advaita vedanta and buddhism

[Guest guest]

namaste everyone. :-)

 

first, i hope it is okay here to ask a question that involves buddhism? if not,

i apologize.

 

my question: is the following more or less correct?

 

-------------

 

the essence of advaita vedanta is brahman or everythingness. the essence of

buddhism is sunyata or nothingness. yet, despite the difference in terminology,

advaitin everythingness and buddhist nothingness point to the same thing.

 

-------------

 

long time student of buddhism (though not a buddhist, per se) and relative

newcomer to advaita vedanta, i am trying to understand the similarities and

differences between the two systems. to create a personal bridge, as it were.

:-)

 

thank you.

 

rachMiel

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " rachmiel " <rachmiel wrote:

>

> namaste everyone. :-)

>

> first, i hope it is okay here to ask a question that involves buddhism? if

not, i apologize.

>

> my question: is the following more or less correct?

>

> -------------

>

> the essence of advaita vedanta is brahman or everythingness. the essence of

buddhism is sunyata or nothingness. yet, despite the difference in terminology,

advaitin everythingness and buddhist nothingness point to the same thing.

>

> -------------

>

> long time student of buddhism (though not a buddhist, per se) and relative

newcomer to advaita vedanta, i am trying to understand the similarities and

differences between the two systems. to create a personal bridge, as it were.

:-)

>

> thank you.

>

> rachMiel

 

Nameste RachMiel,

 

Good luck :-) I know many people who have tried to

do this, and I'm not sure that any of them has been

very successful at reconciling the Buddhist term

'emptiness' with Vedanta's term 'fullness.'

 

I don't think the Buddhists are pointing to

'nothingness,' because nothingness implies

nihilism, and although I think some people

have the impression that emptiness means

nothingness, I don't think it does.

 

Sometimes, when my teacher is asked by those

who have been exposed to the teachings of

Buddhism about the term 'emptiness,' she

will reply that the self is 'empty of form,'

because we do say the self is 'formless,'

but we also use the word 'fullness' when

referring to the self, which I personally

prefer to the word emptiness.

 

The clearest conversation I ever had comparing

Buddhist teachings and the teachings of Vedanta was

with a very dear friend of mine who is a long time

practitioner of Vajrayana Tibetan Buddhism. Once we

were able to get beyond terminology, (because in Vedanta and

in Vajrayana Buddhism the same words may mean different

things) we were able to find some resolution between the

two teachings.

 

But here, for what it's worth is my personal experience.

For a long time I practiced various forms of Buddhism

(particularly Theravadan Vipassana meditation) without

ever actually understanding what the goal was. What

was nirvana? What was enlightenment? These things

I never knew.

 

At one ten-day silent Vipassana retreat where we were

advised to observe our bodily sensations continually,

I did wonder, " Who is watching all of this? " So

that is the kind of question one asks in Vedanta.

 

When I began my spiritual quest in the early 1970's

I was initially attracted to Hinduism, but in the

1980's and early 1990's what seemed to be available in

the west was Buddhism, so I tried that. Then

for about ten years, I was exposed to various

modern teachings of nonduality (but not Vedanta.)

 

When I finally met my Vedanta teacher about seven

years ago, I felt that these were the teachings

I had been searching for on my whole life, and

I took to them like a duck to water.

 

There was a person who came to our Vedanta class for awhile.

She had had a wide exposure to all sorts of spiritual

practices and teachings. She kept trying to reconcile

the myriad of other things she had been exposed to with

the teachings of Vedanta.

 

This was difficult, especially because she was trying

to reconcile terminology without really understanding

what the terminology and teachings of Vedanta really were.

 

At one point she said, " I am trying to build bridges

between Vedanta and the other things I've studied. "

 

My teacher replied, " And I am trying to break them

down. Understand this one first, and then once you

have understood, if you want to go back and compare

this to the others you've been exposed to then do

that. "

 

I thought this was good advice. I know if one has

been exposed to another teaching, it might be inevitable

to compare the two. But for myself, I had a lot of

confusion comparing the 'modern' teachings of nonduality

with Vedanta. In some ways I think it is good just to start

with a fresh slate as much as possible.

 

Already we come to the teachings thinking we are

a body/mind/sense organs individual. That is a lot

of misunderstanding to break through. Trying to

compare one teaching with another, when we don't

fully understand one of the teachings, IMO just

adds to the confusion.

 

So, that was my personal experience. Perhaps yours

would be different. For myself, I found it was much

better to try and understand just this one teaching

(which in itself is wholly sufficient) rather than

trying to reconcile or understand two teachings, which

might very well have resulted in my understanding neither.

 

Although I never did understand what the teachings

of Buddhism were pointing out, I think I probably

gained a lot from their teaching of right conduct

(which we also advise in Vedanta), and I think that

the meditations were very useful in concentrating the mind,

so I in that sense I am grateful to them, but the 'essence'

of the teachings I never really got.

 

All the best,

Durga

[Guest guest]

namaste, durga, and thanks for responding. :-)

 

> At one point she said, " I am trying to build bridges

between Vedanta and the other things I've studied. "

 

> My teacher replied, " And I am trying to break them

down. Understand this one first, and then once you

have understood, if you want to go back and compare

this to the others you've been exposed to then do

that. "

 

this really hits the mark for me. :-)

 

first, the logic feels sound to me. if i might compare

it to a beginner learning a golf stroke (an extremely

complex and subtle action), it would probably do more

harm than good for the beginner to try to create bridges

between different stroke models he has read about (and

perhaps experienced to a slight degree) than to strive

to learn one model deeply. less confusing; more direct.

 

secondly, commitment is difficult. it's scary! fear of

getting deeply involved instead of playing at it. fear

of loss of personal freedom (which i probably don't have

nearly as much of as i'd like to think). fear of losing

my 'spiritual' bachelorhood, the ability to play the

eastern religion field rather than settle on one thing.

 

i can only hope i am really taking this in, instead of

just teasing myself with it. :-)

 

thank you.

 

rachMiel

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " rachmiel " <rachmiel wrote:

 

 

> secondly, commitment is difficult. it's scary! fear of

> getting deeply involved instead of playing at it. fear

> of loss of personal freedom (which i probably don't have

> nearly as much of as i'd like to think). fear of losing

> my 'spiritual' bachelorhood, the ability to play the

> eastern religion field rather than settle on one thing.

>

> i can only hope i am really taking this in, instead of

> just teasing myself with it. :-)

>

> thank you.

>

> rachMiel

 

Namaste rachMiel,

 

What have you really got to loose? The only suggestion

I can make is for you to try and find a Vedanta

teacher with whom you feel some sort of resonance,

and then see if Vedanta is a teaching which appeals

to you.

 

These two are important, the teacher and the teaching.

Both need to be 'right' for the student, in order

that the teachings work.

 

To find that combination is called 'grace' in these

teachings. I think if you find your teacher, and if

this is the teaching for you, then there will be

no doubt about it in your mind.

 

All the best,

Durga

[Guest guest]

namaste, durga, and thanks for your encouragement. :-)

 

> What have you really got to loose?

 

my fear is twofold. (i'm not revelling in this fear, or praising it, just trying

to be 'ruthlessly' honest about it.)

 

1. that i will be 'brainwashed' into accepting a belief system. this is not a

criticism of advaita, rather of my brain, which is capable of buying into things

that impress/attract it and, in doing so, losing its critical faculty. the fact

that advaita study calls for the eventual utter lack of doubt about the veracity

of the vedanta adds to my fear, because the notion of abandoning all doubt about

ANY belief system is ... alien and frightening to me. doubt is how i learn.

 

2. that advaita vedanta is not the 'best' path to realization. if one reads

buddhist (the other eastern tradition i'm very drawn to) critiques of advaita,

it's easy to feel discouraged about devoting oneself to advaita. from the

articles i've read, buddhists tend to think of advaita as a system that relies

on the belief of the existence of SOMETHING (brahman) rather than NOTHING, and

that this belief causes advaita to not go 'deep enough' into the nature of

reality. (note that i am just reporting what i have read; i am not agreeing or

disagreeing with it.)

 

these are my current stumbling blocks. any suggestions? :-)

 

thank you.

 

rachMiel

[Guest guest]

rachmiel ji :

 

trust,but verify.both,the teacher as well as teachings.be it

advaitham,dvaitham,visishit-a-dwaitham,shudda advaitham,siva advaitham.....etc

 

buddhism shunyata vadam is same as advaitham,only said differently in my

opinion.

 

suresh.

 

advaitin , " rachmiel " <rachmiel wrote:

>

> namaste, durga, and thanks for your encouragement. :-)

>

> > What have you really got to loose?

>

> my fear is twofold. (i'm not revelling in this fear, or praising it, just

trying to be 'ruthlessly' honest about it.)

>

> 1. that i will be 'brainwashed' into accepting a belief system. this is not a

criticism of advaita, rather of my brain, which is capable of buying into things

that impress/attract it and, in doing so, losing its critical faculty. the fact

that advaita study calls for the eventual utter lack of doubt about the veracity

of the vedanta adds to my fear, because the notion of abandoning all doubt about

ANY belief system is ... alien and frightening to me. doubt is how i learn.

>

> 2. that advaita vedanta is not the 'best' path to realization. if one reads

buddhist (the other eastern tradition i'm very drawn to) critiques of advaita,

it's easy to feel discouraged about devoting oneself to advaita. from the

articles i've read, buddhists tend to think of advaita as a system that relies

on the belief of the existence of SOMETHING (brahman) rather than NOTHING, and

that this belief causes advaita to not go 'deep enough' into the nature of

reality. (note that i am just reporting what i have read; i am not agreeing or

disagreeing with it.)

>

> these are my current stumbling blocks. any suggestions? :-)

>

> thank you.

>

> rachMiel

>

[Guest guest]

namaste, suresh. thank you for the advice and support. :-)

 

> rachmiel ji :

>

> trust,but verify.both,the teacher as well as teachings.be it

advaitham,dvaitham,visishit-a-dwaitham,shudda advaitham,siva advaitham.....etc

>

> buddhism shunyata vadam is same as advaitham,only said differently in my

opinion.

>

> suresh.

>

> advaitin , " rachmiel " <rachmiel@> wrote:

> >

> > namaste, durga, and thanks for your encouragement. :-)

> >

> > > What have you really got to loose?

> >

> > my fear is twofold. (i'm not revelling in this fear, or praising it, just

trying to be 'ruthlessly' honest about it.)

> >

> > 1. that i will be 'brainwashed' into accepting a belief system. this is not

a criticism of advaita, rather of my brain, which is capable of buying into

things that impress/attract it and, in doing so, losing its critical faculty.

the fact that advaita study calls for the eventual utter lack of doubt about the

veracity of the vedanta adds to my fear, because the notion of abandoning all

doubt about ANY belief system is ... alien and frightening to me. doubt is how i

learn.

> >

> > 2. that advaita vedanta is not the 'best' path to realization. if one reads

buddhist (the other eastern tradition i'm very drawn to) critiques of advaita,

it's easy to feel discouraged about devoting oneself to advaita. from the

articles i've read, buddhists tend to think of advaita as a system that relies

on the belief of the existence of SOMETHING (brahman) rather than NOTHING, and

that this belief causes advaita to not go 'deep enough' into the nature of

reality. (note that i am just reporting what i have read; i am not agreeing or

disagreeing with it.)

> >

> > these are my current stumbling blocks. any suggestions? :-)

> >

> > thank you.

> >

> > rachMiel

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Durga-ji.

 

I think at least one person has succeeded. He is Eckhart Tolle. He sees

" nothing " as " No thing " , an absence of diverse manifestation or duality.

 

Please read his " New Earth " . To me, what he says is a satisfactory

reconciliation. The " nothing " is a " No Thing " is his eternal " NOW " of

Consciousness which Advaita unravels.

 

You and your teacher are right. When it is all one, where is the need to

construct bridges!? Let us, therefore, break the bridges.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________

 

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

I know many people who have tried to

> do this, and I'm not sure that any of them has been

> very successful at reconciling the Buddhist term

> 'emptiness' with Vedanta's term 'fullness.'

>

..............

> There was a person who came to our Vedanta class for awhile.

> She had had a wide exposure to all sorts of spiritual

> practices and teachings. She kept trying to reconcile

> the myriad of other things she had been exposed to with

> the teachings of Vedanta.

>

> This was difficult, especially because she was trying

> to reconcile terminology without really understanding

> what the terminology and teachings of Vedanta really were.

>

> At one point she said, " I am trying to build bridges

> between Vedanta and the other things I've studied. "

>

> My teacher replied, " And I am trying to break them

> down. Understand this one first, and then once you

> have understood, if you want to go back and compare

> this to the others you've been exposed to then do

> that. "

>

[Guest guest]

Nairji - PraNAms

 

I listend to his talks on CD's, his both his books. one on Now too. I liked his

way of presentation except endless discussion on painful bodies that he talks.

He may be referring to vaasanas which includs both painful and pleasurable

bodies! I thought most of his talks and examples come from ZEN buddhism.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Thu, 5/28/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

 

I think at least one person has succeeded. He is Eckhart Tolle. He sees

" nothing " as " No thing " , an absence of diverse manifestation or duality.

 

Please read his " New Earth " .

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

New age spirituality =  Old Wine in New Bottle !

 

Pranams

 

ramesh

 

 

--- On Thu, 5/28/09, kuntimaddisada <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

 

kuntimaddisada <kuntimaddisada

Re: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

advaitin

Thursday, May 28, 2009, 4:43 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nairji - PraNAms

 

I listend to his talks on CD's, his both his books. one on Now too. I liked his

way of presentation except endless discussion on painful bodies that he talks.

He may be referring to vaasanas which includs both painful and pleasurable

bodies! I thought most of his talks and examples come from ZEN buddhism.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Thu, 5/28/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair@ > wrote:

 

I think at least one person has succeeded. He is Eckhart Tolle. He sees

" nothing " as " No thing " , an absence of diverse manifestation or duality.

 

Please read his " New Earth " .

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramesh:

 

You have correctly " bottled " the " spirituality " for " New Age " .

 

The present generation, " that is us " need to ensure that that the age old wine

does not get in contact with air (air-headed self proclaimed guru's) and let

that wive become to vinegar through further oxidation. If the oxidation gets

completed then it may not be that toxic and could be used for pickling.

However, the partial oxidation to aldehyde is more toxic.

 

It is our duty to exercise our " free will " to try and understand the

significance of ancient thoughts as they apply to the present.

 

Kind Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin , ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv wrote:

>

> New age spirituality =  Old Wine in New Bottle !

>  

> Pranams

>  

> ramesh

>

>

> --- On Thu, 5/28/09, kuntimaddisada <kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> kuntimaddisada <kuntimaddisada

> Re: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

> advaitin

> Thursday, May 28, 2009, 4:43 PM

>

> Nairji - PraNAms

>

> I listend to his talks on CD's, his both his books. one on Now too. I liked

his way of presentation except endless discussion on painful bodies that he

talks. He may be referring to vaasanas which includs both painful and

pleasurable bodies! I thought most of his talks and examples come from ZEN

buddhism.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

> --- On Thu, 5/28/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair@ > wrote:

>

> I think at least one person has succeeded. He is Eckhart Tolle. He sees

" nothing " as " No thing " , an absence of diverse manifestation or duality.

>

> Please read his " New Earth " .

>

[Guest guest]

The following article discusses Advaita and Buddhism in the context of

Self-Realization. Gives a different perspective.

 

the-highest-teaching-self-or-emptiness-by-pham-d-luan-kkt

 

Namaste and love to all

 

Yours in Bhagavan

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

> The following article discusses Advaita and Buddhism in the context of

> Self-Realization. Gives a different perspective.

>

> the-highest-teaching-self-or-emptiness-by-pham-d-luan-kkt

>

> Namaste and love to all

>

> Yours in Bhagavan

>

 

Namaste, I read the article linked below this.

 

a-journey-from-advaita-to-buddhism-by-upasika-bach-lien

 

I hope members can comment on this. In particular the author says:

 

" Advaita said not to practice, but to just know and let go. Which was very hard,

and I didn't really understand it. In Buddhism, you concentrate on practice.

Many of the practices are directed towards other people, such as lovingkindness,

right speech, etc. In Buddhism I never heard a teaching saying not to do

anything. That's so much easier to understand! Because practice seems like what

I'm doing anyway, if I'm honest! "

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Dear Putranm,

 

That is not the article that I sent to the Advaitin Group. However, if you

want to discuss it that is fine.

 

Luthar.com is centered in the teachings of Sri Ramana and Advaita Vedanta.

Both the group and Luthar.com are in the tradition of

interfaith and we embrace everyone who believes in the ideals of Ahimsa and

universal love regardless of their background.

 

Scholars from Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity write

periodically on the site.

