sort of perplexing
March 26, 2008 by latebrake
The following passage seems to go against basic Buddhist thought- at least what i have heard- that there is no “self ” outside of the 5 skandhas, and what we experience as “self” is nothing other than a coalescence of the stuff’s of the five skandhas, perhaps mixed with a bit of avidya. but here is a passage that seems to be saying otherwise, which seems to imply that there is something “other,” which actually maintains from life to life- another no -no, i thought, in buddhist philosophy. What do you think?
“According to tantric theory, the residence of the mind is not the brain, but the heart. The mind is said to reside in the indestructable drop at the heart chakra. There are two types of indestructable drop, on coarse, and one subtle. The coarse drop is a coalescence of cells from the semen of father and ovum from mother, and the subtle drop is a coalescence of subtle levels of consciousness and subtle physical energies. The course drop is said to be “indestructible” because it endures throughout one’s life, from the moment of conception untill the final moment of physical death. The subtle drop is “indestructible” because it endures throughout all of one’s lives, from beginningless time and into the future, untill the time of enlightenment, at which point one’s body is transformed into the perfect body of a buddha.”
Introduction to Tibetan Buddhism, by John Powers. page 295/6
Chris
Govert
Pablo
katinkaspiritual
latebrake
mitdyob
Well, the no-soul doctrine in Buddhism is pretty confusing anyhow. But the scholarly consensus is, so my Buddhism teacher at university told me, actually that while there is No Permanent self in the five skandhas, because they do change - it is NOT clear whether the Buddha denied something ‘above’ that.
Generally Theravada Buddhism is more consistent on this point. They did believe in reincarnation of something back when Blavatsky and Olcott went to Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), but now they generally defend the no-soul (anatta) doctrine. See this great article on the Theravada position on Anatta. Still, as I tried to say earlier: the Buddha really wasn’t all that clear in the Pali Sutras - probably because the doctrine about Atman wasn’t that well developed yet when he denied it. The theosophical solution to this is often: The Buddha denied that Atman as a personal principle was eternal. Everything I learned about Hindu and Buddhist philosophy supports that position.
See also this other article on Atma in Buddhism: a Mahayana perspective which unites Advaita and Sunnyata
The Mahayana position is a bit more difficult, as it generally stresses that we have a ‘Buddha Nature’. This is where the distinction with Advaita Vedanta becomes really difficult to find. Both ‘Buddha Nature’ and ‘Brahman=Atman’ are about something very impersonal in us being identical to something which is basically divine.
Of all Mahayana Buddhism, Tantric Buddhism comes closest to Hinduism (specifically: Hindu Tantra, obviously). The ’subtle drop’ is clearly what in other Mahayana Traditions is called ‘Buddha Nature’. You’ve probably heard of that in a Zen context. Conceptually I don’t think there’s much difference, though obviously Tantric imagery is more vivid and specific.
Let me add a bit to that. The Buddha taught the lack of a permanent self in his second sermon. That sermon, less famous than the first (noble 8fold path, 4 truths), but it contains the five skandhas and the idea that there is no permanence in that.
Theravada authors have concluded from that that there is no permanent self, no atman, at all. That conclusion is traditional Theravada, but scholars aren’t sure it actually goes back all the way to the Buddha.
Yes, I agree with Katinka. According to the Buddha (or what they said he said, several centuries after his passing away) there is not permanent self within the realm of the five skandhas, or what we would call “the personality” in Theosophy. The Buddha refused to talk much about what is beyond that, just like Krishnamurti.
The Theravada tradition is usually very strong in its view that nothing exists beyond the five skandhas. But that is not the case of several schools in the Mahayana tradition, and even less in the Vajrayana (Tibetan) tradition.
Let’s be clear though. I went and looked it up in my ‘encyclopedia of Asian Philosophy’ and it did make it clear that no buddhist philosopher will say they believe in an ‘Atman’. But look up ‘Buddha Nature’ and it becomes clear that there are two ways of interpreting Buddha Nature and the issue is precisely the one discussed here: is there something ’soul-like’? Is there something that could be construed as an Atman?
Well, we have to bear in mind that “Atman” is a normal sanskrit word that means “Self”. When we read about Atman we immediately think of the philosophical Hindu conception. But Buddha’s statement could be read as “there is no real, unchangeable “I” in the realm of the personality (five skandhas).”
It doesn’t necessarily mean that there isn’t an absolute Atman.
Katinka, what would a Scholar (or your Professor) say about that interpretation?
