> Hi Tang Huyen,
>
> You asked for my opinion. Let me quote Walpola Rahula, "What the
> Buddha taught", p.66:
>
> "According to the Buddha's teaching, it is wrong to hold the opinion
> 'I have no self' (which is the annihilationist theory) as to hold the
> opinion 'I have self' (which is the eternalist theory), because both
> are fetters, both arising out of the false idea 'I AM'. The correct
> position with regard to the question of Anatta is not to take hold of
> any opinions or views, but to see things objectively as they are
> without mental projections, to see that what we call 'I' or 'being',
> is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are
> working together interdependently in a flux of momentary change within
> the law of cause and effect, and that there is nothing permanent,
> everlasting, unchanging and eternal in the whole existence.
>
> Here, naturally a question arises: If there is no Atman or Self, who
> gets the result of karma (actions)? No one can answer this question ...

> "Katyayana! When one contemplates correctly the
> arisal of the world (loka samudaya), one does not
> give rise to the view that the world is non-existent
> (natthita, Skt. nastita). When one contemplates
> correctly the cessation of the world (loka nirodha),
> one does not give rise to the view that the world is
> existent (atthita, Skt. astita). Katyayana! The
> Tathagata does not approach these two extremes
> (ubho anta, Skt. ubhav antav) and teaches the Law
> by the middle [majjhena, Skt. madhyamaya
> pratipada, by the middle path]: to wit, this being,
> that is, this arising, that arises, namely, dependent
> on ignorance, the compositions [arise], etc. until:
> thus arises this whole mass of suffering; this not
> being, that is not, this ceasing, that ceases, namely
> ignorance ceasing, the compositions cease, etc.
> until: thus ceases this whole mass of suffering." SA,
> 262, 67a, SN, III, 132-135 (22, 90). ...

> "Katyayana! When one contemplates correctly the
> arisal of the world (loka samudaya), one does not
> give rise to the view that the world is non-existent
> (natthita, Skt. nastita). When one contemplates
> correctly the cessation of the world (loka nirodha),
> one does not give rise to the view that the world is
> existent (atthita, Skt. astita). Katyayana! The
> Tathagata does not approach these two extremes
> (ubho anta, Skt. ubhav antav) and teaches the Law
> by the middle [majjhena, Skt. madhyamaya
> pratipada, by the middle path]: to wit, this being,
> that is, this arising, that arises, namely, dependent
> on ignorance, the compositions [arise], etc. until:
> thus arises this whole mass of suffering; this not
> being, that is not, this ceasing, that ceases, namely
> ignorance ceasing, the compositions cease, etc.
> until: thus ceases this whole mass of suffering." SA,
> 262, 67a, SN, III, 132-135 (22, 90). ...

> On 18 Dec, 05:02, Rahula yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

>> Hi Tang Huyen,

>

>> You asked for my opinion. Let me quote Walpola Rahula, "What the
>> Buddha taught", p.66:

>

>> "According to the Buddha's teaching, it is wrong to hold the opinion
>> 'I have no self' (which is the annihilationist theory) as to hold the
>> opinion 'I have self' (which is the eternalist theory), because both
>> are fetters, both arising out of the false idea 'I AM'. The correct
>> position with regard to the question of Anatta is not to take hold of
>> any opinions or views, but to see things objectively as they are
>> without mental projections, to see that what we call 'I' or 'being',
>> is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are ...

> On Dec 18, 10:21 am, jfez...@googlemail.com wrote:
>
>
>

>> On 18 Dec, 05:02, Rahula yahoo.com> wrote:

>

>>> Hi Tang Huyen,

>

>>> You asked for my opinion. Let me quote Walpola Rahula, "What the
>>> Buddha taught", p.66:

>

>>> "According to the Buddha's teaching, it is wrong to hold the opinion
>>> 'I have no self' (which is the annihilationist theory) as to hold the
>>> opinion 'I have self' (which is the eternalist theory), because both
>>> are fetters, both arising out of the false idea 'I AM'. The correct
>>> position with regard to the question of Anatta is not to take hold of
>>> any opinions or views, but to see things objectively as they are
>>> without mental projections, to see that what we call 'I' or 'being',
>>> is only a combination of physical and mental aggregates, which are ...

> Thus the Buddha knows ahead of time that some people
> will try to sneak in something *outside of* the five
> aggregates, something *other than* the five aggregates,
> but to him the five aggregates encompass everything, and
> the self is a composition, a part of the fourth aggregate
> (and therefore also a part of the five aggregates).
> Actually the five aggregates are his scheme of dividing
> the whole range of experience, so that there is nothing
> outside of them or other than them. If you don't like that
> fact, you haven't to follow his Buddhism.

> Dave K wrote:

>> The Mahayana sutras are purposefully self contradictory in this way to
>> express the teachings as you have stated. They're basically huge
>> koans.

>

>> You don't find these kinds of things in the Pali canon. They are
>> pretty consistent. I haven't found many contradictions there, and the
>> ones I do find are usually attributed to the Buddha teaching people at
>> different levels or teaching householders vs. monks. (Better rebirth
>> vs. arahantship)

>
> There are lots of contradictions in the early canon.
> The Buddha is a Thespian who goes out of his way
> to emphasise something or another to drive a point
> home and does not bother about consistency in
> details, though he does keep consistency over all.
> He does not refrain from saying some things that
> flatly contradict the rest of his teaching. ...