 

Namaste and love to all

 

Yours in Bhagavan

Harsha

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of putranm

Thursday, May 28, 2009 11:00 AM

advaitin

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

 

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

> The following article discusses Advaita and Buddhism in the context of

> Self-Realization. Gives a different perspective.

>

>

the-highest-teaching-self-or-emptiness-by-pham-d-luan-kkt

>

> Namaste and love to all

>

> Yours in Bhagavan

>

 

Namaste, I read the article linked below this.

 

a-journey-from-advaita-to-buddhism-by-upasika-bach-lien

 

I hope members can comment on this. In particular the author says:

 

" Advaita said not to practice, but to just know and let go. Which was very

hard, and I didn't really understand it. In Buddhism, you concentrate on

practice. Many of the practices are directed towards other people, such as

lovingkindness, right speech, etc. In Buddhism I never heard a teaching

saying not to do anything. That's so much easier to understand! Because

practice seems like what I'm doing anyway, if I'm honest! "

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

---

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Harsha " wrote:

>

> The following article discusses Advaita and Buddhism in the context of

> Self-Realization. Gives a different perspective.

>

> the-highest-teaching-self-or-emptiness-by-pham-d-luan-kkt

>

> Namaste and love to all

>

> Yours in Bhagavan

>

Namaste,Harsha,

 

This article is actually about Mahayana/Tibetan 'Buddhism', which owes more to

Bon Po than it does to the teachings of Guatama. One has to go to Sri Lanka and

Burma to get the Theravada

teachings, which in their purest form are much like Ajativada in Advaita..The

teaching of no Self small or large agrees with Ramana's teaching on the subject

and his explanation of Samadhis as per Sahaja NirVikalpa Samadhi. Making sure

ones doesn't confuse the Buddhist concept of Samadhi and the Advaitin...Cheers

Tony.

[Guest guest]

yadu ji :

 

you had me laughing so much,now my stomach aches,sir.but thanks for your

comments.hic hic....need my wine

 

suresh.

 

 

advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote:

>

> Namaste Ramesh:

>

> You have correctly " bottled " the " spirituality " for " New Age " .

>

> The present generation, " that is us " need to ensure that that the age old wine

does not get in contact with air (air-headed self proclaimed guru's) and let

that wive become to vinegar through further oxidation. If the oxidation gets

completed then it may not be that toxic and could be used for pickling.

However, the partial oxidation to aldehyde is more toxic.

>

> It is our duty to exercise our " free will " to try and understand the

significance of ancient thoughts as they apply to the present.

>

> Kind Regards,

>

> Dr. Yadu

>

> advaitin , ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv@> wrote:

> >

> > New age spirituality =  Old Wine in New Bottle !

> >  

> > Pranams

> >  

> > ramesh

> >

> >

> > --- On Thu, 5/28/09, kuntimaddisada@ <kuntimaddisada@> wrote:

> >

> >

> > kuntimaddisada@ <kuntimaddisada@>

> > Re: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

> > advaitin

> > Thursday, May 28, 2009, 4:43 PM

> >

> > Nairji - PraNAms

> >

> > I listend to his talks on CD's, his both his books. one on Now too. I liked

his way of presentation except endless discussion on painful bodies that he

talks. He may be referring to vaasanas which includs both painful and

pleasurable bodies! I thought most of his talks and examples come from ZEN

buddhism.

> >

> > Hari Om!

> > Sadananda

> >

> > --- On Thu, 5/28/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair@ >

wrote:

> >

> > I think at least one person has succeeded. He is Eckhart Tolle. He sees

" nothing " as " No thing " , an absence of diverse manifestation or duality.

> >

> > Please read his " New Earth " .

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I recall that Bh. Ramana said the same thing when a European Buddhist by name

Sunyata came to see Bhagavan. I also heard Sankara being referred to as

prachhanna Buddha. I don't know exactly what that means. May be some one

comment.

 

Suren

--\

---------

 

buddhism shunyata vadam is same as advaitham,only said differently in my

opinion.

 

 

 

suresh.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Prachchanna means disguised. So, they were calling him Buddha in disguise.

 

MN

________

 

advaitin , Suren Irukulla <surenirukulla wrote:

 

>I also heard Sankara being referred to as prachhanna Buddha. I don't know

exactly what that means. May be some one comment.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rachmielji

 

as far as I understand it

 

quote: the fact that advaita study calls for the eventual utter lack of doubt

about the veracity of the vedanta

 

is not quite right. Rather what is required is you taking the whole system of

Vedanta as a working hypothesis to start with until you grasp what it is all

about.

 

quote: because the notion of abandoning all doubt about ANY belief system is ...

alien and frightening to me.

a healthy attitude if you ask me

 

quote: doubt is how i learn

Then Vedanta is right for you. Just in the beginning you should put your doubts

aside for a while. You need first to know what you are asking about. Then: put

your doubts on the table, This is Vedanta!

 

Om Shanti

 

Sitara

 

 

advaitin , " rachmiel " <rachmiel wrote:

>

> namaste, durga, and thanks for your encouragement. :-)

>

> > What have you really got to loose?

>

> my fear is twofold. (i'm not revelling in this fear, or praising it, just

trying to be 'ruthlessly' honest about it.)

>

> 1. that i will be 'brainwashed' into accepting a belief system. this is not a

criticism of advaita, rather of my brain, which is capable of buying into things

that impress/attract it and, in doing so, losing its critical faculty. the fact

that advaita study calls for the eventual utter lack of doubt about the veracity

of the vedanta adds to my fear, because the notion of abandoning all doubt about

ANY belief system is ... alien and frightening to me. doubt is how i learn.

>

> 2. that advaita vedanta is not the 'best' path to realization. if one reads

buddhist (the other eastern tradition i'm very drawn to) critiques of advaita,

it's easy to feel discouraged about devoting oneself to advaita. from the

articles i've read, buddhists tend to think of advaita as a system that relies

on the belief of the existence of SOMETHING (brahman) rather than NOTHING, and

that this belief causes advaita to not go 'deep enough' into the nature of

reality. (note that i am just reporting what i have read; i am not agreeing or

disagreeing with it.)

>

> these are my current stumbling blocks. any suggestions? :-)

>

> thank you.

>

> rachMiel

>

[Guest guest]

When we talk about the common points of advaita vedanta and buddhism we

generally mean the similarity of madhyamika school and advaita. Both believed in

a reality that is beyond all relativity. Advaitins call it Brahman and Nagarjuna

called it asunyata. But he spoke nothing more about it, keeping with Lord

Buddha's attitude towards such questions, where he preferred to keep silence

rather than say somehting about the unspeakable. But Sankara's attitude was

different. He called Brahman though indescribable and beyond relativity to be

direct, immediate and self revealing. He also strove to show the immanence of

Brahman in the world.

 

The method of Nagarjuna was to examine concepts like substance, quality, action

etc and show them to be 'empty' of existence. Sankara's method was

phenomenological. He examined the common experiences of man to show that Brhaman

can also be found through a careful analysis of the world. Thus he gave

alternative expalnations of experiences like 'I know' etc saying that self was

not an agent of action but beyong all predications.

 

The Buddhists and advaitins apparently differ in conceptual analysis of the

self. The buddhists say that there is no self hidden in the body. According to

advaitin self is the only reality. But they too maintain that the self in not

inside the body as such. in Upadesa Sahasri Sankara shows that the self is all

pervading like space and apperars to be limited due to an adjunct like a pot as

adjunct of space. Again he criticizes this view in his Bhrama Sutra Bhashya.

 

The buddhists and advaitins however do not agree at all on epistemological

issues. The concept of moksa in both is the same, as pertainig to the

annihilation of the self. The disciplines of meditation etc is almost the same.

The gulf between these two great systems was because the Buddhists shunned vedic

ritualiam and also the vedas as authorotative. Again it was due to

misunderstandings about each other. In Advaita Siddhi Madhusudana says that the

difference between the two is that the advaitins consider the world unreal but

the substratum Brahman as real, while the buddhists consider the world unreal

and admit no real substratum. He was wrong as he was refuting the popular view

of buddhism but not the actual one.

 

If you wish to learn more about the similarity about these two great religions

please refer to S. Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy Vol. 1. Refer to the

chapter on buddhism and the last chapter of the book.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , Suren Irukulla <surenirukulla wrote:

>

> I recall that Bh. Ramana said the same thing when a European Buddhist by name

Sunyata came to see Bhagavan. I also heard Sankara being referred to as

prachhanna Buddha. I don't know exactly what that means. May be some one

comment.

>

> Suren

>

--\

---------

>

> buddhism shunyata vadam is same as advaitham,only said differently in my

opinion.

>

>

>

> suresh.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste thollmelukaalkizhuji,

 

Pranams

 

what in this quote is meant by advaita seems to be neo advaita, not advaita

vedanta. Because the practise of lovingkindness, right speech, etc. in Buddhism

is done exactly same in karma yoga. It is Hindu dharma. I do not really

understand what kind of advaita -vedanta Upasika Bach Lien (Sandra Pippa)

studied at the School of Practical Philosophy for 12 years. It can't have been

tradditional advaita.

 

Karma Yoga is a necessary prerequisite to jnana yoga, which most Western advaita

teachers neglect or in case of the neo advaitins deny. I think that Upasika Bach

was not fortunate enough to receive proper instructions of tradditional advaita

to build a strong base for her enquiry. So she felt lost and found the same in

Buddhism instead.

 

Om Shanti

Sitara

 

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Harsha " <harsha@> wrote:

> >

> > The following article discusses Advaita and Buddhism in the context of

> > Self-Realization. Gives a different perspective.

> >

> > the-highest-teaching-self-or-emptiness-by-pham-d-luan-kkt

> >

> > Namaste and love to all

> >

> > Yours in Bhagavan

> >

>

> Namaste, I read the article linked below this.

>

> a-journey-from-advaita-to-buddhism-by-upasika-bach-lien

>

> I hope members can comment on this. In particular the author says:

>

> " Advaita said not to practice, but to just know and let go. Which was very

hard, and I didn't really understand it. In Buddhism, you concentrate on

practice. Many of the practices are directed towards other people, such as

lovingkindness, right speech, etc. In Buddhism I never heard a teaching saying

not to do anything. That's so much easier to understand! Because practice seems

like what I'm doing anyway, if I'm honest! "

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Rachmeil and friends,

 

In your response to your question....

 

" Emptiness " is a more appropriate term for sunyata than " nothing-ness " .

There are different understandings about sunyata (emptiness) even in

Buddhism as different traditions within hold different views (often with

fierce disputes, just like between Advaitins!) and develop different

spiritual practices accordingly.

 

To simplify there are two main meanings and uses of the term " emptiness " .

 

Rantong - emptiness of self-nature.

Shentong - emptiness-of-other nature.

