• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What does the Buddha's silence mean?

dyanaprajna2011

dyanaprajna2011

Dharmapala
Vouthon said:
Dear Buddhists,

Peace be with you all.
Click to expand...

Namaste :D

This is my first time asking a question on the Buddhist DIR.
Click to expand...

Welcome. Watch out for Nowhere Man and Magog, they oftentimes break out in song from musicals. I hope you enjoy your stay.

My question involves the Buddha's silence before Vacchagotta when he questioned him as to whether there was or wasn't a "self". My understanding of anatta (which may be wrong) is that it is best understood as Notself. What we normally consider to be "the self" - our psychological life - is not really an underlying, permanent, unchanging "I" but rather a combination of fleeting, conditioned aggregates such as feeling, form, sensation, perception, mental formations/images and discernment. Attachment to these skandhas as if they did constitute a lasting self, leads to suffering.

Any "self-ing" that is the tendency to become attached to something as being our "self", leads to unhappiness.

Did I get that right?
Click to expand...

You get that better than most people. When I first became interested in Buddhism, I, like many westerners, took anatta to mean no self. However, I came to realize that it does not mean no-self, but in fact means not-self. Who knew that one little letter could make such a big difference? :p But it does make a huge difference. No-self means that there is no underlying, inherent, self at all, which is not the case. Not-self means that what we think is the self, i.e., the five aggregates, are the self, but they are in fact empty of self-nature; therefore, what we think is our self, actually is not.

What is the significance of the Buddha's "silence"?........
Click to expand...

The Buddha was silent on many issues, and the reason he gave is that the questions that he refused to answer, he did so because they would not be beneficial to the spiritual life. In this instance, the idea of self or not-self, he didn't answer because the idea at the time was from the Hindu tradition that there was an eternal, self-existing self, and this idea, from Buddhist philosophy, is incorrect. However, to teach that there was no self, is also incorrect. So the silence wasn't meant to mean that there is no answer, but that, while the Buddha knew the answer, finding it out is part of the path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top