Buddhism and the Self

[Greg Goode]

At 01:40 AM 9/26/97 -0400, Jaldhar H. Vyas wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Martin Gifford wrote:
>
>> Perhaps there are 4 approaches to the word 'Advaita' for our purposes.
>>
>
>Your purposes maybe.
>
>> 1. Traditional scriptural based advaita.
>
>This is the only acceptable definition.
>
>> 2. Non-traditional scriptures with similarities of expression to
traditional
>> advaita.
>
>How can you know "Non-traditional" works  are similiar unless you first
>understand the traditional ones.


Martin's post seemed to be sort of an empirical collection of the way the
term "Advaita" is used, probably mostly in the West.  Not prescriptive
list, but a descriptive list. Just from the mere presence of this
definition (2) in the list you can't justifiably conclude that he is or is
not familiar with the traditional scriptures.  Definition (2) can be listed
equally validly by someone familiar or ignorant.  He's not saying (I
think!) that it's a TRUE definition, he's primarily saying it's in use.

These non-scriptural definitions of Advaita really ARE in use (listing
Martin's other two below, see [1], [2]).

Whether or not these latter 3 definitions correspond with the traditional,
historical definition (1), the term "Advaita" really IS used in these
several ways.  And the word "Advaita" is gaining currency every day in the
West, primarily in ways having NOTHING to do with the scriptures.  Right or
wrong.  You can see this if you do a web search or check out some American
or British bookshops.  Or check the mushy health/holistic/new-age
catalogues.  There are more and more teachers (they say) of "Advaita" on
the road all the time.  Just this Fall/Winter here in the New York City
area, there will be a total of 6 visits from these teachers that I know
about.  Such frequency has never happened before here.

--Greg


================================================================
   Notes; Quoted text Martin's; non-quoted responses Jaldhar's
================================================================

[1]

> 3. Living claimers of realisation that call theire realisation advaita.

Why would call it Advaita unless it actually was?  And if they are lying
what good are they to anyone else?

[4]

> 4. Theoretical advaita for those who have not realised.
>
> I presume our purpose is to realise non-duality. Some try to do it through
> investigating and discussing scriptures. Some try to do it through hanging
> out with a supposedly realised sage. Some try to do it with contemplation of
> a mixture of many seemingly related thoughts.
>
> So if you _believe_ in only one of the above then you would automatically
> reject all else.  But if the bottom line is realising non-duality then you
> will listen to anything that helps.
>

But you will not actually be helped unless you actually understand what
you are hearing.