I would like to agree, but the next thing they told me (paraphrased) is 'Buddha-nature is not atma' and implied it was more like 'human nature,' which could meant the personality of any human. So, Shakyamuni, Quan-yin, Amithaba, etc, all have their own 'nature' like own 'individuality.'
Even though Buddha-nature might not be relevant, this quote helps. I saw the Udana on
http://accesstoinsight.org/ but have not found a complete version. It is one of the next things I would like to read. It supports that atma still exists. I wonder what Buddhists would say: maybe that it is not as important as the
Dhammapada or that this was altered. I have also read that the
Bhagavad-gita was altered in
The Bhagavad-gita As It Was.
Of course any really esoteric philosophy has the idea of atma. It makes sense because of induction. There is a life consciousness upadhi, mental consciousness upadhi, so it makes sense there is consciousness beyond that, and we call it soul upadhi and atma. It makes sense there is consciousness beyond that ad infinitum. Otherwise reality would be finite. Maybe the universe is finite but reality is not: there are apparently other universes. If there was no higher consciousness to evolve to there would be little point in any lower consciousness. Eventually all consciousness in the universe in pralaya will evolve into its creator but then the creator might evolve into the consciousness of many universes, and next time it will create more consciousnesses to repeat the process. The reincarnation cycle may be a corollary of this.
Bookmarks