Vedantic non-dual vs. Abhinavagupta's non-dual

[Jonesboy]

1 minute ago, neti neti said:

It isn't of surprise that one can single out apparent differences among traditions in the process of pitting one thing against another. There are as many traditions as there are opinions concerning their interpretation. 

 

It can be fascinating to explore the many viewpoints, like seeing through another's eyes. However, comparing the appearances of those supposed disparities rarely guarantee the discovery of any substantial meaning, aside from the glaring revelation that they're all pointing to the same thing.

 

I think the point is that they don’t point to the same thing and as a result the realizations are different as well.

[s1va]

7 minutes ago, dwai said:

My own work in the Daoist internal alchemy and Tamil Siddhar yoga leads me to believe that they are all different modalities to the same objective - liberation.

 

I can wholeheartedly agree with this.  They are all different modalities working towards the object of liberation.  And I believe all sincere seekers will sooner or later reach liberation.  But methods and understanding are also important.  In liberation, I see multiple endpoints, not just one Moksha.  This may explain to the difference in our views.

 

Here is some article that I found on Swami Lakshmanjoo academy site, that explains the difference between Vedanta and KS in general.

Quote

The first difference, therefore, between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta is in their different understanding of karmayoga. This difference, as you have seen, is very great, with the Vedāntins believing that karmayoga means doing all actions without asking for their reward and our Kashmir Śaivism teaching that yoga in action means doing all actions while maintaining a break-less contemplation of God.

 

Another difference between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta concerns the existence of individual being and Universal Being. The Vedāntins explain that individual being is manifested only when Universal Being is reflected in the mirror of the individual intellect. They say that Universal Being is reflected in the intellect (buddhi) and that reflection becomes the existence of the individual being (jīva). Kashmir Śaivism, however, does not recognize this explanation, arguing that it is without any basis. As Universal Being is absolutely pure and perfect and individual being is filled with imperfections (malas) and covered by veils, it is not buddhi that will reflect Universal Being, but rather, it is Universal Being that will reflect buddhi. It is the purer and more refined reality which will take the reflection of that which is less pure and refined and not the other way around. Buddhi cannot hold Universal Being.

Kashmir Śaivism explains that when Śiva is reflected by His pure will in the mirror of his freedom (svātantrya), this is the existence of the universe and the existence of individual being.

Furthermore, in the theory of the Vedāntins, it is not clearly explained how, if the world were not existing, buddhi, in which Lord Śiva is to be reflected, could exist at all. How could the intellect (buddhi) exist before the existence of the world? Therefore, individual being is the reflection of Lord Śiva in His svātantrya śakti. This is the existence of the universe.

The third area of difference between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta concerns the essence, the substance, the basis of this universe. Vedānta holds that this universe is untrue, unreal. It does not really exist. It is only the creation of illusion (māyā). Concerning this point, Kashmir Śaivism argues that if Lord Śiva is real, then how could an unreal substance come out from something that is real? If Lord Śiva is real, then His creation is also real. Why should it be said that Lord Śiva is real and His creation is an illusion (māyā)? Kashmir Śaivism explains that the existence of this universe is just as real as the existence of Lord Śiva. As such, it is true, real, pure, and solid. There is nothing at all about it which is unreal.

 

The fourth important difference between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta is that Vedānta does not recognize kuṇḍalinī yoga. The Vedāntins say that kuṇḍalinī yoga is meant for those who are treading on the inferior path of yoga. From our Kashmir Śaivite point of view, however, kuṇḍalinī yoga is the most important yoga in this system. Kashmir Śaivism explains that there are three paths of kuṇḍalinī yoga: parā kuṇḍalinī yoga, cit kuṇḍalinī yoga, and prāṇa kuṇḍalinī yoga. Parā kuṇḍalinī yoga is supreme kuṇḍalinī yoga. It is functioned by Lord Śiva with the universal body, not the individual body. Cit kuṇḍalinī yoga is kuṇḍalinī in consciousness. Prāṇa kuṇḍalinī yoga is kuṇḍalinī in breath.

