Anatman

I am aware that I have since "abandoned" this blog. The reason was not that I have forgotten it, but I was trying to figure out how Anatman-- the negation of the concept of "Self"-- is relavent in my life.

I really can't say I managed to reconcile Anatman and my belief of a Creator-God, but here I am, trying....

So, from what I know about Anatman from the Buddhist tradition is that there is really no notion of a Self (note the capital "s"). This Buddhist notion, according to my religious studies Prof who is a scholar of Buddhism, was initally mentioned by the historical Buddha and his disciples to rebuke the Hindu belief of Atman, the Self. Depending on which Hindu tradition different people are from, the have different ideas of how this Atman relates to the Brahman, the essence of the Universe, or God, in a general sense.

Having understood how this Anatman-no Self- notion came about, I began to wonder what exactly was the historical Buddha and his early disciples trying to convey to others who may want to follow the "middle way". Of course, I can't say for sure, since the historical Buddha is not here to confirm or disconfirm my speculations. I believe, since the Buddhist tradition is concerned with follwing the "middle way", they mustn't have insisted in the Absolute sense that there is no "Self" whatsoever. From what I know from the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha, the three Jewels of Buddhism, and later an important Buddhist figure, Nagarjuna, the notion of "Anatman" doesn't refer to nihilism, or the "nothing-ness"/ "nothing exists" philosophy. In consistence with the "middle way" followed by disciples of the Buddhist tradition, the historical Buddha and his disciples refers to Anatman more of as "emptiness". There is really no Self, in the sense that the essence of the universe, is always changing, in consistence with the notion of Anittya, Impermanence. In that sense, there is really no one Absolute constant existence of a Self called the Atman... However, since there are no Absolute of any kind in the Buddhist tradition, "something" or however you want to refer to the essence of the universe, does in fact exist. This "something", material or immaterial (I'm not really going into Existentialsm here), does actually "be" (for the fact that language has its limitations)....

If I can go from this general idea of what the Buddha might have meant by Anatman, I should be able to reconcile, afterall, my belief of a Creator-God and the notion of Anatman. The essence of the Universe, God, as I will refer it, is ("be"). And because of the idea of impermanence, there can be no Self.... because the "Self" is ever changing. There is, however, a self (small "s" here), which may be, part of or identical (depending on which perspective you come from) to the infinite essence of the Universe, God.

The historical Buddha has never mentioned anything about the notion of God, neither has he rejected the notion of God. Partly because for the historical Buddha, God or no God was really not his concern. He was only concerned about achieving the Awakening, to be out of the cycle of Samsara. Often, when he was asked about Existentialism and Theology, he would remain silent.

Well, as most institutions and/or a gathering of people, many different interpretations of the historical Buddha's decision to remain silent about such issues arise... and some become doctrine and is followed till this day. Who knows, really, what the historical Buddha actually believed.

I guess at the end of the day, it all boils down to the definition of Anatman and how people want to interprete it. As long as it gives them Life, I guess it's all right. However, Nagarjuna did say that the notion of "emptiness" is a tricky one to grasp. He warned that people should not see it as nihilism or "nothing-ness/ nothing exists" because that is equivalent to grabbing a snake the wrong way.... that thought will come back to "bite" you.

So, for me, I guess I can say that the Creator-God is ("be"), and Anatman also because the ESSENCE of the Universe, which is in humans, which is also "being" the Creator-God, is ever-changing. In that sense, I have reconciled my Eternal Creator-God and the Impermanent self. Sounds contradictory? Not really.... Ineffability, I would say.... Language really is limited...