[Buddha-l] Non-dual scholars?

[Erik Hoogcarspel]

Vaj schreef:

> Hi Eric:
>
> On Mar 21, 2006, at 2:39 PM, Erik Hoogcarspel wrote:
>
>> First of all advaita is often considered a monims in stead of a 
>> nondualism (advaita is not advaya). 
>>
>
> Could you elaborate on your tack on this? I think it is a very 
> interesting fine-point. M-W definitions below for ref.:
>
> advaya
> mfn. not two without a second , only , unique m. N. of a Buddha ; 
> (%{am}) n. non-duality , unity ; identity (especially the identity of 
> Brahma , with the human soul or with the universe , or of spirit and 
> matter) ; the ultimate truth.
>
> advaita
> mfn. destitute of duality , having no duplicate S3Br. xiv , &c. ; 
> peerless ; sole , unique ; epithet of Vishn2u ; (%{am}) n. non-duality 
> ; identity of Brahma1 or of the Parama1tman or supreme soul with the 
> Jiva1tman or human soul ; identity of spirit and matter ; the ultimate 
> truth ; title of an Upanishad ; (%{ena}) ind. solely.
>
Well, literally dvaya means 'twofold, of two kinds' (according to Aapte) and dvaita 'duality'. So dvaita means 'no split' and this is the Maahavaakya, the Great Words from the Upani.sads: tat tvam asi (that you are) or brahman asmi (I'm brahman). So there's no difference between the subjective and the objective. The bottom line is that the indivual selfconsciousness is one with being, the core of reality. The realised person knows that he's one with the source of all things.
In Madhyamaka the bottomline is that there's no self to be aware of. The self and the phenomena (dharma's) arise in mutual implication, so the core of realitiy cannot be expressed in words, only that it's the end of suffering, because the enchantment of the concepts of 'I' and 'things' is broken, the words have no meaning other then in the provisional chatter of everyday life, which includes talks about brahman and aatman.
In this case a dictionary doesn't mention everything, because in the discsussions between both schools each one identified itself with one concept, so the slight difference in meaning became a difference between two worlds.

Erik


www.xs4all.nl/~jehms
weblog http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/pub/blogs/blog.php?uid=2950