Where?

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 cited the article, the article has scholars in it.

Impermanence is an illusion. :nerd: — praxis

Of course it's not an illusion.

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

Right, Hinduism teaches impermanence too. Emptyness is a later formulation, is it based on impermanence? Of course. But it's a later formulation.

O son of Kuntī, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course, are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons. They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed. — Bhagavad Gita 2:14

At
the
bottom.

Are you sure you aren't talking about Zen?

Hinduism teaches impermanence too. — Dharmi

Atman is impermanent, so Buddha was right about anatman. :grin:

What are you babbling about?

What are you babbling about? — praxis

Zen vs the original.

Atman is impermanent, so Buddha was right about anatman. :grin: — praxis

Atman is permanent. In the Ananda Sutta, he denies he teaches anatman. Anatman is a later Buddh-ist teaching. Ahamkara, false ego, is impermanent.

Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?"

When this was said, the Blessed One was silent.

"Then is there no self?"

A second time, the Blessed One was silent.

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

Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?"

"Ananda, if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those brahmans & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?"

"No, lord."

"And if I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self — were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" — Ananda Sutta

The illustrious secular scholars claim that nothing can be said with authority in what the historical Buddha said. So secular of them to claim such a thing.

↪frank The illustrious secular scholars claim that nothing can be said with authority in what the historical Buddha said. So secular of them to claim such a thing. — praxis

Scholars disagree, what else is new?

The illustrious secular scholars claim that nothing can be said with authority in what the historical Buddha said. So secular of them to claim such a thing. — praxis

It was the Iron Age, so yea, probably.

↪frank The illustrious secular scholars claim that nothing can be said with authority in what the historical Buddha said. So secular of them to claim such a thing.
— praxis

Scholars disagree, what else is new? — Dharmi

The moral of the story is that secular scholars lack faith or, in other words, don't rely on religious authorities.

Atman is permanent. In the Ananda Sutta, he denies he teaches anatman. — Dharmi

??? If that's how you're interpreting it, he also denies teaching atman.

??? If that's how you're interpreting it, he also denies teaching atman. — praxis

Yes. Because Buddha was an Apophatic thinker. Via Negativa.

Sure. Good for them. I guess.

??? If that's how you're interpreting it, he also denies teaching atman.
— praxis

Yes. Because Buddha was an Apophatic thinker. Via Negativa. — Dharmi

It's obviously a teaching about avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and annihilationism.

Try again.

Zen vs the original. — frank

If you see your original face, slap it for me.

That's a famous zen koan.

No, you're 100% right. Buddha's teaching was to focus on the teaching of the Four Noble Truths, he was not willing to talk about atman or anatman because that would muddy the waters. That's correct.

That's a famous zen koan. — praxis

Oh good.

No, you're 100% right. Buddha's teaching was to focus on the teaching of the Four Noble Truths, he was not willing to talk about atman or anatman because that would muddy the waters. That's correct. — Dharmi

But Hindu's talk about atman. Atman is all the rage in Hinduism.

True, but that's not the only thing our philosophy teaches. Four Noble Truths, the yoga system, which the Buddha effectively revived, the impermanence of the material world, suffering arising from clinging to sense perception, these are all Hindu ideas.

Weird. Buddhism teaches that suffering arises from ignorance of our true nature, which is emptiness, and that everything (including formless realms) are empty.

Yes, Buddh-ism says that. Buddha only said it's because those things are impermanent, never said what the nature of those things was. He refused to, as I just posted above.

If I — being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self — were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?

"No, lord."

He apparently wants to keep with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self. Hmm... why would he want to do that???

Weird. Buddhism teaches that suffering arises from ignorance of our true nature, which is emptiness, and that everything (including formless realms) are empty. — praxis

"Empty" in Buddhism is always of something, like the emptiness of a pot. It's a reference to illusion.

Is that what you mean by emptiness?

Let me know if you need a secular scholar.

Because it's true, they are not-self. There's the false self (ahamkara) and the true self (atman). It is true that the aggregates of sense perception are not-self. That's a different thing than saying there's no-self.

This book Hindus agree with 3 of 4 of those concepts.

Emptiness is the only one we disagree with.

There's the false self (ahamkara) and the true self (atman). — Dharmi

Yeah, whatever, there’s no such animal (eternal atman) in Buddhism, only emptiness. Does the passage that you quote suggest that the Blessed One wants to be in good keeping with the teaching of atman?

“No, lord”

It seems like the people who are "happy" and the countries that are "happy" (whatever it means for a country to be happy) would have some elements in common:

a) noticeably improving conditions (economic particularly, but also social and political aspects). Getting a good job almost always makes unemployed people much happier. Seeing that others are getting reasonably good jobs when the seek them, gives both the job seekers and observers a boost in confidence. The reverse is true; rising unemployment makes job holders less confident.

b) on-going good and stable conditions seems to make people happy. People don't usually complain that the weather every day has been just perfect -- and tediously boring. Things like a major hunk of your country deciding to secede (Catalan, perhaps?) might contribute to collective unhappiness -- just because it marks a sharp increase of instability.

c) seeing a route to a better future would tend to make people happier. Declining population (people reproducing below replacement levels) might make people unhappier. People who live in cities where there are numerous empty houses might be less happy, and so might individuals remaining in these cities.

d) squalid, impoverished, ugly environments (your basic shit hole) tend to make people less happy, individually and collectively. On the other hand, clean, prosperous, attractive environments tend to make people happier (assuming people prefer prosperity over poverty, clean over squalid, attractive over ugly).

76% of people in Britain claim to be rather happy or merely happy. If that figure is truly reflective of the UK's level of happiness, then it's probably the case that they just aren't paying attention. Have they not noticed the negative consequences of Brexit? Can a nation really be happy with a PM like Boris (or Donald)? The answer is obviously NO -- happiness under Donald Trump was a sick joke; a delusion; a scam; a filthy trick. The only thing that would be worse than Trump's presidency would be Trump's presidency again. Perish the thought!

I know, Buddhism is an incomplete system.

It is a quote from the Buddha that you presented yourself.