 

Rantong (emptiness of self-nature) is very similar to what Advaitins refer

to as mithya. Buddhism explains that when we examine all entities we

discover they do not have a self-nature (svabhava) of their own. They turn

out to be compound (made up of parts); dependent for their appearance on

prior causes; they are impermanent. For example, a car has parts. If the

car had a self-nature of its own then when we took away the parts one by one

(e.g., the wheel is not " the car " , the boot is not " the car " , the horn is

not " the car " etc) the thing we should be left with after removing or

negating all those part is " the car " itself. However, when we remove all

the parts there is no such entity as " the car " remaining. " A car " is simply

a name we give to a compound form dependent of prior causes and which

appears to exist for a limited time. " The car " itself is empty of

self-nature. It is name and form only (nama-rupa). According to buddhism

this is the nature of all things - we cannot say they are non-existent

because we experience their effects, yet we cannot say they have a real

existence of their own.

 

Shentong (emptiness-of-other nature). This is our essential nature -

Buddha-nature, the dharmakaya. " Empty-of-other " is a term that points

towards our true nature which is ever unlimited, pure, free of all

defilements and obscurations (ignorance). Its reality is affirmed by saying

what it is not. Yet it is also called intrinsic clarity, bliss and wisdom,

the clear light of consciousness - unborn, undying. Really this is the

nature of Awareness itself which is what the higher teachings of Dzogchen,

Mahamudra and Zen point towards. Hence this buddha-nature is not an object

of perception, nor can it be grasped by thought. It is not something be

got, it is what we are.

 

Hence the buddhist master begins the morning liturgy with...

 

" Here there is nothing to remove and nothing to add.

The one who sees the truth of being as it is,

By seeing the truth is liberated. "

 

It is similar to what Advaitins refer to as Turiya. Turiya (Atman) is the

basis/substratum of the waking, dream and sleep states yet ever remains

undefiled by their presence or absence. It is the self-luminous

existence-consciousness (sat-chit) in which everything seemingly arises and

seemingly passes away while it itself remains unmoved, unsullied. It is what

we truly are but appears veiled and hidden from us due to ignorance

(ajnana).

 

The empty-of-other (shentong) nature of our true being resonates with the

Atman of Advaita, which is one without a second, " with nothing for it to

know and no other to know it " (see Sat Darshan of Ramana Maharshi).

 

Part 2 in next mail.

 

Regards,

 

Peter

 

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin ] On Behalf Of rachmiel

> 27 May 2009 15:23

> advaitin

> advaita vedanta and buddhism

>

> namaste everyone. :-)

>

> first, i hope it is okay here to ask a question that involves

> buddhism? if not, i apologize.

>

> my question: is the following more or less correct?

>

> -------------

>

> the essence of advaita vedanta is brahman or everythingness.

> the essence of buddhism is sunyata or nothingness. yet,

> despite the difference in terminology, advaitin

> everythingness and buddhist nothingness point to the same thing.

>

> -------------

>

> long time student of buddhism (though not a buddhist, per se)

> and relative newcomer to advaita vedanta, i am trying to

> understand the similarities and differences between the two

> systems. to create a personal bridge, as it were. :-)

>

> thank you.

>

> rachMiel

>

>

>

> ---

>

>

[Guest guest]

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

 

namaste, durga, and thanks for your encouragement. :-)

 

> What have you really got to loose?

 

my fear is twofold. (i'm not revelling in this fear, or praising it, just trying

to be 'ruthlessly' honest about it.)

 

1. that i will be 'brainwashed' into accepting a belief system. this is not a

criticism of advaita, rather of my brain, which is capable of buying into things

that impress/attract it and, in doing so, losing its critical faculty. the fact

that advaita study calls for the eventual utter lack of doubt about the veracity

of the vedanta adds to my fear, because the notion of abandoning all doubt about

ANY belief system is ... alien and frightening to me. doubt is how i learn.

 

2. that advaita vedanta is not the 'best' path to realization. if one reads

buddhist (the other eastern tradition i'm very drawn to) critiques of advaita,

it's easy to feel discouraged about devoting oneself to advaita. from the

articles i've read, buddhists tend to think of advaita as a system that relies

on the belief of the existence of SOMETHING (brahman) rather than NOTHING, and

that this belief causes advaita to not go 'deep enough' into the nature of

reality. (note that i am just reporting what i have read; i am not agreeing or

disagreeing with it.)

 

these are my current stumbling blocks. any suggestions? :-)

 

thank you.

 

rachMiel

 

Namaste rachMiel,

 

A couple of things. First of all, although I love

the teachings of Vedanta, and my teacher, and my

teacher's teacher, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, and

feel that encountering them was the culmination of

my life's search, I cannot expect that everyone else

would feel the same the way.

 

Something else to consider is that one isn't

encourage to 'proselytize' the teachings of Vedanta.

Although when I first encountered them, I felt the

impulse to go out and tell all my friends and encourage

them to join me in my studies, I realized over time that

Vedanta wasn't for everyone.

 

And I also learned to relax in the understanding

that there is a very big picture going on here.

I'm not in charge of it, and things are unfolding

in certain ways as they should. So although, I would

encourage you to study Vedanta if you are inclined

to do so, I don't think it is a good idea to try

and 'push' anyone into undertaking its study.

 

That being said, you could look here,

http://www.arshavidya.org/teachers_uscan.html

and see if there are any teachers in your area,

if you felt you wanted to go to a class and see how

you liked it. I feel that the teachers in this

lineage are impeccable and totally trustworthy, and

none of them would try and 'brainwash' you.

 

To address your concern about 'doubt.'

You say that 'doubt' is how you learn.

Well, we say that in Vedanta too. The study

of Vedanta is often broken into three parts which are,

(1)listening to the teachings, (2) asking questions in order

to clear doubts, and (3) directly reflecting upon

what has been recognized as a result of the teaching.

 

You say above, " advaita study calls for the eventual

utter lack of doubt about [its] veracity. " Well, let's

look at that statement and see if it is true.

 

In western religions (particularly Christianity with

which I am the most familiar), faith (aka blind belief,

or acceptance of the teachings) is the hallmark or

cornerstone of that religion. One is encouraged not

to question things, but rather blindly accept the doctrine,

even if such doctrine is completely illogical.

