Digity wrote: whynotme wrote:
Digity wrote:I think because then people would have thought the Buddha was a nihilist and the Buddha saw no good coming from that, so he chose to be silent on the matter and let his disciples, through the practice, see that this idea of the "self" was illusive. Think about it...if the Buddha claimed "no self" even today people would be saying Buddhism is so nihilistic, which it's not. Even with the Buddha never making that claim, some people still think Buddhism is depressing, nihilistic.
At the end of the day, the Dhamma itself is just a tool for seeing the Truth...don't get too caught up in what it says. Just let it help you flow in the direction its pointing.
So, because there is nothing that non-changing, there is no Nirvana?
It seems like Nirvana is beyond concepts of change and non-change...the fact that you're even suggesting Nirvana is contingent on there being some non-changing entity to be found in the world seems to me to suggest you're trying to conceptualize Nirvana, which I think is the wrong approach altogether.
I personally don't like any discussions of this nature, because I think you just trip yourself up when you try to conceptually understand what Nibbana is. It's something to be seen and realized, but until that happens it's best not to try and image what it is in your head.
Well, you called yourself a sotapanna, you are a stream winner, you saw the path to the ultimate goal, at least you must see nirvana even you are not there yet.
OK, come back to your explanation, why the Buddha never claimed "no self". Since when the Buddha cared much about the masses when it related to the truth? He called them fools, blinding, he explained everything maybe except nirvana. He repeated many times about anatta, if anatta equals to no self, why not just saying there is no self, isn't it more straight and easier to understand? And even when between only monks, he never claimed "no self", non of the noble ones ever claimed "no self", why there is difference between them and you, while you are a noble one like them? Also please note that his noble disciples didn't care much about people's opinion as the Buddha, even some arahants made bad reputation for the sangha, e.g live with woman in a room for a night, and then even none of them claimed "no self"? Why? Please explain these things to me
IMO, if there is no self, then the death will be the end of everything, it is simple as that.