Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[dwai]

No, you still identify with this zero as the one in all while Buddhists don't, so yes... my zero is zero-er.

 

So Buddhists don't consider Shunyata as containing potentiality for everything arising?

 

I don't think you will ever drop your Hindu conditioning and see past it and understand what I am getting at because you are part of a long lineage of Hindus and this carries a lot of weight in your family pride. I was only raised Hindu in this life by a mother who converted before I was born and only converted to Buddhism which was very difficult for me later in life. Only after having insight through contemplation of the intention of the explanation of things through the lens of pratityasamutpada (DO).

 

I have had the advantage of growing within an organic tradition that has evolved over thousands of years...why should I give it up? It has worked for countless others before me, and it works for me as well. My personal experiences have only proven that this is a fact. I can be perfectly Hindu and be a Taoist and a Buddhist at the same time and won't feel dichotomous in any way...I make them all work towards my end-goal

[ralis]

We already had this discussion and your quotes from the Maha Parinirvana Sutra are pulled out of context and mis-associated. Many Neo-Advaitin's do this, also many "Dark Zen" group people do this. But, there is no ambiguity, there is just a lack of clear understanding of the intended meaning on yours and their part.

 

 

 

 

What is "Dark Zen"?

 

ralis

[dwai]

We already had this discussion and your quotes from the Maha Parinirvana Sutra are pulled out of context and mis-associated. Many Neo-Advaitin's do this, also many "Dark Zen" group people do this. But, there is no ambiguity, there is just a lack of clear understanding of the intended meaning on yours and their part.

 

Mahayana does not at all align with Advaita Vedanta. You can pull things out of context and make this up, but no schooled Mahayanin would agree with your assumptions.

 

The Tathagatagarbha has to do with the constant realization of emptiness and thus a self relative to this is realized endlessly offering of Buddhadharma insight. But, it is not born of itself, but arises as a realization dependent upon wisdom, is not a source of the universe and is not the Self of all. So is not to be equated with Brahman or the Atman of Vedanta and the Buddha said specifically that in another Mahayana Sutra about the content of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra. It is a self that is relative to the constant realization that all things always were luminously empty of inherent existence, this is the self of the Buddha, relative to Buddhadharma realization. So, the Tathagatagarbha is realized relative to the fact that all endless things are empty of intrinsic existence and connected always.

 

To interpret the Tathagatagarbha any other way is erroneous. The subtle differences are deeply important, because they are subtle.

 

And I have told you that your understanding of Advaita Vedanta is incorrect. Brahman is not a source of all creation...there is only Brahman and nothing but Brahman. Everything is simply a superimposition of Brahman via limiting adjuncts upon Brahman itself (Adhyasa).

[Vajrahridaya]

So Buddhists don't consider Shunyata as containing potentiality for everything arising?

 

Shunyata is dependent arising. Because things are empty, change happens, that is all. This is what is meant by the potential for the arising of everything. Not as a static source of everything that pre-exists everything. So, infinite potential in Buddhism means something different than it does in Vedanta.

 

I have had the advantage of growing within an organic tradition that has evolved over thousands of years...why should I give it up? It has worked for countless others before me, and it works for me as well. My personal experiences have only proven that this is a fact. I can be perfectly Hindu and be a Taoist and a Buddhist at the same time and won't feel dichotomous in any way...I make them all work towards my end-goal

 

Your end goal is distinctly Hindu. But, you are free to do what you wish and think about it as you wish.

 

To a genuine Buddhist though, you are not a Buddhist as you do not actually practice Buddhism, it's methods, believe in it's dharma seals or understand it's philosophy. You also don't take refuge in the triple gem.

[Vajrahridaya]

And I have told you that your understanding of Advaita Vedanta is incorrect. Brahman is not a source of all creation...there is only Brahman and nothing but Brahman. Everything is simply a superimposition of Brahman via limiting adjuncts upon Brahman itself (Adhyasa).

 

Brahman is considered the source of all things. It is considered the primal origin. There are different ways of talking about Brahman in Hinduism. But there are plenty of scriptures that talk about Brahman as a primal source. No matter what, it is considered the reality of all things, the true singular existence at the base of all phenomena, the truth that the illusion of maya dances upon. This is not the same intention with Shunyata.

 

This realization is not in cahoots with Buddhist realization and leads to an entirely different end result.

 

I was raised in a Shaivite Sampradaya with much influence from Trika Shaivism or Kashmir Shaivism. So, we did equate Brahman and Shiva together. Remember that even in Hinduism there are different views that don't lead to the same realization. The dualists call your style of interpretation Mayavid. You can mush it all together if you want, but this is quite common with unclear thinking that misses the subtle particulars.

[Vajrahridaya]

And I have told you that your understanding of Advaita Vedanta is incorrect.

