(nibbana) = (Nirguna Brahman) ?

[un824 at FREENET.VICTORIA.BC.CA]

Namaste,

Vidyasankar writes,

>1. There is no one philosophical stand taken by all schools of Buddhism.

     concur   :-)

>The theravAda buddhism that is spread all over Sri Lanka, Burma and
>Thailand had followers all over India and southeast Asia. All variants of
>the theravAda schools emphasize anattA (lack of an abiding self), but they
>refuse to substitute the (individual) self with the (universal) Self.

Did you read my quote to the effect that " a number of modern western
and Indian writers assert that in saying  many things are not-Self,
early Buddhist sources implicitly, or even explicitly,asserted the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
existence of such a Self, beyond the realm of empirical personality."?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Your statment "All variants of theravAda schools refuse to substitute
the (individual) self with the (universal) Self" implies that you know
better than "Mrs. C.A.F. Rhys Davids, Ananda Coomaraswamy, George
Grimm, K.Bhattacharya, J.Perez-Remon, and even two of the most illustrious
translators of Buddhist texts, Miss I.B.Horner, late president of the Pali
Text Society, and Edward Conze, renowned for his work on Mahayana
Perfection of Wisdom texts, and author of many fine books on Buddhism."

Of course these authors *may* not express the majority view in
Buddhist studies, but the case is far from the "slam dunk" you might
lead the unsuspecting Advaita-L reader to believe.


>.............. the vishNu purANa takes care to say that although
>nothing can really be said of vishNu/brahman, the one thing that can be
>said is that "It Exists." The Buddhist's refusal/hesitance in affirming
>such an Existence (with a capital E) marks him apart from the "orthodox"
>Brahmin.
>

If you substitute vishNu/brahman with "nibbana", the very same statement
holds in Buddhism (nothing can be said about it apart from "Verily, there
*is* an unborn, etc."). IMO, having said this, the Buddhists are then just a
lot more scrupulous about keeing quiet about the ineffable. Because
perhaps, as Wittgenstein points out, we *must* remain silent about the
unspeakable. Even though there are no capital letters in Pali,the existence
of the "unborn, unoriginated, uncreated, unformed", is the reason why the
Buddhist path can exist! They neither refuse nor are hesitant about affirming
the existence of "nibbana" and the Buddha clearly equated "nibbana" with
"truth". If you really know that much about Buddhism, perhaps you can tell
me what the Buddha *did* mean by nibbana if he was not talking about "such
a Self, beyond the realm of empirical personality"?

-A.Curry

P.S.

"Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it" - from the Visuddhi Magga XVI