3 Doctrines Buddhist need to know

wilsonhao SG

Hi, its my first time posting something about buddhist doctrine here and i hope readers will benefit some knowledge through here. Recently, i’ve realize many Buddhist have some of their beliefs mixed with taoist belief. So i just want to share the 3 doctrines that the Buddha have spoken about to give new buddhist clearer understanding of them. Amitabha.

1.The Doctrine Of No Supreme Creator-

Buddha said that there is no supreme creator or God in existence. All things arises because of dependent origin and if there is a God, there will be questions following that who created that God and so on. Generally, Buddhist are not obliged to believe that there is no God, but people searching for truth must realize this point. Buddha said that the belief of a supreme creator leads beings to lack culviation as they will be dependent to God and ignore self-cultivation.

2. The Doctrine of No Fate-

If you do a survey on the street about fate, most people would say there is fate, and everything is predestinied in this world perhaps but God or higher beings. However, this is not so. In Buddhism, we do not believe in Fate as given by a supreme creator, nor is our life already fixed. It is indeed through that many things in our life is already predestinied, only through our past karma. But one thing to note is that we can always change out destiny. Destiny and Fate is different. Destiny is something we can change. Buddha taught the doctrine of Impermenance, which tells us that nothing last forever and that Destiny too is not excluded from impermenance. The belief about fate is one of the reasons why beings will continue cycles of samsara, only depending on a supreme creator.

3. The doctrine of No Soul-

Soul is defined as a never changing, permemnent self. Buddhism accepts the doctrine of imperememnance and similarly, the self is ever-changing and is not permenent. We go through cycle and cycles of rebirth and although some of our habits and characteristic is passed on to the next birth, we are not the same as the previous ‘self’. But indeed, there is really a ‘self’ but this ‘self’ is certainly not a soul. We call it conscious in buddhism, whereby it is our conscious that passes through rebirth. Thus when we hear that in buddhism, there is no soul, we must not go into conclusion that we dont exist or something. We exist but we dont exist with a never changing ‘self’.

—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-
I hope this will give a better insight for new buddhists in this forum. However, please do note that Buddhist are not obliged or forced to accept these beliefs just because it is stated in a sutra or said by Buddha himself. Observance, Experiences and Understanding are needed to fully grasp hold of these.

An Eternal Now SG

Good article.

Though I prefer to simply call it 'karma', than 'destiny'. Destiny and fate are actually interchangeable terms.

p.s. Destiny, and pre-destination is a false view admonished by Buddha. Though, we can say that there are some karmic fruition that may be difficult to avoid as it is already in the process of ripening.

An Eternal Now SG

But indeed, there is really a ‘self’ but this ‘self’ is certainly not a soul. We call it conscious in buddhism, whereby it is our conscious that passes through rebirth. Thus when we hear that in buddhism, there is no soul, we must not go into conclusion that we dont exist or something. We exist but we dont exist with a never changing ‘self’.

If by definition no two moments of consciousness are the same, that there is only Self1, Self2, Self3, Self4, Self5, arising and subsiding momentarily due to [varying] conditions, then to say that there is a 'consciousness' that passes on is also invalid, as it falsely sees consciousness as an entity. Rather, consciousness [empty in nature and inseparable from conditions] continues as an everchanging process according to causes and conditions, appearing and disappearing, changing states every moment.

'Passes on' presumes an 'entity' that passes on, but rather there is simply a continuation of a process due to conditioned arising, without passing on of an entity.

As Nagasena answers the King,

As Venerable Dhammanando explained in E-Sangha,

-----------------------------

The question is wrongly put and the Buddha's reponse when asked such a question was to reject it as an improper question. Having rejected the question he would then inform the questioner of what he ought to have asked: "With what as condition is there birth?"

The reason that it is an improper question is that rebirth is taught as the continuation of a process, and not as the passing on of any sort of entity. For a more complete exposition of the subject see Mahasi Sayadaw's Discourse on Paticcasamuppada.

Best wishes,
Dhammanando Bhikkhu

An Eternal Now SG

p.s. seeing Anatta (No-Self) in terms of 'self' as simply an empty-dependently-originated-process is important.

But there is another aspect of No-Self (Anatta) which is also essential, that is the aspect of non-duality. Which is, as Buddha taught in Bahiya Sutta (which I modified a little in my own words),

In seeing, (there is always) just the seen.

In hearing, (there is always) just sound.

In thinking, (there is always) just thought.

There never was a hearer or a seer or a thinker or a doer.

In other words, there is no observer apart from observed, the observer is the observed. Manifestation rolls and knows without a knower. There is simply the direct experience/experiencing of everything without a separate layer of an "I" or a perceiver. Bell ringing, there is no bell and no 'I', just tongggg. No self. Any separation is merely an illusion.

Likewise for volition/doing and thinking and everything else, as Venerable Buddhaghosa wrote in Visuddhimagga,

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found

The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds:

Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it,

The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen."