Tagged: anatta Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:13 am on November 10, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatta, , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism 202: Anatman on the Installment Plan 

    The fact that I’m not the same as I was before is at least partial proof of anatta, non-self, i.e. a heap of adjectives in evolution. The Sanskrit word skandha means something like ‘heap’, of course, that of which we are composed, without clearly defining exactly what that material is, though it would appear to fall in the category of ‘causes and conditions’, so more mind than matter, more substantial than material. Thus, I prefer to think of them as adjectives rather than nouns or even verbs, mere descriptions of what is to become.

    But this is immaterial (pun intended) to the substance of the original debate, mostly between Hindu Brahmins, Jains, and Buddhists, as to the permanence—or not—of a supposed ‘self’ or ‘soul’. For Hindu Brahmanists this was a cosmic ‘soul’ on a par with a God-like ‘Brahman’, while for the Jains this was an atomic soul that inhabited everything on a granular level. In response to these two choices, early Buddhists basically said, “Naah,” then moved on to bigger and better considerations.

    And, if this seems like a severe diminution of personality to the point that we (who are writing and reading this humble script) have no intrinsic existence, then I prefer to think about the freedom that this gives us rather than the limits imposed upon us. Because this emptiness is as close as we can come to infinity or eternity, and so the very opposite of limitation. There’s only one catch, though, already mentioned. It’s empty. There can’t be any sort of unlimited physical stuff. It’s simply not possible, sorry. Look on the bright side; there appears to be no current shortage of anything important. And we are a very conscious heap, in the process of evolution.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 4:36 am on October 27, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatta, asceticism, , , , , , , , , , , , , Padmasambhava, , , , Upanishads, ,   

    Buddhism is the Middle Path between Jainism and Brahmanism… 

    Brahmanism is what we now call ‘Hinduism’, but that term didn’t really exist way back when, only recently applied by the Brits to the plethora of sects and devotions which now constitute Hinduism. But it was in the midst of the Upanishad era at the time of the Buddha, which would redefine the previously Indra-based fire rituals which had reigned during the Vedic times. And with the advent of the new Upanishadic orientation, the resulting resemblance to Buddhism was profound—but still distinct.

    And so was Jainism distinct from both of them, at the same time that it shares much with them. But remember, that the ‘Hinduism’ that the Jain reacted to in the 6th century BCE is not the same as modern Hinduism, either, and that is partly because of this same three-way dialogue. Jainism was largely a reaction against the Brahmanists’ fire sacrifices, they being extreme nonviolent vegetarians. But many modern Hindus are also vegetarians, with Buddhists characteristically somewhere ‘in between.’

    That’s the Middle Path, specifically between the extreme asceticism of the Jains and the lavish rituals of the ‘Hindus’, but also between the many gods of Hinduism and the total lack of them in Jainism. Technically Buddhists don’t really have them, either, but, you know… Later versions of Buddhism were not so strict about that, such as the Tibetan version of Vajrayana, which came direct from India sometime after the 5th century and attested by Padmasambhava in the 8th century.

    But both Jains and Hindus were crazy about souls, Jains finding them everywhere and Hindus finding them cosmic, Atman, preferably in union with the cosmic dharma principle Brahman. But Buddhism found little of value in any of that, and so chose non-self anatta. So, they all evolved into different sects with different orientations, and we generally all get along nicely. The main difference is that Hinduism tilted toward a nationalism which international Buddhism could never assimilate. And Jains, ‘winners’ in Sanskrit, were ultimately the losers.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 8:16 am on September 7, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatta, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism: It’s a Process… 

    I am not the same person as yesterday, and I will be a different person tomorrow. I am not DNA code. I am skandhas, anatta, annicca, that is: I am a ‘heap’ of causes and conditions, nothing permanent, always changing. So don’t get too attached to yourself or to anyone else, because tomorrow offers no guarantees. Oh, and one more thing: there’s no soul, at least nothing like what the Christians or Hindus have in mind, eternal and/or cosmic, though Buddhism usually allows for at least a limited sort of rebirth.

    After all, we don’t want to get too dreary now, do we? Certainly not. But the principles listed here are foundational to Buddhism. And so, life and the world are at least somewhat illusory, at least in their most obvious manifestations as part of the visual and sensory feast that constitute our world of perceptions. But there is another principle that is even more important to some of us as Buddhists, and that’s the concept of the Middle path, which can be applied to almost anything, including itself, that hypothetical middle path which defines Buddhism by its very lack of definition.

