The Old Buddha’s liberating insights
Buddha understood that: ‘Every dharma (i.e. thing) happens as transient
dependent output of conditions (i.e. causes).’
understood the above because he had directly experienced himself as transient
effect, hence as dependent, un-free and as uncertain and incomplete. His’
was the experience and insight of a victim.*
And he suffered as victims do.
Spartacus (in the movie), the Old Buddha determines to end his victim
status, and his suffering.
victim’s self (or atta) is untrue. In the Old Buddha’s speech, it is
anatta, i.e. not inherent or essential self. That’s because he or she
doesn’t own it, because she has no absolute power over it.
Buddhism, serves to free victims from their pain. It’s got a lot of
Buddha declared every dharma to be an effect – and no more. He had freed
himself from his unhappy effect status and enjoyed ‘the bliss of
liberation’, then began a new career as a 1st cause (to enjoy
the ‘bliss of subjugation’).
Christianity (so Nietsche) also serves victims, i.e. the unrighteous.
* From Latin: vincere:
The New Buddha’s liberating insights
The New Buddha
understands: ‘Every dharma (i.e. thing) can function as non-transient (i.e.
fixed, because decided, as momentarily quantized) independent input, i.e.
as primary condition (i.e. as a 1st cause).
understands that from direct experience of acting as a (1st) cause, hence as a
fixed, independent, liberated, certain and complete. His’ is the experience
and insight of a victor.* As victor he
Gracchus (in the movie), he determines to maintain his victor status, and
victor’s self (or atta) is true. In the New Buddha’s speech, it is atta
(i.e. inherent or essential self). That’s because he or she owns it, has
absolute power over it.
Buddhism serves victors. They don’t follow anyone and are not in pain.
essence, a dharma can be both effect and cause (or condition).
righteous and who were finally eliminated by St Augustine, don’t require
* For Latin: vincere: