PDA

View Full Version : Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy



Vajradhara
05 May 2006, 07:31 PM
Namaste all,

there seems to be some confusion related to Buddha Dharma and the philosophical positions that it takes. to the extent that this post can clear that up, i hope that it does.


Buddhist philosophical views are classified, at least by Tibetan Buddhists in general, into four main categories: Vaibhasika, Sautrantika, Yogachara, and Madhyamika.

1. Vaibhasika has been called "direct realism." It is similar to the first few of the Indian views that see the World of Experience as composed of various physical elements that interact with the components of beings.

2. Sautrantika considers that awareness is merely representational. These first two schools consider that there are two kinds of interactors: Physical aspects, ie. skandhas of which one, rupa comprises the traditional elements, and the Mental aspects including consciousness (vijnana), sensation (vedana) which contributes to pain/pleasure, cognition (sanjna) and the impressions derived from experience (samskara.). The 12 Links of Causality go into this in more detail.

3. Chittamatra/Yogachara sometimes referred to as the Knowledge Way or Vijnanavada. It has also been called Subjective Realism, acknowledging that individual factors including karma contribute to an experience of reality that must be different for every being. It mentions the idea of "Buddha nature." Vasubandha and Asanga finally adopted this position.

4. Madhyamika basically holds that there is no ultimate reality in the sense that something exists apart from the experiencer, but that this does not mean that there is nothing at all. It turns around the definition of Shunyata and therefore has been called Sunyatavada. Nagarjuna and Aryadeva are the main proponents. Chandrakirti expounds upon Nagarjuna.

The Madhyamika view has given rise to two particular schools of thought: Svatantrika and Prasangika, which is the school that i adhere to. According to the Prasangika school, the object of refutation (or negation, gag-cha)* is an extremely subtle object that is ever so slightly more than—a little over and above—what is merely labeled by the mind.

The 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso Rinpoche in The World of Tibetan Buddhism: An Overview of Its Philosophy and Practice. Boston: Wisdom Pub., 1995. (49-54):

"According to the explanation of the highest Buddhist philosophical school, Madhyamaka-Prasangika, external phenomena are not mere projections or creations of the mind. External phenomena have a distinct nature, which is different from the mind.

The meaning of all phenomena being mere labels or designations is that they exist and acquire their identities by means of our denomination or designation of them. This does not mean that there is no phenomenon apart from the name, imputation, or label, but rather that if we analyze and search objectively for the essence of any phenomenon, it will be un-findable.

Phenomena are unable to withstand such analysis; therefore, they do not exist objectively. Yet, since they exist, there should be some level of existence; therefore, it is only through our own process of labeling or designation that things are said to exist.

Except for the Prasangika school, all the other Buddhist schools of thought identify the existence of phenomena within the basis of designation; therefore, they maintain that there is some kind of objective existence.

Since the lower schools of Buddhist thought all accept that things exist inherently, they assert some kind of objective existence, maintaining that things exist in their own right and from their own side. This is because they identify phenomena within the basis of designation.

For the Prasangikas, if anything exists objectively and is identified within the basis of designation, then that is, in fact, equivalent to saying that it exists autonomously, that it has an independent nature and exists in its own right.

This is a philosophical tenet of the Yogacara school in which external reality is negated, that is, the atomically structured external world is negated. Because the proponents of the Yogacara philosophical system assert that things cannot exist other than as projections of one's own mind, they also maintain that there is no atomically structured external physical reality independent of mind. By analyzing along these lines, Yogacara proponents conclude that there is no atomicly structured external reality.

This conclusion is reached because of not having understood the most subtle level of emptiness as expounded by the Prasangikas. In fact, Yogacarins assert that things have no inherent existence, and that if you analyze something and do not find any essence, then it does not exist at all.

Prasangikas, on the other hand, when confronted with this un-findability of the essence of the object, conclude that this is an indication that objects do not exist inherently, not that they do not exist at all. This is where the difference lies between the two schools."

* Object of Refutation: one possible technique for searching for truth is to employ the process of elimination, and see what is left. Therefore, the principle or topic under consideration may be called the object of refutation which helps keep in our mind the notion that the thing is not to be assumed to exist. It is merely a target, so to speak.

this link has some very good information for the interested reader:
http://www.khandro.net/Bud_philo_Madhyamika.htm (http://www.khandro.net/Bud_philo_Madhyamika.htm)

Vajradhara
05 May 2006, 07:31 PM
this is a continuation of the previous post. this is a rather academic subject being as it deals with the Abidharma or metaphysics.

According to the listing in the previous post, in the Tibetan tradition, the 4 schools each teach the Three Vehicles of Hearer, Solitary Realizer and Bodhisattva.

The 4 philosophical schools correspond to the Hinyana and Mahayana view Vaibhasika and Sautrantika are Hinyana schools whereas the Chittamatra and Madhyamika correspond with the Mahayana. In this post i shall explain our view of the two Hinayana schools.

According to Vaibhasika and Sautrantika, Hearer and Solitary Realizer Foe Destroyers (Arhan) are lower than a Budda. All three are equally liberated from cyclic existence and all will equally disappear upon death with the severance of their continuum of consciousness and form. However, while they are alive, a Bodhisattva at the effect stage is called a Buddha whereas the others are only called Foe Destroyers - those who have destroyed the foes of the afflictions, mainly desire, hatred, and ignorance - because a Buddha has special knowledge, more subtle clarivoyance, and a distinctive body. A Bodhisattva accumulates merit and wisdom for three countless aeons, thus attaining the greater fruit of Buddhahood. For Vaibhasika and Sautrantika, a person treading the path of Buddhahood is very rare.

Both Hinyana tenet systems present three vehicles which they say are capable of bearing practitioners to their desired fruit. Both present an emptiness that must be understood in order to reach the goal, and in both systems this emptiness is the non-substantialiy of persons. They prove that a person is not a self-sufficient entity and does not substantially exist as the controller of mind and body, like a lord over it's subjects. Through realizing and becoming accustomed to this insubstantiality, the afflictions and thereby, all sufferings are said to be destroyed. According to the Hinyana tenet systems the path of wisdom is the same for Hinyanists--Hearers and Solitary Realizers--and for Bodhisattvas. The length of time that practitioners spend amassing meritorious power constitutes the essential difference between the vehiciles.

Hearers and Solitary realizers all eventually proceed to the Bodhisattva path. After sometimes spending aeons in solitary trance, they are aroused by Buddhas who make them aware that they have not fulfilled even their own welfare, not to mention the welfare of others. Thus, though there are three vehicles, there is only one final vehicle.

As i said in a previous posting regarding the differences in Buddhist philosophy, the best way to get an understand of the different schools is by understanding their view of emptiness

each school asserts a certain view of selflessness and proceeds from Hinyanaist schools Vaibhasika and Sautrantika to Mahayanist schools Chittamatra, Svatantrika and finally, Pransangika.

Selflessness is divided into two types: of persons and of phenomena. The selfless of persons is also divided into two: coarse and subtle. Vaibhasika and Sautrantika do not assert a selflessness of phenomena because, for them, phenomena truly exist and are other entities from a perceiving consciousness.

With regard to the personal selflessness, all systems present a subtle and coarse view. According to the non-Pransangika systems the coarse is the emptiness of a permanent, partless, independent person. The misconception of such a self is only artificial, not innate -- it is based on the assumption of a non-Buddhist system. In other words, we do not naturally misconceive the person to have the three qualities of permanence, partlessness and independence.

perhaps, this will help show the matter in another way:


Vaibhasika and Sautrantika:

selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

Chittamatra:

selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of a difference in entity between subject and object and lack of naturally being a base of a name.

Madhyamika (Savtantrika and Prasangika):

Savtantrika:
selflessness asserted: selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent, partless, independent self. subtle: lack of being a self-sufficient person.

selflessness of phenomena: coarse: lack of a difference in entity between subject and object (though this is properly Yogachara)
subtle: lack of being an entity not posited through appearing to a non-defective consciousness.

Prasangika:
selflessness of persons. coarse: lack of being a permanent self-sufficient entity. subtle: lack of inherent existence of persons

selflessness of phenomena: subtle: lack of inherent existence of phenomena other than persons

(please note, the use of the term Hinyana is to denote the historical schools which used to exist in this Vehicle. in modern Buddhism, the only extant school of Hinyana Buddhism is Theraveda. thus, we simply call it Theravedan Buddhism, today)

i hope that helps beings that have not had a chance to see these sorts of academic distinctions in the various philosophical schools to be found within the Buddha Dharma.

naturally, i present them from my schools point of view. other Buddhists may well disagree :)

metta,

~vajra

Dharmajim
12 May 2006, 08:56 PM
Good Friends:

Vajradhara's post summarizes the Tibetan Buddhist view of Buddhist philosophical systems, but Tibetan Buddhism is only one perspective, and there is much that is left out. For example, Tibetan Buddhism in general does not deal with Theravada Abhidhamma nor does it approach Tien Tai or Hua Yen systems. In other words, it is not a perspective that is shared by most Buddhists.

This is a complex issue. The term "Buddhism" in some ways resembles a term like "Monotheism" or "Hinduism". By this I mean that the term covers a huge range of different approaches, beliefs, and practices.

Nevertheless I think it is possible to summarize a few points which almost all Buddhist traditions would share. Here is what I would point to:

1. The importance of Shakyamuni Buddha as the founder of this dispensation. All forms of Buddhism trace themselves back historically to Shakyamuni Buddha in some way.

2. The Four Noble Truths as a foundation for the Buddhist view and practice (1. the truth of suffering, 2. the truth of the cause of suffering, 3. the truth of the cessation of suffering, and 4. the noble eightfold path that leads to that cessation and full liberation).

3. The central importance of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) which teaches that all things appear and disappear due to causes and conditions, that they have no underlying substance or essence which supports them. The view here is that things can be fully comprehended in terms of the interlocking web of causes and conditions.

After this, there is a great deal of divergence in terms of how the path is to be walked, what practices are to be utilized, etc. Even among these three there is a wide variety of interpretations. For example, though Shakyamuni Buddha has central importance for all Buddhist traditions, how Shakyamuni is comprehended varies. Some traditions regard Shakyamuni as an historical person. Other traditions regard him as an embodiment of certain cosmic principles. Still other traditions regard Shakyamuni as an emanation of a transcendental reality. And still others regard Shakyamuni as the source from which all emanations derive. All of these views have various kinds of scriptural support.

Best wishes,

Dharmajim

Vajradhara
13 May 2006, 01:56 AM
Namaste Dharmajim,

thank you for the post.


Good Friends:

Vajradhara's post summarizes the Tibetan Buddhist view of Buddhist philosophical systems,


i mentioned this, yes?



but Tibetan Buddhism is only one perspective, and there is much that is left out. For example, Tibetan Buddhism in general does not deal with Theravada Abhidhamma nor does it approach Tien Tai or Hua Yen systems. In other words, it is not a perspective that is shared by most Buddhists.

the Abidhamma is part of the canon, not an individual philosophical school, as is T'ien T'ai and Hua Yen. these are schools in the Mahayana Vehicle and, as such, they ascribe to several different philsophical points of view, typically, the Yogachara view point is found most often amongst the Chinese schools of Mahayana Buddhism.



This is a complex issue. The term "Buddhism" in some ways resembles a term like "Monotheism" or "Hinduism". By this I mean that the term covers a huge range of different approaches, beliefs, and practices.

that is correct, hence the use of Buddha Dharma and Sanatana Dharma to properly speak of the two Buddhist and Hindu spiritual practices.

the three main Vehicles of Buddhist praxis are term Hinyana, Mahayana and Vajrayana (which is the Vehicle which i practice within). in modern society, the only extant Hinyana school is the Theravedan school. as such, most beings simply refer to it as Theravedan Buddhism. that, however, does not take into account the historical existence of 17 seperate schools under the rubric of Hinayana.

the Mahayana, by contrast, has many schools. most beings, especially in the Western Hemisphere, know of Zen and, perhaps, Nichiren. these are both schools in the Mahayana Vehicle.

the Vajrayana has several schools, much fewer than the Mahayana and a few more than Hinyana/Theraveda.




Nevertheless I think it is possible to summarize a few points which almost all Buddhist traditions would share. Here is what I would point to:

1. The importance of Shakyamuni Buddha as the founder of this dispensation. All forms of Buddhism trace themselves back historically to Shakyamuni Buddha in some way.

2. The Four Noble Truths as a foundation for the Buddhist view and practice (1. the truth of suffering, 2. the truth of the cause of suffering, 3. the truth of the cessation of suffering, and 4. the noble eightfold path that leads to that cessation and full liberation).

3. The central importance of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) which teaches that all things appear and disappear due to causes and conditions, that they have no underlying substance or essence which supports them. The view here is that things can be fully comprehended in terms of the interlocking web of causes and conditions.

After this, there is a great deal of divergence in terms of how the path is to be walked, what practices are to be utilized, etc. Even among these three there is a wide variety of interpretations. For example, though Shakyamuni Buddha has central importance for all Buddhist traditions, how Shakyamuni is comprehended varies. Some traditions regard Shakyamuni as an historical person. Other traditions regard him as an embodiment of certain cosmic principles. Still other traditions regard Shakyamuni as an emanation of a transcendental reality. And still others regard Shakyamuni as the source from which all emanations derive. All of these views have various kinds of scriptural support.

Best wishes,

Dharmajim

i would agree, Dharmajim, thank you for the post :)

Upaya at its best! :)

metta,

~v

Singhi Kaya
14 May 2006, 06:31 AM
3. The central importance of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) which teaches that all things appear and disappear due to causes and conditions, that they have no underlying substance or essence which supports them. The view here is that things can be fully comprehended in terms of the interlocking web of causes and conditions.


This looks like the biggest or main difference in sanatana dhrama and buddha dharma approach to reality.:) We view the universe as an interloacked complex web or networked but have divine integrated in it and world sustained by the divine~and thus we have at least 5 levels of creation all of which are interlinked, the gross material world being the lowest. I think buddhism coming from the same cultural background has similar concepts of heavens but they are regarded as part of the same web and not a different level as in Sanatana Dharma?

Thanks for the post~it is more clear than speaking in attma/anattma or sunyata terms.

Vajradhara
27 July 2006, 12:07 PM
Namaste Singhi,

thank you for the post.

Buddha Dharma posits 31 levels or realms of reality that a being can take rebirth in. perhaps this will show it more relief:


Four planes of the Immaterial Brahma Realm:
(31) Plane of Neither Perception-nor-non-Perception
(30) Plane of Nothingness
(29) Plane of Infinite Consciousness
(28) Plane of Infinite Space
Sixteen planes of the Fine Material Brahma Realm:
7 Fourth Jhana Planes:
5 Pure Abodes:
(27) Highest (Akanittha)
(26) Clear Sighted (Sudassi)
(25) Beautiful (Sudassa)
(24) Serene (Atappa)
(23) Durable (Aviha)
(22) Non-percipient, matter only, no mind
(21) Great Fruit
3 Third Jhana Planes:
(20) Third Jhana, highest degree
(19) Third Jhana, medium degree
(18) Third Jhana, minor degree
3 Second Jhana Planes:
(17) Second Jhana, highest degree (Abhassara)
(16) Second Jhana, medium degree
(15) Second Jhana, minor degree
3 First Jhana Planes:
(14) First Jhana, Maha Brahmas
(13) First Jhana, Brahma's ministers
(12) First Jhana, Brahma's retinue
Eleven planes of the Sensuous Realm :
Seven Happy Sensuous Planes:
Six Deva planes:
(11) Control others' creations
(10) Rejoice in their own creations
(9) Tusita — Delightful Plane
(8) Yama
(7) Realm of the Thirty-three
(6) Catummaharajika — 4 Great Kings
(5) Human Beings
Four Lower Realms of Woe:
(4) Ghosts
(3) Asuras
(2) Animal realm
(1) Hell realmsThe lowest area (planes 1-11) is called the sensuous realm; here sense experience predominates. Next comes the fine-material realm (12-27) attained by practicing the fine-material absorptions (rupa-jhanas). Above that is the immaterial realm (28-31) attained by practicing the immaterial absorptions (arupa-jhanas).

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html

metta,

~v

atanu
07 August 2006, 10:59 AM
Good Friends:

-----3. The central importance of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) which teaches that all things appear and disappear due to causes and conditions, that they have no underlying substance or essence which supports them. The view here is that things can be fully comprehended in terms of the interlocking web of causes and conditions.

Dharmajim


Namaste,

I request more elaboration on this aspect, which Singhi has also highlighted. I intuitively feel that difference from Vedanta on this aspect is merely of words.

I intuitively feel the following to be correct: The central importance of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) which teaches that all things appear and disappear due to causes and conditions, that they have no other (Anya) underlying substance or essence which supports them except the Buddha within.


Can Shri Vajra and Shri Dharma throw some light?


Om Namah Shivayya

Vajradhara
07 August 2006, 01:48 PM
Namaste Atanu,

thank you for the post.

the difference in views on this really comes down to which of the four philosophical views one ascribes to which are found in Buddha Dharma.

generally speaking, the view that Buddhanature underlies all things is contrary to the Buddha Dharma since Buddhanature is a quality of sentient beings and not physical phenomena.

in terms of physical phenomena, the Sutta "The Root Sequence" teaches that there is nothing, not even Nibbana, which can rightly be regarded as the "root sequence" from which all other sequences arose.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

metta,

~v

atanu
08 August 2006, 12:44 AM
Namaste Atanu,

thank you for the post.

the difference in views on this really comes down to which of the four philosophical views one ascribes to which are found in Buddha Dharma.

generally speaking, the view that Buddhanature underlies all things is contrary to the Buddha Dharma since Buddhanature is a quality of sentient beings and not physical phenomena.

in terms of physical phenomena, the Sutta "The Root Sequence" teaches that there is nothing, not even Nibbana, which can rightly be regarded as the "root sequence" from which all other sequences arose.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html

metta,

~v


Namaste Vajradhara

Again there is some difference in words. I said the ONE who is seeking the truth (apparently) does not vanish. I said "eternal Buddha within" and you said "Buddha nature" is a quality and not matter. Well, isn't it again a play of words? Buddha nature cannot exist without Buddha. Can it?


If Vajradhara meditates well and penetrates through all the 'Buddha nature' part then does He cease to exist? Does the existing one vanish in any stages of experience and non-experience? In Mandukya Upanishad, this is stated as Self (to me Shiva) who is neither a being nor a non-being.

But it is definitely not defined as a non-being. It is merely beyond the definition of beingness. To reiterate: where does the Buddha nature come from? Is it also root less?

Om Namah Shivayya

Dharmajim
10 August 2006, 12:02 PM
Greetings:

There are a number of Discourses where the Buddha says, "Those who see dependent origination see the Dharma." And there are also Discourses where the Buddha says, "Those who see dependent origination see the Buddha." This highlights the centrality of the view of dependent origination for the Buddhadharma.

On the question of how this relates to some of the orthodox systems of Indian thought there is a wide variety of opinions. Genearlly speaking, from a Buddhist perspective, it is felt that orthodox systems point to some kind of underlying reality from which all things arise; this might be "nature" or "consciousness", or some other term might be used. Dependent Origination, from a Buddhist perspective, is thought to negate this kind of approach. So at this level it would seem that the two systems are in conflict, and historically disagreements have centered on this.

