Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[forestofclarity]

I recently discovered this article by philosopher David Loy that beautifully describes how Advaita and Buddhism lead to the same path. I know the difference and inferiority of the one over the other is a topic of much debate here, so I present for all how multiple paths are actually ONE path:

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita

[voidisyinyang]

I recently discovered this article by philosopher David Loy that beautifully describes how Advaita and Buddhism lead to the same path. I know the difference and inferiority of the one over the other is a topic of much debate here, so I present for all how multiple paths are actually ONE path:

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita

 

Very cool. I read David Loy's book on nonduality back in 1999 and thought it was brilliant.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Nonduality-Comparative-Philosophy-David-Loy/dp/1573923591

Edited May 6, 2010 by drewhempel

[Birch]

Very cool! Thanks!

[dwai]

I recently discovered this article by philosopher David Loy that beautifully describes how Advaita and Buddhism lead to the same path. I know the difference and inferiority of the one over the other is a topic of much debate here, so I present for all how multiple paths are actually ONE path:

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita

 

Isn't it funny that we came a full circle. Of course they lead to the same truth...

 

ekam sat vipraha bahuda vadanti

 

was told by the vedic rishis > 5000 years ago

 

but you want to know something interesting? nah...I won't say...wait and see!

[forestofclarity]

No, I thought this all along. It was a cadre of other Buddhists who believed that Advaita was inferior.

 

Its funny because lately, I've been asking my wife: Do you think its weird that I think the no-self of Buddhism and the Self of Advaita are the same?

 

She didn't. The some one posted this article on the internet. I'm just glad some one else was able to explain it better than me. Thanks, cosmos.

 

Isn't it funny that we came a full circle. Of course they lead to the same truth...

 

ekam sat vipraha bahuda vadanti

 

was told by the vedic rishis > 5000 years ago

 

but you want to know something interesting? nah...I won't say...wait and see!

Edited May 6, 2010 by forestofemptiness

[RongzomFan]

Here are some exerpts from the book The Essential Vedanta by Eliot Deutsch & Rohit Dalvi 2004.

 

"....much of Sankara's metaphysics, especialy his analysis of the world as maya, was taken from Buddhist sources. In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some dialectical techniques, if not specific doctrines, of the former." pg. 126

 

"Gaupada rather clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments were cast." pg. 157

 

Gaupada was the guru of Sankara's guru, so this shows that ripping of Buddhism, is a long tradition.

Edited May 6, 2010 by alwayson

[C T]

My grandfather, a Sri Lankan, was a Buddhist scholar, an elder in the Singapore Buddhist Association where he teaches Buddhism, a tailor, an amateur boxer, and funnily enough, he was also a much sought after Indian Astrologer, something which he learnt from his guru, also a devout, orthodox Buddhist. I remember him saying that his father and his father's father were all Buddhists, yet there in his prayer room were 'holy' pictures of the various Hindu Deities, and the Ruler Deities of the various planets like Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto and so on. Three times a day he would offer prayers to Lord Buddha, Rahu, Kethu and all these other deities. I dont think he ever saw that one was somehow more superior over the other - distinct, yes, but he also saw above this and realized how they sort of complement one another in the grand scheme. I was extremely fond and proud of him, still am, and i miss him so. If he was still alive, he would probably put his boot to Alwayson's behind...just jk!

Edited May 6, 2010 by CowTao

[xabir2005]

Something I wrote over a year back:

 

Recognising the Different Phases of Insights

 

...The following post is a recent one I made at The Tao Bums, which Thusness thinks serves as a good summary. I was replying to a post made by 'Dwai' containing the article Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta by David Loy.

 

Dr. David Loy is an enlightened and authorized Zen teacher from an authentic Zen lineage (Sanbo Kyodan lineage) having completed his koan training, so he is not without personal experience, he is not just an academic. Thusness did recommend his book 'Nonduality' to me before a few years back, and it is very well written on the aspect of non-duality. I have his book, bought it a few years ago, and would recommend others to get it. However not much is spoken about dependent origination and emptiness in that book.

 

But take note that 'Nonduality' was the first book (his Ph.D thesis) and was written in the early 1980s and published in 1988, paperback edition 1997. However he did write articles on dependent origination and emptiness in the latter years, like in 1993 he published Indra's Postmodern Net which I think is pretty good also.

 

Regarding the articles in 'Nonduality' which Dwai quoted one above, it is part of his Ph.D thesis on comparative religion and his emphasis was on the similarities between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta and other systems including Taoism and more. That is why it is written with a bias towards seeing the similarities.

 

Actually there are similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. And that is clearly described in David Loy's essay -- it is the non-divison of subject and object. However, in Buddhism it is not only this insight that is important.

 

That is David Loy clearly stated that Non-duality is either No Self or All Self, and permits no duality between a 'true self' and 'not self', observer and observed. Which is true. So he is right that both Buddhism and Advaita is non-dual teaching, but it is not the whole story.

 

What is overlooked/not mentioned here is that though non-duality may be experienced as an All-Self and hence subject and object are not divided, one can still extrapolate all phenomena as being extensions of a universal substratum (i.e. reifying Brahman as an Absolute/Universal Consciousness) -- and hence seeing reality as an inherent ontological essence, which is not in accord with the principles of Shunyata. Non-duality here is seen as the union/inseparability of objects with Subject, but the insight of No-Subject has not arisen.

 

In Stage 5, there is only vivid reflection and manifestation without mirror/Subject, there is no mirror (Ultimate Subject) reflecting or being in union with the manifestations. 'Everything' is a process, event, manifestation and phenomenon, nothing ontological or having an essence. Stage 5 is quite thorough in being no one and Thusness calls this anatta in all 3 aspects -- no subject/object division, no doer-ship and absence of agent. There is no agent, not just no subject/object division. This is Buddhism's No-Self.

 

So the difference between Advaita's non-dualism of brahman and world and Buddhism's No-Self is the difference between Thusness's Stage 4 and 5 which he explained in his comments: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

 

And also as I said earlier, Dependent Origination and Emptiness (Stage 6) is overlooked -- since the thesis is focused on the similarities on the Non-Dual aspect (Stage 4).

 

In my opinion, we should read both David Loy's book on Nonduality, and then read the article by Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche on Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta, to have a balanced view of the similarities and differences. To know only the difference is not enough, we must also be able to see the non-dual aspect which is also an important insight and experience. Likewise to see the similarities is not enough, we have to see Dependent Origination and Emptiness and the paradigm difference due to this.

 

Something I wrote recently at NewBuddhist forum:

 

There are two kinds of bond: one is the bond of seeing dualistically, experiencing in terms of subject and object. The other is the bond of seeing inherently, where consciousness and objects of consciousness are treated to have inherent existence/essence. Both bonds must be removed, but they are separate bonds.

 

Seeing, hearing, smelling, etc... even thoughts, when realised as not divided into an observer and observed, inside and outside, then everything is experienced as the display of consciousness. To see everything is consciousness is non-dual insight, but there must be further insight into anatta and emptiness to realise the empty nature of consciousness. This is the transition from Stage 4 to Stage 5 and 6 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Enlightenment

 

It is not that manifestation are 'display of THE Consciousness' - there is no 'The Consciousness' as Consciousness is empty, in the same way we cannot accurately say that 'Clouds and Rain are the display of THE Weather', as 'Weather' as such is a convention but utterly without substantiality, essence, and location.

 

In other words, we may have notions of an all-pervasive Awareness, or Self, and experientially it is non-dual and this is a correct experience. But it is like the word 'Weather' - you can say everywhere you look into the sky, weather is not apart from that, but is there a truly existing 'Weather' apart from thinking about it? Is it located somewhere, or is it only these patterns of weather that dependently originate moment to moment? Similarly 'Awareness', 'Self' is simply a convention but is ultimately 'empty' - it is simply these self-luminous manifestation that dependently originate, it is just the stream of aggregates. That is why the Buddha talks about five skandhas instead of a One Consciousness, however non-duality (no subject and object) is already automatically implied by fully understanding anatta and five aggregates or eighteen dhatus. It is not that all five skandhas are just one awareness - that is just non-dual insight, but the insight into anatta is to see that the 'one awareness' cannot be found in or apart from the skandhas and dhatus, that there is simply the stream of aggregates. The experience is however still non-dual. When we understand that 'Awareness' like 'Weather' isn't something inherent, we also free ourselves from notions like 'things happening in Awareness' - just like you cannot say 'things happen in Weather' - weather isn't a findable essence or container of those phenomena, rather there is just those stream of phenomena which are conventionally called 'weather'.

 

Next is... can there be Consciousness without conditions? In Buddhism, no. In other religions, Consciousness is treated as a metaphysical essence, Self, substance, an ultimate source of everything that is one with yet transcends all manifestation, God, that has inherent existence. But in Buddhism we do not understand Consciousness in such ways. We have to factor in dependent origination.

 

So in other words, those in other religions who experience non-duality (subsuming subject and object into undivided One Mind) may claim something like "All There Is Is Consciousness", but they disregard conditions. They treat Consciousness as something inherent. But in Buddhism, we have to factor in causes and conditions. As Thusness commented on my friend Longchen's insight into Emptiness after realisation of non-dual,

 

I can see the synchronization of emptiness view into your non-dual experiences --. Integrating view, practice and experience. This is the essence of our emptiness nature and right understanding of non-dual experience in Buddhism that is different from Advaita Vedanta teaching. This is also the understanding of why Everything is the One Reality incorporating causes, conditions and luminosity of our Empty nature as One and inseparable. Everything as the One Reality should never be understood from a dualistic/inherent standpoint.

 

And as Longchen also wrote, "the conditions and factors are also inseparable from the non-dual oneness."

 

To understand the relationship between Dependent Origination and Consciousness one must study the Buddha's teachings on the 18 dhatus, the relation of conditions to the manifestation of consciousness, emphasis on anatta and emptiness instead of just emphasizing on discovering Brahman, One Consciousness, etc. It is not to deny All is Mind, but it is to understand All is Mind "due to" its empty nature and luminous essence, due to dependent origination and anatta. It is to see Consciousness not as an ultimate source of everything, but as interdependently originated manifestation, as Vajrahridaya puts it: there is the concept of the creative matrix in Buddhism and this matrix is without limit and is infinite. But it's not an eternal self standing infinite. It's an infinitude of mutually dependent finites... or "infinite finites" that persist eternally without beginning or end and without a source due to mutual, interpersonal causation you could say.

 

First of all Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting the world, but rather Awareness is a manifestation. Luminosity is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is non-dual.

 

One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. Example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears...are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.

 

Zen Patriarch Bodhidharma explains, "With the condition of the eye, forms are seen, With the condition of ears, sounds are heard, With the condition of nose, smells are smelled, With the condition of tongue, tastes are tasted, every movement or states are all one's Mind."

 

Also, Nagarjuna explains, "When sound and ear assume their right relation, A consciousness free of thought occurs. These three are in essence the dharmadhatu, free of other characteristics, But they become "hearing" when thought of conceptually."

 

When consciousness experiences the pure sense of “I AM”, overwhelmed by the transcendental thoughtless moment of Beingness, consciousness clings to that experience as its purest identity. By doing so, it subtly creates a ‘watcher’ and fails to see that the ‘Pure Sense of Existence’ is nothing but an aspect of pure consciousness relating to the thought realm. This in turn serves as the karmic condition that prevents the experience of pure consciousness that arises from other sense-objects. Extending it to the other senses, there is hearing without a hearer and seeing without a seer -- the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. Sincerely, if we are able to give up ‘I’ and replaces it with “Emptiness Nature”, Consciousness is experienced as non-local. No one state is purer than the other. All is just One Taste, the manifold of Presence.

