The west's careless reading of Buddhism

The notion of self is confusing for Western interpreters of Buddhism.  There is, in fact, a track record going back a least a hundred years of Westerners putting a negativistic spin on Buddhism.  Much of this spin either owes to a careless misreading of Buddhism or is intended to make Buddhism look bad in contrast with Christianity.

While there is no clear evidence that the Buddha made categorical statements regarding an Atman-theory, by the same token, there is certainly no evidence that self, as transcendent to all determinations, is not assumed in the Buddha’s discourses being the implicit centerpiece of his teaching (later this is brought out in Mahayana Buddhism where self becomes synonymous with Buddha-nature).  Positing a self and taking a transcendent self for granted are quite different things.  The former can lead to unsatisfying metaphysical speculation and debates whereas the latter is more promising; that can be described as the mystical path or the via negativa.

What is fairly consistent in the older canon is the Buddha teaching his followers not to mistake their true self or attâ for what not their self or anattâ.  If this sounds simple—well, it is.  How Westerners manage to botch it up is by latching on to what is not the self or anattâ, then assuming that this, in some way, is a straightforward denial of self.  But this is a careless reading of the text.  

What is, in fact, being denied is that our self has any connection with the psychophysical body other than an illusory one aggravated by our desire for what is not ours.  The psychophysical body is finite and unreal, being made up of attributes or skandhas.  Our self is not finite.  It is what we are, intrinsically, although it may not seem like it because we are so attached to this troublesome, transient psychophysical burden we have claimed to be ours.  

Westerners by rejecting the possibility of a real self or atman are forced to read Buddhism as either denying the self, completely, or admitting to a provisional self that is no more after death.  However, in both cases, the position is still one of annihilationism and can’t be passed off as anything else.  Holding on to such a position one has identified with contingent existence, itself, blindly seeing their ‘self in what is not self’ (anattani attânam).  This leads to unending rebirth and samsara.  Obviously, this is not what the Buddha taught.

 

Comments

[Azanshi]

Raman wrote:

"It is not applicable for careless reading of Buddhism but if you are do any work with careless so its results never be fruitful so be careful for everything."

Your incoherent english did not suffice to explain what your tried to convey, so I took a fast view on your webpage and found myself in the midst of something best described as a confused mixture between quasi-sufism and a jewish kabbala. Pure poison for the mind and should be offered only degenerate abrahamic deva idolizers or cults similar to yours.

This is a blog about the true nature of the Mind as professed by countless Buddhas and whose noble wisdom overshadows your false god.

It is not for mind deminishing cults like yours, striving to chain spirit in servitude to the false and evil god of Abraham.

Please respect that or take a hike.

[Raman]

It is not applicable for careless reading of Buddhism but if you are do any work with careless so its results never be fruitful so be careful for everything.

[minx]

My master told me;

"The idolization of anything impermanent leads inevitably to the path of meaninglessness. It is because spirit seeks meaning and purpose in the impermanent, it suffers the consequences of its ignorance. To spirit, permanent meaning can only be found in an unchanging and permanent medium of infinite dynamics. Such medium is the uncreated Mind of no outflows whatsoever. "