Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
First of all, when a moderator tells you that enough is enough, it is polite to listen. Since our conversation was a little off of the original topic, the best thing to do is start another one. It is not polite to simply continue regardless of their warnings. If you would like to further discuss this issue, perhaps we may do it here. Also, I never claimed that the Buddha said "There is no self". What I did say was he said "Sabbe dhamma anatta". If I am wrong, then the Dhammapada is wrong, the Dhamma-niyama Sutta is wrong, etc.
Secondly, I simply offered that not all Buddhist traditions would agree with what you were saying, and proceeded to give some evidence to support my statement. In fact, I would say that most traditions do not assert a self in Nibbana/Nirvana. There is nothing wrong with doing this. It is not shoving anything upon anyone, nor trying to discredit someone, but it is simply clarifiying a generalization. You cannot just make blanket statements like that, and not expect someone to speak up. If you did not not wish to for me to continue with my "own Nikaya "views"...", you could have simply declined to discuss the matter any further. In fact, if you wanted to expound more upon your own personal beliefs, you are more than welcome to begin your own thread.
However, you are now offering up, in my humble opinion, pure nonsense. I have no idea who your friend is, but "anatta" in no way means "infinite" or "uninclined". That makes absolutely no sense. First off, that would make the three characterisitcs of existence dukkha, anicca, and anatta to mean unsatisfactoriness, impermanence, and infinite. While it might not sound too improbable at first glance, it certainly would after you've added it to the Suttas in the place of "not-self" [especially in SN XXII.59]. Secondly, explain what "atta" in means in Pali, and then explain about what the prefix of 'a' means. Any Pali scholar I know would say that "atta" means "self" and the prefix of 'a' in Pali denotes a negative [i.e. not, non]. And finally, if what you are saying is true, that would mean that the Pali Text Society, the Buddhist Publication Society, scholars/monastics Bhikkhu Bodhi, Thanissaro Bhikkhu, and Ajahn Brahmavamso are all wrong. While certainly possible, I find it highly unlikely.
But, to be fair, if you would like, you can argue your case further here. I will begin by offering some references [with links], and then you may disagree with them, or offer up some of your own. I have done my best to keep my references to those organizations and translators that are very well known, and respected. It would be helpful if you could try to do the same. On the internet, I always look at it as the more credible the source, the more credible the information will probably be. If anybody else wishes to add their thoughts or references [for or against], please feel free to do so.
Very good, that was the OP. The relevant discussion concerning the Buddha's teaching anatta was the introduction of a notion that the Buddha was a Hindu reformist, and that His teachings of anatta was related to Hindu teaching of the atman.
Comments