Truth, in Buddhist way, can only be speculative, which in itself is a fine thing to do. But since it says, “overcome the self,” its followers presume that the directive means “negate the self.” It implies that the self is either a non-existent entity that we regard as existing through ignorance or that it exists but only until we are able to “eliminate” through our effort. The first implication is a philosophical one, and still begs the question : So, what exists, in truth ? The second categorically means that the self does not exist in truth, and leads us back to the first. Without attempting to answer the ultimate question, let us revert back to the original directive Buddha proposes : Overcome the self. To me, in its context, it means that we become more powerful than the desiring self, the one which takes us over and commits acts that leads to misery for ourself and the world around us. That, we should win it over and make it subservient to our dictates, to the values perspective that Buddha clearly lays out. It is not a call for negating our very self, for there has to be one even for “overcoming the self.” To sum : Buddhism could be a great way to action, to live and reduce misery, if not end it. But there is no truth in. Personally, I find the Buddhist way a trifle too contradictory to something that I regard as non-negotiable : Life is; embrace it. How is one to embrace life, if all of life and the world is nothing but misery ?
Posted on: Sun, 11 May 2014 13:10:00 +0000