Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality

[haha]

Is there a Buddhist equivalent to Advaita's pure awareness / brahman?

Vedantic texts assert that when one negates all non-self, one reaches to point where one cannot negate. In other word, you cannot negate the Withness or Pure Consciousness at the end. There are some further arguments against buddist views of momentariness on Upadeshasahasri.

Now, there are Buddhist masters and texts that talk about mind essence or self-existing wakefulness (Rangjung Yeshe). If one cannot distinguish between these two (i.e. Withness and self-existing wakefulness), one will definitely dwell in the middle of both assertions for a long time.

It seems you are following Advaita Vedanta. Following video may interest you as the spoke is person using Upanisadhis pointing out method and he is very clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usu_cLGXLg4

[muni]

Interesting share, Haha. He talks about form is emptiness-emptiness is form. Or dependence-emptiness to avoid the extremes of absolutism-nihilism. Perception is dependent:

Clarifying two truths Lotsawa:

... appearances are regarded as inherently real and are perceived with grasping.

...appearances are realized to be deceptive and are perceived without any grasping.

...there are no ordinary appearances or non-appearances whatsoever, and any concerns about grasping or non-grasping no longer applies.

Then,

“Someone who looks for me in form
or seeks me in sound
is on a mistaken path
and cannot see the Tathagata.”

Even beings are not denied, in order to help, and even emptiness-form/form emptiness is not two/not different, thinking creates-causes "solid form/beings".

[haha]

@ muni
While posting, I did not remember that. But what I remembered was that the spoke person was using upanisadhic teachings(at least two) to explain non-duality.
They may talks about form is emptiness-emptiness is form. But their explanation will never fit with Pratityasamutpada.
I will prefer Madhupindika Sutta:

"Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

[Simon E.]

@ muni
While posting, I did not remember that. But what I remembered was that the spoke person was using upanisadhic teachings(at least two) to explain non-duality.
They may talks about form is emptiness-emptiness is form. But their explanation will never fit with Pratityasamutpada.
I will prefer Madhupindika Sutta:

"Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

The Buddhist teaching on Emptiness is NOT that emptiness or form is 'not two'.
That is Advaita Vedanta.
The Buddhist teaching of Sunyata can only be understood on its own terms.
And will not be understood as long as it is compared to teachings which have a superficial resemblance.
The conflation of Vedanta with Buddhadharma is one of the most serious obstacles to the understanding of the Buddhas Dharma. All the more so because on the surface they can sound as though they are saying similar things.

[muni]

@ muni
While posting, I did not remember that. But what I remembered was that the spoke person was using upanisadhic teachings(at least two) to explain non-duality.
They may talks about form is emptiness-emptiness is form. But their explanation will never fit with Pratityasamutpada.
I will prefer Madhupindika Sutta:

"Now, when there is no eye, when there are no forms, when there is no eye-consciousness, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of contact. When there is no delineation of contact, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of feeling. When there is no delineation of feeling, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of perception. When there is no delineation of perception, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of thinking. When there is no delineation of thinking, it is impossible that one will delineate a delineation of being assailed by the perceptions & categories of objectification.

He said so about Buddhism; form-emptiness, emptiness-form. While that is easy to say, it depends of course, see the two truths.

Of course that sutta, wow!

“World-Honored One, if sons and daughters of good families want to give rise to the highest, most fulfilled, awakened mind, what should they rely on and what should they do to master their thinking?”

The Buddha said to Subhuti, “This is how the Bodhisattva Mahasattvas master their thinking: ‘However many species of living beings there are—whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they have perceptions or do not have perceptions; or whether it cannot be said of them that they have perceptions or that they do not have perceptions, we must lead all these beings to nirvana so that they can be liberated. Yet when this innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been liberated.’
“Why is this so? If, Subhuti, a bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, a person, a living being, or a life span exists, that person is not a true bodhisattva."

[Simon E.]

In order to understand the Buddhas teachings in general and on Sunyata, in particular, it is essential that one receives personal instruction from a bona fide teacher in a Buddhist lineage.
Relying on books or videos only is a recipe for subtle misunderstanding.

[Rick]

Vedantic texts assert that when one negates all non-self, one reaches to point where one cannot negate. In other word, you cannot negate the Withness or Pure Consciousness at the end.

Yes. I strongly prefer "Consciousness" to "Witness" because Witness implies (for me, in any case) that there is an agent *doing* something (witnessing) ... which of course is NOT the Advaitin view (at the paramarthika level).

There are some further arguments against buddist views of momentariness on Upadeshasahasri.

I'll check this out, thanks.

Now, there are Buddhist masters and texts that talk about mind essence or self-existing wakefulness (Rangjung Yeshe). If one cannot distinguish between these two (i.e. Withness and self-existing wakefulness), one will definitely dwell in the middle of both assertions for a long time.

This too.

It seems you are following Advaita Vedanta. Following video may interest you as the spoke is person using Upanisadhis pointing out method and he is very clear.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usu_cLGXLg4

And this!

[krodha]

Now, there are Buddhist masters and texts that talk about mind essence or self-existing wakefulness (Rangjung Yeshe). If one cannot distinguish between these two (i.e. Withness and self-existing wakefulness), one will definitely dwell in the middle of both assertions for a long time.

“Self-existing wakefulness” is a very misleading gloss of rang byung ye shes.

Rangjung means “self-arising” or “self-originated” in the sense of coming from your own mind or consciousness, and not somewhere else. Your yeshe, manifests through insight into the nature of your own mind, it cannot be given to you by anyone else. That is the meaning of “rang byung.”

The term really has nothing to do with a self-existing wakefulness, despite the unfortunate prevalence of this translation, which undoubtedly causes much confusion.

[DharmaChakra]

In Advaita Vedanta, pure awareness (brahman) is considered to be the ultimate, unchanging, eternal substrate of reality.

In Buddhism, consciousness (vijnana) is considered to be one of the five skandhas, thus empty of independent existence.

My questions:

Are Advaita and Buddhism talking about the same thing here -- i.e. does pure awareness = vijnana -- but interpreting this thing radically differently?

Is there a Buddhist equivalent to Advaita's pure awareness / brahman? Is there any ultimate substrate/reality in Buddhism? Or does Buddhism see "what is" as just a buncha ever-changing impermanent stuff in a grand web of inter-dependence?

Thanks,

rachMiel

Namaste Rick,

To your original question. Firstly Brahman as per Advaita Vedanta cannot be conceptualized or named or brought into any idea. There is a way to understand how this works and is understood. It will depend on your understanding of Advaita Vedanta, there are many systems, the modern neo advaita is far from it.

Vijnana is not the same as Brahman vi is in insight or when mind turns inwards, to get experiential knowledge of what is Brahman, through vijnana, vijnana is indirect or state of consciousness when one acquires direct understanding/experience of the nature of brahma~Absolute Reality, indirect reflection on the nature of the Absolute, so vijnana is a prefix in technical terms to jnana or true nature of consciousness, vijnana precedes jnana, jnana is direct experience of Brahma, a Self Realized Rishi would be the pure brahma jnani. Jnana can also relate to wisdom, its related directly to sun, light joyti illumination, Sun is synonymous with Brahma. Pure awareness is a loose term, by that it would mean something closer to an unobstructed chitta chitta vritti nirodha~Patanjali Muni,nirodha samapatti pali 9th jhana , pure awareness is really a very vague term to put on any Sanskrit dharma equivalent. We could lightly conclude that vijnana is direct perception of ultimate reality, both mundane in the skandas and Absolute.

In terms of Etymology Tathagata is a complete way to fully describe Brahman. Tat is from the Upanishads tat, which is cit Absolute consciousness beyond all becoming, essence of Upanishads. agartha in sanskrit means one who has arrived at and gata and agata are also concealed in the compound as all pervasive or both here and there in transcendent but also appearing in the lokas. This is translation from Maha Thera Punnaji, I made the connection to Brahman, he translates Tathagata as one who has arrived at tat, tat is Brahman, he obviously hesitates to say at this moment due to certain climates.

In the pali suttas you will also find reference to Brahman in Kevatta sutta Buddha guides Kevatta through the inner cosmos and arrives back at Tathagata where he reveals or gives direct insight into Viññanam anidassanam~ signless, featureless consciousness. Its another synonym for Brahman. Tathagatha gave Viññanam vijnana to Kevatta the seeker on signless, featurless non conceptualized Absolute reality. Sign-less and featureless is just another name for nirguna or beyond all conditions who is described in Mandukya upanishad as acnitya, inconceivable. Neither the Buddha of the Pali suttas nor the Upanishadic rishi gave any description of Brahman, its ineffable, but not unknowable.

Its useless to compare one translated tradition against another, mainly because a lot were to written to oppose each other, by anthropomorphic monotheism and is corrupted by empirical study, Advaita Vedanta is also not whats considered as monism, thats also another anthropomorphic manmade theory, which distorts what is Advaita Vedanta .

Buddha~ Tathagata is the substratum, what it is nobody can truly define, especially with limited outward going senses and manas, which constantly measures. Intellect Buddhi is activated in prajna or sushupti which is the awakened state, arupa jhana in Abhidhamma and Mahayana in Mahayana traditions. Boddhisattvas are also descending, but its a good sentiment to have in the external outward going sadhana, but all external sadhanas have to end in pure and umoving perfect equanimity.

This may annoy some, but its time to catch up. Cant be learned through books, external guru can give some yukta or method and upaya skill for outside balancing of duality to bring one to equanimity, but to get real jnana, true buddhi it needs intermediate state in whatever way you want to call, its the dawn of realization and universal realm of dharma. When you come back ones individual yukta and dharma will be established.

Good luck

with metta

jai guru datta

[haha]

Rangjung means “self-arising” or “self-originated” in the sense of coming from your own mind or consciousness, and not somewhere else. Your yeshe, manifests through insight into the nature of your own mind, it cannot be given to you by anyone else. That is the meaning of “rang byung.”

The term really has nothing to do with a self-existing wakefulness, despite the unfortunate prevalence of this translation, which undoubtedly causes much confusion.

Thank you for the elaboration and it is now much clear. I believe intended meaning of this word is quite clear in Tulku Urgen Rinpoche's book.

It is helpful to understand these two aspects and what is pointed out in these two different traditions, especially for those who try to synthesize them. Just a simile, if one looks from the top they look similar, but if one looks from bottom, one will see incomparable different. If one had listened above posted linked, one could know the vedantic understanding on dreaming and deep sleep that really does not correspond to.There are many aspects of dreaming.

If someone holds a wrong view, there is no way to see dependent arising. As long as there is attachment to Self, or something permanent and everlasting, or in other word, there is subtle grasping, it is hard to see and hard to realize. I remember here Sakyamuni's first hesitation to teach.

Ariyapariyesana Sutta:
"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'

Nirodha samapatti is not the Nirvana. Nor it is accessible to those who still have fatters (especially satkaya dristi).

[muni]

If someone holds a wrong view, there is no way to see dependent arising. As long as there is attachment to Self, or something permanent and everlasting, or in other word, there is subtle grasping, it is hard to see and hard to realize.

Samsara? Since this is said to be temporary confusion by subject holding object, an opinion or subtle idea is a view, and each view is an object as well. This is what is meant with dualism right? Thanks for that, can certainly be very subtle.

May all be free.

[DharmaChakra]

Namaste,

atta is not the same as Atma Brahman, its why the early nikayas and abhidamma was put into Pali grammar because atta was not referring to the Self or Atma, atta is used in the context of self view or attached to the idea of self .


There seems to also be a misunderstanding in translation on the avastha or states/lokas in modern neo advaita and anthropomorphic interpretations on the avasthas. Vedanta or the general theme of texts and practices in the Indian born dharma traditions, always had union before 10th century.

The 3 states in modern advaita is described as such

Jagrat~ awakened state

Svapna, dreaming state

sushupti as deep sleep and dreamless state

Turiya the 4th is not a state , its transcendent not produced or effected by states.

Normal person thinks that Jagrat is the normal day to day condition, svapna is when one has a dream at night and sushupti is deep dreamless sleep that we experience when sleeping. This is very mundane and inaccurate way to describe the avastha's.

Jagrat is sense consciousness

Svapna is mind consciousness, mind has both inward and outgoing function, when it connects to the senses mind is outgoing, when mind is inward going it has ability to reflect, have ideas, day dream, meditate, night sleep dream and deep unconscious sleep. Svapna is the full function of mind.

Sushupti is the intermediate state, the real deep sleep between dawn and dusk, or middle way, the real awakened state, its not final stage, its pure awakened intermediate stage. Only known by experience, we can make some integration into mind and sense world because in sushupti subtle elements are configuring and unifying, nirguna is powering saguna. Internal shruti is sushupti or prajna state.

Turiya, cant be described, it needs the intermediate state to know it, due to outward going mind and senses lacking ability to know turiya by their own means.

3 lokas/spheres in Buddhism

kama loka, sense consciousness

rupa loka mind consciousness

arupa loka, formless, immaterial consciousness, absence of rupa and kama consciousness, mind and sense consciousness

Lokuttara~ world transcending

With Metta

jai mahakala

[florin]

Rangjung means “self-arising” or “self-originated” in the sense of coming from your own mind or consciousness, and not somewhere else. Your yeshe, manifests through insight into the nature of your own mind, it cannot be given to you by anyone else. That is the meaning of “rang byung.”

The term really has nothing to do with a self-existing wakefulness, despite the unfortunate prevalence of this translation, which undoubtedly causes much confusion.

I believe intended meaning of this word is quite clear in Tulku Urgen Rinpoche's book.

Yes indeed. The meaning is clear.
So is the meaning in the translated teachings of Chokyi Nyima Rinpoche, translated by EPK.

[Rick]

Namaste Rick,

Namaste DharmaChakra.

To your original question. Firstly Brahman as per Advaita Vedanta cannot be conceptualized or named or brought into any idea. There is a way to understand how this works and is understood. It will depend on your understanding of Advaita Vedanta, there are many systems, the modern neo advaita is far from it.

Yes.

Vijnana is not the same as Brahman vi is in insight or when mind turns inwards, to get experiential knowledge of what is Brahman, through vijnana, vijnana is indirect or state of consciousness when one acquires direct understanding/experience of the nature of brahma~Absolute Reality,

My understanding is that brahman cannot be directly experienced. "Direct experiences of brahman" are mithya, not paramartha satya. I guess you could make an argument for indirect experiences of brahman in the sense of everything (we experience) is, ultimately, brahman.

[Malcolm]

Namaste Rick,

Namaste DharmaChakra.

To your original question. Firstly Brahman as per Advaita Vedanta cannot be conceptualized or named or brought into any idea. There is a way to understand how this works and is understood. It will depend on your understanding of Advaita Vedanta, there are many systems, the modern neo advaita is far from it.

Yes.

Vijnana is not the same as Brahman vi is in insight or when mind turns inwards, to get experiential knowledge of what is Brahman, through vijnana, vijnana is indirect or state of consciousness when one acquires direct understanding/experience of the nature of brahma~Absolute Reality,

My understanding is that brahman cannot be directly experienced. "Direct experiences of brahman" are mithya, not paramartha satya. I guess you could make an argument for indirect experiences of brahman in the sense of everything (we experience) is, ultimately, brahman.

Then of what possible relevance would it be to liberation?

[Rick]

There's so much deeply impassioned fighting about Advaitin vs. Buddhist views. And within each tradition, there is so much infighting. And within each subtradition more fighting, sub-sub-tradition, all the way down to the individual, in whose mind the war rages on.

I guess it's in the nature of humans to defend, tooth and nail, what they believe in.

Once in a while someone appears who is open to the essential "truth" in all views ... and they are like a breath of bracing fresh air!

[Rick]

Then of what possible relevance would it be to liberation?

Enlightenment per Advaita is knowing, not experiencing.

Of course one could argue that "knowing" IS experiencing. But I don't think that's what Buddhists have in mind when they talk about experiencing.

[Malcolm]

There's so much deeply impassioned fighting about Advaitin vs. Buddhist views. And within each tradition, there is so much infighting. And within each subtradition more fighting, sub-sub-tradition, all the way down to the individual, in whose mind the war rages on.

I guess it's in the nature of humans to defend, tooth and nail, what they believe in.

Once in a while someone appears who is open to the essential "truth" in all views ... and they are like a breath of bracing fresh air!

The only essential truth is that all views are a source of faults.

[Malcolm]

Then of what possible relevance would it be to liberation?

Enlightenment per Advaita is knowing, not experiencing.

Of course one could argue that "knowing" IS experiencing. But I don't think that's what Buddhists have in mind when they talk about experiencing.

Knowing something one has not experienced is liking knowing there is sugar without having ever tasted it. That kind of knowledge is conceptual.

[Rick]

The only essential truth is that all views are a source of faults.

As I think you know, I agree with this.

But, unlike you (I think), I do not *know* if this (non-)view is right.

I talk a good emptiness game, but deep down there is tons of reification going on.