The Buddha replies that, like the fire when running out of fuel becomes extinct, all form, feeling, perception, predispositions and consciousness (the five skandhas) by which one can predicate the existance of the saint, all that has been abandoned, uprooted, pulled out of ground like the palmyra tree and become non existant and not liable to spring up again in the future. The saint who's been released from what's styled form, feeling, perception, predispositions and consciousness, is deep, immeasurable, unfathomable like the mighty ocean. To say he is reborn, or not reborn, or both reborn and not reborn, or neither reborn nor not reborn, would not fit the case!

Simply put the Buddha was echoing the Upanishadic sentiment that reality was beyond intellectual comprehension.

Also though the Upanishads define the reality as Self - but being devoid of individuality it is actually not the Self. But that doesn't mean that the Self is totally different or an other to the "I" consciousness. For then ethical improvement and meditation would make no sense. So the Self is neither the "I", nor is it the not "I" - it is beyond logic and reason (The entire philosophical effort of the Vedic schools and the early Buddhist schools point to the futility of trying to reconcile with logic, a changeless Self underlying a changing Ego or empirical life without a Self). Though beyond logical comprehension, it is that due to which even the Ego exists. This is why the Buddha says to the brahmin Badari in the Kshudragama that the Self is infact not of the nature of the self. But so as not to confuse or discourage the aspirant the Upanishads define it as Self.

The Upanishads and the Buddha are pointing to the same thing, but from different standpoints - one from the positive viewpoint of the Self (Atman) and the other from the negative viewpoint of the non-Self (anaatman).

But why did they preach the doctrine in different ways?

We consider the following factors as the reasons that made the anatta doctrine a central feature of the Buddha's teaching in contrast to the Atman doctrine of the Upanishads :

For the Buddha all effort at philosophy - to know about reality is fundamentally a waste of time and it would only serve to distract the seeker from what was really essential - to be that reality - to attain nirvaana. That's the reason he clearly states that his is not a school of philosophy but a yaana or a vehicle to liberation. All use of the intellect is worthwhile only to structure the most effective path towards liberation and not to keep speculating about the nature of reality. Though there's an unchanging reality in man and it is the essence of his identity, still the greatest obstacle towards realizing this reality is the phenomenal self. To confuse the true self in man with his phenomenal self i.e, the ego, would totally counter productive in spiritual effort. So the teaching of anatta is not meant as a metaphysical doctrine, but as a psychological teaching - a blow to the phenomenal self whose existence is the greatest hindrance to liberation.
Another factor which might have given rise to the anatta doctrine is that the Buddha taught to all people. While a learned brahmin living a semi ascetic life might have little problem with ego or arrogance, for the normal man these manifestation of the phenomenal self pose the greatest hurdle towards liberation. Hence the utility of the anatta doctrine when the teaching is disseminated to the masses.
It should also be noted that traditionally the Vedic religion is world enveloping in philosophy. True, that renunciation is a part of the tradition - but that's only after the stages of student and householder have been successfully completed. It accepts artha (wealth) and kaama (desire) as two of the primary needs of life, but eventually subordinates them to dharma (virtue) and moksha (liberation). Though the Vedic doctrine preaches a Self to accommodate the first two stages of life, it eventually works towards erasing it in the last two stages of vaanaprastham (forest dweller) and samnyaasin (wandering mendicant). But the Buddha's fundamental goal is the cessation of suffering. Artha and kaama are evil as they cause suffering. Hence worldly life is rejected. One should vigilantly practice dharma to achieve moksha. Buddhism in contrast is essentially a monastic religion and since it didn't have to accomodate artha or kaama in its world view, the first step in its discipline is suppression of the Ego - hence the doctrine of anatta or non-Self.


ko realiziras bodisi "atmo" (spirit, ali tat) ali "aanatmo" (non-matter ali nirvan) iz tegale konteksta, sele takrat bos lahko razumel boga ki pa je se visji kot mi. mi smo le ena izmed njegovih potenc.

lepo je to osho spet povedu

sm pa jest aryanove poste razumel bolj kot, da modeli razlagajo človeku vsak iz svoje strani,
eni iz pogleda kot reč vidi višji jaz - jaz sem
in drugi to isto reč razlagajo iz pogleda nižjega jaza

nekje umes sm celo zasledil da je to zato ker
eni razlagajo 'malim ljudem', takim ki nimajo takih probelmov z egom
drugi pač unim nekim, ki so že višje in bi jih ego čist zjebu, če bi skoz o njem govoril in o njega transformaciji v praznino

aryan a dobr štekam?

bom še malo obnovil reč s svojimi besedami, pa morm met mal več časa za to ... zvečer ... k mi je kr težko razumet unle angleški text

eto sm aploudu slikico ... sedmih teles plus jaz sem
http://www.gape.org/gapes/ego/
treba je kliknt za tavelko slikco
se pripravljam tole use zmetat u flash ... pa morm še mal razbistrit pojme prej

če govorim o slikici (tavelki)
JAZ sem tistih 7 nivojev - to vidim (mislim/verjamem) da sem
ampak to je iluzija, ki ima točno določen namen
JAZ SEM je tisti sonček gor nad vsemi nivoji, tisti ki je nad njimi (izven njih) pa vseeno v centru njih - ima sidrišče v srčnem centru, na četrtem nivoju
to sem jaz - JAZ SEM

prvo vprašaje ki se postavi je
ali je jaz sem duša?
ali je duša bolj vse to skupaj od prvega nivoja pa vse do jaz sem - jaz sem vključen?
ali duša zaobjema vse to ali je ona samo jaz sem?

ker nekako vsaj kolkr jest štekam se pri jaz sem zgodba niti slučajno ne kočna, saj so vsi jaz sem-i priljučeni na orla, kot ga jaz imenujem, na temno morje zavesti, kot ga imenuje castaneda.
potemtakem jaz sem ni izvor življenja ampak je izvor orel ali bolje tisto na kogar je orel pripet ... BOG.

