As the Mahayana Buddhist tradition adheres to the Buddha’s teaching of ‘anatman’, or ‘non-self’, this term cannot be used to refer to a permanent self, or ‘soul’. T
Chinese transliterations and translations are useful as the early Chinese scholars had to understand the Indian Pali and Sanskrit terms before they could be rendered effectively into the Chinese language. Obviously, some of the early transliteration of Indian Buddhist terms are purely ‘phonetic’ in nature and in themselves do not convey much meaning as ideograms. This represents an initial process of a slow, careful and gradual building-up of knowledge in China about a thoroughly ‘foreign’ Indian philosophy that had to develop an ‘interface’ with existing Chinese culture.
Although the different Buddhist schools argued over the existence or nature of the atom, the Theravada thinkers conceived of an atom comprised of ‘space’ and ‘sub-particles’ (dravya-paramanu) which is physically complex (rupa-kalapa), whilst its constituent parts exist in a state on constant flux (kalapanga).
Dear N Thank you for your very interesting Plotinus quotation and Nagarjuna-related question. The tetralemma of the Indian Buddhist monk Nagarjuna states: 1) All exists.
Enlightenment is not the acceptance of, or practical experience of rebirth. Enlightenment is not the acceptance of, or practical experience of a ‘soul’ theory. In other words, a fully enlightened and rational mind, is a mind ‘emptied’ of all delusion and irrationality.
From meditation, wisdom comes, but from wisdom, understanding arises.