Wisdom and Knowledge Series, post #18. Buddhism, post #13.1 (18.2.12.1):
The below post is at Dhamma Wheel message board ( https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=33509 ):
Okay, I'm not getting paid for this, but hopefully I will get something back in the future for this.
May what I say benefit my family members and myself with worldly prosperity, worldly happiness, and spiritual growth and happiness.
Here goes:
Here I go explaining anatta:
All conditioned things are impermanent, changing (anicca).
What is anicca, that is dukkha. How is that? For example, when some family member passes away, suffering (dukkha) results.
What is dukkha, that is anatta. Why? Dukkha results because you have no control over it. If your atman (soul) was in control, dukkha could not be the result.
Side note: Also because things are anicca, there is anatta. Anicca means everything is conditional, due to cause and effect. And if everything is conditional, due to cause and effect, there can be no such thing as the atman as the Hindus believed. What is the atman belief of the Hindus? The Hindus believed in an unchanging, permanent soul (atman) that resides in a person. If everything is changing (anicca) according to Theravada Buddhism, there can be no element in existence that could exist as an unchanging, permanent soul (atman) like the Hindus believed.
'What is anatta, one should see it as it really is, with correct wisdom thus: This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.' Why? If something is anatta -- it includes the idea of anicca (impermanence) -- then you could see it as mine for now, but not mine forever; I may be this way now (I am), but I may become a different personality later;this is definitely not the self/soul (atman) that the Hindus believed, because you cannot control a suffering aspect when it arises, and a second reason as well, that it is anicca (See side note above). What does it mean 'you cannot control a suffering aspect when it arises'? Because what is dukkha, that is anatta (mentioned above already, but now I will explain more). Dukkha means that aspect is not atman. If that aspect were atman, dukkha could not arise for that aspect. Why? Atman means an unchanging, permanent, soul, that is in control. If atman existed for that aspect, there would be control over the aspect, power over the aspect, and that means when one has absoulute control over an aspect, one would will it to not cause suffering, right? Who, if they can, would allow suffering to arise? If you had an unchanging, permanent soul that was in control, you would not allow dukkha to arise. But according to Theravada Buddhism, because there exists the experience of suffering, there is no atman, at least in that aspect where you are suffering. Theravada Buddhism (or maybe Buddhism in general???) would go on to say everything can be seen as dukkha, so everything is anatta...
There is a self in the mundane sense. So I exist as Ai Le (or 'samsarictravelling' is another name I am known as). But in the ultimate sense, there is no self because there is no unchanging, permanent soul (atman) that resides in a person, as the Hindus believe. According to what I believe: there is a changing self that goes from one life to the next, but this self has no unchanging, permanent soul/essence (atman) like the Hindus believe. Again: this self that goes from one existence to another is changing, and like I said, is not an unchanging, permanent atman like the Hindus believe.
This unchanging, permanent atman of the Hindus is the same type of soul the Christians believe in, do you think so?
samsarictravelling
No comments:
Post a Comment