RE: RE: RE: RE: Actors are devils??? Really???
Hi Rob E (& James)
>RE: Well I spent some time trying to do that but can't find it. Yahoo sucks. If you can identify the post and give me the message number, I may be able to find it, even though I can't seem to find my own elbow in the dark.
>J: I originally asked him to provide the commentary and he gave me/us a fantastic summary of the Thai commentary....
S: # 133455 - the helpful post from JagkritMettaSarah=====
- Hi Alex
>RE: The "neti-neti" technique is used by philosophically inclined *Hindus* and the idea that Atman cannot be >described but exists is a *Hindu* idea. It is the opposite of the Buddhist idea of anatta, and is one of the >major differences between Hinduism and Buddhism
How do we know that Buddha (who was raised as a Hindu) didn't use the same technique?
RE: Because he didn't teach it.
Alex: BTW, I do not believe in an Atman. I am just pointing out flawed argument.
RE: It's only flawed if you ignore the logic of the argument. The Buddha made other statements that more conclusively showed that there is no self.
When for you there will be only the seen in reference to the seen, only the heard in reference to the heard, only the sensed in reference to the sensed, only the cognized in reference to the cognized, then, Bāhiya, there is no you in connection with that. When there is no you in connection with that, there is no you there. When there is no you there, you are neither here nor yonder nor between the two. This, just this, is the end of stress."
Clearly, this shows the viewpoint that any view of self or personal identity is what causes suffering. Anatta is not just a parlor game of saying a few things are "not it."
- - - - - - - - -