Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality

[Karma Dorje]

Discussing differences in philosophy (from my detached western standpoint admittedly) doesn't seem like chauvinism. This is a Buddhist board after all, it would be weirder to simply see everyone saying "naw they're really the same".

I don't really understand how what he said is particularly offensive. From what i've learned it's mostly true, people adhering exclusively to Zhentong in Buddhism seem fairly rare unless i'm missing something..Everything i've read up to this point qualifies it with the other schools views.

Not sure why you have the idea that shentong is a rarity. The only exclusive rangtongpas are some Sakya scholars and the Gelukpa. The Kagyu schools all teach shentong, some prominent Sakya teachers, the Jonangpa you already know about and many important Nyingma lamas (including Mipham). Nobody "adheres exclusively" to shentong. Shentong is only useful in contradistinction to rangtong to clarify a certain kind of mistake in contemplation. Tenet systems are not the ultimate goal-- they are merely an expedient means to clarify one's confusion in meditation.

Shentong is merely another name for a Yogacara viewpoint that is compatible with Madhyamaka.

[Johnny Dangerous]

The point was that he made sweeping statements in a conversational adversarial tone, speakinf with authority. Of course this is a Buddhist board, and the philosophies are different, but for a born-Hindu to say what all Buddhists believe isn't much different, imo, than HHDL saying what all Hindus believe. It was the tone and element of disdain that I found, perhaps not offensive, but unwarranted. Again, I'm not trying to sell any form of Advaita (there are several); I'm simply responding to and participating in the thread with what I know.

Well I think he's correct in terms of historical doctrine though (unless someone wants to correct that), which is really all you can discuss, since we can't know what every single Hindu or Buddhist believes.Everything I have read on Zhentong philosophy is always qualified by the other schools of thought, and an *exclusive* adherence to Zhentong would be the closest thing in Buddhism to Advaita..just saying.

[LastLegend]

So Hinduism and Buddhism teach the same thing now?

[Johnny Dangerous]

Discussing differences in philosophy (from my detached western standpoint admittedly) doesn't seem like chauvinism. This is a Buddhist board after all, it would be weirder to simply see everyone saying "naw they're really the same".

I don't really understand how what he said is particularly offensive. From what i've learned it's mostly true, people adhering exclusively to Zhentong in Buddhism seem fairly rare unless i'm missing something..Everything i've read up to this point qualifies it with the other schools views.

Not sure why you have the idea that shentong is a rarity. The only exclusive rangtongpas are some Sakya scholars and the Gelukpa. The Kagyu schools all teach shentong, some prominent Sakya teachers, the Jonangpa you already know about and many important Nyingma lamas (including Mipham). Nobody "adheres exclusively" to shentong. Shentong is only useful in contradistinction to rangtong to clarify a certain kind of mistake in contemplation. Tenet systems are not the ultimate goal-- they are merely an expedient means to clarify one's confusion in meditation.

Shentong is merely another name for a Yogacara viewpoint that is compatible with Madhyamaka.

Didn't say it was a rarity, said it seemed to be a rarity when presented as exclusive- which is where it would be seemingly be the same as Advaita, if you have an explanation to the contrary i'm glad to listen though, still trying to hash all this out myself.

[Jainarayan]

we can't know what every single Hindu or Buddhist believes.

That's really the point... there was a definite Hindu chauvinism at play.

[Jainarayan]

So Hinduism and Buddhism teach the same thing now?

Where was that said or implied? Of course they don't teach the same thing, but they have a common root and common elements below the surface. Do Zen, Mahayana, Theravada, Nichiren and any other subschools all teach the same things? Of course not, but they all have a common root, so naturally some elements are the same.

[LastLegend]

Like Tao, Brahman, emptiness, etc? Okie dokie I can live with that.

[Simon E.]

So Hinduism and Buddhism teach the same thing now?

Where was that said or implied? Of course they don't teach the same thing, but they have a common root and common elements below the surface. Do Zen, Mahayana, Theravada, Nichiren and any other subschools all teach the same things? Of course not, but they all have a common root, so naturally some elements are the same.

The various Buddhist schools that you name differ in their means..do they differ in their ends ?
And are those ends the same as the ends of Advaita ?

[Karma Dorje]

Didn't say it was a rarity, said it seemed to be a rarity when presented as exclusive- which is where it would be seemingly be the same as Advaita, if you have an explanation to the contrary i'm glad to listen though, still trying to hash all this out myself.

The whole methodology of neti, neti in Advaita sadhana is the same as vipassana: negate that which presents itself as existent in terms of the tetralemma. I would encourage you to read texts like the Ashtavakra Gita or Avadhuta Gita. Put them against the kind of upadesha that they are similar to, such as Mahamudra Gangama, the Doha Kosha, Nang jang, etc.

I have yet to find anyone with a monopoly on the truth.

[Jainarayan]

Like Tao, Brahman, emptiness, etc? Okie dokie I can live with that.

Is emptiness the absence of inherent existence and the illusory ego-self?

Which does that refer to... Buddhism or Hinduism?

[Jainarayan]

The various Buddhist schools that you name differ in their means..do they differ in their ends ?
And are those ends the same as the ends of Advaita ?

The goal of Advaita is enlightenment, and liberation from samsara, ignorance and suffering.

Is any of this incorrect? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana

Nirvāṇa ... is an ancient Sanskrit term used in Indian religions to describe the profound peace of mind that is acquired with moksha (liberation). In shramanic thought, it is the state of being free from suffering. In Hindu philosophy, it is union with the Brahman (Supreme Being).

...

Nirvāṇa is the soteriological goal within the Indian religions, Hinduism,[7][8] Jainism,[9] Buddhism,[8][10] and Sikhism.[11] It is synonymous with the concept of liberation (moksha) which refers to release from a state of suffering after an often lengthy period of committed spiritual practice. ... In general terms nirvāṇa is a state of transcendence (Pali: lokuttara) involving the subjective experience of release from a prior state of bondage. This is the result of a natural re-ordering of the mind and body via means of yogic discipline or sadhana. According to the particular tradition, with the experience of nirvāṇa the mind (Buddhism) or soul (Jainism) or spirit (Hinduism) has ended its identity with material phenomena and experiences a sense of great peace and a unique form of awareness or intelligence that is called bodhi in Buddhism, Kevala Jnana in Jainism, kaivalya (Asamprajnata Samadhi) in Yoga.

My note: the term "Supreme Being" should not have been used. Brahman is not a "being", but a state, which is also an gross over-simplification and description for the ineffable.

[LastLegend]

Looks like a "sticky" situation.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Didn't say it was a rarity, said it seemed to be a rarity when presented as exclusive- which is where it would be seemingly be the same as Advaita, if you have an explanation to the contrary i'm glad to listen though, still trying to hash all this out myself.

The whole methodology of neti, neti in Advaita sadhana is the same as vipassana: negate that which presents itself as existent in terms of the tetralemma. I would encourage you to read texts like the Ashtavakra Gita or Avadhuta Gita. Put them against the kind of upadesha that they are similar to, such as Mahamudra Gangama, the Doha Kosha, Nang jang, etc.

I have yet to find anyone with a monopoly on the truth.

We are just talking philosophy, specifically i'm just trying to figure out some of this for myself...i' not here to argue for something being more correct than something else, if that's how it comes off. I'm also pleased that there are non-buddhists here discussing it. I'll take up the reading suggestions though, thanks...looks like at least some of em exist as free PDFs!!

[Jainarayan]

Looks like a "sticky" situation.

Indeed. That's why it's been bandied about, debated, argued, commentated, written about and batted around for milennia by theologians of all the Indian religions, and is the basis of the plethora of beliefs and schools. When it comes right down to it, we won't know what the truth is until we get there. All we have is our own individual beliefs which appeal to us (which for me is an amalgam and syncretism that I feel works), and cannot be proven because they are just that... beliefs. Moreover, another famous teacher/yogi said "Worrying about it will not make one hair on your head white or black".

[Grigoris]

Is emptiness the absence of inherent existence and the illusory ego-self?

Which does that refer to... Buddhism or Hinduism?

Depends on what you posit after this point. Most forms of Buddhism and some forms of Hindusim do run parallel up to a certain point, but then tend to diverge from the abovementioned point and forth. Yes there are similarities, but (let's not kid ourselves) there are differences too.

[Karma Dorje]

We are just talking philosophy, specifically i'm just trying to figure out some of this for myself...i' not here to argue for something being more correct than something else, if that's how it comes off. I'm also pleased that there are non-buddhists here discussing it. I'll take up the reading suggestions though, thanks...looks like at least some of em exist as free PDFs!!

If you are looking online for translations, I recommend Byrom:

http://bhagavan-ramana.org/ashtavakragita2.html

[Jainarayan]

Is emptiness the absence of inherent existence and the illusory ego-self?

Which does that refer to... Buddhism or Hinduism?

Depends on what you posit after this point. Most forms of Buddhism and some forms of Hindusim do run parallel up to a certain point, but then tend to diverge from the abovementioned point and forth. Yes there are similarities, but (let's not kid ourselves) there are differences too.

And that's exactly the parallel I was trying to get at. While Hinduism does have two levels of self, which I've pointed out previously, I don't know if Buddhism dropped the permanent Self, or Hinduism added it in addition to the transient ego-self of the phenomenal universe. I also said previously that Shankara, who lived in the 8th and 9th centuries CE and was a proponent, though not the founder, of Advaita, was said to have been heavily influenced by Mahayana, which I believe was already widespread if I'm not mistaken. Did he add the Self to counter claims he was really a Buddhist and made it up as he went along? Though one of the Upanishads, and I'm ashamed to say I don't remember which one, speaks of the Atman and atman, permanent and non-permanent ego selves, respectively. The Upanishads were written over the course of what, 1,000 years? Even into the Middle Ages, so I don't know when that particular writing occurred. I'd have to look it up. Hinduism unquestionably has the same concept of self that Buddhism has at the level of non-permanence, but there's no question that there are differences. If there weren't, they would be the same philosophy and religion. This whole subject is not unlike the divergence of Sanskrit into Pali, Hindi, Bengali, Gujarati. They all have the same roots and a certain amount of mutual intelligibility, i.e. parallels, but they are unquestionably diverged. The Indian religions are no different.

[Grigoris]

There are some schools of Budhism that subscribe to the two levels of self but they are few and considered rather controversial.

[greentara]

karma dorje, "The whole methodology of neti, neti in Advaita sadhana is the same as vipassana: negate that which presents itself as existent in terms of the tetralemma. I would encourage you to read texts like the Ashtavakra Gita or Avadhuta Gita. Put them against the kind of upadesha that they are similar to, such as Mahamudra Gangama, the Doha Kosha, Nang jang, etc.
I have yet to find anyone with a monopoly on the truth"


Yes everyone should read Avadhuta gita and Rhibu gita. I agree neti neti is part of Advaita Sadhana but you forgot to mention self enquiry is of utmost importance.
Regarding Sankara. Some people harbour the thought that Sankara was instrumental in the philosophy of Advaita. On the contrary, I believe that he was enlightened and only then did he constuct and discuss 'Advaita' Only after, not before!
It's really like putting the cart before the horse.

[Lotus_Bitch]

The whole methodology of neti, neti in Advaita sadhana is the same as vipassana: negate that which presents itself as existent in terms of the tetralemma. I would encourage you to read texts like the Ashtavakra Gita or Avadhuta Gita. Put them against the kind of upadesha that they are similar to, such as Mahamudra Gangama, the Doha Kosha, Nang jang, etc.

I have yet to find anyone with a monopoly on the truth.

Actually, the whole framework and path that vipassana is based off of, is the 4-noble truths and 8-fold noble path. The basis of the technique is to recognize the 3 characteristics in all experiences (both the physical and metaphysical.)

Whereas neti, neti is based off of a framework and path, that posits a formless Absolute (i.e consciousness) that is: Unchanging, eternal, and independent of the constant flux of objective phenomena (posited as the 'knower' or 'watcher' behind phenomena.)

'Dharma Dan' (aka. Daniel Ingram,) summarizes the differences here:

http://dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/d ... ge/3635659

Try this:

While there is any experience of any kind, there always appears to be a quality of cognizance, or so it seems.

In this way, you could say that every time there is experience, there is this sense of presence, or consciousness, or awareness, or whatever, but notice how this statement is essentially saying that whenever there is experience, there is experience, or, in the same way, it is like saying that every time there are sensations there are sensations.

If we view the world one way, the way in which it appears that some sensations cognize other sensations, then it seems that there is a separate cognizance, or consciousness, or awareness, or experiencer, or watcher, or whatever.

When we see those sensations all more clearly, or more properly they just get more clear themselves somehow, the thing flips around, and now there seem to be only sensations themselves with no knower, no experiencer, no awareness, no attention that is different from those bare sensations themselves.

In the first mode, as every time there is experience there seems to be an experiencer, then it appears that there is something permanently there that is experiencing, cognizing, perceiving, conscious of, etc.

In the second mode, it still has some quality that is essentially the same, but the difference is that it seems to be intrinsic in sensations, or is just the sensations, by the very nature of sensations seeming to have been sensed, but in reality they are more fundamentally just themselves than that, with no sensor or knower at all, and yet, whenever there is the sense world obviously there is the sense world, and this gives a sense of this aspect of things being perpetual in some way, though more properly it is a redundancy to say this, an extra thing not needed at this point at all.

Daniel

Please refer to my posts on pg. 6 of this thread, to see how this relates with the suttas.

As for what Buddha said regarding self-inquiry:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'

"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

"The well-instructed disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — discerns what ideas are fit for attention and what ideas are unfit for attention. This being so, he does not attend to ideas unfit for attention and attends [instead] to ideas fit for attention.

"And what are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality increases; the unarisen fermentation of becoming arises in him, and arisen fermentation of becoming increases; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance arises in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance increases. These are the ideas unfit for attention that he does not attend to.

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.