Welcome to Sri John Willemsens, a NewMember to the List

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Let us welcome Sri John Wiliemsens, our new member to

the list. We will have the opportunity very soon to

learn more about 'Advayavada Buddhism' from John who

has developed an impressive homepage on that subject

matter. We encourage John to feel free to participate

on the on going discussions and provide his insights

and scholarship.

 

warmest regards,

Advaitin List Moderators

 

 

--- John Willemsens <advaya wrote:

> Dear friends,

> Information about my interests and activities can be

> found on my webpages.

> Kind regards,

> John Willemsens.

> ...................

> Advayavada Buddhism Infocenter - Amsterdam

> http://www.euronet.nl/~advaya/sitemap.htm

 

 

=====

Team of Moderators

Advaitin List

Moderators can be contacted at the Email Address: advaitins

 

========================

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./?.refer=text

[Guest guest]

advaitin, advaitins moderators <advaitins> wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Let us welcome Sri John Wiliemsens, our new member to

> the list. We will have the opportunity very soon to

> learn more about 'Advayavada Buddhism' from John who

> has developed an impressive homepage on that subject

> matter.

 

 

Welcome John! What a great website you have. As someone who has

studied Buddhism a lot longer than I have the Advaitan philosophy, I

found it most enlightening and thought-provoking.

 

I will be greatly interested in your contribution to this group,

given the following paragraph from your website's Introduction:

 

"According to Advayavada Buddhism, it is indisputable that the Buddha

did not believe in Brahman (God, transcendent Absolute) or in the

atman or atta (soul, immortal self) and taught that man suffers

because he does not realize that all things in life are instead

utterly changeable and transitory. Man is prone to suffering (duhkha,

dukkha) quite simply because he strives after and tries to hold on to

things and concepts which he believes to be permanent, but are not."

 

So far as I have been able to understand and assimilate of the

Advaitan teachings and history, this *seems* to be, on the face of

it, the very view that Shankara came to counter in his reformation

work. (Others on this forum please correct me if this newcomer has

misunderstood this issue or history!)

 

As a Christian seeking to understand, and not criticize, other

spiritual teachings, I will watch with great interest, and learn

much, I am sure, from the dialog that will surely ensue from members

addressing the issue of Brhaman and Atman and the way to non-duality.

 

With best wishes from a fellow newcomer,

Steve

[Guest guest]

Hello. This is a topic I myself find interesting also.

 

 

I just this week have asked elsewhere what this concept of anatman is?

 

I am no expert at all on Buddhism but I like to think that we are all

exploring the same Reality just using different words. I like to see

where paths meet.

 

Col

[Guest guest]

>"According to Advayavada Buddhism, it is indisputable

>that the Buddha did not believe in Brahman (God,

>transcendent Absolute) or in the atman or atta (soul,

>immortal self) and taught that man suffers because he

>does not realize that all things in life are instead

>utterly changeable and transitory. Man is prone to

>suffering (duhkha, dukkha) quite simply because he

>strives after and tries to hold on to things and

>concepts which he believes to be permanent, but are

>not."

 

I definitely dispute this view. Maybe even as

Nagarjuna stresses, before we go into

metaphysical/psychological analysis, we should first

come to an understanding of these fundamental concepts

: self/non-self, substance/attribute,

identity/difference, essence/change,

eternity/transcience, samsara/nirvana.

 

Else if we're not even clear about the fundamentals

and if we keep speculating, then there'll be no

substance to our knowledge.

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./

[Guest guest]

colette wrote:

>

> I just this week have asked elsewhere what this concept of anatman is?

>

> I am no expert at all on Buddhism but I like to think that we are all

> exploring the same Reality just using different words. I like to see

> where paths meet.

>

 

whoa! this is the whole point: all paths meet at one summit!

 

if you want to find out about buddhism [and christism, islam,

and taoism, for that matter], no need to read extensive works

on these subjects, per se. read ramana and ramakrishna and

you'll see how the paths not only meet but are in fact only

a few feet apart on the *same* [optimal south-facing] slope

up the mountain!

 

the following may help...

 

_________

 

dear sri willemsens:

 

namaste.

and welcome to the List.

 

however, i disagree with your assessment of buddha's teaching.

 

although i favor vedantic advaita, from what i've discovered,

the core of all the world-teachers philosophies are essentially

and significantly non-dual. (i've been influenced throughout

most of my eclectic metaphysical studies [over 34 years] by zen

buddhism. in fact, it's become the yardstick i use to compare

the relative value of concepts 'pointing the way' in all other

approaches. and i found them to be universal/archetypal. it's

interesting to note that someone just directed me to their

website, where they claimed to have been the lone founder of

the way to resolve Life's practical riddles. and one could see

the originality in presentation. i since informed him that he

*independently* discovered the archetypal concepts of the 'ageless

wisdom teachings'...[hindus refer to as [timeless] vedic wisdom].)

 

so the teachings esoterically converge: buddhism, hinduism, taoism,

cabalism, christism, islam (sufism), [esoteric] shamanism...

 

to illustrate what i'm claiming has been the most popular mistake

in interpretation of sakyamuni buddha's assertion of 'anatta'--

first of all, in responding to whether the soul or god existed or

not, he remained silent. *that* was interpreted as a 'no'!!

 

without getting too involved, please consider..

 

the following taken from your introduction:

 

"..the Buddha did not believe in Brahman (God, transcendent

Absolute) or in the atman or atta (soul, immortal self)..."

 

"Nirvana is to experience the phenomenal world at the level

of absolute, ultimate truth (paramartha-satya)."

 

nandaji hit the nail on the head. it's first a matter of

semantics. e.g.: "Absolute" vs. "at the level of the absolute."

.....different contexts?; if so, why? or "Brahman" vs. "nirvana"

(nirvana precludes the presence of consciousness and thus a

sentient Being that must be experiencing it (nirvana). or why

refer to a thing called nirvana? and if so doing, why isn't

it called nirsathya [Absolute Void; nescience]?)

 

because it is in fact *existential*, which inherently precludes

some being having a state of consciousness.

 

buddha's purpose for silence in the face of in fact what amounts

to have been *all* philosophical speculation, is to stop that

part of the human mind's historic obsessive-compulsion to resolve

and make reasonable the Unknowable.

 

the following url provides an excellent intro to buddhism:

http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/dhamma/dham-hp.htm

 

regards,

frank