PDA

View Full Version : The role of Mindfulness Meditation in Hinduism.



FlipAsso
12 February 2009, 06:40 AM
I'm a westener interested in Hinduism.
I particularly identified with Advaita Vedanta's conceptions about God, Illusion and the World. It's the most compatible cosmological explaination I've found, so I want to learn more.

Is there a place for mindfulness meditation in Hinduism?
For those unfamiliar with the concept of mindfulness, it's goal is to non-judgementally observe the mind's activities while they're occuring.
What are the main practices in Advaita??
Can one incorporate different aspects of different traditional yogas into one's life?
I think that's all for now.
I hope I don't offend anyone with my naif curiosity.

Peace

yajvan
12 February 2009, 12:12 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

FlipAsso writes,

Is there a place for mindfulness meditation in Hinduism? For those unfamiliar with the concept of mindfulness, it's goal is to non-judgementally observe the mind's activities while they're occuring

As I see it complete mindfulness is that of complete fullness (bhūma) of awareness. No judging occurs at this level of being (sattā) due to the fact that the mind has been absorbed in fullness or samasta, that which pervades the whole.
No judgement can take place as that would infer there are 2 i.e. the judge and that being judged. This would then not be part of advaita ( a='not' and dvaita ='dual').

This state of wholeness (purṇatā) in the beginning of one's spiritual pursuit is usually called samādhi¹ ( there are other names also). It is usually found in a meditiative state. Yet over time, this ability to hold this fullness can also be sustained while in activity, daily life.
Hence the pinnicale of mindfullness (IMHO) comes when 'individal mind' is disolved. Some call this cosmic mind or virāṭ or vaiśvānara¹ .

praṇām

words

samādhi समाधि- putting together , joining or combining , union; onepointed absorption; sam + ā + dhā : sam or sama = sameness, evenness, homogeneous + ā = although completely + dhā = take hold of , hold , bear , support.
Hence samādhi = 'to hold sameness/evenneness completely'.
virāṭ leads us to virāj विराज्- Supreme Intellect
vaiśvānara वैश्वानर- Universal Self; Supreme Spirit or Intellect when located in a supposed collective aggregate of gross bodies

FlipAsso
12 February 2009, 04:34 PM
Aren't those samadhi states also called dhyana?

yajvan
12 February 2009, 04:54 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


Aren't those samadhi states also called dhyana?

Namasté FlipAsso,

Here's a few HDF posts that address dhyāna that is a component of saṁyama. Now what is saṁyama ? This post will assist : http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=9745&postcount=5 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=9745&postcount=5)

HDF Posts on dhyāna, which also includes dhyāna and samādhi:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=769&highlight=dhyana (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=769&highlight=dhyana)

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1382&highlight=dhyana (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1382&highlight=dhyana)

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=9745&postcount=5 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=9745&postcount=5)

praṇām

FlipAsso
12 February 2009, 07:58 PM
I'm sorry it seems I misused terms.
I had yoga classes and the teacher (a phooney, I guess) said that Dhyana was when the mind was totally concentrated and that Samadhi was similar (or was) Moksha.
I understood by those posts that Dharana is when you place the mind on the object, Dhyana is when the mind is placed on the object, and Samadhi when the mind is "effortlessly" placed exclusively on the object with no other thought in mind. Is this correct??

I practice a form of Buddhist meditation called Vipassana.
It consists of 2 principles:
-concentration - samadhi
&
-mindfulness - sati
In this practice we place the mind on the breath (the object) and when it flyes to other thoughts, feelings or sensations we observe what it (the mind) did. After that we place it again on the object and repeat the process over and over.
The "goal" in this meditation is not as much to reach samadhi, although it may also happen. But in Vipassana we aim to observe and understand the nature of the mind/reality.

Does Hinduism have a similar practice of observation??

yajvan
12 February 2009, 10:36 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté FlipAsso,


I had yoga classes and the teacher (a phooney, I guess) said that Dhyana was when the mind was totally concentrated and that Samadhi was similar (or was) Moksha.
I understood by those posts that Dharana is when you place the mind on the object, Dhyana is when the mind is placed on the object, and Samadhi when the mind is "effortlessly" placed exclusively on the object with no other thought in mind. Is this correct??
I practice a form of Buddhist meditation called Vipassana.
It consists of 2 principles:
-concentration - samadhi
&
-mindfulness - sati
In this practice we place the mind on the breath (the object) and when it flyes to other thoughts, feelings or sensations we observe what it (the mind) did. After that we place it again on the object and repeat the process over and over.
The "goal" in this meditation is not as much to reach samadhi, although it may also happen. But in Vipassana we aim to observe and understand the nature of the mind/reality.
Does Hinduism have a similar practice of observation??

Your understanding is fine; Let me offer a few ideas to make it firm and see if you agree.

The samādhi that is mentioned is the result of dhyāna (meditation).
Now there are a few 'flavors' of samādhi based on the Yogadarśana of Patañjali ( some call it the yoga-sūtras). For now, lets not go there
just yet until we can agree on some of the components, and also answer your question.

Within the yoga-sūtras the practice of saṁyama is called out. And this saṁyama has those 3 components:

dhyāna ध्यान - meditation
dhāraṇā धारणा- fixity, the act of holding, singleminded-ness ( as you mention ~ fixity on an object)
samādhi समाधि- is onepointed absorption; One can say the mind is absorbed or 'concentrated' - but it is not the act of concentration.
I mentioned the following in the last post on samādhi ( just to say consistent) sam + ā + dhā : sam or sama = sameness, evenness, homogeneous + ā = although completely + dhā = take hold of , hold , bear , support. Hence samādhi = 'to hold sameness/evenneness completely'. The even-ness is the concentrated one-pointedness. We will use this idea in a later post when we define the ~types~ of samādhi.
you mention

In this practice we place the mind on the breath (the object) and when it flyes to other thoughts, feelings or sensations we observe what it (the mind) did.

After that we place it again on the object and repeat the process over and over. Does Hinduism have a similar practice of observation?

From a techniques perspective , we call them upāya¹, using the mind+breath approach is found often. One book that is a favorite ( and quite important in kaśmir śaivism) is the Vijñāna Bhairava kārikā-s. Note this text (& kaśmir śaivism) overall, is part of Śaivism ( the adoration of Śiva as Supreme). The book mentioned is part of the Śiva āgama-s¹.
You can view various mind-breath techniques (which are also considered dhāraṇā-s) from the Vijñāna Bhairava kārikā-s reviewed here:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2323 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2323)

For these upāya or dhāraṇā the intent is to become fixed/settled in the Supreme (by way of samādhi but other words are used). Yet to become unsettled during dhāraṇā only keeps the aspirant away from this fixity on the Supreme. Then one begins to entertaining thoughts and then goes back to the technique, just as you point out in your method.
It is a very delicate process. 'Effort' in the mix creates distraction and does not allow the settling-down into Being (sattā) easily. This too can be discussed at a later point.

Let me stop here and allow you to reflect on the information and references given above.

praṇām
words

upāya उपाय - that by which one reaches one's aim ; a means for success
āgama आगम- that which is handed down and fixed by tradition i.e. scriptures

FlipAsso
13 February 2009, 11:09 PM
I'm somewhat familiar with the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, at least with the ashta (eight) anga's (limbs) of Raja Yoga's practice and samyama.

The difference seems to be between "deepness" of reached states of mind/no-mind.
According to brazilian Swásthya Yôga's master Sri DeRose, who IMHO is a lyar, but I respect others opinions:
-Dharana is putting the mind back at the object
-Dhyana is a state of silentness of mind and union with the object - in which the thoughts are stopped - the onepointedness of mind
&
-Samadhi is a very powerfull state of mind which according to him can be of 2 kinds Nirbija Samadhi, which is what a saint like Sri Ramana Maharshi has attained; or Sabija Samadhi, which is what a very enlightened but not completely enlightened man has accomplished.

I think he compares Samadhi to Moksha, and this is not true, is it?
Moksha is the most enlightened state, total liberation; samadhi is a deep state of mind acquired by most yogis, is it?

In this Buddhist practice there is placed emphasis on the samadhi part, calming the mind and fixing it on the object, but there is also much emphasis (if not more), on observing where the mind went when it flew.
Is there a hinduist practice that places emphasis on this observing/mindfulness part?
What does a hinduist understand by mindfulness?

MahaHrada
14 February 2009, 05:01 AM
The mindfulness observation of Buddhism is based on the concept of the Alaya Vijnana, the so called ground of conciousness and its transformation into the Dharmakaya by the realising of the absolute nature of the mind, which in Budhhism is without any truly existing ground, it is the groundless nature of the mind. These concepts, or comparable concepts that are like Alaya Vijnana/Dharmakaya can not be found in any of the diverse Hindu Traditions.

