Theos-Talk Archives (October 2001 Message tt00359)

>>>>>>>>>"universal characters do not have substantial natures, but are
[just] >designated in common by the world. In this fashion, then, all
dharmas reduce >to two kinds, viz. either what is understood by
consciousness or what is >expressed by words, but neither [of these two
sorts of dharmas] is >substantially existent. And there are no other [kinds
of] dharmas apart from >these two [types of] objects. So therefore, one
should be convinced of the >voidness of all dharmas." (Dharmapala)

Bruce: What do the dharmas have to do with the existence or nonexistence of
Atman?>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bruce, the Tibetans teach that there are two kinds of selfhood - the self of
persons and the self of external objects. These "selfs" are dharma or
"things." It stems from the word dharmata, usually translated as essence or
nature or even essential nature. Thus dharma has to do with hte belief in
the indepedent existence of things, including persons.



<<<<<<Bruce: But this is not anatman at all. This asserts that there are
Buddhas, and buddhas are of necessity individuated in some manner, which
argues that even at the level of buddhas there is Atman, or
individuality.>>>>>>

Buddhas, like atman, have condition existence.



<<<<<<<Bruce: But even here, Jerry, there is no argument against Atman as
"Thou art That." You are talking about "wrong views" and the "fear of not
possessing an individual self/Self" rather than the being or non being of
Atman.
Peace, Bruce MacD>>>>>>>

I have never tried to say that atman does not exist. I have tried to show
that atman is not "permanent," that it changes and thus cannot logically be
said to be "eternal." Perhaps G de P said it best:

QUOTE: "There is no such abiding and eternally unchanging ego or soul or
even spirit in man" G de Purucker (Studies in Occult Philosophy p 82)

Peace,

Jerry S