I’m pretty sure we’ve been over this before, too
@LostInParadise I can see why this looks like “double-talk” to you; in a sense, it is.
On the one hand, there’s this business of “no-self”. You said something earlier about “separating spirit from body”; but this is nonsense in light of the “no-self” teaching, which holds that there is no such thing as a fixed personal essence (which is what I assume you mean by “spirit”). In Buddhism, this is the bottom line, absolute truth.
On the other hand, it can be useful to think in terms of personal selves. Human reasoning wants to attribute an agent, a doer, behind all actions, so it posits a self. Buddhism acknowledges this use of the self as a semantic expedient, and admits that it has a limited, relative validity. It would be crippling to try to function in society without distinguishing one self from another.
So it simply wouldn’t do to adopt a position of denying either the absolute “no-self” or the relative “self”. Both have their place.
Karma operates in the relative sphere, where there is this provisional self acting in ways that have moral consequences. In the absolute sense, there is no such thing as karma; no one is acting, therefore no karma can accrue to that no one. To transcend karma isn’t a matter of leaving the body; it’s a matter of realizing the no-self.
Hence the double-talk. The alternative to double-talk in this matter is silence, arguably the best choice.
Take a look at this dialogue between the Buddha (Gotama) and a wanderer named Vacchagotta:
Vacchagotta comes to the Buddha and asks:
‘Venerable Gotama, is there an Ātman [this is the Sanskrit term for self]
The Buddha is silent.
‘Then Venerable Gotama, is there no Ātman?’
Again the Buddha is silent.
Vacchagotta gets up and goes away.
After the wanderer had left, Ānanda [the Buddha’s attendant) asks the Buddha why he did not answer Vacchagotta’s question. The Buddha explains his position:
‘Ānanda, when asked by Vacchagotta the Wanderer: “Is there a self?”, if I had answered: “There is a self”, then, Ānanda, that would be siding with those recluses and brāhmaṇas who hold the eternalist theory (sassata-vāda).
‘And, Ānanda, when asked by the Wanderer: “Is there no self?” if I had answered: “There is no self”, then that would be siding with those recluses and brāhmaṇas who hold the annihilationist theory
‘Again, Ānanda, when asked by Vacchagotta: “Is there a self?”, if I had answered: “There is a self”, would that be in accordance with my knowledge that all phenomena are without self?’
‘Surely not, Sir.’
‘And again, Ānanda, when asked by the Wanderer: “Is there no self?” if I had answered: “There is no self”, then that would have been a greater confusion to the already confused Vacchagotta. For he would have thought: Formerly indeed I had an Ātman (self), but now I haven’t got one.’