Lankavatara Sutra

[Guest guest]

Hi Folks,

 

I'm new here and this is my first post.

 

Does anyone see this quote by Lord Buddha as differing from Advaita?

 

"Then said Maharani to the Blessed One: Why is it that the ignorant

are given up to discrimination and the wise are not?

 

The Blessed One replied: It is because the ignorant cling to names,

signs and ideas; as their minds move along these channels they feed

on multiplicities and objects and fall into the notion of an ego-soul

and what belongs to it; they make discriminations of good and bad

among appearances and cling to the agreeable. As they thus cling

there is a reversion to ignorance, and karmas born of greed, anger

and folly, is accumulated. As the accumulation of karma goes on they

become imprisoned in a cocoon of discrimination and are thenceforth

unable to free themselves from the round of birth and death.

 

Because of folly they do not understand that all things are like

maya, like the reflection of the moon in water, that there is no self-

substance to be imagined as an ego-soul and its belongings, and that

all their definitive ideas rise from their false discriminations of

what exists only as it is seen of the mind itself. They do not

realize that things have nothing to do with qualified and

qualifying , not with the course of birth, abiding and destruction,

and instead they assert that they are born of a creator, of time, of

atoms, of some celestial spirit. It is because the ignorant are given

up to discrimination that they move along with the stream of

appearances, but it is not so with the wise."

 

 

Let me also add that in answer to Mahamatis question concerning what

clear understandings the earnest disciple should have if he is to

succeed in the discipline leading to self realization the Blessed

Lord Buddha replied...in part....

 

"First- he must have a clear understanding that all things are only

manifestations of the mind itself;....

 

....As to the first; he must recognise and be fully convinced that

this triple world is nothing but a complex manifestation of one's

mental activities; that it is devoid of selfness and its belongings;

and there are no strivings, no comings, no goings. He must recognise

and accept the fact that this triple world is manifested and imagined

as real only under the influence of habit-energy that has been

accumulated since the beginningless past by reason of of memory,

false-imagination, false-reasoning, and attachments to the

multiplicities of objects and reactions in close relationship and in

conformity to ideas of body-property-and abode. "

 

Now the second understanding the Buddha said we must fulfill for self-

realization is that we must -discard the notion of birth, abiding and

disappearance.

 

Of this Lord Buddha explains," As to the second; he must recognise

and be convinced that all things are to be regared as forms seen in a

vision and a dream, empty of substance, un-born and without self-

nature;that all things exist only by reason of a complicated network

of causation which owes its rise to discrimination and attachment and

which eventuates in the rise of the mind-system and its belongings

and evolvements."

 

Mike

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Mike:

 

Welcome to the list and thanks for your thoughtful insights. From a

single quotation or by few paragraphs of similarities, we can't make

any definitive conclusions. The list had discussed quite a few times

on the similarities and distinctions between Advaita and Buddhism. I

recommend that you refer to the threads with the subject title:

 

Shankara and his refutation of Buddhism

Shankara and Buddishm

 

which appeared during January 2002 and the post #s starting from

12001.

 

Some members may still like to offer some comments regarding your

question.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Mike Carris" <mike_carris>

wrote:

> Hi Folks,

>

> I'm new here and this is my first post.

>

> Does anyone see this quote by Lord Buddha as differing from

Advaita?

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Mike,

 

The Lankavatara is one of my favorite Buddhist sutras. It is a key

sutra of the Mahayana tradition and a founding sutra of the Zen

tradition within Mahayana. It is said to have been the only sutra

carried by Bodhidharma from India into China, where he founded Ch'an,

which became Zen in Japan. I have long felt that it has a very close

affinity to Advaita. I also believe that it completely supports the

ideas that 'Consciousness is everything' and that 'Nondualism' is the

key to realization or enlightenment.

 

It is because of these close similarities between different 'nondual'

traditions that I believe that the claims of the nondualists

correspond to something 'real' in our spiritual potential, even

though I have not realized that potential myself. Another example is

Meister Eckhart in Medieval Christianity. Some skeptics may claim

these people were copying from each other, but I don't think so.

Saints should at least not be plagiarists! Besides, reading them

convinces one that most of them are sincere and speaking from

experience. Furthermore, comparing the similarities between these

different traditions helps to better understand Advaita. The

difference between 'Hinduism' and 'Buddhism' evaporates at the higher

levels of the true mystics and is a reality more at the political and

social level.

 

On a more personal note, I believe that scriptures such as the

Lankavatara support my perhaps radical view that the claim that

'Consciousness is everything' should be taken literally, i.e. there

really is NOTHING corresponding to a 'material' world 'external' to

consciousness. In the West, this has been called subjective idealism

(founded by Berkeley) and has been blasted as leading to 'solipsism'

or the belief that only my personal consciousness exists. I believe

that this criticism is quite mistaken, as I explained, e.g., in posts

(15953) and (15965). Briefly, what seems to be an 'external' world

is but sequences of perceptions within our respective consciousnesses

that are coordinated with each other by the laws of physics. We are

sharing a dream in common, but our respective dreams are

choreographed to create an illusion of an external, material world.

To realize that all is consciousness is to realize our true nature

and our identity with it and with all. (Fantasies and delusions are

precisely those perceptions that do not obey the laws of physics and

that others do not share.) One cannot be seriously nondual without

believing quite literally that consciousness is everything. And

there's nothing shocking or irrational about it.

 

 

There are several sources on the web where the Lankavatara may be

found, and I strongly encourage reading it to Advaitins:

 

www.darkzen.com/downloads/

 

http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/lank.htm

 

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/lankavatara_sutra.htm

 

 

 

Some excerpts from Chapter 1 follow, which I believe clearly

illustrate what I said above. This should sound very familiar to a

student of Advaita. (Ram, please forgive me if this takes up a bit

of disk space, but I think that this scripture is special enough to

deserve it.)

 

 

Chapter I - Discrimination

 

THUS HAVE I HEARD: The Blessed One once appeared in the Castle of

Lanka which is on the summit of Mt. Malaya in the midst of the great

Ocean. A great many Bodhisattvas-Mahasattvas had miraculously

assembled from all the Buddha-lands, and a large number of bhikshus

were gathered there. The Bodhisattvas-Mahasattvas with Mahamati at

their head were all perfect masters of the various Samadhis, the

tenfold Self-mastery, the ten Powers, and the six Psychic Faculties.

Having been anointed by the Buddha's own hands, they all well

understood the significance of the objective world; they all knew how

to apply the various means, teachings and disciplinary measures

according to the various mentalities and behaviors of beings; they

were all thoroughly versed in the five Dharmas, the three Svabhas,

the eight Vijnanas, and the twofold Egolessness.

 

The Blessed One, knowing the mental agitations going on in the minds

of those assembled (like the surface of the ocean stirred into waves

by the passing winds), and his great heart moved by compassion,

smiled and said: In the days of old the Tathagatas of the past who

were Arhats and fully-enlightened Ones came to the Castle of Lanka on

Mount Malaya and discoursed on the Truth of Noble Wisdom that is

beyond the reasoning knowledge of the philosophers as well as being

beyond the understanding of ordinary disciples and masters; and which

is realizable only within the inmost consciousness; for your sakes, I

too, would discourse on the same Truth. All that is seen in the world

is devoid of effort and action because all things in the world are

like a dream, or like an image miraculously projected. This is not

comprehended by the philosophers and the ignorant, but those who thus

see things see them truthfully. Those who see things otherwise walk

in discrimination and, as they depend upon discrimination, they cling

to dualism. The world as seen by discrimination is like seeing one's

own image reflected in a mirror, or one's shadow, or the moon

reflected in water, or an echo heard in a valley. People grasping

their own shadows of discrimination become attached to this thing and

that thing and failing to abandon dualism they go on forever

discriminating and thus never attain tranquility. By tranquility is

meant Oneness, and Oneness gives birth to the highest Samadhi which

is gained by entering into the realm of Noble Wisdom that is

realizable only within one's inmost consciousness.

 

* * *

 

Then said Mahamati the Bodhisattva-Mahasattva: O blessed One, Sugata,

Arhat and Fully-Enlightened One, pray tell us about the realization

of Noble Wisdom which is beyond the path and usage of philosophers;

which is devoid of all predicates such as being and non-being,

oneness and otherness, bothness and non-bothness, existence and

non-existence, eternity and non-eternity; which has nothing to do

with individuality and generality, nor false-imagination, nor any

illusion arising from the mind itself; but which manifests itself as

the Truth of Highest Reality. By which, going up continuously by the

stages of purification, one enters at last upon the stage of

Tathagatahood, whereby, by the power of his original vows unattended

by any striving, one will radiate its influence to infinite worlds,

like a gem reflecting its variegated colors, whereby I and other

Bodhisattvas-Mahasattvas will be enabled to bring all beings to the

same perfection of virtue.

 

* * *

 

Mahamati, since the ignorant and simple-minded, not knowing that the

world is only something seen of the mind itself, cling to the

multitudiousness of external objects, cling to the notions of beings

and non-being, oness and otherness, bothness and non-bothness,

existence and non-existence eternity and non-eternity, and think that

they have a self-nature of their own, and all of which rises from the

discriminations of the mind and is perpetuated by habit-energy, and

from which they are given over to false imagination. It is all like a

mirage in which springs of water are seen as if they were real. They

are thus imagined by animals who, made thirsty by the heat of the

season, run after them. Animals not knowing that the springs are an

hallucination of their own minds, do not realize that there are no

such springs. In the same way, Mahamati, the ignorant and

simple-minded, their minds burning with the fires of greed, anger and

folly, finding delight in a world of multitudinous forms, their

thoughts obsessed with ideas of birth, growth and destruction, not

well understanding what is meant by existence and non-existence, and

being impressed by erroneous discriminations and speculations since

beginningless time, fall into the habit of grasping this and that and

thereby becoming attached to them.

 

It is like the city of the Gandharvas which the unwitting take to be

a real city though it is not so in fact. The city appears as in a

vision owing to their attachment to the memory of a city preserved in

the mind as a seed; the city can thus be said to be both existent and

non-existent. In the same way, clinging to the memory of erroneous

speculations and doctrines accumulated since beginningless time, the

hold fast to such ideas as oneness and otherness, being and

non-being, and their thoughts are not at all clear as to what after

all is only seen of the mind. It is like a man dreaming in his sleep

of a country that seems to be filled with various men, women,

elephants, horses, carts, pedestrians, villages, towns, hamlets,

cows, buffalos, mansions, woods, mountains, rivers and lakes, and who

moves about in that city until he is awakened. As he lies half awake,

he recalls the city of his dreams and reviews his experiences there;

what do you think, Mahamati, is this dreamer who is letting his mind

dwell upon the various unrealities he has seen in his dream, - is he

to be considered wise or foolish? In the same way, the ignorant and

simple-minded who are favorably influenced by the erroneous views of

the philosophers do not recognize that the views that are influencing

them are only dream-like ideas originating in the mind itself, and

consequently they are held fast by their notions of oneness and

otherness, of being and non-being. It is like a painter's canvas on

which the ignorant imagine they see the elevations and depressions of

mountains and valleys.

 

In the same way there are people today being brought up under the

influence of similar erroneous views of oneness and otherness, of

bothness and not-bothness, whose mentality is being conditioned by

the habit-energy of these false-imaginings and who later on will

declare those who hold the true doctrine of no-birth to be nihilist,

and by so doing will bring themselves and others to ruin. By the

natural law of cause and effect these followers of pernicious views

uproot meritorious causes that otherwise would lead unstained purity.

They are to be shunned by those whose desires are for more excellent

things.

