What is Non-duality?

[dwai]

I thought I'd write a bit about Non-duality, based on statements like -- Non-duality claims there is only One and not two, and that it is possible to know there is underlying non-separateness without being a single "thing". That there are still individuals but they are not separate. 

 

Somehow the notion that Non-duality implies "a One Thing", has taken hold.

 

What does Non-duality really mean? Some statements towards that end --

 

• The Non-dual cannot be described in words
• The mind cannot reach Non-duality
• Non-dual means no duality - in other words, no subject-object distinction 

 

Subject-object duality is our primary day to day experience. Everything we experience is predicated on the subject-object duality. I, the subject, experience objects that are separate from me. In experiencing these objects, I come to know them. Our reality is what we know, and we know objects. 

 

Even my body is an object to me, the "I". My mind, is an object to me, the "I". Mind I define as a stream of objects rising and falling in consciousness.  

 

That begs the question -- who is this "I"?

 

An exercise that I found very useful, (I borrowed from Papaji, the Advaita master from India (Ramana Maharshi's student)) is to have someone inquire thus --  "In a fraction of a second, tell me who you are".

 

The usual response is "I am XYZ". Then response becomes "that took more than a fraction of a second..it took maybe 1 or 2 seconds even to respond to". In a fraction of a second, tell me who you are. Depending on the individual, the eventually are stumped as they don't get an answer. They cannot articulate anything about their identity. So, then the follow-on question is - "What do you know about who you are in a fraction of a second?"

 

After some more attempts, it becomes clear "I know I am". In essence, this is who "I" is. Existence and awareness. We can't even say whether "I am aware because I exist...or I exist because I'm aware".  They are one and the same.

 

So then, this begs the question - what about all these objects that we know? Do they exist separately from "I" (or the I AM)? 

 

Isn't our experience predicated on our being and being aware? So how can the objects exist independent of the "I"? Counter-arguments ensue..."but they existed before...your parents saw you...your children will see after you". But what are your parents and your children? Are they too not objects to your "I"? We make assumptions about our model of reality on the basis of the experiences we have. Most are oblivious to the "being and being aware" or the "I AM". The reality is a construct of objects. We identify with these objects. 

 

We might go from the  "I am XYZ...of ABC nationality, Male or Female, etc etc" model to "I am not separate from others but there is no inherent "oneness"" model. Still, these are models based on subject-object duality. "I" the subject am still experiencing "objects". These objects are "things". 

 

Non-duality, says there is no subject-object separation at all. There is no One, there is No Two. There are No "Things". "One" and "Two" are in the domain of things.  When we operate from the perspective of "I" and "things", it is duality. Whether we see separateness or non-separateness. Whether we see unity or diversity. If there is an "I" and an "Other", it is duality.  

 

Things appear and disappear. What is the only constant in this dualistic model? The "I".  What are the characteristics of "I"? Presence, now! There is no past, there is no future. Only naked awareness, right here, right now. How can one then say, that the "I" in me, is separate and distinct from the "I" in you? Where is the possibility of "me and you" in "right here, right now"? All there is, is presence. 

 

What happens when we stay abiding with "I"? Even the "I" disappears. When "I" and "things" both are gone, then there is non-duality. 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by dwai

[s1va]

This goes to the technical definition of the terms and what exactly non-dual means per Advaita.  When I read the Advaita Vedanta, it is clear to me that it is talking about ONE self.  Many terms and sentences are used to describe it.  This also again goes back to the more fundamental question, are we stating that Non-dual as described in Vedanta and Emptiness as described in Buddhism are one and the same?    To me, they seem to be different; certainly not the same.

 

Quote

The classical Advaita Vedanta explains all reality and everything in the experienced world to be same as the Brahman.^[9] To Advaitins, there is a unity in multiplicity, and there is no dual hierarchy of a Creator and the created universe.^[9][153] All objects, all experiences, all matter, all consciousness, all awareness, in Advaita philosophy is not the property but the very nature of this one fundamental reality Brahman.

 

Per the terms of Advaitic Vedanta, it is stated and explained clearly that Brahman is ONE without a second.  I fail to see, how such Brahman can be described as not ONE, or equal to the Emptiness as explained by Buddha.  There are volumes of books written by both sides arguing about the differences between this ONE Supreme Reality and the Emptiness.  One can state that we understand the Non-dual as not ONE.  From the level of personal understanding, it may be okay for someone to say that 'these two are essentially the same for me'.  However from the standpoint of the Advaitic Vedanta, Non-dual can not be described as Void or Not ONE or Nothing.

 

There are several Mahavakyas in Upanishads to illustrate this.  From Advaitic standpoint, such statements are clearly explained as ONE.  

Quote

 Ekam evadvitiyam brahma  (Chandogya Upanishad (6 – 2 – 1)) 
Brahman is one, without a second 
(There is one absolute reality, without any secondary parts)

 

Sarvam khalvidam brahma 
All of this is Brahman 
(All of this, including me, is that absolute reality)

 

Brahma satyam jagan mithya 
Brahman is real; the world is unreal 
(The absolute is real; the world is unreal or only relatively real) 

 

This is Non-dual, how can it be not ONE? 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by s1va

[dwai]

22 minutes ago, s1va said:

This goes to the technical definition of the terms and what exactly non-dual means per Advaita.  When I read the Advaita Vedanta, it is clear to me that it is talking about ONE self.  Many terms and sentences are used to describe it.  This also again goes back to the question, are we stating that Non-dual as described in Vedanta and Emptiness as described in Buddhism are one and the same?    To me, they seem to be different; certainly not the same.

 

 

Per the terms of Advaitic Vedanta, it is stated and explained clearly that Brahman is ONE without a second.  I fail to see, how such Brahman can be described as not ONE, or equal to the Emptiness as explained by Buddha.  There are volumes of books written by both sides arguing about the differences between this ONE Supreme Reality and the Emptiness.  One can state that we understand the Non-dual as not ONE.  From the level of personal understanding, it may be okay for someone to say that 'these two are essentially the same for me'.  However from the standpoint of the Advaitic Vedanta, Non-dual can not be described as Void or Not ONE or Nothing.

 

There are several Mahavakyas in Upanishads to illustrate this.  From Advaitic standpoint, such statements are clearly explained as ONE.  

 

This is Non-dual, how can it be not ONE? 

 

 Imho, it is an incomplete understanding of Advaita Vedanta that assumes “one thing” is it. 

 

Advaita Vedanta does not say there is only “one thing”. “Tad Ekam evadvitiyam “ doesn’t imply a “one thing”. People conflate “thing” to it. That which is nondual is not a thing.  

 

If nondual there is no possibility of either separate or non-separate. Is that one? Is that not one? It’s a matter of semantics. We should not read just the words, but understand what they imply. 

 

We merely have to apply logic to see that. Follow my logic in the OP. You will see that It is true. 

 

Also read this — 

 

https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/ch_2a.html

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by dwai

[s1va]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

 Imho, it is an incomplete understanding of Advaita Vedanta that assumes “one thing” is it. 

 

Advaita Vedanta does not say there is only “one thing”. “Tad Ekam evadvitiyam “ doesn’t imply a “one thing”. People conflate “thing” to it. That which is nondual is not a thing. 

 

We merely have to apply logic to see that. Follow my logic in the OP. You will see that It is true. 

 

Also read this — 

 

https://www.swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/ch_2a.html

 

 

I have no issues with the logic presented in the OP -- that logic can be used effectively in self inquiry.  This is the question of the technical definition of the terms.  Also, I agree ONE is not ONE thing, the Brahman stated in Advaita Vedanta is clearly not a thing.  Yet, it is described as ONE without second.  How can ONE without a second be described as not ONE?   If we were to interpret it as Not ONE, that basically questions the Mahavakyas and the interpretation given to Advaita Vedanta by many great masters from the past to now.  Even in Shankara Bhashya, Brahman is explained as ONE. 

 

Besides the logic, can you please quote any sources of Advaita Vedanta or Masters who explain or interpret the Non-dual as 'Not ONE'.  I am just curious and want to see if any teacher has interpreted Advaita Vedanta to say, that Non-dual is 'Not ONE'.  I have not seen such interpretation to this date.

 

Also, if it is 'Not One', then what is it?  This part of the question still remains.  What about the statements from Gita, that explain that Brahman cannot be burned by fire, it cannot be cut by knife, etc.?  If Brahman or Non-dual is 'Not ONE', how can we explain or give meaning to such statements? 

[dwai]

13 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I have no issues with the logic presented in the OP -- that logic can be used effectively in self inquiry.  This is the question of the technical definition of the terms.  Also, I agree ONE is not ONE thing, the Brahman stated in Advaita Vedanta is clearly not a thing.  Yet, it is described as ONE without second.  How can ONE without a second be described as not ONE?   If we were to interpret it as Not ONE, that basically questions the Mahavakyas and the interpretation given to Advaita Vedanta by many great masters from the past to now.  Even in Shankara Bhashya, Brahman is explained as ONE. 

 

Besides the logic, can you please quote any sources of Advaita Vedanta or Masters who explain or interpret the Non-dual as 'Not ONE'.  I am just curious and want to see if any teacher has interpreted Advaita Vedanta to say, that Non-dual is 'Not ONE'.  I have not seen such interpretation to this date.

 

Also, if it is 'Not One', then what is it?  This part of the question still remains.  What about the statements from Gita, that explain that Brahman cannot be burned by fire, it cannot be cut by knife, etc.?  If Brahman or Non-dual is 'Not ONE', how can we explain or give meaning to such statements? 

Do you agree that syntax cannot describe the Non-dual? 

Do you agree that certain words do need to be employed to point the mind towards the source? That while they might point in the right direction, the “reality” is “avachaniya” or “unspeakable”.

 

The One that is “I”, is where oneness or separateness is experienced. Both are experiences. Oneness is less differentiated  than separateness. But it is still predicated on experience.  

 

We have to go from separateness to oneness. Then the oneness too disappears, and only nondual remains. It is pointless to pick on the directions to the destination to claim that the directions are claiming to be the destination.

 

 

Do you think the topic of emptiness/void and form is somehow absolved of this “flaw”? No. Who can experience emptiness by reading the words? 

 

Words are in the the domain of duality. When upanishads refer to Self or Buddhism refer to Non-Self, they are taking a positive or negative approach syntactically. Neither can capture the “reality”. Only point to it. The truth is anirvachaniya. 

 

Also so let me ask this - is your fundamental experience, or sense of being/existence ever once in doubt irrespective of whether you are expanded to level 30 or are at level 0?

 

Does your “I-ness” remain throughout all your experiences? 

 

I would love to be proven wrong, but never can I experience anything without being present. So it is a futile quest to expect that to happen.

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by dwai

[s1va]

43 minutes ago, dwai said:

Do you agree that syntax cannot describe the Non-dual? 

Do you agree that certain words do need to be employed to point the mind towards the source? That while they might point in the right direction, the “reality” is “avachaniya” or “unspeakable”.

 

 

Agree, that syntax cannot be used to describe Non-dual or Emptiness.  However, if we were to use words to explain or engage in discussion, we need to pick the right terms for the sake of discussion.  Here, the syntax, the context and the usage of terms are very important.  This is where I see the difference.

 

 

43 minutes ago, dwai said:

We have to go from separateness to oneness. Then the oneness too disappears, and only nondual remains.

 

 

Here is where our disagreement seems to be.  To me, the terms nondual and oneness are one and the same, as they are described in Advaita Vendanta.  Non-dual or Brahman does not remain after the oneness disappears (such oneness is described as Brahman).  This is what I requested to see as a quote.  Is there any Advaita or even Vedanta source, that says or explains that Brahman disappears and what remains is nondual and that is the ultimate truth.  As per Vedanta, 'Brahman is it'.  There is nothing apart from Brahman or something/anything that remains after Brahman disappears.

 

 

43 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

Do you think the topic of emptiness/void and form is somehow absolved of this “flaw”? No. Who can experience emptiness by reading the words? 

 

 

No, it won't and they can't be experienced just by reading words, but that is not the point I am trying to make.  I am not arguing emptiness/void is right and oneness or nondual is not, or the other way around (in this thread).  I am just merely stating that nondual and emptiness are not the same to me.  Non-dual cannot be described as 'Not ONE'.

 

43 minutes ago, dwai said:

Also so let me ask this - is your fundamental experience, or sense of being/existence ever once in doubt irrespective of whether you are expanded to level 30 or are at level 0?

 

Does your “I-ness” remain throughout all your experiences? 

 

 

Once again, I am not questioning your personal experience, this is not about my personal experience either.  If you are stating that your definition of the Non-dual is based purely on your personal experience, then we have no disagreements as I stated on my first reply above.  However, if you say this Nondual is the same nondual Brahman indicated in Advaitic Vedanta, then I am at a loss to understand, and this is where the differences arise in terms.

 

For the sake of discussion with others/everyone, we need to agree that certain terms mean certain thing to all of us.   Like using language (English) as a medium to communicate.  Similarly, certain technical terms or keywords mean certain thing in the context of spirituality & Advaita Vedanta etc.  Advaita describes Brahman in a certain unique way.  A-dvaita itself means not-two, 'dvi' the root from which dvaita is derived means two, the 'a' in front negates it and says, not-two essentially.  That not-two is clearly explained as the Brahman, which is one without second.  I fail to understand how Brahman can disappear and the non-dual remain.

Edited November 22, 2017 by s1va

[dwai]

Look up the term “Parabrahman”. You will find what many such as nisargadatta Maharaj and adi Shankara expound on this. Brahman is manifest. Parabrahman is unmanifest, beyond oneness or multiplicity. 

[s1va]

Yes, I looked up the term Parabrahman.  I have come across this term before, and I do like the idea of Parabrahman.  It seems Brahman is further classified into Saguna Brahman (manifest), Nirguna Brahman (unmanifest) and  Parabrahman.  In classical terms, the Brahman itself is unmanifest and the jagat is the manifest Universe.  We can see this in Mahavakya such as "Brahma satyam jagan mitya" (Brahman alone is the Real/Truth, everything else is unreal/illusion), and the way 'Brahman' is generally used in Upanishads.  Parabrahman seems to be a higher classification of Brahman.  But, it still seem to encompass the 'ONE without second' to me. 

 

I guess we can agree to disagree on the meaning of the term, when it comes to non-dual   Otherwise, we both seem to be in agreement about many other things.

Edited November 23, 2017 by s1va

[dwai]

37 minutes ago, s1va said:

Yes, I looked up the term Parabrahman.  I have come across this term before, and I do like the idea of Parabrahman.  It seems Brahman is further classified into Saguna Brahman (manifest), Nirguna Brahman (unmanifest) and  Parabrahman.  In classical terms, the Brahman itself is unmanifest and the jagat is the manifest Universe.  We can see this in Mahavakya such as "Brahma satyam jagan mitya" (Brahman alone is the Real/Truth, everything else is unreal/illusion), and the way 'Brahman' is generally used in Upanishads.  Parabrahman seems to be a higher classification of Brahman.  But, it still seem to encompass the 'ONE without second' to me. 

 

I guess we can agree to disagree on the meaning of the term, when it comes to non-dual   Otherwise, we both seem to be in agreement about many other things.

It’s not just about words. It is about the meaning behind the words. There aren’t too many like Adi Shankara born every thousand years or so. We should have shraddha. There’s still a long way to go brother

[s1va]

Agree on shraddha and long way to go  However shraddha is not (entirely) about any one person or philosophy to me.

Edited November 23, 2017 by s1va

[dwai]

11 minutes ago, s1va said:

Agree on shraddha and long way to go  However shraddha is not (entirely) about any one person or philosophy to me.

Nondual is not about a philosophy. We either understand or we don’t. That’s the best we can do...It’s okay. Once the doership is gone, it will be clear.

 

 

[Jeff]

Thank you both for an extremely impressive back and forth discussion the point. It is one of the best intellectual discussions I have seen on the bums in a long time.  

 

Hopefully, adding a little to conversation, I would like to say that I do not see the logic to your opening point Dwai regarding how fast can you say that you are something. One could simply say “I am all”, then being all, everything is a subset of you, and hence no subject or object separation any more. Also, with that, one meets S1va’s point of being “One without a second”. Hence, under your criteria, “non dual”.

 

The challenge is that the definition of “all” may only be a subset of some larger “all”, that was beyond the one’s perception (and hence unknown). One turns out to have only been “nondual” in their own bathtub, rather than the ocean itself.

[s1va]

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

Nondual is not about a philosophy. We either understand or we don’t. That’s the best we can do...It’s okay. Once the doership is gone, it will be clear.

 

 

 

Yes, only our own experience & Realization can make things clear.   Personally, my experience agrees more with Buddhist and even with Kashmir Shaivism & Kapila's Samkhya.  Buddha realized Emptiness and not Non-dual.  Kapila's realization is different from Vedantic realization.  So, these are clearly different Realizations.  I agree we can go only by what we realize and what is clear to us.

[dwai]

6 minutes ago, Jeff said:

Thank you both for an extremely impressive back and forth discussion the point. It is one of the best intellectual discussions I have seen on the bums in a long time.  

 

Hopefully, adding a little to conversation, I would like to say that I do not see the logic to your opening point Dwai regarding how fast can you say that you are something. One could simply say “I am all”, then being all, everything is a subset of you, and hence no subject or object separation any more. Also, with that, one meets S1va’s point of being “One without a second”. Hence, under your criteria, “non dual”.

 

The challenge is that the definition of “all” may only be a subset of some larger “all”, that was beyond the one’s perception (and hence unknown). One turns out to have only been “nondual” in their own bathtub, rather than the ocean itself.

 

”I am” is evident. “I am all” is slightly different imho.  You are right about the definition of “all”. What is “all”? What does “all” mean in the context of “I am”? Whether in a puddle or in the ocean, qualifying the “I am” as “all” or “nothing” or “this” or “that” is predicated on “I am”. 

 

There is no escaping that. The “I am” is the stillness, it is awareness, it is presence. Everything else is just an identification with things

 

 

 

 

[dwai]

8 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Yes, only our own experience & Realization can make things clear.   Personally, my experience agrees more with Buddhist and even with Kashmir Shaivism & Kapila's Samkhya.  Buddha realized Emptiness and not Non-dual.  Kapila's realization is different from Vedantic realization.  So, these are clearly different Realizations.  I agree we can go only by what we realize and what is clear to us.

They are the same

 

One cannot do anything without the “I am” first. Theories about “how and why” are just stories. They can be validated or invalidated based on which story you subscribe to.

 

This doesn’t even need direct experience. Just logic is sufficient. I know we  have direct experience. But even that is predicated on “i am”.

[Jeff]

Just now, dwai said:

 

”I am” is evident. “I am all” is slightly different imho.  You are right about the definition of “all”. What is “all”? What does “all” mean in the context of “I am”? Whether in a puddle or in the ocean, qualifying the “I am” as “all” or “nothing” or “this” or “that” is predicated on “I am”. 

 

There is no escaping that. The “I am” is the stillness, it is awareness, it is presence. Everything else is just an identification with things

 

 

I don’t see how you make that logic jump to “I am” being stillness/awareness? One can meet all of the criteria that you have defined and still just be in (local) mind.

[Jeff]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

They are the same

 

One cannot do anything without the “I am” first. Theories about “how and why” are just stories. They can be validated or invalidated based on which story you subscribe to.

 

This doesn’t even need direct experience. Just logic is sufficient. I know we  have direct experience. But even that is predicated on “i am”.

 

This is where I would have to disagree. “I am” is more like a step. I am is not “being” or “residing”. I Am is of the mind.  To truly be, one must also realize “I am not”. This is why the Heart Sutra, has emptiness definitions of Form = Emptiness and Emptiness = Form.

[s1va]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

This is where I would have to disagree. “I am” is more like a step. I am is not “being” or “residing”. I Am is of the mind.  To truly be, one must also realize “I am not”. This is why the Heart Sutra, has emptiness definitions of Form = Emptiness and Emptiness = Form.

 

Yes, this makes perfect sense.  There seems to be more to the realization than "I am".  I think the contradiction from the following verses in Gita indicate something similar to the understanding/realization of "I am" and "I am not".

 

In Chapter 6 Verse 30, Krisna talking from the standpoint of his higher or universal nature states, "I am in everything and all things are in me".  Then on chapter 9 verse 5, he contradicts that directly by stating, 'Nothing is in me, and I am not in anything'.  This seems to be a good example for me to understand the "I am" and "I am not".  Though these two seem contradictory, they could be 2 different realizations both equally valid, the first "I am" and the second one, "I am not". 

 

 

(yo maam pashyati sarvatra sarvam cha mayi pashyati...|| Gita 6-30 || na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni .... || Gita 9-5 ||)

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by s1va

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Jeff said:

 

I don’t see how you make that logic jump to “I am” being stillness/awareness? One can meet all of the criteria that you have defined and still just be in (local) mind.

That is not a logic jump - it is fact

 

local mind or non-local mind, mind is a flow of objects. You go beyond the body-mind limitations and expand to a larger scale. I don’t find that to be pure being. That is being this or that...(identifying with objects), hence in subject-object duality. 

 

Nothing I can experience is pure being. Only the presence in the here and now - empty awareness, is pure being. 

 

Don't get be wrong, I find great value to the expansion and non-local mind stuff. But that is not nonduality to me. That is just more subtle duality.

Edited November 23, 2017 by dwai

[dwai]

53 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

Yes, this makes perfect sense.  There seems to be more to the realization than "I am".  I think the contradiction from the following verses in Gita indicate something similar to the understanding/realization of "I am" and "I am not".

 

In Chapter 6 Verse 30, Krisna talking from the standpoint of his higher or universal nature states, "I am in everything and all things are in me".  Then on chapter 9 verse 5, he contradicts that directly by stating, 'Nothing is in me, and I am not in anything'.  This seems to be a good example for me to understand the "I am" and "I am not".  Though these two seem contradictory, they could be 2 different realizations both equally valid, the first "I am" and the second one, "I am not". 

 

 

(yo maam pashyati sarvatra sarvam cha mayi pashyati...|| Gita 6-30 || na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni .... || Gita 9-5 ||)

 

They are not different realizations. They are two sides of the same coin, as the proverb goes.

[Jeff]

3 hours ago, dwai said:

That is not a logic jump - it is fact

 

local mind or non-local mind, mind is a flow of objects. You go beyond the body-mind limitations and expand to a larger scale. I don’t find that to be pure being. That is being this or that...(identifying with objects), hence in subject-object duality. 

 

Nothing I can experience is pure being. Only the presence in the here and now - empty awareness, is pure being. 

 

Don't get be wrong, I find great value to the expansion and non-local mind stuff. But that is not nonduality to me. That is just more subtle duality.

 

What is fact?

 

If one is simply “all”, there is no such identification with objects as you are describing. Everything is just a subset, so all such identification breaks down. Or, if you prefer, you can play your same logic game with “I am nothing”, shut down, and get to your same non-dual concept.

 

Also, given your above comment, I think there may be some confusion on what I tend to call “light level” or “non-local”,  it is not at all the same as what I would call emptiness as described in the heart sutra.

 

 

[s1va]

19 hours ago, dwai said:

They are not different realizations. They are two sides of the same coin, as the proverb goes.

 

I understand that you think they are the same and I respect your opinion.

 

21 hours ago, dwai said:

21 hours ago, s1va said:

 

Yes, only our own experience & Realization can make things clear.   Personally, my experience agrees more with Buddhist and even with Kashmir Shaivism & Kapila's Samkhya.  Buddha realized Emptiness and not Non-dual.  Kapila's realization is different from Vedantic realization.  So, these are clearly different Realizations.  I agree we can go only by what we realize and what is clear to us.

 

They are the same

 

One cannot do anything without the “I am” first. Theories about “how and why” are just stories. They can be validated or invalidated based on which story you subscribe to.

 

This doesn’t even need direct experience. Just logic is sufficient. I know we  have direct experience. But even that is predicated on “i am”.

 

Once again, I understand that Emptiness from Buddhism and the Non-dual from Advaita may be the same to you, and I respect your views.  However on this, I have to point out that this is not the generally held view on either side.   It's not just my view that differs here.  Many Masters including the ones that are considered enlightened even from the recent past have argued and discussed the differences between the two -- in detail and at length.

