Buddhism & Hinduism/Vedanta: Same or Different?

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Seems like he has it to me:

Why does that sound familiar... oh yes:

Or:
"self" is just a little bit of Self, but they aren't separate... that is an illusion. 

It's ALL Self, Bob, including every little bit of it that you imagine is separate somehow. Nothing gets a pass.

 

 

Buddhism and Hinduism have a lot of common ground but do not correlate on key points, trying to make that so is a disservice to both.

 

[stirling]

Just now, old3bob said:

Buddhism and Hinduism have a lot of common ground but do not correlate on key points, trying to make that so is a disservice to both.

 

Lacking the usual vitriol, which is nice.

 

Can you show me where? From where I am sitting it's "turtles all the way down", and I don't think I'm alone on the board here in seeing that. The statements I quoted are amongst probably hundreds one could pull (yes, in context) that support my point.

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Lacking the usual vitriol, which is nice.

 

Can you show me where? From where I am sitting it's "turtles all the way down", and I don't think I'm alone on the board here in seeing that. The statements I quoted are amongst probably hundreds one could pull (yes, in context) that support my point.

 

the fact for a very long list of various masters (& lineage holders) is that they don't declare their school/doctrine  equal to various other unrelated schools/doctrine, which btw includes the founder of Buddhism.  (and such also applies to many sects under a main religion, yet they also do not  declare they are the same as other sects on different points )

Edited Friday at 05:17 AM by old3bob

[stirling]

14 hours ago, old3bob said:

the fact for a very long list of various masters (& lineage holders) is that they don't declare their school/doctrine  equal to various other unrelated schools/doctrine, which btw includes the founder of Buddhism.  (and such also applies to many sects under a main religion, yet they also do not  declare they are the same as other sects on different points )

 

Bob,

 

I'm not talking about the lineages, schools, or doctrines, I am talking about the actual EXPERIENCE and understanding of enlightenment. All of those things are about the STORY of enlightenment and will obviously disagree in some way or another... enlightenment itself can't be described and has nothing to do with all of that man-made nonsense.

 

There often two traditions in many religions - the monastics and the gnostics.

 

A gnostic is someone who has had sudden and permanent insight in the the nature of reality. The "gnow" what enlightenment is and it is their moment to moment experience.

 

In time they tell others, and people get excited and write it all down, including the gnostics story about how he got there. However, those who write it down fail to realize that the path they have captured isn't going to work for everyone, at least in the same way. The gnostics KNOW this.

 

Time passes... some students follow the instructions and some percentage of those students experience gnosis, but their path differs in some, or many, details from the original gnostic because the path doesn't go the same for everyone one. They tell their story. The monastics label this new gnostic a heretic, but the gnostic/heretic NOW has the insight to realize what all gnostic/heretics realize - the map is NOT the territory. This is why there are so many "Buddhisms", for example. Each one had it's own heretic that began it. 

[old3bob]

23 minutes ago, stirling said:

 

Bob,

 

I'm not talking about the lineages, schools, or doctrines, I am talking about the actual EXPERIENCE and understanding of enlightenment. All of those things are about the STORY of enlightenment and will obviously disagree in some way or another... enlightenment itself can't be described and has nothing to do with all of that man-made nonsense.

 

There often two traditions in many religions - the monastics and the gnostics.

 

A gnostic is someone who has had sudden and permanent insight in the the nature of reality. The "gnow" what enlightenment is and it is their moment to moment experience.

 

In time they tell others, and people get excited and write it all down, including the gnostics story about how he got there. However, those who write it down fail to realize that the path they have captured isn't going to work for everyone, at least in the same way. The gnostics KNOW this.

 

Time passes... some students follow the instructions and some percentage of those students experience gnosis, but their path differs in some, or many, details from the original gnostic because the path doesn't go the same for everyone one. They tell their story. The monastics label this new gnostic a heretic, but the gnostic/heretic NOW has the insight to realize what all gnostic/heretics realize - the map is NOT the territory. This is why there are so many "Buddhisms", for example. Each one had it's own heretic that began it. 

 

experiences in territory are also different, thus its not kosher to lump everything into a wana-be transcendental melting pot as you constantly push for...

[stirling]

17 minutes ago, old3bob said:

experiences in territory are also different, thus its not kosher to lump everything into a wana-be transcendental melting pot as you constantly push for...

 

Experiences are ALWAYS different - the concomitant understanding is not. It is also not transcendental. There is nothing to transcend. 

[old3bob]

 

so what is the name of your school, anything goes?

[stirling]

59 minutes ago, old3bob said:

so what is the name of your school, anything goes?

 

Soto Zen. My lineage is through the late Shunryu Suzuki, who said:

 

Quote

“Gaining enlightenment is an accident. Spiritual practice simply makes us accident-prone.” - Shuryu Suzuki Roshi

 

Confusing the practice, or the teachings with the realization is a common mistake. Both point to the destination, but the idea that we are "going" anywhere is incorrect. The destination is right here, always. As I said previously, the map is not the territory.

 

It is all (including the chap called Robert) ALWAYS Brahman, and always has been. 

[Thrice Daily]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

Soto Zen. My lineage is through the late Shunryu Suzuki, who said:

 

 

Confusing the practice, or the teachings with the realization is a common mistake. Both point to the destination, but the idea that we are "going" anywhere is incorrect. The destination is right here, always. As I said previously, the map is not the territory.

 

It is all (including the chap called Robert) ALWAYS Brahman, and always has been. 

That's the kind of statement that can lead people to thinking they don't need to formally meditate at all to get all the benefits of meditation. Angry hasty folk that will insist that they meditate all the time in everything they do and say sitting is for lazy people, stupid people or a waste of time...  

[stirling]

45 minutes ago, Thrice Daily said:

That's the kind of statement that can lead people to thinking they don't need to formally meditate at all to get all the benefits of meditation. Angry hasty folk that will insist that they meditate all the time in everything they do and say sitting is for lazy people, stupid people or a waste of time...  

 

True, but I think Suzuki's quote gets the point of practice across. The more obscurations and "self" we chip away, and the more loving kindness we show in the world the more likely the "accident" is to take place. 

 

Relaxed, unhurried, realized dharma teachers ARE in "meditation" all the time. You could call a lot of them lazy too, I suppose.

 

 

[silent thunder]

25 minutes ago, Thrice Daily said:

That's the kind of statement that can lead people to thinking they don't need to formally meditate at all to get all the benefits of meditation. Angry hasty folk that will insist that they meditate all the time in everything they do and say sitting is for lazy people, stupid people or a waste of time...  

and your statement seems to imply that there's something to achieve or acquire via some requisite process in order to take us to a something, or away from something else when our nature is our nature...

Edited Friday at 11:15 PM by silent thunder
added a word

[old3bob]

 

there is evolution and that which is not evolving....a seed holds the promise of a tree but is not yet a tree.  (making more seeds)

[forestofclarity]

I wonder how one might phenomenologically distinguish between an expanded Buddha, nirguna Brahman, and panentheist God. 

 

23 hours ago, stirling said:

Her version of it has the "dharma protectors" doing it. While I have empowerments, I think it is true for anyone on this path, protectors or not.

 

I think there is something to that. There is a lot of similarity between how things unfolded with mystic Christianity and Buddhism IME-- Christianity even has protectors (i.e. wrathful angels) that appear to look after the teaching. There some different flavors. I mean, experience-reality-cosmos is what it is. But it seems like thought he bottles different, the essence is the same. 

 

I've had pointing outs in Buddhism and Vedanta that were nearly identical, FWIW (!). 

 

5 hours ago, old3bob said:

experiences in territory are also different, thus its not kosher to lump everything into a wana-be transcendental melting pot 

 

I think this is right, but also not right. I mean, the Traditionalists tend to prune away differences to create a mushy Perennialist model. But on the other hand, there isn't a Jewish mountain, a Vedantic mountain, and a Buddhist mountain. 

[old3bob]

4 hours ago, stirling said:

 

Soto Zen. My lineage is through the late Shunryu Suzuki, who said:

 

 

Confusing the practice, or the teachings with the realization is a common mistake. Both point to the destination, but the idea that we are "going" anywhere is incorrect. The destination is right here, always. As I said previously, the map is not the territory.

 

It is all (including the chap called Robert) ALWAYS Brahman, and always has been. 

 

Btw,  that sounds kind of like some patronizing towards "Brahman" teachings?  (and its related teachings which the 4 main branches Hinduism and its great many sects don't all agree on, much less there being agreement about same among most Buddhists. 

 

[stirling]

2 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

I wonder how one might phenomenologically distinguish between an expanded Buddha, nirguna Brahman, and panentheist God. 

