The Buddha was a daring sage. He offered no theory like is common today; theories which are speculative and for the most part have not been actually proven but, instead, are invested with an image which makes them seem true.
The Buddha’s entire teaching is based on his personal awakening. By means of it he came to know how suffering arises and how we are reborn from one life to the next, seemingly, never to escape the vicious circle of rebirth. He spent his lifetime teaching the many how to awaken and by awakening escape, winning immortality.
How people today look at the Buddha’s teachings is almost never with an open mind. In fact, much of what we know about Buddhism is not Buddhism but stems from the assumption of a writer, scholar or journalist all of whom are in one degree or another committed to certain presuppositions which are not Buddhist.
These people say things, for example, that are patently false such as the Buddha denied the self or ātman—so therefore nothing transmigrates. (It is consciousness that transmigrates instead of the ātman.) Or the Buddha rejected the ātman of the Hindus. Another problematic statement which I shall clear up shortly. Such people are more interested in what the Buddha did not say than what he said!
The biggest misunderstanding is, as we might have guessed, over whether or not the Buddha rejected the Hindu atman. But the Buddha, in fact, tells us what the ātman-view of the Brahmins was as he understood it at the time. It’s quite clear and concise.
“At Savatthi. “Bhikkhus, those ascetics and brahmins who regard anything as self in various ways all regard as self the five aggregates subject to clinging, or a certain one among them” (SN 22:47).
In other words, Brahmins regard material form as the ātman. They regard feelings as the ātman; perception as the ātman, volitional formations as the ātman; and finally, Brahmins regard consciousness as the ātman.
How did the Buddha counter their particular view? He basically said that each one of these five aggregates is not the self or in Sanskrit, anātman. He said other things like the aggregates are suffering and impermanent. Or they are a disaster, not a refuge. They are empty, vain, and void just to name a few more of the negative attributes. So the Buddha is lambasting the aggregates which the Brahmins believe to be the ātman!
What we can derive from this is that his ātman is not like that of the Brahmins insofar as it has nothing to do with the five aggregates. So how did the Buddha understand the ātman (Pali, attā)?
“At Savatthi. Dwell Monks with the self as an island (attā-dīpā) with the self as refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dharma as an island, with the Dharma as a refuge, with no other refuge. When you dwell with the self as an island, with the self as refuge, with no other refuge; with the Dharma as refuge and no other refuge, the origin should be investigated” (SN 22:43).
I am sorry to say this but most people who take up the study of Buddhism are asleep, resting in the arms of nihilism/materialism who believe that Lord Buddha is telling them, “When you die, that’s the end of suffering. Until that glorious moment of your dying arrives, bear your suffering through doing meditation, and do a lot of virtue signaling.”
Jung, please teach me.
Posted by: Adasatala | June 22, 2018 at 04:42 AM
"The Self in the Buddha's teaching is like a vacant dharma-hall. "
No, it is not. Standing face to face with it, you should know why. But then you don´t, hence your error.
Posted by: Jung | June 21, 2018 at 06:20 PM
The Self in the Buddha's teaching is like a vacant dharma-hall. Heretics teach differentiation as Self, which is a one-sided emptiness, like the young prince said.
Posted by: Adasatala | June 20, 2018 at 08:43 PM