Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[Lucky7Strikes]

 

Since Buddhism is concerned with experiencing completely unblemished Truth, and since dualistic concepts and beliefs will tarnish the experience of Truth, it is therefore essential to have No-View, or Right View of Emptiness.

 

Right view, no view, it is to lead one to the experience or 'transition.' I totally agree.

 

non-phenomenon is something that is not a phenomenon. A phenomenon (as you will find out by applying the principle of Dependent Origination) is something that has a beginning and an end. Also, a Phenomenon is something that does not have own-nature and own-existent (ie one phenomenon is dependent on others), or in another sense, phenomena are empty (like Xabir pointed out). All phenomena fall in the category of Lower Truths.

That which is not a phenomenon, that which has own-nature and own-existence, that does not have any beginning or end is the non-phenomenon. That is Tao, that is Brahman, according to Advaita Vedanta.

 

That is why you have Shankara talk about reality being illusory. Because Phenomena are empty and therefore have no "substance". And that's why he refers to Brahman as the Only Reality/Truth/Existent.

 

The phenomena of non-phenomenon is not to be phenominized (hehe....making up words here ) As I noted before, I believe that it is a mistake when the Tao or Brahman is conceptualized in terms like "non-phenomenon" with the attitude of "this is how it is..."

[Lucky7Strikes]

There is no state to reach. What is presently appearing is already fully empty -- nothing needs to be 'emptied' other than simply realising emptiness as the nature of all appearances, already so.

That realization is a state to be reached.

 

To try to 'empty' something implies something is 'existing' and yet to be 'emptied', but really, all appearances are from the beginning empty already, to try to 'empty' something that cannot be found is still under the illusion of inherent existence. Similarly you can never 'get rid of self', other than simply realising that a separate observer, doer, agent, cannot be found.

An illusion is existing within that perspective of the illusion. Your claim of "all appearances are from the beginning empty" is a very meaningless claim IF it is trying to formulate how Reality is. I see "trying" and "realizing that a separate observer cannot be found" as interchangeable terms for those of us who read/investigate into these things.

 

How can you get rid of something that is not even there in the first place? What is gotten rid of at the moment of insight is not a self, but the tendency to project a self, due to direct intuitive insight of the seal of Anatta.

What's the difference between the tendency to project a self and the self? Something IS because it is projected. So you CAN get rid of it, just as you CANNOT get rid of it.

 

The practice is to gain sufficient perceptual clarity of our experience from moment to moment so that we can gain insight into the 'ever present' nature of reality. But no-self and emptiness is not a practice -- it is what is always and already so, a.k.a Dharma Seal, or the characteristic of existence/phenomena. So practice is important, just that it must not be misunderstood.

It is a practice until it is truly actualized by your experience. What is the use of running around saying I am happy I am happy. Or "ah! emptiness." One may become happy in doing so. So that is practice. What is and already so is what your reality is. Man lives in his imaginations.

 

As I said what is important is the insight into the ever-present nature -- it is not about achieving a state.

Having insight is a transition to another more differentiable state.

 

Lastly it is true that though there never was a doer, watcher, agent, or inherency to be found at any moment -- the appearance of a doer or agent or watcher, though nothing inherent and merely an illusion, can still appear very real due to strong latent karmic tendencies or deep conditionings. These conditionings can only be dissolved after deep insights. To understand and experience that strength of karmic propensities is just as important. What is the condition that give rise to the sensation of a split? Dependent origination. Dependent on this, that arises. When the condition is gone, then the appearance of a split is also gone. But when the tendency is there, the split is also there. The appearance is also dependently originated and hence nothing inherent.

 

Ha! Just what I was going to write! Except that the line between appearing very real and being real are divided by a very thin line...perhaps no line at all.

[xabir2005]

Edited May 20, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited May 20, 2009 by xabir2005

[nac]

Lucky7Strikes: Very little of what appears to the senses is really real. It's like a bottomless web of deeper and shallower "realnesses" with no existential "absolutely real" end to be found.

 

What is "non-phenomenon"? And the difference between it and phenomena?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noumenon

 

For example, elementary particles in the Abhidharmas. A mathematical formula could also be called a noumenon since the formula itself doesn't appear before the senses, but it can nevertheless describe certain aspects of the real world, being an abstraction from the properties of phenomena. See the link to the debate I posted on page 2.

Edited May 20, 2009 by nac

[rex]

As I said what is important is the insight into the ever-present nature -- it is not about achieving a state.

Goodness this is a wordy debate and I can hardly fathom what anyone is saying.

 

Confusion and paradox arise when trying to describe the ineffable, especially when apparently mutually exclusive terms as emptiness and 'ever-present nature' are used to state the Buddhist position. A Buddhist 'ever-present nature' naturally invites the sort of comparison that Dwai seeks.

 

This issue of emptiness and ever-present nature has never been resolved in Tibetan Buddhism and is known as the Shentong/Rangtong debate.

 

The Shentong madhyamika's state that the clear light nature of mind is not empty of its own nature while the Rangtong madhyamikas hold that the clear light nature of mind is empty. This is reflected in intereptations of Buddha's three turnings of the wheel of dharma. The Rangtong postion holds that the second turning of the wheel of dharma - on emptiness - constitutes the definitive statement on reality while the Shengtong position holds that the second turning is provisional and that the third turning of the wheel - on buddha nature - is definitive.

 

You pay your money and you make your choice.

[xabir2005]

Goodness this is a wordy debate and I can hardly fathom what anyone is saying.

 

Confusion and paradox arise when trying to describe the ineffable, especially when apparently mutually exclusive terms as emptiness and 'ever-present nature' are used to state the Buddhist position. A Buddhist 'ever-present nature' naturally invites the sort of comparison that Dwai seeks.

 

This issue of emptiness and ever-present nature has never been resolved in Tibetan Buddhism and is known as the Shentong/Rangtong debate.

 

The Shentong madhyamika's state that the clear light nature of mind is not empty of its own nature while the Rangtong madhyamikas hold that the clear light nature of mind is empty. This is reflected in intereptations of Buddha's three turnings of the wheel of dharma. The Rangtong postion holds that the second turning of the wheel of dharma - on emptiness - constitutes the definitive statement on reality while the Shengtong position holds that the second turning is provisional and that the third turning of the wheel - on buddha nature - is definitive.

 

You pay your money and you make your choice.

Emptiness is the ever present nature just as impermanence is the ever present nature. It's not an ultimate reality, not an ontological essence, it's just a truth, a truth that applies to all phenomena. Regarding shentong and rangtong, I wrote before:

 

....................

 

We should understand that whatever views established are done as merely a 'raft' or a 'skillful means' and the view/raft/skillful means will eventually dissolve in its own accord after realisation. When it adds to more clinging to a particular view as absolute, then it has not properly done its job.

"Bhikkkhus, this view, so clean and pure, if you covet, fondle, treasure and take pride in it do you know this Teaching comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up and not for the purpose of holding? No, venerable sir. Bhikkhus, this view of yours so clean and pure, do not covet, fondle, treasure and take pride in it. Do you know this Teaching comparable to a raft, taught for the purpose of giving up and not for the purpose of holding? Yes, venerable sir."

 

 

- Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta

Shentong grasped wrongly can lead to the mis-apprehension of eternalism, Rangtong grasped wrongly can lead to the mis-apprehension of nihilism. As a matter of fact Nagarjuna has refuted both views.

 

(Namdrol)

 

Nagarjuna's refutation of rang stong [instrinsic emptiness]:

 

If there something subtle not empty,

there would be something subtle to be empty;

as there is nothing not empty,

where is there something to be empty?

 

And his refutation of gzhan stong [extrinsic emptiness]:

 

Since arising, abiding and perishing are not established,

the conditioned is not established;

since the conditioned is never established,

how can the unconditioned be established?

 

Both gzhan stong and rang stong are very coarse views, without any subtlety. rang stong is nihilism; gzhan ston is eternalism.

 

But at the same time they serves as 'antidotes' or 'rafts' and 'skillful means' that can help overcome certain subtle attachments. Shentongpa is particularly helpful in overcoming the false view of nihilism, Rangtong is helpful in overcoming the false view of eternalism.

(Lama Gyatso)

 

 

I've been taught that Rangtong is the best view to destroy eternalism, Shentong the best view to destroy nihilism. Since most sentient beings fall into the eternalist group Rangtong is the best view to refute views outside Buddhism, those that lack an understanding of Emptiness. Shentong is the best view to refute those who are Buddhists but have misunderstood Emptiness and slipped into a subtle nihilistic view. I think one should follow ones inclination viewing them as peers until one or the other is clearly needed. biggrin.gif<!--endemo-->

Edited May 20, 2009 by xabir2005

[nac]

This issue of emptiness and ever-present nature has never been resolved in Tibetan Buddhism and is known as the Shentong/Rangtong debate.

That's why Buddhism is still called a religion. In almost 2500 years of history, the Buddhist method has never managed to settle anything for good. One does the best one can.

 

PS. Then again, settling things was never the point, was it? Buddhist logic is crippled without meditative realization.

