Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[Sunya]

You have my sympathies. I felt quite the same way when I ran into an ambush on "Hindu Advaita". There is nothing that I have said here that needs citing sources. I am willing to do that if necessary.

If you practice Buddhism and are familiar with the principle of Dependent Originiation and the concept of the Two-truths, and are willing to think about this --

 

Phenomena are empty and Buddhist Ultimate Truth is Emptiness. Is there a possibility that Buddhist Ultimate truth is also a phenomenon (empty, phenomenon and Buddhist Ultimate Truth being the key words)? If that is the case than it is a lower truth. Which is part of Advaita Vedanta. But a subset of it

 

As far as I know, emptiness is not a phenomenon, nor is it a ground. it's a realization and it is ground-less.

 

you wanted a discussion about the differences between the two traditions. i think me and xabir have provided some discussion and have quoted accordingly, in response you've only said "oh advaita has that too", yet providing no direct evidence. I don't think it's very fair to go tell us to read certain books, pointing away from the discussion, instead of directly addressing the topic and providing quotes or paraphrasing

 

I never said anything derogatory about Hindus, if you are referring to me. I've lived in India and traveled to Varanasi; I have a deep respect for Hinduism. the ad-hominum stuff was solely in Silicon's corner, who's taking things way too personally here; referring to people as children and getting all wack in a philosophical debate only makes your position look bad. so, given Silicon's temper I think he should sit this one out.

 

let's get back on topic here. a historical debate is going in the wrong direction imo, so is getting personal and missing the topic's point.

 

dwai, you said Nirguna Brahman is the same as Buddhist emptiness. can you tell us what Nirguna Brahman is and how it's the same?

 

 

 

 

 

This is interesting, talks about the difference between Madyamika emptiness and Dzogchen emptiness

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZWWEqmgaC...snum=3#PPA60,M1

 

I would quote, but you can't copy and paste from google books

 

I think that the take of Dzogchen more relates to the Advaita approach, because Dzogchen is much more subjective in its method, while Madyamika emptiness is more objective.

 

Dzogchen "sees all phenomena as empty not because they are unfindable but because they are one in essence with mindnature"

 

the nature of mind is empty, and all phenomena is empty. so mind and phenomena are one in essence.. but this does not mean that Dzogchen espouses 'oneness', it is not pantheistic or monistic, but rather phenomena and mind are of one taste. raw awareness sees everything as empty, one taste, and subject and object duality is not present.. but the mind stream still remains single. even after Buddhahood the mindstream is independent. there is no 'merging' with the All as in Advaita [correct me if I'm wrong, this is the goal isn't it?]

 

So i'd like to point the discussion in the direction of discussion of Mind [and relation to Atman] and Fruit. i'll post about this later, I have to run.

Edited May 22, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

As far as I know, emptiness is not a phenomenon, nor is it a ground. it's a realization and it is ground-less.

 

you wanted a discussion about the differences between the two traditions. i think me and xabir have provided some discussion and have quoted accordingly, in response you've only said "oh advaita has that too", yet providing no direct evidence. I don't think it's very fair to go tell us to read certain books, pointing away from the discussion, instead of directly addressing the topic and providing quotes or paraphrasing

 

I never said anything derogatory about Hindus, if you are referring to me. I've lived in India and traveled to Varanasi; I have a deep respect for Hinduism. the ad-hominum stuff was solely in Silicon's corner, who's taking things way too personally here; referring to people as children and getting all wack in a philosophical debate only makes your position look bad. so, given Silicon's temper I think he should sit this one out.

 

let's get back on topic here. a historical debate is going in the wrong direction imo, so is getting personal and missing the topic's point.

 

dwai, you said Nirguna Brahman is the same as Buddhist emptiness. can you tell us what Nirguna Brahman is and how it's the same?

This is interesting, talks about the difference between Madyamika emptiness and Dzogchen emptiness

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZWWEqmgaC...snum=3#PPA60,M1

 

I would quote, but you can't copy and paste from google books

 

I think that the take of Dzogchen more relates to the Advaita approach, because Dzogchen is much more subjective in its method, while Madyamika emptiness is more objective.

 

Dzogchen "sees all phenomena as empty not because they are unfindable but because they are one in essence with mindnature"

 

the nature of mind is empty, and all phenomena is empty. so mind and phenomena are one in essence.. but this does not mean that Dzogchen espouses 'oneness', it is not pantheistic or monistic, but rather phenomena and mind are of one taste. raw awareness sees everything as empty, one taste, and subject and object duality is not present.. but the mind stream still remains single. even after Buddhahood the mindstream is independent. there is no 'merging' with the All as in Advaita [correct me if I'm wrong, this is the goal isn't it?]

 

So i'd like to point the discussion in the direction of discussion of Mind [and relation to Atman] and Fruit. i'll post about this later, I have to run.

 

Advaita nevers claims to "Merge" with The Brahman. I was never separate from Brahman. I am Brahman. I am non-phenomenon. Everything else that is phenomenal is unreal and empty.

 

Again, slowly this time...

 

If phenomena are empty, and Buddhist Ultimate Reality is Emptiness, then Buddhist Ultimate Reality is also a phenomenon. Dzogchen's "oneness" is the identification with Brahman. Rinpoche Sogyal Trungpa's book "The Tibetan book of Living and Dying" clearly expresses this (see you wanted citations, etc).

 

The Nirguna Brahman. That which doesn't have any properties. That which is bereft of any characteristics that would make it a phenomenon. When the realization that all phenomena are empty arises, and the awareness of that which is there always shines forth (as the dust settles literally), that is identification with the Nirguna Brahman.

 

Since I was never really separate from the Brahman, where does the question of merging arise?

Edited May 22, 2009 by dwai

[evZENy]

Didn't all the wise ones say we shouldn't be talking too much !?

This threads is painful to read - so many words and mental concepts...

I am sure the crickets chirping under the stars outside won't care either...

 

A friendly reminder from Rumi:

 

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing,

There is a field,

I'll meet you there.

Edited May 22, 2009 by evZENy

[xabir2005]

Phenomena are empty and Buddhist Ultimate Truth is Emptiness. Is there a possibility that Buddhist Ultimate truth is also a phenomenon (empty, phenomenon and Buddhist Ultimate Truth being the key words)? If that is the case than it is a lower truth. Which is part of Advaita Vedanta. But a subset of it.

As my previous post stated, Buddhist emptiness is not the same as Advaita Vedanta's denying of phenomena as unreal. As such it cannot be compared, and especially not in terms of 'lower and higher' truths. You are making the same mistake of interpreting Buddhist teachings according to Hindu paradigm. Please read my previous post carefully. Edited May 22, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

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.

In terms of dependent origination, anatta, and so on, all traditions agree.

For example, cessation is higher than samsaric living.

Cessation of grasping, clinging, self identification, yes of course. I would certainly agree. Nirvana is Samsara rightly seen, which is much better than Samsara wrongly seen in that one will not be suffering due to 'wrong vision'. An escape from suffering is possible. Just that it is not an escape from the transient 'unreality' to an unchanging 'absolute reality' or a Brahman that is the substratum of all phenomena.

 

If you want to talk about the classical Pali and Theravada texts, there are only Dharmas, which are then made up of either conditioned or unconditioned dharmas. Both according to their texts are 'realities'. There is no one 'absolutely real' and one 'unreal'. There is only dharmas, there is no permanent 'noumenon', nor a Self, a Witness, etc, underlying all dharmas or anything like that. Thus Theravada and Pali texts are mainly a 'no self teaching' -- only dharmas, no separate self.

 

But when it comes to Mahayana and Vajrayana, sometimes there is the Buddha Nature a.k.a. 'true self teaching' as I call it. However it is not contradictory: all phenomena are the expression of luminous-emptiness inseparable, there is no separate Self or Watcher or Background behind these phenomena. Thus, non-dual, no separate self, etc.