However, it is not that simple. If one compares the Buddhist views on Nirvana and Buddha Nature, with some of the ideas presented in orthodox systems of thought, there does seem to be, at times, a convergence. Because of the centrality of dependent origination in Buddhism, Buddhist Sages would not relate to Nirvana as an underlying reality or a substantial reality because of the push to be consistent with dependent origination. The orthodox systems would tend to interpret ultimate reality in terms of an underlying nature.

But I'm not sure how much of a difference this makes in actual life. I mean by this that there is an experience of ultimate nature, and then there is the explanation. So the question is whether or not, at the highest level, there is a convergence of experience? Since I am not one who has realized such lofty attainments I have to remain agnostic on this issue.

Best wishes,

Dharmajim

atanu
11 August 2006, 03:43 AM
Greetings:

-----
On the question of how this relates to some of the orthodox systems of Indian thought there is a wide variety of opinions. Genearlly speaking, from a Buddhist perspective, it is felt that orthodox systems point to some kind of underlying reality from which all things arise; this might be "nature" or "consciousness", or some other term might be used. Dependent Origination, from a Buddhist perspective, is thought to negate this kind of approach. So at this level it would seem that the two systems are in conflict, and historically disagreements have centered on this.

However, it is not that simple. If one compares the Buddhist views on Nirvana and Buddha Nature, with some of the ideas presented in orthodox systems of thought, there does seem to be, at times, a convergence. -----
Dharmajim


Namaste Dharmajim,

A very nice post indeed. I entered just to remind you that the ultimate in Vedanta is also unnameble and unthinkable. Terming it consciousness, nature, Shiva, Narayana etc represents a mental concept, which however is required for most, on account of inablity to see the truth to be different from the mind.

Scriptures highlight this necessity and at the same time clarify that the truth is beyond mind and speech.

But there is no denying that Self exists, else nothing would exist. That we are communicating and understanding is a simple and sufficient proof. Some one is understanding. Who is that?

Om Namah Shivayya

Vajradhara
11 August 2006, 01:25 PM
Namaste Atanu,

thank you for the post.



Again there is some difference in words. I said the ONE who is seeking the truth (apparently) does not vanish. I said "eternal Buddha within" and you said "Buddha nature" is a quality and not matter. Well, isn't it again a play of words? Buddha nature cannot exist without Buddha. Can it?

yes, Buddhanature exists without Buddhas hence the Solitary Realizers which attain Liberation when there are no Buddhas present in the world system.

nevertheless, as Buddhagosha so succiently put it:

there is no doer who does
and no reaper who reaps.
constituant parts roll on alone.
this, alone, is Right Discernment.



If Vajradhara meditates well and penetrates through all the 'Buddha nature' part then does He cease to exist?


the being that is Vajradhara (the poster on this thread) has never existed and thus will not cease to exist. it is quite correct, however, that this ego tends to impute a sense of self unto the 5 clinging aggregates and this can be quite difficult to uproot.



But it is definitely not defined as a non-being. It is merely beyond the definition of beingness. To reiterate: where does the Buddha nature come from? Is it also root less?

Om Namah Shivayya

indeed without substance or ground Buddhanature is, for lack of a better term, simply a phrase to denote the capability for all sentient beings to Awaken. it is a bit of Buddhist shorthand as it were.

metta,

~v

atanu
14 August 2006, 03:21 AM
Namaste Atanu,

thank you for the post.



yes, Buddhanature exists without Buddhas hence the Solitary Realizers which attain Liberation when there are no Buddhas present in the world system.

nevertheless, as Buddhagosha so succiently put it:

there is no doer who does
and no reaper who reaps.
constituant parts roll on alone.
this, alone, is Right Discernment.


the being that is Vajradhara (the poster on this thread) has never existed and thus will not cease to exist. it is quite correct, however, that this ego tends to impute a sense of self unto the 5 clinging aggregates and this can be quite difficult to uproot.


indeed without substance or ground Buddhanature is, for lack of a better term, simply a phrase to denote the capability for all sentient beings to Awaken. it is a bit of Buddhist shorthand as it were.

metta,

~v


Yes, then it is seems to be a real difference wrt to Vedanta. Though I still maintain that the differences are of the perspective alone. Thank you for clarifying the position, however.

For Vedanta however, Vajradhara is just a name. From the eternal the name has arisen.


Since the assumption of a eternal non changing substance (soul) which is behind the qualities, and which is not the qualities, can never be substantiated – not from the argument of self-identity and not from memory that I am the I of yesterday because I remember it, and therefore I have been a continuous something -- the argument of the Buddhists seems to be stronger that we do not know, and cannot know, anything that is beyond the bunch of qualities that one knows to be as I.


