Philosophy and sadhana (and Buddhist idealism)

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ananda,

>As Shri Shankara refutes the vijnyana-vadi idealists,

>he says that they can't have their cake and eat it.

>Vijnyana is a changing act of discerning mind, which

>differentiates one thing from another.

 

Thank you for this brilliant elucidation of a troublesome passage

from the Brahma Sutra Bhashya, which nicely complements Sadanandaji's

earlier brilliant explanation of some months ago.

 

Now please let me add the following, as a mere scholarly detail

concerning Mahayana Buddhist 'idealism', in which I am also

interested along with Advaita. I do not mean to start a tangential

digression on Buddhism, so please nobody respond!

 

The discerning and discriminating 'vijnyana' type of idealism which

you mention is definitely NOT advocated by the important Mahayana

sutras (if by any). It is true that Mahayana is vast with many

schools, but my overwhelming impression, from having studied many

important scriptures, is that the true Mahayana idealism is of the

nondual variety, just like Advaita, based in a unitary consciousness

and not in discriminative mind. It explicitly rejects this

discriminative mind, as I will now show with an important example.

 

As I said, Mahayana is vast, but a key scripture is the Lankavatara

Sutra, which is the foundational sutra for Zen Buddhism, which in

turn is the dominant Buddhism today (at least in the West as well as

among Asian intellectuals). Please consider the following eloquent

and revealing passages from the Lankavatara (as translated by Suzuki)

and see if they don't agree with your understanding of Advaitic

nondual consciousness, as expounded in e.g. the Vivekachudamani, not

to mention the passages from the Yoga Vasistha that I quoted earlier

today. To me, the similarity is most striking, with many of the

exact same similes. I heartily recommend an actual comparison with

my earlier post on the Yoga Vasistha. If anyone disagrees, then I

can only throw up my hands in despair.

 

 

The Buddha is talking to an assembly of monks:

 

"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."

 

"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, they

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."

 

"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."

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

Good to get your message (13 Dec) quoting the Lankavatara Sutra and

referring to Sadanandaji's explanation of some months ago about the BSB

2.2.28.

 

I've tried searching the Advaitin List site for Sadanandaji's

explanation of this sutra, but without much success. I've found his

notes on some other Sutras, but not on this one. Could someone give me

a more specific reference? Like a message number or a date or message

title?

 

And would someone have an idea of dating for the Lankavatara Sutra? I

notice it speaks of a 'painter's canvas' in a way that is very similar

to the advaita notion of the 'background'.

 

About the famous hostility between Advaita and Buddhism, I get the

impression it was more a matter of institutional debate than a real

disagreement between genuine philosophers. Shri Atmananda regarded the

Buddha as a great sage or jnyani, as do many Hindus. The disagreement

is not with the Buddha himself, but rather with schools of Buddhists

who launched an institutional attack upon the Upanishadic tradition of

individual teacher and disciple.

 

Shri Shankara's objection to vijnyana-vadis is explicitly that they

make a great show of 'panditya' or 'scholarship' and 'expertise'. They

claim that they are talking from a disinterested non-duality where no

differences are seen, when they are manifestly talking from a partial

stand of ego-mind that is trying to win an argument and gain converts

to their cause. In short, they falsely claim to be non-dual, while they

speak and act from a dualistic stand that is identified with

differentiating mind. This is what makes their stand confused and

self-contradictory. It makes them say vehemently that they do not see

or think in terms of any differences, while that is just the way in

which they are seeing and thinking.

 

Of course an equivalent objection can be made from the Buddhist side as

well. Thus Buddhists say that Vedantins are making a merely theoretical

assumption of some changeless self or of some changeless consciousness,

in order to build metaphysical systems and grand pictures of the world.

>From a truly Vedantic perspective, such a theoretical assumption is

quite wrong; for self and consciousness are not to be assumed by mind,

but rather to be found through an open-minded enquiry. But it must be

admitted that many who call themselves Advaitins or Vedantins are more

interested in scholastic and competitive system-building than in

genuine enquiry. So there the Buddhists too have something to complain

about.

