text:
Why is "I have no self" a wrong view?
In the Sabbasava Sutta (MN2), the view that "I have no self" is listed as one of the six wrong views and one who holds this view will not be freed from suffering.
Questions:

Why is "I have no self" a wrong view?
Why is this not a contradiction to anatta?

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view
  arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true &
  established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is
  precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is
  precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view
  It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very
  self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the
  ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant,
  everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it
  is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of
  views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views.
  Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is
  not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering &
  stress.

It is wrong view because of the "I" (bolded): "I have no self". This view still believes in self. It thinks: "myself has no self". This is the wrong view of the befuddled wanderer Vacchagotta in SN 44.10.
This wrong view is similar to the nihilistic view in MN 102, where it states:

Just as a dog bound by a leash tied to a post or pillar keeps running and circling around that same post or pillar; so too those through
  fear of identity & disgust with identity keep running and circling
  around that same identity.

Right view is: "The five aggregates have no self".

"The five aggregates have no self" but isn't it true that Self arises by the cooperation of five aggregates?

@dheeraj verma| Self never arise. Self is just an imagination as alike as a dream. It is not reality.

@BonnWarapol  I agree. I asked because I read this in a book by Paul Carus ...Thanks

Even the Buddha used personal pronouns like "I" and "me". Why is there anything wrong with this?

Personal pronouns are pronouns or grammar (rather than reality).

The Buddha never taught there is any kind of "self". What is considered a "self" the Buddha called a "disease" & "suffering". Self only arises when there is suffering. The suttas say: "the world calls a disease 'self' "; similar calling a certain disease 'cancer'. Regards

"1. Why is "I have no self" a wrong view?"

If the view "I have no self" arises as true & established, this view comes from the view "I have a self".
Why is that so?
In order for the view "I have no self" to arise as true & established, there must be a cognition of non existence of the self.
Thus, for non existence of the self to be cognized, a cognition of non existence of the self is needed, and what else is a cognition of non existence of a self then a kind of self itself?
Thus, in order for the self not to exist, there must be a kind of self with a cognition of non existence of the self.
That is why if you hold the view "I have no self" as true & established, you also hold the view "I have a self".
As long as you're holding onto the view "I have no self" as true & established and can't let go of it as untrue & not established, you have a self. Only when you let go of ALL the views, self ceases and does not arise, thus there is no self. This cessation of the self comes from wisdom.
If the view "I have no self" comes from wisdom, then it is not wrong view.
When does the view "I have no self" come from wisdom?
When you don't hold onto any views. When you know that "Neither there is self nor no self nor nothing nor something nor fabrications nor consciousness nor name&form nor six sense media nor contact nor feeling nor ... etc. ad infinutum". When it comes from this understanding:

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance
  comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of
  fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation
  of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the
  cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media.
  From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of
  contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling.
  From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the
  cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From
  the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming.
  From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the
  cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain,
  distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire
  mass of stress & suffering."

(source: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html)
Knowing the above, you know how self arises, what is its cause and how it ceases. Thus, when you state "I have no self" and it comes from wisdom "Neither there is self nor no self nor nothing nor something nor fabrications nor consciousness nor name&form nor six sense media nor contact nor feeling nor ... etc. ad infinutum", you're just using the wording "I have no self" to show the Path to somebody who clings to the self ("I have a self") so he can examine the other extreme "I have no self", and then after examination, to come in the middle "Neither there is self nor no self nor nothing nor something nor ... etc. ad infinitum".
This is exactly how the Buddha taught. He stated there was a self (5 aggregates, etc.) and he also stated there is no self, anatta. He didn't hold onto any of these two views. He just used them to show the middle.

"2. Why is this not a contradiction to anatta?"

Anatta states: there is no self to be found.
If your view "I have no self" comes from ignorance, it is a contradiction to anatta. If the view comes from ignorance, then you hold it as true & established, and by doing that there needs to be a self for that view to hold onto it, which is a contradiction to anatta.
If your view "I have no self" comes from wisdom, it is according to anatta. If the view comes from wisdom, then you have it as untrue & not established, and by doing that you're not holding onto it, thus no self is present. This is in accordance to anatta.

In the analogy something deeper is digged +1, but not reached. Madhyamaka Chapter 13 last karika by my transl: If one then instead by Emptiness taken in, all Buddhas none but helpless could regard him. Replace Emptiness with Anatta, the karika stands too.

Because having a view or position results in being limited by that view or position. Position is something Tathagata had abandoned. Instead, one relies on analytical wisdom and discernment of elements, causes and conditions. In other words, you see how things really work, without generalized concepts like "this exists" or "this does not exist".
In a more obvious sense, completely denying existence of self contradicts reality: there's something we call self, it's just that once you examine it closely it ends up being an illusion, but the mechanisms behind the illusion are not nonexistent.

Some suttas seem to define "views" as if they are type of stress.
The Avyakata Sutta (AN 7.51), for example, talks about the origin and cessation of views, in the same way that another sutta might talk about the origin and cessation of stress.
The Madhupindika Sutta (MN 18) seems to classify views as papanca and implies they should (like attachments and other obsessions) cease:

If, monk, with regard to the cause whereby the perceptions & categories of objectification assail a person, there is nothing there to relish, welcome, or remain fastened to, then that is the end of the obsessions of passion, the obsessions of resistance, the obsessions of views, the obsessions of uncertainty, the obsessions of conceit, the obsessions of passion for becoming, & the obsessions of ignorance. That is the end of taking up rods & bladed weapons, of arguments, quarrels, disputes, accusations, divisive tale-bearing, & false speech. That is where these evil, unskillful things cease without remainder.

...and:

This situation occurs: that when there is the manifestation of reasoning, one will recognise the manifestation of the assault of a number of obsessions and perceptions.

The Kaccayanagotta Sutta (SN 12.15) describes right view:

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.
"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.
"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme.

The "polarity" of existence versus non-existence takes several forms -- all the undeclared questions moe-or-less belong to that category: Does the Tathagata exist after death? Is the cosmos eternal, is it infinite? Are body and soul the same?
So far as I know perhaps the only "right view" is defined by the four noble truths, concerning the origin and cessation of stress, consequently every other view is wrong view. You might argue that anicca and anatta are right views too, but maybe anicca and anatta are better seen as further examples of wrong view, i.e. the view that things are permanent is "wrong", and views about self are also "wrong".
Having a thicket of views isn't the same thing as cessation of stress; and when you're supposed to be concentrating on some other activity, holding views like "I exist" or "I don't exist" are examples of attending inappropriately.

The sutta you quoted (MN 2) is about "fermentations" or asavas. See also the answers to "What is effluent?" -- I think that views in general are categorized as a type (one of four types) of asava.

I think the topic is related to the Vajira Sutta (SN 5.10):

Translator's note: This discourse dramatizes a problem that often arises in meditation practice — a speculative question arises that, if followed, pulls one out of concentration.
[...]
What? Do you assume a 'living being,' Mara?
  Do you take a position?
  This is purely a pile of fabrications.
[...]
For only stress   is what comes to be;
  stress,     what remains & falls away.
  Nothing but stress  comes to be.
  Nothing ceases  but stress.

If "nothing arises but stress" then views (including the speculative views about existence and non-existence which arise from attending inappropriately) are stress and thus "wrong".

Why is this not a contradiction to anatta?
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote a footnote to say that this second of six view (i.e. "I have no self") represents a annihilationist/materialist view and is not "anatta".
He doesn't justify/reference that statement/footnote, but having written the answer above I think it's justifiable: i.e. the six views represent eternalism, nihilism, and various other views in between these two extremes.
This answer implies that the doctrine of anatta means "not having a view of self" (it does not mean, "holding a view about non-existence of self") -- and I think that's precisely what's said in MN 22 which is quoted at the top of this answer to What is the precise meaning of anatta?
Perhaps, I don't know, Ven. Bodhi's noting that "I don't exist" is a "materialist" view was also supported or informed by the Visuddhimagga, as it was quoted in Ven. Yuttadhammo's answer.

Our present existence is the result of our past belief in a self. We have this wrong view until we attain Nibbana.

You do not say I have no self. You say all phenomenon have no self.

Right, anatta is described as: "all things are empty of self."

The notion of "self" in Buddhist literature is not defined in a way that would meet the standards of modern psychology and philosophy. A modern concept of self is usually defined in terms of agency or the causes of human action and is a subject of prolonged debate with no end in sight. Be wary of anyone who talks about self as if they know what it is. Ask anyone the differences between self, ego, self-esteem, social self, self compassion, agency, person, self concept, or the notion of "me" and you will soon find a confused mind or an arrogant one.

Upon stream entry you stop thinking about whether there is a self or not. The question simply ceases to arise. Keep meditating.

The statement I have no self is a clear paradox which results in cognitive dissonance. The moment one says 'I have' one has established the existence of the self - an objective ontological entity(I). Then anything which follows after 'I have' loses significance, rather it empowers the very idea of I as it associates some property (no self) with the self (I). That's why the idea 'I have no self' seems unsatisfactory.

What I was trying to say, but you said it better :)

really interesting answer thanks

As Ruben2020 points out

Even the Buddha used personal pronouns like "I" and "me"

Seems obvious -- to me -- then that the mistake is with the 'have': the idea that the skandhas include something called "no self".
There is nothing in addition to the skandhas, including some "not self" quality.
Mind you I can't read Pali.

Because from the statement 'i have no self' it infers that 'i am otherwise', there being 'i am" it follows that an "I" element exists and refers to some a true element like a color seen by the eye or an idea seen by intellect ie of speed or of motion, that a true discernable element is talked about in this way. This can't be established as a true element.

Neither apart from nor included in what is past, present or future; neither one thing nor a class of things; not apart from elements; not a 'neither an element nor not an element'; the characteristic of "being personal for this or that person " is not a true idea or quality. It is only included in 'the all' as a class of wrong views & ideas, it's like santa clause in that fictional product of imagination.
One can talk about false things like 'santa clause'  much like we can say 'i am'. If we know that this is a statement which is not founded on a true idea we might still choose to use the expression even tho meaning of a word happens to be an unreal element it might still effectively communicate some meaning. This is what happens when we use personal pronouns, they are just useful conventions.
Another way to think about it is as piece of something old and broken retaining a unique & useful function which makes it still viable and kept around just for that one function rather than it's primary past function. Ie a broken flashlight might be used for some other purpose.
It's like physicists switching between context of quantum and classical mechanics in language. There needs to be a norm to have a paradox and the norm is not meant to explain the paradox.


text:
Is "ghost month" really a Buddhist concept?
I currently live in Taiwan, and we are currently experiencing "ghost month". The Wikipedia article for Ghost Festival starts with:

The Ghost Festival, also known as the Hungry Ghost Festival, Zhongyuan Festival or Yulan Festival (traditional Chinese: 盂蘭節) is a traditional Buddhist and Taoist festival held in Asian countries.

The use of "traditional festival" suggests it may be more of a cultural tradition than a strict Buddhist concept.
Does the idea that hungry ghosts or spirits escape from (some subset of) Hell once a year and need to be fed have any root in the early origins of Buddhism, or is this an add-on concept coming from cultural ideas or perhaps from Taoism?

It appears this practice originated from Taoism, not from Buddhism. However, there is an account of hungry ghosts stories in Buddhism. (Petavattu)
In Sri Lanka, we pass merits to departed relatives but there is no specific date for it.

My person was not so avaliable here, those days. Here maybe some helpful links and inspirations, Mr/Mrs Uhoh.
The great buddhist ancestor festival - share ways of your country, tradition
It, if researching, has next to in every country it's long time till current tradition and is not that much connected with religions direct in it's performences. Such as a hell-door story, king and monks, is also base of the culture here in the country of the Khmers.

Pchum Ben is considered unique to Cambodia, however, there are merit-transference ceremonies that can be closely compared to it in Sri Lanka (i.e., offering food to the ghosts of the dead), and in its broad outlines, it even resembles the Taiwanese Ghost Festival (i.e., especially in its links to the notion of a calendrical opening of the gates of hell, King Yama, and so on) from wiki

It's the time of many illness, (hot, heavy rain, cold,... hard work on field.... was troubled by my self by heavy malaria attack those days and many villagers have/had also troubles these days. Not so access to medicine in earlier times, the "time" probably "caused" more death and pain as other)
Wiki might also give food for thought in regard of origin and practicing: Ghost Festival

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Can anyone explain non-self or Anatta of Buddhism in simple terms with example?
Recently I got to know about 'Non-Self' or Anatta term but online material was not comprehendible. Below are my questions:
1) Can anyone explain it in simple terms with example?
2) If there's no permanent self or soul then how did Buddha HIMSELF saw his previous lives in various forms, which would be impossible without a permanent soul. In the case of temporary soul it would have been only limited to current life.
3) What were the cases/scenarios from which Buddha made the 'Non-Self' conclusion?
4) How can I cross verify this claim. I mean experience this (as Buddha said believe on your own experience & then follow & not because I said it.)

There are 70+ topics on this site which are tagged [tag:anatta] ← click on the link to view them. Your question about previous lives might be addressed by a topic tagged [tag:rebirth], or some of these questions.

This question might be a duplicate of "What is the precise meaning of anatta?"

1) Can anyone explain it in simple terms with example?

'Self' is a subjective ever-changing 'idea' or 'thought' created by the ignorant mind. For example, the 'self' the mind believed it was at 4 years old is different to the 'self' the mind believes it is at 35 years old. If the mind stops thinking, it can see the body & mind do not have any real self. For example, if an axe is used to cut off a finger, is there any 'self' in that detached finger? Is there any 'self' in an ear lobe or eye-ball or liver or kidney? Is there any 'self' in a feeling of pain, perception of 'green' or sight of object or hearing of a sound? 'Self' is only an idea, such as when a mind believes: "John is a nice person"  but another mind believes: "John is a bad person".

2) If there's no permanent self or soul then how did Buddha HIMSELF saw his previous lives in various forms, which would be impossible
  without a permanent soul. In the case of temporary soul it would have
  been only limited to current life.

The Buddha did not see any previous lives. This is a mistranslation & misinterpretation of the original teachings (even though at a later time in Buddhism, scriptures such as Jataka Tales were created that depicted literal past lives). The Buddha recollected 'past abodes' or 'past adherences' ('pubbe nivasa'), which means viewing when in the past when the mind ignorantly attached to either one or all of the five aggregates as "self". This is clearly explained in the Khajjaniya Sutta. Please carefully read the entire Khajjaniya Sutta, very carefully, particularly the 2nd paragraph.

3) What were the cases/scenarios from which Buddha made the 'Non-Self' conclusion?

The first explanation is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta. Here, the Buddha started by explaining if each of the five aggregates can be subject to sickness/disease & cannot ultimately be controlled, how can they be a 'self'? Then the Buddha explained how can any of the five aggregates, each being impermanent & unable to bring lasting happiness, be a permanent lasting self or belong to a permanent lasting self?

4) How can I cross verify this claim. I mean experience this (as Buddha said believe on your own experience & then follow & not because
  I said it.)

Meditation. Stop thinking and allow the mind to become exclusively observant. Although the sense of self will initially remain, as the mind becomes more pure & naturally 'concentrated', the sense of self, which is merely subtle thoughts, will dissolve. Then the mind (rather than "you") will realise it & everything else is not a self.
However, be warned: this runs against the nature of instinct. Nature creates the instinct in self in people. Only relatively few minds clearly realise not-self. For most Buddhists, non-self is just blind-faith or a logical deduction (philosophical theory), such as for the famous philosopher Nāgārjuna.
If needing to read more, this is the best explanation: Anatta & Rebirth by Buddhadasa.

"1) Can anyone explain it in simple terms with example?"

Test 1:
open your eyes and look around you. You see trees of green, red roses too, you see them bloom and you think to yourself this is not me.
Why do you know "this is not me"?
You know because you see them.
If these things that you see were you, you wouldn't be able to see them.
Think about it ... if the thing you see was you, you would be inside this thing. If you were really inside this thing, how would you be able to see how this thing looks like? You wouldn't. It would be impossible to see how this thing looks like, if you were this thing.
You could argue "While being inside this thing, maybe I could create two little holes in this thing and look myself in the mirror?". Again, if you were to do that and you saw yourself in the mirror, you would know that what you saw in the mirror is not you! Why? Same as before: if the thing you see was you, you wouldn't be able to see it.
In the same way you throw a ball away from you and see it flying and know "this ball is not me", you see things already thrown away from you and know "these things are not me". Thus, you see trees of green, red roses too, you see them bloom and you know "this is not me".
Test 2:
Close your eyes and in your mind visualize a tree. In your mind you will see a tree and you will know this is not you.
Why do you know "this is not me"?
You know because you see it.
If what you visualize in your mind were you, you wouldn't be able to see your visualization. (read above in Test 1 as I already explained this)
In the same way you throw a ball away from you and see it flying and know "this ball is not me", you see visualized things thrown in your mind and know "these visualized things are not me". Thus, you see a visualization of a tree in your mind and know "this is not me".
Test 3:
Go to a haunted house in the middle of the night. Sit in a dark room and close your eyes. Sooner or later you'll become scared and you will know this is not you.
Why will you know "this is not me"?
You will know because you would perceive fear.
If the fear you perceive were you, you wouldn't be able to perceive the fear!
In the same way an "apple" is just an "apple" and is not "an apple and a mouse", "you" are just "you" and not "you and the perceived fear".
Think about it ... If an "apple" were the same as "an apple and a mouse", there wouldn't be any differences between the "apple" and "an apple and a mouse" ... they would be both completely the same, thus you wouldn't perceive the "mouse"! But you do perceive the "mouse", thus they are not the same: an "apple" is an "apple" and "an apple with a mouse" is different than the "apple" in the way that "an apple with a mouse" has a "mouse" near the apple. Thus, an "apple" is not "an apple and a mouse".
In the same way, if "you" were the same as "you and the perceived fear", there wouldn't be any differences between "you" and "you and the perceived fear" ... they would be both completely the same, thus you wouldn't perceive the "fear"! But you do perceive the "fear", thus "you" and "fear" are not the same: "you" is "you" and "you perceiving fear" is different than "you" in the way that "you perceiving fear" has "fear" near "you". Thus, "you" is not "perceived fear".
Test 4:
Close your eyes and think about anything you wish. A sound, an idea, a feeling, a thought, a sensation, ... No matter what you will think about, you will know this is not you.
Why will you know "this is not me"?
For the same reasons you know that fear is not you. (read above: Test 3)
Test 5:
Close your eyes and think about "you". You will know this is not you.
Why will you know "this is not me"?
For the same reasons you know that fear is not you. (read above: Test 3)

There you have it. Play with the above exercises in whatever way you wish and try to find something that is "you". No matter what you do, no matter where you look or how clever you are, you will not find this "you". Not being able to find this "you" no matter where you search is anatta: no self.

"2) If there's no permanent self or soul then how did Buddha HIMSELF
  saw his previous lives in various forms, which would be impossible
  without a permanent soul. In the case of temporary soul it would have
  been only limited to current life"

I think he didn't literally see his previous lives, but gained knowledge of their existence by realizing what is birth, what is the cause of birth and what is the end to birth. Knowing birth in this way, he knew that the cause of birth was ignorance. Then, seeing how this ignorance arose in the first place and knowing how hard it was to gain knowledge to eradicate this ignorance and seeing how the entire world is permeated with suffering due to ignorance, he concluded that innumerable rebirths were needed for the eradication of his ignorance. That's how he "saw" himself struggling in his previous lives. I think he didn't saw, but knew. He knew.

"3) What were the cases/scenarios from which Buddha made the
  'Non-Self' conclusion?"

He searched for self in every corner of the universe and the mind, but he couldn't find a self. But this was not enough. He then looked very precisely how "self" is born. He understood what is self, what is its cause, and what is its cessation. By knowing self in this way, he removed its cause and self completely ceased to exist. What happened next was this:
In the same way "Buddha" was just "Buddha" and was not "Buddha and his self", "Buddha" became just "Buddha" and not "Buddha and his self". By not becoming "Buddha and his self", Buddha became "Buddha". This is how he knew that self is just a fabrication and that there is really no self. He knew.

"4) How can I cross verify this claim. I mean experience this (as
  Buddha said believe on your own experience & then follow & not because
  I said it.)"

You need to calm your mind. Then you need to meditate and calm your mind even more. Then you need to do the above steps. Then you need to do some other steps. Etc. ... until you realize the truth yourself. Realization comes through meditation.
The calmer your mind is, the easier it will be.

This pali is completely define anattā. If you deeply understand pali language.

sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā, sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā, sabbe dhammā anattāti.

Everything, saṅkhata, that is arose by any causes is impermanent (unstable, even a god can die), so all of it is suffering because of impermanent-characterizes.
But Everything, saṅkhata & nibbāna & paññnatti, that is arose or not by causes, is uncontrollable (no man power), because the arising thing, saṅkhata, never arises by just one cause, or by itself. It must arises by multi causes that each other also arises by multi causes, too. And because the non-arising thing, nibbāna (asaṅkhata), is no arising of anything, so it is no self arise there, too. Also because the non-arising thing, paññatii, is just an imagination : in the other hands, nothing is real in a dream.
Anattalakkaṇasutta is non-self conclusion. But I recommend the meditation in advance, because after you meditated samatha & vipassanā, you will understand abhidhamma, so then anattā will appear very clearly.
I never find the easier more than tipitaka-reciting & tipitaka-memorizing & tipitaka-meditation, to access anattā-insight. I had searched for the commentary of anattā, before I recited & memorized & meditated tipitaka. After I do, no need commentary of anattā anymore. I can clearly understand anatta by logic myself because of tipitaka-reciting & tipitaka-memorizing & tipitaka-meditation (but I still not enlighten nibbāna because I not meditate the meditation enough).
**tipitaka-meditation = meditation follow tipitaka.

1) Can anyone explain it in simple terms with example?>

Camp fire becomes a grassfire. Grass fire becomes bushfire. Bushfire becomes a
house fire. These events happened due to various type of fuel available to the fire. Consciousness is like a fire.

2) If there's no permanent self or soul then how did Buddha HIMSELF saw his previous lives in various forms, which would be impossible without a permanent soul. In the case of temporary soul it would have been only limited to current life.>

Samsara is there it is like the raging fire.

3) What were the cases/scenarios from which Buddha made the 'Non-Self' conclusion?>

He experienced Nibbana. You can't experience Nibbana if there is a self.

4) How can I cross verify this claim. I mean to experience this (as Buddha said to believe on your own experience & then follow & not because I said it.)>

Through investigation and meditation.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Sensations in practice
I've noticed that in many teachings, books etc it is emphasised that something enters a sense door, sensation arises,then vedana then thought proliferates and I can understand this so far as a sound or smell etc  but what I notice in my practice a lot is not that. What I notice is that thought arises followed by sensation for example a thought of a lost loved one followed by sadness or a sexual thought followed by particular physical sensations.  Can someone please explain this.  what ive read must only be talking about one aspect right? I don't feel a sexual sensation then think about it. Its the opposite.

When your thought arises, it is thought entering your mind's sense door. This is then followed by sensations and/or feelings arising. Because you can't see the subtleties why this thought of yours is arising, you think that it is not according to the teachings.
Putting too much attention on such subtle things as thoughts, sensations, feelings and what arises/comes first, etc. during meditation should be avoided, because most people's meditation skills are not high enough to see these subtle things and their order of appearance. Even if somebody has high meditation skills to see these subtleties, others who are not skilled in meditation could easily misinterpret such teachings and/or think that something is different in their minds, which is not.

External stimuli activate nerve sensors which transmit a signal to the brain  - in the case of the 5 senses (taste, touch, smell, sight, and hearing). The other sensations you speak of are the result of bodily reactions to internal stimuli (called psychosomatic). These are reactions generally recognized by increased respiration or blood flow as the case my be. They are only semi-voluntary responses.

When one comes in touch with and object with the 6 doors one experiences sensation. When this object is identified it is received by the mind. This again cases sensations. This sensation can trigger further thoughts. When you crave for any of these sensations this case formations which can cause sensations both mental and physical. In this process, one might only part of the process if one is not very aware. Therefore, one might see sensations before or after in the alternating sequence.

Householder Arturia, interested,
One fire!

"The eye (similar: ears, nose, tongue, body, intellect, it's objects and so on) is burning, forms are burning, eye-consciousness is burning, eye-contact is burning, also whatever is felt as pleasant or painful or neither-painful-nor-pleasant that arises with eye-contact for its indispensable condition, that too is burning. Burning with what? Burning with the fire of lust, with the fire of hate, with the fire of delusion. I say it is burning with birth, aging and death, with sorrows, with lamentations, with pains, with griefs, with despairs.

Okkanta-samyutta — Entering
one having faith in the Tripple Gems, having faith that senses and theit objects as well as all phenomena around getting touched are not real, no refuge, not worthy to give into and hold on them, is called a faith follower, not able to die before not having seen for himself, one who agrees by intellect, a Dhamma-follower, likewise.
One who has seen for himself, that the the eye is inconstant, changeable, alterable. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The mind is inconstant, changeable, alterable, and/or that feeling born of eye-contact is inconstant, changeable, alterable. Feeling born of ear-contact... Feeling born of nose-contact... Feeling born of tongue-contact... Feeling born of body-contact... Feeling born of intellect-contact is inconstant, changeable, alterable.... is called an stream-enter, a Noble One, no more able to fall from the path and gain low existances.
And how does one see for himself? By investigation it right on place - leading a good and virtuous renouncing life - with birth giving attention (yoniso manasikkara), here and now, all of the time taken for worthy giving into: Satipatthana Sutta: Frames of Reference
(note that this Gift of Dhamma is not given for trade, stacks, exchange or entertainment, but for ones work trough maccharia to escape the wheel here and liberation)

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
What is the meaning of the "one mind" in the awakening of faith?
You can read that shastra here. I'm quite fond of it, though I don't have my own meditation practice.
If I had to narrow the question down, I'd ask if it contains different practices, of different sentient beings. Not absolutely sure that makes sense, though. I like the idea of it substituting for 'heaven' on those grounds, of others.

i found this and will read it, and post an answer in the next few days, if no-one else does.

'One mind' means reality, the reality which is in front of you now and which you are part of. It manifests in two ways - as the absolute, when you don't concieve in terms of self and others; and the phenomenal, when you do.

thanks for the reply, gavin. should i leave one about Wonhyo? i'm not sure

Yes, that's what the site is for :) I will be interested to find out what it means...


text:
Is understanding a phenomenon?
Buddha says all phenomenon are nonself. If understanding is a phenomenon then my understanding of Dhamma will fade away and I will again fall into ignorance.
So my question is: is understanding a phenomenon?

At least yes, the Dhamma as a stand, or "my" understanding of Dhamma, all stands/views (diṭṭhī) have to be abounded at least, whereas the Dhamma (teching), the raft, will be abounded when having reached the other shore, see the "raft - simile". Note that it is the very last, and in no way good to abound fist or in the middle of the ozean.
Having layed down all views, seeing knowing as unreal as well, one then might reach what is called paññā-vimutti knowing-release, where all kinds of stands or views are abounded, would no more related to.
The word under-stand-ing it self shows well that it is a matter of "holding on it" (upādāna), yet there are Dhammas, there is a Dhamma, that is useable to get free of unreal, insecure (anicca) things.
The first step here is to distinguishing right understanding from wrong understanding: Micchatta Sutta: Wrongness, and after having developed the path completely, one, by abounding it also, gets free of troubles:

Among those who live above confrontation
      not pitting view against view,
      whom would you gain as opponent, Pasura,
  among those here
  who are grasping no more?
To Pasura

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other kinds of low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange]

Understanding is caused. Understanding cannot be gained at will. Otherwise we wouldn't have to study, meditate or cultivate the mind. Understanding in reality means a thought or a sequence of thoughts. Thoughts arise and fall all the time. But once you uproot a defilement, it cannot be associated with thoughts again. Once you uproot ignorance, it cannot be associated with subsequent thoughts.

What do you mean by "uproot a defilement"?

like uprooting a tree instead of just cutting or trimming. This way the tree cannot grow back.

"Is understanding a phenomenon?"

Yes.
Now you're thinking: "When understanding ceases, I'll fall again into ignorance".
No, no my friend.
Now you're thinking why?
Because: when all phenomena cease, there is no ignorance. Think about it ... How could there be ignorance, if all phenomena ceased?? When all ceases, there is nothing that can be ignorant.
Ignorance is like clinging onto an apple with worms inside. You think "Apple with worms is mine". When you destroy the worms, do you have an apple with worms inside? No. Can some other worms return into the apple? Yes. When you destroy the apple that you're so dearly clinging onto it, do you have an apple with worms? No. Can some other worms return into the apple? No, because there is no apple. Thus, you let go of the clinging onto the apple and by letting go of clinging, you let go of the apple.
In the same way as clinging onto an "apple with worms", you're holding onto the idea of "self with understanding is mine". You're thinking "Understanding is mine". Now I ask you: When you destroy the 5 skandhas, do you have the 5 skandhas? No. Can some skandha return into that understanding of yours? Yes. When you destroy the understanding that you're so dearly holding onto it, do you have understanding? No. Can some skandha return into the understanding? No, because there is no understanding. Thus, you let go of the clinging onto the understanding and by letting go of clinging, you let go of the understanding.
Just like worms in an apple, understanding is a disease, understanding is suffering, understanding should be let go of. This is how a noble one should see understanding: not mine. Thus, he should not hold onto it.
But now you think again "If there is no understanding, there is ignorance". Again you're thinking like this because you're holding onto the idea of self. In this case you're again holding onto the idea "Understanding is self". You're holding onto this idea because you're holding onto one or more or a combination of these ideas: "Self exists", "Self does not exist".
This is how a noble one should see understanding: not mine.
But now you think "If when there is no understanding, there is no ignorance, then there is wisdom.". You're thinking like this because you're holding onto the idea of self. In this case you're holding onto the idea "Wisdom is self". You're holding onto this idea because you're holding onto one or more or a combination of these ideas: "Self exists", "Self does not exist".
This is how a noble one should see wisdom: not mine.
But now you think "If when there is no understanding, there is no ignorance, there is no wisdom, then there is something." ...
Again, this is how a noble one should see something/anything/ALL: not mine.
You should let go of ALL ideas. Even of the idea "Self does not exist". In this question you can see the Buddha talking about this "letting go of all ideas": Why is "I have no self" a wrong view?
It's because you haven't experienced anatta in its entirety that you're still holding onto ideas about self. Read answers to this question to get ideas how to experience anatta: Can anyone explain non-self or Anatta of Buddhism in simple terms with example?

Understanding the dharma is certainly conditional and impermanent. If your wisdom was permanent, you could never have gained insights or wisdom from ignorance in the first place!
So your question might be, what use is gaining wisdom if it's impermanent? Wouldn't I lose it all in the end? That would be a form of nihilistic thinking. Wisdom will certainly last long enough to be useful. And indeed, having wisdom will mean that you will take the necessary precautions to prevent yourself from losing wisdom, it means that you must continue to practice to maintain your wisdom, that you should avoid self destructive behavior such as intoxicants and violating precepts to causes ignorance to arise.
A table is impermanent, there's is no 'essence' of the table in the wood/metal. The table is made up of it's parts - legs, surface and so on, and is configured as a table through causes and conditions. However, a table is still useful for putting things on. And a table that is taken care of will last for quite a while. And if you know how to attain wisdom (through the Noble Eightfold Path), you will be able to regain it even if it's lost. Even a murderer like Angulimala became enlightened after he repented his sins.
There is some metaphysical discussion made here about how one can 'uproot' ignorance permanently. However from a Mahayana perspective, even the end of ignorance is empty, that is, the absence of ignorance is also caused and conditioned, impermanent and selfless too. Knowing this, one applies and maintain wisdom as far as one can, and even when one loses it, find the way back into wisdom.

Understanding is conditioned, on a place, a time, a frame of reference. Your falling into ignorance is an intentional choice, if you are already aware of the Dhamma.

I don't want to loose my understanding of Dhamma. But since understanding is a phenomenon, understanding does not belong to Self. I must put away the desire for understanding.  Once I put away the desire for understanding then how can I be aware of Dhamma which requires understanding?

I think this round of thinking is why the answer is found through meditation, not conditioned cognition. Maybe as the path develops in a person, the desire for understanding dies down gradually, as impermanence and non-self are observed to be evident and true, even for the Jhanas.

The Pali says (e.g. in the Dhammapada),

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā
  Sabbe saṅkhārā dukkhā
  Sabbe dhammā anattā

So saṅkhārā are impermanent. Saṅkhārā are described elsewhere (e.g. Can anyone explain Sanskara / Sankara indepth?) but I think it means:

"Compound things" or "composite things" (things that are put together)
"Conditioned things" (things whose existence depends on conditions, things which arise when the conditions are right and which cease when those conditions no longer exist)

Note the last line: Sabbe dhammā anattā, not, Sabbe saṅkhārā anattā. So in translation,

All conditioned phenomena are impermanent
  All conditioned phenomena are dukkha
  All phenomena (dhammas) are without Self

I think the last line is different because it's meant to include Nibanna which is also called the Unconditioned (and which is not impermanent or dukkha); so I'd read that last line as:

All phenomena, without exception, whether conditioned and/or unconditioned, are without Self

Is understanding a phenomenon?
That depends on definitions, I guess; but if you're asking whether understanding is a conditioned or an unconditioned phenomenon,
I think that the answers to topics like How are 'conceit' and 'identity-view' not the same? suggest that "understanding" e.g. in the sense of "having a view" is conditioned (therefore impermanent).
I will again fall into ignorance
I'm not sure that's so: because the understanding that "there is an I" is presumably a conditioned phenomenon, and subject to cessation. That (identity-view) is presumably part of what (wrong views) ceases on the way to attaining Nibanna.

"Understanding" is our linear, time-limited conception of mental awareness. That is our ability to comprehend things in our world that are beyond our immediate perceptions. Is it a phenomenon? Sure.
Will you fall into ignorance? I dont think so. I actually believe in the eternalism of our awareness or consciousness or soul or whatever crafty name we have for it this week. This body is a meatbag that our awareness drives around. Once we are back to pure awareness we will no longer rely on memory or perceptions or understanding. We will experience everything at once in our realm of perception - whatever perception awareness encompasses. We're no longer limited to these crappy perceptions and tools that make us have to piece together fragmented clues of reality to experience something from afar. We just experience it and everything else all at once.

Sorry to say but isn't awareness a phenomenon? Isn't awareness impermanent,changeable and stressful ? It is said that what is impermanent , changeable and stressful can not be self or soul. However I am also inclined to believe in some kind of eternalism of our understanding of Dhamma or Self.

I dont think awareness is a phenomenon. It's not impermanent or changeable. But this I will study on for a bit. Thank you!


text:
Felt sense vs visual sense
Meditation instructions generally reiterate focusing ones attention on the sensations of breath but attention can mean several things. It can mean placing attention on what you feel but what about what you see?  What I notice a lot is, what I can only describe as my "inner eye", wants to see or visualise something so it generally sees various images either from the past or fantasises about the future etc which is very distracting. Where am I meant to place this eye? I don't know how to just not see anything.   I can place my attention on the sensations of my abdomen rising and falling but that is a felt sense not a visual sense. I have not come across any instruction about this.   Do I place the visual sense on the abdomen? Or do I visualise an object or Buddha etc?

Are your (physical) eyes open or closed, when your inner eye wants to visualise?

I always meditate with eyes closed. I am a very visual thinker so it's just natural for me to see lots of things happening in my mind.

What you see, in this case, are visual thoughts- they're the same as verbal thoughts. They arise due to untraceable prior causes that are outside of your control, and they can't really be stopped. Mental and verbal thoughts are both "sankhara", conditioned formations. We are all VERY strongly conditioned in our lives to grasp on to these formations, to "believe" them, and turn them in to ideas and visions and further thoughts.
When you focus on your breath (or any other meditation object), you're focusing on something real- something you "feel", like you said- but, unlike thoughts and visions, it's something that doesn't feed more grasping.
Each time your attention goes to your object, you slowly loosen the grip that these conditioned formations have on your attention.
So there's no need to place the attention of the "inner eye" anywhere. Acknowledge and accept that these visual images arise, then put them aside.
Later on, you'll start to see how visual and verbal thoughts are both the product of the same movements of the mind. These movements mean nothing in themselves- they're just disturbances, like swirls of milk in a stirred-up cup of coffee- but our storehouse of memories and perceptions fill those swirls with powerful symbolism and apparent meaning.

Thanks for this answer. You have explained it very simple and clearly.

As for visual awareness, you don't place it anywhere. The way I was instructed, we don't close eyes, we relax them (="soft eyes") and let them wander. If we get sleepy, then we should actively re-engage visual awareness with the room around us, but normally we let the eyes wander and disengage. Most of the attention should be on the breathing - not necessarily abdomen, rather on all muscles involved with breathing, from chest to solar plexus to lowest part of abdomen. The point is to watch the blockages in breathing until you become very familiar with detailed sensations of breathing so much that you start "seeing through breathing". Again, this is how I was instructed, every school is different. When you really concentrate on watching your breathing, the visual images do not appear - but it is absolutely normal and typical for meditators of all experience levels to be attacked by them at random points - I see it as an inevitable sideeffect of going deeper into subconscious, one of those things that are so common that at some point one stops getting frustrated with them and accepts them as part of the deal.
I personally do not recommend visualizing Buddhas or any other objects. I never had success with that type of meditation, so no positive experience.

What is meant by "blockages" like sankaras?

Seeing consciousness is seeing consciousness. The content of what you see, think, feel, desire, isn't very important to mindfulness insight practice. What's important is what arises in your personal experiential  world so there is no outside seeing, it's all in your mind.
If you thought "hey that image is in my mind" or "hey, this image is coming from the outside physical world" those would be thoughts, not sights. The sight outside or inside is just a  sight. A sight is just what it is "a pattern of colors" and the "seeming like it's coming from outside your mind" is the experience called "seeming". Two different things, see? We are after precise truth of whatever aspect of experience we are focusing on as it arises and that always happens in the present moment.
We see these experiences as they are, so words never can really capture what we are referring to, the raw stuff of our experience is what we are referring to when we say "it is what it is". -Metta :)

Not really sure what you're saying.  They never come from outside. They are just visual thoughts

We're you seeing something in your mind or thinking something in your mind or both? Whatever it is, is what it is, right? Feeling, seeing, hearing. See if you heard something in your mind  it can come from the mind or the ear, either way it's the same in this practice. We really got to actually practice to start to understand  Dhamma.

I think both. Thinking in images

For ānāpanassati-meditation: don't care the others, even temperature at nose tip. Just focus only breath at nose tip. Even the others come to your senses or your mind, ignore them all. Just focus on only this:

"When he breathing in long, he contemplates 'I breathing in long';
  Or when he breathing out long, he contemplates 'I breathing out
  long'.
When he breathing in short, he contemplates 'I breathing in short';
  Or when he breathing out short, he contemplates 'I breathing out
  short'.
He trains himself 'I am breathing in and sensitively contemplating
  the entire breath in'. Or he trains himself 'I am breathing out and
  sensitively contemplating the entire breath out'.
He trains himself 'I am breathing gentle breath in'. Or he trains
  himself 'I am breathing gentle breath in'.

http://tipitaka.wikia.com/wiki/Satipatthana_Sutta#A._Body
Nimitta always appears to every practitioner, however don't care of nimitta. Just keep focus on breath.
Target of concentration meditation is diverting the attention from unwholesome consciousness's object to wholesome consciousness's object, by ignore the other objects and focus just one.

I have practiced mindfulness meditation for 50 years. I have even written a book on the practice. The purpose of focusing on the breath is to achieve an objective state of mind so that the deeper mind gets a chance to form important and personal insights.

Wow I'm impressed. I hope I make it to 50 years

I always meditate with eyes closed. I am a very visual thinker so it's just natural for me to see lots of things happening in my mind.
I seem to have a place in my mind from which images stream or bubble, like water from a spring or like the bubbles from an air pump in an aquarium. If I concentrate (focus) on that then it forms into an image, or a dream-fragment. A way to semi-hide that is to open my eyes: the light seems to hide or wash out or fade the inner image. Some traditions recommend that you meditate with your eyes open, for example Wall Gazing in Soto Zen,

In short, I'd say it's easier to ensure you don't get distracted with your thoughts.

There's a similar tendency of the mind to bubble out words (internal or silent words): replaying old conversation, practicing new conversation, singing bits of song, etc.
There are different senses (sight, sound, etc.) and Buddhism might talk of different consciousnesses for the different senses (e.g. "eye-consciousness", etc.). I view it as there being different sense-bodies or realms: e.g. there's an "eye-body of eye-consciousness", etc. Eye and ear are two of the most dominant or most popular senses, in "modern society": when people go to school, they're taught to read and write, figure out equations, and look at pictures; and to talk, and listen, and play music, and so on. The sense of touch is somewhat deprecated, unused, untaught. Words like haptic and proprioception exist but they're not everyday vocabulary. Nevertheless I think there's a "body" of sensory nerves and touch-consciousness, like there's a eye-body and a word-body (or "logic-body").
In the question Awareness of two things I quoted an experiment which I think shows that awareness or attention can move very quickly -- several times per second -- from one thing (or rather, one focus) to another. I find that when I try to concentrate on breathing, that's not engaging or interesting enough and my mind wanders ... maybe it wanders several times per second. Maybe it wanders to that place which is bubbling proto-images ... and easily gets caught there, swept up into a developing image.
So (apart from opening your eyes so that light, the external eye, drowns out the internal images), another way to avoid this problem might be to try to set your default focus, your resting attention, on your feeling-body -- i.e. on your sense of touch, your haptic/proprioception body -- instead of on your (usual/default) eye-consciousness. Be aware that there is a body, to start with -- limbs, back, head balanced on top, gravity, heart, etc. Be aware of breathing and, in the instants when you're not aware of breathing, whenever there's not enough breathing to catch your attention, or not enough change of breathing (I think senses/consciousness is more sensitive to whatever is changing than to whatever is staying the same) then revert back to being aware of the body (rather than e.g. aware of internal images or internal monologue).
Traditional advice (about setting your attention on your body) is to set your attention at your nose. I beware of contradicting that advice, but maybe the nose is too close to the head, so it's easy to get lost in thought. Maybe instead you could put that attention on your abdomen, for example, instead of your nose: e.g. on the lower dantian.
I can place my attention on the sensations of my abdomen rising and falling but that is a felt sense not a visual sense.
I find I pay attention to one thing at a time: for example if a passenger is talking to me then I might have momentary lapses of attention when driving a car -- or that I can switch between two or more things, but just a few things "simultaneously" are enough to fill my attention. I find there are a lot of sensations in the feeling-body: not only breathing but heart beating, balancing gravity, etc. -- i.e. "reality" -- maybe enough stimulation to displace "imagination".

I wonder if the tendency to "want" to imagine things, the habit, might be related to craving (tanha), or asava, or "sensual desire" or "craving for rebirth" or "restlessness".


text:
Does a fertlized pigeon egg have life in it?
I got pigeon eggs in my big balcony - in different places  -  some of them get abandoned by the pigeons.
At what time by Buddhism are the eggs considered a sentient being ?

Related: Does eating eggs break the precepts?

Breath, and those interested (in possible release),
when ever there is the knowledge or assumption, that "living being", it would require to accept the destruction of life, if then (not knowing as it is) take on to destruct, call for it, or accept.
To tend to one speculation requires to deny the other possibility, once arosen.
Once such a serious thought of "it could be..." is arosen, it would be unskillful to simply deny it unproved and act on it. It falls then quick under what is called "deliberate" act.
Even if it would then show that there was no life in it, "luckily", the acceptance before, is unskillful kamma, yet not a break of precept.
So the wise way is always, if in doubt, to handle it as if, and not to deny it out of certain personal reasons, at least most unskillful.
"Please" be clear that intention is something very close to the act it self and not a far purpose.
One literary sample would be the burning down of a forest, jet accepting even if humans are inside, that they would die, as one story where a monk caused a downfall - transgression. (See Pārājika discussion)
To tell somebody "there is no life in it" without directly knowing, would transgress (aside of possible purpose to even have something killed) the precept of "speaking what is not true".
At least, in regard of the question: the modern and by certain sects used "sentient" is not a messure, since such leads to all kind of speculations. "Living", in what ever way and state is to be taken as messure.

Does a fertlized pigeon egg have life in it?

If knowing even this that fertlized... If not knowing that it died, it is to be assumed. Eggs have possible life in it. That is something seen and known, for the most, yet not an inherent knowledge of everyone at the same time.
[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma, not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

Buddhist teachings seem to speak in the negative, so I'll say that the answer is when is a fertilized egg not sentient.

Pigeon egg has life in it.
If it would have no life, then how would life come out of it? It would be impossible.
If it would have no life, then how would "no life" be transformed into "life"? It would be like making "something" out of "nothing". That would be impossible. How could you make something from nothing? How could life be made from nothing? It would be impossible. Thus, egg has life in it.
If egg has life in it, then what created "life" in the egg? It would be like having "something" without creating this "something". It would be like having an effect without a cause. That would be impossible. How could something exist without a cause? How could life exist without a cause? It would be impossible. Thus, egg has life in it and this life has a cause.
If life in the egg has a cause, then what created the cause? What created the cause of the cause? What created the cause of the cause of the cause? Etc.? It would be like having an infinite chain of causes-effects leading to the final effect which is life in the egg. If the final effect is the product of an infinite chain of causes-effects, how could the final effect which is life in the egg even happen? It would be impossible for that effect to happen. It would be like having infinite causes-effects in a row, and even if a cause in a row would trigger the chain of causes-effects, the chain reaction would never reach the effect you're observing which is life in the egg, thus life in the egg would never be created. Thus, egg has no life in it.
If it has no life, then how would life come out of it? It would be impossible. Thus, egg has life in it.
If it has life, then how would life come into the egg without a cause? It would be impossible. Thus, life in the egg has a cause.
If it has a cause, then how would life come into the egg? It would be impossible, due to the infinite chain of causes-effects never reaching the final effect which is life in the egg, thus life in the egg would never be created. Thus, egg has no life in it.
Thus, we see, that egg has both life in it and no life in it at the same time. How could egg have life in it and not have life in it at the same time? It would be impossible. It either has life in it or it doesn't have life in it. It can either be one or the other, but not both at the same time. Having both would be impossible. Nonetheless, egg has both at the same time. Thus, if having both is impossible, the only remaining option is that egg has none. Thus, egg neither has life nor no life in it.
In spite of the egg neither having life nor no life in it, life comes out of it. How could life come out of "neither life nor no life"? That would be impossible. Thus it follows, that egg "neither has life in it nor no life in it" but has "something else" in it from which life comes out of it. Searching for "something else" in the egg and following the above logic of searching for life in the egg, we would again conclude that egg neither has "something else" in it nor has not "something else" in it, thus we would come to the same conclusion as above when asking if egg has life in it: egg neither has life in it nor no life in it.
Whatever we would search inside the egg, we would always come to the same conclusion: "that" which was searched in the egg neither "exists" nor "does not exist" -> "egg neither has life in it nor no life in it nor "something else" in it nor not "something else" in it nor anything in it nor nothing in it". Let's call this Emptiness of the egg, as whatever we search in the egg, we always come to the conclusion that what was searched in the egg neither exists nor does not exist.
In spite of everything in the egg neither existing nor not existing, life is created in it. Thus, creation of life in the egg must have a cause.
Thus egg neither has life in it nor no life in it, but whatever is created in it is not without a cause.
In the same way as egg has Emptiness, whatever is created by the egg or anything else will have Emptiness too. Thus, everything that exists is Emptiness, but whatever exists does not exist without a cause.
Thus egg neither has life in it nor no life in it, but when life is created in it is not created without a cause. The chicken that comes out of the egg neither exists nor does not exist, but her consciousness does exist with a cause. In the same way consciousness of the chicken neither exists nor does not exist, but exists with a cause. Thus, everything that exists is Emptiness, but whatever exists does not exist without a cause.
It is up to you to determine what is that Emptiness in the egg ... is it life or not life? Is it a sentient being or not a sentient being? If you say it's life or a sentient being, you would be wrong, because it would contradict the Emptiness. If you say it's not life nor a sentient being but it's something else, it would be again wrong because it would contradict Emptiness. If you say it's nothing, it would be again wrong because it would contradict Emptiness. If you say it's Emptiness, it would be again wrong because it would contradict the existence of that which you called Emptiness. If you say it's ignorance of Emptiness, you would be right. Whatever you see in that Emptiness in the egg, it is up to you to decide how will you act upon that ignorance of Emptiness in the egg.

this post is very amusing and entertaining... lol. but looks like your've read Nagarjuna the wrong way. not your fault, there's none good translation around.

The answer differs because I haven't read anything from Nagarjuna. How would Nagarjuna answer this question?

What Buddhist doctrine (or personal experience) is it based on? It reminds me of "Turtles all the way down" (which, Wikipedia says, is also known in English as the "chicken and egg problem").

I don't know what Buddhist doctrine it's based on. I answered based on observation.

According to Mahayana Sutras, eggs have lives. Buddha concluded, there're four types of birthing: fetus, egg, humidity (濕生, not sure what's the correct etymology, it means born by wetness sort of, like bacteria that kind of life-form), and manifesting (化生, without parents or any media, just appear, like the life-form in Naraka/hell).
Buddha taught, egg-born is caused by thought. It follows that an egg is the thought baby of the pigeon, I think. If the egg is eaten, it's like you're eating the baby of the mother-pigeon...!
Some reports claim that hens can lay fertilized eggs without mating, it's a bit puzzling...
Should we consider eggs are sentient beings? It's another puzzle, depends on how to define "sentient being".

The Birth & Growth of a Being
"Monks, the descent of the embryo occurs with the union of three things. There is the case where there is no union of the mother & father, the mother is not in her season, and a gandhabba [8] is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. There is the case where there is a union of the mother & father, and the mother is in her season, but a gandhabba is not present, nor is there a descent of an embryo. But when there is a union of the mother & father, the mother is in her season, and a gandhabba is present, then with this union of three things the descent of the embryo occurs.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.038.than.html

would it be fair to apply what you've quoted from MN38 to the OP's question as "life begins at conception"? If the egg is fertilized, it is a life?


text:
According to Buddhism , who achieves Nirvana?
All phenomenon are nonself then who achieves the Nirvana?

May be it is a duplicate.

The mind (citta) finds & abides in Nibbana, similar to when taking medicine from a doctor, the physical body (rather than a 'self') gets well. Its like having a baby. Sperm & ovum make a baby rather than a two selves ('husband' & 'wife'). Its like when food is digested by intestines (rather than by a self). Regards

Mind is the whole creation.

Your question is invalid. If all phenomena are non-self you cannot ask "what self achieves the phenomenon called Nibbana".
Prince Siddharta attained  Nibbana and became the Buddha. But that is a statement in conventional reality. When you say "all phenomena are non-self", it is a statement in ultimate reality. Do not  try to mix up the 2 paradigms. Either you speak in ultimate reality or conventional reality. Pick one at a time.

Nirvana is not a phenomenon. You mean to say that I can not say Siddhartha Gautama attained Nirvana. If Siddhartha Gautama did not attain nirvana then how should I rephrase the question ?

@DheerajVerma you could look at The Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta, again, and maybe phrase the question in terms of passing away

All realities are phenomena. I think you are confusing phenomena with formations(conditioned phenomena)

And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in
  front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West?
  North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?

I suppose I can read your question in two ways:

The Buddha (or arhat) is like the fire, dependent on causes and conditions. When it has gone out, what has gone out?
What does the Buddha (or arhat) depend upon, that has been "uprooted"?

I think the answer to 2 is form feeling sensation, etc., and the answer to 1, what is put out when nirvana or final nirvana is reached, is conditioned existence, or maybe suffering, or dependent phenomena, or ignorance. It probably depends on your framework.


text:
The Vanishing of Greed, Hatred, and Delusion ~ Nyanatiloka
At the beginning of his talk, The Vanishing of Greed, Hatred, and Delusion,  Ajahn Viradhammo reads verses about Nibbana from a translation by Nyanatiloka of a fragment of the Pali Canon, from the Asaṅkhata Saṃyutta I suppose:

This, Oh monks, is called the Unconditioned: the vanishing of greed, hatred, and delusion.
  This Oh monks, is called the Boundless:  the vanishing of greed, hatred, and delusion.
  This Oh monks, is called Freedom from [?]:  the vanishing of greed, hatred, and delusion.
  This Oh monks, is called the True: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Further Shore: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Subtle: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the [?]: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Ageless: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Permanent: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Beyond of All Manifoldness: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Peace: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Deathless: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Sublime: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Auspicious: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the [?]: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Wondrous: ...
  This Oh monks, is called the Sorrowless: ...
  .. etc...

Is anyone aware of such a translation by Nyanatiloka being available on line ?
Thank you for having taken the time to read this, your kind and generous help is very much appreciated.

Maybe it can help:
https://urbandharma.org/pdf/wordofbuddha.pdf ,
https://what-buddha-said.net/library/pdfs/Nyanatiloka_Buddhist_Dictionary.pdf ,
http://ftp.budaedu.org/ebooks/pdf/EN012.pdf

@beginner I don't think those contain the quoted text (but if they did it would be better to post it as a answer than as a comment, maybe with a page number too).

