Talk:Eternalism

message: I'm not quite sure what the author is getting at with this statement:
"Common modern doctrinal missconception in Buddhism is that the denial of Eternalism is the rejection of the Subjective Soul (atman), however no such substantiation exists."
First of all, that's just an awkward sentence. Secondly, Buddhism does indeed deny an eternal, unchanging soul - anatman. This doctrine is one of the foundational features of Buddhist thought. However, I'm not sure this is connected to eternalism. In fact, the argument goes the other way around: because each individual thing arises in dependence on other things, everything lacks an unchanging, underlying essence. This is shunyata doctrine from Nagarjuna and Madhyamika.
To conclude, I would personally recommend that this sentence be taken out all together, as it seems to be incorrect to me, or at the least, very confusing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Subjective soul" means the conditioned self which is neither eternal nor unchanging.
What that sentence is trying to say, is that Buddhism does not deny the existence of the (conditioned) soul, but only deny that the (conditioned) soul is eternal or unchanging.
And "anatman" is not a denial of the conditioned soul.  It is a qualification of what is not categorized as "atman".  For example:  Rupa anatta (the form is not the atman), Vedana anatta (the sensation is not the atman), and so on.
Archestrategos, 12:57 P.M., September 6th 2009, Jakarta.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archestrategos (talk • contribs) 05:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I am under some doubt as to whether the "eternalism" of the Alexander Bard, is  the same eternalism referred to in the rest of the article -- it is, after all, in opposed to "mobilism",
and he is after all more of a socio-cultural figure than a metaphysician.1Z 20:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eternalism of the Swinging Swede,  

message: Should this article be merged with block time ? 1Z 01:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Block Time? 

message: This article should follow the lead of the Presentism article in that Eternalism should be a disambiguation page, Eternalism (philosophy of time) should deal with the metaphysical issue (and should probably be merged with the block time article, since they are the same thing--though I strongly suggest that Eternalism (philosophy of time) be the article name, rather than Block Time, due to the fact that Eternalism is the increasingly popular term for the theory.  We might then create a stub for the Bardian form of Eternalism (which is indeed a separate issue from the temporal debate) using the information found in the current version of this article and yet another stub Eternalism (Buddhism) for the religious issue.  In fact, if there are no objections, I'll just do exactly this myself.  I'll wait until February 26, 2007 (one week) for any objections.
Postmodern Beatnik 21:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good.1Z 00:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks PB we would appreciate that.LegendLength 01:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed Edits 

message: Day 1: Okay, so I deviated a little from the above plan...
*Since both 1Z and LL responded right away, and since no one else has been active on the talk page, I've started the overhaul as of today.  
*Eternalism (philosophy of time) links to Block time until I get around to merging them (which is imminent). EDIT: This has now been done.
*Alexander Bard is gone, replaced by links to phenomenology (since Bard is primarily a phenomenologist) and paradoxology (which briefly discusses the eternalism/mobilism debate).  There's simply not enough easily obtained information to justify a separate article on it that I can find.  If someone more familiar with the debate thinks they can flesh them out, I suggest two pages: Eternalism (phenomenology) and Mobilism (phenomenology).  I, however, have no interest in either of these and, quite frankly, have more important things to do.
*Sasatavada now has its own page, which is clearly marked as a Buddhism-related stub.  Since I created it and also have more than passing knowledge of Buddhism, I've put it on my watchlist and will expand it in time.  But I'm not-so-secretly hoping someone else with better expertise in the area does it first.
*I have deleted and ignored the LDS definition of eternalism since the LDS page itself doesn't mention any such doctrine.  If it's really that important, someone more concerned with the Church of Latter Day Saints and its belief system will certainly correct both my oversight and the LDS page itself.
*I added relevant links to the "See also" section.
That's all for today.
Postmodern Beatnik 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of Changes 

message: Eternalism is a religion centered on the gathering of people who study and sensate the implications of time. The Eternalist church is helmed by Dennis C. Lee. 2600:4041:1CD:9700:7110:C331:464E:63BE (talk) 15:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eternalism