chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu (01/05/91)
I thought of clarifying some common misconceptions about buddhism. As I think, after reading most of the postings about buddhism and reading other books etc. which carries comments about buddhism, most of the misconceptions are arising due to attempts to look at the written words about buddhism while grasping onto other views about oneself and the world. SInce 'anatta' doctrine is much talked about topic in this group, I am dealing with this topic here. In one sense there is the claim that the 'anatta' teaching is not only in buddhism, In one discourse buddha was having a conversation with the monks. His first question is about anicca or impermanency, asking from the monks whether the impermanency exists. Then this leads to the query whether if something good changes then is it satisfactory or unsatisfactory. If something does not stay in the way we want can we call it anything as belonging to us, or ourselves. The argument here is: if something is belonging to 'me' then it should stay according to what 'I' want. Generally this is true of the body (at one level, grossly, 'we' become old,sick etc. even when 'we' strongly do not want it to happen that way) Then looking at more details this is true about the five agregates also (i.e. form (physicl body), feeling, conceptions (sagngna), set mental patterns (sankhara), and consciousness (vigngnana)). According to the buddhist teaching why we take everything as ourselves? Buddhist teachings *do not* attribute this to illusory senses ( or maya), rather it is due to our grasping. Actually it is proper senses (eyes,ears, nose,mouth,rest of the body, and mind) that is required to really understand this 'anatta' by oneself, otherwise our own grasping, desire, and ignorance mislead us. That is where proper awareness, attentiveness etc. is very important in buddhist practice. For example, if any of our senses are failing we cannot really understand the behavior of that sense properly. (going into further details is not possible here) Some of the claims of similarity are as follows (there were many similar statements) >The notion that "we are not we think we are" is very >strong in Hinduism as well and is not unique to Buddhism. That Actually the notion "we are not we think we are" is common in most religions. For example, a missionary that believes in a creator would say "your are not what you think you are, you are created by God; therefore, accept God as your savior". What I am stressing here is the use of words do not really show the similarity in meaning. According to what I've read about Upanishads the search for "what am I?" in Hinduism is a soul search of finding "Atman" or a greater soul. That is why Mayavada etc. are given in Upanishads. Quoting "Hinduism" by Troy Wilson Orgon: "The religion of the Upanishads leads to the culminating "I am Brahman". This is the"secret knowledge" which opens the door to Reality. According to the Taittiriya Upanishad there are five sheaths (koshas) of the Self which make the self manifest as the jiva. These are matter (prakriti), life (prana), consciousness(manas), intligence (vijnana), and bliss(ananda). The five koshas hide the Self. Only when they are taken away can the Self be realized in its pure state. WHen the koshas fall, the Atman stands alone. The individual-as-jiva cannot say, "I am Atman", for there is no "I" to speak, no "I" to know or to be known, and no "I" to be distinguished from Atman - not "I am Atman" but "Atman" He is not grasped by the eye nor even by speech nor by other sense organs, nor by austerity, nor by work, but when ones's (intellectual) natuer is purified by the light of knowledge then alone he, by meditation, sees Him who is without parts" - Mandaka Upanihads 3.1.8 Radhakrishnan translation. The above is Upanishads' search for "What is it". In this, beyond the denial of "I", there is a belief of a Soul, which according to other sources (such as Bhagavat Gita) are indestructible, which does not undergo suffering (dukkha), transmigrate from one body to another etc. The difference between karma and rebirt taught by Buddha differs fundementally from the traditional vedic karma and reincarnation also because of this belief in Atman etc. in "Hinduism". Buddhist teachings are quite different from these. From experience in meditation if I were to look for some greater Soul within my mind while practicing mindfullness, I would be actually grasping a view in my mind. So in buddhist teaching Nibbana is not grasping. Without going into further details in Abidhamma or metaphysics let me end this by quoting a member of a Sangha (from "Seeing the Way" - this is a collection of writing my quotation is from Ven. Thiradhammo) "We can sometimes make the mistake in practice of thinking that the religious life means some sort of self-flagellation. Or, we tend to believe that spiritual practice should result in some special kind of purity. WIth this idea we look at ourselves and, of course, all we see is impurity; having developed a concept of enlightenment, we examine our own minds and see just the opposite - confusion and conflict. But the point is, these ideas we have about practice are just ideas. Thinking: "I am here and Nibbana is over there: I'm just a confused idiot and Nibbana is all purity and profundity' is merely projecting onto concepts. When it comes down to real practice, enlightenment means actually being aware of confusion itself. Wisdom is that which is aware of ignorance. It's not a matter of knowing our wisdom, but of using wisdom to know ignorance!" This is an attempt to clarify some point, which seemed to be missing from some of the previous prostings. This concludes my writings under this topic to s.r.e. Bandula note: studying the religious systems seperately and identifying their actual teachings are useful. But if we were to make assumptions about one using the knowledge of the other is quite misleading. For example, a person who had read about buddhist teachings once said, "It could be that those people believing in God are believing in Karma so their God is like our Karma". But in reality people who believe in God pray to God, praise God if something good happens to them, and believe God had punished them if something bad happens to them. On the contrary the buddhists do not pray to Karma, do not praise Karma (which would be a futile thing in buddhist view point) do not live in fear of Karma and if possible try to avoid bad results of a Karma, if knowledge and mental powers are developed enough. Looking at these concepts as they are would contribute more towards harmony than trying to mix these.
pingali@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) (01/06/91)
In article <1991Jan5.015301.944@nas.nasa.gov> chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu writes: > >In one sense there is the claim that the 'anatta' teaching is not only in >buddhism, This is a claim that I carefully avoided making. > [much that I agree with deleted] > > Buddhist teachings are quite different from these. From > experience in meditation if I were to look for some greater Soul > within my mind while practicing mindfullness, I would be actually > grasping a view in my mind. Mindfulness does not leave us a leg to stand on and there are no apriori assumptions made. Vedantic teaching admits of a means of knowledge - "Sabda Pramana" - that mindfulness does not. "Sabda" is "word" - and students are asked to treat the *words* of the Upanishads as a means of knowledge that have as much validity as sensation, inference, perception etc. This is why the guru is of such importance - it is he who can reveal the sabdas in a skillful way. There is no evidence that the Buddha studied the Upanishads - so it is unnecessary to view this system as a "logical extension" of any other. It is true that the Buddha approached Alara and other meditation masters for instruction and found that his mind was still prone to defilement at the end of all that. But, it is also true that the Buddha never seems to encountered the doctrine of Brahman. In his dialogues, he has an easy time poking holes in the notion of Brahma - which is not the same thing as the nirguna (uncharacterizable) Brahman. In the words of Ananda Coomaraswamy ("Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism"), the Buddha never met a Janaka or a Yagnyavalka. In the early A.D. years, members of the two systems frequently accused each other of lifting notions from each other. Mahayana Buddhists are of the firm view that Sankara got his notions of relative and absolute truth from the Sunyavada of Nagarjuna. But since Sankara justified everything in terms of the Upanishads, Vedantists demur. > note: studying the religious systems seperately and identifying > their actual teachings are useful. But if we were to make assumptions > about one using the knowledge of the other is quite misleading. All intellectualization is ultimately useless. But, I should clarify some points. I agree that those who wish to practice Buddha Dharma should come to it without preconceptions about what it is. Afterall, the final aim of the practice is to see that *nothing* - not feelings or views or relations or the body or anything else - is worth holding on to. And, if I were asked, I would recommend to anyone that they take up mindfulness practice and look upon Buddha Dharma as a path of the truest nobility. The Eightfold Path is a Vishuddhi Magga (Path of Purification). Zen doctrines hold that there is nothing to be gained and nothing to purified. Seeing how conditioned most of us are, I am inclined to doubt if that is a helpful attitude for beginners. Peace. -- Sridhar Pingali