Thanks for "anatta" responses

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

Everyone's responses have been great -- intelligent and

heartfelt, as I expected. I've been able to answer a few

individually, but since I am one answering many, it make take

me at some time to respond to the various posts.

 

Two things I would like to reiterate - I am not personally

defending or advocating the anatta view, and while I am have

read long (and I hope) deeply in the Buddhist literature, I am not

a practicing Buddhist, but a Christian wishing to broaden his

outlook and understanding of the great world spiritual traditions.

Therefore I am feel terribly inadequate in trying to explain or to

"defend" the Buddhist critique of something like Advaita, and will

mostly not try to do so, since that was not my purpose the first

place!. <g> (If a practicing Buddhist like John Willemsens would

like to jump in, please do!)

 

Nonetheless, I don't think I'm misunderstanding or misstating

the general Buddhist "critique." (I mean, it's not like Buddhist

scholars and sages don't really grasp, somehow, after all this

time, what the Hindu means by the Self vs. the self and moksha

and all!) If it's necessary, I can offer further scholarly evidence

that the difference doesn't appear to be merely semantic or one

of language so far as most Buddhists are concerned.

 

If you don't believe me, for real life verification, go to one of the

regular internet newsgroups and try posting a message in

alt.zen or alt.religion.buddhism.tibetan and see what happens if

you claim, for example, that moksha and nirvana are "really" one

and the same! Be prepared for the "flames!" <g> (Also, please

note that I am very aware that even to speak of "the Buddhist""

critique is as problematical as speaking of "the Christian"

critique of some concept -- there are so many schools of

Buddhism as some have so rightly pointed out.)

 

So, while I hope to answer particular posts when I have some

time, let me also say that I am not adverse to the conclusion that

Buddhism and Advaita *are* in fact much closer together than

some of Buddhists (or some Hindus!) would accept. Maybe they

are the same thing, in the end. (There's always the belief that all

paths finally leave to the same truth -- which is itself both a truth

and a falsity.) That the Buddha didn't really break with Theistic

Hinduism or the Self philosophies is indeed one possible

Advaitin answer to the original question I raised. I just don't know

of any Buddhists who believe this is *their* answer, though I

guess one could argue that the Mind-only school of Buddhism is

a candidate.

 

Nonetheless, for the Advaitin to make that claim about

Buddhism, it seems to me, would be like me, as a Christian

claiming that some other religion was Christianity, even though

that other religion absolutely denies the existence of Christ,

denies any attributes to Christ, has no mention of the Christ in its

daily practice or prayer or theology, has no mention of seeking to

know or realize the Christ, but is still, somehow, essentially and

finally Christian!

 

On the other hand, if there really has been a critical Advaitin

response to Buddhism, or perhaps some modification of it, I

really would like to understand what that was. If that critical

response is , in fact, simply the argument that the Buddha really

didn't make the break he *seems* to have made with all Self,

Soul, and , spiritualities, then I have no personal judgment about

that. That's just interesting to know. I am just trying to

understand, as best one can philosophically and intellectually,

what, if any, the actual differences are between Advaita and

Buddhism, in general, on this issue of anatta. Unless I've

missed it, I have yet to have explained what this basic difference

might be, although I was under the assumption that Shankara

himself did critique Buddhism on specific points, if not on anatta.

Personally, I have no investment in any particular "side" of the

issue. I just want to understand.

 

It may well be that beyond semantics and concepts, Sri Ramana

*is* talking about the "same thing" as the Buddha. The Void and

the Self may finally be the same "thing" -- (what an inadequate

way to put it -- since neither is a "thing" or the result of any thing!)

It may be that Self and Void are just different ways of the human

mind looking at the same "thing." And the sincere, devout

Advaitin and the sincere, devout Buddhist may find in their

"journeys" that they finally have always been at the same place,

for there was nowhere for either of them to go! But it certainly

*seems* to this pilgrim that there are some rather formidable, if

not irreconcilable, differences in both theory and practice

between the two systems -- at least at the philosophical level. My

Buddhist acquaintances, with all openness of heart, would

certainly argue that these differences are substantial, both in

practice and in theory.

 

So again, I ask: does Advaita not disagree on *any* point with

Buddhism doctrine of anatta? Or is it all just difference of

approach and semantics, so far as the Advaitin is concerned?

>From my own standpoint, it seems to me that there are some

fundamental problems with the Five Aggregate theory. Very

briefly: the Five Aggregate explanation has always seemed to me

ultimately reductionist and thus subject to all the problems of

reductionism. The Five Aggregate theory itself also seems to me

to be a modified albeit highly "mentalized" form of materialism,

though my Buddhists friends always disagree! <G> Speaking

from the standpoint of a mathematician/physicist, the Five

Aggregate theory also appears to be like any closed,

self-reifying, self-verifying, self-referential logical system -- *in

principle*, it cannot prove itself logically consistent *from within

the assumptions it includes.* In other words, the implications of

Kurt Godel's Incompleteness Theorem applies to this Aggregate

"explanation of reality" as much as to any other self-referential

logical system, whether philosophical or mathematical. It cannot

"prove" itself true or self-consistent without recourse to

assumptions not included and *outside of* that logical system.

