The Buddhist hypothesis
By Bodhangkur Mahathero The Shakyamuni1 (after his
death called the Buddha) appears to have believed the basic proposition of
the Upanishad fantasy, namely that only the eternal (i.e. the abiding, the
permanent) is real (Sanskrit: sat = true) and that whatever is non-abiding2
(i.e. impermanent, transient, without inherent existence) is therefore unreal
(Sanskrit: asat). No definition of ‘real’ (i.e. Sanskrit:
sat) other than its being eternal was provided in the Upanishads, nor indeed
by the Shakyamuni.4 The Shakyamuni (self-named as Tathagata) reasoned, at least initially, that pain
(Sanskrit: dukkha)
resulted if and when one attached to the non-aiding (or impermanent, or that
being empty of inherent existence), hence to the unreal. Attaching to the
unreal was absurd, futile. The Shakyamuni’s solution to the
arising of pain was that non-attachment to the impermanent, hence to the
unreal, eliminated pain.5 His simplistic Upanishad derived view
found traction with the naïve and ignorant. The biological view shows just
how silly the Buddha’s opinion was. The practice he initially proposed for
achieving non-attachment was the practice of the 4 Jhanas, the purpose of which was the attainment of
equanimity (or indifference).6 It was a bury-your-head-in-the
sand-technique.7 When he realised that his solution, though
perfect for monks, that is to say, for social dropouts, was impractical for
householders, and who fed and clothed him, he proposed a whole range of
everyday causes of pain, such as desire, greed hatred and delusion, ignorance
(Sanskrit: avidya) and so on. What the Shakyamuni never understood
was that pain happens as one sub-function of a guide and control system of a
self-regulating, self-adapting organism, the other being pleasure. Neither
pain nor pleasure are directly linked to impermanence or the lack of an inherent
eternal existence but to an organism’s relative survival capacity in the ever
changing and impermanent world. In short, the Shakyamuni’s hypothesis
as to the cause of pain (and pleasure) doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.8
His initial view was quite absurd, indeed irrelevant, and only the naïve fell
for it then as they still do today. © 2018 Victor Langheld |
1. For Shakyamuni read: The Scythian recluse. It is now
believed by some that the Shakyamuni was of Persian/ Scythian origin and
never actually set a foot in India. 2. For non-abiding, impermanent, transient read: empty
(Sanskrit: sunja), hence absurd. See: The Heart Sutra 3.
In the
Upanishads, the eternal or abiding was simply named atman = self, elsewhere
named Brahman. Both names are metaphors, hence ‘useful fictions.’ 4.
The notion that
the
momentary (collision of 2 data) could also be real was not
seriously considered by the Buddha, possibly for lack of imagination. At
least one later Buddhist sect grappled with the issue of momentariness (or
discrete quantisation) but went under because the implications were too
unpleasant. 5.
The original 4
Noble Truths 1. There is pain 2. Pain results from attachment to the non-abiding 3. There is an end to pain 4. (Here and now) Equanimity (i.e. indifference) ends
pain See: The 3
Characteristics Sutra 6. Later on he invented the 4 Brahma Viharas (i.e. divine abodes) meditations and which were
shortcuts not just to equanimity (i.e. indifference) but also to the
pleasurable feelings of the first three Jhanas. 7. For bury-your-head-in-the sand read: processing
emptiness, and which leads to the 4 Jhanas as benign
coma states. Biology (i.e. nature) derived 4 Noble Truths 1. There is pain 2. It results from failure 3. There is an end to pain 4. Success ends pain 8. Indeed, the Shakyamuni’s pain elimination practice
is sheer mischief and counterproductive, eventually causing more harm than
good, at least for householders. That’s because householders have to survive
in the everyday/real world and monks do not. |