[lbo-talk] Re: self (was variety etc.)

kelley at pulpculture.org kelley at pulpculture.org
Sat Mar 13 08:00:22 PST 2004


At 10:45 AM 3/13/2004, Jon Johanning wrote:
>It's interesting to observe how, whenever a subject related to Buddhism
>comes up on this list, members who are ordinarily very well informed about
>a wide variety of subjects feel entitled to pop off with no background
>knowledge whatsoever.
>
>The first thing any even slightly informed student of the subject learns
>is that the term "self" in "no-self" refers primarily to the "atman" in
>traditional Indian thought. As the Encyclopedia Britannica says:
>
>"one of the most basic concepts in Hindu philosophy, describing that
>eternal core of the personality that survives after death and that
>transmigrates to a new life or is released from the bonds of existence.
>While in the early Vedic texts it occurred mostly as a reflexive pronoun
>(oneself), in the later Upanishads it comes more and more to the fore as a
>philosophic topic: atman is that which makes the other organs and
>faculties function and for which indeed they function; atman underlies all
>the activities of a person, as Brahman (the absolute) underlies the
>workings of the universe; to know it brings bliss; it is part of the
>universal Brahman, with which it can commune or even fuse."
>
>This is what the Buddha denied existence to (except that he didn't quite,
>but let's not get into too subtle matters here). I doubt that very many
>contemporary Western folks would maintain that this atman exists, either,
>so in fact you are all agreeing with the Buddha on this point.

heh. I'm not a big student of Buddhism, but from what little I've read, it was pretty clear to me that anyone railing against "no self" didn't understand the concept.

Kelley



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list