Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[Sunya]

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.

 

have you studied Bon and Tibetan Buddhism enough to discern a truly objective viewpoint? or are you simply arguing because your beliefs are being threatened? you came here first saying let's not talk, the answer is in the trees,,, or something like that. maybe stick to that? you had a lot more going then.

[forestofemptiness]

It seems that you don't seem to like the taste of the tea you serve to others.

 

If you were walking by your brother, and you saw him stuffing himself with poisonous mushrooms, smiling at their taste, would you worry about your own suffering? Hopefully, you would say "Put down those mushrooms!"

 

Trust me, you are teaching me far more than I could ever teach you. Perhaps not in the way you intend, but in a priceless way nonetheless.

 

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!

[dwai]

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.

 

Hmm...if it is empty of objects, it is empty. When there is objectless consciousness, does the concept of "I" even arise? If there is an I, the "I" is an object too?

 

Upadhi...

[forestofemptiness]

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.

 

What sees Brahman?

[Vajrahridaya]

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 :-)

True. So is doing the dishes.

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.

 

Like I said, your not well read in the Dharma, so I would not go on your opinion as to what the Buddha would do.

 

Reading the Dharma is more important than doing the dishes for sentient beings. Anybody does the dishes, but only a seeker of the Truth will read the Dharma. Only doing the dishes is a practice for someone who reads the Dharma, it's not a practice for others... it's an annoyance for most.

 

You don't, DO Zen? LOL! That's reading into things...

 

It's exactly this attachment Koan like abstractions that bother me, a whole lot of clever speaking. Yes, having that state of pure awareness where concepts collapse is good, but that's not the whole of the dharma or the whole of realization.

 

Zen is good, don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful path, but too influenced by Taoism in my opinion.

 

Also, Tibetan Buddhism is not that influenced by Bon. It's more the other way around, the same practices and rituals existed in India in the same way with the same view and outcome. Just some of the names of the deities have changed and there's better painters now for the mandalas.

 

Sure some of the celebrations are distinctly Tibetan mixed with buddhist sensibilities, but that's it. Vajrayana has always been a very colorful path.

 

Hmm...if it is empty of objects, it is empty. When there is objectless consciousness, does the concept of "I" even arise? If there is an I, the "I" is an object too?

 

Upadhi...

 

No, it too is empty, as in empty of self existence. Emptiness does not mean, "non-existence", or, "not there", it means no inherent reality.

 

Brahman is always labeled inherent reality. See, this is a problem with reading Vedanta into Buddhism, you miss what emptiness actually means, in Buddhism. It does not mean empty like a jar is empty. Your considering consciousness as the jar and when it's empty, it's objectless. Your way of reading Buddhism is flawed.

 

Both the jar, consciousness and the things in the jar, are interdependent in Buddhism and empty of inherent existence. Neither have ultimacy.

 

There is no ultimate in Buddhism, in that sense, no ground of being.

[dwai]

Like I said, your not well read in the Dharma, so I would not go on your opinion as to what the Buddha would do.

 

Reading the Dharma is more important than doing the dishes for sentient beings. Anybody does the dishes, but only a seeker of the Truth will read the Dharma. Only doing the dishes is a practice for someone who reads the Dharma, it's not a practice for others... it's an annoyance for most.

 

You don't, DO Zen? LOL! That's reading into things...

 

It's exactly this attachment Koan like abstractions that bother me, a whole lot of clever speaking. Yes, having that state of pure awareness where concepts collapse is good, but that's not the whole of the dharma or the whole of realization.

 

Zen is good, don't get me wrong, it's a wonderful path, but too influenced by Taoism in my opinion.

 

Also, Tibetan Buddhism is not that influenced by Bon. It's more the other way around, the same practices and rituals existed in India in the same way with the same view and outcome. Just some of the names of the deities have changed and there's better painters now for the mandalas.

 

Sure some of the celebrations are distinctly Tibetan mixed with buddhist sensibilities, but that's it. Vajrayana has always been a very colorful path.

No, it too is empty, as in empty of self existence. Emptiness does not mean, "non-existence", or, "not there", it means no inherent reality.

 

Brahman is always labeled inherent reality. See, this is a problem with reading Vedanta into Buddhism, you miss what emptiness actually means, in Buddhism. It does not mean empty like a jar is empty. Your considering consciousness as the jar and when it's empty, it's objectless. Your way of reading Buddhism is flawed.

