Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[Vajrahridaya]

This is a quote from a Pali Sutta that denounces any self sustaining permanent consciousness whatsoever..

 

SN - Khandavagga - Bhikkhu Bodhi Translation

 

 

QUOTE

At Savatthi. Sitting to one side, a monk said to the Blessed One, "Lord, is there any form that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity? Is there any feeling... any perception... Are there any fabrications... Is there any consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity?"

 

"No, monk, there is no form... no feeling... no perception... there are no fabrications... there is no consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." 1

 

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity. If there were even this much form that was constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just as it is as long as eternity, then this living of the holy life for the right ending of suffering & stress would not be discerned. But because there isn't even this much form that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity, this living of the holy life for the right ending of suffering & stress is discerned.

 

"There isn't even this much feeling...

 

"There isn't even this much perception...

 

"There aren't even this many fabrications...

 

"There isn't even this much consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity. If there were even this much consciousness that was constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just as it is as long as eternity, then this living of the holy life for the right ending of suffering & stress would not be discerned. But because there isn't even this much consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity, this living of the holy life for the right ending of suffering & stress is discerned.

 

So as you can see, the Buddha in the earliest teachings does not support the idea that there is an eternal state of consciousness to be found. Like I said a Buddha makes permanent his or her state of realization by focusing on the fact that samsara keeps spinning. So the permanent state of liberated consciousness originates dependent upon offering of merits to endless suffering beings in Samsara. So even the state of realization is conditional. There is only dependent origination in Buddhism, there is no Brahman or anything that can be equated with Brahman in Buddhism. They are different. You can think Advaita is the best, which is fine. The argument is if they are the same or lead to the same realization and they absolutely do not.

[goldisheavy]

This is a quote from a Pali Sutta that denounces any self sustaining permanent consciousness whatsoever..

So as you can see, the Buddha in the earliest teachings does not support the idea that there is an eternal state of consciousness to be found. Like I said a Buddha makes permanent his or her state of realization by focusing on the fact that samsara keeps spinning. So the permanent state of liberated consciousness originates dependent upon offering of merits to endless suffering beings in Samsara. So even the state of realization is conditional. There is only dependent origination in Buddhism, there is no Brahman or anything that can be equated with Brahman in Buddhism. They are different. You can think Advaita is the best, which is fine. The argument is if they are the same or lead to the same realization and they absolutely do not.

 

 

Like this:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn....8.03.irel.html

 

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

[Vajrahridaya]

How exactly were you a Hindu?

By Birth? Or by association?

What is your lineage?

Being Hindu implies being immersed in the culture and tradition.

 

Mine is directly traced to Sage Sandilya. I was born into a family of Santanis who have always been thus. My family tradition is Shakta. My Grandfather was an exponent of Vedanta. My maternal grand-uncle is a Sanyasi and Advaitin.

 

Disclaimer: This is not to be construed as credentials that I want to flaunt around etc (lest I be accused of that). My purpose of posting this is to ascertain the level of "Hinduness" of Thunderheart. I have a sneaking suspicion that he is not Hindu by origin, but perhaps by association (perhaps one or both his parents were members of the New-Age movement etc)?

 

No New Age movement. My mother raised me in Siddha Yoga my whole life. So, no I'm not an Indian. But I was raised with Brahmin priests, with chanting of sanskrit texts, meditating on the 8 limbs of yoga, doing hatha yoga, experiencing the different types of samadhi, experiencing kundalini awakening and kriyas, etc. My main lineage was Nitayananda to Muktananda to Chidvilasananda. We studied all the texts of Vedanta and many Kaula Shaivite texts including the Shiva Sutras and the Pratyabhijnahridayam and many many others. The Jnaneshwari or Jnaneshwars Gita, chanted Vedic texts including the Shri Rudram, experienced Yagna or fire ceremonies. Read and chanted Puranas and acted as Krishna in plays of the Mahabharata. Did lots of meditation, yoga, contemplation of genuine Advaita texts.

 

Anyway... if Shankaracharya didn't accept that Buddhism was the same as Advaita Vedanta, how on earth can you? Not even Abhinavagupta considered that they were the same and set out at times to refute Buddhist logic, and Shankaracharya did the same very intensely all around India, of course only after the main schools including Nalanda were destroyed by Muslims, leaving not many good Buddhists to argue with as most went into hiding or fled to Tibet. So, Shankara re-established Hinduism across India at this time, putting four main Ashrams on the 4 corners of India. Before that India was predominantly a Buddhist country for over a 1,000 years, especially after Ashoka established Buddhism and sent people to teach it to different countries.

[goldisheavy]

You can't drink the word water

 

Actually you can, but you must be a high level bodhisattva. Haven't you heard about Chandrakirti milking a picture cow to get real (as we think of "real") milk in order to demonstrate what it means for the appearance to be empty? Now, if you don't believe that, that's a different story.

 

A more accessible and lower-powered version of the exact same phenomenon is hypnosis. You might want to read up on it or better yet, go get hypnotized by a pro to understand the power of words.

Edited May 29, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

Like this:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn....8.03.irel.html

 

There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

 

Nicely taken out of context.

 

I will help put it back into context.

 

This is actually talking about the state of Nirvana when one see's dependent origination and uncompounds the consciousness, because in the realization one sees that nothing has occured ultimately, thus the consciousness uncompounded shines all around, as a realization of dependent origination, not as an abiding essence. Experiencing the uncompounded means that what was once experienced as compounded, is now not experienced as compounded due to the condition of seeing D.O.

 

This is not referring to Brahman.

[goldisheavy]

Beautiful quotation... thanks for that

 

There is NO path to the truth.

Buddha's story was that he had to step off of all known paths and find his own way.

Now millions try to follow HIS way and lament how difficult it is.

All of the volumes of scripture are literally attempts to capture 'nothing' in words...

 

Ironic, isn't it?

 

Indeed. It's kind of like there being a man who said how he found a beautiful garden with wonderful apples. And this man is long gone, but here we are eating this man's calcified feces in order to try to recapture the taste of apples this man used to eat when he was alive. That's kind of what we do with Buddha's words.

 

We need to find our own gardens and eat some of those apples first hand instead of eating the result of eating the apples.

 

Nicely taken out of context.

 

I will help put it back into context.

 

This is actually talking about the state of Nirvana when one see's dependent origination and uncompounds the consciousness, because in the realization one sees that nothing has occured ultimately, thus the consciousness uncompounded shines all around, as a realization of dependent origination, not as an abiding essence. Experiencing the uncompounded means that what was once experienced as compounded, is now not experienced as compounded due to the condition of seeing D.O.

 

This is not referring to Brahman.

 

It might as well refer to Brahman. It all depends on how you want to define Brahman and Nirvana. Nirvana is a strange beast. It's not temporary. It's not phenomenal. Oh wait, that's just like Brahman! Nirvana does not arise and cease, or it wouldn't be called "the end of suffering", would it?

 

I didn't take anything out of context. Buddha was a complicated man who said some contradicting things. Buddha was also an asshole sometimes. He wasn't always a nice guy. He was mostly nice, but he was still a man, and couldn't help but to have flaws.

 

But emptiness is not consciousness of any kind.

 

It is said to be the nature of mind or consciousness or the nature of all phenomena. Kind of like wetness is the nature of the water. But if you say wetness is not water...well...it's kind of true, but it's not very honest either, because outside of water there is no talk of wetness.

Edited May 29, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I didn't take anything out of context. Buddha was a complicated man who said some contradicting things. Buddha was also an asshole sometimes. He wasn't always a nice guy. He was mostly nice, but he was still a man, and couldn't help but to have flaws.

It is said to be the nature of mind or consciousness or the nature of all phenomena. Kind of like wetness is the nature of the water. But if you say wetness is not water...well...it's kind of true, but it's not very honest either, because outside of water there is no talk of wetness.

 

Nirvana is different from Brahman in that's it's a realization dependent upon seeing D.O. and is not an abiding essence shared by all beings. The subtle differences are very important, and takes a subtle mind to grasp.

 

He never said that the state of Nirvana is the nature of all things, rather that the true nature of all things is that they really don't happen, because things don't inherently exist, thus all occurrences don't inherently exist, including moments of consciousness. This realization is Nirvana, which just means the pacification of psychological suffering.

 

QUOTE(xuesheng @ May 28 2009, 01:22 PM)

 

Beautiful quotation... thanks for that

 

There is NO path to the truth.

Buddha's story was that he had to step off of all known paths and find his own way.

Now millions try to follow HIS way and lament how difficult it is.

All of the volumes of scripture are literally attempts to capture 'nothing' in words...

 

Ironic, isn't it?

 

Also, the Buddha said he found an ancient path, a path that had become extinct in his time. He wasn't realizing anything cosmically new, just new for the earth at that time.

[Sunya]

From a historical perspective, Buddhism is essentially Hinduism stripped of most of it's cultural window dressing for the purposes of exportation. The core elements of Buddhism are basically the same as the core elemets of Advaita Vedanta. The only difference is the window dressing and the words...

 

[Vajrahridaya]

It is said to be the nature of mind or consciousness or the nature of all phenomena. Kind of like wetness is the nature of the water. But if you say wetness is not water...well...it's kind of true, but it's not very honest either, because outside of water there is no talk of wetness.

 

Emptiness is not an abiding nature, it's not reified at all. It's actually just talking about D.O. There is no emptiness as such, it is a way of talking about the experience of seeing D.O. and refers to Anatta. Emptiness does not inherently exist either, it is not an essence. It just says how the flow flows as a process without any true nature, without a self, individual, or cosmic.

 

When they say, the true nature of things, they are just talking with words, not that there really is an abiding nature of things. If one were to say the true quality of things, then one would say they are impermanent, that is all, from formless, featureless conceptless concepts experienced in meditation as nothingness, infinite consciousness, or beyond perception and non-perception, which are Jhanas in the formless realms, these have no abiding nature and are dependently originated as well. Most paths take these states of consciousness to be the truth. When one comes out of the meditation the superimposition that Dwai was talking about of things and memories over these formless states happens and thus the formless, featureless state is mistaken as a source of being, a Self, but the Buddha refutes this interpretation.

[Enishi]

Even though I have an easier time thinking of things in a substantial sense, the idea of ending up in eternal, featureless formless homogeneous state and remaining that way forever and ever never did really appeal to me. Perhaps the beings who remain in those levels for a bazillion kalpas are eventually reborn elsewhere because they get really, REALLY bored after awhile, lol.

[goldisheavy]

Nirvana is different from Brahman in that's it's a realization dependent upon seeing D.O. and is not an abiding essence shared by all beings. The subtle differences are very important, and takes a subtle mind to grasp.

 

My mind is so subtle, that even Buddha's mind is like a hunk of wood in comparison. Even if I drink 2 liters of vodka, I am more subtle than this entire forum put together. Have no fear.

 

Now then. Nirvana can be said to be a realization. But if we mean it to be the same kind of realization like we understand all conventional realization to be (like the kinds of realizations you have, for example), it would be a temporary phenomenon with a start, middle and end to it. Since nirvana is not that kind of realization, since it is special, it's not wrong to compare it to Brahman. Brahman is not some kind of essence. All essences are objects of perception, and beyond being objects of perception, there can be no essence to find. The smart Hindus understand this. They understand that Maya means "no essence anywhere". At the same time, if you say that there is no essence, are you capturing that perishing does not enter into extreme? You're not! You're not capturing that at all. So to say that there is no essence leans toward nihilism. This is why the "no essence" is an antidotal teaching, and is NOT the truth. It's said to those whose propensity it is to overfixate. Nirvana doesn't have a start, middle or end to it. To say that Buddha entered Nirvana is a figure of speech that's said to encourage people. Its purpose is compassion. It's not a definitive teaching on what actually happened to Buddha!

 

To understand Buddhism properly you have to become an independent thinker and think for yourself. As long as you continue parroting others, and as long as you come to Buddhism for answers as opposed to coming to it for questions, you will remain an ignorant idiot. Buddhism has no answers and it doesn't describe reality at all. Had Buddhism been an absolutely accurate description of how things truly were, it would contradict itself, because the core teaching of Buddhism is that there is no such thing as "how things truly are". There is no particular state that is the true state, no particular meaning that is the correct meaning, and so forth. That's what it means for phenomena to be empty. But you don't get it yet, because you focus on conceptual answers instead of contemplating questions and allowing yourself to be led into the mystery.

 

He never said that the state of Nirvana is the nature of all things, rather that the true nature of all things is that they really don't happen, because things don't inherently exist, thus all occurrences don't inherently exist, including moments of consciousness. This realization is Nirvana, which just means the pacification of psychological suffering.

 

No. Buddha's wisdom is not so clear and categorical as you make it sound. What you describe here is basically garbage.

Edited May 29, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Vajrahridaya]

Even though I have an easier time thinking of things in a substantial sense, the idea of ending up in eternal, featureless formless homogeneous state and remaining that way forever and ever never did really appeal to me. Perhaps the beings who remain in those levels for a bazillion kalpas are eventually reborn elsewhere because they get really, REALLY bored after awhile, lol.

 

It's not boredom really that awakes them, it's just that the conditions of focus on that level of being cease, and thus the latent karmas not extinguished through truly directly seeing dependent origination arise again and a new cycle of cosmic experience happens for them, where they go, I don't know? Animal, bug, demon, god, all samsaric realms. It's not that the homogeneous state is not blissful though, it's is very, very blissful and is a sense of fullness even, but it's still an illusion, just a really subtle and really high level illusion. Generally they get awakened by a Bodhisattva who goes into that state of mind with them and influences their latent karmas to come re-form them. Bodhisattvas and Buddhas do a lot of churning of higher and lower realms to help bring beings into a state where they can hear the Dharma.

 

I thank the Muni for taking birth here and re-revealing the ancient and timeless dharma of Buddhahood.

[Seth Ananda]

 

No it changes, it's own self definition of who or what is conscious changes, as it's awareness of content deepens to include a vaster space, it's identity to itself changes,

 

As consciousness becomes more aware of consciousness and transcends form, and formlessness, it pops out.

 

Yes but consciousness is still changing according to how much light it generates, how aware of awareness it is based upon the amount of context it includes within form and formless realms.

 

Consciousness and content are interdependent, Consciousness and awareness of consciousness are interdependent. It's very subtle this light that consciousness is that manifests as colors and coagulates as the screen of dark space to glimmer through into three dimensional objects of seeming separation like star spots in space that generate planets, different and unique solar systems, we generate objects of experience all reflecting our own level of awareness of awareness within the personal mind-stream. Yes, consciousness is still consciousness but it only is conscious as far as what it's conscious of, even of itself, even if content passes while it's unconscious, one can follow the chain of content and become conscious of the previously unconscious content, changing consciousness.

 

I am not really following you here Vajrahridaya, Your giving me a bunch of examples saying that consciousness is changing with the content but I am not seeing it. If all consciousness (not awareness as that happens within consciousness and I agree is dependently tied to what it is aware off... (states, levels of clarity...)) does is experience what is happening how does that mean it is Changing? It looks to me like the only stuff changing is the stuff inside it.

And when you say how aware we are or not of consciousness is affecting consciousness itself, to me that seems ridiculous. We are the ones needing to enlighten not Consciousness.

Please give Better/Shorter/succinct arguments please.

 

And another side question. Space in Buddhism? Is it at all like Consciousness?

Thank you

[Vajrahridaya]

My mind is so subtle, that even Buddha's mind is like a hunk of wood in comparison. Even if I drink 2 liters of vodka, I am more subtle than this entire forum put together. Have no fear.

But you don't get it yet, because you focus on conceptual answers instead of contemplating questions and allowing yourself to be led into the mystery.

No. Buddha's wisdom is not so clear and categorical as you make it sound. What you describe here is basically garbage.

 

Yeah, uh hu... ok...

 

[Sunya]

"In Buddhism , universal consciousness is completely refuted. There is no universal consciousness. Consciousness is always individual. Buddhism does not accept any concept of an all-encompassing consciousness of which our consciousness is a part. It is very important to understand that individuality is on every level, as I have explained. There is nothing cosmic or universal that goes beyond this individual consciousness. The state of omniscience is sometimes described as the mind pervading all phenomena. This does not mean that the fully developed individual mind now controls all phenomena. Nor does it mean that each individual consciousness comes from this mind. Rather it means that the mind of an individual is completely enlightened, and , therefore, omniscient. You know everything. There is nothing that your mind cannot know. Pervading all means knowing all in this context "

 

HH Dalai Lama

 

 

Does this sound like Advaita?

[Vajrahridaya]

I am not really following you here Vajrahridaya, Your giving me a bunch of examples saying that consciousness is changing with the content but I am not seeing it. If all consciousness (not awareness as that happens within consciousness and I agree is dependently tied to what it is aware off... (states, levels of clarity...)) does is experience what is happening how does that mean it is Changing? It looks to me like the only stuff changing is the stuff inside it.

And when you say how aware we are or not of consciousness is affecting consciousness itself, to me that seems ridiculous. We are the ones needing to enlighten not Consciousness.

Please give Better/Shorter/succinct arguments please.

 

And another side question. Space in Buddhism? Is it at all like Consciousness?

Thank you

 

Seth, you are used to conceiving of your consciousness as a constant through reading Shaivite and Advaita stuff. Awareness and it's product are one and mutually co-arising in moments, and sub-moments and formless unconscious consciousness that holds potentialities for future becoming, all simultaneously.

 

Space in Buddhism is measured only by what's in it, what fills it. It's mutually dependent upon it's content as well, and it's content is permeated by it, it's a constant because Samsara is constant, the cycling keeps re-producing itself as a constant process without beginning and without end. But, consciousness can be experienced like space through meditation, yes.

 

Here... a quote.

 

At Savatthi. Sitting to one side, a monk said to the Blessed One, "Lord, is there any form that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity? Is there any feeling... any perception... Are there any fabrications... Is there any consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity?"

 

"No, monk, there is no form... no feeling... no perception... there are no fabrications... there is no consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity." 1

 

Then the Blessed One, picking up a tiny bit of dust with the tip of his fingernail, said to the monk, "There isn't even this much form that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity. If there were even this much form that was constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just as it is as long as eternity, then this living of the holy life for the right ending of suffering & stress would not be discerned. But because there isn't even this much form that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity, this living of the holy life for the right ending of suffering & stress is discerned.

 

"There isn't even this much feeling...

 

"There isn't even this much perception...

 

"There aren't even this many fabrications...

 

"There isn't even this much consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity. If there were even this much consciousness that was constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just as it is as long as eternity, then this living of the holy life for the right ending of suffering & stress would not be discerned. But because there isn't even this much consciousness that is constant, lasting, eternal, not subject to change, that will stay just as it is as long as eternity, this living of the holy life for the right ending of suffering & stress is discerned.

 

How Advaitins and Shaivites always define Brahman as Consciousness, a featureless consciousness that is shared by all, permanent and full in and of itself, that we all realize we are inherently one with. Buddhism has no place for this type of interpretation.

 

Nirvana is only experienced as permanent because we realize that dependent origination shows that all things are inherently empty of an abiding nature, so become translucent, and luminous and consciousness shines through everything at that point in realization, omniscience is realized.

 

Nirvana is said to be the inherent potential of a being that is always there, only in as much as all things including consciousness are empty of inherent existence, because they are interdependently existent, thus things have always and never had any power to bind. Neither Samsara, or Nirvana truly exist, ultimately.

[Sunya]

 

 

And another side question. Space in Buddhism? Is it at all like Consciousness?

Thank you

 

 

depends what you mean by consciousness,

 

space in buddhism refers to emptiness, since mind and all phenomana are empty, its said that everything is of one taste, the taste of space-like emptiness.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=nNA4Iu35I...num=10#PPA61,M1

[Sunya]

Indeed. It's kind of like there being a man who said how he found a beautiful garden with wonderful apples. And this man is long gone, but here we are eating this man's calcified feces in order to try to recapture the taste of apples this man used to eat when he was alive. That's kind of what we do with Buddha's words.

 

Buddha meant to start a religion, he started a monastic movement and the first nunnery as well, and expected his disciples to keep the dharma alive and even predicted when the next Buddha will come, recognizing the impermanent nature of reality and that his teachings won't last forever. he also taught in a way that was meant to be remembered, methods such as using easy to remember teachings in sets of 4 and 8 that are psychologically easy to memorize.

 

If your path is to find your own way, so be it. I just hope you don't start a religion; your followers might find your posts and end up calling other people idiots and their words garbage. hear hear! arrogance is the right way to salvation!

 

We need to find our own gardens and eat some of those apples first hand instead of eating the result of eating the apples.

 

we've been eating our own apples for countless lifetimes. where has it gotten us?

 

I didn't take anything out of context. Buddha was a complicated man who said some contradicting things. Buddha was also an asshole sometimes. He wasn't always a nice guy. He was mostly nice, but he was still a man, and couldn't help but to have flaws.

 

these are not contradictions. he taught people according to their abilities and capacities.

if you were to teach music to a young child with no interest, or a smart child with a big interest, or a very smart person with a capacity to understand music, or a very intellectual person who has no ability to understand music.. would your methods be the same? are these then contradictions or just different methods? of course, all of your teachings would have the same essence (music) and likewise all of the Buddhas teachings have the same essence as well (view)

 

It is said to be the nature of mind or consciousness or the nature of all phenomena. Kind of like wetness is the nature of the water. But if you say wetness is not water...well...it's kind of true, but it's not very honest either, because outside of water there is no talk of wetness.

 

this is not a good analogy to describe one-taste. wetness is an aspect of water. along with other aspects such as form, shape, color, temperature, etc. but emptiness is not an aspect of mind and phenomena: rather it is the true nature of mind and phenomena. therefore emptiness is inseperable from phenomena and phenomena is inseparable from emptiness. Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness.

Edited May 29, 2009 by mikaelz

[Vajrahridaya]

this is not a good analogy to describe one-taste. wetness is an aspect of water. along with other aspects such as form, shape, color, temperature, etc. but emptiness is not an aspect of mind and phenomena: rather it is the true nature of mind and phenomena. therefore emptiness is inseperable from phenomena and phenomena is inseparable from emptiness. Emptiness is Form, Form is Emptiness.

 

Loove your overall answer Michaelz!

 

But, I just wanted to clarify that emptiness is not an abiding nature, it's nature is dependent with the all and the all is dependent origination.

[Pero]

 

Higher Truth is non-phenomenal (or devoid of phenomena)...

Being Higher Truth, Tao, Brahman and Sunyata is also emptiness, by virtue of being empty of phenomena.

 

I don't think emptiness is "empty of phenomena". Emptiness is what makes phenomena possible, phenomena is why there is emptiness. They are inseparable.

[Sunya]

emptiness as implied by the principle of dependent origination (meaning everything is connected to everything else and nothing can exist on it's own) establishes that all material things in this universe are empty (lacking own-nature and own-existence).

 

Anything that has a beginning and an end (ie time-bound) is a phenomena and all phenomena (which are objects of our intellect/mind/awareness) are empty (of self-existence and self-nature).

 

Buddist and Vedantic teachings talk about two-truths, Vyavaharika/samvritti Satya and Paramartha Satya (or Lower and Higher truths, respectively). All Material universe is in the realm of lower truth, as everything is time-bound and phenomenal. As a result, it is empty (of self-nature and self-existence).

 

Higher Truth is non-phenomenal (or devoid of phenomena) and is not time or space bound.

Being Higher Truth, Tao, Brahman and Sunyata is also emptiness, by virtue of being empty of phenomena. And since it doesn't logically make sense to consider plurality of these (since there is no objectivity to these in the phenomenal/material sense), it logically makes sense to consider these to be one and the same.

 

There is no causal relationship between Material universe (Phenomena) and Higher Truth (or Ultimate Truth). The relationship is a result of superimposition of categorical frameworks on the Higher Truth. So phenomena are a result of superimposing various categorical frameworks on Higher Truth or Brahman/Tao/Sunyata (B/T/S). So in other words, all phenomena and the material universe is an image, a reflection, an appearance. Hence they are empty. This concept is called Maya in Vedanta.

 

B/T/S is empty. But it is also the fount of all phenomena/objects of material universe by virtue of superimposition.

 

The Categorical framework being applied is by the observer which is objective consciousness. Once Yoga (replace with meditation/tai chi/ba gua/tao gong/what have you) is applied to remove the modifications of the mind, what remains is objectless consciousness. Because it is objectless, it is non-phenomenal. This is called Aatman in Vedanta. This objectless consciousness being non-phenomenal is Higher Truth. Being Higher Truth, it logically makes sense to consider Aatman and Brahman to be one and the same -- Emptiness.

 

there is a big difference in how the 2 truths are applied in Buddhism and Vedanta. the Buddha was the first to use this teaching, it was later elucidated by Nagarjuna with Madyamika; Sankara took the 2 truths model and applied it into a Vedic context, but it's interpretation is different.

 

in Vedanta you have the relative truth as Maya, illusion, it doesn't really exist. the ultimate truth as Nirguna Brahman is absolute and self-existing. therefore Samsara is an illusion, and when the Absolute truth is realized, the relative disappears, all that is left is the Absolute Brahman. the Absolute truth is transcendent, this is not what the Absolute truth is as stated by Buddha and Nagarjuna. Samsara is not an illusion, it is like an illusion. if the Buddhists took the Hindu Absolute Truth to heart, then there would be no beings suffering because they do not exist since all Maya is illusion. Everything is Brahman, who is there to suffer? In Buddhism they do. Samsara arises due to causes and conditions, and though it is like an illusion there is still suffering; therefore in Buddhism truth has relative existence

 

There is only one reality -- this world, right here -- but this world may be experienced in two different ways. Saṁsāra is the "relative" world as usually experienced, in which "I" dualistically perceive "it" as a collection of objects which interact causally in space and time. Nirvana is the world as it is in itself, non-dualistic in that it incorporates both subject and object into a whole which, Madhyamika insists, cannot be characterized (Chandrakirti: "Nirvana or Reality is that which is absolved of all thought-construction"), but which Yogacara nevertheless sometimes calls "Mind" or "Buddhanature," and so forth - David Loy http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/david.htm

 

Nirvana is not absolute, Nirvana is Samsara. and even after your realization, other beings are still suffering. Why do you think the goal of Vajrayana is different than Theravada, which has the goal of Arhat? because the goal of Buddhahood is not just realizing emptiness, its also to develop powers (siddhis) to help all sentient beings. this is what a Buddha does.

 

There is no superimposition in Buddhism because form is emptiness, there is nothing behind form, there is no screen.

[Sunya]

I am not really following you here Vajrahridaya, Your giving me a bunch of examples saying that consciousness is changing with the content but I am not seeing it. If all consciousness (not awareness as that happens within consciousness and I agree is dependently tied to what it is aware off... (states, levels of clarity...)) does is experience what is happening how does that mean it is Changing? It looks to me like the only stuff changing is the stuff inside it.

 

inside of what? consciousness is an object? a box?

[xabir2005]

Edited May 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Edited May 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[steve]

You mean mutual co-arising, like co-dependent arising? Meaning non-independence, but interdependence?

 

Then same thing.

Then how is Buddhism different than Daoism at a fundamental level?

Both share the same core principle.

 

 

we've been eating our own apples for countless lifetimes. where has it gotten us?

 

You've got it backwards Mikaelz!

We've been eating others' apples for countless lifetimes, that's exactly the problem.

We eat the apples of Christianity, Buddhism, Daoism, Judaism, Hinduism, the great Philosophical traditions, and so forth.

 

It is a rare individual that steps off the path and truly goes their own way.

- historical examples: Jesus, Buddha, Zhuangzi

- modern examples: Ramana, Krishnamurti

 

The few that went that found their own way were the few that have made meaningful contributions.

Most of the rest of us are able to recognize that but then make the fatal mistake of following these newly established paths which invariably leads to a dead end for us as individuals.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight - I don't believe any tradition is better than another. They're all right and they're all wrong. You can trade arguments and words forever and the time would be much better spent drinking some water or smelling a rose (or even dog crap for that matter!)

 

Peace