Buddhadasa Bhikkhus heresy?
The indented excerpt is from a harangue entitled, Anatta & Rebirth, given to students of Puget Sound University in Seattle by Buddhadasa Bhikkhu, who is a argumentative monk with regard to his views about rebirth/reincarnation. In this blog, we intend to show an additional approach of looking during Stis sin that Buddhadasa touches upon in his lecture. Almost all of my report is drawn from O. H. De A. Wijesekeras journal article, The Concept of Vinnana in Theravada Buddhism (Journal of a American Oriental Society 84.3 [1964]: 254--259). The tools traffic with Stis sin that have been in quotes have been from Wijesekera.
The Lord Buddha forbade his disciples to believe that alertness or a spirit (via) goes to be born. A sure bhikkhu named Sti settled that As we understand a Dhamma as taught by a Blessed One, it is this same alertness that runs as well as wanders by samsara (the cycles of bieing born as well as death), not another. When alternative monks objected, Sti stubbornly clung to his pernicious view. When this was brought to a Buddhas attention, he himself interviewed Sti. The later steady his view, to that a Buddha scolded him richly. Misguided man, to whom have you ever well known me to learn a Dhamma in that way? Misguided man, in most talks have we not settled alertness to be dependently arisen, given though a condition there is no fad of consciousness? Clearly, a Buddha did not accept that a same alertness is reborn from hold up to life.
Stis sin was not that he believed that alertness goes to be reborn though that he erred in saying that it did so though shift of identity (tadeva ... anaam) as well as additionally in per it as a speaker as well as experiencer (vado vedeyyo). The following thoroughfare is Stis claim (M. i. 256).
Insofar as we understand Dharma taught by a Lord it is that this alertness itself runs upon (sandhavati), fares upon (samarati), is immutable (anaa). (My translation.)
In alternative words, a alertness Sti had in thoughts is immutable or ! self-ide ntical similar to a self (att/atma). But alertness is not similar to a self given it is so variable. Somewhat related, self only seems to be connected with a Five Aggregates or khandhas, by approach of alertness that is regularly mutable. But in no approach does self transmigrate nor is it unequivocally connected with a Five Aggregates. The in effect linker is regularly samsaric consciousness.
Going a small further, this particular, changeable form of alertness is called samvattanika-viana, that is, alertness that evolves (into a next life). It is a same as a tide of alertness additionally called a tide of becoming (bhava-sota). Because this alertness can develop in to a next hold up it is able of forward in to a mothers womb since if it does not there will be no development of a bud (D. ii. 63), hence, no rebirth.
Given alternative passages in a Pali Nikayas that address samsaric alertness that evolves in to a next life, consciousnessnot a selfis a surviving factor of a indivudual that can re-enter samsara by a womb again as well as again (Sn. 278, cp. D. iii. 147).
As a reader has observed, Ive ommitted critizing Buddhadasa Bhikkhus view of self or att that is frankly nuts. For example, when he uses anatt (lit. not a self) he never lets a listner observe it during work in a scold context that is a approach a Buddha uses it. Seeing anatt in a scold context is explanation enough that self is a great guyan total is regularly a bad guy.
Bhikkhus, form is nonself [anatt, lit. not a self]. What is nonself should be seen as it unequivocally is with scold knowledge thus: This is not mine, this we am not, this is not my self.
Feeling is nonself... Perception is nonself ... Volitional formations have been nonself ... Consciousness is nonself. What is nonself should be seen as it unequivocally is with scold wisdom: This is not mine, this we am not, this is not my self [na meso att] (S. iii. 2223). (trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi. Brackets have been mine.)
As any rational chairman can see! , accord ing to a Buddha, what is nonself, namely, a Five Aggregates, is not to be attached to as my self/att! The self as well as a fundamentality is further taken up in a Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra. In short, in this Sutra a self turns out to be a Buddha-nature. Hence, a Buddha is unequivocally saying in a Nikayas, Form (ditto with a rest of a aggregates) is not a Buddha-nature. What is not a Buddha-nature should be seen as it unequivocally is with scold knowledge thus: This [aggregate] is not mine, this [aggregate] we am not, this [aggregate] is not my Buddha-nature.
To sum it up, yes, there is change of heart though a self is not a transmigrant. We have to look to alertness as well as thoughts that have been a active agents in this process.