 

Personally, I find the Advaitin explanation of jiva and jagat much

more compelling and logical than the Buddhist Five Aggregate

explanation of things -- for the very reason that the Advaitin

explanation doesn't leave out the Self! Therefore (I would argue),

the Advaitin answer gives one recourse to verification or

reification of what is Real or Truth by "something" that is outside

of and beyond the mortal self, i.e., the material/mental

Aggregates -- namely, the Self itself! In my Christian terms, the

full explanation of the human being doesn't (and can't) leave out

the spirit of God in us, or the Christ-consciousness. We are not

"just" the Aggregates! As the Bible puts it, "There is a Spirit in

man," and this seems Self-evident, pun intended. <g>)

 

I hope this post helps clarify what I was and am looking for in my

original post about anatta. I'm not looking to argue or debate

Buddhist doctrine, as such. I'm not a Buddhist or Buddhist

scholar. But I do want to be scientific and accurate about the

Buddhist arguments, evidence, and terminology, insofar as that

is possible.

 

Look at it this way: if one of you were to ask a Unitarian Christian

what theological problems he had with the concept of the Trinity,

you would expect him or her to tell you what those differences

are, insofar as he or she understood them. Semantics and

terminology would admittedly be a huge part of the problem, but I

don't think you'd find most Unitarians saying that there were no

conceptional or theological differences, because in the end, it's

all the same in the Godhead! They'd be Trinitarians if they

believed that! I assume most folks here aren't "crypto" Buddhists!

<g>

 

So, that's all I'm looking for from an Advaitin, assuming there *is*

any problem with the Buddhist's anatta doctrine, so far as the

Advaitin is concerned. Thanks again for your patience and for

reading yet another long post.

 

By the way, my friends, I realize that some of your responses

have been very time consuming, since you are having to type in

long quotations from reference material. That really is "beyond

the call of duty," and I am deeply grateful for this unselfishness.

I'm learning a tremendous amount. And I'm sure I'm not the only

one who feels this way. (I myself wish I had a scanner so I could

scan in some reference material to share; typing it in by hand is

very slow and laborious.)

 

With love and affection to all,

Steve

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Prof. Dasgupta's lecture excerpts, cotd.:

"......I think the whole problem of Buddhism as a religion has been

solved with unassailable logic by Swami Vivekananda. No Buddhist

scholar or Vedantic scholar had ever had the courage to say, as Swami

Vivekananda said in his address delivered at the Parliament of

Religions in Chicago on 26 September 1893. The title of this lecture

was "Buddhism, the Fulfilment of Hinduism." The very title of the

lecture draws our attention to the Upanishadic foundation of

Buddhism. "Hinduism cannot live without Buddhism,," Vivekananda

affirms in this address,"nor Buddhism without Hinduism." And

Vivekananda had the courage to say that "Buddha's followers did not

realise the import of his teachings." We must realise in full the

significance of Swami Vivekananda's view of Buddha and his teachings

to comprehend the presence of Vedanta in Buddhism. Vivekananda does

not think that Buddha has been rejected by his country. He says that

he is adored by his countrymen as a god. Obviously Vivekananda had in

mind Jayadeva's memorable words on Buddha - "Keshva dhrita Buddha

sharire, jaya Jagadisha hare". And let us see that while speaking of

Buddha, Jayadeva speaks of his compassion for all life - "sadaya

hridaya darshita pashughatan." Vivekananda too speaks of the great

heart of Buddha when he says in his Chicago address on Buddhism:"Let

us then join the wonderful intellect of the Brahmins with the heart,

the noble soul, the wonderful humanising power of the Great Master".

Vivekananda knew that the spiritual cradle of this noble soul was

Vedanta.

 

How could it be otherwise? When Buddha attained his enlightenment and

began to preach, the philosophy of the Upanishads had cast its

profound influence on the higher intelligence of India. Hiriyanna saw

this and says in his Outlines of Indian Philosophy that there is a

general resemblance' between the Upanishads and the teachings of

Buddha and adds that 'it could not have been otherwise, for each of

them is equally an expression of the same Indian mind. Upanishadic

speculation may ina sense be regarded as having prepared the way for

the peculiar teachings of Buddhism.; and often Buddha simply carried

to their logical conclusions tendencies which we discover already in

the Upanishads.' This is, in fact, a resatement of Vivekananda's

memorable words - "Buddhism: the Fulfilment of Hinduism".

 

Radhakrishnan too restates Vivakananda's view of Buddhism when he

says in the first volume of his Indian Philosophy:"Buddhism is onle a

later phase of the general movement of thought of which the

Upanishads were the earlier." Radhakrishnan adds: "Historical

Buddhism means the spread of the Upanishad doctrine among the

peoples.....Buddhiem is a return of Brahmanism to its own fundamental

principles. Buddha is not so much a revolutionist who rode to success

on the crest of the wave of reaction against the Upanishad theory as

a reformer whose aim was to remould the prevalence of the Upanishads

by bringing into prominence its neglected truths." Buddha appears to

be un-Upanishadic because he avoids the niceties of Vedantic

metaphysics when he summons his followers to concentrate on its

ethics.: as a popular religious leader he thought it would be

sensible spiritual housekeeping to eschew subtle metaphysics in

lessons for his people. "

 

..............................TO BE CONTINUED.......................

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

[i sincerely appreciate and concur with Shri Steve's sentiments; I am

posting these excerpts as an effort in my own education, and hope

that others can share some of the joy that I derive.]

 

 

 

 

advaitin, stevenfair wrote:

> Dear friends,

 

> With love and affection to all,

> Steve