 

Both the jar, consciousness and the things in the jar, are interdependent in Buddhism and empty of inherent existence. Neither have ultimacy.

 

There is no ultimate in Buddhism, in that sense, no ground of being.

 

Can you define consciousness?

 

What sees Brahman?

 

Upadhi

[Vajrahridaya]

Can you define consciousness?

 

awareness... illumination...

Edited May 29, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Sunya]

awareness... illumination...

 

this is a pretty good site talking about this topic in Vajrayana/Dzogchen/Mahamudra context

 

http://www.shambhala.org/ntc/offerings/gli...-alaya-full.htm

Edited May 29, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

If you were walking by your brother, and you saw him stuffing himself with poisonous mushrooms, smiling at their taste, would you worry about your own suffering? Hopefully, you would say "Put down those mushrooms!"

 

you've obviously never done mushrooms if you think someone would smile at their taste..

[dwai]

awareness... illumination...

 

Who/what is aware? Awareness of who/what?

[Vajrahridaya]

[dwai]

Awareness just shines as my mind stream.

 

Your still trying to make an ultimate here...

 

It won't work.

 

You should re-read Xabir's presentation, everything you need to know about the difference between Advaita and Buddhism is there...

 

What is your mind stream? Does awareness have a beginning and an end?

[Vajrahridaya]

What is your mind stream? Does awareness have a beginning and an end?

 

My mind stream is my beginningless stream of dependent origination, awareness is included. It inter-relates with infinite other mind streams, mingling and separating...

Edited May 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

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.

From the perspective of the 'Eternal Witness': Apparent objects comes and goes within consciousness, but the witness is unaffected by the apparent coming and going of object. That is why it is called the Eternal Witness. It is totally unattached to the objects, and is independent of them. Objective consciousness is when you are attached and identified with the objects, or the pinpointed focus or fixation on finite objects. When standing as the Witness you are alone and free (of the constriction and identification to finite objects). The Witness does not fixate upon objects, the mind does. The apparent objects just come and go by itself within vast objectless consciousness. Just because clouds move through the sky doesn't mean the sky is inherently cloudy -- it is still as vast and 'objectless' as before. The only question is whether you are identified and fixated on the clouds or know yourself as the vast opening. Also the 'eye' sees many things but cannot see itself, for it is not an object to be seen but the seer. It just sees. This can be intuited and recognised.

 

Ceasing modifications of the mind (identifications and attachments to object) is the side effect of realizing the fact. You can't force the cessation of identification unless there is insight into who you are.

 

Sureshwara:

 

"That Innner Dweller, The Witness, all knowing and un objectifiable, appears to become a separate object through the false superimposition that is aviydA"

 

Shankara:

 

It is the overseer of all actions, the indweller in all beings, the Witness, Pure Consciousness, that which is all that is left (when avidyA removed), and is beyond all qualities.

 

-----------

 

Buddhism however, does not talk about a Self or a Witness or a background. There is awareness, seeing, presence, but not separate from transience and mindstream. There is seeing, but not a seer, the seeing can't be separated from the seen. There is hearing, but not a hearer, and the hearing is the sound. etc....

 

In Buddhism, Awareness is not seen as the ultimate subject.

 

Self-manifestation, which has never existed as such, is erroneously seen as an object.

Through ignorance, self-awareness is mistakenly experienced as an I.

Through attachment to this duality we are caught in the conditioned world.

May the root of confusion be found.

 

.................

 

Through the examination of external objects we see the mind, not the objects.

Through the examination of the mind we see its empty essence, but not the mind.

Through the examination of both, attachment to duality disappears by itself.

May the clear light, the true essence of mind, be recognized.

 

~ 3rd Karmapa

 

 

 

Anyway, there's a good article on the difference between Witness and Non-Dual by Ken Wilber here: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/200...ity-by-ken.html

 

Just a note.. Ken Wilber is very clear on non-dual but still does not have the understanding of dependent origination and emptiness. So it is still more 'brahman' than 'shunya'.

Edited May 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

What is your mind stream? Does awareness have a beginning and an end?

In accordance to the insight of Dependent Origination and Emptiness, the mind stream is already unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise, does not cease.

 

Awareness is not anymore ultimate than the transient mind, and cannot be separated.

Edited May 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

In accordance to the insight of Dependent Origination and Emptiness, the mind stream is already unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise, does not cease.

 

Awareness is not anymore ultimate than the transient mind, and cannot be separated.

