Hi guest! As you can see, the new Wizard Forums has been revived, and we are glad to have you visiting our site! However, it would be really helpful, both to you and us, if you registered on our website! Registering allows you to see all posts, and make posts yourself, which would be great if you could share your knowledge and opinions with us! You could also make posts to ask questions!
So WTF is the point in attaining liberation then for them? Nobody really seems to answer this question properly online. They state that a collection of loose impressions skips from life to life and that causes suffering (Skandhas). They deny the Atman concept of the Hindus and the texts have been verified to being heavily edited over the ages. This is the single most obvious gaffe in the whole gig. That and most of the associated with this movement are obviously faking it as you can tell their level in a conversation.
Sri Aurobindo said this unusual trenchancy of their views was why Buddhism lost it's native soil (India). But Mahayana interpretations do admit a form of permanent self (Dharmakaya).
Post automatically merged:
"The Buddha famously refused to answer questions about the existence or non-existence of a permanent self, choosing silence rather than asserting that a permanent self exists or that it does not. This silence was not a confession of ignorance, but a strategic move to guide followers away from clinging to fixed views, which he believed obstructed the path to enlightenment"
I suggest using the methods (which are sound) but coming to your own conclusions. Because, why listen to later commentators when the Buddha simply remained silent about such questions, like Dakshinamurthy?
Most Theravada monks who take their meditation practice seriously have definitely made progress. It's obvious to those who can see.
What follows is my own limited understanding based on my reading, my own thoughts on the matter as well my empty-mind meditation experience.
I'll try to explain using an onion-skin model: according to the atman philosophy, there's a unique self, commonly called 'soul', at the core of one's being. The anatman position holds that there's no such thing; instead, there's only an anonymous spark of life (what is called 'Buddha nature') that is not uniquely yours. Every sentient being possesses this impersonal spark but it doesn't make you any better than another person, an animal, a hungry ghost, etc. Buddha nature is like the water in your body - it may be inside of you personally but it's still composed of the same molecules as the water in other persons' bodies. The anatman model only looks like a fraud if you insist on preserving your unique identity after death.
Ultimate liberation, however, is similar: the soul becomes absorbed into Brahma, the Absolute, the One or what have you, the anonymous spark dissolves into Nirvana, the drop of water dissolves in the sea - in the atman paradigm, you lose your selfhood (as opposed to the Abrahamic religions where the self survives and lives on in heaven or hell) but in the anatman one, you don't have a self to lose to begin with; the Buddha nature enters Nirvana, not the unique 'you'. The net result is the same. It shouldn't be forgotten that reincarnation/rebirth is seen as a curse in Eastern religions and not as a fresh chance, so the eventual loss of identity (according to both atman and anatman thinking) means freedom.
Both the atman and anatman philosophies have millions of adherents, and the debate between them has been going on for millenia. Personally, I favour the Buddhist explanation. In my thinking, my identity is simply a random accretion of likes and dislikes, childhood imprints, experiences, etc. that could have been totally different had I been born under other circumstances. It's not that important, it's just what I've learned to live and identify with. This conviction of mine has only increased thanks to meditation where I've experienced a certain degree of depersonalisation (others meditators have reported such symptoms here as well!), slightly unsettling but instructive. "What's the real me?" I don't care, it's not that interesting, it keeps changing hour by hour. Deep down inside me are not the profound mysteries of my soul, only a thick layer of muck obscuring my anonymous Buddha nature, and I like the thought - others may think it frightening, a con, or blasphemous, I consider the concept of an immortal soul a narcissistic affectation, so sue me.
Having been raised a Catholic, I'd like to add that the doctrine of no-self has been liberating for me. No more worries about the state of my immortal soul, finally! These days, I rather focus on the mischief caused by the skandhas, there's much more rewarding work for me to be done there.
Post automatically merged:
I'd like to add that I don't necessarily consider myself a Buddhist - I see the Buddha nature more as a void, not an enlivening component inside myself. Additionally, I have my doubts about the rebirth in the
