hikssss
hikssssssssssss
anda membuat saya buka ebook yang njelimet dan bikin pusing
Tanggung jawab!
Introduction to the Middle Way
Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara
With commentary by Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche
Given at the Centre d’Etudes de Chanteloube
Dordogne, France
1996, 1998, 1999, 2000
Arranged according to Gorampa’s commentary
Edited by Alex Trisoglio
© 2003 by Khyentse Foundation
(a) Autogenesis (Self-Arising)
Here our symbolic opponents are the Samkhya school, which was founded by Kapila, who is
thought to have lived in the 7th century BC. It advocates a quite complicated dualistic vision of
the universe, starting with the old question, what is the universe made of. It leads on to questions
about the true self or, more accurately, telling the true self from that which appears to be self.
According to the Samkhyas, there are two basic categories in the universe: purusha and prakriti.
They say that the history of the world is the history of these two fundamental constituents, which
is quite different from Upanishad thought. From this simple dualism develops a very complex
set of interrelations between purusha, which is like the spirit of atman, and prakriti, which is like
the matter of original nature. The nature of purusha is spirit; it is many spirits. It is being,
consciousness. It is limitless, untainted awareness.
The Samkhyas argue that the world is formed as purusha infuses prakriti, and thereby stimulates
the three states of prakriti, which are called the three gunas. These are activity (rajas in
Sanskrit), inactivity (tamas) and transparency (sattva). This is a very interesting theory – it is the
highest Hindu philosophy. If you are not careful when explaining the Buddha nature, you might
end up talking about something more like purusha.
(hal 89)
The Samkhyas are saying that cause and effect have one essence, and that the cause contains the
result. In the ninth chapter of the Bodhicharyavatara, Shantideva negates this argument, saying
that in this case, when you eat rice, you must be eating shit (9:135.3-4). You might argue that
there is a potential of shit there, and that this is what you are eating. But because the Samkhyas
believe in things being truly existent, they cannot use the word ‘potential’. They believe that
purusha is truly existent, that prakriti is the wealth of the purusha, and that purusha enjoys the
prakriti. Purusha, the atman, is truly and permanent existent, so they cannot even dream of
talking about potential. Words like ‘potential’ belong to the dependent arising school, people
like us.
(hal 91)
Many buddhists used to be tirthikas, meaning that they come from a religious background that
believes in things like an atman, a creator and so on. Actually, this includes all of us. We do not
necessarily come from a religious background like that, but we all like to believe that there is
something inside us. For people like this, it is too much to directly give a teaching of certain or
ultimate meaning, such as all is emptiness. So, the Buddha first taught them something that
resembles their atman or soul, and he refers to it as the alaya, individual or aggregates.
6:44 Although free from the view of transitory collection,
The Buddha still would say “I” and “my teaching”.
Likewise, while things have no inherent nature,
In the context of expedient truth, he spoke of a [relative] existence.
Sloka 44 says this further. Although the Buddha himself is free from all kinds of transitory collections like form, feeling, karma and so on, when he addresses his disciples, he says things like “I”, “I reached enlightenment in Bodh Gaya”, or “I was once upon a time a bird”. [Note: a view of transition collection, Tib. ’jig tshog gi lta ba, is a view that hold a collection of entities as a solid entity]. He also talks about “my” father and “my” mother, because it is necessary for the sake of communication. Likewise, although things do not have any inherently existent nature, for the sake of communication, he teaches that certain things exist, and those are teachings of expedient or provisional meaning.
In the autocommentary there are a few wonderful verses coming from the Theravada sutras, which I will quickly go through. They offer praise to the Buddha and at the same time give an explanation about teachings that have provisional meaning.
If the buddhas do not act according to ordinary people’s acceptance, then ordinary people will never have a chance to understand who is the Buddha and what is the teaching that he taught.
(hal 154)
Topic: Adakah Atman dalam Agama Buddha ? (Read 96931 times)