Buddhism vs. Vedanta

[Guest guest]

Beyond all the labels such Advaitin, Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, etc.,

there is only the Reality. One can call it by any name. It is only One's

Own Name, that cannot be spoken in language.

 

Sadhana is the critical link between speculation and Self Realization.

Sri Ramana used to say that Satsang (company of truth) is important to

the ripening and purification of our intellect. So we are fortunate to

have the company of friends and the ancient teachings to move us along.

 

As human beings, we are fragile, mentally and physically. But

Upanishads state that Atman Is Brahman. The discrepancy between one's

fragility as a human beings and one's perfect Self nature that is

Sat-Chit-Ananda is due to identification with the body.

 

Sri Ramana has said that, sadhana (spiritual practice) is meant to

remove the mistaken notion, "I am the body". What then remains is pure

consciousness without edges. Who can truly give it a name. The ancients

called it Sat-Chit-Ananda that is Nityam (Eternal) and Poornum (Whole).

These words describe the taste but are not themselves the taste. So

meditation on one's own existence is needed. This is what the Upanishads

teach. That is essentially the teaching behind Sri Ramana's method of

inquiry of asking "Who am I?"

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

I just read the article called 'Buddhism - Development and

Demise' by Advaitin List member Nanda (a.k.a. VPCNK), which can be

found at:

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~pushpasri/buddhism/budh_dev.html

 

This article is a very informative discussion of the relationship of

Buddhism and Vedanta (specifically Advaita) in India during ancient

days. I highly recommend it. My concern has been reconciling

Mahayana and Advaita, something we have discussed recently on this

list. I sent Nanda some comments and then felt that they could

perhaps contribute to our list. Here they are, somewhat edited.

 

To begin with, I particularly like the following lines from his article:

>It was not unusual for an orthodox Brahmin family to have a son who

>was a Buddhist, married to a woman who believed in the teachings of

>the Mahaaveera. They all belonged to the same civilization and lived

>as one people under the shade of the dharma."

 

Nanda then went on to describe how the Brahmin class had been created

to ensure the survival of the Vedas, but that it had degenerated

during the time of the Buddha. Buddhism arose as a reaction, but the

Buddhist Bikshus also degenerated with time. So I guess Brahmins

and Bikshus are humans too!

 

Then I told him that Buddha's metaphysical silence makes a lot more

sense to me since my experience on the Advaitin List. Philosophical

arguments, however inspired in their origin, tend to turn into mere

verbiage. I am a prime culprit but not the only one. That was

perhaps the most valuable lesson that I drew from participating in

the list. This doesn't mean that I don't like the list ... only that

I learned something new about myself and how good intentions can go

astray when the mind becomes a mere motor.

 

But Buddha's metaphysical silence, however valid during his time and

circumstances, is not the end of the story. Some kind of Vedantic

Self corresponding to Consciousness surely exists, since

consciousness cannot be denied. But the problems start when we begin

to conceptualize. So let us realize instead!

 

Here is another line from the article that I approve of:

>Metaphysics if logically reconciled with Mahaayaana thought,

>can end only in the spiritual absolutism of the Upanishads."

 

And another:

>In the Lankaavataara Sutra when questioned whether Vijnaanavaada

>was not the same as the Atman doctrine, the Tathaagatha answers that

>while the proponents of the Atman doctrine hold that the "Self is", the

>Vijnaanavaadins hold that the Self neither is, nor is not, nor both,

>nor neither."

 

This raises an interesting point. I think that part of the problem

is: What do we mean when we say something *is*? The meaning varies

from ordinary discourse to the perspective of a realized person. In

ordinary discourse, to say that 'something is' is to say that it

exists as an independent, self-sustaining reality, as we ordinarily

perceive a rock or tree. This is the dualistic view. As I have

argued in the list, I consider this to be basically the same as

materialism. And the ego is really only the 'other side of the coin'

of materialism. Both ego and matter feed off of each other, so to

speak. They are simply the dualistic view (which however can be

tempered by popular religions such as Dvaita). That is my view, for

what it is worth. Madhyamika, Yogacara and Advaita are all nondual

paths that refute this worldview from slightly different

perspectives. Really the 'spirit' of each of them is quite similar.

They are part of the same Indic attitude, which is the attitude of

nondual spiritual *experience* rather than dualistic religious dogma.

(Note my opposition of 'spiritual' and 'religious'.)

 

Also some things that Nanda said in his article are highly relevant

to the Consciousness thread that I conducted earlier on the Advaitin

List ... for example that the Atmavadins of Gaudapada's time believed

in a plurality of souls ... something I was wrestling with myself. I

wish that he had referred me to this at the time! Maybe excessive

modesty...

 

My feeling is that Gaudapada is a bit more 'Buddhist' than Shankara

and is probably the closest to my thinking, since I am trying to

straddle two traditions. Fortunately, Nanda's article assures me

that they are sister traditions with strong similarities! It really

is important to me that they be reconciled, as I feel it essential

that the Truth be One (or it is no longer Truth).

 

Actually, the arguments between different type of Buddhists and/or

Vedantins (who by the way argue with each other) echoes the

discussions on our list. It is only natural that this happen when

intelligent and spiritually-minded people think seriously about these

things. Even the best of us fall into various conceptual traps,

especially those who are thinking seriously instead of as a mere

pastime. Nanda made a good point ... the Buddhists were serious

intellectuals, as were the Advaitins. I think they are closer to

each other than either is to Bhakti (which isn't to denigrate Bhakti).

 

Then I told Nanada something that he may not be aware of, since he

concentrates on Indian paths in his website. Many Oriental Buddhists

clearly sound like Advaita/Vedanta, including using synonymns for

Self such as the One Mind. (I gave references before.) Nanda then

made the illuminating point that Advaita merely assimilated the

important contributions of the Buddhist tradition back into the

Upanishadic tradition from which it originally came. What Buddhism

basically did was to reconcile the Upanishadic vision with reason,

insofar as possible.

 

For so many years, I was disturbed by the sharp distinctions that

many Western Indologists make between Mahayana and Advaita. Why did

I care so much about their opinions in the first place? I think that

coming from America, I am brainwashed into thinking that Western

universities are the best, no matter what the Department! As I get

older, I discover more and more nonsense emanating even from (or

especially from) such places as Harvard! Believe me, politics and

inanity (insanity?) permeate Academia, but there is good stuff there

too.

 

Oh, a final thought: Buddhism's negative slant makes it a good

spiritual *medicine*, but Advaita is perhaps the better philosophy.

Of course Advaita is right that some kind of Absolute exists ... the

Truth (a.k.a. Reality)!

 

Altogether a highly informative and reassuring article. Reading it

has made me feel quite good!

 

Om!

Benjamin