« Learning about nirvana | Main | Gautama the revolutionary »

August 30, 2012


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

Retarded mental midget says:---Unless of course "x" does not exist, i.e., if there is no "x" it is fairly safe to assert that "a" is not "x."

LOGIC..... If X (atman) didnt exist, one does not say "ABCDEDF are not X".....rather "listen arseholes, X DOESNT EXIST, DAMMIT, ...PERIOD".

If X (atman) didnt exist, pissing youre breath away denying X to ABCDEF is an absurdity.

IF X (atman) DIDNT EXIST, then ABCDEF (khandhas/mara/aggregates) are NIRVANA, are "THE REFUGE", are the GOAL.

Bob Morris, I piss in your general direction, however in youre face would be more desirable.

David Ashton: The Wiki author seems to be unfamiliar with the real message of Buddhism. Âtman is not the problem in Buddhism. It is mistaking constituents of the psychophysical organism (pañcaskandha) with the self or denying, categorically, the self. Suffering arises from the spiritual attaching to the conditioned system. The self, our most fundamental being is, actually, unconditioned. But still we crave the conditioned. The realization of nirvana is for the self its realization that it is not at all conditioned whereas before it underwent suffering by being conscious of the conditioned psychophysical organism which bewitched it.

I freely admit to being far out of my depth in respect of Buddhist scholarly knowledge, but wonder if there is any merit in this statement: "With the doctrine of anatta (Pāli; Sanskrit: anātman) Buddhism maintains that the concept of ātman is unnecessary and counterproductive as an explanatory device for analyzing action, causality, karma, and rebirth. Buddhists account for these and other self-related phenomena by means such as pratitya-samutpāda, the skandhas, and, for some schools, a pudgala. Buddhists regard postulating the existence of ātman as undesirable, as they believe it provides the psychological basis for attachment and aversion. Buddhism sees the apparent self (our identification as souls) as a grasping after a self — i.e., inasmuch as we have a self, we have it only through a deluded attempt to shore it up." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80tman_(Buddhism)).

David Ashton:

“The self (in thee), man, knows what is true or false. Surely the noble Witness, sir, the Self, you do misjudge, in that when sin is there you do conceal the Self within the self” (A. i. 149, trans. I.B. Horner).

Why do we have to presuppose a self based on the fact that the Buddha said things are not the self. Didn't he ever say what the self IS?

It doesn't follow that just because a materialist doesn't care about the survival of the 'self', s/he assumes when the body dies, that's it. I don't care if a 'self' survives, but I don't assume anything - I just don't care, period.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo