Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism - A conversation

[dwai]

This is an incredible conversation, most highly recommended for all.

 

@steve on the internet @silent thunder @forestofemptiness @C T @stirling @neti neti might enjoy this a lot  

Edited February 4, 2022 by dwai

[Vajra Fist]

Listening to Andrew Holecek's book at the moment, "Dreams of Light".

 

Never heard nondual meditation explained so clearly before. Looking forward to listening to this!

[stirling]

Deep bows for sharing this video, Dwai. 

 

The discussion in the video very much represents my understanding and feelings on the topic. While the non-dual traditions I am familiar with (including Daoism at its core, Jainism, Sikhism, and even Christianity (conceptually) where the trinity is more or less the same as Satchitananda) POINT to the understanding, they are merely intellectual attempts to clarify something that is non-conceptual and thus impossible to pin down. Arguing which tradition "gets" it and which do not is pointless seen from "just this", or "not two", or Rigpa, or the "natural state", or big S "Self" - it is just samsara doing its thing. Attachment to Rites and Rituals, or personal identification with a tradition is always a trap.

 

I like to imagine a world where we all realize that while the journey looks different, we trust that different traditions simply look through different facets of a prism at the same thing... but... samsara. Arguing over beliefs, books, what teachers say are a sad and disappointing waste of time.

 

For those with some experience of non-duality that are curious about Buddhist schools of thought on emptiness, there is literally NOTHING like Dakpo Tashi Namgyals book, "Clarifying the Natural State" - a fascinating read. 

 

"Clarifying the Natural State" on Abebooks

Edited February 4, 2022 by stirling

[forestofclarity]

There goes my weekend plans... 

 

[old3bob]

I'd say Om  (as one example)  is not "merely" an intellectual attempt, concept or pointer...it is of power and truth both spoken and unspoken.

Edited February 7, 2022 by old3bob

[forestofclarity]

One thing I've never really come to terms with the whole "God" concept. From a first person point of view, we experience a certain flow of lights and sounds that we can assemble into a theistic or non-theistic narrative. It is interesting that Swami places ontology at the level of relative truth. Personally, I don't think one really experiences "God" as much as one has experiences that one can pattern into a narrative about God (Vedanta) or not (Buddhism). 

 

However, the non-theistic narrative always seems a bit lacking. It is a far different thing even on the relative level to say "this is all an expression of the mind" versus "this is all an expression of God." 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

One thing I've never really come to terms with the whole "God" concept. From a first person point of view, we experience a certain flow of lights and sounds that we can assemble into a theistic or non-theistic narrative. It is interesting that Swami places ontology at the level of relative truth. Personally, I don't think one really experiences "God" as much as one has experiences that one can pattern into a narrative about God (Vedanta) or not (Buddhism). 
 

interestingly, the Vedantic God is nothing but awareness veiled in satva. That is the root of the manifest universe. Once sufficient satva has been “cultivated” (by the process of purification), the mind can directly see this “light” shining forth in all phenomena. 

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

 

However, the non-theistic narrative always seems a bit lacking. It is a far different thing even on the relative level to say "this is all an expression of the mind" versus "this is all an expression of God." 

Maybe that’s because of cultural contexts? 

[Apech]

On 2/4/2022 at 1:41 AM, dwai said:

This is an incredible conversation, most highly recommended for all.

 

@steve on the internet @silent thunder @forestofemptiness @C T @stirling @neti neti might enjoy this a lot  

 

This was very good , thanks.

[doc benway]

Very nice discussion…

 

[stirling]

On 2/8/2022 at 4:48 AM, forestofemptiness said:

One thing I've never really come to terms with the whole "God" concept. From a first person point of view, we experience a certain flow of lights and sounds that we can assemble into a theistic or non-theistic narrative. It is interesting that Swami places ontology at the level of relative truth. Personally, I don't think one really experiences "God" as much as one has experiences that one can pattern into a narrative about God (Vedanta) or not (Buddhism). 

 

However, the non-theistic narrative always seems a bit lacking. It is a far different thing even on the relative level to say "this is all an expression of the mind" versus "this is all an expression of God." 

 

I agree with your point. 

 

I also have always had some dissonance with a "god" idea too, but realize with some insight that god is just another way to talk about the emptiness of separateness, or, to put it another way - if nothing has intrinsic existence, then everything exists as a whole. The "Fullness of Emptiness" as Thich Nhat Hahn called it. 

 

God is a way to talk about that idea, but the problem is always subject/object language... that we must create God as separate from "I" in order to speak about it. This is where you get Sachitananda, or the three kayas, or the trinity. Each talks about the qualities of something that really HAS no qualities. IMHO the "witness insight" of God and "I" still must be seen as a duality, and is just a step toward ultimate understanding of emptiness, but that insight seems to happen eventually to any awakened being regardless of tradition. Certainly I have absolutely met Sufis, Hindus and even Christians with this insight. 

 

On 2/8/2022 at 6:17 AM, dwai said:

interestingly, the Vedantic God is nothing but awareness veiled in satva. That is the root of the manifest universe. Once sufficient satva has been “cultivated” (by the process of purification), the mind can directly see this “light” shining forth in all phenomena. 

Maybe that’s because of cultural contexts? 

 

I don't see this as any different than dropping obscurations and clinging/aversion in Buddhism and becoming able to see the "luminosity" of emptiness in phenomena as they occur. It seems entirely familiar to my Dzogchen training. Different terminology, but I feel the terminology covers the same ground?

[dwai]

18 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I agree with your point. 

 

I also have always had some dissonance with a "god" idea too, but realize with some insight that god is just another way to talk about the emptiness of separateness, or, to put it another way - if nothing has intrinsic existence, then everything exists as a whole. The "Fullness of Emptiness" as Thich Nhat Hahn called it. 

 

God is a way to talk about that idea, but the problem is always subject/object language... that we must create God as separate from "I" in order to speak about it. This is where you get Sachitananda, or the three kayas, or the trinity. Each talks about the qualities of something that really HAS no qualities. IMHO the "witness insight" of God and "I" still must be seen as a duality, and is just a step toward ultimate understanding of emptiness, but that insight seems to happen eventually to any awakened being regardless of tradition. Certainly I have absolutely met Sufis, Hindus and even Christians with this insight. 

This is a natural outcome of “awakening”, and depending on the individual temperament, also intuitively known (in varying degrees) before said awakening. 

18 hours ago, stirling said:

 

I don't see this as any different than dropping obscurations and clinging/aversion in Buddhism and becoming able to see the "luminosity" of emptiness in phenomena as they occur. It seems entirely familiar to my Dzogchen training. Different terminology, but I feel the terminology covers the same ground?

The truth is one, the wise speak of it in different ways (ekam sat vipraha bahuda vadanti). This is a classic line from the Vedas. 
 

I think, on the topic of where the misunderstanding vis-a-vis God and Buddhist students arises is due to the fact that God is popularly misunderstood/misrepresented as “a being”. According to vedanta, God is not “a being”, but rather is being/existence (Sat) itself, Awareness (chit) itself, and completeness/fullness/bliss itself. 

[old3bob]

and lets not forget that in some schools "God" or Brahman (if you will) is beyond any and all categories; with the categories mentioned above being the first of the most subtle of manifestation.

[dwai]

I thought I'd share a really good little book that covers much of the same topic as in the discussion above, but from a Daoist's perspective.

 

https://www.amazon.com/Dimension-One-Laws-Universe-According-ebook/dp/B09R6FXZWS

 

[Vajra Fist]

Finally got around to listening to this, fantastic discussion. First time hearing from Swami Sarvapriyananda, so doubly grateful for the share.

 

From my limited understanding, when the Buddha coined the phrase 'anatman' it was a subtle refutation of the pervading understanding at the time of the nature of absolute reality (atman)

 

Is it possible that that understanding within Hindu traditions has in some way been influenced by later Buddhist understandings of emptiness, rather than the other way around?

 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Vajra Fist

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, Vajra Fist said:

Finally got around to listening to this, fantastic discussion. First time hearing from Swami Sarvapriyananda, so doubly grateful for the share.

 

From my limited understanding, when the Buddha coined the phrase 'anatman' it was a subtle refutation of the pervading understanding at the time of the nature of absolute reality (atman)

 

Is it possible that that understanding within Hindu traditions has in some way been influenced by later Buddhist understandings of emptiness, rather than the other way around?

 

 

Well it I think it safe to say that most Hindu Satguru's and most well respected Buddhist Lama's don't get together and argue about this,

One may hear a subtle aside now and then from either system...unless someone here has heard more than that? 

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Vajra Fist said:

Finally got around to listening to this, fantastic discussion. First time hearing from Swami Sarvapriyananda, so doubly grateful for the share.

 

From my limited understanding, when the Buddha coined the phrase 'anatman' it was a subtle refutation of the pervading understanding at the time of the nature of absolute reality (atman)

 

Is it possible that that understanding within Hindu traditions has in some way been influenced by later Buddhist understandings of emptiness, rather than the other way around?

 

 

The divide between Buddhism and Hinduism (as viewed in the West) is really an artificial one, created by Western scholars who studied Indic traditions. Both are traditions within Sanatana Dharma. In fact, Buddhism and Jainism are considered nastika (that don't consider Vedas to be the absolute spiritual authority) paths of Sanatana dharma. 

 

As far as cross-pollination is concerned, the Buddha was deeply influenced by a combination of Samkhya, Purva Mimamsa (early Vedic), and Sramana (Jaina) ideas and concepts. In terms of Advaita Vedanta specifically, it is quite possible that they exchanged concepts as well. Adi Shankaracharya (considered to be the most important preceptor of Advaita Vedanta had debated (and bested) with at least two specific Buddhist schools of his times. But, on the same token, his teacher's teacher, Gaudapadacharya, has been accused of being a 'prachanna bauddha' (crypto-buddhist) by subsequent dualistic/qualified monist exponents of Vedanta as well.

 

Personally, I attribute the similarities to be a consequence of, and a indicator of the fact that the Truth is essentially One. 

 

[old3bob]

6 hours ago, old3bob said:

and lets not forget that in some schools "God" or Brahman (if you will) is beyond any and all categories; with the categories mentioned above being the first of the most subtle of manifestation.

a list:

[stirling]

I'll throw this in here as a perspective of enlightenment described in a very Western manner. This is a statement from Daniel Ingram a "pragmatic" Buddhist teacher on how things appear to him as an "arahant":

 

Quote

 

1) Utter centerlessness: no watcher, no sense of a watcher, no subtle watcher, no possibility of a watcher. This is immediately obvious just as color is to a man with good eyesight as the old saying goes. Thus, anything and everything simply and obviously manifest just where they are. No phenomena observe any others and never did or could.

 

2) Utter agencylessness: meaning no agency, no sense of doing, no sense of doer, no sense that there could be any agent or doer, no way to find anything that seems to be in control at all. Whatever effort or intent or anything like that that arises does so naturally, causally, inevitably, as it always actually did. This is immediately obvious, though not always the forefront of attention.

 

3) No cycles change or stages or states or anything else like that do anything to this direct comprehension of simple truths at all.

 

4) There is no deepening in it to do. The understanding stands on its own and holds up over cycles, moods, years, etc and doesn't change at all. I have nothing to add to my initial assessment of it from 9 years ago.

 

5) There is nothing subtle about it: anything and everything that arises exhibits these same qualities directly, clearly. 

 

 

His background is Theravada Buddhism, the primary topic being the experience of "self". I love the precision of his statement, personally. Missing in his account, IMHO, that the dualities of time and space are flattened, meaning that there is only ever this moment (or, "...the past and the future are always ONLY thoughts happening now"), and that a "space" comprised of separate objects is obviously illusory.

[Apech]

5 hours ago, dwai said:

 

The divide between Buddhism and Hinduism (as viewed in the West) is really an artificial one, created by Western scholars who studied Indic traditions. Both are traditions within Sanatana Dharma. In fact, Buddhism and Jainism are considered nastika (that don't consider Vedas to be the absolute spiritual authority) paths of Sanatana dharma. 

 

As far as cross-pollination is concerned, the Buddha was deeply influenced by a combination of Samkhya, Purva Mimamsa (early Vedic), and Sramana (Jaina) ideas and concepts. In terms of Advaita Vedanta specifically, it is quite possible that they exchanged concepts as well. Adi Shankaracharya (considered to be the most important preceptor of Advaita Vedanta had debated (and bested) with at least two specific Buddhist schools of his times. But, on the same token, his teacher's teacher, Gaudapadacharya, has been accused of being a 'prachanna bauddha' (crypto-buddhist) by subsequent dualistic/qualified monist exponents of Vedanta as well.

 

Personally, I attribute the similarities to be a consequence of, and a indicator of the fact that the Truth is essentially One. 

 

Naropa I believe got into some trouble with his guru for debating ‘Hindu’ sages - I think there was a lot of back and forth in certain historical periods.  Some lineages (is it the Nath?) share teachers.

 

The way I frame it is that there is one great cultural vehicle (for want of a better phrase) which is all dharma can traditions - and within that there are many streams (some of which have died out like the adjivekas (sp?) ) but others survived.  Buddhism of course survived only outside the main Indian subcontinent.  Philosophical views vary and so on - which is all well and good - and there isn’t really a right or wrong - more a question of inner consistency.  What is more important is valid transmission of effective empowerment’s and so on which lead to liberation.  There are a diversity of paths because people are diverse and benefit from different approaches.  In this was there is no basis for disparaging another dharma - something I would avoid even if I didn’t find it compelling or attractive.

[old3bob]

I'll take  the historic Buddha for his word when said,  "Wonder of wonders!"   thus imo much of the convoluted sounding stuff that we may sometimes come across in Buddhism (or may make that way) is refuted by His own witness.

 

"Paraphrasing Zen Priest Kobutsu Shindo, the first thing the Buddha said when he awakened was, “Wonder of wonders, all beings are truly enlightened.”

Edited February 16, 2022 by old3bob

[dwai]

21 hours ago, Apech said:

Buddhism of course survived only outside the main Indian subcontinent

That is also a myth. Historically, during the Islamic invasions period, Buddhist centers of learning were targeted - the Universities like Nalanda were sacked and manuscripts burnt. But even to this day, many Indian families have individual members practicing multiple systems, some 'Buddhist', some Jain, while others are more traditional Hindus. The Buddha is considered an avatar of Lord Vishnu and is revered along the same lines as Krishna and Rama in India. 

 

Post Independence, there were political angles that were exploited, but that's a story for another thread....

[Apech]

5 hours ago, dwai said:

That is also a myth. Historically, during the Islamic invasions period, Buddhist centers of learning were targeted - the Universities like Nalanda were sacked and manuscripts burnt. But even to this day, many Indian families have individual members practicing multiple systems, some 'Buddhist', some Jain, while others are more traditional Hindus. The Buddha is considered an avatar of Lord Vishnu and is revered along the same lines as Krishna and Rama in India. 

 

Post Independence, there were political angles that were exploited, but that's a story for another thread....

hi,

Well yes you pulled me up on a point - but I was not trying to say there was no one at all Buddhist in India but rather that the monastic, scholastic and cultural entity of Buddhism ceased to be.  There would have been Jews , Christians, Zoroastrians etc etc also actually living in India after 13 century also - but you would not say the country was Jewish or Christian would you.

 

as regards Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu- I don’t think this is something he himself would have claimed so it seems like a form of ‘capture’ to me.

[dwai]

1 hour ago, Apech said:

hi,

Well yes you pulled me up on a point - but I was not trying to say there was no one at all Buddhist in India but rather that the monastic, scholastic and cultural entity of Buddhism ceased to be.  There would have been Jews , Christians, Zoroastrians etc etc also actually living in India after 13 century also - but you would not say the country was Jewish or Christian would you.

Buddhism is very much part of the ecosystem/tapestry as are the rest of the religions you mentioned. They happily coexist. The reason why Buddhism expanded in East/south-east Asian countries is because it had state patronage in those regions. 

1 hour ago, Apech said:

 

as regards Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu- I don’t think this is something he himself would have claimed so it seems like a form of ‘capture’ to me.

Not really. The Buddha’s family belonged to the solar lineage, same one as Lord Rama (avatar). So it’s not unnatural at all. The Buddha was not a Buddhist after all, and he wouldn’t necessarily have a problem with people considering him an Avatar. 

[C T]

"The reason why Buddhism expanded in East/south-east Asian countries is because it had state patronage in those regions." (Dwai)  

 

Not entirely accurate. Of the estimated 500 mil Buddhist adherents worldwide, the biggest growth in numbers occured in Communist China (reported to have 250 mil followers).

 

It's widely practiced in Malaysia, a Muslim country. 

Edited February 17, 2022 by C T

[dwai]

13 minutes ago, C T said:

"The reason why Buddhism expanded in East/south-east Asian countries is because it had state patronage in those regions." (Dwai)  

 

Not entirely accurate. Of the estimated 500 mil Buddhist adherents worldwide, the biggest growth in numbers occured in Communist China (reported to have 250 mil followers).

 

It's widely practiced in Malaysia, a Muslim country. 

I meant from a historical perspective.