Mara can be considered as real, or more correctly a succession of real beings each carrying out the same role in turn. He can also be considered as a useful parable and warning.
My knowledge is limited too, but from some of the books I have read on Buddhism it appears that what we call sin they frame as ignorance. We go to confession and ask God to forgive our sins, we receive a mild penance, go on our way to try not to sin again. A Buddhist would say the antidote to ignorance is to study the Dharma and learn how our ignorance not only hurts others but ourselves as well. Sort of like the idea what goes around comes around. I think we as Christians could benefit from a similar teaching if we don’t already have one.From my very limited understanding of Buddhism (and Hinduism) there are no absolute morals (that one action or another isn’t per se good or bad), but rather every action we generally consider “bad” will bring about a negative impact (suffering), while actions we consider “good” bring about a lessening of suffering.
Because of this we don’t necessarily have any actual obligation, or moral imperative, to do good based off of anything intrinsic to our human nature, as Catholics maintain. Instead, it’s that we ought to do good so that we can collectively avoid suffering and achieve nirvana. Hence it is “unwise” or “wise” rather than “wrong” or “right” to do or not do something.
So here’s the question: did I get that right?
The self isn’t non-existent per se. That would be nihilism. Buddhism denies both nihilism (nothing exists, has meaning or value) and essentialism (that things and people have an essence that make them what they are and that they have inherent/substantial meaning and value). The self exists in the same way all things exist: conventionally. Take a car, for instance. It has wheels, but they are not the car. It has doors, but they are not the car. It has an engine. It is not the car. You can do this with all parts. They are not car, and yet, if you remove all of them, no car is left. The same that is true of the car is true of all the parts. Also, every part is constantly changing and cannot be pinned down. It is not the same for two consecutive moments. Even parts that seem to be static are subject to microchange, which is why cars over time decay. The label car is a mental convention. A convenient way of referring to objects in everyday life. Saying that cars exist is not wrong. They do, conventionally. They just don’t exist “from their own side”, that is, there is no essence of “carness” radiating from the car, making it what it is.
I was speaking of the difference of “atman” and “anatman”.
So was Veedar. Anatman does not mean that the self is nonexsistant. That is a false view according to the Dhamma.
ok.
What Buddhist tradition do you follow?
Ok. I am familiar with Nagarjuna (oh, what a brilliant mind). But not specifically with that lineage.
Theravada mainly.
Oh and I forgot the view that there is both a self and not a self. That view is also false.
Where Am I getting confused? I am taking this from my understanding of Mahayanna. Which would be Nagarjuna. The Kagyupas follow Vajrayanna and the Karmapas.Oh and I forgot the view that there is both a self and not a self. That view is also false.
/Victor
Well I am theravada but i do not think that matters all that much. Have not read Nagarjuna that much. I preferr the original Pali suttas. And I will not pretend to know what Kagyupas is. Maybe you could enlighten me?
This is considered a false view in Dhamma. If you are interested then read this
Well the Pali Suttas as I understand them are not Mahayanna. That began with Nagarjuna. It’s the “middle way”. Atisha and the Kadampa teachings are similar. Maybe I can come up with some of Nagarjuna’s teachings. I can’t remember any quotes right off. But the teachings are a little different and go slightly deeper than Theraveda. Chandrakirti is pretty good too.Well I am theravada but i do not think that matters all that much. Have not read Nagarjuna that much. I preferr the original Pali suttas. And I will not pretend to know what Kagyupas is. Maybe you could enlighten me?
You said.
This is considered a false view in Dhamma. If you are interested then read this
from here accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html.
Without reading Nagarjuna properly I am pretty convinced that what he said is on par with the above.
Veedar described what could be considered the beginning of the understanding of what the self consists of and how it is produced. To understand it better you will have to look into Dependent Origination. This is a good beginning.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Nid%C4%81nas
If you want the short story then it is obvious that the self is not non existant and anybody claiming otherwise is pretty swiftly converted from that belief by putting an hammer to the persons tumb with adequate speed. No?
Cheers
Victor
Mahayana acknowleadges both the Pali Suttas and the later Sanskrit Sutras as I understand it? The entire Buddhist Doctrine is called the Middle way.
What I understand is for example. Emptiness. Which they say is not really emptiness. It’s emptiness of inherent existence. All things are dependent on a preexisting condition. But all these things started from ignorance.
Emptiness is defined slightly different between different traditions. It is in a sense the opposite of the idea of essentialism, that things have substances that make them what they are. So the standard Catholic apologetic for transubstantiation, for instance, would be contrary to emptiness teachings. The standard apologetic is something like:
Doesn’t your example make the intellectual concept of “table” into a substance when in reality it is a mental construct, just as any word for a general group of things is a construct? In reality there is no table just the things it is made of. Those things can be recycled into a “chair” by changing the structure of the materials, or a “table” can be sat upon thereby making it a “chair” and changing the concept of the “table”. There is no independent substance in the word table. “Table-ness” does not exist outside of our minds.
I take it kind of empty of itself as a mover. There is the first mover that gets all “moving” maybe I’m looking at it wrong I don’t know. But emptiness meditation has brought me a lot of insight.