Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take up to 48 hours. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Advaita / Buddhism same coin?



  • rohitrohit Maharrashtra Veteran

    @federica said:

    The real quote is "Jina mitya ,bodhi apimitya" from the shankaracharyas writings.

  • federicafederica seeker of the clear blue sky Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    That means absolutely nothing.
    As requested: Please provide a direct link, source and reference to your statement.

  • @rohit said:
    Yes, vaid and advaita are two different concepts.

    Could you say briefly what "vaid" is and how it relates to "advaita"?

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited January 2015

    We don't really need anything unchanging to notice change because there is not one rate. If I am moving at 55 mph I can pass another doing 45. Neither is static but one is changing faster than the other.

    I don't really see up and down as opposites because they are really complimentary aspects of the same cycle. Up may be the conceptual opposite of down but there is no opposite for direction except no direction. Just like self and other. Not really opposites but a part of the same cycle.

    Yin and yang are not really opposites because they are complimentary aspects of the same cycle. There is no opposite for the yinyang except for no yinyang although yin is the conceptual opposite for yang.

    The only true opposite for yin would be no yin and that ain't yang.
  • EarthninjaEarthninja Wanderer West Australia Veteran
    @ouself great point. But then if everything is changing. Why do we cry when the ice block melts? I guess we pretend the ice is permanent(ego)

    They are opposites but they are also complimentary. I agree with you there! It's obvious if you look right. :)

    So you say nothing permanent. Advaita says permanent one self in which all occurs. Yet no-thing.

    Let's find out. :)
  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited January 2015

    I can almost get behind the idea of one permanent self where everything occurs but with occurance there must also be change, however slight. I can't get behind a universal consciousness that doesn't learn.

    I never say never but I don't think we will ever actually find out and that's ok.

    Speaking of opposites, this has me thinking of the self/no-self conundrum as you mentioned no-thing. I like no-thing better than nothing because no-thing implies the elusive where nothing implies well, nothing.

    Because no self can be found, some say there is no self at all but that's just another extreme. The middle ground between self and no self is not self. There is self (however temporary) because it suffers and feels joy but no matter where we look or what we point to, that isn't it.

    Sorry, this line of exploration always gets me going.
  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran

    It does seem, from what everyone has said, that the difference is between a universal self of which all small selves are a part... and a selfless universe out of which temporary interdependent selves arise and pass. That's the differentiation I've always made between Hinduism and Buddhism. It may just be different ways of looking at the picture. I'm more apt to believe the universe is itself always changing, so self can't be attributed to that any more than its parts, but both ways can work. They're certainly more true to reality than other religions' views. :mrgreen:

  • I quite like the feel of Advaita.

    Anyway they both make more sense to me than "God did it". ;)

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran

    @SpinyNorman That's just what I was saying, but I didn't want to pick on Christianity by singling it out, hahaha!

  • Ooh I wouldn't want to single out Christianity! I just don't find monotheism generally very credible.

  • ToraldrisToraldris   -`-,-{@     Zen Nud... Buddhist     @}-,-`-   East Coast, USA Veteran

    @SpinyNorman You're not alone my friend. :mrgreen:

  • Historically speaking, Gaudapada was the first known author in the Advaita Vedanta tradition. Dr. Vidhusekhara Bhattacharya maintained that Gaudapada was a Buddhist.

    Dr. Dasgupta maintains that it is immaterial whether Gaudapada was a Hindu or a Buddhist. The point is he had the highest respect for the Buddha and his teachings which he believed to be his.

  • DavidDavid some guy Veteran
    edited January 2015
    I'm not so sure the difference isn't just another matter of perspective.

    I feel the universe is aware of itself but only through beings like us.

    That isn't to say that in time that awareness couldn't be more universal what with natural selection seeming to work through instinct.

    Not sure what I'd call the belief that the universe itself (our absolute truth) is waking up one aspect at a time (conventional truth) through the sharing of information.
Sign In or Register to comment.