Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 Namaste! Actually, I was hoping to leave the Advaita vs. Buddhism topic a long time ago, but I keep reading objections that I feel must be addressed. In particular, I would like to address the erudite post of Concordance909. His is right that from the scholarly and intellectual point of view, there do seem to be discrepancies between the schools. His handling of an impressive selection of texts seems impeccable so far. But I would like to appeal to a higher wisdom, and I can back up my pretentious sounding claim with some simple arguments which I have presented before, perhaps before he joined us. My point is very simple. I profoundly believe in a fundamental similarity in the spiritual visions of Advaita and Mahayana (forget Theravada for now), centered around the common thread of nonduality, i.e. nonduality of subject and object, as the key to Moksha or Enlightenment. Yet I keep encountering the opinion that Advaita and Buddhism are irreconcilable, because 'Vedanta believes in a Self and Buddha denied any notion of self', or, in a similar vein, 'The key Vedantic concept of the Self means everything or infinity, whereas the key Mahayana concept of Emptiness means nothingness, the exact opposite'. I simply disagree with this view, and my reasons are simple. The 'self' that the Buddha denied was the same ego or phenomenal self or Ahamkara that Advaita also denies. There can be no doubt that both Buddhism and Advaita deny the ultimate reality of this limited notion of 'self'. They both say so explicitly. So then the question becomes, 'Can Mahayana accept the Advaitin notion of the Self with a capital 'S'. Well, what is that Self, according to Advaita? It is nothing other that Consciousness in the purest and fullest sense of the word. And this Consciousness is undeniable. Even its denial requires consciousness to do the denying! So the Buddha could not possibly have been denying consciousness in this pure sense, unless he was a fool, which he was not. Indeed, the very word 'Enlightenment' is nearly synonymous to my ears with a pure and effulgent consciousness. He was only denying the illusory small self created by our delusional imagination. And Emptiness too can be explained as 'emptiness of concepts', such as the delusional small self just mentioned. It cannot possibly mean 'nothing at all', and the Mahayanists themselves are emphatic about this. That would be what they call 'nihilism'. When the delusional consciousness is cleansed and hence empty of its delusional concepts, then the pure infinite nondual Consciousness remains, as it must. So what about the quotations from scriptures where the wise masters seem to argue with each other? Well, guess what, I have a shocking suggestion for you. Perhaps they were not absolutely perfect all the time. Perhaps they retained some trace of humanity. Did not Jesus lose his temper from time to time, or even Krishna, or perhaps even Buddha for all I know? Oh horrors! Did we not create a synthetic caricature of them as absolutely perfect? Who said that they had to be perfectly pure and enlightened 100% of the time? Ramana could scold the cooks when they used too much or too little spice! We need to grow up regarding the perfection of any human being and stop placing them on unrealistic pedestals, which are only the reflection of our own vanity and immaturity in disguise. And then again, perhaps they were thoroughly decent people who didn't always understand each other. We are talking about esoteric and ineffable ideas where words often slip through our fingers like sand. When you consider that eye-witnesses can flatly disagree in court regarding basic facts concerning some suspect or another, we should not be surprised if the sages did not always fully understand each other's deep, inner meaning. So why am I so wise? I am not. I simply have the benefit of living in the 21st century and having access to the internet. Enough time has elapsed so that a variety of sages throughout the ages have come to realize the spiritual affinity of spiritual paths that may once have seemed disconnected or incompatible. You could do far worse that to read Lex Hixon, for example. Venkat: To answer your question, I simply spend a lot of time on the net ... far too much!!! Krishna: Yes, B.S.B. means Brahma Sutras Bhashya. I was answering Michael's post, where he had mentioned them. Om! Benjamin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 Hello Benjamin, Here's another technique for you. Instead of doing a literary survey combined with speculation, why not follow one of paths to the very end, as specified by that very path. Then, follow another path to its end. THEN see if the comparisons make any sense. Then you will be speaking from your own experience. Also, Bikku Bodhi's post in Concordance's link was referring to Theravada, where there is no notion whatsoever corresponding to the Consciousness of advaita vedanta. Regards, --Greg At 10:57 PM 5/26/2003 -0400, Benjamin Root wrote: > Namaste! > > Actually, I was hoping to leave the Advaita vs. Buddhism >topic a long time ago, but I keep reading objections that I feel >must be addressed. > > In particular, I would like to address the erudite post of >Concordance909. His is right that from the scholarly and >intellectual point of view, there do seem to be discrepancies between >the schools. His handling of an impressive selection of texts seems >impeccable so far. But I would like to appeal to a higher wisdom, >and I can back up my pretentious sounding claim with some simple >arguments which I have presented before, perhaps before he joined us. > > My point is very simple. I profoundly believe in a >fundamental similarity in the spiritual visions of Advaita and >Mahayana (forget Theravada for now), centered around the common >thread of nonduality, i.e. nonduality of subject and object, as the >key to Moksha or Enlightenment. Yet I keep encountering the opinion >that Advaita and Buddhism are irreconcilable, because 'Vedanta >believes in a Self and Buddha denied any notion of self', or, in a >similar vein, 'The key Vedantic concept of the Self means everything >or infinity, whereas the key Mahayana concept of Emptiness means >nothingness, the exact opposite'. > > I simply disagree with this view, and my reasons are simple. >The 'self' that the Buddha denied was the same ego or phenomenal self >or Ahamkara that Advaita also denies. There can be no doubt that >both Buddhism and Advaita deny the ultimate reality of this limited >notion of 'self'. They both say so explicitly. > > So then the question becomes, 'Can Mahayana accept the >Advaitin notion of the Self with a capital 'S'. Well, what is that >Self, according to Advaita? It is nothing other that Consciousness >in the purest and fullest sense of the word. And this Consciousness >is undeniable. Even its denial requires consciousness to do the >denying! So the Buddha could not possibly have been denying >consciousness in this pure sense, unless he was a fool, which he was >not. Indeed, the very word 'Enlightenment' is nearly synonymous to >my ears with a pure and effulgent consciousness. He was only denying >the illusory small self created by our delusional imagination. > > And Emptiness too can be explained as 'emptiness of >concepts', such as the delusional small self just mentioned. It >cannot possibly mean 'nothing at all', and the Mahayanists >themselves are emphatic about this. That would be what they call >'nihilism'. When the delusional consciousness is cleansed and hence >empty of its delusional concepts, then the pure infinite nondual >Consciousness remains, as it must. > > So what about the quotations from scriptures where the wise >masters seem to argue with each other? Well, guess what, I have a >shocking suggestion for you. Perhaps they were not absolutely >perfect all the time. Perhaps they retained some trace of humanity. >Did not Jesus lose his temper from time to time, or even Krishna, or >perhaps even Buddha for all I know? Oh horrors! Did we not create a >synthetic caricature of them as absolutely perfect? Who said that >they had to be perfectly pure and enlightened 100% of the time? >Ramana could scold the cooks when they used too much or too little >spice! We need to grow up regarding the perfection of any human >being and stop placing them on unrealistic pedestals, which are only >the reflection of our own vanity and immaturity in disguise. > > And then again, perhaps they were thoroughly decent people >who didn't always understand each other. We are talking about >esoteric and ineffable ideas where words often slip through our >fingers like sand. When you consider that eye-witnesses can flatly >disagree in court regarding basic facts concerning some suspect or >another, we should not be surprised if the sages did not always fully >understand each other's deep, inner meaning. > > So why am I so wise? I am not. I simply have the benefit >of living in the 21st century and having access to the internet. >Enough time has elapsed so that a variety of sages throughout the >ages have come to realize the spiritual affinity of spiritual paths >that may once have seemed disconnected or incompatible. You could do >far worse that to read Lex Hixon, for example. > > Venkat: To answer your question, I simply spend a lot of >time on the net ... far too much!!! > > Krishna: Yes, B.S.B. means Brahma Sutras Bhashya. I was >answering Michael's post, where he had mentioned them. > > Om! > Benjamin > > Sponsor > ><http://rd./M=244522.3313099.4604523.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\ HM/A=1595055/R=0/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=3313099&yhad=159\ 5055>8ddbe42.jpg >8dde12c.jpg > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: <http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaiti\ n/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: <advaitin/messages>a\ dvaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to the <> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 26, 2003 Report Share Posted May 26, 2003 advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> wrote: > My point is very simple. I profoundly believe in a > fundamental similarity in the spiritual visions of Advaita and > Mahayana (forget Theravada for now), centered around the common > thread of nonduality, i.e. nonduality of subject and object, as the key to Moksha or Enlightenment. I'd like to point out that Mahayana isn't a single school, but a family of schools that accept a family scriptures which the more Orthodox "Hinayana" does not. Even among the Mahayanists there is great dispute over just what Buddha's teachings were, and perhaps a comparison can be drawn up between Vedanta with its Advaita, Vishisthadvaita and Dvaita schools. That having been said, I'm not so sure that the Buddhist "Advaya" and the Hindu "Advaita" are equivalent concepts, or even refer to subject / object exclusively. As I understand the word "Advaita" as used by the Vedanta school which has this name, it refers to the non- duality of Atman and Brahman, and the nonduality of Brahman and the world. In Buddhism, I think the meaning may be contingent upon what school uses it. Concerning the nonduality of subject and object, here again I think we come to a clear and real difference between Buddhism and Advaita. In Buddhism, the non-duality of the subject and object is