I often need to think in analogies to understand things because certain words mean certain things that can sometimes be misinterpreted. On your other article, my understanding of awarenes mght not be the awareness that you are talking about. I find that analogies releases the strain on words and delivers the idea and meaning.
Thank you for putting Buddhism in understandable terms, It brought depth into my memory of the texts and what it represents.
"Analogies release the strain on words and deliver the idea and meaning..." I love that! Maybe this is one reason why humanity's greatest teachers speak in images, similes, and parables.
I find it quite interesting, no-self and not-self is very close in idea but meanings differ. No-self says 100% nothing, like saying "I do not sell this here". Whereas not-self says "the stuff is not here". I think the latter points to that there is a self somewhere but that's just language playing games.
Yes, the different translations all add a different nuance and nudge us toward different interpretations. I personally try to always use no-self for consistency's sake, not because I think it is objectively a better translation than "not-self", "without self", "selfless", etc. I think the further we delve into the teaching, the less it matters what exact words we are using to label it. The Buddha himself (pun intended) says that upon unbinding/nibbana both self and no-self descriptions of reality become inadequate.
I often need to think in analogies to understand things because certain words mean certain things that can sometimes be misinterpreted. On your other article, my understanding of awarenes mght not be the awareness that you are talking about. I find that analogies releases the strain on words and delivers the idea and meaning.
Thank you for putting Buddhism in understandable terms, It brought depth into my memory of the texts and what it represents.
"Analogies release the strain on words and deliver the idea and meaning..." I love that! Maybe this is one reason why humanity's greatest teachers speak in images, similes, and parables.
I find it quite interesting, no-self and not-self is very close in idea but meanings differ. No-self says 100% nothing, like saying "I do not sell this here". Whereas not-self says "the stuff is not here". I think the latter points to that there is a self somewhere but that's just language playing games.
Yes, the different translations all add a different nuance and nudge us toward different interpretations. I personally try to always use no-self for consistency's sake, not because I think it is objectively a better translation than "not-self", "without self", "selfless", etc. I think the further we delve into the teaching, the less it matters what exact words we are using to label it. The Buddha himself (pun intended) says that upon unbinding/nibbana both self and no-self descriptions of reality become inadequate.
This essay might interest you: https://substack.com/@pranawrungta/note/c-352366721?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=8ldsyq
you can't handle the truth.