 

* * *

 

It is like a wheel of fire made by a revolving firebrand which is no

wheel but which is imagined to be one by the ignorant. Nor is it a

not-a-wheel because it has not been seen by some. By the same

reasoning, those who are in the habit of listening to the

discriminations and views of the philosophers will regard things born

as non-existent and those destroyed by causation as existent. It is

like a mirror reflecting colors and images as determined by

conditions but without any partiality. It is like the echo of the

wind that gives the sound of a human voice. It is like a mirage of

moving water seen in a desert. In the same way the discriminating

mind of the ignorant which has been heated by false-imaginations and

speculations is stirred into mirage-like waves by the winds of birth,

growth and destruction. It is like the magician Pisaca, who by means

of his spells makes a wooden image or a dead body to throb with life,

through it has no power of its own. In the same way the ignorant and

the simple-minded, committing themselves to erroneous philosophical

views become thoroughly devoted to the ideas of oneness and

otherness, but their confidence is not well grounded. For this

reason, Mahamati, you and other Bodhisattvas-Mahasattvas should cast

off all discriminations leading to the notions of birth, abiding, and

destruction, of oneness and otherness, of bothness and not-bothness,

of being and non-being and thus getting free of the bondage of

habit-energy become able to attain reality realizable within

yourselves of Noble Wisdom.

 

* * *

 

Then said Mahamati to the Blessed One: Why is it that the ignorant

are given up to discrimination and the wise are not?

 

The Blessed One replied: it is because the ignorant cling to names,

signs and ideas; as their minds move along these channels they feed

on multiplicities of objects and fall into the notion of an ego-soul

and what belongs to it; they make discriminations of good and bad

among appearances and cling to the agreeable. As they thus cling

there is a reversion to ignorance, and karma born of greed, anger and

folly, is accumulated. As the accumulation of karma goes on they

become imprisoned in a cocoon of discrimination and are thenceforth

unable to free themselves from the round of birth and death.

 

Because of folly they do not understand that all things are like

maya, like the reflection of the moon in water, that there is no

self-substance to be imagined as an ego-soul and its belongings, and

that all their definite ideas rise from their false discriminations

of what exists only as it is seen of the mind itself. They do not

realise that things have nothing to do with qualify and qualifying,

nor with the course of birth, abiding and destruction, and instead

they assert that they are born of a creator, of time, of atoms, of

some celestial spirit. It is because the ignorant are given up to

discrimination that they move along with the stream of appearances,

but it is not so with the wise.

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Regarding this topic, I was hoping that by now someone would

have raised the ancient question, 'If Buddhism denies God and Self,

how can it be reconciled with Advaita?'

 

I'll say a few brief words about this, because I believe that

the spiritual visions of the Lankavatara (and other key Mahayana

texts) and Advaita are really quite close, as I have said before.

 

Really, these alleged differences between Buddhism and

Advaita are giant 'red herrings'. (I don't know how that expression

comes across in India, so I will tell you that my dictionary defines

this as 'any diversion intended to distract attention from the main

issue').

 

In my humble opinion, the 'God' rejected (or ignored) by the

Buddha refers to any finite conception of God that is anything less

than Consciousness in its totality. Notice that almost everybody's

conception of God is finite in some sense. Only Advaitins and

Mahayana Buddhists (and maybe Taoists) seem able to take the leap to

infinity. If by 'God' you mean 'nondual consciousness', then the

Mahayana tradition, as exemplified by the Lankavatara, most certainly

believes in this fundamental Reality. (The 'emptiness' often

encountered in Mahayana only means 'emptiness of concepts' or freedom

from the dualistic mind. It therefore also means the same as 'Pure

Consciousness'.)

 

So much for the first part of the alleged incompatibility

between the two great spiritual traditions. Now, for the vexed

problem of the Self.

 

Again, IMHO the 'self' denied by the Buddha was none other

than the finite self, also called the ego. There can be no doubt

that Buddha rejected the ego; this is a core conviction of all

Buddhist traditions. But some may object that he also denied the

Self of the Upanishadic tradition. Not so. And here is why. It

doesn't matter what the words of different traditions may sometimes

seem to say. The fundamental fact is that Consciousness itself is

simply undeniable. And this Consciousness is what Advaitins mean by

the Self, as they clearly state. Buddha was only concerned with

denying a 'self' as any kind of object that could be grasped with the

discriminating, dualistic mind. And Advaitins would quite agree.

 

Furthermore, later Buddhism reintroduced a more theistic

version of God by 'promoting' Buddha to this status. This was a bit

of a backtrack from a purely nondual perspective, in my opinion, but

necessary for those who cannot scale the Himalayan heights of sheer

nondual consciousness. After all, wasn't it a good thing that

Buddhism spread throughout Far Asia? And isn't it tragic that it was

uprooted in China and seems to be dying elsewhere in Far Asia under

the onslaught of Western-inspired materialism?

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

In my own rather rambling search for truth spanning over a quarter

century, I have had the good fortune spending considerable time on

Budhhist territory. What caught my attention was the fact that two

philosophies with more or less the same arguments came to

diametrcally opposite conclusions on the nature of ultimate reality.

While Vedanta said that self was everything, Buddhism concluded that

there was no self.

 

I have myself reconciled the two positions more or less the way you

have done; but that was more on the basis of some posts on advaitin,

satsangs of Ramesh Balsekar and my own introspections on the subject

rather than through anything that I have read or heard from Budhhist

sources. Though I must admit that much of my reading has been of the

Theravada school, still I find it very difficult to ignore the fact

that no authority on Budhhism has ever suggested the type of

reconciliation you have presented in your post. While traditional

sources may justifiably be reluctant to subsitute 'no-ego' for 'no-

self', If the Budhhists really imply no-ego when they say no-self, I

wonder why even modern accounts of Buddhism have desisted from using

no-ego as a translation of anatta. The vehemence with which, on the

basis of their arguments on the momentariness and impermanence of all

Dharmas and their theory of Dependent Origination, they deny the

necessity of any ultimate being as the sub- stratum of all that we

see as the world, leaves with a doubt that these attempts at

reconciliation may after all be flawed.

 

In Vedanta 'Being' is the ultimate truth. For Budhhists, it

is 'Becoming'. Even if I removed intentionality from 'becoming', it

does't become 'being'.

 

May be I haven't read or heard or understood enough; if so please

correct me.

 

Regards,

Venkat

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

[Guest guest]

Dear Venkat,

 

First of all, I want to express my sincere appreciation for

your kind 'Thank You'. It seemed so eloquent by itself that I didn't

want to respond with a trivial and explicit 'You are welcome!'

sticking out like a sore thumb on the Advaitin List. However, I will

sneak those feelings of gratitude into this message.

 

Above all, I hope nobody thought that I was ever being

contentious. I was just trying to conduct a serious (and perhaps

somewhat tedious) debate. I'd never really done that before, at

least not on these esoteric topics. However, the most important

thing I learned was how other intelligent people can see things

rather differently that you take for granted. Therefore, the most

important skill to acquire is not the ability to 'win', which is

ultimately meaningless, but rather the ability to put yourself in

someone else's perspective. That is real wisdom.

 

I enjoyed very much discussing this with each and every one

of you. Those who discussed this in a mild manner were gentlemen,

and those who were more self-assertive were spirited 'Kshatriyas' as

far as I am concerned. We need both in this world.

 

As for your comments on Buddhism vs. Vedanta.

 

I am no Radhakrishnan, i.e. no eminent scholar on the history

of Indian philosophy, but I do believe that the following is true.

The Buddha lived during a time when orthodox Brahmins had become

perhaps too enmeshed in sterile intellectual debates. (This happens

to all scholarly 'classes' from time to time.) Also, there may have

been a bit of a social protest angle, as Buddha was a Kshatriya who

also felt a lot of compassion for all people. The Brahmins back then

may have been too concerned about their social prerogatives. At any

rate, even in Christianity and Islam, we can see the devastating

effect of dogmatism on true spirituality. On of my principal beliefs

is that spiritual realization means a profound change of

consciousness to a higher level and not just adherence to this or

that belief or concept or scripture. Undoubtedly, this was the main

intent of the Buddha.

