Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[xabir2005]

Vedanta says the same thing with Brahman. Glad you haved realized it. I on the other hand am like the billions of people who are part of this samsara and will have to strive to break out of the egoic "I" before the fact that "I am Brahman" is evident.

Of course - I have never claimed that Brahman is a stage or state. I always said that even the initial realisation of 'I AM' is a realisation of what 'always is'.

 

Whatever insights and wisdom gained -- it must not be a stage or state of attainment, otherwise it is not an insight.

 

Whether it is luminosity, non-dual luminosity, emptiness, or anatta/no-self, or any other aspect to realisation -- the criteria is that it must be realised as 'always and already so', otherwise it is not wisdom.

 

Anyway the way to realise 'I am Brahman' is through self inquiry, not through suppressing ego. Suppression doesn't cut the root of ignorance. When realisation dawns, there is naturally no more ego (i.e. identification with body or mind) - the removal of false identifications is a 'side effect'. There is no need to destroy a 'self' or 'ego' that wasn't there in the first place -- when realisation dawns, the 'self' is naturally seen through. Otherwise whatever attempts to silence the ego will not work, it will return.

 

Thusness wrote a summary regarding the various aspects of insights:

 

When there is simply a pure sense of existence;

When awareness appears mirror like;

When sensations become pristine clear and bright;

This is luminosity.

 

When all arising appear disconnected;

When appearance springs without a center;

When phenomena appears to be on their own without controller;

This is no doer-ship.

 

When subject/object division is seen as illusion;

When there is clarity that no one is behind thoughts;

When there is only scenery, sounds, thoughts and so forth;

This is anatta.

 

When phenomena appears pristinely crystal;

When there is merely one seamless experience;

When all is seen as Presence;

This is non-dual Presence.

 

When we feel fully the unfindability and unlocatability of phenomena;

When all experiences are seen as ungraspable;

When all mind boundaries of in/out, there/here, now/then dissolve;

This is Emptiness.

 

When interconnectedness of everything is wholly felt;

When arising appears great, effortless and wonderful;

When presence feels universe;

This is Maha.

 

When arising is not caged in who, where and when;

When all phenomena appear spontaneous and effortless;

When everything appears right every where, every when;

This is spontaneous perfection.

 

Seeing these as the ground of all experiences;

always and already so;

This is wisdom.

 

Experiencing the ground in whatever arises;

This is practice.

One thing that is very pertinent in this discussion, now that I think about it is this --

 

Buddhists (at least those on this forum) don't understand what Brahman is. Take all your posts, search and replace Sunyata with Brahman. Then see what you have.

It doesn't work this way. It will become incomprehensible. As I said we must let the Sunyata teachings speak for themselves and not replace the terms. The Non Dual Absolute realisation is equally important as well, but it cannot be mixed up together. There are many aspects to insight -- each is important. For example the initial realisation of I AM does not mean that one realises no-doership, but one who realises no-doership may not realise non-duality, or emptiness, etc. But this does not mean 'emptiness' is way high up -- some may have emptiness wisdom, but not luminosity, then the pristine luminosity of I AM becomes a later phase. None is higher than the other. But we must not confuse one insight with another.

 

Dr. Greg Goode:

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

 

For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

 

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

Edited May 23, 2009 by xabir2005

[Sunya]

When there is nothing but Brahman,

 

What is static?

What is single?

What is pure?

What is being?

 

Void of any description, characteristics and properties, does it have any value in ascribing descriptions/properties to it?

 

Advaita Vedanta's position is that Brahman is non-phenomenal. It is not subject to the rules and categorical frameworks that are applied on Phenomena. It is (realization that everything is Brahman) is reached by transcending the categorical framework of names and descriptions.

 

 

I don't think there is any misunderstanding of Brahman. I think the point is pretty clear, you say that Brahman is void of any description or properties; you point to a formless constant which is reality. Since phenomena is all unreal, due to our ignorance perception, all that truly exists is One.

Multiplicy is illusion. All that exists is Brahman.

 

As I keep saying, there is no "One" in Buddhist thought, multiplicity still exists. there is just no source, phenomena are empty and arise becauses of causes and conditions. Phenomena are not unreal, whereas in Advaita phenomena are unreal. Phenomena are not real, nor unreal, There are appearances, they are vivid, and 'like an illusion', but, like a mirage, nothing is there. there is nothing behind the appearance, which is not what Advaita says, so this is a main difference.

 

You can't attach a permeating essence (eternalism) and you also can't say nothing exists either [nihilism]. both are the extremes that Buddhism tries to forego

 

you're right, we are going in circles. I don't think you're interested in understanding the difference because you still are holding on to the assumption that Brahman and Shunyata are teh same, when I am trying to convey to you that this isn't so.

 

The difference between Monistic thought and Buddhist thought is clearly evident in this quote by Shabkar Tsokdrug Rangdrol on reality:

 

"it is not eternal, for nothing whatsoever about it has been proved to exist. it is not a void, for there is brilliance and awakefulness. it is not unity, for multiplicity is self-evident in perception. it is not multiplicity, for we know the one taste of unity. it is not an external function, for presence is intrinsic to immediate reality"

 

 

a discussion of Gaudapada's view VS Madyamika Buddhism

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html

 

The contention of some modern scholars that gauDapAda's philosophy is nothing more than buddhism clothed in vedAntic colors is based on two errors, that do not do justice to either mahAyAna buddhism or to advaita vedAnta.

 

The first and the more serious error lies in interpreting the madhyamaka concept of SUnyatA as an Absolute, equivalent to the Atman or brahman of vedAnta. A careful reading of nAgArjuna's mUlamadhyamaka-kArikAs and other works shows what pains the madhyamaka school takes to avoid the extreme of absolutism (SAsvata-vAda). While the buddhist ajAtivAda maintains, "There is no birth," gauDapAda's argument about ajAtivAda says, "There is an Unborn." Thus, gauDapAda clearly upholds the Atman as the absolute. For nAgArjuna, no view is correct, because every view ultimately entails some absolutist positon, an extreme that is avoided by the buddhist middle path. gauDapAda, on the other hand, is inclusivistic in his scope. He argues that every view entails an absolutist position, and precisely for this reason, all views are said to be non-conflicting (avirodha) with the absolutism of advaita.

 

There are other points of contrast. For nAgArjuna, there is no need to affirm a substratum (adhishThAna) of phenomena, whereas for gauDapAda, the Atman is the substratum of all experience. The madhyamaka non-duality is in terms of the emptiness (SUnyatA) of all phenomena, while in the vedAnta view of non-duality, phenomena are possible only due to the essential reality of the Atman, which is pure consciousness. The madhyamaka school does not describe SUnyatA as an independent absolute entity, whereas the advaita vedAnta emphasizes brahman/Atman as an Absolute. In the light of these significant differences, seeing nothing but mahAyAna buddhism in gauDapAda's advaita vedAnta is impossible without seeing madhyamaka buddhism itself through vedAnta-tinted glasses. As for the other schools of buddhism such as vijnAnavAda, the madhyamaka school itself criticizes them for holding views that entail consciousness as an Absolute. gauDapAda possibly agrees with this evaluation of the vijnAnavAda school.

Edited May 23, 2009 by mikaelz

[dwai]

Of course - I have never claimed that Brahman is a stage or state. I always said that even the initial realisation of 'I AM' is a realisation of what 'always is'.

 

Whatever insights and wisdom gained -- it must not be a stage or state of attainment, otherwise it is not an insight.

 

Whether it is luminosity, non-dual luminosity, emptiness, or anatta/no-self, or any other aspect to realisation -- the criteria is that it must be realised as 'always and already so', otherwise it is not wisdom.

 

Anyway the way to realise 'I am Brahman' is through self inquiry, not through suppressing ego. Suppression doesn't cut the root of ignorance. When realisation dawns, there is naturally no more ego (i.e. identification with body or mind). There is no need to destroy a 'self' or 'ego' that wasn't there in the first place -- when realisation dawns, the 'self' is naturally seen through. Otherwise whatever attempts to silence the ego will not work, it will return.

 

the problem with language is that they only really express concepts. The import of the teaching needs a good teacher (in order to be elucidated)

 

what makes you think Advaita recommends "destroying the ego"? the need is to remove avidya or ignorance. ignorance happens as a result of maya (identification with lower truth/reality or phenomena).

 

as to how this ignorance is removed varies. one could employ everything from chanting mantras , standing on ones head to sitting with the eyes crossed.

the point is to occupy the mind on a task such that the underlying consciousness shines forth.

 

 

As Thusness wrote a summary regarding the various aspects of insights:

 

When there is simply a pure sense of existence;

When awareness appears mirror like;

When sensations become pristine clear and bright;

This is luminosity.

 

When all arising appear disconnected;

When appearance springs without a center;

When phenomena appears to be on their own without controller;

This is no doer-ship.

 

When subject/object division is seen as illusion;

When there is clarity that no one is behind thoughts;

When there is only scenery, sounds, thoughts and so forth;

This is anatta.

 

When phenomena appears pristinely crystal;

When there is merely one seamless experience;

When all is seen as Presence;

This is non-dual Presence.

 

When we feel fully the unfindability and unlocatability of phenomena;

When all experiences are seen as ungraspable;

When all mind boundaries of in/out, there/here, now/then dissolve;

This is Emptiness.

 

When interconnectedness of everything is wholly felt;

When arising appears great, effortless and wonderful;

When presence feels universe;

This is Maha.

 

When arising is not caged in who, where and when;

When all phenomena appear spontaneous and effortless;

When everything appears right every where, every when;

This is spontaneous perfection.

 

Seeing these as the ground of all experiences;

always and already so;

This is wisdom.

 

Experiencing the ground in whatever arises;

This is practice.

It doesn't work this way. It will become incomprehensible. As I said we must let the Sunyata teachings speak for themselves and not replace the terms. The Non Dual Absolute realisation is equally important as well, but it cannot be mixed up together. There are many aspects to insight -- each is important. For example the initial realisation of I AM does not mean that one realises no-doership, but one who realises no-doership may not realise non-duality, or emptiness, etc. But this does not mean 'emptiness' is way high up -- some may have emptiness wisdom, but not luminosity, then the pristine luminosity of I AM becomes a later phase. None is higher than the other. But we must not confuse one insight with another.

 

Dr. Greg Goode:

 

http://www.heartofnow.com/files/emptiness.html

 

For those who encounter emptiness teachings after they've become familiar with awareness teachings, it's very tempting to misread the emptiness teachings by substituting terms. That is, it's very easy to misread the emptiness teachings by seeing "emptiness" on the page and thinking to yourself, "awareness, consciousness, I know what they're talking about."

 

Early in my own study I began with this substitution in mind. With this misreading, I found a lot in the emptiness teachings to be quite INcomprehensible! So I started again, laying aside the notion that "emptiness" and "awareness" were equivalent. I tried to let the emptiness teachings speak for themselves. I came to find that they have a subtle beauty and power, a flavor quite different from the awareness teachings. Emptiness teachings do not speak of emptiness as a true nature that underlies or supports things. Rather, it speaks of selves and things as essenceless and free.

 

There is no dichotomy here...at least not in my mind. But until we get to that stage where we can experientially verify these things, it must remain an open-minded exercise of the intellectual faculties.

 

Thanks for an engaging discussion.

[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

[xabir2005]

Edited May 23, 2009 by xabir2005

[dwai]

I don't think there is any misunderstanding of Brahman. I think the point is pretty clear, you say that Brahman is void of any description or properties; you point to a formless constant which is reality. Since phenomena is all unreal, due to our ignorance perception, all that truly exists is One.

Multiplicy is illusion. All that exists is Brahman.

 

As I keep saying, there is no "One" in Buddhist thought, multiplicity still exists. there is just no source, phenomena are empty and arise becauses of causes and conditions. Phenomena are not unreal, whereas in Advaita phenomena are unreal. Phenomena are not real, nor unreal, Appearances exist, they are vivid, and 'like an illusion', but there is nothing there. yet, there is nothing behind the appearance, which is what Advaita says, so this is a main difference.

 

You can't attach a permeating essence (eternalism) and you also can't say nothing exists either [nihilism]. both are the extremes that Buddhism tries to forego

 

Why would Advaita claim that Brahman is the "cause" of all phenomena. I guess you are holding on to the misunderstanding that Advaita Vedanta claims "such and such a thing" while in reality no such claim is made.

 

To say in one breath that phenomena are empty and Brahman is non-phenomenal and then claim that Brahman is the "Cause" of all phenomena is self-contradictory and absurd (prasanga wasn't invented by nagarjuna you see).

 

The Brahman transcends the entire realm of phenomena and causality. And causality is limited to the realm of phenomena.

 

The relation between Brahman and phenomena is that of Superimposition. The inquirer will perceive things as is conditioned by his/her categorical framework. To understand this, one has to understand the Principle of Superimposition.

 

The Sunyata/Brahman/Non-dual Reality is emptiness because it is empty of all phenomena. These phenomena are the products of the activity of Superimposition. Therefore, Brahman/Sunyata/Advaita is not a thing, nor is it nothing (or Blank). It is a no-thing, since in order to be a thing, is to have a temporal location. Brahman is non-spatial and non-temporal. It is Void and Empty as it is not comprised of things nor is it by itself a "thing". But this Void is also Fullness of all existence in it's inexhaustible variety and multiplicity. Brahman is not the cause of all phenomena but all phenomena arise as a result of superimposition on Brahman by the inquirer/experiencer.

Edited May 23, 2009 by dwai

[xabir2005]

Edited May 23, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Hi friends!

 

I didn't read every post on this thread but, it is quite true that Buddhist cosmology and realization is different from Advaita Vedanta, Shaivism, or any of the Hindu forms of cosmology and realization.

 

If you read Vasisthas Yoga, Lord Vasistha doesn't know how his friend remained after the last universe was destroyed. They both blame it on the mysterious will of Brahman. Even in Non-Dual Shaivism, the cause of creation is blamed on a supreme and independent entity with infinite will and infinite power. There is not total omniscience and no knowledge of the universe before this one. Buddhism has true omniscience.

 

Buddhism see's everything as dependently originated throughout endless cycles from the formless realms to the form realms. There is no basis to anything. Realization in Buddhism is a realization dependent on understanding directly dependent origination and not on absorption into an infinite sat, chit, ananda. Rather Sat, Chit, Ananda are qualities of the realization of dependent origination but it's all dependent upon that, there is no independence and nothing to merge into. According to the Buddha, Hindu understanding is a mis-interpretation of spiritual experience. Nirguna Brahman is merely the Jhana of beyond perception and non-perception and not to be taken as a basis for anything, but rather a state of focus, a kind of infinite non-conceptual concept, a subtle obscuration that if believed in as a TRUE SELF, one will simply absorb into that state of non-conceptual consciousness at the end of the universe and stay in that state for as long as the conditions of focus on that state applies. Afterwards though, one will fall into any one of the realms below in a state of ignorance and bewilderment. So, this formless state is not a true place of refuge. The Buddha said that if there was a universal essence to take refuge in, he would have taught that.

 

The All is dependent origination and emptiness is not a state of absorption, but rather the realization of dependent origination. It is not a state found in meditation, it is a state of realizing dependent origination, that there is no inherent basis to anything, just an endless chain of causation. Emptiness is not the state of meditation on the mahashunya or any altered state of consciousness. It's an intuitive realization of non-inherency, no-self anywhere.

 

Of course in the Parinirvana sutra they state that the Buddha has found his true Self, but that's not talking about an essence, but rather talking about having realized totally and fully the dependent nature of things, thus has found his true purpose as a helper of those that still suffer in the cycling between formless and form states.

 

This is why Nagarjuna said that other paths may lead to the edge of Samsara, but only the Dharma of Shakyamuni leads beyond Samsara totally.

 

I grew up my entire life Hindu, living in Ashrams and experiencing deep states of meditation, having kundalini awakening, etc. But, I met a Dzogchen master and was shown a deeper state of realization that was very deeply intuitive and more integrated in a way that Hindu texts don't even discuss, and I've read most all of them. Chanted many of them in Sanskrit daily. I can say from having read both Hindu and Buddhist Cosmologies that Buddhist Cosmology is different, not just in semantics, but in actual point of realization and how the cycling works. Buddhism is a non-substantial non-dualism, while Hinduism or Monism is a substantialist non-duality, where we are of one substance and all individual expressions of this one substance cycling in expression and re-absorptions. Buddhism says that we are all individually endless mind streams that are dependently originated and without any self essence, but interconnected in the sense of dependent origination. We are not of one substance though, we are just connected.

 

I don't expect all those adherents of Advaita Vedanta to just drop their path and say, OH! It's all really about dependent origination. It's very difficult to change spiritual traditions, I know... it's a very emotional and psychologically wrenching experience. It took years of having realizations and going through deep forms of pain and attachment to finally be able to say... Yes, Buddhism is subtler.

[Vajrahridaya]

Also, Buddhism while subverting self on any ultimate level, actually gives more credence to individuality on an actual level because mind streams are individual and beginningless.

[Enishi]

I can see where the buddhists are getting at in that by setting up an "ultimate" reality which is completely self-sufficient and independant from temporary phenomena, you're still falling into a subtle form of dualism.

 

On the other hand, to say that there is no inherent nature and characteristics to reality behind temporary phenomena at all doesn't really make sense to me, as in that case, it would seem that there should no matter, no energy which drives thing, no taobums or consciousness to observe it, only a total void.

 

It makes more sense to me to say that reality has certain features such as total wisdom, love, consciousness and the will to express itself. Of course, these aspects are just aspects, and wouldn't define reality as a whole.

 

I guess it's just impossible to try to describe the nature of reality with words and concepts without falling into either the eternalist or the void camp, and unless you're actually enlightened, you can't help but think along either line.

 

I personally find that I have more of an affinity for the teachings/system set up by the late Daskolos, the central figure in the book "Magus of Strovolos".

 

His followers have set up a website here: http://daskalos.org/Daskalos_Researchers_of_Truth_System.htm

 

I suppose they do make the error of falling into the eternalist, ultimate substance camp, but at this point in my life I prefer it over the "all is void" way of thinking.

[Vajrahridaya]

 

I suppose they do make the error of falling into the eternalist, ultimate substance camp, but at this point in my life I prefer it over the "all is void" way of thinking.

 

Hi Enishi,

 

Your issue is like with most Westerners who first come across the Buddhist explanation. You are seeing from a Nihilistic standpoint because your used to looking from a top down point of view where everything has a singular source that all things come from and go back into and are pervaded by. Buddhism subverts this so one habitually replaces this idea of a source with a kind of objective "nothingness" and the subconscious freaks out, "There's nothing there?"

 

No... everything is here!

 

Buddhism is more of a sideways view. There are tons of consciousness', infinite consciousness', there are god realms, powerful gods who control the people who succumb to them and give them blessings from their own accumulations of merit, which you may become, there are lower realms, there is energy, there is movement. There is actually no nothing, there is no child of a barren women, no rabbit's horns. Things do exist and because they exist things continue to exist from formless to form, each connected to the other. Things, in and of themselves don't exist on their own is all emptiness is saying, not that void is absolute, or that nothingness is the true nature of things, no, not at all. This is a common mistake. Dependent origination/emptiness is saying that each point leads to every other point in a vast web of infinite regress and progress. The intuitive understanding of dependent origination and emptiness is an entirely different way of viewing than the substance as source view of theism and monism. It most generally takes transmission of the real experiential Dharma from a qualified master to get that switch in perception on a deep level.

 

I am familiar with Magus of Strovolos. I read it when I was a Hindu practitioner. It's very nice and a good read. Quite interesting. As it's said by various Buddhist Masters, people in worldly paths can have all the worldly siddhis (powers), but the ultimate siddhi of complete liberation from the cycle of absorption and re-expression comes with seeing directly dependent origination.

 

It's fine to want to follow this path, it has much fruit and great joy, bliss, pleasure, reaches to the heavens, grants powers of perception, wealth, etc. It has it's truths that are true within the realm of the grand illusion of existence. It just doesn't lead to total liberation from re-cycling, that is all.

 

The Buddha elaborated in the 8 fold noble path in the 600's B.C. the "Right View". He names two Right Views. One is mundane which leads to the accumulation of merit and supports the sentient being within the realm of Samsara, leading to favorable rebirths and a great current birth. That is the view with taints and that is included in the theistic views. The view without taints is the view that see's dependent origination and leads to the total eradication of dukkka or psychological suffering in all it's possible forms and future forms which is found only in Buddhism, because only Buddhism teaches dependent origination as Shakyamuni elaborated it without the blemish of a final identity or entity.

 

The cosmic process still persists, and emptiness is not a final state of mind, or voidness is not the essence of things in any sort of real sense. Emptiness in Buddhism is merely a way of explaining dependent origination and is not an existent. This is a very important and subtle point that most Westerners cannot see due to a subtle obscuration in the Western mind set that generally see's from a sort of absolutism, black and white viewing. Buddhism see's reality as more of a vast and infinite kind of process of grey... sort of, in a way of speaking, don't take that as an absolute either, just a metaphor.

 

Take care!

[evZENy]

Time for another reminder.

This site is called The TAO Bums.

 

It's all Tao, my friends. And as it says in TTC:

 

I don't know who gave birth to it.

It is older than God.

 

Keep on making the wind.

Just keep in mind what the pharse means in French :-)

[Lucky7Strikes]

Time for another reminder.

This site is called The TAO Bums.

 

It's all Tao, my friends. And as it says in TTC:

 

I don't know who gave birth to it.

It is older than God.

 

Keep on making the wind.

Just keep in mind what the pharse means in French :-)

 

Read the welcome page...

[xabir2005]

On the other hand, to say that there is no inherent nature and characteristics to reality behind temporary phenomena at all doesn't really make sense to me, as in that case, it would seem that there should no matter, no energy which drives thing, no taobums or consciousness to observe it, only a total void.

