buddhist hinduism?

[Mr. G]

Themo,

Did you not find the answers to your statements in the previous 9 pages of this thread?

[Thug4lyfe]

He exists!!!!!

[ronnewmexico]

T...if your want is to say this thing as fact and use a scholor of sorts to prove that point...have at it.
I personally won't debate such things quite often..

If your question is genuine here is a answer from a simple point of view, as I am simple.
It may well have been answered in perfect form earlier, but one like myself gets lost in the words sometimes.

So if one is like me here it is.

The sutras are rarely if ever determined in a singular fashion. If a scholor does so, they will find many mistaken contradictory things.
Pali canon, I think is not above that as well.
All Sutra is taken as most appropriate to the circumstance of its issuance.
Contradictions are present as circumstances differ not that the teachings in core differ.

So in this specific that you mention...
This may be describing means to understand the dicatomy of our existance what we are which is a empty mileau and aware thing.
There are two ways of basic approaches to understanding this particular thing . One studies through meditative means... emptiness, and things of that quality, represented here, or one studies through meditative means... awareness as that displays represented here also.

Awareness displays as self other soul and on and on...we study that aspect better than emptiness as that is more readily available and understood to be used for means of knowing. That is how awareness displays to us in that fashion, as ignorant, in samsara.

If we study emptiness as opposed to the aware aspect it may be very difficult a study for many peoples.

So I offer that so one could have a explaination of a apparent contradiction. What is being described are the various aspects of aware as opposed to empty which serve as human our basis..emptiness awareness in consort one with the other. We must start with one or the other...aware aspect is simply easier.
Aware aspect are those varying displays, but that is not to infer that those things are real in a ultimately considered sense. That is how we find them in our present ignorant self at this time.

So that is how I find no disagreement in this thing. If you care to debate it....have at it with another, I likely will not participate.
But if you want a answer as me a simple person find one...there it is.
Not so simple....yes look at the other more profound, better answers.

[catmoon]

Well, Themo, the atman isn't supposed to exist in Buddhism, however I have to admit the quotes you posted do seem to support the idea.

You will also find in the sutras the opposite idea, abundantly so.

It seems the resolution runs something like this: passages such as those you point out are said to be discussing an atman that has been previously re-defined as the result of a non-affirming negation. In other words, the term is being used as shorthand for the emptiness of self. Since this redefinition pretty much reverses the meaning of the text, a verification that the redefinition has indeed taken place becomes an urgent requirement. Now, I can't tell you it exists or where you might find it, but I suppose it is in there somewhere.

What I am certain of is that the early sutras are teeming with counter examples like this:

"Bhikkhus, form is not-self. Were form self, then this form would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.' And since form is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of form: 'Let my form be thus, let my form be not thus.'

"Bhikkhus, feeling is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, perception is not-self...

"Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self...

"Bhikkhus, consciousness is not self. Were consciousness self, then this consciousness would not lead to affliction, and one could have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.' And since consciousness is not-self, so it leads to affliction, and none can have it of consciousness: 'Let my consciousness be thus, let my consciousness be not thus.'

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic" (SN 22.59), translated from the Pali by Ñanamoli Thera. Access to Insight, 14 June 2010, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .nymo.html

You might want to take a look at the whole thing, it's only a page or so long.

[zangskar]

Themo and ancientbuddhism,

Did you not find the answers to your statements in the previous 9 pages of this thread?

When I read ancientbuddhism's post yesterday evening it was in a different and much shorter thread: "The place of Buddhism in Indian thought" viewtopic.php?f=77&t=3898&p=36326 after Namdrols last post there.

So presumably an administrator (?) decided to move ancienbuddhism's post later? Or ancientbuddhism personally decided so? -Which would seem a bit strange though since what he wrote made more sense in terms of the discussion in the other thread, in which it was first placed.

Best wishes
Lars

[Mr. G]

Themo and ancientbuddhism,

Did you not find the answers to your statements in the previous 9 pages of this thread?

When I read ancientbuddhism's post yesterday evening it was in a different and much shorter thread: "The place of Buddhism in Indian thought" http://dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f= ... 98&p=36326 after Namdrols last post there.

So presumably an administrator (?) decided to move ancienbuddhism's post later? Or ancientbuddhism personally decided so? -Which would seem a bit strange though since what he wrote made more sense in terms of the discussion in the other thread, in which it was first placed.

Best wishes
Lars

Hi Lars,

The post was split to this thread as it was deemed as yet another "pro-atman" topic that has been discussed ad nauseam. If the direction of the post ends up in a decidedly different avenue, the post will be merged back.

[zangskar]

Themo and ancientbuddhism,

Did you not find the answers to your statements in the previous 9 pages of this thread?

When I read ancientbuddhism's post yesterday evening it was in a different and much shorter thread: "The place of Buddhism in Indian thought" viewtopic.php?f=77&t=3898&p=36326 after Namdrols last post there.

So presumably an administrator (?) decided to move ancienbuddhism's post later? Or ancientbuddhism personally decided so? -Which would seem a bit strange though since what he wrote made more sense in terms of the discussion in the other thread, in which it was first placed.

Best wishes
Lars

Hi Lars,

The post was split to this thread as it was deemed as yet another "pro-atman" topic that has been discussed ad nauseam. If the direction of the post ends up in a decidedly different avenue, the post will be merged back.

That is certainly one of the possible angles on the post and maybe ancientbuddhism is indeed a troll. But I only wanted to say that I think that in the interest of all readers (and 'innocent bystanders') it would be appropriate if it had then been stated that the post was moved/thread split, and perhaps the reason why, that you just gave. No offense intended.
Best wishes
Lars

[gregkavarnos]

For all those interested an electronic version of Gormapas "Distinguishing the View" in the book "Freedom from Extremes", it can be found here http://www.scribd.com/doc/62062925/Cabe ... omExtremes

[Mr. G]

That is certainly one of the possible angles on the post and maybe ancientbuddhism is indeed a troll. But I only wanted to say that I think that in the interest of all readers (and 'innocent bystanders') it would be appropriate if it had then been stated that the post was moved/thread split, and perhaps the reason why, that you just gave. No offense intended.
Best wishes
Lars

No offense taken Lars. I was busy at the time and wasn't able to provide that information.

[ancientbuddhism]

Themo and ancientbuddhism,

Did you not find the answers to your statements in the previous 9 pages of this thread?

When I read ancientbuddhism's post yesterday evening it was in a different and much shorter thread: "The place of Buddhism in Indian thought" viewtopic.php?f=77&t=3898&p=36326 after Namdrols last post there.

So presumably an administrator (?) decided to move ancienbuddhism's post later? Or ancientbuddhism personally decided so? -Which would seem a bit strange though since what he wrote made more sense in terms of the discussion in the other thread, in which it was first placed.

Best wishes
Lars

Hi Lars,

The post was split to this thread as it was deemed as yet another "pro-atman" topic that has been discussed ad nauseam. If the direction of the post ends up in a decidedly different avenue, the post will be merged back.

Pro ātman? The post I originally made was germane to the topic of Ananda Guruge’s article The place of Buddhism in Indian thought, which is the title of the thread. I can only guess that whoever moved it also did not read it or understood its context, just as you G.

[ancientbuddhism]

Lars: That is certainly one of the possible angles on the post and maybe ancientbuddhism is indeed a troll. But I only wanted to say that I think that in the interest of all readers (and 'innocent bystanders') it would be appropriate if it had then been stated that the post was moved/thread split, and perhaps the reason why, that you just gave. No offense intended.

Indeed

[Mr. G]

Pro ātman? The post I originally made was germane to the topic of Ananda Guruge’s article The place of Buddhism in Indian thought, which is the title of the thread. I can only guess that whoever moved it also did not read it or understood its context, just as you G.

You're right. I jumped the gun and I will merge your post back with that thread. I had originally thought your member name was associated to a rather deluded fellow who was associated with the fantasy prone group known as Dark Zen. I'm glad I was wrong.

Post moved: The place of Buddhism in Indian thought

[Tewi]

Most religions have a tradition of positive as well as negative theology. In Buddhism, expressions of positive theology are regularly accused of being "non-Buddhist" or "Hindu" (as if these were clear, simple terms). A few Buddhist texts even affirm an atman in some sense, over predictable objections. Suffice it to say that disagreements continue, on several fronts (Yogacara, shen tong, Buddha Nature, sudden enlightenment, etc.).

[gregkavarnos]

. A few Buddhist texts even affirm an atman in some sense, over predictable objections. Suffice it to say that disagreements continue, on several fronts (Yogacara, shen tong, Buddha Nature, sudden enlightenment, etc.).

Care to quote a "few" of them?

[mañjughoṣamaṇi]

As far as Śravaka schools go the Pugdalavāda held that there was a self besides the aggregates. Likewise the Mahāyāna Mahāparinirvāṇa Sūtra's earliest redactions are all affirming of the self, though they make a point in stating that other proponents of a self (non-buddhists) don't really get it*.

"Noble Son! A Bodhisattva-mahasattva is also like that - he appears in the world and
expounds the true nature of the Self. After he has expounded it, he departs, as for example like
the prince who takes the wondrous sword and flees to another country. Foolish ordinary people
say, ’Everybody has Self ! Everybody has Self", like the poor man who, lodging at another’s
house, cries out, ’The sword! The sword!’ Sravakas and pratyekabuddhas ask people, ’What
attributes does the Self have?’, to which they reply, ’I have seen the attributes of the Self - it is
the size of a thumb’ or they say, ’It is like [a grain of rice], or ’It is like [a grain of ] millet’, or
there are some who say, ’It is the Self ’s attribute to abide within the heart, burning like the sun’.
In this manner people do not know the nature of the Self, [just] as, for example, the various
ministers do not know the nature of the sword. While a Bodhisattva discourses thus about the
quality of the Self, ordinary people do not but impute various false concepts to the Self, just
as when asked about the attributes of the sword the [ministers] reply that it is like the horn of
a ram. These ordinary people generate false views in succession from one on to the other. In
order to eliminate such false views, the Tathagata reveals and discourses on the non-existence
of a self, just as when the prince tells his various ministers that there is no such sword in his
treasury. Noble Son, the True Self that the Tathagata expounds today is called the Buddhadhatu [Buddha-Nature]. This manner of Buddha-dhatu is shown in the Buddha-Dharma with
the example of the real sword. Noble Son, should there be any ordinary person who is able
well to expound this, then he [speaks] in accordance with unsurpassed Buddha-Dharma. Should
there be anyone who is well able to distinguish this in accordance with what has been expounded
regarding it, then you should know that he has the nature of a Bodhisattva.

http://www.shabkar.org/download/pdf/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf

Later this sūtra was "rehabilitated" and chapters explaining that the Self/Buddhadhātu is synonymous with emptiness were appended.

*I am not advocating the views of these schools.

[gregkavarnos]

Dear Manj... (I read your disclaimer so I'm not out to get you ) but how does this statement from the above quote affirm the presence of the Self?

Foolish ordinary people say, ’Everybody has Self ! Everybody has Self"

Anyway, Tewi was talking about Atman, Buddhists recognise the presence of an apparent self imputed onto the skhanda but it's not really the same thing as the Atman.

[mañjughoṣamaṇi]

Hi Greg,

Dear Manj... (I read your disclaimer so I'm not out to get you ) but how does this statement from the above quote affirm the presence of the Self?

Foolish ordinary people say, ’Everybody has Self ! Everybody has Self"

Removed from the context in which that phrase occurs it would indeed look like this passage is negating a self. However, as I hinted at before, it is actually negating incorrect views on the nature of the self held by non-buddhists and relegating the teachings on the non-existence of the self to the role of clearing away false conceptions of the self.

Sravakas and pratyekabuddhas ask people, ’What
attributes does the Self have?’, to which they reply, ’I have seen the attributes of the Self - it is
the size of a thumb’ or they say, ’It is like [a grain of rice], or ’It is like [a grain of ] millet’, or
there are some who say, ’It is the Self ’s attribute to abide within the heart, burning like the sun’.
In this manner people do not know the nature of the Self, [just] as, for example, the various
ministers do not know the nature of the sword.

This is a list of Upanishadic descriptions of ātman. These are bad because

While a Bodhisattva discourses thus about the
quality of the Self, ordinary people do not but [i]impute various false concepts to the Self, just
as when asked about the attributes of the sword the [ministers] reply that it is like the horn of
a ram. These ordinary people generate false views in succession from one on to the other.[/i]

As a result

In order to eliminate such false views, the Tathagata reveals and discourses on the non-existence
of a self, just as when the prince tells his various ministers that there is no such sword in his
treasury.

But then the Buddha goes on to explain there is a true self, the Buddhadhātu. The problem is just that those tirthika no-goodniks have too many wrong ideas about what that self is since they haven't actually seen it themselves. So you have to teach the non-existence of the self to clear out the detritus so you can show them the real McCoy. The self is mentioned frequently in this sūtra as a really existing self, not just an imputation on the skandhas.

Likewise, the various Pugdalavāda schools apparently did believe there was a self outside of the aggregates.

Anyway, Tewi was talking about Atman, Buddhists recognise the presence of an apparent self imputed onto the skhanda but it's not really the same thing as the Atman.

Nowadays this is true, but historically there were more heterodox views on this abounding. The Tathāgatagarbha sūtras were realist before they were retrofitted to a more mainstream buddhist view.

[consciousness]

Hi platypus -
Mostly it is Hindus (whatever that term really means given the multifarious aspects of various Brahmanic, Vaishnavite, Shivaite, Vedic, advaita etc views that encompasses) who are obsessed with trying to figure out how "Buddhism and Hinduism are fundamentally the same, the play of Maya is the same in Buddhism as in Hinduism/advaita" etc.

There are shared cultural and contextual backgrounds to the two 'religions' but in terms of basic 'view' they are radically different. One with Brahman? I don't think so: it might be a well established "Hindu" view but it is not a Buddhist view at all.

Dharmakaya and "Adi Buddha" are not Brahman or Atman (or even Superman for that matter).

you remind me of a seven year old attesting his dad is stronger than the other boys' dad!

Why the animosity towards Hinduism? Christianity, Islam and even Buddhism encompass differing 'multifarious aspects' within the context of the same religion!

Take the perpetual derisiveness of Vajarana by Theravada Buddhists: rendering the views of the former, by the latter as abstract, profanation and dare one say, profanity.

[PadmaVonSamba]

If you go to Nepal and all around northern India you will find people who will say they are both Buddhist and Hindu. No problem. Similarly, a few years ago a local Thai temple in my city, staffed by monks from Thailand & Laos, gave lodging to a group of Gelugpa lamas doing a national tour constructing sand mandalas. The lamas stayed with them, ate with them and observed a somewhat stricter vinaya than usual (taking solid food after noon), out of respect for their hosts. They even constructed a sand mandala in the middle of the Thai temple. Again, no problem! The Thai monks were amused at the differences between the two traditions: "Tibet Buddhism...they can sing and dance...Me...no not allowed!" one ajahn (senior Thai monk)told me, smiling. I took some of the Thai monks to see an exhibit of Newari period (Himalayan) Buddhist art. They pointed and laughed like naughty schoolboys at the pictures of Buddhas in Yab Yum (sexual union with consorts) and other "bodiliy images' shown. But again, total respect for the differences and no problem.
.
.
.

[greentara]

Padmavonsaba, How true. Often people in northern India and Nepal feel they are both Hindu and Buddhist. Ramana Maharshi says "If God be apart from the Self He must be a self-less God, which is absurd. God, who seems to be non-existent, alone truly exists. Whereas the individual, who seems to be existing, is ever non-existent. Sages say that the state in which one thus knows one’s own non-existence (sunya) alone is the glorious supreme knowledge."