Das Video kommt von YouTube: erst beim Abspielen verbindet sich die Seite mit YouTube (Google).
A Buddhist Story About No-Self
Das Wichtigste aus dem Video
Tipp auf eine Zeit – das Video springt genau dorthin.
Transkriptautomatisch erstellt · 27 Zeilen
- Who are you? Yes, I mean you who are watching this video. Before you answer, let me tell you an old Buddhist story about the nature of what you call ‘I’.
- One day the monk Nāgasena visited Milinda, king of Sāgala, for a conversation. As common courtesy requires, king Milinda asked the monk to introduce himself.
- The monk answered ‘my parents have named me Nāgasena, o king, and that’s how my fellow monks call me. But this name is only a conventional term. There
- is really no person, no ‘self’ it points to.’ Now, the king was a worldly, educated man. He was immediately annoyed by this unnecessarily mystical answer. So, he decided to strike back.
- His follow-up question was so brilliant, I’ll quote it directly. The king said: ‘If, most reverend Nāgasena, there [are no real persons], pray, who gives to you
- members of the Order your robes and food and lodging and necessaries for the sick? Who is it who enjoys such things when given? Who is it who lives a life of righteousness? Who is
- it who devotes himself to meditation? Who is it who attains to the goal of […] Nirvāṇa […]? ‘And who is it who kills living creatures? Who is it who takes what is not his own? Who is it
- who lives an evil life of worldly desires, who speaks lies, who drinks strong drink [?] If, most reverend Nāgasena, we are to think that were a man to kill you there would be no murder,
- then it follows that there are no real masters or teachers in your Order, and that your ordinations are meaningless.’ King Milinda was not pulling any punches. Not
- only did he attack the no-self teaching, but he was also suggesting the whole Buddhist project is hypocritical. And he was voicing a widespread criticism: that the Buddhist worldview is
- nihilistic and, ultimately, self-contradictory. To his credit, Nāgasena was not fazed by the king’s question. Rather calmly,
- he offered to answer by using an everyday example. Now remember, during ancient times the rich didn’t drive around in Maserati’s – but they were no less fond of their chariots. So, Nāgasena
- decided to inquire about the king’s chariot, knowing it was probably a favorite subject. He asked ‘Is it the pole that is your chariot, your Highness, or is the axle the chariot?’
- ‘Neither,’ the king said. ‘Is it the wheels, or the framework, or the ropes, or the yoke, or the spokes of the wheels, or the goad, are any of these your chariot?’
- Again, Milinda answered in the negative. ‘But if we take all these separate parts and pile them up, would this be the chariot,’ Nāgasena asked.
- ‘No,’ the king said. ‘But is there anything outside of these parts that is your chariot?’ ‘Of course not,’ said Milinda,
- ‘what is your point?’ ‘Well,’ Nāgasena said, ‘it appears the chariot is nowhere to be found. Are we to conclude king Milinda lies about owning a chariot’?
- At this point I imagine the king’s entourage were scandalized. A mere monk had the gall to suggest the king lies about his property… and to his face! But king Milinda, being a cultivated man,
- was not offended, but actually entertained! Calmly, he answered: ‘I have spoken no lie, reverend Nāgasena. It is on account of its having these things—pole, axle, wheels,
- framework, ropes, yoke, spokes, and goad — that we use the conventional term ‘chariot’.’ Now Nāgasena had the king right where he wanted him.
- The monk said: ‘Excellent, your highness, truly you are a wise king. And now you can see how, in the same way, a ‘self’ is only a conventional term. On account of the many body parts,
- of feelings, perception, mental activity, and consciousness, on account of all these coming together in a specific way, that we say there is a ‘self’. But,
- really, there is no independent, persisting self outside these components or inside any of them.’ Upon hearing these words, the king bowed to the monk in front of the
- whole court. * That’s how the story goes. So let me return to my initial question.
- Who just watched this video? Who is listening to my voice right now? If you examine your experience carefully right here and now, can you point to what you call ‘I’?
- Who are you? If you want to find out more about how the Buddha answered this question,
- check out my video on the no-self teaching. And remember, ‘what you seek is seeking you’.
Zum Nachlesen
AnattaMit der Anatta-Lehre positionierte sich Buddha gegen die Ātman-Lehre hinduistischer Prägung oder zumindest gewisse Interpretationen davon. In der buddhistischen …
Buddhistische PhilosophieEin Grundgedanke des Buddha ist es, dass die Welt in prozeduralen Begriffen gedacht werden sollte. Er empfahl, die Realität als aus abhängig entstandenen …
SkandhaSkandha (Sanskrit: स्कन्ध; Pāli: खन्ध, khandha; Deutsch: Anhäufung, Ansammlung, Aggregat) ist ein Schlüsselbegriff der buddhistischen Lehre.
Vier edle WahrheitenSie sind der Kern von Siddhartha Gautamas erster Lehrrede (Sutta) in Sarnath, die als „Rede vom Ingangsetzen des Rads der Lehre“ überliefert ist. Die vier edlen …