Tagged: atman Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Unknown's avatar

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

    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: , asceticism, atman, , , , , , , , , , , , 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 3:52 am on June 2, 2024 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: anatman, atman, , , , , , , Indus River, , , , , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism vs. Hinduism, Non-Self vs. Cosmic Self…  

    Anatta/anatman (non-self) doesn’t mean that we are nothing, just not much: no permanent soul, certainly nothing cosmic like Brahman. And this is where the fundamental concept comes from, the debate with the Brahmanists that we now call Hindus, though at that time (500BCE) the term was unknown, at least to Indians themselves. Because that’s all that the term ever meant, really: people of the Indus River, i.e. Sindhu or Hindu, a river now identified with Pakistan. India is now more identified with the Ganges.  

    But the distinction that the Buddha wanted to make between his worldview and that of the Brahmanists was that he saw nothing like the cosmic Atman ‘self’ that they propose to unite with the equally cosmic Brahman god-stuff that exists as the creative principle of the Universe. And while Hindus recognize Buddhism as but one of many Hindu Veda-based sects, Buddhism is having none of that, and the self/non-self debate is at the heart of that issue.  

    In fact, Buddhism relegates ‘self’ to ‘heaps’ of random qualities called ‘skandhas’ or ‘khandhas’ in Sanskrit or Pali. They are form, feeling, perception, consciousness, and reasoning, of which we all share equal and certain quantities. No one collection of such qualities is more important than any other, just as no one person is better than any other. The racist caste system of India will forever define the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, and the atman/anatman distinction is at the heart of that.

     
  • Unknown's avatar

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

    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 10:43 am on August 15, 2021 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , atman, atta, , , , , , ,   

    Buddhism and the Limits of Suffering… 

    Suffering doesn’t have to be painful. It is only painful if you refuse to accept it. Buddhism is famous for its acknowledgement of suffering, of course, to the point that it must deal with charges of pessimism, when nothing could be further from the truth, to be honest. It is simply realistic: you are not immortal, you are not eternal, and you are not the center of the universe. We shouldn’t need to appeal to Science to prove something so obvious and fundamental. You will die. Get over it.

    But these are the kinds of feel-good epithets that get tossed to the hungry lions we are, anxious for abundance and thirsty for fulfillment, of the fluid levels in our bodies and the ego levels in our mind, such that we will entertain fantastic notions in order to satisfy those notions of grandeur and grandiosity. If that is the shorthand definition of optimism—egotism—then maybe pessimism is better. But I won’t cop to that, and don’t think that is necessary.

    (More …)
     

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