« Buddhism for the typical English-speaker | Main | The spiritual and the religious »

March 13, 2014


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Eidolon : Not if you read the entire sutra beginning on page 84, Chapter 27e.

The Buddha is an authority, too.

Okay, Zennist. Following your frequently reiterated quotation from the Catusparisat Sutra, I have obtained the same (the only English translation which exists, apparently, from 1973). Here is a quote I'd like your interpretation of, found on p. 86 of the E. J. Brill edition, Chapter 27, verse 10, the Buddha is speaking:
"O monks, the foolish ordinary man (prthagjana) [translated thus in the text as are the following Sanskrit words], who is not learned (in the dharma), keeps to the conventional designation (prajnapti): 'A Self, a self', but there is no self nor that which belongs to the self. When suffering, O monks, arises, it (just) arises (and) when suffering is being destroyed [footnoted], it is destroyed. When things (samskara) arise, they arise (and) when things are being destroyed, they are destroyed. Dependent on these causes and conditions the continuum of things (samskarasantati) originates."

So doesn't this contradict what you have said about the Buddha's claims re the Self? Isn't the best interpretation that the Buddha is indicating that there *is* Something beyond the individual sense of self, which is "self-like", likely held in common by all sentient beings? I agree that nowhere have I seen any translation of the Buddha quoted as directly denying the existence of atman, identified as such by the translator.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo