LotusBuddha.net - Cyber Buddhist Forum

news and article

* 잦은 질문    * 찾기

현재 시간 2018-04-26, (목) 12:53 pm

댓글없는 게시글 보기 | 진행 중인 주제글 보기

모든 시간은 UTC + 9 시간 으로 표시합니다

새 주제 게시글 주제글에 댓글 달기  [ 1 개의 게시글 ] 
글쓴이 메세지
전체글올린 게시글: 2015-12-28, (월) 8:13 am 

가입일: 2015-01-30, (금) 10:13 pm
전체글: 103
Chapter.6. The doctrine of no soul: Anatta

What in general is suggested by Soul, Self, Ego, or to use the Sanskrit
expression Atman, is that in man there is a permanent, everlasting and absolute
entity, which is the unchanging substance behind the changing phenomenal world.
According to some religions, each individual has such a separate soul which
is created by God, and which, finally after death, lives eternally either in hell or
heaven, its destiny depending on the judgment of its creator. According to others, it
goes through many lives till it is completely purified and becomes finally united
with God or Brahman, Universal Soul or Atman, from which it originally emanated.
This soul or self in man is the thinker of thoughts, feeler of sensations, and receiver of
rewards and punishments for all its actions good and bad. Such a conception is
called the idea of self.
Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the
existence of such a Soul, Self, or Atman. According to the teaching of the Buddha,
the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding, reality, and
it produces harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine', selfish desire, craving, attachment,
hatred, illwill, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities and
problems. It is the source of all the troubles in the world from personal conflicts to
wars between nations. In short, to this view can be traced all the evil in the world.
Two ideas are psychologically deep-rooted in man: self-protection and
selfpreservation. For self-protection man has created God, on whom he depends for
his own protection, safety and security, just as a child depends on its parent. For
selfpreservation man has conceived the idea of an immortal Soul or Atman, which
will live eternally. In his ignorance, weakness, fear, and desire, man needs these two
things to console himself. Hence he clings to them deeply and fanatically.
The Buddha's teaching does not support this ignorance, weakness, fear, and
desire, but aims at making man enlightened by removing and destroying them,
striking at their very root. According to Buddhism, our ideas of God and Soul are
false and empty. Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same
extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in an intricate metaphysical and
philosophical phraseology. These ideas are so deep-rooted in man, and so near and
dear to him, that he does not wish to hear, nor does he want to understand, any
teaching against them.
The Buddha knew this quite well. In fact, he said that his teaching was
'against the current', aginst man's selfish desires. Just four weeks after his
Enlightenment, seated under a banyan tree, he thought to himself : 'I have realized
this Truth which is deep, difficult to see, difficult to understand... comprehensible
only by the wise... Men who are overpowered by passions and surrounded by a mass
of darkness cannot see this Truth which is against the current which is lofty, deep,
subtle and hard to comprehend.'
With these thoughts in his mind, the Buddha hesitated for a moment,
whether it would not be in vain if he tried to explain to the world the Truth he had
just realized. Then he compared the world to a lotus pond : In a lotus pond there are
some lotuses still under water ; there are others which have risen only up to the
water level ; there are still others which stand above water and are untouched by it.
In the same way in this world, there are men at different levels of developments.
Some would understand the Truth. So the Buddha decided to teach it.
The doctrine of Anatta or No-Soul is the natural result of, or the corollary to,
the analysis of the Five Aggregates and the teaching of Conditioned Genesis
(Paticcasamuppada).
We have seen earlier, in the discussion of the First Noble Truth (Dukkha),
that what we call a being or an individual is composed or the Five Aggregates, and
that when these are analysed and examined, there is nothing behind them which
can be taken as 'I', Atman, or Self, or any unchanging abiding substance.
That is the analytical method. The same result is arrived at through the
doctrine of Conditioned Genesis which is the synthetical method, and according to
this nothing in the world is absolute. Everything is conditioned, relative, and
interdependent. This is the Buddhist theory of relativity.
Before we go into the question of Anatta proper, it is useful to have a brief
idea of the Conditioned Genesis. The principle of this doctrine is given in a short
formula of four lines:
When this is, that is (Imasmim sati idam hoti);
This arising, that arises (Imassuppada idam uppajjati);
When this is not that is not (Imasmim asati idam na hoti);
This ceasing, that ceases (Imassa nirodha idam nirujjhati).
On this principle of conditionality, relativity and interdependence, the whole
existence and continuity of life and its cessation, are explained in a detailed formula
which is called paticca-samuppada 'Conditioned Genesis', consisting of twelve
factors:
1. Through ignorance are conditioned volitional actions or karma-formations
(Avijjapaccuya samkhara).
2. Through volitional action is conditioned consciousness (Samkharapaccaya
vinnanam).
3. Through consciousness are conditioned mental and physical phenomena
(Vinnanapaccaya namarupam).
4. Through mental and physical physical phenomena are conditioned the six
faculties (i.e., five fhysical sense-organs and mind) (Namarupapaccaya
salayatanam).
5. Through the six faculties is conditioned (sensorial and mental ) contact
(Salayatanapaccaya phasso).
6. Through (sensorial and mental) contact is conditioned sensation
(phassapaccaya vedana).
7. Through sensation is conditioned desire, 'thirst' (Vedanapaccaya tanha).
8. Through desire ('thirst') is conditioned clinging (Tanhapaccaya upadaman).
9. Through clinging is conditioned the process of becoming (Upadanapacaya
bhavo).
10. Through the process of becoming is conditioned birth (Bhavapaccaya jati).
11. Through birth are conditioned (12) decay, death, lamentaion, pain, etc.
(Jatipaccaya jaramaranam...).
This is how life arises, exists and continues. If we take this formula in its
reverseorder we come to the cessation of the process: Through the complete
cessation of ignorance, volitional activities or karmaformations cease; through the
cessation; through the cessation of volitional activities, consciousness ceases;...
through the cessation of birth, decay, death, sorrow, etc., cease.
It should be clearly remembered that each of these factors is conditioned
(paticcasamuppanna) as well as conditioning "(paticcasamuppada). Therefore they
are all relative, interdependent and interconnected, and nothing is absolute or
independent; hence no first cause is accepted by Buddhism as we have seen earlier.
Conditioned Genesis should be considered as a circle, and not as a chain.
The question of Free Will has occupied an important place in Western
thought and philosophy. But according to Conditioned Genesis, this question does
not and cannot arise in Buddhist philosophy. If the whole of existence is relative,
conditioned and interdependent, how can will alone be free? Will, like any other
thought, is conditioned. So-called 'freedom' itself is conditioned and relative. Such a
conditioned and relative 'Free Will' is not denied.
There can be nothing absolutely free, physical or mental, as everything is
interdependent and relative. If Free Will implies a will independent of conditions,
independent of cause and effect, such a thing does not exist. How can a will, or
anything for that matter, arise without conditions, away from cause and effect, when
the whole of existence is conditioned and relative, and is within the law of cause and
effect? Here again, the idea of Free Will is basically connected with the ideas of
God, Soul, justice, reward and punishment. Not only is so-called free will not free,
but even the very idea of Free Will is not free from conditions.
According to the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis, as well as according to the
analysis of being into Five Aggregates, the idea of an abiding, immortal substance
in man or outside, whether it is called Atman, 'I', Soul, Self, or Ego, is considered only
a false belief, a mental projection. This is Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, No-Soul or
No-Self.
In order to avoid a confusion it should be mentioned here that there are two
kinds of truths: conventional truth (sammuti-sacca, Skt. Samvrti-satya) and ultimate
truth (paramattha-sacca, skt. Paramartha-satya). When we use such expressions in
our daily life as 'I', 'you', 'being', 'individual', etc., we do not lie because there is no self
or being as such, but we speak a truth conforming to the convention of the world.
But the ultimate truth is that there is no 'I' or 'being' in reality. As the
Mahayanasutralankara says : 'A person (pudgala) should be mentioned as existing
only in designation (prajnapit) (i.e., conventionally there is a being ), but not in
reality (or substance dravya)'.
The negation of an imperishable Atman is the commom characteristic of all
dogmatic systems of the Lesser as well as the Great Vehicle, and, there is, therefore,
no reason to assume that Buddhist tradition which is in complete agreement on this
point has deviated from the Buddha's original teaching.'
It is therefore curious that recently there should have been a vain attempt by
a few scholars to smuggle the idea of self into the teaching of the Buddha, quite
contrary to the spirit of Buddhism. These scholars respect, admire, and venerate the
Buddha and his teaching. They look up to Buddhism. But they cannot imagine that
the Buddha, whom they consider the most clear and profound thinker, could have
denied the existence of an Atman or self which they need so much. They
unconsciously seek the support of the Buddha for this need for eternal existence- of
course not in a petty individual self with small s, but in the big Self with a capital S.
It is better to say frankly that one believes in an Atman or self. Or one may
even say that the Buddha was totally wrong in denying the existence of an Atman.
But certainly it will not do for any one to try to introduce into Buddhism an idea
which the Buddha never accepted, as far as we can see from the extant original
texts.
Religions which believe in God and Soul make no secret of these two ideas;
on the contrary, they proclaim them, constantly and repeatedly, in the most
eloquent terms. If the Buddha had accepted these two ideas, so important in all
religions, he certainly would have declared them publicly, as he had spoken about
other things, and would not have left them hidden to be discovered only 25
centuries after his death.
People become nervous at the idea that through the Buddha's teaching of
Anatta, the self they imagine they have is going to be destroyed. The Buddha was
not unaware of this.
A bhikkhu once asked him: 'Sir, is there a case where one is tormented when
something permanent within oneself is not found?'
'Yes, bhikkhu, there is,' answered the Buddha.' A man has the following view:
"The universe is that Atman, I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever41
lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as for eternity". He hears the Tathagata or a
disciple of his, preaching the doctrine aiming at the complete destruction of all
speculative views…aiming at the extinction of "thirst", aiming at detachment,
cessation, Nirvana. Then that man thinks : "I will be annihilated, I will be destroyed, I
will be no more." So he mourns, worries himself, laments, weeps, beating his breast,
and becomes bewildered. Thus, O bhikkhu, there is a case where one is tormented
when something permanent within oneself is not found.'
Elsewhere the Buddha says: 'O bhikkhus, this idea that I may not be, I may
not have, is frightening to the uninstructed worldling.'
Those who want to find a 'Self' in Buddhism argue as follows: It is true that the
Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and
consciousness, and says that none of these things is self. But he does not say that
there is no self at all in man or anywhere else, apart from these aggregates .
This position is untenable for two reasons: One is that, according to the
Buddha's teaching, a being is composed only of these Five Aggregates, and nothing
more. Nowhere has he said that there was anything more than these Five
Aggregates in a being. The second reason is that the Buddha denied categorically,
in unequivocal terms, in more than one place, the existence of Atman, Soul, Self, or
Ego within man or without, or anywhere else in the universe.
Let us take some examples. In the Dhammapada there are three verses
extremely important and essential in the Buddha's teaching. They are nos.5,6 and 7
of Chapter 20(or verses 277,278,279). The first two verses say : 'All conditioned
things are impermanent'(Sabbe SAMKHARA anicca), and 'All conditioned things
are dukkha' (Sabbe SAMKHARA dukkha). The third verse says : 'All dhammas are
without self'(Sabbe DHAMMA anatta).
Here it should be carefully observed that in the first two verses the word
samkhara 'conditioned things' is used. But in its place in the third verse the word
dhamma is used. Why didn't the third verse use the word samkhara 'conditioned
things' as the previous two verses, and why did it use the term dhamma instead?
Here lies the crux of the whole matter.
The term samkhara denotes the Five Aggregates, all conditioned,
interdependent, relative thing and states, both physical and mental. If the third
verse said : 'All samkhara (conditioned things) are without self', then one might
think that, although conditioned things are without self, yet there may be a Self
outside conditioned things, outside the Five Aggregates. It is in order to avoid
misunderstanding that the term dhamma is used in the third verse.
The term dhamma is much wider than samkhara. There is no term in
Buddhist terminology wider than dhamma. It includes not only the conditioned
things and states, but also the non-conditioned, the Absolute, Nirvana. There is
nothing in the universe or outside, good or bad, conditioned or non-conditioned,
relative or absolute, which is not included in this term. Therefore, it is quite clear
that, according to this statement: ' All dhammas are without Self', there is no Self, no
Atman, not only in the Five Aggregates, but nowhere else too outside them or apart
from them.
This means, according to the Theravada teaching, that there is no self either
in the individual (pudgala) or in dhammas. The Mahayana Buddhist philosophy
maintains exactly the same position, without the slightest difference, on this point,
putting emphasis on dharma-nairatmya as well as on pudgala-nairatmya.
In the Alagaddupama-sutta of the Majjhima-nikaya, addressing his
disciples, the Buddha said : 'O bhikkhus, accept a soul-theory (Attavada) in the
acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and
tribulation. But, do you see, O bhikkhus, such a soul-theory in the acceptance of
which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress and tribulation?'
'Certainly not, Sir.' 'Good, O bhikkhus. I, too, O bhikkhus, do not see a soul-theory, in
the acceptance of which there would not arise grief, lamentation, suffering, distress
and tribulation.
If there had been any soul-theory which the Buddha had accepted, he
would certainly have explained it here, because he asked the bhikkhus to accept
that soul-theory which did not produce suffering. But in the Buddha's view, there is
no such soul-theory, and any soul-theory, whatever it may be, however subtle and
sublime, is false and imaginary, creating all kind of problems, producing in its train
grief, lamentation, suffering, distress, tribulation and trouble.
Continuing the discourse the Buddha said in the same sutta : 'O bhikkhus,
when neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truly and really be found, this
speculative view : "The universe is that Atman (Soul) ; I shall be that after death,
permanent, abiding, everlasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity" -
is it not wholly and completely foolish?' Here the Buddha explicitly states that an
Atman, or Soul, or Self, is nowhere to be found in reality, and it is foolish to believe
that there is such a thing.
Those who seek a self in the Buddha's teaching quote a few examples which
they first translate wrongly, and then misinterpret. One of them is the will-known
line Atta hi attano natho from the Dhammapada(XII ,4, or verse 160), which is
translated as 'Self is the lord of self', and then interpreted to mean that the big Self is
the lord of the small self.
First of all, this translation is incorrect. Atta here does not mean self in the
sense of soul. In Pali the word atta is generally used as a reflexive or indefinite
pronoun, except in a few cases where it specifically and philosophically refers to the
soul-theory, as we have seen above. But in general usage, as in the chapter in the
Dhammapada there this line occurs, and in many other places, it is used as a
reflexive or indefinite pronoun meaning 'myself', 'yourself', 'himself', 'one', 'oneself',
etc.
Next, the word natho does not mean 'lord', but 'refuge', 'support', 'help',
'protection'. Therefore, Atta hi attano natho really means ' One is one's own refuge'
or 'One is one's own help' or 'support'. It has nothing to do with any metaphysical soul
or self. It simply means that you have to rely on yourself, and not on others.
Another example of the attempt to introduce the idea of self into the
Buddha's teaching is in the well-known words Attadipa viharatha, attasarana
anannasarana, which are taken out of context in the Mahaparinibbana-sutta. This
pharase literally means: 'Dwell making yourselves your island (support), making
yourselves your refuge, and not anyone else as your refuge.' Those who wish to see a
self in Buddhism interprete the words attadipa and attasarana 'taking self as a
lamp', 'taking self as a refuge'.
We cannot understand the full meaning and significance of the advice of the
Buddha to Ananda, unless we take into consideration the background and the
context in which these words were spoken.
The Buddha was at the time staying at a village called Beluva. It was just
three months before his death, Parinirvana. At this time he was eighty years old, and
was suffering from a very serious illness, almost dying (maranantika). But he
thought it was not proper for him to die without breaking it to his disciples who
were near and dear to him. So with courage and determination he bore all his pains,
got the better of his illness, and recovered. But his health was still poor.
After his recovery, he was seated one day in the shade outside his residence.
Ananda, the most devoted attendant of the Buddha, went to his beloved Master, sat
near him, and said : 'Sir, I have looked after the health of the Blessed One, I have
looked after him in his illness. But at the sight of the illness of the Blessed One the
horizon became dim to me, and my faculties were no longer clear. Yet there was one
little consolation : I thought that the Blessed One would not pass away until he had
left instructions touching the Order of the Sangha.'
Then the Buddha, full of compassion and human feeling, gently spoke to his
devoted and beloved attendant : 'Ananda, what does the Order of the Sangha
expect from me? I have taught the Dhamma (Truth) without making any distinction
as exoteric and esoteric. With regard to the truth, the Tathagata has nothing like
the closed fist of a teacher (acariya-mutthi). Surely, Ananda, if there is anyone who
thinks that he will lead the Sangha, and that the Sangha should depend on him, let
him set down his instructions. But the Tathagata has no such idea. Why should he
then leave instructions concerning the Sangha? I am now old, Ananda, eighty years
old. As a worn-out cart has to be kept going by repairs, so, it seems to me, the body of
the Tathagata can only be kept going by repairs. Therefore, Anada, dwell making
yourselves your island (support), making yourselves, not anyone else, your refuge ;
making the Dhamma your island (support), the Dhamma your refuge, nothing else
your refuge.'
What the Buddha wanted to convey to Ananda is quite clear. The latter was
sad and depressed. He thought that they would all be lonely, helpless, without a
refuge, without a leader after their great Teacher's death. So the Buddha gave him
consolation, courage, and confidence, saying that they should depend on
themselves, and on the Dhamma he taught, and not on anyone else, or on anything
else. Here the question of a metaphysical Atman, or Self, is quite beside the point.
Further, the Buddha explained to Ananda how one could be one's own island or
refuge, how one could make the Dhamma one's own island or refuge : through the
cultivation of mindfulness or awareness of the body, sensations, mind and mindobjects(
the four Satipatthanas). There is no talk at all here about an Atman or Self.
Another reference, oft-quoted, is used by those who try to find Atman in the
Buddha's teaching. The Buddha was once seated under a tree in a forest on the way
to Uruvela from Benares. On that day, thirty friends all of them young princes, went
out on a picnic with their young wives into the same forest. One of the princes who
was unmarried brought a prostitute with him. While the others were amusing
themselves, she purloined some objects of value and disappeared. In their search for
her in the forest, they saw the Buddha seated under a tree and asked him whether
he had seen a woman. He enquired what was the matter. When they explained, the
Buddha asked them : 'What do you think, young men? Which is better for you? To
search after a woman, or to search after yourselves?'
Here again it is a simple and natural question, and there is no justification for
introducing far-fetched ideas of a metaphysical Atman or Self into the business.
They answered that it was better for them to search after themselves. The Buddha
the asked them to sit down and explained the Dhamma to them. In the available
account, in the original text of what he preached to them, not a word is mentioned
about an Atman.
Much has been written on the subject of the Buddha's silence when a certain
Parivrajaka(Wanderer) named Vacchagotta asked him whether there was an
Atman or not.
The story is as follows :
Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks :
'Venerable Gotama, is there an Atman?'
The Buddha is silent.
Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.
After the Parivrajaka had left, Anada asks the Buddha why he did not
answer Bacchagotta's question. The Buddha explains his position: 'Ananda, when
asked by Vcchagotta the Wanderer : "Is there a self?", if I had answered : "There is a
self", then, Ananda, that would be siding with those recluses and brahmanas who
hold the eternalist theory (sassata-vada). 'And, Ananda, when asked by the
Wanderer ; "Is there no self?" if I had answered: There is no self", then that would be
siding with those recluses and brahmanas who hold the annihilationist
theory(ucchada-vada).
'Again, Ananda, when asked by Vacchagotta : "Is there a self?", if I had
answered: "There is a self", would that be in accordance with my knowledge that all
dhammas are without self?'
'Surely not, Sir,'
'And again, Ananda, when asked by the Wanderer : "Is there no self?", if I had
answered : "There is no self". Then that would have been a greater confusion to the
already confused Vacchagotta. For he would have thought : Formerly indeed I had
an Atman (self), but now I haven't got one.'
It should now be quite clear why the Buddha was silent. But it will be still
clearer if we take into consideration the whole background, and the way the
Buddha treated questions and questioners - which is altogether ignored by those
who discussed this problem.
The Buddha was not a computing machine giving answers to whatever
questions were put to him by anyone at all, without any consideration. He was a
practical teacher, full of compassion and wisdom. He did not answer questions to
show his knowledge and intelligence, but to help the questioner on the way to
realization. He always spoke to people bearing in mind their standard of
development, their tendencies, their mental make-up, their character, their
capacity to understand a particular question.
According to the Buddha, there are four ways of treating questions : (1) Some
should be answered directly ; (2) others should be answered by way of analysing
them ; (3) yet others should be answered by counter-questions ; (4) and lastly, there
are questions which should be put aside.
There may be several ways of putting aside a question. One is to say that a
particular question is not answered or explained, as the Buddha had told this very
same Vacchagotta on more than one occasion, when those famous questions
whether the universe is eternal or not, etc., were put to him. In the same way he had
replied to Malunkyaputta and others.
But he could not say the same thing with regard to the question whether
there is an Atman (Self) or not, because he had always discussed and explained it.
He could not say 'there is self', because it is contrary to his knowledge that 'all
dhammas are without self'. Then he did not want to say 'there is no self', because that
would unnecessarily, without any purpose, have confused and disturbed poor
Vacchagotta who was already confused on a similar question, as he had himself
admitted earlier. He was not yet in a position to understand the idea of Anatta.
Therefore, to put aside this question by silence was the wisest thing in this particular
case.
We must not forget too that the Buddha had known Vaccagotta quite well
for a long time. This was not the first occasion on which this inquiring Wanderer had
come to see him. The wise and compassionate Teacher gave much thought and
showed great consideration for this confused seeker. There are many references in
the Pali texts to this same Vacchagotta the Wanderer, his going round quite often to
see the Buddha and his disciples and putting the same kind of question again and
again, evidently very much worried, almost obsessed by these problems. The
Buddha's silence seems to have much more effect on Vacchagotta than any
eloquent answer or discussion.
Some people take 'self' to mean what is generally known as 'mind' or
'consciousness'. But the Buddha says that it is better for a man to take his physical
body as self rather than mind, thought, or consciousness, because the former seems to
be more solid than the later, because mind, thought, or consciousness(citta, mano,
vinnana) changes constantly day and night even faster than the body(kaya).
It is the vague feeling 'I AM' that creates the idea of self which has no
corresponding reality, and to see this truth is to realize Nirvana, which is not very
easy. In the Samyrtta-nikaya there is an enlightening conversation on this point
between a bhikkhu named Khemaka and a group of bhikkhus.
These bhikkhus ask Khemaka whether he sees in the Five Aggregates any
self or anything pertaining to a self. Khemaka replies 'No'. Then the bhikkhus say
that, if so, he should be an Arahant free from all impurities. But Khemaka confesses
that though he does not find in the Five Aggregates a self, or anything pertaining to
a self, 'I am not an Arahant free from all impurities. O friends, with regard to the Five
Aggregates of Attachment, I have a feeling "I AM", but I do not clearly see "This is I
AM".'
Then Khemaka explains that what he calls 'I AM' is neither matter, sensation,
perception, mental formations, nor consciousness, nor anything without them. But he
has the feeling 'I AM' with regard to the Five Aggregates, though he could not see
clearly 'This is I AM'. He says it is like the smell of a flower: it is neither the smell of
the petals, nor of the colour, nor of the pollen, but the smell of the flower.
Khemaka further explains that even a person who has attained the early
stages of realization still retains this feeling 'I AM'. But later on, when he progresses
further, this feeling of 'I AM' altogether disappear, just as the chemical smell of a
freshly washed cloth disappears after a time when it is kept in a box. This discussion
was so useful and enlightening to them that at the end of it, the text says, all of them,
including Khemaka himself, became Arahants free from form all impurities, thus
finally getting rid of 'I AM'.
According to the Buddha's teaching, it is as wrong to hold the opinion 'I have
no self'(which is the annihilationist theory) as to hold the opinion 'I have self' (which
is the eternalist theory), because both are fetters, both arising out of the false idea 'I
AM'. The correct position with regard to the question of Anatta is not to take hold of
any opinions or views, but to try to see things objectively as they are without mental
projections, to see that what we call 'I', or 'being', is only a combination of physical
and mental aggregates, which are working together interdependently in flux of
momentary change within the law of cause and effect, and that there is nothing
permanent, everlasting, unchanging and eternal in the whole of existence.
Here naturally a question arises: If there is no Atman or Self, who gets the
results of karma (actions)? No one can answer this question better than the Buddha
himself. When this question was raised by a bhikkhu the Buddha said: 'I have
taught you, O bhikkhus, to see conditionality everywhere in all things.'
The Buddha's teaching on Anatta, No-Soul, or No-Self, should not be
considered as negative or annihilistic. Like Nirvana, it is Truth, Reality; and Reality
cannot be negative. It is the false belief in a non-existing imaginary self that is
negative. The teaching on Anatta dispels the darkness of false beliefs, and produces
the light of wisdom. It is not negative; as Asanga very aptly says : 'There is the fact of
Noselfness' (nairatmyastita).


상위
   
인용하여 댓글 달기  
이전 게시글 표시:  정렬  
새 주제 게시글 주제글에 댓글 달기  [ 1 개의 게시글 ] 

모든 시간은 UTC + 9 시간 으로 표시합니다


접속 중인 사용자

이 포럼에 접속 중인 사용자: 접속한 회원이 없음 그리고 손님 1 명


이 포럼에서 새 주제글을 게시할 수 없습니다
이 포럼에서 그 주제글에 댓글을 달 수 없습니다
이 포럼에서 당신이 게시한 글을 수정할 수 없습니다
이 포럼에서 당신이 게시한 글을 지울 수 없습니다
이 포럼에 첨부파일을 게시할 수 없습니다

찾기:
이동:  
cron
POWERED_BY
Free Translated by michael in phpBB Korea