« From the vision of true reality | Main | Discovering ignorance »

February 29, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Is it better to say "there is an Absolute, Universal Self?" or is it better to say "there is no Absolute, Universal Self?" - the scientific, metaphysical Western mind cares only for what is "true". - The Buddha was very subtle. In the Mahayana sutras I get the impression the Buddha put the "didactic" aspect above all other aspects. That is to say, the real question is: is it more useful to say there is a self, or there is no self? - The answer is: an unenlightened person will hold a wrong view of whatever he is told. If he is told about "no self", he will hold a wrong view of the self. If he is told about the True Self, he will hold a wrong view about the True Self. - The Chán masters "detected" the attachment in the student and spoke accordingly. - Nihilism is certainly the wrong view, as is eternalism. Buddhism has to do with PERSONAL REALIZATION so all words are empty until it's personally realized. All words lead to the same (the wordless). And all silence leads to the same. - When asked directly, what else can be said other than: neither self, nor no-self? - when asked directly, the Buddha remained silent. Just like Vimalakirti.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo