Introduction to Vedanta-5

[Guest guest]

Introduction to Vedanta – 5

 

Who am I or what I am not?

 

We started our inquiry recognizing that there are two

things in this Universe; I, the subject, and the world

of objects constituting the rest of the universe. We

have been examining the subject to find out our

nature. We learned that according to Vedanta, the

realization or understanding or experience of my true

nature, involves convergence of knower and known, or

experiencer and experienced into one. In that sense,

experience of true self that I am is not different

from the knowledge of myself. In fact, we have stated

that knowledge of myself is not an objective knowledge

as I am ‘this’ or even as I am ‘brahman’ (unless I

know what that Brahman stands for), but as ‘I am as I

am’, and there is nothing other than I am, by negating

what I think I am. Therefore assertion of ‘what I am’

involves negation of ‘what I think I am’, since

whatever I think that I am is only objectification,

which is different from the subject that I am. This in

Vedanta is expressed as ‘neti, neti’, meaning I am not

‘this’, or ‘this’ where ‘this’ involves anything that

is objectified. It includes starting from the

body-mind-intellect complex the entire world of

objects that I experience or that I know. Krishna

calls this as field of experiences or kshetram, and

Krishna further declares, “Know me as the knower, the

conscious entity, in all the fields of experiences”.

Therefore, at the seat of meditation, the ‘inquiry of

the self that I am’ essentially involves rejection or

renunciation of all that stands for ‘this’. Whatever

I say I am, in qualifying myself, as I am ‘this’,

‘this’ and ‘this’- all that needs to be renounced to

arrive at my true nature. This renunciation as the

path of salvation is emphasized throughout Vedanta; it

is the renunciation of all my notions about myself to

arrive at the truth of myself. Only through

renunciation one can attain liberation says Vedanta

(tyaagenaike amRitatvamaanasuH). It is not physical

renunciation of objects (as some wrongly assume that

it is essential, although it does helps), but mental

attachments to objects (as I am this, ahankaara; and

this is mine, mamakaara). I can only negate that which

I am not and I cannot negate my true self that I am,

since I have to be there even to execute negation.

Hence what remains, after all negations are

accomplished, is the negator, I, who cannot be

negated. I cease to be even a negator, when all the

negations are accomplished – I just remain as I am.

 

Ego or ahankaara:

 

Our current notions as I am ‘this’, ‘this’ and ‘this’

– all that constitute the EGO or ahankaara in

Sanskrit. Ego is the notion of I that arises by

identification of myself or true self that I am, with

inert entity, this body, or this mind or this

intellect (BMI-complex). When I say I am this body, I

am identifying myself with the body. Therefore the

body’s modifications become my modifications. When

body is fat, I am fat and when body dying I feel I am

dying. Thus it is the false I that arises out of the

consciousness in association of inert entities, the

BMI complex. It is referred as reflected

consciousness – chdaabaasa or pratibimba when I

identify myself with body or mind or intellect. For

all practical purposes we exist only in this plane

where reflected consciousness is taken as the real

without realizing that pure consciousness that is

reflected is my true identity.

 

Therefore inquiry of ‘who am I’ involves negation of

ego, negation of the reflected consciousness that I

think that I am to claim my true identity. Some

Neo-spiritualists (I do not want to use the term

Neo-Vedantins or Neo-Advaitins, since it is a

contradiction in terms), think all we have to do is to

sit in the seat of Meditation and inquire ‘who am I’

by rejecting who I am not. Unfortunately, it is not

as simple as it appears. The reason is, it is the

‘ego’ trying to reject the ‘ego’ – a thought rejecting

that I am not a thought. Therefore any attempt to

reject ‘ego’, will end up crystallizes it in a

different form. I am a yogi now, instead of being a

bhogi (one who enjoys sense objects). Ego has only

changed its costume. Renunciation of ego actually

involves its complete surrenderance and we will

address the nature of surrenderance later when we

address the saadhana or spiritual practices. In order

for me to reject, I need to know what exactly that I

am rejecting. Hence, the process of rejection should

also involve understanding of ‘what is ‘this’? ‘This’,

or idam in Vedanta, constitutes the entire Universe

that can be pointed as this. We need to understand

what is this universe (jagat) and where did it come

from, to help us understand what exactly I am

rejecting when I say, “I am not this”.

 

Here are some rules for negation: That which is real

cannot be negated, since it is real (that is the

definition of real). That which is unreal need not be

negated, since it is non-existent (no locus for

existence at any time, the definition for unreal).

What can be negated or should be negated is that what

we think is real but is not really real. That which

appears to be real but not really real is what is

called mithya; and the power that makes it look like

real, even though it is not real is called maaya.

 

All about the Universe:

 

How did the universe come into existence? Let us see

what ‘science says first’. It all stated with a big

bang – an accident at a universal scale. What is it

that banged? – What was there before the bang? All

one can say is a concentrated matter reached a

critical mass and hence exploded spreading itself into

space. Where did that matter come from and was there

space before the bag for the broken segments to spread

around? How did that space come into existence? What

were the governing laws for the bang to occur or were

the laws of the bang existed before the bang? Sorry,

you cannot ask all those questions because we can only

talk about after the bang not before the bang. We can

talk about micro seconds or even peco seconds after

the bang, since there is no ‘before’ as we start

counting time only with the bang. However, there

should be matter concentrated for the bang to occur.

Where did that matter come from, since matter can

neither be created nor destroyed?

 

Since you are asking too many questions, we will give

you another theory. The universe follows a cyclic

process. It continuously expands up to a critical

state and then starts contracting to a point when the

bang occurs. With the bang the expansion again starts.

We are currently in the expanding part of the cycle.

How or when did this cycle started? Cycle does not

have a beginning or end; that is why it is called

cyclic process. Where did the matter come from, for

it expand and contract? How the laws of expansion and

contraction or all the physical laws came into

existence. Matter as well as the governing physical

laws cannot come from anywhere. Matter and the laws

were there from the beginning – Ohps – there is no

beginning or end! - As you can see, science cannot

provide answers anymore, other than make the answers

more and more sophisticated to understand the

beginning of the Universe. Now, how about the

consciousness? How did it arise? Well, we are still

investigating how the consciousness manifests itself

in matter! All we can say is when appropriate

conditions are met – bang – the consciousness arises

from the matter. You mean it is a product of the

matter? Yes, you can say that, but we are still

working on trying to understand how consciousness

arises in matter. How about life? What is life and

is it different from consciousness? We do not know

what life is, but we know it manifests in terms of

physiological activities that includes being conscious

of things or environment around. How about matter?

What is it made up of? Of course, it is made up of

fundamental building blocks of matter; we do not know

what it is, but we have different theories to explain

it. Well, this is our current state of understanding

of the universe made up matter and life forms.

 

Actually, some of the statements of science are not

far from the Vedantic truth. Let us look from the

Vedantic perspective to see if we have any better

answers. Most of the religions start with the

presumption that the universe is a creation. How can

you say it is a creation? Before answering that let us

ask a question - what is creation?

 

If I collect a big stone from the street and show it

as my creation, you may laugh at me or throw me out of

the window. Suppose, I carve out a beautiful Ganesha

out of that stone, immediately you will start admiring

as a beautiful creation. How did a simple stone which

was not considered as a creation, now turned out to be

a beautiful creation? What I brought out of the basic

matter – stone – is an order and a beauty to qualify

as it as creation. In creation, there is an order and

a harmony, contributing to esthetic beauty. Look at a

flower – there is beautiful order and esthetic beauty.

According to thermodynamics, any ordered system

involves high energy or low entropy. In order to

create and maintain order, work has to be done.

Thermodynamically, nature moves to chaotic state to

lower its energy, that is increase its entropy. To

create an order, work has to be done which involves

expenditure of energy. Universe operates within well

defined Laws. Even to discover these laws of nature,

intelligence is required. Then, what to talk about

the universal order along with laws to create that

order and to maintain that order. Since order can

only come out of intelligence, creative order involves

an intelligent action. This much, we understand by

examining the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Now look at the Universe. Close examination reveals

that universe is cosmos or a well ordered and

regulated system. Look at the structure of an atom, a

molecule, a crystal, a solar system, the Milky Way,

the galaxies, and the whole universe in perspective –

It is a gigantic, well ordered system with physical

and fundamental laws governing the system. From the

electron orbits, to planetary motions to movement of

stars to galaxies, all follow very rigid physical

laws.

 

The size of the earth is insignificant in comparison

to the solar system. The solar system itself is

insignificant in relation to size of the Milky Way. A

scientist sitting in a corner of this tiny earth is

able to deduce universal laws that are applicable to

galaxies and galaxies away shows that the universe is

well behaved system. Work has to be expended to create

and maintain such an order. It is an intelligent

creation, as one observes how our own physical body

functions – starting from breathing, to circulation,

to digestion, to excretion – there is perfect order,

beyond human comprehension. It is awesome even to

imagine how a tiny cell duplicates itself to produce

such a gigantic body, with all functional elements

formed; it is mind boggling. The nearest star, close

to the earth, is four and half light years away – that

is light traveling at the speed of 300,000 km/sec

takes four and half years to cover that distance.

Distances between the stars are incredible in relation

to the size of the stars.

 

The nearest galaxy is two million light years away

from us. When we look at the sky, we are having a

glimpse of the past in the present, since light must

have traveled millions of years ago to reach us now.

Such a well behaved ordered system cannot happen by an

accident or result of a random event. Hence the

universe has to be creation, just as Ganesha carved

out of a stone has to be a creation. There has to be

intelligence behind the creation. That intelligence

must have all the knowledge and skills needed to

create this entire universe. Thus once we have

accepted the existence of universe, we can not but

bring in a third factor, a creator to create this

universe. All religions call that as GOD. God

according to all religions is the one who created this

entire universe. Thus, we have now three things to be

concerned with – jiiva, an individual, jagat, the

universe and Iswara, the creator. Creator has to be a

conscious entity, since unconscious entity cannot

create. This much, all religions agree. Vedanta goes

one step further.

 

It says any creation involves two factors. In the

above, we have talked about the first one, called

intelligent cause or nimitta kaaraNa. In addition to

the intelligence or know-how, we need material for the

creation. For me to carve out Ganesha idol, even if I

have the know-how, I would not be able to create it

unless I have the material in hand, the stone. In my

case, I could go out and collect a stone from the

street to create Ganesha. Similarly for the

intelligent cause, God, to create this entire

universe, he needs the material. He does not have the

luxury to go out and get the material for his

creation. He has to create the material too. It is a

peculiar creation wherein the two causes – the

material cause and the intelligent cause has to be one

and the same. In Mundaka Upanishad it gives an

example – just as a spider projects as well as

withdraws the material for the creation of its nest –

‘yatho nabir sRijate gRinhate ca’- The intelligence to

create the nest rests with the spider. In addition

the material cause for the creation also comes from

the spider. Thus material and intelligent cause for

spider’s net is one and the same. Let us ask further?

What is the size of this universe? If there is a

creator where is he? Why or what is the purpose of

this creation? Why did he create me? What is my

relationship with the creator?

 

First, creation has to be infinite. If it finite, we

want to know what is there on the other side of the

finite universe. Boundary defining the finiteness of

the universe has to separate it from something else

which is not the universe. If something else is

there, then where did that outside come from? It has

to be created too. If so, it implies that creation

has to be boundless or infinite. Vedanta says PuurNam

idam (idam or this, standing for the entire universe,

is puurNam or limitless or infinite).

 

Next, where is the creator now after creating the

Universe? Creator cannot be inside the creation or

outside the creation. He cannot be outside the

creation since outside has to be created; then that

outside is inside the creation. Hence there is no

outside of the creation. He cannot be inside the

creation either. In fact anything inside the creation

cannot create this entire universe. In addition, if

He is inside, He will be limited by the creation.

Hence, he can neither be inside nor outside the

creation. Only choice is He and the creation cannot

be separated. Hence, He and the universe cannot be

separated. Not only he is the material and

intelligent cause, it also follows that he is

insuperable from the creation. If the creation is

infinite, He has to be infinite too. Hence Vedanta

says – He pervades the entire universe, both inside

(here inside referring to the body of the individual)

as well as outside (antar bihischa tat sarvam vyaapya

naarayana sthitaH).

 

What is the nature of this God principle that we have

defined as the cause for the entire universe? Since he

is the creator and creator cannot be an inert entity,

He has to be a conscious entity. How and why did He

create and why did He create this kind of Universe

with such disparities that we talked about in our

earlier post? Why did He create me? Vedanta addresses

each of these questions in logical fashion. Here we

need to understand the role of Logic or anumaana

pramaaNa. Vedanta talks about truth of the creation

which is beyond the logic. That is, logically one

cannot deduce the truth – says Vedanta (naiShaa

tarkena matiraapaneya). Yet Vedanta is not illogical

as we shall see.

 

In Vedanta, the ultimate truth is called Brahman.

Brahman comes from the root, bRihat indicating growing

or expanding or big. Big is an adjective qualifying a

noun. But Vedantic seers found out that noun qualify

the adjective too. Take for example a big mountain

wherein the bigness of the mountain is defined

relative to a normal size mountain. If we say big

mosquito, its bigness is different from that of the

bigness of the mountain. Thus the adjective big is

also getting qualified by the noun that it qualifies.

All these qualified big-nesses are finitely big. If we

want to designate something which is unqualifiedly big

or infinitely big, the adjective big itself is made

into noun and that is the word Brahman. Brahman is

infinitely big or unqualifiedly big, with the meaning

of absolutely infinite or infiniteness from every

aspect. Hence Vedanta says there is nothing other

than Brahman or it is one without a second (Ekam Eva,

advitIyam). If there is something other than Brahman,

Brahman ceases to be Brahman since its infiniteness is

compromised. Infinite cannot have parts then also

infiniteness is compromised. Vedanta says normally

objects can differ in three ways – called vijaati,

sajaati and swagata bhedaas. Vijaati bheda is

differences that exist between two different species,

like cows and horses. Sajaati bheda is differences

that exist among different units in the same species –

like white cow vs black cow. Swagata bheda is the

internal differences within one unit – like legs are

different from the hands, ears, eyes, etc. Brahman

cannot have any of these three types of differences

since it is one without a second and is part less.

Brahman is indescribable or indefinable and

unqualifiable – we will examine some of these

descriptions in the next post.

[Guest guest]

Sadananda-ji:

 

Thank you for this amazingly erudite and concise articulation of some

truly profound concepts. I have one or two questions/observations.

Please let me know if they take things too far afield. I am coming at

this as a novice to Vedanta, but a longstanding buddhist practitioner

and student. So I may from time to time use terms common to that

system, and will try to explain them so that others on this list may

hopefully show me if there are correlative terms or concepts in Vedanta.

 

First, in your brief discussion of meditation in this post, you are

describing a rational, intellectual activity -- negation of that which

is not ultimately real. In buddhism, it is taught that there are two

fundamental methods of meditation. One is called vipassana, or

penetrating insight. This is a conceptual, or cognitive, activity of

the mind, and seems to me to be what you are describing.

 

But prior to vipassana in most systems is another method, known as

shamatha, or meditative quiescence. In shamatha, the practitioner

learns simultaneously to quiet the mind and to develop powers of

single-pointed concentration through non-conceptual meditation on an

object -- typically the breath, though it can be a mantra or image or

whatever. In most Tibetan traditions, one is not even taught vipassana

until one achieves a certain mastery of shamatha, at least to the point

where one can hold an object in the mind single-pointedly without any

thoughts, feelings, etc. arising; one merges one's mind with the object,

ultimately experiencing the emptiness of all apparent subject-object

distinctions. (Indeed, beyond these two comes the union of vipassana

and shamatha but now I am certain I am going too far afield).

 

My question is: does Vedanta also recognize several different meditative

methods, or is meditation in Vedanta principally a conceptual exercise?

