The Self and No-Self (Anatta) – Buddhism teaches that there is no permanent, independent self (anatta), yet it also provides teachings on karma and rebirth, which seem to require some form of continuity.
Rebirth is like a candle flame to another candle. The flame is still a flame, but it's a different wick. I don't really buy that, but that's the traditional response. The real response is it's different cauese and conditions so it will be a different self. Rebirth is just birth, everything comes from causes and conditions.
Desire and Non-Attachment – The path to enlightenment requires the desire to be free from suffering, yet Buddhism teaches that desire itself is the cause of suffering.
Desire and attachment/clinging are two different things. You don't go from a moment of desire to no desire, you go from a moment of desiring enlightenment to not clinging to the desire.
Effort and Non-Striving – Enlightenment requires effort and practice, yet ultimate realization often comes from letting go of effort and striving.
Words and Silence – The Buddha used words and teachings to guide others, yet he also emphasized that truth is beyond language and cannot be fully expressed in words.
This is more complicated, but you have to relax certain things, like clinging, but you still need to remain vigilant about mindfulness and whatnot, so some things relax, some things remain vigilant.
Everything is Empty, Yet Everything Exists – Mahayana Buddhism teaches that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence (śūnyatā), yet they still appear and function in the world.
Empty of inherent existence, but it still exists as a composition of causes and conditions.
Neither Eternalism nor Nihilism – The Buddha rejected the idea of an eternal, unchanging soul (eternalism) and the idea that nothing exists after death (nihilism), offering a middle way that defies easy categorization.
Unknown if universe is eternal or ends, pointless metaphysical question without an answer, logic game.
Action and Non-Action – Buddhism encourages moral actions (sīla) and compassionate engagement, yet ultimate wisdom involves realizing that no independent actor truly exists.
When you realize that the kid cries getting what they want, you realize it's not the doing of things that gets people happy, but the attitude of equanimity and balance that solves strife, so the balance of action and non-action is simplified, but you still have to fix food to eat and whatnot.
The Middle Way – The Buddha taught a path between extremes (e.g., indulgence and asceticism), yet this "middle way" itself is paradoxical because it avoids fixed positions.
It's not a paradox that something is flexible to the always changing situations. There are no definitive answers.
Samsara and Nirvana Are One – Some Buddhist traditions, especially in Mahayana, state that samsara (the cycle of suffering) and nirvana (liberation) are not separate, despite seeming to be opposites.
It's how your mind takes it, no paradox, we create heaven and hell with our minds.
The Teaching of No-Teaching – The Buddha taught extensively, yet in some sutras, he declares that he has not actually "taught" anything, implying that true understanding is beyond conceptual grasp.
I'm not familiar with this one, but in conventional reality he taught things, but in unconditioned transcendental realm, he didn't teach anything.
Comments
Post a Comment