Buddhism is the same as Advaita

This is something I would discuss inspite of the fact that I am

normally against such futile arguements. But I have seen many people

conclude the same and my opinions are much in agreement with this.

Please refer to the following links for more information:

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/buddhism-mayavada-advaita1.htm

http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_8/msg00124.html

 

This occured to me a very long time before I tried to see if other

think like me. And I did find people thinking like me. In many ways

Shankara agreed with Buddha. But I think there muggles like us were

confused by the difference in their terminologies.

 

-Balaji

There you go again...

 

Take a closer look at the first article -

http://www.indiadivine.org/buddhism-mayavada-advaita1.htm

 

1) Advaita has been misquoted as mAyAvAda.

 

2) "Acharya Shankara, following in the footsteps of Buddha, accepted the

principle of the cause of the jagat or universe as tri-kala-shunya,

three-folded timelessness or void. " - What is this? Where did our AchArya

say this?

 

3) " In Sri Shankara's book, Ajnana-bodini " - Which book? Can you come

again?

 

4) "In the sixth shloka of Nirvana-dasaka " - Thanks to this article, I am

learning about more and more books authored by AchArya.

 

5) "Acharya Shankara's cause of the world is avidya - sad

asat-vilakshana-anirvachaniyatvera " - oh please.....

 

6) "The eminent writer, Rajendranatha Ghosha Mahodaya, who published Advaita

Siddhi, " - The Advaita-siddhi I know was written by MadusUtana Saraswati.

So this Mahodaya is the publisher?

 

7) "Acharya Shankara has said in his book, Aparokshanubhuti, " - Another

book under controversy.

 

8) How come they didnt get any quote from the commentaries of AchArya on

prastAna-traya???

 

8) The most important of all - Guess which group is running the site !!!!!!

 

I am tired of objecting to this :-))

Dear sir, kindly spend some time on works of SankarAchArya, instead of

practising vipashana. Let the metaphysical ignorance rise in you through

sravaNa, or else by manana or let it rise with nidhidhyAsana.

 

Hari Om

 

 

-

"Balaji Ramasubramanian" <balajiramasubramanian

 

> This is something I would discuss inspite of the fact that I am

> normally against such futile arguements. But I have seen many people

> conclude the same and my opinions are much in agreement with this.

> Please refer to the following links for more information:

>

> http://www.indiadivine.org/buddhism-mayavada-advaita1.htm

> http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_8/msg00124.html

>

> This occured to me a very long time before I tried to see if other

> think like me. And I did find people thinking like me. In many ways

> Shankara agreed with Buddha. But I think there muggles like us were

> confused by the difference in their terminologies.

>

> -Balaji

oops..;-)

 

------

> Let the metaphysical ignorance rise in you through

> sravaNa, or else by manana or let it rise with nidhidhyAsana.

>

> Hari Om

>

Namaste Balajiji,

 

It's nice to have a fresh voice here, and thanks for the interesting articles.

 

I think we can say this much. Both Advaita and Buddhism agree that

the ego-sense somehow binds consciousness in ignorance and prevents

realization or enlightenment from occurring.

 

Furthermore, the ignorance has to do with the duality generated by

the ego sense. This duality can be understood as (the false belief

in) a difference between self and God, or between self and reality

(world). But since according to Advaita the sole reality is Brahman,

these two meanings of duality are ultimately the same.

 

As I have said before, I am convinced that the 'emptiness' of of

Mahayana is only the emptiness of objects, just like Advaita. The

reality of consciousness is absolutely undeniable. The statement 'I

do not exist' is self-refuting. So Buddha could not mean this; he

meant that that mind/body illusion which we take to be our self does

not exist.

 

One reason I care about this subject is because I think that

something like either Advaita of Mahayana must be the religion of the

future (if this world has a future). The many Gods of dualistic

Hinduism will prevent popular Hinduism from becoming universal. But

a path based on pure nondual consciousness and emptiness of objects

could work on any planet with sufficient wisdom!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

Namashkar benjaminji!

 

you state ...

 

As I have said before, I am convinced that the 'emptiness' of of

Mahayana is only the emptiness of objects, just like Advaita.

 

Dear heart! by 'emptiness' do you mean "shunyata"? i was always under

the impression that the concept of 'shunyata' is different in

hinduism/advaita than buddhism!

 

could you please clarify! sorry for being so 'ignorant'

 

thank you !

 

Harihi Aum!!!

Dear Members,

 

I am facing some problem with my company firewall server. My last 5 posts has

gone to shUnyata !!

 

Since this topic has cropped up again, I am resending this mail through the

site. The same message will come again, maybe after 2 or 3 days. Sorry about

that:-)

 

---------------------

- "Ranjeet Sankar" <thefinalsearch

<advaitin>

Friday, March 26, 2004 10:33 AM

Re: Buddhism is the same as Advaita

 

 

 

> There you go again...

>

> Take a closer look at the first article -

> http://www.indiadivine.org/buddhism-mayavada-advaita1.htm

>

> 1) Advaita has been misquoted as mAyAvAda.

>

> 2) "Acharya Shankara, following in the footsteps of Buddha, accepted the

> principle of the cause of the jagat or universe as tri-kala-shunya,

> three-folded timelessness or void. " - What is this? Where did our AchArya

> say this?

>

> 3) " In Sri Shankara's book, Ajnana-bodini " - Which book? Can you come

> again?

>

> 4) "In the sixth shloka of Nirvana-dasaka " - Thanks to this article, I am

> learning about more and more books authored by AchArya.

>

> 5) "Acharya Shankara's cause of the world is avidya - sad

> asat-vilakshana-anirvachaniyatvera " - oh please.....

>

> 6) "The eminent writer, Rajendranatha Ghosha Mahodaya, who published Advaita

> Siddhi, " - The Advaita-siddhi I know was written by MadusUtana Saraswati.

> So this Mahodaya is the publisher?

>

> 7) "Acharya Shankara has said in his book, Aparokshanubhuti, " - Another

> book under controversy.

>

> 8) How come they didnt get any quote from the commentaries of AchArya on

> prastAna-traya???

>

> 8) The most important of all - Guess which group is running the site !!!!!!

>

> I am tired of objecting to this :-))

> Dear sir, kindly spend some time on works of SankarAchArya, instead of

> practising vipashana. Let the metaphysical Knowledge rise in you through

> sravaNa, or else by manana or let it rise with nidhidhyAsana.

>

> Hari Om

>

>

> -

> "Balaji Ramasubramanian" <balajiramasubramanian

>

>

> > This is something I would discuss inspite of the fact that I am

> > normally against such futile arguements. But I have seen many people

> > conclude the same and my opinions are much in agreement with this.

> > Please refer to the following links for more information:

> >

> > http://www.indiadivine.org/buddhism-mayavada-advaita1.htm

> > http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1996_8/msg00124.html

> >

> > This occured to me a very long time before I tried to see if other

> > think like me. And I did find people thinking like me. In many ways

> > Shankara agreed with Buddha. But I think there muggles like us were

> > confused by the difference in their terminologies.

> >

> > -Balaji

>

 

 

 

 

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download

Messenger Now

 

 

Namaste adi_shakthi16-ji,

 

 

You said:

 

"Dear heart! by 'emptiness' do you mean "shunyata"? i was always

under the impression that the concept of 'shunyata' is different in

hinduism/advaita than buddhism! "

 

 

I cannot resist the request of someone who uses so charming an

expression as 'Dear heart!'. I hadn't heard that one before!

 

This is part of a long debate I have had with a number of people. It

seems clear to me that the emptiness or 'shunyata' of Mahayana can

only refer to the emptiness or unreality of objects. It is

meaningless to speak of the unreality of consciousness. This is

simply impossible; it is self-refuting. Therefore, the clear

implication to me is that Mahayana wishes to reduce everything to

pure consciousness, just as Advaita does.

 

Advaita comes in different flavors for different people, as does

Mahayana. For a version of Advaita that seems to me very close to

the best of Mahayana, please read the Yoga Vasistha. I will let you

draw your own conclusions.

 

The real issue, as I see it, is not whether these traditions are

similar at their highest levels, but whether low-level spiritual

aspirants like us (or maybe just me) should be allowed to discuss it.

Nonduality and pure consciousness represent the exalted spiritual

peaks of the Upanishads, which were kept secret for many centuries,

so as not to be defiled by common ignorance. Since I remain at a

mostly intellectual level, I worry that I am committing some kind of

blasphemy. Well, not really ... Hinduism doesn't want to scare

people like that ... I don't think! :-)

 

What is interesting to me is that such a reduction to consciousness

should be connected to moksha, salvation, liberation, enlightenment,

and so forth. Those from a more theistic tradition would prefer to

dwell on devotion to God and moral behavior. Salvation would then be

a 'reward' for good behavior. This seems like a childish and

ego-reinforcing approach to me. Liberation as the reduction of

reality to pure consciousness makes a lot more sense to me, from a

'rational' or 'scientific' point of view ... which doesn't preclude

love, devotion, good behavior, etc. But let's forget about

'reward'...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

>

> > There you go again...

> >

> > Take a closer look at the first article -

> > http://www.indiadivine.org/buddhism-mayavada-advaita1.htm

> >

> > 1) Advaita has been misquoted as mAyAvAda.

 

Not my mistake! That's the way those ISKCON guys or something refer

to Advaitins. Don't take it to heart. Think of it this way - they are

so bewildered by maya (ignorance) that they don't even know they are

under its effect, bewildered (or are ignorant).

> >

> > 2) "Acharya Shankara, following in the footsteps of Buddha,

accepted the

> > principle of the cause of the jagat or universe as tri-kala-

shunya,

> > three-folded timelessness or void. " - What is this? Where did

our AchArya

> > say this?

 

Ok. Even I don't know what this tri-kala-shunya business is all

about, but we all know very well that Sankara's bhashya's of the

Upanishads are purported with the following simple summary (I like to

call it The Summary of Summaries)

 

"Brahma satyam JAGANMITHYA jivo......"

 

Jaganmithya is jagat-mithya or that the the universe is false or

imagination or void.

 

That's all. End of story. We all know advaita propounds this 'The

Universe is false'. All that is pointed out is that Buddha agrees

with this - even there the universe is said to be false.

 

Don't worry about the long story those guys have written there.

> >

> > 3) " In Sri Shankara's book, Ajnana-bodini " - Which book? Can

you come

> > again?

> >

 

http://www.advaita-

vedanta.org/texts/Complete_Works_of_Adishankara.html

 

Look up this site: and see the one numbered 2.2 there. I suggest you

procure it to find if it really does say that. Even I doubt these

ISKCON guys. But what was supposed to be there? Did you ever pay

attention to that?

> > 4) "In the sixth shloka of Nirvana-dasaka " - Thanks to this

article, I am

> > learning about more and more books authored by AchArya.

 

Welcome to the club! You can find this book also listed on the same

page I just sent u a link to.

> >

> > 5) "Acharya Shankara's cause of the world is avidya - sad

> > asat-vilakshana-anirvachaniyatvera " - oh please.....

> >

 

Ok. Please enlighten me. What is the cause of the world according to

your understanding of Shankara's works?

 

Kindly refer even Yogavasishtha samhita (This time the samhita is by

some Advaitin only, since you care about all that so much!) That is

surely in complete agreement with Advaita. (This is a famous book if

you haven't heard of it now, sir. It was originally written by

Vasishtha)

> > 6) "The eminent writer, Rajendranatha Ghosha Mahodaya, who

published Advaita

> > Siddhi, " - The Advaita-siddhi I know was written by MadusUtana

Saraswati.

> > So this Mahodaya is the publisher?

> >

 

Ok. Information for all of us. We gained! We were thinking he wrote

the book. (No I'm serious. It's so badly worded) But what of that?

What does the article say about the contents of this book. Weren't

the contents more important? Hell I care he was the publisher! Take a

look at just one page of the book. It's very good!

> > 7) "Acharya Shankara has said in his book, Aparokshanubhuti, " -

Another

> > book under controversy.

> >

 

That is too much! Who made such a controversy? What is it about? It

is about direct evidence. A-parah-aksha-anubhuti or Aparokshanubhuti

should have no controversy. It is plain fact. You cannot raise

objections to facts. You may just present misunderstandings or

ignorance! I have read that. There is no place for controversy.

 

Anyway, what does the page talk of its contents?!

> > 8) How come they didnt get any quote from the commentaries of

AchArya on

> > prastAna-traya???

> >

 

Even I wondered. But isn't it enough? I'm tired of this quoting

business. We were to discuss how the philosophies are identical or

similar or different. That would be interesting. This kind of a

discussion will lead us nowhere. One saying something, the other

questioning the authenticity and the first trying to establish

it.....

 

Anyway, what is this prastana-tray about? How is it? What does it

discuss in general? I have read commentaries by Shankara on:

 

1. Bhagavad Gita

2. Upanishads

3. Gaudapada Karika

4. Vishnu Sahasranama

 

and some devotional slokas (I know some of them by heart)

Bhaja Govindam, Kalabhairavashtakam, shivanandalahari, gowri

dashakam, lalitha panchakam, raja-rajeshwaryashtakam, soundary-lahari

> > 8) The most important of all - Guess which group is running the

site !!!!!!

> >

 

Ya ya! But how does it matter? We were discussing what you and I

think of the similarities in Buddha and Shankara, not how or who

hosts that webpage.

 

There is our ego. "We the AIDVAITINS will never listen to other

little mortals" Don't you think we should shed that and try to see

what the other one is trying to say, rather that see who is saying

that and trying to test his credibility. We cannot judge/check

everyone's credibility before listening to him/her.

> > I am tired of objecting to this :-))

> > Dear sir, kindly spend some time on works of SankarAchArya,

instead of

> > practising vipashana. Let the metaphysical Knowledge rise in you

through

> > sravaNa, or else by manana or let it rise with nidhidhyAsana.

> >

 

Something that I normally do. What I must rather be doing is

practicing more Vipashyana, for ultimately it is attaining Moksha

(and that happens thru Jnana) that is important, not reading lots of

texts! What do you think? You don't agree? Reminds me of the story of

the brahman who takes ages to read the Vedas until Narada pointed to

him that it's never going to end and that he should try to attain

moksha instead! I wish that doesn't happen to me.

> > Hari Om

> >

 

Oh and this seems to be a fad. Everyone does this. Is it like

Shankara's mudra (I know it's not Hari Om)? Does everyone need to do

this? Is it mandatory? In fact I did not read the rules of this group

very well. If yes, then mine is: 'Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam'. If it

is not important, then forget it, i don't want to prove that i'm

religious (I like it when others say Hari Om. It's good. Hari Om! But

in my case it somehow acts as a gentle ego-booster) Normally I put my

name with a - before it so that it may be used when someone writes

something addressed to me and I shall pay attention to it.

 

Nevertheless, Hari Om (may all good happen to all)

 

(Oh unless you should forget my name: Balaji)

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

You said:

> One reason I care about this subject is because I think that

> something like either Advaita of Mahayana must be the religion of

the

> future (if this world has a future). The many Gods of dualistic

> Hinduism will prevent popular Hinduism from becoming universal.

But

> a path based on pure nondual consciousness and emptiness of objects

> could work on any planet with sufficient wisdom!

>

 

Dear Benjaminji (please don't call me Balajiji. Just Balaji. I am

tired of that one ji and now don't give me another ji)

 

I agree with you! And the many gods of popular Hinduism have already

done a lot (of good or bad) with the people's help! I wish just as so

many have accepted non-dualism (and for many reasons, sometimes you

might be surprised to know why they accept it) between Atman and

Brahman, they would see the Advaita between Mahayana Buddhism and

Shankara's Advaita.

 

Satyameve Jayate Naanrtam (I figured my name appears on the list. So

I shall not try to make it more prominent)

Thank you benjaminji!

 

well, i am glad i was able to grab your attention! SWEET are the use

of Language power!! smiles!!

 

 

now, the way i undersdtood 'shunyata' in buddhism ... is

total 'emptiness' ... the 'void' ... or Dharma Kaya but in

Hinduism , "shunyata" is equated with 'brahman' realization or better

still a state of total bliss or sat-chit-ananda? i may be wrong but

this is my 'limited' understanding...please clarify...

 

since you mentioned Yoga vasishta, have you heard of the story

of 'LEELA" ?

 

NOW, DID YOU SAY "REWARD"? OUR GODS/ESSESare not about 'reward' or

punishment... smiles -all the 36 crores of them!!

 

i have been reading 'durga saptashati' for the past six days now...

at the end of each verse, it says ... "if you please..." which means

it is up to goddess whether she wants to please us by 'rewarding'

us... believe me, a true devotee never asks the god/ess for

anything ... neither material thinhgs like a good husband/wife , a

mercedes benz, or a posh house or even a good job or even winning the

elections.... or non- material things like "liberation' or mukthi!!!

a true devotee prays to god/ess thus... "mother! let me always

remember your lotus feet in this janma and next"

 

i think the hindu 'shunyata; is not synonymous with the buddhist

term... when you are bliss*ful*, how can only be empty? (no pun

intended)

 

my 2 cents

There seem to be a major confusion on the issue and may lead to a

pointless discussion, without all of us knowing both standpoints

well - Mahayana's Shunyata and Advaita's Brahman. Please understand

that I am not trying to equate the two!

 

I think since, most of us seem to be pretty clear in interpreting (at

a speculative and intellectual level) on Advaita's 'Self'

or 'Brahman', I must try to make it clear as to what is Mahayana's

concept of 'Shunyata'.

 

The Upanishads and the Vedas clearly say that Brahman cannot be

explained or described in words. Words can only say that all other

things are not Brahman.

 

The Mahayana says (I have just copied it as is):

 

a extract of Buddha's discourses in the Pali Canon recognized by

Buddhist scholars as the oldest record of what the Buddha actually

taught.

 

"Absolute changeless permanent reality, the unconditioned, itself

alone is,

all else has always been, is, and always will be just a state of make-

believe fiction,

a state of delusion worn like a costume with multiple fabricated

viewpoints,

with each self-sustaining itself in a self-perpetuated state of self-

ignorance,

until each decides to come to closure through self-enlightenment and

self-awakening

 

things are created,

they are inherently subject to decay,

and then finally, they are dissolved again

 

(now... say to yourself the following)

 

all that is created is impermanent, subject to alteration and change,

and being such, all impermanent things are inherently a state of ill-

being.

this being so,

it is not fitting to say that which is ill that am I, that is mine,

that is my self.

 

do I understand?

every iota of everything is just make-believe fiction

and none of it exists in truth

and when this is seen as the way things truly are

then that is the end of all anguish and the end of the continuation

of what never existed in truth to begin with"

 

Here is the identical part of it!

 

The problem is that Mahayana talks of 'Anatma Bodha' interpreted in

Hinduism as 'The knowledge of no Self'. But this is not what it

meant. It meant what exactly it says in the above extract:

 

"all that is created is impermanent, subject to alteration and

change,

and being such, all impermanent things are inherently a state of ill-

being.

this being so,

it is not fitting to say that which is ill that am I, that is mine,

that is my self."

 

What 'Anatma bodha' really refers to is the knowledge that the false

identity of the Self that we have formed is not correct. "it is not

fitting to say that which is ill that am I, that is mine, that is my

self."

 

The problem is that the correct identity cannot be put in words (The

Upanishads agree) Hence the Budha never attempted it. He just said:

The notion or identity that we have fromed (of ourselves) is

incorrect and that this knowledge is the ultimate one. This is

exactly the same as Advaita.

 

The next question, what is shunya or void? Again:

 

"this being so, all that is impermanent, conceived as mine, are no

longer mine, no longer I, no longer my self. the link between me and

mine is now void."

 

This is shunyata! (There exists no possession of objects in the

universe with myself. That is I don't possess anything) And then he

continues:

 

"this knowledge is not impermanent and is thus the absolute....."

 

The final proclamation of the unity of the knower, known and the

knowledge!

 

Sri Shankara's teachings are also the same. The Vedas iterate it so

many times, so do the Upanishads and so in the Yoga vasishtha! Again,

they agree on ignorance and Maya. "every iota of everything is just

make-believe fiction

and none of it exists in truth

and when this is seen as the way things truly are

then that is the end of all anguish and the end of the continuation

of what never existed in truth to begin with"

 

This is what Mahayana has to say of Shunyata.

 

What we misunderstand it for is that, the Budha taught that nothing

exists. This is not possible, since it is self-refuting as pointed

out by Sri Benjamin.

Again note that 'Anatma bodha' refers collectively to the set of

truths:

 

'This body is not I, mine, or my self'

 

'This mind is not I....'

 

etc. About the Atma bodha the Budha never discussed. In fact, many a

question have been asked about it in Diggha Nikaya Tipitika, but he

has consistently remained silent on the issue. 'It cannot be

explained.', he said.

 

While I have tried to point out this similarity between Advaita and

Mahayana, there is one major difference:

 

Advaita HOLDS the Shruthi as the authority.

 

Buddhism DOES NOT ACCEPT the Shruthi as authority.

 

Buddhism urges the seeker to think for himself and decide if his

intelligence favours the method and then follow that path. This does

not mean that Advaita's validity depends on the validity of the

Shruthi. There is a difference between accepting Shruthi as authority

and holding it as authority.

 

Advaita holds Shruthi as authority, and therefore supplements the

words of the Vedas. It validates and lives by the Vedas. That is it

is not different from the Vedas.

 

Buddhism on the other hand does not accept Shruthi as the authority

does not mean that it refutes the Vedas, but that it does not ask for

the authority of the Veda. Does it accept the authority of Gautama

Buddha or for that matter any other Buddha? NO! There is supposedly

only one authority for each seeker in Buddhism - the knowledge

obtained by the seeker when enlightened. Whatever that knowledge

dictates is the authority.

 

The Vedas are also knowledge obtained when enlightened. But they are

a representation of the knowledge that was obtained by the ancient

Rishis, not me. So according to Buddhism, they cannot be an

authority.

 

Advaita on similar lines urges the seeker to attain mukti and not to

waste his time in philosophy or other talks. Therefore, Shankara did

not hesitate to write bhashyas, and summaries to various works. If

the Shruthi were an absolute authority to Advaita, Shankara would

never attempt commenting or summing up on the works, for then they

would be unnecessary. (If something is absolute authority, it is not

necessary for me to comment on it or sum it up) Therefore even in

Advaita, the knowledge of the Self is the ultimate authority.

 

So you see the apparent difference that was there in authorities also

does not exist. In form Mahayana and Advaita may appear different,

but are essentially the same.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

I appreciate your sentiments and for your noble thoughts. In the

broadest context, the followers of all religions fall within the

umbrella of Hinduism. A careful and impartial understanding of the

rationale for many gods will likely demonstrate there is

always 'unity' within the diversity of gods, people, beliefs and

thoughts! The diversity is in appearance but the fundamental unity is

the ultimate reality.

 

What we lack is the vision to appreciate the he unity with in the

diversity. I believe that the practice of the religion of Hinduism

portrays this invisible unity through vedanta. The saying, 'one size

doesn't fit all feet' may partly explain the reason for many gods,

beliefs and religions.

 

At this time, let me clarify atleast one of many conceptions on the

understanding of 'unity within diversity.' We had lengthy discussions

on 'Advaita and Mahayana' and you have provided lots of insights

during those discussions. I believe that there is underlined unity

within the philosophies of Advaita and Mahayana. At the same time,

this DOES NOT imply that Advaita is the same as Mahayana! Honestly,

there is no need that need to be the same! Similarly there is also

funamental unity within the diverse Vedantic shcools of thoughts -

advaita, visistadvaita and dwaita. Again, this unity does not mean

they are the same!