The Advaitist theory of the Atma reconciles these two views -- the dualist view of eternal individual souls on one hand and shunyata on the other hand. The basic principle of Vijnana-vada is that all you see outside is the creation of the mind. Vijnana is the consciousness in the mind or consciousness itself as the mind, which projects itself as an outside world of perception. The world actually does not exist. However, Sankara says the objective world exists. The eternal reality itself is the world.

Supposing it is accepted that mind is creating things by perception (Avidya), then you have to agree that the trees in the forest are created by your mind. If the mind is wholly inside and if there is nothing objective outside but only the consciousness appears to be outside (according to Buddhist doctrine), then how did the idea of 'outside ness' arise in the mind? Then, even if you agree that there is some appearance outside, and really things do not exist, the appearance has to be outside. This outside ness must be accepted first. There cannot be an appearance of something outside unless there is really something outside. A rope appears as a snake but even for that appearance, the rope must exist. If rope also does not exist, then the snake will not be there. The position of the Advaitist is that it is true that we cannot think of the substance as separate from the qualities, we cannot think of change and not-change at the same time; it would be impossible. But the very thing which is the substance is the quality; substance and quality are not two things.

It is the unchangeable that is appearing as the changeable. The a-priori cause is not something different from the post priori effect – the phenomena, but it is the very cause which has become the effect. There is a soul which is unchanging, and what we call feelings and perceptions and even the body, are the very soul, seen from another point of view. We have got into the habit of thinking that we have bodies and souls and so forth, but really speaking, there is only ONE.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
14 August 2006, 03:41 AM
Namaste Atanu,

thank you for the post.



yes, Buddhanature exists without Buddhas hence the Solitary Realizers which attain Liberation when there are no Buddhas present in the world system.


~v


Namaste,

True the Buddhas do not exist for the solitary realizer and neither the world exists for him. But the solitary realizer is still able to sprout as an I. Solitary realizer exists as ONE and ALL. The solitary realizer himself is Buddha.

When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor nonexistence; Shiva (the blessed One) alone is there.' (Svet. Up. IV. 18.)


But it is also true that the mental concept being discussed here is actually inappropriate, since the solitary realizer is neither consciousness nor non-concsiousness. So we truly cannot say that something exists as the substratum.

And wrt 'without substance and foundation' Rig Veda had already queried "Who knows how the boneless gives rise to the bony?" What you are terming 'without substance and foundation' vedanta terms as 'neither a being nor a being'. So, again I see just a difference of Vak.



Om

TruthSeeker
16 August 2006, 01:05 PM
Namaste Atanu,

I personally think that Buddhism is not founded on non dualism, atleast in the vedantic sense, and is dualistic. If this is the case, I fail to see how you can reconcile the two systems by brute force. Request Vajradhara to comment on how far Buddhism is close to non dualism, instead of trying to equate the systems on the basis of an underlying reality. Do really the realized sages merge in Nirvana, or is Nirvana an individual affair? There is a possibility that Buddhism has an overlap with both Advaita and Shankya.

Dharmajim
21 August 2006, 03:04 PM
Namaste Atanu,

I personally think that Buddhism is not founded on non dualism, atleast in the vedantic sense, and is dualistic. If this is the case, I fail to see how you can reconcile the two systems by brute force. Request Vajradhara to comment on how far Buddhism is close to non dualism, instead of trying to equate the systems on the basis of an underlying reality. Do really the realized sages merge in Nirvana, or is Nirvana an individual affair? There is a possibility that Buddhism has an overlap with both Advaita and Shankya.

Greetings:

You are correct. Buddhism is not inherently a non-dual view. Bhikkhu Bodhi, the prolific translator of Theravada Buddhism has written an essay critiquing non-dualism. It is very well written and an articulate defense of a more dualistic view.

Buddhism, like Hinduism, is a tradition that has many differing views and approaches. Some of them are dualistic and some of them are non-dual. Generally speaking, one finds non-dual approaches in traditional Mahayana works. A good example is the Lankavatara Sutra, which is articulate about its non-dual view. On the other hand, some Mahayana approaches are dualistic; so it is not so simple as to say that Theravada is dualistic and Mahayana is non-dual.

Best wishes,

Dharmajim

atanu
22 August 2006, 01:34 AM
Namaste,



Namaste Atanu,

I personally think that Buddhism is not founded on non dualism, atleast in the vedantic sense, and is dualistic. If this is the case, I fail to see how you can reconcile the two systems by brute force.



The discussion started on the differences on the following aspect between Hinduism and Buddhism:




3. The central importance of dependent origination (pratityasamutpada) which teaches that all things appear and disappear due to causes and conditions, that they have no underlying substance or essence which supports them. The view here is that things can be fully comprehended in terms of the interlocking web of causes and conditions.



And I just point out that Shri Vajradhara has himself cited differences of views between Prasangikas and Yogacarins though they are both classed within Buddhism.








Do really the realized sages merge in Nirvana, or is Nirvana an individual affair?


Can you please explain on this a bit?

TruthSeeker
22 August 2006, 03:00 AM
TS: Do really the realized sages merge in Nirvana, or is Nirvana an individual affair?

Atanu: Can you please explain on this a bit?

In Advaita, all experience, including the experiences in Vaishvanara(waking state which is the visible world), Taijasa(dream state which is the astral world), Prajna (deep sleep, which is Isvara) are but the experiences of the one undivided Turiya, which is called the ultimate eternal reality. Any jivanmukta or Yogi who attains the experience of Turiya actually merges into Turiya, and even though there could be many physical jivanmuktas present on the earth, there is exactly one Turiya that they are absorbed in, and such final experience( if you call that an experience) is identical. There is nothing such as say the advaitic experience of Shankaracharya or Sri Ramana - there is exactly one such "state" Moksha where all individual experiences totally dissolve.

Regards Buddhism, I am not so sure as if Nivana is the state which is shared by all the enlightened Buddhas, like the Turiya. If this is not the case ( Sri Dharmajim says that schools of Buddhism have different opinions), then how could Nirvana and Turiya be equated?

In Shankya, the Purusha is omniscient and beyond rebirth like the Buddha, but the number of Purushas are infinite and they do not "merge". This Purusha cannot be directedly equated to the Brahman of Advaita vedanta, because Advaita rejects any multiplicity in moksa. If the Buddha's nirvana is dualistic, then it is more related to Purusha than Brahman.( regardless of the similarities in rejecting the absolute reality of the world etc)

Dharmajim
22 August 2006, 12:04 PM
Good Friends:

Regarding Nirvana and fully Enlightened Buddhas, all Buddhas reside in Nirvana, or merge in Nirvana, or dwell in Nirvana (it's hard to put this in words in a way that is precise). This is true for all schools of Buddhism that I know of.

However, what Nirvana/Nibbana means, how it is understood, differs among different Buddhist traditions. Some traditions have a transcendental view of Nirvana; that is to say that samsara is this realm of suffering and Nirvana is beyond this realm. Other traditions put forth the view that from an ultimate perspective nirvana is samsara and awakening is a shift in awareness or consciousness; these tend to be non-dual traditions.

Another way of looking at this is that some Buddhist traditions regard Nirvana as a mere cessation; that is to say Nirvana is the overcoming of hindrances such as greed, anger, ignorance, craving, and clinging. When these are overcome, that is Nirvana. Other traditions regard Nirvana in a more positive light; that is to say Nirvana is something one actually awakens to. From this second perspective Nirvana is not a mere cessation but also has a positive component. Interestingly, one finds both of these views in the many different Buddhist traditions, so this is not a matter of one tradition vs. another.

I hope this is of some assistance.

Best wishes,

Dharmajim

atanu
02 September 2006, 10:03 AM
In Shankya, the Purusha is omniscient and beyond rebirth like the Buddha, but the number of Purushas are infinite and they do not "merge". This Purusha cannot be directedly equated to the Brahman of Advaita vedanta, because Advaita rejects any multiplicity in moksa. If the Buddha's nirvana is dualistic, then it is more related to Purusha than Brahman.( regardless of the similarities in rejecting the absolute reality of the world etc)


Namaste TS,

I do not know about Sankhya but Purusha is One only. Purusha only has sahasra shirsa, Saharsa Bahu etc., meaning by infinite minds and infinite limbs etc.

Many Purushas are apparent to senses but He is one manifestation of Self, endowed with I sense from which every other thing proceeds.

Regards

atanu
02 September 2006, 10:06 AM
Good Friends:

Regarding Nirvana and fully Enlightened Buddhas, all Buddhas reside in Nirvana, or merge in Nirvana, or dwell in Nirvana (it's hard to put this in words in a way that is precise). This is true for all schools of Buddhism that I know of.

However, what Nirvana/Nibbana means, how it is understood, differs among different Buddhist traditions. Some traditions have a transcendental view of Nirvana; that is to say that samsara is this realm of suffering and Nirvana is beyond this realm. Other traditions put forth the view that from an ultimate perspective nirvana is samsara and awakening is a shift in awareness or consciousness; these tend to be non-dual traditions.

Another way of looking at this is that some Buddhist traditions regard Nirvana as a mere cessation; that is to say Nirvana is the overcoming of hindrances such as greed, anger, ignorance, craving, and clinging. When these are overcome, that is Nirvana. Other traditions regard Nirvana in a more positive light; that is to say Nirvana is something one actually awakens to. From this second perspective Nirvana is not a mere cessation but also has a positive component. Interestingly, one finds both of these views in the many different Buddhist traditions, so this is not a matter of one tradition vs. another.

I hope this is of some assistance.

Best wishes,

Dharmajim


Namaste Dharmajim,

Thanks for the nice elucidation.

