Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[Pero]

Also, I don't think there is anything called the Buddha of 32 marks. A Buddha is said to have 32 marks though.

[forestofclarity]

This depends on a duality. In order for something to be "independent", it must be independent from something ELSE. If there is nothing else, then concepts of independent or dependent don't make sense.

 

 

[snip]

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.

[RyanO]

How do you know he even actually existed?

 

And granting his existence, what makes him different? Why take his insights on faith?

[forestofclarity]

Nicely put.

 

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.

[lino]

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?

 

Nevermind

 

The Jinn said that they also have tribalism that has gone bad and don't trust them either.

They would rather have a lack of trust from man and woman because of imposter posing

and wayward Jinn. Don't trust (anything unseen) Devas, Asuras, and Angels either.

 

Yes they are that kind of Jinn that fulfill wishes, same powers as White Tara.

Edited May 8, 2010 by lino

[Sunya]

This depends on a duality. In order for something to be "independent", it must be independent from something ELSE. If there is nothing else, then concepts of independent or dependent don't make sense.

 

Interdependent does not mean dual. Dual means independent (two). Interdependent means not two, it also means not one.

 

If you say that the Self is ultimately real, eternal, and self-arising then it is independent. It doesn't need something else to be independent from to be independent, but simply that it exists by itself. Ultimating the Self into a source of everything, a background from which everything arises and has 'oneness with', is an extreme counter-response to the old habit of seeing things dualistically. This is not the experience that the Buddhist path aims for because the grasping for identity is still there. The Buddhist aim is free-fall into non-conceptual wisdom which is different than believing in a One monistic substance.

Edited May 8, 2010 by mikaelz

[tyler zambori]

And granting his existence, what makes him different? Why take his insights on faith?

 

I'm not the one taking his insights on faith. In fact, I think that is

exactly what he said *not* to do. He or whoever actually wrote that

bit.

[Sunya]

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.

 

I think what they mean is 'elitism.' If you say that your path leads to a different goal then you are elitist. This rests on the assumption that all paths are the same. It's like saying all economic systems are the same. Don't be elitist by saying capitalism is different from socialism! But anyone who actually studies economics knows there's a huge difference...

[Vajrahridaya]

=^)

[tyler zambori]

I think what they mean is 'elitism.' If you say that your path leads to a different goal then you are elitist. This rests on the assumption that all paths are the same. It's like saying all economic systems are the same. Don't be elitist by saying capitalism is different from socialism! But anyone who actually studies economics knows there's a huge difference...

 

Maybe "Religionism" would be a better word for it.

[forestofclarity]

I just draw the dots. You all draw the connections.

 

I think what they mean is 'elitism.' If you say that your path leads to a different goal then you are elitist. This rests on the assumption that all paths are the same. It's like saying all economic systems are the same. Don't be elitist by saying capitalism is different from socialism! But anyone who actually studies economics knows there's a huge difference...

[xabir2005]

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.

Rebirth is scientifically proven, just look at Dr Ian Stevensons and many other scientists' research on this.

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

This is because karma and rebirth was not a metaphysical speculation of his, this was his very experience. He remembered countless past lives on the day of his enlightenment. It is one of the 3 knowledges he gained:

 

1. The knowledge that the Buddha recollects His past lives,

2. the knowledge capable of seeing the decease and rebirth of beings, and

3. the knowledge capable of eradicating defilements.

 

I have friends who remembered their past lives through meditation as well. So it is not just Buddha.

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

I agree with the first sentence especially.

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.

Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing.

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.

This however, cannot apply to Buddhism.

 

Why?

 

Because Buddhism does not believe in a split between Spirit and Matter.

 

In Buddhism there is no transcendental Spirit, just the dhammas. Liberation is in seeing the nature of dhammas, thus ending clinging. It is not dualistic in the sense of Subject Object duality.

 

Liberation in Buddhism is not to find a 'transcendental spirit', liberation means the end of (mental) suffering. No more ignorance, no more dualistic clinging, no more suffering.

Edited May 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[RyanO]

I'm not the one taking his insights on faith. In fact, I think that is

exactly what he said *not* to do. He or whoever actually wrote that

bit.

 

Right, just to be clear, I was piggybacking on your point. We're in agreement.

 

lino, wow, I have no idea what you're talking about.

[xabir2005]

This depends on a duality. In order for something to be "independent", it must be independent from something ELSE. If there is nothing else, then concepts of independent or dependent don't make sense.

No not really.

 

Even if there is just One Thing, and this One Thing did not need to depend on any conditions, that is independence for me. Independence from anything and any conditions sounds independence.

Edited May 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

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

 

And I quote:

 

 

 

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.

Firstly, Buddha-Nature is not accepted by original Buddhism/Theravada Buddhism as it is a latter development of Mahayana (late Mahayana in fact). Secondly, Buddha-Nature is not the Self of non-Buddhists.

 

Loppon Namdrol:

 

Were the Buddha to teach such a doctrine, it might be so. However, in the Nirvana sutra is states quite plainly the following:

That is called ‘Buddha-nature’ because all sentient beings are to be unsurpassedly, perfectly, completely enlightened at a future time. Because afflictions exist in all sentient beings at present, because of that, the thirty two perfect marks and the eighty excellent exemplary signs do not exist”.

Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:

 

"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.

 

Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."

 

So one must be quite careful not to make an error. The Lanka states unequivocably that the tathagatagarbha doctrine is merely a device to lead those who grasp at a true self the inner meaning of the Dharma, non-arising, the two selflessnesses and so on, and explains the meaning of the literal examples some people constantly err about:

"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

 

When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

 

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

 

The Bhagavan replied:

 

“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

 

Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.

 

Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

 

Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

 

Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

 

Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

 

Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

Thus, the Lanka says:

All yaanas are included

in five dharmas, three natures,

eight consciousnesses,

and two selflessnesses

It does not add anything about a true self and so on.

 

If one accepts that tathaagatagarbha is the aalayavij~naana, and one must since it is identified as such, then one is accepting that it is conditioned and afflicted and evolves, thus the Lanka states:

Tathaagatagarbha, known as ‘the all-base consciousness’, is to be completely purified.

 

Mahaamati, if what is called the all-base consciousness were (37/a) not connected to the tathaagatagarbha, because the tathaagatagarbha would not be ‘the all-base consciousness’, although it would be not be engaged, it also would not evolve; Mahaamati, it is engaged by both the childish and Aaryas, that also evolves.

 

Because great yogins, the ones not abandoning effort, abide with blissful conduct in this at the time of personally knowing for themselves…the tathaagatagarbha-all basis consciousness is the sphere of the Tathaagatas; it is the object which also is the sphere of teachers, [those] of detailed and learned inclinations like you, and Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas of analytic intellect.

 

And:

Although tathaagatagarbha

possesses seven consciousnesses;

always engaged with dualistic apprehensions

[it] will evolve with thorough understanding.

 

If one accepts that the tathaagatagarbha is unconditioned and so on, and one must, since it is identified as such other sutras state:

"`Saariputra, the element of sentient beings denotes the word tathaagatagarbha.

`Saariputra, that word ‘tathaagatagarbha’ denotes Dharmakaaya.

And:

`Saariputra, because of that, also the element of sentient beings is not one thing and the Dharmakaaya another; the element of sentient beings itself is Dharmakaaya; Dharmakaaya itself is the element of sentient beings.

 

Then one cannot accept it as the aalayavij~naana-- or worse, one must somehow imagine that something conditioned somehow becomes conditioned.

 

Other sutras state that tathaagatagarbha is the citta, as the Angulimaala suutra does here:

 

"Although in the `Sraavakayaana it is shown as ‘mind’, the meaning of the teaching is ‘tathaagatagarbha’; whatever mind is naturally pure, that is called ‘tathaagatagarbha’.

 

So, one must understand that these sutras are provisional and definitive, each giving different accounts of the tathaagatagarbha for different students, but they are not defintive. Understood improperly, they lead one into a non-Buddhist extremes. Understood and explained properly, they lead those afraid of the profound Praj~naapaaramitaa to understanding it's sublime truth. In other words, the Buddha nature teaching is just a skillful means as the Nirvana sutra states

"Child of the lineage, buddha-nature is like this; although the ten powers and the four fearlessnesses, compassion, and the three foundations of mindfulness are the three aspects existing in sentient beings; [those] will be newly seen when defilements are thoroughly conquered. The possessors of perversion will newly attain the ten powers (44/B) and four fearlessness, great compassion and three foundations of mindfulness having thoroughly conquered perversion.

 

Because that is the purpose as such, I teach buddha-nature always exists in all sentient beings.

 

When one can compare and contrast all of these citations, and many more side by side, with the proper reading of the Uttataratantra, one will see the propositions about these doctrines by the Dark Zen fools and others of their ilk are dimmed like stars at noon.

Edited May 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[RyanO]

...

 

Interesting points xabir.

 

But claiming that rebirth has been proven scientifically is treading on thin ice to say the least. I haven't looked up this Drs research but might, is there a good link for that?

 

Other than that, taking Buddha's and others' word for it regarding past lives is a tentative, unreliable undertaking. Subjective experience does not equate to factual truth. I personally am not inclined to take someone else's word for it on such an important issue.

 

Regarding your last statement, how is Buddhism different than say, Stoicism?

 

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

 

Epictetus:

 

"Freedom is secured not by the fulfilling of one's desires, but by the removal of desire." (iv.1.175)

[xabir2005]

[tyler zambori]

Firstly, Buddha-Nature is not accepted by original Buddhism/Theravada Buddhism as it is a latter development of Mahayana (late Mahayana in fact). Secondly, Buddha-Nature is not the Self of non-Buddhists.

 

Loppon Namdrol:

 

Well, as I said, Different term, same idea. same idea, same thing, the Buddhists just want

to create what is known as "product differentiation."

 

So I'm going to quote this bit again:

 

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..it remains a widespread and important doctrine, in much of far east buddhism today.

East Asian *and* Tibetan seems to cover a big chunk of the religion even if there is one

sect that doesn't go for it.

 

PS: please let's not get into "oh but the Theravadans are the only REAL ones" K?

If a great many of the adherents of a religion believe it, then that is what the

religion is, and I am quite justified in pointing out that they are just kidding themselves

that they don't believe in a Self.

Edited May 8, 2010 by tyler zambori

[xabir2005]

Well, as I said, Different term, same idea. same idea, same thing, the Buddhists just want

to create what is known as "product differentiation."

 

So I'm going to quote this bit again:

 

 

 

Hmm..it remains a widespread and important doctrine, in much of far east buddhism today.

East Asian *and* Tibetan seems to cover a big chunk of the religion even if there is one

sect that doesn't go for it.

 

PS: please let's not get into "oh but the Theravadans are the only REAL ones" K?

If a great many of the adherents of a religion believe it, then that is what the

religion is, and I am quite justified in pointing out that they are just kidding themselves

that they don't believe in a Self.

This is not about product differentiation at all. You have to read what I quoted carefully. Buddha Nature is just a skillful means to lead someone grasping at a true self to realise the twofold emptinesses. It is not an actual existing nature/Self. The nature of Buddha (the nature of us) is empty [of inherent Self/existence], even while the essence is luminous. There is no True Self. Edited May 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[tyler zambori]

This is not about product differentiation at all. You have to read what I quoted carefully. Buddha Nature is just a skillful means to lead someone grasping at a true self to realise the twofold emptinesses. It is not an actual existing nature/Self. The nature of Buddha (the nature of us) is empty [of inherent Self/existence], even while the essence is luminous. There is no True Self.

 

 

My point is that the Buddhists DO grasp at a real self. Just read the words *I* quoted carefully.

You aren't doing that.

 

So I will try to really spell it out for you. You say there is no True Self.

 

I will quote for the second time:

 

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.

 

What does this say? It says that humans have something that is:

 

 

truly real

pure

hidden

an immortal potency (whatever that is)

an element for awakening

 

 

What IS IT? THINK about it, don't just try to slap

the Buddhist party line back at me.

 

Conclusion: Buddhists do believe in a soul or *true self* because

we need to, at the very least. The evidence that humans need to,

is seen in all religions.

 

 

 

 

 

*

[xabir2005]

My point is that the Buddhists DO grasp at a real self. Just read the words *I* quoted carefully.

You aren't doing that.

 

So I will try to really spell it out for you. You say there is no True Self.

 

I will quote for the second time:

 

 

 

What does this say? It says that humans have something that is:

 

 

truly real

pure

hidden

an immortal potency (whatever that is)

an element for awakening

 

 

What IS IT? THINK about it, don't just try to slap

the Buddhist party line back at me.

 

Conclusion: Buddhists do believe in a soul or *true self* because

we need to, at the very least. The evidence that humans need to,

is seen in all religions.

 

 

 

 

 

*

You misunderstood 'immortal potency'.

 

What it means is, as Loppon Namdrol said,

 

Here, the Nirvana sutra clearly and precisely states that buddha-svabhaava, the "nature of a Buddha" refers not to an actual nature but a potential. Why, it continues:

"Child of the lineage, I have said that ‘curd exists in milk’, because curd is produced from milk, it is called ‘curd’.

 

Child of lineage, at the time of milk, there is no curd, also there is no butter, ghee or ma.n.da, because the curd arises from milk with the conditions of heat, impurities, etc., milk is said to have the ‘curd-nature’."

 

 

The evidence that humans do not need to believe in a soul is the existence of Buddhism. Or if you like an alternative: Actual Freedom by Richard, which I think is the closest so far to Buddhism in that it does not teach or require a soul, but still there are elements like dependent origination that is still lacking there.

Edited May 8, 2010 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

The centrality of the no-self doctrine in Buddhist thought is explained on the basis of its pragmatic role in guiding the adept on the path to enlightenment. Furthermore, the no-self doctrine provides a justification for treating endurance, independence, and self-subsistence as neither desirable nor attainable, but rather as what they are: mistaken notions resulting from the habitual tendency to construct an identity from a stream of physical and subjective phenomena. The Buddhist claims that our sense of self as an autonomous being is imputed, and our attribution of inherent existence to it habitually acquired (see Saṃyutta Nikāya IV, 102; Majjhima Nikāya I, 130), just as Hume claims that a self is never apprehended in the series of perceptions that are characteristic of the mental domain (the parallelism between the Buddhist and Humean reductive analyses of the self is explored at some lenght in Giles 1993, Tillemans 1996, and Kapstein 2001). This routine misapprehension of the discrete phenomena of experience as a self leads to a dualistic perspective: things appear and are categorized as either objective (thus external, but empirically accessible) or as subjective (thus internal, and immediately accessible to consciousness). Puzzled by this dualistic outlook, we cope by constructing an imaginary self as the permanent locus of experience.

 

This imaginary self, usually conceived in substantial terms as an unchanging reality behind the changing phenomenal world, is in effect the root cause of the pervasive ignorance which afflicts the human condition. From a metaphysical point of view, however, the no-self doctrine extends beyond the domain of subjective experience, to characterize all phenomena. Indeed, it is not just persons that are said to be selfless but all the elements of existence as well. To appreciate the uniqueness of the Buddhist no-self doctrine scholars sometimes contrast it with the two most common alternatives: eternalism and annihilationism (or physicalism). The eternalist, usually the Upaniṣadic philosopher, claims that the innermost part of ourselves, the subtle and abiding self, sometimes equated with pure consciousness, exists for all eternity even as the ordinary person undergoes constant change, ultimately resulting in his or her demise. At the opposite end of the spectrum we find the physicalist who sees human nature as contingent and finite. The Buddhist perspective, called the ‘middle path between extremes’ or simply the ‘middle way’ (madhyamā-pratipad) offers a very different account of human existence: what we routinely call ego, self, soul, individual personality, are merely conventional terms that do not apply to anything real.

 

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/

 

 

 

My point is that the Buddhists DO grasp at a real self. Just read the words *I* quoted carefully.

You aren't doing that.

 

lol, are you trolling?

 

It isn't difficult to do some research and see what Buddhanature actually means. You're taking the teaching completely out of context because you already have preconceived notions that all spiritual paths cling to some 'true self' which isn't true. Buddhanature is a symbol that all beings can awaken because there is no self. Since there is no binding inherent self, realization is possible because there are no limitations. It is a 'true self' teaching only on the surface, when taken out of context, but when brought into the full spectrum of Buddhist methodology it is a practice for you to surrender to the groundless nature of lack-of-self, so it is infact the complete opposite of a true self teaching. Self implies reference, but Buddhist realization is non-referential and center-less.

Edited May 8, 2010 by mikaelz

[RongzomFan]

My point is that the Buddhists DO grasp at a real self. Just read the words *I* quoted carefully.

You aren't doing that.

 

 

How many times shall it be explained to you?

 

Buddha nature is simply the potential to become a Buddha.

 

Also it is funny how you cling to crappy english translations.

Edited May 8, 2010 by alwayson

[RongzomFan]

There is a clarity beyond all thought. This clarity knows itself by itself. It is self-affirming. This clarity does not truly exist however.

Edited May 8, 2010 by alwayson

[tyler zambori]

How many times shall it be explained to you?

 

Buddha nature is simply the potential to become a Buddha.

 

Also it is funny how you cling to crappy english translations.

 

It's funny how you need to cling to your own preconceptions,

and then try to teach others not to cling.

 

AS I said, Buddha nature is the same idea with different words,

and why would I want to deny what there is, unless I name it

after the founder of the religion? That doesn't seem

very liberated to me.

 

Nobody can answer: What IS IT, so you resort to insults.

Doesn't seem very sound to me.

 

Ah mikaelz, this is not a buddhist forum, so how could I be

trolling? If you don't like it, maybe a nice buddhist forum

would be a good place for you.