 

I am a westerner by birth, and I was raised within

a Christian faith, but I have to say that even as a

child what I was being told never added up. I generally

just kept quiet when my questions were not answered to

my satisfaction. But very little of what I was told

ever made any sense to me, and when I asked questions,

I found I could not just blindly 'accept' or have

faith in replies that made no sense at all.

 

Now in the teachings of Vedanta, we have the word

'sraddha,' which can be loosely translated as 'faith,

or belief in the teacher and the teaching,' but that

translation really is neither accurate, nor adequate.

A better and more thorough translation of the word sraddha,

is 'faith pending understanding.'

 

If you think about it, most activities of your life

are based upon sraddha. You get in your car with

the faith that it is going to get you from one place

to another. If you cross the road, you have sraddha

that you will get to the other side. If you pour hot

water over a tea bag in a cup, you have faith that the

result will be a cup of tea. If you study science

or math, you have sraddha or faith that the teacher

knows the subject and can teach, and you might also

have faith in your ability to learn.

 

All of these could be called 'faith, or acceptance,

pending results.'

 

Of course, you check up along the way, to see if the

sraddha you have is appropriate to the situation. So,

too in Vedanta we have sraddha, or faith that the teacher

and teaching are true, but we also check up, and if they

don't seem true, we leave. There is no coercion going on.

If one feels coerced in any situation, my advice

would be to leave.

 

Having the sraddha, the acceptance pending understanding,

that the teacher and teaching are true, enables one to

trust them enough to learn from them. Whatever 'doubts'

the student may have need to eventually be cleared up to the

point of complete satisfaction. So questioning by the

student to the point of satisfaction, or resolution of

the doubts, is encouraged in the teaching tradition of

Advaita/Vedanta because it is one important way we learn.

 

To address your statement again that, " advaita study

calls for the eventual utter lack of doubt about [its]

veracity. " I would not say that is true.

 

What one eventually 'sees,' or recognizes, without a

shadow of a doubt is that what the teachings are saying

*is true.* An analogy to this which is often used

is if someone holds up a flower in front of your face,

and your eyes are open, and your mind is backing them,

do you see the flower or not? You do. The truth of

the teaching, the veracity, is as obvious as the above

example when one recognizes it.

 

Thus Vedanta is not encouraging one to 'believe'

in something which is not directly verifiable by

one's own experience. In fact, it is quite opposite

to that.

 

However, since one does not at first recognize what

the teacher is pointing out, then provisionally accepting

that the teacher knows what he or she is talking about

is important, because otherwise one will not be clearing

doubts by asking questions, but rather arguing with the

teacher, which is different, and which isn't helpful.

 

So if, as you say, doubt is how you learn, that's good,

because it is through the clearing of doubts that the

teachings of Vedanta are assimilated.

 

To address your point #2 above, I don't know what

you've read that supports your statements, so I'm not

sure if I can address them. I don't know what Buddhists

you are referring to, or to which understanding of

'advaita' they are referring.

 

If you like the idea of 'nothing' being true, and

if you think that is what Buddhist teachings are

pointing out is true, then my advice would be to

follow those teachings.

 

Brahman isn't some 'thing,' as in some unverifiable truth,

nor is brahman some object in whose existence you are

encouraged to blindly believe.

 

If you want to say that brahman is no thing, or not a thing,

you could very easily and correctly say that. But then,

you have to understand what that means.

 

Brahman is no thing, not a thing, which can be objectified,

and yet the truth of your existence is brahman. So how can

that be?

 

It is true because you yourself are not a 'thing' which

can be objectified, and yet you exist to be known, but not

as an object. Strange words, no? And seemingly entirely

contradictory.

 

But it is the truth of this seeming contradiction

which the teachings of Vedanta seeks to unravel.

The goal is to directly apprehend without a shadow

of a doubt what those words mean, and for that a

teacher is necessary, because we cannot understand

such words on our own, since all of our apparently

available ways of recognition, have to do with the

recognition of objects.

 

If you want to say that Buddhists are pointing to

non-existence, to total non-existence, like the horn

of a rabbit, or the son of a barren women, then I think

you would need to find a good Buddhist teacher, and ask

that person if that is what is meant by the word 'nothing.'

 

I have sometimes heard Buddhists use the phrase 'ground of being.'

One could use the phrase 'ground of being,' as a synonym for

the word 'brahman,' IMO.

 

I think the reason why I personally do not try and

resolve Buddhist teachings with Vedanta probably has

to do with my own personal experience. And I now see

in light of that, I may not have been the best person to

answer your original question.

 

Because I myself, in my long search, was exposed

to so many different teachings none of which bore fruit,

and then finally having found Vedanta, which for me does

bear fruit, then I suppose I find it practical, easier

and more correct for me to stick with 'one.' Or perhaps

more aptly I could say that like a drowning person who

clutched at straws and finally found a secure rope, I'm

not letting go.

 

This one teaching is more than enough for me. However,

for other people, perhaps trying at some point to synthesize

various teachings might be more appropriate.

 

But my hesitation in recommending that for others would

be something a wise person once told me.

 

" If you dig a well, here a few feet, and there a few feet,

and over there a few feet, you will never find water. "

 

That wise person was S.N.Goenkaji, a very good Buddhist

Vipassana meditation instructor :-)

 

So for me having found the one teaching that seems to work,

I've kept at it, and am profoundly grateful that I was able

to do that.

 

I don't know if any of the above has addressed your concerns,

but I hope that it was helpful.

 

All the best,

Durga

[Guest guest]

Dear Rachmeil and friends,

 

To put my previous post on the two main types of emptiness in Buddhism into

context. There are said to be three turnings of the wheel of Dharma (the

Buddha's teaching) each emphasising a different aspect of the Dharma. The

first two turnings of the wheel of dharma express the rantong nature of

emptiness (empty of self-nature). The third turning expounds upon the

shentong nature of emptiness (empty-of-other nature).

 

FIRST TURNING:

 

This includes the four noble truths, the doctrine of impermanence,

suffering, and non-self, and the specific teachings found in the Abhidharma.

 

In the first turning of the wheel of Dharma, the Buddha taught that what

people normally regard as a permanent self is in fact made up the 5

aggregates:

 

1. Form (body and environment)

2. Feeling (like, dislike, indifference)

3. Perception (the first moment of recognition of sense data)

4. Mental Constructions (all mental activity including thought/emotions)

5. Consciousness (moments of awareness which include both a subject and an

object)

 

The teaching on emptiness here is that if one investigates the five

aggregates one will not find any independent entity call self or ego. (Like

the example of the car, earlier.) This is the doctrine of annatta (not self)

at this stage.

 

SECOND TURNING:

 

The emphasis here is the real nature of phenomena, namely that all phenomena

are empty of self-nature. Even the elements (also called dharmas) that

arise and pass away from moment to moment and which together form the

compound nature of the personal self are empty of self nature. The whole

nature of the dualism between nirvana and samsara is subjected to

investigation here and found to be empty of self nature. They are said to

be nothing but conceptual labels. Since there is nothing to get away from

(samsara) and nowhere to go (nirvana) the aspiration spontaneously arises to

be where one is helping suffering humanity. This is the beginning of the

bodhisattva path.

 

The second turning teachings were expanded upon by Nagarjuna in his famous

Mulamadhyamaka Karika. There is a radical deconstructionism associated with

this turning of the wheel.

 

THIRD TURNING:

 

The truth about Buddha Nature (Tathagatgarbha) as found in the teachings of

the Uttaratantra of Maitreya and the Mahaparanirvana Sutras. This turning

examines what remains in emptiness once all of the above (the personal self,

all phenomena, the dualism of samsara and nirvana & so on) have been

negated. What is the true nature of the world that we misperceive, that we

misconstrue with name and form (nama-rupa). Is it a mere nothingness, a

vacuum?

 

The answer from this perspective is " No " . The true nature of the world is

the ineffable, ungraspable " Thus-ness " - in short buddha-nature itself. The

resonance here with Advaita will be obvious to many in the assertion that

'the world as world is unreal, while the world as Brahman is real.'

 

Likewise this third turning proclaims that the heart of all beings is

buddha-nature. The only difference between a Buddha and an ordinary person

is that the obscurations and defilements that obscure the true nature of the

ordinary person have been removed by the enlightened.

 

" It's nature is without beginning, middle, or end;

hence it is uncreated.

Since it possesses the peaceful dharmakaya

it is described as being spontaneously present.

Since it must be realised through self awareness,

it is not a realisation due to extraneous conditions.

These three aspects being realised, there is knowledge.

Since the path is shown, there is compassionate love.

There is ability since the mental poisons and suffering

are relinquished by primordial wisdom and compassion.

Through the first three there is benefit to oneself.

Through the latter there is benefit to others. "

 

(Mahayana Uttaratantra Shastra)

 

That's all I have to say on Buddhism as we are here to study advaita. The

three turnings and their associated teachings are far more complex than I

have outlined. I just wanted to provide some basic structure, albeit

incomplete due to space and time, that might help put people's comments and

questions into a helpful context. I hope they do.

 

Regards,

Peter

 

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Peter

> 28 May 2009 18:53

> advaitin

> RE: advaita vedanta and buddhism

>

> Dear Rachmeil and friends,

>

> In your response to your question....

>

> " Emptiness " is a more appropriate term for sunyata than

> " nothing-ness " .

> There are different understandings about sunyata (emptiness)

> even in Buddhism as different traditions within hold

> different views (often with fierce disputes, just like

> between Advaitins!) and develop different spiritual practices

> accordingly.

>

> To simplify there are two main meanings and uses of the term

> " emptiness " .

>

> Rantong - emptiness of self-nature.

> Shentong - emptiness-of-other nature.

<snip>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

>

> Namaste thollmelukaalkizhuji,

>

> Pranams

>

> what in this quote is meant by advaita seems to be neo advaita, not advaita

vedanta. Because the practise of lovingkindness, right speech, etc. in Buddhism

is done exactly same in karma yoga. It is Hindu dharma. I do not really

understand what kind of advaita -vedanta Upasika Bach Lien (Sandra Pippa)

studied at the School of Practical Philosophy for 12 years. It can't have been

tradditional advaita.

>

 

Namaste Sitaraji, Thanks. I agree with your conclusion.

 

For Rachmielji's original question, the matter for a fan... like myself is not

whether the Buddhists are wrong; it is the inner conviction that we are right

(similar to how I held in the WillvsLaw discussion), and if the Buddhists are to

be right, they have to be saying the same thing with a different set of words -

made a religion out of it. The key foundation, that makes Buddhism relevant to

us, is " we don't accept the Upanishads " - the rest is just old wine in new

bottle and making the bottle look like the substance. Note we can also have a

Shankaraism, if he had chosen that foundation: then we can advertise our

specialty as " The Three-step path: sravana, manana, nididyasana " and so on.

Perhaps in older times, the Buddhists really thought they negated in substance;

but now the reconciling era is on.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

(I don't mean undermine Buddhism for its own great development and potential -

there were other practical reasons for which its rejection of Veda can called

for, but not philosophy or the pursuit to Truth (unless it is truly more than

word-juggling). )