 

When Buddhists speak of ultimate realization, they speak of recognition of the non-abiding nature of all, from formless to form. They don't speak of the stripped away consciousness as a container that self exists. When Buddhists speak of self liberated, they mean the recognition of the non-arising nature of awareness and things, always. When they speak of an all pervasiveness, they speak of the fact that since beginning-less time, nothing has ever come into being as a reality. Everything, everywhere is merely a seemingness, an illusive flow, no foothold anywhere, no tangible reality other than a mistaken assumption. Even the consciousness of this is dependent upon the fact of the intangibility and non-abiding nature of things. Consciousness is not self sustaining, but dependent upon and wrapped up in the mass of dependent origination of the personal mind stream that is simultaneously interdependent with all other infinite mind-streams.

 

There is no ultimate object really. Even though in meditation one may take up the contemplation of the empty nature of things as the "ultimate" nature of things, but not as a self abiding ultimate. It is in a slightly different view that does not lead to an altered state of consciousness or trance state, but rather a subtle understanding and cutting through. The experience in meditation is even different between the two systems.

 

Also, Advaitin's are more absorbent, while Buddhists are more cut through bent, thus more stress on the slightly open eyed Samatha which effects the chakras differently. The fact that Advaitins absorb more and strip away to try to find a subtle identity behind things that is stable, is the cause of Buddhas revelation of non-self to help subvert this subtle attachment within the Vedantin belief system and thus also the experiential outcome.

 

The realization is different.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

Yes. In Buddhism there is no The Absolute, the background, the universal container, the universal/cosmic consciousness/substrate/essence from which everything emerges from and returns to, or a universal substance in which we are all part of. No such ontological essence at all can be found in Buddhism, not only the Madhyamikas but even the Yogacara school which is the 'consciousness only school'.

 

Even in Yogacara, though it does not deny non-dual consciousness as reality, but what separates it from Advaita Vedanta is that it is taught each mindstream is separate and unique -- there is no cosmic, universal essence, cosmic consciousness. "This individual stream of consciousness/manifestation is itself non-dual and entire; the need to reify a Universal Brahman is understood as the karmic tendency to 'solidify' experiences." (comments from stage 5 of Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment) I've seen some people (in other places) said things such as 'I am you, you are me' which are clearly false views. Each mindstream is separate and unique yet interdependent in the same way like the network of nodes in the Net of Indra reflect each other in a seamless web of interdependency.

 

There is no The Absolute -- rather, all moment of manifestation is a wholeness, complete in itself, an 'absolute' in itself, yet it is not independent -- but fully interdependent, inseparable from all the causes and conditions... the entire interdependent universe is giving its best for this moment to arise. Awareness is seen AS the manifestation itself rather than a mirror reflecting external phenomena.

 

What is seen is Awareness. What is heard is Awareness. All experiences are non-dual without subject-object division in nature. However this non-dual luminosity cannot be understood apart from the causes and conditions of arising. Therefore there is no 'The Awareness' or a Mirror interacting, coming into contact with external conditions, and reflecting phenomenality. If one see it as so, then it still falls in the category of mirror-reflecting (stage 4 = mirror bright clarity, stage 5 = no mirror). Rather see it as an instantaneous manifestation where nothing excluded. As if the universe is giving its very best for this moment to arise. A moment is complete and non-dual. Vividly manifest and thoroughly gone leaving no traces. What manifests is vivid and clear but unlocatable, ungraspable, without inherent existence. No substance or essence anywhere at all. No entities coming into being and undergoing disintegration.

 

Conventionally we experience in the form of subject and object interaction taking place in a space-time continuum. This is just an assumption. Experientially it is not so. One should learn to experience awareness as the manifestation. There is no subject, there is only and always manifestation, all else are conditions of arising. All these are just provisional explanations for one to understand.

 

So in summary:

 

One must learn how to see Appearances as Awareness and all others as conditions. For example, sound is awareness. The person, the stick, the bell, hitting, air, ears... are conditions. One should learn to see in this way. All problems arise because we cannot experience Awareness this way.

 

Awareness is not like a mirror reflecting but rather a manifestation. Luminosity is an arising luminous manifestation rather than a mirror reflecting. The center here is being replaced with Dependent Origination, the experience however is non-dual.

Edited May 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[forestofemptiness]

Upadhi?

 

Upadhi

[dwai]

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.

 

And with this "pedigree" you deem yourself an expert into the "Hindu" psyche and gleam a complete understanding of their "dogmatic" nature?

