Anatman II

I was just doing some reading for my Religious Studies class and I came across some passages about Anatman... I thought to share one in this entry. This particular passage is really just an explanation of anatman. It somehow leads to some spectulations I had about my "reconciliation" of the Creator-God notion and the Buddhist idea of Anatman. Read on:

"Buddhists believe, in fact, that the impermanence of things is a function of their insubstantiality. All persons and things, because dependently originated, are devoid of independent, substantial identities. In this sense, they are said to lack 'selves' or to be essentially marked by the characteristic of 'non-self' (anatman)..." (Gimello 67).

From this passage, "dependently originated" alludes to an origin of some kind. This, if I may take it to mean "created out of something". It is then highly possible for me to reconcile a belief of a Creator-God to this notion of anatman. Anatman is a characteristic or one of the 3 marks of existence, and *not* Reality itself... A belief in a Creator-God can still fit into this framework.

This next sentence on the idea of Anitya (Impermanence), the second mark of existence can further explain what I mean:

"the notion of impermanence, though no substitute for the claimed reality thereof, does inform the Buddhist's mystical experience of reality" (Gimello 66).

This sentence, to me at least, is very clear on the point that the notion of impermanence is *not* equivalent to Reality itself, but it is used as a source for understanding the reality, an instrument of some kind, if you will.

Well, I don't really have a point to make here, but just to clarify my ideas on Anatman that I wrote on my previous entry. Just to give some more information about the marks of existence, since this is what my blog is about.