Bhikkhus, I will teach you the taintless and the path leading to the taintless.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the truth and the path leading to the truth.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the far shore and the path leading to the far shore.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the subtle and the path leading to the subtle.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the very difficult to see and the path leading to the very difficult to see.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unaging and the path leading to the unaging.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the stable and the path leading to the stable.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the undisintegrating and the path leading to the undisintegrating.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unmanifest and the path leading to the unmanifest.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unproliferated and the path leading to the unproliferated.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the peaceful and the path leading to the peaceful.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the deathless and the path leading to the deathless.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the sublime and the path leading to the sublime.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the auspicious and the path leading to the auspicious.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the secure and the path leading to the secure.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the destruction of craving and the path leading to the destruction of craving.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the wonderful and the path leading to the wonderful.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the amazing and the path leading to the amazing.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unailing and the path leading to the unailing.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unailing state and the path leading to the unailing state.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the Nibbana and the path leading to the Nibbana.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unafflicted and the path leading to the unafflicted.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the dispassion and the path leading to the dispassion.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the purity and the path leading to the purity.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the freedom and the path leading to the freedom.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the unadhesive and the path leading to the unadhesive.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the island and the path leading to the island.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the shelter and the path leading to the shelter.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the asylum and the path leading to the asylum.
Bhikkhus, I will teach you the refuge and the path leading to the refuge.
Samyutta Nikaya 43.14 to SN 43.43 translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi

Possible source : The Buddha's Path To Deliverance ~ Nyanatiloka
https://books.google.fr/books?id=TjDkBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA90&lpg=PA90&dq=manifoldness+nyanatiloka&source=bl&ots=OOSRkkkMWG&sig=1amC6GoSby-xpjiaImzTsE9bCpY&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC4aeS6aHWAhVGPxoKHeFzBd8Q6AEIDzAC#v=onepage&q=manifoldness%20nyanatiloka&f=false

https://store.pariyatti.org/Buddhas-Path-to-Deliverance-The--eBook-ePub-Mobi-PDF_p_4830.html


text:
Did Siddhartha Gautama achieve Nirvana?
Every book says that Siddhartha Gautama achieved Nirvana and then became Gautama Buddha. But now that I have realized that all phenomenon are nonself , it becomes imperative for me to ask : did Siddhartha Gautama achieve Nirvana?
NOTE: It is not a duplicate of question "who or what achieves enlightenment?" because I am asking the question in relation to only and only Siddhartha Gautama. In the question "who or what achieves enlightenment?" Siddhartha Gautama is not mentioned and nobody answers for it.

"(answering "who attained Nirvana" amounts to acknowledging the existence of Self" i don't think it does, why do you suppose that? i don't think i "acknowledged the existence" of anything, except a presupposition in your question!

btw i think you've edited this into a duplciate, again! why not answer the question in the "duplicate" thread if you want to restate it?

The Buddha achieved nirvana, yes. I think all Buddhists would agree.
Supposing that you definitely mean "Guatama" to refer not to a person but a sequence of conditioned phenomema, I suppose you can say that, though it might imply something like buddha nature, that his enlightened nature existed before it was attained. Just a note to add:

I have realized that all phenomenon are nonself

I believe that the Buddha does say, in some suttas, "I have", so this makes sense to assert, whether or not it's true! If your question is best answered via saying what that "I" means, when Buddhas say it, I personally feel it refers to Buddha nature, and not the bodhisattva that has fulfilled its vows and been used up.
Thanks!

Siddhartha Gautam was a phenomenon. All phenomenon are nonself. Therefore Siddhratha Gautam was nonself. If Gautama was nonself then who attained the Nirvana?

hey @DheerajVerma not sure what you are disagreeing with in my answer? if you are asking another question at all, then i think it depends on what you mean by "who".

e.g. @DheerajVerma if you mean by "who" only "what thing that is not noself" then it seems like your question has no answer

No I am not asking another question.. I will just edit and elaborate the question.Thanks.

@DheerajVerma i mean that -- in what way have i not answered your question! if you mean only that i am not fit to answer your question, i'd suggest, out of care, that you take some time out from the site. i can't personally think of any school which would claim that someone can achieve complete buddhahood without being part of some school. good luck mate :) ! if the issue is that i didn't respond directly enough, my answer to "then who attained Nirvana" is no-one

You have answered the question. I did not say anything about you ... I am beginner.. who is fascinated by Buddha's theory. I like your answer that no-one attained Nirvana. Regards

@DheerajVerma that's great. beginner's mind! thanks for the reply, sorry if i was unhelpful.i equivoated on it having "no answer" and "no-one". i won't pretend to know anything well enough to say which answer is better suited to you, but i think that both are true, really..?

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

The enlightened Buddha told people to address him as "the Tathagata":

One, standing up to greet me, received my robe & bowl. Another spread out a seat. Another set out water for washing my feet. However, they addressed me by name and as 'friend.'
"So I said to them, 'Don't address the Tathagata  by name and as "friend." The Tathagata, friends, is a worthy one, rightly self-awakened. Lend ear, friends: the Deathless has been attained. I will instruct you. I will teach you the Dhamma.

See also this topic: Why does the Buddha call himself the Tathāgata?

Some Buddhist talk about "being" using the parable of the chariot:

Just as, with an assemblage of parts,
The word 'chariot' is used,
So, when the aggregates are present,
There's the convention 'a being.'

In context though that seems to be a description of how (or whether) she sees herself. A "name" may be part of that (i.e. your name may be part of how you see yourself), but a name is mostly used (and needed) by other people: to address you, to refer to you in stories, to attribute words to you and so on.

If you have realized that all phenomena are nonself, why are you asking this question?

"Did Siddhartha Gautama achieve Nirvana?"

No, he didn't.
Now you're thinking "If he didn't achieve Nirvana, why every book says that he achieved Nirvana?"
If you have realized that all phenomena are nonself, Why are you asking this question?

"If he didn't achieve Nirvana, why every book says that he achieved
  Nirvana?"

Most people cling to the idea "self exists". Most people are not yet ready to realize that all phenomena are nonself. Most people in their current lives will not realize that all phenomena are nonself. If you were to speak to them from the perspective of anatta, they would be confused and bewildered. Most people think that all phenomena are self. That's why the books are written in such way, so that most people would understand them. If such a book is written from somebody who achieved Nirvana, it is written in such way purely for others to understand it easier and to guide them in the right direction towards realization of anatta.

"So instead of asking who attained Nirvana ? Can I ask the following
  question : did Siddhartha Gautama achieve Nirvana?"

"Who attained Nirvana?" and "Did he achieve Nirvana?" are both the same questions.


text:
How do Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of Maitreya's prophecy?
How do Mayahana and Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of Maiterya's prophecy?
I know for a fact that some e.g. son masters claimed to have achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi, and that some Vajrayana monks have taught Buddhahood in this very body.
But if Maitreya is the next Buddha, how can that be, given he's still not arrived, and is in the tusita heaven? Are there different kinds of perfect enlightenment, and the above realisations are in some way lesser (or more?) than Maiterya's?

I think your question embedded two questions and should be dealt separately to give clear answer: a) How do Mahayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya? b) How do Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya when there are son masters claimed to have achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi?
a) How do Mahayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya?
The answer for a) is very simple, almost needn't answer; Maitreya is the only next Buddha to come, it will take long long long time, 5.6 billion years according to one saying.
(i) Mahayana Buddhists (Chinese tradition) held there is only one future Buddha to come after Shakyamuni, that is, Maitreya. Though Mahayana has Sutra recounting the total of these 1000 Buddhas in this Noble Kalpa. All those enlightened, highest accomplished Bhiksus, Buddhists, even exhibiting supernormal abilities, are just achieving the Bodhisattva Bhumis accordingly. One Bhiksu achieved Bhumi level 8th, well-known said to be Ch'an Master Puan (1115-1169CE). There's no English info yet for him, English info has very tiny of the Chinese tradition. He belonged to the Lin Ji Zong (Rinzai) lineage, the 13th. For achieving 8th Bhumi, that Bodhisattva has penetrated the mystery of Dharani therefore is able to cite his own Mantra. Traditionally monastery will chant this Mantra during month of cleansing, to drive away bugs and insects, called Puan Mantra. He also made it as the Guqin melody. There is another Bhiksu called Zhigong (418-514CE), also achieved very high Bhumi surpassing material constrains but it's almost a standard practice for this type that he acted like a mad monk to conceal his identity (a Bodhisattva with advance Bhumi) in order to not to cause disturbance to society; or like Monk Budai (ceased 917CE), all these superior Buddhists will not make claim to the ordinary people who they are, not to say claiming as a Buddha, that's the Chinese tradition.
(ii) To be a Samyaksambuddha (achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi) one must receive mark (授記) from previous Samyaksambuddha. Then there will be many many lives spent as Bodhisattva. In Buddha Shakyamuni's case, he received the mark from Buddha Dīpankara. The Theravadin's interpretation of Samyaksambuddha is incorrect, at least I read from this forum. Their interpretation mixed it the same as a Pratyekabuddha. Saying it meant self-awaken is not correct, for Buddha always learns from previous Buddhas - so are we here learning as well, Buddha has teachers; also self-awaken is not a sufficient factor, he must be marked by the previous Sam. Buddha he will be another Sam. Buddha. This is another reason why Lotus Sutra must exist and completely making sense. On the contrary, those traditions missing this Sutra or the like is missing out very important teachings - traditions with incomplete teachings. Yet those who attack the Lotus Sutra, either they held hidden agenda, or needed illumination.
(iii) Due to the above understanding, anyone claimed to be a Buddha, a living Buddha, a reincarnation of a Buddha, a next Buddha, demonstrating supernormal abilities to elicit followers, a Maitreya herein, a Maitreya to be... etc. they are fraudulent. Yet there're not lack of examples throughout history.
b) How do Vajrayana Buddhists make sense of prophecy of Maitreya when there are son masters claimed to have achieved anuttara samyak sambodhi?
This was my puzzle too, when I just began my learning. I would have to declare that since I'm not following the Vajrayana tradition although I appreciate certain teachings found values in them also many historical great masters held my respect to, my answer should be regarded solely as personal opinion, derived from materials I studied only.
(i) I would sum up your referring only to the Tibetan Buddhism of the Zhügu (Living-Buddha, Tulku, reincarnation of a master) tradition. While I think it's possible the Buddhas could manifest their Nirmānakāya(s), but too many of those claims how many of them are real?
(ii) For Tibetan Buddhism, the undeniable fact is, that their religion and politics interwoven, hence, social status needed to establish for politican-monk. Historically, there're major schisms between the traditional Bon and Buddhism, and their merging and interfering. Very little is talked about, that during Tang Dynasty, Princess Wénchéng (628?-640CE) was granted to King Songtsän Gampo of Tibet, she took with her Bhiksus and Daoists, and scrolls1 of both schools. One of the Buddha Shakyamuni statues in Tibet today is reputedly said to be bought by her there. Also marked beginning the flourishing of Tibetan Buddhism; though there were Bhiksus coming directly from India before or after. From what I studied, Maitreya Buddha is not often focused, while Padmasambhava (?700?CE) was worshiped and also regarded the founder of Tibetan Buddhism. Padmasambhava appeared appro. 100 years after Wencheng's time, teaching Tantra, during the reign of Trisong Detsen (742-797CE). All these... serve quite a sound background and motive for claiming of reincarnation/continuation of certain established power player.
(iii) From here on, the emphasis of achieving Buddha-hood differs. Tibetan emphasizes on achieving Buddha-hood in one life-time, or maximum 7 lives, by practicing Tantra Yoga, with cultivation of merits/ Bodhicitta (Bodhicitta has many meanings too, not just about cultivation of the heart). One of the key methods is by "yoga-ing" (synchronizing) with the Guru, or the Yidam, so that one could acquire the same attributes of the Guru/Yidam, or the Guru can transfer his own achievement directly to the student... I'm still puzzling about how to discern these teachings, though I glean many useful knowledge from them. Up to this moment, I found that many of the evolved teachings (purely my own opinion) can be traced back to the (Chinese Mahayana2) Sutras, yet it's evolved, see? Just like many ignorant critics criticizing the Brahma Net Sutra of promoting self-immolation advocating burning oneself's fingers, body etc... even in the Chinese Buddhist community, they thought this so-called burning is a burning by the fire! Yet the disconnected interpretation could result in evolved teaching.
As in this case, one put aside the Maitreya prophecy, instead acknowledged there the Zhugu/Living-Buddha.

Footnotes:
1. Scrolls in Chinese would be needed to translate into Tibetan, I assumed, hence evolved teaching from disconnected interpretation during translation. Example, when studying the Madhyamaka, since most of the English translations are based on Tibetan version, or so-called Sanskrit version, many of the analogies were incomplete/nonsensical, almost illegible, indicated these not only the translators' problem, could also be in the source texts. Yet such problem doesn't exist in the Chinese version of Kumarajiva's. Hence, it's logical to infer that the Tibetan is translated from Chinese, or Sankrit translated from Chinese then to Tibetan. Anyhow, the surviving versions Chinese is the oldest.
2. The translation of Sutras from Sanskrit (it's a generalized term since the ancient Chinese regarded all those such as Prakrit, Siddham... etc in one major group, called 梵語/Brahma Language) to Chinese was the most professional and under strictest rules, with large league often composed by more than 3000 Bhiksus/intellectuals, leading by great translators, such as Kumarajiva, Xuanzhang, Paramārtha3... etc. Since the Chinese language has highly modular capacity many Buddhist etymologies were created, that not only authentically transmitted the meaning, also enriched the Chinese vocabulary. Famous examples like: Tathagata = 如來, 12 Nidanas = 12 因緣, Vijnana = 識, Citta = 心... etc.
3. There is misleading writing in Wikipedia on Mahāsāṃghika4 quoting Paramartha said about how the Mahayana Sutras came about, that is completely a fabrication hidden under unknown agenda. What Paramartha left are just Sutras/Sastras translated, there's no record of his direct own words, how possible that Wikipedia amateur author is able to quot something that doesn't exist? Nevertheless, there is huge effort behind certain entity to promote what so-called Early Buddhism and sticking on Mahayana many different hats.
4. General accepted account of the schism in the 2nd Buddhist Council was initiated by the Elders who wanted to add more rules to the Vinaya. The sect who were the majority kept the original Vinaya without altering it since the Buddha's passing away was Mahāsāṃghika, school carried Mahayana teachings.

I think the Theravada tradition mainly goes for the free availability of the Dhamma to sentient beings with access to reason. The Sakyan Buddha certainly set out on the same path as a Pratyekabuddha - the quest for the cessation of suffering - and attained it when he reached right knowledge and right release. But he became a Buddha when he decided to teach. And whilst a path to Buddha-hood in a few lives is reasonable, in this very life, within the confines of an already established Sangha, you can't be designated as a discoverer of the path.

@Ilya Grushevskiy I respect Theravada as long as they keep to their own teaching... some people need that type of teaching. And Buddha surely has many gateways for many different people. It's well known in Chinese there 84000 ways but all are doors to the same pagoda. Yet The Sakyan Buddha certainly set out on the same path as a Pratyekabuddha... this understanding is incorrect. Buddha Shakyamuni never is a Pratyekabuddha, a Pratyekabuddha is also the completion of enligthenment quest. If you ended as Pratye, then Pratye you are, that's it. ...One will need to study the Sutras to understand.

Certainly there are a multitude of angles from which to approach the Dhamma! There are conditions that both a Pratyekabuddha and a Samyaksambuddha both satisfy (imo :) ) - both arise only when Buddhas are not present and both follow a path not uncovered by others. There is a difference in that a Buddha chose to teach out of compassion. If, as Nagarjuna says, the Buddha is a conditioned existence, then conceptualizing the idea is still resting your mind on conditionality.

@IlyaGrushevskiy yeah. i really enjoy all Nagarjuna's writings, he is so coool... i mean, cool, really :). his Madhyamaka Chapter 13 the ending verse:  若復見有空 諸佛所不化, my still-need-improvement translation is: If one then instead by Emptiness taken in, all Buddhas none but helpless could regard him. I think that was so humourous and sarcastic in such a serious Sastra he said someone is "helpless" ~

if you haven't read about his life story, you should @IlyaGrushevskiy. i like another story about how he converted a thief... knowing the thief wanted to steal his jeweled alms-bowl waiting in the courtyard for him to sleep, he threw the bowl out from the window before laying down in a ruined temple...

i wonder what buddhism has made of e.g. neoplatonist magic. there is a difference, i recall a cynical christian acquaitence complaining about a church, claiming "we have jesus". well, buddhists "have" nirvana, i think so

@IlyaGrushevskiy I was incorrect you were correct, that a Prat. Bud. can then later, if criteria met, realize Sam. Bud.-hood. I just read yesterday, about Mahākāśyapa was in the eon past a Prat. hence he was able to enter endless 9th Dhyana called Nirodha-Samapatti among Buddha's disciples. In Lotus Sutra he was marked will be a Sam. Bud. Yet in many cases Buddha discouraged to aspire for Prat but for Sam. Bud., a Bud. like him. I think it's like set out the goal to be a PhD., or just an university degree. If the 1st, even by circumstance you ended up with a degree, e.g., due to financial...

... issue, yet you will continue your pursuit when conditions allowed. However, if your goal is degree, then degree you are. Because the aspiration will be the seed planted in your consciousness, when the criteria met, there it comes to fruition. If you read the correctly translated Mahayana Sutras many words are describing what is like to be a Buddha... many are really incomprehensible but just left you in wondrous awe - then thinking: amazing, if I am, I know these - that's planting the seed... for Prat. or Sam. you may read my other post.

@user3293056 not really got your question, but i think this is the answer: Buddhism sees magic not magic, it's natural ability of human, the ability is hindered due to the Five Poisons (Chinese Mahayana incl. arrogant/self-aggrandizing 慢, and disbelief (not whole-heartedly carrying out action) 疑). therefore no one is superior than any one in the ultimate sense, no jesus, no god. some ch'an flocks go to the extreme saying "see buddha kill buddha" 見佛殺佛 - but don't take the words face value ;)

I personally see the intention to teach, at the level of Prat. Buddha to manifest very rarely - it's not a simple truth to see after all, especially in the old world with the charm of mysticism. It makes sense to aspire to Buddhahood - a Buddha only rarely appears, and the most efficient use of the circumstance is to get as many people as possible to become Buddha. But such analysis misses impermanence for me too much - cessation is the first aspiration, what conditions one finds oneself facing in that future time of cessation is for that time.

@user3293056 There is no meta-divine, no 'One' from which a construct such as magic could manifest. Experience is dependently originated in Buddhism. In more modern language, it is intrinsically observer dependent (if accurate prediction of experience is what is desired). Nibbana is not Buddhist, it is the logical as well as scientific limit to experience. The Copernican principle did as much for humanity, without it even realizing the implications.

@IlyaGrushevskiy Freedom (自在) is more lethal than cessation... anyway, one puts on the right shoes fitting his foot-size, that's the cool ;)