MayaRefugee wrote:SDC, just read the piece you linked.
It deals with the theme i'm pondering very well, thank you so much for your help.
yuuki, it's too late at the moment for me to read your links but I will definately read them tomorrow, thank you also for your help.
yuuki wrote:I have read that the Buddha remained agnostic about the self. What anatta means, and I think this is very important, is that none of the five aggregates are self. I tend to take Thanissaro Bhikkhu's view on this that he gives in "No-self or Not-self?": http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... self2.html
Chula wrote:Thanissaro Bhikkhu's point in a nut-shell is that not-self is a teaching to be used - not a metaphysical statement. This doesn't mean being "agnostic" about the self - that would imply that the Buddha thought that it could be either way - which falls into the wrong view similar to the "eel-wriggling" evasive Sañjaya Bellattaputta. It means that the teaching of not-self is to let go of suffering - not for making metaphysical statements about the nature of reality. What the Buddha says is that whatever is inconstant and suffering is unworthy of regarding as a self.
yuuki wrote:No-Self seems begs the question, "What is reborn if there is no Self?"
Sanghamitta wrote:The term " No- self " is a thorny problem. " Anatta" literally means, " No Atman ".
Dan74 wrote:I heard a teacher once say that before one is truly ready to let go of a self, one's got to have a strong healthy self.
What this means in practice is that if my life is in shambles because I am unable to carry out my responsibilities I may long for a "no-self" kind of thing as a release from this "burden" but this is completely wrong. Or if I think my life is fantastic ... it's important not to misunderstand anatta teachings as a carte blanche to neglect one's responsibilities and become absorbed in oneself only.
Users browsing this forum: lyndon taylor and 7 guests