The greatest fool in Buddhist doctrine was one who "saw Self (atman)
in (mere) self (anatta)" ("anattani ca attati") [AN 2.52], certainly
one of the most common refrains in Buddhist sutta. Some of the
greatest harbingers of the incapacity to differentiate the empirical
(namo-rupic) self from The Self are most certainly the 'Buddhists' who
never end in revelry of quoting Gotama to the effect that all
'phenomena are Selfless (anattoti)'. The empirical self is = anatta,
[SN 3.196], that very khandic (namo-rupic) self which modern
'Buddhism' alone acknowledges, but not that other Self which is the
"light
and refuge" [DN 2.154].
What has Buddhism to say of the Self? "That's not my Self" (na
me so atta); and the term "non Self-ishness" (anatta) are predicated
of the world and all "things" (sabbe dhamma anatta); identical with
the
Brahmanical "of those who are mortal, there is no Self/Soul", (anatma
hi martyah), [SB., II. 2. 2. 3]). [KN J-1441] "The Soul is the refuge
that I have gone unto". For anatta is not said of the Self/Soul but
what it is not. There is never a 'doctrine of no-Soul', but a
doctrine of what the Soul (The Self) is not (form is anatta, feelings ...

Thitam cittam ajjhattam susanthitam suvimuttam

"With the will (citta) steadfast (upon itself) [this is] the very
Soul, this is to be supremely steadfast, is to be thoroughly
liberated."[SN 5.74]

"Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness
there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without
permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a
pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as
Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind/will (citta, Non-aggregate)
away from these; therein he gathers his mind/will within the realm of
Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility;
this is that which is most excellent!" [MN 1.436]

[SN 2.17] Gotama Buddha: "This world is carried on by a duality
(dvayanissito); which are:
#1. 'Being (sat, atthiti [views of either sabbamatthi 'the all is
entirety', and sabbamekattan 'the all is one's Soul' [SN 2.77] both
are heresies of perpetualism])' and:

#2. 'Nonbeing (asat, natthiti [views of either sabbamnatthi 'the all
is ultimately not' (atomism), and sabbam puthuttan 'the all is merely
composite (atoms)' [SN 2.77] both are heresies of annihilationism])'".
The Tathagata, the Sammasambuddha teaches by Tat (Brahman, Soul)
which is achieved by means of wisdom which destroys nescience
(avijja). Before "thou art being (sat)" and "thou art unbecoming
(asat)", there is That,
"thou art That (Brahman)". Between (majjha, middle) sat and asat is
That (Tat, Brahman, the "unseen Seer", the hidden axle of the wheel of
life and death), which the fool (puthujjana) caught in the Ferris-
wheel of samsara
cannot see with his mind so occluded by lusts and desire.

in sutta #1 = bhava and = sassatavada (the so-called
mistranslation as "eternalism" by the snake-theras)

Rahula and his snake-theravada , of which ALL deny the Atman, admit
that Gotama who taught for 45 years that ABCDEF were not-X , were not-
Atman , was wasting his time indeed!

Rahula claims that "there is no Self" is a heresy, however he could
NEVER in a 1000 years show Theravada teaches otherwise, for all
theravada denies the Atman, foremostly and without question.

Why did Gotama in sutta perpetually say "na me so atta eso......
(ABCDEF)" (none of these ABCDEF are my Soul).......???

gotama could have said "bhikkhave, natthatta" (followers , there is no
atman)
The Pali term and noun for "no soul" is natthatta (literally "there
is not/no[nattha]+atta'[Soul])

But, since 30%% of the suttas are litered with nothing BUT "this is
anatta, nor that, nor that".............. Gotama was pissing away his
life for teaching 45 years 'what was not-Atman"

rather than, as theravada advocates, "there is no Atman".

Yes, from the position of theravada, Gotama was a genuinely piece-of-
shit teacher

Get a LABOTOMY and you too can read the 2 passages below and
wrongly imply that buddhism says there is no Atman. Of course you
would be wrong, not knowing the via negativa of Vedanta and Buddhism
alike.

"What do you suppose, followers, if people were carrying off into the
Jeta grove bunches of sticks, grasses, branches, and leaves and did
with them as they wished or burned them up, would it occur to you:
These people are carrying us off, are doing as they please with us,
and are burning us? No, indeed not Lord. And how so? Because Lord,
none of that is our Soul, nor what our Soul subsists upon! Just so
followers, what is not who you are, do away with it, when you have
made done with that, it will lead to your bliss and welfare for as
long as time lasts. What is that you are not? Form, followers, is not
who you are, neither are sensations, perceptions, experiences,
consciousness." [MN 1.141]

"What of this short-lived body which is clung to by means of
craving? There is nothing in it to say 'I' or 'mine' or 'me'." [MN
1.185]

The 'renowned' Theravada materialist Nyanatiloka has said: "Thus with
this doctrine of Selflessness, or anatta, stands or falls the ENTIRE
structure of Buddhism".

(translation of this ??? without 'no-soul', buddhism becomes Vedanta,
and we cant have that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Rightly so, all of Theravada fears and protects the meaning and
'interpretation' of anatta like a pack of rabid dogs protect their
fresh kill. They fear and protect the meaning of anatta more so...

If one watches the BS the Theravadins spew out closely, you will see
the 1000s of inconsistent BS they espouse.

#1 To them, anatta/anatman is not, as it truly is, an adjective, but
'(there is) no atman', or the "buddhasassana"

#2 However atta' in compound with ANY POSITIVE affirmation is merely a
reflexive and nominally "yourself"

Theravada excels in NOTHING, if not the reduction of ANY positive
metaphysical affirmation in sutta.

Atta hi paramo piya "The Soul is the dearest beloved" [AN 4.97]

Ohh, but this is POSITIVE.........Theravada reduces such passages (and there
are MANY) to "you yourself are dear".....LOL!!

"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto" [KN Jatakapali 1441]

or Attadipa isn't "soul is light", but "you yourself as island" in DN
2.154

Ohhh, more existential reduction!!!!

Find, as a Pali translator, ANY POSITIVE affirmation (and there are
tons) of the Atman in Pali, and you will find some miserable Atomist
Nihilist Theravada demon who has reduced it to a mere reflexive
commandment of "self-reliance"

It has been asserted by modern so-called Buddhism-in-name-only that
Buddhism knows only of the gods (Brahma) and nothing of the Godhead/
Absolute/Agathon Brahman. In actuality there can be
doubt that in the grammatically ambiguous expression Brahmabhu'to
(attano) which describes the condition of those who are wholly
liberated, that it is Brahman (the Absolute) and not Brahma (deva, or
mere god) that is in the text and must be read; for it is by Brahman
that one who is "wholly awake" has "become." For (1) the comparatively
limited knowledge of a Brahma is repeatedly emphasized, and
(2) Brahmas are accordingly the Buddhas pupils, not he theirs [ S
1.141-145; Mil 75-76], (3) The Buddha had already been in previous
births a Brahma (god) and a Mahabrahma [AN 4.88] hence it is
meaningless and...

"Brahman means "best" , as in the case of BRAHMAYANA is meant "the
best path"

Rahula

******************************
Is that so? Lets apply your BS logic elsewhere....

Such as BRAHMAKAYA (body of Brahman, i.e. jotikaya "LIGHT
BODY").......

"The Tathagata means 'the body of Brahman', 'become Brahman'" [DN
3.84].

So,.....according to your inconsistent BS, this is translated as
"Tathagata means '(hes got) the BEST BODY"

I see now Rahula!!!!!! This is a passage about the Tathagatas SEXY
and BUFF body......hes got the "best body"

Illogical inconsistent horseshit AT BEST.

you cut your own throat with your own tongue.

Brahman is meant Brahman,

YOU nor any of your Goon theravadins could argue to the contrary.

Or, capitulating to evil as a non-Aryan value of profanity, bowing
down to profane consensus, the binary of tolerance

To tolerate is to put up with, endure, or suffer the existence
of what are or appear to be other ways of thinking than our own; and
it is neither very pleasant merely "to put up with" our neighbors...