Rachmiel wrote:Once again, I am reminded of Brahman -- unchanging, eternal -- and Brahman is the main reason I moved away from Advaita!
A couple of quotes on the distinction between Buddhist and Hindu non-dualism (advaya and advaita).
Advaya is knowledge free from the duality of the extremes (antas or dristis) of ‘is’ and ‘is not’, ‘being’ and ‘becoming’ etc. It is knowledge freed of conceptual distinctions. Advaita is knowledge of a differenceless entity: Brahman (Pure Being) or Vijñana (Pure consciousness).
...
The (Buddhist) Advaya is purely an epistemological approach; the (Hindu) advaita is ontological. The sole concern of the Madhyamaka advaya-vada is the purification of the faculty of knowing. The primordial error consists in the intellect being infected by the inveterate tendency to view Reality as identity or difference, permanent or momentary, one or many etc. These views falsify Reality, and the dialectic administers a cathartic corrective. With the purification of the intellect, Intuition (prajña) emerges; the Real is known as it is, as Tathata or bhutakoti. The emphasis is on the correct attitude of our knowing and not on the known..
From T.R.V. Murti
The Central Philosophy of Buddhism.
Difference between Advaya and advaita
Although both Jnana (i.e. 'wisdom') are called non-dual, here too they mean two different
things. Non-dual (advaita) in the Hindu context means (divitiyam nasti).
There is no second substance except the Brahman is the only thing that
exists. This should be called Monism rather than Non-dualism....
However Buddhism usually uses advaya and
here it means 'not two' i.e. free from the two extremes (skt. dvaya anta
mukta) of samaropa (the tendency to see things as really existing) and
apavada (the tendency to see things as non-existing). Which would include
the existence of the grahaka and grahya too. Advaya is not of a thing (the
one and only thing) like Brahma but a description of the Svarupa of
samsara. That is why the samsara which is like illusion transforms into
Advaya Jnana in Buddhism whereas in Hinduism the illusory samsara vanishes
and the true eternal unchanging Brahman dawns.
The Dawn of Tantra; Herbert V. Guenther, Chogyam Trungpa; ed. Michael Kohn, illustrated Glen Eddy and Terris Temple; The Clear Light Series; Shambala; Berkley & London; 1975
Guenther: The term advaita, as we use it, stems from Shankara's Vedanta. The Buddhists never used this term, but used rather the term advaya. Advaya means "not-two"; advaita means "one without a second." The conception of "one without a second" puts us at once into the realm of dualistic fictions. Rather than remaining in immediate experience, with the idea of "one" we posit a definite object. This would then necessarily be over against a definite subject, which is the implication Shankara wanted to deny with the "without a second." By saying "not-two" you remain on solid ground, because "not-two" does not mean "one." That conclusion does not follow.
In the works of Saraha and other Buddhist teachers, it is said that it is impossible to say "one" without prejudgment of experience. But Shankara and his followers were forced by the scriptural authority of the Vedas to posit this One and so were then forced to add the idea "without a second." What they wanted to say was that only Atman is real. Now the logic of their position should force them to then say that everything else is unreal. But Shankara himself is not clear on this point. He re-introduced the idea of illusion which had previously been rejected by him. Now if only Atman is real, then even illusion apart from it is impossible. But he was forced into accepting the idea of illusion. So he was forced into a philosophical position which, if it were to be expressed in a mathematical formula, would make absolute nonsense. So intellectually, in this way, it could be said that the Vedanta is nonsense.
From
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 6&start=80" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
