I apologize for length at the outset. I think it's justified given how much misinformation and deliberate obfuscation we've seen on this topic thus far.
Theravada Buddhism, https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html
a system of meditative practice does not constitute a self-contained discipline
non-dualistic spiritual traditions are far from consistent with each other [but are] a wide variety of views profoundly different and inevitably colored by the broader conceptual contours of the philosophies which encompass them.
For the Vedanta [Hindus], non-duality (advaita) means the absence of an ultimate distinction between the Atman, the innermost self, and Brahman, the divine reality, the underlying ground of the world.
all schools of Buddhism reject the idea of the Atman, none can accept the non-dualism of Vedanta.
According to the Pali Suttas, the individual being is merely a complex unity of the five aggregates, which are all stamped with the three marks of impermanence, suffering, and selflessness. Any postulation of selfhood in regard to this compound of transient, conditioned phenomena is an instance of "personality view" (sakkayaditthi), the most basic fetter that binds beings to the round of rebirths.
The attainment of liberation, for Buddhism, does not come to pass by the realization of a true self or absolute "I," but through the dissolution of even the subtlest sense of selfhood in relation to the five aggregates, "the abolition of all I-making, mine-making, and underlying tendencies to conceit."
The Mahayana schools, despite their great differences, concur in upholding a thesis that, from the Theravada point of view, borders on the outrageous. This is the claim that there is no ultimate difference between samsara and Nirvana, defilement and purity, ignorance and enlightenment. For the Mahayana, the enlightenment which the Buddhist path is designed to awaken consists precisely in the realization of this non-dualistic perspective.
Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahayana schools, which also start with the duality of samsara and Nirvana, is in its refusal to regard this polarity as a mere preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality. From the standpoint of the Pali Suttas, even for the Buddha and the arahants suffering and its cessation, samsara and Nibbana, remain distinct.
the Theravada tradition refusals to sacrifice actuality for unity. The [Theravada-Dharma] does not point us toward an all-embracing absolute in which the tensions of daily existence dissolve in metaphysical oneness or inscrutable emptiness[but] towards actuality as the final sphere of comprehension, toward things as they really are (yathabhuta).
- Above all, [Therava's doctrine] points us toward the Four Noble Truths of suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the way to its cessation as the liberating proclamation of things as they [doctriinally] are. These four [doctrinal] truths, the [Theravada-Buddha] declares, are noble truths, and what makes them noble truths is precisely that they are actual, undeviating, invariable (tatha, avitatha, anannatha). It is the failure to face the actuality of these [doctrinal] truths that has caused us to wander for so long through the long course of samsara. It is by penetrating these truths exactly as they are that one can reach the true consummation of the spiritual quest: making an end to suffering.
Taking this as an outline for Theravada's position and a description of Mahayana's position, we can fold r/zen/wiki/buddhism in there and see how non-duality fits in with other doctrine.
Zen:
Huangbo rebutting "what makes them noble truths is precisely that they are actual, undeviating, invariable"
- A transmission of Void cannot be made through words.
- Obtaining no Dharma whatever is called Mind transmission. The understanding of this Mind implies no Mind and no Dharma.
- To be absolutely without concepts is called the Wisdom of Dispassion.
- Nor may you entertain the least ambition to be a Buddha here and now. Even if a Buddha arises, do not think of him as 'Enlightened' or 'deluded', 'good' or 'evil'.
Zen Masters rebutting "[Buddhisms' rejection of] the idea of the Atman"
Zen Masters rebutting "It is by penetrating these truths exactly as they are that one can reach the true consummation of the spiritual quest"
Submitted January 26, 2018 at 06:30PM by ewk http://ift.tt/2BuDVQP
No comments:
Post a Comment