DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**nermise** · 05-08-2011, 10:24 PM

My point isn't that he didn't exist, or that he wasn't a human. But I am saying, if you utilize the methods through which it is determined that no "me' or "mine" is inherently existent, and you apply that to the fellow called Sakyamuni, then "ultimately" he didn't have any "me" or "mine" either, thus no teachings can be said to have been "his". But in the ordinary sense, of course he was the Buddha and he taught the Dhamma.

You see? You have turned the Buddha's teaching of non-self into an ontology: "There is no 'me', therefore there was no such person as the Buddha". Anatta is not an ontology: "there is no me". It is a phenomenological method of breaking free of self-centered thinking.

"No 'me' or 'mine' is inherently existent" is an ontological statement. The notion of "inherent existence" is an ontological question. The very act of putting it into terms of "inherent existence" is a speculative distraction. The Buddha refused to address such questions because they are speculative. The Buddha did not speak of "ultimate reality" or "inherent existence"; instead he recommended that we examine phenomena and see "this is not me, this is not mine" and thus detach ourselves from it. Ontology doesn't enter into the equation: what is important is our detachment, the letting go of clinging to things as "me" and "mine".

05-08-2011, 10:24 PM	#28
nermise Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 527 Senior Member	My point isn't that he didn't exist, or that he wasn't a human. But I am saying, if you utilize the methods through which it is determined that no "me' or "mine" is inherently existent, and you apply that to the fellow called Sakyamuni, then "ultimately" he didn't have any "me" or "mine" either, thus no teachings can be said to have been "his". But in the ordinary sense, of course he was the Buddha and he taught the Dhamma. You see? You have turned the Buddha's teaching of non-self into an ontology: "There is no 'me', therefore there was no such person as the Buddha". Anatta is not an ontology: "there is no me". It is a phenomenological method of breaking free of self-centered thinking. "No 'me' or 'mine' is inherently existent" is an ontological statement. The notion of "inherent existence" is an ontological question. The very act of putting it into terms of "inherent existence" is a speculative distraction. The Buddha refused to address such questions because they are speculative. The Buddha did not speak of "ultimate reality" or "inherent existence"; instead he recommended that we examine phenomena and see "this is not me, this is not mine" and thus detach ourselves from it. Ontology doesn't enter into the equation: what is important is our detachment, the letting go of clinging to things as "me" and "mine".
	Quote