There is consciousness, but consciousness is empty of substance -- i.e., not an independent, permanent entity, or an ontological essence.

 

It is not an Eternal Witness/Observer. When seeing scenery, just scenes -- that is consciousness, consciousness is not a seer. When hearing sound, just sound -- that is consciousness, consciousness is not a hearer. Everything dependently originates, and everything is consciousness.

 

As described in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment

 

Non-dual luminosity, presence-awareness, is fully present and nothing denied. Only that its empty nature must be understood.

 

Buddha-nature or the nature of mind in Buddhism is defined as luminosity and emptiness inseparable.

Edited May 24, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

There is consciousness, but consciousness is empty of substance -- i.e., not an independent, permanent entity, or an ontological essence.

 

It is not an Eternal Witness/Observer. When seeing scenery, just scenes -- that is consciousness, consciousness is not a seer. When hearing sound, just sound -- that is consciousness, consciousness is not a hearer. Everything dependently originates, and everything is consciousness.

 

As described in Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment

 

Non-dual luminosity, presence-awareness, is fully present and nothing denied. Only that its empty nature must be understood.

 

Buddha-nature or the nature of mind in Buddhism is defined as luminosity and emptiness inseparable.

 

Also dependently originated. Consciousness is dependent upon what it is aware of. Even if it's aware of beyond perception and non-perception. It arises each moment and sub-moment in a dependent fashion. Consciousness does not inherently exist. It is an aspect of the beginningless chain, if free'd from itself it shines luminously dependent upon seeing dependency directly.

[Vajrahridaya]

Also dependently originated. Consciousness is dependent upon what it is aware of. Even if it's aware of beyond perception and non-perception. It arises each moment and sub-moment in a dependent fashion. Consciousness does not inherently exist. It is an aspect of the beginningless chain, if free'd from itself it shines luminously dependent upon seeing dependency directly.

 

Therefore, an enlightened beings consciousness persists indefinitely dependent upon offering merits indefinitely dependent upon the fact that infinite samsarins persistently arise in different ways throughout infinite samsara, and not based upon the idea of an eternal consciousness, which is an idea that arises dependent upon a mis-interpretation of a state of meditation that causes many beings to believe in metaphysical views, creating from top down philosophies, such as monism. Belief in such leads one to basically re-absorb at the end of a universal display into a formless realm, thinking it's an essence in and of itself, independent and self existing.

[xabir2005]

Hi friends!

Hi Vajrahridaya, thanks for the sharing -- I liked your explanation on emptiness and dependent origination, very clear.

 

Just like to comment on the point of equating Hindu realisation with 'just absorption' -- it is not necessarily the case. Yeah sure, you can remain absorbed in the state of pure consciousness for hours and days, but what is important is the 'realise' that it is our buddha-nature, it is always present and can never be lost. To be able to hear, see, touch, that's luminosity. One can access it regardless what we are doing or experiencing at that moment because it is fully available whether we are meditating or whether we are living our lives. To put it in another way: luminosity is always available, but whether we notice it is another matter. It does not require a state of absorption to access it. Hence, it is not merely a state of absorption, since that would imply one cannot access that perspective from ordinary lives outside absorption. Even one who has only recognised the 'Eternal Witness' will be able to 'see' and abide from that perspective in any moment of their lives and not just in absorption.

 

From a Buddhist perspective, I would say that Hindus (and unfortunately many Buddhists as well) have realisations of the luminosity aspect of Buddha-nature, but often missed the empty aspect, or D.O. On the other hand there are some who can see the empty aspect but missed the luminosity aspect. Both are important and must be seen as inseparable.

 

Also dependently originated. Consciousness is dependent upon what it is aware of. Even if it's aware of beyond perception and non-perception. It arises each moment and sub-moment in a dependent fashion. Consciousness does not inherently exist. It is an aspect of the beginningless chain, if free'd from itself it shines luminously dependent upon seeing dependency directly.

Yes

 

As Thusness used to say:

 

The self-luminous awareness from beginning-less time has never been separated and cannot be separated from its conditions. They are not two -- This is, That is. Along with the conditions, Luminosity shines without a center and arises without a place. No where to be found. This is the emptiness nature of Presence.

Edited May 24, 2009 by xabir2005

[Vajrahridaya]

Very good!

 

Yes, Hindus intermingle the absorption experience with the experience of phenomena merging the two as a single entity... thus their version of Sahajasamadhi, which is different from the interpretation of a Buddhist meditator who interprets based upon the Right view exposed by Shakayamuni who bases the view upon D.O.

