Advaita and Buddhism are the Same After All

[RongzomFan]

This forum is pretty fancy, except for the fact you can't delete posts?

 

Unless I am missing the option to do this?

Edited May 17, 2010 by alwayson

[Vajrahridaya]

you all sound alike...know what you have to say without really knowing what you are saying... Dependent Origination doesn't work at the level of Pure Consciousness because Pure Consciousness is Objectless...so it is Self-aware and "EXISTENT" (and not-dependent on anything else)

 

This is a Hindu frame of interpretation. This is an extreme view called "eternalism" which does not lead to the same type of liberation from Samsara as Buddhism. According to Buddhism, it doesn't lead to liberation from Samsara at all in fact. Because you are taking up an absorptive state of mind as a true reality of everything you fall into the view of "eternalism". The state of realized consciousness in Buddhism arises dependent upon wisdom and is not "self existent".

 

Vedanta interpretation is contrary to the Buddhas teaching. You are basically taking up the formless jhanas as absolute Truth and not seeing how they arise dependent upon merely a type of focus, and that is all. This state is also impermanent according to the Buddhas teachings on the states of Samadhi.

[Vajrahridaya]

You see I think there may be a problem here and that is just the need to talk about yourself in the third person as if this means that there is no person there.

 

I think there might be a problem with your problem. When I say, "oneself"... that means that you can put anyone between those quotes. I'm not talking about me here.

 

I think (yes, I, me) that the word clarity implies that something is clear to somebody, otherwise what does clarity signify, why can't it be opacity or ... something.

 

Because your capacity to be Samsaric is recognized as being empty by nature, and thus malleable so transformed through this clear seeing into luminous Buddhahood.

 

I don't really understand what you are arguing here my friend? The word Capacity and Clarity mean two different things. You do attain Buddhahood and in Buddhahood you are seeing yourself and all else clearly.

 

One seeing through oneself is also an interesting idea, since I suppose it implies that one sees through the illusion of one's self - since this is Buddha-speak.

 

You're not an illusion, the attachment to a limiting idea about yourself is an illusion.

 

Just to make it clear I have no problem with Dzogchen or dependent origination ... but I do have a problem with the kind of contorted formulations it comes up with in order to express the inexpressible.

 

This is quite subjective. To this day people are still realizing the Jalus and Powa.

 

Better in my view to start by saying that the 'it' that can be spoken about is not the real 'it' ... and then start to talk about the implications of the 'its' and the 'not-its' and how the dual arises from the non-dual ... oh hang on ... someone has already done that ... hey I'm a Taoist after all.

 

See, this is a mistaken cognition according to Buddhism, that there is a duality that arises from the non-dual. The understanding of how the cosmos works is different. Taoism assumes a primal source of all things that starts the universe.

 

Buddhism does not. Buddhism talks in terms of beginningless cycling, each new cycle being based on the end of the previous one. Dependent Origination transcends the idealization of a primal substance (no matter how transcendent) which all things spring from.

 

Traditional Taoist and Traditional Buddhist cosmology are not in agreement. They come from different realizations of how the universe works.

[Vajrahridaya]

How is a infinite endless streams of interconnected consciousness different from one infinite endless pool of consciousness. Surely if the streams are infinite then they are nothing but an infinite pool. And if the Pool is infinite then it is nothing but a collect of infinite streams...

 

The difference is that in Hinduism, you make them all one substance that intelligently manifests and destroys the cosmos as a real and true one being that we are all one with.

 

So, to say endless streams of interconnected consciousness' co-creating the cosmos is more accurate and leads to a more accurate realization of how the cosmos works.

 

Your idea leads to surrender to or re-absorption with an idealization of everything being a one... when Buddhist understanding leads to a cutting through with clarity, neither oneness nor two-ness. Your non-duality is a oneness, and our non-duality is both non-dual and not-one either.

 

It's all in the subtle differences which make the liberation of a Buddha subtler and permanent.

 

Because your liberation only lasts as long as the karma of a particular focus can last for an individual.

 

Which is why the Buddha said that belief in a formless universal cause to everything is a mis-cognition and is not liberation from Samsara, but merely a long lived blissful pit stop before you fall again into another re-birth.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajrahridaya,

 

I have a question. I am wondering what exactly is it that realizing / experiencing / actualizing (take your pick) of Dependent Origination leads to liberation. I mean...why THAT? Why THAT and not something else? I guess I'm wondering where is it that seeing relative self/DO is THE tool / vision / experience or whatever that gets you to the goal. Could it not be just one of many rungs on the ladder? I guess I'm wondering if there's anything further beyond Thusness's Stage 5 or the Buddha's Enlightenment?

 

I know everyone keeps harping how logic doesn't get you to see or experience the Truth (whatever that is) but right now it's all I have to go on. I'm not one of these wonderfully accomplished meditators so logic or step-by-step methods are what I have to rely on. Is there any way it can be explained logically? Or is it all really just - throw you hands up and admit this is not something people with little to no meditation success will ever "get"?

 

Hi Sereneblue!

 

If you want the logic of it... read Nagarjuna. Seriously... do!

 

The Buddha was clear that there is nothing beyond Buddhahood even though Buddhahood can manifest in so many ways, as in there is not one type of Buddhahood. The Buddha explained beyond the concepts of a God starting the universe, of a non-volitional beingness that began everything... etc. He realized the cycles of the entire play, beyond oneness, twoness, maniness and nothingness. He saw that we all collectively co-create everything as endless Samsaric mind-streams and that there have always been Buddhas and Bodhisattvas that have influenced positively towards liberation. So, it's kind of like the Buddhas and Bodhisattvas represent the liberative quality of the cosmos that always is and us Samsarins in all our many types represent the bondage aspect... continuously as infinite potentiality endlessly plays on.

 

When you see between the lines of dependent origination, you realize emptiness and you instantly recognize the luminosity of your mind as it shines through the prison of seeming limitations. You see that all limitations are based upon others, endlessly and thus have no inherent nature of bondage and that the seeming bondage is merely an expression of unlimited liberative potential which is cosmos. Everything becomes transparent, not as an absorption or becoming one with anything, but just through clear experiential understanding of how all things work.... thus Samsara is Nirvana.

[Vajrahridaya]

*facepalm*

 

Advaita is static Parmenides-type idealism, Buddhism is the explicit rejection of that idealism. But everything is One after all, huh?

 

Not-one, not-two. Everything is just connected but not one-substance. There is one realization of the nature of things where all Buddhas meet. But, even Buddhas stay individual after Buddhahood, they are just not bound by their seeming individuality.

[Vajrahridaya]

Take for instance your statement that Buddhism is a total rejection of an Absolute. The Buddha doesn't really reject it, he simply refuses to comment on it...

 

Hi Dwai!

 

Your talking about one instance in the Pali Cannon. There are other instances where he totally rejects it. Including in his talks on the Jhanas. He also talks about the idea of a being who takes the self as the all... and breaks it down and rejects it. I've quoted many of these verses for you from the Pali Cannon many moons ago.

[Vajrahridaya]

These arguments have been going on ad infinitum for several thousand years. If the Buddha was absolutely clear on all points, then there would be no further discussion. His devotees would accept it and live their lives accordingly. Obviously, he was not! Even the Tibetans and their various schools have myriad disagreements on many points. Especially who or what is the real primordial Buddha. Tibetans even claim that the Buddha prophesied his return in the form of Padmasambhava. Perhaps a bit of revisionism? Furthermore the Tibetans claim the historical Buddha only taught to a certain level and left the rest to the Tibetan monastic system. A little too convenient in my opinion.

 

The various levels that were created from Theraveda to Dzogchen are just another way to create an authoritarian hierarchy that does nothing but enslave people to confusing philosophical ideologies , with the promise that if one keeps certain vows, usually to some Buddha sky god, then one will be enlightened in several lifetimes or even eons.

 

Another problem I have trouble with is that the Tulku's that die in the U.S. are somehow found reborn in some lonely village in Tibet, even though they may have been born in India. If these guys are so universal, then why would not be reborn in the U.S.? Seems to me there is an attitude that Tibetans are somehow superior.

 

ralis

 

Plenty of Tulkus do get born in the US as white people. All your arguments are due to a lack of heart and right brain opening. You've been duped by Western rationalism and criticism, not that there's anything wrong with a healthy dose of this, but you are all this with no creative depth perception it seems. The fact is, is that the Buddha was clear, but people read into things and don't get the clarity of his talks. Everyone reads into Samsara their own subjective views, and only the objective see Samsara as it truly is and experience the state of Nirvana in it.

 

You are only right from the ignorant point of view. If you opened your heart, you would ignore the ignorant points of view and the fights that the ignorant Buddhists make and just see the enlightened beings in Buddhism and consider their expressions as true Buddhism.

 

Your karmic vision hampers insight. Because you are confused by something doesn't make it inherently confusing. You are not the king of clear thinking and clear interpreting on planet Earth. Get some humility man.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Vajrahridaya]

It is not simple, because you are using Thusness' vocabulary, which I am not familiar with.

 

You have been Thusness' lackey for so long, that you have convinced yourself you are using common terminology.

