But in Buddhism, the major schools hold that there is no ontological self.acinteyyo wrote:This is the point I was trying to make. There is no ground for such a claim. Maybe one can compare this to discussions about the existence or non-existence of God. There is no ground to base one's claims on, neither that god exists nor that god doesn't exist, thus a wise person doesn't concern oneself with such speculative views at all because it lacks a foundation in the first place.binocular wrote:In that case, why claim that there is no ontological self?
How can that be??!
Can you provide a reference for this?And since any idea of atta is derived from the khandhas
Because if we are to believe that any idea of atta is derived from the khandas, then we're also saying, among other things, that either God did not reveal Himself and His teachings, or that nobody who is currently living or present is familiar with God's revelation.
Namely, many doctrines of atta come from the theists.
Making claims about doctrines of atta can by implication be making claims about God. (!)
Interestingly, from some theistic perspectives, this isn't necessarily bad in and of itself.MN 22“Bhikkhus, you may well cling to that doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it. But do you see any such doctrine of self, bhikkhus?”—“No, venerable sir.”—“Good, bhikkhus. I too do not see any doctrine of self that would not arouse sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair in one who clings to it.
Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair can also be of the "spiritual kind" as opposed to the ordinary kind- something like renunciate grief as opposed to householder grief, where renunciate grief is higher and nobler than householder grief.