“The ’subtle drop’ is clearly what in other Mahayana Traditions is called ‘Buddha Nature’. ”
I never would have thought of it like that. i had always thought of the buddha nature to be something universal, not personal. so, i googled it and found the wikipidiea entry. turns out there are many ideas as to what buddha nature is- maybe more than what atman is. i think all of this points to a simple fact, that intellect will never know some things on its own.
below is a quote from the wiki page that sums up my previous (and current) view.
“Unlike the Western concept of Soul or some interpretations of the Indian Atman, Buddha-nature is not presented in the primary Buddha-nature sutras as an isolated essence of a particular individual, but rather as a single unified essence shared by all beings with the Buddha himself.”
To say that the Indian Atman is presented as “an isolated essence of a particular individual” is, at least, inaccurate. Hinduism has several schools, and if you read Vedanta, you will find that Atman is universal and absolute (not personal), with no attributes and beyond conception. But the buddhist propaganda against Atman dwarfs its real concept.
In Theosophy, again, Atman is not personal (HPB states plainly that it is not even part of the human principles, esoterically speaking) but a ray of the absolute. Now, that absolute ray is reflected in Buddhi (which is a link between the personal and the universal) forming “the Monad” Atma-Buddhi. It is the Monad (and not Atman in itself) who may influence Manas, the human mind.
There is little difference (if any) between the Vedantic Atman, the theosophical Atman, and the Buddha-nature or the Dharmakaya body.
Just curious, as I’m in a somewhat reflective, skeptical mood.
What are the tools, if any, that we have to settle these metaphysical points about the nature of the (not-)self, consciousness, skandas, etc.?
Even if we extract, in a correct comparitive theosophical way, the congruence between Vedanta, HPB and Trikaya Buddhism (if that’s its proper name), how do we verify these statements for ourselves?
What is our criterion of truth?
Do we fall back on authority (HPB/Buddha says so)? If so, why? Or is it a question of adhering to the most plausible hypothesis? If so, what do we mean by that? Or is it a question of having slipped into a paradigmatic, interpretative framework that somehow seems satisfactory, but can not be tested, because one can not step outside of the framework (or only by converting to another framework)? Or is this speculative metaphysical chatter a reflection of a ‘false’ consciousness that has to be deconstructed through a so-named ‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ in the mold of a Marx, Freud or Nietzsche? Or is it an exercise in evading the depravity of the ego, which we are, as per Krishnamurti?
So, in short, the question is about the possibility and nature of an experiential radical zero-point on which we can meet. It’s an old philosophical question with answers galore, but every so now and then we just have to allow ourself to be seized by the question to work out a new answer appropriate to the unique situation we find ourselves in.
Interesting questions Govert.
But I’d like to answer with another question… (yes, the old trick!): Since our senses are so limited, and so is our field of direct experience, should we limit our universe just to what we can perceive? And since what we perceive is not even the real thing but an interpretation our nervous system creates, should we become agnostics (in the sense of “knowledge cannot be gained”)?
Let’s think about these two options (postulating things that are beyond our direct experience or becoming strict agnostics). Later on I’ll give you my perspective about your questions.
Pablo, your questioning answer deserves a similar questioning answer, and my ‘trick’ will be to partially answer it myself:
Why limit the field to two options? What’s the operative assumption guiding you here?
Me thinks your guiding assumption is an a priori critical materialist position on perception and experience along the lines of Immanuel Kant with his dichotomy between the thing-as-experienced (phenomenon) and the thing-in-itself (noumenon), and the alleged impossibility of the senses to go beyond the material, for the senses themselves are bound to that realm.
Or will you develop a new position going beyond this one and your Kantian position is just a straw man to be tossed?
Mind you, what I’m asking for is an experiential philosophy of experience that can provide an inter-subjective grounding for the relevant inter-related experiences upon which we could base a more experience-oriented discussion about so-called metaphysical issues. I’m not looking for a scientific or metaphysical theory from which to deduce explanations. I want to break open our interpretation of the nature of experience itself with the possibility to re-integrate theosophy experientially into our lives in a possibly whole new way. For this to occur we will first have to understand and suspend the myriad scientific-materialist and speculative-metaphysical (including theosophical) assumptions regarding the nature of perception, experience, language and evidence, including the very sophisticated Kantian position.
Wow, this is quite the dialog.
I’ll start with what’s for me the easiest question: how to determine who’s right? Well, Govert - this is one of those issues we won’t really know the answer to until we get ‘there’.
Personally I suspect that ultimately it’s largely semantics. That’s the position of the article on Mahayana Buddhism I linked to before. Theosophy is generally closer to Mahayana than to Theravada on issues such as this one.
Buddhists have at some point decided to deny ‘atman’, so if they want to talk about the something that experiences Nirvana, they have to call it something else than Atman.
Pablo: you’re right: atman actually does mean ’self’. Worse: it can be used as a pronoun in certain types of Sanskrit. It simply means I or ‘me’ then. As in ‘I walk in the rain’. Nothing high or mighty about it, which may well be why the Buddha denied ultimate nature to it. After all, if someone were to ask this crowd of devoted theosophists here:
Is there a permanent ‘I’? We would all hesitate (I suspect, correct me if I’m wrong) to say ‘yes, your self as you know it will last forever’. Instead we would answer something like this:
‘your personality is changing. The ‘I’ you know today is different from the one you had last year - and you’ve changed a lot since you were a child. You will continue to change, because change is in the nature of the universe.
And, like the Buddha, we might even hesitate to go that one step further to say that there is something divine in us that does last for a long time, goes from life to life and is ultimately One with every other being. Blavatsky went that one step further, probably in part because materialism has caused the doctrine of ‘Maya’ to be so very easy to understand. Also: it’s pretty hard to sell reincarnation and karma while denying Atman.
As for my scholarly teachers - Pablo - you’ve summed up the position of my one Buddhism teacher quite well there - as was implied in my previous comments on this post.
Thanks Katinka. Yes, I agree. As Theosophists we would say that there is no permanent atman in our plane of perception. And I personally think that the Buddha was referring to that…
Govert. If I understood correctly you message, what you said was the point I wanted to make.
We tend to dismiss any intuitional knowledge (not in the Kantian sense, but in the theosophical one) saying that it is subjective. Usually, only the knowledge derived form our senses or logical reasoning is regarded as valid. If we want to speak about spiritual things, however, we cannot limit our knowledge to those avenues. So, it is an epistemological question.
I believe the intuitive knowledge (that one derived from buddhi-manas, to be more precise) is the real one when talking about spiritual things. Of course, intellectual knowledge may help, our sensory perception may help, and even faith may help, but they will not produce an experiential knowledge of the spiritual reality.
So, when you ask: “What are the tools, if any, that we have to settle these metaphysical points about the nature of the (not-)self, consciousness, skandas, etc.?” I would say:
“The intellectual (logical, metaphysical) knowledge based on my intuitive perception.”
Of course, the intuitive knowledge (in our stage, at any rate) may be wrong. But that is the case of any other avenue of knowledge.
Now, how do we obtain an intuitive knowledge? How do recognize it?
Pablo,
Good, we agree to try to go beyond Kant and you propose to look into something you call “intuitive knowledge” based on “intuitive perception,” which is somehow derived from “buddhi-manas”. Of course I recognize that as quite TC (Theosophically Correct), but my quest is for those concept-originating experiences that comprise the basis to give terms like “intuition”, “buddhi” and “manas” some kind of experiential anchorage. I think your question of “how do we obtain an intuitive knowledge?” already assumes too much. Therefore, can you explicate, describe, interpret your own unique personal experiences of “intuitive perception” without using the metaphysical terms that we try to anchor? And if you can not, what kind of problem then do we have?
“Hinduism has several schools, and if you read Vedanta, you will find that Atman is universal and absolute.”
one school of Vedanta says this, not all. i happen to like “qualified” dualism.
Yes, you are right. I was referring to Advaita Vedanta. But I agree, the Visistadvaita is also interesting. Though I’m not sure how much they “personify” the ultimate reality. HPB said:
“Dualistic and anthropomorphic as may be the philosophy of the Visishtadwaita, when compared with that of the Adwaita — the non-dualists, — it is yet supremely higher in logic and philosophy than the cosmogony accepted by either Christianity, or its great opponent, modern Science” (SD 1:522).
I’m not sure how accurate her statement is…
The problem is that theosophy is somewhere between holistic and pluralistic (not dualistic). There is one ultimate reality, but that ultimate reality can’t be reduced to the physical - as scientists often try to do. It can’t be reduced to just spirit either - so we get caught in philosophies that either overemphasize one or another aspect of it.
I found a webpage that actually explains various types of Vedanta quite well. Makes me wish (again) that my philosophy of India teacher had actually gone beyond the above into various types of Vedanta - but no, he preferred the philosophy of grammar (linguists, what to do with them). Well, after that rant - here’s the quote:
http://www.cejournal.org/GRD/Ramakrishna.htm
Turns out I actually agree with Aurobindo on this one. Who’d have thought.
[...] question started as comment no. 8 in the post “sort of perplexing” by Latebrake. I invite my first and only discussion [...]