|
The Buddha’s silence on atta = own
(hence independent) being
often and
wrongly, though conveniently translated into English as SELF
On another occasion the wanderer Vacchagotta went
to the Blessed and exchanged greetings
with him. Then he asked: “How is it,
Master
Gotama, does atta exist?” When this was said, the Blessed was silent. “How is it, then, Master Gotama, does atta not exist?” And for a
second time the Blessed One was silent. Then the wanderer
Vacchagotta got up from his seat and went away. Now after
he had gone the venerable Ananda asked the Blessed One: “Lord, how is it that when the Blessed One was
questioned he did not answer?” “If, when I was asked ‘Does atta
exist?’ I had answered ‘atta
exists,’ that would have been the belief of those who hold the theory of
eternalism. And if, when I was asked ‘Does atta not exist?’ I had answered ‘atta
does not exist,’ that would have been the belief of those who hold the
theory of annihilationism. Again, if, when he asked ‘Does atta
exist?’ I had answered ‘atta exists’,
would that have been in conformity with my knowledge that all things are not-atta? And
if, when asked ‘Does atta not
exist?’ I had answered ‘atta does
not exist,’
then confused as he already is, Ananda, the wanderer Vacchagotta would have become still more confused,
assuming ‘Surely then I had a atta
before and now have none’.” S 44:10 Note
how you, the reader, are being set up. Vacchagotta should have first asked: “Master
Gotama, what do you mean when you use the word (actually metaphor) atta ?” (In short, “Define your
term of reference (hence premise)!”) Since the Buddha did not
once during his 40+ years of teaching define the meaning of the word (i.e.
metaphor) atta, the above discussion is spurious,
i.e. Buddhist ‘leading’ rhetoric. The Buddha
further on Atta See if you can uncover the flaky
reasoning derived from a assumptions
that are ‘un-apprehendable as true’ “Bhikkhus, the possession
that one might possess (OWN!!, my insertion) that were
permanent, everlasting* ….do you see such a possession?” “No, Lord.” “The atta-theory clinging whereby
one might cling that
would never arouse sorrow and ... despair* (i.e.
distress) in him who clung thereby; do you see any such atta-theory clinging?" "No, Lord.” “The view as support that
one might take as support that would never arouse sorrow and ... despair in
him who took it as support; do you see any such view as support?" “No, Lord” “Bhikkhus, there being atta, would there be atta’s property?” “Yes, Lord.” “And there being atta’s
property, would there be atta?” “Yes, Lord.” "Bhikkhus, atta and atta’s property being
un-apprehendable as true and established, then would not this view ‘This
is the world, this the atta; after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject
to change, I shall endure as long as
eternity’ be the pure perfection of a fool's idea?” “How could it not be, Lord? It
would be the pure perfection of idea.” M.22 The following clip is of
extreme importance since it provides the bit missing from the notion of
sunyáta (i.e. emptiness) in the Heart Sutra, namely ‘empty of atta and atta’s
property’. “ ‘Empty world, empty world’ is said Lord; in what
way is ‘empty world’ said?” “It is because of what is
empty of atta and atta’s property* that ‘empty world’ is said, Ananda. And what is
empty of atta and atta’s property? The eye ...
forms ... eye-consciousness … eye‑contact… any feeling ... born of
eye-contact … The ear, etc.... The nose, etc.... The tongue, etc.... The
body, etc.... The mind, etc … any
feeling whether pleasant, painful or neither-painful-nor‑pleasant
born of mind-contact is empty of atta and atta’s property.” S. 35 : 85 *… ‘Permanent, everlasting
and (or, consequently) free (elsewhere independent) and free from sorrow and
despair’ (= distress, i.e. dukkha)
are assumed by the Buddha to be prime qualities of the atta (i.e. of a true self or own
being). The assumptions are ‘un-apprehendable
as true’. In fact, an atta (or self) happens as a momentary reality and
always provides ecstatic rapture, i.e. the Eureka experience (i.e. samma-sambodhi).
|