« Zen's intuition of the absolute comes suddenly | Main | Siddhartha's quest for true identity versus Identity v. role confusion »

September 10, 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"What happened to the absurdity of dualism...?"

Dualism is true.

“I”, “you”,”they”, “we” and the anecdote of affirmative action... all to sandwich some basic Buddhist tenants? What happened to the absurdity of dualism, the distinction between the perception of self versus no-self, and the dissolution of distinction between the perceiver and the perceived?

One of the greatest distinctions I can see between today's Buddhism and the investigations of early Buddhists is recourse to dry formalism which characterizes much of what passes for Buddhist discourse today. I do not see in the scriptural record an attempt by the Buddha to impose philosophical uniformity upon questions such as the existence of the soul. As a matter of personal reflection, of deep spiritual inquiry, whether or not a soul exists is largely a matter of what one means by the term. The religious-philosophical milieu of ancient India which gave us the modern traditions of Buddhism and Hinduism were not compartmentalized and kept water-tight. Even in the medieval period, the hot debates between Brahaman and Buddhist scholars was not an attempt (in my opinion) to isolate the religious sentiment through tightly hermetic philosophical barriers, but indeed an all-encompassing effort to realize the fruit of religious life.

You might as well argue with a Christian that a Jew dying on a cross to appease himself from sending you to hell makes no logical sense as to argue with a Buddhist that seeking enlightenment for a self that supposedly doesn't exist makes no sense.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo