seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pm
Let's have a look at a little more of the introductory paragraph that your little Wiki quote is taken from and take special note of the parts that I bolded and underlined:
Wiki wrote:
In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self" – that no unchanging, permanent self or essence can be found in any phenomenon. While often interpreted as a doctrine denying the existence of a self, anatman is more accurately described as a strategy to attain non-attachment by recognizing anything as impermanent, while staying silent on the ultimate existence of an unchanging essence.
Apparently, you don't understand what it means to
stay silent on something of which there can be no certainty of.
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:52 am
Noted your highlighted point.
Note the next statement in the same intro,
- In contrast, Hinduism asserts the existence of Atman as pure consciousness or witness-consciousness,[4][5][6][note 2] "reify[ing] consciousness as an eternal self."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81
I used the term 'deny' as zoomed-in from the widest contexts hermeneutically, while you are relying on merely WIKI which everyone acknowledge is crude [albeit useful as an initial exploration into most subjects].
This isn't the first time that you, yourself, relied on Wiki as a reference for something and then chided me for doing the same. Amazingly, you then proceeded to rely on Wiki two more times in the same post in which the chiding took place.
Please, Veritas, either stop being so hypocritical in your responses, or stop referencing Wiki.
Speaking of which...
Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 12, 2021 8:52 am
If you read even in WIKI [of course, preferable the whole range of Buddhism] note this from the very reputable philosopher of Buddhism, Nagarjuna;
The Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna (~200 CE), extensively wrote about r
ejecting the metaphysical entity called attā or ātman (self, soul), asserting in chapter 18 of his Mūlamadhyamakakārikā that
there is no such substantial entity and that "Buddha taught the doctrine of no-self".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatt%C4%81#Nagarjuna
The Wiki quote on Nagarjuna also goes on to say (again, note the bolded part)...
Wiki wrote:
Nagarjuna denied there is anything called a self-nature as well as other-nature, emphasizing true knowledge to be comprehending emptiness. Anyone who has not dissociated from his belief in personality in himself or others, through the concept of self, is in a state of Avidya (ignorance) and caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths.
How in the world can something that does not exist, get caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths?
Pardon the pun, but even these examples of
"arguments" that attempt to refute the existence of the self, are themselves
"self-refuting" because they include the
unexplained existence of
"something" that is capable of experiencing "rebirths and redeaths."
Also, I couldn't help but notice that you completely ignored this...
seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pm
The bottom line is that if you, Veritas Aequitas, are going to defend the notion that Buddhism proclaims that there is literally "no self" that can survive physical death,...
...then you must also defend the fact that Buddhism is a
nihilistic philosophy whose coveted goal of
attaining "Enlightenment" is, in truth, the pursuit of eternal oblivion in which one will never again experience the wonder and beauty of life.
And the point is that Buddhism is an utterly useless philosophy to the vast majority of humans on earth who carry the hope of being reunited with their departed loved ones.
Sure, by reason of its "no permanent self" nihilistic take on reality, it can attempt to disabuse them of that hope. However, that is simply not what most humans want to hear, and will only appeal to the hardcore materialists and atheists of the world.
And lastly (but not leastly), Buddhism offers absolutely no explanation as to how the unfathomable order of the universe came about.
I could go on, but the fact of the matter is that just like Christianity, and Islam, and Judaism, and Hinduism, and all of the other religions of the world,...
...Buddhism is nothing more than a rickety (but useful)
"raft" that humans have devised to help carry us across the waters of earthly life. It is a raft that will be abandoned upon reaching the shore of death where the ultimate truth of reality (be it eternal life [or] eternal oblivion) will finally be revealed to us.
_______