 

Whatever! I was born in India into a kuleen brahmin household which draws it's roots from the early ages of the Vedic civilization. I had my upanayanam and do my daily oblations till date, but I still haven't figured out what "Orthodox Hinduism is" or where the "dogma" of the Hindu exists.

 

As a matter of fact, Hindus are perhaps the only collective group of people who consider all sincere ways to liberation as valid (some are easier, some are harder) and don't make any claims to exclusivity (which automatically reflects the fears and insecurity and/or stupidity of the system that makes such claims).

 

As no two people are the same, no two paths are the same. Some choose devotion (Bhakti), some choose Karma (Impeccable action), some choose Jnana (wisdom) and some choose Raja (the 8-limb path of Yoga). Mostly everyone has to do all the above in various permutations and combinations.

 

Don't mistake pauranic concepts to be those of Vedanta. They are not. Vedanta is important for those who practice Jnana Yoga. It is not the way for 95% of Hindus in the world. These 95% probably follow a combination of Bhakti and Karma.

 

It is not the calling of most people to delve into the matters of liberation. Go to any Buddhist nation in the world and see what percentage of these actually do any of the practices/introspections themselves. They are merely content kow-towing to the monks and deities (thin Buddhas, fat buddhas, short buddhas, stout buddhas, laughing buddhas, angry buddhas, and so on).

 

The bottom line is, you don't know much about Hinduism. Your hubris is valid in North America where you and your community might have been an exception. If you want to learn about Hinduism, go live in India for at least 10 years. First 2 years you'll hate everything and everyone. Then the next 4 years you'll curse yourself for having gone there. The last 4 years you'll slowly realize that everything you knew about Hinduism was only .05% of it and at that, you misunderstood most of it. It is evident in your behaviours and actions.

 

When you have been brought down to earth a few notches and your ego is a little subsided, you might learn something of value.

 

That said, let us continue with your education.

 

 

In accordance to the insight of Dependent Origination and Emptiness, the mind stream is already unborn, does not come, does not go, does not arise, does not cease.

 

Awareness is not anymore ultimate than the transient mind, and cannot be separated.

 

So it is eternal?

[Vajrahridaya]

Edited May 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

'dwai'

Hindus are perhaps the only collective group of people who consider all sincere ways to liberation as valid

 

That's the Hindu dogma I was talking about, originating dependent upon the un-recognition of dependent origination and what dependent origination actually means. Thus, the great difference and total rift between Advaita/Vedanta and Buddhism. The very definition of enlightenment is entirely different.

 

As no two people are the same

No, we are not the same but we are ignorant in the same way. So, to not recognize the framework that all is ignorant by, which is Dependent origination, is to not recognize how the cosmos works, period.

 

The Hindu's claim of all paths are equal, is an ignorance and a dogma.

 

It is not the calling of most people to delve into the matters of liberation. Go to any Buddhist nation in the world and see what percentage of these actually do any of the practices/introspections themselves.

 

Of course.

 

The bottom line is, you don't know much about Hinduism.

 

You have no idea what I know. I know lots and lots of Indians from India. I know that out of the 1 Billion people of India, there are so many, many creeds as it's the most diverse country in dialect and religious branches in the entire world, so many cults of worship and practice, etc.

 

When you have been brought down to earth a few notches and your ego is a little subsided, you might learn something of value.

 

I could say the same about you.

 

Let us continue with your education...

 

So it is eternal?

 

No, the chain of D.O. is eternal and not because it's a self. In Samsara it was based upon non-recognition of movements non-inherent nature, but in Nirvana it is based upon the recognition of movements non-inherent nature. It's a chain of sequences of a complex and layered pattern. There is only dependent origination, which does not even inherently exist, there is no abiding source. There is no eternal substratum.

 

Dwai, please read the post above this.

 

Thank you.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

EMPTINESS IS NOT NOTHINGNESS

 

Even nothingness is empty of inherent existence. Emptiness as defined in Buddhism is not nothingness, but pointing directly to dependent origination. The concept of nothingness is based upon the concept of something-ness, thus co-origination and both thus have no inherent and are empty of self existing identity.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[xabir2005]

Edited May 30, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

 

Sorry I'm just curious where did this quote come from?

 

 

Man, I love your presentations!! I'm learning from you...

 

That quote came from another board.

[xabir2005]

Edited May 30, 2009 by xabir2005