 

.....

 

Further clarification to DD:

 

there is nothing sacred or holy about awareness

 

it is simply another aggregate (namely consciousness)

 

the views of these teachers are "stuck" in mind

 

 

I realise that statement of mine is quite misleading. I wrote too fast. Awareness is just a term, a label, a convention. I don't mean there is an ultimate pure awareness outside of the skandhas.

 

Rather I was referring to dissolving the mental processes and formations part of the five skandhas, transforming five skandhas into eighteen dhatus.

 

The term 'pure awareness' is also confusing -- for example as Thusness said, the experience of Pure Sound-Consciousness is radically different from Pure Sight-Consciousness. There is no 'THE Pure Awareness'. There is simply the six consciousness that dependently originates along with the six sense objects and faculties. I believe I have been pretty clear on that in my previous post. I use 'pure' in the sense of directness, nakedness, without conceptual layering.

 

A week ago:

 

(11:55 PM) Thusness: I said awareness is a luminous manifestion

(11:56 PM) Thusness: That dependently orignates

(11:57 PM) Thusness: Pure sound Consciousness is not pure sight consciousness

(11:57 PM) Thusness: Then how could there be a pure awareness?

(12:02 AM) Thusness: Awareness is a convention like 'weather', is there a 'weather' that is 'there' existing 'inherently'?

(12:03 AM) Thusness: how many times i have told u that look at manifestation, the aggregates, understand from the 18 dhatus

(12:03 AM) Thusness: and told u the difference between advaita and buddhism is advaita rest in a background

(12:05 AM) Thusness: Awareness is just a term, a label, a convention taken by the dualistic and inherent mind as 'truly existing'.

(12:05 AM) Thusness: like without investigation, we thought that there is really a 'weather'

 

..........

 

(1:14 AM) Thusness: read phase 5 insight

and 6

what is the difference?

(1:19 AM) Me: phase 5 sees that awareness is just the stream of aggregates, phase 6 sees that the aggregates are ungraspable, unlocatable and interconnected? like the red flower analogy

(1:25 AM) Thusness: phase 5 u r clear about a label, a convention

(1:26 AM) Thusness: what is the impact of the label

 

..........

 

Toni Packer:

 

A somber day, isn't it? Dark, cloudy, cool, moist and windy. Amazing, this whole affair of "the weather!" We call it "weather," but what is it really? Wind. Rain. Clouds slowly parting. Not the words spoken about it, but just this darkening, blowing, pounding, wetting, and then lightening up, blue sky appearing amidst darkness, and sunshine sparkling on wet grasses and leaves. In a little while there'll be frost, snow and ice-covers. And then warming again, melting, oozing water everywhere. On an early spring day the dirt road sparkles with streams of wet silver. So — what is "weather" other than this incessant change of earthly conditions and all the human thoughts, feelings, and undertakings influenced by it? Like and dislike. Depression and elation. Creation and destruction. An ongoing, ever changing stream of happenings abiding nowhere. No entity "weather" to be found except in thinking and talking about it.

 

Now — is there such an entity as "me," "I," "myself?" Or is it just like the "weather" — an ongoing, ever changing stream of ideas, images, memories, projections, likes and dislikes, creations and destructions, which thought keeps calling "I," "me," "Toni," and thereby solidifying what is evanescent? What am I really, truly, and what do I think and believe I am? Are we interested in exploring this amazing affair of "myself" from moment to moment? Is this, maybe, the essence of retreat work? Exploring ourselves minutely beyond the peace and quiet that we are seeking and maybe finding. Coming upon clarity about this deep sense of separation which we call "me," and "other people," without any need to condemn or overcome.

