Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Fact-check
Hello everyone,
I am a Catholic Christian who is studying Buddhism for a World Religions course. In my textbook, I came across something that made me go "hmm...this doesn't make any sense to me." But rather than indulging in shouts of victory for having given the Definitive Refutation of Buddhism for All Ages, I remembered that the textbook certainly displayed inaccuracies (including doctrinal / philosophical ones) in the section on Christianity, and therefore there was no guarantee that it was 100% correct on Buddhism. So I decided to contact some actual Buddhists (you were listed first on Google -- it's as simple as that) to find out if you agree with the following, from Living Religions by Mary Pat Fisher, p. 141:
I am a Catholic Christian who is studying Buddhism for a World Religions course. In my textbook, I came across something that made me go "hmm...this doesn't make any sense to me." But rather than indulging in shouts of victory for having given the Definitive Refutation of Buddhism for All Ages, I remembered that the textbook certainly displayed inaccuracies (including doctrinal / philosophical ones) in the section on Christianity, and therefore there was no guarantee that it was 100% correct on Buddhism. So I decided to contact some actual Buddhists (you were listed first on Google -- it's as simple as that) to find out if you agree with the following, from Living Religions by Mary Pat Fisher, p. 141:
To remedy this situation [i.e. unhappiness], the Buddha taught awareness of dukkha, anitya (Pali: anicca, impermanence), and anatman (Pali: anatta). According to this revolutionary and unique doctrine, there is no separate, permanent, or immortal self; instead, a human being is an impermanent composite of interdependent physical, emotional, and cognitive components. Insight into anatman is spiritually valuable because it reduces attachment to one's mind, body, and selfish desires.
Do you agree that this is the Buddhist teaching? 0
Comments
What part specifically doesn't make sense to you? That is a very quick summary, so unless you're more familiar with the Buddha's teachings, I can see how it would be confusing. The Pali canon itself is immense, so a summary like that won't do it much justice.
Now you're going to say either (a) what takes rebirth if there is no self or (b) if there is no real self as a foundation how do you continue moment to moment, right? Something like that?
That's why, although the quote is pretty good, it does need a slight adjustment or commentary. There is no independent self which is separate to the mental and physical parts of a person. There is no permanent (unchanging) self, because persons depend on causes and conditions. And there is no immortal self, because the death of a person is activated by the very production of the person.
So then, when the text says that anatman "reduces attachment to one's mind, body, and selfish desires", I naturally ask, "whose attachment exactly?" What is this "one" to which the mind, body, and selfish desires belong?
It cannot be the mind's attachment, because it makes little sense to speak of the mind's attachment to the mind. The mind is the mind.
Fivebells --
This is a very interesting topic to study and is comprehensively explained. In the end we can say ignorance is just such an abstraction and it continually afflicts the mind. There is not a moment we don't have it.
ps. within the study of abstractions we learn about what persons actually are. I don't want to say precisely that persons, that "I", am an abstraction, because this needs much further explanation without which there is confusion. Also, the lack of a self that is unchanging, immortal, independent, etc is just the simplest school's idea of anatman. There are much much cooler versions which build on this idea, such as for example the lack of a self-sufficient substantial self to persons.
Actually, it does make sense. Forming an attachment to something means creating a concept of something, and then adding to the concept the attribute of "mine". I have no real physical attachment to my computer, but I have a concept of a computer, and part of that concept is that the computer is mine.
When I think of the mind, I'm not creating a second mind. I'm creating a concept. Forming an attachment to that concept of mind is as simple as changing the concept from "mind" to "my mind".
Attachment actually seems to be more of a process than an attribute. Our attachments to various things seem to change with context. So one could say that attachment can be triggered by any concept the mind can generate, given the right context.
OK, fair enough. So it's the mind's attachment to a concept, then -- but not the real mind's attachment to the real mind.
Would the attachment to concepts include such a thing as "my ideas"? In that case, why should you favour your Buddhist ideas over my Catholic ideas?
But then where does the attachment come from? If the mind is cleansed of the attachment to concepts and sensory things, what's left? I would say a clean mind is left.
You shouldn't. Buddhist practice leads to an end to beliefs.
Where it comes from is not our concern. But yes, ideally there is nothing left but awareness. That's the point.
I suggest checking out this post.
Is that another process, or is it an unchanging state? I don't know if it matters much, but I'm curious.
Jason -- That helped, thanks.
As for clinging or attachment it is purely useless to conjecture that "self" must be destroyed or ideas of "I" and "mine". This will lead you nowhere. Let's say you eat when you feel anxious and that is a habit, this is you clinging to food. That is all there is to it, as far as clinging goes. The process of clinging is the same for food and for self, but reflecting on food gets you somewhere, because you are tackling a more visible, easier to approach problem and DOING something about what causes you suffering, whereas just going 'oh, my Self is getting in the way of enlightenment' is quite useless.
Dealing with such abstract concepts in detriment to the problems of everyday life is like worrying about how painful a snake bite would be when there is a thousand scorpions stinging you right now.
I would like to quote Hannibal Lecter on this one ;^P (I was SO waiting for the opportunity to throw this in a buddhist forum ahahahaha):
"Hannibal Lecter: And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? Make an effort to answer now.
Clarice Starling: No. We just...
Hannibal Lecter: No. We begin by coveting what we see every day. Don't you feel eyes moving over your body, Clarice? And don't your eyes seek out the things you want?"
When you don't attach to something it stops worrying you and causing you suffering. That is it.
If someone ever realizes the lack of a self to the person they will directly cognize the truth of the end of suffering, amongst other things. And it is not merely the absence of a gross type of attachment such as the attachment to food.
I don't know what the purpose of this forum is. You'd have to ask the owners. That is not my purpose, here.
How curious? To fully understand the answer to that, you have to understand the absolute and relative perspectives. (Which I think are explained in that essay I linked to.)
In regard to one of the Buddhist issues: The Buddha taught that Buddhism is like a raft that you use to get to the other side of a river. Once you've crossed the river, you don't carry the raft around with you everywhere. You leave by the side of the river and go on your way. The goal of Buddhism is the end of duhkha. Once that goal is achieved, you don't need Buddhism.
In regard to awareness: How would you know whether awareness changes or not? If it comes to an end, you won't be aware of it. If it doesn't come to an end, all that you know is that it hasn't ended so far. You haven't proven that it won't end some time in the future. If you want to know whether awareness changes or not, you'll have to propose a test that would allow us to find out.
And finally, the Buddha said that certain questions did not lead to the end of duhkha, and he refused to answer them. There are many questions that Buddhism, take as a whole, doesn't try to answer. You may get answers from specific Buddhists or specific schools of Buddhism, but those answers are not _the_ Buddhist answer. We have the four truths, the eight-fold path, and a few other teachings. Beyond that, it's all opinion and expedient means.
http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=48
Anyway, hope some of you find it helpful.
The Buddha did not teach that there was no self -- only that Self did not exist in the way Brahmanism had posited. Likewise, he did not teach that one's concept of self must be dismantled and, in fact, actually argued against these misguided applications of the doctrine of anatta as forms of annihiliationism.
Put another way: Self is not an illusion. Permanence is.
We can never be other than nature itself and as such subjected to its laws of impermanence. There is no permanent unchanging self to be found anywhere. What is born must die. Aging, sickness, death and separation is our lot.
Unlike plants and animals we are capable of intelligent thoughts and creativity, of love, kindness and compassion but also of the great cruelty and horrors.
We create stories, concepts etc and believe them to be true. Imagine what would happen if "Earth" was to be struck by a giant comet tomorrow.
What then is the meaning of life? No one has the answer but know only this: All is impermanent, unsatisfacory and not self. Nothing is to be clung to as me, mine or myself.
It would be more accurate to say "Self is irrelevant."
I like that answer. So I'm still in.