( " Nirvana Sutra. " ) > > You can find the full story in 3. Lamentations at: > > http://villa.lakes.com/cdpatton/Dharma/Canon/T0375(1-6).pdf > > In this sutra, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, he > also admonished the monks to desist from teaching the > doctrine of no-self as dogma. > > The Dalai Lama prefers to stand on an implicit no-Self > doctrine by insisting on interpendence and > impermanence over anything deemed unconditioned and > eternal. > > " I feel there is tremendous convergence and a > potential for mutual enrichment through dialogue > between the Buddhist and Christian traditions, > especially in the > areas of ethics and spiritual practice, such as the > practices of compassion, love, meditation, and the > enhancement of tolerance. And I feel that this > dialogue could go very far and reach a deep level of > understanding. But when it comes to a philosophical or > metaphysical dialogue I feel that we must part > company. The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a > philosophical standpoint in which the central thought > is the principle of interdependence, how all things > and events come into being purely as a result of > interactions between causes and conditions. Within > that philosophical worldview it is almost impossible > to have any room for an atemporal, eternal, absolute > truth. Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept > of a divine Creation. Similarly, for a Christian whose > entire metaphysical worldview is based on a belief in > the Creation and a divine Creator, the idea that > all things and events arise out of mere interaction > between causes and conditions has no place within that > worldview. So in the realm of metaphysics it becomes > problematic at a certain point, and the two traditions > must diverge. " > > Dalai Lama. 1996. " The Good Heart: A Buddhist > Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus. " Boston: Wisdom > Publications. pp. 81-82. > > Thich Nhat Hanh, an internationally known Vietnamese > Buddhist monk and promoter of mindfulness has a > different view, one that conforms with the " Nirvana > Sutra. " > > " His [the Buddha�s] reaction to the corruption among > the Vedic priests, for example, was thorough-going. > The notion of Atman, Self, which was at the center of > Vedic beliefs, was the cause of much of the social > injustice of the day�the caste system, the terrible > treatment of the untouchables, and the monopolization > of spiritual teachings by those who enjoyed the best > material conditions and yet were hardly spiritual at > all. In reaction, the Buddha emphasized the teachings > of non- > Atman (non-self). He said, �Things are empty of a > separate, independent self. If you look for the self > of a flower, you will see that it is empty.� But when > Buddhists began worshipping the idea of emptiness, he > said, �It is worse if you get caught in the non-self > of a flower than if you believe in the self of a > flower.� > The Buddha did not present an absolute doctrine. His > teaching of non-self was offered in the context of his > time. It was an instrument for meditation. But many > Buddhists since then have gotten caught by the idea of > non-self. They confuse the means and the end, the raft > and the shore, the finger pointing to the moon and the > moon. There is something more important than non-self. > It is the freedom from the notions of both self and > non-self. For a Buddhist to be attached to any > doctrine, even a Buddhist one, is to betray the > Buddha. It is not words and concepts which are > important. What is important is our insight into the > nature of reality and our way of responding to > reality. > > Hanh, T. N. 1995. " Living Buddha, Living Christ. " > N.Y.: Riverhead Books. pp. 54-55. > > All of this point out that all beings are possessors > of the buddha-dh & #257;tu or tath & #257;gatagarbha, a > Buddha-nature. It is seen that this Buddha-nature can > be an inherent capacity to achieve buddhahood or the > original, primordial or pristine pure existing nature > inherent in everything or a pure nature hidden and > obscured by obstructions created by the mind, whether > they be intellectual, cognitive, emotional, perceptual > or moral. > > Does this sound like the Advaita Vedantic Self? > > How would it be different? > > Does it matter to you? > > Lewis > According to some Advaita teachers the Self is Noumenon in which phenomena appear like a net of jewels reflecting each other. Every thought we have is phenomena. We can point to Noumenon using words, but no pointer will ever be it. Sages use many pointers and often repeat the same descriptions and explanations. al. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 1, 2005 Report Share Posted April 1, 2005 NonDualPhil , Lewis Burgess <lbb10@c...