 

Finally, diversity is also an integral part of the nature. Nature

wants the human to appreciate the unity and beauty in nature's

display of people, animals, trees, plants, flowers, rivers,

mountains, etc. What we need is the wisdom to enjoy the Nature's

display of diversity and recognize the invisible unity.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

>

> One reason I care about this subject is because I think that

> something like either Advaita of Mahayana must be the religion of

the

> future (if this world has a future). The many Gods of dualistic

> Hinduism will prevent popular Hinduism from becoming universal.

But

> a path based on pure nondual consciousness and emptiness of objects

> could work on any planet with sufficient wisdom!

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

Namaste Shri Ramji,

 

You wrote:

> I appreciate your sentiments and for your noble thoughts. In the

> broadest context, the followers of all religions fall within the

> umbrella of Hinduism. A careful and impartial understanding of the

> rationale for many gods will likely demonstrate there is

> always 'unity' within the diversity of gods, people, beliefs and

> thoughts! The diversity is in appearance but the fundamental unity

is

> the ultimate reality.

>

> What we lack is the vision to appreciate the he unity with in the

> diversity. I believe that the practice of the religion of Hinduism

> portrays this invisible unity through vedanta. The saying, 'one

size

> doesn't fit all feet' may partly explain the reason for many gods,

> beliefs and religions.

>

 

I concede to that. Alright, but then just as Mahayana and Advaita

have a fundamental sameness, you say they are still not the same, I

would say, that although the there is a fundamental sameness in the

36 crores of our gods/esses, they are still different. It applies

equally well.

 

Just as we donot have the vision to appreciate the unity of gods, we

donot have the vision to appreciate the unity of all schools of

Vedanta (Whether Advaita, Dwaita or Vishishtadvaita) or of unorthodox

schools of thought like Buddhism or Jainism. The fault lies with the

one perceiving the difference.

 

Tell me, if someday, you become enlightened, when the knower and the

known become one, will you all schools of thought still be different

for you? I know you would say, it wouldn't matter to you then, if

they were different. But neither would it matter to you if they are

the same!

 

No Advaita or Mahayana would exist then. They will all then be false.

Only your knowledge would be true - because you have only HEARD of

the truths in Advaita or Mahayana, but not realized it. The moment

you realize it, whatever you have heard is untrue, whatever is true

is pratyaksha.

 

Then why this false difference between one falsehood and another

falsehood? My post was not a suggestive that they are the same. My

post was an attempt to pacify all arguements between Buddhism and

Advaita, that have been for centuries. We must learn that neither are

true till we realize the truth. And when we do, they would still be

untrue!

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

beautiful posts Balaji ! one after another! for a list that is

named 'advaitin' , there is more "shakti" (energy =pulsating with

divine energy) in this group than other groyups dedicated to

the Great mother (shakti) ... they all seem to be in 'yoga nidra'

with no posts for days on end! smiles!

 

i must thank you for making clearer the concept of shunyata in

buddhism and brahman in advaita... they all seem to make more sense

now... but comparisons are only comparisons... as you have rightly

emphasized time and again, these are just theoretical discussions and

semantics...

 

ANUBHUTHI IS A BEAUTIFUL WORD ... it is not the same as "anubhav" or

experience...

 

the Knower of Brahman is brahman (not even itself, herself or himself

as that would be a description too)

 

to even equate with brahman with *bliss * is equivalent to a

description...

 

That is why every time a disciple would request Shri Ramakrishna

Paramahamsa to describe "braHman" , HE WOULD GO INTO A STATE

OF 'SAMADHI' ...

 

our beloved Pramahamsa tried all paths (buddhism, shaktism, advaita ,

islam etc) and reached the state of "brahman" in all paths...

 

brahmavid apnati param tadesabhyukta

Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma

 

The knower of Brahman attains the supreme. That truth is expressed

thus " Brahman is Truth, Knowledge and infinity."

 

TAITTERYA UPANISHADS

 

HARI AUM!

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

> Namaste Shri Ramji,

>

> You wrote:

> > I appreciate your sentiments and for your noble thoughts. In the

> > broadest context, the followers of all religions fall within the

> > umbrella of Hinduism. A careful and impartial understanding of

the

> > rationale for many gods will likely demonstrate there is

> > always 'unity' within the diversity of gods, people, beliefs and

> > thoughts! The diversity is in appearance but the fundamental

unity

> is

> > the ultimate reality.

> >

> > What we lack is the vision to appreciate the he unity with in the

> > diversity. I believe that the practice of the religion of

Hinduism

> > portrays this invisible unity through vedanta. The saying, 'one

> size

> > doesn't fit all feet' may partly explain the reason for many

gods,

> > beliefs and religions.

> >

>

> I concede to that. Alright, but then just as Mahayana and Advaita

> have a fundamental sameness, you say they are still not the same, I

> would say, that although the there is a fundamental sameness in the

> 36 crores of our gods/esses, they are still different. It applies

> equally well.

>

> Just as we donot have the vision to appreciate the unity of gods,

we

> donot have the vision to appreciate the unity of all schools of

> Vedanta (Whether Advaita, Dwaita or Vishishtadvaita) or of

unorthodox

> schools of thought like Buddhism or Jainism. The fault lies with

the

> one perceiving the difference.

>

> Tell me, if someday, you become enlightened, when the knower and

the

> known become one, will you all schools of thought still be

different

> for you? I know you would say, it wouldn't matter to you then, if

> they were different. But neither would it matter to you if they are

> the same!

>

> No Advaita or Mahayana would exist then. They will all then be

false.

> Only your knowledge would be true - because you have only HEARD of

> the truths in Advaita or Mahayana, but not realized it. The moment

> you realize it, whatever you have heard is untrue, whatever is true

> is pratyaksha.

>

> Then why this false difference between one falsehood and another

> falsehood? My post was not a suggestive that they are the same. My

> post was an attempt to pacify all arguements between Buddhism and

> Advaita, that have been for centuries. We must learn that neither

are

> true till we realize the truth. And when we do, they would still be

> untrue!

>

> Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

Namaste Balaji-ji,

 

Please visit

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#4

 

" However, if it is held that advaita vedAnta is essentially the same as

madhyamaka buddhism, it must be pointed out that such a view stems from a

misunderstanding of the important tenets of both advaita vedAnta and madhyamaka

buddhism. There are many key details in which advaita differs from the

madhyamaka school of buddhism. "

 

Hope this helps.

 

And thank you for the new definition of shUnyata. The third one in this list !!

:-))

 

Hari Om

 

 

- "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian

 

> I think since, most of us seem to be pretty clear in interpreting (at

> a speculative and intellectual level) on Advaita's 'Self'

> or 'Brahman', I must try to make it clear as to what is Mahayana's

> concept of 'Shunyata'.

>

> The next question, what is shunya or void? Again:

>

> "this being so, all that is impermanent, conceived as mine, are no

> longer mine, no longer I, no longer my self. the link between me and

> mine is now void."

>

> This is shunyata! (There exists no possession of objects in the

> universe with myself. That is I don't possess anything)

 

 

 

 

WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Mail Internet Cafe

Awards

 

 

Namaste Shri Balaji,

 

"Buddhism is the same as Advaita".

 

In Advaita, sameness between things derives from samanya/jati. What

precisely is the principle by which there is sameness between two

things in the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism? It would be helpful if

you can be precise and brief.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

Oh my beloved eye, Sri Raj Shekharji,

 

Thanks for that post. I had read it earlier! And please note this

particular thing that I noted before posting such a post, for I knew

about this ancient controversy:

 

According to Sankara's commentary on these kArikAs, gauDapAda uses

buddhist metaphor and buddhist terminology to come to vedAntic

conclusions regarding the ultimate existence of the Atman = brahman

as the substratum (adhishThAna) of all experience. That he speaks the

buddhist language does not mean that he is a buddhist in disguise.

 

Very important point I wanted to reiterate. I am not trying to say

that Shankara or Gaudapada were buddhists in disguise. But there is

no point in saying that they were Vedantins or Advaitins. They are

beyond that.

 

Again note that the link that you have provided still does not point

out, how buddhism refutes Advaita or is against its principles. The

example provided there is just one of the several places where

gaudapada uses analogies similar to Buddhism. Shankara acknowldges

it, but does not say that the same examples when quote by buddhists

are false (How could he?)

 

In particular to this special example: The buddhist's viewpoint is

that the impression of the continuous circle is an illusion, he does

not assert anything about the intrinsic nature of the circle itself.

But gaudapada asserts the intrinsic nature of the circle is that of

the firebrand. The difference lies in just that there is no assertion

made regarding the intrinsic nature of the circle in buddhist

viewpoint.

 

This they do so because, one cannot make an assertion of the

intrinsic nature of the circle when the intrinsic nature of the

firebrand is not known. That they are the same is something he does

not wish to make the uninitiated seeker jump to. The question is: Can

you put the intrinsic nature of the firebrand in words? Since the

intrinsic nature of Brahman is not known to us, nor can we ever hope

to put it into words, there is not point in making any assertions

about it. Even the assertion that Sarvam Brahmamayam (The intrinsic

nature of the illusory world is the same as that of Brahman) is

something the Buddha simply kept away from. He did not say that the

instrinsic nature of the illusory world is not that of Brahman. He

decided that it should be left to the monk to find out for himself.

 

So the essence is still the same: 'There is illusion' and 'This

illusion is the cause of the anguish.' 'Do away with illusion.'

 

As far as the question of absolute is concerned, it appears as has

been noted by many that there are a variety of differences in what

the Buddha taught and the essentials of later buddhist scholars.

(This happens very often, when someone is immersed in only tarka and

debates and is no longer interested in the pursuit of the truth.) The

Buddha clearly states in the Diggha tipitika, when asked a

question, 'Is there a final truth?' to which he replied 'Surely there

is, without which one can never become buddha.' but when asked the

question 'what is the final truth like?' he remains categorically

silent.

 

I did not wish to enter this futile topic of tarka. But finally I

have done so. What a fool I am! I wished only to make one point clear

to all: "Fools who know not, quarrel on differences in schools of

thought, using 'empty' evidences (pun intended), the wise will never

argue. Drop such differences and concentrate on realizing the truth.

It's good for you." But somehow, all of this got dragged to such

tarka. I am pleased to see though that there are some who agree that

anubhuti is prime and not tarka study for intellectual pleasure.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

>

> "Buddhism is the same as Advaita".

>

> In Advaita, sameness between things derives from samanya/jati. What

> precisely is the principle by which there is sameness between two

> things in the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism? It would be helpful

if

> you can be precise and brief.

>

> Regards,

> Chittaranjan

 

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

When I said 'Buddhism is same as Advaita' I meant that their essence

is the same. Besides the sameness between two things cannot be on one

basis in one school of thought and the other basis in another school

of thought. Samanya/jati is the basis everwhere for sameness between

two objects. But are you viewing them as objects?

 

I am viewing them as representations of the Vidya (knowledge of

Brahman) in the form of words (which is verily inefficient). Remember

neither Mahayana nor Advaita is true knowledge. True knowledge is

one's own anubhuti, through one's OWN EFFORT (I mean no God will make

an effort for you)

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

hariH OM!

 

miss very much participating. as many of my old friends here know,

my bad back prevents me from doing so with reliable continuity. i.e.

once i start, then obligated to follow up, etc., and becomes

difficult. (i'm quite mobile, just can't sit or stand for too long.)

 

i was so inspired by what ramji so clearly conveyed in his post, i

had no choice but to respond! this is a massively important point,

that many [even] advanced pakvas seem to miss: the importance of

unity underlying diversity, *as well as* the aesthetic and

indispensible value of diversity itself! = as applied to the beauty

of brahman's leela.

 

please waste no space welcoming me back, for i am really not per se,

and that will discourage me from posting at random in the future. we

all know our regard for eachother. i miss you all!! i'm hoping one

day to be able to have open invitation to my land in canada (near

pembroke, ontario...virgin wild on island in ottawa river, accessible

by boat). it would be a beautiful place for us to meet! (and that's

an understatement!)

 

namaskaar and

shaanthiprem,

frank

 

___________________

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

> Finally, diversity is also an integral part of the nature. Nature

> wants the human to appreciate the unity and beauty in nature's

> display of people, animals, trees, plants, flowers, rivers,

> mountains, etc. What we need is the wisdom to enjoy the Nature's

> display of diversity and recognize the invisible unity.

Dear Shri Balaji,

 

I appreciate your secular notions, with all due respects which I usually

term as ramaNism or rAmakrishNa-ism.

 

Your wide speculation that Buddha accepted the notion of the Self, but left it

to his disciples to ponder is very much ungrounded. Suppose if someone ask me

where is Kailas and I keep quiet. What does it mean? Does it mean that I know

where Kailas is, but I want the questioner to find it for himself? Isnt it

absurd? Moreover, what darshana is this Buddhism where the result is not told to

the seeker? Can this be called a darshana?

 

It is true that Buddha didnt say anything about the jnAna-kanDa portion in the

Veda-s. He was always ridiculing the ritualistic attitude of the

BrahmaNa-s. But that doesnt mean that he was advocating the same Truth

propounded in the Upanishad-s. AchArya in his BrahmasUtra bhAshyam clearly takes

the various buddhist schools and refutes them. Since they dont accept the Veda-s

as pramANa, AchArya resorts to logic when dealing with them.

 

Do you mean to say that since the Truth is non-dual, both AchArya and Buddha are

pointing to the same one? Dont take on that RAmakrishNa robe. It doesnt suit a

true sAdhak who has not even started seeing the horizon.

 

> I did not wish to enter this futile topic of tarka. But finally I

> have done so. What a fool I am! I wished only to make one point clear

> to all: "Fools who know not, quarrel on differences in schools of

> thought, using 'empty' evidences (pun intended), the wise will never

> argue. Drop such differences and concentrate on realizing the truth.

> It's good for you."

 

 

The fools list - vyAsa, SankarAchArya, SureshwarAchArya, RAmAnujAchArya,

MadhvAchArya...and so on.

I am very proud if called a fool !!

 

Shri Balaji, whose quote is that? What does that 'empty' evidence mean?

Usually, dry logic without the backing of the scriptures is termed as such.

 

> But somehow, all of this got dragged to such

> tarka. I am pleased to see though that there are some who agree that

> anubhuti is prime and not tarka study for intellectual pleasure.

 

 

anubUti based on what? You become what you meditate. If you meditate as a deity,

you will become that. If you meditate as a worm, you become that. What is this

meditation all about? Is the scriptures necessary? Is sravaNa necessary? Is

manana necessary? Kindly enlighten me !!

 

Hari Om

PS: This is my last post on this subject. Those who still believe in the

'unity' are requested to glance through SankarAchArya's works, if time

permits. This wrong conclusion is purely because of lack of knowledge of

advaita as taught by the great SankarAchArya.

 

 

 

 

 

WIN FREE WORLDWIDE FLIGHTS - nominate a cafe in the Mail Internet Cafe

Awards

 

 

Namaste Balaji.

 

Thank you for attempting to find the similarities between advaita and

Buddhism.

 

A couple of comments on your long post in .

 

You said:

 

"Buddhism on the other hand does not accept Shruthi as the authority

does not mean that it refutes the Vedas, but that it does not ask for

the authority of the Veda. Does it accept the authority of Gautama

Buddha or for that matter any other Buddha? NO! There is supposedly

only one authority for each seeker in Buddhism - the knowledge

obtained by the seeker when enlightened. Whatever that knowledge

dictates is the authority."

 

[Don't you think there is similarity even here because advaita

considers scriptures to belong to the realm of ignorance and they are

of no use once Enlightenment dawns? So, scriptures are authority,

rather helping tools, as long as we grope in the vyAvahArika, aren't

they? That is perhaps why they are rightly called pramANA in

vEdAnta.]

 

You also said:

 

"If the Shruthi were an absolute authority to Advaita, Shankara would

never attempt commenting or summing up on the works, for then they

would be unnecessary. (If something is absolute authority, it is not

necessary for me to comment on it or sum it up) Therefore even in

Advaita, the knowledge of the Self is the ultimate authority."

 

[That is some good thinking. I like your courage and freshness of

thought.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

Sri Madathil Nair writes...

 

[That is some good thinking. I like your courage and freshness of

thought.]

 

Me too! i luv the way 22 year old Bala-ji is holding his OWN in this

forum of seasoned Sadhaks. He is a pearl of 'exceeding' beauty in

this Garland of gems.

 

love and blessings

Namaste Shri Balaji-ji,

 

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

> >

> > "Buddhism is the same as Advaita".

> >

> > In Advaita, sameness between things derives from samanya/jati.

> > What precisely is the principle by which there is sameness

> > between two things in the philosophy of Mahayana Buddhism?

> > It would be helpful if you can be precise and brief.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Chittaranjan

>

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

> When I said 'Buddhism is same as Advaita' I meant that their

> essence is the same.

 

But there is no essence in Buddhism. :-)

 

> Besides the sameness between two things cannot be on one basis

> in one school of thought and the other basis in another school

> of thought. Samanya/jati is the basis everwhere for sameness

> between two objects

 

That's interesting. Then why does Mahayana Buddhism refuse to believe

in jati? I would think that samanya would make the Buddhist drop his

pretensions of momentariness.

 

> But are you viewing them as objects?

 

It is not upto you or me. In Vedanta, word-meanings are objects.

 

> I am viewing them as representations of the Vidya (knowledge

> of Brahman) in the form of words (which is verily inefficient).

 

It is true that words do not reach Brahman, the Source of words, but

that does not mean that words are inefficient. In Vedanta, Brahman

creates the universe through words. A Buddhist may belittle words,

but a Vedantist does not. The Vedas are eternally in Brahman and they

are the sphurana of Brahman.

 

> Remember neither Mahayana nor Advaita is true knowledge.

 

No, the means is not the end. But what is the end pointed to by

Mahayana and Advaita. The one is shunya and the other is poorna. In

Advaita, the jagat is mithya when cenceived apart from Brahman, but

the world is in reality identical with Brahman which is akhanda and

undifferentiable. In Buddhism, there is no substratum, and naturally

the jagat "becomes" shunya. Shunyata and Poornata are vastly

different. Let us not lay waste all the efforts of Acharya

Shankaracharya by engaging in imaginative sophistry. If you want to

show the sameness of Buddhism and Advaita through argument, then that

is a call to tarka and you must engage Advaita in tarka.

 

Most Advaitins have respect for the Buddha, and indeed accept him as

one of the Hindu avataras. The Buddha did not encourage metaphysical

speculations. The philosophies of Mahayana Buddhism were born long

after the Buddha "left" this earth, and as such it is doubtful how

much in them really conforms to what the Buddha really meant. Advaita

is not speculative philosophy: it is based on the Vedas. Advaita does

not accept Buddhist schools of philosophy because they consider them

as not only speculative (based on speculations of what the Buddha

meant), but also illogical and incoherent. In my view, the reasons

for Buddha's silence on Brahman / Atman are inscrutable. They might

have had some purpose in the scheme of creation and human history.

But let us respect Buddha and Shankara, and let us also respect the

Acharya's exposition of Advaita with all the differences they have

with Buddhism. Please don't misunderstand me, I appreciate your

effort to find a common base, but I think we should not re-write the

meaning of Advaita in our enthusiasm.

 

> True knowledge is one's own anubhuti,

 

No, true knowledge is independent of the intellect and experience -

it is simply what is. This is the Advaita view. The "attainment of

knowledge" is strictly not an experience. So, let's not try to

describe it. Those that are "liberated" say that there is no

difference between samsara and liberation. Bondage is a myth. (Ah,

but what a myth! Maya is "truly" anirvacaniya!)

> through one's OWN EFFORT (I mean no God will make an effort

> for you)

 

Who is the one that makes an effort and who is God? If you make an

effort, be sure that God will make a corresponding effort for you!

One needs to walk on the razor's edge here!

 

 

Again, please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I have much

sympathy with your desire to find a common base between Buddhism and

Advaita - and I think there is much that is common - but there is

also a vast difference between the doctrines of the two philosophies.

But I agree with you that the emphasis should be on practice and

experience rather than on mere tarka.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

Namaste Shri Ranjeetji,

 

Thankyou for going though my post so carefully and critcally.

However, your question is not fair:

 

To the question 'Where is Kailas?' there is an answer, and it has

been answered by even the buddhist school of thought. But to the

question 'How is it in Kailas?', one may choose to answer as 'It is

cold out there.' or 'You find out for yourself.'

 

Please note that saying 'It is cold out there' is not wrong. It is

perfectly correct. But it can be understood by only a person who has

seen such cold. It leads to a question 'How cold?'. The answer could

at best be 'Very cold.' If if measured as '15 units of coldness' it

is unsatisfactory since, the experience of it is totally different

from the answer.

 

Both answers are not incorrect. There is no correct answer to that

question. But they are both unsatisfactory. There is no satisfactory

answer to that. All schools of thought differ only on this basis, at

this very point. They all tell the path to the realization of the

absolute truth, they all accept that ignorance is the cause of the

sorrow. But differ when the nature of the absolute truth is in

question. Let me tell you the opinions of the different schools of

thought with specific case of Kailas in view.

 

'It is cold.' - How cold?

 

'Very cold. The nature of that coldness is the same as that of ice'

 

'The nature of that cold is the same as that of frozen water. Hence

essentially it is that of water. '

 

'The nature of that cold cannot be compared to that of any other.

Hence there is a unique special nature of that cold in Kailas.'

 

'It is better you find it for yourself.'

 

All answers are true. They are all fit replies to the question. But

they are all unsatisfactory! We can see this unity in thought now,

because we know what is cold. But we don't know that Brahman

 

Btw, darshan refers to the realization of the truth that each

enlightened soul had, and his wordification of that. You cannot read

philosophy or Shankara's works or the Vedas and get enlightened. So

darshan is not meant for us. It is meant for the person with right

adhikara (preparation), who is currently treading the path to realize

the truth to help him analyse and wordify his experience on the way

to the Ultimate truth.

 

Shankara never fought the other schools of thought. What would he

gain by fighting with them all and proving that he is Sarvajna. When

we read Shankara Vijayam, we must understand the need for Shankara to

do so, not just read it like a story. It is only with a purpose that

a realized soul would do anything. And Shankara's life was full of

purposes.

 

When he refuted the other schools of thought, he refuted their

objections to Advaita. He never said that the other schools of

thought were wrong, but said that they were misrepresenting Advaita.

He also said that the buddhists had an inadequate representation of

the truth (not wrong. In some buddhist schools, he proved they were

wrong, but particularly to Mahayana, he said they were just

inadequate.) But in his works, still, (altough not in the same

breath) he still maintains that even Advaita is inadequate and that

Anubhuti is required for the jijnasu.

 

But yes, Mahayana does appear inadequate in a different sense also,

that Advaita atleast attempts to draw conclusions from the darshan of

the sages, but mahayana simply refuses to draw any conclusions

whatsoever. But what is wrong with that?

 

I hope I did not offend you in any way. I have refered to the works

of Shankara also and still think that they only disagree on the

wordification of the Absolute. Your opinion in this matter is still

your own and is immaterial. The point that I tried to draw from this

discussion is this: (I have been reiterating this ever since I joined

this group.)

 

Why are we discussing the complex theories of Atman or God? Why don't

we all try to simply realize the truth, dropping these differences

that exist only in representing the Absolute? Let us know that it is

not in our scope to discuss any of that which we know not. Let us

simply try to eradicate our ignorance, through our own efforts.

 

Finally, to make one last point (although it may lead to a

controversy, I hope that people with such wonderful intellect as

those in this group, would not let it lead to a controversy.). If you

become what you meditate, why meditate on a worldly object, or a

figment of imagination? Why not (when endowed with enough intellect)

develop sattva guna, viveka, vairagya and a clean mind to develop the

faculty of discerning the truth. And then realize slowly the truths

that lead to the Absolute truth (tread the path to realization) and

enlighten ourselves.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam