Buddhism & Hinduism/Vedanta: Same or Different?

[old3bob]

concerning the thread title,  those three have some important common ground (as all of us human beings also do) but after that are they are very different.  (even radically so)

[dwai]

I recently saw someone "raging" against the Advaita Vedanta teachers (such as Ma Anandamayi), asking if their perspective -- that, at the highest level, most religious traditions have more in common than not -- isn't a disregard for each tradition's view.

 

Most spiritual traditions have a vacyaartha (literal meaning) and a lakshyartha (implied meaning). People who have not had a realization shift (not yet had the profound accident) cannot understand the implied meaning, so they stick with the literal meaning (or the word of the teacher/lineage/tradition). While this might seem patronizing, it is not intended to be that way—it is merely an empirical statement (based on observation). The literal meaning is like an encoded message; the implied meaning is understood once a practitioner can access the decoder. 

 

Many accouterments accompany specific spiritual traditions in their specific socio-cultural and temporal contexts. One doesn't need to discard these - they have a lot of beauty (for those who choose to see it that way). 

[old3bob]

the Upanishads do not entertain the  idea of being "accident prone" to enlightenment although imo the idea has certain validity if in the sense of  of preparation,  but still one can prepare until the cows come home but it is The Self that chooses the Self, and not by any culmination of "accidents". 

[Maddie]

I can't really comment on their differences because I do not feel that I understand Hinduism to say how it differs from Buddhism.  

[dwai]

23 minutes ago, old3bob said:

the Upanishads do not entertain the  idea of being "accident prone" to enlightenment although imo the idea has certain validity if in the sense of  of preparation,  but still one can prepare until the cows come home but it is The Self that chooses the Self, and not by any culmination of "accidents". 

Technically, the Self doesn't choose the Self; the Self is always and forever the Self. The "accident" is for the so-called separate individual who seems to suffer from the delusion of separateness and individuality. 

 

P.S. This kind of thinking (Self choose the Self) arises from being unable to discern between the jiva and Atman.. From the jiva's perspective, there is ignorance and corresponding liberation/enlightenment. From Atman's perspective, there never was any ignorance or a need for liberation. 

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, dwai said:

Technically, the Self doesn't choose the Self; the Self is always and forever the Self. The "accident" is for the so-called separate individual who seems to suffer from the delusion of separateness and individuality. 

 

I feel like a lot of Buddhists would say that one of the primary differences between Hinduism and Buddhism is the teaching of "no self" but the Buddha never actually taught there wasn't a self (or that there was). He just taught that the five aggregates were not self. 

[dwai]

2 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

I feel like a lot of Buddhists would say that one of the primary differences between Hinduism and Buddhism is the teaching of "no self" but the Buddha never actually taught there wasn't a self (or that there was). He just taught that the five aggregates were not self. 

Which is the locus standi of Advaita Vedanta as well. The 'self" and "no self" debate is inconsequential (IMHO) beyond the preliminary stages of study/practice. We should simply do the work and the truth will be revealed. 

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

Which is the locus standi of Advaita Vedanta as well. 

 

I would say another point most Buddhists would make between Buddhism and Hinduism would be Hinduism's focus on god's and goddesses, but at least with Mahayana Buddhism functionally Bodhisattvas and cosmic Buddha's fill the same role.  

[stirling]

2 minutes ago, Maddie said:

I feel like a lot of Buddhists would say that one of the primary differences between Hinduism and Buddhism is the teaching of "no self" but the Buddha never actually taught there wasn't a self (or that there was). He just taught that the five aggregates were not self. 

 

In Buddhism there is an emphasis on discovering reality for yourself. When we examine the Five Aggregates we discover that "self" and all other "aggregate" things lack any individual reality of their own. While this is initially an intellectual understanding initially, meditation and time sometimes create a shift in experience that forever de-cloaks the mistaken assumptions that the thinking mind has constructed about reality the separateness of the apparent objects that inhabit it. 

[stirling]

4 minutes ago, Maddie said:

I would say another point most Buddhists would make between Buddhism and Hinduism would be Hinduism's focus on god's and goddesses, but at least with Mahayana Buddhism functionally Bodhisattvas and cosmic Buddha's fill the same role.  

 

If nothing has intrinsic reality of its own, then what of gods/goddesses/Buddhas and Bodhisattvas?

 

It is helpful to think about them as icons, just as "self' is an icon - a collection of ideas about who "I" am. 

[dwai]

1 minute ago, Maddie said:

 

I would say another point most Buddhists would make between Buddhism and Hinduism would be Hinduism's focus on god's and goddesses, but at least with Mahayana Buddhism functionally Bodhisattvas and cosmic Buddha's fill the same role.  

The role of deities is necessary, depending on the path one travels, IMHO. Understanding that Deities are "real" at the transactional/causal level is essential. Deities can help individuals progress spiritually so long as one knows how to practice with them.

 

Not having deities and not having a practical approach to spiritual practice, but only theory about a formless G_d (half-baked IMHO) will lead to problems such as fundamentalism and violence. Having deities but not having a practical approach to working with the deities (such as tantra, etc.) will also cause problems of superstition and delusion/dependency. 

 

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, dwai said:

Technically, the Self doesn't choose the Self; the Self is always and forever the Self. The "accident" is for the so-called separate individual who seems to suffer from the delusion of separateness and individuality. 

 

P.S. This kind of thinking (Self choose the Self) arises from being unable to discern between the jiva and Atman.. From the jiva's perspective, there is ignorance and corresponding liberation/enlightenment. From Atman's perspective, there never was any ignorance or a need for liberation. 

 

talk about missing the implied for the literal...

[old3bob]

1 hour ago, stirling said:

 

In Buddhism there is an emphasis on discovering reality for yourself. When we examine the Five Aggregates we discover that "self" and all other "aggregate" things lack any individual reality of their own. While this is initially an intellectual understanding initially, meditation and time sometimes create a shift in experience that forever de-cloaks the mistaken assumptions that the thinking mind has constructed about reality the separateness of the apparent objects that inhabit it. 

 

thus the Self knows that the self is a passing thing but also a tool for use.

[stirling]

57 minutes ago, old3bob said:

thus the Self knows that the self is a passing thing but also a tool for use.

 

The ICON of a tool, perhaps.

[old3bob]

From the Mundaka-Upanishad: Third Mundaka, Second Khanda

 

3. That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. The Self chooses him (his body) as his own.

[stirling]

31 minutes ago, old3bob said:

From the Mundaka-Upanishad: Third Mundaka, Second Khanda

 

3. That Self cannot be gained by the Veda, nor by understanding, nor by much learning. He whom the Self chooses, by him the Self can be gained. The Self chooses him (his body) as his own.

 

Yes... the spectre of "grace"! In Buddhism, I'd say it is more of an accident, but it is essentially the same story. 

 

Buddhism has far more people who read a few books, think they see that there is definitely a map to enlightenment if they do all of the right stuff in the right order, and then find that it doesn't work like that. 

 

Quote

Coming to the conclusion of the meaning of teachings is like turning on a light in a dark room: what was hidden becomes clear. It is the experience of "a-ha!" when the pieces click into place and are understood. It's different from simple conceptual understanding in that it is something we know rather than something we have merely heard. For example, being told about yellow and red cushions in a room is like gaining an intellectual understanding of them, but if we go into the room when it is dark, we cannot tell which cushion is which.

 

Concluding the meaning is like turning the light on: then we directly know the red and the yellow. The teaching is no longer something we can only repeat, it is part of us. - Tenzin Wangyal Rinpoche, The Tibetan Yogas of Dream and Sleep

 

[old3bob]

5 hours ago, Maddie said:

 

I feel like a lot of Buddhists would say that one of the primary differences between Hinduism and Buddhism is the teaching of "no self" but the Buddha never actually taught there wasn't a self (or that there was). He just taught that the five aggregates were not self. 

 

the historic Buddha (saw) pointed out the assembly of subtle beings (normally invisible to most)  before his passing so he apparently was not stuck on denying relative realities, which it seems some people are?

[old3bob]

 

an all seeing eye....,  best to have one's shit together before that eye falls upon us.

[silent thunder]

25 minutes ago, old3bob said:

 

the historic Buddha (saw) pointed out the assembly of subtle beings (normally invisible to most)  before his passing so he apparently was not stuck on denying relative realities, which it seems some people are?

well... at least you're not bitter about it.

Spoiler

 

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, silent thunder said:

well... at least you're not bitter about it.

  Hide contents

 

 

no comprende 

[forestofclarity]

20 hours ago, dwai said:

The role of deities is necessary, depending on the path one travels, IMHO. Understanding that Deities are "real" at the transactional/causal level is essential. Deities can help individuals progress spiritually so long as one knows how to practice with them.

 

Interesting comment. All spiritual traditions have developed some sort of intermediary between the instantiated person and the fully divine, whether these are Messiahs, Saints, angels, Sefirot, mantras, etc. there is at some point a defined name and form that bridges the specifically appearing and the formless possibilities. It is also interesting that in many traditions this dimension is often accessed via the imaginal realm, through visualization and dreams.