Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[Sunya]

I'll try and explain one subtle difference between Hindu and Buddhist realization. A man sees a crow land on a coconut tree, causing a coconut to fall to the ground.

 

Hinduism: Uncultivated individuals would think "the crow landing on the tree has disturbed it's branches and caused a coconut to drop", while a realized being would know that causation is ultimately delusional. The event represents a seamless unfolding of the whole of Brahman and consequently, his preordained will.

 

Buddhism: From one perspective, the event was caused by the crow. From another, it may be said that causation plays no definite role in it. Both these views present limited abstractions of the complete view, thus neither reflect the ultimately true nature of reality. It cannot be said that causation ultimately does exist or doesn't exist to the exclusion of the other.

 

If I have succeeded in conveying my impressions, don't you think this represents a fundamental difference in thinking?

 

I think you nailed it.

 

Advaita superimposes a Whole and identifies all events and appearances with that Whole. Buddhist realization sees through the existence of that 'Whole'. The experience of pure objectless consciousness, Oneness, is only relative to the belief in an ultimate Subject.

 

Advaita is Parmenidean and it suffers the same problems that Parmenides' philosophy does, which is the problem of change. If you say that everything is one static whole then that makes change a problem. How is realization possible? Development is impossible if change is illusory. Buddhism is more Heraclitean: everything is always changing... but relatively it would seem that there is still identity within the constant flux that reality is. The relative cannot be denied. Physicists know this quite well. On a quantum level there is no such thing as solidity and constancy, but try punching a wall.. you'll soon see that the relative is equally as important.

 

To be perfectly honest, I don't see how you can claim that Advaita is different from Trika Shaivism, but the same as Buddhism. Just as Advaita was formulated under a strong influence by Mahayana philosophy, Tibetan Buddhism developed under the influence of Kashmiri Trika Shaivism. Plus, it's also a Nastika tradition that rejects the authority of the Vedas and exhibits fundamental differences from any traditional Hindu philosophy. To understand one of the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, just compare this with classical Neoplatonism. Here's a PDF with more details: http://www.forizslaszlo.com/filozofia/folyamat_es_valosag/Whitehead_PR_Part5_Final_Interpratation.pdf

 

PS. Here's another article that discusses the ensuing controversy with other Platonists: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/process-philosophy/

 

PPS. More linx! If anyone's interested, the first few chapters of this ebook present an easy introduction to Whiteheadian thought: http://www.religion-online.org/showbook.asp?title=2736

 

I'll check out the links tomorrow.... sweet!

Edited May 18, 2010 by mikaelz

[ralis]

[Sunya]

ralis, will you respond to my post?

 

Ralis, is it sectarian to view modern physics as more complete compared to pre-Einstein physics? Why not?

 

You have this believe that all religions are the same, a flatland view. What is the basis for this belief? Why should we look at all methods as the same? Is it really that outlandish to view a particular method as more complete and aiming for a different goal than other methods? If so, why is it so negative to view that method as better?

 

If we look at the valuation systems, "better" and "worse", in terms of how pragmatic a method is in awakening wisdom and compassion within an individual... then aren't Buddhism, Taoism, and Advaita "better" than traditional Islam, Christianity, and Judaism which, though emphasizing compassion to a degree, do nothing in terms of actual wisdom? Of course there are exceptions but you can't argue that generally speaking Eastern paths are "better" than traditional Western traditions for gaining wisdom. Is it sectarian to say that? Or is just realistic given the facts?

 

 

You are pointing out a belief that you have. The belief is that language is the essence of thought so one must transcend language and thus thought which then leads to some non-conceptual wisdom. Unfortunately that is not realistic. Language is not the essence of thought. There are much deeper levels to mind than language. There are deeper states of mind where thoughts exist which are more symbolic, more abstract. It's hard to explain, but freedom does not come from transcending language. Language and all forms of thought must be in-sync with non-dual realization for true freedom to arise. You cannot ignore thoughts, you cannot ignore language.

[Sunya]

No...but the same ailment might have different treatment modalities. And by reducing Spirituality to a phenomenal "thing" like Illness you are simply trying to apply reductio ad absurdum. But this particular situation you picked certainly doesn't apply. One can opt for Western Medicine, Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, Siddha, Unani, etc. The options and their efficacy are related to the invidivual's psycho-physiological make-up.

 

All traditional systems work the same way. If somebody has an issue then the problem is either physical, energetic, or mental. Always the problem is a habit of some sorts and the solution is to stop the habitual action and treat the effects directly. It could be either energetic, physical, or menetal. There is always one best solution

 

Ignorance is perpetuated due to one primary cause: clinging to a self and believing in either an inherent self or an inherent world, both existing separately. In other words: becoming stuck in conceptual views. The solution is to deconceptualize and rehabituate to the new view. All religions aim to do this in one way or another, you could say. All take up new belief systems to recondition. Some belief systems are problematic and others are more fruitful. Devotion and surrender (lessens clinging to self) or purification (prana is tied to mind so nadis are purified) are the traditional methods but others exist too. The goal is the same toward nonduality by dissolving the self, the particular modality differ, but when it comes to treating the mental constructs Buddhism only sees one way.

 

Buddhism is the only tradition that focuses on mental constructs. ALL other traditions view concepts as only existing temporarily until one is basked in God's glory or experiences Pure consciousness and then one is purified because that experience was totally pure. That isn't true. That experience was not pure because the conditions were not there. The conditions for a 'pure' experience only exist when one has removed the mental constructs of self AND inherency. All other traditions only get the first part but miss out on the latter.

 

The deep mental construct of clinging to inherency does not disappear with clean nadis and purified central channel. Nor does it disappear if you're resting in turiya or deep jhanas. This mental construct only disappears once there is awareness of it and to be aware of it one must first realize it is there. You won't realize it's there until you recognize, through right view, why its problematic in the first place. And you won't worry about right view until you see the interdependent relationship between view and experience.

 

Ignoring the mental layer of mind is to ignore an area of mind that totally distorts experience. Mind is like glass and if you ignore the mental layer you'll have smudges that distort light. Light does not burn through smudges, as is commonly believed.

 

 

As far as my being caught up in the absolute level is concerned, I think you assume that I am caught up in the absolute level. If one doesn't develop the ability to discern between the relative and the absolute, even the relative will seem absolute to him/her. It seems like YOU are caught up in absolute scales, even though you should have realized via DO that the scale is actually relative and "it depends". So by passing an absolute value judgment on two methodologies of practice, you are forcing them into an absolute scale. In reality (relatively speaking), they should be valued relative to the practitioner's psycho-somatic make-up. Now Mikaelz might be overwhelmed by too much Sanskrit jargon and Ralis might hate men in skirts telling him things...that just means in relation to their individual proclivities (call it Karma-phala induced Samskaras), the teaching/method has a lower value as compared to another teaching/method.

 

As different as we all are, we all have the same main affliction: clinging to inherency and the only solution to that is to see through that belief by accepting the groundless nature of reality. Believing in a monist consciousness is just reinforcing that clinging by positing a Grand Self to cling to. Instead of clinging to the small self you cling to the Big Self. How is that treating the problem?

[3bob]

"when the many are reduced to one, to what shall the one be reduced?"

 

...and if we the many have do not really know the one, how can we honestly allude any further?

[nac]

Vajra will throw a fit at this one! Lol it won't matter to fanatics that this is true.

 

Kashmiri Shaivism cannot be called Nastika at all, if that is what you're implying above. It is more Astika than even Advaita. Nastika has nothing to do with holding Veda as authority or not. It is about the notion of a Brahman, Purusha or the Ultimate Source Power - call it Awareness, consciousness, conditioned, unconditioned or whatever. The only two Nastika darshanas are Jainism and Buddhism. First time I have heard this ignorant statement that typifies Trika as Nastika.

 

Also, Trika does not negate the authority of Veda or call it names like the later Buddhists. They simply hold the authority of Agama as superior to Veda. And that too only of Bhairavagamas and not the Raudra or Shaiva agamas which are dual and mixed type.

 

And Tibetan Buddhism - Bon, Shaivism influenced Lamaism with a superimposition of Mahayana philosophy. Tools from everywhere and anywhere put inside the Mahayana case. That makes it Buddhist, so claim some. There are those who disagree, even within Buddhists and also historically.

Lol You can do better than that. I was referring to Buddhism, obviously.

 

BTW Is Jainism Advaita too? Buddhism and Jainism are closely related, both being Shramana traditions. The main difference being Jain Pluralists say that an objective reality can be reified, but that reality incorporates multiple conclusions that may seem paradoxical from a limited perspective.

 

"Anekantavada (theory of multiple conclusions), is a foundation of Jain philosophy. Jain scholars view both physical objects and abstract ideas from different perspectives systematically. This search to view things from different angles, leads to understanding and toleration of different and even conflicting views. When this happens prejuidices subside and tendency to accommodate increases."

 

"The theory of Syadvada (uncertainty) is based on the premise that every proposition is only relatively true. It all depends on the particular aspect from which we approach that proposition."

[nac]

In my humble opinion, the degree of similarity between two comparable traditions is mostly dependent on the strictness or laxness of your standards of judgment, (eg. All is One ) unless they happen to be perfectly congruent. I'm sure we can all agree that Advaita and Buddhism aren't exactly the same in every respect.

 

dragonfire45: You might want to read up on the influence of Trika Shaivism on Tibetan Buddhism.

[nac]

I think you nailed it.

Thanks, I hope one of our presiding gurus deign to provide some constructive criticism.

[RongzomFan]

A lot of you are not mentioning the fact that Advaita was developed FROM BUDDHISM.

 

So there is bound to be some similarity.

 

Even the classical upanishads post-date and were influenced by buddhism.

 

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

[nac]

A lot of you are not mentioning the fact that Advaita was developed FROM BUDDHISM.

 

So there is bound to be some similarity.

 

Even the classical upanishads post-date and were influenced by buddhism.

 

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

Advaita didn't develop from Buddhism.

 

Buddhism developed from the Shramana tradition, probably with some influence from the early Upanishads. Similarly, Advaita developed in an atmosphere where Buddhism was the dominant philosophy. Many pundits whom Shankaracarya debated were Buddhist teachers. He was an orthodox Hindu who believed in the divinity of the Vedas, but the influences are obvious IMO.

[dwai]

Advaita didn't develop from Buddhism.

 

Buddhism developed from the Shramana tradition, probably with some influence from the early Upanishads. Similarly, Advaita developed in an atmosphere where Buddhism was the dominant philosophy. Many pundits whom Shankaracarya debated were Buddhist teachers. He was an orthodox Hindu who believed in the divinity of the Vedas, but the influences are obvious IMO.

 

advaita vedanta is an interpretation of the Vedantic literature compiled over several thousand years. Shankara was indeed an orthodox Vedantin who upheld the primacy and validity of Prasthana Tryayi. Buddhism drew influences from Jaina as well as Vedantic traditions, no matter how much Buddhist-wannabes want to obfuscate that fact. No one has denied that there are differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. Moreover Buddhism itself diverged into two radically different systems, the Theravadin and the Mahayana schools. There are overlaps between Mahayana and Advaita (and Vedanta in general) and being Non-dualist traditions, they have a common objective from an ontological perspective. Soteriology that developed as a result of the empirical investigation into the Ontology piece has differences based on interpretation.

 

The ontological basis of these systems were the same...the soteriology varies on the surface.

[xabir2005]

"I Am" is what the Upanishads call So'Ham or Hamsa which is one of the divine teachings of Upanishadic traditions. Thusness is just talking about "the how" this state is wondrous and exciting, but not the whole enchilada and not what Buddhism calls liberation, but merely a stage in inversion type meditations. What he's saying is that those that really embellish "I Am" as the state of enlightenment are getting it wrong and that Buddhism does in fact go deeper.

Ramana Maharshi also talks about 'I am':

 

Samadhi alone can reveal the Truth. Thoughts cast a veil over Reality, and so It is not realized as such in states other than samadhi. In samadhi there is only the feeling "I am" and no thoughts. The experience "I am" is being still.

[nac]

advaita vedanta is an interpretation of the Vedantic literature compiled over several thousand years. Shankara was indeed an orthodox Vedantin who upheld the primacy and validity of Prasthana Tryayi. Buddhism drew influences from Jaina as well as Vedantic traditions, no matter how much Buddhist-wannabes want to obfuscate that fact.

Do you deny the Buddha was instructed by Shramana munis? Do you think Jainism is based on the Hindu tradition? Shramana is one of the oldest living religious traditions in the world. It's older by far than any of the Hindu Upanishads. Advaita wasn't even established as a philosophical tradition until long after the advent of Buddhism. Shankaracarya was born in the 8th century CE, over a millennium after the Buddha. I even said the Buddha might have been influenced by the early Upanishads, though to what extent is highly questionable and hardly comparable to the influence of Buddhist philosophy on Advaita. Seriously, what would it take to NOT be obfuscating history in your opinion? Say that the eternal Vedas have always contained the complete essence of Advaita, being the primeval root and repository of all transcendental wisdom, from which Adi Shankara distilled the purified essence of Advaita, while Buddhists wickedly and ungratefully stole these primordial truths without citing them as their sources?

