D
deleted37010
Guest
perhaps since you don't practice buddhism and i do... you can't imagine the deeper truths and concepts i embrace...(like anatta)?No, it is no self. The self is an illusion, it doesn't exist. That's what they believe. Doesn't make it so.
as a practicing buddhist... i thank you for trying to correct me... and trying to tell me what i believe
as an aside... socially....for many...that's not considered polite... nor is it considered appropriate to tell others that you know more than them about their religious beliefs and the words used in their religion.
meaning since you aren't buddhist... you shouldn't tell a buddhist you know more than them about buddhism... or that they are wrong about their understanding of their beliefs....
generally... you shouldn't try to correct another person about how they view and practice their religion... especially if you don't practice that religion........that's just egocentric and silly and will come across as an asshole move...
here are two specific examples where my faith text states anatta very clearly:
this is the exact english translation...not my attempt to translate
"all dharmas are not-Self (an-atta)"
"the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness."
hope this helps!