« A staunch self-denier | Main | 'All things' refers to samsara »

September 29, 2013

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Methexis, yes I would agree. However, strictly speaking, I think the Buddhadharma would best be defined (in this context) as "you are neither that, nor not that".

In transcendence of the is-is not dyad, I would still argue the expression "tat avat asi" is equivalent in Hinduism to the Buddha principle.

I read somewhere, but I am having a hard time finding it due to limited time that in Nirvana there is both self and not self. My doubt is to whether Buddha said that or some other Buddha.

I promise to look and see if I can find it, unless someone responds first either to confirm or debunk this hypothesis.

Neti-Neti-Yeti: The Buddha-Dharma also teaches that you are NOT that.

The Advaita Vedanta is a partial teaching based on non-duality.

But Buddhism is a Complete Teaching that includes both non-dual, and dualistic teachings.

(Therefore, according to the Lotus Sutra, the Self is a perfection (Self-PARAMITA) and not an imperfection, let alone affliction.)

"It is better to be attached to Existence, though the attachment may be as great as Mount Sumeru, than to be attached to Emptiness, though the attachment may be as small mustard seed." (Lankavatara Sutra)

"Shakyamuni Buddha is called Vairocana Who Pervades All Places, and his dwelling place is called Eternally Tranquil Light, the place which is composed of Permanency-paramita and stabilized by Self-paramita, the place where Purity-paramita extinguishes the aspect of existence, where Bliss-paramita does not abide in the aspect of one's body and mind, and where the aspects of all laws cannot be seen as either existing or nonexisting, the place of tranquil emancipation or prajna-paramita. Because these forms are based on permanent law, thus you must now meditate on the buddhas in all directions." (Threefold Lotus Sutra)

For more on the topic I find it very fruitful to review Dr. Ram Chandron’s critical discourse on the Chandogya Upanishad of the Sama Veda.

It is notable that Buddha never denied the phrase Tat Avat Asi, although he was quite critical of other aspects of Vedic philosophy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo