Since all schools of Buddhism reject the idea of the Atman, none can accept the non-dualism of Vedanta. From the perspective of the Theravada tradition, any quest for the discovery of selfhood, whether as a permanent individual self or as an absolute universal self, would have to be dismissed as a delusion, a metaphysical blunder born from a failure to properly comprehend the nature of concrete experience.
So the issue is very clear. The basis of "reality" as either substance or self is rejected by all schools of Buddhism.
I posted the thread to show you what the pali canons views on non Duality are and to show you that their non duality views are entirely in line with Third Turning teachings on the Subject i.e. BOTH the Pali canon and Buddha Nature Sutras are completely in agreement state that :
"t the peak of the pairs of opposites stands the duality of the conditioned and the Unconditioned: samsara as the round of repeated birth and death wherein all is impermanent, subject to chan
ge, and liable to suffering, and Nibbana as the state of final deliverance, the unborn, ageless, and deathless. Although Nibbana, even in the early texts, is definitely cast as an ultimate reality and not merely as an ethical or psychological state, there is not the least insinuation that this reality is metaphysically indistinguishable at some profound level from its manifest opposite, samsara. To the contrary, the Buddha's repeated lesson is that samsara is the realm of suffering governed by greed, hatred, and delusion, wherein we have shed tears greater than the waters of the ocean, while Nibbana is irreversible release from samsara, to be attained by demolishing greed, hatred, and delusion, and by relinquishing all conditioned exsistence."
Also I posted this as a discussion on the topic non duality,for which you didnt even comment on but instead decided to change the subject to atman......as I said before you "version" of middle way/non duality doesnt match up to the fitst and third turnings teachings on the subject.
Lastly I hate to break it to you but I was a Thervadan before I was a Mahayanist,and the pali canon is pretty clear that whatever is devoid of a self is and leads to suffering.
Now as far as True Self Buddhists sects is concerned there are actually ALOT of them in Buddhismhttp://mobile.dudamobile.com/site/iep_u ... =true#2874
One of the 1st five schools was a True Self Buddhist school,and in fact they were of the Elder/Thervadan lineage and not even Mahayana. Also they were the largest Thervadan buddhist school in india.
Do you even know that there are entire thai thervadan forest dhamma schools that practice True Self......what you dont believe me?
Ajhan Maha Boowa one of the most respected and loved Thai Buddhists abbots ever in Thailand
And he was a True Self Buddhist as was his teacher and his school
(quote from him)As we are practising at this time and have been continually practising, proceeding in the path of avoiding all harms by stages, until the attainment of the great treasure of our hope (i.e., Nirvana). -From that it is possible to call 'niccam' because there is nothing involved that will trouble or disturb the mind. -It is not wrong to call it 'paramam sukham'. -Calling it atta wouldn't be wrong because it is the true self that is the self of the natural principle. There is no conventionality, however great or small or even minute, involved in the mind. But it does not mean the atta that is together with anatta that is another stage of conventionality which is still the path to nibbana. Source: Achariya Maha Boowa Nanasampanno, 'Kwan Tai Pen Thammada' ('Death is Normal'), Tham Chud Triam (Dhamma Collection for Preparation), 1976.
you also do realise that the Thervadan True Self Buddhist movement is taking over Thailand dont you?
(Where do you think I learned it from?I was a True Self Buddhist 3yrs before I ever touched the Nirvana Sutra)
Well I hope you are now better informed in the subject......
Also dont be surprised if you meet a forest Dhamma monk and he tells you he experienced the True Self