When we meditate, we engage with the
kind of practice and experience from which the rishis derived the "Atman is
Brahman" teaching and the Buddha derived the "anatta" teaching, although the
latter was backed up with philosophical analysis and argument. Thus:
practice and experience are more basic
than teachings;
teachings are guides to meditative practice, as Marxist theory is a guide to political practice;
both experiences and teachings derived from them differ.
teachings are guides to meditative practice, as Marxist theory is a guide to political practice;
both experiences and teachings derived from them differ.
However, we can synthesise apparently
contradictory teachings. "Atman is Brahman" means that each individual soul is
identical with the transcendent whereas "anatta" means that there are no
individual souls. However, the Upanishadic teaching can mean instead that each
individual self is identical with the one universal self whereas the Buddhist
teaching can mean that there are no separate selves. In that case, the teachings
agree.
Buddhists do not refer to a universal
self and rightly if this were taken to mean that the universe is a single
person. However, it need only mean that the universe is conscious of itself
through many individual selves and this formulation is consistent with
materialism.
No comments:
Post a Comment