|
The ancient Indian SANCTUM
In ancient
India, SANCTUM was called Atman (Buddhist Atta) and Brahman, to wit. the
suchness of wholeness (i.e. completion, fullness, @1’ness and so on). Eventually
Ataman was conceived as the Wholeness within (a sanctuary, i.e. within each
and every (particular) unit of identity (called a nama-rupa)); and Brahman
was conceived as Wholeness prior to (or beyond) sanctuary (i.e. unit of
identity), i.e. undifferentiated Wholeness, etc., etc. Dropping
identity (that is to say, unit of identity status, i.e. nama-rupa) revealed
that ‘Atman is Brahman’. The Buddhist
anatta sutta attempts to explain the need
for letting go of the sanctuary wall (i.e. unitised identity, both virtual
and actual, i.e. nama-rupa). It states that identity (nama-rupa, to wit, the
sanctuary wall) is an’atta, i.e. not atta, to wit, not Atman and not Brahman. The notion
that true (because final, hence ending stopping or halting) goal of
pilgrimage should be Atman-Brahman (i.e. SANCTUM), i.e. because the latter
does not change or decay, hence cause suffering, was invented by ‘burnt out’
wealthy farmer’s sons. They laid out their case in the earliest Upanishads. Alas, though
they may have got the goal right, they got the (fundamentally escapist) means
to it badly wrong, just like the ‘burnt out’ (i.e. of the household life)
Shakyamuni Buddha did later on, and who appears to
have pinched both his goal and his understanding from the Upanishads. The
Shakyamuni appears to have bungee jumped into SANKTUM/Atta, later describing
the affect on him as having achieved samma sambodhi (and which he never
explained in fine detail). Later on he created a gradual and safe means of attaining Atta,
namely the 4 Jhanas (meditation method).
|