???
tko nekako?

grem zdej na budo in upanišade


---------


izhod iz cikla rojevanja in smrti (samsaara) je cilj obeh ved, upanišad in budizma
oboji verjamejo da so izvor trpljenja želje.
oboji podpirajo etiko (kontrola (ega?), dobrodelnost, sočutje) in znanje kot pravilno pot.

v znanju pa obstaja razlika

upanišade učijo o nespremenjivi realnosti, ki je nad umom intelektom in čustvi (brahman). potem definirajo JAZ (atman). oba kot nespremenljiva. v nekaterih upanišadah sta oba celo izenačena. ko se ta dva združita v eno sta rešena cikla samsaare.
***glede na to da sta oba nespremenljiva je edinole treba očistiti ego ki atmana ločuje od brahmana.
 
ali je JAZ ego?
upanišade pravijo da je ego napačni jaz. saj sem jaz JAZ SEM (***brahman=atman-ego).
To se nam dogaja ker se JAZ (atman) enačim z egom (***saj mi je bližji) namesto z JAZ SEM (brahman) in nastaja trpljenje. Za spoznanje sebe, moramo izničiti vso individualnost (***katero je treba najprej imet) - dobesedno izbrisati ego - in potem počasi transcedirati svojo napačno identifikacijo z čuti-telo-um-ego v tisto kar ostane (***nič, ki pa ni nič ampak je JAZ ki je enak JAZ SEM).

Buda ne govori o nirvani. priporoča razvoj etike in meditacijo za izhod iz cikla samsaare.

tu se budina doktrina razlikuje od upanišad. JAZa ne zanika niti ga ne prevzame. nekje pa je celo sovražen do tega koncepta.

- na kratko - buda pravi da je realnost - Resenica iznad intelektualnega razumevanja.

torej JAZ SEM ni niti jaz niti ne-jaz - je nad logiko in razumevanjem.

upanišade in buda govorijo o isti stvari ampak iz različnih pogledov - en iz pozitivnega pogleda JAZA (atmana) in drugi iz negativnega pogleda ne-JAZa (anaatman)
(***to me je medl že včeri ... tale anaatman ... kater je zdej on?)

zakaj torej učijo doktrino na različne načine?
za budo je vsaka filozofija - vedeti Resnico - popolna izguba časa in je namenjena samo temu da iskalca zamoti pri njegovem iskanju (***kot mene npr ) tistega kar je res pomembno - biti ta Resnica - doživeti nirvano.
zato se imenuje vozilo do osvoboditve.
uporaba intelekta je uporabna samo zato da si zagotovimo čimboljšo/lažjo pot do nirvane, ne pa za ugibanje o naravi Resnice.

čeprav je v človeku nespremenljiva realnost in čeprav je le ta esenca njegove identitete, je še vedno največja ovira do realizacije te realnosti ego. to da pomešamo višji jaz z egom, nas popolnoma ustavi v duhovni rasti.

verjetno je budizem doživel toliko sledilcev tudi zato ker je bil za ljudstvo. medtem ko bi učenjaki pri njihovem skoraj asketskem življenju lahko imeli težave z egom, je ta pot za navadne ljudi naravnost idelana.
vede zagovarjajo bogastvo in želje kot primarne življenjske potrebe ki jih kasneje zamenjajo vrline (dharma) in osvoboditev (moksha). torej to kar najprej vzpostaviš, potem izbrišeš (***bi lahko reku, najprej ego zgradiš, da ga lahko potem izbrišeš - transformiraš).
budin glavni cilj pa je konec trpljenja. bogastvo in želje povzročijo trpljenje. ljudje naj bi prakticirali vrline za dosego osvoboditve.
budizem je samostanska religija (***zakaj je blo prej rečeno da je za ljudi?) in ima prvi korak zatiranje ega.

Zakaj furaš budizem, če nisi budist? Oziroma, kaj je tvoja predstava budizma?
In ja, potrebno je iti.

Mislim... za kaj sprašuješ? Ali ga ne vsakdo drugače pozna. Npr. budizem? Povej. Predstavi se. Kdo si, kaj želiš?

Ti si. In tisto(tisti tista) je, karkoli že. In med tabo in tistim bo zmeraj povezava. Dokler živiš. Temu bi rekla avtosugestia. Zdaj, na kakšen način boš pa dosegel harmonijo med tema dvema, pa je tvoj problem in samo tvoj. Lahko tehnika, lahko pa prosto po Prešernu, whatever, zmeraj je tvoj um in Um. In ne moreš kaj dosti, razen, da sebe sebe rešiš.
ok.
LP
S.
Tolko o teori(i)

Valjda sm jezna. Včasih. Če hočeš, da neomo tu gušli, lahko pošlješ int. message.

Kakor želiš.