Nonduality

[dwai]

Of course, this would indicate that Advaita is culturally dependent and therefore not based on human universals. Master Sheng Yen talks about the difference between Buddhism and Buddhadharma. Buddhism arises in a certain socio-cultural context. Buddhadharma is the way things are, independent of time, place, and culture. I would think the same goes for knowledge of Self, Tao, etc.

 

A lot of people subscribe to Ramana Maharshi's techniques--- there is no indication that one had to know Vedanta in order to understand him. In fact, he instructed that the quickest way to realization was to practice self-enquiry, not study Vedanta. As a counterpoint, I might suggest that studying Vedanta is like reading a menu, rather than tasting the meal.

 

Vedanta involves self-inquiry. The Neti-Neti method is used to delve into what the "Self" means and is a core method employed by all Vedantins.

 

Also, there ARE NO universals. Everything is dependent on circumstances. The truth that is "Absolute" has to be attained by transcending these categorical frameworks. But a Categorical framework is essential because of the fact that we are human beings who work on the level of subject and object duality, of form and description duality (Nama Rupa).

 

All so-called Universal truths are only Universal within a specific categorical framework. Tao, Brahman are what are Absolute truths, that do not operate on or depend on categorical frameworks.

 

Think about it, you are using a Categorical framework to access something that cannot be accessed by it, that cannot be described by it. The realization that you cannot access it (true realization) is what transcending that framework means.

[forestofsouls]

Ramana didn't prescribe neti-neti for focusing on third place (3rd person) instead of first place (1st person).

 

Saying that everything is dependent on circumstances is, in fact, a universal. Other universals include impermanence, interdependence, the failure of external things to satisfy. You don't have to be a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or Jew or closely examine everything and see impermanence. The truth knows no culture, no religion--- it just is. There is no Hindu awareness, Christian awareness, or Buddhist awareness. Awareness just is. What is different is the content-- specific thoughts, feelings, etc.

 

When we talk of categorical or aboslute, we are using mental constructs. Is the bird categorical or absolute? The sky? Space?

 

Vedanta involves self-inquiry. The Neti-Neti method is used to delve into what the "Self" means and is a core method employed by all Vedantins.

 

Also, there ARE NO universals. Everything is dependent on circumstances. The truth that is "Absolute" has to be attained by transcending these categorical frameworks. But a Categorical framework is essential because of the fact that we are human beings who work on the level of subject and object duality, of form and description duality (Nama Rupa).

 

All so-called Universal truths are only Universal within a specific categorical framework. Tao, Brahman are what are Absolute truths, that do not operate on or depend on categorical frameworks.

 

Think about it, you are using a Categorical framework to access something that cannot be accessed by it, that cannot be described by it. The realization that you cannot access it (true realization) is what transcending that framework means.

[dwai]

Ramana didn't prescribe neti-neti for focusing on third place (3rd person) instead of first place (1st person).

 

Saying that everything is dependent on circumstances is, in fact, a universal. Other universals include impermanence, interdependence, the failure of external things to satisfy. You don't have to be a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, or Jew or closely examine everything and see impermanence. The truth knows no culture, no religion--- it just is. There is no Hindu awareness, Christian awareness, or Buddhist awareness. Awareness just is. What is different is the content-- specific thoughts, feelings, etc.

 

When we talk of categorical or aboslute, we are using mental constructs. Is the bird categorical or absolute? The sky? Space?

 

When subject and object merge, where is the first place and where is third place? In a meditation, is there truly a subject and an object? Is it not merely a "mental construct" we use to help break through the barrier of differentiation between the two?

 

Sky is a relative truth only within the framework of those who live on the surface. If you went and talked to a fish (go with me on this one for the sake of argument) about the Sky, it would not be able comprehend what you say, since it might not have the ability to perceive and if it does, have the ability to conceive of this phenomenon called the Sky. Likewise with Space. The truth is Universal when all the observers adhere to the categorical framework that enables it's discernment. Outside the categorical framework, the truth doesn't remain a Universal truth anymore, it becomes a relative truth.

 

Darsana categorizes truth/knowledge into two buckets. The lower or vyavaharika Satya (Truth) and the higher or Paramartha Satya. The lower truth works on the foundations of name and form. The Higher truth transcends name and form. So there you go -- everything doesn't depend on name and form, only lower knowledge does.

 

 

What is any reality without the mental constructs? If there is no mind, what then? You have to use the mind (intellect, buddhi) to access this Higher Truth. How do you get there -- by using and then transcending a categorical framework. Which categorical framework -- now that is a million dollar question....

 

I agree that there is no scope for exclusivity of truth-claims by any specific religion or system. It is only that certain systems are better suited to delve into the matters of Higher truth than others, by virtue of not being fixated on the categorical framework (seer not looking at the moon but at the finger pointing to the moon).

[Sunya]

 

 

Here's an excellent essay (not written by one of those superstars everyone seems to not see beyond) that discusses the dynamics between Buddha (Siddhartha) and the Upanishads (Vedantic literature).