Vajradhara
05 March 2007, 10:45 AM
Namaste all,

sorry, been away for awhile.. life changes and so forth.

leaving aside the discussion of schools of practice, this thread was intended to present a brief overview, from the Prasangkia-Madyamika view, of the various Buddhist philosophical schools. to this end, i think that it has served its purpose.

the discussion has broaded and deepened from there to things such as the nature of Nibbana/Nirvana and so forth. whilst it is true that Nibbana/Nirvana is "beyond concepts, to be experienced by the wise" that does not mean that Buddha Shakyamuni didn't use words to talk about it. there are several different Suttas where the Buddha is speaking concerning Nibbana/Nirvana and, interestingly, there are two basic forms of Nibbana/Nirvana that a being can experience:

Monks, there are these two forms of the nibbana property. Which two? The nibbana property with fuel remaining, and the nibbana property with no fuel remaining.

And what is the nibbana property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is a worthy one devoid of mental effluents, who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the bonds of becoming, and is released through right knowing. His five sense faculties still remain, and owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant & the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. That which is the passing away of passion, aversion, & delusion in him is termed the nibbana property with fuel remaining.

And what is the nibbana property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is a worthy one... released through right knowing. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished will grow cold right here. This is termed the nibbana property with no fuel remaining.
— Iti 44 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044)

a very good article on Nibbana/Nirvana from the Theraveda perspective can be read here:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/likefire/2-1.html

metta,

~v

atanu
06 March 2007, 01:26 AM
-----
Monks, there are these two forms of the nibbana property. Which two? The nibbana property with fuel remaining, and the nibbana property with no fuel remaining.

And what is the nibbana property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is a worthy one devoid of mental effluents, who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the bonds of becoming, and is released through right knowing. His five sense faculties still remain, and owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant & the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. That which is the passing away of passion, aversion, & delusion in him is termed the nibbana property with fuel remaining.

And what is the nibbana property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is a worthy one... released through right knowing. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished will grow cold right here. This is termed the nibbana property with no fuel remaining.
— Iti 44 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#iti-044)

------
~v

Namsakar Vajradhara,
Nice explanation. This is what I was asking. As Shri TS has already explained, Turiya is the nibbana without fuel remaining, but as my Guru teaches, as per requirements of Prarabdha, a Jnani may continue in the body for some specific task. The latter is exactly like Nibbana with fuel. However, in both the cases, the knowledge of the advaita atma is predicated, which is not stipulated for you. Perhaps --- ?

Thanks and Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

Vajradhara
26 March 2007, 07:51 AM
Namaste Atanu,

thank you for the post.


.... However, in both the cases, the knowledge of the advaita atma is predicated, which is not stipulated for you. Perhaps --- ?

Thanks and Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

in Buddhist thought, there is no atma upon which anything is predicated. as it is explained in our Suttas:

"No doer is there who does the deed;
Nor is there one who feels the fruit;
Constituent parts alone roll on;
This indeed! Is right discernment."

~Vissudhi Magga

metta,

~v

atanu
27 March 2007, 07:50 AM
Namaste Atanu,

thank you for the post.



in Buddhist thought, there is no atma upon which anything is predicated. as it is explained in our Suttas:

"No doer is there who does the deed;
Nor is there one who feels the fruit;
Constituent parts alone roll on;
This indeed! Is right discernment."

~Vissudhi Magga

metta,

~v

Namaskar Vajradhara,

Constituent parts alone roll on; ------ ?

Consituent parts of what?

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

dhruvthukral
17 June 2014, 02:26 PM
Greetings:

There are a number of Discourses where the Buddha says, "Those who see dependent origination see the Dharma." And there are also Discourses where the Buddha says, "Those who see dependent origination see the Buddha." This highlights the centrality of the view of dependent origination for the Buddhadharma.

On the question of how this relates to some of the orthodox systems of Indian thought there is a wide variety of opinions. Genearlly speaking, from a Buddhist perspective, it is felt that orthodox systems point to some kind of underlying reality from which all things arise; this might be "nature" or "consciousness", or some other term might be used. Dependent Origination, from a Buddhist perspective, is thought to negate this kind of approach. So at this level it would seem that the two systems are in conflict, and historically disagreements have centered on this.

However, it is not that simple. If one compares the Buddhist views on Nirvana and Buddha Nature, with some of the ideas presented in orthodox systems of thought, there does seem to be, at times, a convergence. Because of the centrality of dependent origination in Buddhism, Buddhist Sages would not relate to Nirvana as an underlying reality or a substantial reality because of the push to be consistent with dependent origination. The orthodox systems would tend to interpret ultimate reality in terms of an underlying nature.

But I'm not sure how much of a difference this makes in actual life. I mean by this that there is an experience of ultimate nature, and then there is the explanation. So the question is whether or not, at the highest level, there is a convergence of experience? Since I am not one who has realized such lofty attainments I have to remain agnostic on this issue.

Best wishes,

Dharmajim
i follow Nichiren Buddhism, i am feeling better after practici (http://lifeofnichiren.com)ng

dhruvthukral
20 June 2014, 01:48 PM
I really wanna know more about this phi (http://lifeofnichiren.com)losophy.. kindly put some more info