|
Buddhism in a nutshell
Or Buddhism for nuts
In the thirties of last century, the great English economist and
bodhisattva, John Maynard Keynes, restated the one foundational observation of
Buddhism, namely: ‘In the long run we are all dead’,the
Buddhist variant being, anicca ≈ nothing lasts (ergo, all dharmas ≈
appearances (including both nirvanas and the whole Buddha dharma) are anatta ≈
i.e. without atta, the term atta possibly meaning: abiding essence or
substance1 (sometimes, and wrongly interpreted to mean ‘a
permanent self’). Two fundamental responses (and/or n relative responses) to this
understanding are possible. The early (i.e. the little vehicle) and middle,
i.e. grand vehicle) phase Buddhist – the out and out escapists – reasoned
that because nothing lasts (i.e. because the bottle is half empty2),
it ain’t worth getting started (i.e. being born or reborn, or starting to
drink). And if already started, it is smart to shut down and stay shut down,
shut down (i.e. quiescence) being equated with one of two possible Nirvanas. Later, end phase (i.e. tantric) Buddhists and most
sane people not given to enjoying ascetic pursuits, reasoned that one might
as well savour and enjoy life to the full before shutting down. O.k. ‘It doesn’t last’,
so don’t get attached, ’cause if you do you’ll get hurt’. Which
is quite silly. After all, just because a
motorcar (or the boyfriend) gets old, wears out and is finally scrapped –
before or after you are scrapped – is no reason not to buy, use and enjoy it. All the rest of Buddhism, for instance its advice on morality and
ethics as taught by the five major schools and dozens of minor sects, is
merely populist window dressing, that is to say, a means of ingratiating oneself
with the local warlord by supporting his social engineering programs – thus legitimising
him, and for which generous donations were received. 1 … The Tathagata’s opinion, namely that ‘If it does’nt last it ain’t real’ (i.e. is without
substance or essence), may have been politically correct (or fashionable) in
his time (i.e. the era of the Upanishads, its new escapist (to wit, the Jivamukta)
philosophy and the trend to asceticism and naked walkabouts). Like his contemporaries,
the Tathagata failed to define the notion of essence or substance (read: atta
or atman), save that its popert should be that ‘it should last’. That essence or substance could be quantised
and momentary (to wit, as in the unique affect of an act) was apparently
never considered by the Tathagata since that would, no doubt, have voided the
meta-physical component of his dharma. It is of course possible, indeed, probable
(so Nagarjuna) that the metaphysical component (the Tathagata’s anatta theory) was a later add-on that served
to bring the original dharma (i.e. of ‘calm, cool down and you’ll hurt less’)
up to speed (and popularity) with the metaphysical speculations of the
Upanishads. In this regard see The 3 Characteristics
Sutta 2 … Later
middle phase Buddhist scholiasts, such as Nagarjuna, opined that all bottles (generalise
the notion of bottles to mean: samsara, to wit, the whole of
life) are always completely empty (Sanskrit: sunja), as are all drinkers –
and the drink itself, wherefore drinking (and its joyfully stressful (Sanskrit:
sukkha) enjoyment and the distressful (Sanskrit: dukkha) hangover afterwards)
couldn’t really happen, save in the experience of the ignorant.
not at hhome. Next
|