> the self of B is not the same as A nor is it different from A.

Previously we identified the self spoken of by Buddha as ahankara, unreal ego known from Bhagavad gita, etc.

> I don’t think the Buddha was interested in changing the Brahmins. He just realized that rituals and sacrifices are unnecessary and that there is no place for a Creator god.

Jatakas, ranked among the oldest Buddhist texts, clearly identify Buddha as Visnu. Comparison of characteristics:

www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/Buddh...

Hope this helps. Hare Krsna
Your servant, bh. Jan

www.vrindavan-dham.com
www.veda.harekrsna.cz

dvaitaM bandhAya mokSAt prAk prApte bodhe manISayA
bhaktyarthaM kalpitam dvaitaM advaitAd api sundaram

"Duality is bondage before moksa and wisdom after realization. The duality accepted for the purpose of bhakti is sweeter than even non-duality." (from mangalacarana to Advaitasiddhi sara sangraha by Madhusudana Sarasvati, former advaitin)

Jun 10, 2010 -- 4:14PM, Helichopper wrote:

May 2, 2010 -- 4:56AM, gangajal wrote:

 

There is a contradiction in the Buddhist position about the self. As I said before when A dies, B is born with the karma of A. Since there is no self, there is no relation between A and B. This position is contradictory on two counts:

 

1. Suppose A was a murderer. Poor B is saddled with the murderous karma of A for no reason at all. Moreover it seems to be thorougly unfair.

 

 

Yes indeed, if life is so random, there is no place for morals. Fortunately, this was the false belief of the materialist Gosaliputra and not the Buddha.

 

The two counts that you cited were based on the assumption that there is no relation between A and B. Not only that this is not the position of the Buddhist, this is where western logic fails and Indian (Buddhist in particular) logic holds.

 

The real Buddhist position is:

 

When B is born with the karma of A, B is neither A nor not A. In other words, the self of B is not the same as A nor is it different from A.

Even this curious position that the self of B is not the same as A nor is it different from A makes the Buddhist position palatable. Let me revisit my example of A being a murderer. Clearly the self of B, both that is not the same as A and that which is not different from A will suffer the Karmic consequences of A being the muderer. It seems fair that the self of B that is not different from A should suffer from the karmic consequences of A being the murderer. It seems highly unfair that the self of B that is not the same as A should suffer from the karmic consequences of A being the murderer.