Antiquity of Advaita Vedanta

[nanda chandran]

>T.R.V.Murti says in his book ("The Central Philosophy of Buddhism") >that
>this is a *very* biased and distorted translation. What the >Buddha means
>is rather, "have yourself alone as your lamp, your guide" >(i.e. be
>independent).

This is what I absolutely dislike. So is that TRV Murti's final conclusion -
that the Buddha taught that there's no self? And did I say that the Buddha
taught the Atman doctrine? If you cannot bring out a constructive full
fledged argument, keep out of the discussion and don't quote partially and
out of context and confuse the readers.

What TRV Murti is condemning is Radhakrishnan's interpretation of the Buddha
as teaching the Atman doctrine (read Radhakrishnan's translation of the
DhammapAda). But even this misinterpretation by Radhakrishnan was only a
late change of view, for in his, "Indian Philosophy", he shows rare insight.

Why I pointed out those verses is to show that the Buddha taught the
existance of the self as well as anatta. So reading "no self" in Buddha's
teaching, is not that straightforward.

"That there's a self is one extreme; that there's no self is another
extreme" - itself is the middle way.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.