Η άποψη του "Ορθόδοξου" Βουδισμού για τη ψυχή

229. Q. Does Buddhism teach the immortality of the soul?

A. It considers "soul" to be a word used by the ignorant to express a FALSE idea. If every thing is subject to change, then man is included, and every MATERIAL part of him must change. That which is subject to change is not permanent: so there can be no immortal survival of a CHANGEFUL thing.

230. Q. What is so objectionable in this word 'soul'?

A. The idea associated with it that man can be an entity separated from all other entities, and from the existence of the whole of the Universe. This idea of separateness is unreasonable, not provable by logic, NOR SUPPORTED BY SCIENCE.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Η άποψη του "Αιρετικού" Βουδισμού για τη ψυχή

To avoid the suffering implicit in questions of "self" and "other," he offered an alternative way of dividing up experience: the four Noble Truths of stress, its cause, its cessation, and the path to its cessation. Rather than viewing these truths as pertaining to self or other, he said, one should recognize them simply for what they are, in and of themselves, as they are directly experienced, and then perform the duty appropriate to each. Stress should be comprehended, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the path to its cessation developed. These duties form the context in which the anatta doctrine is best understood. If you develop the path of virtue, concentration, and discernment to a state of calm well-being and use that calm state to look at experience in terms of the Noble Truths, the questions that occur to the mind are not "Is there a self? What is my self?" but rather "Am I suffering stress because I'm holding onto this particular phenomenon? Is it really me, myself, or mine? If it's stressful but not really me or mine, why hold on?" These last questions merit straightforward answers, as they then help you to comprehend stress and to chip away at the attachment and clinging the residual sense of self-identification that cause it, until ultimately all traces of self-identification are gone and all that's left is limitless freedom.

In this sense, the ANATTA TEACHING IS NOT A DOCTRINE OF NO-SELF, BUT A NOT-SELF STRATEGY for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self FALL ASIDE. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self? (Thanissaro Bhikkhu)

////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Τι είπε ο Βούδας

1η περίπτωση)
"Then the wandering monk Vacchagotta went to where the Exalted One was staying. When he had come near him, he saluted him. When saluting him, he had interchanged friendly words with him, he sat down beside him. Sitting beside him the wandering monk Vacchagotta spake to the Exalted One, saying: 'How does the matter stand, venerable Gotama, is there the Ego?'

"When he said this, the Exalted One was silent.

"'How then, venerable Gotama, is there not the Ego?'

"And still the Exalted One maintained silence. Then the wandering monk Vacchagotta rose from his seat and went away.

"But the venerable Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta had gone to a distance, soon said to the Exalted One:

"'Wherefore, sire, has the Exalted One not given an answer to the questions put by the wandering monk Vacchagotta?'

"'If I, Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked me: "Is there the Ego?" had answered: "The Ego is," then that, Ananda, would have confirmed the doctrine of the Samanas and Brahmanas who believe in permanence. If I, Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked me: "Is there not the Ego?" had answered: "The Ego is not," then that, Ananda, would have confirmed the doctrine of the Samanas and Brahmanas who believe in annihilation. If I, Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked me: "Is there the Ego?" had answered: "The Ego is," would that have served my end, Ananda, by producing in him the knowledge: all existences are non-Ego?'

"'That it would not, sire.'

"'But if I, Ananda, when the wandering monk Vacchagotta asked me: "Is there not the Ego?" had answered: "The Ego is not," then that, Ananda, would only have caused the wandering monk Vacchagotta to be thrown from one bewilderment into another: "My Ego, did it not exist before? but now it exists no longer!"'"

2η περίπτωση)
"The venerable Malukya comes to the Master, and expresses his astonishment that the Master's discourse leaves a series of the very most important and deepest questions unanswered. Is the world eternal or is it limited by bounds of time? Does the Perfect Buddha live on beyond death? Does the Perfect One not live on beyond death? It pleases me not, says the monk, that all this shall remain unanswered and I do not think it right; therefore I am come to the Master to interrogate him about these doubts. May it please Buddha to answer them if he can. 'But when anyone does not understand a matter and does not know it, then a straightforward man says: I do not understand that, I do not know that.'

"We see: the question of the Nirvana is brought before Buddha by that monk as directly and definitely as could ever be possible. And what answers Buddha? He says in his Socratic fashion, not without a touch of irony, 'What have I said to thee before now, Malukyaputta? Have I said, Come, Malukyaputta, and be my disciple; I shall teach thee whether the world is everlasting or not everlasting, whether the world is finite or infinite, whether the vital faculty is identical with the body or separate from it, whether the Perfect One lives on after death or does not live on, or whether the Perfect One lives on and at the same time does not live on after death, or whether he neither lives on nor does not live on?'

"'That thou hast not said, Sire.'

"'Or hast thou,' Buddha goes on, 'said to me: I shall be thy disciple, declare unto me, whether the world is everlasting or not everlasting, and so on?'

"This also must Malukya answer in the negative.

"'If a man,' Buddha proceeds, 'were struck by a poisoned arrow, and his friends and relatives called in a skilful physician, what if the wounded man said: "I shall not allow my wound to be treated until I know who the man is by whom I have been wounded, whether he is a noble, a Brahman, a Vaicya, a Cudra"--or if he said: "I shall not allow my wound to be treated until I know what they call the man who has wounded me, and of what family he is, whether he is tall or small or of middle stature, and how his weapon was made with which he has struck me." What would the end of the case be? The man would die of his wound.'

"Why has Buddha not taught his disciples, whether the world is finite or infinite, whether the saint lives on beyond death or not? Because the knowledge of these things does not conduce to progress in holiness, because it does not contribute to peace and enlightenment. What contributes to peace and enlightenment, Buddha has taught his own: the truth of suffering, the truth of the origin of suffering, the truth of the path to the cessation of suffering. 'Therefore, Malukyaputta, whatsoever has not been revealed by me, let that remain unrevealed, and what has been revealed, let it be revealed.'"

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Συγκρίνοντας τις απόψεις του ορθόδοξου κ' αιρετικού βουδισμού, παρατηρούμε ότι μόνο η άποψη του αιρετικού βουδισμού συμβαδίζει με αυτά που είπε πραγματικά ο Βούδας. Ο Βούδας καν δεν ασχολήθηκε με τις διάφορες θεωρίες πάνω στην υπόσταση του ανθρώπου, αλλά τον ενδιέφερε μόνο η αντιμετώπιση του πόνου και της δυστυχίας. Αντιθέτως, παρατηρούμε ότι ο ορθόδοξος βουδισμός προχωρεί σε τρομερές διατυπώσεις και δόγματα, θεωρώντας τη ψυχή όχι μόνο παροδική αλλά και υλική. Επίσης, προσπαθεί να αφουγκραστεί την "ορθόδοξη" επιστήμη για να κερδίσει τη συμπάθεια μέσω της "επιστημολαγνείας". Όμως ο Βούδας πότε δεν είπε ότι η ψυχή δεν είναι άυλη και δεν υπάρχει, απλώς ποτέ δεν ασχολήθηκε με τις διάφορες βραχμανικές θεωρίες - αν υπάρχει ή όχι, πως είναι η ψυχή, ποια είναι η υπόστασή της κτλ.

Έπειτα ο περιπλανώμενος μοναχός Βαχαγκότα κατευθύνθηκε εκεί όπου ο Φωτισμένος(Βούδας) διέμενε. Όταν έφθασε κοντά του, τον χαιρέτησε. Αφού τον χαιρέτησε και αντάλλαξε φιλικές κουβέντες μαζί του, κάθησε κάτω πίσω απ' αυτόν. Καθήμενος πίσω του, ο περιπλανώμενος μοναχός Βαχαγκότα μίλησε στον Φωτισμένο, λέγοντας :

"Τι ισχύει σεβάσμιε Γκαουτάμα, υπάρχει το Εγώ;"

Όταν είπε αυτό, ο Φωτισμένος παρέμεινε σιωπηλός.

