johnw@farside.eng.ready.com (John Wheeler) (05/07/91)
I have enjoyed the recent postings on Madhymika philosophy outlining the various theories of different schools of Buddhism and comparing them with other doctrines. I believe that the traditions of Mahayana and Vedanta are essentially compatible, if not identical, in the final analysis. Does anyone else share this view? Experientially, both paths lead to the elimination of any possibility of suffering by destroying the root cause, which is the concept of a separately existing self or ego. The ultimate strategy is clearly identical; however, there is a difference in the tactical approach, so to speak. Buddhism tends to emphasize the fact that all objective phenomena are empty or void of an ego or self (with a small "s") whereas Vedanta says that there is a deeper essence or reality within us, our true Self, and what we imagine ourselves to be is illusory, i.e. the body, senses, mind, etc. At the level of practical application the results of both approaches appear to result in the same experience: the relinquishment of the idea that objective phenomena contain a self. Such relinquishment of this delusive concept results in the removal of suffering (negatively expressed) or happiness (positively expressed). I believe this point of view is confirmed by the fact that in Ch'an Buddhism (one of the greatest and most infuential schools of Buddhism) was essentially based on the tenet that "Your own mind (heart) is the Buddha." It is hard to distinguish this from the the Vedantic aphorism "You are Brahmin." To me, this boils down to the idea that what we currently imagine ourselves to be is erroneous and is the cause of suffering. If this is so, one can see the beauty of a teaching such as that offered by Ramana Maharshi, the great sage of Southern India, which goes directly to the heart of the matter by asking "Who am I?" (What is it that I take to be myself?) One final point. The lives of Vedantic and Buddhist masters show that sages from both schools found a permanent resolve to the basic questions of life such as Who am I?, How can I be free of suffering?, etc. I think this is another argument in favor of the ultimate idenity of the teachings of the the schools. Personally, I think the differences between the schools are on the levels of semantics and theory, more than they are on the level of actual experience. Sometimes it is easy to overlook that Buddha himself was not primarily a philosopher (at least in the ordinary sense of term). Nor was Ramana Maharshi. They were concerned with practical experience, not books. Anyone out there a practitioner of either path?