Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[nac]

How about "inspired" instead of "derived"? Wasn't Nagarjuna the first person to come up with a complete Vedanta-like philosophy? (only it wasn't directly compatible with the Vedas as such)

 

The Buddha and his followers certainly claimed to reject all older traditions and orthodoxies, whether they really did so or not. I myself don't see any connection between Buddhism and the Vedas. From what I can see, even the connection between Upanishadic philosophy and the Vedic hymns is tenuous at best.

Edited May 21, 2009 by nac

[SiliconValley]

maybe Buddha was influenced by Upanishads, and used different teachings, language, and method to get to the same goal, but I think that if Buddha read the Upanishads, achieved moksha, and thought that these methods and philosophies were ok.. he would not have started a new religion.

 

Okay, this is like a child, who after being refused by parents, complains of a monster

 

Ok, but what if Buddha read upanishads, did not understand them and was more interested in opposing the then Brahminical hierarchy than anything else and with that goal created a branch off from various paths? We don't know for sure if at all Buddha, through his new path attained moksha! If one goes arguing on said lines, we could go on till the limit of one's imagination.

[xabir2005]

there is no thing close to dependent origination or emptiness, sunyata, or the 2 truths teaching in the Upanishads or any of the Vedas in fact.

Just to clarify a bit: as Namdrol said before, other teachings/religions do have some kind of 'emptiness' teaching -- but their emptiness teaching is totally different from Buddhism which is talking about Dependent Origination. So other religions may teach things like 'phenomena are unreal, noumenon alone is real' but it is nothing like Dependent Origination which is a unique feature of Buddhism.

[nac]

That seems to be a personal opinion. This is not the opinion of either the traditional Advaitins who hold vedanta as the third and the final part of the Veda or of their critics - jaina, buddhist and other schools - who accept Upanishads verily as the vedic teaching. The difference in the content of veda (by which you probably mean brahmana and aranyaka) is intentional due to the three part division.

I mean the actual old Vedic texts: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/#vedas

[Sunya]

Okay, this is like a child, who after being refused by parents, complains of a monster

 

Ok, but what if Buddha read upanishads, did not understand them and was more interested in opposing the then Brahminical hierarchy than anything else and with that goal created a branch off from various paths? We don't know for sure if at all Buddha, through his new path attained moksha! If one goes arguing on said lines, we could go on till the limit of one's imagination.

 

Buddha was concerned with truth, first and foremost. He had many teachers and learned many methods. His teachers even asked him to take over because he got to a very high realization, but he knew this wasn't enough. Instead of reaching a goal given to him by scripture he, always being critical, knew he had to go further. So even if he had Hindu teachers that doesn't mean he was at the same level as them, or that he simply combined prevailing ideas at the time.. his realization had nothing to do with combining ideas, it had to do with letting go of ideas. He let go of Brahman.

 

Yes i'm like a child, good argument.

[SiliconValley]

The Buddha and his followers certainly claimed to reject all older traditions and orthodoxies, whether they really did so or not. I myself don't see any connection between Buddhism and the Vedas. From what I can see, even the connection between Upanishadic philosophy and the Vedic hymns is tenuous at best.

 

There is not much to respond to this ...is there? I have listed some specific details but cannot really take exception to what "you think" or what "you see". Peace and Blessings ...

 

I have a strong feeling you have read the shoddy translation of Max Mueller or someone of the Veda. If at all one could understand Veda with such ease, there would be no commentaries required. You may want to take a look at Yaska's nirukta and Sayana's commentary to understand what the hyms mean. To understand every hymn, one would need to understand the shat angas - or the six limbs of Veda and this is where a competent commentary steps in to rescue the uninitiated.

[Sunya]

n Brahminical hierarchy than anything else and with that goal created a branch off from various paths? We don't know for sure if at all Buddha, through his new path attained moksha!

 

you're going against your tradition here! I thought he was an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna or something

[SiliconValley]

Buddha was concerned with truth, first and foremost. He had many teachers and learned many methods. His teachers even asked him to take over because he got to a very high realization, but he knew this wasn't enough. Instead of reaching a goal given to him by scripture he, always being critical, knew he had to go further. So even if he had Hindu teachers that doesn't mean he was at the same level as them, or that he simply combined prevailing ideas at the time.. his realization had nothing to do with combining ideas, it had to do with letting go of ideas. He let go of Brahman.

 

Yes i'm like a child, good argument.

 

 

You like to quote stories, and you agree you're a child! There rests my case.

 

How about letting go of an idea that Buddha was the only correct one? At least till you experience if what he said was true beyond the books? I hate to actually get down to this oft repeated statement, but in the absence of other valid counter-arguments, this is all I can think of!

 

By the way, there has been a significant softening of your stand and less contempt towards Hinduism or Advaita from the scream in the original post. Arguments, at the end of the day, may do nothing else, but at least mellow both sides and bring in some civility. Good to know ...

 

you're going against your tradition here! I thought he was an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna or something

 

Does it matter what the "belief" is? Belief or unsubstantiated "I feels" have not been my way of argument

I now think Buddha was probably trying to find some shade on a hot day and sat under a tree

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[xabir2005]

Edited May 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[SiliconValley]

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[xabir2005]

 

If karma and rebirth are actual facts, and this is what Buddhism and many other Indian systems are saying, then it is quite possible that these facts can be independently realized. Therefore, just because one person comes to discover this fact and then some time later another person also discovers this fact, does not mean that the latter "adopted" the idea from the former.

Yes, anyway karma in Hinduism is not really the same as karma in Buddhism and different from Jainism, and also rebirth was Buddha's own experience having remember 91 aeons of past lives. Edited May 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

We should either stop comparing or stop insisting that we are not comparing.

As Bernadette Roberts said, it is necessary to draw the distinctions.

 

But it is not to criticize others. Its purpose is not to say 'this is higher than that'.

 

Like Greg Goode said those who are familiar with awareness teachings may try to substitute the terms, which will not work.

 

We should let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves.

Edited May 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[SiliconValley]

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[xabir2005]

Edited May 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

Argh! This thread is mirroring the conversation I have having in my head the last month.

 

I have done most of my training in Kashmir Shavism and I love it. But I really like the Dependent origination and Emptiness teachings of Buddhism as well. I have been over to 'Dharma Overground' alot as well as 'Awakening to reality' and 'Interactive Buddha' trying to Figure out what the similarities or differences are.

Are the Buddhists just being stubborn trying to hold their realisation above everybody elses?

Was Buddha just an Arrogant prat who barely finished 6 years of training In the vedic school (not nearly enough time to get a solid realisation of the Hindu Enlightenment) before running off and starting his own thing?

Or did He really go above and beyond?

If Emptiness is the ultimate reality how does anything make any sense at all? why would things rise and fall or why would things exist dependently anywhere.

How does the Buddhist view explain That sense that we are meant to learn certain things at certain times?

The universe to me seems have an inherent Genius in its timing of events... If there is no Intelligence guiding it how does this work?

When I Commune with God/Intelligence I feel like I am communing with the very wisdom of existence and its guidance is Always right. Where is this in the Buddhist world view? Could it be Buddha mind?

What about Consciousness itself? Does it contain everything it is aware of, including the experience of Emptiness and Dependent Origination?

In Shavism they would say yes. Consciousness is the ground/God that all change happens on/in. Buddhism seems to be saying there is no ultimate reality, only an ultimate realisation. Please correct me if mistaken.

 

Then I get more confused by other Buddhists. Lama Zopa said in a letter that if by 'God' you mean a being that is responsible for your happiness then that obviously does not exist as that ball is in our court. But if buy 'God' you mean an Infinite mind penetrating the universe then that "God' does exist.

 

I really dont Know. I know my level of experience, but what level does that go too? Can you really go past having a friendship with the universe? Is it all just delusion?

 

Emptiness meditation seems to really cut out some of the problems the Ego can get caught in. For me it is working better than anything I have come across in terms of letting go of false self, self grasping, reactions... Its really great. Also some of the Dzogchen stuff seems like it really helps get one anchored in Being in a very stable way.