 

And second, I just want to say that your description of the negation of

apparent conceptions of "I" is just marvelous. For several years I

studied and practiced according to the Madyamika-Prasangika, as

expounded by Nagarjuna in his Mulamadyamikakarika, and the principle

commentators of that work. And you seem to hit on the nub of what

became for me an irreconcileable problem: once all has been negated,

there is still some "thing" left, which I am now recognizing as the true

"I" (Atman) and -- as you point out in your discussion of the universe

-- its complete identity with the ultimate basis of reality, Brahman.

This is precisely what led me to Advaita-Vedanta, and I look forward

with great thirst for further posts in this series, because in a mere

five entries you have already described quite concisely the culmination

of a process that took me 46 years to work through!

 

Namaste,

 

Neil

 

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> Introduction to Vedanta – 5

>

> Who am I or what I am not?

>

> We started our inquiry recognizing that there are two

> things in this Universe; I, the subject, and the world

> of objects constituting the rest of the universe. We

> have been examining the subject to find out our

> nature.

[Guest guest]

--- nlg108108 <nlg_108 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote:

 

>

>

> My question is: does Vedanta also recognize several

> different meditative

> methods, or is meditation in Vedanta principally a

> conceptual exercise?

 

Shree Neil - PraNAms.

 

Yes there are many meditative methods and practices

including the ones you mentioned. Some are

preparatory in terms of purifying the mind which

includes development of concentration etc.

 

Vedantic meditation is ultimately an inquiry by the

mind to take us beyond the notional mind. In the

series, I will comeback to the meditation aspects when

we discuss the saadhana. But even before one sits for

meditation, the purification is done through karma

yoga, upAsana yoga and jnaana yoga. We will discuss

to some extent as we go through. Last year I had

written extensively a 6-part series on karma yoga

which can be down loaded from archives.

 

Your comments on the maadhyamika philosophy are

revealing. A collogue of mine, Shree Benjamin Root,

used to argue actively on the list that advaita

Vedanta parallels maadhyamika philosophy. Your

experience seems to present a different perspective.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

> And second, I just want to say that your description

> of the negation of

> apparent conceptions of "I" is just marvelous. For

> several years I

> studied and practiced according to the

> Madyamika-Prasangika, as

> expounded by Nagarjuna in his Mulamadyamikakarika,

> and the principle

> commentators of that work. And you seem to hit on

> the nub of what

> became for me an irreconcileable problem: once all

> has been negated,

> there is still some "thing" left, which I am now

> recognizing as the true

> "I" (Atman) and -- as you point out in your

> discussion of the universe

> -- its complete identity with the ultimate basis of

> reality, Brahman.

> This is precisely what led me to Advaita-Vedanta,

> and I look forward

> with great thirst for further posts in this series,

> because in a mere

> five entries you have already described quite

> concisely the culmination

> of a process that took me 46 years to work through!

>

> Namaste,

>

> Neil

>

>

> advaitin, kuntimaddi

> sadananda

> <kuntimaddisada wrote:

> >

> > Introduction to Vedanta – 5

> >

> > Who am I or what I am not?

> >

> > We started our inquiry recognizing that there are

> two

> > things in this Universe; I, the subject, and the

> world

> > of objects constituting the rest of the universe.

> We

> > have been examining the subject to find out our

> > nature.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sadananda-ji: Thank you very much for responding to my question. This

helps my understanding greatly.

 

 

 

I think Shri Benjamin is largely correct in the parallels between the two

traditions. Where I would diverge is that I believe the Madhyamika

teachings (really it isn't teachings, but a philosophical method of inquiry)

lead unavoidably to a conclusion that is at the heart of the difference

between Advaita and the Mahayana on the existence of Brahman.

 

 

 

I am beginning to compose a reply to Shri Ramesh, who posed a similar

question. I want first to read the article at the links he provided, and

further to be extremely careful in my choice of words and in citations to

and quotations of source materials, so as not to give rise to any

misunderstandings. It may, therefore, take me a day or two to respond on

this most critical issue for anyone seeking to understand a distinction that

has bothered beings with minds far superior to me for well over a thousand

years (and indeed has haunted me for quite some time).

 

 

 

Namaste,

 

Neil

 

 

 

_____

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of kuntimaddi sadananda

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 10:59 AM

advaitin

Re: Re: Introduction to Vedanta-5

 

 

 

 

Your comments on the maadhyamika philosophy are

revealing. A collogue of mine, Shree Benjamin Root,

used to argue actively on the list that advaita

Vedanta parallels maadhyamika philosophy. Your

experience seems to present a different perspective.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

.._,___

[Guest guest]

Dear Neil :

 

Welcome aboard!

 

may i please share with you my dear friend Sri Benjamin's views on

this subject - re Brahman in the Advaita philosophy and Mahayana

buddhism ?

 

here it goes

 

"Indeed, this excerpt helps to buttress my view that Advaita and

Mahayana Buddhism are quite similar in spirit. To briefly

recapitulate, the original Theravada Buddhism denies the reality of

the ego, and the later Mahayana Buddhism denies the reality of ego

and external world, both of which are described by the suggestive

but ambiguous word 'emptiness'. I have argued that emptiness is

synonymous with the Pure Consciousness of Advaita, since nothing but

Pure Consciousness remains after ego and world are dissolved. (See

also here.)

 

Consciousness itself is undeniable, so the accusations of 'nihilism'

sometimes levelled against Mahayana are baseless. Emptiness refers

not to 'nothing' but to the vast clarity, like empty space, of pure

infinite consciousness devoid of all mind-discriminated objects such

as egos and things. Indeed, the mind itself is non-existent,

notwithstanding that it is the source of the trouble, however

paradoxical that may seem! This is similar to the 'emptiness of

emptiness' often mentioned in the Mahayana. All these themes are

raised in the Yoga Vasistha.

 

(As always, I must emphasize that the disappearance of ego and

objects, to the enlightened sage, does not mean blindness! How then

could Buddha, Shankara and Ramana preach to disciples? Rather, the

discriminating mind of the sage is merely neutral and quiescent, so

that he realizes everything as one vast and pure consciousness,

notwithstanding all the shapes and colors. The rational mind is

still used unconsciously as a practical tool to navigate the world,

but the sage does not believe any of its suppositions, much less

identify with any of them.)

 

Notice that the Vasistha makes the interesting point that the

discriminating tendency of the mind inherently contradicts the

fundamental unity of consciousness. This fundamental unity is

reflected in our use of the word 'I', though that very 'I' becomes a

source of delusion when objectified by the mind. Also, the idea that

even bondage and liberation are merely notions created by the mind

is found in the Mahayana as well. "

 

http://Indeed, this excerpt helps to buttress my view that Advaita

and Mahayana Buddhism are quite similar in spirit. To briefly

recapitulate, the original Theravada Buddhism denies the reality of

the ego, and the later Mahayana Buddhism denies the reality of ego

and external world, both of which are described by the suggestive

but ambiguous word 'emptiness'. I have argued that emptiness is

synonymous with the Pure Consciousness of Advaita, since nothing but

Pure Consciousness remains after ego and world are dissolved. (See

also here.)

 

Consciousness itself is undeniable, so the accusations of 'nihilism'

sometimes levelled against Mahayana are baseless. Emptiness refers

not to 'nothing' but to the vast clarity, like empty space, of pure

infinite consciousness devoid of all mind-discriminated objects such

as egos and things. Indeed, the mind itself is non-existent,

notwithstanding that it is the source of the trouble, however

paradoxical that may seem! This is similar to the 'emptiness of

emptiness' often mentioned in the Mahayana. All these themes are

raised in the Yoga Vasistha.

 

(As always, I must emphasize that the disappearance of ego and

objects, to the enlightened sage, does not mean blindness! How then

could Buddha, Shankara and Ramana preach to disciples? Rather, the

discriminating mind of the sage is merely neutral and quiescent, so

that he realizes everything as one vast and pure consciousness,

notwithstanding all the shapes and colors. The rational mind is

still used unconsciously as a practical tool to navigate the world,

but the sage does not believe any of its suppositions, much less

identify with any of them.)

 

Notice that the Vasistha makes the interesting point that the

discriminating tendency of the mind inherently contradicts the

fundamental unity of consciousness. This fundamental unity is

reflected in our use of the word 'I', though that very 'I' becomes a

source of delusion when objectified by the mind. Also, the idea that

even bondage and liberation are merely notions created by the mind

is found in the Mahayana as well. "

 

http://www.sunyaprajna.com/Advaita/MindVasistha.html

 

Ben ben , as i affectionately called him, iwas quite a regular

participant in this group . In fact , what was most endearing about

him was his great sense of humor ... he pis posts were always crisp

and neat and were full of wit and wisdom . He has his own blog now

which may explain his absence from this list .

 

Yoga vasishta says

 

"Awareness is Brahman; the world is Brahman; the various elements

are Brahman; I am Brahman; my enemy is Brahman; my friends and

relatives are Brahman. "

 

with regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Neil Glazer" <nlg_108 wrote:

>

> Sadananda-ji: Thank you very much for responding to my question.

This

> helps my understanding greatly.

>

>

>

> I think Shri Benjamin is largely correct in the parallels between

the two

> traditions.

[Guest guest]

Dear Neil :

 

Welcome aboard!

 

may i please share with you my dear friend Sri Benjamin's views on

this subject - re Brahman in the Advaita philosophy and Mahayana

buddhism ?

 

here it goes

 

"Indeed, this excerpt helps to buttress my view that Advaita and

Mahayana Buddhism are quite similar in spirit. To briefly

recapitulate, the original Theravada Buddhism denies the reality of

the ego, and the later Mahayana Buddhism denies the reality of ego

and external world, both of which are described by the suggestive

but ambiguous word 'emptiness'. I have argued that emptiness is

synonymous with the Pure Consciousness of Advaita, since nothing but

Pure Consciousness remains after ego and world are dissolved. (See

also here.)

 

Consciousness itself is undeniable, so the accusations of 'nihilism'

sometimes levelled against Mahayana are baseless. Emptiness refers

not to 'nothing' but to the vast clarity, like empty space, of pure

infinite consciousness devoid of all mind-discriminated objects such

as egos and things. Indeed, the mind itself is non-existent,

notwithstanding that it is the source of the trouble, however

paradoxical that may seem! This is similar to the 'emptiness of

emptiness' often mentioned in the Mahayana. All these themes are

raised in the Yoga Vasistha.

 

(As always, I must emphasize that the disappearance of ego and

objects, to the enlightened sage, does not mean blindness! How then

could Buddha, Shankara and Ramana preach to disciples? Rather, the

discriminating mind of the sage is merely neutral and quiescent, so

that he realizes everything as one vast and pure consciousness,

notwithstanding all the shapes and colors. The rational mind is

still used unconsciously as a practical tool to navigate the world,

but the sage does not believe any of its suppositions, much less

identify with any of them.)

 

Notice that the Vasistha makes the interesting point that the

discriminating tendency of the mind inherently contradicts the

fundamental unity of consciousness. This fundamental unity is

reflected in our use of the word 'I', though that very 'I' becomes a

source of delusion when objectified by the mind. Also, the idea that

even bondage and liberation are merely notions created by the mind

is found in the Mahayana as well. "

 

Neil, pl visit this site to read Beji's views on many subjects .

 

 

http://www.sunyaprajna.com/Advaita/MindVasistha.html

 

Ben ben , as i affectionately called him, iwas quite a regular

participant in this group . In fact , what was most endearing about

him was his great sense of humor ... he pis posts were always crisp

and neat and were full of wit and wisdom . He has his own blog now

which may explain his absence from this list .

 

Yoga vasishta says

 

"Awareness is Brahman; the world is Brahman; the various elements

are Brahman; I am Brahman; my enemy is Brahman; my friends and

relatives are Brahman. "

 

with regards

 

 

 

advaitin, "Neil Glazer" <nlg_108 wrote:

>

> Sadananda-ji: Thank you very much for responding to my question.

This

> helps my understanding greatly.

>

>

>

> I think Shri Benjamin is largely correct in the parallels between

the two

> traditions.

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

advaitin, "dhyanasaraswati"

<dhyanasaraswati wrote:

Yoga vasishta says:

"Awareness is Brahman; the world is Brahman; the various elements

are Brahman; I am Brahman; my enemy is Brahman; my friends and

relatives are Brahman. "

 

Dear Dhyanasaraswati Mataji and other learned members,

A wonderful quotation indeed!

But here many questions arise in my mind. Is the above quotation

true or is it false or is it something to be swallowed blindly

because it appears in a very popular text? Further, are these

quotations to be accepted as true after verifying them within oneself

or are they to be accepted blindly as unverifiable dogmas ? If they

are to be accepted as true after verification what are the means and

methodologies for verification? I may please be educated on these

points.

 

With warm and respectful namaskarams,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

Sri Dhayanasaraswati - Namaste:

 

 

 

Thank you so very much for your warm welcome.

 

 

 

You sharpen the issue considerably, by generously sharing the statements of

Sri Benjamin. I do think he is quite correct in stating that "Advaita and

Mahayana Buddhism are quite similar in spirit." I have no question of that,

whatsoever, and therefore may honestly state that I will always be in that

regard a Mahayanist. However, I do not agree with his further argument that

"emptiness is synonymous with the Pure Consciousness of Advaita . . ." To

be sure, the direct, penetrating, transcendent and perfect realization of

emptiness in one's mind is indeed pure consciousness. But to the Buddhist,

it too is empty of intrinsic existence. This will take considerable

verbiage, but allow me to explain my views in some depth, for in so doing, I

hope to clarify my post of late last night, which merely pointed to some

indications in the literature of the denial by Buddhism of an eternal

Brahman.

 

 

 

I have already established in a brief manner that the principal

literature of the Madhyamika denies ultimate reality in the sense of a

divine, eternal entity. But the question still persists, "well, then, what

is there? Surely there must be in Buddhism some substratum of

consciousness, and is that not Brahman?" The answer, in short, is no, and

herein lies the critical distinction between these two great nondual

traditions.

 

 

 

We first need to understand the difference in perspectives with

respect to conventional or relative reality in the two traditions. In

Advaita, the phenomenal universe is illusion and once the veils of ignorance

are removed, the illusion vanishes and one realizes the eternal reality of

Brahman, which is characterized as "one without a second." However, in

Buddhism, this is not the case; it is, indeed, denied. The Madhyamika

asserts that the universe is free from the two extremes, of nihilism on the

one hand, and of eternal existence on the other hand. Eternal existence

being the Brahman of the Vedanta.

 

 

 

It matters not how we characterize Brahman, for even the notion of an

eternal substratum of consciousness is denied in Buddhism. This was the

fallacy of the "mind-only" school of the Yogacharans, and while Yogachara

was absorbed into most of the Tibetan schools, its position continues only

as an intermediate position, a pedagogical tool (indeed a very high and

largely inaccessible tool so far as the vast majority of Buddhists are

concerned, shrouded as it is in the secrecy of Highest Yoga Tantra), and is

not the end game for Buddhism. Only the realization of absolute shunyata is

considered the correct view, and even consciousness for the Buddhist is

empty of intrinsic existence. (One line of reasoning here is that

consciousness cannot exist independent of some object of consciousness;

consciousness must, according to this view, be conscious of something, such

as, for example, a perception or a feeling or a thought.)

 

 

 

Indeed, the very fact that the concept of mind-only (and its refutation) is

typically reserved for those highly advanced adepts who have completely

internalized emptiness through the process of Madhyamika is an indication of

where things stand in Buddhism. For, Buddhism is radical in adherence to

its notion of truth, and if it did accept something so fundamental as an

eternally existing substratum of consciousness, it would be quite open about

this. Instead, Buddhism everywhere asserts strenuously the ultimate truth

of emptiness of all phenomena, consciousness included. Pedagogically, as

one struggles with increasingly abstract and largely nonconceptual

expressions of emptiness, one "hits the wall" as it were. The

practitioner's mind is grappling with the notion of being, not being, both

being and not being, and neither being nor not being. She asks herself,

"what is it that is not; is not not; is both not and not not; and is neither

not nor not not?" She arrives at the conclusion that it must be

consciousness, since what is it that is asking this question? At this

stage, all that is left from the Buddhist master's perspective in terms of

bringing her student to a complete and perfect wisdom of the ultimate truth

of emptiness is to dispose of this one final question, this one nagging

notion of consciousness as being intrinsically real. Thus, Highest Yoga

Tantra, as well as Mahamudra, is utilized to complete the transformation.

Penetrating insight through direct realization into this ultimate, absolute

Truth of Emptiness is nothing less than enlightenment, Nirvana, the

cessation of suffering, liberation. (To avoid complication, I shall leave

to the side the Mahayana view that complete enlightenment at this point also

requires the arising and perfection of Bodhicitta, the Bodhisattvic

determination not to dissolve into Nirvana until all beings are liberated.)

 

 

 

Viewed from this perspective, liberation is the achievement of a complete

transformation of mind, where it is completely liberated from grasping at

both extremes of "being" and "not being"; "existing" or "not existing."

Here, as is stated in the mantra of the Prajnaparamita Sutra, the

practitioner has not merely "gone beyond" (paragate) since that implies

transcending from something to something else, but "gone beyond beyond"

(parasamgate). Thus, the nondualism of Buddhism is something quite

different from the monist nondualism of Advaita. The Vedantist, from the

Buddhist perspective, may have indeed gone beyond, but to the Buddhist,

there is still more to do, to go beyond beyond, and thus achieve ultimate

liberation in becoming free of all concepts, whether of the nature of

"existing," or of "non-existing."

 

 

 

This is the true significance of shunyata, and it is completely unambiguous:

emptiness means the absence of any trace whatsoever of a real, independent,

eternal and unchanging existence. Everything is dependent arising (or as

some prefer, interdependent arising). This is indeed the thrust of

Nagarjuna's reasoning, and that of every single Madhymakan who has followed

in his footsteps.

 

 

 

As an aside, I think there is a practical reason, beyond pedagogy with

respect to Buddhist students, why so many Buddhist teachers (especially in

the modern era) have resisted putting such a fine edge on this point.

Buddhism teaches one to have a deep respect for others, including others'

deeply held convictions with respect to religion. As Buddhism has begun

over the past century or so to engage with the West, which is dominated by

the dualistic monotheism of the Abrahamic traditions, it has had to temper

this ultimate truth a bit in order to avoid appearing threatening to the

very paradigm on which Western civilization is based. It is not that it is

hidden, for the conclusion is there for anyone interested in Buddhism to

draw clearly from voluminous teachings that have been made quite public; and

thus, there is no real dishonesty to this. It is my believe, rather, that

the emissaries of Buddhism (and here I am speaking largely of the Mahayana)

adhere tightly to the tradition's core belief in the inherent equality of

all sentient beings, out of which arises an extremely profound sense of

compassion and loving-kindness and an equally profound responsibility not to

generate any negativity, which only leads individuals to create more karma,

delaying their ability to attain freedom from samsara. It thus tempers the

expression of this ultimate truth in terms of theism, while openly

acknowledging it to those who ask the question directly. Which is why HH

the Dalai Lama, in public lectures and ecumenical conversations, is quite

explicit on the point, but typically goes on to state that there are many

paths for many different individuals of varying inclinations and abilities,

and that all religions are paths to the ultimate truth, all are systems for

transformation of individuals as they seek greater communion with the

divine, and all are ways to teach people to be good planetary citizens. All

religions, according to HHDL, are equally valid and deserving of deep

respect, even though he is equally clear that all religions are not

identical (put another way, all religions are not equal, insofar as equality

is identity in terms of logic and mathematics).

 

 

 

That was a digression, though I think it makes an important point.

 

 

 

And so, emptiness, in the Buddhist tradition, can never be equated with any

eternal existent, including any eternally existent substratum of

consciousness, or Brahman. Emptiness is based upon the complete inability

to locate, identify or find any eternal existent through logic, reason or

any replicable means of verification to a certainty. This is the entire

point of the Madhyamaka method: one negates finer and finer concepts until

there is nothing left to negate. And nothing truly means nothing.

 

 

 

You may now wonder, so how does the Buddhist reconcile this with the

assertion that Buddhism avoids the extreme of nihilism? The Buddhist

asserts that, insofar as Buddhism accepts that conventional reality is

indeed real - it being one of the two truths - there can be no nihilism.

"Two truths" is taken quite literally here: it is equally true that the

world exists, and that it doesn't. A nihilist, on the other hand, would

simply state that it doesn't.

 

 

 

Let me try to explain it this way: Vedanta teaches that the entire

phenomenal universe is but an illusion, and once we have awoken from that

dream, so to speak, we awaken to the true reality of the eternal Brahman,

which is one without a second. Buddhism, on the other hand, says the

phenomenal universe is *something akin to* an illusion. Nirvana is not the

waking up from this illusion into some greater reality; it is the

recognition that the true nature of samsara is itself Nirvana. They are,

ultimately speaking, identical. By dispelling the incorrect (to the

Buddhist) view of samsara as being a false reality, one awakens to the firm

understanding not of some underlying substratum of reality, but to the very

essence of samsara itself, which is emptiness, same as Nirvana (as it is

taught that even Nirvana is empty of intrinsic existence). The world of

samsara both "is" and "is not."

 

 

 

Thus, for the Buddhist, awakening is not awakening from a dream to another

form of reality. It is something completely different. This is precisely

what, according to the sutras, the historical Buddha taught. In the

Lankavatara Sutra, the Buddha addressed the "philosophers" who asserted that

"Nirvana consists (of) . . . the absorption of the finite soul into the

Supreme Atman; or who see all things as the manifestation of the vital force

of some Supreme Spirit to which all return." To this, he responded,

"clinging to these foolish notions, there is no awakening . . ." To the

Buddha, Brahmanic nirvana is not Nirvana, but merely awakening from one

dream into another.

 

 

 

I think it is probably important to try and understand the Buddha's

perspective here (though we need to intuit it, since he never really spoke

much of these things, not to mention that none of his contempories recorded

in writing any of what he taught or said). The Buddha had spent years

engaging in all sorts of practices aimed at trying to reach Brahman. He

eventually grew frustrated, abandoned that field of inquiry, and proceeded

along another path. Here's my speculation as to why: for the Buddha, it was

not enough to intuit anything when it came to ultimate truth. He was, in

this respect, endeavoring to be quite scientific in his approach. He would

not accept anything as a Truth unless he could verify it directly and with

absolute certainty. Moreover, his final teaching to his students included

the very strong caveat that nobody should ever take anything he said or

taught as being true unless they too could verify it through repeating his

experiments. To the Buddha, nothing can be called a Truth (capital "T")

unless it is completely verifiable with absolute proofs that others can

examine and verify. (This may be a form of spiritual materialism, though

many deny it, and we need not diverge to there at this point.)

 

 

 

Because the Buddha could in no way find any trace of Brahman, despite

immense efforts, he concluded that it did not exist, at least not

intrinsically. It is important to note here that Buddhism does not

completely deny the possibility of all sorts of deities. Indeed, there is a

veritable pantheon of them in some Buddhist traditions, and the Tibetan

wheel of life expressly includes realms of deities and demi-deities. But

what Buddhism says about them is that all gods without exception are the

result of operation of the same laws of karma, of cause and effect, as every

single other phenomenon in the universe. And so, even if one were somehow

to prove scientifically that there is a God who created this world, the

Buddhist would be able to say, "fine, I can accept that now that you have

proved it scientifically, but that does not shake my convictions one iota

with respect to my assertion that even this God is itself the result of

myriad eons of the operation of infinite webs of cause and effect, and that

just as this God arose, so one day it will be gone. And therefore, this

God, too, is ultimately empty." And I firmly believe that this is why, as I

noted earlier, the Buddhist emissaries to the West are quite comfortable

accepting theistic religions, even dualistic ones, as being valid on some

level.

