Anatta - part 3

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

Heinrich Dumoulin, well known for his writing on Zen: "One is asked to help and save others in the awareness that really there is no one who helps and saves, nor is there anyone who is helped and saved, and this detachment from the illusion of substantiality is supposed to make one all the more energetic and free in the work of compassion". Is there not a logical contradiction here?

My opinion:

Well, there 'may' be a logical contradiction there - because if there is "no one" who helps and saves, and "no one" who is helped and saved, what then is the purpose of helping and saving, isn't it? People always ask, "what's in it for me?" Almost everyone I know expect gains, we don't do something for nothing. So, for the vast majority of people, there is a contradiction in Dumoulin's statements, but for true Buddhists who believe in not-self, there is no contradiction at all.

The reason being, although there is no gain for "himself or herself", he or she does the good deeds anyway because the illusion of substantiality does make one all the more energetic and free in the work of compassion.


In my humble opinion, if someone has a tendency to help others, naturally it makes him/her more energetic and free, it is a natural process. If that someone has to be forced and coerced to help, then he/she would not feel energetic nor free about it at all.


But again, the emphasis is always on no-'one', no-'person', on Anatta. The importance of Kamma has been pushed so far back it is already lost. When I was young, I was taught "Kamma and Vipaka" as, "we reap what we sow". If we are compassionate, it is good kamma and we will reap good vipaka. If we do good deeds, we will get a heavenly rebirth, and vice-versa. I didn't even know that anatta and kamma is supposed to contradict?

People with views that anatta and kamma contradicts each other have understood Buddhism incorrectly - they have actually misunderstood it so badly, that it is very difficult or almost impossible, to revert their understanding back to right-view. In that case, it is better to be of another faith rather than misinterpreting Buddhism according to their own wrong-views.

Kamma and Anatta do not contradict each other.

Well, I did say I don't emphasize anatta, but the reason that got me talking about it was because some people in another yahoo list were saying that "anatta means no-control" and "anatta means fatalism". Even if life is fated, what can we do? How would we know what have we been "fated" with? What will tomorrow bring?

What would be our view? If life has already been fated - (a) we might as well 'do nothing' and 'sit on our bum all day' or (b) take a better approach, by living our life to the fullest and do the best we can. Practice no killing, no stealing, no adultery, not telling lies, and don't smoke, drink or take drugs.

I believe in taking the higher road.

But, honestly, I do not believe in fatalism. I have never believed in fatalism. I believe we have a will to choose our own destiny.

What do you think?

Anatta - part 2

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

From merelogical nihilism or compositional nihilism (that objects with proper parts, spatial or temporal, do not exist, only parts do, to volition's, as an understanding of cetana, which don't exist.

-----

Cetana (volitions) don't exist? I didn’t know that. Would it help to lessen our sufferings if it did or didn't?
------

But let me ask you an old question. (One I have some answers to, as I think we are just khandhas, ayatanas, and other such ways of looking at processes myself, though I would say that "person" and such are appropriate as names of those processes, so they aren't impersonal. No-atta doesn't mean no self, under every description). Paul Williams, a long time Buddhist, quit recently, as he said that in Buddhism there was no love or compassion, as there were no real persons. So it could not exist. How can it exist if other consists entirely -- in reality -- only of psychophysical elements?


My opinion:

Williams is right, in a way, the non-Buddhist way of course. Everyone is free to choose what to believe and not believe in. If one has already accepted Buddhism as a way of life, and has accepted the 'fact' that a 'human being' is made up of psychophysical elements, then love and compassion becomes the psychological element that is impersonal. Love and compassion does not belong to 'us', it does not belong to anyone; it is only a fleeting moment that goes by. This is the essence of what Buddhist philosophy is all about.

If anyone cannot accept this fact, then he or she does not believe in the Buddha's teachings and cannot be a Buddhist. So, it is perfectly fine that Williams quits, if he no longer finds happiness or liberations from it.


The khandhas and ayatanas are things that Abhidhammikas talk about. I am not an abhidhammika.

I think, as a "person" (a puggala), we should live a moral life and not be concerned about things like cetasikas. These cetasikas are for scholars, intellectual people and philosophers. It is okay to read about it but does it really help us escape samsara? If it does - in what way does understanding cetasikas help in lessening suffering? How does 'understanding' it intellectually help us?

I do agree that knowing nama and rupa does help in creating a mind set with less attachment to the body and to material goods. But how does reading about cetasikas help in attaining enlightenment? Kindly enlighten me in this aspect, please.


Also, I personally think that abhidhammikas have a lot of *intellectual pride*. Everyone does actually, but they probably have more of it than others, that's imho only.


I believe, cetasikas can be observed with our own minds. If I'm not mistaken, one of the first cetasika that we can identify is "cetana", volition. If we meditate, we will observe that "cetana" is a 'cause', and action is the 'result'. If a person's mindfulness is very good, he or she is able to observe how "cetana" arises and how it passes away and that becomes wisdom.

I don't believe in enlightenment from reading an abhidhamma book. Can a person learn how to swim by reading a book? I think, it is better to jump into the pool and start kicking.

It always boils down to Anatta - part 1

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

My 2 cents worth opinion.

I think Buddhism should not be too mystical or too complex. Buddhism is a way of life. To me, being a Buddhist is about keeping the 5 precepts. As long as we keep the 5 precepts, we are okay. We are considered very good Buddhists if we don't break the the precepts. The sila -> samadhi -> panna path are for serious Buddhists.

I think there is no lack of love or compassion in the Buddha's teachings. It is the Buddhist practitioner's own fault for not emphasizing the Brahmavihara of Metta, Karuna, Mudita and Upekkha. We should not blame the lack of love and compassion on the religion. Buddhism does not sing praises of Joy because we know and accept the underlying fact of life, as suffering. There are so many types of suffering, dukkhadukkha, sankharadukkha, etc. I am not sure what other types of sufferings are there but life is all about sufferings and I am drawn towards Buddhism because I realize that life is actually full of stress and sufferings.

I know of people who think that there is No suffering in their lives and they cannot be Buddhists because they don’t see these sufferings. They say Buddhists are pessimists because Buddhists keep stressing on the sufferings. They don’t get it that Buddhists are striving to get out of sufferings by following the 3rd and 4th Noble truths. They don’t know that Joy is impermanent, it is fun while it is there but when it is gone, they cling to it and suffer. As for Buddhists, we are already prepared for Joy to disappear.

It seems to me that in the Western countries, people are obsessed with anatta. I've never heard anatta discussed in this way and that way before. I don’t understand why anatta fascinates people. I think only intellectual people talk about anatta.

Imo, no-self does Not mean nihilism at all. When we were growing up, going to the temples and listening to Dhamma talks, no one told us that anatta means we're going kaput when we die or that there is no "real person" who is walking and talking. No one told us that there is No-freewill. I found out about the ‘theory of no freewill’ from some members who are propagating that anatta means no-freewill ! They could be right for all I know but I’ve never heard about it before from my Dhamma teachers.

Sometimes I think that in the Western countries, people get Buddhism slightly wrong. On the other hand, in the East, there are too many rites and rituals attached to Buddhism. There is no place on earth where Buddhism is pure anymore. But imo, as an individual, we should practise Buddhism to the best of our ability.

Coming back to talk about anatta since it is such an interesting topic. In my opinion, no-self is supposed to mean 'selflessness' but people tend to take no-self the other way, as 'selfishness'. I think, a Buddhist should help other people and be compassionate about others but this is rarely emphasized in Theravada Buddhism.

In Theravada Buddhism, we are supposed to help ourselves first before helping others. We have to strive to be enlightened first, only then help the others to get enlightened. Whether this is the right way or wrong way has been debated among the Theravadins and Mahayanists for a long, long time.

In the Theravada view, if you cannot swim, you cannot help a drowning person, so you have to learn how to swim first. But for Mahayanist Buddhists, they want to teach other people how to swim eventhough they themselves don’t know how to do it! Ok, I’m a bit bias towards the Mahayanists but I sincerely think that they are more helpful, more out-going and more fun-loving people because they are striving to become Bodhisattas and they want to help other people alleviate their sufferings. So, they will jump in to help regardless of whether they know how to swim or not. And it totally depends on the individual whether s/he wants to be a Theravadin or a Mahayanist.

It is okay that Paul Williams found another new religion that suits him better. I think a person should not find faults with Buddhism if they don't like it. Personally I think that it doesn't matter whether a person is a christian or hindu or mus,lim because all religions teach us to avoid evil and to do good.

But Imo Buddhism is superior because it teaches us to avoid evil, do good and purify our minds. I find the purifying the minds part, very important.

More on uncontrollable conditions

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

As at today, with my current perspective on Buddhism, I'll give my 2 cents worth opinions to the topic mentioned above.

Kamma is one of the conditions that makes the difference in you and me. Kamma means Intentions. Intention is not random. Intention arise because of 'causes and conditions'.

Do we have the ability to distinguish right from wrong, good intention from bad intention? When there is right-view, we are able to know right from wrong. When there is no right-view, then we are not able to know right from wrong. So, the ability to distinguish right from wrong is dependent on right-view.

I think we should not ask questions, whether there is freewill or not, or whether there is control or not. If we use the wrong type of mould to form our questions, then the wrong-type of answers will be formed also. If the question itself is wrong, then the answer that is given will certainly be wrong.

In Buddhism, everything arises because there is a cause for it to arise. These conditions are described in the Dependent-Origination (Paticca-samuppada).

We have the ability to know lust, cruelty, kindness and compassion, etc. Human beings have the ability to distinguish these wholesome and unwholesome thoughts only when there is right-view.

We should not blame everything that happens in our lives on 'conditions that we cannot control'. Fatalism is definitely not Buddhism.

Uncontrollable conditions

My views on Buddhism - weblog.

I am a member of an online Buddhist forum and someone in the forum came up and said that the Buddha taught no-freewill because every will is conditioned, therefore it cannot be free. I agree that our will is not totally free but it is also not totally fated either. According to a few abhidhammikas, there is no 'person' that could control or make good/bad intentions arise because all phenomena arise depending on conditions.

Based on the issue of conditions, no freewill and no-control, I asked a few questions as follows:

In this world of so many people, 'you' and 'I' are subjected to conditions, and in this long, long unfathomable beginning-less universe, when we started life as a sentient being until we are here today, why is it that the conditions which arise in 'you' become different from the ones in 'me'?

Both you and I are conditioned-beings, but how does the 'good' or 'bad' conditioning come to you or to me. Both of us didn't choose this or that conditions, right? So, what are the 'conditions' that makes your conditions different from mine?

If I say the reason is kamma condition, then it is quite unfair.
Because 'I' cannot control my kamma, if 'I' was a good person, it was because of my good conditioning and 'I' was not responsible for being good. The goodness that came to me, came without my free-will, the same goes for the bad kamma.

In this scenario of 'no freewill and no-control', how is Nibbana achievable or possible? In this life alone, I have observed good intentions and bad intentions come and go. With this mixture of good and bad cetanaa and other things, how can anyone achieve Nibbana?

Does Nibbana come randomly based on conditions? Or do we need to suffer an X amount of time in samsara before all of us will be conditioned to attain Nibbana anyway?

We cannot force and control Nibbana to come at will, so we wait for Nibbana to come to us (?) As far as I know, the Buddha didn't tell us to wait for Nibbana. The Buddha said, (paraphrased) if we are diligent, we are able to achieve the path and fruition, here-and-now.

Let's say, I believe in anatta as being no-control. If I cannot decide and you cannot decide, aren't we all slaves who are subjected to conditioning? You are a slave to your conditioning and I am a slave to mine. So what-is-it that decides these different conditionings for you and me?

In the case of uncontrollable conditioning for you and I, what is the 'main factor of conditioning' that makes you or me realize Nibbana?

If we are puppets of our conditions , what makes you understand the dhamma faster then me? According to the abhidhammikas, no-one and no person understands, it is pa~n~n~a that understand. It means that your pa~n~n~a and mine are different, why? Why is it, with the conditions which you and I cannot choose, make all these differences arise in you and me? In atheistic religions, the answer is easy. It is God, who made us who we are. But in Buddhism? Who and what chooses the conditions that befall on you or me?