« A world of one humanity where opposition is no more | Main | Giving up complexity »

June 06, 2016


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

To us it seems that Buddhism hangs on one truth (just as the counterfeit dharma hangs on its negation): that the aggregates can be transcended. The transcending of the aggregates is as something to be seen, gained and tasted, not discussed. It is beyond all conception, beyond the concept of self or non-self; it is: the aggregates are transcended, there is this, this thus, passed over and beyond (tathagata), the ultimate goal that is reached.

The Buddha was not a hater of anything. Nor was he intolerant of any other religions or spiritual teachings.

The only thing the Buddha taught is the danger of believing in a dogma. Dogma has many manifestations and many names. None of those manifestations are useful to humans. As a matter of fact, the Buddha taught that any manifestation of a dogma is harmful to people. But if some religion or spiritual teaching is free of any dogma, then the Buddha would not have any issue with it..

"Elsewhere the Buddha taught one beholds the ātman as liberated (vimuttamattānam) from unskilled states (M. i. 283). He also taught that one attains nirvana in the very ātman (M. i. 255–56)."

Hi, could you link to an online translation of those passages? Thanks.

"The Buddha taught that we should not identify as our ātman that which is not ātman (anātman) such as material shape, feeling, perception, volitional formations and consciousness."

I wonder about the translation of these terms. For example, with respect to the 5 aggregates, the one being translated "consciousness" is explained as eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, etc. i.e. the 5 senses and the 6th sense "consciousness" which is the conglomeration of the 5 senses together. Wouldn't it make more sense and be less confusing to translate this as "sensory-perception" rather than "consciousness"? It seems translating it "consciousness" helps to push the no-self/no-soul theory, because it creates the possibility/likelihood that people will confuse the sci-fi "consciousness" that one can download to a computer or clone in movies (i.e. some kind of immaterial self, like an atheist-materialist version of a soul) with this "sensory-perception" that is being translated "consciousness" and is one of the aggregates. Thus people become deluded into thinking that "consciousness" in the sense of the personality/self is one of the aggregates, when in reality "consciousness" in the aggregates refers to "sensory-perception", the 5 senses and their aggregation.

The next term I would wonder about is "volitional formations." Is it "volitional formations" or "mental formations"? By rendering it "volitional formations" they seem to be attacking the possibility of any kind of volitional self outside the aggregates by making volition an aggregate. It seems to be another translation trick of the no-soul pushers.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo