Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news
From: pingali@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: Misconceptions about anatma (was Re: Buddhism and Brahmanism)long
Message-ID: <1991Jan5.233350.25468@nas.nasa.gov>
Date: 5 Jan 91 23:33:50 GMT
References: <1991Jan5.015301.944@nas.nasa.gov>
Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 65
Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov


In article <1991Jan5.015301.944@nas.nasa.gov> chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu writes:
>
>In one sense there is the claim that the 'anatta' teaching is not only in
>buddhism, 

This is a claim that I carefully avoided making. 

>
[much that I agree with deleted]
>
>  Buddhist teachings are quite different from these.  From 
>  experience in meditation if I were to look for some greater Soul
>  within my mind while practicing mindfullness, I would be actually
>  grasping a view in my mind. 

Mindfulness does not leave us a leg to stand on  and there are
no apriori assumptions made. Vedantic teaching admits of a means
of knowledge - "Sabda Pramana" - that mindfulness does not.
"Sabda" is "word" - and students are asked to treat the *words*
of the Upanishads as a means of knowledge that have as much
validity as sensation, inference, perception etc. This is why
the guru is of such importance - it is he who can reveal the
sabdas in a skillful way. 

There is no evidence that the Buddha studied the Upanishads -
so it is unnecessary to view this system as a "logical extension"
of any other. It is true that the Buddha approached Alara and
other meditation masters for instruction and found that his
mind was still prone to defilement at the end of all that. But,
it is also true that the Buddha never seems to encountered the
doctrine of Brahman. In his dialogues, he has an easy time
poking holes in the notion of Brahma - which is not the same thing 
as the nirguna (uncharacterizable) Brahman. In the words of
Ananda Coomaraswamy ("Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism"), the
Buddha never met a Janaka or a Yagnyavalka. In the early A.D.
years, members of the two systems frequently accused each other
of lifting notions from each other. Mahayana Buddhists are of
the firm view that Sankara got his notions of relative and
absolute truth from the Sunyavada of Nagarjuna. But since Sankara
justified everything in terms of the Upanishads, Vedantists
demur.

>   note: studying the religious systems seperately and identifying
>   their actual teachings are useful.  But if we were to make assumptions
>   about one using the knowledge of the other is quite misleading.

All intellectualization is ultimately useless. But, I should 
clarify some points. I agree that those who wish to practice
Buddha Dharma should come to it without preconceptions about
what it is. Afterall, the final aim of the practice is to
see that *nothing* - not feelings or views or relations or the
body or anything else - is worth holding on to. And, if I were
asked, I would recommend to anyone that they take up mindfulness
practice and look upon Buddha Dharma as a path of the truest
nobility. The Eightfold Path is a Vishuddhi Magga (Path of 
Purification). Zen doctrines hold that there is nothing to be
gained and nothing to purified. Seeing how conditioned most of
us are, I am inclined to doubt if that is a helpful attitude
for beginners.

Peace.

-- 
Sridhar Pingali