How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and of reincarnation? If there is no self, who is it that reincarnates?
How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and moralfaggotry? If there is no self, who can commit or be victim to bad deeds?
How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and of enlightenment? If there is no self, who is there to enlighten?
Other urls found in this thread:
accesstoinsight.org
accesstoinsight.org
accesstoinsight.org
audiodharma.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
bookfi.net
globethics.net
twitter.com
Veeky Forums - literature
Yes, I'm asking the lads here who've read sutras and the like. I know they're around from previous threads.
Here's your answer - your questions are invalid.
accesstoinsight.org
in addition you may read the Buddha's sermons to Vacchagotta, where he dismantles the views behind your questions.
accesstoinsight.org
Critically:
>"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"
>"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."
>"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.
further reading
the flame and candle stuff
if you prefer to listen rather than read then here is a good, entertaining talk from Leigh Brasington on the topic you are discussing.
Dunno about the second one, OP. I've wondered that myself. However, as to the first one:
It is precisely the atman who reincarnated. The word reincarnate literally means something like become physical again. The atman is the ground of being, and we are each but an incarnation of this ground of being. Thus there are not individual selves who reincarnate, but one self incarnated in many forms.
As to the third one:
When one becomes enlightened, what is really happening is the atman comes to know itself.
>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and of reincarnation? If there is no self, who is it that reincarnates?
>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and moralfaggotry? If there is no self, who can commit or be victim to bad deeds?
>How do Buddhists reconcile the doctrines of anatman and of enlightenment? If there is no self, who is there to enlighten
Doctrine of the two truths