Guest guest Posted March 25, 2001 Report Share Posted March 25, 2001 advaitin, colette@b... wrote: > Steven I too have wondered why some Buddhists believe an anatman view? > Colette, Hi! Nice to hear from you. You raise questions I'd like to have addressed to. As for your first question, I believe that "anatman" is a central doctrine of the Buddha himself. As Edward Conze writes in "Buddhism: its essence and development": "The specifc contribution of Buddhism to religious thought is its insistence of the doctrine of 'not self (an-atta in Pali, an-atman in Sanskrit) The belief in a 'self' is considered by all Buddhists as an indespensable condition to the emergence of suffering." > I wonder what their concept of atman is? > Even though I've been studying Buddhism for years, I don't think I know enough to answer this without introducing all sorts of errors and misconceptions. What I can say is there seems to be a lot of difference of opinion about this historically in Buddhism and in the various schools. > I wonder what Advaita's concept of Atman is? > I'd love to hear from the forum about this myself. Assuming we we know what "atman" is <g>, can someone tell us whether it's what Ramana and Shankara call the Self? Having just finished "The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" by Obsone, I do recall these passages: Questioner: The Buddhists deny the world whereas Hindu philosophy admits its existence, but calls it unreal, isn't that so? Ramana: Its only a difference of point of view. Later in the book (p. 75) there is a wonderful discussion by Ramana of Atman and grace. Here is part of what he said: "There never was a time when the Supreme Being was unknown or unrealized, because he is one and identical with the Self. His grace or Anugraha is the same as the conscious immediacy of His Divine Presence, Prasannata, in other words, Enlightenment or Revelation." I would love to hear others here comment on this and the other questions Collette has raised. > Maybe we could discuss this out. > I am sure others may say something helpful too. > Yes, I'm sure they have much to share! > Peace, > > Colette > Steve --- "Attempts to defend theism by ignoring the question of truth...are fundamentally atheistic. They worship human wishes rather than ultimate reality." David Pailin, God and the Process of Reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2001 Report Share Posted March 26, 2001 advaitin, stevenfair wrote: > advaitin, colette@b... wrote: > > Steven I too have wondered why some Buddhists believe an > anatman view? > > > > Colette, > > Hi! Nice to hear from you. You raise questions I'd like to have > addressed to. As for your first question, I believe that "anatman" > is a central doctrine of the Buddha himself. > > As Edward Conze writes in "Buddhism: its essence and > development": "The specifc contribution of Buddhism to > religious thought is its insistence of the doctrine of 'not self > (an-atta in Pali, an-atman in Sanskrit) The belief in a 'self' is > considered by all Buddhists as an indespensable condition to > the emergence of suffering." > > > I wonder what their concept of atman is? > > > > Even though I've been studying Buddhism for years, I don't think I > know enough to answer this without introducing all sorts of > errors and misconceptions. What I can say is there seems to be > a lot of difference of opinion about this historically in Buddhism > and in the various schools. > > > I wonder what Advaita's concept of Atman is? > > > I'd love to hear from the forum about this myself. Assuming we > we know what "atman" is <g>, can someone tell us whether it's > what Ramana and Shankara call the Self? > > Having just finished "The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" by > Obsone, I do recall these passages: > > Questioner: The Buddhists deny the world whereas Hindu > philosophy admits its existence, but calls it unreal, isn't that so? > > Ramana: Its only a difference of point of view. > > Later in the book (p. 75) there is a wonderful discussion by > Ramana of Atman and grace. Here is part of what he said: > "There never was a time when the Supreme Being was unknown > or unrealized, because he is one and identical with the Self. His > grace or Anugraha is the same as the conscious immediacy of > His Divine Presence, Prasannata, in other words, Enlightenment > or Revelation." > > I would love to hear others here comment on this and the other > questions Collette has raised. > > > Maybe we could discuss this out. > > I am sure others may say something helpful too. > > > > Yes, I'm sure they have much to share! > > > Peace, > > > > Colette > > > Steve Hi Steve. It is funny cause I was taught to consider everything As the Self. I think of Atman as Existence Itself (or pure Consciousness). Brahma as Creator. I am open to learning though. Peace, Nice to connect with ya, Col > > --- > "Attempts to defend theism by ignoring the question of truth...are > fundamentally atheistic. They worship human wishes rather > than ultimate reality." > David Pailin, God and the Process of Reality Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 26, 2001 Report Share Posted March 26, 2001 I wonder what is the difference between Atma & Atman & Brahma & Brahman? Just wondering :-) love to All, Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2001 Report Share Posted March 27, 2001 Namaste, The words Atman and Brahman are the 'stem' words. Brahman refers to THAT Consciousness which causes the universe to manifest, which sustains it during the manifestation, and which absorbs it when unmanifest; the Ultimate principle or Reality/Truth/Existence. Atman is the 'reflection' of the Brahman in an individual; a common analogy is the sun reflected in water in different pots. [Etymologically, Brahman derives from bR^ih = to expand [infinitely] Atman = that which breathes [at = to breathe] Brahma is : 1. the nominative singular form 2. the form used to make compound words, e.g. brahma-loka 3. when pronounced as BrahmA, denotes the Creative Principle & personification of Brahman. Atma is: 1. when pronounced as AtmA, nom. sing. of Atman 2. the form used to make compound words, eg Atma-krIDa Would appreciate any comments/corrections. Regards, s. advaitin, colette@b... wrote: > I wonder what is the difference between Atma & Atman & Brahma & > Brahman? > > Just wondering > :-) > > love to All, > > Col Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2001 Report Share Posted March 27, 2001 Namaste, The best summary perhaps is by Daisetz Suzuki, in his book Mysticism Christian and Buddhist,publ. Allen & Unwin,1957/1979; chapter 2, The Basis of Buddhist Philosophy. For more extensive discussions one could quote Conze [Diamond and the Heart Sutras], Evans-Wentz [Tibetan Yoga & Secret Doctrines], Radhakrishnan [A Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy], Ranade[A Constructive Survey of Indian Philosophy, & Vedanta-The Culmination of Indian Thought], Shankara [brahmasutra Bhashya], etc. Suzuki's analysis parallels that of Eckhart [and incidentally Ramana.] Regards, s. advaitin, colette@b... wrote: > advaitin, stevenfair wrote: > > advaitin, colette@b... wrote: > > > Steven I too have wondered why some Buddhists believe an > > anatman view? > > > > As for your first question, I believe that "anatman" > > is a central doctrine of the Buddha himself. > > > > As Edward Conze writes in "Buddhism: its essence and > > development": "The specifc contribution of Buddhism to > > religious thought is its insistence of the doctrine of 'not self > > (an-atta in Pali, an-atman in Sanskrit) The belief in a 'self' is > > considered by all Buddhists as an indespensable condition to > > the emergence of suffering." > > > > > I wonder what their concept of atman is? > > > > > > > > > > I wonder what Advaita's concept of Atman is? > > > > > I'd love to hear from the forum about this myself. Assuming we > > we know what "atman" is <g>, can someone tell us whether it's > > what Ramana and Shankara call the Self? > > > > Having just finished "The Teachings of Ramana Maharshi" by > > > > I would love to hear others here comment on this and the other > > questions Collette has raised. > > > > > Maybe we could discuss this out. > > > I am sure others may say something helpful too. > > > > > > > Yes, I'm sure they have much to share! > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Colette > > > > > Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2001 Report Share Posted March 27, 2001 advaitin, sunderh wrote: > Namaste, > > The best summary perhaps is by Daisetz Suzuki, in his book > Mysticism Christian and Buddhist,publ. Allen & Unwin,1957/1979; > chapter 2, The Basis of Buddhist Philosophy. For more extensive > discussions one could quote Conze [Diamond and the Heart Sutras], > Evans-Wentz [Tibetan Yoga & Secret Doctrines], Radhakrishnan [A > Sourcebook in Indian Philosophy], Ranade[A Constructive Survey of > Indian Philosophy, & Vedanta-The Culmination of Indian Thought], > Shankara [brahmasutra Bhashya], etc. > > Suzuki's analysis parallels that of Eckhart [and incidentally > Ramana.] > > Regards, > ><snip> Most excellent! You have listed a number of books that would obviously be terrific resources. I shall search them out. God bless, Steve Steven L. Fair ----------------- "When you come to a fork in the road, take it." Yogi Berra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.