There either is a Self or there is no-Self.

But the Buddha himself didn't teach non-Self. It's a Buddh-ist doctrine. The Buddha's teachings, by themselves, are totally Hindu. — Dharmi

Do not vainly lament, but do wonder at the rule of transiency and learn from it the emptiness of human life. Do not cherish to unworthy desire that the changeable might become unchanging. — Gautama Buddha

The rule of transiency, my friend, is definitely incompatible with atman.

But... they are not only guilty in this problem. My governors only put investment in tourism and that’s a big fail — javi2541997

Yes agreed.

The rule of transiency, my friend, is definitely incompatible with atman. — praxis

No it isn't. There's a false ego and a true ego. Within the material world, all is transcient. But in the world of Forms, the spectral world, Vaikuntha, there is eternality, no transcience. No change. Maybe the perception, but not actual.

Being and becoming.

"Of the transient there is no endurance, and of the eternal there is no cessation. This has verily been observed by the seers of the truth, after studying the nature of both." (Bhagavad Gita 2:16)

I was only semi-serious... But Christianity has played an important role in how we got where we are now.
— ChatteringMonkey

If it wasn't Christianity, it would have been something else.
— synthesis

I don't think this is true, Christianity was historically very peculiar in many ways. — ChatteringMonkey

You mis-understand. If something bothers you, it's 99.99% not the "something" that bothers you but something inside of you. If not Christianity, then something else. The thinking world is chock-full of things that bothers us.

In the end, you can only control your own actions.
— synthesis

This seem like a part of the myth of individualism, which ironically had its roots in Christianity — ChatteringMonkey

It's not myth. Attempting to worry about what everybody else is doing is foolhardy. Change begins within, then if others like what they see, they may look more closely.

Good for you. I wish you the best.

"Of the transient there is no endurance, and of the eternal there is no cessation. This has verily been observed by the seers of the truth, after studying the nature of both." (Bhagavad Gita 2:16) — Dharmi

Open your mouth and you have already lost it.

Huang Po d. 850AD

"So, you believe everything is here merely on an accident? There's no order that keeps things in check, and puts them into the manner and way that they are?"

I actually had a conversation with someone who was "nihilistic" and they argued the exact opposite of this, and how believing we were made by an intelligent designer and not out of what they called blind evolution is delusional and ridiculous.

The rule of transiency, my friend, is definitely incompatible with atman.
— praxis

No it isn't. There's a false ego and a true ego. Within the material world, all is transcient. But in the world of Forms, the spectral world, Vaikuntha, there is eternality, no transcience. No change. Maybe the perception, but not actual. — Dharmi

Yeah, Buddhism got formless realms too. But nut'n escapes the rule of transiency, not even stuff in the formless realms. Perhaps if someone thought up a changeless realm, now that would be a realm worth having around, forever! :razz:

Seriously though, perception requires change, in the material world or the spectral. Without change, well, nothing would change and everything would be static and dead. The rule of transiency may only be relevant to sentient beings, however, if that's what you're getting at. In any case, you haven't shown how the Buddha's rule of transiency is comparable with Hinduism.

I don't understand why you don't simply claim that the Buddha was wrong.

I actually had a conversation with someone who was "nihilistic" and they argued the exact opposite of this, and how believing we were made by an intelligent designer and not out of what they called blind evolution is delusional and ridiculous. — Albero

You can act contrary to what you believe, that happens. Assuming I'm understanding what you're saying.

Yeah, Buddhism got formless realms too. But nut'n escapes the rule of transiency, not even stuff in the formless realms. Perhaps if someone thought up a changeless realm, now that would be a realm worth having around, forever! :razz:

Seriously though, perception requires change, in the material world or the spectral. — praxis

No, it doesn't. Parmenides went over this a long time ago.

The Buddha wasn't wrong, certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong, Buddh-ism is wrong, but the Buddha was not wrong. His teaching is correct.

In any case, you haven't shown how the Buddha's rule of transiency is comparable with Hinduism. — praxis

Because the world of sense perception is transient, there is a false ego (ahamkara) that is transient but there is a true self (Atman) that underlies all transient phenomenon, including the false ego. That Atman is divine. Tat Tvam Asi (Thou Art That) Brahman=Atman. But it is not the Supreme Lord (Parabrahman/Parataman), we are merely a divine spark within a larger current of divinity. Which is the Infinite, the All-Pervading.

