Mr Green wrote:I wanted to say to FS that, you are right about many things, but you too do that which you see in others.
Yes, I got that from your "thought for the day." As I stated elsewhere, I respond in kind. You'll note I don't reply to your posts the way I reply to some others.
ex-l wrote:I suggest there is not one Buddhist concept of Self or teaching. There are many Buddhist concepts of Self or teaching (... or many interpretation of the Buddha's imagined concept of self, if you prefer). As button slammer wrote, the Buddha never wrote it down ... Buddhism and Brahma Kumarist concept of the self as a soul are not actually incompatible. He was not saying there was no atma, as the BKs call it.
One word - anattā (Pāli) or anātman (Sanskrit: अनात्मन्).
1. One main difference between Buddhism and the theistic traditions which I have mentioned elsewhere, is that the theists always insistently look back to the source of their authority, to prove the truth of their beliefs. God inspired, spoke through, revealed ... whatever ... therefore it is absolute fixed truth that mere humans misinterpret - especially those of "other' denominations and faiths.
2. To apply to Buddhism the criteria of theistic beliefs mentioned above - i.e. revealed by an absolute supernatural authority - is not appropriate. Buddhism is not only what the Buddha taught. But what Buddha taught is applied as the matrix from which "buddhists' work - it is a hypothesis from which grows a living evolving tradition. A more appropriate analogy for Buddhism would be scientific method. Theistic traditions would in this analogy think that scientific knowledge should include only what was understood at the time the scientific method was first formulated (and that's B.C.).
3. You are right to say that there are many interpretations, but the concept of Anatta and the
five skhandas (five aggregates) goes back to the earliest days of Buddhism with quotes attributed to the Buddha.
"In the Samyutta Nikaya, the Buddha is recorded as saying that "just as the concept 'Chariot' exists on the basis of the aggregation of parts, even so the concept of 'being' exists when the five aggregates are available.". (The five aggregates we function by are - Rupa, Vedana, Samjna, Samskara, Vijnana - or - Form, Sensation, Perception, Mental Formation, Consciousness).
Also within its core teaching
IS the clear notion that misinterpretation is bound to happen because of these, so to understand the meaning requires personal application (doing one's own experiment). We can talk about what mango tastes like, but the memory of the last mango is not the same, not as whole or real as the experience of eating it. And then that one is gone ...
4. To suggest that because Buddha never wrote it down and to state 'there are many intepretations" is to use generalisation to divert from the fact that "anatta" and the 5 skandhas is a common teaching across Buddhism from the very earliest times. Three months after his death, 500 of his followers met to recite the entire body of his teachings. Memorising was the main form of learning as literacy was mainly a preserve of the Brahmin castes.
5. If you have examples of alternative Buddhist teaching of the self that is not based on these two principles, please share.
ex-l wrote:I think you might be wrong because when asked point-blank to take a position the question of whether or not there is a self ... ... the Buddha himself is recorded to have refused to answer.
I refer you to an earlier post that the Buddha taught according to what he felt the audience/questioner would grasp, e.g. the way he brought the Charvaka around. There is another example of this "targeted" teaching in the Vimalakirti Nirdesa Sutra
""In the presence of those with conceit (of their superior knowledge - the Brahmins usually) the Buddha said - it is important to keep from lust, anger and stupidity in the quest of liberation; but where those with conceit are absent, he said that the underlying nature of lust, anger and stupidity (ie the "self" nature) is identical with liberation." NB I quote this as an example of "his "horses for courses" teaching, not meant to discuss its controversial content (which I have taken part in elsewhere, it's fascinating when unravelled).
Another thing it also immediately reveals, is that there is an esoteric stream within Buddhism that goes way way back to the beginning. (The BKs do have teachings they do not openly share, but I would not call them esoteric in that sense - more like "secret" because they are either bad PR, embarrassing, unscientific, ridiculous or self-serving).
*The author of this post speaks on behalf of no-one but himself. Any references to Buddha, Buddhism or any other religion or personage, real or fictional are purely coincidental. No animals were hurt in the typing of this post.