Advaita seeks Atman, Buddhism seeks anatman, right?

[Coëmgenu]

"Not-self" is an ungrammatical English translation favoured by some Buddhist gurus. If you wish to take refuge under them, that is fine by me.

For instance, "not-self" is a clumsy hyphenate that needs an article before its noun. "Not the self," is what "not-self" means to imply, if only it were grammatical.

[cappuccino]

"Not-self" is an ungrammatical English translation favoured by some …

For instance, "not-self" is a clumsy hyphenate that needs an article before its noun.

Like I say, you miss the forest, by focusing on trees

[cappuccino]

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.


Ananda Sutta

[Rambutan]

In other words, “you” can’t really be found anywhere.

Except obviously you exist
Hence no self is logically flawed

You “exist” only relative to other phenomena. Thus, your “existence” is conditional. There’s no intrinsic or ‘self-caused’ existence.
We can say that the Mississippi River exists in North America and the Amazon River exists in South America. In relation to each other, yes, they are two entirely different streams of water.
But each one, itself, has no constant, unchanging quality. No “self”. You can’t stand in the same river twice. Or even once. The river is entirely composed of constantly changing parts .

This is what the Buddha was explaining about a “self” in persons. Your body and mind are constantly shifting collections of aggregates. Yeah, you can say over here is Rahula and over there is Ananda. Conditionally, they can be said to “exist”. But within either one, no “self” can be found.

So, “obviously you exist” is as much of an illusion as “obviously a tiger chasing you in a dream exists”. Yes, the appearance arises conditionally. But ultimately it does not.

[cappuccino]

But within either one, no “self” can be found.

I just addressed this

[Rambutan]

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left.


Ananda Sutta

Unlike me, the Buddha knew better than to waste his time arguing.

[cappuccino]

Buddha knew better than to waste his time arguing.

If you’re arguing then you are wasting time

[Rambutan]

Buddha knew better than to waste his time arguing.

If you’re arguing then you are wasting time

So, where is this “you” that truly exists?
It’s not in the body or in thoughts.
Where is this ‘obvious’ self?

[cappuccino]

So, where is this “you” that truly exists?

I don’t say there is no self


Because it would imply annihilation

[Coëmgenu]

"Not-self" is an ungrammatical English translation favoured by some …

For instance, "not-self" is a clumsy hyphenate that needs an article before its noun.

Like I say, you miss the forest, by focusing on trees

IMO, you mistake the forest for a singular entity, not realizing that, in truth, it is merely a conglomeration of trees.

[cappuccino]

IMO, you mistake the forest for a singular entity, not realizing that, in truth, it is merely a conglomeration of trees.

I’m advocating neither extreme

[Rambutan]

So, where is this “you” that truly exists?

I don’t say there is no self


Because it would imply annihilation

That’s not what I asked. You said, “obviously you exist”. So, where is this “you” that obviously exists? Buddha said it can’t be found. “Obviously” you know something he didn’t.
So, where is it?

[Coëmgenu]

IMO, you mistake the forest for a singular entity, not realizing that, in truth, it is merely a conglomeration of trees.

I’m advocating neither extreme

Deny, deny, deny.

"I do not take it thus, nor do I take it in that way, nor do I take it in some other way. I do not say that it is not, nor do I say that it is neither this nor that."

[cappuccino]

Deny, deny

I’m not denying anything

[cappuccino]

You said, “obviously you exist” So, where is this “you” that obviously exists?

"Yes, friends. As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death."

"Don't say that, friend Yamaka. Don't misrepresent the Blessed One. It's not good to misrepresent the Blessed One, for the Blessed One would not say, 'A monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death.'"


Yamaka Sutta