Keith108

There are plenty of other places to discuss politics, glad it’s avoided here.

Emphasis mine. Sounds like you have yourself a koan now! Seriously, it's a very good question to consider. If the Buddha taught the view of non-self, then what is reading these words, and what is typing them? This kind of question can't be answered philosophically or intellectually. The answer is instead "experienced". Give it a try! And, to say there is no self is a big mistake, as it is to the say there is one. One thing is all things; All things are one thing. If this is so for you, There is no need to worry about perfect knowledge. The believing mind is not dual; What is dual is not the believing mind. Beyond all language, For it there is no past, no present, no future. (trans. R.H. Blyth, Zen and Zen Classics) Just popped this off the Xin Xin Ming wiki page. The verse talks about avoiding dual thinking (such as self and no self), and also an idea that has been going through a couple different threads about time, or the lack thereof. I like the last two lines, which suggest that the the 3 times of present past and future are empty. Even the present! Because as soon as we say "this is the present", it's gone. It's a very important concept when considering Buddhist teachings.

Alaya or 8th consciousness, is a Yogacara construct that is for sure not related to the idea of soul. Their is no soul in Buddhism. For a deep dive into the weeds of Yogacara theory, check out this article. There's a lighter read here. _/|\_

Understood. It's a bit of semantics, I suppose. The impermanence is a result of the lack of independent origination. There is no beginning, and no end, just a flow into something else. All dharmas are subject to dependent origination. Our bodies have minerals in them that are old as the stars. At the same time, by the time you finish reading this, the exact composition of your blood will be very different. Kind of amazing. Btw, I am no scholar, or even the last word on this stuff. It's just what I have learned and experienced over the years.

I wanted address this separately. The skandhas are definitely not finite. Everything is constantly changing. No beginning, no end. While you will hear the notion of the “true self” pop up in Buddhist terminology, I would suggest instead that there is a “ true view”, instead. That avoids the mistake of reification of the idea that there is a thing behind our actions.

There are two ways to consider rebirth: lifetime to lifetime, and moment to moment. Lifetime to lifetime rebirth is a typically religious notion that what you do in this life, has an effect upon whatever happens after you die. For some Buddhists, this is a “must believe” kind of thing. While it makes some sense to me, I am generally agnostic on this one. I have no idea what happens after I die, so no need to speculate. Then there is moment to moment rebirth. This we can experience in our lives. The teaching on rebirth is the 12 links of dependent origination. Again, it’s a very big topic, and rebirth is an especially contentious one. As always, the point of any teaching is dukkha, and its end. This is why I favor the moment to moment interpretation. That’s the only thing I have any control over. 🙏

There is no first cause in Buddhism. Cause and effect are so vast, they are considered timeless. A "being" is considered to be an aggregation of 5 things (or skandhas): form, feelings, perception, impulses, consciousness. There is pretty good discussion about the skandhas here.

The saying is from the Heart Sutra. The Heart Sutra reminds us of the ultimate truth, that there are no independently originated dharmas (things). In the case of the quoted part in the OP, it is referring to the skandha of form. There are 4 other skandhas, and they get the same treatment: Text from here. It's a very big topic! My personal view is that the Heart Sutra instructs us to let go of our attachments, even to the Dharmic teachings. In the end, all of our ideas and opinions must be seen as empty of self nature, and let go of. _/|\_ Keith

Well put. I am a process, dependent on conditions and cause and effect. It's quite messy! The basis of my practice is precisely to ask the question "what then am I?". _/|\_

One can find the proper context here. There are five translations provided, two of which use the word "happy". One uses "at ease" in the place of happy, which in my opinion, is a much better translation. Happiness is fleeting, impermanent, conditioned, and is therefore dukkha. Although, I guess the same could be said for being "at ease". Regardless of the word or phrasing, the behind meaning is "May all beings be free of dukkha". The Buddha only taught Dukkha, and the end Dukkha. And yes, for all beings, even the bad ones. Of course when, considering beings both bad and good, one should remember this, from chapter 3 of the Diamond Sutra: Emphasis mine, quote from here. _/|\_ Keith