Theos-Talk Archives (November 2000 Message tt00269)

Thanks for your post Gene! Garma Chang is one of my favorites. 
I think the way he came about studyong ancient Buddhst texts is 
in itself fascinating! I particularly liked his translation of teh 
Hundred Thousand Songs of Melarepa, a real classic!

- Art



--- In theos-talk@egroups.com, "Eugene Carpenter" 
<Ecarpent@c...> wrote:
> >
> > 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