 

 

the differences are very subtle, and very difficult to grasp for someone stuck in eternalist views

 

 

http://www.khandro.net/doctrine_dharmakaya.htm

[forestofsouls]

When subject and object merge, where is the first place and where is third place? In a meditation, is there truly a subject and an object? Is it not merely a "mental construct" we use to help break through the barrier of differentiation between the two?

 

I would say: Yes. However, I am not enlightened. I would say that the object is what arises and passes, and the subject is what remains.

 

Sky is a relative truth only within the framework of those who live on the surface. If you went and talked to a fish (go with me on this one for the sake of argument) about the Sky, it would not be able comprehend what you say, since it might not have the ability to perceive and if it does, have the ability to conceive of this phenomenon called the Sky. Likewise with Space. The truth is Universal when all the observers adhere to the categorical framework that enables it's discernment. Outside the categorical framework, the truth doesn't remain a Universal truth anymore, it becomes a relative truth.

 

 

I would toss the fish in the sky. Then it would know the sky for itself.

 

What is any reality without the mental constructs? If there is no mind, what then? You have to use the mind (intellect, buddhi) to access this Higher Truth. How do you get there -- by using and then transcending a categorical framework. Which categorical framework -- now that is a million dollar question....

 

This sounds like thinking to truth. I say the thinking obscures the truth. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What do you mean by using the mind?

 

I agree that there is no scope for exclusivity of truth-claims by any specific religion or system. It is only that certain systems are better suited to delve into the matters of Higher truth than others, by virtue of not being fixated on the categorical framework (seer not looking at the moon but at the finger pointing to the moon).

 

So it is better to be born into certain cultures than others?

 

Let me share with you an interesting experience. Sometimes when I meditate, I fall asleep (ha ha! hard to believe! ). My personality, my history, everything that I think is me--- disappears. I am somewhere else, sometimes some one else completely. This persona, this cultural thing, is not the real me. It is an accident of birth. What I am is what sees this.

Edited April 18, 2009 by forestofsouls

[SiliconValley]

the differences are very subtle, and very difficult to grasp for someone stuck in eternalist views

 

Well that's you your view really! The same can be said other way round ... the subtle but important key is very difficult to grasp for someone "stuck" in Nihilistic views. There have been similar discussions on Shankara and Buddhism on E-Sangha but not one has ever been really useful. By the way it is just your opinion or the opinion of some of the Buddhists that Advaita Vedanta (I am assuming you are talking of Shankara's version named Kevaladvaita) speaks of an enlightenment which is someway "inferior" to the Buddhist concept of the same. Most of the articles that seem to be making round on the www have all been written by those who are really pro-Madhyamika academicians who really have a superficial and non-traditional knowledge of Advaita. Advaita Vedanta has had extremely scholarly refutation of the Buddhist concepts. Unfortunately a lot of these never got translated to English on account of the complexities involved in translation but are readily available in German and Sanskrit. Meanwhile, Neo-Advaita seems to have taken over which many a time has made one "lazy" and nothing more. So, it is simply your take that "Eternalism" is a stuck up concept. Neither you nor I are "Enlightened" and till that time, we can have pre-conceived notions of our own. That's okay

Edited April 18, 2009 by SiliconValley

[SiliconValley]

that is Brahma, not Brahman. All of the Hindu Gods are talked about in Buddhism as living in the God realm and suffering from excess pride and delusions of grandeur. lol. this is quite obvious if you read Hindu mythology, i took a class on the topic and found them quite ridiculous! why anyone would want to worship these beings is beyond me.

 

You should also note that various deities worshiped in Tantric sects of Buddhism are borrowed from Hindu Tantras. Their mantras also have been retained with some regional corruptions. Advaita Vedanta is never taught as medicine for ALL in Hinduism. There are pre-requisites for studying Vedanta, of whose many branches Advaita is one flavor, and these are the Shat Sampattis or virtues or behavioral traits such as discriminative knowledge, dispassion, sensory control etc. For those who are unqualified, which really is 99% of the crowd, various other paths are taught by the Veda, like Karma and Upasana - which are steps leading to the acquisition of the qualification for Vedanta. So the masters talk of Adhikara or Qualification as the basis for what is taught to who. Someone undergoes the period of maturity through Yoga, another through upasana or worship of a certain deity, and yet another through bhakti (which really means unceasing and non-selfish love towards the Divine). These preparatory steps are never considered silly even by the adepts. Shankara himself, though considered as born perfect and an incarnation, to demonstrate this model of Sopana Krama (Gradual Ascent) studied Hatha Yoga, Raja Yoga and finally Jnana Yoga - each for an year. Some Tantras go to the extent of stating that the path of Jnana Yoga (can mean Advaita) and that of an ascetic is (directly) unsuitable for the current times we live in (Kali Yuga) without other preparatory practices. This may not apply to all, but sure does seem to apply for many!

 

There is a lot of Buddhist mythology as well, a lot of it borrowed from Hinduism. The real goal of a serious aspirant is to look beyond the wrap of these mythologies to understand the hidden language. The scriptures or mythologies have to be interpreted through sandhya bhasha or the language of twilight. Indra, the king of the Demi gods who is described as seducing women is simply a symbol for "Indriya" or the Sense Organ, whose main distractions are Kama and Krodha (Lust and Anger) and Hunger for Power. So it is really funny to dismiss an entire gamut of spiritual teaching as "ridiculous" based on one class, probably taught by someone who interpreted them literally! Does not the same apply to mythologies of various cultures? There have been people who have benefited from the teachings embedded in such mythologies, to whatever extent, and there will be those who continue to benefit. These mythologies mostly occur in Purnas which are simplified commentaries on the Vedas. The complex teachings of the Vedas were made available to the common folks through Puranas or Tales and these were taught by specialists named pauranikas who were well-versed in various related branches like chandas or grammar, mimamsa or the ritual and the upanishads. Lack of this ...what should I say...wholesome learning - is what has lead to the recent ridicule and misinterpretation of these tales or myths.

 

Moreover, the "various" deities are described as various rays or emanations of the three qualities (Satva, Rajas and Tamas) of the qualified or conditioned Brahman named Ishvara who perform various activities, like the various organs in the body. At the end of the day, when one reaches the state of realizing Atman as the sole Entity, much like everything else, these deities cease to exist. However, at some empirical level, they have their existence, and also their use in one's spiritual journey. It simply is a matter of what one's goal is and how the deities are approached. When worshiped for knowledge and not petty means, these deities, who are certainly at a higher plane than mortals, can help one cultivate one or more of the required virtues or even teach directly the Royal Path of Jnana (jhana? ). My Guru, for instance, whose main practice is Tantra based on Kashmiri Shaivism (another sophisticated flavor of Advaita with similarities to Kevaladvaita), received his first experiential teaching of the Upanishads from Chinnamasta, a popular Goddess worshiped both by Tantric Hindus and Buddhists.

 

But what is the view of the Classic Advaitin? Shankara says:

 

Ishvaraanugrahaadeva pumsaam advaitavaasanaa |

 

Even the desire to approach Non-duality is generated in a mortal through the "Grace" of Ishwara or the conditioned Brahman. Here, he is implicitly speaking of the, shall we say, "second class" citizens who require grace, worship of conditioned (Saguna) Brahman and other practices before they can take to inquiry/contemplation for Realization. This is the view of the Jnana Margins or of Advaitins. The dualisits, samkhyas, purva mimamsakas, the dvaitins, the vishsishtadvaitins have other theories on realization.

 

It is a matter of different paths and cultures! But is there a need to proclaim "superiority" of one's enlightenment over another's based on half-baked academic writings - when neither the ones who wrote them nor the ones who are reading them are really enlightened?

 

Peace and Blessings...

Edited April 18, 2009 by SiliconValley

[Sunya]

Hi Silicon. thank you for your response it is appreciated, and i gave it some thought.

 

it is not just my opinion at all that Buddhist view and fruit differs from Hinduism (whether its orthodox, vedanta advaita, kashmir shivaism, whatever) it is just the Buddhist view and I think it is a fact for anyone who has looked into both traditions.. i myself was initiated into an Advaita Shivaite lineage.

 

the goals are just different. some equate Brahman with Dharmakaya, and that is fine, whatever, but even if you accept that.. the goal of Buddhism is not to 'merge' with Dharmakaya. whereas the goal of a Hindu is complete absorption into Brahman, the paradigm of Buddhism is completely different. Complete and eternal absorption is impossible as taught in the first turning of the wheel, this sort of absorption only leads you to eons of bliss in a formless realm but eventually you get sucked back in. hence, not true liberation.

 

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartl04.htm

 

Attachment in the formless realm: When wrong view with its concomitant grasping no longer contaminates the realm of desire and the realm of form, rebirth in the formless realm follows. That sphere is free from form (body); there is only the knowing consciousness and, therefore, we speak of clinging to the formless realm. Denizens of that realm are no longer preoccupied with matter or material. The Dhyanas and the Dharma are their repast and their bliss.

 

The formless realm is divided into attainment in meditation on the void; attainment in meditation on consciousness; attainment in meditation on nothingness; and attainment leading to a state of neither perception nor non-perception. Consider for a moment the difference between Dharma talk offered by an Arhat, as compared with that given by someone of lower attainment. The attachment to formless realm still manifests.

 

The state of ignorance in the Triloka: Ignorance and delusory views still predominate, as countless as the atoms in the universe, although beings in that realm have relinquished some part of both. Their understanding as to action and principle is far from clear and therefore they cannot stop the conversion of their thoughts into the cycle of birth and death, although they were released from the four states or conditions found in mortality. The Arahat who completed the fourth and the highest stage, attaining the fruit and the path is, likewise, liberated from these four. Worldlings cannot escape the two kinds of birth and death no matter how long their earthly existence might last. Reborn in the formless realm, they still have birth and death, even after eighty-four thousand kalpas. That is a very long time.

 

i'm going to quote my friend here, as i'm lazy:

"In Dharmakaya, there's no concept of individuality. Like the "ice cube" having melted into water, there is just vast open spacious, centerless, Awareness and without boundary. This is where things differ with the Hindu model. This is the final result of the Hindu path, absorption(extinction) into Brahman. Buddhism and Dzogchen has a different view. A different fruit. The goal of Buddhism is the attainment of the 3 Kayas. Dharmakaya manifests continuously without interruption. The next level of manifestation would be the Sambhogakaya. This is somewhat individualized, the Rainbow Body of Light. A being at this level is not incarnate. However, they do have tremendous power of Compassion (thugje). That level of Being automatically manifests "blessings" and positive energy towards all sentient beings. There is no "vow" at that level. Nor is there an intention to do anything. This "thugje" manifestation is completely spontaneous and just happens. Just like the sun in the sky, has no intention to emanate the warming and nurturing rays of light upon the Earth. This Being is completely beyond all limits. They could manifest infinite numbers of Light-Bodies to accomplish their mission. This is all Sambhogakaya stuff. Next, is emanation into the phystical world and we call this Nirmanakaya. This level is even more individual than Sambhogakaya. BUT don't get confused here, wherever there is Dharmakaya, there is instantly Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya. The three levels are inseparable."

Edited April 18, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

You should also note that various deities worshiped in Tantric sects of Buddhism are borrowed from Hindu Tantras. Their mantras also have been retained with some regional corruptions.

 

Buddhist Tantra came from India, likewise so did Hindu Tantra. they both came about during the same time, and in the same Himalayan region, so it is impossible to say which came first.

 

 

My Guru, for instance, whose main practice is Tantra based on Kashmiri Shaivism (another sophisticated flavor of Advaita with similarities to Kevaladvaita), received his first experiential teaching of the Upanishads from Chinnamasta, a popular Goddess worshiped both by Tantric Hindus and Buddhists.

 

Who is your Guru? I too used to practice Kashmiri Shaivism

 

this is who initiated me, he's a wonderful teacher

http://www.suprememeditation.org/aboutak.html

 

It is a matter of different paths and cultures! But is there a need to proclaim "superiority" of one's enlightenment over another's based on half-baked academic writings - when neither the ones who wrote them nor the ones who are reading them are really enlightened?

 

Peace and Blessings...

 

i'm all for non sectarianism, no doubt. i love all religions, and have studied most. but i think it's quite silly and naive to believe that there exists only one mountain and all paths go to the top. it is very evident that people are of different capacities and enlightenment is not an easy 1 shot deal to accomplish. furthermore this isn't half-baked academic writing but enlightened teachers talking from experience. there is no doubt Nagarjuna was enlightened, of course Buddha was, and the many Theravadan, Mahayana, and Tibetan teachers who say the same thing. you will never see a Buddhist after enlightenment saying "oh it's all the same, practice whatever you want", no, but you will find practitioners from other traditions doing that, and that's fine. because like i said, basically all traditions except for buddhism have the same goal. so its obvious why they feel that way. only someone with a thorough knowledge of buddhism understands the subtle differences.

 

it's not superiority, its just a deeper more subtle understanding likewise, the experience of Advaitan oneness is not superior to ordinary ignorance state, it's just a deeper understanding. it's all relative.

[SiliconValley]

basically all traditions except for buddhism have the same goal. so its obvious why they feel that way. only someone with a thorough knowledge of buddhism understands the subtle differences.

 

Again, this is an uninformed statement. Firstly, Shankara insists there is a difference and the effect of his teachings can be seen in India to this day, which is the birthplace of Buddhism. The goals within various branches of even Hinduism are not the same, forget other traditions. Even among those who seem to aim towards Kaivalya or Nirvana, the concepts, definitions and approaches of each of these is vastly different. Care to substantiate on what basis you think except Buddhism others have the same goal? What are the subtelities of different traditions you have studied based on which you draw this conclusion? I can only speak for a few of the many branches of Hinduism that I have studied. Since you brought up Shaivism, which of its branches were you referring to in this context as having a goal that was same as every other tradition and involving a certain assumed lower level of deep understanding? Krama, Trika, Spanda, Siddhanta, Kaula? Can you please substantiate your statement with something other than a hearsay or "half-baked academic" translations? If Nagarjuna can be considered enlightened, so can be Shankara, Patanjali, Kanada, Gautama, Vasistha and other seers, some of who have clearly influenced the Shakyamuni. Those who resonate with what Buddha taught, accept and follow his teachings and others do the same elsewhere. But I don't see a supposedly enlightened personality as a valid argument here.

 

Only someone with a thorough knowledge of buddhism understands the subtle differences.

 

That's exactly what I am trying to say. Most of these folks understand Buddhism but this critique of Advaita stems from their non-thorough-understanding of some of the critical but subtle concepts of Advaita.

 

likewise, the experience of Advaitan oneness is not superior to ordinary ignorance state, it's just a deeper understanding. it's all relative.

 

I wouldn't call it a mere understanding for that would mean something you did not know before or something you could do with a mind or sense. This word seems to strip the state of some of its silent grandeur. Well, what's in a name though?

Edited April 18, 2009 by SiliconValley

[Sunya]

The goals within various branches of even Hinduism are not the same, forget other traditions. Even among those who seem to aim towards Kaivalya or Nirvana, the concepts, definitions and approaches of each of these is vastly different. Care to substantiate on what basis you think except Buddhism others have the same goal? What are the subtelities of different traditions you have studied based on which you draw this conclusion? I can only speak for a few of the many branches of Hinduism that I have studied. Since you brought up Shaivism, which of its branches were you referring to in this context as having a goal that was same as every other tradition and involving a certain assumed lower level of deep understanding? Krama, Trika, Spanda, Siddhanta, Kaula? Can you please substantiate your statement with something other than a hearsay or "half-baked academic" translations?

 

Let's not get sucked into meaningless specifics and miss the general point. All branches of Hinduism see Brahman as real and self-existing. and the goal of Hinduism, and most religious traditions, is to merge with a real eternal source.

 

 

 

If Nagarjuna can be considered enlightened, so can be Shankara, Patanjali, Kanada, Gautama, Vasistha and other seers, some of who have clearly influenced the Shakyamuni. Those who resonate with what Buddha taught, accept and follow his teachings and others do the same elsewhere. But I don't see a supposedly enlightened personality as a valid argument here.

 

By enlightened I mean having full experiential knowledge of emptiness and anatta. Buddha was the first of our kalpa to espouse this truth, and only the followers of dharma realize that wisdom. Only in Hinayana is Buddha considered a human teacher, in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddha is an emanation of Dharmakaya.

[solxyz]

I think the point we should keep in mind is that there have been fully Realized/Liberated masters in most traditions, certainly in Hindu Advaita as well as in Buddhism. Now what does it mean that they express their realization in a different philosophy? Maybe some of them are better philosophers than others and they expressed their realization more accurately. Maybe these are just different ways of pointing toward a very subtle and paradoxical truth and the two philosophies really come to the same thing. Either way it doesnt matter much. The important thing is that we do the meditation and get ourselves Liberated.

Edited April 18, 2009 by solxyz

[goldisheavy]

yes indeed, and those pronouncements are the cause for the Advaitan wrong view. the identification of subject with totality.

 

This is a very crude statement. Language is capable of great nuance. Everything depends on how the subject is defined. So, depending on how the subject is defined, such identification can be correct and not wrong at all.

 

If you think about it, any statement whatsoever can be considered an extreme view from the point of view of the ultimate truth. However, not to say anything is just as extreme. With that in mind, it's better to say something that's 90% correct but is intuitive and helpful than to say something that's 99% correct, but is damn hard to understand.

 

In that sense, Advaita is often something that 90% correct and is easy to use. Buddhism is 99% correct and is hard to use. Buddhism suffers from its absolute obsession with correctness at the cost of approachability of the message.

 

Everything has its place. Sometimes you really need to, and it's worth it, to spend 10 years to get from 99% correct to 99.99% correct using insanely refined language that's not at all intuitive. And sometimes you don't need that at all.

 

Buddhists don't call this ground anything because ground is an illusion. Emptiness is not a ground, but a pointing towards the true nature of reality free of conceptual limitation

 

Alas, if reality has to be free of conceptual limitations, or if reality has to be freed of conceptual limitations, that's rather limiting in and of itself.

 

The most refined message you can give, and one you don't hear often, not even in the Dzogchen crowd, is that conceptual and non-conceptual is one whole, one continuum. Instead, most Buddhist strenuously hammer at the conceptuality as if it were the Satan. Not good.

 

From my point of view, Buddhism is just as deviant as is Advaita. Both Buddhism and Advaita can be useful in contemplation.

[SiliconValley]

By enlightened I mean having full experiential knowledge of emptiness and anatta.

 

Well you miss my point again! This is the Buddhist view and applies only to them. This, in the format stated here, seems conclusive and narrow-minded about other paths. You are entitled to your opinion, but I would want to state mine here as you sound unnecessarily condescending without proper substantiation. I also don't understand the dissing of specifics especially when you talk of subtle and deep concepts!

 

By enlightened I mean having full experiential knowledge of emptiness and anatta.

 

Why would you assume they were the only ones who were in this state? Or considering the "subtle" difference, why cannot the understanding of the advaitic seers be a tad bit "deeper"? I am not stating this, but just re-directing your argument? Is some writing of Nagarjuna or the supposed writing of Buddha the reason for this notion? Advaitins have their own list of "enlightened" masters starting from Brahma to Shankara to Ramana, who also have the "experiential" knowledge which may not confirm to the Buddhist teaching. A Buddhist may term the depth of this "understanding" as "lower" but it is simply his notion! If there is a model to comparitively evaluate the depth in this context, based on something more than an assumed state of enlightenment of either mythical or historical personalities or of biased statements from either side, I would be very interested to know.

