identity of self? hmm
identity(sakkaya ditthi) and self(atta) are two different things but related in a way that the sakkaya(clinging aggerates) aren't the self.
identity of self? hmm
your welcomeSabbe_Dhamma_Anatta wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 11:07 pm Yayyy!
Well noted.
Thanks a lot for explicitly declaring & clarifying beyond doubt that, for OP, Advaita and Buddhism are the same.
what Jains(Nigaṇṭha Nāṭaputta) think Buddha is teaching is this,Johann wrote: ↑Sat Sep 10, 2022 11:35 pm Jains ever thought that way, and that's why the Buddha, knowing, "even if understanding a single sentence, would be of great benefit for them", taught them also, last in line, the sectarians, out of compassion.
Good now to leave the Brahman and Jain domain.
mudita
>Jains think buddha is teaching inaction.https://suttacentral.net/pli-tv-kd6/en/brahmali?layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: “But Sīha, why visit the ascetic Gotama who believes that actions don’t have results when you believe that they do?
“Kiṁ pana tvaṁ, sīha, kiriyavādo samāno akiriyavādaṁ samaṇaṁ gotamaṁ dassanāya upasaṅkamissasi?
For the ascetic Gotama believes in inaction, teaches that, and trains his disciples in that.”
Samaṇo hi, sīha, gotamo akiriyavādo akiriyāya dhammaṁ deseti, tena ca sāvake vinetī”ti.
And Sīha’s intention to go died down.
Atha kho sīhassa senāpatissa yo ahosi gamikābhisaṅkhāro bhagavantaṁ dassanāya, so paṭippassambhi.
compare with,https://suttacentral.net/sn5.10/en/sujato?layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin wrote: “Why do you believe there’s such a thing as a ‘sentient being’?
“Kiṁ nu sattoti paccesi,
Māra, is this your theory?
māra diṭṭhigataṁ nu te;
This is just a pile of conditions,
Suddhasaṅkhārapuñjoyaṁ,
you won’t find a sentient being here.
nayidha sattupalabbhati.
When the parts are assembled
Yathā hi aṅgasambhārā,
we use the word ‘chariot’.
hoti saddo ratho iti;
So too, when the aggregates are present
Evaṁ khandhesu santesu,
‘sentient being’ is the convention we use.
hoti sattoti sammuti. Variant: sammuti → sammati (sya-all, km)
But it’s only suffering that comes to be,
Dukkhameva hi sambhoti,
lasts a while, then disappears.
dukkhaṁ tiṭṭhati veti ca;
Naught but suffering comes to be,
Nāññatra dukkhā sambhoti,
naught but suffering ceases.”
nāññaṁ dukkhā nirujjhatī”ti.
i think the convention of sentient being(satta) would be the term āyatana in the Purana text. Also the term nirmāṇe is of interest. With a simple reasoning, the satta could be the nirmanakaya?https://vedabase.io/en/library/sb/2/5/32/ wrote: yadaite ’saṅgatā bhāvā
bhūtendriya-mano-guṇāḥ
yadāyatana-nirmāṇe
na śekur brahma-vittama
Synonyms
yadā — as long as; ete — all these; asaṅgatāḥ — without being assembled; bhāvāḥ — remained so situated; bhūta — elements; indriya — senses; manaḥ — mind; guṇāḥ — modes of nature; yadā — so long; āyatana — the body; nirmāṇe — in being formed; na śekuḥ — was not possible; brahma-vit-tama — O Nārada, the best knower of transcendental knowledge.
Translation
O Nārada, best of the transcendentalists, the forms of the body cannot take place as long as these created parts, namely the elements, senses, mind and modes of nature, are not assembled.
So how is "sabbe dhamma anatta" compatible with "Aham Brahmasmi"?
Which texts?
No, it's just different. The OP hasn't made a case for them being similar.
you are taking it out of contexts.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:12 amWhich texts?
In the Buddhist suttas only Nibbana is exempt from impermanence.
Are you claiming Nibbana is equal to Atman/Brahman?
For starters what does the sabbe dhamma anatta mean?Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:05 am So how is "sabbe dhamma anatta" compatible with "Aham Brahmasmi"?
Please explain.
In case you don't know, Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman) is one of the four great sayings of Advaita.
Where in the Buddhist suttas does it say that Nibbana is Brahman?auto wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:14 pmyou are taking it out of contexts.Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:12 amWhich texts?
In the Buddhist suttas only Nibbana is exempt from impermanence.
Are you claiming Nibbana is equal to Atman/Brahman?
The idea is that the purana texts say(paraphrazing, my conclusion) that attaining Big self will end rebirth. Budhist text also say things about ending rebirth. So, yes attaining nibbana is equal to attaining Brahman since both end the cycle in samsara.
There is no self in the created or the uncreated.auto wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:23 pmFor starters what does the sabbe dhamma anatta mean?Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:05 am So how is "sabbe dhamma anatta" compatible with "Aham Brahmasmi"?
Please explain.
In case you don't know, Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman) is one of the four great sayings of Advaita.
yea. What is the issue you have with it, you wish there would be one?Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:44 pmThere is no self in the created or the uncreated.auto wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 2:23 pmFor starters what does the sabbe dhamma anatta mean?Spiny Norman wrote: ↑Mon Oct 03, 2022 5:05 am So how is "sabbe dhamma anatta" compatible with "Aham Brahmasmi"?
Please explain.
In case you don't know, Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman) is one of the four great sayings of Advaita.
No. It means there is no self in Nibbana.