Timeline for What is the precise meaning of anatta?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2014 at 23:59 | comment | added | tkp | @zweibel, it's only a problem to the extent that a lot of people talk about anatta as meaning simply "there is no such thing as self". When described more carefully, as you and yuttadhammo have done, there isn't a problem. (Well -- not that problem. It's still an extremely non-intuitive concept. To the scientifically-trained western mind -- OK, at least to me then -- anyway :-) ) | |
| Jul 3, 2014 at 22:38 | comment | added | zwiebel | AFAIK this is a problem that hasn't been considered in buddhism. Indeed, at least I know what you mean now, but I can't really see this as a problem either. The (empirical) person (Skt. pudgala or Pa. puggala) does exist and is capable to make statements, even though there may be no immutable soul. Of course people say "I" and "me" and "mine", the point is just, that these are empty constructs. Empty constructs obviously able to make statements. | |
| Jul 3, 2014 at 22:17 | comment | added | tkp | auto-refuting means self-refuting, but I used "auto" instead of "self" so as not to confuse things. The statement "There is no self" is self-refuting because by definition a statement has a stater, and the name given to the stater of a statement by the stater of the statement is "self". "This is not a sentence." is another example of a self-refuting statement. They are false by virtue of the fact that they exist. | |
| Jul 3, 2014 at 21:33 | history | answered | zwiebel | CC BY-SA 3.0 |