> wrote: Just a note and some questions on the Buddhist doctrine of No-Self/Anatman. Before he died, Buddha told his disciples of a pedagogical ploy he employed through a story of two doctors, a king and his subjects and then reasserted the notion of the Self. The quote below is Buddha's conclusion. ......... " 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, who proclaims to those in the four assemblies, saying, `I am the king of doctors!' Because he wishes to suppress the heretics he proclaims, `There is no self, no person, sentient beings, soul, development, knowledge, perception, doer, or receiver.' " Monks, you should know that the heretics have said that the self is like the insect who eats wood, mates, and makes offspring merely. This is why the Tathàgata proclaims that in the Buddha's Dharma there is no self. It is for the sake of taming sentient beings, knowing the occasion, and that such selflessness has its causes and conditions. He also says that there is a self. He is like that excellent doctor who well knew the elixirs that were medicinal and not medicinal. It is not like that self the ordinary man reckons to be his own or the ordinary confused person who reckons that he has a self. Some have said that it is as large as the thumb and finger, some that it is like the mustard seed, some that it is like an atom. The Tathàgata says that the self is not like any of these. This is why he says that things are selfless. Really it is not that there is no self. What is the self? If something is the true, real, eternal, the master, that rests upon the nature of being unchanging, this is called the self. Just as that great doctor well understood the medicinal elixir, the Tathàgata is also so. For the sake of sentient beings, he says there really is a self. You and the four assemblies must thus cultivate the Dharma. " Taken from the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra ( " Nirvana Sutra. " ) You can find the full story in 3. Lamentations at: http://villa.lakes.com/cdpatton/Dharma/Canon/T0375(1-6).pdf In this sutra, the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, he also admonished the monks to desist from teaching the doctrine of no-self as dogma. The Dalai Lama prefers to stand on an implicit no-Self doctrine by insisting on interpendence and impermanence over anything deemed unconditioned and eternal. " I feel there is tremendous convergence and a potential for mutual enrichment through dialogue between the Buddhist and Christian traditions, especially in the areas of ethics and spiritual practice, such as the practices of compassion, love, meditation, and the enhancement of tolerance. And I feel that this dialogue could go very far and reach a deep level of understanding. But when it comes to a philosophical or metaphysical dialogue I feel that we must part company. The entire Buddhist worldview is based on a philosophical standpoint in which the central thought is the principle of interdependence, how all things and events come into being purely as a result of interactions between causes and conditions. Within that philosophical worldview it is almost impossible to have any room for an atemporal, eternal, absolute truth. Nor is it possible to accommodate the concept of a divine Creation. Similarly, for a Christian whose entire metaphysical worldview is based on a belief in the Creation and a divine Creator, the idea that all things and events arise out of mere interaction between causes and conditions has no place within that worldview. So in the realm of metaphysics it becomes problematic at a certain point, and the two traditions must diverge. " Dalai Lama. 1996. " The Good Heart: A Buddhist Perspective on the Teachings of Jesus. " Boston: Wisdom Publications. pp. 81-82. Thich Nhat Hanh, an internationally known Vietnamese Buddhist monk and promoter of mindfulness has a different view, one that conforms with the " Nirvana Sutra. " " His [the Buddha's] reaction to the corruption among the Vedic priests, for example, was thorough-going. The notion of Atman, Self, which was at the center of Vedic beliefs, was the cause of much of the social injustice of the day–the caste system, the terrible treatment of the untouchables, and the monopolization of spiritual teachings by those who enjoyed the best material conditions and yet were hardly spiritual at all. In reaction, the Buddha emphasized the teachings of non- Atman (non-self). He said, " Things are empty of a separate, independent self. If you look for the self of a flower, you will see that it is empty. " But when Buddhists began worshipping the idea of emptiness, he said, " It is worse if you get caught in the non-self of a flower than if you believe in the self of a flower. " The Buddha did not present an absolute doctrine. His teaching of non-self was offered in the context of his time. It was an instrument for meditation. But many Buddhists since then have gotten caught by the idea of non-self. They confuse the means and the end, the raft and the shore, the finger pointing to the moon and the moon. There is something more important than non-self. It is the freedom from the notions of both self and non-self. For a Buddhist to be attached to any doctrine, even a Buddhist one, is to betray the Buddha. It is not words and concepts which are important. What is important is our insight into the nature of reality and our way of responding to reality. Hanh, T. N. 1995. " Living Buddha, Living Christ. " N.Y.: Riverhead Books. pp. 54-55. All of this point out that all beings are possessors of the buddha-dh & #257;tu or tath & #257;gatagarbha, a Buddha-nature. It is seen that this Buddha-nature can be an inherent capacity to achieve buddhahood or the original, primordial or pristine pure existing nature inherent in everything or a pure nature hidden and obscured by obstructions created by the mind, whether they be intellectual, cognitive, emotional, perceptual or moral. Does this sound like the Advaita Vedantic Self? How would it be different? Does it matter to you? Lewis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.