[Buddha-l] Are we sick of dogma yet?

[Franz Metcalf]

Richard et al.,

You wrote,

> Does anyone know of any decent Pudgalavadin Buddhist temples in the 
> Rio Grande
> valley?

Ah, now you're talking like Dan Lusthaus! He just needs a job out there 
at UNM and you two could be the twin mountains of Neo-Pudgalavada.

But this question of why we continue to demonize the self is in fact 
quite complex and profoundly worth pursuing. (Though my parents are 
about to arrive for Thanksgiving and I shall not be able to pursue it 
for a few days.) The question brings up issues, even paradoxes, within 
the central doctrines of Buddhism, within Buddhist history, within 
contemporary Western society, and within each of our selves.

Since I have just a moment to respond, I'll lead off with a confession. 
For the first 20 or so years of my engagement with Buddhism, I fell 
into what I think now is a flatly wrong reading of Buddhist doctrine: 
that the Buddha taught the self was an illusion. Go look at the classic 
Pali suttas (in English, anyway). The Buddha teaches that our common 
*ideas and experiences* of the self are illusions, NOT that the self is 
an illusion. So does he teach that the self thus exists? NO. All views 
of the problematic self are illusory and potentially harmful; that 
includes seeing self as either atta or anatta.

So, as Richard was implying, perhaps it's time to say, "Um, Awakened 
One, sorry we spent the last 2500 years totally misunderstanding your 
central teaching. But, hey, we're ready now! You can trust us!"

Thanks for the Priestly and Siderits references, Richard. Looks like 
I've got some reading to do.

In my own little cloud of unknowing,

Franz Metcalf