ego

[un824 at FREENET.VICTORIA.BC.CA]

Namaste.

Vidyasankar writes:

>One must also seek to know what the various teachers say about this ego. A
>proper understanding of dvaita, advaita and buddhism will show you three
>quite different views on the ego. Dvaita will not accept that the ego-hood
>ever completely disappears. That is why dvaita insists upon the eternal
>reality of jIvas, distinct from brahman. Buddhism and advaita agree that
>the ego gets extinguished, but then, they disagree about how it does so.
>For advaita, the goal is the eternal Atman. Buddhism denies that anything
>like an eternal Atman exists, because it is a cardinal principle in
>Buddhism that everything is kshaNika (momentary).
>

I thought it was a cardinal principle of Buddhism that all *condtioned*
things were momentary. The "Unborn" (ie. Nirvana) is not conditioned, not
compounded and any relative concept cannot be applied to it.  As I see it,
Buddhism is simply denying the validity of all concepts about ultimate
reality, it is not denying ultimate reality. This is a significant
difference that seems to be frequently missed.

-Allan Curry