This reminds me of a strange Schuon quote that also reminded me of Epekstasis:
"At the summit of universal Existence this 'migratory vibration' comes to a stop, because it turns inwards in the direction of the Immutable; there remains only a single movement, a single cycle, that of Paradise, which opens onto the Essence. In God Himself, who is beyond Existence, there is an element which pre-figures Existence, and this is the Divine Life, which the Christian doctrine attributes to the Holy Spirit and which it calls Love; towards this Life converge those existences that are plunged in the light of Glory and sustained by it; and it is this Light, this 'Divine Halo’, which keeps the Paradises outside the 'migratory vibrations' of existences that are still corruptible. The sage does not strictly speaking emerge from his existential movement- although from the standpoint of the cosmic wheel he does so- but turns it inwards: the movement becomes lost in the Infinite or expands in the 'changeless movement' of the 'Void'." (Some Observations on a Problem of the Afterlife)
What do you make of the argument by some (Ken Wheeler, AK Coomerswami, George Grimm...etc etce wikipead also lists Richard Gombrich and Alexander Wynne but ive not heard nor read of them) that Buddha was far more hindu(while still being anti brahmin akin to Christ being a rabbi but arguing with Pharasetic teachings) then later buddist and that anatta/Anatman should be rendered as ''Not-soul" rather than "non-soul"?
ive always read anatta as similar to atman (espically in the far eastern schools) to be honest ive seen advita teachers agrees ironically Shankra being accused of cyrpto buddism and critising buddists
''the lord is the holy eye become he is jnana become the dhamma come verily Brahman become is turned to the soul elucidator of the goal giver of immortality he is the tathagata lord of hamma.(MN 1.11)
''weather he walks stands sits or lays on his side so long as his chitta is sovereign upon his very soul he is thoroughly...''(Itivuttaka 82)
''Pari-nirvana is to be steadfast in the soul(thitattoti)'' (Itivuttaka 82)
''"The create is sacrificed to the uncreate. This is the meaning of Jhana " [Pati 1.70]"
The Lord, the Buddha, is That which makes Brahman-wheel (Brahmacakka) move " [Itivuttaka
#123]"
The Soul is having become-Brahman" [MN 1.341]
"The Buddha is a teacher of non-dualism (advayavadin )"[Mahavyutpatti; 23: Divyavadaana. 95.13]
"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto; it is the Light, that very same sanctuary, that final end goal and destiny. It is immeasurable, matchless, that which I really am, that very treasure; it is like unto the breath-of-life, this Animator "[KN J-1441 Akkhakandam]
''natthiko go to terrible Nakara " [SN 1.96]-Gotama
"The Tathagata, the Buddha, is a designation for (means) "become-Brahman'."[DN 2.84]
also
''the brahmins are foolish , the brahma is peaceable''
''they have wives and famlies and homes yet you say.....they are attached......brahmins cannot obtain union after death with the brahma who is without family and property''
frem George Grimm Buddha religion of reason and doctrine of self quotations of Gotima.
"Indeed, profound similarities exist between Vedanta and Mahayana at this point: brahman, understood as infinite satt, citta, and ananda is not fundamentally different from Buddha Nature understood as the true ontological substratum of all things, or the Chan Buddhist understanding of enlightenment as something always, already true of everyone."
I think that this is where both you and David Hart go wrong. You read Mahayana Buddhism as just a preview of Vedanta. But where Brahman is a unity and a one-ness, Buddha nature is not a single transpersonal 'being-ness'. (Even in the three-body theory of tantra, your dharmakaya is not the same as my dharmakaya, but they are 'not two' as in two different things.) You have a Buddha nature, and I have a Buddha nature, but they are not the same Buddha nature. The traditional analogy is sesame seed oil. Each seed has oil, but it's not one oil (which would be absurd); rather, they are the same kind of oil. When one person becomes a Buddha, we don't all become Buddhas. If there were only one dharmakaya, we would all become Buddha together with the primordial buddha. Non-duality in the Buddhist tradition (མི་གཉིས་ mi gnyis, 不二 bu er, 'not two') doesn't mean 'one thing', but that they are not two different things--that the same nature that produced the Buddha is in you, just as the same kind of oil you find in one seed is in another seed, but it's not the same oil.
I am currently working on an essay about, among other things, Susanna Clarke's Piranesi, and this has stirred up some useful thoughts. Thank you.
