[Buddha-l] Re: Was Buddha a Buddhist

[David Kotschessa]

--- Benito Carral <bcarral at kungzhi.org> wrote:

> On Tuesday, May 23, 2006, Blumenthal, James wrote:
> 
> > When  I  said that he was radical even in the
> context
> > of  the sramana movement, I was thinking primarily
> of
> > the doctrines of anatman and impermanence. While
> many
> > sramanas  were focussing their practices on
> realizing
> > their  true  atman  in  order to find some union
> with
> > Brahman [...]
> 
>    Is  there  any  real  difference  there?  I'm 
> quite
> convinced that the Old Indian Guy didn't teach
> anything
> revolutionary--I see him more like a pragmatic.
> 
>    There  was not only a kind of forest wanderers.
> Some
> of  them  wanted to unite their atman with Brahma,
> some
> of  them  don't.
> 
>    I  think  that  the  Buddha  just taught a
> different
> approach, "Do you want to unite your atman with
> Brahma?
> Well,  show  me your atman and I will show you
> Brahma,"
> "Do  you  want  to  remain  skeptical?  I will give
> you
> skepticism."
> 
>    I  think  that  the Abhidhammic tradition
> devolped a
> whole  radical  and illogical system in order to
> find a
> solid place in the Indian spiritual market.
> 
>    Then  some  latter  traditions as Chan recovered
> the
> full   atman/Brahman   approach,  "Discover  your 
> true
> luminous nature."
> 
>    Best wishes,
> 
>    Beni


I have heard it argued that Buddhas an-atman was not
really so much a philosophical argument, but a
reaction to some of the brahmanic craziness that had
escalated during his time.  Allegedly, according to
this poster (whose post I cannot now find) there were
folks who were physically looking for the tiny self
located in the body.  This obsession (attachment)
required a cure, which Dr. Gotama graciously provided
with anatman.

When I read the Upanishads, I believe that I am
reading mythology, and that the "self" they speak of
is just a vehicle they used for liberation, as is the
"Brahma" they were seeking to unite with.  I don't
even see a conflict with Buddhist practice, just a
more flowery language.  

The authors of any mythology know that what they are
writing is fiction, poetry, allegory and so forth. 
After they die off, what they leave behind is probably
first read as it it was intended, then begins to lose
it's fictive qualities over time.   If it's still
around for a few thousand years it will become
religion to many people.

I believe that the Buddha cut through the mythology,
cut through the poetry, and tried to get right to the
heart of of the matter.  As far as I'm concerned, self
or no-self, it's the same thing.



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com