Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[RongzomFan]

Buddhism is based off of Advaita.

 

 

It is the other way around. The Upanishads and Advaita came WAY after the Buddha (500 BC).

 

In fact Advaita was developed WAY after Nagarjuna as well (200 CE).

 

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 7, 2010 by alwayson

[lino]

It is the other way around. The Upanishads and Advaita came WAY after the Buddha.

 

In fact Advaita was developed WAY after Nagarjuna as well.

 

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.

 

Please read my statement again.

[RongzomFan]

yeah I don't understand it

[lino]

Try to read into the context of my message three or four messages up.

 

What I was trying to say was that Shakyamuni was trying to present

 

the Advaita in a more efficient manner.

[RongzomFan]

What I was trying to say was that Shakyamuni was trying to present

 

the Advaita in a more efficient manner.

 

 

Right...

 

And what I am saying is that this is not possible since Advaita did not exist yet.

[xabir2005]

Try to read into the context of my message three or four messages up.

 

What I was trying to say was that Shakyamuni was trying to present

 

the Advaita in a more efficient manner.

To add on to AlwaysOn, this would not be possible *even if* Advaita were to exist during Buddha's times (and fact is that Advaita only came up over thousand years after Buddha's times).

 

This is because Buddhism had a totally different paradigm that does not teach an ultimate reality like that of Brahman. It is a major paradigm shift between Buddhism and other all other religions including Hinduism that teaches Brahman or a God, which is the central theme of all other religions.

 

See Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

Edited May 7, 2010 by xabir2005

[forestofclarity]

All,

 

I will say up front that I reject all of your sources. I don't care who supposedly said what, be that a Buddhist scholar, some one's anonymous internet guru, or the Buddha himself. What I care about is how their statements measure up in my (or your) experience. I find these Buddhist/Advaita debates degenerate into a war of sources, but who cares? The important thing is personal experience.

 

I have faith in the Buddha not because everyone says he is wise, he's the figurehead of a religion, or that his ideas make philosophical sense. Bottom line is, we have no clue what the Buddha actually said. However, we do have a cluster of ideas we call Buddhism. Applying these ideas to my experience, I find that they are verified. Accordingly, I tend to trust these statements, and am more open about the ones I have not yet verified. This is faith based on experience. Anything that comes across experience is impermanent, non-self, and unsatisfying.

 

Likewise, I have verified the claims of Advaita by looking into my direct experience. I have not falsified any claims or statements made by Advaitins. Advaitins have helped me understand the illusory nature of dual distinctions, mistakes made regarding a self, and so forth.

 

D. Loy's article makes the point that Buddhism looks at the world from the inside out. Being here, looking around, we find no permanent, enduring, anything. So the Buddhists say, there is no self. It would be wrong to use this to deny the knowing that occurs, because you can see for yourself that there is knowing. The world is not a non-sentient machine.

 

Advaita looks from the "outside" in. There is only one thing as all dualities break down. If you deny that there is one, then you deny there is anything existing. If you agree that something exists, and that all dualities break down, you are left with a non-dual reality that Advaita calls "the Self". You may reject the notion that anything exists, but your very rejection is proof of existence. The Advaita Self is actually so refined that it doesn't make sense to even call it a self at all.

 

 

 

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.

[xabir2005]

The difference between Advaita and Buddhism is not that of existence vs non-existence, being vs non-being, but rather - being vs becoming.

 

There is nothing permanent, independent, ultimate, about knowing. Instead we appreciate impermanence, no-self, dependent origination. We appreciate knowing as a verb.

 

This is not a denial of luminosity, this is about seeing the union of luminosity and emptiness (factoring in no-self, impermanence and dependent origination).

Edited May 7, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

While we're at the topic.. I just want to add that those who find the "outside in" or Advaita approach appealing should get the book "Standing As Awareness: The Direct Path" by Greg Goode.

 

I just read the first 34 pages of the book today, it is a truly good guide for the practitioner to investigate. One of the clearest and most practical Advaita books I've read yet.

