Sunday, July 28, 2019
This is why the 4 noble truths focus and emphasize dukkha, and not happiness, or anatta
Here's a well written essay, describing his problems in his personal practice with modern mindfulness and anatta. What he needs to focus on, is cause of dukkha, efficacy of karma, 7sb awakening factors, especially piti, to counter his somewhat nihilistic and tendency to depression.
https://aeon.co/essays/mindfulness-is-loaded-with-troubling-metaphysical-assumptions
excerpt:
contrary to Kabat-Zinn’s loftier claims to universalism, mindfulness is in fact ‘metaphysically loaded’: it relies on its practitioners signing up to positions they might not readily accept. In particular, mindfulness is grounded in the Buddhist doctrine of anattā, or the ‘no-self’. Anattā is a metaphysical denial of the self, defending the idea that there is nothing like a soul, spirit or any ongoing individual basis for identity. This view denies that each of us is an underlying subject of our own experience. By contrast, Western metaphysics typically holds that – in addition to the existence of any thoughts, emotions and physical sensations – there is some entity to whom all these experiences are happening, and that it makes sense to refer to this entity as ‘I’ or ‘me’. However, according to Buddhist philosophy, there is no ‘self’ or ‘me’ to which such phenomena belong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'd beg to differ on the point of "no-self."
ReplyDeleteThe Buddha didn't teach anything so contrary to conventional wisdom such as the "denial of self" or the negation of "entity," "individual basis for identity."
On the issue of anatta, he taught that whatever you pick up as self (treating as dear, identifying as home...) would be a source of stress. The teaching of not-self should be understood as a natural conclusion of "craving/desire as the source of suffering." Treating something as self is having craving for that experience/activity. In other words, the Buddha never taught that there's no-self (which is actually identified by him as a wrong view), but that the five aggregates should not be treated as self, and that any "selfing," "I-mine-making" activities are grounded in craving and leads to suffering.
The Buddha wasn't teaching anything philosophically complicated. Instead of being a synonym or analogue of "absence of intrinsic substance," anatta is actually a synonym or analogue for "dart, boil, enemy, alien, other, disease, wart, sting..."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, when speaking of "not me, not mine," the Buddha was not speaking anything pertaining to "[emptiness of] agency, continuity, basis"; The Buddha was instead talking of "not dear," "not to be taken up as a home."
If the Buddha were speaking of something so controversial as denying personhood, agency, substance, subjective basis, he would have caused great controversy among his disciples. His disciples' reaction to the anatta teaching was generally serene or enthusiastic acceptance. This was because anatta was simply the natural conclusion of the teaching on craving, and not some separate, "higher" philosophical teaching to be understood outside the context of the four noble truths.
With regards to the title, "the four noble truths...focus [on] dukkha [rather than] anatta," I'd say that the four noble truths are about both dukkha and anatta.
Anatta is not "no-self." It is "it's suffering and therefore should not be treated as self/dear."