 

Now, as is well known, the Theravada (or early Buddhism) that

followed the Buddha also became bogged down in sterile analysis, and

the Mahayana arose as a rebellion against this which wished to revive

a fresh and pure mysticism. Some of that Theravada scholasticism may

survive today in the Theravada that you know, and scholars are always

keen to draw distinctions and categories. Hence the reluctance to

concede a spiritual affinity with Vedanta. But true mystics

everywhere have always thrown scriptures and doctrines to the flames

once they achieved realization. (But they could be good poets!)

 

There are profound similarities in the Mahayana to Vedanta,

and notions resembling a Self do indeed resurface in key scriptures.

I have encountered many examples of this during my readings. The

Lankavatara that we have been discussing is an important one.

 

Another important example is Hui Neng, the sixth patriarch

and author of the Platform Sutra, who is a key figure in Chan (or

Zen), and who speaks of the 'Essence of Mind', whose literal

translation is 'Self-Nature', which sounds a lot like the Vedantic

Self to me. See

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/EPhil/Platform.htm . Now don't

think that this 'Mind' is any kind of dualistic, conceptual mind; the

text makes abundantly clear that Hui Neng is as nondual (i.e.

Advaitin) as anyone.

 

Yet another important example is Ashvaghosha, the author of

the Awakening of Faith; see

http://www.tbsn.org/english/library/sutras/awakenin.htm . He talks

at great length of the 'One Mind', and this also sounds a lot like

the Self. This scripture was very influential on later Buddhism.

 

And I maintain that even the Prajnaparamita scriptures (and

subsequent Madhyamika school whose key exponent was Nagarjuna),

despite all their anti-conceptualism and talk of Emptiness, really

meant the same as the Self. Now this claim will raise howls from

many Madhyamika scholars, who insist that Madhyamika and Emptiness

were directly opposed to the 'Absolutism' of Vedanta. Absolutism is

supposed to be the belief in a Fundamental Reality such as the

Vedantic Self. But as in my previous post (16033), I firmly and

stubbornly maintained that Emptiness only means the 'emptiness of

concepts', i.e. the affirmation that Pure Consciousness can only be

realized by rising above the discriminative, conceptual mind. The

proof is simply what I said before, namely, that Consciousness itself

is strictly undeniable. It is only distorting conceptual

superimpositions on consciousness that should be avoided. The

Upanishads were clear that the Ultimate Truth is ineffable

(inexpressible). But clearly, something corresponds to this Ultimate

Truth, which is Pure Consciousness, the basis of all reality.

 

The Buddhist denial of a 'substratum' is really directed

against the so-called 'reification' of Consciousness, i.e., the

desire to give consciousness some kind of objective being. This

tendency is very powerful in humans, because of the tyranny of the

mind. As soon as we start using a word like 'consciousness', the

mind tries to ask, to which object does this word correspond?

Obviously, consciousness cannot correspond to any object. Indeed,

nondualism, whether Advaitic or Mahayanic, clearly denies the true

existence of any 'object' distinct from the subject. And in the case

of consciousness itself, this is patently absurd. Likewise, the

Buddhists did not want Emptiness turned into any kind of object.

Rather, emptiness is being used to dispel the notion of an object.

It is a nondual 'medicine'. That is all. But the reality of

consciousness cannot be doubted.

 

Also, remember that much of what you read in Buddhism and

Vedanta was written by scholars with axes to grind rather than by

true mystics. Even many religious leaders are really just scholars

who run organizations but lack the deepest realization. Go back to

original inspired scriptures (not commentaries), which are the real

thing. Sectarian squabbles do not arise there. They are too busy

being ecstatic about their True Nature.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin