Advaita seeks Atman, Buddhism seeks anatman, right?

[cappuccino]

That "etc." is doing a lot of work to cover everything else that the Buddha refuted as being the self.

I don’t think he is… refuting self


But he is saying… form is not self

[Coëmgenu]

Saying that "form is not the self" is a refutation of the notion that "form is the self."

[cappuccino]

Saying that "form is not the self" is a refutation of the notion that "form is the self."

Well it leads to not identifying with form

[Coëmgenu]

Certainly. Why oughtn't we identify form with the self? Because it's not the self. Hence it is a refutation of the notion that form is the self.

[cappuccino]

Certainly. Why oughtn't we identify form with the self? Because it's not the self. Hence it is a refutation of the notion that form is the self.

K


That’s different than saying there is no self

[Coëmgenu]

Certainly. Why oughtn't we identify form with the self? Because it's not the self. Hence it is a refutation of the notion that form is the self.

K


That’s different than saying there is no self

When the refutation is exhaustive and covers all of the aggregates, all of the elements, all of the constituents, all of the fields (of perception), and all of the phenomena themselves, then it is not different. I'm already familiar with your arguments. You will quote eventually "does not partake in the allness of the all." If such a thing were the atta, it would have been easy for the Buddha to tell this to his assembly of mendicants so.

[cappuccino]

That’s different than saying there is no self

If such a thing were the atta, it would have been easy for the Buddha to tell this to his assembly of mendicants so.

I’m only concerned with what no self implies

[Coëmgenu]

I’m only concerned with what no self implies

Well, that's perfectly fine. You can be concerned about what "no self" implies. Others can be concerned about what it means.

[cappuccino]

You can be concerned about what "no self" implies. Others can be concerned about what it means.

What it implies is what it means

[Coëmgenu]

Well, that's a debate about grammar that I don't care to get into. Suffice to say, I disagree. "Implying" something is not the same as "meaning" it. That's all you'll get from me on that matter.

[cappuccino]

"Implying" something is not the same as "meaning" it.

Well it simply matters how you think

[Coëmgenu]

I'm not getting involved with your disputation of what "implies" means.

[cappuccino]

I'm not getting involved with your disputation of what "implies" means.

I don’t know what this means

[Coëmgenu]

I'm not getting involved with your disputation of what "implies" means.

I don’t know what this means

That's okay. We can take it up via PM if you want.

[cappuccino]

That's okay. We can take it up via PM if you want.

I think I said everything I can