    And such is the history of Buddhism, as it evolves almost dialectically, from thesis to antithesis to synthesis, only to start the process all over again. It is in that view that Buddhism emerged in the first place, as the middle path between the excesses of Hinduism and the extreme renunciation of Jainism. And it is that process which continues today, as Mahayana offers an alternative to the original Theravada, and to which Vajrayana and Zen start the process all over again. Now the original Theravada Buddhism would like to remake itself as Vipassana: meditation, that is, first and foremost. I like that idea.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:23 pm on October 29, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatta, , , , , ,   

    Buddhism, Non-duality, and the Imminent Death of Ego  

    The one who can control himself, can control the world—his world…

    Obsession with non-self can be another form of attachment to ego, though caution should probably be advised, since our modern definition of ‘ego’ is so heavily influenced by that of Freud. The Buddha was a Jungian, haha, no, I’m serious, what with the mass subconscious and all that rap. But ‘ego’ makes the rounds regularly in modern Buddhist circles, even though ‘self’ or even ‘soul’ is probably the better translation of atta. The Buddha knew nothing of id and superego, not in the Freudian sense of the tripartite personality that includes ego. 

    But the concept of personality is one that should probably get more play in the Buddhist and non-dualistic press, since that offers a convenient compromise between dualism and non-dualism, or self and non-self. Because the original issue between the Buddhists and Brahmanists (early ‘Hindus’) was whether we had permanent enduring transmigratory selves, i.e. souls, or not, not whether we have personalities. And modern non-dualists have gone too far, IMHO, in proclaiming (yes, proclaiming) that since we have no souls, or selves, then we are essentially nothing. 

    Non-dualism may be the ‘wild west’ of spirituality right now, with many vague certainties, but I think that’s an accurate assessment. But the Buddha never said that, certainly. Why would he prescribe an Eightfold Path for non-entities with no free will and capable of nothing? He wouldn’t. He laid out an Eightfold Path for these transient personalities named Hardie and Jane and Bocephus, so that we would have a clue for what to do in our short stays in this planetary existence, regardless of whether anything goes on after or not.  

    His own sympathies seemed to be divided, too, since his early doctrine of anatta, non-self, is one of the pillars of Buddhism. The Hindu doctrine of reincarnation was picking up steam, though, and the Buddha seemed influenced by it, as were many, so much so that the related concept of ‘rebirth’ found its place in the Buddhist narrative. Since that implies past lives, though, then that’s reason for doubt, given that the Buddha’s deathbed count of 100k past lives would predate Homo Sapiens. Such are the issues we deal with in an evolving faith and practice. Cool. Enjoy the ride. Just be kind, like the doctor prescribed. 

     
    • Nina Lydia's avatar

      Nina Lydia 7:19 am on October 30, 2023 Permalink | Reply

      Interesting post. I agree with “Obsession with non-self can be another form of attachment to ego.” There are many lifestyle Buddhists these days. No-self can be a difficult concept, just like rebirth. There is no separate self, and this body will transform into ashes or soil with some bones left. However, our Karma will go on and have an effect after we’re gone.

      • hardie karges's avatar

        hardie karges 5:38 am on November 6, 2023 Permalink | Reply

        Thanks for your comment, Nina…

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:09 am on October 21, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatta, arahat, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism 201: Theravada and Mahayana  

    Buddhism in Bhutan

    The difference between Theravada and Mahayana is the difference between Self and Other, if there is one. If you’re a ‘non-dualist,’ then there is none, though that defies common-sense logic, which seems to show a diversity of disparate objects. So, that is the point of the new religion, I suppose, to unify existence, since you gotta’ have something to believe in for a religion to have its raison d’etre. But Buddhism wasn’t concerned with such metaphysical stretches, or at least not in the beginning, though Mahayana was the evolution of a more metaphysical stage of Buddhism.  

    That coincided with a geographical transition from India toward Central Asia and then China, and which also coincided with the evolution of Taoism, so more fertile ground to plow right then and there. If the origins of early Buddhism were all about a debate (and competition) with the Brahmanists and Jains of India, then the evolution of Mahayana was all about a competition with the Taoists in China. By that time, with the shunyata ‘emptiness’ doctrine of Nagarjuna, Buddhist and Taoist metaphysics were not far apart, the main difference between the two apparently that the Buddhists were—and are—far superior meditators.  