 

On his book Bhaja Govindam, while writing about Adi Sankara, Swami Chinmayananda states that Sankara was instrumental in helping to remove the 'False Buddhist ideals' from all corners/shores of India (Note:  This is not my opinion, I am just quoting it to show the strong underlying disagreement).  Even stronger words are used in criticism.  This is not coming from some uninformed person, but one of the greatest teachers of Advaita Vedanta from the past century.    What is at the core of all these disagreement?  The Brahman or Non-dual or SELF from the Vedanta vs. the Sunyata or Emptiness as described by Buddha.  Another great Advaita master from the past century states that personally he likes the teachings of Buddha, however while on the topic of Advaita, he cannot help but criticize the Sunyata or Emptiness, because it does not make sense to say everything arises from nothing and disappears into nothing.  I know that similar view of difference is held on the Buddhist side against Advaita, by most of the greatest Masters on the other side.

[Jeff]

4 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I understand that you think they are the same and I respect your opinion.

 

 

Once again, I understand that Emptiness from Buddhism and the Non-dual from Advaita may be the same to you, and I respect your views.  However on this, I have to point out that this is not the generally held view on either side.   It's not just my view that differs here.  Many Masters including the ones that are considered enlightened even from the recent past have argued and discussed the differences between the two -- in detail and at length.

 

On his book Bhaja Govindam, while writing about Adi Sankara, Swami Chinmayananda states that Sankara was instrumental in helping to remove the 'False Buddhist ideals' from all corners/shores of India (Note:  This is not my opinion, I am just quoting it to show the strong underlying disagreement).  Even stronger words are used in criticism.  This is not coming from some uninformed person, but one of the greatest teachers of Advaita Vedanta from the past century.    What is at the core of all these disagreement?  The Brahman or Non-dual or SELF from the Vedanta vs. the Sunyata or Emptiness as described by Buddha.  Another great Advaita master from the past century states that personally he likes the teachings of Buddha, however while on the topic of Advaita, he cannot help but criticize the Sunyata or Emptiness, because it does not make sense to say everything arises from nothing and disappears into nothing.  I know that similar view of difference is held on the Buddhist side against Advaita, by most of the greatest Masters on the other side.

 

I think you raise some excellent points. One without a second = Parabrahman, but does not equal zero. Similarly, the One emerges from the Dao, it does not equal the Dao.

 

I am not saying a particular view is better, just saying they are different.  

[3bob]

My favorite  pointers can be found in the Chandogya Upanishad, with that and other upanishads one doesn't really have to get into  a lot of sectarian debates although if that is one's cup of tea or vehicle then fine.  Also mixing Buddhism up with Hindu/Vedic based teachings is often a very problematic and counter-productive exercise, for instance oil and water do not mix and one can not force them to mix per any nice sounding correlations which is why well known and recognized guru's of either do not engage in such activities - thus appreciate both teachings- but one or the other other has to be chosen and verified through direct experience.

Atman does not suffer from identifications in any realm of mind... yet is the source of purity which springs forth in Joy without a dualistic sorrow!

[dwai]

1 hour ago, s1va said:

 

I understand that you think they are the same and I respect your opinion.

 

 

Once again, I understand that Emptiness from Buddhism and the Non-dual from Advaita may be the same to you, and I respect your views.  However on this, I have to point out that this is not the generally held view on either side.   It's not just my view that differs here.  Many Masters including the ones that are considered enlightened even from the recent past have argued and discussed the differences between the two -- in detail and at length.

 

On his book Bhaja Govindam, while writing about Adi Sankara, Swami Chinmayananda states that Sankara was instrumental in helping to remove the 'False Buddhist ideals' from all corners/shores of India (Note:  This is not my opinion, I am just quoting it to show the strong underlying disagreement).  Even stronger words are used in criticism.  This is not coming from some uninformed person, but one of the greatest teachers of Advaita Vedanta from the past century.    What is at the core of all these disagreement?  The Brahman or Non-dual or SELF from the Vedanta vs. the Sunyata or Emptiness as described by Buddha.  Another great Advaita master from the past century states that personally he likes the teachings of Buddha, however while on the topic of Advaita, he cannot help but criticize the Sunyata or Emptiness, because it does not make sense to say everything arises from nothing and disappears into nothing.  I know that similar view of difference is held on the Buddhist side against Advaita, by most of the greatest Masters on the other side.

Actually the Brahmanistha masters don’t say anything against any tradition. But if you want to believe something because that is the more popular point to view, that’s your prerogative. Doesn’t make it correct though