 

In either case, the real objection is to hypocritical construction for

the sake of personal or institutional advantage, not to genuine enquiry

into impartial truth. And such an enquiry may come to truth on either

side.

 

Ananda

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ananda,

>Good to get your message (13 Dec) quoting the

>Lankavatara Sutra and referring to Sadanandaji's

>explanation of some months ago about the BSB 2.2.28.

>I've tried searching the Advaitin List site for

>Sadanandaji's explanation of this sutra, but without

>much success. I've found his notes on some other

>Sutras, but not on this one. Could someone give me

>a more specific reference? Like a message number or

>a date or message title?

 

 

It was quite interesting. Unfortunately, it never made it to the

mirror site, but you can find it at the site at

 

advaitin/message/18340

 

It was posted on 21 July 2003, and you can follow the thread from

there. It involves a Sanskrit subtlety regarding a double negative.

Sanskrit is very precise, as you know, so a double negative means

something other than a simple positive! You may enjoy the argument.

 

>And would someone have an idea of dating for the

>Lankavatara Sutra? I notice it speaks of a 'painter's

>canvas' in a way that is very similar to the advaita

>notion of the 'background'.

 

Does anybody know the true date of any Indian scripture? Just

kidding, my friends. According to this site, the author and date are

not known with certainty, but it was sometime during the 1st to 4th

centuries ... was ahead of Shankara.

 

http://www.monkfishpublishing.com/books/sutra.htm

 

Now, I'm not implying that Shankara 'stole' anything. Such a claim

would be ridiculous in the realm of spirituality. Rather, I see the

entire spiritual history of Indian as a sustained search for that

wisdom which culminates in nondual consciousness, with different

schools seeing it from a slightly different perspective. (Of course,

there are dualistic schools too.)

 

As for me, I love comparing the different Indian traditions and

seeing the same wisdom shining in different places. They illuminate

each other, as far as I am concerned.

 

You can read the whole scripture here

 

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

 

Regarding Buddhism vs. Advaita, they should never have attacked each

other, if they really did. This could only have been done by lesser

disciples, perhaps with political interference from kings, etc. And

you are quite right that true jnanis do NOT want to win arguments,

unless they sincerely feel it will help their opponent.

 

Also, as I said, the famous Buddhist 'atheism' does not necessarily

make Mahayana 'invalid' from an Advaitic point of view. Advaita also

denies Ishwara from the absolute standpoint. Only Pure Consciousness

remains, which is undeniable, and there are plenty of Mahayana texts

talking of Pure Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Nondual

Consciousness, etc. The common thread is nonduality.

 

And to repeat, consciousness is simply undeniable. The question is,

'What is Pure Consciousness and how do we realize it?'

 

I'm glad you are so open-minded about these things.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Benjamin

> Advaita also denies Ishwara from the absolute standpoint. Only Pure

Consciousness

remains, which is undeniable >

 

I was feeling something wrong in my last message. Now you made things more clear

to me. Yes, in the end only Pure Consciousness remains. What else is needed?

 

Pranams

Celine

 

Benjamin Root <orion777ben wrote:

 

Namaste Ananda,

>Good to get your message (13 Dec) quoting the

>Lankavatara Sutra and referring to Sadanandaji's

>explanation of some months ago about the BSB 2.2.28.

>I've tried searching the Advaitin List site for

>Sadanandaji's explanation of this sutra, but without

>much success. I've found his notes on some other

>Sutras, but not on this one. Could someone give me

>a more specific reference? Like a message number or

>a date or message title?

 

 

It was quite interesting. Unfortunately, it never made it to the

mirror site, but you can find it at the site at

 

advaitin/message/18340

 

It was posted on 21 July 2003, and you can follow the thread from

there. It involves a Sanskrit subtlety regarding a double negative.

