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?
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?