Upanshadic hinduism, proposes the existence of a self. This self is our true self and this true self is exactly the same as Brahman, which is the self. This self is the self in all it is the self that is at the centre of all things. Brahman is omnipresent, Brahman is manifested nature (prakriti) and unmanifested consciousness (parusha). This self is not the body nor is it the mind nor is it the ego. With this self that is the same in all things, there can be no sense of 'I' or 'mine', as all is one and the same. The Madhyamaka mayahana and tibetan buddhist schools propose the theory of emptiness. This is the lack of inherent existence of phenomona; of us; of nature; of everything. This emptiness of us is the same as the emptiness of all things. The body and mind are all ulitmately empty of inherent existence. With this there can be no sense of 'I' or 'mine' as all is the same. It occurs to me that these two views are differnt sides of the same coin. Or to put it another way they are like seeing things as an empty glass or a full one. The glass is the universe. The water is the self. Hindu sees the universe full of self - we are a small part of that self no different than the rest. Buddhist sees the glass as empty - we are a small part of that emptiness no different from any other 'empty' phenomona in the universe. In either case the important thing is that we are no different from anything (or anyone) else. I understand that buddha was greatly influenced by the upanishads and In My Opinion the reason that buddha went from self to emptiness (although the buddha never directly taught emptiness - it was infered in his teachings. Emptiness itself wasn't fully formed as a theory until Nagarjuna), was that the tendency with the teaching of self was, after diassociating oneself from being a body and an ego, the adherent could mistakenly start attachments and clinging to a wrong idea of self. The same clinging they used to have to body. By removing self totally from the equation, Buddha removed this pitfall. This did not mean this was the ultimate expression of truth, just a means of learning. Later schools of buddism such as Tathagatagarbha, based on the nirvana sutra. Hold Buddha to be immortal and ominpresent and that we contain a 'buddha matrix' which gives us all the potential to become buddha. Now this sounds very much like the 'self' of the upanishads, does it not. So although there is a strong rejection of the term self in all forms of buddhism, I personally only see buddhism as a continuation of upanshadic thought. That is, if the concept of self is rightly understood as taught in the upanishads, it will give no more rise to concepts of 'I' and 'mine' than any buddhist philosophy would. So I'll repeat. Whether the glass is full of water, oil or nothing, it is still all the same and everything in it is part of that same sameness. Does anyone agree?
If it is full of water then that's what its full of, if oil , then oil but are they the same you ask...No.
yes of course Buddhism is influenced by all that if you look at th boes of the Upanishadian philosoph what they tell you is that your self is 'really''...ie., they are TELLINGyou this ia their myth...is 'really' not yours, but in essence is the 'Oe' or 'Brahama'...heence any 'self-ish' feelings, thoghts, other ideas for THEIRS is false...soooo it is BEST for you, causethey are only 'helping' you fo your 'own good'. that you adhere to their belief system...and then then you toooooo one day will realize you...'Self' big s tis is duality. subtler than some Middle Easter and Western forms sure, but still dualistic!
No thats not quite what I ask. I say the mediums are different, but the mediums are not the most important factor. The most important factor is that everything is of the same stuff. To know the imortance of the medium we would have to be outside the glass looking in. (maybe comparing with other glasses). But when we are within the glass all we can know is the sameness. If in a single glass there were both oil and water then the medium would be important. If only one exists, it is not. My point being that both hindu and buddhist (as descibed above) claim only one medium. Therefore the medium becomes unimportant, only the realisation of lack of individuality is important. which I think was what buddha means when he says that whether a omnipresent god exists or not is not important to our enlightenment, therefore we should not waste our time considering it.
I think the difference is that the Upanishads are intended to be philosophical, whereas Buddhism is more concerned with the realization of this same truth directly. It is not enough in Buddhism to know intellectually that there is no self, to actually percieve it is the object.
I would disagree that upanishads demand a purely intellectual understanding. I would say they demand realisation, just as much a buddhism. What I would agree on is that buddhism lays out a far more pragmatic 'step by step ' approach to this direct realisation. The upanishads are far more mystical and airy. Here are a couple of upanishad quotes which may demonstrate this, the self referred to is obviously all pervading Self not the individual self; Katha 12. 'He (the Self) cannot be reached by speech, by mind, or by the eye. How can it be apprehended except by him who says: "He is?"' Mundaka 3. That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. The Self chooses him as his own.
I absolutely disagree ! My cut, Atman (Self) with logic is Brahman. If you are explaining a theory (“theory of emptiness”) then there is activity, there is logic and there is reason - then you can never call it empty !! What is there in the glass does make a difference and person with all his senses working does make the best judgment. But people do make wrong judgments based on perception and if this perception is corrected then water will definitely appear as water. A good read URL
Atman, Brahman, Samadhi is physics' Unified Field that is nothing but the Reality of dreamless-sleep. Other than this Reality everything else is Reality's nothing called thoughts, fiction. This Reality of Atman, Samadhi, sort of manifests itself to the (collection of thoughts called) mind as Kundalini. Christians call this Kundalini their Holy Spirit. Doctors call it every mental disease in their books. It was this Kundalini that pickled Siddhartha’s mind to give us Buddha. It was this same Kundalini/Holy Spirit that made Krishna, Christ, Mohammad and Ramana glow/BE the UNIVERSAL Love/JOY that they were/are. Other than this UNIVERSAL Love/BLISS all is just thoughts, the mind and its life and death. I AM and YOU ARE and ALL IS this dreamless-sleep, Samadhi, that is an unfathomable OCEAN of BLISS in which the universe is just an imaginary drop.
