Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Buddhist scholars Richard Gombrich and Alexander Wynne argue that the Buddha's descriptions of no-self in early Buddhist texts do not deny that there is a self. [1] [2] Wynne and Gombrich both argue that the Buddha's statements on anattā were originally a "not-self" teaching that developed into a "no-self" teaching in later Buddhist thought.
Aseity (from Latin a "from" and se "self", plus -ity) is the property by which a being exists of and from itself. [1] It refers to the monotheistic belief that God does not depend on any cause other than himself for his existence, realization, or end, and has within himself his own reason of existence.
If that were so, the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house tops that God never did have power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself. Intelligence exists upon a self-existent principle; it is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation ...
Buddhists believe that there is no permanent underlying substance called self or soul (Ātman) in human beings. [ 8 ] [ 9 ] [ 10 ] They believe that anattā/anātman (non-self), impermanence and dukkha (suffering) are the three characteristics (trilakkhana) of all existence, and understanding of these three constitutes right understanding.
This definition of God creates the philosophical problem that a universe with God and one without God are the same, other than the words used to describe it. Deism and panentheism assert that there is a God distinct from, or which extends beyond (either in time or in space or in some other way) the universe. These positions deny that God ...
In Why There Almost Certainly Is a God: Doubting Dawkins, philosopher Keith Ward claims that Dawkins mis-stated the five ways, and thus responds with a straw man. For example, for the fifth Way, Dawkins places it in the same position for his criticism as the watchmaker analogy , when in fact, according to Ward, they are vastly different arguments.
Wynne and Gombrich both argue that the Buddha's statements on anattā were originally a "not-self" teaching that developed into a "no-self" teaching in later Buddhist thought. [60] [59] Thanissaro Bhikkhu points to the Ananda Sutta , where the Buddha stays silent when asked whether there is a 'self' or not, [61] as a major cause of the dispute.
This is a major point of difference with the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, which holds that in essence there is no unchanging essence or Self to be found in the empirical constituents of a living being, [note 3] staying silent on what it is that is liberated. [5] [6] [7] [8]