 

and only the followers of dharma realize that wisdom.

 

Okay! If you say so You don't sound evangelical at all ..

 

Buddha was the first of our kalpa to espouse this truth, in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddha is an emanation of Dharmakaya.

 

Shankara was considered as an incarnation of Shiva, Patanjali of Shesha the great serpent Spirit and so on. Some of such beliefs may be helpful to cultivate Bhakti, but considering the nature of the current argument, the mention of such beliefs is irrelevant. Even Max is supposedly a Bodhisatva!

 

All branches of Hinduism see Brahman as real and self-existing. and the goal of Hinduism, is to merge with a real eternal source.

 

Uninformed statement, again! Charvakas do not accept the Brahman or the self. Samkhya and Yoga systems do not confirm to this statement either. Moreover, not even Advaita teaches a "merging" of the Jivatman and Paramatman! It is simply a process of realizing the ever-present unity than actuating some new phenomena like "merging". You believe that Brahman is unreal. Is this based on:

 

- Intellectual understanding of Buddhist writings say of the likes of Nagarjuna?

 

If that is the case, can you please list the works of Advaita that you have used to comparitively study the differences and conclude in an unbiased fashion that Brahman or the Self is unreal? Should we be taking things by a face value because someone who we think is an incarnation or an enlightened being said so - even if what he said appeals to us intellectually? Moreover, things said can often be misinterpreted. Both systems have their own set of thoughts, scriptures, myths, arguments, similarities and disagreements. And none of what you've written so far substantiate the overall correctness of your assumption. And there is an excellent critique of MulamadhyamakakArikA of Nagarjuna from the advaitin standpoint, which AFAIK, has not been refuted.

 

- Experiential understanding

 

I may take this as a valid argument but I will wait to hear more.

 

Buddhist Tantra came from India, likewise so did Hindu Tantra. they both came about during the same time, and in the same Himalayan region, so it is impossible to say which came first.

 

Just an FYI. Hindu Tantra, if that way of calling it is even right, is a wide phenomenon which can hardly be time bound. The Tantras pre-date the Veda, which definitely was present before Buddha and hence his set of teachings. Every region has its own set of Tantra as different sets of Tantras were prescribed for different kinds of aspirants - based on their goals, their qualifications, their aspirations and even their geography! Ashwakranta, rathakranta and other geographical origins of tantras is well documented. The Saiddhantika and Pancharatra tantras originated in the Southern region of India, revealed to ecstatic seers, and continues to be more popular in this region to this day. Buddhist tantras pick episodes and deities from many such Tantras and speak of battles between the two sets of deities and the ultimate victory of Shakyamuni and so on. Two points to be noted here: Tantra has been prevalent in India ages before the birth of Shakyamuni. And just a portion of Hindu Tantra is from the Himalayan region, i.e. Kashmir to be specific.

 

Peace to all

Edited April 18, 2009 by SiliconValley

[SiliconValley]

With out the Creator you will get no where : ) .

 

Peace

 

Santiago

 

Exactly what I was trying to say .. and Santi says it much better ..

 

 

Ishvaraanugrahaadeva pumsaam advaitavaasanaa |

 

Even the desire to approach Non-duality is generated in a mortal through the "Grace" of Ishwara or the conditioned Brahman.

Edited April 18, 2009 by SiliconValley

[xabir2005]

Edited April 18, 2009 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

Edited April 18, 2009 by mikaelz

[xabir2005]

Should we be taking things by a face value because someone who we think is an incarnation or an enlightened being said so - even if what he said appeals to us intellectually?

Here's an experiential account: Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience

[Squatting Monkey]

What the hell happened to the thread I started ?

It's turned into a 'my way is the only (or superior) way'.

Does every topic have to descend to this ?

I may go to another forum and ask for advice there.

[Sunya]

people like to lump all traditions into one, it makes them sleep better at night, i was merely questioning that assumption. buddhism isn't better it's just different. i wouldn't consider this an argument, just a discussion. i respect everyone here and their beliefs.

 

 

if you want a good book on non duality, comparatively, instead of discussing the subtle differences, then i hear this is good

http://www.amazon.com/Nonduality-Comparati...8720&sr=1-4

 

as for another forum, check out E Sangha

Edited April 18, 2009 by mikaelz

[solxyz]

I was looking through this thread a little more closely, and I think I understand the reason for mikaelz strong opinions.

 

it is not just my opinion at all that Buddhist view and fruit differs from Hinduism. ... the goals are just different. ... whereas the goal of a Hindu is complete absorption into Brahman ... Complete and eternal absorption is impossible as taught in the first turning of the wheel, this sort of absorption only leads you to eons of bliss in a formless realm but eventually you get sucked back in. hence, not true liberation.

