Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2006 Namaste all, I would like to raise this topic because I have been reading books about Buddhism and in the majority of these books Atman is said to be a transmigratory soul. This cannot be more incorrect. Still many Buddhists say this. "the Buddha denied the existence of a permanent transmigratory soul (atman)" (the buddhism of the buddha, alexandra david-neel). And many other authors. It seems that this misinterpretation of Advaita should be corrected by learned Advaitins (I am NOT a learned Advaitin so I will limit to copy here part of a response in the orkut community Advaita Vedanta that I wrote about Buddhism and Advaita). It is as follows: 27/04/2006 09:40 Some of the inconsistencies in Buddhism that I have found are the view of Nirvana and Emptiness as being non-existence. If the aim is to achieve Nirvana, he/she who is enlightened would have necessarily to die (to go out of existence) yet this is not what happens to people who get enlightened. So this is one big contradiction. As to Advaita, it is not contradictory unless one wrongly interprets things. As Advaita uses lots of terms, each term has to be properly interpreted. For example when there is the saying that the Self is sat-chit-ananda , this can be erroneously interpreted. Also with the Self has no attributes, and yet It is at the same time Jivan. How can that be? It is because the Self shines as the world, the Universe, jivan being a part of it. Other common misunderstanding -- one which I find irritating -- is when Buddhists interpret the Atman to be some transmigratory soul. This is a complete misunderstanding of Advaita. Atman is not equal to the concept of transmigratory soul. It never leaves one body and enters another. This shows how many of the Buddhists lack knowledge of Advaita. Atman is Brahman, that is, Pure Conciousness, unmoving, timeless changeless. It is not affected by any possible transmigration, thought or action in the part of Jivan. Then I would like to invite members of the forum for clearing things. What IS atman and what IS NOT atman? I appreciate and hope this does not interfere with the other topics going on in the forum, which I am delighted to be reading also. Pranams, fred Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2006 Here is my understanding. Atma is pure - sat chit ananda - therefore it is unlimited eternal conscious existence. Being limitless, it is infiniteness. Atman being infinite there is no anaatma. anaatmaa if it exists it is only an apparent and not rea. what is apparent has to be finite, limited and unconscious entity (entitles). Since we experience the world considering ourselves separate from the world, there is an apparent duality - the apparent duality is only notional and not real because of Atman being what it is - limitless eternal conscious entity. Jiiva is identification of aatman with the apparent anaatma - the body, mind and intellect. Transmigration is for jiiva that is aatma identified with local body, mind and intellect. Some call this as self. Atma identified with total body, mind and intellect is Iswara (VirAt swaruupa). That which is beyond any identification is pure sat chit ananda - that is the Brahman. aham brahmaasmi is declaration when I recognize that there is no real anaatma and what is there is only myself, which is pure sat chit ananda. Hari OM! Sadananda --- atmadarshanam <fsgss (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote: > > Then I would like to invite members of the forum for clearing > things. What IS atman and what IS NOT atman? > I appreciate and hope this does not interfere with the other > topics going on in the forum, which I am delighted to be reading > also. > Pranams, > fred > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2006 Namaste Sadananda-ji and Frederico; I believe our budhist monk will reply to this, but my understanding is that there is no contradiction in the statement "the Buddha denied the existence of a permanent transmigratory soul (atman)". If you note that there is an association between permanent and transmigratory, and that the association has been denied, there still exists the possibility of an immutable self beyond changing and moving realms. The problem is not with the Buddha's statement, but with the one who has called a "permanent transmigratory soul" the atman. This altogether is an empty statement, since what is understood to transmigrate is the subtle body, and not what could be understood as soul, which is deemed to be permanent (obviously permanent means motionless as well, since motion is within spacetime framework etc, you got the picture). It seems you are wrongly interpreting one wrong interpretation and referring to the subject the first interpreter failed to clarify :-) My warmest regards... Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 27, 2006 Namaste Felipe, No I did not mis-interpret the Buddha. I really think his "anatman" is the non-ego notion, i.e., the ego is a false creation of the mind. My problem is not with the historical Buddha, I am myself a Buddhist. lol. My problem is with people who erroneously interpret His teachings and write volumes of books and commentaries. There is all type of delirium within Buddhism, as well as the most refined and accurate perception of elevated states of consciousness and very admirable philosophical views. The great thing about Buddhism to me is exactly this: you have to eat the whole cake, including the rotten piece, in order to understand it; otherwise you end up misunderstanding Buddhism. So I am eating the whole cake, from Theravada Suttas to the Mahayana Sutras and its commentaries and then to the sometimes frightening and violent deities of Tibetan Buddhism. This is a good process as it lets me see the whole and take what is good and leave what is bad. As to Advaita it really attracts me because of the opposite: its simplicity. All is Brahman. Jiva is Brahman. There is nothing to accomplish. This down-to-earth perspective is very attractive in its straightforwardness and simplicity. It puts very complicated metaphysical teachings in a manner that everyone can understand (at least the basics). So I repeat my problem is not with the Buddha´s anatman, it is with erroneous interpretations of His teachings which are spread all around. best regards, frederico advaitin, "fcrema" <fcrema> wrote: > > Namaste Sadananda-ji and Frederico; > > I believe our budhist monk will reply to this, but my understanding is > that there is no contradiction in the statement "the Buddha denied the > existence of a permanent transmigratory soul (atman)". > > If you note that there is an association between permanent and > transmigratory, and that the association has been denied, there still > exists the possibility of an immutable self beyond changing and moving > realms. > > The problem is not with the Buddha's statement, but with the one who > has called a "permanent transmigratory soul" the atman. This > altogether is an empty statement, since what is understood to > transmigrate is the subtle body, and not what could be understood as > soul, which is deemed to be permanent (obviously permanent means > motionless as well, since motion is within spacetime framework etc, > you got the picture). > > It seems you are wrongly interpreting one wrong interpretation and > referring to the subject the first interpreter failed to clarify :- ) > > My warmest regards... > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 28, 2006 Sree Fcrema, PraNAms. I donot think there is any need for reply from your Buddist monk. I am glad to here there is no contraditions. All I have provided is what advaita vedanta says. Clarification of Advaitic concepts are always welcome on this list. Hari OM! Sadananda --- fcrema <fcrema .br> wrote: > Namaste Sadananda-ji and Frederico; > > I believe our budhist monk will reply to this, but my understanding is > that there is no contradiction in the statement "the Buddha denied the > existence of a permanent transmigratory soul (atman)". Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. Advaitin Homepage at: Terms of Service. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
