Buddhism and the Self

[Williams, Pat]

Allen wrote:
> More than one list member seems to feel that Advaita-L should be
> confined
> to discussions of orthodox Hinduism rather than the wider
> interpretation of
> Advaita sometimes called the "perennial philosophy" or "primordial
> tradition". I know many members of this list prefer to think of
> Advaita as
> expressing the truth of all great spiritual systems of the world and
> not
> just Hinduism. If this wider view is not welcome here then perhaps we
> are
> on the wrong list.  Can anyone clarify this point?
>
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.

"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?

Now here comes the quibbling.  I think we ought to use such terms as
"perennial philosophy" and "primordial tradition" with great care,
because it seems to me that they've taken on connotations that arouse
responses in some readers making it more difficult to clearly follow the
reasoning being expressed.  The connotations of these terms are, for me
personally, very positive.  But I know this is not true for many, though
I suspect that if we were to dispassionately discuss our views, we'd
find we were in basic agreement.