 

 

 

Thus all the greatest figures in the Madhyamaka-Mahayana, from Nagarjuna,

through Chandrakirti, to the great bodhisattva Shantideva, have concluded

that there is no "I," no Atman, no Brahman. Because they are not

necessarily speaking of entities that may well exist on some unknowable

plane or dimension(s) beyond our cognitive abilities. Rather, they are

speaking of what might exist intrinsically; that is, without any other

cause. Finding none, being the spiritual scientists (perhaps a better word

would be logicians) that they are, they conclude there is none. To them,

this is the ultimate truth, and they refuse to engage in what they view as

speculation on the point, because to do that would be to diverge from a

radically strict notion of adherence to Truth. Though Buddhism is a

profound mystical tradition - meaning a means of directly experiencing that

which is - it is not acceptable to a Buddhist simply to experience some

"state," put a name on it, and accept it in any ultimate sense. That, to

the Buddhist, is reification of erroneous views. And Buddhism has devoted

millennia precisely to refuting all such views.

 

 

 

In the end, for me personally, the implication of all this is that it is a

matter of personal choice. If one's karma is such that the Buddhist

perspective rings true, one may pursue that path in utterly good conscience

that one is pursuing the path to Truth, and in so doing one will achieve a

lasting transformation, and realization, ultimately, of the cessation of

samsaric transmigration and all suffering. If, however, one's karma is such

that one has faith in the eternal Brahman, one may pursue that path with

vigor, and in so doing will equally achieve a complete transformation, and

will directly achieve union with the Divine. I cannot, in good conscience,

declare either path to be erroneous, for I really find no error insofar as

the actions of individuals with scrupulous ethics is concerned. It is, in

the end, thus a matter of faith. Faith in the mind's powers of reasoning,

application of rigorous logic, and direct experience, may lead in one

direction. Faith in something greater, using also the mind's capabilities

to reason, apply logic, and experience directly, will surely lead in

another.

 

 

 

To truly get personal here for a moment, I suspect this faith existed in me

long before I recognized it. I've engaged in fairly deep explorations of a

number of paths, theistic and non-theistic. Something about the Divine kept

calling me. Even as I was dogged in my pursuit of Buddhist studies and

practices, something, deep inside me, held me back: I never entered into a

Guru-Student relationship, and I never formally and publicly took Refuge

vows (though I did so internally, and this was acceptable to some of my

teachers in terms of initiation into higher teachings). I always intended

to do so, but I was intent that if Buddhism was my path, I would recognize

my Guru when I met her or him, and then and only then, with my Guru, would I

take Refuge. It never happened. Karma or the workings of some Divine

purpose, it's all the same to me.

 

 

 

For me, deep, prolonged pursuit of the Buddhist path led to a conviction

that the Truth is not what I thought it to be; there is an Ultimate Reality,

and it is Brahman. Reason, logic and profound meditation practices led me

to God, *even as I truly and quite consciously believed I was moving further

away from God.* Pure Consciousness, in the form of mind-heart, thus heeded

its own call; Atman called to its-Self, and in some sense became Self-Aware

to an extent that my grosser mind was able to recognize in some imperfect

yet deeply resonating manner. I'm no stranger to these feelings, and at

times even during my Buddhist years, encouraged by teachers such as Sylvia

Boorstein, tried to pursue more theistic paths. I always turned back.

Having now found Advaita, I see no possibility of turning back; indeed, I

see the possibility of reconciliation of what had heretofore been perceived

by my mind as contradictory strands, internally inconsistent thoughts or

feelings with respect to nonduality and the existence of the Divine.

 

 

 

 

 

Namaste,

 

Neil

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of dhyanasaraswati

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 8:53 AM

 

 

 

may i please share with you my dear friend Sri Benjamin's views on

this subject - re Brahman in the Advaita philosophy and Mahayana

buddhism ?

 

here it goes

 

"Indeed, this excerpt helps to buttress my view that Advaita and

Mahayana Buddhism are quite similar in spirit. To briefly

recapitulate, the original Theravada Buddhism denies the reality of

the ego, and the later Mahayana Buddhism denies the reality of ego

and external world, both of which are described by the suggestive

but ambiguous word 'emptiness'. I have argued that emptiness is

synonymous with the Pure Consciousness of Advaita, since nothing but

Pure Consciousness remains after ego and world are dissolved. (See

also here.)

 

Consciousness itself is undeniable, so the accusations of 'nihilism'

sometimes levelled against Mahayana are baseless. Emptiness refers

not to 'nothing' but to the vast clarity, like empty space, of pure

infinite consciousness devoid of all mind-discriminated objects such

as egos and things. Indeed, the mind itself is non-existent,

notwithstanding that it is the source of the trouble, however

paradoxical that may seem! This is similar to the 'emptiness of

emptiness' often mentioned in the Mahayana. All these themes are

raised in the Yoga Vasistha.

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

This is with reference to the following posts by Sri Neil Glazer

advaitin/message/34970

advaitin/message/34972

advaitin/message/34987

 

Neil-ji, thanks a lot for your kind response to my question, and sorry

for not having been able to reply earlier. I read your posts with

great interest, and I must say I have great respect for the Mahayana

tradition.

 

I had planned a more detailed response with several ideas, but will

post it after a few days.

 

The primary difference between shunyata & brahman is that the former

is conceived of as a "property" of all phenomena rather than an

ontological category, whereas the latter is conceived of as an

ontological category. How much of a difference this actually makes in

terms of the final outcome (moksha/nirvana), I dont know. It depends

on how one actually makes use of these concepts while teaching. More

on this in my detailed post.

 

However, after reading your posts, I felt that brahman/shunyata/mithya

are not the keys to the tangle. Rather it is pratityasamutpada

(dependent origination) that is the key. It is clear that Nagarjuna

derives his idea of shunyata from pratityasamutpada, so much so that

he actually equates the two. Personally, I think pratityasamutpada (if

I have understood it correctly) can be accepted as an explanation for

vyavahara within Advaita-Vedanta. After all, what dependent

origination seems to convey is that all phenomena arise in a complex

web of cause & effect. Everything is dependent on something else, and

hence everything is impermanent, in turn implying that things have no

intrinsic existence (shunyata). This fits in quite well with the

Vedantic teaching of mithya.

 

However, Vedanta ultimately declares that all causality is unreal, and

advocates ajativada (non-origination). The question therefore is: Is

there any Mahayana tradition that, at its highest level, declares

causality to be unreal?

 

In my limited understanding, Dzogchen (I suppose this is what is

called "Highest Yoga Tantra") and Mahamudra do affirm that causality

is unreal (i.e. pratityasamutpada itself has only relative reality),

which would land them squarely into ajativada and hence

Advaita-Vedanta.

 

Dzogchen also has a concept of "Rigpa" which seems to tie in very well

with the Vedantic Atman. See for example:

http://groups.msn.com/Dzogchen/rigpa.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/Dzogchen/dzogchenway.msnw

 

The latter in particular seems to be a perfect "description" of

Advaita-Vedanta.

 

On the matter of nirvana being "freedom from all concepts & notions",

this is easily reconciled with Advaita. The Atman is not a concept,

and manonaasha (extinction of the mind) is a key element of moksha in

Advaita-Vedanta.

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

This is with reference to the following posts by Sri Neil Glazer

advaitin/message/34970

advaitin/message/34972

advaitin/message/34987

 

Neil-ji, thanks a lot for your kind response to my question, and sorry

for not having been able to reply earlier. I read your posts with

great interest, and I must say I have great respect for the Mahayana

tradition.

 

I had planned a more detailed response with several ideas, but will

post it after a few days.

 

The primary difference between shunyata & brahman is that the former

is conceived of as a "property" of all phenomena rather than an

ontological category, whereas the latter is conceived of as an

ontological category. How much of a difference this actually makes in

terms of the final outcome (moksha/nirvana), I dont know. It depends

on how one actually makes use of these concepts while teaching. More

on this in my detailed post.

 

However, after reading your posts, I felt that brahman/shunyata/mithya

are not the keys to the tangle. Rather it is pratityasamutpada

(dependent origination) that is the key. It is clear that Nagarjuna

derives his idea of shunyata from pratityasamutpada, so much so that

he actually equates the two. Personally, I think pratityasamutpada (if

I have understood it correctly) can be accepted as an explanation for

vyavahara within Advaita-Vedanta. After all, what dependent

origination seems to convey is that all phenomena arise in a complex

web of cause & effect. Everything is dependent on something else, and

hence everything is impermanent, in turn implying that things have no

intrinsic existence (shunyata). This fits in quite well with the

Vedantic teaching of mithya.

 

However, Vedanta ultimately declares that all causality is unreal, and

advocates ajativada (non-origination). The question therefore is: Is

there any Mahayana tradition that, at its highest level, declares

causality to be unreal?

 

In my limited understanding, Dzogchen (I suppose this is what is

called "Highest Yoga Tantra") and Mahamudra do affirm that causality

is unreal (i.e. pratityasamutpada itself has only relative reality),

which would land them squarely into ajativada and hence

Advaita-Vedanta.

 

Dzogchen also has a concept of "Rigpa" which seems to tie in very well

with the Vedantic Atman. See for example:

http://groups.msn.com/Dzogchen/rigpa.msnw

http://groups.msn.com/Dzogchen/dzogchenway.msnw

 

The latter in particular seems to be a perfect "description" of

Advaita-Vedanta.

 

On the matter of nirvana being "freedom from all concepts & notions",

this is easily reconciled with Advaita. The Atman is not a concept,

and manonaasha (extinction of the mind) is a key element of moksha in

Advaita-Vedanta.

 

dhanyavAdaH

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Dear Neilji,

 

Thank you for your informative posts on Buddhism. I have some thoughts

about these and hope you could help clarify a few matters. Please

correct me where I am wrong.

 

In general, when we talk of a substratum, I believe it is not just a

matter of whether conciousness is a substratum or not. For instance,

as you mention, the Yogachara accept conciousness as a substratum, but

this conciousness is understood in a very different sense from in the

Vedanta. In the Vedanta, when we speak of conciousness, it is

objectless, changeless conciousness. On the other hand, in the

Yogachara and in the rest of Buddhism, conciousness seems to be

understood in terms of moments. Thus, there is a string of moments of

conciousness. Every moment of conciousness is conciousness of an

object or set of objects. This moment is followed by the next moment

and so on. Thus, every moment, it is a different conciousness, an

ever-changing conciousness. For the Yogachara, all that exists, thus,

are these moments of conciousness of various mindstreams. Then there

are different layers of conciousness, playing different functions but

even the alaya-vijnana is said to be every-changing.

 

In the Madhyamika of Chandrakirti and Shantideva, the conventional

existence of an extra-mental world is accepted. However, other

Madhyamakas such as Shatarakshita accept the Yogachara notion that

there is no extra-mental world, but following classical Madhyamika

state that the mind too does not inherently exist. Thus, a

conciousness alone exists view in a relative sense seems to be

acceptable to the Madhyamika but the nature of this conciousness is

that it is an ever-changing one, and in the deepest sense, even this

conciousness does not inherently exist. Nagarjuna's argument to this

effect seems to be to show the subject, conciousness, is dependent on

objects, since conciousness always has to have an object.

 

In Dzogchen, etc... if I understand correctly, there is a belief in

primordial or awareness or primordial wisdom. This primordial

awareness is said to be unconditioned but still empty. In this case,

"empty" seems abstracted from its original sense which is derived from

the fact that the phenomena is dependent causes and conditions.

Without that derivation, "empty" becomes relatively imprecise in its

import (no longer an absence of self-nature due to having causes and

conditions) and could just mean "beyond concepts of existene, etc..."

which is not contrary to Vedanta. Thus, such an unconditioned

awareness seems closer to Vedanta. However, this awareness too seems

to be framed in terms of moments of awareness following each other.

Every moment of awareness is objectless in the sense that there are no

existent objects present, but different moments of awareness are

nonetheless different due to association with different appearances.

 

This would lead us back to the same problem Vedanta has with the

Yogachara. I think a short refutation of such a position from a

Vedantic point of view is that this implicitly assumes that time is

independent of awareness. To talk about one moment of awareness

followed by another, one has observe awareness as time passes.

However, if time has no existence independent of awareness, it means

that one cannot observe awareness "over time." Time itself is

contained in awareness, so how can one talk about moments of

awareness? I don't know if such a reply would be even remotely

satisfactory.

 

The other problem with the shunyata as understood in the Madhyamika

is, as Swami Dayananda says, "there is no mithya without satya." Even

when Buddhists use examples to show that phenomena are empty of

essential nature it is always done through a specific method. It is

done by showing that a phenomena is just an imputation upon its

causes. Thus relatively, the causes are real, and the phenomena is an

imputation. Similarly, one analyses the causes and so on. The problem

is that the intuitive sense that the phenomena is unreal is formed

only in comparison with something more real (ie: its causes). The

logic itself is based on there being a substratum/causes accepted as

real. If there is no substratum at any level, the logic, the method to

show unreality itself seems empty (no pun intended).

 

Please liberally criticize what I say, I would like to understand all

these matters better. Cross-understanding Buddhism and Advaita should

help us understand both of them more precisely.

 

Regards,

 

Rishi.

[Guest guest]

Sri Rishi – and all the others who have contributed in this thread and the

parallel one started by Sri Putran:

 

 

 

I post this here, though I am trying to speak to all the discussions going

on regarding Buddhism and Advaita. I do not know whether these comments

will address everything that has been said, though I am making an effort to

do so. I speak as only one extremely imperfect person, one who formerly

identified himself as a Buddhist and now chooses no longer to identify at

all as any “ist” or with any “ism.”

 

 

 

I want to preface these comments by saying that, paradoxical as it probably

seems, I agree with everything everyone has said. Here’s why.

 

 

 

This is all quite fascinating. An utterly breathtaking discussion of the

singlemost vexing issue humans have ever explored – the truly Ultimate

conclusion regarding the very essence of the nature of reality. This is the

one problem man has pondered for as long as man has existed. But,

ultimately, I have to conclude it is completely unknowable, and to a very

great extent, probably makes no difference, *so long as man is fully engaged

with the question in some manner*. Here’s what I mean:

 

 

 

I’ll start with a conclusion, one that is rather cliché today, but still

meaningful: “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao.” God,

Brahman, Emptiness, however we want to label it, is utterly ineffable. At

its most fundamental level, it cannot be described, articulated, even

thought of. It simply Is.

 

 

 

There are, of course, differences, some quite obvious and ordinary (take,

for instance, nondual versus dual), others extremely abstract, subtle and

nuanced (e.g., this discussion of Brahman and Emptiness). And, I am quite

certain, there are differences even at the most refined and subtle level of

abstraction.

 

 

 

But, in terms of paths to Godliness, to the Godhead itself, all are equally

valid in at least this one respect: all humans who sincerely devote

themselves to one of these paths will eventually reach the end goal, whether

we call it Moksha or Nirvana or Enlightenment or Heaven. It may take only

one lifetime, it may take billions of lifetimes, but it will be the end

result.

 

 

 

Now having said that, I can already anticipate the response: ‘well, yes,

this much is true, but what we are speaking of is the most direct path to

complete liberation in this lifetime.’

 

 

 

To that, I respond: we simply cannot know. No matter how much you analyze,

meditate, discuss or debate this fundamental issue, you cannot know with

absolute certainty whether the Buddha was completely liberated or whether he

perhaps had to reincarnate one or two more times as an Advaitin or whatever

to complete the path. Likewise for a Sri Ramana – you simply do not know

whether he was completely liberated or whether he had to reincarnate one or

two more times as a Buddhist or whatever to complete the path.

 

 

 

All we do know is that all of these beings were quite obviously highly

realized beings who taught extraordinary means of achieving that which is

the essential purpose of every human – direct realization of the nature of

reality. But, and this is critical, we are speaking of the unspeakable

here; a “That” or “Suchness” that is utterly ineffable. The moment you try

to cognize it, let alone to communicate it to others, it becomes distorted.

It immediately becomes the finger pointing at the moon rather than the moon..

 

 

 

This is why the Ch’an/Zen schools don’t bother talking about any of this.

It is why Dogen-Zenji said, just sit. It is why Sri Ramana said, sooner or

later you’ll have to toss out your scriptures, unlearn everything you

learned, and just sit and examine “Who Am I.” It is why the Buddha said, I

don’t want to talk about God.

 

 

 

And, to expand our frame of reference a bit, it is why the Sufi speaks in

poetic allegory, the Jewish Kabbalist simply speaks of “Ein Sof,” which

means “without end,” and the Christian mystic barely speaks at all. Each of

these Abrahamic traditions has a mystical side, and when one pierces through

all the veils, they each teach something identical to Advaita, though they

use radically different language and means of getting there. Their

practices differ, from each other, and from Advaita, but their understanding

of what “That” is at the end of the path, is identical in every respect..

 

 

 

To return to the discussion at hand, though, as Bhikku Bodhi notes at the

start of his discourse (the link to which I posted last night), every

meditative (or mystical) tradition has to have some sort of conceptual

framework. Even Zen has one, and there are volumes of writings and

teachings on it; it is uncompromisingly Mahayana Buddhist, centered

completely on the concept of Emptiness.

 

 

 

Advaita, and all other wisdom traditions, speaks of some sort of notion of

God which, at its most pure, absolute and transcendent level, is incapable

of human understanding. We simply acknowledge it is the basis for all that

exists, and worship it, bless it, and strive for union with it as the end of

our path.

 

 

 

Buddhism is, thus, unique and quite radical in its departure from this core

conceptual notion. And I believe there simply is no way to reconcile by

finding some indication in some teaching or other that would allow one to

conclude that Brahman (or God) and Shunyata are one and the same. I must,

since I do not have access to that level of pure and perfect Wisdom yet,

simply accept on face value what Buddhism itself teaches quite explicitly in

all its various forms: that Emptiness itself is completely empty of inherent

existence. In other words, even the most subtle level of unmanifest and

ineffable Consciousness itself – before even the slightest bit of

pre-thought will or impulse exists – is itself the product of unknowable

chains of cause and effect.

 

 

 

In the end, though, such differences simply do not matter. I conclude that

it makes no difference on an ultimate level whether one conceives of

Brahman, or of Shunyata, or whatever. All teach this: let go, completely,

of any thoughts, notions, concepts, and just be; with no attachments

whatsoever; no desires, no aversions, not even the desire to let go. Once

we have accomplished this most difficult of any task any human can possibly

undertake, we are left with simply being at its most subtle and essential

level. Whatever practices we engaged in are no longer there, and no longer

relevant in the least. Whatever teachings we adhered to are gone. Whatever

conceptual framework we worked within has dissolved leaving no trace

whatsoever. Mind itself has vanished. We drop away all, and whatever

essence remains – if any essence remains – simply floats in the blissful

ocean of, well, there are no words possible to state anything further.

 

 

 

I choose to call this God. I choose to believe it is some sort of inherent

and permanent Prime Cause and I label it “Consciousness” for lack of any

possible words that can articulate it. I choose to worship it as a Divine

Essence, and to long for union with It. I choose to work hard on myself to

embody such human notions as Love and Wisdom (among others), by touching Its

very essence as best I can, wholeheartedly with no reservations whatsoever.

 

 

 

Am I therefore guilty of what I have been trying to argue against? That one

cannot equate Brahman with Emptiness? Perhaps yes; perhaps no. I cannot

possibly know. I do know that the language used, though apparently similar,

is actually quite different. I know the frameworks, the frames of reference

are distinct. I know that the concepts being conveyed by the respective

traditions – God, on the one hand, Emptiness on the other – are radically

different *as they are articulated by each tradition.*

 

 

 

Of course, we can find in the history of Buddhism and Buddhist literature

statements and teachings that seem to coincide completely with our own

beliefs. But ask yourself this: if, in the course of history, certain

extremely honest and sincere souls actually concluded that their

understanding of Shunyata and nondual Vedantin understanding of Brahman was

identical, do you not think they would have said so? Given the cultural

context, they surely were aware of Vedanta. Moreover, in trying to

reconcile these things, one has to give substantial weight to the immense

efforts undertaken by others within the same tradition whose teachings have

been revered and promulgated widely to demonstrate that these people had

drawn erroneous conclusions. Especially given the primacy granted to those

teachers over the others.

 

 

 

So I’ll close by answering something I posited earlier. I do believe that

the Buddha, Sri Ramana, and countless mystics, saints and sages throughout

the ages, have achieved final and complete liberation. Each in her or his

own way since, as embodied beings on this planet Earth, we are each unique

even as we are all identical at the most ultimate level.

 

 

 

I cannot possibly know more than this. Nor do I need to. All I can do, all

any of us can do, is to forge my own path, dedicate myself to this path,

listen to my innermost voice, follow my conscience, take twists and turns as

my inner-wisdom lights the way. All the while never, never truly seeing

where I am heading, because I can do no more than to somehow sense it.

 

 

 

My conscience spoke to me at some point in recent months and I concluded

from this formless, thoughtless thought that Buddhism was not my path

because I needed to walk a more explicitly theistic, though still

authentically nondual, path. That says nothing about Buddhism itself, which

as I noted when I first began my series of posts, I view as an absolutely

valid and complete path to whatever it is we are all trying to achieve. It

was an excellent path for me to walk and by following it I came a very long

way. It just at some point ceased to be my path. I peeled back the layers

of the onion and, instead of emptiness, I found God. I don’t know what That

is, let alone whether it is one and the same or completely opposite from

Emptiness. Nor, when I finally arrive there, will I care at all, though to

be sure it is of the utmost importance to me now, embodied as I am in this

human shell. For “I” will have vanished completely, and whether through

merger with the Godhead or dissolution into the Void, it simply won’t matter

anymore. Not to “me,” and certainly not to God.

 

 

 

Namaste,

 

Neil

 

 

 

 

 

_____

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of risrajlam

Friday, February 09, 2007 9:26 PM

advaitin

RE: Re: Introduction to Vedanta-5

 

 

 

Dear Neilji,

 

Thank you for your informative posts on Buddhism. I have some thoughts

about these and hope you could help clarify a few matters. Please

correct me where I am wrong.

[Guest guest]

Sri Neilji,

 

Sorry I did not properly read your writing till a

little before, hence could not address it in what I

had written yesterday to the group. Hope there is no

backlash of emptiness from the lack of appreciation

from the group!! What you have said gives a nice

assessment of these things as we would ideally see

them.

 

(I will sign out for a while after this one. Thanks to

Rishiji and Vinayakaji for your final responses on the

Buddha post.)

 

Tomorrow is Shiva's day and the night is His as well.

Who plans to fast all day and stay awake all night !!

 

Above, behind, beneath, before,

Is Two, Is One, Is, Not, and more ...

 

Cause of all causes, Soul of souls,

In Me, Eternity unfolds.

 

Ask "Who am i?", and I reply:

I am Shiva ! I am Shiva !

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

" Come on! Who is this fellow kidding? He avoids God,

simply because he doesn't believe in his personal

reality. All the rest is humbug!!"

 

" Come on! Who is this fellow kidding? Let go of mind

and be without thoughts! He will be a dud, that is

all!! "

 

(just kidding; don't take seriously)

 

>

> Now having said that, I can already anticipate the

> response: ‘well, yes,

> this much is true, but what we are speaking of is

> the most direct path to

> complete liberation in this lifetime.’

>

>

> All we do know is that all of these beings were

> quite obviously highly

> realized beings who taught extraordinary means of

> achieving that which is

> the essential purpose of every human – direct

> realization of the nature of

> reality. But, and this is critical, we are speaking

> of the unspeakable

> here; a “That” or “Suchness” that is utterly

> ineffable. The moment you try

> to cognize it, let alone to communicate it to

> others, it becomes distorted.

> It immediately becomes the finger pointing at the

> moon rather than the moon.

>

>

>

> This is why the Ch’an/Zen schools don’t bother

> talking about any of this.

> It is why Dogen-Zenji said, just sit. It is why Sri

> Ramana said, sooner or

> later you’ll have to toss out your scriptures,

> unlearn everything you

> learned, and just sit and examine “Who Am I.” It is

> why the Buddha said, I

> don’t want to talk about God.

>

>

= message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

 

 

We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love

(and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list.

http://tv./collections/265