advaita vedanta and buddhism

[Guest guest]

The School of Practical Philosophy is the US branch of SES, which began in

London, UK. Initially they taught Gurdjieff and Ouspensky. From the mid

sixties, I think it was, they were increasingly directed by the then

Shankaracharya of the North, Sri Shantananda Saraswati and so purported to

be teaching advaita. However, their teaching was heavily influenced by

sAMkhya and yoga so that it came down as a very confusing admixture of

teaching and certainly not traditional advaita. Latterly, they may be coming

round to a more consistent approach. but I left over 10 years ago so am no

longer in touch.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Sitara

Thursday, May 28, 2009 6:50 PM

advaitin

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

 

 

 

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.

 

<< >>

 

Om Shanti

Sitara

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Brilliant, Peter - thanks for that! I for one have learned more about

Buddhism from your excellent summary than from anything else I have

previously read. I hope no one claims that it is off-topic for the list.

Rather it shows that, even where the words seem to indicate contradictory

ideas, philosophies may in the end be talking about the same thing.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Peter

Thursday, May 28, 2009 7:21 PM

advaitin

RE: advaita vedanta and buddhism

 

 

 

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:

 

<< >>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter,

 

thanks a lot (a lot!!) for your two posts on Buddhism! I have felt often at a

loss to explain the differences between Buddhism and advaita vedanta to people.

Your explanations will help making the position of Vedanta much clearer.

 

Om Shanti,

 

Sitara

 

 

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> 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]

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

 

> 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.

 

what i said in the above quote came from reading this from one of dr.

sadananda's Introduction to Vedanta articles at advaita.org.uk:

 

" Hence the Vedas declare: for mokSha or liberation, one has to learn vedAnta at

the feet of a teacher – that is called shravaNa. The definition of shravaNa is

the consistent systematic learning of Vedanta from a competent live teacher for

a prolonged length of a time. The teaching has to be reflected upon until there

are no more doubts left in the mind, and that is called manana. "

 

have i misinterpreted the above " until there are no more doubts left in the

mind? "

 

thank you.

 

rachMiel

[Guest guest]

namaste, peter, and thank you very much for the buddhism synopsis. i have copied

it to my study file and that's exactly what i'll do: study it. :-)

 

for now, let me see if i can summarize the three similarities between buddhism

and advaita that you laid out:

 

- buddhist rantong is very similar to advaitin mithya.

 

- buddhist shentong is very similar to advaitin atman.

 

- buddhist world as ineffable, ungraspable buddha-nature is very similar to

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

 

is that accurate? did i miss something?

 

thank you again. :-)

 

rachMiel

[Guest guest]

My dear Peter-ji.

 

A couple of years back, I expressed my personal feeling here that there wasn't

much difference between Advaita and the teachings of Buddha. I was instantly

challenged to substantiate my opinion, which I couldn't do due to lack of

familiarity with the intricacies and depth of Buddhism. So, the best thing for

me to do was to save face and beat a retreat, which of course I did.

 

In reply to Durgaji yesterday, I said Tolle has been successful in reconciling

the 'nothing' of Buddhism with Advaitic thought. You have simply outdone him

with your two lucid mails. Tolle's attempt pales into insignificance in the

brilliance of your thorough and comprehensive understanding. This is my sincere

personal opinion. My prostrations to you - daNdavat as our Lady Joyce-ji puts

it.

 

Yours and, of course, Durgaji's insightful yet very simple answers to

Rachmiel-ji's doubts, are wonderful gifts that came my way in the List in recent

days. God bless both of you.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> 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. ....

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji and others:

 

I join you in saluting Peter-ji, our brother devotee in Bhagavan Ramana.

 

Namaste and love to all

 

Yours in Bhagavan

Harsha

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Madathil Rajendran Nair

Thursday, May 28, 2009 10:43 PM

advaitin

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

 

My dear Peter-ji.

 

A couple of years back, I expressed my personal feeling here that there

wasn't much difference between Advaita and the teachings of Buddha. I was

instantly challenged to substantiate my opinion, which I couldn't do due to

lack of familiarity with the intricacies and depth of Buddhism. So, the

best thing for me to do was to save face and beat a retreat, which of course

I did.

 

In reply to Durgaji yesterday, I said Tolle has been successful in

reconciling the 'nothing' of Buddhism with Advaitic thought. You have

simply outdone him with your two lucid mails. Tolle's attempt pales into

insignificance in the brilliance of your thorough and comprehensive

understanding. This is my sincere personal opinion. My prostrations to you -

daNdavat as our Lady Joyce-ji puts it.

 

Yours and, of course, Durgaji's insightful yet very simple answers to

Rachmiel-ji's doubts, are wonderful gifts that came my way in the List in

recent days. God bless both of you.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> 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.

.....

 

 

 

---

 

 

[Guest guest]

Fictitious scenario from a fictitious talk:

 

Question: " Bhagavan, which are the similarities and the dissimilarities

between Buddhism and Vedanta? "

Bh. Ramana: " Become the Buddha, become a Jnani, and then see if there

are any. "

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita

interpretation of the Upanishads?

 

(Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent for a

while :-)

 

The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known.

 

The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I

understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of

the Upanishadic-Brahman.

 

Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the

second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead

from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the

Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in

avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first

two turnings.

 

That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective enter

Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists realized

that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness, as

grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held this

position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in particular -

when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is that

*eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more or

less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of the

Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were

independently established and spreading.

 

Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as Brahman?

Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also decided

to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of the

issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his

posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left

the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous

post.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> 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.

> >

> 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.

> > 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.'

>

>

[Guest guest]

If the literature of Nagarajuna is closely examined then one would realize that

there was no third turning as in adopting the conclusion of advaita. Sunyata is

not Brahman. Asunyata is Brahman. In Madhyamika Sutras Nagarjuna uses this term

but does not elaborate on it. If one reads Asvaghosa then further elaboration of

asunyata is found. In Lankavatara Sutra the term Dharmakaya is used which means

the absolute. All these three were before Sankara. There is no way that

Nagarjuna could have learnt Sankara's view an even of Upanisads. It was a

conclusion based on the teachings of Buddha. Though the Buddha does not speak

about metaphysical issues yet he dropped some hints to it. He said that there is

a thing unborn, indescribable, that does not change, if this would not have been

there would have been no nirvana. If the dialouges of Ananda and Buddha on the

concept of self are read one realizes that Buddha was throughout negating the

not self. There again is some influence of Madhyamika doctrine on advaita.

Gaudapada's karika adopts the line of reasoning of Madhyamika school. Sri

Harsa's famous work Khandana Khanda Khadya uses the dialectical method of

Nagarjuna to refute the definitions of Nyaya Vaisesika categories.

The misunderstanding about Madhyamaika school is mainly because at that point of

time it was not clearly understood. Soon this school dissappeared and many of

its texts are found in chinese as original sanskrit works are lost. Yogacara

school of buddhism was that was foremeost at the time of Kumarila and Sankara

and both take great pains to refute these views. There is little that is

different between Buddhism and Vedanta and thus Swami Vivekananda talked about

their unity even during his famous speech in the Parliament of Religions.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita

interpretation of the Upanishads?

>

> (Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent for

a while :-)

>

> The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known.

>

> The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I

understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of

the Upanishadic-Brahman.

>

> Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the

second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead

from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the

Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in

avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first

two turnings.

>

> That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective enter

Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists realized

that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness, as

grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held this

position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in particular -

when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is that

*eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more or

less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of the

Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were

independently established and spreading.

>

> Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as

Brahman? Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also

decided to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of

the issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his

posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left

the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous

post.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

> advaitin , " Peter " <not_2@> wrote:

> >

> > 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.

> > >

> > 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.

> > > 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.'

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear vaibhav,

 

Namaste.

 

Kindly explain why Acharya Sankara refutes Sunyavata in his Dakshinamurthy

Stotra (vide reference 5th sloka).

 

// deham pranam api indriyanyapi chalam buddhim cha shunyam viduh

stri .........tasmai sri gurumurthaye namah idam sri dakshinamurthyaye //

 

I firmly believe that Dakshinamurthy stotra is strictly in line with Advaita

Siddhanta which is a suggested primer before undergoing the svadhyaya of advaita

siddhanta in amnaya mutts of acharya sankara.

 

 

Here are excerpts from a friend of mine:

 

*****************************

 

Everything is momentary and void. Each and everything is born in one moment,

stays for one moment and is destroyed in

the next moment. Everything is self-comprehending i.e. there is no division of

the knower and the known. The bodies of the beings are assemblages of the five

Skandhas. These Skandhas are: Roopa skandha, Vijnana skandha, Sanjnaa Skandha,

Samskara Skandha and Vedanaa Skandha. The objects and sense organs are called

Roopa skandha since they are `formed' (Roopa=form) in the mind. Knowledge of the

sense-objects and sense organs is christened as Vijnana skandha.

Name, quality, action, species and knowledge of specialty – this is the fivefold

aspect of the Samjnaa Skandha. For the cows, the `name' is stated to be`cow'.

The `species' is `cowness', which is inherent in all cows. `Quality' is

whiteness etc. `Actions' are referred to when we say, `It goes' etc. `Knowledge

of the specialty is of this form: `This animal has horns, four legs and a tail'.

Thus, the Samjnaa Skandha is stated to be limited to these five.

Attachment, as also merit and demerit are called Samskara Skandha. Happiness and

misery, as also liberation is named as Vedanaa skandha. Verily, apart from these

five Skandhas, no other Atman exists at all. Nor is there any creator called

Ishwara at all. The world contains in itself all the excellence.

In other words, the various processes in this world, like creation or

regulation, take place all by themselves

The world is born out the Skandhas and Paramanus, which are of momentary

existence. World of the succeeding moment arises out of the world of the

preceding moment. This is what the Buddhists propose.

 

Now, remembrance is actually `re-cognition', cognition of something that has

already been cognized. If none existed during the deep sleep state and it was

all void according to the Buddhists, then who is it that recognizes himself as,

`It is I who slept' after waking up? Devadutta's previous experiences can be

remembered or re-cognized by Devadutta only and not by Brahmadutta who did not

undergo those experiences. So, this proves the existence of a permanent Atman

who endures through all the states of consciousness.

If void is the cause of this world, then the world itself cannot be proved to

exist. If there is none to assemble the Skandhas

and the Paramanus, there will be no assemblage since there is no cause to

achieve it. In the absence of a potter, the mere existence of clay, wheel and

stick will not automatically produce the pot. Similarly, if Ishwara, the

sentient creator is not accepted,

then there can be no creation.

 

What for does the Buddhist, who denies the existence of the Atman keep religious

vows? Since according to him, the `conscious entity' is constantly changing, the

`entities' that perform the religious acts like fasting are different, so also

the `entities' that will reap the fruits of these acts! If one earns something

and another enjoys it, why should the person take all that trouble?

 

A person engages himself in some action or desists from it, depending on the

previous experience and memories of

pleasure or pain. Actions giving pleasure or pain are repeated, others are given

up. This is possible only if the continuity of

the personality is accepted, which is what Pratyabhijnaa or re-cognition

indicates. If this Pratyabhijnaa is an illusion, then

no continuity of activities is possible in this world.

 

****************************

 

with regards,

sriram

 

 

advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21

wrote:

>

> If the literature of Nagarajuna is closely examined then one would realize

that there was no third turning as in adopting the conclusion of advaita.

