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.
Buddhism v. Advaita Vedanta
Where the Buddha neglected to comment on whether there is a self beyond the aggregates, Advaita (in the style of Maharshi) asserts that the self is that which exists beyond physical and mental phenomena - pure awareness.
My feeling is that Buddhism impliedly rejects the assertion that there is a fundamental self, no matter how subtle, as another, more deeply-rooted illusion. What do you think?
My feeling is that Buddhism impliedly rejects the assertion that there is a fundamental self, no matter how subtle, as another, more deeply-rooted illusion. What do you think?
0
Comments
How can there be a self beyond mental apphrension either as for the applied reasoning even mental phenomena has many parts to it non of which individually or collectively possess any self nature.
Self only exists in name.
I know you are very busy, but I was very puzzled about no-self as discussed in book 3 of the Discovering the Heart of Buddhism course. What I cannot understand is that if the self is non-existent, what motivates people to do things, such as this course?
Lama Shenpen responds:
Do I actually say that the self is non-existent? I didn’t mean to. What the Buddha always taught was that what was impermanent, unsatisfactory and not as we wanted it could not be the self. The self, in this context, is the one who wants happiness. None of the things we grasp at as self provide that happiness so our whole idea of our self causes us suffering.
Who is the us that discovers that? It is the the ungrasped self, the true self, the self that is not impermanent, not suffering, that is as we want it to be. It is the Buddha Nature. When we discover that we realise that this is what we always wanted but we sought for it in the wrong place and in the wrong way. We found aspects of it that we tried to grasp at and own but they just became unsatisfactory as soon as we grasped them. In fact we tried to grasp them only to find we had grasped at thin air, but instead of just ceasing to grasp we got terrified and grasped more and more. Then we became more and more confused and still were left with just thin air. It is only when the fundamental awareness of our being turns towards that thin air and recognises its experience of itself for what it is that it can relax the grasping reaction and let that truth be.
You could call that the end of ego grasping and the life of the true self - or true nature - the ultimate reality of what we are. It is not something we can know by the grasping mind. It is not something to believe in as a concept. It is reality that discovers itself!
So it itself is motivated to discover itself and do this course!
The student continues:
Christians put a lot of faith in the soul, which they believe is a separate unchanging entity. Surely, if there was nothing there, one of them would have noticed by now.
Lama Shenpen responds:
You get all kinds of Christians like you get all kinds of Buddhist. Some have strong conceptual beliefs that they just trot out and say they believe in - they dont want to think too much about whether their beliefs are true or not. They just want something to cling on to that confirms them in their idea of themselves.
Some Buddhists are like that too.
Other Christians are connecting deeply to their hearts and discovering what is genuine and true in their experience - and they find what anyone finds who does that. So they talk about their experience in much the same terms as we would.
As for soul - well it just depends what one means by it doesnt it?
If we can say that we are aware of the five aggregates, then what is the awareness of the five aggregates? This isn't simply consciousness as in the fifth aggregate, because one can be aware of conditioned consciousness.
but as you go deeper into realizations there is an automatic i am not. so i've found to say that you are nothing and everything helps balance both dualities of buddhism and advaita vedanta.
oneness is a fact. emptiness is a fact. i don't see the two systems of thought at odds. they are interpreting and expressing the same truth differently.
for advaita the Self is merely the non dual awareness which expands infinitely thus everything become the "I am" presence.
its no that the individual claims to be consciousness, rather consciousness just is. the ego is merely the play of mental formations and biological necessity. so it is a felt sense that i am all or all is me.
for buddhist you have sunyata or emptiness. this asserts the interdependence of all things. in my opinion when one realizes their non dual awareness they may not realize emptiness or the three marks, thus they may set up their camp on such awareness.
but naturally life will teach/mold us into what we need to be.
i listen to a lot of modern advaita vedanta teachers. they basically in essence sound like zen teachers. i also study a lot of buddhism to balance my eastern studies. both religions have many things to offer and both are valuable.
http://deoxy.org/egofalse.htm
Talisman has a couple of very good threads going that touch on this subject. I suggest you check those out.
its just words pointing to our experience. it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree. some use paper some use plastic.
They reify the subtler formless levels of samadhi.
Advaita Vedanta does not teach the same cosmology as Buddhism, thus it reflects an entirely different type of realization and does not lead to Buddhahood.
Even Shankarcharya said that his teaching is different from Buddhadharma, saying his realization was deeper, this is why he debated with Buddhists endlessly all over India.
Reifying the state of oneness is not the goal in Buddhism. The two paths do not lead to the same place. This is not merely philosophically, this is experientially as well. The difference between the two paths is both conceptual, and non-conceptual.
Advaita Vedanta does lead to long lived God realms though. It does lead to higher rebirth, but not complete liberation from unconscious recycling of the individual mind stream as it reifies the highest absorption states of samadhi/jhana/dhyana. They do not realize emptiness.
i'm assuming emptiness is involved? i recall oneness not the goal, but merely how things are when all veils are lifted. and to go deeper than oneness there is just potential.
how does emptiness fit into this puzzle? as i feel i naturally do this based on my own experience.
or is there something that i'm totally missing hahaha. either way i am pretty content, but i respect your opinion.
I find that teachers sometimes just their calm and rhythm is an enticement in itself.
The scholarship is nice but I found that I didn't have the experiences to place what you were saying.
Basically Advaita says that all phenomena are of one independent source/consciousness. This means they reify independent origination/consciousness, thus they do not realize interdependent origination/emptiness. It truly is a different realization, like I said, not merely conceptually, but non-conceptually as well. Even though, Advaitin Masters will appear so wonderful, blissful, filled with love and virtue, that's because as Milarepa said, Brahma paths lead to the perfection of all worldly siddhis, but not the siddhi without sign, which is Buddhahood, which cannot be recognized even by seeing virtue, bliss, love and compassion. Advaita Vedantins and non-dual theists do indeed master the 4 Brahmaviharas (4 Immeasurables) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmavihara please read the link for an brief explanation. Thus the more mystical forms of Theism are not bad at all, they are good and lead to good things, including self mastery, but not Buddhahood which is a specific insight that allows one to bypass the cosmic pralaya, which was really the whole point to Buddhas teaching; to free you from reabsorption at the end of the cosmic aeon so that you don't have to take suffering rebirth, ever, ever, again! It's all described in Buddhist cosmology. This is why I always say to straight to the scriptures before getting into all the new type of commentaries out there and all the over information from all sorts of different traditions getting all mixed up, but glazing over the nitty gritty. Which has it's purpose, most people are not ready for the nitty gritty. But, this topic came up, so it should be examined here, on a Buddhist board.
Here's Shankaracharya, the progenitor of Advaita Vedanta.
From his Nirvanashatakam. I used to sing this daily by the way in Sanskrit as an Advaitin in the Shaiva Sampradhaya. I've experienced the inner meaning of this very, very many times. It's almost "like" Buddhahood, but it doesn't even realize emptiness so it doesn't enter the Bhumi's yet. If you look at it, it's basically reifying the "I am" experience and projecting it everywhere. It's basically turning the ego from individual, to universal, which is very powerful and blissful and like I said, works to master the 4 immeasurable as explained in the link above. This yogi, Shankaracharya is caught in the higher formless samadhis of infinite consciousness as explained by the Buddha. It becomes very clear if one has entered the higher formless samadhis and one is able to think on a level beyond conceptual thought, and one has a realization of dependent origination, it's very easy to see the difference, like a genuine Eureka!
I am not mind, nor intellect, nor ego,
nor the reflections of inner self (chitta). [more]
I am not the five senses. [more]
I am beyond that.
I am not the ether, nor the earth,
nor the fire, nor the wind (the five elements).
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
2) Neither can I be termed as energy (prana),
nor five types of breath (vayus), [more]
nor the seven material essences, [more]
nor the five coverings (pancha-kosha). [more]
Neither am I the five instruments of elimination,
procreation, motion, grasping, or speaking. [more]
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
3) I have no hatred or dislike,
nor affiliation or liking,
nor greed,
nor delusion,
nor pride or haughtiness,
nor feelings of envy or jealousy.
I have no duty (dharma),
nor any money,
nor any desire (kama),
nor even liberation (moksha).
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
4) I have neither merit (virtue),
nor demerit (vice).
I do not commit sins or good deeds,
nor have happiness or sorrow,
pain or pleasure.
I do not need mantras, holy places,
scriptures (Vedas), rituals or sacrifices (yagnas).
I am none of the triad of
the observer or one who experiences,
the process of observing or experiencing,
or any object being observed or experienced.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
5) I do not have fear of death,
as I do not have death.
I have no separation from my true self,
no doubt about my existence,
nor have I discrimination on the basis of birth.
I have no father or mother,
nor did I have a birth.
I am not the relative,
nor the friend,
nor the guru,
nor the disciple.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
6) I am all pervasive.
I am without any attributes,
and without any form.
I have neither attachment to the world,
nor to liberation (mukti).
I have no wishes for anything
because I am everything,
everywhere,
every time,
always in equilibrium.
I am indeed,
That eternal knowing and bliss, Shiva,
love and pure consciousness.
Anyway... yes, very beautiful and powerful. It's good stuff, I agree, but it's not cutting through the primal subject experienced deep within the Alayavijnana (storehouse consciousness) in formless states of jhana/samadhi.
I find that too many teachers dismiss the cultivation of spiritual longing too soon to people who are just getting started. I personally pray for more longing and devotion to the path. I want to feel that intense longing for liberation! I'm not at the point where it's an obstacle yet.
Please just take the time to google them.
Pralaya means cosmic disillusion though, basically the Vedic term for the "big crunch" at the end of the universe, the opposite of the big bang theory.
it's something i'll be meditating on for a while. for me personally i see no disagreement as from what i've experienced both speak of the same thing from different perspectives.
time to meditate. thanks for the input though. are there any scripture or rather talks that deal primarily with this subject? i haven't done any studying lately because i honestly am highly unmotivated. i'd rather make pizza and do dishes all day haha.
thanks again.
and plus the weather is nice out.
i only study buddhism at night when everyone is sleeping.
The difference is that Advaitins and mystic theists set up the experience as a Self of all, as the "everything" and "nothing" of everything. Thus they don't see it's origination as dependent, and they don't see it's emptiness as well.
This leads to reabsorption at the end of a cosmic aeon due to identifying with the experience as a Self of all, as all phenomena starts to get sucked into the cosmic void when the cosmic karmic cycles are finished it's forms of expressing, Buddhas transcend into a Satyaloka that is arisen dependent upon their compassion for sentient beings, so they stay awake while all the rest of the beings sleep in the pralaya and Buddhas wait for the next cycle of expression and slowly teach the Dharma from higher dimensions to lower dimensions. Those that are born first, and don't have the merit to see the dharma, think they are creator God's and teach the various theisms, saying, "I am the alpha and omega, before me there was nothing." etc. This is where you get all the different theisms from. The Buddha explains this in the Pali Suttas. I'm not saying a practitioner of any path can't transcend this and go deeper through self evaluation, deeper contemplation.
But, as far as the classical scriptures of Advaita Vedanta and other Theisms, this is what they teach, Monotheism, that all things come from one thing as an independent self existing source consciousness.
Buddhist cosmology is very nuanced.
http://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=myriad+worlds&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_esc=&ei=WRcWTpWeI-OrsAKG-aF3
well thats my version of the tenth ox herding picture.
Amongst a lot of things that I've been.
I used to be very monkish, no sexual contact, no beer, no secular music... It was a very powerful time, I recommend elongated spiritual retreat to anyone interested in finding happiness outside of "things."
Nice insight.
My goodness. As of late I've been seeing many mis-interpretations here. This site needs some serious scholarly help. I don't much approve of this new age view that reading books or cultivating "right view" conceptually while practicing meditation is wrong, as if meditation alone can lead to enlightenment. The Buddha did not teach this. People have a tendency to reify experience simply due to the tendency to cling to a self throughout the deepening experiences that arise through the process of peeling through the layers of consciousness, and this is has a philosophical basis as well due to the flood of Neo-Vedantins into the West.
Not that they teach something bad, but they do not teach the path to Buddhahood, just paths to the long lived god realms.
These are all good people, well intentioned people, but should not be sources if you are interested in Buddhism. If you just want a new age smorgasbord, then... this is fine. They do have some wisdom of course. But, when it gets to the nitty gritty realization of what it is to be a Buddha as far as the "inner" realization goes as opposed to the outer show, one should go directly to the texts of Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana and the commentators on the original texts written by highly trained adepts who were not distracted by mass consumerist popular culture. There are of course plenty of masters today, but you have to go see them directly I think. Their online teachings are going to be lite and fluffy and not nuanced.
What Jeffrey said. You don't start from square one, ever, there is no beginning point to anything... per say. Unless you are going to talk about the beginning of this moments round of either perceiving bondage or liberation as the moment.
Anyway... no, of course not to your first question.
For your second question. I know we're in the Kali Yuga, but which number of Kali Yuga? I have no idea... though my Brahmin friends could tell ya, but I'm not too much in touch with them anymore. They know the Vedas by heart. Which as a cosmology holds weight in Buddhism up to a certain point.
You know though, I've read Bernadette Roberts stumbled into no-self. She was a christian mystic, if I'm not mistaken. I think other Advaitins and mystics have fallen into no-self too.....maybe because the Dharma has influenced the collective consciousness of humanity, people have more natural access into the insight, even if they haven't consciously heard about it.
Yup, for sure, I've heard of her. Yes, it's true what you say, but that's just the start of the Bodhisattva path and not indicative of full blown Buddhahood, as there are still more knowledge obscurations to go through that have to do with integrating that realization with all the nuances of ones personal psychology, making ones unconscious completely conscious but also without reference.
Since he mixed Buddhist ideas with Brahmanism, so you also see the emphasis on the Self being Brahma. So it is not exactly Buddhism but was diluted with many other teachings of Brahmanism that the Buddha rejected ( caste, Self, etc...)