 

The fifth significant difference between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta concerns the question of who is fit to practice this monistic teaching. Vedānta holds that this teaching can only be practiced by “worthy people” such as brahmins with “good qualities.” In fact, Śaṁkarācārya holds that Vedānta is meant only for saṁyāsins¹ and not others. From the Vedāntic point of view, women and other castes are not allowed to practice the Vedāntic system. This point of view, however, is not recognized by our Kashmir Śaivism. Kashmir Śaivism teaches that this monistic thought can be practiced by anyone, man or woman, without the restriction of caste, creed, or color. In fact, our Śaivism teaches us that this thought can be practiced more fruitfully by women than by men.²

http://www.lakshmanjooacademy.org/podcast/difference-kashmir-saivism-advaita-vedanta/

[neti neti]

2 minutes ago, Jonesboy said:

 

I think the point is that they don’t point to the same thing and as a result the realizations are different as well.

 

I think the realization is one, and its experience only appears to differ.

[s1va]

34 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

An argument can be made that the very difference is but a perception in itself.

 

I should have expected that on a topic that discusses Advaita 

[s1va]

Sorry for the repetition.  This was part of the large text quoted before.  I wanted to separate and post only the following.  A lot may ignore that long post with all the differences.  I feel following is the essence of the difference.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The third area of difference between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta concerns the essence, the substance, the basis of this universe. Vedānta holds that this universe is untrue, unreal. It does not really exist. It is only the creation of illusion (māyā). Concerning this point, Kashmir Śaivism argues that if Lord Śiva is real, then how could an unreal substance come out from something that is real? If Lord Śiva is real, then His creation is also real. Why should it be said that Lord Śiva is real and His creation is an illusion (māyā)? Kashmir Śaivism explains that the existence of this universe is just as real as the existence of Lord Śiva. As such, it is true, real, pure, and solid. There is nothing at all about it which is unreal."

[s1va]

17 minutes ago, neti neti said:

 

I think the realization is one, and its experience only appears to differ.

 

I have come to believe that there are different realizations.  Different end points that break the life/birth cycle and the end of suffering.  Such as what taoists would call an immortal, then what Buddhism would call Arhatship (just dissolving, I see this as similar to Moksha), then the rainbow body or expanding to become everything or becoming like Siva & then a fully realized immortal.

[neti neti]

In essence? The same plunge.

 

Quote

“The most valuable thing in the ocean lies on its floor. The pearl is so small a thing, yet so valuable and so difficult to procure. Similarly, the Self is like the pearl: to find it you must dive deep down into the silence, deeper and ever deeper, until it is reached.” ~Ramana Maharshi

 

 

[dwai]

36 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

The first difference, therefore, between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta is in their different understanding of karmayoga. This difference, as you have seen, is very great, with the Vedāntins believing that karmayoga means doing all actions without asking for their reward and our Kashmir Śaivism teaching that yoga in action means doing all actions while maintaining a break-less contemplation of God.

 

This is actually not correct. Karma yoga is prescribed with following viewpoint for Jnana-oriented seekers so one can become selfless (seva as nishkāma karma). For Bhakti-oriented seekers it is while maintaining a break-less contemplation of God. If you read about the Ramakrishna Order's teachings, you'll find this very clearly articulated. 

 

Quote

Another difference between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta concerns the existence of individual being and Universal Being. The Vedāntins explain that individual being is manifested only when Universal Being is reflected in the mirror of the individual intellect. They say that Universal Being is reflected in the intellect (buddhi) and that reflection becomes the existence of the individual being (jīva). Kashmir Śaivism, however, does not recognize this explanation, arguing that it is without any basis. As Universal Being is absolutely pure and perfect and individual being is filled with imperfections (malas) and covered by veils, it is not buddhi that will reflect Universal Being, but rather, it is Universal Being that will reflect buddhi. It is the purer and more refined reality which will take the reflection of that which is less pure and refined and not the other way around. Buddhi cannot hold Universal Being.

Again this is not correct as far as my knowledge goes. Universal Being is the Material Universe (virat) appearing to the individual being (viswanara) in the waking state. The Universal Being appears as the Dreamer's world (Hiranyagarbha) to the dreamer (taijasa) and the Universal Being appears as God (Ishwara) to the deep sleeper (prāgya).  

 

In Waking state, Universal Being is the Universe experienced by the Jiva. In Dream state, the Universal Being is experienced as the dream universe  to the Jiva. In the Causal state (Deep Sleep), The Universal Being is God (Ishwara), the cause and condition for the manifestation of the dream as well as the waking states (and the associated experienced worlds).

