Tat Tvam Asi -- YOu are That
Aham Brahmasmi -- I am Brahman



yes indeed, and those pronouncements are the cause for the Advaitan wrong view. the identification of subject with totality.

QUOTE


Where is this ground of phenomenon? Buddhists call this ground something else, that's all. Taoists call it Tao, Advaitins (and all Vedantins in general) call it Brahman. There is no ground...but everything is the ground. There is no phenomenon, but everything is the phenomenon.



Buddhists don't call this ground anything because ground is an illusion. Emptiness is not a ground, but a pointing towards the true nature of reality free of conceptual limitation

• Emptiness is not a substance
• Emptiness is not a substratum or background
• Emptiness is not light
• Emptiness is not consciousness or awareness
• Emptiness is not the Absolute
• Emptiness does not exist on its own
• Objects do not consist of emptiness
• Objects do not arise from emptiness
• Emptiness of the "I" does not negate the "I"
• Emptiness is not the feeling that results when no objects are appearing to the mind
• Meditating on emptiness does not consist of quieting the mind

Shankara'n Advaita and Mahayana Buddhism have much in common, as they both influenced each other, they use similiar terms, but the definitions are different, and so is the fruit of the realization. its a deeper and more subtle realization. there is no Atman in Buddhism, this presence is negated with Anatta, and there is no Brahman in Buddhism, this background is negated through Shunyata. This negation is important. it is the antidote to having a wrong view and having a limited interpretation of non-dual experience, like having some fog on your viewing lens.

The middle way is the razors edge between Eternalism and Nihilism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

this is a Thesis that discusses the differences between Shankara and Buddhism:
http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11...o_200612_ma.pdf
i'll quote the important parts that relate here

QUOTE

page 45

Nagarjuna refutes any view of eternalism or absolutism in his philosophy. Eternalism and absolutism has no place in Nagarjuna’s philosophy of Sunyavada. He advocates the ‘Middle Way’ between externalism and nihilism. According to Nagarjuna, says Harvey, “The nature of dharma (phenomenon) lies between absolute, non-existence, and substantial existence. This is what Nagarjuna means by the Middle Way” (98). Nagarjuna perceives that all dharma (phenomenon) lack the quality of inherent existence. Anything that appears to exist inherently or independently, according to Nagarjuna, is imputed by one’s ignorance. In reality, all are empty of any inherent existence, including emptiness as well. Thus, all share the same nature, ‘emptiness’. The Heart Sutra says,
Body is nothing more than emptiness; emptiness is nothing more than body. The body is exactly empty, and emptiness is exactly body.

The other four aspects of human existence - feeling, thought, will, and consciousness - are likewise nothing more than emptiness, and emptiness nothing more than they.
Nagarjuna equates this emptiness with the principle of “dependent arising.” He says that things exist only in a relative way and not in an absolute way. For instance, if one posits something as being absolutely long or short, it would have to be long or short by its own nature. Obviously, this is not the case because the description “short” is relative to “long” and vice versa. These are relational statements; each depends on the other for its existence. Nagarjuna argues that all phenomena are devoid of independent, inherent, or ultimate existence. Their existence in relationship to and in reliance upon other phenomena is never refuted. Since all phenomena, in Nagarjuna’s perspective, are empty, some wonder if he is suggesting that emptiness is eternal and independent. Nagarjuna’s response is that even the ultimate reality, emptiness, exists in dependence on other phenomena and not as an ultimate basis for other phenomena to arise. Hence, Harvey says, “Emptiness is not some ultimate basis and substance of the world, like the Brahman of the Upanishads” (99). In other words, reference to emptiness is always made in relation to object’s ultimate nature, devoid of any inherent existence

By contrast, Shankara sees Brahman as a separate entity with essence. According to Shankara, the manifold world is an illusory world. It is superimposed upon Brahman by the power of maya and avidya (ignorance). Thus Shankara says, “This universe is an effect of Brahman. Apart from Brahman, it does not exist. But this universe which is superimposed upon Brahman is nothing but a name” (70). Jay Garfield (1994) compares this view with the notion of emptiness and says that if emptiness is perceived in that fashion, the notion of deep unity between the conventional and ultimate truth is not understood. He says that to see emptiness in this way “is to see the conventional as illusory and emptiness as the reality standing behind it” (2). Moreover, he says, “To adopt this view of emptiness is indeed to deny the reality of the entire phenomenal, conventional world” (9). Therefore, Garfield refutes emptiness as a self-existent entity, “existence that stands behind the veil of illusion represented by conventional reality” (2). Last but not least, there are other fundamental concepts that separate Mahayana’s notion of sunyata and Shankara’s notion of Brahman. For example, in Mahayana Buddhism sunyata is not an end, but is a means to achieve the Buddhahood, the perfect enlightenment. Mahayana believes that the comprehension of sunyata, emptiness, directs one’s compassionate action appropriately and effectively, thus leading one to the attainment of Buddhahood. Harvey says, “Wisdom itself aids compassion in a number of ways. Ultimately, it leads to becoming an omniscient Buddha, who can teach and aid beings in countless ways” (121). On the other hand, Shankara asserts that Brahman is not a means, but is an end in itself. According to Shankara, realizing Brahman is man’s ultimate goal, the final liberation. He says, “Realize Brahman, and there will be no more returning to this world–the home of all sorrows” (69). 

Shankara borrowed a lot from Nagarjuna [ I know this will ruffle some feathers, so please read this thesis http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11...o_200612_ma.pdf ] but what he didn't is what sets Buddhist enlightenment apart from Advaita, its a deeper and more subtle realization. there is no Atman in Buddhism, this presence is negated with Anatta, and there is no Brahman in Buddhism, this background is negated through Shunyata. This negation is important. it is the antidote to having a wrong view and having a limited interpretation of non-dual experience, like having some fog on your viewing lens.

Here's an excellent essay (not written by one of those superstars everyone seems to not see beyond) that discusses the dynamics between Buddha (Siddhartha) and the Upanishads (Vedantic literature).

http://medhajournal.com/index.php?option=c...&Itemid=269

the differences are very subtle, and very difficult to grasp for someone stuck in eternalist views


http://www.khandro.net/doctrine_dharmakaya.htm

And so we went back and forth. It was confusing for me, because it seemed like this commentator wasn't really aware of the concepts of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman and their inter-relation to different levels of union (of the practitioner).

I wanted to bring this lively discussion in front of the Medhavis, so you all can help me better understand the differences and formulate arguments for and against this claim --"Advaita Vedanta is inferior to Buddhist non-dualism because Advaita Vedanta relies on a phenomenological ground for Non-dualism, where as Buddhism calls this ground illusory".

Thanks,

Dwai

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (27)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by narensomu, 2009-05-20 20:02:33

Dear Medhavis

Informative and interesting discussions here and in the other site.

I wasn' t commenting as I know very little about Buddhism .
*Text book Buddhism
* TN "rashion-alists "/Marxists style " Buddhism- has- to- be- superior- as it- is -anti Vedic" approach,
*Western " scholars" who say cooly in their Art /Architecture books that Dharma and Moksha are Buddhist words .:-)Dhamma the derivative may be but not Dharma.:-)
dont count as knowledge.
As a person from another Sampradaya whose Adhi Guru,[ also unfairly called as a closet Buddhist] by objective analysis and Vadham typical of ancient India 's principles of democratic exchange established Advaita againin this land, i wanted some time to practice objectivity .

Many Thanks to Pradip and Partha for objectively explaining points through comments and articles . Pradip's detailed comment is an eye opener.And Dwai is to be congratulated for his infinite patience.

Some folks in the other site say again and again that Shankara sort of invented Advaita. He ,as we all know, renovated the timeless concepts from the Vedas and did not make up Advaita.So the comment on the Nagarjuna connection is smile inducing. Of course ThiruvaLLuvar was a disciple of Tom Cruise.:-)

He was a reformer and a true spiritualist who wouldn't look down upon the donkey as he had reached the top.

Seems to me this whole idea about "Buddhism -superior-to Vedantha" appeals to some Western [ ised ] minds that want to put down another more ancient and still- living concept.

This is not Vadham but Vidanda that wants to prove that the other person is always wrong.With this attitude ,it would be hard for anyone to reach anywhere.

Thanks for the discussions again!
Regards
ns

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Buddhist emptiness is lower truth?
written by dlahiri, 2009-05-20 16:31:06

If you follow the second debate (on Taobums), it so happened that the Buddhists stumbled upon the fact that by the theory of Two-truths and Dependent Origination, their emptiness is infact Vyavaharika Satya (or Lower Truth).

Only Phenomena can be empty. That which is non-phenomena (no dependent origination) is Brahman.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Should be in the front!
written by gangp, 2009-05-20 12:26:17

Dear Dwai,
This discussion should be in the front page of Medha Journal.

Pradipda

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Buddhist Ultimate Reality
written by gangp, 2009-05-20 12:24:55

Dear Dwai,
I smiled at the confusion among Buddhists about whether Buddhism talks about Ultimate Reality or not. Buddhists have to ignore Buddha's sayings in Buddhist scripture to come to this conclusion. Let me give 4 examples from scripture and what I persoanlly heard Dalai Lama say in a TV program:

1. Kevaddha Sutta: About Kevaddha (Digha Nikaya 11.85/i.223)

Buddha: 'So that monk, as swiftly as a strong man might flex or unflex his
arm, vanished from the Brahma world and appeared in my presence. He prostrated
himself before me, then sat down to one side, and said:"Lord, where do the
four great elements - the earth element, the water element, the fire element
and the air element - cease without reminder?"

Buddha replied:"....Monk, you should not ask this question this way ....
Instead, this is how the question should have been put:

'Where do earth, water, fire and air not find footing? Where are long and
short, small and great, fair and foul - where are "name and form" wholly
destroyed?'

And the answer is:

'Where consciousness is signless, boundless, all-luminous,
That's where earth, water, fire and air find no footing,
There both long and short, small and great, fair and foul -
There "name-and-form" are wholly destroyed.""

2. Mahjima Nikaya Brahmanimantanika Sutta 49.25/i.330 also makes Buddha say,

"Consciousness non-manifesting,
Boundless, luminous all-round"

The translator (Bodhi) acknowledges that these lines in Digha Nikaya and
Mahjima Nikaya have been a perennial challenge to Buddhist scholarship and
even Acharya Buddhaghosha seems to founder over them.

3. Buddha himself said," There is an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, an uncompounded; were there not, O mendicants, there would be no escape from the world of the born, the unoriginated, the made and the compounded" (Udana 8.3).

4. XIII. Tevijja Sutta (Digha Nikaya)

On Knowledge Of The Vedas[4]

39. When he had thus spoken, VaseÂÂha, the young Brahmana, said to the Blessed
One:

'Just so has it been told me, Gotama, even that the Gotama knows the way to a
STATE OF UNION WITH BRAHMAN. It is well! Let the venerable Gotama be pleased
to show us the way to a STATE OF UNION WITH BRAHMAN, let the venerable Gotama
save the Brahmana race'[26]!

'Listen then, VaseÂÂha, and give ear attentively, and I will speak!'

'So be it, Lord!' said the young Brahmana VaseÂÂha, in assent, to the Blessed
One.

40. Then the Blessed One spake, and said:

Know, VaseÂÂha, that (from time to time) a Tathagata is born into the world,
an Arahat, a fully awakened one, abounding, in wisdom and goodness, happy,
with knowledge of the worlds, unsurpassed as a guide to mortals willing to be
led, a teacher of gods and men, a Blessed One, a Buddha. He, by himself,
thoroughly understands, and sees, as it were, face to face this universe --
including the worlds above with the gods, the Maras, and the Brahmas; and the
world below with its Samatas and Brahmanas, its princes and peoples; -- and he
then makes his knowledge known to others. The truth doth he proclaim both in
the letter and in the spirit, lovely in its origin, lovely in its progress,
lovely in its consummation: the higher life doth he make known, in all its
purity and in all its perfectness.

76.[28]'And he lets his mind pervade one quarter of the world with thoughts of
Love, and so the second, and so the third, and so the fourth. And thus the
whole wide world, above, below, around, and everywhere, does he continue to
pervade with heart of Love, far-reaching, grown great, and beyond measure.

77. 'Just, VaseÂÂha, as a mighty trumpeter makes himself heard-and that
without difficulty-in all the four directions; even so of all things that have
shape or life, there is not one that he passes by or leaves aside, but regards
them all with mind set free, and deep-felt love.

'Verily this, VaseÂÂha, is the way to a STATE OF UNION WITH BRAHMAN.

78. 'And he lets his mind pervade one quarter of the world with thoughts of
pity[29], ... sympathy[30], equanimity[31 ], and so the second, and so the
third, and so the fourth. And thus the whole wide world, above, below, around,
and everywhere, does he continue to pervade with heart of pity. . . . sympathy
, . . . equanimity, far-reaching, grown great, and beyond measure.

79. 'Just, VaseÂÂha, as a mighty trumpeter makes himself heard -- and that
without difficulty -- in all the four directions ; even so of all things that
have shape or life, there is not one that he passes by or leaves aside, but
regards them all with mind set free, and deep-felt pity, ... sympathy, ...
equanimity.

'Verily this, V¤seÂÂha, is the way to a STATE OF UNION WITH BRAHMAN.'

80. 'Now what think you, VaseÂÂha, will the Bhikkhu who lives thus be in
possession of women and of wealth, or will he not?'

'He will not, Gotama!'

'Will he be full of anger, or free from anger?'

'He will be free from anger, Gotama!'

'Will his mind be full of malice, or free from malice?'

'Free from malice, Gotama!'

'Will his mind be tarnished, or pure?'

'It will be pure, Gotama!'

'Will he have self-mastery, or will he not?'

'Surely he will, Gotama!'

81 'Then you say, VaseÂÂha, that the Bhikkhu is free from household and
worldly cares, and that Brahman is free from household and worldly cares. Is
there then agreement and likeness between the Bhikkhu and Brahman?'

'There is, Gotama!

Very good, VaseÂÂha. Then in sooth, VaseÂÂha, that the Bhikkhu who is free
from household cares should after death, when the body is dissolved, become
UNITED WITH BRAHMAN, who is the same -- such a condition of things is every
way possible!

'And so you say, VaseÂÂha, that the Bhikkhu is free from anger, and free from
malice, pure in mind, and master of himself; and that Brahman is free from
anger, and free from malice, pure in mind, and master of himself. Then in
sooth, VaseÂÂha, that the Bhikkhu who is free from anger, free from malice,
pure in mind, and master of himself should after death, when the body is
dissolved, become UNITED WITH BRAHMAN, who is the same-such a condition of
things is every way possible!'


5. The implication of the eternal reality Dharmakaya which is both transcendent
and immanent is profound. This just means that Mahayana Buddhists do have a
concept of God. I am convinced of this because I personally saw Dalai Lama
give an interview in the PBS program of William Buckley some years ago.
The person introducing him (Michael Kinseley) mentioned that Buddhists do not
beleive in God. Dalai Lama smiled and said "That is not exactly true".


Regards

Gangp

• 
• +0
• 
• 

And the debate continues....
written by dlahiri, 2009-05-20 12:04:46

http://www.thetaobums.com/inde...opic=10041

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by gangp, 2009-05-18 07:30:32

Thank you dear Partha!

Regards

Pradip

• 
• +0
• 
• 

You are right
written by partha, 2009-05-16 17:50:22

Dear Jim,
Of course you are right.
You echo the thoughts of the great seer Sri Ramakrishna, whom you will find quoted in an earlier comment by our Gangp in answer to our Mogambo's question number 3.
Discussion and realization are often sequentially necessary study tools.
Warm regards. Partha

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Devagura, 2009-05-16 11:41:09

Dwai

In the chapter Actualizing Special Insight in Stages of Meditation one of the Dalai Lamas' books on how a Bodhisattva cultivates wisdom is a quote..

"After realizing calm abiding, meditate on special insight, thinking as follows: All the teachings of the Buddha are perfect teachings...." the quote goes on "just as darkness is dispelled when light appears"...mere calm abiding meditation cannot make pristine awareness more pure, nor can it eliminate the darkness the things we find obscure... "Therefore, engaging in calm abiding meditation I shall search for suchness with wisdom, and I shall not remain content with calm abiding alone."

let us as a reminder note that Siddhartha.. Gotama.. Govinda or the Buddha are all said to be Krishna..

the feedback on this simple article is to some extent lacking reaserch.. that is what this note is about..

the spiritual light the Buddhist perceive is similar to those who look to Krishna or Brahma.. the meditation process is similar also..

the Buddhist or Hindu arguement has to be disolved

JIM..

• 
• +0
• 
• 

the style
written by partha, 2009-05-15 20:28:18

Friends,
I see a pattern of poetic construction in the two samples of his poetry which Pogo has revealed to us both in his comment for this article and as a preface to his blog on Planet X. The words are powerful and unconventional. The message is enclosed in a fairly uniform frame which seems to consist of religious phrases likely to be familiar to people from the region of his origin and from his religion. But the frame seems to be decorative and aesthetic and the message is clear to see within the frame and separate from the frame. Some music composers in films from India do employ similar ruses, I think. I stand to correction.
Regards. partha.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by dlahiri, 2009-05-15 10:48:04

Dear poga,

Could you please explain your position here vis-a-vis the debate?
It is fine if you don't have a position...and thanks for the interesting poem.

Is this some post-modern style of poetry?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by poga, 2009-05-15 02:45:23

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by poga, 2009-05-15 02:44:57

SWEETSWORDS 46 [BUDDHA ]
BISMILLAH

Poga Humayun Dundiwala


BUDDHISM is a way of life where GOD is absent
Buddhism is not religion of here after but a depression of forever present
BUDDHISM is not a religion because BUDDHA is not a messenger
But rather he made a princely retreat at the face of public danger

Poga Say's in a foolington maze


Between true BUDDHIST human
And UN faithful Qadian the BE IMAN
HO CHI MINN is truly Muslim
Because virtue is the way of religion
And HO CHI MINN is virtuous ALIM

Between BUDDHIST honesty and Qadian lie
BUDDHA is more holy BUDDHA is more high
Between BUDDHIST bravery and Qadiani deceit
BUDDHA is my prince I Cherish his FEET

Mrs Be Aql Khan Usta : Om Mani Padma Hum
The forward ISLAMIC quicken with the backward boring BUDDHIST norm
MUHAMMADAPI NAMMOSHKAR
The forward ISLAMIC greetings with backward BUDDHIST speaker

Mr Barzakh Fitrath Ullah : When there was no front or back
Nor top bottom or side there was a TREE
The cubical KABBALAH occupying every side section dimension and degree
The TREE praised it self with HAMD of Om Mani Padma Hum
And the flower of life blossomed as the cosmic womb
Within the flower SANSAR evolved with carpel and stamen
And within the SANSAR one unbound TREE was confined as two THINGS
One forward WOMAN and one backward MAN

Mrs Be Aql Khan Usta : Om Nommo Double Helix
The Sacred geometry of all genetics
The Mantra of all symbolism the Yantra of all design
Om Nommo Double Helix
Indeed you are the Singular creation of ALLAH with the Double Cubical sign

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Thank you, dear Pradip
written by partha, 2009-05-14 17:22:07

What if you have given this marvellously grouped set of ideas,only in response to our Mogambo's queries, dear Pradip?
They read like a chapter in a well written textbook on the Universality of the search for Truth.
The bold font also helps and is symbolic.
Thank you.
Regards. Partha

• 
• +0
• 
• 

My answers to some more mogambo comments and questions
written by gangp, 2009-05-14 08:14:15

Dear Mogambo,

Here are my answers to your questions:

Question 1:


Answer:
The murthis you see are neither statues nor idols. After prana pratistha,
they are images of spirit. There is a special manifestation of consciousness
in these images. A Hindu worships that special manifestation of consciousness
in those images.


Question 2:
mogambo has come across such vaishnavas who vehemently disagree with the
premise of advaita stating that it is erroneous and that the only true
salvation comes in the form of krishna or vishnu.

Answer:

Indeed! That is why I stated that Brahman makes special arrangement for those
people who do not want the Advaitic experience of Brahman.

I give below a conversation of Sri Ramakrishna with a devotee:

Mahima:"I have a question to ask sir. A lover of God needs Nirvana (total
annihilation of ego -- the ideal of the jnani) some time or other, doesn't
he?

Sri Ramakrishna:"It can't be said that bhaktas need Nirvana. According to some
schools there is an eternal Krishna and there are His eternal devotees.
Krishna is spirit embodied, and His abode is also spirit embodied. Krishna is
eternal and His devotees are also eternal."


Question 3:
is the nature of this ultimate reality the same in both cases? or is the
buddhist ultimate reality different than the hindu "ultimate" reality?

Answer:
Ultimate Reality is of the nature of infinite. So different people can
experience this Ultimate Reality in different ways. I am posting here Sri
Ramakrishna's parable of the Chameleon:

Listen to a story. Once a man entered a wood and saw a small animal on a tree.
He came back and told another man that he had seen a creature of a beautiful
red color on a certain tree. The second man replied:'When I went into the
wood, I also saw that animal. But why do you call it red? It is green.'
Another man who was present contradicted them both and insisted that it was
yellow. Presently others arrived and contended that it was grey, violet, blue
and so forth and so on. At last they started quarreling among themselves. To
settle the dispute they all went to the tree. They saw a man sitting under it.
On being asked, he replied,'Yes, I live under this tree and I know the animal
very well. All your descriptions are true. Sometimes it appears red, sometimes
yellow, and at other times blue, violet, grey, and so forth. It is a
chameleon. And sometimes it has no color at all. Now it has a color and now
it has none.'

In like manner, one who constantly thinks of God can know His real nature; he
alone knows that God reveals Himself to seekers in various forms and aspects.
God has attributes; then again He has none. Only the man who lives under the
tree knows that the chameleon can appear in various colors, and he knows,
further, that the animal at times has no colors at all. It is the others who
suffer from the agony of futile arguments.
.......

God reveals Himself in the form which His devotee loves most.


--- Sri Ramakrishna

Question 4:

when you see swells of people thronging lines in temples, are they going to
worship a particular form of brahman or seeking to ask for favours from their
deity of choice (or circumstance)?

Answer:

Gita acknowledges that most people usually ask for favours from their deity
of choice, i.e. a particular form of Brahman, as is clear from the following
Gita verses:

O Arjuna, the greatest of the Bharata race! Four kinds of pious men adore
Me. They are the distressed one, the knowledge-seeker, the wealth-seeker,
and the knower (jnani). (Gita 7.16)

Among them, the knower (jnani), ever communing and single-minded in devotion,
is the best. I am indeed supremely dear to such a jnani, and he is dear to
Me. (Gita 7.17)

While all of them are certainly noble, the jnani I cherish as My very self -
such is My view. For ever in union with Me, he is established in the
conviction that I am his highest goal. (Gita 7.1

As you can see Gita says that even the man asking for favors is noble! So
while asking for favors is not the highest way of worshiping Brahman it
is a form of worship.

Question 5:
If the "ultimateness" of the reality that each of these traditions is
different, then of course one would have to qualify which of them is the
"better" ultimate reality, right? Because if it were ultimate, would it not be
logically concluded that they are both the same?
The buddhists dont seem to think so. why?

Answer:
If you have read the parable of chameleon then you know that the Ultimate
Reality can be experienced by different people in different ways.

You will have to ask Buddhists why they don't seem to think so. I do not
think I should answer that question.

Regards

Gangp

• 
• +0
• 
• 

seek on!
written by partha, 2009-05-13 18:08:17

the buddhist will continue seeking till emptiness is reached;
the hindu will most probably stop at the level of beatific feelings while worshipping his or her idol of choice

Dear Mogambo, you are taking arbitrary and unique examples of 1) a fortunate buddhist, who is privileged to seek throughout his life as the Gautama did and who reaches what the Gautama did reach, and what you assume is emptiness, based on hearsay and 2) a person who is described in the Indian census as a Hindu and who is content to go to temples and ask for favours like his Buddhist counterpart in Thailand who burns incense at the shrine of either a Bodhisattva or Brahma.
I would rather not laugh at the difficulty of an average seeker in the course of one lifetime. I would assume that every human being is an individual seeker, sometimes guided by a Guru whose path seems to fit his search mode.
I would assume too that some aspect of truth invariably reaches him, as he seeks. His journey is not complete till he is liberated, after which he is most probably not available to the rest of us to tell us what it is like. This situation can tempt some to go the easy way of suspending seeking. Some others find comfort in a Master's teaching, and keep seeking, while being aligned to the Master and could be on realization and liberation paths. Very much as you seem to have chosen, dear Mogambo.
Regards. Partha

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by mogambo, 2009-05-13 16:56:33

dear gangp

pls see mogambos comments:

Firstly no Hindu worships an idol! Only Brahman is worshipped! There are no idolators among Hindus!

then what are those statues we see in temples? are they not idols of deities?
are the deities resident inside of these statues? if not, do they come down into these statues while the worship offers his or her prayers?

Secondly those who worship Brahman as a Deity do not want to realize the Impersonalistic Brahman. Just ask Vaishnavas. Vaishnavas find the whole concept of realizing Impersonalistic Brahman as revolting and will not want to realize Brahman. It is not a matter of Advaita Vedanta making concessions to those who want to stop at the level of Deities. Those who are Bhaktas will not go beyond that! More important they do not have to realize Impersonalistic Brahman if they don't want to. Brahman makes special arrangement for these type of people.

mogambo has come across such vaishnavas who vehemently disagree with the premise of advaita stating that it is erroneous and that the only true salvation comes in the form of krishna or vishnu

Thirdly Buddhists claim that emptiness is the Ultimate Reality just as Advaita Vedanta claims that Impersonalistic Vedanta is the Ultimate Reality. So one can't say that Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are different things since both aim for an ultimate reality. I will admit that they use different terminology for the Ultimate Reality.

is the nature of this ultimate reality the same in both cases? or is the buddhist ultimate reality different than the hindu "ultimate" reality?

Fourthly it is a matter of debate whether a succesful deity worshipper only experiences beatific feelings while worshipping his or her idol of choice. Also, a Deity worshipper does not worship an idol, which would be a total waste of time, but worships a particular form of Brahman.

when you see swells of people thronging lines in temples, are they going to worship a particular form of brahman or seeking to ask for favours from their deity of choice (or circumstance)?

Finally, I would like to say that Sri Ramakrishna used to say that a cake whether tasted upside down or rightside up would taste sweet. So a devotee who stops at the level of a Deity (i.e. Brahman with form) or an Advaita Vedantist who has realized Impersonalistic Brahman will both enjoy endless bliss. So where is the question of superiority or inferiority?

if the "ultimateness" of the reality that each of these traditions is different, then of course one would have to qualify which of them is the "better" ultimate reality, right? Because if it were ultimate, would it not be logically concluded that they are both the same?

The buddhists dont seem to think so. why?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Answers to Mogambo's only question and comment on Mogambo's comments!
written by gangp, 2009-05-13 13:10:18

mogambo will ask only one question:

[[[if hinduism ie advaita vedanta is the same as buddhism then why the need for both? why not only one?]]]

Answer:

This is a question at the level of intellect. Both the Buddhist and the Advaita Vedantist are interested in either meditation (if Buddhist) or finding out about the nature of their "I" (if Advaita Vedantist).These two different methods suggest that there is need for both.

[[[if mogambo understands the problem correctly, buddhists consider advaita vedanta to be inferior due to following:
advaita makes concessions for those who want to hold on to idolatry and will stop at that level
in other words, advaita will say to a deity worshipper that "it is okay for you to worship your deity since it is a way to get to unadulterated brahman and you will one day get to realise brahman"
advaita is polymorphic since it means different things to different people with different aspirations
buddhism is not advaita vedanta because of these reasons as buddists hold their highest goal as realisation of emptiness and all other states are insufficient and inconsequential
the buddist will continue seeking till emptiness is reached
the hindu will most probably stop at the level of beatific feelings while worshipping his or her idol of choice ]]]

COMMENTS:

There are several problems with this description:

Firstly no Hindu worships an idol! Only Brahman is worshipped! There are no idolators among Hindus!

Secondly those who worship Brahman as a Deity do not want to realize the Impersonalistic Brahman. Just ask Vaishnavas. Vaishnavas find the whole concept of realizing Impersonalistic Brahman as revolting and will not want to realize Brahman. It is not a matter of Advaita Vedanta making concessions to those who want to stop at the level of Deities. Those who are Bhaktas will not go beyond that! More important they do not have to realize Impersonalistic Brahman if they don't want to. Brahman makes special arrangement for these type of people.

Thirdly Buddhists claim that emptiness is the Ultimate Reality just as Advaita Vedanta claims that Impersonalistic Vedanta is the Ultimate Reality. So one can't say that Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are different things since both aim for an ultimate reality. I will admit that they use different terminology for the Ultimate Reality.

Fourthly it is a matter of debate whether a succesful deity worshipper only experiences beatific feelings while worshipping his or her idol of choice. Also, a Deity worshipper does not worship an idol, which would be a total waste of time, but worships a particular form of Brahman.

Finally, I would like to say that Sri Ramakrishna used to say that a cake whether tasted upside down or rightside up would taste sweet. So a devotee who stops at the level of a Deity (i.e. Brahman with form) or an Advaita Vedantist who has realized Impersonalistic Brahman will both enjoy endless bliss. So where is the question of superiority or inferiority?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

marketplace
written by mogambo, 2009-05-13 11:57:44

Multiple choice among things which are only marginally different in some or several aspects seems to be the very essence of existence. Multiple choice makes the shelves in supermarkets interesting. Why not live with it also in matters religious? Even in regard to modern Buddhism and modern Advaita, do you honestly believe that Gautama the Buddha and Adi Sankara would be able to recognize them?

dear partha

mogambo would like to repeat his question:

the buddist will continue seeking till emptiness is reached
the hindu will most probably stop at the level of beatific feelings while worshipping his or her idol of choice

does this not lend to hindu advaita a limitation? in that the practitioner would be susceptible to stopping at a certain level of accomplishment based on incomplete articulation of the ultimate end-state?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

multiple choice
written by partha, 2009-05-11 19:39:53

Dear Mogambo,
Multiple choice among things which are only marginally different in some or several aspects seems to be the very essence of existence. Multiple choice makes the shelves in supermarkets interesting. Why not live with it also in matters religious? Even in regard to modern Buddhism and modern Advaita, do you honestly believe that Gautama the Buddha and Adi Sankara would be able to recognize them?
Regards. Partha.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

The need to differentiate
written by mogambo, 2009-05-11 08:01:03

mogambo read the article and the discussion mentioned in it (at the taobum site)

mogambo will ask only one question:

if hinduism ie advaita vedanta is the same as buddhism then why the need for both? why not only one?

if mogambo understands the problem correctly, buddhists consider advaita vedanta to be inferior due to following:

advaita makes concessions for those who want to hold on to idolatry and will stop at that level
in other words, advaita will say to a deity worshipper that "it is okay for you to worship your deity since it is a way to get to unadulterated brahman and you will one day get to realise brahman"

advaita is polymorphic since it means different things to different people with different aspirations

buddhism is not advaita vedanta because of these reasons as buddists hold their highest goal as realisation of emptiness and all other states are insufficient and inconsequential
the buddist will continue seeking till emptiness is reached
the hindu will most probably stop at the level of beatific feelings while worshipping his or her idol of choice

• 
• +0
• 
•