Note from Sundari: This is a response from a Buddhist monk to my satsang on the fallacy of non-existence, and my reply to him below.
This is the quote from the satsang he particularly took issue with:
“Sundari: Many people, particularly Buddhists, believe that the Self does not exist because it cannot be perceived. They do not realize that it is the Self that is saying that it doesn’t exist, and there cannot be a perceiver without Consciousness. We cannot get rid of Consciousness”
Buddhist monk: Yes people say this about Buddhism but of course it is a misunderstanding. Rather than the word Self we have a different linguistic method. We use words such as the uncreated, the unborn, the deathless, the island, Nibbana (pali for Nirvana)
Here is a quote from our texts
It is the unformed, the Unconditioned, the End, the Truth, the Other shore, the subtle, the Everlasting, the Invisible, the Undiversified, Peace, the Deathless, the Blest, Safety, the Wonderful, the Marvelous, Nibbana, Purity, Freedom, the Island, the Refuge, the Beyond.
-S 43.1-44
The German Pope some years ago wrote that Buddhism is nihilistic which again was a misunderstanding. This happens when one tradition looks at another tradition solely from the perspectives of language. When one seeks out the wisest of any tradition there is the possibility of interesting sharing. The intellect is clever but sometimes not so wise because it believes in its own conclusions.
My two cents worth.
Sundari: Thank you for your two cents worth
I agree language is often the cause of misunderstanding, especially when it comes to putting words to that which cannot be expressed in words, such as the Self. The main problem is that whatever words are used to describe the Self contain their opposite, and the Self has no opposites. All of the terms you use are subject to this. Vedanta, which is the means of knowledge we teach, teaches through the language of non-dual identity, and relies on implied meaning.
But it is still not exempt from being misinterpreted, either by a teacher who is not properly qualified to teach and does not understand non-duality properly, or by a student who is not qualified for self-inquiry and interprets the words according to their ignorance. All words are mithya, and therefore, subject to error. They are the finger pointing at the moon, they are not the moon, which I believe is a statement the Buddha made.
Vedanta is a valid means of knowledge for Consciousness and is independent of any opinion or belief. It looks at everything through the impersonal lens of the irrefutable nondual logic of existence. The statements in my satsang are not my conclusions, but that of the infallible science of Consciousness, Vedanta. The reason it is infallible is that it is based on impersonal non-dual discrimination between satya, that which is always present and unchanging (i.e. Consciousness or the Self – the ‘knowing factor’) and mithya, that which is not always present and always changing (i.e., the person and the world – that which is known).
From this point of view, it is undeniably true that there cannot be a perceiver without Consciousness, that the perceiver is, therefore, Consciousness. Thus, the concept of ‘non-existence’ is ludicrous. You can never remove Consciousness, or the Self by whatever name, from the equation because you would have to be conscious to do so. Consciousness is the one and only non-negatable factor. The only question that remains, then, is what is your primary identity? Are you identified with the whole and complete knowing principle, nondual Consciousness, or that which is known and incomplete, the person subject to duality?
Are you certain that your are conclusions based on what you think you know, or on impersonal irrefutable logic? Perhaps it is true that your conclusions are therefore, subject to lack of wisdom. Only you will know. I do not claim to be an expert on Buddhism, my apologies if my comments were offensive. Vedanta is a critical tradition only in that it challenges ideas that do not stand on their own – meaning, they can be refuted.
I do know this about Buddhism – there are many different versions of it, there does not seem to be consensus within your scriptures about what the Self is, nor does it offer a valid means of knowledge capable of removing ignorance – the hypnosis of duality, and nor does it teach non-dual discrimination from the perspective of your non-negatable identity as the Self.
Om and Prem
Sundari
