posted on May, 11 2011 @ 07:36 PM
Originally posted by BillfromCovina
Try and understand no-self. Much more rewarding. The independent self is the cause of the disease and the illusion.
The idea of Self (Atman/Brahma) in Hinduism that filosphia is speaking of, fundamentally has no difference from the idea of no-self (Anatta/Anatman)
in Buddhism. Both speak of an interdependency and Oneness of all forms of reality. One calls it God/Self and the other calls it Emptiness. If the
Atman is Brahma, then it is no different than Emptiness which negates individual self.
Even a great Lama like the late Anagarika Govinda would point out that the Atman formulation of Hindus as promulgated by Sri Ramana Maharishi (the
great Non-Dualist or Advaitist) is simply a different formulation of the Self-same Reality.
At some point in Hinduism, not only ritual but metaphysical concepts had rigidified and in so doing became poor symbols. The Atman had come to be
identified with the Jivatman - the individual 'self.' There is also a confusion with Ahamkara - the 'I-sense.' In the West, there has long been
serious confusion along parallel lines between soul, spirit and nous as the highest spiritual faculties in human beinghood. In one sense, the
Atman-Brahman formula is parallel to the Son-Father formula. The Enlightened One Realizes that Atman and Brahman are One, and that Union is Realized
in the human psyche of jivatman, ahamkara, mans (mind). Likewise, the Union of Christ and the Father is Realized by the Christian. 'We' are neither
Atman or Christ - both represent the 'Immanent' or 'indwelling' (a Christian term) aspect of GOD, whereas the Brahman or the Father are utterly
'Transcendent' and unknowable by the human psyche except through the mediational effect of the Son's or Atman's Realization.
Buddha's formulation of Anatman (or Anatta in Pali) was intended to undo the fossilized concept of Atman into an eternally enduring individual 'soul'
which would transmigrate literally into different humans. The Anatman formulation was intended to restore the Boundless Nature of the Primordial
Consciousness called "Self-Effulgent" in the Upanishads and later called Sunyata (Void) or Clear Light in Buddhism. Void is not supposed to mean
'nothing,' like the En Soph (Limitless) of Kabbalism, the Ultimate Reality is 'no thing' - it is beyond limit and beyond definition. Because of these
definitions, all attributes, including personal attributes which ascribe personality to Ultimate Reality were not acknowledged. This is why there is
no personal GOD in Buddhism. For convention-sake however, the Dalai Lama uses the word GOD when talking to Westerners. Hinduism has the insight to
recognize both Saguna Brahman (GOD-with-attributes) and Nirguna Brahman (GOD-without-attributes). Only the latter concept was acknowledged by
Buddhism. GOD/Self cannot be 'less-than' personal (impersonal), since human beinghood is personal, but can be thought of as Transpersonal -
edit on 11-5-2011 by LifeIsEnergy because: (no reason given)