Anatman

[satyananda]

In Pupul Jaykar’s work Jiddu Krishnamurti, she writes that
Krishnamurti took care never to present his enlightenment in terms of
a Supreme Self or Atman. He did not even introduce it as a partial
explanation in the way in which Dr.Wolff does. In the writings of
Tilopa, Naropa, Marpa and Milerepa, no Universal Self is brought in as
a kind of in between philosophic position.

Dr. TRV Murti came of an orthodox Brahmin
family well-versed in the Vedantic tradition. He spent many years in
the study of Buddhist texts. He said he tried to present the Buddhist
point of view with as much clarity and fairness as he possibly
could. In his famous book, “The Central Philosophy of Buddhism”, he
introduces the Anatman canon as the modal view as opposed to the
substance view of the Vedanta. In all these texts, the Atman doctrine
is not brought in as a preliminary explanation. Dr. Wolff in “
Pathways through to Space” as well as in recorded statements like “The
High Indifference” and “Extemporeous Philosophy” introduces the Atman
as the positive transcendent aspect of the subject-object
relationship. By his own admittance, he was for 33 days in the Bliss
of the Atman before some compassionate Bodhisattva pulled him to
Shunyata. He said that he was entirely unprepared for this
transformation in Consciousness. He thought he had reached the summit
of Mt. Sumeru when actually he was atop only the Matterhorn. There is
something chancy in all this.

Dr. Murti takes the view that the
Pudgala Atman explanation, a kind of compromise between the Vedantic
and Mahayana positions, was regarded as heresy. When Vasubandhu
brought in the Alaya and the Tathagathagarbha, he faced the same
charge.

There are other interpretations of the
Buddha’s Original Insight. However, the Anatman doctrine seems to be
the essence or Hridaya of Buddhism. It is Anatman at one go or not at
all. There is no waiting on the wings. The Atman may be brought in
as a subjective principle not especially emphasized in any way. Even
in the original sermons of the Buddha, the Lord asks the aspirant to
focus on the truth of Suffering and not on any Universal Self.

Peace,peace,peace

[berlake]

Thanks for the post....

It's hard to say much about the Anatmic doctrine, I feel, as the
motives behind the teachings of The Buddha or J Krishnamurti are never
going to be fully understood; nor are they necessarily the same. It
seems possible, however, that Krishnamurti may well have been
influenced by the growth in India of a particular kind of
"spirituality" which made enlightenment seem appealing as a personal
achievement, and the search for Atman is necessarily in danger of
contributing to the biggest ego trip imaginable. Also, as a doctrine
of personal salvation and a personal enjoyment of Bliss it seems
alluring and desirable, when it would appear that the truth requires
a far more sober and radical understanding of the implications of
Realizing enlightened consciousness.

It might be the case, also, that The Buddha's Realization came as
quite a shock, too! And if the accounts of his prevarication prior to
deciding to teach the incommunicable are to be believed, then we
should take seriously the possiblity that his teaching was concerned
with practical instruction rather than an exclusive and comprehensive
philosophy. It may well be that the extant traditions and philosophies
of His time were largely concerned with identifying the Atman; and
perhaps this search was usually for an object for consciousness. This
may account for the relative lack of success of his contemporaries
and, indeed, for his own preliminary frustrations (despite their
inevitable contribution to his eventual success!!!). It would seem
reasonable to allow for these factors, anyway....


My knowledge of Buddhist teachings is almost non-existent, I should
add! But I can't help feeling that the myriad branches and teachers
Buddhism has spawned is evidence enough of its intrinsic ambiguity. If
we can read nihilism or utter Transcendence into its main tenets, then
it seems to suggest its limitations as a Universal teaching, despite
its evident power and majesty. Not that I am advocating Dr. Wolff's
teachings as being any more universally applicable; only that his
words are his own and he has lived in our time......

B