Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[SiliconValley]

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[Pero]

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

What does the Concept of Two-truths show?

 

Not Brahman?

 

I think DO-relative truth, Emptiness-absolute truth.

 

my reasons for doing this (debate) has two motivations --

 

1) Challenge my understanding vis-a-vis the two systems, and confirm my intellectual understanding that Buddhists too are talking about the same thing as the Vedantins and Taoists.

 

Well honestly, if you really want to try that out it might be better to go and debate on E-Sangha, since there are much more knowledgeable people there. I don't know if they'd allow a debate though, since they closed down the comparative religions forum.

 

Also how can you say they are talking about the same thing and then in the same breath say "oh Buddhism is just a step below Vedanta"?

 

2) Challenge those commentators (here) who were misleading seekers of Non-duality about the "superiority" of Buddhist philosophy over Vedanta. Like it was proven (and will become clear to serious seekers with unconditioned minds), Buddhist emptiness is a subset/a milestone in the path to Brahman/Tao.

 

It was proven? Where? This whole paragraph could be reversed and said from the Buddhist side too you know. Every tradition says it is superior to another.

[SiliconValley]

 

if you really want to try that out it might be better to go and debate on E-Sangha, since there are much more knowledgeable people there.

 

The Advaita list is still open to discussion and the best of East and West in advaita in the current day are on that forum. Those interested in discussing the "superiority" of Buddhism - I am just using this side as the example as this claim appeared on this thread before a counter-claim from the opposite side - could move the discussion there. There are many practicing Buddhists visiting that forum, unlike the representation of Advaita in E-Sangha where I posted frequently till about a year ago.

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[Pero]

The Advaita list is still open to discussion and the best of East and West in advaita in the current day are on that forum. Those interested in discussing the "superiority" of Buddhism - I am just using this side as the example as this claim appeared on this thread before a counter-claim from the opposite side - could move the discussion there. There are many practicing Buddhists visiting that forum, unlike the representation of Advaita in E-Sangha where I posted frequently till about a year ago.

 

Dwai said he wants to test himself.

[Sunya]

[SiliconValley]

Grace will bring you there, all you have to do is give up, surrender, and get on the ride. Take the elevator all the way up. All you need is Shaktipat or whatever, and that's it..

 

Shaktipat's goal, unlike the guy quoted from E-Sangha mentioned, is not simply to awaken Kundalini but rather to dissolve malas or impurities that cause the apparent illusion of duality. At a lower energetic level, its initial stages can be simply awakening Kundalini thus initiating the journey. Kundalini is described as aham-svarupini or of the form of I-AM. The peak of Kundalini phenomenon is really the experience of Brahman, and other goals of her awakening have been called Kshudra or petty by the Yogins like Abhinavagupta. There are examples.

 

Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati had a full state of Advatic experience and realization through one shaktipat from his master. He was the high priests of one of the four chief monastic institutions of Shankara and revered widely as an enlightened soul like Sri Ramana. My family learnt under him and witnessed how, to the qualified ones, this "grace" was bestowed upon unconditionally by the Master, propelling them deep into complete absorption and state of Aham. But he did advice practice for most, and that issue forms a separate post for the thread on neo-advaita vs traditional advaita.

 

No. because as profound as Kashmir Shivaism is, it's still based on a wrong view, eternalist emanationism. I have already stated many times why View is so important to Buddhists. it has nothing to do with tainted glass. View determines realization. This is just the way it is for Buddhists, not out of faith, but because it makes sense. if you disagree then you know what you need to argue against.

 

View....that is exactly what I am saying...what you repeatedly quote without a pause is Buddhist view. Does not make sense for an Advaitin and that does not mean others are treading the path on non-sense? Get it?

 

yes, it is lacking in fantasy. anyone who thinks Buddhist enlightenment is dry and lacking in bliss has not met many Buddhist masters. The Dalai Lama for example is always bouncing around, smiling, laughing, and having a great old time.

 

So you assume he is Enlightened? Reason for that? Bliss is not smiling, laughing or having a great time right? A street trash guy I see on the way to work every day does that...of course, it is good to be happy...better to be enlightened.

 

Of course nobody in India outside of Tibetan Buddhism would know Dzogchen since it is a tibetan term. the Sanskrit is Ati Yoga, Ati meaning primordial or original (i think).

 

Homework brother! That will reduce a lot of "I thinks", "I feels" "Dunno why but just makes sense". Ati means 'extreme'.

 

ou keep saying that Buddha was influenced by this teacher and that, saying Samkhya especially, when that school was explicitly dualistic and has nothing in common with what Buddha taught. just because Buddha learned breath control does not mean he borrowed ideas from his teachers.

 

People who want to see a mole will find one, no matter where

 

Please go back and read what I wrote. I even listed some of the many specific instances of what concepts he picked from where. If Buddha were such a moron that he just did a copy+paste, I would not spend time discussing him here. Let's give him some credit

[Sunya]

 

Well honestly, if you really want to try that out it might be better to go and debate on E-Sangha, since there are much more knowledgeable people there. I don't know if they'd allow a debate though, since they closed down the comparative religions forum.

 

 

yeah.. i'm still pretty ticked they decided to close that down! but there are some existing threads still from the past about this

 

> Shankara Defeats Buddhism?, did he really drive then out of india?

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=87105

 

> Advaita Vedanta And Buddhism

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=86717

 

> Buddhist Advaita, Oneness of emptiness

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=21186

 

> Question About "the Supreme Source", The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

http://www.lioncity.net/buddhism/index.php?showtopic=2247

 

 

 

 

Homework brother! That will reduce a lot of "I thinks", "I feels" "Dunno why but just makes sense". Ati means 'extreme'.

 

 

Chill.

 

"This pansentient totality is the great continuum, the "great perfection" or "total completion" (Tibetan: rdzog pa chen po) of Dzogchen and Ati Yoga (Tibetan: shin tu rnal 'byor where "shin tu" holds the semantic field "total", "complete", "absolute" and "rnal 'byor" holds the semantic field of "yoga"; Sanskrit: "Ati" holds the semantic field "primordial", "original", "first"; "yoga" holds the semantic field "communion", "union")."

 

 

 

 

So you assume he is Enlightened? Reason for that? Bliss is not smiling, laughing or having a great time right? A street trash guy I see on the way to work every day does that...of course, it is good to be happy...better to be enlightened.

 

 

 

Bliss is a side-effect, not the goal, and not the means to test. Being happy certainly doesn't make him enlightened. rather it is realization of emptiness and I have no doubt that the Dalai Lama has this realization since he is a Dzogchen master and is qualified to give transmission, introduction to the true nature of mind. Only one who has realization of emptiness can do this.

 

 

 

 

Please go back and read what I wrote. I even listed some of the many specific instances of what concepts he picked from where. If Buddha were such a moron that he just did a copy+paste, I would not spend time discussing him here. Let's give him some credit

 

you quoted a bunch of Sanskrit terms, a language i'm unfamiliar with. can you talk about these specific instances and concepts in your own words to describe them?

[SiliconValley]

yeah.. i'm still pretty ticked they decided to close that down! but there are some existing threads still from the p

"This pansentient totality is the great continuum, the "great perfection" or "total completion" (Tibetan: rdzog pa chen po) of Dzogchen and Ati Yoga (Tibetan: shin tu rnal 'byor where "shin tu" holds the semantic field "total", "complete", "absolute" and "rnal 'byor" holds the semantic field of "yoga"; Sanskrit: "Ati" holds the semantic field "primordial", "original", "first"; "yoga" holds the semantic field "communion", "union")."

Bliss is a side-effect, not the goal, and not the means to test. Being happy certainly doesn't make him enlightened. rather it is realization of emptiness and I have no doubt that the Dalai Lama has this realization since he is a Dzogchen master and is qualified to give transmission, introduction to the true nature of mind. Only one who has realization of emptiness can do this.

 

The Buddhists have never been good at Sanskrit have they?

 

Ati, to the best convenience of your definition can be exceeding or excess or extreme, and that can be translated as Transcending. First, original - well please check the root of the word ati and not wikipedia

 

 

And a lot of us have similar beliefs, like Buddha sat under a tree for shade and that Pope represents the God as he is the chosen one to do many things. As I said, beliefs are their own and I don't contest them. But self-contradiction and the circularity of your arguments are something you would need to deal with yourself

 

you quoted a bunch of Sanskrit terms, a language i'm unfamiliar with. can you talk about these specific instances and concepts in your own words to describe them?

Hey you guys threw pages of terms - most of which are English but really meaning nothing outside the Buddhist framework. I am following the lead here. You seem to google well, and these can be easily googled as well

[Sunya]

View....that is exactly what I am saying...what you repeatedly quote without a pause is Buddhist view. Does not make sense for an Advaitin and that does not mean others are treading the path on non-sense? Get it?

 

 

 

Buddhist view is a view without concepts, a method to disentangle one from limiting beliefs. if an Advaitan cannot question his beliefs then he isn't a true seeker of truth.

 

 

 

The Buddhists have never been good at Sanskrit have they?

 

Ati, to the best convenience of your definition can be exceeding or excess or extreme, and that can be translated as Transcending. First, original - well please check the root of the word ati and not wikipedia

 

every Tibetan source translates it as this in this context. and the Tibetans were pretty meticulous at translating Sanskrit into tibetan, i don't really care, you're just arguing for the sake of argument now and i'm about done with this thread.

 

Hey you guys threw pages of terms - most of which are English but really meaning nothing outside the Buddhist framework. I am following the lead here. You seem to google well, and these can be easily googled as well

 

everything that 'we' have said has been carefully explained to avoid confusion, if you care to prove a point its your job then to explain it clearly. this is tiresome. take care

Edited May 21, 2009 by mikaelz

[SiliconValley]

Buddhist view is a view without concepts, a method to disentangle one from limiting beliefs. if an Advaitan cannot question his beliefs then he isn't a true seeker of truth.

 

That you stick to the "concept" of "no concept" is funny and that is one of the beliefs you assume and use as the sole reason to criticize other paths. Funny What are these "views" and how are these "views" not concepts really? But don't Buddhists believe in a lot of things because a sutta that they think came from Buddha said so? Please note that every one believes something because they think it is the right thing to do. Leave it to an individual to decide and stop screaming from rooftops that you are "different" and "better".

 

Actually, very less of what I have said can be translated as "belief". So the part of inquiry and questioning needs to be directed inwards by those who stick to "I feel", "I think" and the concept of "No concept".

 

every Tibetan source translates it as this in this context. and the Tibetans were pretty meticulous at translating Sanskrit into tibetan, i don't really care, you're just arguing for the sake of argument

 

Another "belief" which is not entirely true, at least not in the relevant case. As for the futility of this argument and the childishness of "MY daddy is bigger and better" because "he says so" and "it makes sense to me" - I agree 100% with you, as I have repeatedly stated before.

 

everything that 'we' have said has been carefully explained to avoid confusion, if you care to prove a point its your job then to explain it clearly.

 

Ok, I get it. Creative exhaustion... We can wait for Xabir It is actually a real pleasure talking to him.

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[rex]

SiliconValley, Ok some young Buddhist upstarts had the temerity to over zealously but sincerely apply Buddhist concepts to refute a claim that two traditions were the same. It was hardly unsolicited and alot of referenced information was offered to support their case. Can you offer any referenced sources to counter their refutation that doesn't descend into subtle sniping and ridicule?

Edited May 21, 2009 by rex

[Creation]

About the controversy over the Sanskrit word ati:

 

I believe the word mikaelz was thinking of is adi, which is Sanskrit for original or primordial.

 

He was close, so give him a break .

[SiliconValley]

SiliconValley, Ok some young Buddhist upstarts had the temerity to over zealously but sincerely apply Buddhist concepts to refute a claim that two traditions were the same. It was hardly unsolicited and alot of referenced information was offered to support their case. Can you offer any referenced sources to counter their refutation that doesn't descend into subtle sniping and ridicule?

 

You need to probably read through the past few pages and catch up

 

The issue I am talking about is not about the discussion whether the two "are" same. I stated repeatedly that I don't subscribe to that belief that they are same. What I contested was the passing off of Buddhist Enlightenment as the "superior" one based solely on Buddhist concepts, definitions and analysis of partisan Buddhists which do not serve any useful purpose in establishing a concept such as of superiority.

 

About the controversy over the Sanskrit word ati:

 

I believe the word mikaelz was thinking of is adi, which is Sanskrit for original or primordial.

 

He was close, so give him a break .

 

I was about to wait, probably for Xabir to point that out. Thank you! I am not trying to be an ass but just trying to illustrate the "view" of karma - what you sow so you reap. Those who disagree with others based on reason and some level of courtesy, can expect the same back. I was typing up the historical origin of Ati Yoga as he put it, how it was influenced by extremist teachings of some sects and all that, but I will save that for later. Vajrayana is something I have studied seriously for seven years and still continue to. So attacking Buddhism is certainly not the intention here. Namaste

 

generally it seems that people who want all religions to be the same, haven't fully studied all religions, especially Buddhism. This is a big New Age habit, as people tend to sleep better at night knowing that 'it's all the same'.

 

This is a bad habit of Hindus too where the tradition is to view all as paths up the mountain; unfortunately most Hindus never fully digest Buddhism because they look at it through a Hindu view (Ken Wilber for example). those that do digest Buddhism tend to stick to it, realizing the inherent differences between religions. I have a feeling this whole New Age 'let's bunch all religions into one' came from Hindu influence, since they love to attribute everything to Hinduism. such as Buddha being an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna and merely reforming the Vedas. and of course, Jesus going to India to learn Yoga.

 

Does it really make sense that all religions lead to the same goal? Are all people of the same caliber and understanding? Doesn't it make more sense that there are varying degrees of experience, not just one, and that not all religions reach the highest summit?

 

This isn't directed towards Advaita, but just in general to all practitioners:

 

Let's stop fantasizing for a second and get real. There is a presupposition that is tarnishing the view of most Hindus and New Agers and that is: we are all "evolving" on a path to realize Oneness, we will get there eventually: so view isn't important. Grace will bring you there, all you have to do is give up, surrender, and get on the ride. Take the elevator all the way up. All you need is Shaktipat or whatever, and that's it. I used to think this as well, but I don't think it's that easy. I don't think this is true at all. There is no God that will 'bring you up'. We need to get real here, we need to get serious. What if there is no Higher Self or God? what if this belief is a mind creation, furthering your dualistic tendencies and furthering suffering? I think it's time to take our enlightenment more seriously, and to stop fantasizing.

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[dwai]

SiliconValley, Ok some young Buddhist upstarts had the temerity to over zealously but sincerely apply Buddhist concepts to refute a claim that two traditions were the same. It was hardly unsolicited and alot of referenced information was offered to support their case. Can you offer any referenced sources to counter their refutation that doesn't descend into subtle sniping and ridicule?

 

You should read the previous Non-duality thread first dear Rex.

Also if you notice, the thread was posted as "Are Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism really that different"?

That doesn't mean that there are no differences. The intention was to show that Buddhism is not exclusive in it's findings and concepts and claims that "Buddhist" Non-duality is superior to "Hindu Advaita" is a bunch of baloney by overzealous upstarts.

 

For Pero:

 

Remember, I didn't go down the path of Dependent Origination, etc initially. If by Applying Dependent Origination and Two-truths it can inferred that Buddhist emptiness is a lower truth, is that my fault?

 

I am at work right now and cannot spend adequate time to respond. I will do so in detail and address Mikaelz in greater detail later this evening.

Edited May 21, 2009 by dwai

[SiliconValley]

claims that "Buddhist" Non-duality is superior to "Hindu Advaita" is a bunch of baloney by overzealous upstarts.

 

I think with practice comes maturity and they will eventually get over the urge to impose the superiority of their view over the other's, to dwell on an overall integration rather than differentiation. But assuming there is enough practice along any of the chosen paths

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[Pero]

Remember, I didn't go down the path of Dependent Origination, etc initially. If by Applying Dependent Origination and Two-truths it can inferred that Buddhist emptiness is a lower truth, is that my fault?

 

How can this be inferred?

 

I am at work right now and cannot spend adequate time to respond. I will do so in detail and address Mikaelz in greater detail later this evening.

 

Cool. Though my attention span (and knowledge haha) is too short for this discussion (and the long posts...). But it could be that spending 11+ hours at work yesterday had something to do with that.

[xabir2005]

Edited May 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[goldisheavy]

Would like to clarify further: in Buddhism, Emptiness is not saying phenomena are unreal or an illusion but 'like an illusion'. Because if phenomena is an illusion or unreal which would mean that there is then a reality opposed to the unreality, then indeed that phenomena is illusion is a 'lower truth' while the absolute reality is a 'higher truth'.

 

Everything depends on what you read. Buddhism is a wide body of teachings. As such, it is non-uniform. There are some Buddhist teachings, even in the Pali canon, that can be said to present a "higher" kind of truth. It's not absolutely higher perhaps, but you wouldn't know it. It's implied that it is.

 

For example, cessation is higher than samsaric living. Sure, later you can find teachings that show that nirvana is the same as samsara. But then go further again and again you can find teachings to contradict that as well, teachings with a very strong flavor of renunciation.

 

Buddhism is wwwwwiiiiiiiiiiiiiidddddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee....... It contradicts itself all the time. There are Buddhist tantras that criticize every single Buddhist vehicle. Etc.

 

So, I can only think of two reasons why you'd say what you do.

 

1. You don't think for yourself. You go for the bandwagons.

 

2. You have a very narrow learning in the field of Buddhism.

 

And one more word of advice. I know Namdrol a bit. He's a very smart guy, but he's very very very biased. He's not a free thinker. He pretty much nailed the Buddhist doctrine, but he is enslaved by it. In other words, it's not that Namdrol mastered Buddhist teachings, but the Buddhist teachings have mastered him. I bet he would take it as a complement, but it's not meant to be one. It's more of a warning. Namdrol is a good resource, but don't take what he says as the golden truth. Think for yourself. I agree with Namdrol 99.9% of the time, but I wouldn't suggest to anyone that people try to literally copy his thoughts or my own. We all need to think for ourselves. If you blindly copy the best thoughts and views known to men, the result is garbage. A foolish view that you've understood on your own and came to via your own devices is more precious and more authentic than blindly copied wisdom of others, even if it's a "higher" wisdom.

Edited May 21, 2009 by goldisheavy

[rex]

[goldisheavy]

[rex]

A very pointed post Gold and one in which my wife would heartly agree. If the discussion is motivated by axe grinding from the outset then I'm inclined to agree with you as well. If all parties are genuinely interested and there's a spirit of mutual respect and sharing then the spirit of your post would be hardened and cynical instead of realistic. However Xabir and Mikaelz think that people are worth it and quote. Quotes and citations don't have to be lengthy, they can be one line summaries - Mr X says bla bla in reference Y- and interested folks can check them fully later. Come to think of it there doesn't have to be a reference really, just a name and a pithy summary. Quotes and citations can even be cut and paste jobs or weblinks so it's not that onerous really to backup opinion and conjecture with supporting information. I see no value in uniformed debate. Good infomation, dodgey information - it's all grist to the mill.

[mat black]

Wow, amazing discussion, or is it a debate? I can't tell the difference. Both 'sides' are interesting.

 

Not sure if any of this is going to make any sense haha.....but anyway

 

To me there is much difference between scholarly analysis and faith/devotion based practice. Of course to the scholar, the one with faith may look sort of silly. But what about when one's conviction can't even be explained in words? Yet they KNOW that the source of their devotion is real.

