Re: SECRET DOCTRINE deasls with the "sunyata" of Atman -- What are ABSOLUTENESS/
Nov 29, 2000 05:19 PM
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!
--- In email@example.com, "Eugene Carpenter"
> > 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
> printing: Sept. 1977
> Starting in part two the split between Paramenides, Aquinas,
> Vedenta and the philosophy of Hwa Yen Buddhism is
introduced and discussed
> I would like to point out that set notation may provide a hint as
> 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
> If I(and all others) are essentially the empty state of
> 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
> 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
> the first three sets as a hint to a logical and most primitive
> 2. ( ), Absoluteness
> 3. ( ( ) ), The Absolute
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application