At the heart of all dharmic philosophies lies the concept of the Self as non-existent. The concept is difficult to realize, especially for the Western mind that has long been schooled in the finality of platonic forms. Platonic forms suggest that all things are eternally that, neither changing nor ending. The Western mind rebels at the dharmic concept because, when taken at face value, it is seemingly a contradiction to what the mind knows of itself, primarily the certainty that it alone exists. It presents a paradox to Descartes' infamous assumption, cogito ergo sum ("I think, therefore, I exist"), which is part of the foundation of all Western sciences, philosophies and theologies. But the paradox only exists at the surface and the diligent student will resolve the paradox with deep reflection. In the dharmic philosophies, this reflection and eventual realization is known as enlightenment.

The purpose of this thread is a comparative analysis of the concept as it is presented in the various dharmic philosophies. Its meant for critical discussion. Its not meant for debate or prostylizing.


Buddhism, Self and Dharma Seals

According to Buddhism, there are three principles inherent in the concept of self and existence. Those three are: Anatta, Annica, and Dukkha. These are called the Dharma Seals or principles of conditioned existence. Annatta literally means anatman, or the antithesis of permanant self or soul (atman). In the principle of anatta, the atman does not exist. Taken by itself this principle seemingly stands in contrast with other Dharmic beliefs which hold that there is a permanant, unchanging essence which underlies and upholds all transient forms of existence. It also seems contradictory to any scientific notion that existence (taken here also to mean 'things' or 'beings in existence') is made up of fundamental particles. After all, even if the self is composed of smaller fundamental particles, it is, in nature, a composite thing. Anatta is not contradictory, however, to understand this, it must be understood in light of the other two principles of conditioned existence.

Annica is the impermanance of all things existing. Existence is in constant flux and no one thing, formed out of this force, remains what it was before. Thus, the state of the self is impermanant as it is constantly be formed by the force of being. Only action, itself not truly a thing but a force, exists. The third principle, Dukkha, teaches that suffering comes from our lack of understanding the true nature of our own existence, that is the principles embodied in Anatta and Annica.

This post has been edited by iwant2believe2: Apr 17 2008, 04:51 PM

Hinduism, Self and Brahman

In Hinduism, Brahman is the unchanging, absolute essence of all things. In Brahma, all things are and Brahma is in all things. There is no distinction. Distinction is the illusion of the mind as being separate from Brahma. According to the ancient Vedas (the sacred texts of the Hindus and of the oldest known written text in the world), "Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many. Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide. The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms." (Rig Veda)

Can the the Buddhist notion of Self (Anatta, impermanence of self) be reconciled with the Hindu concept of the changeless Brahman? It can with an understanding of the concept of Anicca (impermanence) and the nature of Brahman.

The attribute of Brahma is changeless but in the Upanishads its nature is referred to "unformed, immortal, moving." Thus, while the essential attribute of Brahman is changeless, this is the attribute of its fundamental nature, which is always in constant motion. In both Hinduism and Buddhism, it is this motion which gives rise to and sustains all created things. Yet, as Brahma is the universal force which is always in motion, that which it creates is always impermanent. The atman (self, soul, mind) is impermanent because its very nature, Brahma, is in constant flux (the Hindus call this 'rita' which signifies the dynamic, active force of the universe). Because the atman does not exist separately from Brahma, its very existence is said to be an illusion by both the Buddhist and the Hindu. The two fundamental concepts of Buddhism and Hinduism, Anatta and Brahma, are inherent inseparable.

The Buddhists believe that enlightenment comes from realizing the true nature of the impermanent self. Yet, inherent in this realization is the experience of the true self as inseparable from the changeless Brahma (All is One). This experience is what the Hindus call enlightenment.

Folks, if anyone has anything to add, please do...I'm just writing from my own understanding here...

Taoism, Self the Tao

Taoism, founded in China by the renowned philosopher, Lao Tzu, around 440 CE, literally means the 'way of the Tao' (pronounced 'dao'). Taoist describe the Tao as the universal force giving rise to and flowing through all existence. The Taoist describe it thusly and insist that it can not defined. The Tao can only be experienced. It is said of the Tao:

"Do not ask whether the Principle is in this or in that; it is in all beings. It is on this account that we apply to it the epithets of supreme, universal, total ... It has ordained that all things should be limited, but is Itself unlimited, infinite. As to what pertains to manifestation, the Principle causes the succession of its phases, but is not this succession. It is the author of cause and effects, but is not the causes and effects. It is the author of condensations and dissipations (birth and death, changes of state), but is not itself condensations and dissipations. All proceeds from It and is under its influence. It is all things, but is not identical with beings, for it is neither differentiated nor limited." (Chuang Tzu, The Book of Chang Tzu)

and

"The Tao that can be expressed is not the Eternal Tao. ... There is a thing, formless yet complete. Before heaven and earth it existed. We do not know its name, but we call it Tao. It is the Mystery of Mysteries." (Lao Tzu, Tao te Ching)

The Tao is similar in every respect to the Hindu Brahman. The forms which the Tao gives rise to, including the self, carries the same nature of the Buddhist Anatta. The attribute of the Tao is changeless in the nature and its nature is in constant flux. It is the dynamic force, same as the Hindu rita. To experience the self in all things is to experience the Tao and the Taoist call this enlightenment.

There is really no intellectual conceptualization of the Tao, for it can only be rightly known in the experience of it. The experience of the Tao is synonymous with the Tao itself. In this manner only can it be known. This is enlightenment. Buddhism refers to this synonymy as Dharmakaya. Briefly, like the Tao and the Brahman, dharmakaya is the ultimate true reality, unchanging in it attributes and constantly flowing in its nature. It can only be experienced. This is the Buddhist 'awakening'. The Taoist awakens by following the way of the Tao. That is to say, he/she experiences the Tao or Dharmakaya or Brahman. There is no difference or distinction.

Clearly Taoism, Hinduism and Buddhism all uphold the concept of anicca or the impermanence of being as intrinsic to all the manifestations of the ultimate force, Tao/Brahman/Dharmakaya, the attributes of which is changeless, absolute and unmanifest.

Non-Being is the term given to that from which Heaven and Earth sprang.
Being is the term given to the mother that rears all things . . . [Bodde]
The two are the same,
But after they are produced , they have different names. (Lao Tzu)

Though One, Brahman is the cause of the many.
Brahman is the unborn (aja) in whom all existing things abide. The One manifests as the many, the formless putting on forms. (Rig Veda)

The Dharmakaya, though manifesting itself in the triple world, is free from impurities and desires. It unfolds itself here, there and everywhere responding to the call of karma. It is not an individual reality, it is not a false existence, but is universal and pure. It comes from nowhere, it goes to nowhere; it does not assert itself, nor is it subject to annihilation. It is forever serene and eternal. It is the One, devoid of all determinations. This body of Dharma has no boundary, no quarters, but is embodied in all bodies. Its freedom or spontaneity is incomprehensible, its spiritual presence in things corporeal is incomprehensible. All forms of corporeality are involved therein, it is able to create all things. Assuming any concrete material body as required by the nature and condition of karma, it illuminates all creations. Though it is the treasure of intelligence, it is void of particularity. There is no place in the universe where this Body does not prevail. The universe becomes but this Body forever remains. (Avatamsaka Sutra)

This post has been edited by iwant2believe2: Apr 17 2008, 07:50 PM

Jainism, Self and Kevala Jñāna

Jainism is an Eastern Philosophy believed to have been established sometime around the 9th century BCE. However, it may be far older and contemporaneous with the Vedas. At first glance, the Jain affirmation of the atman (soul) seems contradictory to the Buddhist denial of atman. Yet, like the seeming paradox with the Hindu Brahman, the contradiction is merely superficial.

Jains believe that all things are the outward manifestation of the force. The force, like the Tao/Brahma/Dharmakaya, permeates all things. The force is eternal, omniscience and immutable. The Jiva, (life force), is present in all living things to various degrees. Its characteristics are consciousness and motion. Ajiva is that aspect of the force which is present in non-living, non-sentient things. While it possesses the characteristic of motion, it does not possess the characteristic of consciousness. The one attribute which abides in both the Jiva and Ajiva is that of motion. The 'motion' of both aspects of the force-jiva and ajiva-is akin to the same nature ascribed to the Tao/Brahman/Dharmakaya. Neither jiva nor ajiva exist without this motion. Essentially, both jiva and ajiva are states of being of the same immutable, eternal force.

In Jainism, the jiva (soul) is not understood to be the same thing as the self. The self, rather, arises out of the actions of the jiva. To liberate (moska) the soul from the self, the soul must practice śramaṇa (mortification or renunciation, or nirjara (“wearing away”)) in each cycle of rebirth until the ego (self) no longer remains. The liberated soul then is essentially one with the force. This state of being is called Kevala Jñāna. It is characterized by omniscience and infinite, perfect knowledge. Rightly, it is one-ness with the Tao. It is Brahmahood. It is Nirvana.

There is a common thread between each of the philosophies/religions. If I understand correctly, the essence of what we are is eternal but most of us are not aware of this part of us, our true self, but then "self" is contradictory here isn't it, It is this essence that is part of the life force that is everything, the various manifestations of that essence at any time is what we perceive as ourselves. When we become aware of the true nature of ourselves and...our existence, this is enlightenment. And the self that we have become, that we are aware of is what causes our suffering, at least greed, guilt, and so on. I wonder why it is that in the west we have lost touch with this. It seems intuitively right to me, even though I have not progressed very far in my path towards enlightenment. It just feels right. But i cant say why?
Sogyal Rinpoche says that many western people look at these concepts and cannot fathom how it works. Because the concepts are so unfamiliar to them and very counter intuitive with there upbringing, they simply choose to ignore it, or do not believe in it. Yet in the west we take for granted technologies that can send our images across the planet and into space, we can look inside our bodies with technology. We are surrounded by miracles everywhere. Yet we take all this for granted. He then said by contrast, if a humble Buddhist villager was to travel to New York, he would feel like he was living in a miracle, that he would have no understanding of the marvels of technology he has not seen. Yet, simple concepts for the villager such as the principles outlined above, are principles that the villager has grown up with, that he can see and feel in his everyday life, they make sense to him. It is easy to believe, because his life is part of the constant struggle for enlightenment.
Another thing Sogyal Rinpoche said was that he cannot understand why we feel such a fear of death, yet don't want to understand that that is eternal in us. Buddhist train all there life to understand life and death, and it is this understanding that helps them not fear death in the same way we do in the west. I recommend a book called The Tibetan Book of living and dying, it is a really good book to read and not at all confronting. and is very helpful in not so much becoming a Buddhist, but helping to understand what Buddhist believe.
I wonder if the similarities between them were seperately discovered truths, or if historically there is a connection between the three. Gautam Budhah received enlightenment and founded Budhism, yet this is so similar to the Hindu faith. Could he have had a previous knowledge of the Hindu faith? Or were they truly separate in origin?

There certainly is a common thread, Dundee. I wonder, too, if the thread is common because those philosophies evolved from similar cultures or if those masters arrived at universal truths because they are, in fact, universal and inherently known in every human conscious? I like to believe that latter and feel that there is some merit to it because we do know that archetypes are universal. If archetypes can be universal and passed along the collective human psyche through some latent process, why can't truths be passed along as well?

One minor discrepancy that I have noted between Buddhism and Jainism is that the former does not acknowledge any permanency of self even if embodied in the Jain concept of soul (as opposed to ego self). The discrepancy seems to be somewhat resolved with Hinduism and even more so with Taoism. They seem to be the at the middle of the road so to speak. Yet, I think, with careful reflection even the Buddhist notion of impermanent self can be reconciled with the Jain notion of permanent soul. What I mean by careful reflection is that there seems to be a hidden layer of truth here not yet uncovered. I believe that both the Buddhist and the Jain are correct. One needs only to comprehend what is really being communicated. Its a matter for meditation. I'll return to it.

As always Tutu I am in awe at the elegance of your writing. I look forward to what you have to say next, it is all quite thought provoking.

Our western impatient ways often seem to get in the way of our spiritual progress. We want always to have results quickly and not be willing to wait for things. I know many of us have had experiences in meditation and our individual practices that have had...tangible effects. Or perhaps had some effect that was noticeable greater than perhaps what we would expect without the individual practice. I know many of these experiences are very personal and not something that some may want to share, also what works for one, may not necessarily work for another. But would it be appropriate here for us to post any experience we have had in our various meditations that we feel has either had some benefit, or that has had some effect that has had an impact on us. I know myself there are so many ways to meditate depending on what philosophy you are studying, and it can be very difficult finding what works for us. For me, some methods have had very little apparent benefit, but others have had quite a profound effect. Would this help perhaps if we were willing to share these experiences so that others can try what has worked for another? Or is this out of context do you think. I would be happy to post some of my experiences if it is appropriate here?

I realize that most if not all of what we have talked about here are meant to be studied over a life time. That is not a band aid fix that has some end point where you say. Well I have done it now. But it is always nice to feel that we are getting somewhere. I guess with the benefit of a master practitioner our progress could be aided, and pitfalls avoided. But not all have the opportunity to have the benefit of a spiritual leader. Perhaps we can help to lead each other.
What do you think, or am I going off track here (i do that you know )

This post has been edited by Dundee: Apr 19 2008, 05:36 AM

Thank you

Dundee, I think you're quite right, again. Studying a thing is necessary but meditating brings deeper understanding. Many of us feel so overwhelmed and lost in a maze of half-hidden truths that we give up long before we've truly begun. We long for teachers, guides, masters, mediators between us and what we feel lies beyond that great abyss that we seem unable to cross. I find it comforting, though, that wisdom is timeless and the abyss just an illusion. The masters are gone but their words still speak to us. Einstein is dead but the great physicists still study under him. So it is among those whom even Einstein spoke of in awe.

Allright… This thread is about “Dharmic philosophies”, but 22 started to compare several beliefs (to wit, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism), and so, I can’t resist the urge to give you this thought to ponder over…

Let me tell you about Inpu (or Anpu). During funerary rituals, Inpu is seen standing by the side of the mummy of Usiri, bent over his heart.

In the duty of conducting the souls of the dead out of the Underworld and into the kingdom of Usiri, Inpu is almost always portrayed as a Black dog (a black jackal), and he then bears the name of Ap-uat, i.e., the Opener of the Ways, or more precisely the Opener of Doors, as he is represented wearing a necklace with four keys attached to it. The four keys that will help him open the doors of the Other World, the World that lies Beyond (this One) - namely, the Kingdom of Usiri.

In the Chapel of Dayr al-Baḥrī, the representation of Inpu clearly refers to the mutation of the deceased before the soul reaches its solar eternity. This emanation of a deceased almost exclusively refers to a transition, a passage, or the exact moment when someone is about to be born.

And the evidence that it was a ritual of passage lies in the fact that the statue of the Black Dog is always seen with its neck protected by a long, linen shawl. This 'shawl' is the representation of the deceased, and its title is Tepy-dju-ef, that is (he/she) who is on the mountain.

The deceased clearly identified with Inpu – in a mutating state – is also found in the Valley of Queens: First, in tomb No. 40, then in the tomb of Nofretari (the Regal spouse of Ramses II), and finally in the sepulchre of Bent-Anat, the eldest daughter and wife of Ramses II.

During the Isiac rituals, adopted by the Romans, the Emperor could be seen wearing a dog-headed mask. And thus Inpu reached the Occident…

.................................

I’m sure you have translated the Egyptian words I used into English. Yes, you’re right! Inpu stands for Anubis; Usiri for Osiris.

Now, does it not ring a bell? Did you guess the name of the Patron Saint Inpu was the prototype of?

You may think I’ve strayed far from the thread topic, but in fact this Egyptian ritual was close to some Hinduistic śradda, and notably the ritual of passage described in the Akampanaśāstra.

I hope my intruding upon this thread have not bothered you too much...

Corde anímoque,
Allison

Replying to Alison, since the quote function at AU seems to have gone Haywire due to a firewall??


It is amazing how it all ties together, from so many places so distant apart. I would be quite a study to compare these in time and geography to see if the similarities in ritual and beleif are from the influence of travelers, or if they were as 22 said, "those masters arrived at universal truths because they are, in fact, universal and inherently known in every human conscious?"
And Alison, I am sure I speak for everyone when I say your posts are not only welcome but always a constant source of learning that we all anxiously wait to read.
I was going to PM you but I think it should be said out loud. You have a wonderful way of teaching us all something, without confrontation, without making anyone who may have previously been in error feel silly. Your post seem always to have an air of mystery that brings out the wonder of a topic. You would have to be the least confrontational poster I have ever seen
I am sure you are welcome in any and all threads.

Hey folks...I've been working so I won't be able to comment until later but just at first glance, allison, that's fascinating...I do have a lot to say on it

Just can't wait to read what you've to say, 22

Well, I don't have nearly so much to say as I first thought..for it does not surprise me that the Egyptian culture would have adapted some of the IVC philosophy. It seems that universal themes provide common ground to sow even the seeds of divergent beliefs.

I've compared the major strains in Eastern Philosophy concerning the Self, excluding only that of Sikhism for it is largely theological. It is a monotheistic religion which holds a belief in Vahiguru, or the Universal God. However, it is interesting to note that this theology owes much to its philosophical counterparts. Sikhism contends that Vahiguru is without conceptualization in human thought except through what each individual conceives Vahiguru to be. At its most basic essence, Vahiguru is the Universe itself. This idea is harmonious with the dharmic philosophies even though Sikhism is a religion.

The central thought underpinning all is that "there is a thing, formless yet complete." The Buddhist call it Dharmakaya, the Hindus Brahman, the Taoist the Tao and the Jain Kevala Jnana. It is not a 'thing' in the concrete sense of the word. Rather, it is a state of being characterizing things in existence. A thing at one with the Tao, in other words in this state of being, is said by the Buddhist to experience non-being because there is no concept of 'I', i.e. Self, apart from this. In this respect, the Self is said to cease to exist. But is there a part of the being which is eternal, infinite and omnipresent? Many philosophies contend that there is. They call this the Soul. When the Soul is liberated from the egotistic Self, it is at one with the Tao. Without Soul, there could be no state of being. There would be nothing for the Tao, the Dharmakaya or Brahman to characterize. Existence simply would not be.

The dharmas teach that the ego Self is burdened with desires and needs. This brings sorrow and pain to the Soul. When the Soul is liberated from the Self, there is no anguish or despair. 'I' is the nature of the Self and it cares only for that which it desires, it suffers only for that which it lacks and despairs for that which it loses. But the Soul is the antithesis of the Self. It cares nothing for itself because there is no concept of 'I'. It thinks outwardly only, in perfect compassion for things.

The hardest thing for the Self to do is to cast its thoughts away from itself. The Self resists because not only does this cause the Self much suffering, it also causes it certain death. The more outwardly it thinks, the more it ceases to regard itself, the more it ceases to exist. The ultimate sacrifice, then, is putting to death the Self. Here the Soul is liberated from the Self and is at one with the Tao. This is Nirvana.

This post has been edited by iwant2believe2: Apr 23 2008, 10:44 AM