Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta -- Are they really that different? |
Written by Dwai Lahiri | |
Saturday, 02 May 2009 00:00 | |
I sometimes visit a website dedicated to my other passion, Taoism and Tai Chi, called "Tao Bums -- http://www.thetaobums.com". One day, I came across a discussion thread asking for suggestions for possible reading material on the matter of Non-Duality on the forum. With the best intentions in mind, I recommended reading Swami Vivekananda's "Vedanta -- The Voice of Freedom" and an excellent primer and introduction to Jnana Yoga by our on Dr. Ramakrishna Puligandla, suggesting that Advaita Vedanta is a really old school of Non-Dualism and the seeker would benefit from studying it/about it.What ensued was really interesting to me. Now, for the benefit of the Medhavis who are not familiar with Taobums, I must describe the site. The site was created for practitioners of Taoism and Taoist Arts, but also encompasses practitioners of Yoga and meditation ranging from our our Ashtanga to Buddhist (Tibetan and Zen) schools as well (throw on some practitioners of Ancient Egyptian systems and other New-agey traditions as well).There are some very interesting and enlightening discussions that usually are underway there, so what happened after my post really was a surprise.Here's the link to the discussion -- http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?showtopic=9681&st=0 The bone of contention was that some commentators on this thread seemed to think that Advaita Vedanta relies on a ground of Phenomenon to express and culminate the feeling of Non-Dualism. And Buddhism does not, since it considers the phenomenon to be Illusory. Further more, when I mentioned "Tat Tvam Asi" and "Aham Brahmasmi", it was indicated to be that these two statements are the root of ignorance in the "true" Non-Dualism, since they stop at the phenomenological level (or so I understood). Tat Tvam Asi -- YOu are ThatFurther more -- 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.At this point I introduced Gangp's excellent essay as a reference: 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).To which the response came -- the differences are very subtle, and very difficult to grasp for someone stuck in eternalist views
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). Trackback(0)
Comments (27)
1 2
Brahman
written by rmraju, 2009-05-05 08:28:47
Hi All,
In Buddhism truth is based on will power hence freedom of absolute is associated with dynamic form of non-dualism– an endless flow of momentary events where truth is emptiness. In Advaita Vedanta truth is obtained by going beyond mind- thought, feeling and will power. Hence the concept of Sat-Chida-Ananda-Brahman as propounded by Sankara in his Advaita (nondual) Vedanta is considered static. This static concept has been reframed by Sri Aurobindo as a dynamic process which he terms the "involution-evolution" of Existence- Consciousness Force-Bliss of Absolute Brahman. It is for these reasons Nirvana in Buddhism is a realization that there is no Self where as Advaita Vedanta moksha liberation, is the realization that individual self is same as universal Self. In Buddhism emptiness is like a series of sea-waves where as non-dual Brahman is like a tranquil ocean. I guess everything depends on one’s context and perspective. Both are valid it is up to individual what to select. One must exists even before asking what exists. It is for this reason in my view Brahman is logical choice. Regards, Rajendra Rajput Note: Following thesis concludes that “…Shankara is best characterized not as a Hindu thinker or a “crypto-Buddhist” but as an Upanishadic Indian philosopher.” SHANKARA: A HINDU REVIVALIST OR A CRYPTO BUDDHIST? by KENCHO TENZIN http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/avai...612_ma.pdf
No fears
written by partha, 2009-05-05 04:38:22
Dear friends,
There is no ambiguity in the definition of the nature and functions of Atma in Sri Bhagavadgita, and the thoughts of the Gita, in some form, must definitely have predated Sakya Muni. Adi Sankara specifically talks about human ego in his Vivekachoodamani. Slokas 103 to 105 have been translated by Sri Chinmayananda thus: The inner equipment (antahkaranam) has its seat of expression in the sense organs such as the eye etc. Identifying with them, it exists, clothed in just the reflection of the Atman.....103. 'Know that it is the ego which, identifying with the body, becomes the doer or the experiencer, and in union with the Gunas, such as Sattva, the ego assumes the three different states of waking, dreaming and deep sleep'...104 When the sense objects are conducive, the situation (of the ego) is happy. When they are not conducive, it is miserable. Happiness and misery are, therefore the dharmas of the ego and do not belong to the Atman,which is ever blissful. Adi Sankara conveys only time honoured Vedantic thoughts in Viveka choodamani, of course in his own words. Identification of Atman with ego is definitely not a Vedantic idea. Regards. Partha
Something strange hanges over Buddhist debate!
written by gangp, 2009-05-04 12:22:16
Dear Dwai,
All Buddhists claim that the Atman is ego and criticize Vedanta on that basis. I have pointed out to them that Atman is not the ego but it does not seem to affect their position! Is it possible that during Buddha's time some Hindus felt that the Atman is ego and this has led to this confusion? Regards Pradipda
Linguistic gymnastics!
written by gangp, 2009-05-04 08:32:16
Dear Dwai,
There is an issue of language here. According to Buddhists, Atman is the ego. Thus both the Atman and Brahman are the level of phenomena. Anatta is the non-ego. Of course, according to Advaita Vedanta, Atman is the same as Brahman and is not the ego but the Ultimate Reality. So nether the Atman nor the Brahman are at the level of phenomena. The buddhist accusation of eternalism implies that Advaita Vedanta is saying the Brahman as a phenomenon is eternal. That is of course what Advaita Vedanta is NOT saying! Brahman is eternal but is not a phenomenon. There is also something contradictory about Buddhist description of Shunyata. Buddhists say that Shunyata 'is not a ground, but a pointing towards the true nature of reality free of conceptual limitation'. Then again Mahayana believes that the comprehension of sunyata, emptiness, directs one’s compassionate action appropriately and effectively, thus leading one to the attainment of Buddhahood. If Shunyata is free of conceptual limitation, then how can one say that 'the comprehension of sunyata, emptiness, directs one’s compassionate action appropriately and effectively, thus leading one to the attainment of Buddhahood.'? Can one comprehend something that is free of all conceptual limitations? Brahman like Shunyata can not be expressed in words. Sri Ramakrishna says, 'What Brahman is cannot be described. All things in the world - the Vedas, the Puranas, the Tantras, the six systems of philosophy - have been defiled, like food that has been touched by the tongue. Only one thing has not been defiled in this way, and that is Brahman. No one has ever been able to say what Brahman is.' Brahman is silence, according to Samkara. "'Sir,' said a student to his master, 'teach me the nature of Brahman.' The master did not reply. When he was asked a second and a third time, he replied: "I teach you, but you do not listen. His name is silence.'" All this suggests that whatever Buddhists may say, Shunyata is the Ultimate Reality realizing which one becomes a Buddha. Shunyata itself can not be described. Similarly Brahman is silence and can not be described. However, Brahman can be realized. Neither Shunyata nor Brahman can be conceptualized. All the talk of Brahman being the ground is to help the beginner. Shankara himself admits that Brahman is SILENCE. Regards Pradip da 1 2
Write comment
|
|
Last Updated on Wednesday, 20 May 2009 20:27 |
dissertation.
There is great poise and balance in his views on advaita and mahayana, helped no doubt by his background, which I looked up.
A former monk who worked close enough to Dalai Lama, and a devoted researcher in comparative religious studies, now a Professor. The contribution to his thinking from his Hindu wife and father in law could be significant too. Thanks, once again.
Regards. Partha