Differences between Advaita and Buddhism

Julia

I have read books about Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. I find them both very good, slightly different with different perspective but very much the same. It feels like the talking about the same thing but in a different angle. Any opinions!

taiyaki

advaita vedanta points to non dual awareness.
buddhism points to non self and emptiness (dependent origination).
zen at times jumps between the two. zen talks about spaciousness and clear consciousness.
both point to oneness.

in my humble opinion the realization is the same. it is how the mind frames it afterwards that creates the difference. both place emphasis on thusness or reality as it is prior to duality. AV asserts that all is one and that awareness itself has and always will be.

buddhism asserts that everything is a separate thing coming together to have the illusion of oneness. so body, mind and consciousness create experience. take one out of the equation and you have no experience. everything is dependent on everything else. this can be expressed as oneness/interconnectivity.

but it gets tricky because both understand the clear nature of awareness. when awareness is free from the poisons then the mind itself sees clearly into the nature of reality.

i can see how in AV one can cling to awareness as the final being thus making it into an atman or permanent self.
buddhism basically asserts no atman or permanent self.

honestly i think its safe to see both as true in one form or another. all is one and awareness is. but at the same time i am not awareness. awareness is just a process created by correct conditions. it is more accurate to say awarenessing. so from that stance we can say that there is only the seeing and then the self is projected.

both are pointing to an experience, thus language itself becomes a barrier to that which is.

i still have not completely figured AV and its relation to buddhism. the more and more i study the more and more they appear to have two different messages but existentially i can relate to both.

meh?

DhammaDhatu

advaita vedanta points to liberation via non dual awareness

buddhism points to liberation via right insight & dispassion

in buddhism, liberation is the destruction of craving

in advaita vedanta, liberation is the destruction of dualististic thinking

in my humble opinion, the experiences are quite different

taiyaki

Seeing clearly is insight and in seeing there is no becoming yet the 10,000 things arise and fall. Does the enlightened mind have fear?

I always enjoy your posts dd. I learn a lot!

DhammaDhatu

or we can simply say:

advaita vedanta points to liberation via non-thinking

buddhism points to liberation via wisdom

DhammaDhatu

Seeing clearly is insight and in seeing there is no becoming yet the 10,000 things arise and fall. Does the enlightened mind have fear?

The enlightened mind is free of both fear & lust

If seeing the 10,000 things arise and fall does not result in dispassion & the destruction of fear & lust, then the seeing is not acute & sufficient

The Buddhism position is summed up perfectly in the quote below

The quote below distinguishes the Buddhist position from Advaita Vedanta

Many before the Buddha perceived impermanence but not accutely enough to result in disenchantment & dispasson occuring to their minds

Their minds still remained enchanted & impassioned by things like consciousness & sex

The mind of a Buddha is totally free from greed, lust, hatred, delusion, fear, etc

A real Buddha cannot perform the sexual act

All the best

O monks, the well-instructed noble disciple, seeing thus, gets wearied of form, gets wearied of feeling, gets wearied of perception, gets wearied of mental formations, gets wearied of consciousness. Being wearied he becomes passion-free. In his freedom from passion, he is emancipated. Being emancipated, there is the knowledge that he is emancipated. He knows: 'birth is exhausted, lived is the holy life, what had to be done is done, there is nothing more of this becoming.'

Anatta-lakkhana Sutta: The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic

Jeffrey

"Because there is nothing to be attained the Bodhisattva relying on Prajnaparamita has no obstruction in his mind".. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartstr.htm

In the mahayana extinction of craving is peaceful nirvana. The final nirvana is to develope all of the capacities of a buddha in order to liberate beings. The refuge prayer in the mahayana may be: "we take refuge in the buddha so that all sentient beings realize buddhahood."

Still_Waters

Here's an interesting article on this topic:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html

Alan

maarten

Maybe craving stops when you let go of dualistic thinking? Maybe when you experience one-ness, there is nothing lacking?

>> Many before the Buddha perceived impermanence but not accutely enough to result in disenchantment & dispasson occuring to their minds. Their minds still remained enchanted & impassioned by things like consciousness & sex

For me this relates to what Jac O'Keeffe teaches: when you are faced with a problem you need the wisdom to either go into the story (yes, I'm a person who needs sex, so I should make the effort to have this experience) or to stay out of the story (this "person" who needs sex has nothing to do with what I really am, so I can just abandon the desire of sex). So - in my opinion at least - for some people (I will include myself) it's more skillfull to have sex than to abandon sex. If you still identify strongly with the body (as I do), I think it will give better results, because you will let go of tension and frustration, open up more and soften the ego.

Julia

Thank you for all your answers! I find it very diffucult to separate non-dualism and mahayana path. It is more difference between non-dualism and Theravada than non-dualism and Mahayana. I don't see any particular difference there.

Dakini

Thank you for all your answers! I find it very diffucult to separate non-dualism and mahayana path. It is more difference between non-dualism and Theravada than non-dualism and Mahayana. I don't see any particular difference there.

Julia, I'm no expert on Vedanta, but some Mahayana schools really emphasize the realisation of non-duality. So I think you're on to something. Ultimately, it's a dualistic view that is at the root of the ignorance that causes suffering.

xabir

I have read books about Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. I find them both very good, slightly different with different perspective but very much the same. It feels like the talking about the same thing but in a different angle. Any opinions!

Julia, there is indeed a clear distinct difference but not many understands these well.

Check out http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html and http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/search/label/Acharya Mahayogi Shridhar Rana Rinpoche?m=0