 

I think you would be hard pressed, myself. 

 

2 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

I think there is something to that. There is a lot of similarity between how things unfolded with mystic Christianity and Buddhism IME-- Christianity even has protectors (i.e. wrathful angels) that appear to look after the teaching. There some different flavors. I mean, experience-reality-cosmos is what it is. But it seems like thought he bottles different, the essence is the same.

 

Absolutely. If you read Meister Eckhardt, St. John of the Cross, or Bernadette Roberts, there plenty of obvious non-dual statements. 

 

2 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

I've had pointing outs in Buddhism and Vedanta that were nearly identical, FWIW (!). 

 

I have heard pointing out in Sufism too. Same deal.

 

 

2 hours ago, forestofclarity said:

I mean, the Traditionalists tend to prune away differences to create a mushy Perennialist model. But on the other hand, there isn't a Jewish mountain, a Vedantic mountain, and a Buddhist mountain. 

 

Agreed.

[stirling]

1 hour ago, old3bob said:

Btw,  that sounds kind of like some patronizing towards "Brahman" teachings?  (and its related teachings which the 4 main branches Hinduism and its great many sects don't all agree on, much less there being agreement about same among most Buddhists. 

 

Patronizing from me? Oh... gosh no! I'm a FAN. I am deeply against exceptionalism of all kinds. I guess I thought my position was clear - these traditions all point to the same non-dual understanding. There is a long history of people like William James, Aldous Huxley, Joseph Campbell and other well known intellectual minds connecting the dots here... there is nothing radical or odd about pointing it out. It is certainly beyond obvious to me. 

[old3bob]

being a fan is one thing but taking certain teachings and declaring that they mean what you happen to espouse about them in an all knowing like way is heavy handed. (imo) Again there are four major branches in Hinduism and a great many sects and they don't all agree on all major points,  (for instance duality and non-duality) yet having respect for each other (including many non-Vedic ways) thus not stepping on each other is a core teaching or tenent for most.

Edited yesterday at 10:31 AM by old3bob

[S:C]

17 hours ago, stirling said:

It is all (including the chap called Robert) ALWAYS Brahman, and always has been. 

It seems funny and odd as first, then thoughtworthy if you think of a tyrant, or a Gestapo Officer, or a serial killer. They all are as well, then in this perspective? 
 

As you referenced the chap called Robert, I had a further realization… if you take integration seriously, relationships as a path (not one by my conscious choice) will show you what you are averse of or even despise and might need to integrate if you cannot become careless about it. 
 

It also reminded me of a series of dreams where I was in more than one perspective at the same time. Victim and perpetrator and a third non reactive bystander. Shocking really, I hate my path. 

 

[old3bob]

54 minutes ago, S:C said:

It seems funny and odd as first, then thoughtworthy if you think of a tyrant, or a Gestapo Officer, or a serial killer. They all are as well, then in this perspective? 
 

As you referenced the chap called Robert, I had a further realization… if you take integration seriously, relationships as a path (not one by my conscious choice) will show you what you are averse of or even despise and might need to integrate if you cannot become careless about it. 
 

It also reminded me of a series of dreams where I was in more than one perspective at the same time. Victim and perpetrator and a third non reactive bystander. Shocking really, I hate my path. 

 

 

from an ultimate perspective some would say yes, although covered over by very, very dark adharmic karmas! 

(and also tuned into or acting from the chakras below the root as described in Hinduism)

Edited 20 hours ago by old3bob

[stirling]

5 hours ago, old3bob said:

being a fan is one thing but taking certain teachings and declaring that they mean what you happen to espouse about them in an all knowing like way is heavy handed. (imo) Again there are four major branches in Hinduism and a great many sects and they don't all agree on all major points,  (for instance duality and non-duality) yet having respect for each other (including many non-Vedic ways) thus not stepping on each other is a core teaching or tenent for most.

 

I feel like we are back to square one. I'm not doing or saying anything that William James, Aldous Huxley, and Joseph Campbell (for a start) haven't, so I'm not sure why you have always singled ME out. This IS a thread about enlightenment, yes? With that in mind 'll share a quote I made previously:

 

On 10/10/2024 at 12:12 PM, stirling said:

This is going to be complicated, so bear with me:

 

Enlightenment is non-dual.

 

As I have previously explained, there are the monastics (dualistic) and the gnostics/heretics (non-dualistic). Everything in a monastics belief system is great until the day that there is insight. From that moment on, that "person's" life will never be the same. The world has a new heretic. Enlightenment is not a belief, and burns all beliefs to ashes. People can believe what they like. Experience is ultimately what transforms all views. 

 

Sure there are branches of Hinduism that believe that BELIEVE that those teachings are dual or non-dual. My feeling is that some of those traditions have simply chosen an awkward way to express the same understanding. The Hindu texts are chock full of amazing non-dual statements and insight. 

 

Would it make you feel more respected if I said that interpretations of the non-dual Hindu texts differ, but the non-dual schools are most certainly talking about enlightenment being the same attainment as other non-dual schools?

[stirling]

1 hour ago, S:C said:

It seems funny and odd as first, then thoughtworthy if you think of a tyrant, or a Gestapo Officer, or a serial killer. They all are as well, then in this perspective? 

 

Certainly Britney Spears, Ronald Reagan, the Teletubbies, Jesus, every tree, rock, gust of wind, and rash are all Brahman. No-one/thing gets a pass - they are all Brahman/Dharmakaya and aren't separate from what you are. 

 

1 hour ago, S:C said:

As you referenced the chap called Robert, I had a further realization… if you take integration seriously, relationships as a path (not one by my conscious choice) will show you what you are averse of or even despise and might need to integrate if you cannot become careless about it.

 

This is one-hundred percent correct, though I wouldn't use the term integration, myself. There is nothing separate to integrate, really. I think of it more as sloughing off your belief systems and patterns of behavior - the "I" that you so carefully build and buttress moment to moment. Yes, the fabric of the dharmakaya/Brahman loves you, and shows you where you are stuck constantly as a kindness. Learning to release attachment and aversion to these appearances and events in consciousness is the work.  

 

1 hour ago, S:C said:

It also reminded me of a series of dreams where I was in more than one perspective at the same time. Victim and perpetrator and a third non reactive bystander. Shocking really, I hate my path. 

 

Hahahaha! We call that a "dharma dream". That's good! The Advaita Vedantans wisely suggest that the dreamworld is actually MORE real that this world, because it already lacks some of the illusions of division. Time is strange in dreams, space is strange in dreams, and, as you have seen, "self" is strange in dreams. They are fluid, and don't follow our waking ideas about their behavior.

 

The reality is that THIS world is the same. Time, space and "self" are wiggly and interesting when allowed to be as they are. It can be seen when you stop explaining away the weird experiences you have, like forgetting the connecting moments between two points when walking, or driving, or seeing something weird out of the corner of your eye, but explaining it as some anomaly in consciousness, rather than the glitch it obviously was. Learning to accept reality as strange and not needing your explanation begets MORE of these experiences being noticed. 

 

BTW the mystery "Robert" here is none-other than our friendly board-mate oldbob.

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

I feel like we are back to square one. I'm not doing or saying anything that William James, Aldous Huxley, and Joseph Campbell (for a start) haven't, so I'm not sure why you have always singled ME out. This IS a thread about enlightenment, yes? With that in mind 'll share a quote I made previously:

 

 

As I have previously explained, there are the monastics (dualistic) and the gnostics/heretics (non-dualistic). Everything in a monastics belief system is great until the day that there is insight. From that moment on, that "person's" life will never be the same. The world has a new heretic. Enlightenment is not a belief, and burns all beliefs to ashes. People can believe what they like. Experience is ultimately what transforms all views. 

 

Sure there are branches of Hinduism that believe that BELIEVE that those teachings are dual or non-dual. My feeling is that some of those traditions have simply chosen an awkward way to express the same understanding. The Hindu texts are chock full of amazing non-dual statements and insight. 

 

Would it make you feel more respected if I said that interpretations of the non-dual Hindu texts differ, but the non-dual schools are most certainly talking about enlightenment being the same attainment as other non-dual schools?

 

 

not really, but apparently for you... since  pounding on nails is apparently your bag

[stirling]

You are the nail in this scenario? I don’t think of you that way. I think you are more of a “get off my lawn “ type with a heart of gold. ❤️

[old3bob]

41 minutes ago, stirling said:

You are the nail in this scenario? I don’t think of you that way. I think you are more of a “get off my lawn “ type with a heart of gold. ❤️

 

that reminds me of a song:  "I'd rather be a hammer than a nail..."