Self / Soul vs No-Self / No-Soul
Something / Nothing
Form / Emptiness
Could someone explain how two conflicting concepts can be believable to someone who is "enlightened"?
- Different or even "opposing concepts" can lead different humans to the same and identical realization.
- The 'conflict itself' between concepts can very well be that what leads to realization, e.g. Zen koans.
"Self", "Soul", "No-Self", "No-Soul", etc. are strictly conceptual notions; eventually one finds that they are in principle devoid of any meaning, and although they may lead to it, they do not contribute at all to the self-evidence of reality in what Julie calls "enlightenment".
If those terms at some point seem to have any meaning, that meaning dissolves in the full light of realization.
Why staring oneself blind on the meaning of those terms or even their conflict... unless of course... one stares oneself totally blind on them and thus becomes fully aware of the epiphany of unconditional, non-conceptual reality.