 

 

He thinks that advaitins are all just hanging out in absorption states. This is quite naive and shows an inadequate understanding of that tradition. Actually I also have concerns that many practices coming out of vedanta and the yogas tend to make an inadequate distinction between absorption and liberation, and cause some people to get stuck in absorption. But this is clearly not all that is going on.

The distinction can be discerned in Silicon's statement: "Moreover, not even Advaita teaches a "merging" of the Jivatman and Paramatman! It is simply a process of realizing the ever-present unity than actuating some new phenomena like "merging'." That is an expression of true liberating insight!

 

Have you spent some time trying Ramana Maharshi's self inquiry technique? It is not about absorption. Give it a shot.

 

I also refer you to Daniel Ingram's chapter on "No-self vs True-self." It explains the validity of true self philosophy from a buddhist perspective and with a full understanding of impermanence. It is even posted on your friend's website: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...-true-self.html

[Sunya]

I was looking through this thread a little more closely, and I think I understand the reason for mikaelz strong opinions.

He thinks that advaitins are all just hanging out in absorption states.

 

 

indeed

 

hey if i'm wrong, no one would be happier than me. hanging out in a formless realm only to be sucked back in at the end of the cosmic eon does NOT sound like a good time, and i wouldn't wish it upon anyone, truly.

 

i'll let Xabir respond about Maharshi and Ingram as he is much more familiar with them than I am.

 

but, I will say this. I've had 2 Advaita teachers, one was Trika Spanda Kashmir Shivaism and the other was very much based on Maharshi. they both taught about a 'ground of being' being the source of all phenomena and the goal was absorption, and identification with, this source.

 

here's a quote from the Maharshi style teacher:

 

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

What is this 'Self' in Self-Realization?

GuruSwamiG: When the Self is spoken of it not speaking of the egoic self. Self is That which is the Formless Constant which is beyond all division and time etc.

 

http://www.guruswamig.com/faq.html

 

 

soo.. I think that this Formless Constant she speaks of is what I mentioned before as identification with the background, whereas in Buddhist realization this background is seen as illusion.

 

 

 

 

i think that it is very clear based on the language here, that the realizations are different. you can say that the realizations are the same, but the language is different, the terms. but I disagree, and that is what is the main point here,

Edited April 18, 2009 by mikaelz

[solxyz]

i think that it is very clear based on the language here, that the realizations are different. you can say that the realizations are the same, but the language is different, the terms. but I disagree, and that is what is the main point here,

 

recognizing that this is very subtle territory, we should consider the possibility that different people are using terms in different ways. when guruSwamiG says that the Self is a "Formless Constant" that might be refering to the formless realms, or that might be saying that the background is utterly without qualities - that it is not a thing at all - that it is empty. i dont really know what this particular guru-swami is getting at, but if you really want to talk to people about their meditation (to help them or to learn from them) you have to be able to figure out what their actual experiences and discoveries are, and not get caught up by the fact that they are using a different philosophical framework to communicate those experiences.

 

also i think it might be helpful for your understanding, and possibly for your practice, to engage with this true self language and see the ways that it can be pointing to the same thing. once again i refer you to that daniel ingram chapter, not because i want to hear a refined refutation of true self, but because i think it might open up your understanding of perspectives.

[xabir2005]

Edited April 18, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

I would say: Yes. However, I am not enlightened. I would say that the object is what arises and passes, and the subject is what remains.

 

Then who is the observer observing? The Subject the object or the observer itself? One doesn't have to be enlightened to know this. Those who have gone before us already charted the map. One has to know how to use it (the map) that's all.

 

I would toss the fish in the sky. Then it would know the sky for itself.

 

That is, in effect your are saying that you will make the fish aware of your categorical framework. Just by throwing it in the sky you cannot make it know the sky for itself. You also have to teach the fish how is it that you call the sky the sky.

 

This sounds like thinking to truth. I say the thinking obscures the truth. Please correct me if I'm wrong. What do you mean by using the mind?

 

You have to use your intellect to KNOW that Thinking obscures the Truth. That is using the mind. Mind is another faculty, a sensory mechanism like the other external five senses. One

 

So it is better to be born into certain cultures than others?

 

you have to understand that I did not say that...that is just your assumption that something like that was implied. But since you brought it up, I think that when it comes to spiritual practices and growth, it helps to belong to a culture that makes the pursuit easier. I don't think our modern, materialistic culture makes such a pursuit easy.

 

Let me share with you an interesting experience. Sometimes when I meditate, I fall asleep (ha ha! hard to believe! ). My personality, my history, everything that I think is me--- disappears. I am somewhere else, sometimes some one else completely. This persona, this cultural thing, is not the real me. It is an accident of birth. What I am is what sees this.

 

When you are asleep, are you aware that you are you? If you are not you, who are you? What happens?

The Seers of the Vedas and Upanishads (Vedanta) said that in deep sleep, all thoughts cease to exist. The objective of meditation and advaita is to get to a state where there are no differentiations between the self and Brahman. So, therefore Aham Brahmasmi.