Yet to even try to explain that to some, they must be very careful because it may be too unbelievable which may arouse doubt and even slander in the mind of the listener which would be potentialy counter productive.

~~~~~

There was a well known master from China who had no formal training in sanskrit, but was able to explain any term in much detail. Why? He was a sage, not a scholar. With all respect scholars, there is a difference.

In regard to doubts that people may have about what Buddha said, the same Master would say, "you cannot understand the state of the sage using the common mind" - No wonder many masters are very careful with what they reveal and when.

Therefore, untill we are actually a sage ourself, better to reserve criticism of that which we don't fully understand. To be respectful is a way of avoiding future regret especially if things become revealed to ones self.

 

For those that do actually know something, they must be tactful and very cautious, know ones audience or risk comming across as arrogant, unbelievable, far out etc etc.

It's often better to speak the language of the listener, accord with their capacity to understand, and be very slow. It takes skill I think.

 

There are so many Dharma doors, which one is right? The one that accords with an individuals' conditions and potential, and is best able to lead them to a realization of ultimate truth.

 

Oh, I really like the word Dharani, I think it means 'uniting' and 'holding', that is uniting all dharmas and holding all meanings. In that case, where is 'this' vs 'that'?

 

Did any of that make any sense? I don't think so either

Edited May 22, 2009 by mat black

[Deepbluesea]

Wow, amazing discussion, or is it a debate? I can't tell the difference. Both 'sides' are interesting.

 

Not sure if any of this is going to make any sense haha.....but anyway

 

To me there is much difference between scholarly analysis and faith/devotion based practice. Of course to the scholar, the one with faith may look sort of silly. But what about when one's conviction can't even be explained in words? Yet they KNOW that the source of their devotion is real.

Yet to even try to explain that to some, they must be very careful because it may be too unbelievable which may arouse doubt and even slander in the mind of the listener which would be potentialy counter productive.

~~~~~

I know about a master from China who had no formal training in sanskrit, but was able to explain any term in much detail. In regard to this and doubts that people may have about an enlightened master, he would say, "you cannot understand the state of the sage using the common mind" - No wonder many masters are very careful with what they reveal and when.

 

Untill we are actually a sage ourself, better to reserve criticism of that which we don't fully understand. To be respectful is a way of avoiding future regret especially if things become revealed to ones self.

 

For those that do actually know something, they must be tactful and very cautious, know ones audience or risk comming across as arrogant, unbelievable, far out etc etc.

It's often better to speak the language of the listener, accord with their capacity to understand, and be very slow. It takes skill I think.

 

There are so many Dharma doors, which one is right? The one that accords with an individuals' conditions and potential, and is best able to lead them to a realization of ultimate truth.

 

Oh, I really like the word Dharani, I think it means 'uniting' and 'holding', that is uniting all dharmas and holding all meanings. In that case, where is 'this' vs 'that'?

 

Did any of that make any sense? I don't think so either

 

 

Thank you for this. I like your thoughts, your spiritual flexibility.

 

Thank you also for your link to the Sanghatasutra. I have read it three times now and will read it again. It is indeed a treasure: http://www.thetaobums.com/the-rare-Sanghata-Sutra-t6191.html

 

Peace and love, Dave

[mat black]

Thank you for this. I like your thoughts, your spiritual flexibility.

 

Thank you also for your link to the Sanghatasutra. I have read it three times now and will read it again. It is indeed a treasure: http://www.thetaobums.com/the-rare-Sanghata-Sutra-t6191.html

 

Peace and love, Dave

 

Thank YOU Dave. When ever I read anything written with sincerity, I am very happy (inside).

 

Though it's getting off the track of the original topic of this thread, the occaisional tendency that I noticed of some to say 'my way is better than yours' seems really strange to me..

It makes me think in some ways of the capacity of Avalokiteshvara to appear in numerous different response bodies. The response bodies are dependent upon the individuals' affinity and inclinations. The purpose is to 'relate' and bring them to the truth at the pace that they are able to take.

 

So whenever I read this 'verses' that, it seems kinda strange to me. (sorry, just had to say that)

Edited May 22, 2009 by mat black

[dwai]