firedragon
Veteran Member
Anatman means no self. "An" is the negator. As in Gosha is noise, and Agosha means no noise. It becomes the opposite.
Yet, I am interested in understanding what your differentiation between "non self" and "no self" is.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Buddhist and Hindu Scriptures Inaccurate?
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Anatman means no self. "An" is the negator. As in Gosha is noise, and Agosha means no noise. It becomes the opposite.
Yet, I am interested in understanding what your differentiation between "non self" and "no self" is.
You didn't respond to my question. You merely repeated yourself.
firedragon
Veteran Member
But the Maitreyas return takes place when human lifespans increase to half a millennium and reduce, etc etc. Have you read the scripture?
Why would you believe in a personal God and not acknowledge Him?
I didn't say that the Bible is antithetical to reaping and sowing. I said that the belief in karma goes is antithetical to the Bible teaching reaping and sowing.
In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" — that there is no unchanging, permanent self, soul, or essence in phenomena.
Anattā - Wikipedia
In my understanding, non-self is the being without ego. No self, to me, indicates no being.
Again, I'm not a Buddhist, so my knowledge of this is limited. As I said, if a Buddhist finds my statements to be incorrect, I'm more than willing to be corrected.
Who said I don't acknowledge a personal God? I have already acknowledged your personal God.
You mentioned that you might believe in a personal God but you don't have one.
I believe in the existence of the soul and spirit.
Correct.
Why would anyone believe in God but choose not to know God?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Hmm. Both your statements are right. But the Tipitaka differentiates between "form" and "self". Anyway, understanding the concept of Anatta is core in the path to Nibbana.
Well, maybe we cant be rahat but at least we could try to understand this.
There is a segment in the Tipitaka called the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta. Try and read that. Form, mental formation, Perception, feelings, are all not self. When you believe you have a self is when affliction happens. Thus, focusing on not-self is the path to release from suffering and stress. That you can read in the Anudhamma Sutta. Anu Dhamma means "according to the Dhamma". It is evident that believing in having a self is the foundation for all kinds of Duka or suffering/sadness/stress like ego.
This understanding will affect your behaviour and Karma creates more Karma. If you read the Sulekha Sutta you see how to achieve effacement, and you will see "others will behave this way, but we will not" in the path to effacement. Then you get the Dammapada which shows how to become a so called "brahmana", and all of these hover around the understanding of Anatta.
No self, non-self, not self, are all meant by Anatta. Only, you should separate Form, mental formation, perception, feelings etc etc from this "being" if that's what you wish to call it.
Sincere apologies. Yes Kalki. Yes I believe that all the prophecies are actually referring to One Great Spiritual Being to appear at the end of the age, which I believe has already happened.
Each religion is like a piece of a divine jigsaw puzzle which, when put together, point to the time, place, lifestyle and even name of the Promised One.
And when you place these descriptions alongside Him, I have found, they match perfectly.
If you explore the Gita, Buddhist texts, the Quran, the Old and New Testament you can find references to the future messiah. The Kalki Purana is another one. But these need to be understood alongside the life and history of the One claiming to be the Promised One of all religions to make sense.
Both the Buddhist scriptures and Bible speak of His exile and even mention it was 40 years. The Buddhist texts revere a Personage whose name is a derivative. Both the Kalki Purana and the Bible state that He will destroy the wicked kings and princes but note here that in the Bible the tongue is also mentioned as a sword. The place of His appearance is mentioned in Jeremiah and the Quran which refers to a ‘nearby place’. The time of His Cause is mentioned in the Bible and some groups got it right but they didn’t look in the right place so ended up being disappointed. The Quran also alludes to the city.
But to me the greatest proof is His own Self, His Life and Teachings.
Because I have no practical use for a personal God. Yet I acknowledge others do. We do not all walk the same path.
Isn't that like a kid saying that they don't wanna know their parents? How does the idea makes sense?
firedragon
Veteran Member
Okay. Could you show me directly from the Quran and the Tipitaka?
1. I dont know which reference in the Quran you are referring to, but could you please enlighten?
2. I can pinpoint directly to the Chakkavatti Sutta in the Dheega Nikaya so that you can go directly.
Please do provide your understanding specifically.
But in no Hindu scripture do they specify it is in the 1800s in Iran to a Muslim family. No Hindu, of over a billion Hindus, says that. Therefore, since you're a Baha'i, you are saying they got it wrong. I see no other alternative.
Not at all. There's a difference between knowing something and needing something.
I know my parents and I need them.