    And if Theravadan anatta had evolved into Mahayana shunyata, then Theravadan arahats had evolved into Mahayanan bodhisattvas, the spiritually enlightened beings who forego nirvana until everyone is ready for that final step. Arahats were more content to keep it to themselves, each at his own pace. But the issue of Self and Other is a non-issue if there is no substantive Self; so how could there be a substantive Other? Still, we live our lives in the common-sense world of apparently diverse beings, and so it is there that we must find solutions to common-sense problems. My conclusion? Save yourself, and then save the world. Good luck out there. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 5:22 am on August 25, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatta, , , , , , , ,   

    Shunyata: Emptiness at the Center of Buddhism  

    Shunyata is famous as the Emptiness factor of Buddhism. But that zero, shunya, also defines a center. And so that same word, or some variation of it, forms the word or concept of centrality in many Southeast Asian languages, where it first arose. Thus, it refines the concept of the Middle Path in the same way that it refines the concept of anatta or ‘non-self.’ Now we can see that not only is there no permanent enduring self to worship or obey throughout eternity, but there is no permanent enduring anything to worship or obey throughout eternity.  

    In the same way we can see that not only is there a Middle Path that defines our passage through life, but there is also a center that we can keep coming back to, if we want, or revolve around, if we must, lest we lose our bearings in the passages of time and space. Because that Middle Path can be meandering, as we’ve already seen, but a center is more fixed, by definition, even if it is following a path in 3-D space. It is still fixed in relation to its surroundings. And so is a center.  

    So, I think that it’s possible to postulate and adhere to a Central Point of Buddhism in the same way that we follow a Middle Path. Nothing has changed except the precision of the definition, as with anatta. Thus, we should always ‘stay centered’ in the same way that we should avoid extremes in following a Middle Path. If this seems trite, trivial, and even somewhat torturous to accept, then I suggest otherwise. Because if that concept of samsara was originally a ‘wandering’ which soon became synonymous with ‘the world,’ then at some point we must settle down and find our center. 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 3:11 am on June 9, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatta, , , , , , , , ,   

    The Difference Between Buddhism and Hinduism  

    The difference between Hinduism and Buddhism might best be seen in the Buddhist monk’s hairstyle: Emptiness! Haha. And while that may seem like the ultimate in silliness, there’s more than a little bit of truth there. But first, let me clarify that Buddhist monks are typically, i.e. almost always, shaved bald, ditto for nuns, while Hindu pandits, acharyas, and especially rishis, are known for their wild locks and their elaborate rituals, yagyas. Buddhists typically chant, the same words that their predecessors chanted, some 2500 years ago.  

    That’s how the sutras were composed and recorded, long before the advent of written text in the Indian subcontinent. And Emptiness, shunyata, was always at the heart of the doctrine, even if its full articulation followed the previous anatta ‘no self’ doctrine, which was one of the early prime tenets of Buddhism, and which was in direct opposition to the Hindu belief in Atman, something of a cosmic self, which transmigrates eternally, on a good day, unless it is lucky enough to obtain release from this pit of samsara. Note that to this day, eastern religions want to escape the world, while western religions typically want eternal life in this world. 

    But the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is in the details. While Hinduism is about celebration and ecstasy, Buddhism is typically about austerity and discipline. And, at the risk of losing converts to Hinduism, I’d have to agree. To be a full-fledge Hindu, you really have to be born there with a caste affiliation. They’ve tried constantly to subvert Buddhism that way, also, but with varying success. Mostly they succeeded in killing it, in India, at least, while the more nationalistic Hinduism was left to take up its cause with an ascendant Islam. Buddhism is universal. Hinduism is not. Buddhism is the Middle Path between Hinduism and Jainism. But that’s another story.

     
    • Balance Thy Life's avatar

      Balance Thy Life 3:14 am on June 9, 2023 Permalink | Reply

      Interesting article highlighting the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism. The comparison between the hair of Buddhist monks and Hindu pandits was amusing yet insightful.
      founder of balance thy life https://balancethylife.com

  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 12:04 am on May 28, 2023 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatta, , , , no self, ,   

    Buddhist No-self (Anatta) and Non-Dualism  

    The Buddhist concept of “No self”, Anatta, doesn’t mean to imply passivity and no confidence. But it does imply non-aggression and no selfishness. Remember the middle path. But this is one of the oldest and thorniest problems that Buddhism has had to deal with, and the modern repercussions are almost as absurd. Back in the old days, 2500 years ago, or so, Brahmanism was consolidating its doctrines of a cosmic Brahman and a cosmic Atman, reality and self, whose highest goal was to unite in some sort of cosmic union… 

    But the Buddha came along and said something like, “Meh,” declaring that the idea of a cosmic self, whether individual or universal, was not only not likely, but wrong. And thus began the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, which was never intended to argue that you and I don’t even exist, but just not in any permanent way. Well, now the ‘Non-dualists” come along and say no, you don’t exist at all, just something like a collective figment of imagination that asserts itself through the power of repetition, so something like a cloud Matrix. 

