Sorry, but I think you are simply mistaken here. Why would the lack of intent or purpose make it not matter?
I am not saying it would. Only that I accept what the Buddha taught it is about. There is a difference between faith and saying what a thing might reasonably be or not be- is there not?
No. I see a difference between things that matter and things that have a purpose. Don't you?
Most people don't divide the two from each other, but if you elaborate some more- you'll provide me something to think about. I can always change my mind, if I can be convinced.
Yes. It is also yours to approach the Dharma as you will. I've said it in other threads: I qualify that the secular approach is not Buddhism much more for non-Buddhists, than I do a secularist that has taken on any degree of practice.
Indeed, I'm not going to stop you. I think I would be disobeying the Buddha then, who taught even a little Dharma practiced is immeasurably meritorious.
I do feel somewhat of a duty though to present the other side- that of traditional Buddhism. Funnily enough, not even traditional Buddhism as according to Mahayana only. Mahayana and Theravada agree roughly 94% concerning the Dharma, and disagree on some elements that aren't fundamental enough to make a big deal about.
Of course, one that involves refusal to accept the advice to be our own lights and our own refuges, which the likes of Bodhidharma and even many of the direct disciples of the Tatagatha took to heart. But your choices are indeed yours to make.
I don't deny that aspect. I am sure it is more a difference in emphasis on what is said. I don't think the Buddha taught his Dharma is a buffet line. Of course, one makes the choice to believe him or not.
Very well.
Doubt is good. Doubt is a prerequisite for learning.
Doubt can also kill you, if you doubt you're about to do the thing that would save your life- even though it would save you.
I suppose that the weight of that discordance between Anatta and Atman - one of the very few that make Buddhism separate from Hinduism - will be determined by the expectations with which examines it.
If you want to believe that rebirth is reincarnation, no one will be able to stop you.
I grant you on your first paragraph there. That is fair enough. I don't think a Buddhist can make too definitive a conclusion about Anatta.
I don't think rebirth is reincarnation though. I only think that they aren't as different as some might play up. Some historical Buddhist thought has questioned exactly what it is born again in the cycle. Theravadans especially are keen to believe the skandhas themselves are reborn, given a connection they share with atoms.
Mahayanists reject Abidhamma for the most part, but has had it's own theories.
Be my guest. I am not big on scriptures. Not even Suttas.
The Heart Sutra says the Dharmas have an utterly mysterious reality, which appears to us void because we have no reference point to it in the world of forms. This is shown in the line: "the characteristics of the voidness of all Dharmas is that they are not created or destroyed, not stained and not pure, etc."
You'll note I'm sure that the voidness of Dharmas is stated to be something. Dharma voidness is marked with characteristics. There are translations that are even more strong in language there. Like saying Dharmas are 'forms of' emptiness.
This all relates with Tathata, and some other Mahayana concepts. It isn't based in just the Heart Sutra, but that's the easiest, most readily accessible text I can show it from.
Anatta, however, is in opposition to Atman, a denial of Atman as a valid concept for the Buddhadharma.
It is questionable how opposed Anatta is to all ideas of the Atman. However, since I'm a Buddhist, I naturally affirm Anatta. I question sometimes rather that affirmation is out of expediency or bare fact. I believe as Buddhists we are to affirm Anatta because of usefulness.
The Buddha has given us permission to put that question aside, as it were. I am not sure this places the gulf between us and Hindus that it is sometimes said it does. I think what Buddhists do is go a step further than even Vedantists. The Vedantist says the Atman is somehow a necessary concept, even though they affirm no difference between it and Brahman.
As a Mahayanist that believes in Buddha-nature, I think what Buddhists say to Vedantists is: no, there is no need to speak of an Atman here. Where can an Atman exist apart from Ultimate Reality? This is a concept with very little use except to cause confusion and debate.
An Atman may or may not exist, but it isn't necessary. It can be put aside.
