|
Did the Tathagata (i.e. Buddha)
cheat?
Yes and No. He observed
that all phenomena, both inside and outside a human being, ‘emerge’
(or happen) due to causes. That’s true. When he claimed to know what they
emerged from, namely the unspecified ‘unborn’,
‘unconditioned’, ‘deathless’, ‘nibbana’, and which he suggested is ‘atta’
(possibly, but unlikely the Sanskrit atman referred to in the
Upanishads), the term atta never defined or
described by him in detail, he waffled abject nonsense. When he claimed
to have achieved perfect awakening (Pali: samma sambodhi) in regard to the
causes of emergence, namely the 12 factors of ‘dependent co-origination’, he
spoke the truth.* When he claimed perfect understanding of the causes of
emergence, he lied. Even today, no one knows the origin of life, nor what
drives life. Obviously, there are plenty of guesses. * Note: There is no doubt
that the Tathagata attained perfect awakening. Perfection, however, is
a function (or the outcome) of one-pointed (hence on-end, hence wholly
de-relativised) concentration. Perfection (i.e. its experience) is not
related to content. In other words,
any content (for instance, a human, or a philosophical or mathematical
speculation) can become, or cab be experienced as perfect if and when
absolute (i.e. de-relativised) concentration (hence contact in a relativity
vacuum) is brought to bear on it, i.e. if it is condensed to a point (i.e. if
the human acts in a fully focussed manner or the philosophical or
mathematical speculation (read; fixed set) is cut off from reference,
specifically from random interaction). It was the momentary experience of
absolute perfection (of his problem solution, and which was true for the
dedicated dropout but false for those not intending to drop out) that deluded
Guatama (so that he believed he had achieved absolute, i.e. final
understanding of the causes of emergent phenomena) and turned him into a
ruthless fanatic prepared to exterminate himself and urge self-termination on
everyone he met. See: The perfection gear When the
Tathagata claimed, ‘Because there is A, there is (or, as he
put it, ‘there must have been or must be’) not-A,
he begabn to fall into a logic (and observational, indeed representational) fallacy.
Obviously, since A exists, there must have been a time/space when A did not
exist. However, no (positive) statement (therefore no statement at all) can
be made about ‘not A’ (or pre- or un- A). In short, what he should have said
was ‘A exists (or is);
prior to A is a complete mystery’, and about
which, had been a fair-minded he should have remained silent. No statement can be made about ‘not’ (despite the theoretical
value of negative numbers in maths, maths, since Goedel, not actually having
any (independent) meaning). When the
Tathagata suggested, first vaguely and indirectly, later (possibly several
centuries later) directly and with absolute certainty that ‘not’ (or ‘pre’-
or ‘un’) had (or has, i.e. as un-emerged, hence unconditioned essence = atta)
positive (and joyful) content, he cheated. For instance, no statement can be
made about a ‘not-horse’ or a ‘not-universe’ or a ‘not-reality’. The
Tathagata suggested that by eliminating
life
(i.e. primarily the emerged phenomena that ‘make up’ (i.e. generate as
conditioned after-affect) the human persona, i.e. the khandas), and which
produces death, death could be eliminated and the
deathless
(Pali: amata) achieved, whereby he appears to suggest (later Mahayana actually claims) that the deathless (initially suggested as = atta, Mahayana
(and Vedanta) = atman, later still, the Buddhadhatu) has positive (i.e. referential) content (initially he appears to suggest no dukkha, later
plenty of sukhha). Suggesting that the deathless has (positive) content was
serious cheating, though good for business, as it still is today (i.e. for
both Mahayana Buddhists and Vedantins). The
Tathagata’s much repeated opinion that the sole purpose of the noble life, i.e. of the life of the
itinerant beggar, for instance, the bhikkhu, is to
eliminate life (i.e. which he claimed was the false (because not atta)
self, because painful and disgusting) and prevent rebirth, was dangerous nonsense. Luckily, only a few dropouts
followed his lead to personal self-destruction. Sadly to
say, the Tathagata’s perfect view during awakening (i.e. his personal
solution as to how to avoid dukkha, to wit, ‘Dump the baby, the bathwater and
the whole world (of ‘caused = conditioned = formed’ phenomena’) turned him
into a single-minded paranoid schizophrenic, judging by the string of
superlatives with which he initiated his self-deification and the callous
acts that marked his initial recruitment drive (see: The story of Yasa’s conversion, the
unconscionable and irresponsible conversion of his 50 friends + the story of
the 30 friends in the forest of Uruvela who having been converted (and become
arahants!), immediately dumped their wives and parents (i.e. their social
responsibilities). Such was the outcry against the Tathagata’s ruthless
conversions that he was forced to soften and disguise his conversion
tactics.) With the
invention of the Bodhisattva ideal (i.e. as permanent meal ticket), the
Bodhisattva’s job being to help end all life (hence death), not just human
life, Buddhism universalised what had once been the personal quest of a few
psychopathic itinerant beggars. The disastrous consequences
for human life of the Mahayana Bodhisattva vow and
its application Topics Index
|