Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[xabir2005]

Edited May 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[evZENy]

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! That's what I am trying to say here too :-)

 

The other interesting thing about Hsin Hsin Ming is, that is written by one of the Zen Patriarchs, yet, he, a Buddhist, talks about The Way all the time :-).

It starts with:

 

"The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences."

 

For a reason. Dropping the preferences is the first and probably the only thing needed.

Saying your teaching is better than the others is a barrier :-)

have a good NOW!

Edited May 29, 2009 by evZENy

[Vajrahridaya]

XABIR! Beautiful presentation!!!

 

'xuesheng'

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

Both share the same core principle.

 

Then the Tao does not inherently exist. There is no established Tao.

 

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

 

As the Buddha said, he found an ancient path that pre-existed him. Jesus was supposedly taught in North India and there's plenty of proof of that, about as stable as to question if he existed at all? All beings must trod the path alone though, it's always an "insight" not an "outsight" that liberates from either. To know the source of perception and subvert the duality between perception, perceiving and perceived, one must know by looking at the perceiver.

 

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.

 

Doesn't seem to have been a dead end for Garchen Rinpoche, Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche and many, many, many others. We have a tendency to delude ourselves, when a teacher can point out objectively how we are seeing subjectively. It's up to you to find out though.

[forestofemptiness]

Vajrahridaya,

 

I wonder what would happen if you just put it down? Why look for diamonds in the dog crap? All your words, your theories, your posts have one taste, the taste of craving. Being a Buddhist doesn't mean you practice the dhamma, and practicing the dhamma doesn't mean you're a Buddhist.

 

xuesheng,

 

It is ironic, but how else can it be?

[Vajrahridaya]

 

It is ironic, but how else can it be?

 

I wonder why one can't have discussions on boards anymore, working on refining understanding, without people trying to actually become your Guru as if they knew you personally?

 

My understanding has been refined through these discussions. How has yours progressed? Don't worry about my craving, worry about your own.

 

Be well!

[xabir2005]

Dharma Talk: Debate by HE Tsem Tulku Rinpoche

 

 

On the benefits of debate and discussions, and the proper way to do it.

Edited May 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Dharma Talk: Debate by HE Tsem Tulku Rinpoche

 

 

On the benefits of debate and discussions, and the proper way to do it.

 

Many people don't understand that debate IS a practice. One gets to see how well one can stay calm under pressure. How truly refined one's understanding of the dharma is. How spontaneous one's understanding of the dharma is. Also, how to watch one's state while debating.

 

All this new age anti-intellectualism is quite odd to me. It's about refining every aspect of our capacity, as there is nothing to deny when on the path or having realization.

[Sunya]

Many people don't understand that debate IS a practice. One gets to see how well one can stay calm under pressure. How truly refined one's understanding of the dharma is. How spontaneous one's understanding of the dharma is. Also, how to watch one's state while debating.

 

All this new age anti-intellectualism is quite odd to me. It's about refining every aspect of our capacity, as there is nothing to deny when on the path or having realization.

 

yes people think here that anti-intellectualism is a big part of Taoism but infact its not, Taoism was popular back n ancient China among the intellectuals, and when Buddhism flourished in China it was because of the intellectual discussions that were taken place about non-being and metaphysics which Buddhism fit very neatly into.

 

truth is beyond words, but being so disparaged about using words as a tool for understanding I feel is very limiting. if there anything that Buddhism has contributed, besides dependent origination, it's that intellectual understanding is very important to bring realization into the proper context. the sole reason why Buddhists are able to have such deep realizations is because of the stress of conceptual understanding as a basis for allowing the deep realizations to come forth.

[xabir2005]

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.

"The Noble Eightfold Path is one of the principal teachings of the Buddha, who described it as the way leading to the cessation of suffering (dukkha) and the achievement of self-awakening.[1] It is used in Buddhist practice as a technique to develop insight into the true nature of phenomena (or reality) and to eradicate greed, hatred, and delusion. The Noble Eightfold Path is the fourth of the Buddha's Four Noble Truths; the first element of the Noble Eightfold Path is, in turn, an understanding of the Four Noble Truths. It is also known as the Middle Path or Middle Way.[2]"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_Eightfold_Path

 

 

Under the training of Buddha, he had thousands of monks who lived with him that attained enlightenment. And numberless more after the Buddha passed into Nirvana up till today. Definitely not just a 'rare few'. This is proof that his teachings, methods, path, works -- very well. Anyone who learns the dharma and applies it in practice will see it work for themselves.

