|
The Tathagata’s reasoning
The Tathagata
does not begin his argument for escaping from this (world = death1)
by focusing on the whole person. Rather, he argues that the 5 parts (or
functions) of a whole person are not the ‘I am (real)’ or atta (i.e. the original ‘I am real’, sometimes translated as ‘self’) of that
person. He suggests
that the five functions (i.e. the formations or appearances of the material
body, sensations, perceptions, mental actions and consciousness) are not the
‘I am’, not the atta, because they are not one’s own (i.e. they are not
subject to one’s control) and because they are not permanent, both ‘causes’
(i.e. dependencies) leading to the response of dukkha (i.e. of displeasure or
suffering).2 What the Tathagata
is proposing is that there is an ‘I am real’ (or atta), but that the
self-representations of the person, namely the 5 functions, are not the ‘I am
real’ or the atta. In short, the five functions experienced by the person as
‘I am’ are merely transient and
decaying surface (rather than sub-) functions (i.e. like clothes) arising
from conditions (i.e. from circumstances) and therefore constitute a false ‘I
am (real)’. And it’s clinging to that false ‘I am (real)’, false because one
doesn’t own it (i.e. its constituents) and it is inconstant, that leads to
dukkha. The
Tathagata’s solution to escaping completely from the unpleasant, i.e.
completely for professionals (i.e. wandering beggars) and ‘as needed’ by
occasional home users, is simple to understand (in principle) but difficult
to achieve in practice. The basic idea (regularly demonstrated by
schizophrenics) is to disown (i.e. dissociate from) the 5 (surface, operating
as clothes or cosmetics) functions that make up the person (i.e. her persona),
then to discard them (completely or ‘as needed’). The Tathagata
proposes (using the onion method) that with the elimination of the five
functions, the false (i.e. illusory, i.e. superficial) ‘I am (real)’ will
become extinguished (as nirvana),
leaving, as he suggests, vaguely, the original ‘I am (real)’ (or atta, and
which he never defines) free from dukkha (i.e. the unpleasant, pain,
suffering and so on). In short,
whereas the common folk believe, “Clothes
(i.e. the five surface, i.e. self-elaboration) functions) maketh (indeed are3) the woman”, the Tathagata proposes: “Clothes (i.e. the five functions) maketh
not (i.e.
are not) the
woman.” The true ‘I am’ (hence atta) of the
(false) woman (or any false ‘I am’) remains (and it is not stated if what
remains can be recognised as, hence is, a woman) if and when she sheds her
clothes (i.e. the 5 surface (or local interface) functions), that is to say,
when she returns to prior to self-elaboration (i.e. prior to origination),
called the deathless (because not born subject to conditions). The flawed onion method
1.
The Tathagata equated life (understood by him as a temporarily arisen (from
temporary conditions) surface phenomenon) with death. His goal was the deathless (Pali: amata). He
explains: “Ràdha, matter is death. Feelings, perceptions, mental formations,
and consciousness are death. Ràdha,
the learned noble disciple, realizing this, turns from matter. Turns from
feelings, perceptions, intentions, and consciousness. Turning, he looses
interest and is released. Released, he knows, ‘I (‘I’??, what ‘I’?) am
released, birth is destroyed, the pure life is lived to the end, the deed is
done and I (?) have nothing more to wish’.”
For the Tathagat’s complete view on life = death read the whole 8 characteristics sutta 2.
Obviously, neither
proposition stands up to scrutiny. It is likely that this sutta was invented
later as a Home Edition version of his means (read: dhamma) suitable for
village use. 3.
For ‘are’ read: are
real, i.e. make the woman feel real. The sense of realness derives form the
degree of concentration (hence de-relativisation) applied by the woman. In
short, realness too happens as a surface function, something neither the
Tathagata nor the inventors of the Upanishads understood. 4.
The argument resented
to his fellow wandering beggars (i.e. the Professional Edition) was quite
different. See: The fuzz word ‘atta’ See: The fuzz word dhamma
|