 

I actually bought the e-book years ago, but just got the hardcopy because the newly published edition included an additional 3 chapters at the front. The 3 chapters definitely made it worth the purchase.

 

Wrote a longer review at http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/391975

Edited May 7, 2010 by xabir2005

[lino]

All,

 

I will say up front that I reject all of your sources. I don't care who supposedly said what, be that a Buddhist scholar, some one's anonymous internet guru, or the Buddha himself. What I care about is how their statements measure up in my (or your) experience. I find these Buddhist/Advaita debates degenerate into a war of sources, but who cares? The important thins is personal experience.

 

I have faith in the Buddha not because everyone says he is wise, he's the figurehead of a religion, or that his ideas make philosophical sense. Bottom line is, we have no clue what the Buddha actually said. However, we do have a cluster of ideas we call Buddhism. Applying these ideas to my experience, I find that they are verified. Accordingly, I tend to trust these statements, and am more open about the ones I have not yet verified. This is faith based on experience. Anything that comes across experience is impermanent, non-self, and unsatisfying.

 

Likewise, I have verified the claims of Advaita by looking into my direct experience. I have not falsified any claims or statements made by Advaitins. Advaitins have helped me understand the illusory nature of dual distinctions, mistakes made regarding a self, and so forth.

 

D. Loy's article makes the point that Buddhism looks at the world from the inside out. Being here, looking around, we find no permanent, enduring, anything. So the Buddhists say, there is no self. It would be wrong to use this to deny the knowing that occurs, because you can see for yourself that there is knowing. The world is not a non-sentient machine.

 

Advaita looks from the "outside" in. There is only one thing as all dualities break down. If you deny that there is one, then you deny there is anything existing. If you agree that something exists, and that all dualities break down, you are left with a non-dual reality that Advaita calls "the Self". You may reject the notion that anything exists, but your very rejection is proof of existence. The Advaita Self is actually so refined that it doesn't make sense to even call it a self at all.

 

D00d...

 

The BC timeline goes numerically BACKWARDS, not forward.

 

http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/Timelines/120-1%20BC.htm

 

1 BC is chronologically later than 100 BC.

 

Buddhism isn't a religion, it is scientifically proven TRUTH SYSTEM.

 

I DON'T PRACTICE RELIGIONS.

Edited May 7, 2010 by lino

[Sunya]

All,

 

I will say up front that I reject all of your sources. I don't care who supposedly said what, be that a Buddhist scholar, some one's anonymous internet guru, or the Buddha himself. What I care about is how their statements measure up in my (or your) experience. I find these Buddhist/Advaita debates degenerate into a war of sources, but who cares? The important thins is personal experience.

 

You're the one who started this thread so its kind of funny that you say "I find these Buddhist/Advaita debates degenerate into a war of sources, but who cares?" and started it off with an article from a *gasp* scholar.

 

Advaita looks from the "outside" in. There is only one thing as all dualities break down. If you deny that there is one, then you deny there is anything existing. If you agree that something exists, and that all dualities break down, you are left with a non-dual reality that Advaita calls "the Self".

 

This is wrong. The opposite of duality is not one. The idea of one depends on the former memory of duality. Since that experience of 'oneness' is based on an extreme counter-concept to the former concept of duality, it is not purely non-conceptual, and thus Buddhists completely reject the claim that Buddhism is the same as nondual traditions that seek oneness because they see that as an extreme view that is still caught up in concepts.

 

You may reject the notion that anything exists, but your very rejection is proof of existence. The Advaita Self is actually so refined that it doesn't make sense to even call it a self at all.

 

Buddhism does not believe that in nothingness, there is indeed somethingness but that somethingness is interdependently arising. There is no source of something and this something has no inherent existence. That's why 'Self' is not in line with Buddhist realization. 'Self' implies inherence, implies independence.

 

Existence does not imply that there is an independent something that exists. Existence, or Being, is simply the moment which is constantly changing, no separate from the content of the moment. Existence, content (appearances), and the moment are intrinsically tied together. There no separate Being which is the source of appearances which you call the Self. Being is the interdependent and constantly changing phenomena that make up the world. That's why, as Xabir suggested, the word 'becoming' is better suited rather than 'being' which does have a connotation of permanence. Becoming is better since every moment there is change and flow.

Edited May 7, 2010 by mikaelz

[tyler zambori]

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

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature

 

And I quote:

 

Buddha-nature or Buddha Principle (Buddha-dhātu), is taught to be a truly real and pure, but internally hidden immortal potency or element for awakening and becoming a Buddha. It exists within the mind of every sentient being.

 

The idea may be traced to Abhidharmic thought, and ultimately to statements of the Buddha in the Nikāyas. Buddha-nature, however, is completely rejected by Theravāda Buddhism due to the fact that the concept comes from later Mahāyāna sutras, which it sees as inauthentic.

 

There are conflicting interpretations of the idea in Mahāyānic philosophy. Though not explicitly denied in any form of Indian Mahāyāna, moreover, some scholars, especially those associated with Madhyamaka, did not have an active interest in this doctrine. Nevertheless, the Buddha-nature doctrine did become a cornerstone of East Asian Buddhist and Tibetan Buddhist soteriological thought and practice. Buddha-nature remains a widespread and important doctrine in much of Far Eastern Buddhism today.[1]

 

Hmm.....Buddha nature is a truly real and pure, internally hidden immortal potency.

Different term than Self, same thing. Denying it is pure BS.

 

In fact, not only does one have a Self, one has a BUDDHA SELF, named

after the founder of the religion. That's clinging all right!

 

Personally, I'd rather not have my ahem SELF be dependent on the founder

of any particular religion.

Edited May 7, 2010 by tyler zambori

[voidisyinyang]

While we're at the topic.. I just want to add that those who find the "outside in" or Advaita approach appealing should get the book "Standing As Awareness: The Direct Path" by Greg Goode.

 

I just read the first 34 pages of the book today, it is a truly good guide for the practitioner to investigate. One of the clearest and most practical Advaita books I've read yet.

 

I actually bought the e-book years ago, but just got the hardcopy because the newly published edition included an additional 3 chapters at the front. The 3 chapters definitely made it worth the purchase.

 

Wrote a longer review at http://buddhism.sgforums.com/forums/1728/topics/391975

 

http://kiloby.com/kilologues.php

 

Interview with author Greg Goode.

 

Goode's website:

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/dialogs.html

Edited May 7, 2010 by drewhempel

[dwai]

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.

 

 

 

It isn't. That is the point of Lao Tzu saying "The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao". What he is trying to tell you is the same thing Buddha was trying to say by not talking about a "self" or "an absolute truth" or when Shankara says "Brahman is Silence".

 

What each of these masters are trying to convey is -- that which is called Tao or Shunyata/Tathagata Garbha or Brahman cannot be intellectualized, rationalized, understood using the faculties of the six sense organs (or their proxies, meaning instrumentation) (eyes, ears, nose, mouth, touch or mind). To realize Tao (or Brahman or Shunyata), is to access it directly (prajna), by bypassing the phenomenal faculties.

 

Everything that one does till the point when Non-duality is realized is irrelevant after the experience happens! To cross the river you have to take a raft, but once you reach the other side, you have to get off the raft. Taoism, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta are all simply rafts and in their true spirit, they want the seeker to abandon the raft after the other side is reached. So, a seeker has to always keep that in mind when acting according to the teachings, so that he/she can be non-attached, thus doing action without doing, being Wei Wu Wei or doing Nishkaama Karma (or action without the "fruits" of karma)

[tyler zambori]

It isn't. That is the point of Lao Tzu saying "The Tao that can be named is not the real Tao". What he is trying to tell you is the same thing Buddha was trying to say by not talking about a "self" or "an absolute truth" or when Shankara says "Brahman is Silence".

 

What each of these masters are trying to convey is -- that which is called Tao or Shunyata/Tathagata Garbha or Brahman cannot be intellectualized, rationalized, understood using the faculties of the six sense organs (or their proxies, meaning instrumentation) (eyes, ears, nose, mouth, touch or mind). To realize Tao (or Brahman or Shunyata), is to access it directly (prajna), by bypassing the phenomenal faculties.

 

Everything that one does till the point when Non-duality is realized is irrelevant after the experience happens! To cross the river you have to take a raft, but once you reach the other side, you have to get off the raft. Taoism, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta are all simply rafts and in their true spirit, they want the seeker to abandon the raft after the other side is reached. So, a seeker has to always keep that in mind when acting according to the teachings, so that he/she can be non-attached, thus doing action without doing, being Wei Wu Wei or doing Nishkaama Karma (or action without the "fruits" of karma)

 

At this point I'm more interested in how the Taoist raft is better than teh other two rafts.

[voidisyinyang]

http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/miao_yun.pdf

 

One of Greg Goode's lineages.

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/dialogs.html

 

Shut your eyes. Take a deep breath .... now let it out. Now try to just listen .... air-conditioning-sounds .... car sounds .... building creaking-sounds. There is no car, no building appearing as such. In fact, the sound is your only evidence of anything like an "air-conditioner" or a "car." In this moment, outside the sound, you don't have access to an air-conditioner or car. But where is the sound itself located? The sound is not on the outside or inside. It's not on the left, right, north or south. There is no dividing line between the sound and you. Of course there might be a storyline that follows the sound, a storyline that says that the car is physically located "outside." But notice that this "outside" is not evident in the sound itself.

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/atmananda.html

 

This is his "root" guru....

 

 

Self-enquiry led by Greg Goode.

 

Bring it on man.

Edited May 7, 2010 by drewhempel

[RyanO]

D00d...

 

The BC timeline goes numerically BACKWARDS, not forward.

 

http://www.swartzentrover.com/cotor/bible/Timelines/120-1%20BC.htm

 

1 BC is chronologically later than 100 BC.

 

Buddhism isn't a religion, it is scientifically proven TRUTH SYSTEM.

 

I DON'T PRACTICE RELIGIONS.

 

The biggest flaw in this reasoning is what Buddhism says about karma and life after death. You must become liberated (whatever that means) or else you will spend an eternity being reborn into samsara. This is NOT scientifically proven.

 

I find it interesting that the Buddha said metaphysical speculation was unimportant (the poisoned arrow story), but assumed the truths of karma and rebirth.

 

Buddhism without karma and rebirth is not Buddhism. It is just meditative practices. Without invoking metaphysics, Buddhism is mere psychology.

 

 

 

On another note, I actually wrote my college thesis entitled "A Defense Of Radical Dualism In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras." If anyone's interested I can email it to you, it's about 30 pages (granted, it is bachelor's level work).

 

In it, I argue a point that may help clear up a little confusion about Hinduism and non-duality. Briefly:

 

It is known among religious scholars that Patanjali, who authored the Yoga Sutras, subscribed to the dualistic Samkhyan metaphysical system (which is mentioned in the first post's link, and one of the classical schools of Indian Philosophy). Samkhya holds that spirit (purusha) and matter (prakriti) are fundamentally distinct. Later developments in Hinduism went towards Advaita's non-dualism, but kept the Yoga Sutras as a practical manual.

 

Today, the Yoga Sutras remain popular, and are almost always interpreted outside of their metaphysical context. I think this is a mistake. The end goal of the sutras is moksha, liberation from matter. One word the sutras use for moksha is kaivalya, roughly meaning 'aloneness'. So, using meditation to ensure this liberation makes sense for Patanjali, but how does it for a non-dualistic mode? It doesn't, and confusion results.

 

 

 

Relating this back to topic, traces of dualism are still found in supposedly non-dualistic schools, including Advaita and Buddhism, because of their insistence on the necessity of obtaining liberation.

Edited May 8, 2010 by RyanO

[Pero]

Sectarianism is Stupid

 

Saying Buddhism is not the same as Advaita or Taoism or what not, is NOT sectarianism. Sectarianism can be within a religion, not amongst different religions.