Edited May 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

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

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.

 

True...Maya is called Illusory. But that doesn't imply that they are unreal/non-existent. If you understand DO and Adhyasa correctly, Maya is a reference to the relatively real forms, shapes, sizes, thoughts, etc that are caused by superimposition. They are interdependent and are phenomenal. They are empty. Vedanta doesn't consider them non-existent. That would be a stupid thing to do, for are we not living in this samsara? You have not understood Vedantic thought.

 

Suffering is due to ignorance, avidya. I will not comment on the "Goal" of Buddhism. I am interested in the message. And you haven't convinced me that the message is different.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Suffering is due to ignorance, avidya. I will not comment on the "Goal" of Buddhism. I am interested in the message. And you haven't convinced me that the message is different.

 

I am not of the triad of observer or one who is experiencing, not the observed or that which is being experienced. I am beyond all that. I have no beginning nor end. I have no attributes.

 

-- Adi Shankara (800 C.E.)

 

In Buddhism there is no I to have no attributes, either cosmic or whatever, it's all conditional. There is no universal supreme consciousness that is the screen behind everything that everyone is secretly one with. Yes, the message is different and Shankara thought so too. The doctrines of Advaita and Buddhism are not compatible in very subtle and important points. The realization IS different as is the interpretation of the how? and what? about the cosmos.

 

You are so attached to the idea that all religions have the same message that you cannot even read objectively and properly the proofs that state that this is just not true.

 

Xabir's whole presentation has thoroughly subverted the Advaita interpretation of enlightenment.

[evZENy]

yes people think here that anti-intellectualism is a big part of Taoism but infact its not,

 

You are right. About Taoism.

One doesn't have to be Taoist, to accept Tao.

Lots of discussions on Chirstianity too - huge dogma with tons of scrpitures. Not much of what Jesus had in mind in it.

I don't see the contradiction.

The Taoism for me is not equal to Tao.

[xabir2005]

Edited May 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[evZENy]

In Buddhism there is no I to have no attributes, either cosmic or whatever, it's all conditional.

 

Obviously there is an "I" with attributes, as each sentence of Shankara starts with it.

 

You are so attached to the idea that all religions have the same message

 

Of course they don't!

The messages are different, as to have a message one has to use words and the words are different.

The Reality however is only one. A tree looks different to a bird, an ape, a worm and a man. But the Reality of the Tree doesn't change because of the differences in the observers.

And if you want to get on the Tree, depends if you can fly, climb, crawl etc. - the Way is different

Otherwise, the closer the messages of two religions - the bigger the hatred/intolerrance between them, as the history keeps on showing us... And this thread as well :-)

Edited May 29, 2009 by evZENy

[Vajrahridaya]

Obviously there is an "I" with attributes, as each sentence of Shankara starts with it.

Of course they don't!

The messages are different, as to have a message one has to use words and the words are different.

The Reality however is only one. A tree looks different to a bird, an ape, a worm and a man. But the Reality of the Tree doesn't change because of the differences in the observers.

And if you want to get on the Tree, depends if you can fly, climb, crawl etc. - the Way is different

Otherwise, the closer the messages of two religions - the bigger the hatred/intolerrance between them, as the history keeps on showing us... And this thread as well :-)

 

It has nothing to do with intolerance and hate, I don't see much hate other than some people who like to call other's idiots and what not. This is a debate about clarifying the meaning. Thats part of what these boards are for, to gain clarity in understanding and view to apply to meditation and integrate with waking life. To re-arrange the synaptic firings in the brain, to re-evaluate one's own subconscious workings.

 

There is no conditional-less reality according to Buddhist interpretation of cosmos. What I was saying about Shankara's statement is that he's identifying the I with some conditional-less eternal entity in his final sentence.

 

There is no enlightenment without properly understanding the framework of the cosmos which one is a part of and can never escape. There is no separate outside of the cosmos entity that everyone secretly is, Advaita disagrees. This is subtler than words because this goes into formless realms, realms of meditation that are free from seeming formulation, but Buddhism see's that as a formulation, and Advaita see's it as a condition freed background to things that things superimpose onto. One is right and the other is wrong. In Buddhism, enlightenment is NOT a state of no-thought. The Truth is not found through stripping away, but through realizing and cutting through. This takes a very refined intellect that studies itself on subtle and subtler layers. So, this type of discussion is very, very important.