 

I wanted to add that Buddhist cosmology goes into the explanation of infinite universes, so even when this universe extinguishes itself as things arise, sustain and subside... (Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva, all aspects of Samsara), a Buddha see's the causes and conditions inter-dependent upon an infinite progression of universes within infinite dimensions, so instead of taking repose into a formless state of samadhi a Buddha continues his or her work in other universes indefinitely! Thus Buddhist cosmology is truely that which embraces infinitude.

 

Bless!

[Sunya]

thanks for joining the discussion Vajrahridaya, it's always best to get the perspective of one who has experiential understanding of both traditions

 

which tradition of Advaita did you practice under and what sort of insights/realizations did you gain from that path?

 

could you talk more about the moment when things changed and you realized that Buddhism had a different understanding? was this experiential or intellectual?

[dwai]

Edited May 24, 2009 by dwai

[Vajrahridaya]

As Larry the Cable guy would say -- "Duh...Same difference!"

 

Advaita Vedanta says that mind is simply a field where thoughts exist as objects. This is Objective Consciousness and is pertinent to the phenomenal mind. The Non-dual, absolute reality is objectless consciousness. This shines forth in the gaps between thoughts and doing practices that Prevent the Abberations/Modifications of the Mind (or Objective Consciousness) will make the seeker realize Objectless Consciousness or Brahman/Tao.

 

There is no objectless consciousness that shines independently that all things are a part of. This is a misunderstanding of the Jhana of beyond perception and non-perception. Consciousness is dependent upon that which it is aware of, even non-conceptual concepts that have no qualities, or shine as sat chit ananda. In Buddhism, there is no primordial source of things. Multiplicity is interconnected, like a jeweled net, this is the Dharmakaya, but each individual mind stream is individually infinite since beginning-less time, the Dharmakaya is not a substratum, it is dependent origination/emptiness.

 

The subtle obscuration of a catch all non-conceptual concept of an all pervasive consciousness is what beings fall into at the end of the appearance of this universe into a dormancy, only to be re-expressed in another universe when those dormancy karmas have the condition to awake. Those that have a high level of merit from a previous universe become the first born in a new one, and being first born, they think they are the gods of this new universe and teach of a singular source. If you remember in various Puranas, even the three gods, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu fight over who's the real source of the universe. In Buddhism this never happens because there is no identity behind anything, everything is dependently originated and emptiness is merely a way of describing dependent origination, that there is no inherent self to anything, and is not a meditative state, it is merely a way of describing D.O. Even the state of beyond perception and non-perception is dependently originated and empty of an abiding self. Hindu's call this Jhana Brahman, because as things start superimposing over this state of mind in a seemingly top down fashion when one comes out of meditation, the person goes from infinite to finite seemingly and thus make religions that follow this type of metaphysics. But, dependent origination which is the Right View that Shakyamuni discusses in the 8 fold noble path, cuts right through this. It's an intuitive experience that see's right through all elaborations from formless to form and leaves no foot hold.

 

It's not the same difference, Buddhism actually does lead to a different realization that is subtler. Because there is no Self, or self, the only way an enlightened beings consciousness keeps going is through the endless offering of merits to infinite samsarins. So one has a permanent state of enlightened consciousness that is dependent on the fact that samsara is infinite and there are infinite universes. So in Buddhism, enlightenment is not based on there being a subtle infinite nirguna brahman substratum. There is no divine and mysterious will according to Buddhism, there is only dependent origination, this is the flow of energy through endless space and the arisings, sustaining and fallings of endless universes. No infinite omnipotent power behind it all. It is all omnipotence as a whole, but the whole is a bunch of parts that are connected, like a web, but each mind stream is infinitely individual though connected to all other mind streams in complex and unique ways.

 

Buddhism is a non-substantialist non-duality, while Hinduism is a substantialist non-duality. Hindu's consider everything to be of one substance, like the sun shining through many holes in paper, each hole an individual expression of the radiance. But in Buddhism, there is the recognition of many suns with individual history's of cause and effect, and yes an enlightened being can manifest as many beings with the accumulation of merits. Buddhist cosmology and enlightenment is different. The Buddha said, if there was a universal essence to take refuge in for final liberation, I would have taught that, but there is not, so I do not teach that. According to the Buddha, Nirguna Brahman is another subtle level obscuration. He has said so since the very first turning. Buddhism is an entirely different way of seeing how the cosmos works and what enlightenment actually is. Buddhist cosmology is much more complex. I was born and raised Hindu and have read all the texts and when I saw the difference directly through experience and transmission, I was amazed at how blind I was to the truth of dependent origination. All my life Hindu teachers have taught me that it's all the same, but it seemed that they had never really studied Buddha's Buddhism as it was taught by the Buddha.

 

Take Care!

[dwai]

There is no objectless consciousness that shines independently that all things are a part of. This is a misunderstanding of the Jhana of beyond perception and non-perception. Consciousness is dependent upon that which it is aware of, even non-conceptual concepts that have no qualities, or shine as sat chit ananda. In Buddhism, there is no primordial source of things. Multiplicity is interconnected, like a jeweled net, this is the Dharmakaya, but each individual mind stream is individually infinite since beginning-less time, the Dharmakaya is not a substratum, it is dependent origination/emptiness.

 

The subtle obscuration of a catch all non-conceptual concept of an all pervasive consciousness is what beings fall into at the end of the appearance of this universe into a dormancy, only to be re-expressed in another universe when those dormancy karmas have the condition to awake. Those that have a high level of merit from a previous universe become the first born in a new one, and being first born, they think they are the gods of this new universe and teach of a singular source. If you remember in various Puranas, even the three gods, Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu fight over who's the real source of the universe. In Buddhism this never happens because there is no identity behind anything, everything is dependently originated and emptiness is merely a way of describing dependent origination, that there is no inherent self to anything, and is not a meditative state, it is merely a way of describing D.O. Even the state of beyond perception and non-perception is dependently originated and empty of an abiding self. Hindu's call this Jhana Brahman, because as things start superimposing over this state of mind in a seemingly top down fashion when one comes out of meditation, the person goes from infinite to finite seemingly and thus make religions that follow this type of metaphysics. But, dependent origination which is the Right View that Shakyamuni discusses in the 8 fold noble path, cuts right through this. It's an intuitive experience that see's right through all elaborations from formless to form and leaves no foot hold.

 

It's not the same difference, Buddhism actually does lead to a different realization that is subtler. Because there is no Self, or self, the only way an enlightened beings consciousness keeps going is through the endless offering of merits to infinite samsarins. So one has a permanent state of enlightened consciousness that is dependent on the fact that samsara is infinite and there are infinite universes. So in Buddhism, enlightenment is not based on there being a subtle infinite nirguna brahman substratum. There is no divine and mysterious will according to Buddhism, there is only dependent origination, this is the flow of energy through endless space and the arisings, sustaining and fallings of endless universes. No infinite omnipotent power behind it all. It is all omnipotence as a whole, but the whole is a bunch of parts that are connected, like a web, but each mind stream is infinitely individual though connected to all other mind streams in complex and unique ways.

 

Buddhism is a non-substantialist non-duality, while Hinduism is a substantialist non-duality. Hindu's consider everything to be of one substance, like the sun shining through many holes in paper, each hole an individual expression of the radiance. But in Buddhism, there is the recognition of many suns with individual history's of cause and effect, and yes an enlightened being can manifest as many beings with the accumulation of merits. Buddhist cosmology and enlightenment is different. The Buddha said, if there was a universal essence to take refuge in for final liberation, I would have taught that, but there is not, so I do not teach that. According to the Buddha, Nirguna Brahman is another subtle level obscuration. He has said so since the very first turning. Buddhism is an entirely different way of seeing how the cosmos works and what enlightenment actually is. Buddhist cosmology is much more complex. I was born and raised Hindu and have read all the texts and when I saw the difference directly through experience and transmission, I was amazed at how blind I was to the truth of dependent origination. All my life Hindu teachers have taught me that it's all the same, but it seemed that they had never really studied Buddha's Buddhism as it was taught by the Buddha.

 

Take Care!

 

Does Buddhism recognize the Two-truths or not?

[forestofemptiness]

What are the two truths?

[dwai]

What are the two truths?

 

Read through the posts

[Vajrahridaya]

Read through the posts

 

Yes, but they are different then the way Hinduism recognizes them and are different in the conclusion as well.

 

Also, Buddhism transcends them entirely in the Dzogchen presentation and see's them as limited.

 

The two truths in Buddhism is, things appear, but ultimately have no essential nature both in and of themselves and in total.

 

 

 

To elaborate. There is no ultimate truth in Buddhism, only ultimate realization.

 

Or, one could also say that the ultimate truth is dependent origination. For more information, read Nagarjuna.