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

It is not necessary to know all Buddhist vehicles to know some of the basic tenets of Buddhism. Each tradition may disagree with another, but that doesn't mean they disagree on the basic tenets. If they disagree on that (e.g. if they teach eternalism or nihilism or any of the extremes so explicitly rejected by Buddha), they shouldn't be Buddhism in the first place.

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.

Yeah of course, but I agree with him most of the time. Of course I don't agree with him sometimes -- but like you, I agree with him mostly. Thusness and I think he is a very enlightened practitioner. Edited May 22, 2009 by xabir2005

[rex]

Is there a possibility that Buddhist Ultimate truth is also a phenomenon (empty, phenomenon and Buddhist Ultimate Truth being the key words)? If that is the case than it is a lower truth. Which is part of Advaita Vedanta. But a subset of it.

There is also the possibility that the 'emptiness of other' Shentong view of buddha nature is identical to Brahman.

 

Go read the Vivekachudamani and Brahma Sutra Bhashya by Adi Shankaracharya if you want reference material.

 

If you would like, read Dr Ramakrishna Puligandla's Book "Jnana Yoga - The Way of Knowledge". This is a brilliantly lucid book by a Vedic scholar/traditionally (Indian) schooled philosopher and Professor of Physics.

Thanks for these, I'm sure they'll help me further appreciate the inherent wisdom and beauty of your tradition and the parallels with my own.

 

There is so much nonsense that some people have posted about Advaita Vedanta .... Thanks to Silicon Valley for picking up on that and responding splendidly.

Yes, clearly retribution was delightlfully swift and threefold for you. Cock-sure e-sangha debating style has no place in comparative debates and it is regrettable that our traditions were both subject to sniping arising - in part - from misunderstandings relating to debating style.

 

Edited for typos ...

Edited May 22, 2009 by rex

[evZENy]

I am still confused how two Emptinesses can be compared !?

If they are empty - there is nothing to compare :-)

Seems like you compare concepts of the Emptiness, without having experienced it.

 

That would be similar to compare in which language the word for "tree" or "rose" or "life" is the best one.

You either know what tree is, how rose smells like and what to be alive is. Or you've wasted too much time reading books.

 

And, yes, I have no idea what are you arguing about :-)

[Pero]

If phenomena are empty, and Buddhist Ultimate Reality is Emptiness, then Buddhist Ultimate Reality is also a phenomenon. Dzogchen's "oneness" is the identification with Brahman. Rinpoche Sogyal Trungpa's book "The Tibetan book of Living and Dying" clearly expresses this (see you wanted citations, etc).

 

Where is the citation?

 

The Nirguna Brahman. That which doesn't have any properties. That which is bereft of any characteristics that would make it a phenomenon.

 

I think empty=no characteristics for Buddhists. You keep making a distinction between phenomena and non-phenomena but it seems to me that doesn't fly in Buddhism.

[dwai]

Where is the citation?

I think empty=no characteristics for Buddhists. You keep making a distinction between phenomena and non-phenomena but it seems to me that doesn't fly in Buddhism.

 

This started with Mikaelz claiming that Brahman is considered ground of all phenomena (see Nondualism thread). It evidently is not.

 

Question asked by evZENy is very pertinent -- "How can you compare two emptinesses"?

Nirguna means without any properties. What is without any properties?

 

Use logic and not blind adherence to what someone wrote about someone else's idea of someone else's idea

[xabir2005]

This started with Mikaelz claiming that Brahman is considered ground of all phenomena (see Nondualism thread). It evidently is not.

While Brahman is not a phenomenon it's generally described as the basic ground or substratum in which phenomenon appear on and subside to. Analogy often used is a blank screen which 'contains' all appearances, where pictures can come and go while the screen remains unchanged. Therefore known as the 'screen of consciousness'.

 

However after certain phase, the fixation and sinking back to a void background is removed because one realises and experiences Awareness As all phenomenon. Then the distinction between noumenon and phenomenon is removed. I like what Douglas Harding says:

 

..."Victim of a prolonged fit of madness, of a lifelong hallucination (and by "hallucination" I mean what my dictionary says: apparent perception of an object not actually present), I had invariably seen myself as pretty much like other people, and certainly never as a decapitated but still living biped. I had been blind to the one thing that is always present, and without which I am blind indeed -- to this marvelous substitute-for-a-head, this unbounded clarity, this luminous and absolutely pure void, which nevertheless is -- rather than contains -- all that's on offer. For, however carefully I attend, I fail to find here even so much as a blank screen on which these mountains and sun and sky are projected, or a clear mirror in which they are reflected, or a transparent lens or aperture through which they are viewed -- still less a person to whom they are presented, or a viewer (however shadowy) who is distinguishable from the view. Nothing whatever intervenes, not even that baffling and elusive obstacle called "distance": the visibly boundless blue sky, the pink-edged whiteness of the snows, the sparkling green of the grass -- how can these be remote, when there's nothing to be remote from? The headless void here refuses all definition and location: it is not round, or small, or big, or even here as distinct from there. (And even if there were a head here to measure outwards from, the measuring-rod stretching from it to that mountain peak would, when read end-on -- and there's no other way for me to read it -- reduce to a point, to nothing.) In fact, these coloured shapes present themselves in all its simplicity, without any such complications as near or far, this or that, mine or not mine, seen-by-me or merely given. All twoness -- all duality of subject and object -- has vanished: it is no longer read into a situation which has no room for it."...

 

 

Related: Thusness Stage 5: No Mirror Reflecting

Edited May 22, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

While Brahman is not a phenomenon it's generally described as the basic ground or substratum in which phenomenon appear on and subside to. Analogy often used is a blank screen which 'contains' all appearances, where pictures can come and go while the screen remains unchanged. Therefore known as the 'screen of consciousness'.

 

However after certain phase, the fixation and sinking back to a void background is removed because one realises and experiences awareness As all phenomenon. I like what Douglas Harding says:

 

..."Victim of a prolonged fit of madness, of a lifelong hallucination (and by "hallucination" I mean what my dictionary says: apparent perception of an object not actually present), I had invariably seen myself as pretty much like other people, and certainly never as a decapitated but still living biped. I had been blind to the one thing that is always present, and without which I am blind indeed -- to this marvelous substitute-for-a-head, this unbounded clarity, this luminous and absolutely pure void, which nevertheless is -- rather than contains -- all that's on offer. For, however carefully I attend, I fail to find here even so much as a blank screen on which these mountains and sun and sky are projected, or a clear mirror in which they are reflected, or a transparent lens or aperture through which they are viewed -- still less a person to whom they are presented, or a viewer (however shadowy) who is distinguishable from the view. Nothing whatever intervenes, not even that baffling and elusive obstacle called "distance": the visibly boundless blue sky, the pink-edged whiteness of the snows, the sparkling green of the grass -- how can these be remote, when there's nothing to be remote from? The headless void here refuses all definition and location: it is not round, or small, or big, or even here as distinct from there. (And even if there were a head here to measure outwards from, the measuring-rod stretching from it to that mountain peak would, when read end-on -- and there's no other way for me to read it -- reduce to a point, to nothing.) In fact, these coloured shapes present themselves in all its simplicity, without any such complications as near or far, this or that, mine or not mine, seen-by-me or merely given. All twoness -- all duality of subject and object -- has vanished: it is no longer read into a situation which has no room for it."...

 

Not the sense that it is a material ground. If there is nothing but Brahman, then where is the ground, or the phenomenon and rising and falling?

[Dainin]

Words are flowing out like endless rain into a paper cup,

They slither while they pass, they slip away across the universe...

[Pero]

Not the sense that it is a material ground. If there is nothing but Brahman, then where is the ground, or the phenomenon and rising and falling?

 

But you said that Brahman is not a phenomenon.

[dwai]

But you said that Brahman is not a phenomenon.

 

And when have I contradicted myself?

[Sunya]

Advaita nevers claims to "Merge" with The Brahman. I was never separate from Brahman. I am Brahman. I am non-phenomenon. Everything else that is phenomenal is unreal and empty.

 

it is this "I am" that Buddhism has a problem with, the identity of the subject with the totality, when both are completely empty so no identity could exist. this identity, according to Buddhism, causes problems in realization because it is a subtle grasping for self, an inability to freefall into the groundless realization of emptiness.

 

and this duality between non-phenomenon and phenomenon is a subtle duality that Buddhism also has a problem with.

 

Again, slowly this time...

 

If phenomena are empty, and Buddhist Ultimate Reality is Emptiness, then Buddhist Ultimate Reality is also a phenomenon. Dzogchen's "oneness" is the identification with Brahman. Rinpoche Sogyal Trungpa's book "The Tibetan book of Living and Dying" clearly expresses this (see you wanted citations, etc).

 

I don't think you understand what emptiness is all about.. your logic doesn't make sense to me.

how do you go from "if phenomena are empty" to "the buddhist ultimate reality is also a phenomenon" ? phenomena are inter-dependent and empty of inherent existence. emptiness is a teaching about phenomena not inherently existing, the Buddhist ultimate reality isn't really talked about, though the closest you will get is in Vajrayana with the 3 Kayas, but this is complicated stuff and i'm not ready to talk about it.

 

you are looking at emptiness as self-existing instead of a pointing towards non-conceptual realization.

 

About Dzogchen, there is no identification. stop using that word, because that is the main difference between any form of Buddhism and Hinduism. there is NO identification in Buddhism because there is no Self at all to identify in the first place. I think you mean Sogyal Rinpoche, and if he clearly expresses this can you quote it?

[Pero]

And when have I contradicted myself?

 

If there is nothing but Brahman, then where is the ground, or the phenomenon and rising and falling?

 

You are phenomenon and if you are Brahman, then brahman is a phenomenon. Or if Brahman is everything, that doesn't compute with the distinction between phenomenon and non-phenonomenon.

[dwai]

You are phenomenon and if you are Brahman, then brahman is a phenomenon. Or if Brahman is everything, that doesn't compute with the distinction between phenomenon and non-phenonomenon.

 

But phenomena are empty, not real.

 

it is this "I am" that Buddhism has a problem with, the identity of the subject with the totality, when both are completely empty so no identity could exist. this identity, according to Buddhism, causes problems in realization because it is a subtle grasping for self, an inability to freefall into the groundless realization of emptiness.

 

and this duality between non-phenomenon and phenomenon is a subtle duality that Buddhism also has a problem with.

I don't think you understand what emptiness is all about.. your logic doesn't make sense to me.

how do you go from "if phenomena are empty" to "the buddhist ultimate reality is also a phenomenon" ? phenomena are inter-dependent and empty of inherent existence. emptiness is a teaching about phenomena not inherently existing, the Buddhist ultimate reality isn't really talked about, though the closest you will get is in Vajrayana with the 3 Kayas, but this is complicated stuff and i'm not ready to talk about it.

 

you are looking at emptiness as self-existing instead of a pointing towards non-conceptual realization.

 

About Dzogchen, there is no identification. stop using that word, because that is the main difference between any form of Buddhism and Hinduism. there is NO identification in Buddhism because there is no Self at all to identify in the first place. I think you mean Sogyal Rinpoche, and if he clearly expresses this can you quote it?

 

That is a problem with Buddhist understanding/interpretation of the "I" that is being referred to. It is not the Egoic "I". This "I" is after dissolving all ego-related things. For all it matters, the "I" can be "Blah". It is called I because of the subjective nature of the experience.

Edited May 22, 2009 by dwai

[xabir2005]

Edited May 23, 2009 by xabir2005

[Pero]

But phenomena are empty, not real.

 

While that is often said by Buddhists too, it's not quite right, it's more of an example. Empty doesn't equal not real. It seems to me this is one important and perhaps subtle difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, which Xabir already mentioned. Hindus say phenomena are an illusion, while Buddhists say phenomena are like an illusion. Real is one extreme, not real another.

[dwai]

While that is often said by Buddhists too, it's not quite right, it's more of an example. Empty doesn't equal not real. It seems to me this is one important and perhaps subtle difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, which Xabir already mentioned. Hindus say phenomena are an illusion, while Buddhists say phenomena are like an illusion. Real is one extreme, not real another.

 

Again...The Theory of Two-truths.

Lower Truth/Reality and Higher Truth/Reality. Phenomena are not real and empty when contrasted with Brahman. They are real in the Vyavaharika realm.

 

Guys this could go on and on. I think we are running around each other in circles...

 

http://www.thaiexotictreasures.com/atman_o...he_sunyata.html

Edited May 23, 2009 by dwai

[Sunya]

Brahman is: static, same. single, self, pure being?

 

correct? this is the position of Advaita on the Absolute truth?

Edited May 23, 2009 by mikaelz

[Simplicity]

Didn't all the wise ones say we shouldn't be talking too much !?

This threads is painful to read - so many words and mental concepts...

I am sure the crickets chirping under the stars outside won't care either...

 

A friendly reminder from Rumi:

 

Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and right doing,

There is a field,

I'll meet you there.

 

That was a timely reminder and I second the same. Iam no buddhist scholar. only practice buddhist meditation. One small thing I understand is the value of compassion in action and in words. I found some comments made on Hindus on this thread unrelated and hateful. They appear racist and arrogant to me devoid of any compassion. The same gentleman has made similar comments on other threads.

 

"If there are monks(Bhikshus), nuns(Bhikshunis), laymen(Upasakas), laywomen(Upasikas), pure youth and maidens who wish to recite and hold(keep reciting) this mantra, they should first arouse heir great merciful and compassionate hearts for all living beings, and follow me in making these vows".

 

Dwai and Siliconvalley, you should gracefully bow out of this discussion. I have enjoyed the passion and earnestness in your posts. I would really appreciate if you suggest a good beginner's primer on advaita.

 

Henry

Edited May 23, 2009 by Simplicity

[Sunya]

I found some comments made on Hindus on this thread unrelated and hateful. They appear racist and arrogant to me devoid of any compassion. The same gentleman has made similar comments on other threads.

 

 

what are you talking about?

[xabir2005]

Edited May 23, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

Brahman is: static, same. single, self, pure being?

 

correct? this is the position of Advaita on the Absolute truth?

 

When there is nothing but Brahman,

 

What is static?

What is single?

What is pure?

What is being?

 

Void of any description, characteristics and properties, does it have any value in ascribing descriptions/properties to it?

 

Advaita Vedanta's position is that Brahman is non-phenomenal. It is not subject to the rules and categorical frameworks that are applied on Phenomena. It is (realization that everything is Brahman) is reached by transcending the categorical framework of names and descriptions.

 

This is very simple. What is the point in making things so complicated by laying on layer after layer of the proverbial onion?

 

Or since you have been in India and Varanasi, you surely must have eaten the Jalebi. We are going round and round in circles like the convolutions of the jalebi.

 

@xabir

All is already and always so, nothing attained. No states. It is not a matter of attainment, 'getting rid of self', but the insight/realisation emptiness as already so that is important.

 

Vedanta says the same thing with Brahman. Glad you haved realized it. I on the other hand am like the billions of people who are part of this samsara and will have to strive to break out of the egoic "I" before the fact that "I am Brahman" is evident.

 

One thing that is very pertinent in this discussion, now that I think about it is this --

 

Buddhists (at least those on this forum) don't understand what Brahman is. Take all your posts, search and replace Sunyata with Brahman. Then see what you have.

Edited May 23, 2009 by dwai