Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[dwai]

As a personal followup to the Nonduality thread and exchanges thereof with some proponents of "Buddhism is best", I took the question back to a group of wise ones in my other home, http://www.medhajournal.com

 

http://medhajournal.com/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=281

 

The question was answered. At the end (and the reader here might concur with me in in my finding) the answer I came upon was that there is no difference. The differences are those of egos that want to see one greater than the other.

 

In other words, Nirguna Brahman is the same as the Buddhist Ultimate reality.

Edited May 18, 2009 by dwai

[Lucky7Strikes]

As a personal followup to the Nonduality thread and exchanges thereof with some proponents of "Buddhism is best", I took the question back to a group of wise ones in my other home, http://www.medhajournal.com

 

http://medhajournal.com/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=281

 

The question was answered. At the end (and the reader here might concur with me in in my finding) the answer I came upon was that there is no difference. The differences are those of egos that want to see one greater than the other.

 

In other words, Nirguna Brahman is the same as the Buddhist Ultimate reality.

 

Both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta have taken different forms and doctrines throughout history. So I don't think you can even say that Buddhism is better than this or that. Yet imho, there is much more focus on devotion in the ancient Advaita scriptures than the Buddha's original teachings. I'm not exactly sure which sutra it is but in it the Buddha mentions how his teachings should not be taken as absolute, but that the seeker should discriminate all teachings before accepting it to be true.

Edited May 18, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[goldisheavy]

Which medicine is better? Prozac or Preparation H? Depends...

 

There is no such thing as "the best medicine" any more than there is "the best disease". If we can have such a thing as "the best disease", then we can also have "the best medicine". However, for each disease there is effective and ineffective medicine, but it's hard to say that there is something called "best", even for a certain specific disease.

 

But people fight to maintain separate identity. If, after all, you say that Buddhism is the same as other teachings, it loses its own identity. That's the fear of death. That's the folly of self-delineation that Buddha talked about. Ironic, no?

Edited May 18, 2009 by goldisheavy

[xabir2005]

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited May 18, 2009 by xabir2005

[nac]

The major metaphysical difference is this: Advaita posits an all-embracing, immortal, pantheistic sentience called Brahman which is the "true self" behind all experience. This is what stays in the background, sensing all of creation. Since people, races and civilizations rise and fall before this "one mind", it's a non-dual philosophy. In Buddhism, the ultimate reality is "emptiness" or perfect neutrality. From this impenetrable void, both "seer" and the "seen" entities arise as semi-dependent phenomena, interacting with each other and causing sensation. Nothing remains permanent. Hence, Buddhists reject all labels including dualistic and non-dualistic. Pantheism is also rejected to an extent.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism#Hinduism

Edited May 19, 2009 by nac

[dwai]

The major metaphysical difference is this: Advaita posits an all-embracing, immortal, pantheistic sentience called Brahman which is the "true self" behind all experience. This is what stays in the background, sensing all of creation. Since people, races and civilizations rise and fall before this "one mind", it's a non-dual philosophy. In Buddhism, the ultimate reality is "emptiness" or perfect neutrality. From this impenetrable void, both "seer" and the "seen" entities arise as semi-dependent phenomena, interacting with each other and causing sensation. Nothing remains permanent. Hence, Buddhists reject all labels including dualistic and non-dualistic. Pantheism is also rejected to an extent.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism#Hinduism

 

Explain Nirguna Brahman

[dwai]

[xabir2005]

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[rex]

In other words, Nirguna Brahman is the same as the Buddhist Ultimate reality.

Buddhists don't agree amongst themselves what the Buddhist ultimate reality is. Would a 'yes' answer be used to celebrate, acknowledge and accept the similarities of and differences between tradtions or would it be used to show one particular tradition in a better light than the other?

[nac]

Buddhists don't agree amongst themselves what the Buddhist ultimate reality is. Would a 'yes' answer be used to celebrate, acknowledge and accept the similarities of and differences between tradtions or would it be used to show one particular tradition in a better light than the other?

To make a long story short, Buddhists don't believe in an ultimate reality. They disagree on what this disbelief implies.

 

PS. Generally speaking. Yoga complicates matters. That is, Buddhism is an essentialist philosophy as opposed to existentialism.

PPS. Sorry, that was incorrect. I think Buddhist philosophy occupies the unique position of being both non-existentialist and non-essentialist at the same time.

Edited May 19, 2009 by nac

[xabir2005]

which is nevertheless luminous

Just to clarify: Buddhism's emptiness does not deny the luminous clear vivid nature of awareness -- just that it does not make it into an Absolute or an ontological essence. In Buddhism, Buddha-Nature is as they say: luminosity and emptiness inseparable. Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

First of all Buddhism does not posit an Ultimate Reality at all.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. Again... this is a matter of taste. It's not something you should so freely assert, unless you use the rainbow tongue to assert it, then it's OK to assert it as much as you like.

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn....8.01.than.html

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn....8.03.than.html

Edited May 19, 2009 by goldisheavy

[goldisheavy]

Just to clarify: Buddhism's emptiness does not deny the luminous clear vivid nature of awareness -- just that it does not make it into an Absolute or an ontological essence. In Buddhism, Buddha-Nature is as they say: luminosity and emptiness inseparable.

 

Yes, but what does it mean "to be made into an ontological essence?" Arguably, it means nothing. Arguably it means just what emptiness means in the Buddhist sense.

 

Buddhism is good at showing that there is no such thing as a stable identity, but then it behaves with regard to other doctrines as if their definitions are very well defined and understood.

 

Truth is, we don't know what we mean. Ask any person on the street, "What does the word IS mean?" I bet no one knows. Even philosophers will stumble. Why? This is because language comes from a deep mysterious place. We use it intuitively, only half-understanding what it is we mean. To have respect for the fluidity and for the non-uniformness of language is a good thing. Non-uniformness means that what Buddhists mean by atman, and what Advaitans mean by atman doesn't have to be the same thing. Buddhists might be assailing the straw man. Or not. I remain open.

 

What matters is how hearing this or that doctrine affects your condition. That's where compassion comes in.

[solxyz]

The Indic philosophical tradition is extremely rich and nuanced. To really enter into the subtleties and endless possibilities of conciliation and debate between these philosophies would take a lifetime of study. I dont even read Sanskit, and I have read only smatterings of Shankara and Nagarjuna in translation. Since I assume that most of us are in the same boat, we have to ask what we hope to figure out here.

 

That said, when we are looking at these philosophies I think we should keep in mind two possibly distinct issues: 1) what the various philosophers were trying to say/ point to and 2) what they actually managed to say. With #1 we ask: were the various philosophers attesting to different levels of realization? I think the answer to this question is clear. There have undoubtedly been a range of levels of realization on both sides of the Advaita/Buddhist split, and people of many levels of realization have expressed themselves in philosophy. Also it is clear to me that there have been fully realized people on both sides of this split. Therefore in the mouths of the best, these two philosophies refer to the same. They are attempts to refer to enlightened experience / awakened reality. Once again there is a great deal of subtlety in this philosophy. To really understand what a person is communicating one has to be able to listen to that persons particular use of words, and the way these words might point past limitations of any particular stance. If you dont do this, then you are lacking the sympathy to an ability to enter into anothers mode of expression. But since this is not a Sanskrit forum, I dont know how far we can really go in this direction.

 

As for #2 we ask whether either philosophy is actually a better description of awakened reality. Once again I think we have to be mindful of the subtlties of the actual philosophies before jumping to any conclusions here. But here is my crude observation. Everyone is making an Absolute denial.

 

Advaita phrases this denial in terms of ontology. It speaks of an ontological Absolute and denies that it has any form, etc, etc. The philosophy xabir is presenting simply switches to an epistemological question and then makes its denial, saying "no essence of self or phenomena can be found." This may seem to be a more complete denial, but I think there will prove to be an infinite regress of possible questions and levels at which to deny absolutely. Here I will take the next step up and deny that any explicit position can ever be a full and final description of awakened reality.

Once we agree on that, question #2 evaporates and we are left only with our answer to question #1.

[Pero]

Explain Nirguna Brahman

 

What is Nirguna Brahman?

 

Could you please explain dependant origination according to Advaita.

[xabir2005]

 

Truth is, we don't know what we mean. Ask any person on the street, "What does the word IS mean?" I bet no one knows. Even philosophers will stumble. Why? This is because language comes from a deep mysterious place. We use it intuitively, only half-understanding what it is we mean. To have respect for the fluidity and for the non-uniformness of language is a good thing. Non-uniformness means that what Buddhists mean by atman, and what Advaitans mean by atman doesn't have to be the same thing. Buddhists might be assailing the straw man. Or not. I remain open.

I'm talking about the generally accepted and recognised definition of those terms. It is still important to, as mikael quoted here:

 

"Let us make distinctions, and call things by their right names."

-- Henry David Thoreau, Wild Fruits.

 

With the lack of such distinctions, many people get wrong understandings of what 'emptiness', 'anatta', etc in Buddhism means.

 

 

p.s. atman just means 'self', this is a universal sanskrit term. What the 'atman' is, is another issue. Advaita posits a 'self' that is transcendent. In buddhism we do not posit an atman, whether within nor outside the 5 skandhas.

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[Lucky7Strikes]

Yes, but what does it mean "to be made into an ontological essence?" Arguably, it means nothing. Arguably it means just what emptiness means in the Buddhist sense.

 

Buddhism is good at showing that there is no such thing as a stable identity, but then it behaves with regard to other doctrines as if their definitions are very well defined and understood.

 

Truth is, we don't know what we mean. Ask any person on the street, "What does the word IS mean?" I bet no one knows. Even philosophers will stumble. Why? This is because language comes from a deep mysterious place. We use it intuitively, only half-understanding what it is we mean. To have respect for the fluidity and for the non-uniformness of language is a good thing. Non-uniformness means that what Buddhists mean by atman, and what Advaitans mean by atman doesn't have to be the same thing. Buddhists might be assailing the straw man. Or not. I remain open.

 

What matters is how hearing this or that doctrine affects your condition. That's where compassion comes in.

 

You must have a rainbow tongue...whatever that is

[xabir2005]

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005

[markern]

Edited May 19, 2009 by markern

[Pero]

[Lucky7Strikes]

I have read several times descriptions of enlightenement were it is absolutely clear that the person does not describe abiding in a seer or in the state of I AM but is clearly describing buddhist emptiness and no-self but still calling it self because that is what is done in their tradition.

 

Because they interperate the expereince of No-self within their traditions use of the word self. If you actualy listen to what they say about the self you will find it is the same thing. Buddhist scholar Robert Thurman say that it is plain wrong to say that the yogic tradition does not contain a non-self teaching. He says that there has been aproaches that has had what the buddhists classicly think of as a self teaching but that the dominant aproach has been a non-self teaching under the heading of self.

 

I agree that the term No-self and Self are interchangeable. Depending on the reader's maturity of understanding, the terms, as mystical as they are, simply point to the same experience. I see it this way: "It is not" is also "It" in itself.

 

In regards to Ramana Maharshi, he declared that the witness must also disappear.

 

I am beginning to think that the conceptual aspects of the "Ultimate Truth" presented by Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, such as the notion of emptiness, is really a description of the path and not the "Ultimate Reality." Isn't reality according to one who is experiencing it? How can we know the worlds of the rivers and the worlds of the mountains? And if we did, could we explain it rightly to a dog? Furthermore, Chuang Tzu did say that when the fish has been caught, the trap can be thrown away.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[Josh Young]

At their core there is no real difference between early Buddhism, which is based upon the sankya philosophy expounded in the Srimad bhagavatam, and taoism.

If you translate vedic concepts into chinese you get taoist concepts.

 

The trigrams correspond to the I ching, the vedic astrology contains the same concepts and symbols too. The trigrams also correspond to the symbol of the chakra, which is none other than a symbol of Vishnu.

 

Amita buddha bears the swastica on his chest just like narayana bears the same mark, they both reside upon the lotus on the waters and have almost identical symbolism. In some statues the mark on buddha is three straight lines, this is the symbol of devotion to Shiva, who if you read the scriptures is inseparable from Brahma and Vishnu.

 

The swastica is itself both a solar symbol and a yin yang symbol, the two lines of it that cross have been described as two fish, a symbol consistent with both vedic teachings, Taoist teachings and those of early Christianity whose very symbol is the two fish.

 

The ever familiar taiji symbol is a form of swastica and have been called two fish. The mathematical extrapolation of it, using quabbalic methods, results in the trigrams and hexagrams. The coptic judaism of ethiopia, dating from before the destruction of the temple of solomon, bears the same symbols of the swastica and the sun as the vedas, the tao, and buddhism.

 

An examination of the development of religious iconography of earth shows that a mere few thousand years ago the symbols were remarkable consistent in some aspects. The architecture of the buddhist, hindu and judiac temples seems initially related, as does the very structure, or layout of the works. The role of music in temple ceremonies in judiaism is reminiscent of Japa mantra use. The early caste system of judaism, which has warriors, priests and workers, mirrors that of india, and that of egypt. It can clearly been seen to have influenced the caste and class system of other areas too, like Japan.

 

At their core the philosophical beliefs of world religions are also very similar. Our genetics show us that we all descend from a common population that was rather small, this bottleneck undoubtedly affected culture as well though people have not realized that this, and not Jungian archetypes, is responsible for the seeming convergence of religious themes which is none other than the divergence of themes from a common ancestry.

 

Tao is at the root, the heart, the source. When Moses asks god for a name, what god reveals is tao, saying: I am that I am. For those who know the tao there is no distinction between tao and this understanding.

 

Over time all of these religions have strayed and evolved so to speak. They all wear funny hats and argue over which funny hat is correct. But the tao is unchanging.

 

You will not find modern religions to agree so much, but if you look far enough back the differences between religions will begin to be realized as just another part of the illusion of the world.

Edited May 19, 2009 by Josh Young

[xabir2005]

Edited May 19, 2009 by xabir2005