Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Bill, Dan is on a roll this morning. Actually I like what he says about Buddhism because it is the way I see it. And I thought, with a rare exceptions, I was the only one who saw it that way. Wonders never cease. El .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Elizabeth G Wells [elwells8] Dan is on a roll this morning. Yes he is. Actually I like what he says about Buddhism because it is the way I see it. If you are referring to his remark: The teachers of Buddhism I had didn't see it this way, and I admit I'm not familiar with how such extinction would be understood as a Buddhist. The only extinction I ever covered as Buddhist was extinction of false ideas of self. then that is very basic Buddism in my view. The notion of " extinction of being " as Buddhist seems utterly strange to me. Seeing Buddhism as " extinction of false ideas of self " makes for comparison to Advaita since the " I Am Inquiry " amounts to simply that. Maharshi talks about the Self etc. but indicates that such notions will have no meaning for anyone that has not successfully gone through the " I Am Inquiry " process. NM talks about the Absolute, the Supreme, etc. but his emphasis is again on the I Am inquiry. So per the above simplified interpretation of Buddhism, it seems to me that the differences between Advaita and Buddhism are not especially significant. Just my impression. -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 Bill, No, that is not what I was referring to. I don't know enough about Buddhism... in that respect. I was referring to what he had to say about this Nirvana concept, for starters. And then how just flat saying it how it is is too much for the average person. I would add to that, which is perhaps why you see the " peter principle " in operation amongst gurus. i.e. the bottom of the totem pole gets the biggest following. (We are speaking of living gurus here). El --------------------- Nisargadatta, " Bill Rishel " <plexus@x> wrote: > > Elizabeth G Wells [elwells8@e...] > Dan is on a roll this morning. > > Yes he is. > > Actually I like what he says about > Buddhism because it is the way I see it. > > If you are referring to his remark: > > The teachers of Buddhism I had didn't see it this way, and > I admit I'm not familiar with how such extinction > would be understood as a Buddhist. The only > extinction I ever covered as Buddhist was extinction of > false ideas of self. > then that is very basic Buddism in my view. > The notion of " extinction of being " as Buddhist seems utterly > strange to me. > > Seeing Buddhism as " extinction of false ideas of self " > makes for comparison to Advaita since the " I Am Inquiry " > amounts to simply that. > > Maharshi talks about the Self etc. but indicates that > such notions will have no meaning for anyone that has not > successfully gone through the " I Am Inquiry " process. > NM talks about the Absolute, the Supreme, etc. but his > emphasis is again on the I Am inquiry. > > So per the above simplified interpretation of Buddhism, > it seems to me that the differences between Advaita and > Buddhism are not especially significant. > > Just my impression. > > -Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 24, 2002 Report Share Posted September 24, 2002 snip > So per the above simplified interpretation of Buddhism, > it seems to me that the differences between Advaita and > Buddhism are not especially significant. > > Just my impression. > > -Bill Bill -- At the center of the impression is " I " who is the point of view, the interpretive reference, the relevant subject. There indeed are many similarities when inquiry is into " I " , the apparently continuing center of experience, to and for whom experience appears to be what it is. And whether or not the differences are significant is a matter of interpretation, of relevance for and to " I. " How many Buddhists can dance on the head of a pin? How many galaxies were contained in Ramana Maharshi's diaper? Did Jesus suffer? Who has the cure for the incredible frictions and misunderstandings involved in human emotional pain? Why does the Cheshire cat grin? Of course, it's not a matter of I knowing the answers ... -- Dan 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.