Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00268)

>
> An attempt to reconcile the alleged difference between
> Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta on the nature of the Self
> by Bijoy H. Boruah Professor of Philosophy presented
> at South Asia Seminar organized by Center for Asian
> Studies, UT Austin.
>
> http://asnic.utexas.edu/asnic/pages/AtmaninSunyata.html
>
> Excerpt:
>
> Vedanta is metaphysically Being-oriented, specifically
> the Being of Atman or the true individual self, which
> is ultimately identical with Brahman or the Absolute
> Reality. Buddhism is metaphysically oriented to
> Nothingness or Emptiness, known as Sunyata, so much so
> that Absolute Reality is identified with Absolute
> Nothingness. What I wonder is whether there can really
> be any substantive difference of specific content
> between a metaphysic of Being and a metaphysic of
> Nothingness, when both systems subscribe to an
> ultimate reality conceived in equally metaphysically
> absolutist terms. The metaphysical "sphere" of
> absolute Being may coincide with that of absolute
> Nothingness, and there may not be "internal"
> content-specific difference between the two.


By coincidence I have just reread a chapter from THE BUDDHIST TEACHING OF
TOTALITY by Garma C.C. Chang, The Pennsylvania University Press, third
printing: Sept. 1977

Starting in part two the split between Paramenides, Aquinas, Adwaitee
Vedenta and the philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism is introduced and discussed
somewhat.

I would like to point out that set notation may provide a hint as to
reconciliation between the alledged difference.

Using ( ) to mean circle,

Let ( ) mean the empty set.

Let ( ( ) ) mean a set containing only the empty set.

The first stands for zero.

The second stands for one.

Let the empty set stand for empty consciousness ( )

Let the set containing only the empty set stand for Self, the One.

If I(and all others) are essentially the empty state of consciousness then
the state of consciousness containing the empty state of consciousness is a
state of identification or identity, self-conscious, self-reference.

Once one identifies one's True Self ones might get all involved, for a time,
but then one might learn to go from Self-Consciousness back to
Group-Consciousness: from ( ( ) ) to ( ).

Aren't both right but from different perspectives? The Upanisads might hint
at Being/nonbeing without being explicit. The zero wasn't widely known and
may have been a techical secret worth keeping.

In summary, please consider being/not being empty consciousness considering
the first three sets as a hint to a logical and most primitive trinity:

1.

2. ( ), Absoluteness

3. ( ( ) ), The Absolute



Gene