Buddhism's Anatta (No-Self) and Advaita

[Guest guest]

Passing on this dialogue from Advaitin.

 

Harsha

 

 

stevenfair [stevenfair]

 

Now, while I do not personally agree with this doctrine of Anatta, I

do think there's no question that Anatta is exactly and *only* what

the Buddha taught. I have never run across any Buddhist

scholar or sage who says differently. I just don't see any

evidence for some "hiddenunspoken" or "implied" or "not

implied" idea of Atman, or the Self, in the Buddha's teaching. In

this, I must respectfully disagree with Sri Ramana, who in a

number of places I've read, says that "it is only a different point of

view" between what the Buddha taught about Anatta and the

Advaita teaching of the Self. The great Advaitan sage may

believe that, finally, there is no difference, but I don't think there's

any support for this conclusiohn in what the *Buddha himself*

taught, and I know of know Buddhist scholars who disagree.

____

Namaste Sri Steveji,

 

It seems to me that Moksha of Hinduism and Nirvana of Buddhism are

identical. Both terms refer to a complete absence of any longing. That is an

important and a fundamental point to keep in mind.

 

The Vedantic sages have used the terms Sat-Chit-Ananda to give words to

their Realization. Self, that is referred to in Advaita is not the term

"self" in ordinary usage or in the way it is used in Buddhism. Self here (in

Advaita Vedanta) refers to That which is devoid of all sorrows, desires, and

utterly and completely empty of all things. Therefore it can be rightly be

called Emptiness from one perspective.

 

I do not see the slightest distinction between the Vedantic "Self" and the

Buddhist "No Self". When there is nothing to hold on to and no one to hold

on, and when even the slightest trace of individual mental consciousness has

vanished, who remains to say "This is no self or this is Self, etc.

 

Sri Ramana spoke plainly from his direct experience when he referred to

Buddha's teachings.

 

Perhaps you will find the following article to be of interest, "The Highest

Teaching: Self or Emptiness? By Pham D. Luan (KKT)" on the

website. I give a brief intro below.

 

Master Pham writes,

 

"Whether ultimate reality is fullness of the Self or Emptiness has always

been a fascinating problem. It had been for long a debate between Buddhists

and Advaitins, and among Buddhists themselves (Yogacara with the Mind-Only

theory and Madhyamika with the Shunyata or Emptiness theory)."

 

"Hui-neng, the Sixth Patriarch of Ch'an (Chinese Zen) but sometimes is

regarded as the real father of this tradition, in his famous Platform Sutra

said that "seeing one's own original nature is enlightenment." His view was

condemned by other Buddhists as heretic because orthodox Buddhism believed

in (absolute) No-Self. His Platform Sutra was burned after his death."

 

"I like to present another interesting view of Dzogchen which arrives to

conciliate the two apparently opposite conceptions: Self and Emptiness."

 

You can find the full article on the website.

 

/

 

Love to all

Harsha