This reminds me of a strange Schuon quote that also reminded me of Epekstasis:
"At the summit of universal Existence this 'migratory vibration' comes to a stop, because it turns inwards in the direction of the Immutable; there remains only a single movement, a single cycle, that of Paradise, which opens onto the Essence. In God Himself, who is beyond Existence, there is an element which pre-figures Existence, and this is the Divine Life, which the Christian doctrine attributes to the Holy Spirit and which it calls Love; towards this Life converge those existences that are plunged in the light of Glory and sustained by it; and it is this Light, this 'Divine Halo’, which keeps the Paradises outside the 'migratory vibrations' of existences that are still corruptible. The sage does not strictly speaking emerge from his existential movement- although from the standpoint of the cosmic wheel he does so- but turns it inwards: the movement becomes lost in the Infinite or expands in the 'changeless movement' of the 'Void'." (Some Observations on a Problem of the Afterlife)
What do you make of the argument by some (Ken Wheeler, AK Coomerswami, George Grimm...etc etce wikipead also lists Richard Gombrich and Alexander Wynne but ive not heard nor read of them) that Buddha was far more hindu(while still being anti brahmin akin to Christ being a rabbi but arguing with Pharasetic teachings) then later buddist and that anatta/Anatman should be rendered as ''Not-soul" rather than "non-soul"?
ive always read anatta as similar to atman (espically in the far eastern schools) to be honest ive seen advita teachers agrees ironically Shankra being accused of cyrpto buddism and critising buddists
''the lord is the holy eye become he is jnana become the dhamma come verily Brahman become is turned to the soul elucidator of the goal giver of immortality he is the tathagata lord of hamma.(MN 1.11)
''weather he walks stands sits or lays on his side so long as his chitta is sovereign upon his very soul he is thoroughly...''(Itivuttaka 82)
''Pari-nirvana is to be steadfast in the soul(thitattoti)'' (Itivuttaka 82)
''"The create is sacrificed to the uncreate. This is the meaning of Jhana " [Pati 1.70]"
The Lord, the Buddha, is That which makes Brahman-wheel (Brahmacakka) move " [Itivuttaka
#123]"
The Soul is having become-Brahman" [MN 1.341]
"The Buddha is a teacher of non-dualism (advayavadin )"[Mahavyutpatti; 23: Divyavadaana. 95.13]
"The Soul is the refuge that I have gone unto; it is the Light, that very same sanctuary, that final end goal and destiny. It is immeasurable, matchless, that which I really am, that very treasure; it is like unto the breath-of-life, this Animator "[KN J-1441 Akkhakandam]
''natthiko go to terrible Nakara " [SN 1.96]-Gotama
"The Tathagata, the Buddha, is a designation for (means) "become-Brahman'."[DN 2.84]
also
''the brahmins are foolish , the brahma is peaceable''
''they have wives and famlies and homes yet you say.....they are attached......brahmins cannot obtain union after death with the brahma who is without family and property''
frem George Grimm Buddha religion of reason and doctrine of self quotations of Gotima.
Apologies for dense quotation
Excellent. I really enjoyed this. Thank you.
"Indeed, profound similarities exist between Vedanta and Mahayana at this point: brahman, understood as infinite satt, citta, and ananda is not fundamentally different from Buddha Nature understood as the true ontological substratum of all things, or the Chan Buddhist understanding of enlightenment as something always, already true of everyone."
I think that this is where both you and David Hart go wrong. You read Mahayana Buddhism as just a preview of Vedanta. But where Brahman is a unity and a one-ness, Buddha nature is not a single transpersonal 'being-ness'. (Even in the three-body theory of tantra, your dharmakaya is not the same as my dharmakaya, but they are 'not two' as in two different things.) You have a Buddha nature, and I have a Buddha nature, but they are not the same Buddha nature. The traditional analogy is sesame seed oil. Each seed has oil, but it's not one oil (which would be absurd); rather, they are the same kind of oil. When one person becomes a Buddha, we don't all become Buddhas. If there were only one dharmakaya, we would all become Buddha together with the primordial buddha. Non-duality in the Buddhist tradition (མི་གཉིས་ mi gnyis, 不二 bu er, 'not two') doesn't mean 'one thing', but that they are not two different things--that the same nature that produced the Buddha is in you, just as the same kind of oil you find in one seed is in another seed, but it's not the same oil.