Buddhism - Emptiness

[Guest guest]

The misinterpretation of the word "shUnyA" or void, is notorious. Hindu

writers deliberately do so, to further their own interests. Modern

scholars and neo Buddhists, do so, due to ignorance.

 

Indian thought ran along two streams 1. The AtmavAda or the Eternal Soul

theory expounded by the BrAhmanical schools and 2. the nairAtmavAda or

the No Soul theory of the early Buddhist schools. Logically both

theories are unsound. With the former you cannot account for the change

experienced in the empirical world and the latter cannot explain memory

and perception. This is why Gautama SiddhArtha, the historical Buddha

says to his disciple KAshyapa in the RatnakUta SUtrA , that the middle

between the Soul and the No Soul, is the Truth in its true form, which

is beyond expression and

can be equated only with silence.

 

ShUnyatA is rightly this - the golden mean between the Soul and the No

Soul theories - the Middle Way. "It cannot be called void or not void,

both or neither, but in order to indicate it, it is called void." As the

Buddha says, it's the antidote for all "theories". He warns that we

should not try to make an end of ShUnyatA itself, which would be

nihlism. For those who do, he declares there's no hope!

 

A full exposition of this is found in the works of NAgArjuna (2nd

century AD) and his followers, of the MAdhyamaka school of Buddhism.

NAgArjuna is one of the greatest thinkers BhArath has produced and he is

the first one to come out with a philosophy of Absolutism in the history

of world thought.

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

this historic debate among vedantins re

the teachings of Buddha, continues due to

fundamental misconceptions.

 

worthwhile to bear in mind is if/when, as

a by-product of the glimpse into jnana,

the insight-key is had, one is [usually]

almost instantly capable of extracting

the essential teachings that otherwise lie

hidden not only in buddhism, but in *all*

the world religions, including taoism,

christism, judaism, sufism, and shamanism.

for, common to all, lies the basic concept

of transcending the judgmental contractions

in/of the ego-Mind, and thus embracing the

holistic essence integral to Absolute Being.

 

regarding the controversy surrounding the

teachings of Buddha, scholars draw on the

refutations of buddhism by Gaudapada and

Sankara. the simple fact was, however,

that they weren't deriding the teachings

of Buddha, per se, but the misconceptions

propagated by his followers, which were

indeed a critical corruption of his true

doctrine.

 

two of the primary distortions of Buddha's

teaching is the idea that there is no soul,

and the idea that shunya is the basis of

the nature of existence or Being. as nanda

pointed out, Nagarjuna clarified these

concepts unequivocally. if anyone is

interested, there's a brief expose of

the madhyamika doctrine on:

http://www.rahul.net/intsci/sacredscience/SS_sunyata.html

 

Buddha's concept of anatta (no-self) is equal

to the vedantic refutation of the separative

ego or ahamkar. And since he postulated the

idea of the highest state as per one's release

into nirvana, if there is no entity or no

higher Self, who or what enters into that state?

 

we should also bear in mind that both Ramana

and Ramakrishna recognized Buddha as not only

a jnani, but a highly effective teacher and

proponent of radical non-dualism, equivalent

to the ajatavada doctrine of advaita vedanta.

 

namaste

[Guest guest]

f. maiello wrote:

> "f. maiello" <egodust

>

> this historic debate among vedantins re

> the teachings of Buddha, continues due to

> fundamental misconceptions.

>

> worthwhile to bear in mind is if/when, as

> a by-product of the glimpse into jnana,

> the insight-key is had, one is [usually]

> almost instantly capable of extracting

> the essential teachings that otherwise lie

> hidden not only in buddhism, but in *all*

> the world religions, including taoism,

> christism, judaism, sufism, and shamanism.

> for, common to all, lies the basic concept

> of transcending the judgmental contractions

> in/of the ego-Mind, and thus embracing the

> holistic essence integral to Absolute Being.

>

> regarding the controversy surrounding the

> teachings of Buddha, scholars draw on the

> refutations of buddhism by Gaudapada and

> Sankara. the simple fact was, however,

> that they weren't deriding the teachings

> of Buddha, per se, but the misconceptions

> propagated by his followers, which were

> indeed a critical corruption of his true

> doctrine.

>

> two of the primary distortions of Buddha's

> teaching is the idea that there is no soul,

> and the idea that shunya is the basis of

> the nature of existence or Being. as nanda

> pointed out, Nagarjuna clarified these

> concepts unequivocally. if anyone is

> interested, there's a brief expose of

> the madhyamika doctrine on:

> http://www.rahul.net/intsci/sacredscience/SS_sunyata.html

>

> Buddha's concept of anatta (no-self) is equal

> to the vedantic refutation of the separative

> ego or ahamkar. And since he postulated the

> idea of the highest state as per one's release

> into nirvana, if there is no entity or no

> higher Self, who or what enters into that state?

>

> we should also bear in mind that both Ramana

> and Ramakrishna recognized Buddha as not only

> a jnani, but a highly effective teacher and

> proponent of radical non-dualism, equivalent

> to the ajatavada doctrine of advaita vedanta.

>

> namaste

>

 

Harsha: Beautiful, eloquent and to the point. Without Direct Perception and

Recognition of the Truth of the Self, the mind is bound to see differences

everywhere, even among great teachers. Yet with the Pure

Knowledge of Existence as That which is One's Own Being, the essence of the

great teachings is seen to be identical. The person of insight knows that the

"Space" within each container is the same, though the

outer form of the container appears to be different. Similarly, Truth is the

same, although the expression of the Truth is dependent upon a historical and a

cultural context. It is no wonder that the Great

Sage of Arunachala, Sri Ramana Maharshi, accepted the essence of the Buddha's

teaching and that of Advaitic sages to be the same.