The Theosophists’ agenda was to create a new religion based on elements of Platonism, Hinduism, and Buddhism and pass it off as “the true spirituality of mankind”. — Apollodorus

I wouldn't be too cynical about that. At the time - late nineteenth century - culture was in a huge ferment, ideas from all over the world were becoming known, the whole world was being changed through the industrial revolution. Their motto was 'no religion higher than truth', and they tried to create a synthesis of these divergent ideas from other cultures. I was amazed to learn that one of the companies I worked for a couple of years back had its headquarters in Theosophy House in the most upmarket sections of Sydney (which is a decidedly up market city.) In the early part of last century they were a big popular movement. (Krishnamurti was supposed to walk on Sydney Harbour, an amphitheatre was built in the plush suburb of Mosman to witness the event - or non-event, as it turned out.)

So - I agree that Blavatsky might have been a charlatan, but I don't know if that is all she was. The Adyar Bookshop was an indispensable resource in my younger days (before the Internet) and I always had a soft spot for Theosophy even knowing they were dotty Victorians. I don't know much about the Fabian Society but they seem a respectable socialist organisation from what I can glean. They're not Q-ANON. I hadn't heard that theory about the CIA and the culture wars, but until I learn more about it, I'd be inclined to take it with a pretty large grain of 'conspiracy theory' salt. Besides, the Guardian article says the aim of the CIA subversion was Communist Russia, not Western culture, so it doesn't even support the point you're making.

Nothing can exist without identity. Buddhism may affirm that there is no self, but even if there is no self in the sense of a conscious soul, there is still a living entity with a personality and a physical and mental identity. — Apollodorus

I think there's a lot of misunderstanding within Buddhism itself about what 'no self' means. It does literally mean 'there is not a self'. When asked if the self exists or does not exist, the Buddha did not respond (maintained a noble silence, in the traditional telling.)

But when asked by on another occasion, “Venerable Gotama, I am one of such a doctrine, of such a view: ‘There is no self-doer, there is no other-doer’ the Buddha rejects such an idea, saying that 'when there is the element of initiating, initiating beings are clearly discerned'. The translator's comment is 'Some people might have expected the Buddha to have approved highly of this naïve negative doctrine (i.e 'no do-er'). The fact that he very succinctly and effectively refutes it is extremely instructive and of great significance for gaining a better understanding of the depth, subtlety, and holism of the Buddha’s actual teaching. Although the Buddha taught that there is no permanent, eternal, immutable, independently-existing core “self” (attā), he also taught that there is “action” or “doing”, and that it is therefore meaningful to speak of one who intends, initiates, sustains and completes actions and deeds, and who is therefore an ethically responsible and culpable being. It should be quite clear from its usage in this sutta, and from the argument of this sutta, that kāra in atta-kāra must be an agent noun, “doer, maker”: this is strongly entailed, for example, by the Buddha’s statement: “ārabbhavanto sattā paññāyanti, ayaṃ sattānaṃ attakāro ayaṃ parakāro”, “initiating beings are clearly discerned: of (such) beings, this is the self-doer, this, the other-doer”
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.038.niza.html#fn-1

So, nowhere is it said 'there is no self'. It is said all the time that 'nothing is self' (or alternatively that all phenomena are not self, devoid of self.) What is always denied is that there is a self that is 'permanent, eternal, immutable, independently-existing'. There is nothing, according to Buddhism, which answers that description. To anyone who says there is, the response is surely: well, show it to me! And that cannot be done. All that can be pointed to is a belief that there is such permanently existing immutable self.

But there nevertheless is 'a do-er', an agent who performs actions and suffers (or enjoys) the consequences. Hence,

And if you admit a "store-consciousness" for memory, you might as well admit a Universal Consciousness as Advaita Vedanta and Platonism do. — Apollodorus

The reality of the alayavijnana is not accepted by all Buddhist schools, and even by those that are, its nature is disputed (thus putting the claim that Buddhists don't engage in arcane metaphysical disputes to the sword.)

There's a fascinating stream within Buddhist thought called the tathāgatagarbha, literally the womb or embryo of the Tathagatha (Buddha). It is usually translated as 'Buddha-nature'. The key point is that the Buddha nature is also not conceived as something eternal, immutable and changless. Or rather, you could say it's changeless in the same sense that 'everything changes' is an unchanging principle. It's like a capacity, not like an unchanging entity.

Rather than try and summarise it, here are some sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

https://buddhanature.tsadra.org/index.php/Main_Page

The situation is not entirely clear. What is the source of this story? Did Buddha himself relate this to his followers? — Apollodorus

I think the doctrinal foundation is clear. What the Buddha is being 'tempted' by here is non-existence, oblivion. Knowing he is to die a painful death, Mara ('the Devil') whispers to Him saying, 'come on now, we can this over with very easily'. But the Buddha refuses, out of compassion for the Sangha. (On reflection, this of course anticipates the Bodhisattva vow.)

Bear in mind, all of the '64 wrong views' listed in the voluminous Brahmajala Sutta ('Net of Views') come down to one or another version of, either: 'I will be' (eternalism) or 'I will not be' (nihilism.) And at the root of that is always self-concern, even if in very subtle form.

Did Buddha himself relate this to his followers? Do enlightened people have visions of beautiful women trying to seduce them? Are beautiful women (or women in general) a problem? — Apollodorus

As an old man Gandhi used to lie in bed with naked young women who were decades younger than him. This, apparently was a celibacy test and an attempt to prove he was beyond temptation. Wanker...

Correct. I've read about it. It raised many eyebrows even at the time and there could be more to it than is "officially" acknowledged. But he preached that Western civilization is the "Kingdom of Satan" which made him the hero of the anti-Western Left ....

For several decades after his death, this episode was not widely known. Popular accounts of Gandhi’s life, including Richard Attenborough’s biopic, never mentioned it. The facts are that after his wife, Kasturba, died in 1944, Gandhi began the habit of sharing his bed with naked young women: his personal doctor, Sushila Nayar, and his grandnieces Abha and Manu, who were then in their late teens and about 60 years younger than him ...

How would Gandhi’s celibacy tests with naked women be seen today? - The Guardian

Gandhi would have women in his bed, engaging in his "experiments" which seem to have been, from a reading of his letters, an exercise in strip-tease or other non-contact sexual activity. Much explicit material has been destroyed but tantalising remarks in Gandhi's letters remain such as: "Vina's sleeping with me might be called an accident. All that can be said is that she slept close to me." One might assume, then, that getting into the spirit of the Gandhian experiment meant something more than just sleeping close to him ...

An odd kind of piety: The truth about Gandhi’s sex life - The Independent

Sharing a bed with naked teens is perhaps not the biggest problem. A bigger question is the exact nature of the "celibacy test", how it was conducted, and what results it yielded.

Also, how many of those "accidents" occurred?

And why was it necessary to keep repeating the "test" or "experiment"?

I agree that Blavatsky might have been a charlatan, but I don't know if that is all she was. The Adyar Bookshop was an indispensable resource in my younger days (before the Internet) and I always had a soft spot for Theosophy even knowing they were dotty Victorians. — Wayfarer

The Theosophists were consciously and deliberately concocting a new religion that they claimed to be inspired by "Tibetan Masters" portraits of whom show them as looking anything but Tibetan, with eyes strangely resembling Blavatsky's .... :smile:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophy#/media/File:Koothoomi.jpg

Of course, there was some truth in their teachings as they lifted them from existing traditions. So I'm not denying that.

The problem is, few people like to admit that they've been conned.

But the Theosophists weren't the key actors. That was the Fabians. The Fabian Society founded the British Labour Party as well having close links to the Liberal Party and thus dominating the Left (i.e., the intellectual classes) throughout the British Empire.

In 1951, the Fabians and Labour founded the Socialist International through which they set the agenda for the socialist movement across the globe. The fact that they wielded enormous political and cultural influence internationally - by any standard - should not be underestimated.

As I said, the culture war was against communism, but it was mainly directed at communism in the West (the CIA having no access to the Communist Bloc) and promoting "alternative" cultural trends obviously eroded traditional European culture. The way I see it, it would be difficult to argue that jazz, rock, and the rest of the New Age counterculture, especially the Eastern elements, was "Western".

I think the doctrinal foundation is clear. What the Buddha is being 'tempted' by here is non-existence, oblivion. Knowing he is to die a painful death, Mara ('the Devil') whispers to Him saying, 'come on now, we can this over with very easily'. — Wayfarer

Sure. But that still leaves some questions unanswered.

Anyway, the texts assert that the enlightened person sees that his/her consciousness has ceased, etc.
Who sees that? How do they see it? Who reports what they have seen and how?

This only makes sense if (a) the cessation is of a lower form of consciousness, and if (b) a higher form of consciousness persists after enlightenment.

Apparently, Buddhism originally posited two forms of consciousness, pravṛttivijñāna and manovijñāna:

1. pravṛttivijñāna – five sensory faculties
2. manovijñāna - “common sense” that integrates the activities of the 5 senses

But these were insufficient to explain all acts of cognition, sense of identity, etc. Therefore, the Yogacara School introduced additional forms of consciousness:

3. manasvijñāna - thought, sense of self
4. ālāyavijñāna - store consciousness, subconscious/uncounscious (memory, karmic seeds, etc.)
5. amalavijñāna - pure consciousness, state of awakening or enlightenment

It can be seen that these correspond to the states I mentioned earlier as found, for example, in Advaita Vedanta:

Waking State - pravṛttivijñāna, manovijñāna
Dream State – manasvijñāna
Deep (Dreamless) Sleep - ālāyavijñāna
Fourth State – amalavijñāna, pure individual consciousness

What is missing is the Universal Consciousness that holds all individual consciousnesses within itself in the same way the store consciousness holds memories and karmic seeds within itself in the case of the individual.

If the individual alone existed, the Fourth State would be final. But since there are many individual consciousnesses having common, integrated experiences, there must be a Universal Consciousness.

Therefore, a fifth and final state is posited:

1. Waking State (jāgrat) – sensory perception
2. Dream State (svapna) – thoughts, imagination
3. Deep Sleep (suṣupti) - unconscious
4. Fourth State (turīya) – pure individual consciousness
5. Beyond Fourth (turīyatītā) – Universal Consciousness

This brings Advaita into line with Platonism, with Buddhism lagging behind and some Buddhist schools not coming anywhere near.

Spiritual ignorance consists in lack of awareness of the Fourth and Beyond Fourth States.

In Platonic terms, Deep Sleep or Unconscious is the Dividing Line that separates "life in darkness" (the Cave) from "life in the light" (Sunlit Outside World).

Despite the Dividing Line, the two worlds are not completely separate, though. Some light from the Outside World does penetrate to the Cave and makes knowledge of it a possibility, however difficult to attain.

There are many forces antagonistic to Western culture, the Fabian Society and Theosophy must rank a pretty long way down the list. The real enemy is the the ascendancy of philosophical materialism which is a process that has developed over many centuries.

As for 'new age' beliefs, I think it's unwise to put them all in the same basket. They range from the obviously wacky to the profound. In fact I would include myself among its adherents, although I don't worship dolphins or crystals. I think the ecclesiastical religions, as I said already, had failed in crucial ways although going into why that was, is a huge topic in its own right. Suffice to say they put too much emphasis on believing and not enough on insight. (See Karen Armstrong's Metaphysical Mistake.)

This only makes sense if (a) the cessation is of a lower form of consciousness, and if (b) a higher form of consciousness persists after enlightenment. — Apollodorus

I don't think that is ever at issue.

Anyway, the texts assert that the enlightened person sees that his/her consciousness has ceased, etc.
Who sees that? How do they see it? Who reports what they have seen and how? — Apollodorus

Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." — Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta

The development of Advaita Vedanta was strongly influenced by Buddhism - Sankara was censured by some other Hindu schools for being too near to Buddhism. There are many resemblances between the early Buddhist texts and the Upaniṣads, which formed a part of their shared cultural heritage. Where the Buddha broke from the Brahmins was, first, in the total rejection of all forms of animal sacrifice; in the reliance on rites and rituals as methods of purification; on the birthrights of the Brahmins; and on the authority of the Vedas as the sole source of wisdom. I think the Buddha recognised a unique path and way of liberation. And also that study of the Pali texts reveals a consistency, clarity and unity of understanding that is of a higher order than those found in any of the other ancient literature.

All that said, I believe there is a higher consciousness - that there is a vertical scale as per this well-known diagram:




And if that makes me 'New Age' then so be it.