    But reality is reality, and science doesn’t support the non-dualist conclusion, any more than it supports the original Hindu idea of Brahman and Atman in cosmic union. But science can support the Buddhist attitude, as long as it avoids superstitions (not always easy) and sticks to asking the right questions in order to avoid contentious answers. Ego is a term I usually avoid, though, given the historical circumstance that Freud has forever made in changing our use of that term.

    And that is something which the ‘ancients’ could’ve had no knowledge of, and which is about as familiar to the modern American as quantum mechanics. Passivity has been something of a problem for Buddhism, though, and that is not a desirable conclusion except for monks, possibly. But most of us live and navigate the real world, and it’s nice if we can make that a bit better, without being obsessive about it. As always, the best path is the middle one… 

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 1:03 pm on August 28, 2022 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , anatta, , , , , , , Three Marks of Existence   

    Buddhism 202: Happiness Sandwiches, with Something in the Middle… 

    If you’re looking for bliss, then you may be disappointed. Happiness for me is the reduction, and hopefully cessation, of suffering. Anything else is icing on the cake. Count your blessings. In other words, bliss is optional and perhaps not even desirable. After all, when your psychological pendulum swings too far in one direction, isn’t it bound to swing back to the other with equal force? It’s very likely. And isn’t bliss an extreme emotion to begin with, tongue flagging and tail wagging, like a dog with a fresh bone, until it’s suddenly all gone?

    And that’s the problem, isn’t it, that extremes usually never cease rebounding in search of their opposites, in ever-widening arcs, never satisfied and never at rest?  It certainly seems that way, the curse of consciousness, chasing its own tail in a race to the finish. When we’re hot, we want cold. When we’re cold we want warmth. At what point do we get to enjoy our happiness? There’s no time like the present of course, and anything else is probably BS.

    And this goes right to the heart of Buddhism, the middle path, but not necessarily The Middle Path, between luxury and lack, or Existence and Non-existence, but any middle path, between any two sets of opposites, for which the middle is almost always the best option, that notion of balance and equilibrium always desirable, even if the word ‘compromise’ doesn’t suit you, with the notion that maybe it’s a cop-out. It’s not.

    It suits me just fine, and I think it should probably be enshrined as an important addendum to the main body of Buddhism, which includes the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold path, and the Three Marks of Existence, especially non-self anatta. Then there’s ahimsa, non-violence, though not necessarily non-action. That sounds like the perfect balance between violence and passivity. So, this notion of balance, little brother to the Middle Path, works almost every time, and should get the attention and credit that it deserves. Try it. You’ll probably like it.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

    hardie karges 12:03 pm on August 7, 2022 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatta, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism in a Hindu World: no Time for Selves and Souls… 

    You should be able to find a comfortable balance between low self-esteem on the one hand, and overt selfish egotism, on the other, in the Buddhist doctrine of anatta, non-self or no-self, same thing. But this is one of the more controversial and misunderstood of the Buddha’s teachings, and subject to much abuse by those who want to go too far in the opposite direction from egotism, by claiming that we are all ‘nobody,’ and should somehow be proud of that. And that’s fine, if that’s what you want, but that’s not what the Buddha said.

    Because in one very real sense, the Buddha’s Middle path is not just the original path between luxury and lack, or even the esoteric existence and non-existence of the later Mahayanists. It is also very much a Middle Path between the competing philosophies of Vedic Brahmanism and the Jainism of his day. Those two, in effect, defined a very real dichotomy between the lush and lavish celebratory rituals of the upper Brahmin class and the self-denial of the renunciant rishis who once made India famous as a religious center, and to some extent still do.

    So, the self vs. no-self controversy for Buddhists was never supposed to be a total refutation of all things selfie, such that we are individually nothing at all and should aspire to nothing more than the average leaf blowing in the wind. The Buddhist doctrine of anatta only means that there is no permanent eternal soul to aspire to union with the cosmic Brahmana principle, as Brahmanic Hinduism invokes, and so nothing to worry about on that count. Peace in this life in this world is to be found by knowing the truths of suffering, craving, and impermanence, and then acting accordingly. Now we can get on with our lives.

     

← Older posts

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel