Buddhism and the Self

[Gregory Goode]

I think Vidyasankar makes some very good and subtle points below.  And a
rowsing
call to be fair in our consideration and discussion.

In discussing a text or tradition, it's important to try to understand it
"from within" as much a possible.  It's very easy to superimpose one's own
feeling and enthusiasm for non-dualism onto very different philosophies.
Maybe we can find a way to reduce these philosophies all to a non-dual
ontology, but that isn't what their proponents really mean.


At 09:22 AM 9/17/97 -0700, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

>That is why when someone reinterprets
>the Sermon on the Mount according to vedAntic principles, it is not
>received well by Christian orthodoxy. However, lay Christians may find a
>resonant chord in it.

This is a true observation, I've seen it myself in my orthodox Christian
friends.  If we, on this list, are truly seeking to understand, we must
try to understand the opinions of the orthodox followers of a school.
Even if we disagree with their conclusion.  There is a reason they
hold these views.  It's not all just prejudice, thought-control, blindness,
politics, etc., as lots of casual commentators opine.

>Another note of caution. It is quite tempting to read
>some kind of non-duality into Ramanuja's thought, or even into Madhva's
>school. However, this would not be acceptable to the followers of these
>schools.

Same thing here.  It pays to try to understand what the proponents of these
philosophies really mean (I say this even though I know just a wee bit about
Ramanuja and nothing about Madhva!).  Even if advaita-vedantic arguments
and metaphysics are clearly better, and all other philosophies ultimately
entail advaita, it STILL pays to understand what the other writers are
really trying to say, and what their followers accept.

--Greg