[Buddha-l] Re: Was Buddha a Buddhist

[Benito Carral]

On Tuesday, May 23, 2006, Blumenthal, James wrote:

> When  I  said that he was radical even in the context
> of  the sramana movement, I was thinking primarily of
> the doctrines of anatman and impermanence. While many
> sramanas  were focussing their practices on realizing
> their  true  atman  in  order to find some union with
> Brahman [...]

   Is  there  any  real  difference  there?  I'm  quite
convinced that the Old Indian Guy didn't teach anything
revolutionary--I see him more like a pragmatic.

   There  was not only a kind of forest wanderers. Some
of  them  wanted to unite their atman with Brahma, some
of  them  don't.

   I  think  that  the  Buddha  just taught a different
approach, "Do you want to unite your atman with Brahma?
Well,  show  me your atman and I will show you Brahma,"
"Do  you  want  to  remain  skeptical?  I will give you
skepticism."

   I  think  that  the Abhidhammic tradition devolped a
whole  radical  and illogical system in order to find a
solid place in the Indian spiritual market.

   Then  some  latter  traditions as Chan recovered the
full   atman/Brahman   approach,  "Discover  your  true
luminous nature."

   Best wishes,

   Beni