05.23.11
The anatta question
Comments on A Secular Buddhist: the anattta question
Richard
207.138.47.153 Submitted on 2011/05/22 at 10:34 pm
I think the issue is that the “anatta” doctrine gets turned into an ontological statement when it was originally meant to be an instrumental tool of inquiry used in meditation practice. I personally think the notion of “self” is a confused doctrine (hence, the critique of the Upanishads by the early Buddhists). The point is that the mind has a strong tendency to reify its experiences and turn them into a “self.” The term “unconditioned” seems better since it emphasizes that “it” is beyond any designations whatsoever (i.e. self, no-self, etc.).I think the issue is that the “anatta” doctrine gets turned into an ontological statement when it was originally meant to be an instrumental tool of inquiry used in meditation practice. I personally think the notion of “self” is a confused doctrine (hence, the critique of the Upanishads by the early Buddhists). The point is that the mind has a strong tendency to reify its experiences and turn them into a “self.” The term “unconditioned” seems better since it emphasizes that “it” is beyond any designations whatsoever (i.e. self, no-self, etc.).
Richard
1
————————————————
Paul
222.153.42.111 Submitted on 2011/05/22 at 9:23 pm
I’m confused! What was the confusion over the anatta doctrine – in relation to reincarnation??? Are you saying there is/isn’t ‘rebirth’ in buddhism. I know on T. buddhist who is working hard to get out in this life and not come back for more illusion – ‘vajrayana’…..?I’m confused! What was the confusion over the anatta doctrine – in relation to reincarnation??? Are you saying there is/isn’t ‘rebirth’ in buddhism. I know on T. buddhist who is working hard to get out in this life and not come back for more illusion – ‘vajrayana’…..?
Paul
1
The Gurdjieff Con » The anatta question said,
May 23, 2011 at 12:48 pm
[...] http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/23/the-anatta-question/ [...]
Wirun said,
September 8, 2011 at 2:57 am
I think there is a self within each of us. Though it does not have permanancy, 100 percent controlability and freedom from stress as it’s attributes, but it does have uniqueness and unique continuity as two of its attributes. Refering to the 2 said attributes, one thing we may count as our ‘self’ is our own ‘self -awareness’(or may be called our ‘consciousness’). That’s why the law of karma and rebirth work. As long as we have this self-awareness ,we can never get away from suffering. Only the extinguishment of this self-awareness for good, we will be free of suffering for good.(However, we experience temporary extinguishment of our self-awareness every night in our deep dreamless sleep.) We can reach the state of extinguishment of self-awareness for good if we die while we have full self-awareness but not attaching to our own self awareness(or consciousness). This can be achieved if we can detach from our own self awareness while living which is called we attain enlightenment.(To attain enlightenment we don’t need to go too far as to go naked or abstain from eating for months or commit suicide just only try to live this life as plainly and harmlessly as possible, avoid hurting other life and feeling, detach from greed, lust, love, hate and arrogancy, see wealth and fame as dangerous baits, realizing the bad side of this world with calm and peaceful mind and wish to go to no heaven or be born again after we die.(I have tried to do these things for quite a while but not successful yet.) In Anatta Doctrine, Buddha just told us that we should not regard our body/mind or sth within our b/d as our ‘self’ since none of them permanent, 100 controlable nor stressfree. So we should detach from our body/mind. He did not tell us whether absolutely there is ‘self’ or not.
.
Darwiniana » Anatta said,
September 8, 2011 at 12:59 pm
[...] http://darwiniana.com/2011/05/23/the-anatta-question/comment-page-1/#comment-359052 Wirun said, [...]