The concept of the Dharmakaya/Alaya Vijnana is connected to the idea of Anatma (nonmind). Buddhist methods of meditation are trying to achieve as their goal the realisation that the concept of atma (self) is an illusion, a wrong concept, and ultimately there is no atma, this means buddhist meditation is based on the concept of the non existence of Atma, while most darshanas of Hinduism are based on the exact opposite concept, the realisation of the undying Atma (the true self) and the realisation, that this personal true self, the Atman is ultimately non different from the Paramatma. (the greater transpersonal self)

Though i must remark that in the later stages of Buddhism when it developed into the Tantrayana and Vajrayana lineages the concept of the existance of an ultimate self again entered into this variety of Buddhism through "the backdoor" so to say :) But when the monks where confronted with the root tantras (texts), they where /are already well learned in the doctrine of the non self and that to the extant that one can say that even in these later stages of Buddhism, concepts similar to the atman are considered a heresy, and so dire a sin was the belief in this concept that whole monasteries of so called heretic tibetan lineages,(like the Jonangpa) that appeared to be too close to the concept of atma for the orthodoxy, were completly destroyed and thousands of its monks killed, only because they followed a philosophy which was considered to be "eternalistic", and comparable to the concept of the existence of the atman or Paramatman of Hinduism. Also the chinese chan buddhism modified some basic Buddhistic concepts which moved it closer to the original pre buddhist indian philosophy. These, and other exceptions. like the adi yoga (dzog chen) teachings of the Nyingmapa buddhist sect, do not invalidate the general dichotomy between buddhist and hindu thought.

yajvan
14 February 2009, 06:16 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté FlipAsso,

you mentioned the 8 limbs of yoga. In Patañjali’s yogadarśana (the yoga sutras of Patañjali), chapter two Sādhana Pada, he calls out the 8 limbs of yoga. Within these 8 limbs he outlines yama & niyama.

If you wish to read a bit more about yama & niyama you can find several HDF posts on this matter here:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=57

I cannot add more to your query on 'mindfulness' and I see that MahaHrada is addressing some of your questions.

praṇām

FlipAsso
14 February 2009, 04:39 PM
Thank you both for your efforts in helping me.

I'll give a read and try to diggest the concepts you presented and I'll be back with more questions if you don't mind.

Happiness@all

atanu
15 February 2009, 12:43 AM
Namaste FlipAsso,

As I understand, the Atman of Vedanta is the original mind, which is groundless, supportless, neither a being nor a non being but which is unchangeable and advaita (without a second). Apart from words, the Swarupa of Buddhism and Atman of Veda, IMO, are same in essence. Belief in an individual eternal Atman is called the ignorance by most Vedantists (and may be called a sin in some part of Buddhism).

Dhyana and Dharana themselves encompass Mindfulness. Raja Yoga practice of observing the wandering mind and gently bringing it back to Self (God) involves mindfullness in FULL -- and more.

I say 'more' because, the Seer must experience, by remaining aware, the dissolution of the Seer, Seen, and the Seeing. Yet the Seer is eternal only. Else Buddha would not have taught. While teaching of Anatma, Buddha surely did not deny his own existence.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
15 February 2009, 05:22 AM
Namaste FlipAsso,

As I understand, the Atman of Vedanta is the original mind, which is groundless, supportless, neither a being nor a non being but which is unchangeable and advaita (without a second). Apart from words, the Swarupa of Buddhism and Atman of Veda, IMO, are same in essence. Belief in an individual eternal Atman is called the ignorance by most Vedantists (and may be called a sin in some part of Buddhism).

Dhyana and Dharana themselves encompass Mindfulness. Raja Yoga practice of observing the wandering mind and gently bringing it back to Self (God) involves mindfullness in FULL -- and more.

I say 'more' because, the Seer must experience, by remaining aware, the dissolution of the Seer, Seen, and the Seeing. Yet the Seer is eternal only. Else Buddha would not have taught. While teaching of Anatma,


I will make an exception this time and react to your posting, but will for obvious reason neither use my own words nor those of a scholar born in an inferior race or land, to make shure you have no possibility to attack the person with caustic remarks. The folllowing excerpts are from an article, written by a person of an excellent family (a Rana) who studied Vedanta and tantra shastra in the traditional way, before he converted to Vajrayana Buddhism and is now known as a respected Vajrayana Master and Terton in Nepal.

These are those parts , posted as excerpts from his article, which are quite perfect and which contain informations i could have not expressed any better myself. Italics are added by me.

Enlightenment: Buddhism Vis-à-Vis Hinduism from Ācārya Dharma Vajra (Sridhar SJB Rana)

First of all, in the Hindu context, we always find the theory that if illusion is removed, Brahman will reveal. Thus, samsara is illusion and Brahman is the only thing behind samsara, or is the base of the samsara, that truly exists. Only when the illusion-samsara vanishes, the Non-dual Brahman manifests.

However, in the Buddhist context, illusion is not removed but rather seen as knowledge itself or is transformed into knowledge. And this knowledge is not something that is the support or base of samsara. It is the knowledge of the true mode of existence of samsara itself. And furthermore, samsara is not an illusion which will vanish and only the Brahman will remain. In Buddhism, samsara is interdependently arisen (pratityasamutpann), like all illusions. So it is only like an illusion and cannot end. What ends is the wrong experience of experiencing it as really existing (skt. svabhava siddha). The knowledge (Gyana), that is synonymous with liberation, is not of an eternal, unchanging Brahman beyond samsara, but rather of the true mode of existence of samsara itself.

Difference between Advaya and Advaita
Although both experiences are called non-dual, here too, they mean two different things. Non-dual (advaita) in the Hindu context means non-existence of the second (divitiyam nasti). There is no second substance except the Brahman; it is the only thing that exists. This should be called Monism rather than Non-dualism. The phrase 'eka vastu vada' (one thingism) would be close to 'advaita'.

However, Buddhism usually uses 'advaya' (only sometimes is advaita used). Here, it means 'not two', i.e. free from the two extremes (skt. dvaya anta mukta) - of samaropa (the tendency to see things as really existing) and apavada (the tendency to see things as non-existing) - which include the existence of the grasper and the grasped (grahaka and grahya) too. Advaya is not of a thing (the one and only thing) like Brahma but a description of the form of samsara. That is why the samsara that is like an illusion transforms into Advaya Gyana in Buddhism. In Hinduism, the illusory samsara vanishes and the true eternal, unchanging Brahman dawns.

Tathagatagarbha

Now, I would like to deal with the concept of ‘Sugatagarbha’, or ‘Tathagatagarbha’, or ‘Dharmadhatu’, or ‘Dharmakaya’. Many Hindu scholars think that these words prove that Buddhism is basically speaking about Hindu Brahman. If one studies the Ratnagotravibhaga, and the Srimala Sutra, it is easy to see that they make it very clear that Sugatagarbha and Sunyata (emptiness) are cognate words. Sunyata is the mode of existence of all phenomena, including the mind, which knows this; whereas Brahman is a separate entity altogether from all phenomena. Brahman is something that truly exists (absolutely existing / Parmartha Satta). Sunyata is not a thing or a ‘Super Thing’ but the mode of existence of all things. Therefore, it is nonsense to speak of it as knowable epistemologically but not as a thing ontologically except interdependently. The Brahman, according to Hinduism, is not existing interdependently, but truly existing – the one and only truly existing substance. The Brahman is svabhavasiddha (inherent), whereas Sunyata is nisvabhavata (non-inherent); the Brahman is svalaksana siddha, whereas Sunyata is a Laksanata. The Brahman is Paramartha satta (ultimate existence), whereas Sunyata is the unfindability of such a parmartha satta anywhere.
Since the Ratnagotra makes it clear that sugatagarbha is just a cognate word for emptiness (Sunyata), Sugatagarbha and Brahman cannot be the same. The confusion is often created by the statement that the Sugatagarbha or the Buddha nature exists in all sentient beings. The word 'exists' is the perpetrator of confusion here. The ‘exists’ is only for conventional usage, or giving way to conventional usage. Without its use here, one cannot express the fact that this is the mode of abiding of the true nature of mind of all sentient beings. ‘Exists’ here is a synonym of ‘is the mode of abiding’, so ‘exists’ here does not mean ‘abide’ (skt. sthita) but rather ‘non abidingness’ (skt. asthita).

This is the mode of abiding, or the sugatagarbha present in all sentient beings. Even in the last sentence, the word ‘present’ can create the same confusion. ‘Present’ here would mean presence of the absence of self-existingness or self-characteristicness, etc. What is positively named ‘Sugatagarbha’ is that it is said to exist in all sentient beings. This ‘exists’ is qualitative rather than existential. It is also more epistemological, whereas the Brahman is more ontologically truly existing. The Brahman is not non-abiding but rather ‘kutastha’, which mean self-abiding.

Many so-called teachers are confused by the word ‘non-conceptual’. When describing their experience, they believe everything must be the same, without realizing that there are many kinds of non-conceptual states. Perhaps things get clearer if one understands that in the Buddhist context, non-conceptual is synonymous with pratyaksa- especially Yogi pratyaksa - and it is always an experience of something which becomes non-dualistically one with the experiencing consciousness. So it is not just a ‘non-conceptual’ state that Buddhist traditions are talking about; but a particular type of non-conceptual experience of emptiness or the Tathagatagarbha (skt. avikapla or nisprapanca).

atanu
15 February 2009, 06:28 AM
I will make an exception this time and react to your posting, but will for obvious reason neither use my own words nor those of a scholar born in an inferior race or land, to make shure you have no possibility to attack the person with caustic remarks.

Namaste Dear Mahahrada,

Your exceptions are always welcome. Interactions are always welcome but I suppose that reactions are not. I fail to understand why there has to be any reaction?

Whatever new appears to come in Sanatana Dharma is the bridge -- including Buddha, Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhava. Madhava dispels the misconception of one who has not experienced Advaita Lord that for such an individual Shiva and the Jiva are indeed not the same. That does not invalidate Shankara who has also taught that the Ocean and an individual wave are different.

Before Shri Rana, Shri Gaudapada had bridged the gap as below:


Mandukya Karika
IV-99. The knowledge of the one who is enlightened and all-pervasive, does not enter into objects. And so the souls also do not enter into objects. This fact was not mentioned by the Buddha.
----------------------------
I know that there are intellectual refutations of each other. I understand the differences and I merely believe in the teaching of Gaudapada and consequently have no need to contradict Shri Rana.





But when Buddha is the Swarupa and when Advaitin dissolves the Seer, the Seen, and the Seeing, the experience is same -- the continuity of 'existence-intelligence-bliss' itself cannot be denied since it is that 'existence-intelligence-bliss' again teaches. Whether the underlying reality be called nature or anything else does not matter.


There is a discussion in this forum http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=236, which you may check.


Thre are great variations among Buddhist schools as is there in Hinduism itself. A key post from the thread is reproduced below.



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

Best Wishes,


Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada
15 February 2009, 07:13 AM
Sridhar SJB Rana about the so called differing opinions (bold is mine again)
Same article:
There are two traditions of explaining 'advaya' in Buddhism. One is called the Vast Lineage (skt. Vaipulay parampara) of Asanga-Vasubandyhu. This is based on the 'Five Works' of Maitreya that emphasizes subject-object (skt. grahaka-grahya) duality. But unlike the various forms of Vedanta, they neither merge into one whole, nor does the grasper (subject) vanishes, and the illusion and only the eternal grasper remains. Here, they are found to be untenable from the very beginning. What remains is emptiness. This system had many great teachers like Dingnaga-Dharmakirti.

The second lineage, called the Profound Lineage (skt. gambhira parampara), started with Nagarajuna, and was passed down through famous teachers such as Aryadeva, Buddhapalita, Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti, Shantideva and Atisha. Other famous teachers, like Shantarakshita and Kamakashila, gave synthetic interpretations of 'advaya' using both traditions.
Any Buddhist hermeneutics must be based on one of these hermeneutics or their various branches like ‘Sakara Yogachara’, ‘Nirakara Yogachara’, ‘Yogachara’, ‘Sautrantic Madhyamik’, ‘Prasangic Madhyamika’, and ‘Svatantric Madhyamika’, etc. Just because one understands Sanskrit or Tibetan, one cannot interpret the ‘Sastras’ (texts) as one likes, giving straightforward meanings to them. Any interpretation must belong to, or be in conformity with one of these hermeneutical methodologies. Otherwise, it becomes one's own private idea of what these texts are teaching. That is why many Hindu scholars have misinterpreted the Buddhist texts and claimed that they are teaching the same thing found in the Hindu texts. But it is even more unfortunate that even so-called Buddhist scholars or those who are favorable to Buddhism, have not studied under any lineage masters belonging to any of the above hermeneutics, and have interpreted the texts simply on the basis of understanding the Sanskrit language. Such interpretations are personal ideas and not true Buddhist hermeneutics, and if analyzed, one will find many contradiction and inconsistencies.

