The examination of the concepts of self and no-self are interesting ones, especially in the context of eastern religions like Buddhism. I have been asked more then once how I can ascribe to a religious path that affirms the existence of a personal soul, while also ascribing to one that doesn't.
The truth about this is that Buddhism does not teach no soul. If it did, there would not be so much ancestor and Bodhisattva veneration in east Asia. The truth of the matter is, Buddhism has never taught no soul, rather it is a western pop version of Buddhism that is starting to espouse this idea.
The Buddha did teach "anatta", which means "no-self", but it's not possible to know if he was making a statement about the soul or not, since he usually refused to speak about the soul at all, even when asked. I am of the opinion that he was either speaking of the nature of reality, or the nature of the Atman, which in Hinduism is the highest type of soul and has no self.
The fact is Buddhism says nothing about the existence of any soul or not, it leaves it open like it does many things. Traditional Buddhist thought, however, has tended toward the existence of a soul. Buddhism does teach about the self certainly. It teaches just like Hinduism does, that the self/ego is illusionary. Remember, illusionary doesn't mean not real, it means less real.
The mindset that generates the self is a mindset of selfishness. It makes self the focus, as though life exists especially for oneself, and revolves around oneself. This says nothing about the existence of a soul or not.
What Kemeticism teaches about the self and the soul is that one's personality is tied to a fleeting soul called the ka, which by the way is not an immortal soul. The ka can die, it can be destroyed at judgment. I am not sure how literally I take this, but there it is.
I do not see the self as an unreal thing, since one will always have some notion of a self in this existence of things. I see it as illusionary and temporary, especially if it is tied to a soul that can die. Striving for the self is ultimately pointless, though it may be pleasurable. It is pointless, because if the self does not survive death then your striving has been in vain.
Striving for others is the highest expression of acting, because it is in this that the true reality is expressed. Love is most real emotion there is, because it is most in sync with what is true.
The truth about this is that Buddhism does not teach no soul. If it did, there would not be so much ancestor and Bodhisattva veneration in east Asia. The truth of the matter is, Buddhism has never taught no soul, rather it is a western pop version of Buddhism that is starting to espouse this idea.
The Buddha did teach "anatta", which means "no-self", but it's not possible to know if he was making a statement about the soul or not, since he usually refused to speak about the soul at all, even when asked. I am of the opinion that he was either speaking of the nature of reality, or the nature of the Atman, which in Hinduism is the highest type of soul and has no self.
The fact is Buddhism says nothing about the existence of any soul or not, it leaves it open like it does many things. Traditional Buddhist thought, however, has tended toward the existence of a soul. Buddhism does teach about the self certainly. It teaches just like Hinduism does, that the self/ego is illusionary. Remember, illusionary doesn't mean not real, it means less real.
The mindset that generates the self is a mindset of selfishness. It makes self the focus, as though life exists especially for oneself, and revolves around oneself. This says nothing about the existence of a soul or not.
What Kemeticism teaches about the self and the soul is that one's personality is tied to a fleeting soul called the ka, which by the way is not an immortal soul. The ka can die, it can be destroyed at judgment. I am not sure how literally I take this, but there it is.
I do not see the self as an unreal thing, since one will always have some notion of a self in this existence of things. I see it as illusionary and temporary, especially if it is tied to a soul that can die. Striving for the self is ultimately pointless, though it may be pleasurable. It is pointless, because if the self does not survive death then your striving has been in vain.
Striving for others is the highest expression of acting, because it is in this that the true reality is expressed. Love is most real emotion there is, because it is most in sync with what is true.
No comments:
Post a Comment