The trap of materialism

I have been reading Peter Masefield's English translation of the commentary to the Udana (Udâna Commentary, tr. P. Masefield, 2 volumes, 1994, 1995 Pali Text Society) and I must say, it rings Mahayana. I wonder sometimes if the hesitation to translate all commentarial literature stems from a latent fear in the scholarly community that it might cut against Theravadism with it negative, no-self doctrine. As I see it, a lot of scholars have placed their bets on no self (or no soul), refusing to understand that the no self doctrine really means the five aggregates are not my self—not that there is flatly no perdurable self which would, obviously, be the doctrine of annihilationism/materialism. 

If anyone strongly believes scholar/translators are more infallible than fallible they are sadly mistaken—at best they straddle both sides, equally.  Their academic background only equips them to be less prejudicial than they might normally be.  Often, what passes as a scholarly truth is only a proclamation based upon opinions, and certainly not the truth.  This is the way it is with the so-called no self doctrine which has been promulgated by a number of scholars and monk-scholars who, from their own prejudices, appear to incline towards materialism which I hasten to inject is anti-religious and anti-Buddhist.

Such a prejudice would have us believe that the popularity of Buddhism, when the Buddha was still alive, stemmed from a teaching which basically said, “You’re just a container that contains nothing; when the container falls apart, that’s it.”  But this is not the way it was.  It was quite the opposite.  The basic doctrine the Buddha taught was that the first-person (âtma/attâ) was not the container (i.e., the psychophysical organism consisting of material shape, feeling, perception, habitual tendencies and consciousness), and by detaching from the container by a path of ‘container’ transcendence the first-person could, eventually, become free of their karmic inertia which doomed them to a life of going from one container to the next (i.e., samsara).

Much of what is published today about Buddhism is not Buddhism.  It is materialism hidden by a thin veneer of Buddhist terms and cherry picked discourses of the Buddha which seem to support materialism. Transcendence is missing from its sermons as well as the Buddha’s teaching that the psychophysical organism, rather than the soul, is the bad guy; which is more like a trap that ensnares the careless and not so wary sentient being.

The real danger that faces Buddhism, and our world, for that matter, is materialism and those who are under its spell who have a latent fear that their many next lives to come, are going to be burdened with suffering; who will not see the light, except to mistake darkness for light. Oh, I forgot to mention that in the Udana Commentary (UdA 340) it says, tathâgato'ti attâ (the Tathagata is the Self).

 

Comments

[Jure K.]

I see. Thanks for the explanation.

[The Zennist]

Jure K.:

My use of the "real dude" refers to Buddha-nature/Self which is not an aggregate. This is at the heart of the real anattâ doctrine, not the one Theravadins and Westerners imagine to be who are lost in ignorance. Anattâ is a via negative term. I am profoundly to distinguish my self from the aggregates which are impermanent and suffering.

[Jure K.]

"Jure" is a personal name, given to me by my parents. I am a collection of inclinations, thoughts, preferences, tastes. All of these are not the self, all right.

But if you imply there's something in Jure that is the self, like a soul, then that is eternalism. Like a Christian belief in personal souls (plural).

The Zen Masters spoke of the "One Mind" - that "One" I think implies that, at the level "before one's parents are born", we are not two.

Therefore, beyond the five aggregates, there's no Jure.

There's Nirvana, but not Jure.

This makes sense, I think: with what the Sutras and the Chinese commentaries say - for instance the first Chinese Pure Land Patriarch Tan-Luan, that ultimately, a bodhisattva knows there are no sentient beings to save, so his activity is like play.

Say, are you playing now, or saving souls?

[The Zennist]

Jure K.

The author, who has a Ph.D. in English, can't refute what is obvious in the Pali canon in regard to the real anattâ doctrine (I hate to use the term doctrine) - not with stuff like this: ||The teaching of anatman, then, can be understood as an assertion that there is no eternal and unchanging consciousness, life force, or soul, singular or plural, nothing which can escape this dependently arisen world and continue on in
eternal bliss.||
Anattâ doctrine is very simple in the Pali canon: You Jure, the real dude, are not actually the Five Aggregates (which belong to the Buddhist devil, Mara). Of each aggregate you reflect: 'this is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self' (na meso attâ).

[Jure K.]

Not all Self-deniers are materialists. Check this article for instance (seems to be very popular now):

http://www.nonplusx.com/app/download/708268204/Taking+Anatman+Full+Strength.pdf

He does not equate the mind with the brain, and he fully embraces karma and rebirth. But he explicitly mentions your understanding of anatman ("aggregates are not the Self") and dismisses it.

You have to update, your enemies are changing strategies and getting smarter. The Batchelors and the Ajahn Chahs are passé!