[Pero]

I find it interesting that the Buddha said metaphysical speculation was unimportant (the poisoned arrow story), but assumed the truths of karma and rebirth.

 

He didn't assume, he knew through his insight. We (Buddhists) however, since we don't possess his insight (yet), take it on faith for the most part.

[tyler zambori]

He didn't assume, he knew through his insight. We (Buddhists) however, since we don't possess his insight (yet), take it on faith for the most part.

 

 

How do you know he even actually existed?

[lino]

The biggest flaw in this reasoning is what Buddhism says about karma and life after death. You must become liberated (whatever that means) or else you will spend an eternity being reborn into samsara. This is NOT scientifically proven.

 

I find it interesting that the Buddha said metaphysical speculation was unimportant (the poisoned arrow story), but assumed the truths of karma and rebirth.

 

Buddhism without karma and rebirth is not Buddhism. It is just meditative practices.

 

 

 

On another note, I actually wrote my college thesis entitled "A Defense Of Radical Dualism In Patanjali's Yoga Sutras." If anyone's interested I can email it to you, it's about 30 pages (granted, it is bachelor's level work).

 

In it, I argue a point that may help clear up a little confusion about Hinduism and non-duality. Briefly:

 

It is known among religious scholars that Patanjali, who authored the Yoga Sutras, subscribed to the dualistic Samkhyan metaphysical system (which is mentioned in the first post's link, and one of the classical schools of Indian Philosophy). Samkhya holds that spirit (purusha) and matter (prakriti) are fundamentally distinct. Later developments in Hinduism went towards Advaita's non-dualism, but kept the Yoga Sutras as a practical manual.

 

Today, the Yoga Sutras remain popular, and are almost always interpreted outside of their metaphysical context. I think this is a mistake. The end goal of the sutras is moksha, liberation from matter. One word the sutras use for moksha is kaivalya, roughly meaning 'aloneness'. So, using meditation to ensure this liberation makes sense for Patanjali, but how does it for a non-dualistic mode? It doesn't, and confusion results.

 

 

 

Relating this back to topic, traces of dualism are still found in supposedly non-dualistic schools, including Advaita and Buddhism, because of their insistence on the necessity of obtaining liberation. Without metaphysics, Buddhism is just healthy psychology.

 

This is what happens with "karma". The Jinn have been guarding earth man and woman

for millions of years. A Jinn has penetrative vision, they can see into every

house just passing by. When they see something or somebody assaulting an earth

man or woman, the first thing that they do is touch Earth so that the Earth and air can build an immune system against the someone or something.

 

The Jinn evolved so long ago that they are known as the Buddha of 32 marks.

Edited May 8, 2010 by lino

[RyanO]

This is what happens with "karma". The Jinn have been guarding earth man and woman

for millions of years. A Jinn has penetrative vision, they can see into every

house just passing by. When they see something or somebody assaulting an earth

man or woman, the first thing that they do is touch Earth so that the Earth and air can build an immune system against the someone or something.

 

The Jinn evolved so long ago that they are known as the Buddha of 32 marks.

 

I have never heard of this. What are your sources?

 

I thought Jinn was an Islamic term.

[Pero]

How do you know he even actually existed?

 

I don't know from personal experience obviously and I haven't bothered to check the historic proofs. But you're welcome to do so.

[Pero]

I thought Jinn was an Islamic term.

 

Genie

[RyanO]

Genie

 

So I'm right then. Let's replace lino's message with this synonomous term:

 

This is what happens with "karma". The Genies have been guarding earth man and woman

for millions of years. A Genie has penetrative vision, they can see into every

house just passing by. When they see something or somebody assaulting an earth

man or woman, the first thing that they do is touch Earth so that the Earth and air can build an immune system against the someone or something.

 

The Genies evolved so long ago that they are known as the Buddha of 32 marks.

 

You for real lino? Where's my magic lamp?

 

Seriously though, why use an Islamic term when discussing Buddhism? Source?