i have red that Bouddist don t beleave of atman, and think that there is no self
but when a bouddhist reach the illumination and reach his own bouddha 's nature doesn't he reach the "atman of the hindouist" "the real self"?
so can we imagine that Bouddha wanted to say when he said that there was no self existing that this self is the "little self" and not the universal self that all the spiritual master of the world have reached and that they have called "atman for the hindou "nature of Christ for the christian mystic" "extinction in God for the muslim soufi" or "nature of Bouddha"?
isn't it the same thing?
but when a bouddhist reach the illumination and reach his own bouddha 's nature doesn't he reach the "atman of the hindouist" "the real self"?
so can we imagine that Bouddha wanted to say when he said that there was no self existing that this self is the "little self" and not the universal self that all the spiritual master of the world have reached and that they have called "atman for the hindou "nature of Christ for the christian mystic" "extinction in God for the muslim soufi" or "nature of Bouddha"?
isn't it the same thing?