Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[3bob]

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.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to use the term, "wholly alien" otherwise I think you've made a decent attempt above.

 

Om

[3bob]

Btw, I think heavy duty arguments (some of which are in this string) are better off being left in the general forum where they can be beat to an death without their blood being spilled in a particular sub-forum where in general there is less violence and more harmony of views.

[goldenfox]

I wouldn't go so far as to use the term, "wholly alien" otherwise I think you've made a decent attempt above.

 

Om

 

Yeah, probably couldve used a better word; again.. language is so easily a barrier. Thing is even the earliest glimpses of samadhi are extraordinary compared to the normal mental functions and mundane awareness. I would imagine something like Nirvana/Kaivalya in the cosmic conscious state as pretty far removed from body-identified, egoistic perception. But agreed, that once in that state it would feel only natural since it is the eternal, primordial state of consciousness. I remember something Vivekananda wrote, who was a realized Vedantist mind you, that in the latter stages of his life, he was being withdrawn more and more into Nirvana, and that it was a state both strange and wonderful.

Edited May 5, 2012 by goldenfox

[FmAm]

I value both Advaita and Buddhism and I think they are just different approaches. Advaita at its best is the theoretical core of non-dualistic metaphysics. Sometimes it may be a bit nihilistic, but it helps to remember that no one is in charge of ones "own" life and decisions. Its a spring cleaning of mind: nothing can really be understood and nothing that's said is true. Buddhism at its best offers beautiful and practical translations and perspectives from non-dualistic reality to everyday-dualism.

 

My english may be a little poor. Sorry!

Edited March 13, 2013 by FmAm

[3bob]

ok FmAm but no need for the old string of posts which as far as I'm concerned can go back to the general forum. I'm about 99% fed up with Buddhism/Hinduism type arguments, subtle or not so subtle.

Edited March 14, 2013 by 3bob

[RongzomFan]

ok FmAm but no need for the old string of posts which as far as I'm concerned can go back to the general forum. I'm about 99% fed up with Buddhism/Hinduism type arguments, subtle or not so subtle.

 

This implies a dualism between Buddhism and Hinduism.

 

Vajrayana sahanas have Ganesha, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Parvati etc. And all our mantras start with Om too.

[3bob]

I will say that I have better things to do than bug Buddhists on their sub-forum, and that most Buddhists have better things to do than bug those interested in Vedanta/Hindu topics located in this sub-forum.

[RongzomFan]

"Persians developed the term "Hindu" and that they used it as a geographical, rather than a religious, term."

 

---Dr. Deepak Sarma

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-sarma/should-hindus-study-hinduism_b_1083986.html

[monktastic]

I know not everyone agrees with (Loppon) Malcolm, but he had this to say over at DW, and I agree with him (which doesn't count for much, as I am a perpetual newbie!):

But the view of Dzogchen is not dependent origination at all. Dependent origination, in Dzogchen, is how we describe the arising of afflicted phenomena in Dzogchen, the pheomena that manifest out of non-recogition of our real nature.

 

D.O. is useful to explain the nature of phenomena -- which belong to relative reality. At the level of the Tao, Brahman, Tathagatagarbha, Dharmadhatu, etc. it is utterly irrelevant. The principle of causality itself -- on which D.O. depends -- is absent in the final analysis. To say that the Advaitins are wrong because they don't "have" it is like saying the Sufis are wrong because they didn't invent traffic lights. Yes, nor do Kabbalists have karma. So what? (To quote from the Idiot's Guide to Kabbalah):

 

 

Because [karma] deals with life in this world and ignores the Upper World, it has no use for Kabbalists.

 

 

Conflating levels, I think.

Edited March 24, 2013 by monktastic

[xabir2005]

Malcolm:

" The basis in Dzogchen is completely free of affliction, it therefore is not something which ever participates in afflicted dependent origination. Unafflicted causality in Dzogchen is described as lhun grub, natural formation. However, since there is causality in the basis, it also must be empty since the manner in which the basis arises from the basis is described as "when this occurs, this arises" and so on. The only reasons why this can happen is because the basis is also completely empty and illusory. It is not something real or ultimate, or truly existent in a definitive sense. If it were, Dzogchen would be no different than Advaita, etc. If the basis were truly real, ulimate or existent, there could be no processess in the basis, Samantabhadra would have no opportunity to recognize his own state and wake up and we sentient beings would have never become deluded. So, even though we do not refer to the basis as dependently originated, natural formation can be understood to underlie dependent origination; in other words, whatever is dependently originated forms naturally. Lhun grub after all simply and only means "sus ma byas", not made by anyone.

Rigpa is not a phenomena, it is not a thing, per se. It is one's knowledge of the basis. Since it is never deluded, it never participates in affliction, therefore, it is excluded from afflicted dependent orgination. However, one can regard it as the beginning of unafflicted dependent origination, and one would not be wrong i.e. the nidanas of samsara begin with avidyā; the nidanas of nirvana begin with vidyā (rigpa)."

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

Malcolm goes onto to clarify the Dzogchen view:

 

This is an extremely old post of Malcolm's. There are better posts, although the search engine is broken on Dharma Wheel.

 

My understanding is that the only similarity between Dzogchen and Madhyamaka is nonarising/illusion and freedom from extremes, which is evident even from this old post. Buddhist Dzogchenpas hold Madhyamaka as compatible with Dzogchen (with the difference being experiential vs intellectual) but Bon Dzogchenpas don't hold them as compatible at all. But then that brings up the question of what Madhyamaka everyone is following.

Edited March 25, 2013 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

Conflating levels, I think.

 

Correct, there is no dependent origination in Dzogchen. Instead there are the 3 inseparable wisdoms.

[RongzomFan]

The principle of causality itself -- on which D.O. depends -- is absent in the final analysis.

 

 

Correct, even in Madhyamaka, D.O. is merely a device that gets you to nonarisal/illusion.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[monktastic]

 

Would it ease your mind or help you to sleep better at night, if you were told that all paths lead to the same realization?

 

IMHO, you should be more worried about whether your practice is going to enable you to avoid lower rebirths at the time of death (if you have experience of past lives or if you believe in rebirth.)

 

That's funny -- all Mahamudra instructions I've heard suggest that worry isn't such a useful technique

 

I don't intend to have any definitive answer about whether all paths lead to the same realization any time soon. But many here seem to be dead-on certain that they don't, and perhaps you'll pardon my skepticism that they have reason to do so beyond comparing words.

 

Thanks for your concern about my practice. I wish the same for yours.

[RongzomFan]

I don't intend to have any definitive answer about whether all paths lead to the same realization any time soon. But many here seem to be dead-on certain that they don't, and perhaps you'll pardon my skepticism that they have reason to do so beyond comparing words.

 

If that is your thesis, I have to unlike your first post.

 

Most systems are realist (Buddhist definition):

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26462-being-a-realist-buddhist-definition-is-not-good/

Edited March 26, 2013 by alwayson

[monktastic]

If that is your thesis, I have to unlike your first post.

 

Most systems are realist (Buddhist definition):

 

http://thetaobums.com/topic/26462-being-a-realist-buddhist-definition-is-not-good/

 

It's an interesting question (to me, anyway) just how much someone's realization has to do with a specific "system."

 

Let's take Greg Goode as an example. His primary source is (Neo-)Advaita, but his own system is something more like Mahamudra. One sees that objects are empty, that they are inseparable from mind, and that mind itself is empty. He admits that even his teaching that "you are awareness" is only provisional -- there is no you, and awareness is not a thing at all. In the end, there's nothing that can be said about it.

 

Some will argue that Greg's realization comes from a wrong view (Advaita), and so can never be as pure as the Buddhist one. That he therefore must somehow fall into eternalism and substantialism etc. But nowhere will you see signs of this from his writing (or rather, if you do see it, you find that it is replaced by something subtler and subtler until nothing is left). He only suggests ways of inquiring, and shedding layers, not holding to anything.

 

So does he have the realization of Advaita? Or Mahamudra? Or Greg-Goode-Ra? Or is there only one "natural state"? Only one way to "do nothing" (and everything is done)?

 

So, I will happily agree that not all views are the same. All written views are verbal descriptions of something decidedly non-verbal. But as to the realization that one finally attains by way of those words, which were always meant to be discarded (a crucial fact which any able student will understand)? Yes, I still have trouble believing that people here have definitive, experiential, answers about those.

Edited March 26, 2013 by monktastic

[RongzomFan]

Let's take Greg Goode as an example

 

 

Greg Goode is a nobody to me. He just follows Tsongkhapa, mostly derived from introductory books by the Dalai Lama.

 

 

Just because someone sets up a website, doesn't mean they are worthy of discussion.

Edited March 26, 2013 by alwayson

[monktastic]

Okay, well uh...

 

Thanks for listening, I guess I'll catch y'all later. Best of luck.

[RongzomFan]

I don't think intellectual views have anything to do with recognizing unfabricated presence vs the conceptualizing mind.

 

But intellectual views play an important part later on for omniscient Buddhahood.

[monktastic]

Are you saying that after one has learned to stop reifying concepts, one can only make further progress by picking up more concepts, instead of simply letting the existing ones continue to subside?

 

Do you have any evidence or scriptural support for that assertion? I ask honestly. As far as I've learned, this is picking the boat back up after crossing the river. It seems to me that after the recognition of rigpa, it would be a regression to seek for the answer anywhere else. That sounds like a very subtle trick of the conceptual mind -- always seeking for something more.

 

Speaking of which: I myself will benefit from thinking less and practicing more. I will be interested in hearing your reply, but -- Buddha willing -- will not return to post more.

[RongzomFan]

Are you saying that after one has learned to stop reifying concepts, one can only make further progress by picking up more concepts, instead of simply letting the existing ones continue to subside?

 

If you want to be an omniscient Buddha, yes. You need to atleast know the 8 examples of illusion.