3
![Not allowed!](images/buttons/up_dis.png)
Thumbs Up |
Received: 5,783 Given: 5,353 |
This guy has done a series of videos claiming that the earliest Buddhist texts did not adhere to a doctrine of Anatman, and that the references to anatman were all adjectives in the Nikayas. The phrase was only used as a rhetorical device.
Let's see what our small contingent of Buddhists here have to say on this matter. I, as an Advaita Vedantin, one who accepts a belief in the Atman (spiritual, non-corporeal Self), am quite interested in this matter.
And, speaking of Buddhism and Vedanta, why are there no Hinduism and Buddhism sections? Or at least, a Dharmic Religion section?
![]()
![]()
![]()
Only butthurted clowns minuses my posts. -- Лиссиы
Thumbs Up |
Received: 4,197 Given: 3,880 |
He can claim whatever he wants to claim, but without the impersonality of all phenomena, material, or mental, the rest of Buddhism would not make any sense. No permanent self is the core teaching of Buddhism, there is no Buddhism without it, so.
A Fanatical Buddhist
Thumbs Up |
Received: 365 Given: 95 |
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks