« Buddhism's concrete thinkers | Main | The real business of Zen »

June 20, 2012

Comments

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

Josh Panter: No, The Zennist blog thinks the late author of What the Buddha Taught is incorrect about self.

In a nutshell, the Buddha never asked us to deny our intrinsic self. He saw the main problem as this: We identify our intrinsic self with what is impermanent, suffering and not the self (anattâ), this being our psychophysical body which is also called the Five Aggregates.

Fundamentally, we are not this psychophysical organism which had a birth and will soon enough drop dead. To release (vimutta) from it in this lifetime is nirvana which is also immortal.

I am reading a book, What The Buddha Taught, and there is a great deal of attention given to the doctrine of No-Soul. A lot of words are spent really diving into, and driving home the idea that, according to the Buddha, there simply is no reality of the self... at all. Only in conventional terms, but not in any absolute sense. Not in reality. No everlasting soul, no deeper "self" that is "without" the sphere of the Five Aggregates. No true "I Am".

I am curious, if this is also your belief, how can the Tathagata and the self be the same?
What are your thoughts on this?

In absolute fact, the Atman=wisdom=the Absolute=Tat (Brahman) etc etc.

I found a nice rancid book to peruse, check it out old coot>

http://www.scribd.com/doc/75317201/Mark-Siderits-Personal-Identity-and-Buddhist-Philosophy

>

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo