Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[Sunya]

let's steer this discussion into a different direction

 

concept: the Self in Vedanta compared to Buddha Nature

 

 

so dwai, could you define Atman or Self as taught in Advaita?

 

my understanding of Atman is pure spirit, unborn, uncreated, eternal, the silent, imperishable witness of all change which is equal to Brahman.

 

is this correct?

Edited June 2, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

name='dwai' date='Jun 2 2009, 05:30 AM' post='123440'

Yes Zero is a symbol, but the role of the symbol is to convey a meaning...

 

Oh...What's the point?!?

 

You assume that Advaitins have a certain locus standii -- ie your strawmen. Which you then proceed to kill with circular logic.

 

They do... it's called ultimating an ultimate. Its Monist eternalism. An extreme.

 

So you guys say Buddhism doesn't recognize Two-truths. But then when shown you are wrong, you backpedal and say "Uh...well those Two-truths are not the same as Buddha's two truths". The point is that two-truths indicate two levels of Satya. Which is what Vedanta says. One to be understood in the conventional/worldly sense and the other in light of the "Ultimate" or "Absolute" Truth.

 

Read with clarity please. Different turnings have different philosophical tenets, all based on inter-dependent co-arising. Sutra display's two truths of relative and ultimate but both are empty so subverts as well, but because Advaita does too, doesn't mean they mean the same thing. They don't. Advaita reifies an ultimate that's more true than the relative which subsumes the relative. Nagarjuna uses emptiness not as an ultimate view... as it say's. "Those who take up emptiness as a view are incurable", he takes it up as a way to explain dependent origination, how things are ultimately empty of self existence, but he goes further in saying that this is also empty. Thus, the emptiness of emptiness.

 

To elucidate the point further...

 

Nāgārjuna's primary contribution to Buddhist philosophy is in the further development of the concept of śūnyatā, or "emptiness," which brings together other key Buddhist doctrines, particularly anatta (no-self) and pratītyasamutpāda (dependent origination). For Nāgārjuna, it is not merely sentient beings that are empty of ātman; all phenomena are without any svabhāva, literally "own-nature" or "self-nature", and thus without any underlying essence; they are empty of being independent. This is so because they are arisen dependently: not by their own power, but by depending on conditions leading to their coming into existence, as opposed to being. Nāgārjuna was also instrumental in the development of the two-truths doctrine, which claims that there are two levels of truth in Buddhist teaching, one which is directly (ultimately) true, and one which is only conventionally or instrumentally true, commonly called upāya in later Mahāyāna writings. Nāgārjuna drew on an early version of this doctrine found in the Kaccāyanagotta Sutta, which distinguishes nītārtha (clear) and neyārtha (obscure) terms -

 

By and large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by a polarity, that of existence and non-existence. But when one reads the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one reads the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

 

"By and large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), and biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

 

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle..."[5]

Nāgārjuna differentiates between saṃvṛti (conventional) and paramārtha (ultimately true) teachings, but he never declares any to fall in this latter category; for him, even śūnyatā is śūnya--even emptiness is empty. For him, ultimately,

 

nivṛttam abhidhātavyaṃ nivṛtte cittagocare|

anutpannāniruddhā hi nirvāṇam iva dharmatā||7

 

The designable is ceased when the range of thought is ceased,

For phenomenality is like nirvana, unarisen and unstopped.

 

This was famously rendered in his tetralemma with the logical propositions: X, not X, X and not X, neither X nor not X.

 

Nagarjuna also taught the idea of relativity; in the Ratnavali, he gives the example that shortness exists only in relation to the idea of length. The determination of a thing or object is only possible in relation to other things or objects, especially by way of contrast. He held that the relationship between the ideas of "short" and "long" is not due to intrinsic nature (svabhāva). This idea is also found in the Pali Nikayas and Chinese Agamas, in which the idea of relativity is expressed similarly: "That which is the element of light ... is seen to exist on account of [in relation to] darkness; that which is the element of good is seen to exist on account of bad; that which is the element of space is seen to exist on account of form.

 

So it's a sideways view that cuts through never stating a rooftop or a foundation. Thus, the end experience is also different as well as the handling of the state of bliss and it's compassionate activity.

 

Advaitin is still top down philosophy and reification of experience, where Nirguna Brahman is ultimate and all else is superimposed over this ultimate ground of existence, everything is one with this and as you said a single mind stream. Buddhism does not agree with this interpretation of experience and experiences deeper, empties totally, yet not as an ultimate, things don't arise but don't stop. Thus also subverting the two truths because there is no distinction between the ultimate and the relative in pure and total awareness that is the experience of liberation. Though Buddhas have separate and distinct mind streams, their realization is the same and also they are empty of inherent existence, not as an ultimate view, but as a realization of dependent origination.

 

Vedanta says there is no self because all there is is Emptiness (Nirguna Brahman).

You guys say..no Vedanta is wrong about what it thinks it's saying...property-less Brahman is not Emptiness, since the label of "That", "I" and "Brahman" are ascribed to it.

 

You first said there is no need for categorical frameworks and then turned around and tried to beat other people over the head about "Learn framework to discard framework".

 

Buddhism never say's that all there is, is emptiness. Read above.

 

Advaitin's still don't understand how Samsara works and don't see that karma goes deeper than concept. Advaitins hide in the non-conceptual view and call it an ultimate view. Nagarjuna and the Buddha pacifies this view as well leading to a different experience of self and cosmos than the Advaitin.

 

You said there are infinite streams of unknowable, eternal (no beginning no end) consciousness that dependently originate and give rise to all reality. You don't even see the flawed logic in such a statement. When something doesn't have a beginning or an end, where is the dependent origination?

Can there be two types of emptiness? Doesn't emptiness inherently symbolize lack of properties? How then can you distinguish from one emptiness to another?

 

There is no emptiness, there is only, inter-dependent-co-origination. You are still thinking that dependent origination means superimposition over an ultimate truth. That's exactly what it's NOT saying, and what it's actually subverting. It's a sideways view, not literally, but poetically speaking, because infinite regress/progress goes in infinite direction, both in and out, up and down... etc.

 

You say that Nirguna Brahman, which is devoid of properties of any kind, is a "subtle" phenomenon. How? Show me how something that is devoid of any properties can be a "phenomenon"?

 

It's deep in your reification of conceptualess experience of samadhi and philosophy. A non-phenomenal phenomena. I'm using words obviously where words don't reach.

 

You guys don't even understand what Phenomena are. You cannot do a phenomenological inquiry without establishing that...and flash news for you guys is that Buddhism is very much a phenomenological inquiry.

 

No... it's view and method. View is more important than method until view is comprehended, then method is more important than view. One practices both at the same time though, as view is also method and method is view. But both are empty of inherent existence and interdependent.

 

I say a phenomenon is something that is time-bound and space-bound and is an object in objective consciousness. What is you stand on it?

 

The opposite is also phenomena and dependent on the first. Thus the quote above of Nagarjuna's philosophy.

 

You don't know that your understanding of both Buddhism and Vedanta are woefully flawed...you are too caught up in words to catch the essence of what is being conveyed.

 

There's no essence, just view. They are different in realization. One reifies a non-conceptual ground then superimposes, the other empties everything, even emptiness but not as a reified ultimate view, just as a conventional to give rise to how one should meditate on freedom from proliferation and see directly dependent origination, even in deep states of formless conceptual free meditation.

 

The attachment in Vedanta is extremely subtle.

[doc benway]

Excellent arguments to all of the points in my post Vajrahridaya!

I have no doubt that you are very expert and well read in this area.

Nevertheless, many of your arguments do not agree with my own personal experience.

We will simply have to agree to disagree (or not).

Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

[Vajrahridaya]

Thank you for the stimulating discussion.

 

Oh your welcome!

 

One more point. For a Buddhist, experience is dependently originated, thus what one's view is, deep within and throughout many lifetimes of so many types, this manifests over and over again cyclically, from lower to higher re-births, back to lower, from long lived gods, to short lived humans and animals, demons, hungry ghost realms. Most of the higher views revolve around the idea of a single essence and experience this. This is the power of the empty nature or non-abiding nature of phenomena. Even conceptual free meditation and states of mind are considered to be dependent upon a view and manifest accordingly. Because there is no essence... anything can happen!

 

This is why "Right View" is the first teaching in the 8 fold noble path which is the 4th nobel truth.

 

Experience originates dependent upon view. Thus, dependent origination. One must have the right view to experience directly what the Buddha experiences.

 

Be Well!!

Edited June 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

an example:

 

angry fearful human being

peaceful compassionate human being

 

they experience the same world, but completely differently because they have different views. these views are based on conditioning, past experiences. and this conditioning runs very deep.

 

views can also be very subtle such as the need for a source of manifestation, a ground of existence, and a oneness that pervades all reality. these very subtle views distort the perception of experience, coloring and distorting the windshield of perception.

 

right view in Buddhism in fact isn't a view but rather taking away of views. instead of painting another coat on the windshield, right view cleans the windshield. eventually the windshield melts away/

 

right view isn't just as simple as letting go completely of expectation, surrendering, not thinking, etc. because mental patterns are so deeply ingrained in the mindstream from countless past lives

 

frankly, it is impossible to rest in a viewless state of truth because truth is not a state or an experience. truth comes from right perception of any state: awake, dream, sleep, whatever.

Edited June 2, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

 

frankly, it is impossible to rest in a viewless state of truth because truth is not a state or an experience. truth comes from right perception of any state: awake, dream, sleep, whatever.

 

Exactly, realization in Buddhism is dependent upon a realization, not a union.

[Uncle Fester]

..

Edited September 19, 2021 by darebak

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi There.

What do you mean by "essence"?

 

Also...

 

You keep referring to "beings" in many different contexts. What is a "being"?

 

 

Essence as in an essential nature that is real and stable, or an always, regardless if conceived or experienced as dynamic or static or both or neither.

 

Just mind streams, karmic collections of individual dependently originated seeming selfhoods, that collectively make up the so called, "All".

I looove your Avatar, that's hilarious!!!

Edited June 2, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Siliconvalley1]

I had a question for Vajrahridaya...

 

You stated earlier that you saw the best of Shaivism - Trika/Kaula or whatever before concluding them to be less useful than Buddhist practices. When the highest state is reached or even approached, the kaula becomes a mahakaula and as a by-product of his realization, various Siddhis manifest. And this highest realization or the bliss of Shiva-Shakti union is not a passing phase or a condition that comes and goes like Samadhi. It is like a spontaneous combustion that is irreversible. If you experienced his state of paraahantaa, then probably you have those Siddhis as well - which can be demonstrated across time and space. Which of those Siddhis can you demonstrate so that there is some backing to your claim that you have actually gotten even closer to the blissful realms you claim you have experienced.

[Vajrahridaya]

I had a question for Vajrahridaya...

 

You stated earlier that you saw the best of Shaivism - Trika/Kaula or whatever before concluding them to be less useful than Buddhist practices. When the highest state is reached or even approached, the kaula becomes a mahakaula and as a by-product of his realization, various Siddhis manifest. And this highest realization or the bliss of Shiva-Shakti union is not a passing phase or a condition that comes and goes like Samadhi. It is like a spontaneous combustion that is irreversible. If you experienced his state of paraahantaa, then probably you have those Siddhis as well - which can be demonstrated across time and space. Which of those Siddhis can you demonstrate so that there is some backing to your claim that you have actually gotten even closer to the blissful realms you claim you have experienced.

 

Saw in teaching and glimpses or sustained states of experience through intense practice. I never reached what was called the culmination of the Siddha Shaivite tradition.

 

There are beings in Shaivism who are much more advanced in their path than I am in mine, but still have wrong view and won't attain what is called the "cessation of suffering" as it is elucidated by the Buddha.

 

A show of siddhis regardless of having them is not what this is about, we are discussing sutra and view, and the importance of view in Buddhism vs. the non-importance of view in Advaita. Your ability to see my siddhis is predicated on how karmically connected we are through dependently originated past lives.

 

The state of parashiva is still subtly reified in Shaivism.

 

Abhinavagupta gives all credit to the Lord Shiva, that which is the reality of all being. It's still a top down approach and view, not a cutting through and emptying of footing. Read the 36 tattvas, Buddhism cuts through this.

 

There's still subtle identity and eventual re-absorption into a, "source of being", that which even penetrates the non-existent, so it's said in Shaiva scripture.

 

Like I said karma of bondage extends even into the non-conceptual.

[Uncle Fester]

.

Edited September 19, 2021 by darebak

[Siliconvalley1]

Saw in teaching and glimpses or sustained states of experience through intense practice. I never reached what was called the culmination of the Siddha Shaivite tradition.

 

There are beings in Shaivism who are much more advanced in their path than I am in mine, but still have wrong view and won't attain what is called the "cessation of suffering" as it is elucidated by the Buddha.

 

A show of siddhis regardless of having them is not what this is about, we are discussing sutra and view, and the importance of view in Buddhism vs. the non-importance of view in Advaita. Your ability to see my siddhis is predicated on how karmically connected we are through dependently originated past lives.

 

The state of parashiva is still subtly reified in Shaivism.

 

Abhinavagupta gives all credit to the Lord Shiva, that which is the reality of all being. It's still a top down approach and view, not a cutting through and emptying of footing. Read the 36 tattvas, Buddhism cuts through this.

 

There's still subtle identity and eventual re-absorption into a, "source of being", that which even penetrates the non-existent, so it's said in Shaiva scripture.

 

Like I said karma of bondage extends even into the non-conceptual.

 

 

That was an honest answer... but yes, you did not reach the pinnacle or see it all before you moved away based on what you "read" and understood as the right way - at the end of the day it is just based on words and supposed logic. But you repeatedly stated earlier that you experienced the "highest" states of these systems and used it as a major argument to put forth your case of why Buddhism is THE way. Never mind ..

 

Buddhism cuts through this, that - yes, using a logic that is acceptable to Buddhists! The theory of dependent origin - which you tout repeatedly, may not make sense to someone else! I never said the Siddhis are important or matter, but just wanted to know whether your practice actually matched your claims. You have given the answer

 

You are now basing all your argument on what you think Buddha said - his concepts, his views. Not that it's wrong, but just pointing out that there is nothing experiential here.

 

And gaining the right view, in many practical traditions, is not loudly advertised or conceptually talked about as the practices and the approach themselves ensure that the right view is attained. This aspect is built into the system and nothing that needs to be separately taken care of. They don't talk, they work

Edited June 3, 2009 by Siliconvalley1

[Vajrahridaya]

Thanks!

 

So why is it higher or better for a "being" to become a Buddha if the state of a Buddha is also dependently originated?

 

If a Buddha requires the ignorant to exist, then who is the noble one, the Buddha seeking to enlighten or the ignorant fool that is the object of the Buddha's existence?

 

That was just an elucidation that there is no footing, not a crutch to rely on other than the realization of interdependent origination. Because a Buddha see's the non-inherent nature of action and being, in order to be a Buddha one must recognize that though beings don't inherently exist, they experience a "real" suffering, thus the only cause of their activity is this fact. Thus their bliss is the activity of helping others along the way to liberation, and that is all.

 

Selfless service... but true selfless service, not in the same way that a theist would use that term to serve an essence called God.

 

The ignorant fool suffers, the Buddha does not. That is the difference, both are dependently originated though. One experience's interdependency as Nirvana and the other as Samsara. Huge difference. One knows exactly the way out and the other is trapped in identity and grasping.

 

 

name='Siliconvalley1' date='Jun 2 2009, 04:18 PM' post='123552'

That was an honest answer... but yes, you did not reach the pinnacle or see it all before you moved away based on what you "read" and understood as the right way - at the end of the day it is just based on words and supposed logic.

 

No... it's not just based on words and logic. I do have experience... let's talk view though and how liberation is understood.

 

You will never know through this frame the depth or shallowness of my experience.

 

But you repeatedly stated earlier that you experienced the "highest" states of these systems and used it as a major argument to put forth your case of why Buddhism is THE way. Never mind ..

 

Yes... not sustained though. I've been to the realm of the Siddhas and more...

 

Buddhism cuts through this, that - yes, using a logic that is acceptable to Buddhists! The theory of dependent origin - which you tout repeatedly, may not make sense to someone else! I never said the Siddhis are important or matter, but just wanted to know whether your practice actually matched your claims. You have given the answer

 

Your thinking a bit black and white aren't you? All or nothing?

 

 

And gaining the right view, in many practical traditions, is not loudly advertised as the practices and the approach ensure the view is attained. They don't talk, they work

 

Right View is the very first of the 8 fold noble path to the cessation of suffering in Buddhism.

 

Like Mike said... your car can be souped up and hyper fast, but if you have not cleaned your windshield, your driving blind.

 

View is incredibly important in Buddhism and extremely subtle to the point where one can actually experience directly just by comprehending the view without even a moment of sitting.

 

Though I've done plenty of sitting... mudra-ing, yoga-ing and chanting as well as selfless service and bowing down.

[xabir2005]

[Uncle Fester]

.

Edited September 19, 2021 by darebak

[Buddhayo]

So then the Buddha is liberated in the sense that he is free from identity, grasping, suffering, concepts, etc. But from the descriptions here, he seems bound to a very specific function in a duality. Can't have the elimination of suffering without the suffering. In that light, doesn't the Buddha's existence perpetuate and create the condition for suffering to exist?

 

It might be good to read the previous posts by Vajrahridaya (me) and Xabir if you want some more clarity on this?

 

We are all matrixed in by interdependent origination, that is the never ending flow, it's just that not seeing what that is and not cutting through by right cognition engenders bondage and seeing what that is, is liberation. A Buddha makes nothing, they just eradicate mis-cognition from their mind stream and then act through the accumulation of endless merits through their previous practice while on the path of offering endless merits to infinite beings, thus their blissful function is the eradication of psychological suffering in endless beings. Buddhas make no more karmas. They perpetuate nothing except Buddhadharma. They influence the pacification of suffering in endless beings through teaching the unsurpassable way of Buddhadharma.

 

When the Buddhas say that beings do not inherently exist, that is not to be taken as a reification of an ultimate. The "ultimately beings do not exist"... no... just that beings are interdependently originated, much like a chair is made of wood from different trees which are made of soil, seed, water... and a worker who cut the wood and the designer who created the chair, etc. add infinitum as the workers are made of everything else food grown in soil, etc. Everything is made of everything else, thus nothing stands on it's own inherently. But at the same time, mind streams have always been endlessly intermingling but being their own mind stream even though the information that makes up a mind stream is an accumulation of interdependently originated information seemingly from outside. There is no primal source, just a cycling of interlinked information, which means that each particular does not exist on it's own so has no self essence, either as an individual or collectively.

 

What makes this suffering more "real" than anything else considering the non-inherent nature of action and being?

 

That's why I quoted real. Reality is an illusion but attachment to it manifests a sense of real suffering in the mindstream.

Thanks for sparking an interesting discussion by the way.

[Enishi]

But at the same time, mind streams have always been endlessly intermingling but being their own mind stream even though the information that makes up a mind stream is an accumulation of interdependently originated information seemingly from outside. There is no primal source, just a cycling of interlinked information, which means that each particular does not exist on it's own so has no self essence, either as an individual or collectively.

 

I wonder if perhaps when many mystics perceive what they interpret as the eternal/inherent/akashic level of reality, they are seeing this endless chain of outside information which serves as background structure for a soul. The difference is that they see it as a inherent plane or higher self, whereas Buddhas don't.

 

One thing that I believe should be brought into consideration though is that just because some masters don't phrase things in terms of dependent origination, doesn't mean that they don't perceive it. The cultural and religious environment in which they exist, along with the level of understanding possessed by their disciples, and various other factors, need to be taken into consideration.

[Buddhayo]

I wonder if perhaps when many mystics perceive what they interpret as the eternal/inherent/akashic level of reality, they are seeing this endless chain of outside information which serves as background structure for a soul. The difference is that they see it as a inherent plane or higher self, whereas Buddhas don't.

 

One thing that I believe should be brought into consideration though is that just because some masters don't phrase things in terms of dependent origination, doesn't mean that they don't perceive it. The cultural and religious environment in which they exist, along with the level of understanding possessed by their disciples, and various other factors, need to be taken into consideration.

 

It's true... as the Buddha said, his Bodhisattvas would emanate into other traditions.

 

But what's the complete path? What's the clearest path?

 

But yes, people have their own rates of evolution and all these other religions are just servicing that.

 

I do understand what you are meaning...

 

That's why I said at one point that... all paths that are good, are good.

 

Enjoy!

[goldisheavy]

You can eat with a fork, a spoon and chop sticks. How good it is to use one vs. another has more to do with the user than with the instrument. A moron with a subtle Buddhist doctrine will be no good at all. A wise person with an unsubtle Advaita doctrine will be very good. An idiot can find a way to stab himself with a feather, while a knife is perfectly safe in skilled hands.

 

This is why Buddhism is good as a source of questions, but sucks as a source of answers. When you get answers from Buddhism, you get words. When you get questions from Buddhism, you get the mystery if you stay with the questions for a long time in life/lives. But if you understand this, then Advaita has great questions too.

 

If you compare Buddhism to Advaita as to their capacity to give answers, you're wasting everyone's time.

[Buddhayo]

You can eat with a fork, a spoon and chop sticks. How good it is to use one vs. another has more to do with the user than with the instrument. A moron with a subtle Buddhist doctrine will be no good at all. A wise person with an unsubtle Advaita doctrine will be very good. An idiot can find a way to stab himself with a feather, while a knife is perfectly safe in skilled hands.

 

This is why Buddhism is good as a source of questions, but sucks as a source of answers. When you get answers from Buddhism, you get words. When you get questions from Buddhism, you get the mystery if you stay with the questions for a long time in life/lives. But if you understand this, then Advaita has great questions too.

 

If you compare Buddhism to Advaita as to their capacity to give answers, you're wasting everyone's time.

 

 

If that's your conclusion, you haven't read the "meaning" of the words in the posts very well.

[Sunya]

Jaroyo, forgot your password?

 

log in with your email as the username, wouldn't want you to lose that cool name

 

Thanks!

 

So why is it higher or better for a "being" to become a Buddha if the state of a Buddha is also dependently originated?

 

It reminds me of a classic debate on patriarchy. Men own the world but most men do everything they do in order to secure the attention of women. So who is the slave and who is the master?

 

If a Buddha requires the ignorant to exist, then who is the noble one, the Buddha seeking to enlighten or the ignorant fool that is the object of the Buddha's existence?

 

 

woah woah woah,

dude,,,bro....man....

 

you have some solid assumptions here, i don't know where you got them. are you a history major? I know human history can give one a pretty pessimistic view on human activity, but you can not judge the Buddha in the same regard. most human history is based on individual selfish actions. the Buddha's actions were completely selfless since he left the palace to find the cause for all human suffering, not just his own, and this is the path he taught.

 

saying "if a Buddha required the ignorant to exist" is a very very skewed way of looking at things my friend. it's like saying "if AIDS researchers require the AIDS virus to exist" or "if homeless shelters require the homeless to exist"

 

suffering exists without the help of the Buddha. Buddha is not a God, he doesn't control anything. he is a being like you and I.

 

it is "higher and better" to become a Buddha simply because

a- a Buddha does not suffer

b- a Buddha has powers to help many many beings, like an awakened God helping other Gods to realize that they are Gods themselves, since there is no Higher God to take refuge in, we have to end our own suffering and help out others.

Edited June 3, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

You can eat with a fork, a spoon and chop sticks. How good it is to use one vs. another has more to do with the user than with the instrument. A moron with a subtle Buddhist doctrine will be no good at all. A wise person with an unsubtle Advaita doctrine will be very good. An idiot can find a way to stab himself with a feather, while a knife is perfectly safe in skilled hands.

 

This is why Buddhism is good as a source of questions, but sucks as a source of answers. When you get answers from Buddhism, you get words. When you get questions from Buddhism, you get the mystery if you stay with the questions for a long time in life/lives. But if you understand this, then Advaita has great questions too.

 

If you compare Buddhism to Advaita as to their capacity to give answers, you're wasting everyone's time.

 

yes you are right. intellectually, it is bothersome to venture into comparative religion, and i'm sure many scholars and academics agree with you that Buddhism and Hinduism are like a spoon and fork. it's the norm these days to flatland all traditions, give them individual creative prowess, and yet completely discredit the traditions by saying they are all the same.

 

answers are not what I'm after. rather it is a path that encompasses method and view to reach the goal that makes the most sense to me. this is serious stuff, this is important stuff. suffering exists and ignorance runs deep. so we must start taking things more seriously and analyze more. question more.

 

it's not just as simple as a cursory knowledge of religions and the assumption that they are saying the same thing. this is an assumption that is uncredited and a completely new age assumption. i'm sure if you asked the founders and mystics of various religions throughout time they would not agree with you. Buddha argued against other mystics during his time. Sankara argued against many Buddhists. this whole new age mixed stew pot is a modern phenomena, completely unfounded, based on cultural interpretation and idealism.

 

you are holding on REALLY STRONG to your assumption that non-conceptual equals truth and every conceptual religious method is merely that, a method, to get to the non-conceptual.well, Buddha taught against this and if you understand why than you'll see why Buddhism is not just another fork in the drawer, to be picked up at whim and eaten with at your convenience. Buddhism is a sharp knife made of adamantium (wolverine's claws) that cuts through the bowl and everything in it.

 

words are not just words, dualistic ramblings that should be tossed out and forgotten.. no. words are symbols, these symbols imprint on your mindstream and define the non-conceptual experience. whether you like it or not, you have to use words as a method to truly non-conceptual perception

Edited June 3, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

Edited June 3, 2009 by mikaelz

[JustARandomPanda]

Moved to Vedanta forum as it seems appropriate here.

[goldenfox]

I think only realized Buddhists or Vedantins are qualified to address this issue. Unless there is actual realization, they are both still just mental constructs of reality being deciphered by the intellect of the respective practitioners.

 

Having said that it is my belief that what Buddha meant by Nirvana is the same as the Kaivalya of Vedanta, only the descriptions can appear different because one is still having to use language and mental conceptions to communicate that which cannot be clearly communicated.

 

It is like the typical Buddhist statement that the Buddha taught there is no God and no such thing as self. In actually fact, the ultimate Truth cannot be said to be personal or impersonal, or a self or no self, because personal (deity) versus impersonal (void) or self versus no self are only states of opposition able to be conceive by mind. The same is the difference that only seemingly appears when comparing Nirvana to Kaivalya. Nirvana describing extinguishment and Kaivalya describing absolute aloneness, are still using words and concepts in the attempt to convey something beyond communication.

 

About the best one can hope for in taking the help of either concept to get a glimpse, however remote, of the fundamental Truth, is in this very acceptance of the resolving of these two seemingly different conceptions. You then realize what is being attempted at communicating is so utterly beyond mental framework and conception as to be wholly alien and transcendent to it.