Edited May 6, 2010 by xabir2005

[Enishi]

*Waits for this topic to once again explode into multiple debate threads which are dozens of pages long...*

[RongzomFan]

My grandfather, a Sri Lankan, was a Buddhist scholar, an elder in the Singapore Buddhist Association where he teaches Buddhism, a tailor, an amateur boxer, and funnily enough, he was also a much sought after Indian Astrologer, something which he learnt from his guru, also a devout, orthodox Buddhist. I remember him saying that his father and his father's father were all Buddhists, yet there in his prayer room were 'holy' pictures of the various Hindu Deities, and the Ruler Deities of the various planets like Jupiter, Saturn and Pluto and so on. Three times a day he would offer prayers to Lord Buddha, Rahu, Kethu and all these other deities. I dont think he ever saw that one was somehow more superior over the other - distinct, yes, but he also saw above this and realized how they sort of complement one another in the grand scheme. I was extremely fond and proud of him, still am, and i miss him so. If he was still alive, he would probably put his boot to Alwayson's behind...just jk!

 

This may surprise you, but I think like your grandfather.

 

I am also quite well versed in jyotish. Buddhists can even go to a hindu temple and honor deities. I had a navagraha puja done for me recently. The difference is refuge in the Triple Gems, and maintaining that.

Edited May 6, 2010 by alwayson

[Lucky7Strikes]

Xabir is pretty bad at skillful means. Which makes me doubt his level of realization. Just an observation.

[RongzomFan]

Xabir is pretty bad at skillful means. Which makes me doubt his level of realization. Just an observation.

 

 

There is nothing much to realize. There is a self-affirming clarity beyond all thoughts. However this clarity does not really exist. Thats it LOL.

Edited May 6, 2010 by alwayson

[xabir2005]

Xabir is pretty bad at skillful means.

What skillful means?

[ralis]

Xabir is pretty bad at skillful means. Which makes me doubt his level of realization. Just an observation.

 

I guess you are a realized being?

 

ralis

[Birch]

Xabir's allowed to believe what he wants. I think it's so hard to explain stuff like this and there are so many similarities that in many cases I just end up seeing how simultaneously awesome and awful such philosophies are.

 

I also think that whether you place an "ego" at a personal level or at a cosmic level, you're missing the point of practice which is about your own enlightenment - which is unlikely to be that of someone else.

 

Aren't these things supposed to be "vehicles" only anyway? Does it matter if I take a cab, a bus, a horse an ox or internet? Does it matter what colour it is?

[forestofclarity]

Xabir,

 

I think you missed the whole point of Loy's article.

[Lucky7Strikes]

What skillful means?

I don't think your posts reflect the understanding of the listener. They are always the same, and I doubt most read through them anyway, which is a pity because they have a lot of good stuff in them. Why do we have the same arguements with the same people here over and over?

 

I can't say I have much of that either, but I'm understanding more and more what it is, and I just wish you would learn how to filter and organize your posts so that it isn't written just for your own benefit, kind of like "here it is, I've written the Truth, and now you figure it out" but for the actual understanding of the reader.

 

Again, this is my opinion. You always seem to have good insight into Thusness' teachings, but I can't help but wonder how much you've progressed reitering them over and over....

Edited May 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

I guess you are a realized being?

 

ralis

Ralis, go away.

 

LOL.

 

I'm just kidding. You know I love you. .

Edited May 7, 2010 by Lucky7Strikes

[Sunya]

Xabir,

I think you missed the whole point of Loy's article.

 

I think you missed the point of Xabir's post.

 

I love David Loy. His book was immensely inspiring for me and I communicate with him regularly, but I don't take him to be the end all-be all when it comes to this debate. Why? Because he's only experienced with the practice of Buddhism and compares that realization to the philosophy of Advaita, which may sound very similar. The uniqueness of Xabir's position is that his teacher has experience practicing in both Advaita and Buddhism, therefore his point isn't rooted in concepts. Likewise many Indian Buddhist scholars who later influenced Tibetan lineages were well aware of Advaita from an experiential perspective and they argued against that view. Not because it's a different way of explaining the end goal but rather because its a view that stops short of the Buddhist end goal. Why is it so difficult to see that positing an All-Self substance leads to grasping? It seems almost like common sense to me.

[voidisyinyang]

I think you missed the point of Xabir's post.

 

I love David Loy. His book was immensely inspiring for me and I communicate with him regularly, but I don't take him to be the end all-be all when it comes to this debate. Why? Because he's only experienced with the practice of Buddhism and compares that realization to the philosophy of Advaita, which may sound very similar. The uniqueness of Xabir's position is that his teacher has experience practicing in both Advaita and Buddhism, therefore his point isn't rooted in concepts. Likewise many Indian Buddhist scholars who later influenced Tibetan lineages were well aware of Advaita from an experiential perspective and they argued against that view. Not because it's a different way of explaining the end goal but rather because its a view that stops short of the Buddhist end goal. Why is it so difficult to see that positing an All-Self substance leads to grasping? It seems almost like common sense to me.

 

 

Regularly? Do you have any emails from Loy that you want to quote?

[Sunya]

Regularly? Do you have any emails from Loy that you want to quote?

 

Not really relevant.. our discussions were more personal. We talked about academia since I'm considering going for a PhD. His work Nonduality was one of my inspirations for doing that because it was so fascinating.

Edited May 7, 2010 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

Xabir,

 

I think you missed the whole point of Loy's article.

David Loy pointed out the similarities which is non duality.

 

He failed to point out the difference which is non inherency.

 

Conflating Subject into dharmas (Pali Buddhism), Conflating objects into Brahman (Advaita), both leads to non-dual experience. But it is the non inherency part that differs. If one dissolve objects into One Mind, eventually One Mind must be investigated and dissolved like investigating the word 'weather'.

 

Richard Herman:

 

Yes, it is the absolute "elimination of the background" without remainder. It is the affirmation of multiplicity, not dispersion, but multiplicity. The world references nothing but the world. Each thing is radiant expression of itself. There is no support, no ground. No awareness. No awareness.

 

"All dharmas are resolved in One Mind. One Mind resolves into...."

 

There is the radiant world. just the radiant world. No awareness.

 

That is the Abbott slapping floor with his hand. The red floor is red. Spontaneous function.

 

 

Daniel M. Ingram is truly clear on the aspect of Anatta: Rigpa and Aggregates

Edited May 7, 2010 by xabir2005

[tyler zambori]

I think you missed the point of Xabir's post.

 

I love David Loy. His book was immensely inspiring for me and I communicate with him regularly, but I don't take him to be the end all-be all when it comes to this debate. Why? Because he's only experienced with the practice of Buddhism and compares that realization to the philosophy of Advaita, which may sound very similar. The uniqueness of Xabir's position is that his teacher has experience practicing in both Advaita and Buddhism, therefore his point isn't rooted in concepts. Likewise many Indian Buddhist scholars who later influenced Tibetan lineages were well aware of Advaita from an experiential perspective and they argued against that view. Not because it's a different way of explaining the end goal but rather because its a view that stops short of the Buddhist end goal. Why is it so difficult to see that positing an All-Self substance leads to grasping? It seems almost like common sense to me.

 

Oh, the Buddhists believe in a Self all right, they just don't want to admit it.

 

At this point I'm more interested in how Taosim is superior to both Buddhism and

Advaita.

[Sunya]

Oh, the Buddhists believe in a Self all right, they just don't want to admit it.

 

At this point I'm more interested in how Taosim is superior to both Buddhism and

Advaita.

 

Welcome to the show. One way to annoy everyone is to make claims without backing them up.

[lino]

I recently discovered this article by philosopher David Loy that beautifully describes how Advaita and Buddhism lead to the same path. I know the difference and inferiority of the one over the other is a topic of much debate here, so I present for all how multiple paths are actually ONE path:

 

Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita

 

Buddhism is based off of Advaita. That is why Buddhism is called the "Wheel of Truth".

A "wheel" is a chakra. Shakyamuni was trying to present his material in such a manner

that procedures and mudras were connected step-by-step.