(July 14, 2012 at 10:23 pm)apophenia Wrote:(July 14, 2012 at 8:39 am)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote: He made his position on them clear in the Mahacattarisaka sutta and further elucidated in others. His thinking was that such views led one toward ethical behavior, but were ultimately speculative. He did use the principles as teaching tools, leading folks ultimately away from them and toward his own teachings, and most importantly, his practices.
Anatta, well, that is never going to sit well with someone who doesn't want to let go of the notion of a soul.
Um, I don't believe in a soul. So, to use your favorite term, "Straw man!"
Really? What then is your understanding of the Buddha's teaching of anatta?
Quote:And the question is not whether the Buddha himself advocated agnosticism on these questions, I'm told he did, and lacking research on the matter, I'm willing to accept that as true, pending further study.
QED.
Quote: The question is whether any particular Buddhism is defined authoritatively by what we have of the Buddha's exposition.
Not at all, really. Any sect that calls itself "Buddhist" answers to the Buddha's teachings, and most relevant here is the Four Great References. You have heard of them...?
Quote: (Ignoring side issues for the moment.
Not a side issue at all. At the very core, actually.
Quote:In one of the sutras, he is reported to have said it is impossible to identify a Buddha, so he himself may not be a Buddha, by his own reasoning.)
Your source?
Quote:Off the top of my head, it would appear that many forms of Mahayana Buddhism differ with specific things Siddhartha said, or is reputed to have said. That doesn't make them something other than Buddhism.
NO, but nonetheless any claim they make must answer to the Buddha's own teachings.
Quote: Arguing that Buddhism is what we have of what he said is an example of the genetic fallacy.
Ah, that straw man you found was yours, not mine.