Sunyata is not Brahman. Asunyata is Brahman. In Madhyamika Sutras Nagarjuna uses

this term but does not elaborate on it. If one reads Asvaghosa then further

elaboration of asunyata is found. In Lankavatara Sutra the term Dharmakaya is

used which means the absolute. All these three were before Sankara. There is no

way that Nagarjuna could have learnt Sankara's view an even of Upanisads. It was

a conclusion based on the teachings of Buddha. Though the Buddha does not speak

about metaphysical issues yet he dropped some hints to it. He said that there is

a thing unborn, indescribable, that does not change, if this would not have been

there would have been no nirvana. If the dialouges of Ananda and Buddha on the

concept of self are read one realizes that Buddha was throughout negating the

not self. There again is some influence of Madhyamika doctrine on advaita.

Gaudapada's karika adopts the line of reasoning of Madhyamika school. Sri

Harsa's famous work Khandana Khanda Khadya uses the dialectical method of

Nagarjuna to refute the definitions of Nyaya Vaisesika categories.

> The misunderstanding about Madhyamaika school is mainly because at that point

of time it was not clearly understood. Soon this school dissappeared and many of

its texts are found in chinese as original sanskrit works are lost. Yogacara

school of buddhism was that was foremeost at the time of Kumarila and Sankara

and both take great pains to refute these views. There is little that is

different between Buddhism and Vedanta and thus Swami Vivekananda talked about

their unity even during his famous speech in the Parliament of Religions.

>

> REGARDS,

> VAIBHAV.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> >

> > do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita

interpretation of the Upanishads?

> >

> > (Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent

for a while :-)

> >

> > The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known.

> >

> > The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I

understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of

the Upanishadic-Brahman.

> >

> > Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the

second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead

from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the

Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in

avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first

two turnings.

> >

> > That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective

enter Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists

realized that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness,

as grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held

this position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in

particular - when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is

that *eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more

or less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of

the Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were

independently established and spreading.

> >

> > Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as

Brahman? Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also

decided to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of

the issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his

posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left

the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous

post.

> >

> > thollmelukaalkizhu

> >

> > advaitin , " Peter " <not_2@> wrote:

> > >

> > > 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.

> > > >

> > > 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.

> > > > 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.'

> > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Pranams to all,

 

what a treasure box Rachmielji opened up with his question!

 

I am amazed by how much precious knowledge is surfacing.

 

Thank you - to all, who have and will contribute to this thread!

 

Om Shanti

 

Sitara

[Guest guest]

Dear Rachmielji,

 

no, you did not misinterprete.

 

What Sadaji said, is what I meant when I said " using Vedanta as a working

hypothesis " :

 

Doing manana means, as Sadaji explained, you reflect until there are no more

doubts left in the mind. You are free to keep your doubts as long as they are

not cleared.

If they cannot be cleared, then you will either go on trying to clear them

within the system of Vedanta or you will move onto another system. If at some

point to your mind Vedanta proves not to be valid, you dismiss it.

If you are lucky enough and vedantic study proves to be able to clear your

doubts, then the working hypothesis has proved right. Thats all.

 

You are free all along!

 

There is only one thing required from you: In the beginning, study without

giving too much attention to the doubts. Note them down in a note book and put

it aside. If you go through them lets say after half a year of study, you will

already notice that you can cross some or many of them, because they have

cleared.

 

If you hold on to your fear of being manipulated and brainwashed while studying,

the danger is that you will for ever put off committing yourself to any

philosophy and not get anywhere. So a little bit of a jump you have to take - be

it with Vedanta, Buddhism or whatever you are attracted to. Don't remain half

cooked!

 

Rachmielji, another thing: please really go through what Durgaji explained so

beautifully to you! It is such a precious gift you got there.

 

Om Shanti

 

Sitara

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " rachmiel " <rachmiel wrote:

>

> namaste, sitara, and thanks for responding. :-)

>

> > 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.

>

> what i said in the above quote came from reading this from one of dr.

sadananda's Introduction to Vedanta articles at advaita.org.uk:

>

> " Hence the Vedas declare: for mokSha or liberation, one has to learn vedAnta

at the feet of a teacher – that is called shravaNa. The definition of shravaNa

is the consistent systematic learning of Vedanta from a competent live teacher

for a prolonged length of a time. The teaching has to be reflected upon until

there are no more doubts left in the mind, and that is called manana. "

>

> have i misinterpreted the above " until there are no more doubts left in the

mind? "

>

> thank you.

>

> rachMiel

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Rachmielji,

 

the first sentence of my last post was meant to be:

You did not misinterprete but your vision seems to be a bit clouded by your fear

 

Om Shanti

 

Sitara

 

 

-- In advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

>

> Dear Rachmielji,

>

> no, you did not misinterprete.

>

> What Sadaji said, is what I meant when I said " using Vedanta as a working

hypothesis " :

>

> Doing manana means, as Sadaji explained, you reflect until there are no more

doubts left in the mind. You are free to keep your doubts as long as they are

not cleared.

> If they cannot be cleared, then you will either go on trying to clear them

within the system of Vedanta or you will move onto another system. If at some

point to your mind Vedanta proves not to be valid, you dismiss it.

> If you are lucky enough and vedantic study proves to be able to clear your

doubts, then the working hypothesis has proved right. Thats all.

>

> You are free all along!

>

> There is only one thing required from you: In the beginning, study without

giving too much attention to the doubts. Note them down in a note book and put

it aside. If you go through them lets say after half a year of study, you will

already notice that you can cross some or many of them, because they have

cleared.

>

> If you hold on to your fear of being manipulated and brainwashed while

studying, the danger is that you will for ever put off committing yourself to

any philosophy and not get anywhere. So a little bit of a jump you have to take

- be it with Vedanta, Buddhism or whatever you are attracted to. Don't remain

half cooked!

>

> Rachmielji, another thing: please really go through what Durgaji explained so

beautifully to you! It is such a precious gift you got there.

>

> Om Shanti

>

> Sitara

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> > namaste, sitara, and thanks for responding. :-)

> >

> > > 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.

> >

> > what i said in the above quote came from reading this from one of dr.

sadananda's Introduction to Vedanta articles at advaita.org.uk:

> >

> > " Hence the Vedas declare: for mokSha or liberation, one has to learn vedAnta

at the feet of a teacher – that is called shravaNa. The definition of shravaNa

is the consistent systematic learning of Vedanta from a competent live teacher

for a prolonged length of a time. The teaching has to be reflected upon until

there are no more doubts left in the mind, and that is called manana. "

> >

> > have i misinterpreted the above " until there are no more doubts left in the

mind? "

> >

> > thank you.

> >

> > rachMiel

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Dear All ,

 

Pranams.. My humble opinion :  Comparative studies are okay to begin with , but

some where along the road it is better to concentrate on one path.  Is it not

better to continue to dig at one well , rather than digging some here and some

there ?

 

No offence meant. This is just my personal opinion and may be of zero value.

 

Pranams

 

ramesh

 

 

--- On Fri, 5/29/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

 

 

sriram <sriram_sapthasathi

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

advaitin

Friday, May 29, 2009, 12:57 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear vaibhav,

 

Namaste.

 

Kindly explain why Acharya Sankara refutes Sunyavata in his Dakshinamurthy

Stotra (vide reference 5th sloka).

 

// deham pranam api indriyanyapi chalam buddhim cha shunyam viduh

stri .........tasmai sri gurumurthaye namah idam sri dakshinamurthyaye //

 

I firmly believe that Dakshinamurthy stotra is strictly in line with Advaita

Siddhanta which is a suggested primer before undergoing the svadhyaya of advaita

siddhanta in amnaya mutts of acharya sankara.

 

Here are excerpts from a friend of mine:

 

************ ********* ********

 

Everything is momentary and void. Each and everything is born in one moment,

stays for one moment and is destroyed in

the next moment. Everything is self-comprehending i.e. there is no division of

the knower and the known. The bodies of the beings are assemblages of the five

Skandhas. These Skandhas are: Roopa skandha, Vijnana skandha, Sanjnaa Skandha,

Samskara Skandha and Vedanaa Skandha. The objects and sense organs are called

Roopa skandha since they are `formed' (Roopa=form) in the mind. Knowledge of the

sense-objects and sense organs is christened as Vijnana skandha.

Name, quality, action, species and knowledge of specialty – this is the

fivefold aspect of the Samjnaa Skandha. For the cows, the `name' is stated to

be`cow'. The `species' is `cowness', which is inherent in all cows. `Quality' is

whiteness etc. `Actions' are referred to when we say, `It goes' etc. `Knowledge

of the specialty is of this form: `This animal has horns, four legs and a tail'.

Thus, the Samjnaa Skandha is stated to be limited to these five.

Attachment, as also merit and demerit are called Samskara Skandha. Happiness and

misery, as also liberation is named as Vedanaa skandha. Verily, apart from these

five Skandhas, no other Atman exists at all. Nor is there any creator called

Ishwara at all. The world contains in itself all the excellence.

In other words, the various processes in this world, like creation or

regulation, take place all by themselves

The world is born out the Skandhas and Paramanus, which are of momentary

existence. World of the succeeding moment arises out of the world of the

preceding moment. This is what the Buddhists propose.

 

Now, remembrance is actually `re-cognition' , cognition of something that has

already been cognized. If none existed during the deep sleep state and it was

all void according to the Buddhists, then who is it that recognizes himself as,

`It is I who slept' after waking up? Devadutta's previous experiences can be

remembered or re-cognized by Devadutta only and not by Brahmadutta who did not

undergo those experiences. So, this proves the existence of a permanent Atman

who endures through all the states of consciousness.

If void is the cause of this world, then the world itself cannot be proved to

exist. If there is none to assemble the Skandhas

and the Paramanus, there will be no assemblage since there is no cause to

achieve it. In the absence of a potter, the mere existence of clay, wheel and

stick will not automatically produce the pot. Similarly, if Ishwara, the

sentient creator is not accepted,

then there can be no creation.

 

What for does the Buddhist, who denies the existence of the Atman keep religious

vows? Since according to him, the `conscious entity' is constantly changing, the

`entities' that perform the religious acts like fasting are different, so also

the `entities' that will reap the fruits of these acts! If one earns something

and another enjoys it, why should the person take all that trouble?

 

A person engages himself in some action or desists from it, depending on the

previous experience and memories of

pleasure or pain. Actions giving pleasure or pain are repeated, others are given

up. This is possible only if the continuity of

the personality is accepted, which is what Pratyabhijnaa or re-cognition

indicates. If this Pratyabhijnaa is an illusion, then

no continuity of activities is possible in this world.

 

************ ********* *******

 

with regards,

sriram

 

advaitin@ s.com, " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@ ...>

wrote:

>

> If the literature of Nagarajuna is closely examined then one would realize

that there was no third turning as in adopting the conclusion of advaita.

Sunyata is not Brahman. Asunyata is Brahman. In Madhyamika Sutras Nagarjuna uses

this term but does not elaborate on it. If one reads Asvaghosa then further

elaboration of asunyata is found. In Lankavatara Sutra the term Dharmakaya is

used which means the absolute. All these three were before Sankara. There is no

way that Nagarjuna could have learnt Sankara's view an even of Upanisads. It was

a conclusion based on the teachings of Buddha. Though the Buddha does not speak

about metaphysical issues yet he dropped some hints to it. He said that there is

a thing unborn, indescribable, that does not change, if this would not have been

there would have been no nirvana. If the dialouges of Ananda and Buddha on the

concept of self are read one realizes that Buddha was throughout negating the

not self. There again

is some influence of Madhyamika doctrine on advaita. Gaudapada's karika adopts

the line of reasoning of Madhyamika school. Sri Harsa's famous work Khandana

Khanda Khadya uses the dialectical method of Nagarjuna to refute the definitions

of Nyaya Vaisesika categories.

> The misunderstanding about Madhyamaika school is mainly because at that point

of time it was not clearly understood. Soon this school dissappeared and many of

its texts are found in chinese as original sanskrit works are lost. Yogacara

school of buddhism was that was foremeost at the time of Kumarila and Sankara

and both take great pains to refute these views. There is little that is

different between Buddhism and Vedanta and thus Swami Vivekananda talked about

their unity even during his famous speech in the Parliament of Religions.

>

> REGARDS,

> VAIBHAV.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

advaitin@ s.com, " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> >

> > do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita

interpretation of the Upanishads?

> >

> > (Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent

for a while :-)

> >

> > The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known.

> >

> > The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I

understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of

the Upanishadic- Brahman.

> >

> > Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the

second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead

from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the

Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in

avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first

two turnings.

> >

> > That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective

enter Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists

realized that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness,

as grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held

this position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in

particular - when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is

that *eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more

or less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of

the Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were

independently established and spreading.

> >

> > Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as

Brahman? Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also

decided to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of

the issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his

posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left

the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous

post.

> >

> > thollmelukaalkizhu

> >

> > advaitin@ s.com, " Peter " <not_2@> wrote:

> > >

> > > 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.

> > > >

> > > 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.

> > > > 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.'

> > >

> > >

> >

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

You have rightly said.

 

Upasana is most important for advaita siddhi. Otherwise, as my good old friend

has put it in beautiful words, the answer to the self-enquiry *Who am I* is the

*same old fool*.

 

regs,

sriram

 

 

advaitin , ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv wrote:

>

> Dear All ,

>  

> Pranams.. My humble opinion :  Comparative studies are okay to begin with ,

but some where along the road it is better to concentrate on one path.  Is it

not better to continue to dig at one well , rather than digging some here and

some there ?

>  

> No offence meant. This is just my personal opinion and may be of zero value.

>  

> Pranams

>  

> ramesh

>

>

> --- On Fri, 5/29/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

>

> sriram <sriram_sapthasathi

> Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

> advaitin

> Friday, May 29, 2009, 12:57 PM

>

>

Dear vaibhav,

>

> Namaste.

>

> Kindly explain why Acharya Sankara refutes Sunyavata in his Dakshinamurthy

Stotra (vide reference 5th sloka).

>

> // deham pranam api indriyanyapi chalam buddhim cha shunyam viduh

> stri .........tasmai sri gurumurthaye namah idam sri dakshinamurthyaye //

>

> I firmly believe that Dakshinamurthy stotra is strictly in line with Advaita

Siddhanta which is a suggested primer before undergoing the svadhyaya of advaita

siddhanta in amnaya mutts of acharya sankara.

>

> Here are excerpts from a friend of mine:

>

> ************ ********* ********

>

> Everything is momentary and void. Each and everything is born in one moment,

stays for one moment and is destroyed in

> the next moment. Everything is self-comprehending i.e. there is no division of

the knower and the known. The bodies of the beings are assemblages of the five

Skandhas. These Skandhas are: Roopa skandha, Vijnana skandha, Sanjnaa Skandha,

Samskara Skandha and Vedanaa Skandha. The objects and sense organs are called

Roopa skandha since they are `formed' (Roopa=form) in the mind. Knowledge of the

sense-objects and sense organs is christened as Vijnana skandha.

> Name, quality, action, species and knowledge of specialty †" this is the

fivefold aspect of the Samjnaa Skandha. For the cows, the `name' is stated to

be`cow'. The `species' is `cowness', which is inherent in all cows. `Quality' is

whiteness etc. `Actions' are referred to when we say, `It goes' etc. `Knowledge

of the specialty is of this form: `This animal has horns, four legs and a tail'.

Thus, the Samjnaa Skandha is stated to be limited to these five.

> Attachment, as also merit and demerit are called Samskara Skandha. Happiness

and misery, as also liberation is named as Vedanaa skandha. Verily, apart from

these five Skandhas, no other Atman exists at all. Nor is there any creator

called Ishwara at all. The world contains in itself all the excellence.

> In other words, the various processes in this world, like creation or

regulation, take place all by themselves

> The world is born out the Skandhas and Paramanus, which are of momentary

existence. World of the succeeding moment arises out of the world of the

preceding moment. This is what the Buddhists propose.

>

> Now, remembrance is actually `re-cognition' , cognition of something that has

already been cognized. If none existed during the deep sleep state and it was

all void according to the Buddhists, then who is it that recognizes himself as,

`It is I who slept' after waking up? Devadutta's previous experiences can be

remembered or re-cognized by Devadutta only and not by Brahmadutta who did not

undergo those experiences. So, this proves the existence of a permanent Atman

who endures through all the states of consciousness.

> If void is the cause of this world, then the world itself cannot be proved to

exist. If there is none to assemble the Skandhas

> and the Paramanus, there will be no assemblage since there is no cause to

achieve it. In the absence of a potter, the mere existence of clay, wheel and

stick will not automatically produce the pot. Similarly, if Ishwara, the

sentient creator is not accepted,

> then there can be no creation.

>

> What for does the Buddhist, who denies the existence of the Atman keep

religious vows? Since according to him, the `conscious entity' is constantly

changing, the `entities' that perform the religious acts like fasting are

different, so also the `entities' that will reap the fruits of these acts! If

one earns something and another enjoys it, why should the person take all that

trouble?

>

> A person engages himself in some action or desists from it, depending on the

previous experience and memories of

> pleasure or pain. Actions giving pleasure or pain are repeated, others are

given up. This is possible only if the continuity of

> the personality is accepted, which is what Pratyabhijnaa or re-cognition

indicates. If this Pratyabhijnaa is an illusion, then

> no continuity of activities is possible in this world.

>

> ************ ********* *******

>

> with regards,

> sriram

>

> advaitin@ s.com, " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@ ...>

wrote:

> >

> > If the literature of Nagarajuna is closely examined then one would realize

that there was no third turning as in adopting the conclusion of advaita.

Sunyata is not Brahman. Asunyata is Brahman. In Madhyamika Sutras Nagarjuna uses

this term but does not elaborate on it. If one reads Asvaghosa then further

elaboration of asunyata is found. In Lankavatara Sutra the term Dharmakaya is

used which means the absolute. All these three were before Sankara. There is no

way that Nagarjuna could have learnt Sankara's view an even of Upanisads. It was

a conclusion based on the teachings of Buddha. Though the Buddha does not speak

about metaphysical issues yet he dropped some hints to it. He said that there is

a thing unborn, indescribable, that does not change, if this would not have been

there would have been no nirvana. If the dialouges of Ananda and Buddha on the

concept of self are read one realizes that Buddha was throughout negating the

not self. There again

> is some influence of Madhyamika doctrine on advaita. Gaudapada's karika

adopts the line of reasoning of Madhyamika school. Sri Harsa's famous work

Khandana Khanda Khadya uses the dialectical method of Nagarjuna to refute the

definitions of Nyaya Vaisesika categories.

> > The misunderstanding about Madhyamaika school is mainly because at that

point of time it was not clearly understood. Soon this school dissappeared and

many of its texts are found in chinese as original sanskrit works are lost.

Yogacara school of buddhism was that was foremeost at the time of Kumarila and

Sankara and both take great pains to refute these views. There is little that is

different between Buddhism and Vedanta and thus Swami Vivekananda talked about

their unity even during his famous speech in the Parliament of Religions.

> >

> > REGARDS,

> > VAIBHAV.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > advaitin@ s.com, " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> > >

> > > do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita

interpretation of the Upanishads?

> > >

> > > (Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent

for a while :-)

> > >

> > > The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known.

> > >

> > > The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I

understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of

the Upanishadic- Brahman.

> > >

> > > Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the

second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead

from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the

Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in

avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first

two turnings.

> > >

> > > That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective

enter Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists

realized that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness,

as grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held

this position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in

particular - when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is

that *eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more

or less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of

the Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were

independently established and spreading.

> > >

> > > Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as

Brahman? Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also

decided to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of

the issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his

posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left

the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous

post.

> > >

> > > thollmelukaalkizhu

> > >

> > > advaitin@ s.com, " Peter " <not_2@> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > 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.

> > > > >

> > > > 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.

> > > > > 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.'

> > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

[Guest guest]

*Prachanna baudha* was the term used by Vaishnavas to demean our beloved Acharya

Sankara. It was a sort of derogatory word.

 

sriram

 

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> 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]

sriram ji :

 

awww...did not know vaishnavas were such meanies those days.

 

suresh.

 

 

advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> *Prachanna baudha* was the term used by Vaishnavas to demean our beloved

Acharya Sankara. It was a sort of derogatory word.

>

> sriram

>

> advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair@>

wrote:

> >

> > 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]

In his bhAShya on mANDUkya kArika, IV. 99 Shri Shankara himself brings out the

difference between advaita and Buddha's views. He says, " That the nature of the

supreme Reality is free from the differences of knowledge, the known and the

knower and is without a second, was not expressed by Buddha; though a

near-approach to non-dualism was implied in his negation of outer objects and

his imagination of everything as mere consciousness. But this non-duality, the

essence of the ultimate Reality, is to be known from the upanishads only.

 

Shri Shankara refutes the views of the Buddhist schools in his bhAShyas on B.S.

II.ii.18 to II.ii.32.

shUnyavAda is the theory of only one of the four schools of Buddhism dealt with

by Shankara in these sutras. The four schools are:--

1. VaibhAShika- This school accepts the existence of external objects and says

that they are experienced by perception.

2. SautrAntika- They also accept external objects, but say that they are

experienced only by inference.

3. YogAcAra- They are also known as vijnAnavAdins. They hold that there are no

external objects; it is only internal cognitions that are externalized as

objects.

MAdhyamikas or Nihilists---- According to this school there are neither external

objects nor internal cognitions, but only Void or shUnya.

 

Shri Shankara refutes the views of all these schools.

 

One feature of these schools is that there is no permanent Self. Shankara

refutes this by pointing out, " Unless there be some principle running through

everything and abiding through all the three periods of time or some unchanging

witness of all, there can be no human dealing involving remembrance,

recognition, etc, which are contingent on past impressions that are stored up in

conformity with environment, time, and causation " .

 

He further says, " External objects are not non-existent, because they are

perceived " .

 

He rejects the Buddhist view that objects seen in the waking state are also

unreal like those in the dream state. In B.S. II.ii.29 he says, " Moreover, dream

vision is a kind of memory, whereas the visions of the waking state are forms of

perception. And the difference between perception and memory, consisting in the

presence and absence of objects, can be understood by oneself " .

 

With regard to the view of the nihilist, he says, " As for the view of the

absolute nihilist, no attempt is made for its refutation since it is opposed to

all means of valid knowledge.

 

There is however considerable difference of opinion among scholars about the

real meaning of `shUnya'. Writers like Mrs. Rhys Davids argue that, in fact,

Buddha's view of man's self or Atman was the same as that of the upanishads.

 

Another writer says: Nagarjuna's theory of shUnyatA does not make short work of

all the categories of common sense. He makes provision for them by

distinguishing two forms of truth with reference to which, he asserts, all the

teachings of the Buddha are to be understood--- viz., samvRitisatya and

paramArthasatya. By samvRiti is meant, in the first place, ignorance as it

envelops reality i.e., it is the same as avidya (avidya hi

samvRitirUpapadyate—BodhicaryAvatAra), which superimposes the form of

non-existent things and shuts off the vision of reality. Secondly, samvRiti

means an object which depends on another for its existence, i.e., whatever is

subject to the law of dependent origination. It is thus a synonym for the

phenomenal " .

 

Thus, even to understand what exactly is meant by shUnyatA a detailed study of

the Buddhist works is necessary.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

namaste sitara. :-)

 

> what a treasure box Rachmielji opened up with his question!

 

i had no idea what a web of thought/responses my simple beginner's question

would spawn! seems like it 'hit a nerve' ... and i'm very happy for that, since

i've learned so much from reading through the various sub(sub)threads that have

arisen.

 

the more i read about advaita vedanta, the more comfortable i feel with it.

there must be a sanskrit word for that: discomfort/resistance to a set of

teachings?

 

thanks to everyone for engaging in such lively and useful dialogue!

 

rachMiel

[Guest guest]

namaste sitara. :-)

 

> You did not misinterprete but your vision seems to be a bit clouded by your

fear.

 

yes.

 

> What Sadaji said, is what I meant when I said " using Vedanta as a working

hypothesis " :

 

> Doing manana means, as Sadaji explained, you reflect until there are no more

doubts left in the mind. You are free to keep your doubts as long as they are

not cleared.

 

> If they cannot be cleared, then you will either go on trying to clear them

within the system of Vedanta or you will move onto another system. If at some

point to your mind Vedanta proves not to be valid, you dismiss it.

 

are these 'doubts in the mind' doubts about the content of the vedanta? (e.g.,

this or that particular vedantic assertion seems 'wrong' to me.) are they doubts

about the nature of reality? (e.g., it doesn't make sense to me that the

ego/self is just an illusion.) or both?

 

> If you are lucky enough and vedantic study proves to be able to clear your

doubts, then the working hypothesis has proved right. Thats all.

 

> You are free all along!

 

that has a much better feel to it than my interpretation, which was: vedanta is

perfectly right, everything else is (to some degree) wrong, and until you know

this without doubt you will remain lost.

 

> There is only one thing required from you: In the beginning, study without

giving too much attention to the doubts. Note them down in a note book and put

it aside. If you go through them lets say after half a year of study, you will

already notice that you can cross some or many of them, because they have

cleared.

 

great suggestion: my Doubt book ... :-)

 

> If you hold on to your fear of being manipulated and brainwashed while

studying, the danger is that you will for ever put off committing yourself to

any philosophy and not get anywhere. So a little bit of a jump you have to take

- be it with Vedanta, Buddhism or whatever you are attracted to. Don't remain

half cooked!

 

yes. rachMiel tartare ... ;-)

 

> Rachmielji, another thing: please really go through what Durgaji explained so

beautifully to you! It is such a precious gift you got there.

 

i will.

 

thank you.

 

rachMiel

 

>

> Om Shanti

>

> Sitara

>

>

>

>

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

> >

> > namaste, sitara, and thanks for responding. :-)

> >

> > > 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.

> >

> > what i said in the above quote came from reading this from one of dr.

sadananda's Introduction to Vedanta articles at advaita.org.uk:

> >

> > " Hence the Vedas declare: for mokSha or liberation, one has to learn vedAnta

at the feet of a teacher – that is called shravaNa. The definition of shravaNa

is the consistent systematic learning of Vedanta from a competent live teacher

for a prolonged length of a time. The teaching has to be reflected upon until

there are no more doubts left in the mind, and that is called manana. "

> >

> > have i misinterpreted the above " until there are no more doubts left in the

mind? "

> >

> > thank you.

> >

> > rachMiel

> >

>

[Guest guest]

namaste durga. wow: thank you for this huge posting! :-)

 

my kneejerk response is to dive into 'analytical mode' and ask further questions

based on what's here. but, instead, i'm going to sit with it and let it take

root. there is a lot here. if i have any comments or questions after it has

penetrated 'me' ... i will post them.

 

again, thank you. :-)

 

rachMiel

 

 

advaitin , " Durga " <durgaji108 wrote:

>

> 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]

advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21

wrote:

>

> If the literature of Nagarajuna is closely examined then one would realize

that there was no third turning as in adopting the conclusion of advaita.

Sunyata is not Brahman. Asunyata is Brahman. In Madhyamika Sutras Nagarjuna uses

this term but does not elaborate on it. If one reads Asvaghosa then further

elaboration of asunyata is found. In Lankavatara Sutra the term Dharmakaya is

used which means the absolute. All these three were before Sankara. There is no

way that Nagarjuna could have learnt Sankara's view an even of Upanisads. It was

a conclusion based on the teachings of Buddha. Though the Buddha does not speak

about metaphysical issues yet he dropped some hints to it. He said that there is

a thing unborn, indescribable, that does not change, if this would not have been

there would have been no nirvana. If the dialouges of Ananda and Buddha on the

concept of self are read one realizes that Buddha was throughout negating the

not self. There again is some influence of Madhyamika doctrine on advaita.

Gaudapada's karika adopts the line of reasoning of Madhyamika school. Sri

Harsa's famous work Khandana >Khanda Khadya uses the dialectical method of

Nagarjuna to refute the definitions of >Nyaya Vaisesika categories.

 

 

Firstly, the posts I referred to show the views of a practicing Buddhist.

 

Secondly, the last line is very misleading. Vivekananda held the view that

Buddha himself never intended to negate the Upanishads (which I am not against

either); however he does not say the same about Buddhism (his followers) in

general. From the practical perspective, he felt the two are sister religions,

etc, but this is not a statement that they as religions held the same

philosophy.

 

I know Nagarjuna predates Shankara, but the question that is central for me is

to what extent the Buddhists rejected the central theme of the Upanishads - that

of Brahman. Having come forth in India and spread through it, is there ever a

reference in Buddhist literature to the Upanishads, where they themselves

suggest that Brahman is no different from Asunyata - except they are particular

about not 'describing' it ? From the little history of Nagarjuna, it is said he

was born a Brahmana, eventually converted to Buddhism and wrote in Sanskrit. For

such a scholar of philosophy in India, I would highly doubt he was unaware of

the central Upanishads, of " Poornam " , " Neti Neti " and etc. To suggest that he

based " Asunyata " (even if it should be a reference to Brahman) solely on the

teachings of Buddha seems naive at best - arguably, he was rather being the

'perfect' convert to a religion that wanted nothing to do with its parent

Vedic-religion.

 

If Shankara and all were lost to the real teachings of Madhyamika, then that is

likely because these were Nastika schools that were presenting themselves as

rejecting the Vedas, even at the philosophical level, even while developing an

essentially same base, as if independently and as if solely based on the Buddha.

To say they did not believe their positions and only we were confused seems

again comfortably presumptuous.

 

It is not for us to speak on behalf of Madhyamikas. Even today, can we find

practicing Madhyamika scholars who agree that the real divergence of Buddhism

need not be on philosophical grounds, and that its real new contribution is only

on practical levels and subsidiary philosophical elucidation? As I said, the

fundamental foundation for the origin and initial development of Buddhism is

nothing but " Don't be part of the prevailing Vedic traditions - don't commit as

Astika, as somehow following the Vedas in any sense " . The rest is just a

followup. Why reconcile with such nonsense, unless this historical aspect is

confronted - and not muddled as if total independent development of Buddhism?

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter ,

 

First and foremost my apologies...Never intended to offend anyone , if i may be

permitted to repeat the statement..All I meant was that once all researching on

various traditions and paths have been done , it would be a good idea to stick

to the one that might suit one the most. If what i have said is contrary to what

i really feel then it is my lack of proper expression.

 

And i shall refrain from commenting in this manner in future.

 

Thanks for your pateince and understanding.

 

Pranams

 

ramesh

 

 

--- On Fri, 5/29/09, Peter <not_2 wrote:

 

 

Peter <not_2

RE: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

advaitin

Friday, May 29, 2009, 7:47 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Ramesh,

 

I think members are just asking questions that are important to them. They

may not be important to you or to everyone here. You also expressed

dissatisfaction about the free-will thread. Yet for some members it clearly

contained important issues and understandings for them.

 

Is the attempt to understand other spiritual traditions simply a matter of

comparative study? One of the things I have found over the years is that

the more I understand the spiritual traditions of other people the easier it

is to focus on what we have in common rather than on what separates us.

 

At the same time I have observed that the less people understand about the

beliefs of others the more likely they are focus on what divides them rather

than what unites them.

 

It's true we can dig holes or even just the one hole for ourselves.

 

We can also build bridges.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

>

> advaitin@ s.com

> [advaitin@ s.com] On Behalf Of ramesh chivukula

> 29 May 2009 09:40

> advaitin@ s.com

> Re: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

>

> Dear All ,

>  

> Pranams.. My humble opinion :  Comparative studies are okay

> to begin with , but some where along the road it is better to

> concentrate on one path.  Is it not better to continue to dig

> at one well , rather than digging some here and some there ?

>  

> No offence meant. This is just my personal opinion and may be

> of zero value.

>  

> Pranams

>  

> ramesh

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita

interpretation of the Upanishads?

>

> (Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent for

a while :-)

>

> The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known.

>

> The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I

understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of

the Upanishadic-Brahman.

>

> Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the

second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead

from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the

Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in

avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first

two turnings.

>

> That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective enter

Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists realized

that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness, as

grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held this

position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in particular -

when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is that

*eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more or

less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of the

Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were

independently established and spreading.

>

> Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as

Brahman? Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also

decided to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of

the issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his

posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left

the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous

post.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

> advaitin , " Peter " <not_2@> wrote:

> >

> > 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.

> > >

> > 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.

> > > 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.'

 

Namaste,

 

There is much speculation about Gautama and 'Buddhism', even Buddhagosa was

talking about 'Heavens' and Avatar Maitreya in the end.

However Buddhism came out of Hinduism so to speak, and its pure form is a

concentration on the most difficult teaching to grasp..Ajativada in

Hinduism....The Buddhists talk about Sunyata, the Void, emptiness, fullness

etc...depending on the time and circumstances. However they do negate the

concept of Brahman, which Ajativada does also----Saguna Brahman that is. So most

of the differences are really created by a turning back to Bhakti as most minds

couldn't accept the no Saguna concept.

 

This is why later Tibetan Buddhism/Mahayana was so popular, as it incorporated

the Bon Po traditions of many Devas and so was similar to Hinduism at the

Dvaitic level onwards....All religions are Dvaitic!!

 

The ordinary person's mind cannot accept the concept of No(Saguna) Brahman,

Sunyata, Ajativada etc as it smacks of the Nastikas and Atheism. There is

nothing to satisfy their need to worship something greater than themselves a

greater being taking responsibility.

 

As Moksha is a dual simultaneous realisation of Saguna or Sakti and NirGuna at

the same time...the road is the same in the end anyway. Thus for consumption of

their Bhaktas both Sankara and Buddhagosa talked in terms of Govinda and Maitrey

respectively, in the end.

 

That doesn't take away anything from the concept of Ajativada or Sahaja

Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as it is the final truth, and requires a certain

fearlessness that most don't wish to have apparently....Cheers Tony.