Edited May 20, 2009 by nac

[dwai]

Right view, no view, it is to lead one to the experience or 'transition.' I totally agree.

The phenomena of non-phenomenon is not to be phenominized (hehe....making up words here ) As I noted before, I believe that it is a mistake when the Tao or Brahman is conceptualized in terms like "non-phenomenon" with the attitude of "this is how it is..."

 

At the end of the day, you still need words to describe experience. If experience does not fall in the realm of the phenomenal, you will have to use words that can best describe it.

 

That is why Shankara said "Brahman is Silence". And Lao Tzu said "The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao".

 

I think our proclivity is to start intellectualizing and analyzing things. But then again, that IS the essence of Jnana Yoga.

 

Inquiry <--> Experience <--> Analysis <--> Inquiry

 

The paradox of duality. You cannot learn without thinking, if you think too much, you don't learn.

You have to try to be relaxed, without trying too hard.

You have to become empty and let the emptiness fill you up.

Edited May 20, 2009 by dwai

[Pero]

non-phenomenon is something that is not a phenomenon. A phenomenon (as you will find out by applying the principle of Dependent Origination) is something that has a beginning and an end. Also, a Phenomenon is something that does not have own-nature and own-existent (ie one phenomenon is dependent on others), or in another sense, phenomena are empty (like Xabir pointed out). All phenomena fall in the category of Lower Truths.

That which is not a phenomenon, that which has own-nature and own-existence, that does not have any beginning or end is the non-phenomenon. That is Tao, that is Brahman, according to Advaita Vedanta.

 

That is why you have Shankara talk about reality being illusory. Because Phenomena are empty and therefore have no "substance". And that's why he refers to Brahman as the Only Reality/Truth/Existent.

 

Thanks. While it sounds similar, I don't think this is the same as the Buddhist view on things.

[dwai]

Thanks. While it sounds similar, I don't think this is the same as the Buddhist view on things.

 

Yes...the Buddhist view stops at everything is Empty. Vedanta says everything that is phenomenal is empty. Brahman is non-phenomenal. The two are simply different milestones of the same view.

[rex]

Regarding shentong and rangtong, I wrote before ...

Excellent stuff and the middle way between hardline Rangtongpas and Shentongpas. You're in good company as this was/is the approach of some eminent Buddhist teachers too. I wasn't having a go at you or even the Buddhist position but highlighting the difficulty of using language to express something that can never be directly expressed in words. Parodox arises and it could seem that one view of permanence is being refuted, only to be replaced by another permanence that the refuter doesn't see as a permanence but others do, so the debate goes on in iterative circles.

 

That's why Buddhism is still called a religion. In almost 2500 years of history, the Buddhist method has never managed to settle anything for good. One does the best one can.

Indeed, though I do have faith in my Buddhist masters' methods.

 

PS. Then again, settling things was never the point, was it? Buddhist logic is crippled without meditative realization.

Exactly! Some Buddhist logic can seem abtruse and impenetrable without philosophical training and meditative realisation - hence the emphasis on view. Aspects like impermanence and the folly of trying to find lasting happiness through the ephermeral seem to be universally recognised and not particularly unique to Buddhism.

[Pero]

Yes...the Buddhist view stops at everything is Empty. Vedanta says everything that is phenomenal is empty. Brahman is non-phenomenal. The two are simply different milestones of the same view.

 

I don't think so. Buddhism says everything is empty, Vedanta says everything is emtpy but there is Brahman. That's not the same.

[dwai]

I don't think so. Buddhism says everything is empty, Vedanta says everything is emtpy but there is Brahman. That's not the same.

 

Like I said, Vedanta takes what Buddhism stops at a level further.

Buddhism's claim that everything is empty is valid only in the phenomenal world. Effectively it is a vyavaharika satya (or lower truth).

 

Take a page off Nagarjuna, apply Dependent Origination, the two-truths and see where that takes you

Edited May 20, 2009 by dwai

[Pero]

Like I said, Vedanta takes what Buddhism stops at a level further.

 

According to Vedanta maybe, but according to Buddhism it's wrong view. So you see, they are not the same.

 

Buddhism's claim that everything is empty is valid only in the phenomenal world. Effectively it is a vyavaharika satya (or lower truth).

 

According to Vedanta maybe, according to Buddhism everything is empty, phenomenal or not.

 

Take a page off Nagarjuna, apply Dependent Origination, the two-truths and see where that takes you

 

I don't understand what you mean here.

[dwai]

According to Vedanta maybe, but according to Buddhism it's wrong view. So you see, they are not the same.

According to Vedanta maybe, according to Buddhism everything is empty, phenomenal or not.

I don't understand what you mean here.

What does the principle of Dependent Origination (a bedrock of Buddhism say/show)?

What does the Concept of Two-truths show?

[nac]

Like I said, Vedanta takes what Buddhism stops at a level further.

Buddhism's claim that everything is empty is valid only in the phenomenal world. Effectively it is a vyavaharika satya (or lower truth).

 

Take a page off Nagarjuna, apply Dependent Origination, the two-truths and see where that takes you

They stop at different positions. There's no "before" or "after" involved. The Buddhist in me says that dragging Brahman into the picture is an empty assertion without necessity or evidence, merely a polluting influence of the Vedic tradition. Such considerations don't arise out of logical necessity from the bare evaluation of sensory input without external contamination by pre-Advaitin traditions and axioms. That is, you can choose to see things this way out of piety ("attachment") and it would still make a logically consistent story, but you can happily see things differently without contradicting the available evidence. In Buddhist philosophy, this can be termed "delusion". Like the atheists are fond of saying, if you assert a positive, it's your job to provide the evidence that proves it, because it's scientifically impossible to prove a negative. I'm sorry if that sounds a little harsh. I could be wrong about all this.

 

PS. Thank you, dwai. You have shown me the importance of both meditation and reason in spirituality. _/\_

Edited May 20, 2009 by nac

[solxyz]

A friend once was talking to me about Chogyam Trungpa, and told me this story: Trungpa was giving a lecture, he stopped himself in the middle and said, in his proper English accent, "Oh, sometimes I dont know why I even bother. You're all a bunch of assholes."

 

This thread is making me think about that.

[Lucky7Strikes]

At the end of the day, you still need words to describe experience. If experience does not fall in the realm of the phenomenal, you will have to use words that can best describe it.

 

That is why Shankara said "Brahman is Silence". And Lao Tzu said "The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao".

 

I think our proclivity is to start intellectualizing and analyzing things. But then again, that IS the essence of Jnana Yoga.

 

Inquiry <--> Experience <--> Analysis <--> Inquiry

 

The paradox of duality. You cannot learn without thinking, if you think too much, you don't learn.

You have to try to be relaxed, without trying too hard.

You have to become empty and let the emptiness fill you up.

 

You need words to describe experience. Language is expression and geared towards communication. But with what purpose are you describing such experiences as 'oneness' or 'dependent origination?' I get the sense that many who experience this state conclude "yes this is it!" and go over to someone and say "reality is so and so and yours is an illusion!" It can easily lead one to a path of imitation wherein the conceptualized truth hides the ego. The ego is rather reinforced under the disguise of egolessness/righteousness.

 

I think this is why teachings of sages like Ramana Maharshi were always formulated regarding the questioner.

 

The method of inquiry, as much as it is rooted in the analysis itself, is also valued for the attitude it leaves the seeker. It makes him into a one big question mark and so that leads to the deconstruction of preconceived views.

 

It's not that I disagree with you, but just reading over this thread leaves me thinking how terms like "Brahman" or "Emptiness" can be cheaply and imitatively used in mere philosophical word play.

[Lucky7Strikes]

We should understand that whatever views established are done as merely a 'raft' or a 'skillful means' and the view/raft/skillful means will eventually dissolve in its own accord after realisation. When it adds to more clinging to a particular view as absolute, then it has not properly done its job.

 

Shentong grasped wrongly can lead to the mis-apprehension of eternalism, Rangtong grasped wrongly can lead to the mis-apprehension of nihilism. As a matter of fact Nagarjuna has refuted both views.

But at the same time they serves as 'antidotes' or 'rafts' and 'skillful means' that can help overcome certain subtle attachments. Shentongpa is particularly helpful in overcoming the false view of nihilism, Rangtong is helpful in overcoming the false view of eternalism.

 

Exactly. So why did you write so much about it throughout the thread. For the sake of conversation you need "place holders" in the sentence. And so it is when you write about emptiness/Brahman. It simply leads one astray by telling them it is this or that. What is important is that the conversation leads the seeker in the right direction.

 

Whew! My brain's about to burst from reading through all this ! I think all that needs to be said has been said in this thread. Perhaps my outlook on the intentions behind the usage of terms like emptiness or Brahman do not really belong here where people are trying to ascertain that Advaita is this and Buddhism is that.

Edited May 20, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[rex]

After reading this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta - I can see where Dwai is coming from (assuming of course that there's no sophistry or ulterior motive involved). From my blunt knowledge of Buddhism and even scanter (read non-existent) knowledge of Advaita Vedanta there appear to be many parallels where differences lie in terminology rather than meaning. Thanks Dwai, I'm now spurred on to seek a more sophisticated understanding of Buddhism that will only be enriched by checking out Advaita Vedanta

[goldisheavy]

No. For them, transcendent means transcending waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. It does not mean it is empty: rather, it is the only real 'thing' existing, and is eternal -- unmoved and unaffected by the unreal coming and goings of states and experiences. It is formless and shapeless, it is void of attributes, it is luminous and conscious, but it is not empty of inherent existence. Rather it is inherent, independent and eternal, a background witness.

 

Hence, a transcendental self is not the same as the Buddhist emptiness at all.

 

What does it mean "to exist"? And who is this "them"? For them? Who is this them? Is it me? Cause certainly what you said is not true for me.

 

I really don't like it when people don't allow their conversation partners to speak for themselves. I've seen some debates like this play out before. What I've seen is that the Advaita guy is not allowed to speak one's mind. They try to say that they don't agree with how the Buddhist is describing their view, but the Buddhist will not listen, but instead the Buddhist will say, "Bah, I know how you think. This is how you think. I know Vedanta better than you, so I know what Vedanta says." It just does not occur to these bafoons that perhaps Buddha has misunderstood Vedanta! Oh no! THE HOLY PROPHET OF BUDDHISM MIGHT HAVE MADE A MISTAKE, or might have made an observation that IS LESS THAN ABSOLUTELY TRUE, no, no no no no .... we cannot allow that thought to happen!

 

Buddha was a moron and he wasn't even slightly enlightened. He was a hypocrite of the highest order. He did everything he criticized others doing.

 

Buddhists have the highest levels of intellectual arrogance out of any sort of people. They'll bow and bow and prostrate 100000 times and say sweet things, and give donations and so on. But in their minds Buddhist have the absolute conviction they have it all nailed down. They got it all figured out. They know every religion and they understand every linguistic construct and they are the undisputed champion of all contemplatives.

 

I don't think so. Buddhism says everything is empty, Vedanta says everything is emtpy but there is Brahman. That's not the same.

 

How do you know it's not the same? What does it mean for things to be empty? Does it imply non-existence?

 

When someone says that Brahman exists, what is implied? Brahman can be the same as emptiness. This is language we're talking about. It's flexible and fluid. In fact, language is a living organism. Even if at one point Brahman wasn't used to mean the empty nature of phenomena, how can we be certain it's not used that way NOW? Furthermore, how can we be sure that the meaning of "to be empty" hasn't changed in the past 2000 years? Isn't everything inconstant? How can language retain precisely the same meaning?

 

ANY CONTEMPLATOR worth his salt can see this right away. ONLY MORONS assert they know what it is, how it is, what it means, what it doesn't mean, they know it all. Contemplators don't know for sure what they know and what they don't know, because they actually EXAMINED the meaning of their knowledge in person, in real life, not just came to a Dharma talk, but actually thought for themselves, critically, not just jumped on some bandwagon.

Edited May 21, 2009 by goldisheavy

[nac]

 

Advaita Vedanta was mostly derived from Nagarjuna's Buddhist treatises by Adi Shankaracarya. Nagarjuna lived many centuries after the Buddha. How could the Buddha possibly have misunderstood Vedanta?

[goldisheavy]

 

Advaita Vedanta was mostly derived from Nagarjuna's Buddhist treatises by Adi Shankaracarya. Nagarjuna lived many centuries after the Buddha. How could the Buddha possibly have misunderstood Vedanta?

 

Well the only possibility for Buddha's misunderstanding would be is if he were born a fallible human being like every other human being. Another possibility is that fallibility is a fundamental and ineliminable aspect of cognition.

 

So, you're right, it's impossible! What was I thinking?

[nac]

So, you're right, it's impossible! What was I thinking?

Vedanta didn't exist during the Buddha's time. Is it possible to blame us for misunderstanding trans-dimensional harmonics, a branch of science which will be discovered 1300 years from now?

 

What does it mean for things to be empty? Does it imply non-existence?

Neither existence nor non-existence as commonly defined, actually. Buddhists of all schools are very clear about this.

 

The trouble with Tibetan Buddhists these days is that they tend to take things too seriously. I personally admire the Taoist virtue of playfulness.

 

PS. In fact, nothing resembling modern Hinduism existed at the Buddha's time. The traditional religion of India back then is sometimes called Brahmanism. It involved worshipping the creator god Brahma with a host of minor deities.

Edited May 21, 2009 by nac