Suffice to say they put too much emphasis on believing and not enough on insight. (See Karen Armstrong's Metaphysical Mistake.) — Wayfarer

That's a little gem. I remember discovering Armstrong back when her History of God came out.

She makes a consistent case from the role of compassion in attaining enlightenment - not sure this has come up all that often so far. In her autobiography The Spiral Staircase she writes:

Compassion has been advocated by all the great faiths because it has been found to be the safest and surest means of attaining enlightenment. It dethrones the ego from the center of our lives and puts others there, breaking down the carapace of selfishness that holds us back from an experience of the sacred. And it gives us ecstasy, broadening our perspectives and giving us a larger, enhanced vision. As a very early Buddhist poem puts it: 'May our loving thoughts fill the whole world; above, below, across — without limit; a boundless goodwill toward the whole world, unrestricted, free of hatred and enmity.' We are liberated from personal likes and dislikes that limit our vision, and are able to go beyond ourselves." — Karen Armstrong

Ah, that’s the Metta Sutta. Thank you for the reminder.

I read both those books of Armstrong’s. I didn’t much like her book on Buddhism but overall she’s on my favourites list.

I remember I minor epiphany in my youth, crossing the Harbour Bridge on a bus. I suddenly saw that a lot of what bothered me was only me; that everyone else on that bus had exactly the same concerns. And that it really didn’t matter. It was just fleeting, not a big deal, but I remember it being a very liberating moment.

I think the ecclesiastical religions, as I said already, had failed in crucial ways — Wayfarer

The greatest problem seems to have been materialism. Economic, political and cultural movements that made the promotion of materialism part of their program must have played a role.

The development of Advaita Vedanta was strongly influenced by Buddhism — Wayfarer

Different traditions tend to influence one another, especially when they belong to the same geographical and cultural sphere.

I think the Buddha recognised a unique path and way of liberation. — Wayfarer

Buddha is said to have attained liberation through meditation. And he apparently learned meditation from his teachers like Ālāra Kālāma.

Whatever it was that Buddha attained - which is difficult to establish with 100% certitude - there were preexisting teachings and practices that seem to have contributed to his attainment.

Of course. And the Buddha preserved the name and the memory of those teachers, but he also ultimately struck out on his own.

In the Pali texts, the Buddha always refers to himself in the third person, i.e. as Tathagatha, unless he's talking about his physical self, such as in a text where he reflects on his old age and the state of his body, where he refers to himself as his personal name, Gautama.

But Buddhism also says the Buddha is a type - that the or a Buddha will appear at different times and places in history, for the benefit of humankind, and that they will teach the same tenets. Mahāyāna Buddhism even posits that the Buddha appears on other planets! (Remember that Giordano Bruno was burned at the stake for saying that there were other solar systems.)

Economic, political and cultural movements that made the promotion of materialism part of their program must have played a role. — Apollodorus

I've read some of the Catholic critiques of The Enlightenment. They pin it on The Renaissance, where culture became completely human-centric, instead of seeing the human as part of or an expression of a higher order. Of course another massive argument but I think there's an important truth in it.

Science is mistakenly taken by modernity to be omnipotent, literally capable of knowing anything, or at any rate, of anything that is worth understanding. But science relies on a stance, an attitude, a way-of-being in the world, which is inherently situational in some fundamental sense. Scientific method starts by omitting or bracketing out what is not relevant to understanding a specific question, but then it forgets that it has done that as a first step and tries to turn it into a metaphysic in its own right. This is where science becomes scientism. That's the thrust of one of the OP's on my profile, about Habermas' reassessment of the shortcomings in secular culture:

What secular reason is missing is self-awareness. It is “unenlightened about itself” in the sense that it has within itself no mechanism for questioning the products and conclusions of its formal, procedural entailments and experiments. “Postmetaphysical thinking,” Habermas contends, “cannot cope on its own with the defeatism concerning reason which we encounter today both in the postmodern radicalization of the ‘dialectic of the Enlightenment’ and in the naturalism founded on a naïve faith in science.”

Postmodernism announces (loudly and often) that a supposedly neutral, objective rationality is always a construct informed by interests it neither acknowledges nor knows nor can know. Meanwhile science goes its merry way endlessly inventing and proliferating technological marvels without having the slightest idea of why. The “naive faith” Habermas criticizes is not a faith in what science can do — it can do anything — but a faith in science’s ability to provide reasons, aside from the reason of its own keeping on going, for doing it and for declining to do it in a particular direction because to do so would be wrong.

All that said, I believe there is a higher consciousness - that there is a vertical scale as per this well-known diagram: — Wayfarer

The diagram is probably not far from the truth. As I said, there is some truth even in New Age .... :smile:

That’s why we need to make use of our power of discrimination (diakrisis) to separate the grain from the chaff (Plat.Soph.226b-c).

Such is discrimination, which is not only the "light of the body," but also called the sun by the Apostle ... It is also called the guidance of our life: as it said "Those who have no guidance, fall like leaves."(Cassian.Conf.2.4)

:up: :clap:

Wanker... — Tom Storm

While the young women were there, or after they left?

Both potentially.

Both. — Tom Storm

And always I suppose?

Bear in mind, all of the '64 wrong views' listed in the voluminous Brahmajala Sutta ('Net of Views') come down to one or another version of, either: 'I will be' (eternalism) or 'I will not be' (nihilism.) And at the root of that is always self-concern, even if in very subtle form. — Wayfarer

Yes, and it also reminds me of Pyrrhonism, because we, absent one or another set of groundless assumptions, have no good reason to believe either that there is an afterlife or that there is not an afterlife. I think people mostly cling to one or another belief in order to justify their ethical stances or mollify their fears. Most of the people I've met who oppose any belief in an afterlife with a belief in no afterlife are those who have had a strict Catholic upbringing, and were, in their phase as believers, terrified of the idea of eternal damnation (can't for the life of me understand why :roll: )

On the other hand most of the people I have known who believed in an afterlife have been unreflective, complacent Christians who simply assume they're going to heaven, New Agers who believe everyone lives many lives which are constantly improving, and/or people who have seemed to me to be quite obsessed with the idea that their lives must have some (ever) lasting value or else life is utterly meaningless. I think of this last as a cult of the self; a kind of narcissism.

Salvation is not to be found in an afterlife, but must be found, if at all, in this life, and belief in an afterlife or lack of an afterlife would seem to be a hindrance to ataraxia, a state of mind which would more likely come with a wholeheartedly lived suspension of judgement. Also note that lack of belief in an afterlife is not (necessarily) belief in a lack of afterlife.

Yes, and it also reminds me of Pyrrhonism, because we, absent one or another set of groundless assumptions, have no good reason to believe either that there is an afterlife or that there is not an afterlife. — Janus

It is axiomatic in Buddhism that regardless of your beliefs, actions will reap consequences either in this life or some other. Belief that at death the body returns to the elements and that there are no further consequences of actions is classified as nihilism. I recognise that this is a major stumbling block for secular adherents of Buddhism, in fact it's the watershed issue that divides secular and traditional Buddhism. I do think it's true that salvation must be found in human life, but it seems to me that is found by very few in any given life. If by 'salvation' you mean realising the state of 'Sammāsambodhi', perfect enlightenment, then sadly I am of the view that neither you nor I nor anyone else I know will realise such a state in this life.

I've noticed a book by Sam Bercholz, who was the founder of Shambhala Books, the largest US publisher of Buddhist books. 'Sam Bercholz was devoting himself to teaching Buddhism after retiring from his successful publishing company, when suddenly he was blindsided by a heart attack. As he succumbed to clinical death in the hospital, he found himself entering a classic near-death experience--but the last place he expected to end up was Buddhist hell.' Scary idea, but I have to say I'm inclined to believe it.

"Those who have no guidance, fall like leaves are free (enlightened)."

Fixed.

It is axiomatic in Buddhism that regardless of your beliefs, actions will reap consequences either in this life or some other. Belief that at death the body returns to the elements and that there are no further consequences of actions is classified as nihilism. — Wayfarer

Since the idea of Karma was an almost universal belief in India at the time of Gotama, does not entail that it should be "axiomatic" to Buddhism. It is not axiomatic to secular Buddhism, and I think the judgement that secular Buddhism is not "really" Buddhism is an example of the 'no true Scotsman" fallacy.

I have never seen any good argument for thinking that belief in karma is essential to Buddhist practice. Why would it be essential to the practice of zazen, for example?

If you want to learn a practice, any practice: art, music, literature and so on, guidance from those more experienced is, if not essential, at least an advantage. I see no reason why it should be any different with practices designed to transform consciousness and the self.

It is not axiomatic to secular Buddhism, and I think the judgement that secular Buddhism is not "really" Buddhism is an example of the 'no true Scotsman" fallacy. — Janus

Although it seems to me that there must be a time when something which calls itself X may not actually be X. It just depends on how we decide where the line between authenticity and dissimilarity lies. How do you know when something which calls itself Buddhist or Christian is no longer one of these? Or is it the case that the name applied is all which matters?

If you want to learn a practice, any practice: art, music, literature and so on, guidance from those more experienced is, if not essential, at least an advantage. I see no reason why it should be any different with practices designed to transform consciousness and the self. — Janus

The difference, in a word, is religion. The purpose of religion is not to produce graduates but to bind communities. Graduates or 'free' individuals may not be as inclined to move with the herd. If a religion like Buddhism were actually interested in 'transforming consciousness and the self', wouldn't it do a better job of it after over two thousand years???

As an old man Gandhi used to lie in bed with naked young women who were decades younger than him. — Tom Storm

How come noone wonders what happened to those women afterwards? By Hindu standards, they would not be eligible for marriage anymore, and their only choices for a livelihood afterwards would be begging or prostitution.

This, apparently was a celibacy test and an attempt to prove he was beyond temptation. Wanker...

I think that if one feels the need to test oneself as to whether one can resist a certain temptation, then this already is a sure sign that one cannot resist it. Such "testing" is simply another excuse to yield to it.


Other than that, we're talking about Indians, Hindus. It wouldn't be a surprise to find that more men did such things, or worse. This is a culture that expects a newly widdowed woman to commit suicide by throwing herself into the funeral pyre of her husband (if she doesn't, she apparently didn't really love him).

ISKCON's founder, Srila Prabhupada, married a woman he specifically did not like, on the conviction that this would help him curb his sexual desire. And then he blamed her for the failed marriage.

Agree totally.

Just to note: Overcoming sensual desire (which includes the desire for sex) is very important in Dharmic religions. It's a matter of manly pride, it's proof that one has overcome lowly desires. It's also a sign that one is so spiritually advanced so as to be unperturbed by sights, sounds, smells, tastes, and tactile sensations.

Overcoming sensual desire also means that one can be a better servant to God (or, even better, a servant of a servant of God). Because acting on lust means that one is trying to enjoy separately from God, which brings one away from God, and thus into misery.

Servitude to God is something Hindus have literally written into their names. The element "das" (for men) and "dasi" (for women) means 'servant'. So Mohandas Gandhi was a servant of Mohan, Mohan is one of the names for God.

I am not suffering — Apollodorus

You don't say!

Overcoming sensual desire (which includes the desire for sex) is very important in Dharmic religions. It's a matter of manly pride, it's proof that one has overcome lowly desires. — baker

Manly pride? Interesting. I note that celibacy is often used throughout religious and mystical traditions as evidence of serious spiritual devotion. I also note that the great Catholic mystic and putative hermit, Thomas Merton had a girlfriend - is this evidence of hypocrisy, or a man leaving the church and seeking union with the female principle?

Now, it occurs to me that this interchange, which is taken as conclusive proof of the doctrine on anatta, overlooks something important. At that time in history, a few centuries either side of C.E., the invention of the chariot was a deciding factor in the rise and fall of empires.
/.../
So, whilst it is trivially true to observe that none of the component parts of a chariot are actually a chariot in themselves, nevertheless the 'idea of a chariot' is something real, and its construction and possession is a real good from the perspective of nation-building. So, 'the idea of a chariot' is what really constitutes 'the chariot', not this or that particular piece of the chariot. Furthermore, even if the particular chariot on which the King arrived was to be destroyed or stolen, then another could be constructed, but only by those who had knowledge of the principles of chariot building. — Wayfarer

Ratha Kalpana (from Sanskrit ratha 'chariot', and kalpana 'image')[1] is a metaphor used in Hindu scriptures to describe the relationship between the senses, mind, intellect and the Self.[2][3] The metaphor was first used in the Katha Upanishad and is thought to have inspired similar descriptions in the Bhagavad Gita, the Dhammapada and Plato's Phaedrus.[4][5][6][7]
/.../
Verses 1.3.3–11 of Katha Upanishad deal with the allegoric expression of human body as a chariot.[5] The body is equated to a chariot where the horses are the senses, the mind is the reins, and the driver or charioteer is the intellect.[2] The passenger of the chariot is the Self (Atman). Through this analogy, it is explained that the Atman is separate from the physical body, just as the passenger of a chariot is separate from the chariot. The verses conclude by describing control of the chariot and contemplation on the Self as ways by which the intellect acquires Self Knowledge.[11]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratha_Kalpana

It seems to me a lot of early Buddhist polemics about non-self are likewise undermined by a naive understanding of what constitutes agency and identity, although I think this is one of the shortcomings that was later overcome by a more sophisticated understanding of śūnyatā.

The Early Buddhist doctrine of anatta is about what is fit to be regarded as self and what is not fit to be regarded as self. Things that are subject to aging, illness, and death are not fit to be regarded as self.

So far, the EB anatta doctrine is actually in accord with various attavada doctrines. Where I think it differs from them is that it assigns to those attavada doctrines also the status of being subject to aging, illness, and death, in the sense that doctrines, consisting of ideas are subject to conception, deterioration, and cessation, they come and go.

In one's unenlightened state, whatever one would conceive as self would necessarily be subject to aging, illness, and death, it would be a proliferation, papanca, simply on account of it being an idea. As such, not fit to be regarded as self.


Part of the problem with the "there is no self, ever, in any way" type of anatta doctrine (which is by now the dominant anatta doctrine in Buddhism) is that it's due to theoretical efforts to construct a coherent Buddhist doctrine, based primarily on the suttas. The Abhidharma tries to summarize the suttas into a coherent system. For this purpose, it sometimes has to fill in what seems like blanks, but this way, inadvertedly, creates a doctrine that is in discord with the suttas.

In contrast, an assumption that one can find among Suttavadis is that the Path was never intended to be approached in a wholesale doctrinal manner (by first theoretically working out the entire system in the abstract), but in small steps, according to the person's actual attainment at any given point in time.

Manly pride? Interesting. I note that celibacy is often used throughout religious and mystical traditions as evidence of serious spiritual devotion. — Tom Storm

Just read over these two suttas:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.075.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.076.than.html

I always laugh at the imagery.

I also note that the great Catholic mystic and putative hermit, Thomas Merton had a girlfriend - is this evidence of hypocrisy, or a man leaving the church and seeking union with the female principle?

See the above suttas.


Although in Merton's defense: Attempting celibacy with nothing else as a foundation for it but Catholic doctrine is a demanding task. Those with a Dharmic foundation have a better chance at it.

Just read over these two suttas:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.075.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an05/an05.076.than.html — baker

It's a big 'yuk!' from me.

If you yourself don't taste a mango, you'll never have the first-hand knowledge that the epistemic community of mango tasters have.
— baker

Hey, leave qualia out of this... — Tom Storm

The issue isn't even about qualia. It's about interpersonal verifiability among epistemic peers within a specialized field of knowledge.

For example, a doctor with proper training can discern, simply with the use of a stethoscope, the various sounds that the human heart makes and is able to asses whether the heart is healthy or not. Other doctors with such training can also discern and evaluate those sounds. They can also recognize whether a particular other doctor has discerned the sounds correctly or not. In contrast, people who are not thusly trained are unable to discern those sounds or recognize whether another person can discern them or not.

I contend that such interpersonal verifiability among epistemic peers within a specialized field of knowledge applies also to religion/spirituality. While @Janus thinks that I am deluded to think this way. Perhaps he thinks this way also about doctors, engineers, musicians, atheletes, anyone who has expertise in a specialized field of knowledge ...

I remember I minor epiphany in my youth, crossing the Harbour Bridge on a bus. I suddenly saw that a lot of what bothered me was only me; that everyone else on that bus had exactly the same concerns. And that it really didn’t matter. It was just fleeting, not a big deal, but I remember it being a very liberating moment. — Wayfarer

One still needs to earn a living, ensure one's place in the world, fight the struggle for survival, for status, for respect.
So those things that "bother one" are a big deal, they do matter, even if everyone has them.