 

The presentation is different, as is the goal between Theism and Buddhism. The enlightenments are different. It has nothing to do with taking away words and just seeing without concepts. The interpretations of the non-duality experience is different. It's actually deep, subtle and subconscious on a very fast level within the being and how it interprets it's blissful experience of seemingly being one with everything. One way of interpretation leads to re-absorption because of a subtle obscuration of a unified subtle identity that all is one with, the other leads to continuous work for the benefit of all beings because there is no subtle essence that all is one with that is an unconditional identity. Only Buddhism teaches infinite regress with no rooftop theory of a final identity of things. Thus the experience of enlightenment, is different, with or without concepts. Because Buddhism treats concept-less-ness differently.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[evZENy]

There is no enlightenment without properly understanding the framework of the cosmos

 

I thought you didn't like the same/Dwai's point on the frameworks few pages ago...

 

The enlightenments are different.

 

Again, this is a weird statement. This can exist only within personal consciousness, which compares (i.e. that A is different than B ). But the latter can not reach two different enlightenments, unless we don't agree on what Enlightenmen means.

 

The interpretations of the non-duality experience is different

.

 

And why do we care about the interpretations !?

Did Buddha ever say "Go and interprete!" I must have missed that discourse.

By the way - shouldn't one focus more on what The Buddha said, and not his Interpreters?

My feeling is that all the masters said: "Here is how it worked with me. Go and try yourself. Don't accept that what I say is true - use it as guidence."

 

Because Buddhism treats concept-less-ness differently.

 

Obviously by using tons of concepts. Most of which were borrowed and hence - the discussions in the last 17 pages :-)

Edited May 29, 2009 by evZENy

[Vajrahridaya]

I thought you didn't like the same/Dwai's point on the frameworks few pages ago...

Again, this is a weird statement. This can exist only within personal consciousness, which compares (i.e. that A is different than B ). But the latter can not reach two different enlightenments, unless we don't agree on what Enlightenmen means.

 

.

 

And why do we care about the interpretations !?

Did Buddha ever say "Go and interprete!" I must have missed that discourse.

By the way - shouldn't one focus more on what The Buddha said, and not his Interpreters?

My feeling is that all the masters said: "Here is how it worked with me. Go and try yourself. Don't accept that what I say is true - use it as guidence."

Obviously by using tons of concepts. Most of which were borrowed and hence - the discussions in the last 17 pages :-)

 

Boy, you like to read into things, don't cha?

 

The Buddha's whole doctrine is an interpretation on what is Cosmos and enlightenment. No need for anything else. Many of his interpreters anyway were indeed Buddhas in their own right as well. The Buddha said be a lamp onto yourself, but he said that be the lamp through this framework I have laid out. Unlike Jesus, and unlike the ancient Taoist masters who didn't say much or didn't leave much writing at all, he actually set out to create a framework that he said was the ancient way that was different from all other ways.

 

I don't think you understand Buddhism.

 

So... there you have it.

 

Oh! Almost forgot! The Buddha used ton's and ton's of concepts, many of them borrowed from the Vedas, but re-oriented into a new framework that liberated, instead of bound.

 

Buddhism is all about the framework, the framework that teaches how the frame is put together. If you don't understand the framework, you'll never properly dismantle the frame.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

 

And a friend 'Longchen' said: "Non-duality is NOT the same as a state of Witnessing Presence observing Phenomenality. An Eternal Witnessing Presence that is apart from Phenomena cannot be said to be non dual as there are two components here (witness and phenomena). This experience is characterised by a non-judging watcher observing the world and mind. I had this experience before. And now, I must say that true non-duality is distinctively different from this. The witness/watcher is really not separated from the rest of the world . It (this witness) is not unchanging, but is simply a knowingness that is not apart from the flow of phenomenality.

 

Non duality can only be stably experienced when the 'sense of self' and the 'Eternal Witness' are correctly understood for what they are."

 

 

 

I am tempted to keeping posting, but that won't do justice to my professional duties. I will post follow-ups to my previous summary in detail later this evening.

 

But what Advaita says is this --

 

Objectless consciousness is not Witnessing presence. Witnessing presence has to be objective consciousness, since there are objects in it. When modifications of the mind is completely ceased, as in there are no objects (thoughts, etc) left, that which remains is Brahman.

 

We enter this state already in deep sleep. This is Turiya.

[Vajrahridaya]

I am tempted to keeping posting, but that won't do justice to my professional duties. I will post follow-ups to my previous summary in detail later this evening.

 

But what Advaita says is this --

 

Objectless consciousness is not Witnessing presence. Witnessing presence has to be objective consciousness, since there are objects in it. When modifications of the mind is completely ceased, as in there are no objects (thoughts, etc) left, that which remains is Brahman.

 

We enter this state already in deep sleep. This is Turiya.

 

Buddhism see's this as a subtle formless concept and obscuration. Not a final Truth. The Buddha taught a different message from Advaita. Wrong or not, it's different. Advaita and Buddhism disagree on what enlightenment is.

[evZENy]

Boy, you like to read into things, don't cha?

 

I am the least read of you all here :-). And I know you don't mean that.

Just pointing the obvious - that's all.

 

On the writings - weren't most of the Buddhist writings dated 300 years after his death?

For Isa (Jesus) its ~100+

As for Chuang Tzu and other Taoist sages - I believe they wrote THEMSELVES, didn't let someone recall what others have understood from what the Master had said :-)

Not that it matters.

I still say that original (directly from the master) or passed along words, writings etc. are somewhat useful.

But it's the practice that matters.

 

I don't think you understand Buddhism.

 

Me neither!

Did I ever said I do !?!?!?

 

The Buddha used ton's and ton's of concepts, many of them borrowed from the Vedas, but re-oriented into a new framework that liberated, instead of bound.

 

 

The poor Vedic rishis and sages - they never got really liberated, right? :-)

Some probably got this lower quality of Enlightenment, no? :-)

 

If you don't understand the framework, you'll never properly dismantle the frame.

 

And then comes the Zen monk with the stick and you get IT once the pain and the shock kick the Buddhist framework out :-)

 

yours, Ignorant...

Edited May 29, 2009 by evZENy

[xabir2005]

I am tempted to keeping posting, but that won't do justice to my professional duties. I will post follow-ups to my previous summary in detail later this evening.

 

But what Advaita says is this --

 

Objectless consciousness is not Witnessing presence. Witnessing presence has to be objective consciousness, since there are objects in it. When modifications of the mind is completely ceased, as in there are no objects (thoughts, etc) left, that which remains is Brahman.

 

We enter this state already in deep sleep. This is Turiya.

No, witnessing presence is pure subjective consciousness, it is not objective consciousness. A way to put this is that it is the eye that cannot see itself. The witness cannot become an object of consciousness, and is seen as independent of what is witnessed. It is a self-knowing awareness. Its seen that the turiya is not dependent or affected by the presence or absence of appearances but appearances depend on the presence of knowing.

 

According to Advaita, Turiya is literally that which transcends the three states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. It is the background substratum and witness to all three states. Apparent objects pops in and out from this substratum but the ground itself remains unchanged, unaffected. As such it is not a state we enter into, it is not the deep sleep state, it is simply realised as the ever-present ground.

 

It is not accessible only in the deep sleep state, since it is ever-present and that which supports and is the basis of all states like a movie screen -- though deep sleep is a kind of natural and deep samadhi in itself. If Turiya is a dreamless sleep state and only accessible in deep sleep then no Advaitin sages can function in the world, use thoughts, talk to people, etc. According to Advaita, Turiya, being beyond the 3 states, is beyond deep sleep as well. But it is not just another state -- it is what underlies all states.

 

Lastly Buddhism does not deny the vivid knowing presence -- but it denies that there is a witness separate from phenomenality. For all manifestation is self-knowing awareness, the process knows and rolls without a separate watcher. This will not be clear on the first initial glimpse of pristine awareness, and will only start to get obvious after non-dual insights and insight of no-self.

Edited May 29, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

I am the least read of you all here :-). And I know you don't mean that.

Just pointing the obvious - that's all.

 

On the writings - weren't most of the Buddhist writings dated 300 years after his death?

For Isa (Jesus) its ~100+

As for Chuang Tzu and other Taoist sages - I believe they wrote THEMSELVES, didn't let someone recall what others have understood from what the Master had said :-)

Not that it matters.

I still say that original (directly from the master) or passed along words, writings etc. are somewhat useful.

But it's the practice that matters.

Me neither!

The poor Vedic rishis and sages - they never got really liberated, right? :-)

Some probably got this lower quality of Enlightenment, no? :-)

And then comes the Zen monk with the stick and you get IT once the pain and the shock kick the Buddhist framework out :-)

 

yours, Ignorant...

 

I forgot your main language isn't English. Reading into things means seeing subjectively, or seeing what's not there out of the words seen or read. It basically means not understanding what was read.

 

The Buddhas teachings were orally kept by very disciplined and focused monks, many of them were already Buddhas before the Buddha passed away.

 

Yes, the poor Vedic Rishis who spent all there time meditating and not understanding the view got caught up in a subtle formless infinite featureless cosmic consciousness. That was the Buddhas point in undergoing all the different forms of meditation and seeing that they were dependently originated and not absolute. Thus he laid out the 31 planes framework of where the different states of meditation lead if one doesn't understand "The View" which is expressed through concepts, which aline the focus of the mind.

 

Reading the concepts and understanding the concepts, IS a practice!

 

The reason why I don't do Zen is because I think it's too influenced by Taoism. It's not pure in my opinion while Tibetan Buddhism is generally speaking faithfully pure as to how it was practiced in North India for a thousand years before it went to Tibet.

 

Maybe you should read more?

Edited May 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

No, witnessing presence is pure subjective consciousness, it is not objective consciousness. A way to put this is that it is the eye that cannot see itself. The witness cannot become an object of consciousness, and is seen as independent of what is witnessed. It is a self-knowing awareness. Its seen that the turiya is not dependent or affected by the presence or absence of appearances but appearances depend on the presence of knowing.

 

According to Advaita, Turiya is literally that which transcends the three states of waking, dreaming, and deep sleep. It is the background substratum and witness to all three states. Apparent objects pops in and out from this substratum but the ground itself remains unchanged, unaffected. As such it is not a state we enter into, it is not the deep sleep state, it is simply realised as the ever-present ground.

 

It is not accessible only in the deep sleep state, since it is ever-present and that which supports and is the basis of all states like a movie screen -- though deep sleep is a kind of natural and deep samadhi in itself. If Turiya is a dreamless sleep state and only accessible in deep sleep then no Advaitin sages can function in the world, use thoughts, talk to people, etc. According to Advaita, Turiya, being beyond the 3 states, is beyond deep sleep as well. But it is not just another state -- it is what underlies all states.

 

Lastly Buddhism does not deny the vivid knowing presence -- but it denies that there is a witness separate from phenomenality. For all manifestation is self-knowing awareness, the process knows and rolls without a separate watcher. This will not be clear on the first initial glimpse of pristine awareness, and will only start to get obvious after non-dual insights and insight of no-self.

 

That doesn't make sense logically.

If something witnesses something else, then that something is an object that the subject (who is experiencing) is witnessing. If that is the case, then there are objects in the consciousness that is witnessing them. If that is the case, then it cannot be anything but objective consciousness (one which as objects in it).

 

Okay, let's do it this way. You define consciousness and then I will respond. It seems we have a syntactical mismatch.

 

Turiya --

 

I am not saying that it is not there in other states. Ceasing the modifications of the mind is in effect realizing that fact.

Edited May 29, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

That doesn't make sense logically.

If something witnesses something else, then that something is an object that the subject (who is experiencing) is witnessing. If that is the case, then there are objects in the consciousness that is witnessing. If that is the case, then it cannot be anything but objective consciousness.

 

Okay, let's do it this way. You define consciousness and then I will respond. It seems we have a syntactical mismatch.

 

What he's saying is that subtle consciousness, is the Self ground of it's arisings, and if not emptied of identity entirely, if it's not seen as dependently originated and not-self, then it becomes the cause for future re-birth, even if after a thousand eons of enjoying that bliss, it's not final liberation.

[evZENy]

I forgot your main language isn't English.

 

How is that relevant?

As I pointed, I know you didn't have the literal meaning of the word in mind (in order to avoid what you wrote :-). Would be nice to read more carefully - it's in your own languages :-). So no need to be explained what "read into something" means, but thanks anyway :-)

 

Reading the concepts and understanding the concepts, IS a practice!

 

True. So is doing the dishes.

 

The reason why I don't do Zen

 

There is a major reason.

One does not DO Zen.

 

Tibetan Buddhism on the other hand is influenced by Bon with its prejudices and rituals.

I find the religion of Buddhism too heavy on rituals and especially so the Tibetan version.

Yes, I understand they do have their role. And yes, I am sure it works for some people, to the point they claim its the best and only true/pure thing :-)

As I said yesterday - if Buddha was around today he most likely won't pick Tibetan Budhism or any other one as more pure, the best vehicle, etc.

Edited May 29, 2009 by evZENy