 

No one has denied that there are differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism.

I hope not, one of my posts relies on that very assumption.

 

Moreover Buddhism itself diverged into two radically different systems, the Theravadin and the Mahayana schools.

Yeah, they developed the teachings along different paths as they saw fit, just as they had been instructed to.

 

There are overlaps between Mahayana and Advaita (and Vedanta in general) and being Non-dualist traditions, they have a common objective from an ontological perspective. Soteriology that developed as a result of the empirical investigation into the Ontology piece has differences based on interpretation.

No Buddhist tradition is non-dualist in the sense of reducing everything to a single, undifferentiated monad. Buddhist ontology is different due to the simple fact that Advaita is a realist school, while Buddhism is not. The schools are no doubt closely related, but differences are apparent at every level. Don't let a misplaced sense of patriotism cloud your judgment like that of so many other Indians.

 

PS. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, a favorite Indian pastime is reading meanings into Hindu scriptures which their originators probably never intended. For example, one of the Upanishads says that life is born from the rain, rain is born from the sun, ... something like that. Nowadays, most Indians will interpret this to mean the sages have always known about the water cycle. "Rain is born from the sun" was clearly intended to mean that the sun evaporates sea water to form rainclouds! Just try suggesting that Indian philosophy may have been influenced by a non-Vedic tradition, and boy will the feathers fly! You know what all this reminds me of? Precisely this:

 

Chinese scholars and gentlemen, however, who have got some little acquaintance with western science, are fond of saying that all the truths of electricity, heat, light, and other branches of European physics, are in the eight trigrams. When asked how then they and their countrymen have been and are ignorant of those truths, they say that they have to learn them first from western books, and then, looking into the Yî, they see that they were all known to Confucius more than 2000, years ago. The vain assumption thus manifested is childish; and until the Chinese drop their hallucination about the Yî as containing all things that have ever been dreamt of in all philosophies, it will prove a stumbling-block to them, and keep them from entering on the true path of science.

Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ich/icintr03.htm Edited May 18, 2010 by nac

[nac]

Thanks dwai, that was rather therapeutic. Someone is always taking offense when I say these things in real life.

[nac]

What I'm getting at is, see how shallow Indians spend their time to appear learned and sophisticated? Adi Shankara did essentially the same thing by projecting his favorite metaphysical ideas onto the Vedas IMHO, thus inadvertently co-opting them as symbols of authority for a brand new school of philosophy.

[C T]

Devotion and surrender (lessens clinging to self) or purification (prana is tied to mind so nadis are purified) are the traditional methods. The goal is the same toward nonduality by dissolving the self, the particular modality differ, but when it comes to treating the mental constructs Buddhism only sees one way.

 

Stage One (The Softening Stage) - Begin by performing 100 000 prostrations while reciting the 100 syllable Vajrasattva Mantra!

 

I enjoyed this post Mikael! Good points!

[RyanO]

 

I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor, and when I die, I expect to find him laughing.

[ralis]

I don't want to start any blasphemous rumours, but I think that God's got a sick sense of humor, and when I die, I expect to find him laughing.

 

:lol:

[3bob]

Can a higher power resolve this conflict?

[ralis]

Can a higher power resolve this conflict?

 

Vajraji thinks he is the higher power!

[dwai]

What I'm getting at is, see how shallow Indians spend their time to appear learned and sophisticated? Adi Shankara did essentially the same thing by projecting his favorite metaphysical ideas onto the Vedas IMHO, thus inadvertently co-opting them as symbols of authority for a brand new school of philosophy.

 

this is only a misconception on your part. Those "shallow" indians you refer to were stalwarts of Indian Darshanas and their insights were driven by their meditative experiences. No one can accuse a Yajna Valkya or a Sandilya of vacuous intellectualization.

 

The reason why The Vedas are used as symbols of Authority is based on the theory of Pramana (or Evidence), in which there are many gradations. It seems like you have a little background in Indian Philosophy...and I emphasize on "little" since your inference seems like a knee-jerk reaction more than a well thought out, introspective analysis.

 

Don't take this the wrong way, but there are many (whom I interact with personally) who not only live and breath the Darshanas but are also extremely well versed with philosophy in general, who will not agree with your inference.