 

To go further... so your lineage rejects the texts written by Jhaneshwar? Like his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita the Jhaneshwari, or the Amritanubhava? Where he talks about Shiva and Shakti and how they are really one, but one aspect of Brahman is basis as Shiva and the other creative as Shakti?

Edited May 18, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

What is "Dark Zen"?

 

ralis

 

Dark Zen

[dwai]

Brahman is considered the source of all things. It is considered the primal origin. There are different ways of talking about Brahman in Hinduism. But there are plenty of scriptures that talk about Brahman as a primal source. No matter what, it is considered the reality of all things, the true singular existence at the base of all phenomena, the truth that the illusion of maya dances upon. This is not the same intention with Shunyata.

 

This realization is not in cahoots with Buddhist realization and leads to an entirely different end result.

 

I was raised in a Shaivite Sampradaya with much influence from Trika Shaivism or Kashmir Shaivism. So, we did equate Brahman and Shiva together. Remember that even in Hinduism there are different views that don't lead to the same realization. The dualists call your style of interpretation Mayavid. You can mush it all together if you want, but this is quite common with unclear thinking that misses the subtle particulars.

we are talking about the advaitin's Brahman...not The Dvaita version of it. As far as I'm concerned, Dvaita traditions don't get the point at all...since they tend to maintain a permanent separation between Ishvara and Jiva (kind of like Christianity or other Dualistic religions).

 

If you look at the Vedantic texts, they have been interpreted in 3 different ways...Advaita, Vishistadvaita and Dvaita. The Rishis who tried to express their experiences (Non-Dualistic) in the Upanishads themselves are quite clear that there is no distinction and that Brahman is not the Source but the true nature of everything. What you wrote demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of Advaita Vedanta and are trying to superscribe a Dualistic connotation when none exists.

 

Also, Trika is not Vedanta and they are very clear in venturing out on "their own"...I agree with many of their perspectives but not all...

[dwai]

To go further... so your lineage rejects the texts written by Jhaneshwar? Like his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita the Jhaneshwari, or the Amritanubhava? Where he talks about Shiva and Shakti and how they are really one, but one aspect of Brahman is basis as Shiva and the other creative as Shakti?

 

Many people have done commentaries on the Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita...I don't have to necessarily accept or reject all or any of their works. Shiva-Shakti paradigm is a dualistic Sankhya-esque construct (Purusha-Prakriti), which falls apart when confronted with sound intellectual analysis. Advaitins should focus on the experience and how to get it (realization) and not worry so much about explanations. I think this is what Shankara did and all great Advaitins have done the same. The great 19th Century Advaitin Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa talks about a "Ladder" theory where in all traditions (even the Dualistic ones) are simply rungs of a ladder to be climbed to reach the summit of Non-dual realization.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Also, Trika is not Vedanta and they are very clear in venturing out on "their own"...I agree with many of their perspectives but not all...

 

My schooling of Vedanta was more from the perspective of Trika. But even Vasisthas Yoga talks about Brahman as both being a source of everything and also being one with everything at the same time so is also Advaita. There are plenty of texts in the Upanishads that talk about things descending from and out of Brahman. There are lots of Upanishads.

 

As you can see there are many different types of non-duality. Advaita Vedanta is not quite compatible with Trika Shaivism and they are also not compatible with Buddhism even though they all claim non-dual realization, their interpretations of this is different, even beyond merely categorical framework. The actual intuitive interpretation and thus result of the experience is different in each path.

[ralis]

Dark Zen

 

I suppose this is some low path, in your mind.

 

 

ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

Many people have done commentaries on the Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita...I don't have to necessarily accept or reject all or any of their works. Shiva-Shakti paradigm is a dualistic Sankhya-esque construct (Purusha-Prakriti), which falls apart when confronted with sound intellectual analysis. Advaitins should focus on the experience and how to get it (realization) and not worry so much about explanations. I think this is what Shankara did and all great Advaitins have done the same. The great 19th Century Advaitin Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa talks about a "Ladder" theory where in all traditions (even the Dualistic ones) are simply rungs of a ladder to be climbed to reach the summit of Non-dual realization.

 

The Shiva Shakti paths are actually non-dual in essence, as Jhaneshwar was deeply non-dual, but he was substantialist non-dual as in everything equaled Brahman the one true reality, thus is Eternalistic and does not hold up to Buddhist analysis.

 

Neither do any of the Hindu interpretations of non-duality as they are not complete views according to Buddhist tradition. You can assume otherwise, but your view of Buddhism is venturing from tradition and I am talking about the tradition when I am talking about Buddhism. Your traditional Advaita Vedanta is incompatible with any form of traditional Buddhism as far as the final analysis goes which all Buddhist traditions have the 4 seals of Dharma.

[Vajrahridaya]

I suppose this is some low path, in your mind.

 

 

ralis

 

It's end result may lead to a higher rebirth, but it's not Buddhism and assumes an essence that is real all by itself thus it ignores the 4 dharma seals. It is more of a neo-advaita/zen path.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[voidisyinyang]

What do the talking plants think about your fake discussion?

 

time for a jungle trip boys!!

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/jungle-trip/

[Vajrahridaya]

What do the talking plants think about your fake discussion?

 

time for a jungle trip boys!!

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/jungle-trip/

 

I-O-WAH-SKA? Been there, done that... not my thing, but interesting.

[voidisyinyang]

I-O-WAH-SKA? Been there, done that... not my thing, but interesting.

 

Been where? Done what?

 

You've gone to South America? You've done ayahausca?

 

haha. Typical brush off without details.

 

Back to your Dgozchen cave!

 

Yeah that's right! Dogschzoen!!

 

Advaita my ass.

 

Dude you still got your internet job?

 

You did ayahausca in NYC??!??

 

haha.

 

Did you do it in full lotus? Or are you above full lotus!!

 

I know that your upbringing in the Muktananda cult has left you a bit "sheltered."

 

So I feel for you!

 

Oh yeah NOW I remember -- YOU got a Brazilian girlfriend!!!

 

You marry her yet?!! That was the plan right!

 

haha.

 

So you went to Brazil!?!

[dragonfire45]

Been where? Done what?

 

You've gone to South America? You've done ayahausca?

 

haha. Typical brush off without details.

 

Back to your Dgozchen cave!

 

Yeah that's right! Dogschzoen!!

 

Advaita my ass.

 

Dude you still got your internet job?

 

You did ayahausca in NYC??!??

 

haha.

 

Did you do it in full lotus? Or are you above full lotus!!

 

I know that your upbringing in the Muktananda cult has left you a bit "sheltered."

 

So I feel for you!

 

Oh yeah NOW I remember -- YOU got a Brazilian girlfriend!!!

 

You marry her yet?!! That was the plan right!

 

haha.

 

So you went to Brazil!?!

 

 

Drew, you're awesome man! You kinda just typed my mind here.

 

Oh, haven't seen much from you on this forum lately. Write more often dude! You are one of the few folks I keep coming back to this forum for in spite of these huge threads with nothing but mental masturbation that people like to claim as critical thinking or inquiry into the real nature of mind or whatever other name they got for the lube that they use to jerk off. Pure nonsense and justification for that nonsense is even more crap. Like this CowTao dude, he agrees with everything Vaj says just because both of them are crazy about Buddhism. So, this is what isms are like. People spend all their time and effort in fighting for their belief systems, grading other systems bad and trying to do the thinking for everyone else but themselves... lol

 

Yeah, I am sitting in full lotus as I speak. Can do it for 45 minutes but not more than that for a single sitting. By the way I can't find that Qi-ssage thread. Have you tried that and find it useful?

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Drew, you're awesome man! You kinda just typed my mind here.

 

Oh, haven't seen much from you on this forum lately. Write more often dude! You are one of the few folks I keep coming back to this forum for in spite of these huge threads with nothing but mental masturbation that people like to claim as critical thinking or inquiry into the real nature of mind or whatever other name they got for the lube that they use to jerk off. Pure nonsense and justification for that nonsense is even more crap. Like this CowTao dude, he agrees with everything Vaj says just because both of them are crazy about Buddhism. So, this is what isms are like. People spend all their time and effort in fighting for their belief systems, grading other systems bad and trying to do the thinking for everyone else but themselves... lol

 

Yeah, I am sitting in full lotus as I speak. Can do it for 45 minutes but not more than that for a single sitting. By the way I can't find that Qi-ssage thread. Have you tried that and find it useful?

 

You guys are both awesome!!! Best two posts in the forum for a long long time!!!

Edited May 18, 2010 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Sunya]

Many people have done commentaries on the Brahma Sutras and Bhagvad Gita...I don't have to necessarily accept or reject all or any of their works. Shiva-Shakti paradigm is a dualistic Sankhya-esque construct (Purusha-Prakriti), which falls apart when confronted with sound intellectual analysis. Advaitins should focus on the experience and how to get it (realization) and not worry so much about explanations. I think this is what Shankara did and all great Advaitins have done the same. The great 19th Century Advaitin Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa talks about a "Ladder" theory where in all traditions (even the Dualistic ones) are simply rungs of a ladder to be climbed to reach the summit of Non-dual realization.

 

Let's talk plainly and simply.

 

Goal of Advaita in normal language is pure objectless consciousness, centerless and nondual. All phenomena are identified with consciousness AS consciousness, do you agree?

[nac]

Buddhist philosophy is much closer to Advaita than Dvaita IMO, but they're exactly the same (some Advaitins) or completely different (some Buddhists) in essence only if you have a predisposed bias towards such a view. They diverge even more strongly in the department of ethical philosophy. Most Advaitins supported traditional Hindu institutions including the caste system, etc. But then, so did some divergent (now extinct) Buddhist traditions in South India and Sri Lanka.

[voidisyinyang]

Drew, you're awesome man! You kinda just typed my mind here.

 

Oh, haven't seen much from you on this forum lately. Write more often dude! You are one of the few folks I keep coming back to this forum for in spite of these huge threads with nothing but mental masturbation that people like to claim as critical thinking or inquiry into the real nature of mind or whatever other name they got for the lube that they use to jerk off. Pure nonsense and justification for that nonsense is even more crap. Like this CowTao dude, he agrees with everything Vaj says just because both of them are crazy about Buddhism. So, this is what isms are like. People spend all their time and effort in fighting for their belief systems, grading other systems bad and trying to do the thinking for everyone else but themselves... lol

 

Yeah, I am sitting in full lotus as I speak. Can do it for 45 minutes but not more than that for a single sitting. By the way I can't find that Qi-ssage thread. Have you tried that and find it useful?

 

Naw CaoTwo is female -- from Russia I think. Vaggie has got a lower chakra blockage but he's got good life force energy so he attracts the chicks who don't know better. haha.

 

Full lotus is the secret to freedom. Chunyi Lin went 49 days in full lotus -- no food, no water and no sleep.

 

The Qi-ssage was created a few years after my last http://springforestqigong.com class -- so I haven't tried it -- except a bit impromptu style. I rely on the O at a D for qi-ssage -- the psychic mutual climax does wonder for healing. After several mutual climaxes via the full lotus transmission then the heart chakra opens up and it's powerful medicine. Melts through some serious blockages.

 

LOVE!!!!

[nac]

To be perfectly honest, I don't see how you can claim that Advaita is different from Trika Shaivism, but the same as Buddhism. Just as Advaita was formulated under a strong influence by Mahayana philosophy, Tibetan Buddhism developed under the influence of Kashmiri Trika Shaivism. Plus, it's also a Nastika tradition that rejects the authority of the Vedas and exhibits fundamental differences from any traditional Hindu philosophy. To understand one of the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, just compare this with classical Neoplatonism. Here's a PDF with more details: http://www.forizslaszlo.com/filozofia/folyamat_es_valosag/Whitehead_PR_Part5_Final_Interpratation.pdf

 

PS. Here's another article that discusses the ensuing controversy with other Platonists: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

 

PPS. More linx! If anyone's interested, the first few chapters of this ebook present an easy introduction to Whiteheadian thought: http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2736

Edited May 18, 2010 by nac

[nac]

I'll try and explain one subtle difference between Hindu and Buddhist realization. A man sees a crow land on a coconut tree, causing a coconut to fall to the ground.

 

Hinduism: Uncultivated individuals would think "the crow landing on the tree has disturbed it's branches and caused a coconut to drop", while a realized being would know that causation is ultimately delusional. The event represents a seamless unfolding of the whole of Brahman and consequently, his preordained will.

 

Buddhism: From one perspective, the event was caused by the crow. From another, it may be said that causation plays no definite role in it. Both these views present limited abstractions of the complete view, thus neither reflect the ultimately true nature of reality. It cannot be said that causation ultimately does exist or doesn't exist to the exclusion of the other.

 

If I have succeeded in conveying my impressions, don't you think this represents a fundamental difference in thinking?

Edited May 18, 2010 by nac

[dragonfire45]

Tibetan Buddhism developed under the influence of Kashmiri Trika Shaivism. Plus, it's also a Nastika tradition that rejects the authority of the Vedas and exhibits fundamental differences from any traditional Hindu philosophy.

 

Vajra will throw a fit at this one! Lol it won't matter to fanatics that this is true.

 

Kashmiri Shaivism cannot be called Nastika at all, if that is what you're implying above. It is more Astika than even Advaita. Nastika has nothing to do with holding Veda as authority or not. It is about the notion of a Brahman, Purusha or the Ultimate Source Power - call it Awareness, consciousness, conditioned, unconditioned or whatever. The only two Nastika darshanas are Jainism and Buddhism. First time I have heard this ignorant statement that typifies Trika as Nastika.

 

Also, Trika does not negate the authority of Veda or call it names like the later Buddhists. They simply hold the authority of Agama as superior to Veda. And that too only of Bhairavagamas and not the Raudra or Shaiva agamas which are dual and mixed type.

 

And Tibetan Buddhism - Bon, Shaivism influenced Lamaism with a superimposition of Mahayana philosophy. Tools from everywhere and anywhere put inside the Mahayana case. That makes it Buddhist, so claim some. There are those who disagree, even within Buddhists and also historically.

[ralis]

This is for Vajraji.

Edited May 18, 2010 by ralis