[Buddha-l] Fsat Mnifdlunses?

[Dan Lusthaus]

Richard wrote:
> There is nothing in the world that I regard as more potentially
> dangerous than niścaya, that psychological state of certainty that
> one's convictions are not merely the effects of one's very limited and
> narrow condition, but some Truth that others must accept if they are
> to move on. It is niścaya that makes it impossible for one to move on,
> not the lack of it. Or so my experience leads me to believe.

So you're sure about that?

>What I did say was
> that it does not matter to me whether the early Buddhists did or did
> not deny a self. I would add that it does not matter to me whether or
> not there is a self to argue about.

Even so, my experience tells me that it does make a difference when someone 
falsely attributes something to someone else. Whether some quasi-naked folks 
hanging out in N India 2500 years ago or so did or didn't believe in this or 
that theory of self has no intrinsic value in an of itself. Attributing view 
X to them, when they held non-X is not trivial, especially if people still 
look to material for guidance on the question of X and non-X. Deception, 
self-deception, misconception, moha, mudha, etc. The problem of 
misattribution becomes greater if the source to which an opinion is falsely 
being attributed is authoritative, or respected, or otherwise the sort of 
source others might look to for guidance, direction, insight, and to bestow 
some reverence in return. That's an old industry -- used to be called 
pseudepigraphia, nowadays apocrypha, when done with a fake signature or 
byline, but there are many more varieties. Accuracy is not always mere 
pedantry. False accusations (and false attributions) have caused a lot of 
pain and mischief throughout human history.

Don't be so certain there is no valid certainty.

Dan