Buddhist contradictions

[dream jo]

i hav budda insess liv smell of thm i do

[sky]

Originally Posted by dream jo

i hav budda insess liv smell of thm i do

You might like Lush Perfume Jo, it's called Breath Of God and smells of flowers and incense, it's lovely

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

They are both fine for you and mybe others but to understand Buddha's teachings regarding True Self/Buddha Nature ' No self ' doesn't fit....

I gave a fairly comprehensive overview, then provided a link with a fairly long description, so the meaning of no-self, would be formed in context.

For example if I were talking of true self I would use a term such as not-self as in neti-neti. In this case I was talking about the momentary nature of santana, which has no self that endures from moment to moment. If I said there was non-self (or not-self) that endures it would make no sense. Hence it was far more appropriate to use the term 'no-self'.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

I gave a fairly comprehensive overview, then provided a link with a fairly long description, so the meaning of no-self, would be formed in context.

For example if I were talking of true self I would use a term such as not-self as in neti-neti. In this case I was talking about the momentary nature of santana, which has no self that endures from moment to moment. If I said there was non-self (or not-self) that endures it would make no sense. Hence it was far more appropriate to use the term 'no-self'.

' In this case I was talking about the momentary nature of santana, which has no self that endures from moment to moment '


Some Buddhist believe that santana is the self, but that's another story

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

' In this case I was talking about the momentary nature of santana, which has no self that endures from moment to moment '


Some Buddhist believe that santana is the self, but that's another story

How do they rationalise that?

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

How do they rationalise that?

Who knows, I haven't read or heard all of their interpretations but I think that after stripping away what is not self they believe that mind stream is a self seeing it is carried over in rebirth. Different schools and individual Buddhist obviously have their own ideas.

' Some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak," the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars ' . Matthieu Ricard addresses this when he speaks of both the moment-to-moment stream of impermanent events and the continuous individual stream of consciousness. This “individual stream of consciousness” describes a “self” or “soul” beyond the aggregates. When awakened this is Buddha Nature..

.

[Melahin]

Originally Posted by sky123

Buddha revealed that there exists within each sentient being an innermost essence, which knows of no change and no death, "the True Self" or Buddha Nature....

Good way too make oneself immortal to crate an idea of a Buddha nature... or maybe it comes from a later line of misinterpretations

[sky]

Originally Posted by Melahin

Good way too make oneself immortal to crate an idea of a Buddha nature... or maybe it comes from a later line of misinterpretations

' Buddha-nature is our original nature. When we have no idea of ego, we have awakened life, our egotistic ideas are delusion, covering our Buddha-nature. Everything has Buddha-nature, so something apart from Buddha-nature is just a delusion . . . So to be a human being is to be a Buddha. Buddha-nature is just another name for human nature, our true human nature '


Nothing to do with ' immortality '

[Melahin]

So nature is a delusion? unless I call it Buddha. Does it also goes for consciousness if I do not apply the word Christ

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

Who knows, I haven't read or heard all of their interpretations but I think that after stripping away what is not self they believe that mind stream is a self seeing it is carried over in rebirth. Different schools and individual Buddhist obviously have their own ideas.

' Some Tibetan scholars, such as the Sakya master Rendawa, who accept that there is such a thing as self or soul, the "kangsak ki dak" (Tib. gang zag gi bdag). However, the same word, the "kangsak ki dak," the self, or person, or personal self, or identity, is at the same time denied by many other scholars ' . Matthieu Ricard addresses this when he speaks of both the moment-to-moment stream of impermanent events and the continuous individual stream of consciousness. This “individual stream of consciousness” describes a “self” or “soul” beyond the aggregates. When awakened this is Buddha Nature..

.

Well everyone has their own ideas, and 99% of them are crazy ideas, but not crazy enough to be true. Teehee.

Basically I think Gotama generally avoided the Brahamic teachings on 'who you really are', 'true self' etc, because his teaching was basically there is no self in any individual sense and the view that there is would lead only to despair. He can be quoted as saying, "Well, monks, I, too, do not see any such assumption of a self-theory from the acceptance of which there would not arise sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipi....022.nypo.html