Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Misconceptions about anatma (was Re: Buddhism and Brahmanism)long
Message-ID: <1991Jan5.015301.944@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 5 Jan 91 01:53:01 GMT
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: University of Houston
Lines: 122
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


  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.