"Πως λοιπόν, σεβάσμιε Γκαουτάμα, δεν υπάρχει το Εγώ;"

Και τώρα ακόμη, ο Φωτισμένος κράτησε τη σιωπή. Έπειτα ο περιπλανώμενος μοναχός Βαχαγκότα σηκώθηκε από τη θέση του και έφυγε μακρυά. Αλλά ο σεβάσμιος Ανάντα, όταν ο περιπλανώμενος μοναχός Βαχαγκότα είχε απομακρυνθεί σε κάποια απόσταση, είπε σύντομα στον Φωτισμένο :

"Γιατί, Κύριε, ο Φωτισμένος δεν έχει δώσει μια απάντηση στις ερωτήσεις που τέθηκαν από τον περιπλανώμενο μοναχό Βαχαγκότα;"

"Εάν εγώ, Ανάντα, όταν ο περιπλανώμενος μοναχός Βαχαγκότα με ρώτησε "Υπάρχει το Εγώ;" είχα απαντήσει : "Υπάρχει το Εγώ" τότε αυτό, Ανάντα, θα είχε επιβεβαιώσει το δόγμα των Σαμάνων και των Βραχμάνων, που πιστεύουν στη μονιμότητα. Εάν εγώ, Ανάντα, όταν ο περιπλανώμενος μοναχός Βαχαγκότα με ρώτησε "Δεν υπάρχει το Εγώ;" είχα απαντήσει : "Δεν υπάρχει το Εγώ", τότε αυτό, Ανάντα, θα είχε επιβεβαιώσει το δόγμα των Σαμάνων και των Βραχμάνων, που πιστεύουν στo μηδενισμό."

"Εάν εγώ, Ανάντα, όταν ο περιπλανώμενος μοναχός Βαχαγκότα με ρώτησε 'Υπάρχει το Εγώ;' είχα απαντήσει : 'Υπάρχει το Εγώ', θα είχε εξυπηρετήσει αυτό το σκοπό μου, Ανάντα, μεταδίδοντας του τη γνώση : όλες οι υπάρξεις δεν είναι Εγώ;"

"Δεν θα μπορούσε, Δάσκαλε".

"Αλλά εάν εγώ, Ανάντα, όταν ο περιπλανώμενος μοναχός Βαχαγκότα με ρώτησε 'Δεν υπάρχει το Εγώ;' είχα απαντήσει : 'Δεν υπάρχει το Εγώ', τότε αυτό, Ανάντα, Θα είχε ως μόνο αποτέλεσμα να ρίξει τον περιπλανώμενο μοναχό Βαχαγκότα από τη μια σύγχυση στην άλλη : 'Το Εγώ μου δεν υπήρξε στο παρελθόν; Τώρα δεν υπάρχει άλλο πια;' "

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Παρατηρούμε λοιπόν πως διαφέρει η γνώμη του Γκαουτάμα, από τη γνώμη του "Ορθόδοξου" Βουδισμού, η οποία Ορθοδοξία προβαίνει σε ισχυρισμούς - ασπαζόμενη μάλιστα μια υλιστική επιστημονική θεώρηση για τη ψυχή. Αν η Ορθοδοξία είχε δίκιο, τότε ο Γκαουτάμα θα είχε απαντήσει ευθέως 'Όχι, δεν υπάρχει Εγώ ή Ψυχή'(όπως κάνει αυτή) και ίσως να είχε αναλύσει το γιατί. Όμως παραμέρησε αυτήν την ερώτηση, διότι τη θεώρησε λανθασμένη για την ιδεολογία και το σκοπό του.

ESOTERICA.gr Forums !

© 2010-11 ESOTERICA.gr