Buddhism versus Advaita

[Guest guest]

The difference is only in the words, not in the experience or in

understanding of sages whose insight reaches the depth of the Heart. The

diversity and unity are seen to be the same in the highest stage. Because

most teachers speak from the understanding of partial truth and hence

ignorance, they are overpowered by doubt. Spiritual insecurity leads to

taking of hard positions, and attempting to defend the indefensible. Hence,

arguments and strife is the inevitable result between religions and gurus

and religious teachers. Are they not victims of their own immaturity? Blind

leading the blind is truly the center of the spiritual circus.

 

The debate on who has the ultimate truth is a false debate. The debate on

what are the proper words to describe the ultimate reality (Self or Shunya

or Buddha Nature) is predicated on not having the True Insight. It is a

false debate without any foundation! Truth cannot be possessed by any

tradition, religion, country, person, guru, etc. When we speak of Buddha

Nature or the Original Nature, do we speak of nothingness or NO-Thing-Ness?

The Original Face is the Heart. It is empty of all things, concepts, images,

relationships, and is the end of all experiences. Yet, time and space are

born from it and the mind with the tendency to experience and imagine

sprouts from there. The Original Nature Is Truly the Fullness of Emptiness.

It Is the Mother that gives rise to all things. It is the Womb from which

the Universe is born.

 

All these notions of no-self and self and Buddha nature are concepts only

and empty in themselves without any meaning whatsoever other than what we

give it. In order to communicate, words have to be used to indicate the

experience of Reality. What ever term one uses to describe THAT, It Is What

It is. Call it God, God Consciousness, or the Self, or the non-self or

Shunya or Buddha Nature, The Mother, The Great Way, etc. It Is That What Has

Always Been Here. What Is That, That Is Always With You. Is it anything

different from you?

 

Love

Harsha

 

 

umbada [umbada]

Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:22 PM

nondualitysalon ;

[NDS] Buddhism versus Advaita

 

 

The following letter was received. I'll forward responses to the author:

 

--Jerry

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

 

Advaitists claim that there is a "Self" which is "absolute", but the

Buddhists deny any thing "absolute" therefore denying a "Self" but they

speak of "Buddha nature". However, both believe in Liberation or

Enlightenment so are they different Enlightenments (scince one says

"absolute" and the other doesnt), or are "Self" and "Buddha nature"

really

the same thing? I'm confused as to which path to follow if both are

really

different.

 

Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

[Guest guest]

: All these notions of no-self and self and Buddha nature are concepts only

: and empty in themselves without any meaning whatsoever other than what we

: give it. In order to communicate, words have to be used to indicate the

: experience of Reality. What ever term one uses to describe THAT, It Is

What

: It is. Call it God, God Consciousness, or the Self, or the non-self or

: Shunya or Buddha Nature, The Mother, The Great Way, etc. It Is That What

Has

: Always Been Here. What Is That, That Is Always With You. Is it anything

: different from you?

:

: Love

: Harsha

:

: umbada [umbada]

: The following letter was received. I'll forward responses to the author:

:

: --Jerry

: ------------------------

:

: Advaitists claim that there is a "Self" which is "absolute", but the

: Buddhists deny any thing "absolute" therefore denying a "Self" but they

: speak of "Buddha nature". However, both believe in Liberation or

: Enlightenment so are they different Enlightenments (scince one says

: "absolute" and the other doesnt), or are "Self" and "Buddha nature"

: really

: the same thing? I'm confused as to which path to follow if both are

: really

: different.

:

: Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

An ant would most probably give the greatest insight on this subject, yet

one would have to be able to feel the perspective of the ant towards the

Self or the Buddha Nature as some of the human specie may call it.

 

Some consult the Buddha nature in ants others don't, a difference in

culture? the same thing? So many question... I will have to consult the

next ant that will come to pass before I can answer more.

 

Antoine

[Guest guest]

No ants did come to pass in this brief period of time, I guess my home is

clean from ants , so the tarot cards where consulted to try to resolve

the dilemma of which path to follow. This one came out:

 

http://pages.infinit.net/carrea/tree/tarot/zen007.htm

 

But consulting each card of the tarot individually one may come to find out

that the 22 paths that they propose in their major arcana resolve

themselves into the same point.

 

No, it does not lead anywhere, I must find an ant to answer, so I may gain

some insight on this.

 

Antoine

 

: : umbada [umbada]

: : The following letter was received. I'll forward responses to the

author:

: :

: : --Jerry

: : ------------------------

: :

: : Advaitists claim that there is a "Self" which is "absolute", but the

: : Buddhists deny any thing "absolute" therefore denying a "Self" but they

: : speak of "Buddha nature". However, both believe in Liberation or

: : Enlightenment so are they different Enlightenments (scince one says

: : "absolute" and the other doesnt), or are "Self" and "Buddha

nature"

: : really

: : the same thing? I'm confused as to which path to follow if both are

: : really

: : different.

: :

: : Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

:

: An ant would most probably give the greatest insight on this subject, yet

: one would have to be able to feel the perspective of the ant towards the

: Self or the Buddha Nature as some of the human specie may call it.

:

: Some consult the Buddha nature in ants others don't, a difference in

: culture? the same thing? So many question... I will have to consult the

: next ant that will come to pass before I can answer more.

:

: Antoine

[Guest guest]

On 10/11/00 at 3:22 PM umbada wrote:

 

ºThe following letter was received. I'll forward responses to the author:

º

º--Jerry

º------------------------

º

ºAdvaitists claim that there is a "Self" which is "absolute", but the

ºBuddhists deny any thing "absolute" therefore denying a "Self" but they

ºspeak of "Buddha nature". However, both believe in Liberation or

ºEnlightenment so are they different Enlightenments (scince one says

º"absolute" and the other doesnt), or are "Self" and "Buddha nature"

ºreally

ºthe same thing? I'm confused as to which path to follow if both are

ºreally

ºdifferent.

º

ºAny insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

This can be viewed from a general perspective:

Whatever the system (Advaita, Buddhism, Sufism etc.), all statements concerning

Self, no-self, union, Oneness, primordial mind, to name just a few, are

verbalizations of what essentially cannot be expressed in words, yet the same

"timeless experiences".

 

An analogy is, that a practitioner of each path is like a climber of a colored

mountain, a mountain that ends at the top in a mathematical point. As a

mathematical point is without color, it is suggestive that the colorless point

is reached, irrelevant of the color of the mountain. But how such a successful

climber will express the view from there, is an entirely different matter

 

Hope this helps

 

Jan

[Guest guest]

<< This can be viewed from a general perspective:

Whatever the system (Advaita, Buddhism, Sufism etc.), all statements

concerning Self, no-self, union, Oneness, primordial mind, to name just a

few, are verbalizations of what essentially cannot be expressed in words,

yet the same "timeless experiences".

 

An analogy is, that a practitioner of each path is like a climber of a

colored mountain, a mountain that ends at the top in a mathematical point.

As a mathematical point is without color, it is suggestive that the

colorless point is reached, irrelevant of the color of the mountain. But

how such a successful climber will express the view from there, is an

entirely different matter

 

Hope this helps

 

Jan >>

 

The ant, I just found, finds those mountains really cool. It wonders if it

can climb them also?

 

I almost forgot about the ant at some point, it is a very long story. here

it is:

 

I was looking an ant, as I said in the last email, when suddenly I passed

in front of the fruit basket. In it was a perfect plum, among many. In the

way it rapidly came to my lips, I found out I was hungry and that the plum

was the best one I had ever had. In the way its juice and texture came to

melt with each one of the cells of the body was just amazing, like

fireworks explodind in a sky of cells. The plum and the body simply melted

in an orgasm of fusion from dna to the skin. I had complelty forgotten

about finding an ant, you must underdstand... After a while of digestion,

the question of what became of the plum replaced the memory of looking for

the ant. A chance I had wrotte about looking for the ant on the preceding

email, so that reading it, I came to reccall I wanted to find one.

 

So now it wants to go up the multicolor mountains and find this

mathematical point. Wonder if I could take it there? Who could I consult

for that? wondering...

 

Maybe silence as a response for this last question?

 

Who knows...

 

Does silence exist?

 

Really...

 

Does silence exist?

 

Listen, and tell me...

 

Antoine

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

 

Thanks for bringing out the importance of practice.

 

You said:

 

<<But much more important than the upper-level metaphysics is the

particular path, the practice, the teacher, the context, the students

that you'll encounter on the way (and you can always re-evaluate and

switch paths later!) Do you resonate with it? Do you like the

teacher? Do you like to do practices, chants, readings, good works,

textual study, meditation, devotion to a deity/guru/principle? Do you

feel welcome, love, mystery? For many people, the choice between

Advaita and Buddhism is temperamental. They are attracted more to the

look and feel of one of these paths, more than the other. They like

the Indian-ness of the energetic music, food, Sanskrit names/terms of

advaita. Or the beautiful simplicity of the Japanese aesthetic they

see in Zen.

(M) The way I see things is that one has to find what comes first.

To my understanding there is just human suffering and what we do with

it. No suffering - no path, no practice, no guru, no god, no Buddhism

or Advaita.

 

The starting point is suffering. The path is oneself, the guru is

oneself and the practice is done by oneself. What the different

traditions have tried to address to a greater or lesser extent and to

a greater or lesser insight into the nature of human suffering, was to

address this problem of suffering alone. To the exact extent that

any tradition, path or teaching does not directly address this

problem in a fundamental sense, exactly to that extent it has failed

and deluded its adherents.

 

So the starting point is not which path to follow, to which teacher to

give your suffering, to which philosophy you feel attracted. The

starting point is the simple first and second truths in Buddhism. 1)

There is the fact of my suffering

2) What can be

the cause of it?

A teacher or teaching which does not address these two points of

departure, and which does not compassionately assist the suffering

student of life in coming to grips with this one fact and one

possibility of understanding, has not understood the fundamental

reason behind the student's approach to these matters. In these two

points is no philosophy, no religion, no god, no metaphysics, no

argument - other than the suffering of the student.

 

Once this fact of suffering has been addressed and thouroughly

understood to be an inherent part of the individual's life and

reality, one may approach the question of why this is so.

 

Any other teaching of non-duality, emptiness, god, truth and all these

empty concepts wiil in no way relieve the student of his/her

fundamental disposition of suffering. They may be entertaining to

the searching mind, but they are as essentially part of the problem

to be solved, and exist on exactly the same level of appearance, ie

thought, as any and all other areas of complication, such as all the

descriptions of Heart, Consciousness, Reality, and so on we find

mentioned all over these lists.

 

Love,

 

Moller

 

 

Greg Goode (e-mail: goode)Computer SupportPhone: 4-5723

[Guest guest]

- Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)

NondualitySalon ;

Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:39 PM

Buddhism versus Advaita

The difference is only in the words, not in the experience or

inunderstanding of sages whose insight reaches the depth of the

Heart. Thediversity and unity are seen to be the same in the highest

stage. Becausemost teachers speak from the understanding of partial

truth and henceignorance, they are overpowered by doubt. Spiritual

insecurity leads totaking of hard positions, and attempting to defend

the indefensible. Hence,arguments and strife is the inevitable result

between religions and gurusand religious teachers. Are they not

victims of their own immaturity? Blindleading the blind is truly the

center of the spiritual circus.The debate on who has the ultimate

truth is a false debate. The debate onwhat are the proper words to

describe the ultimate reality (Self or Shunyaor Buddha Nature) is

predicated on not having the True Insight. It is afalse debate

without any foundation! Truth cannot be possessed by anytradition,

religion, country, person, guru, etc. When we speak of BuddhaNature

or the Original Nature, do we speak of nothingness or

NO-Thing-Ness?The Original Face is the Heart. It is empty of all

things, concepts, images,relationships, and is the end of all

experiences. Yet, time and space areborn from it and the mind with

the tendency to experience and imaginesprouts from there. The

Original Nature Is Truly the Fullness of Emptiness.It Is the Mother

that gives rise to all things. It is the Womb from whichthe Universe

is born.All these notions of no-self and self and Buddha nature are

concepts onlyand empty in themselves without any meaning whatsoever

other than what wegive it. In order to communicate, words have to be

used to indicate theexperience of Reality. What ever term one uses to

describe THAT, It Is WhatIt is. Call it God, God Consciousness, or the

Self, or the non-self orShunya or Buddha Nature, The Mother, The Great

Way, etc. It Is That What HasAlways Been Here. What Is That, That Is

Always With You. Is it anythingdifferent from

you?LoveHarshaumbada (AT) ns (DOT) sympatico.ca

[umbada (AT) ns (DOT) sympatico.ca]Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:22

PMnondualitysalon ; Subject:

[NDS] Buddhism versus AdvaitaThe following letter was received. I'll

forward responses to the

author:--Jerry------------------------Advaitists claim that there is

a "Self" which is "absolute", but theBuddhists deny any thing

"absolute" therefore denying a "Self" but theyspeak of "Buddha

nature". However, both believe in Liberation orEnlightenment so are

they different Enlightenments (scince one says"absolute" and the

other doesnt), or are "Self" and "Buddha nature"reallythe same thing?

I'm confused as to which path to follow if both arereallydifferent.Any

insight would be greatly appreciated.--------------------------

eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>eLertsIt's Easy. It's

Fun. Best of All, it's

Free!http://click./1/9699/9/_/520931/_/971293569/-->//

All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of

the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always

Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart

to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the

Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It

Self. Welcome all to a.To from this list,

go to the ONElist web site, at www., and

select the User Center link from the menu bar on the

left. This menu will also let you change your subscription

between digest and normal mode.

[Guest guest]

Harsha,

Well said.

 

Having been in both arenas, Buddhist and Advaita, I have seen

the "differences" arise in clinging to words. My simple-minded

explanation is that Truth is the Absolute, facts are relative; Truth

has no words, that is, words about Truth are always not the direct

experience and are therefore relative.

 

The confusion arises because we use relative words to point to

absolute Truth, and the words may be a very good map of the

territory, but the map is not the territory mapped.

 

Another way of saying this is that "words" tell a story, "truth" is

the story, rather truth is the reality, a reality which can only be

directly experienced.

 

Of course, the intellect is always looking for explanations and

logical process, and the "experiencer" just enjoys the wonder of it

all!

 

John L.

, "Gloria Lee" <glee@c...> wrote:

>

> -

> Harsha (Dr. Harsh K. Luthar)

> NondualitySalon ;

> Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:39 PM

> Buddhism versus Advaita

>

>

> The difference is only in the words, not in the experience or in

> understanding of sages whose insight reaches the depth of the

Heart. The

> diversity and unity are seen to be the same in the highest stage.

Because

> most teachers speak from the understanding of partial truth and

hence

> ignorance, they are overpowered by doubt. Spiritual insecurity

leads to

> taking of hard positions, and attempting to defend the

indefensible. Hence,

> arguments and strife is the inevitable result between religions and

gurus

> and religious teachers. Are they not victims of their own

immaturity? Blind

> leading the blind is truly the center of the spiritual circus.

>

> The debate on who has the ultimate truth is a false debate. The

debate on

> what are the proper words to describe the ultimate reality (Self or

Shunya

> or Buddha Nature) is predicated on not having the True Insight. It

is a

> false debate without any foundation! Truth cannot be possessed by

any

> tradition, religion, country, person, guru, etc. When we speak of

Buddha

> Nature or the Original Nature, do we speak of nothingness or NO-

Thing-Ness?

> The Original Face is the Heart. It is empty of all things,

concepts, images,

> relationships, and is the end of all experiences. Yet, time and

space are

> born from it and the mind with the tendency to experience and

imagine

> sprouts from there. The Original Nature Is Truly the Fullness of

Emptiness.

> It Is the Mother that gives rise to all things. It is the Womb from

which

> the Universe is born.

>

> All these notions of no-self and self and Buddha nature are

concepts only

> and empty in themselves without any meaning whatsoever other than

what we

> give it. In order to communicate, words have to be used to indicate

the

> experience of Reality. What ever term one uses to describe THAT, It

Is What

> It is. Call it God, God Consciousness, or the Self, or the non-self

or

> Shunya or Buddha Nature, The Mother, The Great Way, etc. It Is That

What Has

> Always Been Here. What Is That, That Is Always With You. Is it

anything

> different from you?

>

> Love

> Harsha

>

>

> umbada@n... [umbada@n...]

> Wednesday, October 11, 2000 2:22 PM

> nondualitysalon ;

> [NDS] Buddhism versus Advaita

>

>

> The following letter was received. I'll forward responses to the

author:

>

> --Jerry

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

>

> Advaitists claim that there is a "Self" which is "absolute", but the

> Buddhists deny any thing "absolute" therefore denying a "Self" but

they

> speak of "Buddha nature". However, both believe in Liberation or

> Enlightenment so are they different Enlightenments (scince one says

> "absolute" and the other doesnt), or are "Self" and "Buddha nature"

> really

> the same thing? I'm confused as to which path to follow if both are

> really

> different.

>

> Any insight would be greatly appreciated.

>

>

>

>

>

> //

>

> All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places,

sights, perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist

in and subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising

are not different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness

are of the nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is

always Present. It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know

the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee

relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from

within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

>

> To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

> www., and select the User Center link

from the menu bar

> on the left. This menu will also let you change

your subscription

> between digest and normal mode.