 

Now what this Brahman is, we will only truly know when we get to such a state of union. To do that, you chose Buddhism, I chose Vedanta. That doesn't necessarily mean that either you or I really know this state of Brahman or Tao (or as you Buddhists like to call it, Nirvana).

 

You should also note that various deities worshiped in Tantric sects of Buddhism are borrowed from Hindu Tantras. Their mantras also have been retained with some regional corruptions. Advaita Vedanta is never taught as medicine for ALL in Hinduism. There are pre-requisites for studying Vedanta, of whose many branches Advaita is one flavor, and these are the Shat Sampattis or virtues or behavioral traits such as discriminative knowledge, dispassion, sensory control etc. For those who are unqualified, which really is 99% of the crowd, various other paths are taught by the Veda, like Karma and Upasana - which are steps leading to the acquisition of the qualification for Vedanta. So the masters talk of Adhikara or Qualification as the basis for what is taught to who. Someone undergoes the period of maturity through Yoga, another through upasana or worship of a certain deity, and yet another through bhakti (which really means unceasing and non-selfish love towards the Divine). These preparatory steps are never considered silly even by the adepts. Shankara himself, though considered as born perfect and an incarnation, to demonstrate this model of Sopana Krama (Gradual Ascent) studied Hatha Yoga, Raja Yoga and finally Jnana Yoga - each for an year. Some Tantras go to the extent of stating that the path of Jnana Yoga (can mean Advaita) and that of an ascetic is (directly) unsuitable for the current times we live in (Kali Yuga) without other preparatory practices. This may not apply to all, but sure does seem to apply for many!

 

There is a lot of Buddhist mythology as well, a lot of it borrowed from Hinduism. The real goal of a serious aspirant is to look beyond the wrap of these mythologies to understand the hidden language. The scriptures or mythologies have to be interpreted through sandhya bhasha or the language of twilight. Indra, the king of the Demi gods who is described as seducing women is simply a symbol for "Indriya" or the Sense Organ, whose main distractions are Kama and Krodha (Lust and Anger) and Hunger for Power. So it is really funny to dismiss an entire gamut of spiritual teaching as "ridiculous" based on one class, probably taught by someone who interpreted them literally! Does not the same apply to mythologies of various cultures? There have been people who have benefited from the teachings embedded in such mythologies, to whatever extent, and there will be those who continue to benefit. These mythologies mostly occur in Purnas which are simplified commentaries on the Vedas. The complex teachings of the Vedas were made available to the common folks through Puranas or Tales and these were taught by specialists named pauranikas who were well-versed in various related branches like chandas or grammar, mimamsa or the ritual and the upanishads. Lack of this ...what should I say...wholesome learning - is what has lead to the recent ridicule and misinterpretation of these tales or myths.

 

Moreover, the "various" deities are described as various rays or emanations of the three qualities (Satva, Rajas and Tamas) of the qualified or conditioned Brahman named Ishvara who perform various activities, like the various organs in the body. At the end of the day, when one reaches the state of realizing Atman as the sole Entity, much like everything else, these deities cease to exist. However, at some empirical level, they have their existence, and also their use in one's spiritual journey. It simply is a matter of what one's goal is and how the deities are approached. When worshiped for knowledge and not petty means, these deities, who are certainly at a higher plane than mortals, can help one cultivate one or more of the required virtues or even teach directly the Royal Path of Jnana (jhana? ). My Guru, for instance, whose main practice is Tantra based on Kashmiri Shaivism (another sophisticated flavor of Advaita with similarities to Kevaladvaita), received his first experiential teaching of the Upanishads from Chinnamasta, a popular Goddess worshiped both by Tantric Hindus and Buddhists.

 

But what is the view of the Classic Advaitin? Shankara says:

 

Ishvaraanugrahaadeva pumsaam advaitavaasanaa |

 

Even the desire to approach Non-duality is generated in a mortal through the "Grace" of Ishwara or the conditioned Brahman. Here, he is implicitly speaking of the, shall we say, "second class" citizens who require grace, worship of conditioned (Saguna) Brahman and other practices before they can take to inquiry/contemplation for Realization. This is the view of the Jnana Margins or of Advaitins. The dualisits, samkhyas, purva mimamsakas, the dvaitins, the vishsishtadvaitins have other theories on realization.

 

It is a matter of different paths and cultures! But is there a need to proclaim "superiority" of one's enlightenment over another's based on half-baked academic writings - when neither the ones who wrote them nor the ones who are reading them are really enlightened?

 

Peace and Blessings...

 

Perfect!

 

let me also add here that (with apologies to Squatting monkey if I was in part responsible for running away with his/her thread) all these systems are means to an end. It is really foolish to try and compare categorical frameworks and what they state to be Universal Truths and make claims of superiority on it's behalf. The Truth only works if you use the Framework, are familiar with it, etc. The real deal (Tao, Brahman, whatever) is beyond frameworks, beyond Nama Rupa. You have to transcend the framework to get to it.

Edited April 18, 2009 by dwai