My theory on Original Buddhism

Textual analysis and comparative discussion on early Buddhist sects and scriptures.
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2175
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

SarathW wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:23 am
DooDoot wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:05 am
Watana wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:03 am Anatta = Literally "not-ātman", it is a refutation of the Brahminic belief in eternal and blissful soul.
Wrong.

Atta = self

Anatta = ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ (SN 22.59)
So there is something else "This is mine, this I am, this is myself"?


  • SN 35.23
    ...
    “If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his part...”
:heart:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
SarathW
Posts: 21227
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:49 am

Re: My theory on Original Buddhism

Post by SarathW »

Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:50 am
SarathW wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 5:23 am
DooDoot wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 1:05 am
Wrong.

Atta = self

Anatta = ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ (SN 22.59)
So there is something else "This is mine, this I am, this is myself"?


  • SN 35.23
    ...
    “If anyone, bhikkhus, should speak thus: ‘Having rejected this all, I shall make known another all’—that would be a mere empty boast on his part...”
:heart:
:goodpost:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Post Reply