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.
Hindu meditation, Buddhist result?
betaboy
Veteran
Namaste,
Must we only practice Buddhist meditation (like vipasana, samata, metta etc.) or can Hindu meditation also lead to Buddhist goal? Let's say, in Hindu meditation, we chant names or focus on forms, that practice would still control the mind to an extent. Would that give the same result as the meditation taught by the buddha, namely watching the breath etc.?
BB
Must we only practice Buddhist meditation (like vipasana, samata, metta etc.) or can Hindu meditation also lead to Buddhist goal? Let's say, in Hindu meditation, we chant names or focus on forms, that practice would still control the mind to an extent. Would that give the same result as the meditation taught by the buddha, namely watching the breath etc.?
BB
0
Comments
Breath meditation is also Hindu meditation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pranayama
Meditation is not concentration, and thus there is no scale upon which the concentrative powers of meditators can be measured.
I take it you haven't heard of Tranquil abiding and the levels of concentration developed by single pointedly focusing the mind on a virtuous object ? There are 9 levels of mental abiding which one can measure their progress against.
Meditation is awareness, so you are right. But absorption into the realms (karmic, form, formless), is the concentration side without the insight of letting go.
Still it is an absolutely unbelievable accomplishment to escape samsara into the formless realm.
And still if you have no right view the awareness is obstructed by the tension of ignorance, and thus the obstructed mind is not able to overcome the realms.
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/15638/nirvana-and-moksha/p1
The goal is the same. As Sri Ramakrishna said, and I'm paraphrasing, no matter which ladder leans against the house, they all lead to the same roof. Maybe this is why J. Krishnamurti didn't align himself with any religion or specific practice - he understood that to choose one was to deny others when all, at their root, are based in and lead to what Buddhists call enlightenment.
Absolutely. The attitude of spiritual superiority (or any kind for that matter) only leads to further separation which gets us nowhere. Like a pair of shoes, we choose what fits best.
Whether Hindu or Buddhist or whatever, it appears fairly clear that the experience of enlightenment is the same regardless of the path to it. From Buddha to Jesus to Krishna to Nietzsche’s transcendent visions, the only difference I can see is the language but they’re all describing the same thing. After all, if enlightenment is not a universal experience, now we’re back to who’s right and who’s wrong which leads to more separation, division, etc… For me, Christianity doesn’t work because as it is now, 2000 years later, it’s based on belief and submission. Buddhism works better for me because it doesn’t care about belief – it shows me the direct link between attachment and suffering. And Buddhism leaves it up to me to see if it’s true. Half the time I don’t want the responsibility, I want God to do the work. Experience has shown, I’m not going to get off the hook so easily.
As I read about mysitcs from different traditions, my conclusion is the same as yours.
But some would argue that it's only on the surface they speak about the same thing. For example, the insights of Advaita Vedanta may sound very similar to Buddhist, but some will say that Advaitins are reifying the "I am" experience and thus get stuck there, whereas Buddhism goes beyond that, etc.
I think it's much more complex. We're talking Hindu practices of today, not those of 2500 years ago, besides Jain Dharma was considered heterodox too by Brahmins at that time, afaik.
Hi, Songhill
Yes, that sounds plausible. Sensory deprivation or bombardment has been used in many traditions, including the Christian tradition; it has probably worked for some (I believe Eckhart Tolle's realisation came at the apex of unbearable mental anguish). But like other techniques, it's not a paid for and stamped ticket to enlightenment. Nothing is; you don't choose the way, the way chooses you.
But people want to succeed so much, and who can blame us, that we tend to put too much faith in the techniques or doctrine. And so you end up with people like those I met at a festival, who say the Bhagavad Gita is magical and contains all the discoveries of science in it in some kind of code, though they don't seem interested in its moral teachings.
Every so often someone like Buddha or Jesus comes along, draws us from the letter of the law to its spirit, and renews the way.
http://sannyasnews.org/now/archives/990
It's all about mistaking techniques for explanations, and extrapolating endlessly from that until you end up with a religion. In my view, anyway.
No self doesn't mean no mind, It means that mind lacks an Inherently existent self and this delusion of grasping and projection of self prevents us from understanding the actual nature of the mind. The teaching of No Self is a way of removing delusions of grasping not a method for negating the mind in general as this renders Buddha's other teachings redundant.
Hindu's believe in a Inherently existent self that is eternal, Buddhists do not believe in a Inherently existent Self because gross and subtle minds are subject to dissolution and the very subtle mind is self-less but a mental continuum non the less.
snip Check out these two passages:
"The atman is the Tathagatagarbha. All beings possess a Buddha Nature: this is what the atman is. This atman, from the start, is always covered by innumerable passions (klesha): this is why beings are unable to see it." — Mahaparinirvana-sutra (Etienne Lamotte, The Teaching of Vimalakirti, Eng. trans. by Sara Boin, London: The Pali Text Society, 1976, Introduction, p. lxxvii.)
"Kasyapa, accordingly at the time one becomes a Tathagata, a Buddha, he is in nirvana, and is referred to as 'permanent', 'steadfast', 'calm', 'eternal' (sasvata)." — Mahabheriharaka Sutra
Reads like Hinduism. The fact is that Vedanta owes a lot to Mahayana Buddhism (cp. Gaudapada). Personally, I find Mahayana clearer than Vedanta. But that is my thing. I consider Hindus my spiritual brothers.
Rangtong view such as dalai lama believe that the mind is a succession of moments. Whereas shentong believes it is like a line in which whatever point is chosen there are relations to other points, like a dream world appearing. But none of the points can be graspable and none of the conjured dreamworlds which ripen from the choice of a point can be grasped. Thus the notion of the line (mind) is based on ungraspable points and it is a mental designation to say they even connect. The metaphor of a line breaks down of course to scrutiny when we try to fit it to our grasp on to our set solid world, wheras the world as spacious and full of Buddha nature and possibilities.
Mahayana is very clear indeed.
Every mahayana text or vajrayana tantra (all of which are composed by multiple unknown authors showing textual development over a range of time) explains itself to be the ultimate teaching while putting others as provisional. The parinirvana sutra will tell you that tathagata as self is a non-provisional ultimate teaching. Then the madhyamika and yogacara texts including lankavatara sutra will try to explain it away as provisional teachings. Anyway, ultimately what one accepts as true or provisional depends on one's own experience.
I still prefer to follow pali suttas which we know is the closest to the original words of Buddha (while not denying there are incredibly clear ones in mahayana canon as well as some texts by mahayana teachers which I very much enjoy reading) because it speaks most closely to what I see and experience. (Which is very much similar to my teacher Thusness seven stages of enlightenment: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.co.uk/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html )
Anuradha Sutta: "And so, Anuradha — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata — the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment — being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?"
Chanting names or focus on form is merely a shamatha practice. According to hindu sage ramana maharshi, these are merely expedient devices but not sufficient for self-realization. When your concentration and calmness is there, you switch to self-inquiry. Through self-inquiry you attain Self-Realization by realizing that your atman is brahman - you are that ultimate reality which is pure awareness-consciousness-existence-bliss. This is then the goal of hinduism.
This however is not the same as Buddhist enlightenment which requires the buddhist form of insight practice or vipashyana which is peculiar to buddhism.
“They declare material form to be the self and the world, stating such to be not only the self and the world but also eternal; they declare sensation ... perception ... the formations ... consciousness to be the self and the world, stating such to be not only the self and the world but also eternal” (trans. Masefiled).
Is the universe a hollow space with a solid space around it? Or is it a solid space with a hollow space around it?
Nothing to grasp and nothing else is needed.
But if we emphasise ground, listeners tend to grasp for that. Extreme examples, some Christians, some Hindus, some Tibetan Buddhists.
If we emphasise no ground, listeners tend to become nihilistic. Extreme examples, some Theravadins, some Existentialists, some students of Zen.
So teachers have traditionally kept up a dialogue between the two notions. The refutations and counter refutations are not evidence of a basic error, they are an important part of the teaching. Note the broad field of traditions this post takes examples from - the teaching is the whole of samsara. That is what samsara is, a teaching.
Buddhism needs Hinduism just as Hinduism needs Buddhism. Or rather we need them both.
Check this out it, this is in line with my experience: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html