Sziasztok!

 

Rég volt új hozzászólás itt, valamint nehezen is tudom másutt megkérdezni azt, amivel ma reggel kicsit elakadtam a gondolkodásban. Előre is bocsánat az angol részekért, amennyire én tudom az adott előadás nincs meg magyarul, vagy legalábbis nekem nincs a birtokomban.

 

Most olvasgatom Steinernek a Buddha és Krisztus c. előadását, és egy részen kicsit megakadtam. Nem nyelvi szempontból, értem a leírtakat, de hadd mutassam meg, hátha van ötletetek mire utal Steiner. Először egy kis tanmese, mert szerinte ezek alapján jobban lehet úgymond fogni az adást, mint a nagyon könnyen félremagyarázható vallási dokumentumok alapján:

Here we are given a conversation which draws out the very spirit of the whole trend of Buddhistic thinking. The powerful, spiritually-minded King Milinda desires to question Nagasena, the sage. The King, who has never been at a loss in the presence of any sage because he always knew how to evade anything that was said in opposition to his own ideas, comes to Nagasena to speak with him about the meaning of the ‘Eternal,’ — the meaning of the immortal part of human nature which passes onwards from incarnation to incarnation.

Nagasena asks the King: — ‘How dids't thou come hither? on foot, or in a carriage?’ ‘In a carriage.’ ‘Well,’ said Nagasena, ‘let us now consider what a carriage, is. Are the shafts the carriage? No. Is the seat you sat upon the carriage? No. Are the wheels the carriage? No. Is the yoke the carriage? No. And thus,’ said Nagasena, ‘one can enumerate all the parts of the carriage, but all the parts are not the carriage. And yet, all that is there enumerated is the carriage, only the carriage consists of all the parts put together; it is no more than a name for that of which all the parts make one whole. If we consider it apart from its separate constituents, it is nothing but a name!’

The sense — and the object — of what Nagasena said is this: that one must turn one's gaze away from everything that the eye can behold in the physical world. Nagasena wished to point out that actually nothing exists in the physical world which in itself constitutes what is collectively designated by a name, in order that he may thus reveal the worthlessness and meaninglessness of all the physical-material constituents of things. And, so as to make his use of this example clear, Nagasena says: ‘It is thus also with all that constitutes Man, and which passes onward from one earth-life to another. Are the hands, and the legs, and the head that which goes from life to life? No! What thou doest to-day, what thou doest tomorrow, is it these things which go from life to life? No! What is it then, which collectively is Man? It is Name and Form. But then, it is even so with the name and form of a wagon. If we gather the different parts together, we have only a Name. There is nothing there in particular except the parts!’

So that we may observe this still better, there is yet another analogy which the sage Nagasena showed to King Milinda. The King said: — ‘Thou sayest, O wise Nagasena, that of that which stands before me as Man, Name and Form pass from life to life. Is it then the Name and Form of the self-same Being that appears again in a new embodiment upon the earth?’

And Nagasena replied: ‘See now, — the mango-tree bears a fruit. A thief comes and steals the fruit. The owner of the mango-tree says: “Thou hast robbed me of my fruit,” but the thief answers: “It is not thy fruit. Thy fruit was that which thou didst plant in the ground! it has transformed itself. That which was growing upon the mango-tree simply bears the same name — it is not thy fruit!”’ And then Nagasena continued: ‘It is true that it bears the same name and form; but it is not the same fruit. Still, one can punish the thief in spite of that! And so,’ said the sage, ‘it is even thus with what reappears in a later life on earth in relation to what was there in earlier lives. It is like the fruit of the mango-tree which was planted in the earth. But only because the owner had first planted the fruit in the earth was it possible for a fruit to grow upon a tree. Therefore we must say that the fruit belongs to him who buried the first fruit in the earth. Thus it is with man; his deeds and his destiny are the fruit and the effects of his earlier lives. But what appears is new, as the fruit of the mango-tree is new.’

So Nagasena showed how what is once there in any one earth-life strives to reappear transformed, as effects, in later lives.

Eleddig világos, csak azt nem értem, hogy ez miért azt támasztja alá, hogy a buddhizmusban a különálló Én, egyéniség, személyiség nem jelenik meg, sőt inkább ennek hiányát hirdetik:

... we see clearly enough that the Buddhist desires to wean his adherents from the idea of what may be regarded as the separate individuality, the definite personality, and to point out above all things, that that which reappears in a new embodiment, is — it is true — the result of this personality, but that one has no right to speak of an uninterrupted ‘I,’ in the true sense of the word, as extending from one incarnation to another.

 

Ez utóbbi magyarul, mert akár a tanmese nélkül is jöhet rá válasz, vagy talán úgy még könnyebben (bocsánat ha akadnak benne pontatlanságok, a javításokat örömmel veszem!):

Tisztán látható, hogy a Buddhizmus inkább elfelé vezeti követőit attól a különálló egyéniség, meghatározott személyiség gondolatától, és mindenekelőtt arra mutat rá, hogy ami az új megtestesülésben feltűnik, az ennek a személyiségnek az eredménye, de nem beszélhetünk megszakítatlan formában az Énről, mint ahogyan az fennmarad, átnyúlik egyik inkarnációról a másikra (és azok között?).

 

Nyitott vagyok az eszmecserére, mert nekem ez valahogy pont nem nyilvánvaló!

 

Köszi a véleményeket, nézőpontokat előre is ;-)