streaming consciousness…

Tagged: non-self Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

• 

  hardie karges 3:52 am on June 2, 2024 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatman, atman ( 5 ), Brahman ( 3 ), Brahmanism ( 8 ), Buddhism ( 429 ), Hardie Karges ( 240 ), Hindu ( 8 ), Hinduism ( 28 ), Indus River, khandhas ( 3 ), meditation ( 190 ), non-self, Pali ( 20 ), religion ( 158 ), Sanskrit ( 22 ), self ( 20 ), skandhas ( 10 ), spirituality ( 27 ), Vedas ( 3 )   

  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.

   

  Reply Cancel reply

  Required fields are marked *

  Name *

  Email *

  Website

  Notify me of new comments via email.

  Notify me of new posts via email.

  Δ

• 

  hardie karges 5:23 pm on October 29, 2023 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatta ( 22 ), Buddhism ( 429 ), Hardie Karges ( 240 ), non-self, past lives ( 8 ), rebirth ( 37 ), reincarnation ( 14 )   

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

  

  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. 

  hardie karges and Nina Lydia are discussing. Toggle Comments

   
  • 

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

      Thanks for your comment, Nina…

• 

  hardie karges 12:03 pm on August 7, 2022 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatta ( 22 ), Brahmanism ( 8 ), Buddhism ( 429 ), Mahayana ( 46 ), Middle Path ( 54 ), non-self, philosophy ( 102 ), religion ( 158 ), rishi ( 7 ), self ( 20 ), Vedas ( 3 )   

  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.

   
• 

  hardie karges 10:43 am on August 15, 2021 Permalink | Reply
  Tags: anatta ( 22 ), atman ( 5 ), atta, Buddhism ( 429 ), Middle Path ( 54 ), non-self, philosophy ( 102 ), self ( 20 ), shunya ( 11 ), shunyata ( 22 )   

  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 …)