Sanskrit is very precise, as you know, so a double negative means

something other than a simple positive! You may enjoy the argument.

 

>And would someone have an idea of dating for the

>Lankavatara Sutra? I notice it speaks of a 'painter's

>canvas' in a way that is very similar to the advaita

>notion of the 'background'.

 

Does anybody know the true date of any Indian scripture? Just

kidding, my friends. According to this site, the author and date are

not known with certainty, but it was sometime during the 1st to 4th

centuries ... was ahead of Shankara.

 

http://www.monkfishpublishing.com/books/sutra.htm

 

Now, I'm not implying that Shankara 'stole' anything. Such a claim

would be ridiculous in the realm of spirituality. Rather, I see the

entire spiritual history of Indian as a sustained search for that

wisdom which culminates in nondual consciousness, with different

schools seeing it from a slightly different perspective. (Of course,

there are dualistic schools too.)

 

As for me, I love comparing the different Indian traditions and

seeing the same wisdom shining in different places. They illuminate

each other, as far as I am concerned.

 

You can read the whole scripture here

 

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

 

Regarding Buddhism vs. Advaita, they should never have attacked each

other, if they really did. This could only have been done by lesser

disciples, perhaps with political interference from kings, etc. And

you are quite right that true jnanis do NOT want to win arguments,

unless they sincerely feel it will help their opponent.

 

Also, as I said, the famous Buddhist 'atheism' does not necessarily

make Mahayana 'invalid' from an Advaitic point of view. Advaita also

denies Ishwara from the absolute standpoint. Only Pure Consciousness

remains, which is undeniable, and there are plenty of Mahayana texts

talking of Pure Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Nondual

Consciousness, etc. The common thread is nonduality.

 

And to repeat, consciousness is simply undeniable. The question is,

'What is Pure Consciousness and how do we realize it?'

 

I'm glad you are so open-minded about these things.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail - 6MB, anti-spam e antivírus gratuito. Crie sua conta agora!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

Thanks very much for the references to the 'Lankavatara Sutra' and to

Shri Sadananda's explanation of BSB 2.2.28, which I've now downloaded

for further study.

 

I much like Shri Sadananda's point that the real is not defined in

opposition to the unreal; but rather it is found in common to both what

is seen as real and what is seen as unreal. The same applies to

consciousness. It is not defined in opposition to ignorance or

unconsciousness; but rather it is found fully present in all states

that are seen as conscious or unconscious or as any mixture of the two.

 

That's why there is no lack of reality or consciousness in the state of

deep sleep, which is seen as 'empty' and 'unconscious'. It's only

seeming objects that are missing in deep sleep. That is the state in

which there is no 'consciousness of objects'. The so-called

'unconsciousness' there is not just 'unconsciousness', but rather it is

an 'unconsciousness of objects'. That is an objectless consciousness --

unmixed with any object which is taken to be different from it.

 

Accordingly, although we take deep sleep to be an 'empty' and

'unconscious' state, it is not truly so. Instead, it is that state in

which all reality is present by itself -- known fully and directly as

pure consciousness, whose very being is to know. No mixture or

confusion there appears, to complicate the plain identity of that which

is and that which knows. That is pure non-duality.

 

In dream and waking, that simple non-duality appears in a mixed-up sort

of way -- as a relative existence of limited objects that are partially

known by consciousness. Thus there appear the relative existences of

various different objects, and the partial knowing acts that we call

'consciousness of objects'.

 

In short, variety is produced by the confusions of appearance, which

get superimposed on that which is unmixed and non-dual. In deep sleep,

those confusions are removed, showing only the unmixed reality of

consciousness that is fully present in what's taken to be real or unrea

l, conscious or unconscious.

 

Of course, I'm not at all sure whether you or Shri Sadananda would

agree with this analysis. But it's the direction in which Shri

Sadananda's fine explanation of BSB 2.2.28 has nudged yours truly.

 

Ananda