atanu
15 February 2009, 07:21 AM
But it is even more unfortunate that even so-called Buddhist scholars or those who are favorable to Buddhism, have not studied under any lineage masters belonging to any of the above hermeneutics, and have interpreted the texts simply on the basis of understanding the Sanskrit language. Such interpretations are personal ideas and not true Buddhist hermeneutics, and if analyzed, one will find many contradiction and inconsistencies.



Well?:headscratch: . Can we not understand that without experiencing the Truth of Nibbana or the Self, all statements are personal ideas only? But the enlightened one is not a personal object.


Mandukya Karika
IV-99. The knowledge of the one who is enlightened and all-pervasive, does not enter into objects. And so the souls also do not enter into objects. This fact was not mentioned by the Buddha.Om

From the original post:




Dhyana and Dharana themselves encompass Mindfulness.Raja Yoga practice of observing the wandering mind and gently bringing it back to Self (God) involves mindfullness in FULL -- and more. I say 'more' because, the Seer must experience, by remaining aware, the dissolution of the Seer, Seen, and the Seeing. Yet the Seer is eternal only. Else Buddha would not have taught. While teaching of Anatma, Buddha surely did not deny his own existence..

atanu
15 February 2009, 07:39 AM
Difference between Advaya and Advaita
Although both experiences are called non-dual, here too, they mean two different things. Non-dual (advaita) in the Hindu context means non-existence of the second (divitiyam nasti). There is no second substance except the Brahman; it is the only thing that exists. This should be called Monism rather than Non-dualism. The phrase 'eka vastu vada' (one thingism) would be close to 'advaita'.

However, Buddhism usually uses 'advaya' (only sometimes is advaita used). Here, it means 'not two',

Namaste All,


Advaita is a-dvaita -- That which is not Dvaita, One without a Second, Not Two. Buddhism, like any other Religion, is a mere subset of Sanatana Dharma -- this was my original point when I said:
Dhyana and Dharana themselves encompass Mindfulness.Raja Yoga practice of observing the wandering mind and gently bringing it back to Self (God) involves mindfullness in FULL -- and more. I say 'more' because, the Seer must experience, by remaining aware, the dissolution of the Seer, Seen, and the Seeing. Yet the Seer is eternal only. Else Buddha would not have taught. While teaching of Anatma, Buddha surely did not deny his own existence.
Om

Nuno Matos
15 February 2009, 11:23 AM
Namasté Mahahrada,



This are your own words; " But it is even more unfortunate that even so-called Buddhist scholars or those who are favorable to Buddhism, have not studied under any lineage masters belonging to any of the above hermeneutics, and have interpreted the texts simply on the basis of understanding the Sanskrit language. Such interpretations are personal ideas and not true Buddhist hermeneutics, and if analyzed, one will find many contradiction and inconsistencies. "

Above said, i think we are to much expanded in complexety ( benignly ) i think to afford a Budha god in a restricted budhi.
If tantrics are Hindu remanants what would you call Hellenism?

MahaHrada
16 February 2009, 10:06 AM
Namasté Mahahrada,



This are your own words; " But it is even more unfortunate that even so-called Buddhist scholars or those who are favorable to Buddhism, have not studied under any lineage masters belonging to any of the above hermeneutics, and have interpreted the texts simply on the basis of understanding the Sanskrit language. Such interpretations are personal ideas and not true Buddhist hermeneutics, and if analyzed, one will find many contradiction and inconsistencies. "

Above said, i think we are to much expanded in complexety ( benignly ) i think to afford a Budha god in a restricted budhi.
If tantrics are Hindu remanants what would you call Hellenism?

This is not what i said but Sridhar SJB Rana - i don´t understand your question/comment i am sorry.

atanu
16 February 2009, 11:37 AM
Namasté Mahahrada,

This are your own words; " ----- Such interpretations are personal ideas and not true Buddhist hermeneutics, and if analyzed, one will find many contradiction and inconsistencies. "

Above said, i think we are to much expanded in complexety ( benignly ) i think to afford a Budha god in a restricted budhi.
If tantrics are Hindu remanants what would you call Hellenism?

Brilliance Perhaps.

Who is to know, through mental speculation, as to which contradiction is not a contradiction, especially with Buddha, the silent meditator Dakshinamurty? Only another Buddha, a Jnani of Gaudapada's order can perhaps bridge the gap:

Mandukya Karika

IV-99. The knowledge of the one who is enlightened and all-pervasive, does not enter into objects. And so the souls also do not enter into objects. This fact was not mentioned by the Buddha.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
16 February 2009, 05:17 PM
Namaste Atantu, MahaHrada & all,

Let's see it this way. Is there a problem only between scholars of Buddhism & Advaitins ? It is also there between Advaitins, Vishista-Advaitins, different schools of Buddhism etc. The reason is not that they point to different Truth ... if that is the case then Truth is really not the Truth .... it is because words fail when you try to describe what cannot be described.
All our expressions are limited to what we can think or experience within mental realms whereas the reality is beyond mental realm. Therefore the expressions vary. Whatever was expressed by Buddha or anyone is an attempt within that limitation ... and we must allow that.

I don't know how Rana got the idea that "Sunyata" or emptiness is akin to Brahman. This shows that Rana has not correctly understood the meaning of the Vedanta. Sunyata is directly related with the "dependent origination" ... i.e. the things have no independent existence as we see/feel them ... and actually there is "nothing" what can be seen or felt in anything. The realisation of emptiness is akin to removal of the illusion ... that anything is really not as we see them.

Coming to "no-self" ... the concept which is often brought to the fore to show the difference between Buddhism & Hindu Vedanta. Vedanta is very clear on this issue ... there is just One without a Second. Now let us analyse 'no-self' ... if there is anything which is different from the reality, the 'no-self' theory gets refuted (here 'self' is not the Brahman but the Jivatma which really has no independent existence as there is just One without a Second). Not only this, if there is anything other than the reality then the concept of "sunyata" or emptiness also gets refuted ... as in that case there can not be true emptiness. Let me clarify here that though Buddhism talks about "no-self" it talks about various births & the Nibbana. If we deny the "Jivatma" then what goes into cycles of births & deaths & what attains Nibbana ?

The statement that "Samsara vanishes & only Brahaman remains" is also erroneous. That is not the correct understanding. Brahman is always is the way it is ... it doesn't have to wait for Samsara to vanish to come into being. It is not like transformation of something into some other thing. There is no transformation here. Seeing Brahman as Samsara is the illusion. This illusion is inherent in the nature of the Visva & Taijsa states of the Brahman. Even in Visva & the Taijasa states, Brahman continue to be Brahman. It is the same reality.

Buddhists can never deny "Reality", though they don't use this word. Everything, whatever is there, is something ... though it is not what we think it is. "It is the knowledge of the true mode of existence of samsara itself." ... so, it talks about "existence" ... but if there is existence ... then there must be something that exists ! Brahman is what exists.

----------------------------------------

The religious institutions & the interests which try to control those institutions must have something to show that they are different for their survival as a different entity. This is nothing but their "Ahamkar". The One who knows the reality doesn't see the difference.

OM

atanu
16 February 2009, 11:41 PM
Buddhists can never deny "Reality", though they don't use this word. Everything, whatever is there, is something ... though it is not what we think it is. "It is the knowledge of the true mode of existence of samsara itself." ... so, it talks about "existence" ... but if there is existence ... then there must be something that exists ! Brahman is what exists.
----------------------------------------
The religious institutions & the interests which try to control those institutions must have something to show that they are different for their survival as a different entity. This is nothing but their "Ahamkar". The One who knows the reality doesn't see the difference.

OM

Namaste Devotee,

You have hit the nail on the head. The following is what Maha Upanishad says:


Maha Upanishad



VI-61. ‘that Brahman has been (identified with) emptiness (sunyata), Prakriti, Maya and also consciousness. It has also been said to be "Shiva, pure Spirit, the Lord, the eternal and the self".
VI-62. ‘There flourishes but the non-dual Power that is the supreme Self through and through; it sportively builds up the universe with (factors) born of (both) duality (avidya) and non-duality (vidya).


Prior to stating that Brahman itself is variously known (above verses), the Upanishad teaches of the four types of beliefs and points out that only one belief is not conducive to Nirvana.