So our world of sense perception is indeed transient, empty. But the real world is eternal, unchanging.

Being and Becoming.

Yeah, Buddhism got formless realms too. But nut'n escapes the rule of transiency, not even stuff in the formless realms. Perhaps if someone thought up a changeless realm, now that would be a realm worth having around, forever! :razz:

Seriously though, perception requires change, in the material world or the spectral.
— praxis

No, it doesn't. Parmenides went over this a long time ago. — Dharmi

Kindly explain how then. You say yourself that "perception is indeed transient."

Because the world of sense perception is transient... — Dharmi

And all sentient beings have sense perception, right?

certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong ... but the Buddha was not wrong. — Dharmi

What exactly? The rule of transiency?

Kindly explain how then. You say yourself that "perception is indeed transient." — praxis

In Parmenides' system, change is merely illusory. In the spectral world, that's how change operates. The spectral world is non-different from God, and God does not change, he's unchanging, boundless, infinite.

And all sentient beings have sense perception, right? — praxis

All beings which reside in maya have sense perception. Beyond which, there's only pure consciousness, or Purusha.

You mis-understand. If something bothers you, it's 99.99% not the "something" that bothers you but something inside of you. If not Christianity, then something else. The thinking world is chock-full of things that bothers us. — synthesis

Don't know why you think Christianity bothers me, or what this has to do with what I said. I have no particular axe to grind with Christianity, my original comment was meant quite light-heartedly. And then I was just saying Christianity played an important role historically. Me being bothered about it or not, doesn't change anything about that.

It's not myth. Attempting to worry about what everybody else is doing is foolhardy. Change begins within, then if others like what they see, they may look more closely. — synthesis

"Within" is not causally disconnected from the rest of the world...

Think about the ramifications of that for a second, instead of trying to read things into my comments that aren't there.

Kindly explain how then. You say yourself that "perception is indeed transient."
— praxis

In Parmenides' system, change is merely illusory. In the spectral world, that's how change operates. The spectral world is non-different from God, and God does not change, he's unchanging, boundless, infinite. — Dharmi

Change is considered illusory in Buddhism as well, so what? Gods are merely considered another type of sentient being.

All beings which reside in maya have sense perception. Beyond which, there's only pure consciousness, or Purusha. — Dharmi

I know next to nothing about Hinduism. Sentient beings reincarnate after Purusha, and are still considered sentient beings?

Change is considered illusory in Buddhism as well, so what? Gods are merely considered another type of sentient being. — praxis

No, change is the essential feature of Buddhism.

Gods are merely considered another type of sentient being. — praxis

In our system too, the gods (except for the Supreme God, Vishnu) are material beings who are under material nature.

I know next to nothing about Hinduism. Sentient beings reincarnated after Purusha? — praxis

There are two main realms:

The spectral realm, the world of Being.

The material realm, the world of Becoming.

Within the material realm, there are billions of planets, universes, dimensions, and so on and so forth. In the realm of Being, there is no change, change is merely an illusion. Now, that's not to say it doesn't "appear" to change, it does, but it doesn't actually. In this realm, there is only Vaikuntha, and the various lokas (locations, locus points) within Vaikuntha: the spectral realm.

In the realm of Becoming, change is all that truly exists. One thing going from one state of being to the next until it dies. Fizzles out.

When one has reached Adi-Purusha, that is to say, Vishnu, then one has reached eternity. There is no change that occurs. It only occurs in an illusory state, like in a dream. But everything is eternal, no true change happens. No death, no rebirth. No Karma or reincarnation.

Karma and reincarnation are natural laws, only existing in the material world.

Change is considered illusory in Buddhism as well, so what? Gods are merely considered another type of sentient being.
— praxis

No, change is the essential feature of Buddhism. — Dharmi

Don't know what you're trying to say but I think it would be better to say that emptiness is the essential feature of Buddhism.

When one has reached Adi-Purusha, that is to say, Vishnu, then one has reached eternity. There is no change that occurs. It only occurs in an illusory state, like in a dream. But everything is eternal, no true change happens. No death, no rebirth. No Karma or reincarnation. — Dharmi

Significantly, you didn't answer my question about sentient beings in Adi-Purusha.

Don't know what you're trying to say but I think it would be better to say that emptiness is the essential feature of Buddhism. — praxis

Yeah, that's right. Because it's only one process of change to the next, there's no enduring self. Just the fleeting aggregates that arise from dependent origination.

Significantly, you didn't answer my question about sentient beings in Adi-Purusha.

Are we sentient? Yes I would say so. God is sentient, God is not a blob floating around. That's my initial impression.

God is sentient — Dharmi

In Buddhism a sentient being is as you say, just the fleeting aggregates that arise from dependent origination.

certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong — Dharmi

If mistakes like this happen in Buddhism then it's reasonable to assume that such mistakes happen in other religions. I guess we'll just have to have faith in our religious authorities. :starstruck:

If mistakes like this happen in Buddhism then it's reasonable to assume that such mistakes happen in other religions. I guess we'll just have to have faith in religious authorities. :starstruck: — praxis

That's certainly not what we say. Religious authorities, especially in Hinduism, are typically frauds and liars. We go by the Vedic method of knowing God, yogic meditation.

If mistakes like this happen in Buddhism then it's reasonable to assume that such mistakes happen in other religions. I guess we'll just have to have faith in religious authorities. :starstruck:
— praxis

That's certainly not what we say. Religious authorities, especially in Hinduism, are typically frauds and liars. We go by the Vedic method of knowing God, yogic meditation. — Dharmi

:lol: Yogic meditation told you that certain things attributed to the Buddha are wrong? What exactly?

No, even secular scholarship will admit that the Buddha's original teaching was not emptiness or non-Self. I don't need yoga to figure that out.

"Within" is not causally disconnected from the rest of the world...

Think about the ramifications of that for a second, instead of trying to read things into my comments that aren't there. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes and no (like pretty much everything). Although "within" is not disconnected from the rest of the world intellectually, it is in other ways, and it is the development of these spheres that allow individualism to flourish.

Almost all the good that has happened in the world has been created by individuals through compassion, whereas almost all the bad had been foisted on the world is by groups using their leverage to amass power in order to control (everybody else).

And as a far as reading into somebody else's comments, such are the limitations of communicating in this elemental manner (or any manner, really). Without being able to see and hear the one who you are communicating with, what we accept as understanding is threadbare indeed.

No, even secular scholarship will admit that the Buddha's original teaching was not emptiness or non-Self. I don't need yoga to figure that out. — Dharmi

Okay, name a secular scholar that claims this and I'll look it up for myself since you are apparently incapable of supporting your claims.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism#Teachings_of_earliest_Buddhism

There's no need to support it's pretty generally accepted that the Buddha was a Hindu philosopher, and that Buddhism was created by King Ashoka, and through successive Buddhist councils under his rule and subsequent philosophers and teachings that came way after the Buddha's life such as those of Nagarjuna or the Heart Sutra.

I don't think any honest person who is familiar with Buddhism would deny that, if there is, then I can discuss it then.

This stood out: "there is no word that can be traced with unquestionable authority to Gotama Sakyamuni as a historical personage, although there must be some sayings or phrases derived from him." Can't be sure about anything he supposedly said but can be absolutely sure that certain things were attributed to the Buddha falsely. Hmm... :chin:

Still don't get why you don't just claim that the Buddha was mistaken. Is the Bible True?

No, I don't accept the Bible. I don't believe the Buddha was mistaken, because I don't. His teaching on impermanence and the Four Noble Truths is totally accurate.

"No, even secular scholarship will admit that the Buddha's original teaching was not emptiness or non-Self. I don't need yoga to figure that out." — Dharmi


"Okay, name a secular scholar that claims this and I'll look it up for myself since you are apparently incapable of supporting your claims.' -- praxis


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-sectarian_Buddhism#Teachings_of_
--Dharmi


Gotta love the "I refute you by challenging you to teach me something.". It works! For teaching you something. :lol:

His teaching on impermanence and the Four Noble Truths is totally accurate. — Dharmi

Impermanence is an illusion. :nerd:

Gotta love the "I refute you by challenging you to teach me something.". It works! For teaching you something. :lol: — frank

I challenged him to name a secular scholar that will admit that the Buddha's original teaching was not emptiness or non-Self. He, of course, failed to do this.

He admits that the Buddha taught impermanence (nothing to do with emptiness?) though.

I challenged him to name a secular scholar that will admit that the Buddha's original teaching was not emptiness or non-Self. He, of course, failed to do this. — praxis

I frequently use wikipedia to find scholars.

It's
in
the
foot
notes.