 

Sorry for this rant. I think my only option is to stay open and just practice. I really get excited studying Emptiness and Dependent Origination. I feel Like there is a real chance of realising the Nature of mind - as Emptiness- for me in this life time. And it feels like it would be a very useful realisation to gain.

 

That's it! My new goal is to Experience the full realisation in both Schools. Then I will report back and tell you If they are compatible or not.

Buddah/Brahma Bless you all and may nothing/something dispel my illusions for the sake of all sentient beings!

[xabir2005]

I have been following his work for a while now and he happens to be an acquaintance of friends Dennis Waite and A R. Good stuff. But what is the point of quoting him here? Is his experience being presented here as the final and living proof of no-self? There are several "yes-self" guys around with equally colorful writings

I don't have a big issue with the term true self.

 

If non-dual insight is not there, and with trancendental insight of pure consciousness, then the true self is solidified and seen as a background watcher/I AM (thusness stage 1).

 

If non-dual insight is there, then the true self is understood as everything (thusness stage 4 onwards), which is the same as there being no separate self or observer. However even though the dualistic bond is gone there is still the danger to reify the absolute as an essence. But in any case an enlightened person is not bounded by certain terms and can freely use them according to circumstances as long as he conveys the right understanding.

 

Anyway two relevant articles:

 

No-Self vs. True Self by Daniel Ingram

 

And David Loy (academic and zen teacher and author of many books, one I like is 'nonduality'):

 

[T]his phenomenon can be described either as no-consciousness or as all-consciousness. Early Buddhism chooses the former, claiming that consciousness is nothing more than all those things that are experienced. Sankara opts for the latter, insisting that all those things are the manifestations of consciousness. Buddhism says there is no self, there is only the world (dharmas); Sankara says the world is the Self. To say that there is no self, or that everything is the self, are then equally correct - or false, depending on how one looks at it. Both descriptions amount to the same thing. What is clear in each case is that there is no longer a duality between an object that is observed and a consciousness that observes it, or between the external world and the self which confronts it. ... Both are attempts to describe nonduality, and because each makes absolute a relative term, neither is more or less satisfactory than the other. ... Just as our usual understanding of experience is dualistic, so is the language that expresses this understanding. An attempt to describe the nondual experience will naturally tend to eliminate one or the other term. ... So there are two paradoxes; to shrink to nothing is to become everything, and to experience everything as One is again equivalent to nothing ...

Edited May 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[rex]

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.

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.

Thanks Dwai, very clear - all the best.

[Sunya]

Argh! This thread is mirroring the conversation I have having in my head the last month.

 

I have done most of my training in Kashmir Shavism and I love it. But I really like the Dependent origination and Emptiness teachings of Buddhism as well. I have been over to 'Dharma Overground' alot as well as 'Awakening to reality' and 'Interactive Buddha' trying to Figure out what the similarities or differences are.

 

welcome i've done this as well.. days of pacing around thinking about all this.. nights of waking up only to realize i've been thinking about this in my sleep... i've been there.

 

 

How does the Buddhist view explain That sense that we are meant to learn certain things at certain times?

 

Buddhism does have karma as well, but there is no sense of 'evolution' that is found in Hinduism, going from ignorant to wise to know your Self as All. I mentioned this earlier in this thread... I think this is based on the concept of Grace, which doesn't exist in Buddhism. karma exists, but there's no purpose. karma is just based on your past actions. I still really like the evolutionary model actually, and want to look into this further, how it fits into Buddhism. I'll post about this on E-Sangha, but my current understanding is that this is not compatible, as there is no 'meant to be', this is fatalistic, deterministic, and since there is no God in Buddhism, its incompatible.

 

 

The universe to me seems have an inherent Genius in its timing of events... If there is no Intelligence guiding it how does this work?

 

I don't know.

 

in my opinion, any belief or concept that you can have about the Ultimate Reality will pale in comparison to the Actuality of It. I think this is why Buddhism stresses not having any concepts and getting caught up in the traps of Eternalism, Nihilism, or other limiting views. in Vajrayana there are even methods to get people unstuck from the concept of Emptiness. even Emptiness can go wrong as a method because people have a natural tendency to get stuck in ideas. All of Buddhism is just method. I think its good to just totally embrace that you don't know, that you have no idea, and maybe something will arise from that

 

 

Buddhism seems to be saying there is no ultimate reality, only an ultimate realisation. Please correct me if mistaken.

 

Related to what i said earlier... I wouldn't say BUddhism says theres NO ultimate reality.. it just doesn't posit any position or ideas or concepts about it for you to get stuck in.

 

Sorry for this rant. I think my only option is to stay open and just practice. I really get excited studying Emptiness and Dependent Origination. I feel Like there is a real chance of realising the Nature of mind - as Emptiness- for me in this life time. And it feels like it would be a very useful realisation to gain.

 

If you're excited that's a very good thing.. there is a connection. Dzogchen is very exciting, I love it. the book Crystal Way by Namkhai Norbu is excellent.. Dzogchen and Kashmir Shivaism share similar historical sources I believe.. and Namdrol (a pretty knowledgable fellow on E-Sangha) has said that Kashmir Shivaism leads to very high realization, and shares similarities with Dzogchen, but the latter has unbroken lineage and preserved method. So right now, today, its a more preserved tradition. the view is also a little different...so...

 

That's it! My new goal is to Experience the full realisation in both Schools. Then I will report back and tell you If they are compatible or not.

Buddah/Brahma Bless you all and may nothing/something dispel my illusions for the sake of all sentient beings!

 

In my opinion, you have to choose. they have different views and view is very important (i dislike sounding like a broken record, but its true).

[xabir2005]

Argh! This thread is mirroring the conversation I have having in my head the last month.

 

I have done most of my training in Kashmir Shavism and I love it. But I really like the Dependent origination and Emptiness teachings of Buddhism as well. I have been over to 'Dharma Overground' alot as well as 'Awakening to reality' and 'Interactive Buddha' trying to Figure out what the similarities or differences are.

Are the Buddhists just being stubborn trying to hold their realisation above everybody elses?

Was Buddha just an Arrogant prat who barely finished 6 years of training In the vedic school (not nearly enough time to get a solid realisation of the Hindu Enlightenment) before running off and starting his own thing?

Or did He really go above and beyond?

If Emptiness is the ultimate reality how does anything make any sense at all? why would things rise and fall or why would things exist dependently anywhere.

How does the Buddhist view explain That sense that we are meant to learn certain things at certain times?

The universe to me seems have an inherent Genius in its timing of events... If there is no Intelligence guiding it how does this work?

When I Commune with God/Intelligence I feel like I am communing with the very wisdom of existence and its guidance is Always right. Where is this in the Buddhist world view? Could it be Buddha mind?

What about Consciousness itself? Does it contain everything it is aware of, including the experience of Emptiness and Dependent Origination?

In Shavism they would say yes. Consciousness is the ground/God that all change happens on/in. Buddhism seems to be saying there is no ultimate reality, only an ultimate realisation. Please correct me if mistaken.

 

Then I get more confused by other Buddhists. Lama Zopa said in a letter that if by 'God' you mean a being that is responsible for your happiness then that obviously does not exist as that ball is in our court. But if buy 'God' you mean an Infinite mind penetrating the universe then that "God' does exist.

 

I really dont Know. I know my level of experience, but what level does that go too? Can you really go past having a friendship with the universe? Is it all just delusion?

 

Emptiness meditation seems to really cut out some of the problems the Ego can get caught in. For me it is working better than anything I have come across in terms of letting go of false self, self grasping, reactions... Its really great. Also some of the Dzogchen stuff seems like it really helps get one anchored in Being in a very stable way.

 

Sorry for this rant. I think my only option is to stay open and just practice. I really get excited studying Emptiness and Dependent Origination. I feel Like there is a real chance of realising the Nature of mind - as Emptiness- for me in this life time. And it feels like it would be a very useful realisation to gain.

 

That's it! My new goal is to Experience the full realisation in both Schools. Then I will report back and tell you If they are compatible or not.

Buddah/Brahma Bless you all and may nothing/something dispel my illusions for the sake of all sentient beings!

It's not just emptiness that is important. The luminosity or pristine awareness that Thusness described as "total vitality, total intelligence, total luminous clarity" is equally important and must be seen as inseparable. Luminosity and emptiness inseparable is the groundless ground of all experience and the nature of mind. Just that reifying an absolute, ontological essence, is not part of Buddhism. It is not a 'background substance' where phenomena pops in and out where the 'background substance' remains unchanged and unaffected -- it is a non-dual foreground experience. All is Mind.

 

There are many different aspects to practice and insight and all should be seen as equally important.

 

Thusness said:

 

When there is simply a pure sense of existence;

When awareness appears mirror like;

When sensations become pristine clear and bright;

This is luminosity.

 

When all arising appear disconnected;

When appearance springs without a center;

When phenomena appears to be on their own without controller;

This is no doer-ship.

 

When subject/object division is seen as illusion;

When there is clarity that no one is behind thoughts;

When there is only scenery, sounds, thoughts and so forth;

This is anatta.

 

When phenomena appears pristinely crystal;

When there is merely one seamless experience;

When all is seen as Presence;

This is non-dual Presence.

 

When we feel fully the unfindability and unlocatability of phenomena;

When all experiences are seen as ungraspable;

When all mind boundaries of in/out, there/here, now/then dissolve;

This is Emptiness.

 

When interconnectedness of everything is wholly felt;

When arising appears great, effortless and wonderful;

When presence feels universe;

This is Maha.

 

When arising is not caged in who, where and when;

When all phenomena appear spontaneous and effortless;

When everything appears right every where, every when;

This is spontaneous perfection.

 

Seeing these as the ground of all experiences;

always and already so;

This is wisdom.

 

Experiencing the ground in whatever arises;

This is practice.

 

 

Also, I think there are both external intelligence (buddhas and bodhisattvas and other beings) and our own innate intelligence. In buddhism theres nothing wrong with surrendering to a higher power especially in mahayana and vajrayana which emphasize a lot on the devotional aspect also. Though we don't really believe that the world is created by a 'brahma' or a monotheistic creator. (We believe Brahma is a god but not a creator)

Edited May 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[Seth Ananda]

Thank you Mikaelz for such a good and prompt reply.

And particularly thank you Xabir for that Ingram chapter. That is a Great article - at least for me.

seriously this has been killing me...

I have read the crystal and the way of light and many other of Namkhai's books. I love his one, just called Contemplation. And yes, the similarities of Dzogchen to Kashmir shavism are astounding in places. Saraha even wrote poetry including shavite sages...

I also like the Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche and his sons Tsoknyi rinpoche and Yongey Mingur Rinpoche.

I have Daniel Ingrams book waiting for me at the store. I really cant wait to read it now.

 

Thanks heaps everyone again.

[dwai]

Edited May 21, 2009 by dwai

[rex]

For what its worth I think the Buddhist Shentong view and Advaita Vedanta are similar. For those with the patience and interest then there's this interesting blog that summarises a lot of issues:

Dzogchen, Madhyamika, Shentong & Rigpa

 

edited for typos.

Edited May 21, 2009 by rex

[Sunya]

Mundaka Upanishad

What exactly is "Orthodox Hinduism". I don't think you have a clue. I am an Indian, a Hindu Brahmin by birth (don't give me the Caste BS now), come from a family with roots in Vedic Rishi Sandilya. I don't know what Orthodox Hinduism is. I doubt if you do.

 

Nice credentials. i've lived in India too, for a short amount of time. and have a deep respect for Hinduism. I think it's pretty self-evident how Advaita differs from orthodox Hinduism. does this really need explanation?

 

"Regarding orthodox Hinduism, Shankara believed that early Vedantins, such as Ramanuja and Madva, failed to grasp the real nature and meaning of the philosophy of the Vedanta as taught in the Upanishads. According to Shankara, pre-Shankara Vedanta was theistic and realist. It conceived of Brahman as unity-in-diversity, with internal individual distinctions being admitted. In mukti (liberation), the jiva (individual soul) retains its individuality. These views were not palatable to Shankara, and in contrast he taught the doctrine of non-dualism (Advaita). According to Shankara, in the state of mukti, an individual is absorbed in the Brahman. By embarking in this direction, Shankara created a new form of Indian philosophy quite different from his predecessors."

 

http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11...o_200612_ma.pdf

 

was pre-Advaita Hinduism truly non-dual or not?

Edited May 21, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

Mundaka Upanishad

 

so you're saying that the Mundaka Upanishad contains the teachings of emptiness, dependent origination and 2 truths? could you cite examples?

[xabir2005]

Nice credentials. i've lived in India too, for a short amount of time. and have a deep respect for Hinduism. I think it's pretty self-evident how Advaita differs from orthodox Hinduism. does this really need explanation?

 

"Regarding orthodox Hinduism, Shankara believed that early Vedantins, such as Ramanuja and Madva, failed to grasp the real nature and meaning of the philosophy of the Vedanta as taught in the Upanishads. According to Shankara, pre-Shankara Vedanta was theistic and realist. It conceived of Brahman as unity-in-diversity, with internal individual distinctions being admitted. In mukti (liberation), the jiva (individual soul) retains its individuality. These views were not palatable to Shankara, and in contrast he taught the doctrine of non-dualism (Advaita). According to Shankara, in the state of mukti, an individual is absorbed in the Brahman. By embarking in this direction, Shankara created a new form of Indian philosophy quite different from his predecessors."

 

http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11...o_200612_ma.pdf

 

was pre-Advaita Hinduism truly non-dual or not?

If i'm not wrong, Advaita, though not the same as other dualist Hindu schools, is still considered in mainstream as orthodox Hinduism, and has now become the most popular school of Hinduism.

 

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

Hindu philosophy is divided into six Sanskrit āstika ("orthodox") schools of thought, or darshanas (literally, "views"), which accept the Vedas as supreme revealed scriptures, and three nāstika ("heterodox") schools, which do not accept the Vedas as supreme. The āstika schools are:

 

1. Sankhya, a strongly dualist theoretical exposition of mind and matter.

2. Yoga, a school emphasizing meditation closely based on Sankhya

3. Nyaya or logics

4. Vaisheshika, an empiricist school of atomism

5. Mimamsa, an anti-ascetic and anti-mysticist school of orthopraxy

6. Vedanta, opposing Vedic ritualism in favour of mysticism. Vedanta came to be the dominant current of Hinduism in the post-medieval period.

 

The nāstika schools are:

 

1. Buddhism

2. Jainism

3. Cārvāka, a skeptical materialist school, which died out in the 15th century and whose primary texts have been lost.

 

These nine philosophies form the nine gems of the Sanātana Dharma.

 

In Hindu history, the distinction of these six schools was current in the Gupta period "golden age" of Hinduism. With the disappearance of Vaishshika and Mimamsa, it was obsolete by the later Middle Ages, when the various sub-schools of Vedanta (Dvaita "dualism", Advaita "non-dualism" and others) began to rise to prominence as the main divisions of religious philosophy. Nyaya survived into the 17th century as Navya Nyaya "Neo-Nyaya", while Sankhya gradually lost its status as an independent school, its tenets absorbed into Yoga and Vedanta.

 

http://knowledgerush.com/kr/encyclopedia/Vedanta/

Vedanta(meaning literally the end portion of the Vedas) is a branch of Hindu philosophy which focusses on the reading, and analytically interpreting the ancient Vedic writings, especially the Aranyakas and Upanishads. Vedanta is the essence of the Vedas. Various branches of Vedanta exist, each branch choosing to interpret the codified scriptures in its own way. The most important and popular Vedantic branch is the Advaita (ad- not, dwaita- two; meaning non-duality). This branch was popularized by the Hindu philosopher Shankara. (c. 800 AD).

Edited May 21, 2009 by xabir2005