VI-54(b). ‘Good Sir, man may have a four-fold certitude.
VI-55. ‘Engendered by (my) mother and father, I am (the body) from the foot to the head. This particular certitude, O Brahmin, results from the observation of the worries of bondage !
VI-56. ‘Good men have second kind of certitude that promotes liberation – viz.: "I am beyond all objects and beings; I am subtler than the tip of a hair".
VI-57. ‘Best of Brahmins, a third kind of certitude has been affirmed promotive of liberation alone (consisting in the thought) " All this objective world, the entire indestructible universe, is but myself".
VI-58. ‘Also there is a fourth certitude, yielding liberation (that consists of the assertion) "I and the entire world are empty and sky-like at all times".
VI-59. ‘Of these the first is said (to result from) the craving that earns bondage. Those having the last three are sportive, extremely pure and are liberated in this (very) life. Their cravings have been (wholly) purified.
VI-60. ‘Great-souled (sage), the mind seized with the certitude "I am everything" is never born again to taste of sorrow !



Om.
--------------------------------------------------------

The Self of All, the Supreme Self, cannot be proven or denied. Buddha did not mention this. Gaudapada reminded. Shankara added: One who is known through the scripture alone.

devotee
17 February 2009, 06:45 AM
VI-61. ‘that Brahman has been (identified with) emptiness (sunyata), Prakriti, Maya and also consciousness. It has also been said to be "Shiva, pure Spirit, the Lord, the eternal and the self".
VI-62. ‘There flourishes but the non-dual Power that is the supreme Self through and through; it sportively builds up the universe with (factors) born of (both) duality (avidya) and non-duality (vidya).


Namaste Atanu,

Your knowledge of scriptures is commendable. :)

I find it difficult to equate 'emptiness' with Brahman. But then it can't be two. So, emptiness must be Brahman. However, this emptiness, IMO, cannot be what comes to our mind with the word "emptiness".

Regards,

OM

atanu
17 February 2009, 09:08 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Your knowledge of scriptures is commendable. :)

I find it difficult to equate 'emptiness' with Brahman. But then it can't be two. So, emptiness must be Brahman. However, this emptiness, IMO, cannot be what comes to our mind with the word "emptiness".

Regards,

OM

Namaste Devotee,

Yes. You are corrrect. What the Upanishad means is that there is indeed the ever unchanging all pervading substratum, which for the purpose of description has many names but is the Self of All -- Param Atman. But, actually the best attempted description is given in the Mandukya Upanishad -- Atman which is Brahman is indescribable, ungraspable, neither being, nor non being, neither Pragnya, nor non Pragnya. I would say subtler than emptiness yet reservoir of all that can be.

Gaudapada hints that the soul of the Buddha is all pervading. Being All pervading there is no second, no two colors, no two smells, no two tastes --- this is indeed samAn without parts, so emptiness. Although apparently Buddha has risen from this emptiness to teach but we are told that the happenings are Lucid Dreams playing on in emptiness (Buddhism) or on the unchangeable screen of indescribable Brahman (Vedanta).

Advaita while agreeing on the ever changing nature of phenomenom, however points out that even if 'nothing' is the source of 'play' that 'nothing' is the continuum and also the source of the Pragnya.


Coming back to the OP. Till now, I have not found anything as elegant, as precise, and as near to pratayaksha as the Mandukya. No religion has clear equivalent of it. The meditation on OM, prescribed in most Upanishads, not only covers the Mindfullness exercise but also opens up the knowledge door. That is why I feel that all other religious teachings are mere subsets of Ajati Vada of Vedanta. No other religion, I feel, grasps the transcendental and the immanent aspects of Sat-Chit-Ananda, as is done through the Mandukya Upanishad.


Regards,

Om

devotee
18 February 2009, 06:48 AM
Till now, I have not found anything as elegant, as precise, and as near to pratayaksha as the Mandukya. No religion has clear equivalent of it. The meditation on OM, prescribed in most Upanishads, not only covers the Mindfullness exercise but also opens up the knowledge door. That is why I feel that all other religious teachings are mere subsets of Ajati Vada of Vedanta. No other religion, I feel, grasps the transcendental and the immanent aspects of Sat-Chit-Ananda, as is done through the Mandukya Upanishad.


Namaste Atanu,

You are absolutely right ! The description given in Mandukya Upanishad has no parallel. :)

Regards,

OM