Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
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
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
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
1, Advaita thinks consciousness (vijnana) is/has an eternal part. Buddhism refutes it.rachmiel wrote: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?
2. No, otherwise they'd be the same doctrine using different words.
3. Buddhism teaches interdependence.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Nakamura notes that Buddhist Vijñânavâdins called themselves Advitavâdinah. He said the word advaita existed before Sankara (cp. Nakamura, A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, p. 119).
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Thanks for the response, Astus. Coupla followup questions.Astus wrote:rachmiel wrote: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?
I'm not sure what you mean. Advaita does not think *anything* ultimately is/has parts. There is only brahman ... which, depending on frame of reference, is called Self (atman), God (Ishvara), pure awareness, etc. So what exactly does Buddhism refute?1, Advaita thinks consciousness (vijnana) is/has an eternal part. Buddhism refutes it.
So there is no ultimate substrate/reality in Buddhism? Awareness -- pure (object-less) or impure (subject/object) -- is just a skandha, hence empty (no independent existence)?2. No, otherwise they'd be the same doctrine using different words.
3. Buddhism teaches interdependence.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
A-dvaita just means: not two. Right?songhill wrote:Nakamura notes that Buddhist Vijñânavâdins called themselves Advitavâdinah. He said the word advaita existed before Sankara (cp. Nakamura, A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, p. 119).
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
You could say non-dualistic monism.rachmiel wrote:A-dvaita just means: not two. Right?songhill wrote:Nakamura notes that Buddhist Vijñânavâdins called themselves Advitavâdinah. He said the word advaita existed before Sankara (cp. Nakamura, A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, p. 119).
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
We can only talk by conventional drawings which can differ a lot. Interdependent phenomena are not different from empty spaciousness at all and therefore they can be called illusory since they are minds' reflections.rachmiel wrote: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
Form (dependency) - emptiness, emptiness - form (dependency)
Only "views" can be compared. But in nondual awareness/nature like it appears and is, is no view, and therefore no comparision and no levels, no impartiality, no name calling and so on since that is grasping conceptual mind only.
With respect.
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Advaita teaches "oneness" which can be described as interdependence.Astus wrote:
3. Buddhism teaches interdependence.
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Consciousness is permanent/eternal and Buddhism does not refute this. Advaita and Buddhism are the same teachings when understood(practically experienced) correctly.Astus wrote: Advaita thinks consciousness (vijnana) is/has an eternal part. Buddhism refutes it.
rachMiel,
bodhicitta= pure awareness= brahman, but what you are suggesting scares the crap out of those who hang on to their religious beliefs to tightly.
- Jainarayan
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:23 am
- Location: New Jersey, USA
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Indeed. There is Saguna Brahman, Brahman with attributes. Under the veil of maya this becomes Ishvara, God. Nirguna Brahman is Brahman without attributes, the formless, attributeless ground of all being, pure awareness. The Self (capital S) is Brahman; the self (small s) is the illusion, the ego, the I. When the self realizes there is no I and that it is Self, i.e. Brahman, then comes moksha. The self is technically sunyata, it does not exist in and of itself. It has no inherent existence. It's an illusion.rachmiel wrote: There is only brahman ... which, depending on frame of reference, is called Self (atman), God (Ishvara), pure awareness, etc.
ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
oṃ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
oṃ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17100
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
You can't name, describe, or depict anything outside of interdependence, this is "everything", if there is something outside of it, certainly by naming and categorizing it, it is nothing like what you think, and is now part of interdependence by the very act of your naming and conceptualizing. To me that's the Buddhist take on the question, and the reason for the suspicion toward ontological thought in general. As evidenced by half the conversations on this board though..there is a wide range of disagreement on whether there is 'eternal self' in Buddhism, so look around.
Last edited by Johnny Dangerous on Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
- Jainarayan
- Posts: 304
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2012 2:23 am
- Location: New Jersey, USA
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Yes, Advaita as a concept existed way before Shankara. Shankara propounded it, brought it to light and taught it.songhill wrote: He said the word advaita existed before Sankara (cp. Nakamura, A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy, p. 119).
ॐ नमो भगवते वासुदेवाय
oṃ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
oṃ namo bhagavate vāsudevāya
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
What I mean is that Advaita believes that there is an ultimate consciousness, but it is actually mistaking consciousness, certain forms of consciousness, to be something ultimate. For instance, in the Brahmajala Sutta (DN 1) the Buddha explains several forms of mistaking different meditative experiences as the ultimate reality.rachmiel wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. Advaita does not think *anything* ultimately is/has parts. There is only brahman ... which, depending on frame of reference, is called Self (atman), God (Ishvara), pure awareness, etc. So what exactly does Buddhism refute?
So there is no ultimate substrate/reality in Buddhism? Awareness -- pure (object-less) or impure (subject/object) -- is just a skandha, hence empty (no independent existence)?
An objectless consciousness is not possible (what is it conscious of without an object?). And yes, consciousness is an aggregate. Aggregate simply means a category of phenomena, not a unitary thing. Consciousness is always momentary (see: SN 12.61).
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Oneness means that everything has the same substance. Buddhism teaches that everything is without substance (nihsvabhava = empty) and dependently originated.Jeff wrote:Advaita teaches "oneness" which can be described as interdependence.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
You are not taking into consideration the ultimate reality and how this statement rings true in the unmanifested(formless).Astus wrote: Oneness means that everything has the same substance.
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Something eternal cannot change. A consciousness that cannot be conscious of anything new means a frozen consciousness. What is the use of such a thing?lowlydog wrote:Consciousness is permanent/eternal and Buddhism does not refute this. Advaita and Buddhism are the same teachings when understood(practically experienced) correctly.
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
The ultimate truth in Buddhism is emptiness. The formless realms are just samsara.lowlydog wrote:You are not taking into consideration the ultimate reality and how this statement rings true in the unmanifested(formless).
1 Myriad dharmas are only mind.
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Mind is unobtainable.
What is there to seek?
2 If the Buddha-Nature is seen,
there will be no seeing of a nature in any thing.
3 Neither cultivation nor seated meditation —
this is the pure Chan of Tathagata.
4 With sudden enlightenment to Tathagata Chan,
the six paramitas and myriad means
are complete within that essence.
1 Huangbo, T2012Ap381c1 2 Nirvana Sutra, T374p521b3; tr. Yamamoto 3 Mazu, X1321p3b23; tr. J. Jia 4 Yongjia, T2014p395c14; tr. from "The Sword of Wisdom"
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
Thank you all for the responses. Learning a lot! But also getting a bit (more) confused ...
To cut to the chase, here's my predicament. I'm studying Advaita Vedanta, and much of it resonates with me, feels true. BUT (and it's a huge but!) the final conclusion of Advaita -- that brahman = changeless eternal ultimate substrate = oneness = everything (self of course included) -- has just never felt right to me. It feels like an arbitrary leap of faith, a fairy tale. I'm with Advaita through all its negation (I am not ultimately this, this is not ultimately real, etc.), but Advaita loses me with their final conclusion: THIS (brahman) *IS* real, and is all there is, therefore you and I and everything = brahman.
In researching how other eastern philosophical systems view reality, I discovered Buddhism's dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). My take on this is that it "goes one step further than Advaita" by *not* leaping to the final solution of brahman, rather saying that at the end of all the negation ... is nothing. There is no overarching principle, it's all just impermanent phenomena in a beautiful all-inclusive interdependent web, there is no essential self, etc. This resonates with me VERY STRONGLY! But I want to make sure I'm getting it right, that my take on Buddhism's take on reality is correct.
Am I? Is it?
To cut to the chase, here's my predicament. I'm studying Advaita Vedanta, and much of it resonates with me, feels true. BUT (and it's a huge but!) the final conclusion of Advaita -- that brahman = changeless eternal ultimate substrate = oneness = everything (self of course included) -- has just never felt right to me. It feels like an arbitrary leap of faith, a fairy tale. I'm with Advaita through all its negation (I am not ultimately this, this is not ultimately real, etc.), but Advaita loses me with their final conclusion: THIS (brahman) *IS* real, and is all there is, therefore you and I and everything = brahman.
In researching how other eastern philosophical systems view reality, I discovered Buddhism's dependent origination (pratītyasamutpāda). My take on this is that it "goes one step further than Advaita" by *not* leaping to the final solution of brahman, rather saying that at the end of all the negation ... is nothing. There is no overarching principle, it's all just impermanent phenomena in a beautiful all-inclusive interdependent web, there is no essential self, etc. This resonates with me VERY STRONGLY! But I want to make sure I'm getting it right, that my take on Buddhism's take on reality is correct.
Am I? Is it?
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
- Johnny Dangerous
- Global Moderator
- Posts: 17100
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
- Location: Olympia WA
- Contact:
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
IMO you have it essentially right, though it seems to me it's less a definitive statement of "there is nothing" outside of this, it's more like saying there is no point trying to grasp anything outside of this, as that is the ultimate state is utterly removed from ideas about being, non-being, oneness, otherness etc.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared
-Khunu Lama
Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality
I understand that brahman is beyond human conceiving, and that any attempt to do so is doomed to frustration/failure.
Advaita agrees with this. But it maintains that brahman is *real* -- the only real, in fact -- and that it is all there is.
So did Buddha say: It makes no sense to even talk about this ultimate stuff, since I can never know. In effect: I'm a-brahman-gnostic.
Or did he *know* and choose not to reveal his knowledge because he deemed it counterproductive to his goal of ending human suffering?
In other words, does Buddhism say "There is no ultimate reality, no brahman" or "It's of no use to speculate about ultimate reality, because it's unknowable." The first shuts out the possibility of brahman, the second doesn't.
Advaita agrees with this. But it maintains that brahman is *real* -- the only real, in fact -- and that it is all there is.
So did Buddha say: It makes no sense to even talk about this ultimate stuff, since I can never know. In effect: I'm a-brahman-gnostic.
Or did he *know* and choose not to reveal his knowledge because he deemed it counterproductive to his goal of ending human suffering?
In other words, does Buddhism say "There is no ultimate reality, no brahman" or "It's of no use to speculate about ultimate reality, because it's unknowable." The first shuts out the possibility of brahman, the second doesn't.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...