[dwai]

Do you deny the Buddha was instructed by Shramana munis? Do you think Jainism is based on the Hindu tradition? Shramana is one of the oldest living religious traditions in the world. It's older by far than any of the Hindu Upanishads. Advaita wasn't even established as a philosophical tradition until long after the advent of Buddhism. Shankaracarya was born in the 8th century CE, over a millennium after the Buddha. I even said the Buddha might have been influenced by the early Upanishads, though to what extent is highly questionable and hardly comparable to the influence of Buddhist philosophy on Advaita. Seriously, what would it take to NOT be obfuscating history in your opinion? Say that the eternal Vedas have always contained the complete essence of Advaita, being the primeval root and repository of all transcendental wisdom, from which Adi Shankara distilled the purified essence of Advaita, while Buddhists wickedly and ungratefully stole these primordial truths without citing them as their sources?

 

Darshana schools in India did not grow in isolation from each other. It is an established fact that there was cross-pollination, all working towards a greater goal...understanding the meaning of this existence. So, Jaina philosophy surely might have influenced Hindu tradition, and vice versa. Ditto wrt Bauddha Dharma as well. You also jump to the conclusion that Vedanta was non-dualist only after Shankara. If you read the Dasopanishads you will get a clear picture of what I am saying. Take the BrihadAranyaka, Chhandogya, Mundaka, Mandukya, Prashna, Kena upanishads for instance. When you read them it will be clear as day what the Rishis were teaching...

 

They weren't simply philosophizing. They were narrating their experience as simply and as easily as they could. It does not help to be reductionist to such an extent that everything is transformed into ridiculous conjecture. It might pacify egos and sooth inadequate minds, but doesn't do diddlysquat about that which is most important -- The Truth.

 

I hope not, one of my posts relies on that very assumption.

 

 

Yeah, they developed the teachings along different paths as they saw fit, just as they had been instructed to.

 

 

No Buddhist tradition is non-dualist in the sense of reducing everything to a single, undifferentiated monad. Buddhist ontology is different due to the simple fact that Advaita is a realist school, while Buddhism is not. The schools are no doubt closely related, but differences are apparent at every level. Don't let a misplaced sense of patriotism cloud your judgment like that of so many other Indians.

 

PS. For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about, a favorite Indian pastime is reading meanings into Hindu scriptures which their originators probably never intended. For example, one of the Upanishads says that life is born from the rain, rain is born from the sun, ... something like that. Nowadays, most Indians will interpret this to mean the sages have always known about the water cycle. "Rain is born from the sun" was clearly intended to mean that the sun evaporates sea water to form rainclouds! Just try suggesting that Indian philosophy may have been influenced by a non-Vedic tradition, and boy will the feathers fly! You know what all this reminds me of? Precisely this:

 

Source: http://www.sacred-te...ch/icintr03.htm

 

 

Buddhism too is a realist school, for the Buddha, Dukkha was a very real problem which he cleverly sought to circumvent by following the Middle-path. I am not letting patriotism cloud my judgment, I am speaking after deep and careful study and introspection. Don't let your lack of understanding about the "favorite Indian pasttime" cloud your judgment...I suspect that none of the members of this board have any extensive experience in the Indian context except for perhaps myself and Silicon Valley. A two-week vacation in India doesn't constitute "expert knowledge" of the Indian context, neither does a six-month intensive. To know the Indian context, one has to be either born in it or to adapt completely to it, with complete surrender (meaning leaving one's preconceptions and arrogance behind at home before they venture out). I can say the same is also true in the Chinese context. You obviously lack background and experience...so leave it at that.

 

 

[nac]

I suggested Indian traditions developed in isolation from each other? Me? All I said was that Shramana is at least as old as Hinduism, if not older. Buddhism considers itself part of that tradition.

 

Buddhism refuses to reify an existent world-phenomenon of any kind, so it's not a realist school. Ignoring subtleties, delusion is an ontological property of sense-perception IIRC, (generally speaking, if anything can be said to have an ontological property in Buddhism) and the cause of dukkha. What does this have to do with realism?

 

PS. I am an Indian. Why would Americans get mad at me for talking about Hinduism?

 

PPS. What does this have to do with anything?

 

It does not help to be reductionist to such an extent that everything is transformed into ridiculous conjecture. It might pacify egos and sooth inadequate minds, but doesn't do diddlysquat about that which is most important -- The Truth.

What reductionist? What conjecture? Edited May 18, 2010 by nac

[Sunya]

Vajraji thinks he is the higher power!

 

 

Not really. and why won't you respond to my reply to you? All you do is criticize and spread your opinion around (with exclamation points of course) without backing up anything you say with arguments. I still await your response. Why are all religions the same?

[nac]

Chill dude, it's just a joke.