PDA

View Full Version : Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism



Nirguna
01 December 2012, 09:54 AM
Namaste All,

I'm sure that anybody here, who knows the basic teachings and concepts of Buddhism would find them very similar to Advaita.
While they are very similar, of course they have their distinctions. To attain Moksha, one must let go the dualistic thinking, and embrace his/her own non-dual nature, whereas, to attain Nirvana, one must let go of the desires of the material world.
The nature of reality in Advaita is satchidananda i.e existence-consciousness-bliss and non-dual. While reality in Buddhism is Shunya/emptiness.
In Advaita, our true nature is the "Self", while in Buddhism it is the "no self"/anatman.
However the two "selfs" are not referring to the same thing. The self in Buddhism is referred to the interaction of the five Skandhas, which is in fact "empty". So our nature is "no self".
The True "Self" in Advaita i.e Atman, is the witness of all, the non-dual consciousness, which is not our notion of the "self" i.e BMI.
Hence the Self of Advaita and the "no self" Buddhism are in fact, very similar, since both "Self" and anatman (no self) are distinct from the physical and emotional selfs.
So, can it be possible, that Advaita and Buddhism are in essence the same? Can they be considered different paths leading to the same result?
I would like to hear the opinions of this wise community.

Jainarayan
06 December 2012, 02:50 PM
Namaste.


To attain Moksha, one must let go the dualistic thinking, and embrace his/her own non-dual nature, whereas, to attain Nirvana, one must let go of the desires of the material world.

One must also realize one's Buddha-nature, which is a precursor for becoming a Buddha. There's a lot to comb through here, that will give a lot of interpretations and thoughts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature



While reality in Buddhism is Shunya/emptiness.
In Advaita, our true nature is the "Self", while in Buddhism it is the "no self"/anatman.


The "no-self" in Buddhism is anatman, not the Self/Atman (note capital S). Advaita pervades Buddhism.



Again, Śūnyatā has various connotations in the different schools. The Dalai Lama (Gelugpa school, Tibetan) says

According to the theory of emptiness, any belief in an objective reality grounded in the assumption of intrinsic, independent existence is simply untenable.
All things and events, whether ‘material’, mental or even abstract concepts like time, are devoid of objective, independent existence [...] [T]hings and events are 'empty' in that they can never possess any immutable essence, intrinsic reality or absolute ‘being’ that affords independence.[50] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunyata#cite_note-56)

Basically things do not exist in and of, or by themselves. Śūnyatā is not emptiness in the sense of "nothingness".


Hence the Self of Advaita and the "no self" Buddhism are in fact, very similar, since both "Self" and anatman (no self) are distinct from the physical and emotional selfs.
So, can it be possible, that Advaita and Buddhism are in essence the same? Can they be considered different paths leading to the same result?
I would like to hear the opinions of this wise community.

Pretty much.

Nirguna
07 December 2012, 08:46 AM
Namaste Jainarayan,


The "no-self" in Buddhism is anatman, not the Self/Atman (note capital S). Advaita pervades Buddhism.
That's actually what I said, that's why I didn't capitalize the "s" in "no-self"/ anatman.
Anyway, thank you for your post.

Also, I was wandering if someone knew where to find Adi Shankara's refutations of Buddhism.

Kumar_Das
08 December 2012, 12:03 PM
Namaste,

Jainarayan, I don't get your post and quotations. Cld you pls explain?

Nirguna
08 December 2012, 02:35 PM
Namaste,


Advaita pervades Buddhism.

I was wandering what you mean in this statement. Can you explain?

@Kumar Das,
Both Buddhism and Advaita hold that the appearance of the phenomenal universe is apparent and illusory, however Buddhism says that everything is empty in the sense that: No essence or ultimate spirit can be found behind the phenomenal universe, while Advaita says that there is, and call it Atman/Brahman.

Jainarayan
08 December 2012, 08:44 PM
Namaste.

This one: "The "no-self" in Buddhism is anatman, not the Self/Atman (note capital S). Advaita pervades Buddhism."?

What Buddhism calls "no-self" or anattā or anātman refers to what we think we are; the I, ego, me. I use a small s in self as opposed to Self for our true Self/Atman. There's really little to no difference in the Hindu concept of the imagined self (of this world), and the Buddhist concepts of self and Self. When I said Advaita pervades Buddhism I should clarify that I meant primarily Mahāyāna and Vajrayāna. The are non-dual, all beings are one. I can't speak on Theravada or Zen (which btw, comes first from Sanskrit dhyāna then to Chinese ch'an finally to Japanese zen).




Namaste,

Jainarayan, I don't get your post and quotations. Cld you pls explain?

Jainarayan
08 December 2012, 08:56 PM
Namaste.


Both Buddhism and Advaita hold that the appearance of the phenomenal universe is apparent and illusory

Yes. :iagree:


however Buddhism says that everything is empty in the sense that: No essence or ultimate spirit can be found behind the phenomenal universe, while Advaita says that there is, and call it Atman/Brahman.

It think it's more correct to say that Buddhism just doesn't speak on it afaik. Though if memory serves, either the Buddha, or a later writing says that contemplation of such does nothing for achieving enlightenment. I'll have to dig into that more.

Embracing Vajrayāna with Nārāyana as my ishta-devatā it's a natural feeling for me that there is a Supreme Brahman/Atman. 'Enlightenment' as generally understood in Buddhism is moksha in my view. But I'm just one small voice out of over 1 billion Hindus and Buddhists. ;)

Nirguna
09 December 2012, 06:01 AM
Namaste,


'Enlightenment' as generally understood in Buddhism is moksha in my view. But I'm just one small voice out of over 1 billion Hindus and Buddhists. ;)
I also need to ask: Is Nirvana, a state of bliss/eternal happiness according to enlightened Buddhists?

Jainarayan
09 December 2012, 07:33 AM
Namaste.


Namaste,


I also need to ask: Is Nirvana, a state of bliss/eternal happiness according to enlightened Buddhists?

Slightly different views in different schools by different commentators, but the answer is pretty much "yes" as far as I can see. It's a state of perfect peace of mind, pefect knowledge, which leads to perfect bliss. Remember though, that the Buddha didn't address a concept of Brahman, considering that to contemplate Brahman would be an obstacle to achieving enlightenment. Kooky analogy: you run the race as best you can but don't think about the finish line, because you know your goal is the finish line. The finish line will be there whether you think about it or not. So why talk about it?

We all have an innate Buddha-hood that must/can be realized. However, from what I can see, it is only the terminology that differs; realizing the Buddha-hood in each of us is analagous to Self-realization in Hinduism. And further keep in mind that there are more differing schools and views in Buddhism than even in Hinduism.

Again, all of this is my beliefs from study and feeling.





In consonance with this, researcher on the Nirvana Sutra, Dr. Tony Page, comments:
On the specific question of the supramundane or nirvanic Self, it is apparent that the [Nirvana] Sutra does assert an eternally abiding entity or dharma – what we might call the “Buddha-Self”, since the Buddha utters the equation ‘Self = Buddha’ - as an ever-enduring reality of the highest order. That Buddha-Self is one with Nirvana.[61] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana#cite_note-74)Positive language



According to some scholars, the language used in the Tathāgatagarbha genre of sutras can be seen as an attempt to state orthodox Buddhist teachings of dependent origination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependent_origination) using positive language instead. Yamamoto points out that this ‘affirmative’ characterization of nirvana pertains to a supposedly higher form of nirvana—that of ‘Great Nirvana’. Speaking of the 'Bodhisattva Highly Virtuous King' chapter of the Nirvana Sutra, Yamamoto quotes the scripture itself:
What is nirvana? ...this is as in the case in which one who has hunger has peace and bliss as he has taken a little food.[62] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana#cite_note-75)

Yamamoto continues with the quotation, adding his own comment:
But such a nirvāna cannot be called “Great Nirvāna”". And it [i.e. the Buddha’s new revelation regarding nirvana] goes on to dwell on the “Great Self”, “Great Bliss”, and “Great Purity”, all of which, along with the Eternal, constitute the four attributes of Great Nirvana.[63] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana#cite_note-76)Quotations

Gautama Buddha:

"Where there is nothing; where naught is grasped, there is the Isle of No-Beyond. Nirvāṇa do I call it—the utter extinction of aging and dying."
"There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress." [Udana VIII.1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana

Nirguna
09 December 2012, 08:06 AM
Thank you for your insightful posts Jainarayan!

Jainarayan
09 December 2012, 10:10 AM
Thank you for your insightful posts Jainarayan!

You're welcome. Keep in mind however that these views are those of the writer and do not necessarily express those of more intelligent and educated individuals. :D

cherrytigerbarb
05 July 2013, 02:18 PM
You can approach the same realisation from two different directions. You can approach it via the direction of Buddhism (which is more based on faith in the practice of meditation and mindfullness and is hence termed relative truth), or you can approach it from Advaita (which is a more logical and intellectual explanation of reality and is hence termed ultimate truth). The two link up when you realise that there is no seperation and consequently no justification for the craving of one thing over another. Both approaches end with the cessation of craving and aversion as the causes of suffering. But Advaita goes further than than this, and points to the ultimate goal of all religions. That being the understanding than all that exists is awareness, and that reality and the self become manifest within that awareness. You can call it Brahman, Tao, ground of all being, God, whatever you like. It's all the same thing.

tensriram
08 July 2013, 06:51 AM
Namaste All,

I'm sure that anybody here, who knows the basic teachings and concepts of Buddhism would find them very similar to Advaita.
While they are very similar, of course they have their distinctions. To attain Moksha, one must let go the dualistic thinking, and embrace his/her own non-dual nature, whereas, to attain Nirvana, one must let go of the desires of the material world.
The nature of reality in Advaita is satchidananda i.e existence-consciousness-bliss and non-dual. While reality in Buddhism is Shunya/emptiness.
In Advaita, our true nature is the "Self", while in Buddhism it is the "no self"/anatman.
However the two "selfs" are not referring to the same thing. The self in Buddhism is referred to the interaction of the five Skandhas, which is in fact "empty". So our nature is "no self".
The True "Self" in Advaita i.e Atman, is the witness of all, the non-dual consciousness, which is not our notion of the "self" i.e BMI.
Hence the Self of Advaita and the "no self" Buddhism are in fact, very similar, since both "Self" and anatman (no self) are distinct from the physical and emotional selfs.
So, can it be possible, that Advaita and Buddhism are in essence the same? Can they be considered different paths leading to the same result?
I would like to hear the opinions of this wise community.

To understand finer intricacies of the Philosophy, one needs to study the commentaries of Shankara on the Upanishads. This can best be done with a good teacher who has command over sanskrit and Sanskrit grammer.
To have just an over view the article
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/26715.htm
is good enough

the sadhu
02 November 2013, 03:48 PM
they are the same, because they were both enlightened(adi shankara & buddha), but the same goes for krishnas upadesa & lao tzu's

the ultimate reality; energy-Consciousness,
Vedanta; Brahman/Atman
Buddhism; Buddha-mind/ana-atman
Krishna; the eternal invisible Nature
Taoism; The Tao

the obstacle; the Brain & senses
Vedanta; the Ego
Buddhism; the self
Krishna; the world of appearance
Taoism; distinctions

harih
20 November 2013, 02:02 AM
Namaste All

Sri Buddha was a great Muni͵ a worshippable Avataara Purusha. Buddhism is a dialectical explanation of Shakyamuni‘s insights. We consider them on par with the Smriti texts like the Bhagavad Gita.

Advaita is based on Upanishads the Sruthi. The Sruthi says͵ yo vai Bhooma Tad vai Sukham. Advaita tells us to lose our small individuality so that we become able to become the Bhooma͵ the infinite Splendorous one whose name is great glory (Tasya namah Mahad Yashah) . So at this point Advaita absolutely differs from the conclusions of Buddhism.

harih
20 November 2013, 02:06 AM
Namaste
There is nothing surprising that many of Sri Buddha‘s teachings echo the Upanishads. That‘s why he is considered an Avataara Purusha. But on those points where he or his followers differ with the Sruthi͵ we prefer to go with the Sruthi rather than with Buddhism.

realdemigod
07 December 2013, 10:18 AM
Namaste All,

I'm sure that anybody here, who knows the basic teachings and concepts of Buddhism would find them very similar to Advaita.
While they are very similar, of course they have their distinctions. To attain Moksha, one must let go the dualistic thinking, and embrace his/her own non-dual nature, whereas, to attain Nirvana, one must let go of the desires of the material world.
The nature of reality in Advaita is satchidananda i.e existence-consciousness-bliss and non-dual. While reality in Buddhism is Shunya/emptiness.
In Advaita, our true nature is the "Self", while in Buddhism it is the "no self"/anatman.
However the two "selfs" are not referring to the same thing. The self in Buddhism is referred to the interaction of the five Skandhas, which is in fact "empty". So our nature is "no self".
The True "Self" in Advaita i.e Atman, is the witness of all, the non-dual consciousness, which is not our notion of the "self" i.e BMI.
Hence the Self of Advaita and the "no self" Buddhism are in fact, very similar, since both "Self" and anatman (no self) are distinct from the physical and emotional selfs.
So, can it be possible, that Advaita and Buddhism are in essence the same? Can they be considered different paths leading to the same result?
I would like to hear the opinions of this wise community.

You are correct Advaita and Buddhism share the same ultimate reality but Buddha's no self doctrine is often misunderstood easily and I believe this has been the case after Buddha's time. Buddha's no self essentially means from my understanding is that there is no physical aggregate or gestalt entity like soul or atman but there is something beyond mind and matter beyond ordinary perceptual consciousness and he called that emptiness. Emptiness doesn't mean void or vacuum or anything devoid of all phenomenon. It is a underlying formless reality across the cosmos. But I don't think Brahman is the right word to match Buddha's definition because Brahman by definition expands but Buddha's emptiness is absolute unchanging eternal thing. And also don't get confused with the concept of dependent origination as according to Nagarjuna dependent origination is emptiness but I'm not quite convinced.

If you want to know further read this book but you might read something different that what I posted here

The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy - A Study of Advaita in Buddhism, Vedanta and Kashmir Shaivism by Chandradhar Sharma

the sadhu
07 December 2013, 02:52 PM
NamasTe hdf

What is seems to boil down to, is either
Objective nonduality, like in Buddhism.(the"there is no me" approach)
& the subjective nonduality, like in Advaita,(" I am infinity" approach )