established by their mutual interdependence. Thus Nagarjuna writes, in his Shunyatasaptati: "57. Since consciousness arises in dependence on a discernible object, the discernible does not exist [in itself]. Since [the conscious subject] does not exist without the discernible and consciousness, the conscious subject does not exist [by itself]." To put it simpler, there would be no consciousness without an object-of-consciousness, and therefore the two are non-dual. But Shankara begins his great Brahma Sutra Bhasya this way: "It is a matter not requiring any proof that the object and the subject - whose respective spheres are the notion of the 'Thou' (the Non-I) and the 'I', and which are opposed to each other as much as darkness and light are, - cannot be identified [in eachother]. All the less can their respective attributes be identified [in eachother]. Hence it follows that it is wrong to superimpose upon the subject - whose Self is intelligence, and which has for its sphere the notion of the I - the object whose sphere is the notion of the Non-I, and the attributes of the object, and vice versa to superimpose the subject and the attributes of the subject on the object." - Thibaut's translation, (I have substituted "I" for "Ego" as this term has gotten a lot of baggage since Thibaut's translation and an English translation of Deussen's German doesn't make use of it. The portions in brackets are my own, making it more intelligible. I cross checked these with the English of Deussen's German). So, by this standard, Nagarjuna's assertion that the two are interdependent would be an erroneous superimposition, for the qualities of the two cannot be identified in eachother and there is, therefore, no basis for asserting an interdependence between them. Neither Shankara nor Nagarjuna deny consciousness, but both have wildly different understandings of it. I should also point out that the "witness" or "subject" nature of Atman is not, as Michael pointed out, a "psych-physical dualism". But that's another study. > Yet I keep encountering the opinion > that Advaita and Buddhism are irreconcilable, because 'Vedanta > believes in a Self and Buddha denied any notion of self', or, in a > similar vein, 'The key Vedantic concept of the Self means everything > or infinity, whereas the key Mahayana concept of Emptiness means > nothingness, the exact opposite'. > I don't know who said this, I'm afriad. As I understand the Mahayana position, of the Madhyamika school, nothing ultimately exists, but all exists contingently, i.e. as dependently arisen phenomena. And this *existing contingently* is itself, Nirvana. Not, as some might assume, that phenomena exist contingent upon something non- phenomenal (like a Pure, Self-Existent Consciousness). > So then the question becomes, 'Can Mahayana accept the > Advaitin notion of the Self with a capital 'S'. Well, what is that > Self, according to Advaita? It is nothing other that Consciousness > in the purest and fullest sense of the word. And this Consciousness > is undeniable. Even its denial requires consciousness to do the > denying! So the Buddha could not possibly have been denying > consciousness in this pure sense, unless he was a fool, which he was > not. Indeed, the very word 'Enlightenment' is nearly synonymous to > my ears with a pure and effulgent consciousness. He was only denying > the illusory small self created by our delusional imagination. > Buddha does not deny consciousness, nor do any Buddhists that I know of. But it's independent nature is denied. > And Emptiness too can be explained as 'emptiness of > concepts', such as the delusional small self just mentioned. It > cannot possibly mean 'nothing at all', and the Mahayanists > themselves are emphatic about this. That would be what they call > 'nihilism'. When the delusional consciousness is cleansed and hence > empty of its delusional concepts, then the pure infinite nondual > Consciousness remains, as it must. > As I've pointed out earlier, "emptiness" in Madhyamika means "emptiness of self-nature" and is an affirmation of the dependently-arisen nature of all phenomena, including consciousness, and also that the fact of this emptiness - which is not a thing in itself - is the fact of Nirvana. To demonstrate how this is so, if we accept that phenomena is all there is, and the notion of a "continuous observer" is merely an illusion that arises from the seamless flow of phenomena, then what is the nature of these phenomena? If all phenomena interdepend, then they all work harmoniously, do not hinder eachother or cause problems, and are perfect just as they are. This nature that all phenomena possess is not something created in phenomena, or differentiated from phenomena, but is the nature of phenomena itself, always clear, unagitated, harmonious and equal. It is only due to clinging to them as "self-existent" and discriminating between them on lines of desire and hate that this luminous, clear nature of phenomena isn't understood. But if such false notions are left behind, then the absolutely perfect nature of phenomena is known, and there is no longer any clinging to this or that. So, of this interdependence it can be said that it is "unborn, unchanging, unceasing," it could also be said to be "permanent" or even "Atman" because it is the true nature of things. And knowledge of this a true escape from all such false notions as origination, abidance and destruction, for it is the true nature of everything as unborn, unchanging, unceasing, etc. In such a truth, one could say, along with Nagarjuna: "There is nothing whatever which differentiates the samsara from nirvana; and there is nothing whatever which differentiates nirvana from samsara. The extreme limit (koti) of nirvana is also the extreme limit of samsara; there is not the slightest bit of difference between these two." - Madhyamikakarika > So what about the quotations from scriptures where the wise > masters seem to argue with each other? Well, guess what, I have a > shocking suggestion for you. Perhaps they were not absolutely > perfect all the time. Perhaps they retained some trace of humanity. > Did not Jesus lose his temper from time to time, or even Krishna, or > perhaps even Buddha for all I know? Oh horrors! Did we not create a > synthetic caricature of them as absolutely perfect? Who said that > they had to be perfectly pure and enlightened 100% of the time? > Ramana could scold the cooks when they used too much or too little > spice! We need to grow up regarding the perfection of any human > being and stop placing them on unrealistic pedestals, which are only > the reflection of our own vanity and immaturity in disguise. > If we are to determine whether or not the critiques of other systems made by these wise masters are personal flaws or not, this must be rooted in some evidence from the critiques or masters themselves, rather than a prior assumption we hold to. That is to say, it's unreasonable to assume that since a wise master disagrees with one's own notion that he has a personal flaw. If his critique is flawed, then a case can be made that he either misunderstood or was making up lies. But, otherwise, it is just as possible - if not probable - that the wise master in question did understand his opponents position and actually did find fault with it. An example would be the Madhyamika's understanding of the Samkhya Purusha, as well as their refutation. > And then again, perhaps they were thoroughly decent people > who didn't always understand each other. We are talking about > esoteric and ineffable ideas where words often slip through our > fingers like sand. When you consider that eye-witnesses can flatly > disagree in court regarding basic facts concerning some suspect or > another, we should not be surprised if the sages did not always fully > understand each other's deep, inner meaning. > Or perhaps they did, and actually did find fault. For instance, the Samkhya say Purusha is non-agent, witness, unchanging, etc. and does not depend on an object. Then the Madhyamika refutes him because a consciousness independent of an object simply can't be. The same refutation would be leveled against Vedanta. - There's no mystery here at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2003 Report Share Posted May 27, 2003 Namaste Benjaminji, > Actually, I was hoping to leave the Advaita vs. Buddhism > topic a long time ago, but I keep reading objections that I feel > must be addressed. I have been an observer of this message board for about a month and a half. I enjoy the indepth and stimulating topics and posts. However, in the greatest respect, your insistence on the Advaita and Buddhism similarities has gone too far. This month's topic was *supposed* to be Bhakti and Jnana. This topic I am quite interested in. This directly relates to Advaitic practice. Speculating on whether Buddhism, in any form, says the same thing as Advaita may better well be said in a different message board, or wait to a different month where we can discuss the similarities in Advaita to other traditions. It does not help our Sadhana. Om Shanti, Shishya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2003 Report Share Posted May 27, 2003 Hi Benjamin, Possibly the best advice that you can ever get. Greg, How does one take up another path after finishing one? Only if the earlier one did not work? For if the earlier one had worked, there will be no need to take up another. Regards, Venkat advaitin, Greg Goode <goode@D...> wrote: > Hello Benjamin, > > Here's another technique for you. Instead of doing a literary survey combined with speculation, why not follow one of paths to the very end, as specified by that very path. Then, follow another path to its end. THEN see if the comparisons make any sense. Then you will be speaking from your own experience. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2003 Report Share Posted May 27, 2003 advaitin, "S. Venkatraman" <svenkat52> wrote: > > How does one take up another path after finishing one? Only if the > earlier one did not work? For if the earlier one had worked, there > will be no need to take up another. > > Regards, > Venkat My thoughts exactly. Hmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 27, 2003 Report Share Posted May 27, 2003 For comparative purposes, of course :-) --Greg At 03:24 PM 5/27/2003 +0000, concordance909 wrote: >advaitin, "S. Venkatraman" <svenkat52> >wrote: >> >> How does one take up another path after finishing one? Only if the >> earlier one did not work? For if the earlier one had worked, there >> will be no need to take up another. >> >> Regards, >> Venkat > > >My thoughts exactly. Hmmm. > > > Sponsor > ><http://rd./M=247865.3355058.4641699.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:\ HM/A=1482387/R=0/*http://ads.x10.com/?bHlhaG9vaG0xLmRhd=1054049169%3eM=247865.33\ 55058.4641699.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:HM/A=1482387/R=1=1054049169%3eM=2\ 47865.3355058.4641699.1512248/D=egroupweb/S=1705075991:HM/A=1482387/R=2>b5038eb.\ jpg >b50462e.jpg > >Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. >Advaitin List Archives available at: <http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaiti\ n/ >To Post a message send an email to : advaitin >Messages Archived at: <advaitin/messages>a\ dvaitin/messages > > > >Your use of is subject to the <> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.