Buddhism and the Self

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 17 Sep 1997, Williams, Pat wrote:

> I agree in spirit, though I'd like to quibble :-) just a bit with
> terminology, which I think is valid, since the degree of precision in
> our language tends to reflect the degree of clarity in our thinking, and
> what is advaita all about if not correct thinking or, much better,
> correct knowing.
>

Exactly.  This why the study of linguistics and logic became so important
early on in India.  Given the slippery nature of our subject matter here
we should endeavor to be as precise as possible.

> "Advaita," of course, is non-duality.  The Sanskrit word is simply a
> label that many of us like to use.  It seems clear to me that we would
> be foolish to exclude discussion of the thought of others who have
> achieved this realization.  "Advaita" also implies, of course, that from
> the perspective of full awake-ness, there is no separation.  How can one
> think or say that one soul's realization of the highest is other than
> any other soul's realization of the highest?
>

This is the problem that foreign and assimilated members of the list face.
You know the words but you don't always understand the context.  While you
are indeed correct that Adwaita means non-dual, it is usually used to mean
Advaita Vedanta.  There are other "non-dual" philosophies of Indian origin
but they are not usually labelled Advaita.  Only Vedanta.  This Advaita
Vedanta, has a history, tradition and dogma of which it is quite possible
to make meaningful comparisons.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
I got engaged! See the pictures ==> http://www.braincells.com/jaldhar/sagpan