user11776: If the Buddha said that ultimate reality is really non-self (anatman), or empty of inherent existence (sunya), then why did he bother to talk about human beings and other “provisional” things?

user11762: A seeker came to Buddha and started to talk about his studies. He tried to seem knowledgeable, worthy a discussion with Buddha. He wanted to get appreciation. He wanted his attainments to be acknowledged.
Buddha listened to him, gently smiling.
Eventually the seeker had finished talking. He thought Buddha would answer then, but Buddha kept silence.
What would you do in place of that seeker?
Thoughts jammed in his head. He didn't know what else to say, every attempt to continue the talk he could imagine seemed stupid.
What happened next?
After some time the seeker respectfully bowed and silently left. What did he understand?
Did he understand what Buddha meant by his silence? Maybe he just pretended to have understood, to avoid looking stupid?
To answer this, we need to be able to see beyond words, beyond formal ideas.
That ability to see beyond words was the aim of Buddha's teaching about the ultimate reality.
It was not just to change the vocabulary.
Would that be important, whether that seeker talked about shunya or about human beings?
Do you understand?
Talking about shunya and about human beings for Buddha was not different.
His words were always relative truths. The ultimate truth was never in the words, and never could be.
That's why Buddha spoke about human beings.
Subsequently, many Buddhists misunderstood what is absolute truth and what is conditional truth. Nagarjuna explained that, but even today many practitioners, even many Buddhist teachers have distorted views on that. Be very careful. It's so easy to get incorrect understanding and cling to it thinking that you "know".

user295: In the Buddhist context non self has a special meaning which is not worthy of identifying as self because it is not always pleasant, there is not permanent core, there is not internal or external (God) controller.
Also there is conventional and realities. As social conventions you will refer to someone as an entity. This is for the sake of communication.

11776: <p>If the Buddha said that ultimate reality is really non-self (anatman), or empty of inherent existence (sunya), then why did he bother to talk about human beings and other “provisional” things?</p>
 11762: <p>A seeker came to Buddha and started to talk about his studies. He tried to seem knowledgeable, worthy a discussion with Buddha. He wanted to get appreciation. He wanted his attainments to be acknowledged.</p>

<p>Buddha listened to him, gently smiling.</p>

<p>Eventually the seeker had finished talking. He thought Buddha would answer then, but Buddha kept silence.</p>

<p>What would you do in place of that seeker?</p>

<p>Thoughts jammed in his head. He didn't know what else to say, every attempt to continue the talk he could imagine seemed stupid.</p>

<p>What happened next?</p>

<p>After some time the seeker respectfully bowed and silently left. What did he understand?</p>

<p>Did he understand what Buddha meant by his silence? Maybe he just pretended to have understood, to avoid looking stupid?</p>

<p>To answer this, we need to be able to see beyond words, beyond formal ideas.</p>

<p>That ability to see beyond words was the aim of Buddha's teaching about the ultimate reality.</p>

<p>It was not just to change the vocabulary.</p>

<p>Would that be important, whether that seeker talked about shunya or about human beings?</p>

<p>Do you understand?</p>

<p>Talking about shunya and about human beings for Buddha was not different.</p>

<p>His words were always relative truths. The ultimate truth was never in the words, and never could be.</p>

<p>That's why Buddha spoke about human beings.</p>

<p>Subsequently, many Buddhists misunderstood what is absolute truth and what is conditional truth. Nagarjuna explained that, but even today many practitioners, even many Buddhist teachers have distorted views on that. Be very careful. It's so easy to get incorrect understanding and cling to it thinking that you "know".</p>
 295: <p>In the Buddhist context non self has a special meaning which is not worthy of identifying as self because it is not always pleasant, there is not permanent core, there is not internal or external (God) controller.</p>

<p>Also there is conventional and realities. As social conventions you will refer to someone as an entity. This is for the sake of communication.</p>
