Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Advaita / Buddhism same coin?
Earthninja
WandererWest Australia Veteran
in Sanghas
Hi guys!
I've listened to a few talks which I thought were from Buddhist authors. Turns out they were Advaita practitioners. (If that's the word?)
They talk about enlightenment etc, attachments and the ego to name a few.
Sri Ramana Maharshi is one the most famous who brought this to the west.
They talk about our true nature as non dual consciousness.
Now my question is fundamentally is this the same as Buddhism?
As far as the goal and truth about reality is concerned.
Thanks guys!
I've listened to a few talks which I thought were from Buddhist authors. Turns out they were Advaita practitioners. (If that's the word?)
They talk about enlightenment etc, attachments and the ego to name a few.
Sri Ramana Maharshi is one the most famous who brought this to the west.
They talk about our true nature as non dual consciousness.
Now my question is fundamentally is this the same as Buddhism?
As far as the goal and truth about reality is concerned.
Thanks guys!
0
Comments
There are similarities and co-dependent influences. The Buddha was educated into a similar but earlier tradition.
The importance of Brahman, Hindu scripture and deity is not required in Buddhist dharma. The importance of Emptiness (rather than unification with deity) and stress on meditation is more the Buddhist Way.
You will find correspondences to Buddhism in Jainism, the eight limbs of Patanjali and even in some highly specialised Abrahamic mystical traditions.
Advaita says Jainism is false and Buddhism is more false than Jainism.
Buddhism and Jainism are much older than advaita.
If you make declarations of this kind, please provide source, evidence or link.
Such comments risk discrediting the creed in question and require clarification, verification and context
I await a credible source. Thanks.
There are various types of Advaita, so it's not a straightforward question, but there is a connection between the themes of union and non-duality.
Because it seems to infer that they also have a path to enlightenment. Although it may not be the 8 fold path.
Thanks guys, it's just easier hearing it from like minded individuals than going through pages of googled Advaita teachings.
Seems to me the main difference between Buddhism and Advaita is anatta or not-self. Buddhism teaches anatta and Advaita does not. Advaita generally teaches a universal self, which is essentially the opposite of anatta.
I would recommend a little time googling because there are various forms of Advaita and the western versions are much closer to Buddhism than the traditional ones.
A bit like comparing secular and traditional Buddhism really.
To hear said that Advaita Vedanta is not reliant on meditation simply can not be allowed to stand. Eliot Deutsch's book on the subject would be very helpful to anyone wanting a true understanding. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Deutsch
If anything, Buddhism is analytical and Advaita synthetic. "The central concern of Advaita Vedanta," writes Deutsch, "is to establish the oneness of Reality and to lead the human being to a realization of it." [p 47, on "The Self"]
"Any difference in essence between man and Reality," he continues, "must be erroneous, for one who knows himself knows Reality, and this self-knowledge is a "saving" knowledge; it enables the knower to overcome all pain, misery, ignorance, and bondage. What, though, is the self, the knowledge of which yields freedom and wisdom? How does it relate to what we ordinarily take to be our self —our physical organization, our mental activities and capacities, our emotional and volitional life? These are the questions Advaita Vedanta is committed to answer; the answers being at the very core of Advaita philosophy." Here endeth the opening paragraph of Chapter 4.
@rohit, Buddhism is seven hundred to a thousand years older than full-fledged Advaita, but some of the Vedas are at least a thousand years prior to Shakyamuni. Doubtless everyone was influenced by everyone else. I believe that you are mistaken, though, in your assertion about Advaitists discrediting Buddha and the Buddhists categorically. Of course, people do tend to go towards either what draws them or what they understand; but to suggest that they are haters, I think, goes too far.
I agree, but I also think it's important to recognise that Advaita comes in different shapes and sizes, much like Buddhism. Like all the Dharmic traditions it is characterised by plurality.
Double bleedin' post again, gord stone the crows
So tempted to leave it, Lawd love ya, guv.....
Could someone explain this "universal self"? Because depending on what it is, it could be similar to Buddhist teachings on the "True Self", Buddhanature, or Enlightened Self.
Here is a snippet on Advaita non-duality from another forum which I think captures the flavour of it quite well - it doesn't really seem to gel with Buddhist teachings though:
There is Atman as well as Brahman, but in reality they are the same. Atman is a drop, Brahman is the ocean, but both are water.
The self as they describe it is one with everything but still nothing. (No-thing). Not self.
@SpinyNorman I did google some blogs and research the history. Your right about the varieties!
It seems to me that Atman is our personal experience of being. We can only experience life through one outlook at a time right.
Whilst Brahman is the universal self. Which can still be realised. Could this be enlightenment in a buddhist sense?
Could Atman and Brahman be "I am" and Awakening? Just different names of the same thing.
That we are all expressions of one universal consciousness.
Similar to Alan Watts when he expressed that it was if there was a black ball covering a light. There were pin holes in the ball and the light shined through.
The pin holes are our Atman or experience.
The light is universal self. We are all one in a sense.
That's lay mans terms from my understanding so far.
Seems to me like this is exactly what Buddhism points to?
Atman is like the inside of a bubble whereas Brahman is the outside.
In my view, the reason Brahman wouldn't mesh with Buddhism is the proper noun used to label it and the idea that it could somehow be unchanging.
The directness was a great approach.
@ouself ok cool that makes sense. But the second point isn't there anything Unchanging in Buddhism?
How would we know change if there is isn't anything Unchanging.
I suspect that whatever one's view is, the other view seems somewhat more narrow.
But could it all be just a matter of style, with no really essential differences???
Buddhism seems to be more analytical in its sutras, but the syncretism of its mother Hinduism (and even Advaita) may be more a manifestation of culture than of essence.
Also, it is not clear to me that most Buddhists really see anicca, sukkha, and anatta as barebones essentials of Buddhist understanding, either. In other words, doctrine has its place and pragmatic thinking its proper orbit also.
The image I would think of is an ocean with waves. The waves show the changing arisings but at the same time there is the deep nature of the ocean.
As I am taught there are 4 qualities to experience/world: fluxional, has a heart, not a blob rather is finely organize, and finally phenomena are manifest and sometimes nonmanifest
The Buddha in his last teachings before his death said Enlightened consciousness is permanent and unchanging. Once you've realized the True Self, it's a permanent state. However, I don't think he said it's part of a universal consciousness. I think the idea was that once the individual is Liberated from his/her illusions, that Liberation is permanent.
I would think that the only thing that wouldn't change is the fact that everything changes.
Say that Brahman is in fact the unchanging and ultimate reality/consciousness and we are the infinite and unique aspects of such. If each of us is unique and change views from time to time, how would each new view be relevant to Brahman if Brahman can not learn and/or grow?
Would the Brahman of today be still the same mindset that it was before we learned anything about how the world works?
If so, the future must be mapped out and Brahman already knows all outcomes from all interactions of all perspectives.
If not, even Brahman must change. If that's the case a proper noun doesn't seem fitting somehow.
My view is somewhat similar in that I have a feeling we are the infinite aspects or perspectives of the universe. As if the universe is not a place that we live but the other way around. I think evolution and natural selection are instinctual and that the universe tends towards awakening. Even if that awakening can only happen one aspect at a time.
However my version of "I AM" is more along the lines of "WTF?"
I honestly think Carl Sagan hit the nail on the head when he said "We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself".
Have you read "Call me by my True Names" by Thich Nhat Hanh?
I'm not sure I could believe Buddha said that exactly. I can understand that once we see things clearly we can't unsee but that doesn't mean we would stop learning as once we stop learning, we have already lost the wonder.
Buddha saw things clearly and then he got to work.
"I would think that the only thing that wouldn't change is the fact that everything changes"
But how would we be aware of change without something Unchanging. An example there is no You without other. There wouldn't be pleasure without pain. Or up without down.
I think mine and your understanding of Brahman is different.
Universal consciousness would simply be an awareness of experience. It has no interest in how the world works. Nothing to do or to learn. Although learning happens within in.
I agree with you when you talk about the universe. We don't live in it. We are it. But I feel IT and Brahman seem to be the same thing?
But I must add, I'm coming from the Sri Ramana Maharshi lineage on Brahman.
There may be another version your referring to! and that's why you make your point.
"Have you read "Call me by my True Names" by Thich Nhat Hanh?"
No I haven't, good book?
@Earthninja, Here's a link to Thich Nhat Hanh's rather short poem: http://www.quietspaces.com/poemHanh.html
Sabbe sankhara anicca
Sabbe sankhara dukkha
Sabbe dhamma anatta
All conditioned things are impermanent,
All conditioned things are suffering,
All things(conditioned and unconditioned) are without a self.
It seems that in Advaita, all things are Self. "I am all that." The knower is me.
Buddhism denies a self anywhere. There is no knower, only knowing.
"Don't be an arahant, don't be a bodhisattva, don't be anything at all—if you are anything at all you will suffer.” —Ajahn Chah.
That was an incredibly moving poem. Wow.
I did not expect that from TNH.
Thank you @ourself for the suggestion.
I'll have to read this one a few times, very deep.
Well, the Buddha's philosophy is stemmed in the philosophical undercurrents of his time.
He did have several teachers and it's only natural that we could find similarities between the Dharma and the different philosophies of his time.
Advaita seems to me more theistic.
The Buddha sort of dropped that theistic redolence from his philosophy and is more pragmatic.
Possibly different assumptions but pointing to the same experience?
Some versions of Advaita look non-theist though. Others more pantheistic. Different strains, not dissimilar to the plurality in Buddhism.
I did wonder about a connection between TNH's idea of "interbeing" and Advaita non-duality.
Though I think interbeing is more about interdependence than interpenetration. Check out Indra's Net.
That does sounds quite Advaita actually.
Good old Carl!
Yes, there seem to a number of different ways of thinking about what Brahman represents, universal consciousness being one.
Another double post, not enough bleedin' coffee.
Not Vedanta Advaita, the one I read most about.
So what are the other versions of Advaita?
The books I read when I was a child were Vedanta Advaita and they were theistic.
Shankaracharya's "Atmabodha" was theistic.
Is there another Advaita?
You tell us...
I think we're just talking about different strains of Advaita Vedanta, which is a sub-school of Vedanta.
Some modern versions of Advaita look quite secular, almost Zen-like. It's probably similar to how modern Buddhism has developed.
Then maybe, just maybe, instead of grabbing quotes here and there from our comments and making tiny brainy snippets out of them, you could give @Earthninja a more clear answer and develop a whole wiki-like explanation of Vedanta Advaita or Vedanta Advaita, and the similarities with Buddhism.
That would make us all a great service, @SpinyNorman.
Eh? I was asking you what your assumptions were based on, which seems to be a book you read as a child?
Several books I read as a child, @SpinyNorman, which does not mean they were children books: Upanishads, Baghavad-Gita, Sankaracharya, swami Vivekananda, Krishnamurti, and many others I can't remember now because I have the books in Buenos Aires, not here.
My comment still holds: you seem to enjoy taking shreds out of our comments but a straight enlightened answer on your part would be most welcome.
Eh? I am just adding to the discussion, exploring ideas. I think you are being over-sensitive here.
Yes, @SpinyNorman, adding to the discussion with shreds of other people's inputs.
That's a cinch.
I am not over-sensitive here.
I am only over-noticing a pattern you seem to have lately on different threads, that's all.
@Earthninja: you're so sweet
I have an appointment with my cushion and Insight timer now.
You're in the best hands...
Nonsense. Lighten up! We're all God's creatures.
Ah, such diversity!
Lighten up too, daah-leen!
Give that Inquisition affair less leash and more exercise to the keyboard.
It's meant to be used, you know?
OOOMMM
@SpinyNorman
Yes, vaid and advaita are two different concepts. Many scholars and authorities of Vaid criticized Shankaracharya at that time. They said that Shankaracharya completely diverting the concepts of Actual Vaidas and just making Buddhism concepts into vedas which is not acceptable.
There are said to be four vedas but Rugveda is ancient one...
Shankaracharya main role was to eliminate Jainism and Buddhism as they are the shramanas, for that reason he established for monasteries at four corners in India.
It is also said that at court of King, Advaita pandits debated and defeated buddhist and Jain bhikshus...and later on there is no presence of these two religions specially Buddhism lost ground in India...but minute Jains are still there in India.