Guest guest Posted May 28, 2001 Report Share Posted May 28, 2001 Dear friends, I have enjoyed so much my interaction with this forum, and feel I have a much better understanding of Advaita philosophy than when I began. The patience and courtesy of the members have truly been wonderful. (The many replies I received on my most recent post about animals have been most helpful! Thank you all!) I have come to a point in my investigations where I would like to address a crucial point -- a question that I came to this forum with but wanted to wait until I got a better grasp of the fundamentals before asking. The issue has to do with Buddhism and its teaching of Anatta and what Advaita says in response to the Buddhism's Anatta. I believe I understand what the Buddha taught in regards to Anatta, but for sake of accuracy, let me quote from the scholar Wapola Rahula, from "What the Buddha Taught": "What in general is suggested by Soul, Self, Ego, or to use the Sanskrit expression, Atman is that in man there is a permanent, everlasting and absolute entity, which is the unchanging substance behind the changing phenomenal world....Buddhism stand unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of such a Soul, Self, or Atman. According to the teachings of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of 'me' and 'mine,' selfish desire, craving attachment, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism, and other defilements, impurities and problems....According to Buddhism, our ideas of God and Soul are false and empty. Though highly developed as theories, they are all the same extremely subtle mental projections, garbed in intricate metaphysical and philosophical phraseology." "According to the doctrine of Conditioned Genesis, as well as according to the analysis of being into Five Aggregates, the idea of an abiding, immortal substance in man or outside, whether it is called Atman, I, Soul, Self, or Ego, is considered only a false belief, a mental projection. This is the Buddhist doctrine of Anatta, No-Soul, or No-Self." Quoting the Buddha in the Alagaddupama-sutta of the Majjjhima-nikaya, we read: "O bhikkhus, when neither self nor anything pertaining to self can truly and really be found, this speculative view: 'The universe is that Atman (Soul); I shall be that after death, permanent, abiding, ever-lasting, unchanging, and I shall exist as such for eternity' -- is it not wholly and completely foolish?" Rahula then goes on to address certain passages which have sometimes been used to say that some Self or self sense exists in some form in the Buddha's teachings. I wont' take the space to quote them here, but if one has done much reading of Buddhist text and analysis, these refutations are very familiar. As Rahula says: "Those who want to find a 'Self' in Buddhism argue as follows: It is true that the Buddha analyses being into matter, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness, and says that none of these things is the self. But he does not say that there is no self at all in man or anywhere else, apart from these aggregates. This position is untenable for two reasons: One is that, according to the Buddha's teaching, a being is composed *only* of these Five Aggregates, and nothing more. Nowhere has he said that there was anything more than these Five Aggregates in a being. The second reason is that the Buddha denied categorically, in unequivocal terms, in more than one place, the existence of Atman, Soul, Self, or Ego, within man or without, or anywhere else in the universe." 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. But isn't that as it should be? Rather than try to say or argue that Buddhism "really" does allow the Self in the back door, so to speak, and thus earn the Advaitans the name of "hidden Buddhists," as I understand some Advaitans have been called, I would much rather hear what arguments have been given by Shankara, and others, to say where and why the doctrine of Anatta, No-Self, is wrong or flawed. It seems to me that the key and pivotal point is the issue of the Buddha's Five Aggregates and Conditional Genesis. On these two concepts, the whole platform of Anatta rests, it seems to me. And I would assume that it is here that any Hindu counter-reformation to Buddhism would focus. Since the Buddha taught neither nihilism, nor annihilationism, nor any eternalist theory, the basis for any counter-argument must surely be the deconstructing the bedrock idea of the Five Aggregates and Conditonal Genesis as all there is to the "I" and its origin. And indeed, I would have to agree that if all "I" am is, in fact, merely the Five Aggregates, then the logic of the Buddha is unassailable and unanswerable. In the well-known metaphor, the only answer to the problem of bieng is to "snuff out" the Aggregates like the flame of the candle, and not ask "nonsensical" questions about the existence of the flame after extinguishment, since there was no real flame (or "I") before extinguishment either. It's all dukkha, My friends, please know that in presenting the Buddhist view strongly and clearly, (insofar as I grasp it) I am not advocating it or attacking Advaita! I merely want to understand how these essential points of Buddhism have been analyzed and critique from the standpoint of Advaita. In fact, my initial interest in Advaita was because it was presented as a powerful critique and answer to Buddhism and its No-Self, Anatta doctrine. Personally, I feel the Five Aggregate doctrine of Buddhism has some logical/semantical inconsistencies that more than leave enough room for the idea of a Self-revealing Soul or Atman. But since absolutely brilliant and great-hearted and spiritually-minded people have been and continue to be both Buddhists and Advaitans, I feel very humble in even saying the latter, though this is what my Heart and life experience continues to say to confirm. (If, finally, that too proves to be illusion, I'll be suprised!) If the good folks of this forum can direct me to writings that address the Anatta issue, as well as other doctrines deemed problematical from the Advaitan viewpoint, I would be most grateful. And of course, I also welcome any personal input that anyone might have to offer on this problem. Thanks for taking the time to read this long post -- the importance of the subject seemed to me to justify the length I hope you agree and look forward to learning more about this subject of Anatta as viewed by the Advaitan teachings. With affection, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2001 Report Share Posted May 28, 2001 advaitin, stevenfair wrote: > Dear friends, Hi Steven. I am glad you posted this topic as I too have pondered it. Perhaps anatta refers to Brahman? Atman maybe could be said to be the reflection of Brahman & so on & so on, as the play develops onward into persona & conditioning worn by the Atman for Brahman. This could be said to delve into the relationship between the impersonal All, & its reflected personalisations & scenery. In my humble opinion. Love, Colette > > The issue has to do with Buddhism and its teaching of Anatta > and what Advaita says in response to the Buddhism's Anatta. > With affection, > Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2001 Report Share Posted May 28, 2001 advaitin, colette@b... wrote: > advaitin, stevenfair wrote: > > Dear friends, > > Hi Steven. I am glad you posted this topic as I too have pondered it. Hi Colette! Always nice to hear from you. > Perhaps anatta refers to Brahman? No. The Buddha, according to everything I have read and studied, denies such a concept or relationship. Or rather, says such a term as "Brahman" is void and empty of meaning. Indeeed, it is dukkha. Indeed, in a certain sense, the concepts of anatta and Brahman are virtual opposites, though that's not quite the right way to say it. The Buddhist would ask how something that is empty of meaning can have an opposite!. (What is the "opposite" of a four-legged tripod?) No-Self means no Soul, Ego, Self, Brhaman, God, or Christ. All that is dukkha and the source of suffering. >Atman maybe could be said to be the > reflection of Brahman & so on & so on, as the play develops onward > into persona & conditioning worn by the Atman for Brahman. This could well describe Advaitin belief, but would make no sense to a Buddhist, for to him there is no Atman or Brahman to "wear" anything. Anatta means *anatta* -- No-Soul or Self. The logic of the Buddha is ferocious and without compromise. This could > be said to delve into the relationship between the impersonal All, & > its reflected personalisations & scenery. Again, not to say you are wrong; just that this reasoning would have no basis or credibility in Buddhism. They posit no All or Soul or Self or Ego or Brahman from which what we see around us can be "derived" or "reflected" or in any way explained or justified. All such concepts are "void" and "empty." Indeed, they are dukkha itself. > In my humble opinion. > Hey, I know what you mean by feeling humble! One does not want to say, trivially, or egotistically, that someone like the Buddha got it wrong! <g> How did the Enligtened One miss the Self-obvious "I" is one of the greatest of mysteries -- or else, it is as the Buddhist might reply, there is and was no "I" (or self, or Self) for him to miss! <G> Thanks for the post. Blessings, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2001 Report Share Posted May 28, 2001 Namaste, Prof. R.K.Dasgupta gave a series of 12 monthly lectures [May 1999 to May 2000] on Vedanta Through the Ages, published in the Bulletin of the Ramakrishna Mission Institute of Culture, Calcutta, India. Lecture no. III deals with the influence of Vedanta on Buddhism. Here are a few excerpts from that lecture: " ...When Buddha attained his enlightenment at Bodh Gaya at the age of 35 in 522 B.C., Vedanta had made its appearance on the Indian philosophical scene through as many as eight ancient, prose upanishads,which were composed in the 8th and 7th centuries. These upanishads are: Aitareya, Kaushitaki, Chandogya, Kena, Taittiriya, Brihadaranyaka, Isha, and Katha. A prince born in the 6th century, in 557 B.C., to be precise, was presumably acquainted with the wisdom of these works when he left home at the age of 29, that is in 528 B.C.; and when he attained Buddhahood in 522 B.C. Vedanta philosophy was some 2 centuries old. It is impossible that a prince who became a sannyasi was indifferent to the most influential philosophical system of the age. We know that during his sannyasa he received instruction from a scholar-sage named Ara Kalam of whom he became a disciple. He also became a disciple of another sage named Rudraka and obviously both these sages imparted to Gautama the wisdom of the upanishads. We can, however, assume taht while he understood Vedanta and accepted its main teachings, he was not particularly impressed by its metaphysical dialectics. He was in search of an ethical wisdom rooted in a sense of human sorrows and a sense of compassion for suffering humanity. Obviously no one drew his attention to the presence of both in the upanishads. ..............He preached his wisdom for the remaining 45 years of his life, but he did not set down any of his ideas in writing. Soon after his passing away at Kushinagar in 477 B.C. at the age of 80, his disciples and followers assembled in a Council - the first Buddhist Council which was held in Rajagriha - to determine his teachings. There is no written record of this Council., and Buddha's teachings naturally became a pert of an oral tradition. The second Council took place at Vaishali, a century later....But even this Council did not fix any text of his teachings. The 3rd Buddhist Council was held in 242 B.C. in the reign of Ashoka, but no corpus of Buddhist scriptures emerged from this great Council held in Patna, the capital of a vast kingdom which had embraced Buddhism. Buddha preached in his vernacular, the Prakrit of Magadha, and his words, at least words supposed to have been spoken by him, were on the lips of Buddhist Shramana and Bikshus. This continued for about two and a half centuries. The Buddhist canon was written in Ceylon in 80 B.C. in Pali, a literary Prakrit of Northern India. It is called the Pali Canon of Buddhism......another form of Buddhism made its appearance in Nepal and Tibet......Northern Buddhism. Our subject becomes more complicated when a new Buddhism emerged during the period from Ashoka to Kanishka, that is between 269 B.C. and 100 A.D. This new Buddhism is called Mahayana or Great Vehicle to be distiguished from early Buddhism called Hinayana or Little Vehicle, also called Theravada..[buddhism preached by the Theras or Elders.] The question now is: Where do we have the authentic voice of Buddha to be able to see if in that voice there is an echo of the upanishads? Amongst the historians of our philosophy it is M. Hiriyanna who more than anyone else has raised this question. In his 'Outlines of Indian Philosophy [1932] Hiriyanna says:" Buddha wrote no books; and there is a certain amount of vagueness about his teaching, because it has to be gathered from works that were compiled a long time after his death and cannot therefore be regarded as exactly representing what he taught."...... ......TO BE CONTINUED...... advaitin, stevenfair wrote: > advaitin, colette@b... wrote: > > advaitin, stevenfair wrote: > > > Dear friends, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 28, 2001 Report Share Posted May 28, 2001 advaitin, stevenfair wrote: > > Hi Colette! Always nice to hear from you. <snip> > Again, not to say you are wrong; just that this reasoning would > have no basis or credibility in Buddhism. They posit no All or > Soul or Self or Ego or Brahman from which what we see around > us can be "derived" or "reflected" or in any way explained or > justified. All such concepts are "void" and "empty." Indeed, they > are dukkha itself. And even I agree with that, yet you see we are here communicating so what is the purpose of Life then in their eyes? Would they agree that Life Is? Seriously. Why would no concepts commune as them? You see I like Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche's approach which is that not only is there Mind which is empty, but THERE IS COGNITION too. WE cannot deny that concepts occur & appear to arise from an attributeless Source. Either we tell half the story & wipe out form altogether or we transcend & include it. I like the idea that not only is form empty, but emptiness IS FORM. So not only is Brahman (in my opinion) 'no self' (mystery) but It Is also all form & even it's absolute ground ~ Self too! I just equate this no self non existence to that no self that is never found which some here especially Frank refer to as 'Mystery'. Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche refers to life (as it seems to me) as the reflection or expression of Mind. So Mind is not just empty. It 'thinks'. It forms images symbols & concepts. What is this mystery? > > In my humble opinion. > > > > Hey, I know what you mean by feeling humble! One does not > want to say, trivially, or egotistically, that someone like the > Buddha got it wrong! Were His words actually recorded at the time? <g> How did the Enligtened One miss the > Self-obvious "I" is one of the greatest of mysteries -- or else, it is > as the Buddhist might reply, there is and was no "I" (or self, or > Self) for him to miss! <G> Perhaps both are true. Some traditions focus on one aspect of Truth leaving out others - form in particular. I can see why that is done to help sever attachment to it as most true as it isn't, but after transcending attachment & the play still goes on then what? And what then is this Compassion & Loving kindness they all talk of? Is it real? Is anything worth something? What is the purpose of the Real & the reflection of Truth? > > Thanks for the post. > > Blessings, > Steve :-) Hey fun~ See ya later (P.S. I just give to you how I see it. It might be better if you don't presume to label it any particular style). I don't know where it fits. Frank thinks it is advaitin but I see many here have different ideas on what that means. Peace, Colette Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 advaitin, colette@b... wrote: > advaitin, stevenfair wrote: Prof. Dasgupta's lecture excerpts: cotd: "True Voice of Buddha:...................We may hear it when we are really keen to hear it even in the midst of thousands of words in the Pali Canon, that is the three pitakas or baskets, the Vinaya Pitaka, the Sutta Pitaka, and the Abhidhamma Pitaka. Then we must also look for the true words of Buddha in the Mahayana texts which are not regardeda s canon, but which contain the wisdom of Buddha. Let us not concentrate only on the Pali Canon; let us search for our Buddha in the large corpus of Buddhist literature including works written inSanskrit or Buddhistic Sanskrit. And above all let us discover our Buddha in the whole spiritual history of India of which he was a product. I may immodestly mention my approach to Buddha as a common man long before I read the 136 volumes of the Pali Canon as presented in the translations issued by the Pali Text Society, London, or works by Cowell and Max Muller, and Takakakuso's Buddhist Mahayana Sutras, including Ashvaghosh's Buddhacharita published in the Sacred Books of the Est in 1894, and T.W.Rhys Davids' Buddhism:Its History and Literature published in 1907. ....I first read about Buddha in Sarat Kumar Ray's Bengali work Buddher Jivani O Vani which appeared........... in 1914. This work.......presents Buddha as a part of the great Hindu tradition. After this I read a Bengali work ....Satyendranath Tagore's Bouddhadharma [2nd ed. 1915] which did not at all give me the impression that Buddhism emerged in our country as a rejection of Vedantism. Satyendranath does not see any difference between Buddist nirvana and Vedantic moksha. ................ half a century ago the average Bengali did not look upon Buddhism as a repudiation of Vedanta. Another Bengali work on Buddhism is Charu Chandra Basu's translation of the great Buddhist classic Dhammapada, a text in the Khuddaka Nikaya of the Sutta Pitaka,.....published in 1904. The 423 verses of the work are known to be Buddha's words, and some of these words speak of nibbana as a state of bliss thus showing that it is identical with Hindu moksha. I am referring to only one such expression in verse 204 where it is said `nibbanang paramang sukhang.' This is the clearest answer to those who think that the Buddhist nirvana is annihilation. In his English translation of the Dhammapada published in 1950, Radhakrishnan translates these words as `Nirvana is the highest happiness.' ............Sir Edwin Arnold's The Light of Asia published in 1884...in his introduction to this work Sir Edwin very rightly says that `a third of mankind would never have been brought to believe in blank abstractios, or in nothingness as the issue and crown of Being.' In Sir Edwin's great poem on Buddha we have words which present Buddhist nirvana as positive bliss: 'Ye are not bound! the Soul of Things is sweet , The Heart of Being is celestial rest; Stronger than ill is will: that which was Good Doth pass to Better-Best.' Sir Edwin suggests in this poem that Buddha was temperamentally averse to metaphysical disquisition and preferred silence to speech: `.....measure not with words The immeasurable; nor sink the string of thought Into the fathomless. Who asks doth err, Who answers errs, Say nought.' We do not have Buddha's words on the nature of the Supreme Reality and man's relation with it not because he did not believe in them; he just preferred to be silent on what was beyond words....... ..................TO BE CONTINUED...................................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2001 Report Share Posted May 29, 2001 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. / Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 30, 2001 Report Share Posted May 30, 2001 My opinion is that both Buddhist and the Advaitins speak of the same object but they have tried to describe the same thing according to their own perspective. Some used one word, another a few more to essentially denote the same thing. Just like calling H2o as water or the white liquid of life. Just by trying to point out certain dimentions certain aspects have been pointed out. Probably none express the whole but have successfully indicated the object in question. What is in a name that we call a rose, in any other name it would smell as sweet--Shakespeare advaitin, "Harsha" <harsha-hkl@h...> wrote: > > 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. > > / 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.