 

Thusness' vocabulary, such as "I AM", does seem to be a hodgepodge of Michael Landford "The Most Rapid and Direct Means to Eternal Bliss" and some other neo-Advaitin/Zen stuff.

 

I sent you a PM, but I got an error message, so let me know if you got it.

 

"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.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

I think there might be a problem with your problem. When I say, "oneself"... that means that you can put anyone between those quotes. I'm not talking about me here.

 

 

That is not my point. To say one sees oneself suggests that there is a self observing and self to be observed - but by putting it in the third person this is kind of side stepped.

[Vajrahridaya]

That is not my point. To say one sees oneself suggests that there is a self observing and self to be observed - but by putting it in the third person this is kind of side stepped.

 

Oh, I see. Ok... no it's not so dualistic. It's just that you see right through yourself. You are not fooled by your own appearance anymore. You don't take yourself seriously anymore. Just as the quote at the bottom of my posts indicates...

[Apech]

 

 

See, this is a mistaken cognition according to Buddhism, that there is a duality that arises from the non-dual. The understanding of how the cosmos works is different. Taoism assumes a primal source of all things that starts the universe.

 

Buddhism does not. Buddhism talks in terms of beginningless cycling, each new cycle being based on the end of the previous one. Dependent Origination transcends the idealization of a primal substance (no matter how transcendent) which all things spring from.

 

Traditional Taoist and Traditional Buddhist cosmology are not in agreement. They come from different realizations of how the universe works.

 

Yes, I know we have been through this before. We experience a duality that is non-dual, there is no 'non-dual' as being a thing or state or whatever - that is just a way of speaking it is just that the dual while not being the same are not different.

[Vajrahridaya]

Yes, I know we have been through this before. We experience a duality that is non-dual, there is no 'non-dual' as being a thing or state or whatever - that is just a way of speaking it is just that the dual while not being the same are not different.

 

Well, I have stated that the Taoist statements are much easier to clarify into a symbiosis with Buddhist realization than any other spiritual tradition out there.

 

I myself looooove the I-Ching and see it as quite Buddhist, not that it was influenced by traditional Buddhism at all though. Because it's older than Gautama.

[ralis]

Well, I have stated that the Taoist statements are much easier to clarify into a symbiosis with Buddhist realization than any other spiritual tradition out there.

 

I myself looooove the I-Ching and see it as quite Buddhist, not that it was influenced by traditional Buddhism at all though. Because it's older than Gautama.

 

I guess everything is Buddhist to you. Let's call it Buddhist correctness. Why not see it as it really is? Furthermore, the constant obsession with suffering is really a very narrow view.

 

 

 

ralis

Edited May 17, 2010 by ralis

[Vajrahridaya]

I guess everything is Buddhist to you. Let's call it Buddhist correctness.

 

No actually, only if it comes in alignment with the 4 Dharma seals.

 

The 4 Dharma seals

 

Why not see it as it really is? Furthermore, the constant obsession with suffering is really a very narrow view.

 

 

 

ralis

 

 

It seems that this is your obsession. Not mine, nor Buddhisms.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[Apech]

No actually, only if it comes in alignment with the 4 Dharma seals.

 

The 4 Dharma seals

 

 

 

 

It seems that this is your obsession. Not mine, nor Buddhisms.

 

My system has six seals:

 

 

so that beats yours any day.

[Vajrahridaya]

My system has six seals:

 

 

so that beats yours any day.

 

Yah... yours are cute but they are for all intents of purpose stuck in Samsara... Nah, Nah!

 

[Apech]

Yah... yours are cute but they are for all intents of purpose stuck in Samsara... Nah, Nah!

 

 

That's not Samsara its mud!

[Vajrahridaya]

That's not Samsara its mud!

 

Mud be it physical or psychological, or one leading to the other and vice versa... it's all cyclical.

[dwai]

This is a Hindu frame of interpretation. This is an extreme view called "eternalism" which does not lead to the same type of liberation from Samsara as Buddhism. According to Buddhism, it doesn't lead to liberation from Samsara at all in fact. Because you are taking up an absorptive state of mind as a true reality of everything you fall into the view of "eternalism". The state of realized consciousness in Buddhism arises dependent upon wisdom and is not "self existent".

 

The Buddha never said that...he refused to comment on the existent vs non-existent debate.

 

Vedanta interpretation is contrary to the Buddhas teaching. You are basically taking up the formless jhanas as absolute Truth and not seeing how they arise dependent upon merely a type of focus, and that is all. This state is also impermanent according to the Buddhas teachings on the states of Samadhi.

 

It seems like mindless (no pun intended), cyclically originating intellectual masturbation...

