Re: Question about Mahayana.
- Hi Howard,
<. . .>
> HCW: No, they are not different. A fixed, unchanging identity/core in a so-called being is exactly what a "soul" would be.---
KH: A "fixed unchanging identity/core" would be no problem at all *if* it lasted for just one fleeting moment. The universe would be exactly the way the Buddha described it; nothing would continue on from one moment to the next.
Therefore the soul that is denied by the Buddha's doctrine of anatta must be the other kind of soul the one that continues on.
> HCW: No matter how one looks, there is none to be found, but only arising, changing, and ceasing phenomena.-------------
KH: Yes, exactly, but why do you and several hundred million other Buddhists insist there are no absolutely real phenomena?
I asked Tony the same question to no avail. It's probably none of my business, but I would like to know why so many people reject the theory of paramattha dhammas. Admittedly most Buddhists are unaware of paramattha dhammas, but I am talking about those have heard it properly explained. If they are looking for the teaching of the Buddha, why would they reject this interpretation tn preference for others?
<. . .>
>> KH: That is what I suspected: in Mahayana the eternal soul is regarded in the same way everything else is regarded. It is no less real than (for example) consciousness.-----------------------------
> HCW: You have an interesting way of putting it.
KH: Thanks but, as you know, that is my diplomatic way of putting it. :-)
What I really believe is that there is only one Dhamma, and any variation from that Dhamma "must" involve atta belief.
When the Mahayana schools talk about "no own being" instead of "no persisting being" I think they are leaving the way open for atta belief.
And I suspect that is why Mahayana is so popular.
> HCW: I, OTOH, would say that there is no soul/core of identity to be found in any being, and ALSO not in any of the phenomena you like to call "realities". The Buddha only refers to nibbana as a "reality," rejecting such usage for anything else.------------
KH: Does nibbana also lack own being?
- Hi Sarah.
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "sarah" <sarahprocterabbott@...> wrote:
> S: Better to just talk about realities, paramattha dhammas that can be understood now. I think this is more productive than discussions about formal meditation.
> This morning at breakfast, another swimmer started asking me about retreats and meditation because of stress issues. I just started talking about 'now', about seeing now, hearing now, 'meditation' now, even in the noisy cafe. Otherwise, there's always a thinking about another time, another place, never any understanding or awareness now. She appreciated it!
I continue to think this is a very "zen" approach to Dhamma - I think if you called it "zen" you'd probably convert a bunch of Mahayanists, as it is very appealing, and I agree really is the heart of becoming aware, which can only happen at this moment now.
A favorite quote of mine is sort of analogous in its simplicity, from the avant-garde saxaphonist/bass clarinetist Eric Dolphy, now deceased: "Music, after it's over, it's gone in the air - you can never capture it again."
- - - - - - - - - - - -