Fw: For Joyce/ Buddhism's Anatta (No-Self) and Advaita

[Guest guest]

Hey Joyce,

Maybe this was posted just before you returned, but would be relevant to the question you raised.

Glo

- Harsha

Wednesday, May 30, 2001 9:59 AM

Buddhism's Anatta (No-Self) and Advaita

Passing on this dialogue from Advaitin.Harsha-----Original

Message-----stevenfair

[stevenfair ]Now, while I do not personally agree

with this doctrine of Anatta, Ido think there's no question that

Anatta is exactly and *only* whatthe Buddha taught. I have never run

across any Buddhistscholar or sage who says differently. I just don't

see anyevidence for some "hiddenunspoken" or "implied" or

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

Inthis, I must respectfully disagree with Sri Ramana, who in anumber

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

between what the Buddha taught about Anatta and theAdvaita teaching

of the Self. The great Advaitan sage maybelieve that, finally, there

is no difference, but I don't think there'sany 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

areidentical. Both terms refer to a complete absence of any longing.

That is animportant and a fundamental point to keep in mind. The

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

totheir 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 (inAdvaita Vedanta) refers to That which is devoid of all

sorrows, desires, andutterly and completely empty of all things.

Therefore it can be rightly becalled Emptiness from one perspective.

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

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

one to holdon, and when even the slightest trace of individual mental

consciousness hasvanished, who remains to say "This is no self or this

is Self, etc. Sri Ramana spoke plainly from his direct experience

when he referred toBuddha's teachings. Perhaps you will find the

following article to be of interest, "The HighestTeaching: 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 alwaysbeen a fascinating

problem. It had been for long a debate between Buddhistsand

Advaitins, and among Buddhists themselves (Yogacara with the

Mind-Onlytheory and Madhyamika with the Shunyata or Emptiness

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

sometimes isregarded as the real father of this tradition, in his

famous Platform Sutrasaid that "seeing one's own original nature is

enlightenment." His view wascondemned by other Buddhists as heretic

because orthodox Buddhism believedin (absolute) No-Self. His Platform

Sutra was burned after his death.""I like to present another

interesting view of Dzogchen which arrives toconciliate the two

apparently opposite conceptions: Self and Emptiness."You can find the

full article on the website./Love to

allHarsha