Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism and Christianity both evolved as a reflection of the winning flag bearer.
I think without Ananda, buddhism might well have evolved to more closely resemble Paul's Christianity. Enlightened or not, I think buddhism's ass was saved by Ananda.
What one finds is the cosmological view of Ancient India its the same in the Suttas, the Vedas and the teachings of the Jains.....
I don't know whether that's true or not - probably it depends on which books one reads. When I read the suttas I see a mixture of cosmology ( ontology ) and psychology ( phenomenology ). Or perhaps you could say objective and subjective description. I think both are valid their own ways, and I don't regard them as mutually exclusive.
The cosmology that the Buddha inherited is the same as the cosmology that Mahavira the founder of the Jains inherited. It was derived from the Vedas. It speaks of Mount Meru of a flat earth floating on an ocean..of devas and asuras inhabiting their own Lokas..( world systems ). Of worlds and systems arising and passing away. It speaks of miraculous conceptions and births. often foretold by dreams of elephants. It deploys the same set of symbols..great teachers emerge from Lotus's already speaking and teaching, their births and final Passing accompanied by choirs of celestial musicians..These were already the common currency of Bharat before the Buddha was born..as was the concepts of karma and reincarnation..which the Buddha modified but did not invent. A description of ( for example) of the solar system using data obtained by scientific means is an ontological statement..an ontological statement is only valid if it can be disproved. I do not think the Buddhas observations concerning the physical universe are of the same order. What distinguishes Buddhadharma from other Dharmas is not cosmology or theories of rebirth or Karma-Vipaka..it is Dependent Origination that is unique.
What distinguishes Buddhadharma from other Dharmas is not cosmology or theories of rebirth or Karma-Vipaka..it is Dependent Origination that is unique.
I think that's a matter of opinion - I've heard several commentators refer to the teaching on anatta as the unique contribution of Buddhism. Dependent Origination is significant, but as we've discussed elsewhere, the way the nidanas are defined in the suttas support the traditional cosmology of samsara as a round of rebirth...so it isn't straightforward. Again, it depends which books you read.
Or in my case which teachers you sit at the feet of...
Anatta is not unique..it is found using different terminology in some forms of Advaita Vedanta. It is simply the negating or refining of the Atta doctrine of the Vedas .
Not in itself...as I said Advaita holds in effect the same teaching ..what is unique is Shunyata in the context , and as the field which provides the backdrop for the arising of D.O.
Not in itself...as I said Advaita holds the same teaching in effext the same...what is unique is Shunyata in the context and as the field which provides the backdrop for the arising of D.O.
I'm not following you here. Isn't Advaita concerned with recognizing the identity of the self (Atman) and the whole (Brahman)? Which is contradicted by the anatta doctrine. And shunyata ( sunnata ) is effectively an extension of anatta, so....?
I rejigged my post P.P. I had mixed up the syntax... Advaita is a spectrum..at one end is just what you described..recognising the true Self in relation to the Absolute...the teaching in fact which was presented as Buddhism by a recently banned member... The other end of the Advaita spectrum as taught by Ramana Maharshi for example sees the arising of the apparent individual as the play of Maya and the atman as faulty perception... faulty preception leads to the idea of Two ..the subject and the object..so seeing things as they are negates that , and two," Dvaita " is seen as " A Dvaita " literally "not two.." On a point of linguistic interest " dvaita" comes from the same Indo-European root as " two " " dua " " divide " etc...the intial " a" is the negating particle. Hence " not two ". But note it is not saying that all is One either, which would tend towards Eternalism. It is saying Not Two.
Or in my case which teachers you sit at the feet of...
Anatta is not unique..it is found using different terminology in some forms of Advaita Vedanta. It is simply the negating or refining of the Atta doctrine of the Vedas .
It's true that there are a number of similarities between certain Buddhist ideas and those found Advaita Vedanta. For example, it should be noted that the concept of anatman in Sankara's version of Advaita Vedanta is similar to the Buddhist anatta, quite possibly being derived from it. In one of his commentaries, Sankara writes, "Whenever we deny something unreal, we do so with reference to something real; the unreal snake, e.g. is negatived with reference to the real rope." Sankara essentially uses the notion of anatman to deny the reality of the individual self (atman) in favour of Brahman. But his usage postdates the Buddha (which is why many of his critics actually accuse him of being a Buddhist in disguise), and I'm not aware of its use in any pre-Buddhist literature, hence some people seeing the concept of anatta as a unique innovation that Buddhism offered to Indian thought. The same with dependent co-arising. So when people say something is unique to Buddhism, I think they more often than not mean 'originating with' rather than 'exclusive to.'
Yes thats a useful distinction...a teacher like Ramana would no doubt have been influenced, perhaps indirectly, by Buddhadharma. And would have subsequently deployed very similar concepts in expressing his own experiential view.
Anatta is also interpreted differently. For example some say it is 'there is no self' whereas some say that the skhandas are not self. And some say there is only alaya, groundless consciousness, let alone any fulfillment of ideas on the matter.
Comments
I think without Ananda, buddhism might well have evolved to more closely resemble Paul's Christianity.
Enlightened or not, I think buddhism's ass was saved by Ananda.
When I read the suttas I see a mixture of cosmology ( ontology ) and psychology ( phenomenology ). Or perhaps you could say objective and subjective description. I think both are valid their own ways, and I don't regard them as mutually exclusive.
It speaks of Mount Meru of a flat earth floating on an ocean..of devas and asuras inhabiting their own Lokas..( world systems ). Of worlds and systems arising and passing away.
It speaks of miraculous conceptions and births. often foretold by dreams of elephants.
It deploys the same set of symbols..great teachers emerge from Lotus's already speaking and teaching, their births and final Passing accompanied by choirs of celestial musicians..These were already the common currency of Bharat before the Buddha was born..as was the concepts of karma and reincarnation..which the Buddha modified but did not invent.
A description of ( for example) of the solar system using data obtained by scientific means is an ontological statement..an ontological statement is only valid if it can be disproved.
I do not think the Buddhas observations concerning the physical universe are of the same order.
What distinguishes Buddhadharma from other Dharmas is not cosmology or theories of rebirth or Karma-Vipaka..it is Dependent Origination that is unique.
but the majority of buddhists are mahayana.
which to the purists are not practising what according to buddha's teachings.
Dependent Origination is significant, but as we've discussed elsewhere, the way the nidanas are defined in the suttas support the traditional cosmology of samsara as a round of rebirth...so it isn't straightforward.
Again, it depends which books you read.
Anatta is not unique..it is found using different terminology in some forms of Advaita Vedanta.
It is simply the negating or refining of the Atta doctrine of the Vedas .
And shunyata ( sunnata ) is effectively an extension of anatta, so....?
Advaita is a spectrum..at one end is just what you described..recognising the true Self in relation to the Absolute...the teaching in fact which was presented as Buddhism by a recently banned member...
The other end of the Advaita spectrum as taught by Ramana Maharshi for example sees the arising of the apparent individual as the play of Maya and the atman as faulty perception... faulty preception leads to the idea of Two ..the subject and the object..so seeing things as they are negates that , and two," Dvaita " is seen as " A Dvaita " literally "not two.."
On a point of linguistic interest " dvaita" comes from the same Indo-European root as " two " " dua " " divide " etc...the intial " a" is the negating particle. Hence " not two ".
But note it is not saying that all is One either, which would tend towards Eternalism.
It is saying Not Two.
Its pretty evident isnt it?
Even the Vinayas are today cast aside in many schools, and they are only rules to follow, not something which requires deep understanding, haiz.