 

All these states (and the Universal Being) is none other than Brahman/Atman as Turiya. 

 

A reading of the Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapāda's Kārikā is very useful towards understanding this. 

Edited September 10, 2018 by dwai

[3bob]

btw, it seems we only have until the end of the cosmic cycle (aka the 'lifetime of Lord Brahma or creation/manifestation") to get our act together and realize enlightenment, and after that only enlightenment remains until the next cycle comes about with all new veiling and manifestation...thus if your  doctrine goes along with that interpretation then all souls at the end of this cycle are going to enlighten/merge whether they want to or not...

[dwai]

18 minutes ago, s1va said:

Sorry for the repetition.  This was part of the large text quoted before.  I wanted to separate and post only the following.  A lot may ignore that long post with all the differences.  I feel following is the essence of the difference.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The third area of difference between Kashmir Śaivism and Vedānta concerns the essence, the substance, the basis of this universe. Vedānta holds that this universe is untrue, unreal. It does not really exist. It is only the creation of illusion (māyā). Concerning this point, Kashmir Śaivism argues that if Lord Śiva is real, then how could an unreal substance come out from something that is real? If Lord Śiva is real, then His creation is also real. Why should it be said that Lord Śiva is real and His creation is an illusion (māyā)? Kashmir Śaivism explains that the existence of this universe is just as real as the existence of Lord Śiva. As such, it is true, real, pure, and solid. There is nothing at all about it which is unreal."

I already answered this. Jagat Mithya is a intermediate stage of Advaita Vedanta teaching. 

[s1va]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

 

This is actually not correct. Karma yoga is prescribed with following viewpoint for Jnana-oriented seekers so one can become selfless (seva as nishkāma karma). For Bhakti-oriented seekers it is while maintaining a break-less contemplation of God. If you read about the Ramakrishna Order's teachings, you'll find this very clearly articulated. 

 

I find that as accurate description of Karma yoga as explained from Vedantic standpoint and even from Gita, including the teachings from Ramakrishna order.  Btw, Ramakrishna's views are radically different from Advaita and he is a complete Tantric in my opinion.  Though some say he went on to later see it the Advaitic way also!

 

3 minutes ago, dwai said:

Again this is not correct as far as my knowledge goes. Universal Being is the Universe (virat) appearing to the individual being (viswanara) in the waking state. The Universal Being appears as the Dreamer's world (Hiranyagarbha) to the dreamer (taijasa) and the Universal Being appears as God (Ishwara) to the deep sleeper (prāgya).  

 

In Waking state, Universal Being is the Universe experienced by the Jiva. In Dream state, the Universal Being is experienced as the dream universe  to the Jiva. In the Causal state (Deep Sleep), The Universal Being is God (Ishwara), the cause and condition for the manifestation of the dream as well as the waking states (and the associated experienced worlds).

 

All these states (and the Universal Being) is none other than Brahman/Atman as Turiya. 

 

Once again, I disagree with your assessment that the originally quoted text is not correct.   I guess we just have different views in this topic.

[dwai]

5 minutes ago, s1va said:

I find that as accurate description of Karma yoga as explained from Vedantic standpoint and even from Gita, including the teachings from Ramakrishna order.  Btw, Ramakrishna's views are radically different from Advaita and he is a complete Tantric in my opinion.  Though some say he went on to later see it the Advaitic way also!

Agreed on Sri Ramakrishna being Tantrik. He was Tantrik, Bhakta, Advaitin, etc etc par excellence. However, his views are not radically different from Advaita Vedantic views. He is a recognized jivanamukta/Avadhuta. 

 

Quote

 

Once again, I disagree with your assessment that the originally quoted text is not correct.   I guess we just have different views in this topic.

 

Do you mean to say that Mandukya + Karika doesn't actually teach what i posted? Please do the research before discarding it as "I don't agree with you"

 

Edited September 10, 2018 by dwai

[s1va]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

Agreed on Sri Ramakrishna being Tantrik. He was Tantrik, Bhakta, Advaitin, etc etc par excellence. However, his views are not radically different from Advaita Vedantic views. He is a recognized jivanamukta/Avadhuta. 

 

 

Do you mean to say that Mandukya + Karika doesn't actually teach what i posted? Please do the research before discarding it as "I don't agree with you"

 

 

I think I have done enough research to know and understand that I disagree with the ideas you present in this thread.  If that does not satisfy you, then sorry, I can't help it.  I don't need to check Mandukya + Karika to determine I disagree with the ideas you present.  Don't they all talk about going beyond book knowledge?

[dwai]

6 minutes ago, s1va said:

 

I think I have done enough research to know and understand that I disagree with the ideas you present in this thread.  If that does not satisfy you, then sorry, I can't help it.  I don't need to check Mandukya + Karika to determine I disagree with the ideas you present.  Don't they all talk about going beyond book knowledge?

Okay. I guess you have made up your mind  

[s1va]

5 minutes ago, dwai said:

Okay. I guess you have made up your mind  

 

I would call it rather a knowing of difference than making up the mind.

 

Edit:  More importantly I know this.  My views need not necessarily be the right ones or all encompassing for that matter.  If I ever get attached to one particular view, and feel that this is the right view that others also need to understand this particular view, then it could become a hindrance for myself.  This part is made up by deductions and understood by the mind.

[Jonesboy]

30 minutes ago, neti neti said:

In essence? The same plunge.

 

 

 

 

Put simply, silence isn’t the goal and an excellent example of how endpoints differ.

[s1va]

Here are the views of Sri Ramanuja on non-qualified Brahman.  He can accept only Brahman with qualities and rejects the non-qualified Brahman expounded by Advaita.  I would encourage everyone to read Ramanuja's ideas carefully before they dismiss them.  I think they are entirely valid within their framework of Vishishtadvaita.  On the subject of the world being illusory and unreal, the ideas of KS and Ramanuja are similar.  They both reject this idea.

 

Quote

Ramanuja rejects the doctrine that moksha (i.e. release, the cessation of avidya) can only arise from knowledge of a non-qualified Brahman. A non-qualified Brahman is a Brahman without any qualities or attributes. Ramanuja argues that Brahman can only be known by means of its attributes.

 

According to Ramanuja, knowledge may come from three sources: 1) perception (pratyaksa), 2) inference (anumana), and 3) scripture (sruti). Scripture is a document of verbal testimony (shabda). Brahman cannot be known by perception or by inference, but only through the teachings of the scriptures. The cessation of avidya does not depend merely upon an act by which the individual Self recognizes Brahman as the universal Self. The cessation of avidya also depends on the grace which is given to the individual Self by Brahman.

 

Ramanuja says that in pure knowledge there is no distinction between the knowing subject and the known object. For the universal Self, there is no distinction between the knower and the known. For the individual Self, however, the "I" or ego cannot be obliterated without obliterating the essential nature of the Self. The individual Self must have an I-consciousness which persists even in the state of ultimate release. The "I" or ego is not merely an attribute of the individual Self, but constitutes the nature of the individual Self. Thus, the I-consciousness is not obliterated by knowledge of Brahman.

 

The knowing subject is the "I" or ego, which is a consciousness of the inward Self. The "I" or ego is a form of knowledge, constituting the essential nature of the Self. Thus, the released Self knows the essential nature of the inward Self.

 

Atman may take three forms: 1) it may be bound to the material world, 2) it may be released from the material world, and 3) it may be eternal in its unity with Brahman. The bound Self identifies itself with the material world. The released Self is freed from attachment to the material world, and is aware of itself as a spiritual reality. Release from samsara (cyclic, worldly existence) is a state of non-difference from the highest Self. The released Self is aware of the unity of Brahman.

 

Ramanuja rejects the doctrine that the phenomenal world is illusory and unreal. According to Ramanuja, the phenomenal world is not unreal unless it is viewed as distinct from Brahman. The phenomenal world is not simply a realm of false and illusory appearances. The phenomenal world includes primordial matter (prakriti), which is part of the body of Brahman.

 

Prakriti has three qualities (or gunas): 1) clarity (sattva), 2) activity (passion, rajas), and 3) inactivity (darkness, tamas). The interaction of these changing qualities may be reflected by changes in the nature of the material world. Brahman is the inner Self or spirit (purusha) which may determine the gunas of prakriti. Thus, reality is both material and spiritual. Purusha is an unchanging spiritual reality, while prakriti is a changing material reality. Plurality is not unreal unless it is seen as replacing the unity of Brahman.

Ramanuja’s Visishtadvaita Vedanta (or philosophy of qualified non-dualism) has some important differences from Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta (or philosophy of non-dualism). For Shankara, undifferentiated Brahman is ultimate realty. For Ramanuja, differentiated Brahman is ultimate reality. For Shankara, undifferentiated Brahman can be known and experienced intuitively. For Ramanuja, Brahman can only be known through its attributes, and since Brahman has attributes which can be known and experienced intuitively, it must be differentiated.

 

 

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/ramanuja.html

[s1va]

I was thinking, what is the one common factor that seems to unite the Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shakta systems from Advaita.  I could think of and zero-in on this one factor that is in all of these systems.

 

Anugraha or Divine grace is needed for individual jiva to have the realization of the universal self, whether it is universal Brahman, Shiva or Vishnu.  This is not needed in Advaita and jnana or knowledge alone is enough to liberate.

 

It all boils down to this one difference in my simplistic view.  I think this may be the reason why Buddhist ideas were also rejected by different Hindu sects.  There seems to be no room for divine grace in Buddhist teachings or it was not considered a necessity for realization.

[neti neti]

1 hour ago, Jonesboy said:

 

Put simply, silence isn’t the goal and an excellent example of how endpoints differ.

 

Indeed, the prize would seem to be the pearl hidden in that immersion of silence. 

 

From the most subtle sound of Matrika, to letters, from letters to words, from words to differences.

 

Quote

1.2

jnanam bandhah

 

Knowing differentiatedly is bondage and not knowing undifferentiatedly is bondage.

 

[3bob]

If Lord Brahma (the creative aspect) does not last beyond the grand cosmic cycle (although repeats later) then neither do any other immortals...

 

What lasts is hidden in plain sight and revealed through of the Grace of Self to the Self in the small lotus of the heart* of beings - which is not limited to those or any particular beings. 

 

*Chandogya Upanishad

Edited September 11, 2018 by 3bob

[Jonesboy]

1 hour ago, neti neti said:

 

Indeed, the prize would seem to be the pearl hidden in that immersion of silence. 

 

From the most subtle sound of Matrika, to letters, from letters to words, from words to differences.

 

 

 

What differentiation is there in silence, in the void? 

 

Are you also also suggesting that through the void/silence one can also realize Shakti?

[dwai]

2 hours ago, neti neti said:

 

Indeed, the prize would seem to be the pearl hidden in that immersion of silence. 

 

From the most subtle sound of Matrika, to letters, from letters to words, from words to differences.

 

 

The Shiva Sutras actually has three different parts and three approaches therein. Depending on the individual, one of the three approaches apply. 

[dwai]

2 hours ago, s1va said:

I was thinking, what is the one common factor that seems to unite the Shaiva, Vaishnava, Shakta systems from Advaita.  I could think of and zero-in on this one factor that is in all of these systems.

 

Anugraha or Divine grace is needed for individual jiva to have the realization of the universal self, whether it is universal Brahman, Shiva or Vishnu.  This is not needed in Advaita and jnana or knowledge alone is enough to liberate.

Actually even in Advaita, Divine Grace is a requisite. I know this verbatim from the mouth of several Swamis of the Chinmaya and Ramakrishna orders

 

Read this by Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Swamigal of Sringeri Math (One of the  bastions of Advaita Vedanta in the world)   -- http://indiafacts.org/bhakti-brings-happiness-discourse-jagadguru-sri-abhinava-vidyatirtha-mahaswamiji/

 

Quote

How to do any karma – The attitude of bhakti

Bhagavatpaada Shankaracharya has mentioned in the Shivaananda Lahari

भक्तो भक्तिगुणावृते मुदमृतापूर्णे प्रसन्ने मनः कुम्भे
साम्ब तवान्घ्रि-पल्लवयुगम् सन्स्थाप्य-सन्वित्-फलं
सत्त्वं मन्त्रमुदीरयन् निजशरीरागारशुद्धिं वहन्
पुण्याहं प्रकटीकरोमि रुचिरं कल्याणमापादयन्॥
bhakto bhakti-guṇāvṛte mudamṛtā-pūrṇe prasanne manaḥ kumbhe 
sāmba tavānghri-pallavayugam sansthāpya-sanvit-phalaṁ
sattvaṁ mantramudīrayan nijaśarīrāgāraśuddhiṁ vahan
puṇyāhaṁ prakaṭīkaromi ruciraṁ kalyāṇamāpādayan||

Thus – kalyāṇamāpādayan ruciraṁ puṇyāhaṁ prakaṭīkaromi – “being a person who desires for kalyaana (the most beneficial attainment, or moksha) I will perform the punyaaha–karma“, Bhagavatpaada said. By whom is it done? bhakto bhakti-guṇāvṛte – by the one who is a bhakta, who has bhakti.

 

2 hours ago, s1va said:

 

It all boils down to this one difference in my simplistic view.  I think this may be the reason why Buddhist ideas were also rejected by different Hindu sects.  There seems to be no room for divine grace in Buddhist teachings or it was not considered a necessity for realization.

 

Yet, we seem to do Guru Yoga, Deity Yoga in specific schools of Buddhism as well. There verily is room for divine grace in Advaita Vedanta, and there seems to be the room for it in certain Buddhist traditions as well (Vajrayana being one that comes to mind). 

 

 

[s1va]

28 minutes ago, dwai said:

Actually even in Advaita, Divine Grace is a requisite. I know this verbatim from the mouth of several Swamis of the Chinmaya and Ramakrishna orders

 

Read this by Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Swamigal of Sringeri Math (One of the  bastions of Advaita Vedanta in the world)   -- http://indiafacts.org/bhakti-brings-happiness-discourse-jagadguru-sri-abhinava-vidyatirtha-mahaswamiji/

 

 

Yet, we seem to do Guru Yoga, Deity Yoga in specific schools of Buddhism as well. There verily is room for divine grace in Advaita Vedanta, and there seems to be the room for it in certain Buddhist traditions as well (Vajrayana being one that comes to mind). 

 

 

 

It is not the question of, is there room for divine grace also.  The need for anugraha or divine grace is 'not needed' or 'not a must' in Advaita.  The only thing that is needed is the right knowledge to dispel the ignorance.  As in the example, the ignorance of the snake is dispelled by the knowledge it is rope and not a snake.  It is pure logic and reasoning and a case of mistaken identity.   The ignorance that can be burned by the fire of knowledge.   I can keep going on.  I stand by the earlier statement anugraha is not needed in Advaita.  Can you quote from any traditional Advaidic source to the contrary?  I doubt this is possible.

 

The text that you quoted with the Swami of Sringeri is Sivananda Lahiri, which is part of the Soundarya Lahiri which I earlier quoted in one of my posts as a complete Tantric text.  The problem with many that mix anugraha or divine grace with Advaita is simply because they have personally bought into some of the concepts of Tantra.  Which is not wrong by any means, it simply does not prove it is part of Advaita Vedanta.

 

One more thing that can distinguish the KS from Advaita.  It is simply not possible by just self inquiry alone to reach realization in KS.  One has to expand (literally) to become the all encompassing, like Shiva, to become everything in the universe.  Just questioning 'who am i' , may not take a person anywhere in KS.  The reason this is considered a valid and even the direct and fastest path to enlightenment in AV proves that divine grace is not necessary.  Only the knowledge needed to dispel the ignorance by the right method of self enquiry or questioning.

[3bob]

45 minutes ago, dwai said:

Actually even in Advaita, Divine Grace is a requisite. I know this verbatim from the mouth of several Swamis of the Chinmaya and Ramakrishna orders

 

Read this by Sri Abhinava Vidyateertha Swamigal of Sringeri Math (One of the  bastions of Advaita Vedanta in the world)   -- http://indiafacts.org/bhakti-brings-happiness-discourse-jagadguru-sri-abhinava-vidyatirtha-mahaswamiji/

 

 

Yet, we seem to do Guru Yoga, Deity Yoga in specific schools of Buddhism as well. There verily is room for divine grace in Advaita Vedanta, and there seems to be the room for it in certain Buddhist traditions as well (Vajrayana being one that comes to mind). 

 

 

well if the Grace factor was not taught by the historic Buddha and or recorded by his on the scene followers before his passing then just how "Buddhist" are certain schools of Buddhism that you mentioned?  No need to answer or speculate on that , it is up to Buddhists in their own schools and forums to figure it out.