Hindu Moksha as shamatha state?

[servantofshakti]

I want to first clarify that I am hindu.but I read from a hindu yogi that claims he attained moksha but then became a  buddhist(from nepal)that kundalini and hindu moksha are just blissful clarity shamatha states.and that the state of bhairava is simply a coarse nondual state.what would the hindu reply to this be.Some say it is merely clarity reified as a atman.

 

Aren't jivanmuktas also omniscient within kashmiri /kaula/srividya Tantra and advaita?and omnipotent with the power to create,maintain and destroy(thats what kamakotimandali says some yogis can do).

[RiverSnake]

Dogmatic ideologies can often hold you back. You gotta walk the path. 

[dwai]

Don’t buy into rhetoric irrespective of which side it comes from. This kind of stuff (X is only a lower stage in our tradition) is a sign of unripe practitioners. Those who told you that moksha is “just blissful clarity shamatha state” probably don’t have experiential knowledge of either Hindu or even Buddhist meditation.  
 

Here’s an article I wrote about what Atman is, maybe it’ll help - 

 

https://www.medhajournal.com/most-people-misunderstand-what-atman-means/

 

Here’s another I wrote to show how Buddhist and Vedantic models map to each other — 

 

https://www.medhajournal.com/consciousness-according-to-zen-buddhism-and-how-it-relates-to-advaita-vedanta/

Edited July 11, 2020 by dwai

[old3bob]

"don’t buy into rhetoric irrespective of which side it comes from. This kind of stuff (X is only a lower stage in our tradition) is a sign of unripe practitioners"  from Dwai.

 

I truly wish that that statement was true but almost all the founders of all the major paths have more or less and in one way or another indicated that religions or schools other than their own were or are the lessor .   The historic Buddha did so, Jesus Christ and all the Christian sects did and do so, Mohammed and most of the Muslim sects did and do so,  the last Sat Guru of Kashmir Saivism did so,  the  school that you often espouse did and does so,  the major sects and sub-schools of Hinduism more or less do so although normally in a far more tolerant and enlightened ways per common precepts),  many smaller groups and their leaders do or did so like Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, anti-guru gurus like Krisnamurti did so, etc. etc.  times whatever the number may be throughout history?      

[dwai]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

"don’t buy into rhetoric irrespective of which side it comes from. This kind of stuff (X is only a lower stage in our tradition) is a sign of unripe practitioners"  from Dwai.

 

I truly wish that that statement was true but almost all the founders of all the major paths have more or less and in one way or another indicated that religions or schools other than their own were or are the lessor .   The historic Buddha did so, Jesus Christ and all the Christian sects did and do so, Mohammed and most of the Muslim sects did and do so,  the last Sat Guru of Kashmir Saivism did so,  the  school that you often espouse did and does so,  the major sects and sub-schools of Hinduism more or less do so although normally in a far more tolerant and enlightened ways per common precepts),  many smaller groups and their leaders do or did so like Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, anti-guru gurus like Krisnamurti did so, etc. etc.  times whatever the number may be throughout history?      

 
 

Those interested in a discussion about Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta should watch this — 

 

 

[old3bob]

and are you doing so further with what could be taken as a condescending smiley face and a shunt to  video as a reply?

 

Btw, I'm leaving it up to someone else if they want to share comparisons as to what various schools of Taoism and other major ways that came out of China, Japan, Nepal,  etc. may have to say about each other per records ...being that it would be hard to imagine them being in perfect accord about a joint equality among themselves, thus with no "lessors".

Edited July 12, 2020 by old3bob

[dwai]

10 minutes ago, old3bob said:

and are you doing so further with what could be taken as a condescending smiley face and a shunt to  video as a reply?

 

Btw, I'm leaving it up to someone else if they want to share comparisons as to what various schools of Taoism and other major ways that came out of China, Japan, Nepal,  etc. may have to say about each other per records ...being that it would be hard to imagine them being in perfect accord about a joint equality among themselves, thus with no "lessors".

Not interested in arguing over this, you are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. ☮️ 

 

On the other hand, why don’t you watch the video? It’s really cool  

[old3bob]

well this string brought up the issue and you were interested in arguing your pov earlier...now you are not, why is that?

(anyway such is not a congruent follow up to me, btw you and I may be entitled to our opinions but we are not entitled to ignore the recorded words or teachings that refute our opinions about them)

 

[dwai]

4 hours ago, old3bob said:

well this string brought up the issue and you were interested in arguing your pov earlier...now you are not, why is that?

(anyway such is not a congruent follow up to me, btw you and I may be entitled to our opinions but we are not entitled to ignore the recorded words or teachings that refute our opinions about them)

 

I wasn't really "arguing" anything. I was stating my opinion. You stated yours. I don't want to argue as that according to me is an exercise in futility. You won't change my mind, and I don't care if I change yours or not.  

[old3bob]

ok, so minds may not be changed but neither will certain facts by those who care about the proofs related to same.

Btw. going by your earlier and stated definition the historic Buddha was an,  "unripe practitioner" based on his own recorded words (in well recognized Buddhist scripture and to paraphrase here) claiming that all other paths besides what he established were the "lessor" or worse...

Edited July 13, 2020 by old3bob

[dwai]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

ok, so minds may not be changed but neither will certain facts by those who care about the proofs related to same.

Btw. going by your earlier and stated definition the historic Buddha was an,  "unripe practitioner" based on his own recorded words (in well recognized Buddhist scripture and to paraphrase here) claiming that all other paths besides what he established were the "lessor" or worse...

Those were your words, not mine  

I didn't say anything about the Buddha. 

Here's what HH The Dalai Lama has to say --

 

Spoiler

https://www.dalailama.com/messages/buddhism/buddhist-congregation-2011-address

Quote

Of course all the other major world religious traditions have the same potential to build inner peace and, through that way, to create a better world. But then one unique thing about Buddhism, Jainism, and part of the Samkhya tradition is the emphasis on the importance of individuals. The ultimate theory or view is that of self-creation. And we believe in the law of causality: If you carry out right actions, positive results come. If you carry out wrong actions, negative things happen. So because of the law of causality, if you do wrong actions, Buddha cannot save you. Buddha taught: “I’ll show you the path to go to nirvana [freedom from all suffering], but whether you can achieve that or not is entirely up to you. I cannot lead you through blessings.” Buddha never said that.

So you are your own master. That way of teaching I think is very, very helpful. Everything depends on one’s own actions. Actions, whether positive actions or negative actions, entirely depend on motivation. So Buddhadharma can make, I think, a significant contribution for inner peace like that.

https://www.dalailama.com/news/2014/his-holiness-the-dalai-lama-chief-guest-at-1st-world-hindu-congress

Quote

His Holiness spoke of Buddhism and Hinduism as like spiritual brothers, which provoked cheers throughout the hall. He said they share shila, shamatha and prajna - ethics, concentration and wisdom - and where they differ is in the view of atman or anatman. He recalled meeting a spiritual leader in Bangalore a couple of years ago, a good man who organizes food for the poor on a large scale. They discussed the correspondences of their spiritual traditions until His Holiness acknowledged that for him, a Buddhist monk, anatman is more appropriate; for his friend, a Hindu monk, it is the view of atman that appeals. But, he said, whichever view they choose is their own personal decision.

 

[old3bob]

umm, your *stated definition were your own words...which can then be applied (if stood by) to anyone that falls under it whether that be a major figure such as the historic Buddha, Jesus, a beginner of any path, or anyone in between... 

 

* "Don’t buy into rhetoric irrespective of which side it comes from. This kind of stuff (X is only a lower stage in our tradition) is a sign of unripe practitioners"  Dwai

 

I hope I don't need to give quoted examples of what major figures have said throughout history about their way being the only way, the best way and such while others fall short in this or that way.  

 

[old3bob]

Btw to the OP...  it is not up to any particular yogi (or Guru) that is Self-realized to do this or that per what remains of their human personality, for in being Self-realized it is the Self that acts through a human vehicle.  In the Saivite tradition (which you are probably well aware of) the Self also manifests as Lord Nataraja who creates, maintains, destroys, conceals and also reveals with Grace,  a  Supreme Grace which is not taught in Buddhism although they certainly teach of compassion.

 

My favorite Upanishad is the Chandogya, and I'd say that  along with the other Upanishads the Self is pointed to about as well as possible by its Self realized authors or enlightened Rishi's.  (thus not with speculation)

Edited July 14, 2020 by old3bob

[Creation]

On 7/10/2020 at 4:41 PM, servantofshakti said:

I want to first clarify that I am hindu.but I read from a hindu yogi that claims he attained moksha but then became a  buddhist(from nepal)that kundalini and hindu moksha are just blissful clarity shamatha states.and that the state of bhairava is simply a coarse nondual state.what would the hindu reply to this be.Some say it is merely clarity reified as a atman.

 

Aren't jivanmuktas also omniscient within kashmiri /kaula/srividya Tantra and advaita?and omnipotent with the power to create,maintain and destroy(thats what kamakotimandali says some yogis can do).

There is the perspective of one school debating another school to maintain their self-image of superiority, and the perspective of an individual seeker doing what they feel drawn to, regardless of who wins the debates.  Does this Hindu-turned-Buddhist talk about how he has benefited from Buddhism in a way that he didn't get from Hinduism, from direct experience, not dogmas?  Does this tug at you, like, "That really does sound interesting, like something I also feel I am lacking."  Or not, for instance, "That's nice he has found something that he resonates with so much, but it has no appeal to me."  My preference is make decisions that way, not by conceptual arguments about who is "best".  Actually, from that place, you can hear the conceptual debates and know which you are more interested in.

 

By the way, is the yogi you mention Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche?

Edited July 16, 2020 by Creation

[forestofclarity]

It is interesting that there is a parallel critique of Buddhism from the Vedanta/Tantra side-- i.e. that Buddhists get stuck meditating on the causal body and call this "emptiness"! 

 

 

 

0

 Advanced issue found

▲

 

 

1 hour ago, Creation said:

 

By the way, is the yogi you mention Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche?

 

I was thinking the same thing, Creation. 

 

In case Dwai or anyone else wants to take a crack at it:

 

https://www.byomakusuma.org/EnlightenmentBuddhismVisAVisHinduism.html

[forestofclarity]

Or maybe its this one, its been a while:

 

https://www.byomakusuma.org/MadhyamikaBuddhismVisAVisHinduVedanta.html

Edited July 16, 2020 by forestofemptiness

[dwai]

Haven’t read the entire thing, but wrt his purvapaksha on Hindu enlightenment, he claims that “upon enlightenment samsara disappears and only Brahman remains”, which is a very rudimentary misunderstanding.
 

According to Vedānta, Samsara doesn’t disappear, but rather it is understood that samsara does not have existence apart from Brahman. Just as samsara is essentially Brahman, jiva (the apparently individual being) too is not apart from Brahman. Hence Shankara’s famous verse “brahma satyam jagat mithya, jiva brahmaiva naparah”.

Also a very basic misunderstanding of what “illusory” means is apparent in his arguments. In Vedanta, illusory  (crude translation of Mithya) doesn’t mean non-existent. In the Vedantic context, mithya is that which changes, as opposed to Sat(ya) which is not subject to changes. What is Sat? Brahman/Atman. What is mithya? Samsara as it is experienced. Once the true nature of both jiva and samsara (jagat) is realized as being Brahman , suffering ends.

 

Edited July 16, 2020 by dwai

[old3bob]

in the Chandogya Upanishad all things are described as springing from the Self, thus in that sense connected to the Self but still not the Self which does not have their limits...obviously there are many other schools besides Advaita Vedanta which we should not assume as being the final word on Sanatana Dharma even if it is sometimes presented that way. 

Edited July 16, 2020 by old3bob