[dwai]

The difference is that in Hinduism, you make them all one substance that intelligently manifests and destroys the cosmos as a real and true one being that we are all one with.

 

So, to say endless streams of interconnected consciousness' co-creating the cosmos is more accurate and leads to a more accurate realization of how the cosmos works.

 

Your idea leads to surrender to or re-absorption with an idealization of everything being a one... when Buddhist understanding leads to a cutting through with clarity, neither oneness nor two-ness. Your non-duality is a oneness, and our non-duality is both non-dual and not-one either.

 

It's all in the subtle differences which make the liberation of a Buddha subtler and permanent.

 

Because your liberation only lasts as long as the karma of a particular focus can last for an individual.

 

Which is why the Buddha said that belief in a formless universal cause to everything is a mis-cognition and is not liberation from Samsara, but merely a long lived blissful pit stop before you fall again into another re-birth.

 

more intellectual masturbation. You are basically trying hard to show a difference in experience where none exists. Remember we had a discussion about Zeros being Zeros and you claimed that your zero is "zero-er" than my zero. It seems like it is history repeating itself...

[Vajrahridaya]

The Buddha never said that...he refused to comment on the existent vs non-existent debate.

 

Both are relative according to his teachings and he did comment on the All is a Self debate and negated this idealization.

 

It seems like mindless (no pun intended), cyclically originating intellectual masturbation...

 

This is exactly what the Buddha thought of Hindu philosophy. Except it's more like cyclically originating meditative masturbation. Except he was much nicer about it, but pulled the rug from under it none the less.

[Vajrahridaya]

more intellectual masturbation. You are basically trying hard to show a difference in experience where none exists. Remember we had a discussion about Zeros being Zeros and you claimed that your zero is "zero-er" than my zero. It seems like it is history repeating itself...

 

No, you still identify with this zero as the one in all while Buddhists don't, so yes... my zero is zero-er.

 

I don't think you will ever drop your Hindu conditioning and see past it and understand what I am getting at because you are part of a long lineage of Hindus and this carries a lot of weight in your family pride. I was only raised Hindu in this life by a mother who converted before I was born and only converted to Buddhism which was very difficult for me later in life. Only after having insight through contemplation of the intention of the explanation of things through the lens of pratityasamutpada (DO).

Edited May 17, 2010 by Vajrahridaya

[dwai]

Hi Dwai!

 

Your talking about one instance in the Pali Cannon. There are other instances where he totally rejects it. Including in his talks on the Jhanas. He also talks about the idea of a being who takes the self as the all... and breaks it down and rejects it. I've quoted many of these verses for you from the Pali Cannon many moons ago.

 

And I can quote Mahayana Sutras according to which he has clearly stated that there is such a "thing". Depending on the school of Buddhism one reads, the account changes. So, there is ambiguity about his stand vis-a-vis this topic. The Theravadin perspective (per my humble opinion) is a bit contrived and primitive, so I prefer the Mahayana perspective better...which does align very well with Advaita Vedanta.

[Vajrahridaya]

And I can quote Mahayana Sutras according to which he has clearly stated that there is such a "thing". Depending on the school of Buddhism one reads, the account changes. So, there is ambiguity about his stand vis-a-vis this topic. The Theravadin perspective (per my humble opinion) is a bit contrived and primitive, so I prefer the Mahayana perspective better...which does align very well with Advaita Vedanta.

 

We already had this discussion and your quotes from the Maha Parinirvana Sutra are pulled out of context and mis-associated. Many Neo-Advaitin's do this, also many "Dark Zen" group people do this. But, there is no ambiguity, there is just a lack of clear understanding of the intended meaning on yours and their part.

 

Mahayana does not at all align with Advaita Vedanta. You can pull things out of context and make this up, but no schooled Mahayanin would agree with your assumptions.

 

The Tathagatagarbha has to do with the constant realization of emptiness and thus a self relative to this is realized endlessly offering of Buddhadharma insight, this is a Buddha.

 

But, it is not born of itself, but arises as a realization dependent upon wisdom, and it is not a source of the universe and is not the Self of all. So it is not to be equated with Brahman or the Atman of Vedanta and the Buddha said as such in another Mahayana Sutra commenting on the content of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

 

Tathagatagarbha is a self that is relative to the constant realization that all things always were luminously empty of inherent existence, this is the self of the Buddha, relative to Buddhadharma realization. So, the Tathagatagarbha is realized relative to the fact that all endless things are empty of intrinsic existence and connected always.

 

To interpret the Tathagatagarbha any other way is erroneous. The subtle differences are deeply important, because they are subtle.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Vajrahridaya