There is a kind of understanding in Buddhism that there is no self, per se, and yet there is also the understanding the reincarnation is true.
How can this be (without copping out with the "paradox" explanation)?
The assertion that there is no self is a clumsy mistranslation. There is no PERMANENT, UNCHANGING self. There is a functional self (so-called), which transforms endlessly. Otherwise, to whom would that teaching about no-self have been delivered and for what purpose?
Pragmatically, we consider, "self", that over which we have immediate control and we consider, "not-self" that over which we do not have immediate control. This distinction applies even to the body, in which, when we suffer a malady, we attribute it not to self, but to not-self -- a disease, genetics, micro-organisms, muscle-spasms, pain, etc.
Direct observation and intelligent consideration reveal that there is no sharp delineation, but a "transition zone" in which self and not-self blend and so are indistinguishable. Therefore, self and not-self are artificial distinctions; considered "real" or "absolute", these distinctions are deluding.
So, what is it that gets reincarnated? Everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment