interesting question

[autumn 0]

Dear Boddhicitta,

I have studied Buddhism and Vaishnavism both and I find your question to be one of the most interesting one's raised by Buddhism. Vaishnavism insists that an atma exists. I will use the definition of atma as self, because I feel that this is the definition the Buddha seemed to use. Apart from doctinal ideas, if we observe whether or not there is a self, it is my experience that everything the Vaishnavas have explained as proof of a self is also temporary. They say consciousness is proof. But my personal experience after investigation (which is on going), consciousness is temporary, or at least what we consider consciousness in a conventional sense (the Buddhist decribe different kinds of consciousness). To use the Buddhist argument: eye consciousness goes away if sight is lost, audio consciousness goes away when hearing is lost, mental consciousness goes away too, like durring dreamless sleep, etc etc.. Some say that just the feeling of "I-ness" proves the existence of a self, but I have also observed that this feeling of "I-ness" is temporary as well. Self is a temporary construct.

 

Some say that Buddhism teaches nihilism because of it's doctrine of no-self, but this is not the fact. Buddhism breaks the existing elements down into three basic catagories, material elements (body: earth, water, fire, air, etc), immaterial elements (mind: feelings, perceptions, impressions, volitions, etc), and it also admits the existence of the amatta-dhatu (pali) or the deathless element. The closest thing comparable in Himduism to this deathless element is what they call Brahman. The deathless element is completely devoid of the sense of "I-ness" (ahankara) or "my-ness" (mamankara). The deathless element is also sometimes called the cooling element(nibbana-dhatu[nirvana]) because it cools the fire of selfishness or the view of a permanent self ("I-ness" and "my-ness"). Other words used by Buddhist to describe this deathless element are, Original Mind, Bare Awareness, and "The One Who knows, or even The Knowing.

 

Vaishnavism also teaches that upon liberation (any of the different kinds of liberation they talk about) one looses thier selfishness or self centeredness. Even in the pure Bhakti traditions, it is taught that upon attainment of one's worshipable deity (Krsna, etc) one looses all sense of self in devotion. Thus also, in essense Vaishnavas are agreeing with the no-self concept. I feel that this teaching of no-self used by the Buddha was not meant to be taken as a doctrine but a tool of practice, to be used for alleviating the fire of selfishness and self centeredness. Whether or not there is the existence of what the Vaishnavas call atma or not is not the point, unless one is satisfied leaving there spiritual practice on a stricly doctinal/theoretical level. One of the main points of all religious systems is to become selfless. Thats the essence.

 

I like the idea of Buddhism; that to simply hold beliefs is not progressive. If I say, "The holy book says there is an eternal self", really, what benefit am I getting? Real belief is based on experience. Logic and philosophy and not enough to realize the Deathless element. Simply holding a set of doctrines and beliefs is not enough.

 

So I say, people should believe what ever they want, but they can only know the Truth by practice. If we give up our attachment to this concept of self, or simply notice its ever changing nature, we can get a glimpse of the Deathless, and give up all blind beliefs.

[mud 0]

autumn,

Your post demonstrates a sincere mentality of seeking the absolute. What else could you ask for?

 

You say: I like the idea of Buddhism; that to simply hold beliefs is not progressive. If I say, "The holy book says there is an eternal self", really, what benefit am I getting? Real belief is based on experience. Logic and philosophy and not enough to realize the Deathless element. Simply holding a set of doctrines and beliefs is not enough.

 

Me: I take it that you are implying that the Vaishnava doctrine promotes exclusive faith in sastra. While faith in sastra is considered the main evidence I don't feel that it excludes other evidence. Indeed, experience (sense perception) is considered a valid pramana. Jiva Goswami discusses different types of valid evidence in Tattva Sandharba. Sastra is not exclusive, but is more a final validation of other evidence. The buck stops there so to speak.

 

Many ISKCON devotees jump to attack sunyavada or perceived voidest arguments in order to defend their faith. Personally I find your discussion stimulating. Here is what I would consider the only points of contention in your post.

 

You say: everything the Vaishnavas have explained as proof of a self is also temporary. They say consciousness is proof.

 

Me: I would disagree slightly here. It may be splitting hairs but there are some important distinctions. To me the Vaishnava doctrine does not describe consciousness as the proof of self, it is referred to as a symptom. To use your examples, if eye consciousness is there it means the self is there. Consciousness being symptomatic, who is the seer? When eyesight is gone, the self is not gone, just the "eye consciousness" is not possible because the body is damaged. The potential is still there because the self is there. Even a blind man may have memory (consciousness) of seeing. See what I'm getting at? Besides, I don't know that it is true that if someone loses eyesight that eye consciousness goes away. Consider amputees. I have heard it reported that they often imagine as if they still had the limb they are missing. In this way the consciousness of a disabled body part may still exist despite the physical reality not being present. This is because of presence of self, identifying with body. As for dreamless sleep, that is debatable whether it is possible to have dreamless sleep. Maybe we don't remember, but I'm not sure that we sleep without dreaming. The mind is constantly working.

 

As for I-ness being temporary, I have never experienced it going away. Maybe one feels united with the brahman for some time, selfless, but it is a temporary realization which still stems from the losing of self-consciousness, ego-centeredness. But one must have a SELF to be centered on in the first place and with enlightenment not be centered on.

 

You say: If we give up our attachment to this concept of self, or simply notice its ever changing nature, we can get a glimpse of the Deathless, and give up all blind beliefs.

 

Me: I see (through Vaishnava philosophy) the temporary self, the false self is ever changing but the I, me, is constant.

 

Yes we should EXPERIENCE this self and glimpse the deathless. I got no bones with you there man.

 

 

[Guest guest]

<< "I-ness" is temporary as well. Self is a temporary construct. >>

 

i-ness is ego.

there is true ego, and false ego.

true ego is:

i am not the body but the soul within it which has enternal loving relation with supersoul, krishna. i am his servant or friend, etc. oen ego HK's ahve is "i am a krishna devotee". this is true ego. as long as he/she worships krishna. this is vaishnav view.

 

other false ego could get replaced by another false or true ego due to real experience which is a great teacher ( if one can learn from it.)

 

i have one question about buddhism:

 

they say there is no god (supersoul).

than means there is no soul eternal.

(this i think leads to a different kind of buddhism that says - enjoy as much as you can while you are alive.

their god is the fat man with a big belly and winking eye.

i do not knwo what they call him).

still they believe in re-incarnation.

how they explain re-incarnation without eternal soul?

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

[bodhichitta 0]

very elaborate analysis, Autumn. You must have studied for a long time. Would you like to have dialogue on my thread? I almost didn't get your post.

[autumn 0]

Yes I would like to have this discussion on your thread. Actually I posted my reply as a seperate thread by accident somehow, but I meant it to be a part of your thread from the begining. Sorry about that. I'll post over there to continue this discussion, but I will have to do it a little later when I get a bit more time. (hopefully today).

 

Peace,

Autumn

[Guest guest]

Autumn,

 

just curious what motivated you to choose skull picture for your logo?

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

[Guest guest]

just because someone has studied something for a long time has nothing to do with having actual self realization.you can quote as many buddhist passages as you want and state what buddhist philosophy is all about blah blah blah. You say you were a vaisnava for a long time yet obviously you never really grasped its essence or believed in it really or else you wouldnt have become a buddhist which is the exact opposite of vaisnavism. I think buddhism and all of its "I" philosophy is great for people who are totally absorbed in themselves, as opposed to vaisnavism which focuses on something greater than ourselves and it requires some real faith and devotion.

[bodhichitta 0]

come to my thread

[mud 0]

I knew there had to be a good 'ol Hare Krsna fanatic here somewhere! Welcome, welcome! I was wondering how long we would be able to go having a respectful philisophical discussion about differences before someone jumped in with no philosophy except name calling and personal attack. Thank you sir or maam for bringing us back to the real world of shoot first, think later.

 

Do you have some wisdom you'd like to share that would be helpful? If not, there are plenty of other boards for preaching. Please go to boddhicitta's thread only if you can discuss or learn.

 

My great philisophical question is this... Why does ISKCON produce followers that cannot interact with people of opposing viewpoints? Not everyone, but a majority. Is it a detriment or a good quality?

[autumn 0]

guest writes:

"just because someone has studied something for a long time has nothing to do with having actual self realization."

 

-I agree. and that is one of the points the Buddha makes as well. The point is not to study and talk, but to practice and realize.

 

guest:

"You say you were a vaisnava for a long time yet obviously you never really grasped its essence or believed in it really or else you wouldnt have become a buddhist which is the exact opposite of vaisnavism."

 

-I'm certainly willing to hear about the essance of Vaishnavism from you. Please elaborate if you would. It what ways are buddhism and Vaishnavism "exact opposites"?

 

guest:

"I think buddhism and all of its "I" philosophy..."

 

-I think we were discussing how Buddhism (and Vaishnavism) teach a kind of no-"I" idea, so I'm not sure what you mean...

 

guest:

"as opposed to vaisnavism which focuses on something greater than ourselves and it requires some real faith and devotion."

 

-I'd like to hear your definition of "real faith and devotion", and it's process. Please elaborate.

 

But I think we should have this discussion over on Bodhicitta's thread, because thats where this started and was meant to be. So lets move it over there. Thanks.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[autumn 0]

why did I pick the scull? oh...I don't know. To remind myself that all things are temporary...maybe, something like that.

[Guest guest]

not a bad idea.

some stay staight by fear of death.

others like vaishnavas stay straight by the force of love for krishna.

 

jai sri krishna! -madhav

 

[Guest guest]

 

Some say that just the feeling of "I-ness" proves the existence of a self, but I have also observed that this feeling of "I-ness" is temporary as well.

 

 

who observed again please?

[Raguraman 0]

Hare Krishna,

 

Ego or Ahamkar is different from consciousness or chit. Consciousness is the pure awareness and knowledge that one exists.

 

In Hinduism Aham(Self) or Atma or Brahman or Lord Krishna are all Identical.

 

Jiva(different from Atma, body or mind, intellect) is the eternal or deathless element within us. Jiva is a finite and localized center of consciousness, the one who knows or the one knowing. In Hinduism, CHIT is awareness or knowledge.

 

Now after clarifying this, Atma is even more aubtler than Jiva. While Jivas are many, Atma or Brahman is absolutely one. Atma or AHAM(Self) never undergoes any kind of suffering or birth or death. It is unborn, eternal, immutable, omnipresent. Just clarifying concepts of Hinduism.

 

Now for example, if I know the difference between a potter, wheel and clay and me, it does not mean I am selfish. It simply means that this is the truth. Similarly having awareness that I am different from body, mind, intellect etc. and that I am an eternal deathless Jiva, it does not mean I am Self-centered. It is a FACT.

 

As for the knowledge of SELF, it is completely different. SELF is otherwise GOD. Upanishads tell that SELF reveals HIMSELF to one whom HE chooses. This is what is called the knowledge of SELF. This knowledge is revealed by the grace of SELF(GOD). No amount of human endeavour can give this knowledge. Only Bhakti or Love for GOD is capable of obtaining this grace.

 

So to me what appears is that Buddhists did not even get the idea what Hinduism teaches.

[Guest guest]

I agree with you 100%, a need of good structured philosophical discussion is needed here. I do not agree with this mentality of illogical discussion.

 

But having said that, you also produced an illogical statement:

 

"Why does ISKCON produce followers that cannot interact with people of opposing viewpoints? Not everyone, but a majority. Is it a detriment or a good quality? "

 

ISKCON does not produce followers, more over, people choose to follow ISKCON, those who do effectively learn how to debate or discuss effeciently and those who don't unfornately they can become fanatics which Prabhupada totally disagreed with. Having said the majority of ISKCON are like this is also an illogical statement because that would mean you would have had met every single member in ISKCON to make such a bold statement.

 

As a whole, I do agree with you regarding fanatics, but i also believe that ISKCON does not encourage this or teach it to it's followers but on the contrary, teachs how to discuss in all ettiquette.

 

YS. Jitz

[Guest guest]

Iskcon definitely used to teach fanaticism. A fanatic is a person who has extremely heavy aversion to something so they cling evver so strongly to that which will make their faith strong, to the extent that they offend others by damging their faith. This was the standard from the 80's to the 90's at least where everyone was on a leash and could not even respect other vaishnavas and were outcaste if they did.

[Guest guest]

I dont know if we USED to teach fanaticism or not, but the fact is that its a past tense, so it will not be applicable in this argument, yes we too, make mistakes, but its a learning curve. I am not justifying anything. We have come a long way from what we were.

 

offending others is very subjective. If we are doing something by scriptures and people according to their mindset are getting offended then it doesnt mean we are going to stop doing it. Some people may like it some people may not.

[Guest guest]

let's not confuse fanaticism with causing a revolution!

 

[Guest guest]

"I like the idea of Buddhism; that to simply hold beliefs is not progressive. If I say, "The holy book says there is an eternal self", really, what benefit am I getting? Real belief is based on experience. Logic and philosophy and not enough to realize the Deathless element. Simply holding a set of doctrines and beliefs is not enough. "

 

imho, it is not a very clever analysis..

 

.... because a personalist, a vaishnava can answer that it is completely irrational to think that in the absolute, in a non conditioned, not subjected to the illusion, state of exixtence, there's not the life, the relations, the plurality of subjects and the variety that we have in the relative world..

 

it is logic that the relative has less features than the absolute.. to think different is out of the logic or it is in the realm of a kind of logic that we cannot now use.. so it is NOW useless

 

for this reason, buddhism, that is a great source for learning the control of the self, the ascetism and so, it is to be consider, by a devotee of krsna, a complete blasphemy because it says that also the existence of a separate god is maya.. reducing krsna, (the all attractive, the loving goal of any devotee, absolutely beyond the mere liberation from the sufferings), at the fake subject of "tribal" adoration of some ignorant people

 

("The holy book says there is an eternal self"

 

yes they say and there's a very easy way to understand it...)

 

in my opinion the difference from vaishnavism and buddhism are so great that vaishnavism is to be consider a lot closer to christianity and even islam..

 

of course this is not a justification for fanaticism and religious war, let us learn from india (and the episodes in the scriptures) how is possible to fight ideally "'till the blood runs" on the philosophic plane and to be peaceful and friends, and very often COLLABORATIVE, on the everyday life, and also at some stages of the preaching

 

as a harekrishna practitioneer i think that practising buddhism is in some way a sad mistake, but i am ready to work with buddhists (i have many friends tibetan buddhists) to establish some common goals like peace, non violence.. also at the practical stage of distributing vegetarian food (of course in my heart i'd offer to krsna) to poor people and so on

 

yasoda nandana dasa