Buddha and bhagavad gita?

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

I have been listening to the bhagavad Gita and I noticed it seems very similar to buddhism. So I asked on E-Sangha (buddhist forum) about some of the concepts shared between the religions. I asked about the Atman being similar to buddha nature. And also about the worship of deities not as separate from oneself, which buddhist do too. This was the reply

From the Lankavatara Sutra....



QUOTE( http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/contratman.htm (http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/contratman.htm) )
Then Mahamati said to the Blessed One:
In the Scriptures mention is made of the Womb of Tathagatahood and it is taught that that which is born of it is by nature bright and pure, originally unspotted and endowed with the thirty-two marks of excellence.
As it is described it is a precious gem but wrapped in a dirty garment soiled by greed, anger, folly and false-imagination.
We are taught that this Buddha-nature immanent in everyone is eternal, unchanging, auspicious.
It is not this which is born of the Womb of Tathagatahood the same as the soul-substance that is taught by the philosophers?
The Divine Atman as taught by them is also claimed to be eternal, inscrutable, unchanging, imperishable. It there, or is there not a difference?

The Blessed One replied:
No, Mahamati, my Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the Divine Atman as taught by the philosophers.
What I teach is Tathagatahod in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort.
The reason why I teach the doctrine of Tathagatahood is to cause the ignorant and simple-minded to lay aside their fears as they listen to the teaching of egolessness and come to understand the state of non-discrimination and imagelessness.

The religious teaching of the Tathagatas are just like a potter making various vessels by his own skill of hand with the aid of rob, water and thread, out of the one mass of clay, so the Tathagatas by their command of skillful means issuing from Noble Wisdom, by various terms, expressions, and symbols, preach the twofold egolessness in order to remove the last trace of discrimination that is preventing disciples from attaining a self-realisation of Noble Wisdom.

The doctrine of the Tathagata-womb is disclosed in order to awaken philosphers from their clinging to the notion of a Divine Atman as a transcendental personality, so that their minds that have become attached to the imaginary notion of a "soul" as being something self-existing, may be quickly awakened to a state of perfect enlightement.

All such notions as causation, succesion, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereing God, Creator, are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind.

No, Mahamati, the Tathagata’s doctrine of the Womb of Tathagatahood is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman.

...They ("philosophers") imagine that Nirvana consists (of) ... the absorption of the finite-soul in the supreme Atman; or who see all things as a manifestation of the vital-force of some Supreme Sprit to which all return; (...)
... clinging to these foolish notions, there is no awakening, and they consider Nirvana to consist in the fact that there is no awakening.


So just a question, Did Buddha really bring about something he thought was superior to the Yogis of Hinduism? I thought uniting ones atman with the Divine was Moksha or aka Liberations nirvana. Yet it seems buddhist think if you have these hindus view you will be stuck in samsara. How do we reconcile this?

[MahaHrada]

Namaste,

I have been listening to the bhagavad Gita and I noticed it seems very similar to buddhism. So I asked on E-Sangha (buddhist forum) about some of the concepts shared between the religions. I asked about the Atman being similar to buddha nature. And also about the worship of deities not as separate from oneself, which buddhist do too. This was the reply

From the Lankavatara Sutra....



So just a question, Did Buddha really bring about something he thought was superior to the Yogis of Hinduism? I thought uniting ones atman with the Divine was Moksha or aka Liberations nirvana. Yet it seems buddhist think if you have these hindus view you will be stuck in samsara. How do we reconcile this?

The information from esangha is correct. There is no reconciliation. Buddhism is fundamentally different from Hinduism. The first 4 stages of meditation in theravada buddhism are similar to Yoga. After that the paths diverge.

There are some Traditions in Budhism that are a little bit closer to Hinduism because they attribute some sort of substance to the Dharmadhatu or Shunya, but the fundamental differences remain. Budhism teaches dependent origination, momentariness, and that the atman is not existing, it is only a false concept. Hinduism teaches that conciousness exists and that there is "something" that is modified by the course of time (past, present future) while in buddhism all is cause and effect only, nothing really exists and is modified, but only causes create effects, when the causes are removed "self" is removed (being only an effect of several causes)
It is not really removed because it never existed in the first place, but excuse my simplification.
There is no place for atman in this philosophy, when there would be something that intrinsically exists (apart from being caused) it could not be removed by obliterating the cause for its existance. In Buddhism the removal of the self removes also the suffering. Rooting out the causes for the wrong concept of the self, has the effect of obliterating the one that suffers, and is therefore the cure for suffering i.e. Nirvana. Bodhisattwas continue to exist in a certain limited way, only because of the wish to help other beings by teaching this doctrine.

[devotee]

Namaste SS,

I don't see much difference. Let's see where the problem lies :

a) Buddha talks about no-self or no individual soul. However, though it is true but there is a paradox & because of this paradox the Truth is seen differently by the Buddhists & the Advaitins.

Buddha denies existence of any individual soul. OK, agreed (in fact, Advaitins too say that there is actually no individual soul). If that is true then what is appearing as man in flesh & blood which is in ignorance, what will attain Nirvana, what goes from birth to birth ? How is this paradox explained assuming "no-self" theory & sticking to it ?

Again Buddhists always invoke many Buddhas to help them in their spiritual journey. How does any entity which can be called by any name (means separate existence) exist after attaining Nirvana ?

To explain this paradox Advait Vedanta says that it is due to illusion. This concept of "illusion" is clear in Buddha's Diamond Sutra which proclaims that actually there is no bondage & there is no Nirvana. So, there is apparently something which actually is not there. This illusion has been called "conditioning" in Buddhism.

b) "What I teach is Tathagatahod in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort."

===> This state is similar to Turiya state in Advait Vedanta. Mark the negative description of the Tathagathood.

c) "All such notions as causation, succesion, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereing God, Creator, are call figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind."

====> Non-existence of "Causation, succession, atoms, primary elements that make up personality, personal soul" .... this has been explained in a) & the misunderstanding is due to the paradox involved.

Non-existence of Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator =====> This is a apparently a marked difference because Advait Vedanta talks about the third state of Brahman & names it as God-state. However, Advait Vedanta also says that this state is in deep sleep of the Brahman ====> Here deep sleep means existence of ignorance of reality. Therefore the true state which is without any trace of ignorance is Turiya & which is known only by negative description & that is description of Turiya is similar to Tathagathood or Buddha Nature.

Therefore, I really don't see much difference except in use of different terms.

OM

[shian]

dont forget

Buddha also says :

"one cannot attain Buddhahood only by textual understanding without puryfing kaya, vak and citta."

The originally anatman is to attain with practice, not only know.

are Buddhist can gain they already liberate from any suffering after know this theory of "anattman" ?

or even Hindust can gain they already liberate from samsara only after know about theory of "Atma"?

Buddha teach us do sila, from sila we can attain samadhi, from samadhi we can appear the Prajna (wisdom)

from wisdom we can liberate.

Prajna wisdom not only know about this such theory

[MahaHrada]

Namaste SS,

I don't see much difference. Let's see where the problem lies :

a) Buddha talks about no-self or no individual soul. However, though it is true but there is a paradox & because of this paradox the Truth is seen differently by the Buddhists & the Advaitins.

Buddha denies existence of any individual soul. OK, agreed (in fact, Advaitins too say that there is actually no individual soul). If that is true then what is appearing as man in flesh & blood which is in ignorance, what will attain Nirvana, what goes from birth to birth ? How is this paradox explained assuming "no-self" theory & sticking to it ?

Buddha explicitly says in the Prajnaparamita Sutra that no one attains Nirvana, and that the idea that there is any path to be tread or any person that treads the path etc. is an illusion. Nirvana is therefore not attained by anybody, in a certain sense all stays just as it is. But this can hardly be understood in its full impact, without the experiential realisation.

To explain rebirth without the cocnept of an individual soul to be reborn, based on the theory of dependent origination, Buddhist explain this in smost traditions with the help of the concept of the so called "alaya vijnana", an impersonal ground of conciousness, where the karma is so to say, deposited in potential form, so that after one body dies, for the timespan until the karma causes a new body to appear who receives the imprint of the causal karma, the potnetial is stored only in the Alaya Vijnana. The Alaya Vijnana is not a self or self concious. It is only a storage place. In Buddhism all is just a chain of cause and effect nothing permanent, like Brahman and Atman exists, or can exist. If it existed this would refute the whole concept of Nirvana and how it is attained. Buddhism is based on monmentariness. Without monmentariness there is no Buddhism. Brahman and atman are eternal and infinite. So there is no way these two can ever go together. Please use google with the terms alaya Vijnana and dependent origination. In Buddhism nothing transmigrates all is only a chain of cause and effect.


Again Buddhists always invoke many Buddhas to help them in their spiritual journey. How does any entity which can be called by any name (means separate existence) exist after attaining Nirvana ?

These bodhisattvas decided not to attain full nirvana and therefore they kept the last trace of a wish, the wish to help others., that way they prevent themselves, due to that oath, from attaining full Nirvana and be Buddhas but remain Bodhisattvas. They then project countless bodies.


To explain this paradox Advait Vedanta says that it is due to illusion. This concept of "illusion" is clear in Buddha's Diamond Sutra which proclaims that actually there is no bondage & there is no Nirvana. So, there is apparently something which actually is not there. This illusion has been called "conditioning" in Buddhism.

b) "What I teach is Tathagatahod in the sense of Dharmakaya, Ultimate Oneness, Nirvana, emptiness, unbornness, unqualifiedness, devoid of will-effort."

===> This state is similar to Turiya state in Advait Vedanta. Mark the negative description of the Tathagathood.

c) "All such notions as causation, succesion, atoms, primary elements, that make up personality, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, Sovereing God, Creator, are call figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind."

====> Non-existence of "Causation, succession, atoms, primary elements that make up personality, personal soul" .... this has been explained in a) & the misunderstanding is due to the paradox involved.

Non-existence of Supreme Spirit, Sovereign God, Creator =====> This is a apparently a marked difference because Advait Vedanta talks about the third state of Brahman & names it as God-state. However, Advait Vedanta also says that this state is in deep sleep of the Brahman ====> Here deep sleep means existence of ignorance of reality. Therefore the true state which is without any trace of ignorance is Turiya & which is known only by negative description & that is description of Turiya is similar to Tathagathood or Buddha Nature.

Therefore, I really don't see much difference except in use of different terms.

OMAll the so called similarities are due to a faulty understanding of either one or both advaita vedanta and/or buddhism. To say like you do, that advaita vedanta. similar to buddhism, does not admit the existence of a jiva experienceing reincarnation is plainly unbeliveable.

SS please trust the knowledgable people at esangha, they are buddhists, their opinion about the differences are flawless truth. I also have studied Buddhism for a long time with many learnend Gurus so you can also trust my knowledge.

[MahaHrada]

dont forget

Buddha also says :

"one cannot attain Buddhahood only by textual understanding without puryfing kaya, vak and citta."

The originally anatman is to attain with practice, not only know.

are Buddhist can gain they already liberate from any suffering after know this theory of "anattman" ?

or even Hindust can gain they already liberate from samsara only after know about theory of "Atma"?

Buddha teach us do sila, from sila we can attain samadhi, from samadhi we can appear the Prajna (wisdom)

from wisdom we can liberate.

Prajna wisdom not only know about this such theory

That is again correct, but whether experiential or in theory the doctrines of Hinduism and Buddhism cannot be followed or experienced at the same time because they are opposed to each other.

Either you experience the existance of a permament ground of conciousness that existed in the past and will exist in the future and is the same in the past present and future and you belive that there is a jiva that undergoes modification in time and there is an eternal perceiver, or you experience, or belive the opposite, which is that everything is momentary, therefore something that moves through changes past present and future does not exist and these are merely wrong intellectual concepts, because nothing permanent ever existed and all existing is a product of the Law of cause and effect. therefore not permament, or something that can be modifiedor goes through changes, so that the idea that there is an eternal perceiver is of course also considered only a wrong intellectual concept.

Therefore you cannot belive in or experience both doctrines at the same time, because they are diametrically the opposite of each other, how should this be possible?

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

Thank all for the great responses. So I think I subtly know the differences. However, what is truely superior? What path is best? This is what I seek. I want Truth. Where do i find it? Does Lord shiva and Lord Ganesha have it or does Lord Buddha have it?

[Spiritualseeker]

Nevermind im just a loser who is inconsistent i will never find truth. Atleast not in this lifetime. Its all just a waste of my energy. Anyways I would look like an idiot of i were hindu im a light skin colored mexican. A fool who converted to islam for seven years and now gave that up to be lost again. Now what become a Hindu worshipping with people who are wondering what the hell is wrong with me.

[shian]

why so confused ?

one man only can stop confused after find a theory who can make him self satisfied, and this satisfied is also not same to everyone.

i eat one side of mango and others eat the other side

i said mango is sweet
he said mango is sweet but a little bit sour

i want others eat this mango because good for health, so i promoted to people who like sweet fruit and i said this is sweet.
Others want other peoples to eat this mango because is good for health, so they promoted to friends who like sweet fruit with a little bit sour, and they said "this is sweet with a little bit sour"

this is very usefull way to attract others to get benefit of mango

but

when i cannot stop thinking "this is sweet or sweet but a little bit sour.... which one is true....." so i am forget "this is mango", and i become stressed about this ... and then i cannot get the benefit of mango because stress make me sick...

hey~ Hindust or Buddhist, who can tell me can you liberate from delusion only with talk about atman and anattman in everydays ???

a old granny who cannot read any scripture is chanting Shiva with puremind everydays, she know all of Shiva

a younger scholar is debate about God name everydays and debate what is God atribute, he debate without any ending of this, but still life in lust ... without realize anythings

what do you want become ?

why make your head pain ?

see the history of any religion, see what they get from debating atributes of God

[TatTvamAsi]

Nevermind im just a loser who is inconsistent i will never find truth. Atleast not in this lifetime. Its all just a waste of my energy. Anyways I would look like an idiot of i were hindu im a light skin colored mexican. A fool who converted to islam for seven years and now gave that up to be lost again. Now what become a Hindu worshipping with people who are wondering what the hell is wrong with me.

Are you saying that Hindus are dark-skinned only? I now definitely do think "WTF is wrong with you"?!

Instead of asking random people on the internet, read as much as you can about both philosophies and go with the one that fits YOU the best. Then, Truth will come to you.

Peace.

[devotee]

Namaste,

I have promised that I won't be replying to MahaHrada's posts & I expect him to observe the same discipline (if he can't maintain the objectivity during discussion & sticks to his "I know better than you", "You don't know anything" etc. attitude) to avoid unnecessary bitterness in discussion. I come to this forum for "satsang" & not for egotistical fights.

Dear SS, use of different terms does make the Buddhism & what is told in Upanishads look different but actually they are not. Saying that the Karmas are stored somewhere & use of term "dependent origination" doesn't change the Truth. If you read, "The Tibetan Book of Living & Dying", you find complete description of how this "conditioned being" (as described in Buddhism) travels through different states after death ... If you compare with Hinduism, it is similar to "Jiva" or "self" (individual self). I can tell you other similarities but I don't want to at this juncture for obvious reasons. I won't go further in this discussion.

Regarding what is better ... See, the end result must be the Same if all paths are true & it is the Truth that all path lead to the same destination after complete removal of ignorance. So, I don't see any path better than or inferior to the other. It depends on the seeker to decide what suits him best.

OM

[TatTvamAsi]

SS please trust the knowledgable people at esangha, they are buddhists, their opinion about the differences are flawless truth. I also have studied Buddhism for a long time with many learnend Gurus so you can also trust my knowledge.

How on earth can opinion be truth? Secondly, have you EXPERIENCED this nature of reality to be so sure?! Mere intellectual reasoning will never yield understanding of Truth.

It is quite hilarious that Buddhists parade the "no-atman" theory as sacrosanct when only ONE person has allegedly experienced it; namely Buddha. Whereas in Hinduism, NUMEROUS Rishis and Sages have described the nature of reality that they have EXPERIENCED and that coincides with the message in the Veda. Hmm.. if 9 out of 10 people who have eaten apples say it tastes good and one person does not, I am certainly believing the majority here. However, to be fair, I honestly feel that Siddhartha's message has been convoluted over the centuries and misinterpreted by the followers mainly perhaps to find a fundamental difference between the two philosophies. I certainly believe there is no real difference between them; not because I am a scholar of Buddhism & Hinduism, but because of what the Yogis/Rishis/Sages have said for thousands of years in India. This includes Buddha, who was a Hindu Kshatriya in India.

Namaskar.

[TatTvamAsi]

"I know better than you"

Namaste Devotee,

This is the fundamental problem with 99.9% of westerners who read about Indian philosophy (Buddhism/Hinduism).

No wonder philosophy in the good old days was Shruti! :rolleyes:

Namaskar.

[atanu]

To explain rebirth without the cocnept of an individual soul to be reborn, based on the theory of dependent origination, Buddhist explain this in smost traditions with the help of the concept of the so called "alaya vijnana", an impersonal ground of conciousness, where the karma is so to say, deposited in potential form, so that after one body dies, for the timespan until the karma causes a new body to appear who receives the imprint of the causal karma, the potnetial is stored only in the Alaya Vijnana. The Alaya Vijnana is not a self or self concious. It is only a storage place.

Namaste,

As per advaita darshana and in brahma sutra, the storage of samskaras is in Pragnya Ghana Shushupti and not in Turya. Devotee, IMO, has already indicated this. Pragnya Ghana shushupti probably differs from 'alaya vijnana' only in name. Pragnya Ghana Shushupti, called Pradhana is not considered self or self conscious either in Mandukya Karika or in Brahma Sutra. And this alone is the cause of the Universe.

(About this point alone, there was much heat and abuse).

In fact, much before Buddha taught, Upanishads have taught that the Universe is only of names and forms.

Most of what is written of Buddha's teachings, as indicative of different from Hinduism, are pre-Gaudapada and pre-Shankara, and those teachings mainly refuted the idea of a soul (held staunchily by dualistic hindus). Though, the seed of advaita is fully present in Veda and Upanishads, but, it is always difficult to show reason to dualistic thinkers. They see the boundaries as real, though Gita says that the boundaries are apparent. Buddha simply broke through. If I understand Shian correctly, he also understands as we understand.

However, many later day Buddhists and also Hindus, IMO, do not take into factor that Buddha's teachings were in respect of dualistic schools of Hinduism, which at that time (and also now) held very strongly to immortal souls laden with karma, either as part or as eternally distinct from Brahman. Many hindus as well as Buddhists do not acknowledge the similarity of 'Neti-Neti' to 'anatman'. Only a few realise that anAtman is wrt to the panchakosha self and not wrt the true being who persists and comes up again to teach of anAtman.

ajAti vAda also teaches that in ultimate reality there is no seeker and no realisation. And that is another description of 'neither a being nor a non-being'. And that is another expression of Eko Being, who being Eko knows no other and thus has no Ego to be able to say "I am this and that is the Universe".


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

But I know that in both schools there are people who would point out subtle differences. The funny part is that the pointed out differences belong to anAtmAn.

So be it. Diversity is the spice of life.


Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

It is quite hilarious that Buddhists parade the "no-atman" theory as sacrosanct when only ONE person has allegedly experienced it;

Ya.

Who is that ONE who is teaching anAtmAn? Is that also anAtmAn?

Om

[Spiritualseeker]

Are you saying that Hindus are dark-skinned only? I now definitely do think "WTF is wrong with you"?!

Instead of asking random people on the internet, read as much as you can about both philosophies and go with the one that fits YOU the best. Then, Truth will come to you.




No its a criticism of myself. I have never fit in. I have a spanish name im half mexican yet im a pale person. Never fit in with my own culture. What I am saying is I will again be out of place. It has nothing to do with a hindu having dark or light skin.

Thank you

Namaste

[Spiritualseeker]

Dear SS, use of different terms does make the Buddhism & what is told in Upanishads look different but actually they are not. Saying that the Karmas are stored somewhere & use of term "dependent origination" doesn't change the Truth. If you read, "The Tibetan Book of Living & Dying", you find complete description of how this "conditioned being" (as described in Buddhism) travels through different states after death ... If you compare with Hinduism, it is similar to "Jiva" or "self" (individual self). I can tell you other similarities but I don't want to at this juncture for obvious reasons. I won't go further in this discussion.

Regarding what is better ... See, the end result must be the Same if all paths are true & it is the Truth that all path lead to the same destination after complete removal of ignorance. So, I don't see any path better than or inferior to the other. It depends on the seeker to decide what suits him best.

Namaste,

So it seems like the differences are very minor. Thank you

OM

[Spiritualseeker]

what do you want become ?

why make your head pain ?


I guess your right I just dont know how to make it not any pain.

[atanu]

Let us hear from a practicising Buddhist also.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=4175&postcount=3

The relevant portion is pasted below:


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.

In whatever way one analyses and believes, shakyamuni has a reality. Is this shakyamuni also anAtmA?
----------------------------------
For SS,

All these paths ultimately teach "Know Thyself". Know swarupa. Know svabhava. Know your true form and know your true nature, since you are TRUE. You will benefit by staying away from internet and spending time on reading and digesting.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Spiritualseeker]

For SS,

All these paths ultimately teach "Know Thyself". Know swarupa. Know svabhava. Know your true form and know your true nature, since you are TRUE. You will benefit by staying away from internet and spending time on reading and digesting.

Om Namah Shivaya


Namaste,

Ah I think you may be right. it is hard to pull away from the internet. But I know your right

[devotee]

Namaste Atanu,
For me, it is sometimes good to be away from this forum when I am able to meditate more deeply.  However, this forum gives an opportunity for Satsang (discussing with spiritual people) & that brings me back here again & again.

Buddha was basically a Vedanti. His teachings originally are not different from Hindu Vedanta philosophy but there have always been people who have tried to show it not only different but completely opposite. The Prjnaparamita taught by him consists of two portions – Heart Sutras & Diamond Sutras. The essence of the whole of Prajnaparamita is negation of form & names … total detachment from “individuality”. That is what Advait Vedanta teaches --- The One without a second.

The biggest point of difference that people point out between Buddhism & Advait Vedanta is “no-self” theory. Adavait Vedanta also proclaims --- Eko Brahman, so there is no scope of any individual soul. However, though there is no individual soul “in reality”, it appears to be so (one appears as many) within the first two states, which are the dream states when the “reality is wrongly perceived” or the Brahman is perceived as the world. So, Advait Vedanta also says that the multitude perceived in the dream states are false … it doesn’t really exist. What exists is the Turiya, the fourth state which is the screen wherein all the three states appear to originate & dissolve. So, where is the difference ? Buddhism directly talks about the fourth state whereas Advait Vedanta talks about the other three states too.

However, in Buddhism there is still concept of rebirths of the conditioned being. The whole of Jataka Katha is full of stories of Buddha going through many incarnations before finally coming to the form of Siddhartha. The whole doctrine of Buddhism is to get Nirvana i.e. to break the cycle of births & deaths. Now , question is, “if there is no self”, what goes into cycles of deaths & births ? If there is no continuity involved in one birth with the other, how Buddha’s Jataka stories fit in ? This answer cannot be given without accepting anything which has some individuality in all such incarnations … though it is an illusion but it is there until the enlightenment is attained by that individual conditioned being. If there was no individual conditioned being then as soon as Buddha had attained Nirvana, every being should have attained nirvana !

Can we explain this with the concept of Store Consciousness ? The reality is, the concept of Store consciousness has been criticised by some Buddhists as the “Atman” theory inserted from Hinduism in disguise. This theory is not originally attributed to Sakyamuni Buddha (Siddhartha Gautam) but to Yogachara School of Buddhism developed in Mahayana Buddhism in 4th Century AD i.e. nearly 900 years after Buddha.

What is this concept ? Store Consciousness is proposed as the Eighth Consciousness which is the seed for the other seven consciousness ( Eye, Ear, Nose ,tongue, body, ideation & manas). It is to be understood that this is not where the individuality is lost. This Store Consciousness is one for each being depending upon the Karma of that being & that decides any other skandha related with that being and also the rebirth of that being after death.

There is another concept “momentariness” which states that everything is changing every moment. So, any (conditioned) being is not the same next moment. This is nothing new. What I was in my childhood, certainly I am not the same now. The “i” is made of thoughts & keeps changing with thoughts but still within this changing “i”, there is something (even though only apparently within the waking & dreaming states) which continues & something that relates the past with the present. The Store-consciousness takes care of this continuity.

Any Hindu (by birth or who understand the essence of Hinduism) will say that the above theory is quite similar to Jiva or the lower self which goes from birth to birth until it attains Jnana.


Buddha also talks about many Buddhas before him, the most prominent one being the Dipankar Buddha. What religion did those Buddhas follow ? There was no so called Buddhism before Sakyamuni Buddha, so it has to be something with its roots in the Vedas.

Regards,

OM

[atanu]

Namaste Atanu,
For me, it is sometimes good to be away from this forum when I am able to meditate more deeply.

Buddha was basically a Vedanti.

Can we explain this with the concept of Store Consciousness ? The reality is, the concept of Store consciousness has been criticised by some Buddhists as the “Atman” theory inserted from Hinduism in disguise. This theory is not originally attributed to Sakyamuni Buddha (Siddhartha Gautam) but to Yogachara School of Buddhism developed in Mahayana Buddhism in 4th Century AD i.e. nearly 900 years after Buddha.

What is this concept ? Store Consciousness is proposed as the Eighth Consciousness which is the seed for the other seven consciousness ( Eye, Ear, Nose ,tongue, body, ideation & manas). It is to be understood that this is not where the individuality is lost. This Store Consciousness is one for each being depending upon the Karma of that being & that decides any other skandha related with that being and also the rebirth of that being after death.

OM

Namaste Devotee,

Thank you for nice lucid explanation and explanation of store. It appeared to me that the store may be another unsophisticated name of third state of shushupti, said to be the state wherein the potential names and forms reside just like a design may reside conceptually in an uncut piece of marble.
Thank you and Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

That is again correct, but whether experiential or in theory the doctrines of Hinduism and Buddhism cannot be followed or experienced at the same time because they are opposed to each other.

Either you experience the existance of a permament ground of conciousness that existed in the past and will exist in the future and is the same in the past present and future and you belive that there is a jiva that undergoes modification in time and there is an eternal perceiver, or you experience, or belive the opposite, which is that everything is momentary, -

Namaste MahaHrada,

Just let us think a bit. If Buddha does not teach of a permanent ground, then what is He meditating on and with what?

Om Namah Shivaya

[devotee]

Namaste Atanu,

I did some research on whether Buddha had so much allergy with the word Self.

If we look at the Mahaparinirvana Sutra as translated by Professor Jeffery Hopkins there are some places in the Sutras where Buddha equates Buddha Nature with SELF :

'... that which has permanence, bliss, Self, and thorough purity is called the "meaning of pure truth"'.
'Permanent is the Self; the Self is thoroughly pure. The thoroughly pure is called "bliss". Permanent, blissful, Self, and thoroughly pure is the one-gone-thus [i.e. Buddha]';
'Self means the matrix-of-one-gone-thus [i.e. the tathagatagarbha/ Buddha-nature]. The existence of the buddha-nature in all sentient beings is the meaning of "Self"'.
'The buddha-nature, by its own nature, cannot be made non-existent; it is not something that becomes non-existent. Just the inherent nature called "Self" is the secret matrix-of-one-gone-thus [i.e. tathagatagarbha / Buddha-nature]; in this way that secret matrix cannot be destroyed and made non-existent by anything.'

Dr. Shenpen Hookham in her book "The Buddha Within" states :

'In scriptural terms, there can be no real objection to referring to Buddha, Buddhajnana [Buddha Awareness/ Buddha Knowledge], Nirvana and so forth as the True Self, unless the concept of Buddha and so forth being propounded can be shown to be impermanent, suffering, compounded, or imperfect in some way ... in Shentong terms, the non-self is about what is not the case, and the Self of the Third Dharmachakra [i.e. the Buddha-nature doctrine] is about what truly IS.'

-------------------------
Apart from the above the Buddha Nature has also been described with following words in various Buddhist's scriptures:

a) incorruptible, uncreated, and indestructible
b) it is eternal "bodhi" (Knowledge, Jnan) indwelling samsara ... opens up the immanent possibility of Liberation from all suffering and impermanence
c) Eternal, Present in all beings
d) Unborn, does not die, does not transfer, does not arise. It is beyond the sphere of the characteristics of the compounded; it is permanent, stable and changeless
d) ultimate, all-equal, uncreated essence of all phenomena

So, is it really different from SELF ?

Regards,

OM

[shian]

Let us hear from a practicising Buddhist also.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=4175&postcount=3

The relevant portion is pasted below:



In whatever way one analyses and believes, shakyamuni has a reality. Is this shakyamuni also anAtmA?



see...

the debate of anatma and atma is only make many and many mistake, missunderstanding

computer or laptop in front of us is reality or no ?
what is reality ?
everyone have a different theory to explain this word

what is reality, what is anatma , what is atma

this is need pure mind to understand and experience

if only with mouth , is become far and far from anatman or even atma

[shian]

I guess your right I just dont know how to make it not any pain.

my friend...

when you dream about thief, you run and run , very affraid....

and then you just wake up

you will fell free after know that is only dream.

that is same

everyone who believe in religion is running and running in this world and the goal is only for rest in peace

and why you not get the GOAL ?
no need running

just GET the "Peace"
the things wo can make our mind peace and improve , brightening our life, use it.

and the others is rubbish.
please learn from history, that religion have many changed from ancient to now ! era to era...

for what ? why human beings still improve the religion and believe ?

because human beings search for peace.

just get the peace !

Shiva name is peace

Buddha name is peace

Durga name is peace

Allah name is peace

Jesus name is peace

but why many peoples make that name become enemy each others ???

that because the mind of the "people" is cant recognize peace.

why you follow peoples who cant find and not know about peace ?

just get the one name and form you love it (not because the lower and higest, one name is for being easy for our mind to keep it) and attach for peace and spread the peace to everyone who need it

if your heart follow and searching for peace but still blind and dark, do you know , you is not refuge in the name of God who peoples and you debate. You is follow ,refuge and chanting in the name of peoples who cannot find the peace. Even the name is Shiva, Buddha, Allah or Jesus.

why do that ? wasting time. Your life time is very valuable

[atanu]

see...

the debate of anatma and atma is only make many and many mistake, missunderstanding

if only with mouth , is become far and far from anatman or even atma

Namaste shian,

You are correct but in Hinduism, the discriminination of atma-anatman is a very important tool. A child tries to walk and falls down again and again and then walks. Discrimination is a way taught as Neti-Neti in Brihadarayanaka Upanishad and as "Who am I?" in Aitereya Upanishad.

Just mouthing peace word also does not bring peace, untill one experiences the peace in the imperishable. Similarly, atma and anatman are distinguished and separated, to find peace in atma.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Namaste Devotee,

What you have searched out is invaluable for me, notwithstanding that intuitively it was understood.

THanks

Regards


Namaste Atanu,

I did some research on whether Buddha had so much allergy with the word Self.

If we look at the Mahaparinirvana Sutra as translated by Professor Jeffery Hopkins there are some places in the Sutras where Buddha equates Buddha Nature with SELF :

'... that which has permanence, bliss, Self, and thorough purity is called the "meaning of pure truth"'.
'Permanent is the Self; the Self is thoroughly pure. The thoroughly pure is called "bliss". Permanent, blissful, Self, and thoroughly pure is the one-gone-thus [i.e. Buddha]';
'Self means the matrix-of-one-gone-thus [i.e. the tathagatagarbha/ Buddha-nature]. The existence of the buddha-nature in all sentient beings is the meaning of "Self"'.
'The buddha-nature, by its own nature, cannot be made non-existent; it is not something that becomes non-existent. Just the inherent nature called "Self" is the secret matrix-of-one-gone-thus [i.e. tathagatagarbha / Buddha-nature]; in this way that secret matrix cannot be destroyed and made non-existent by anything.'

Dr. Shenpen Hookham in her book "The Buddha Within" states :

'In scriptural terms, there can be no real objection to referring to Buddha, Buddhajnana [Buddha Awareness/ Buddha Knowledge], Nirvana and so forth as the True Self, unless the concept of Buddha and so forth being propounded can be shown to be impermanent, suffering, compounded, or imperfect in some way ... in Shentong terms, the non-self is about what is not the case, and the Self of the Third Dharmachakra [i.e. the Buddha-nature doctrine] is about what truly IS.'

-------------------------
Apart from the above the Buddha Nature has also been described with following words in various Buddhist's scriptures:

a) incorruptible, uncreated, and indestructible
b) it is eternal "bodhi" (Knowledge, Jnan) indwelling samsara ... opens up the immanent possibility of Liberation from all suffering and impermanence
c) Eternal, Present in all beings
d) Unborn, does not die, does not transfer, does not arise. It is beyond the sphere of the characteristics of the compounded; it is permanent, stable and changeless
d) ultimate, all-equal, uncreated essence of all phenomena

So, is it really different from SELF ?

Regards,

OM

[shian]

Namaste shian,

Just mouthing peace word also does not bring peace, untill one experiences the peace in the imperishable. Similarly, atma and anatman are distinguished and separated, to find peace in atma.

Om Namah Shivaya

about peace you absolutely right my friend

do peace in mind and what we do everyday is very important.

lets do more practice everyday

[atanu]

about peace you absolutely right my friend
do peace in mind and what we do everyday is very important.lets do more practice everyday

and about arguments and discussions, you are absolutely right, my friend.



“Disputation and discussion are both futile.

Why is that?

Because nothing either party could say could possibly be true,
And whereas dispute picks out the false,
Which is too easy to see,
Discussion seeks the truth which is being pointed at,
Which is too difficult to describe.”



Wei Wu Wei from Posthumous Pieces, 1968

The address can only point to the abode.

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

What do you think of this sutta? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html

[atanu]

Namaste,

What do you think of this sutta? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html[/quote (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.049.than.html[/quote)]

Namaste SS,



"Consciousness without surface (viññanam anidassanam): This term appears to be related to the following image from:
"Just as if there were a roofed house or a roofed hall having windows on the north, the south, or the east. When the sun rises, and a ray has entered by way of the window, where does it land?"
"On the western wall, lord."
"And if there is no western wall, where does it land?"
"On the ground, lord."
"And if there is no ground, where does it land?"
"On the water, lord."
"And if there is no water, where does it land?"
"It does not land, lord."
"In the same way, where there is no passion for the nutriment of physical food ... contact ... intellectual intention ... consciousness, where there is no delight, no craving, then consciousness does not land there or grow. Where consciousness does not land or grow, name-&-form does not alight. Where name-&-form does not alight, there is no growth of fabrications. Where there is no growth of fabrications, there is no production of renewed becoming in the future. Where there is no production of renewed becoming in the future, there is no future birth, aging, & death. That, I tell you, has no sorrow, affliction, or despair."


In other words, normal sensory consciousness is experienced because it has a "surface" against which it lands: the sense organs and their objects, which constitute the "all." For instance, we experience visual consciousness because of the eye and forms of which we are conscious. Consciousness without surface, however, is directly known, without intermediary, free from any dependence on conditions at all.

I understand that the above is not a bit different from what Yajnavalkya teaches his wife in Brihadaraynaka Upanishad:


[quote]II-iv-14: Because when there is duality, as it were, then one smells something, one sees something, one hears something, one speaks something, one thinks something, one knows something. (But) when to the knower of Brahman everything has become the self, then what should one smell and through what, what should one see and through what, what should one hear and through what, what should one speak and through what, what should one think and through what, what should one know and through what ? Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known – through what, O Maitreyi, should one know the Knower ?


The singular consciousness has truly no place to land -- that is the secret of not knowing anything in sleep. That is Such. But Hinduism does not condemn worshipping of forms that develop on landing of consciousness against surfaces -- in the three states of dream existences. Because the dreams are known through the same consciousness that never lands. There are not two consciousnesses.


Om Namah Shivaya
-------------------
If some Buddhists claim that Buddha discovered some new truth, then truth does not exist and Buddha's teachings have no value.

[Spiritualseeker]

Very interesting atanu. Thank you. Maybe the books I just purchased will help me understanda sanatana dharma more.

Namaste

[atanu]

Very interesting atanu. Thank you. Maybe the books I just purchased will help me understanda sanatana dharma more.
Namaste

Namaste Spiritual,

If you inspect closer, you might find something not gelling. If the Consciousness is not landing, then how Buddha is conversing with another?

Om

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

lets see if i understand you right. If the consciousness did not form in the body or go into the body then there would be no way of communication or expressing? Thus the idea of no consciousness or just a stream of consciousness is a bit flawed since it does not have the concept or belief of atman?

[atanu]

Namaste,

lets see if i understand you right. If the consciousness did not form in the body or go into the body then there would be no way of communication or expressing? Thus the idea of no consciousness or just a stream of consciousness is a bit flawed since it does not have the concept or belief of atman?

Dear SS,

Not exactly.

See, Atman-Brahman-Consciousness are interchangeable. As dense consciousness (without any thought parting the consciousness) there is nothing else to be seen or known. At such time when the consciousness does not land on any surface or when it is unparted (by thoughts) consciousness enjoys its own nature.

You can now experience this, by remembering how in deep sleep you knew no one else, had no body and no Universe. But you came out rejuvenated and you have some remembrance of how peaceful it was. That was consciousness enjoying consciousness.

In dream, on the other hand, consciousness creates certain surfaces, made of itself, such as a dream girl, and then enjoys it.

In waking, the surfaces are harder and seem more real. But surfaces are made of consciousness alone.

In pure consciousness, there being no created surface, the consciousness does not land on any surface.
--------------------------------

Buddha conversing with Brahma indicates either: a) Brahma is Buddha's own mind (as is true of every one), or b) Consciousness called Buddha has landed on a surface called Baka Brahma.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

This is difficult for me to understand. Well Ive been reading Dancing with Siva which is very interesting. It has gotten me even more interested in hinduism. However, I do feel that the concept of God in hinduism, in particular the shaivite sect seems to just be pure being, pure consciousness, just as we discussed earlier. So, i am still struggling with there being a possibility of some God deity that exist. Sometimes I have thoughts that Hindus just experienced pure being and call that "God" but what it is is just plain being, or their original nature which has nothing to do with some divinity. My mind goes back and forth. :(

[devotee]

Namaste SS,



This is difficult for me to understand. Well Ive been reading Dancing with Siva which is very interesting. It has gotten me even more interested in hinduism. However, I do feel that the concept of God in hinduism, in particular the shaivite sect seems to just be pure being, pure consciousness, just as we discussed earlier. So, i am still struggling with there being a possibility of some God deity that exist. Sometimes I have thoughts that Hindus just experienced pure being and call that "God" but what it is is just plain being, or their original nature which has nothing to do with some divinity. My mind goes back and forth. :(

Your difficulty is quite understandable. Advaita (Non-duality) is indeed difficult to understand and practise. Some don't understand it correctly. Some think that they understand but really they don't.

It is incorrect understanding that Advaita is devoid of God. However, some people think that bringing God into picture is like bringing Duality from back-door & that appears incongruent. However, believe me, it is not. I can tell you that God or any deity is as good a reality as you yourself are & they are as unreal as you yourself are. Sounds confusing ? OK. Why hurry at this stage ?

As Lord Shiva & Shaivism appeals to you, just proceed on your spiritual journey with Lord Shiva. Don't go on reading one book after the other from different paths without understanding each one of them correctly & get confused. That is religious shopping & will lead you to nowhere. The real Hinduism is about actual practice & not merely dry philosophy. It is easier to first move on the path of Bhakti (duality) & then proceed to Advaita. In fact, pure Bhakti will automatically guide you to Non-duality at the right opportunity. If you read Shiva Sutras (by Sri Vasugupta of Kashmir Shaivism), you would find it very close to Advaita.

On realising God as worshipped deity, there are many saints in Hinduism who have realised God in the form they worshipped. God has been realised as Lord Rama, Lord Krishna, Mother Goddess, Lord Shiva etc. by Hindu Saints. I would tell you about Sri Ramkrishna Paramhansa. He was a devotee par excellence & worshipped Mother Goddess Kaali. Goddess Kaali was as real to him as you & I can feel. Goddess Kaali used to come to him in human form & he used to feed her by his own hands like her own mother in flesh & blood. Once Narendra (Narendra didn't believe in God at that time but later on became his most beloved disciple & was famously known world wide as Swami Vivekananda) challenged him to show God to him, if God really existed. He was able to do so, just by simply touching Narendra. Ramkrishna Paramhans later on accepted Sri Totapuri (an Advaitin from Puri subdivision of orders of Adi Guru Shankaracharya) as his Guru ... he had to cut the form of Goddess Kaali into pieces in his mind before establishing himself into Nirvikalpa Samadhi. I myself have experience of Lord Bhairava coming to a person known very closely to me ... whatever he uttered at that time came out to be true. So, the deities are as real as you & me are. Have no doubts.

Does the above make any sense to you ? I don't know. Choose a path that suits you. All paths finally lead to the same reality.

May God bless you ....

OM

Some Terms used above :

Bhakti = Devotion
Duality = All Paths where God is considered different from this world and the devotee
Non-Duality = Advaita = The World & God are Not different. The devotee & God are essentially same.
Nirvikalpa Samadhi ==> Highest state in meditation where there is no trace of duality left.

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

I think I get you. I will continue reading about Shaivite hinduism. In addition to dancing with Siva, I got a book called "Lord Siva and His Worship" which has many mantras and ways of worshipping Lord Siva. Hopefully i can realize the divine in all things.

I am also a little troubled reading yesterday that shaivite hindus are vegetarian. This would be an extremely difficult transition for me. Not only is it more expensive, but it would be difficult because my wife has to eat specific foods due to health conditions. These foods include meat.

But anyways I will keep reading and continue my practice of meditation.

[Spiritualseeker]

Now i understand!

I am conceptualizing God that is why I am having trouble accepting he exist. If i give up conceptualization and identification with the mind then I will realize the Absolute, the Formless, Emptiness, God, Shiva, the Most High, The all Loving, the highest consciousness......

OM NAMAH SIVAYA

[Anicca]

Buddha was basically a Vedanti. His teachings originally are not different from Hindu Vedanta philosophy but there have always been people who have tried to show it not only different but completely opposite.

anicca, anatta and dukkha



The Prjnaparamita taught by him consists of two portions – Heart Sutras & Diamond Sutras. The essence of the whole of Prajnaparamita is negation of form & names … total detachment from “individuality”. That is what Advait Vedanta teaches --- The One without a second.

The buddha didnt teach these sutras, they come from monks of a later time and contain their own ideas but not the Buddhas ideas and teachings


The biggest point of difference that people point out between Buddhism & Advait Vedanta is “no-self” theory. Adavait Vedanta also proclaims --- Eko Brahman, so there is no scope of any individual soul. However, though there is no individual soul “in reality”, it appears to be so (one appears as many) within the first two states, which are the dream states when the “reality is wrongly perceived” or the Brahman is perceived as the world. So, Advait Vedanta also says that the multitude perceived in the dream states are false … it doesn’t really exist. What exists is the Turiya, the fourth state which is the screen wherein all the three states appear to originate & dissolve. So, where is the difference ? Buddhism directly talks about the fourth state whereas Advait Vedanta talks about the other three states too.

Buddhism doesnt deny the reality of the physical world


However, in Buddhism there is still concept of rebirths of the conditioned being. The whole of Jataka Katha is full of stories of Buddha going through many incarnations before finally coming to the form of Siddhartha. The whole doctrine of Buddhism is to get Nirvana i.e. to break the cycle of births & deaths. Now , question is, “if there is no self”, what goes into cycles of deaths & births ? If there is no continuity involved in one birth with the other, how Buddha’s Jataka stories fit in ? This answer cannot be given without accepting anything which has some individuality in all such incarnations … though it is an illusion but it is there until the enlightenment is attained by that individual conditioned being. If there was no individual conditioned being then as soon as Buddha had attained Nirvana, every being should have attained nirvana

The Jataka stories are just tales to instill morality, there not meant to be taken as factual events that have happened in the past. As for rebirths this is a contentious issue in buddhism as there is fair evidence to support the view that the Buddha didnt teach about being reborn after death in his own teachings. However to take rebirth after death as a given, the question of "if there is no-self what goes into cycles of deaths and births" the answer is northing goes into or carries on, the traditional view is that the last moment of consciousness conditions the next as it does through life without and kind of essence or eternal being or self passing through


Can we explain this with the concept of Store Consciousness ? The reality is, the concept of Store consciousness has been criticised by some Buddhists as the “Atman” theory inserted from Hinduism in disguise. This theory is not originally attributed to Sakyamuni Buddha (Siddhartha Gautam) but to Yogachara School of Buddhism developed in Mahayana Buddhism in 4th Century AD i.e. nearly 900 years after Buddha.

Indeed and i am one of them, the buddha taught that consciousness only arises when there is (in the case of eye consciousness) the eye, external forms and contact, same for ear consciousness etc etc





There is another concept “momentariness” which states that everything is changing every moment. So, any (conditioned) being is not the same next moment. This is nothing new. What I was in my childhood, certainly I am not the same now. The “i” is made of thoughts & keeps changing with thoughts but still within this changing “i”, there is something (even though only apparently within the waking & dreaming states) which continues & something that relates the past with the present. The Store-consciousness takes care of this continuity.

the "I" in buddhism is simply a product of clinging to the khandas (form, feeling, perception, mental volition and consciouness) and consciousness only arises in dependence on a sense base (eye, ear etc) external objects and contact. There is no abiding eternal essence in Buddhadhamma and its taught that such a view comes to be via craving leading onto clinging which then ends in dukkha


Any Hindu (by birth or who understand the essence of Hinduism) will say that the above theory is quite similar to Jiva or the lower self which goes from birth to birth until it attains Jnana.

Which would make it a teaching that is outside Buddhadhamma



Buddha also talks about many Buddhas before him, the most prominent one being the Dipankar Buddha. What religion did those Buddhas follow ? There was no so called Buddhism before Sakyamuni Buddha, so it has to be something with its roots in the Vedas

They didnt follow any teaching but simply walked the path and awakened

namaste

[Anicca]

Just let us think a bit. If Buddha does not teach of a permanent ground, then what is He meditating on and with what?


Central to Buddhism to Sati, also known as mindfulness. The aim is to be mindful of what ever arises to contemplate it.

For example the Buddha taught the meditation of the four foundations of mindfulness that take "one" all the way to nibbana and instructed all of his followers to practice this meditation

These are

mindful of body
mindful of feelings
mindful of mind
mindful of dhammas

In doing this meditiation to the full extent there is a contemplaton of all conditioned experience (since the four foundations cover all conditioned exp.) so there will be insight into how all conditioned things are marked by anicca (impermanence), dukkha (suffering, stress, unsatisfactory) and so are anatta (not-self) this leads to dispassion, to the letting go of all craving and clinging and so the end of all dukkha (and also the end of all identification and so all thoughts of I or me or self). The fires of greed hatred and delusion are put out and there is nibbana




Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person — immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving — might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way:

'So — form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?'

Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."

"... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"
"No, lord."

"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...
"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"


Namaste

[atanu]

anicca, anatta and dukkha

Indeed and i am one of them, the buddha taught that consciousness only arises when there is (in the case of eye consciousness) the eye, external forms and contact, same for ear consciousness etc etc

Namaste anicca,

Isn't it funny that consciousness arises and still you deny it?


the "I" in buddhism is simply a product of clinging to the khandas (form, feeling, perception, mental volition and consciouness) and consciousness only arises in dependence on a sense base (eye, ear etc) external objects and contact. There is no abiding eternal essence in Buddhadhamma and its taught that such a view comes to be via craving leading onto clinging which then ends in dukkha

This teaching then appears to be the eternal essence?

You do not inspect what you mean by saying "consciousness only arises in dependence on a sense base-----". Funny that you do not ask "What is sense base?" and "How the sense base arises?"

------------------------------
Pardon me but I need to say that please experience Buddha and then proclaim absence of an eternal essence. To do so, you have to return from an unchangeable essence.

The eternal essence is not a being (I) since it does not have any contrast and contact to know anything, including itself -- just like one does not know oneself in sleep. Yet, it is indeed the being since Buddha rises to teach thereupon.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Anicca]

Hey


This teaching then appears to be the eternal essence

No sense base and no external form, no consciousness in Buddhadhamma

I close my eyes and that eye consciousness ceases to be, i open them and a new eye consciousness arises, i close them and that ceases to be

Same for all other types of consciousness

There is no permanence there


You do not inspect what you mean by saying "consciousness only arises in dependence on a sense base-----". Funny that you do not ask "What is sense base?" and "How the sense base arises?"

It wasnt in your post so i didnt feel the need to but i will be happy to do so:)

Sense bases arise dependent on mind and form

mind and form are dependent on consciousness

consciousness depends on name and form

mind and form and consciousness are mutualy dependent because you cant have one without the other

Hence they are part of conditionality and so are impermanent, subject to change, dukkha and so anatta

namaste

[Anicca]

Namaste


Isn't it funny that consciousness arises and still you deny it?

I dont deny consciousness and neither did the buddha, is the idea of it being eternal that Buddhists deny

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

This is an interesting discussion. I want to sit back and be the observer of this dialogue. Maybe it will help me with my decision of buddhism and hinduism

[Anicca]

To clear up any misinformation about Buddhism and consciousness, the Buddha didnt deny there is consciousness or that it arises. He denies that it is eternal. The very fact that it arises is the reason it cant be clung to as self since anything that arises will end



Bhikkhus, founded on whatever, consciousness arises, it is reckoned on that. On account of eye and forms arises consciousness, it’s reckoned eye consciousness. On account of ear and sounds arises consciousness, it’s reckoned ear consciousness. On account of nose and smells arises consciousness, it’s reckoned nose consciousness. On account of tongue and tastes arises consciousness, it’s reckoned tongue consciousness.On account of body and touches arises consciousness, it’s reckoned body consciousness. On account of mind and ideas arises consciousness, it’s reckoned mind consciousness. Bhikkhus, just as based on whatever fire burns, it is reckoned by that. Fire ablaze with sticks is stick fire. Ablaze with twigs is twig fire. Ablaze with grass is grass fire. Ablaze with cowdung is cowdung fire. Ablaze with grain thrash is grain thrash fire. Ablaze with dirt is dirt fire. In the same manner consciousness on account is eye and forms is eye consciousness. Consciousness on account of ear and sounds is ear consciousness. Consciousness on account of nose and smells is nose conscioussness. Consciousness on account of tongue and tastes is taste consciousness. Consciousness on account of body and touches is body consciousness. Consciousness on account of mind and ideas is mind consciousness.


In relation to the interdependence of mind/form and consciousness Ven. Sariputta taught this



"Very well then, Kotthita my friend, I will give you an analogy; for there are cases where it is through the use of an analogy that intelligent people can understand the meaning of what is being said. It is as if two sheaves of reeds were to stand leaning against one another. In the same way, from name-&-form as a requisite condition comes consciousness, from consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name & form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of suffering & stress.
"If one were to pull away one of those sheaves of reeds, the other would fall; if one were to pull away the other, the first one would fall. In the same way, from the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of consciousness, from the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress."

namaste and metta

[Spiritualseeker]

Namaste,

Interesting, a question pops up though. What happends if one is enlightened? Isnt there a permanent eternal soul? If they are enlightened they are not subject to birth and death so what stays?

[Anicca]

Hello friend


Namaste,

Interesting, a question pops up though. What happends if one is enlightened? Isnt there a permanent eternal soul? If they are enlightened they are not subject to birth and death so what stays?


The buddha was asked the same question of what happens to the Buddha after death (which i assume your question is tied to?)

To understand the answer i have to first explain the khandas (translated as heaps)

The Buddha took a slightly reductionist take on what we call a person. He said a person is made up of five parts

Form
Feeling (not emotion but the general initial feeling of like, dislike or neutral)
perception
mental volition (thoughts, opinion, views etc)
consciousness

This is what makes up what we call people or humans. These five khandas arise dependent on something else so they are impermanent and subject to change and disolution thus they are a cause of dukkha if clung to and therefore they are anatta or not-self. An enlightened being doesnt identify with the khandas (or anything else) as self, as me or I or mine

Now im going to quote Lord Buddha (he is better teacher than me lol)



"How is it, Master Gotama, when Master Gotama is asked if the monk reappears... does not reappear... both does & does not reappear... neither does nor does not reappear, he says, '...doesn't apply' in each case. At this point, Master Gotama, I am befuddled; at this point, confused. The modicum of clarity coming to me from your earlier conversation is now obscured."

"Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit.

What do you think, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?"

"...yes..."
"And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'"

"If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?"

"...yes..."

"And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?"

"That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished — from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other — is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)."

"Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea.

'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.

"Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication...
"Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply."

In Buddhadhamma if we say "i will live after death" this is clinging to a khanda as self and thinking that will exist. If we say "after death i am annihilated" this is clinging to a khanda and thinking "when this dies, i die"

For example if one clings to the body they will think "I am the body" when the body ages there is the ignorant view "I age" when the body dies there is the ignorant view "I die"

If you say after death the buddha or anyother enlightend being exists this is identifying the buddha with a khanda, if you say they dont exist this is doing the same

The Buddha (and other enlightend beings) dont identify with the khandas or anything else as self, you cant pin "them" down in this life so how can you after death?

hope this was of help

if you want a better understanding it would probably be best to read the whole sutta (i didnt copy it all since its too large)

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.072.than.html

Namaste and metta

[atanu]

Hey

No sense base and no external form, no consciousness in Buddhadhamma

Namaste anicca,

Pls. check you did mention 'sense base'.


I close my eyes and that eye consciousness ceases to be, i open them and a new eye consciousness arises, i close them and that ceases to be

I close -- I open -- I see --- I do not see -- I see again -- no no I do not see -- .


Well. Please do not confuse a mere convenience (or a tool) with the existence itself. Existence is true, evident from your post itself.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Hello friend

To understand the answer i have to first explain the khandas (translated as heaps)

The Buddha took a slightly reductionist take on what we call a person. He said a person is made up of five parts


Namaste anicca,

Yes. Pancha Kosha. That is anatta. Pancha kosha however is five layers of clothing that covers the SUBJECT (Atman, who indeed is not consciousness and neither not concsiousness, but consciousness is ITS revelation.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Anicca]

Greetings


Pls. check you did mention 'sense base'

yes



Well. Please do not confuse a mere convenience (or a tool) with the existence itself. Existence is true, evident from your post itself

There is no denial of existence only eternalism


Yes. Pancha Kosha. That is anatta. Pancha kosha however is five layers of clothing that covers the SUBJECT (Atman, who indeed is not consciousness and neither not concsiousness, but consciousness is ITS revelation

but atman is an eternal self is it not, which in Buddhadhamma is an ignorant view that arises due to craving and clinging








"Monks, you would do well to possess that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity. But do you see that possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a possession, the possession of which would be constant, permanent, eternal, not subject to change, that would stay just like that for an eternity.

"Monks, you would do well to cling to that clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. But do you see a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair?"

"No, lord."

"Very good, monks. I, too, do not envision a clinging to a doctrine of self, clinging to which there would not arise sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair.


Monks, there being a self, would there be for me what belongs to a self? -

"Yes, venerable sir"

Or there being what belongs to a self, would there be for me a self?

"Yes Ven. Sir"

Monks, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established, then this standpoint for views, namely "That which is the self is the world, after death I shall be permanent, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change; I shall endure as long as eternity - would it bot be an utterly and completely foolish teaching?

"What else could it be, Ven. Sir, but an utterly and completely foolish teaching?"


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.022.than.html

I quoted from the section entitled "Abandoning Possessions & Views"

Also this might tie in slightly


Then the Blessed One addressed a certain bhikkhu: Come! Bhikkhu, address the bhikkhu Saati in my words, tell that the Teacher wants him That bhikkhu agreed and approached the bhikkhu Saati and said the Blessed One wants you. Bhikkhu Saati said yes friend and approached the Blessed One, worshipped and sat on a side.Then the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhu Saati: Saati, is it true, that such an evil view has arisen to you. ‘As I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness tansmigrates through existences, not anything else’.. Yes, venerable sir, as I know the Teaching of the Blessed One, this consciousness transmigrates through existences, not anything else. Saati, how is that conscciousness? Venerable sir, this uttering and feeling one, that reaps the results of actions good and evil done here and there. Foolish man, to whom do you know me having preached this Teaching. Haven’t I told, in various ways that consciousness is dependently arisen. Without a cause, there is no arising of consciousness. Yet, you foolish man, because of your wrong grasp, blame me, destroy yourself, and accumulate much demerit and that will be for your undoing and unpleasantness for a long time

namaste and metta

[atanu]

Hello friend
To understand the answer i have to first explain the khandas (translated as heaps). He said a person is made up of five parts

Form
Feeling (not emotion but the general initial feeling of like, dislike or neutral)
perception
mental volition (thoughts, opinion, views etc)
consciousness

This is what makes up what we call people or humans. These five khandas arise dependent on something else so they are impermanent and subject to change and disolution thus they are a cause of dukkha if clung to and therefore they are anatta or not-self. An enlightened being doesnt identify with the khandas (or anything else) as self, as me or I or mine



Pancha Koshas of the enlightened being are distinct from the enlightened being, whose teaching you are citing. Do you mean to say that the enlightened being has dependent origination from pancha kosha?
-----------------
On what Buddha meditates and with what?

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Greetings
yes


That solves it. You accept a base.




There is no denial of existence only eternalism

If there is existence there is Existence. The question of eternalism comes later and is of no consequence.

To whom is the eternalism? To the Existence. What is the substratum to Time? The Existence.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Anicca]

Greetings


Pancha Koshas of the enlightened being are distinct from the enlightened being

The five khandas are anatta or not self, they are not the Buddha. The buddha is beyond all identification, you cant say "this is buddha" or this being is buddha since this is going back to clinging or claiming a khanda as buddha


whose teaching you are citing

Buddhas


Do you mean to say that the enlightened being has dependent origination from pancha kosha?

You will have to expand on what you mean here friend im not quite sure what your asking, are you asking what leads to nibbana?

Namaste and metta

[Anicca]

That solves it. You accept a base

Well base just means base of contact, where contact happens. Another translation is Six sense media


If there is existence there is Existence. The question of eternalism comes later and is of no consequence.

To whom is the eternalism? To the Existence. What is the substratum to Time? The Existence

Existence is interdependent, subject to rise and fall. Impermanent and to be viewed as empty of self or I

When i say Buddha didnt deny existence i meant he doesnt take a solipsistic view

Namaste and metta

[atanu]

Greetings
The five khandas are anatta or not self, they are not the Buddha. The buddha is beyond all identification, you cant say "this is buddha" or this being is buddha since this is going back to clinging or claiming a khanda as buddha

No we do not cling to pancha kosha as Atman, which is full, ungraspable, indescribable, neither consciousness, nor non-consciousness, neither a being nor a non-being. It is not khanda. It is full.


Buddhas

OK. But what is cognising Buddhas? Is the cognising subject dependent or the Buddhas dependent? If both are dependent then what you are citing has no locus.



You will have to expand on what you mean here friend im not quite sure what your asking, are you asking what leads to nibbana?


I asked a simple question as below:

"Do you mean to say that the 'enlightened being' has dependent origination from pancha kosha?"

-----------------------
Om Namah Shivaya

[Anicca]

The aspect i suppose we need to get at is Atman in relation to Buddhadhamma if we are to see if they are the same or compatible


The answer based on my learning and practice of Buddhadhamma is that they arent, Atman implies some immortal essence of being or some ultimate reality behind everything

Buddhadhamma doesnt claim there to be an immortal essence or some ultimate reality behind everything


Atman is about finding that which is the source, that which is behind the illusionary world (from what i understand). The everlasting essence if you will

Buddhadhamma is awakening to the truth of the way things happen, about waking to the truth of interdependent conditionality, about awakening to anicca, dukkha and anatta and understanding the 4 noble truths in order to end all dukkha

namaste and metta

[atanu]

Well base just means base of contact, where contact happens. Another translation is Six sense media

Namaste,

How does it matter whether you call it 'a base of contact' or whatever?



Existence is interdependent, subject to rise and fall. Impermanent and to be viewed as empty of self or I.


Surely, we also say that Brahman is neither a being nor a non being. But from the Brahman (which is 'neither a being nor a non being' devoid an "I"), rises the "I" everywhere.

In sleep, you have no consciousness but that does not mean that consciousness has vanished or is impermanent.

It only means that there is no second colour, no second sound, no second being ---- and thus you know nothing.
-------------------------------------
On what Buddha meditates? Is He meditating on an ephemeral phenomenon? With what Buddha meditates? Is He meditating with something ephemeral?

Consciousness is avyaya -- imperishable. Its perception is lost when it alone exists, since there remains nothing separate to perceive.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Buddhadhamma doesnt claim there to be an immortal essence or some ultimate reality behind everything

The existence does not depend on what Buddha dharma (actually you) claim.

[Anicca]

Greetings


No we do not cling to pancha kosha as Atman, which is full, ungraspable, indescribable, neither consciousness, nor non-consciousness, neither a being nor a non-being. It is not khanda. It is full

But there is a claim of somekind of self in whatever way as being outside of the khandas

In my understanding of Atman, it is the true self, the "I"

"I" cant arise seperate from khandas in buddhadhamma, I arises due to clinging, I is anicca, dukkha and not-self

Buddha never claims there is a ground of being, a source or ultimate reality


OK. But what is cognising Buddhas? Is the cognising subject dependent or the Buddhas dependent? If both are dependent then what you are citing has no locus

There is only cognition


'In the seen will be merely what is seen; in the heard will be merely what is heard; in the sensed will be merely what is sensed; in the cognized will be merely what is cognized.


"Do you mean to say that the 'enlightened being' has dependent origination from pancha kosha?"


In reality there is no enlightened being only awakening. As for nibbana that is unconditioned, the Noble Eightfold Path is conditioned but it is a path that leads to the unconditioned

[atanu]

Atman is about finding that which is the source, that which is behind the illusionary world (from what i understand). The everlasting essence if you will

Buddhadhamma is awakening to the truth of the way things happen, about waking to the truth of interdependent conditionality, about awakening to anicca, dukkha and anatta and understanding the 4 noble truths in order to end all dukkha

namaste and metta

That is OK. But that is only what you know of Buddha Dharma. And, to me that is very incomplete.

Since you want to know only how "the way things happen" and you will remain unconscious of the KNOWER.

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

Had you known Vedanta, then you would have said that knowing the KNOWER, "the way things happen" is known.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Anicca]

The existence does not depend on what Buddha dharma (actually you) claim.


Im not here to cause offence or to proclaim one religious thought as better than another im here to learn about the religions of Hinduism


The points i have made are just to show what the Buddhas position was to avoid any misinformation, im sure you would do the same about your own religious tradition


Namaste and Metta friend:)

[atanu]

Greetings
In my understanding of Atman, it is the true self, the "I"

Definition of Atman is given in Mandukya Upanishad. You are welcome to study it. Atman has no inner and outer cognition. It is neither consciousness nor non-consciousness. Pragnya is its revelation.


I cant arise seperate from khandas in buddhadhamma, I arises due to clinging, I is anicca, dukkha and not-self

That is true of ignorance -- before enlightenment. For Vishnu (the full), "I" is not Khanda -piece. Vishnu says: "I am cipivista-Brahman". I am Full. Vishnu means all pervading. "I" arises in the Full.



In reality there is no enlightened being only awakening. As for nibbana that is unconditioned, the Noble Eightfold Path is conditioned but it is a path that leads to the unconditioned

Now you are continuously shifting the goal posts.

However, it does not matter whatever you may name it. The UNCONDITIONED REMAINS, else eight-fold path cannot lead to it.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Dear Anicca,

We have placed our understanding. If we proceed further we will roam endlessly in labyrinth of 8, which is undesirable.

I as ego is illusory and impermanent. But "I" rises from that which is unconditioned. On awakening, Vishnu (all pervading Buddha) teaches "Khanda is not self. I am Brahman", meaning "Khanda, the perceived clothing of five layers are anatman".

Still it remains to attain the UNCONDITIONED.

[Anicca]

Greetings Friend

First of all i want to make it clear that im not attempting to proclaim Buddhadhamma as better than Sanātana Dharma, im here to learn about Sanātana Dharma. The only reason im putting forward Buddhist views is because of the attempt to compare Buddhadhamma with Sanātana Dharma:)


How does it matter whether you call it 'a base of contact' or whatever?

I thought you meant that the use of the word "base" implied some ground of being in some way


Surely, we also say that Brahman is neither a being nor a non being. But from the Brahman (which is 'neither a being nor a non being' devoid an "I"), rises the "I" everywhere

From Buddhas teachings the "I" is just the result of clinging.

Clinging to the body and there is "I", same for other khandas

No clinging and there is no "I" since there is no identification


In sleep, you have no consciousness but that does not mean that consciousness has vanished or is impermanent.

There is simply a different kind of consciousness that has arisen and will cease when its supporting conditions have gone


On what Buddha meditates? Is He meditating on an ephemeral phenomenon? With what Buddha meditates? Is He meditating with something ephemeral

The four foundations of mindfulness to gain insight into conditioned dhammas to see them as they are, impermanent, dukkha and anatta


That is OK. But that is only what you know of Buddha Dharma. And, to me that is very incomplete

everything i have said has come from the suttas and from my teachers


Since you want to know only how "the way things happen" and you will remain unconscious of the KNOWER

There is the fundemental difference between Buddhadhamma and Sanātana Dharma. There is no KNOWER in Buddhadhamma only cognition which arises and ceases

That is the Buddhist training of Sati (mindfulness). To be aware of things as they arise and ceases so there is only hearing, there is only seeing, there is only cognition. There is no self or "I" or "I am" hearing, seeing, no I cognizing/knowing


Definition of Atman is given in Mandukya Upanishad. You are welcome to study it. Atman has no inner and outer cognition. It is neither consciousness nor non-consciousness. Pragnya is its revelation.

Thanks im reading it now:)


That is true of ignorance -- before enlightenment. For Vishnu (the full), "I" is not Khanda -piece. Vishnu says: "I am cipivista-Brahman". I am Full. Vishnu means all pervading. "I" arises in the Full

Another way that they are incompatible


Now you are continuously shifting the goal posts.

However, it does not matter whatever you may name it. The UNCONDITIONED REMAINS, else eight-fold path cannot lead to it.

The difference is in Buddhadhammas teaching on unconditioned compared to Sanātana Dharma


Metta friend

[atanu]

Greetings Friend

The difference is in Buddhadhammas teaching on unconditioned compared to Sanātana Dharma

Metta friend

Namaste Anicca,

For each point of yours, I can show big chasm. But that is not the aim. Just take one example. You said the Eight Fold Path is conditioned and leads to the unconditioned.

Now you say: The difference is in Buddhadhammas teaching on unconditioned compared to Sanātana Dharma.

Can you not see the big contradiction? If you use a blue tinted glass, you will see blue colour in colourless. Please do not explain it away.

Further, earlier you said of some real difference and now you say "the difference is in the teaching of the Unconditioned". The point is that the Unconditioned must be attained to overcome Dukkha -- that is the common teaching.

I have said what I had to as below
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=29403&postcount=65

Om Namah Shivaya

[Anicca]

Namaste

Indeed i feel we have gone far enough, this will be my last post to you in this thread



For each point of yours, I can show big chasm. But that is not the aim. Just take one example. You said the Eight Fold Path is conditioned and leads to the unconditioned.

Now you say: The difference is in Buddhadhammas teaching on unconditioned compared to Sanātana Dharma.

From my understaning of Advaita Vedanta (the only one im kind of familiar with at this point) the unconditioned is Brahman/Atman and realization of that not two truth or Brahman and "me"

In Buddhas teachings the unconditioned is Nibbana, Nibbana is the putting out of greed hatred and delusion, the end of mental birth and death through clinging and identification, in short the quenching of all dukkha



The point is that the Unconditioned must be attained to overcome Dukkha -- that is the common teaching.

Yes but from my understanding what constitutes dukkha is different

In Buddhadhamma Self or I is dukkha, the idea of self of I is dukkha, the want for self or I is dukkha since they are all from craving which is the origin of dukkha. I, me, self, I am, I will be etc etc arise through the 2nd noble truth

Suffering's Origin (Samudaya):
"This is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."[ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_noble_truths#cite_note-BodhiDhammacakka-8)

There is also a difference in approach from what i can tell since Sanātana Dharma starts with Atman and Brahman and then works out how to realize Brahman/Atman

Buddhadhamma starts with Dukkha and how to lead to the cesstation of dukkha

"There is Atman"

"There is Dukkha"

There is quite a difference there from the offset

Thats my last remarks in relation to your posts but thanks for the discussion friend its been enjoyable:)

Metta

[atanu]

Namaste Anicca,

I reciprocate and I request that you inspect beyond words.


Namaste
Indeed i feel we have gone far enough, this will be my last post to you in this thread


Indeed.



There is also a difference in approach from what i can tell -----
"There is Atman"
"There is Dukkha"
There is quite a difference there from the offset


There is no Dukkha in reality, Dukkha is entirely an imagination of that which is the false I -- the impermanent. There is only the unconditioned -- the Atman. There is indeed one and only one knower, else Buddha would not be able to meditate, know the truth and then teach.

The Unconditioned is the attainment. No path can lead to it, if it is mere chimeria. And that is the only point where all paths converge. Who will strive for an impermanent goal, except by foolishness?

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Greetings Friend

There is the fundemental difference between Buddhadhamma and Sanātana Dharma. There is no KNOWER in Buddhadhamma only cognition which arises and ceases

That is the Buddhist training of Sati (mindfulness). To be aware of things as they arise and ceases so there is only hearing, there is only seeing, there is only cognition. There is no self or "I" or "I am" hearing, seeing, no I cognizing/knowing

Namaste Anicca,

Not in the mode of arguing but to help understanding, may I put two questions?


To whom the cognition arises? Who teaches?
What is the only fixed aspect in mindfulness training -- what is fulcrum of all cognitions of ever changing kaleidoscope?Regards and Best Wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

[Ekanta]

Tat Tvam Asi (That You Are)
Tatha-agata (Thus Gone)

If Tatha/Tat is realized as there is nothing to cling to. All is Tatha. The rest is empty of independent self (just name/form).

Buddha didnt call himself "not-tatha". He realized/became thata and hence called himself Tathagata.

[Anicca]

Namaste


To whom the cognition arises? Who teaches?To no one, there is merely cognition not a being, person or thing cognizing. The question would be treated as a wrong question to ask since it assumes a self from the outset

For example the Buddha was asked other such questions of "who craves, who feels?" etc to which he answered "Not a valid question, i dont not say "one craves" the correct question to ask, he said, was "With what as condition does craving come to be?" (same with other questions about Who ...) because of interdependence

The Buddha generaly treated questions such as "who am I" or "Who..." or other questions that suppose an "I" as unwise


"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.Instead he said the wise attention was



"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of sensuality is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of becoming does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of becoming is abandoned; the unarisen fermentation of ignorance does not arise in him, and the arisen fermentation of ignorance is abandoned. These are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to. Through his not attending to ideas unfit for attention and through his attending to ideas fit for attention, unarisen fermentations do not arise in him, and arisen fermentations are abandoned.

"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html





Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, does not construe an (object as) seen. He does not construe an unseen. He does not construe an (object) to-be-seen. He does not construe a seer.
When hearing... When sensing... When cognizing what is to be cognized, he does not construe an(object as) cognized. He does not construe an uncognized. He does not construe an (object) to-be-cognized. He does not construe a cognizer.Your 2nd question


What is the only fixed aspect in mindfulness training -- what is fulcrum of all cognitions of ever changing kaleidoscope


Just bare attention or awareness however if for example you are doing the first foundation of mindfulness then one simply directs bare awareness to the body such as being fully aware when moving or directing full awareness to breathing

If one is doing mindfulness of feelings then there is bare awareness of the rise and fall of feelings

There is also the practice of "choiceless awareness" which is being simply fully aware of everything arising and falling in the present moment, however this is said to be a more advances practice

The Buddha himself and all other arahants are said to be constantly mindful, in essence fully aware or awake

There is also the usual practice of absorbtion meditation in Buddhadhamma but the Buddha declared that these dont lead to nibbana in of themselves and that they are simply tools along the way, only Sati (aided by concentration) can lead to nibbana since this leads to insight into the true nature of things as anicca, dukkha and anatta, in essence insight into paticcasamuppāda , concentrative absorbtion on its own does not lead to this

[Anicca]

Tat Tvam Asi (That You Are)
Tatha-agata (Thus Gone)

If Tatha/Tat is realized as there is nothing to cling to. All is Tatha. The rest is empty of independent self (just name/form).

Buddha didnt call himself "not-tatha". He realized/became thata and hence called himself Tathagata.


Tathagata means "thus come, thus gone"

[Ekanta]

There is esoteric meaning and regular meaning. Seeing both can be nice.

[Anicca]

Namaste


There is esoteric meaning and regular meaning. Seeing both can be nice.


Sure maybe so

Another translation related to the one i gave above is

“The one who has gone to suchness” or, "The one who has arrived at suchness"

Which i feel ties in with Sati, pure awakened awareness of the suchness of the flux of the interdependent present moment

[atanu]

"And what are the ideas fit for attention that he does attend to? Whatever ideas such that, when he attends to them, the unarisen fermentation of sensuality does not arise in him,------------------

Namaste anicca,

I see a 'him'. So, He attends to ideas or He does not attend to ideas. Well. Well. The point has been this much only. There is a locus mundi for every fervent phenomenon.


Thus, monks, the Tathagata, when seeing what is to be seen, does not construe an (object as) seen. He does not construe an unseen. He does not construe an (object) to-be-seen. He does not construe a seer.
Do we understand the above?(Atman has no eyes. How can it see? But because of it eyes see. Atman is indivisible. How can it see an object in itself? But becase of it objects see objects).




Kena
I-6. That which man does not see with the eye, that by which man sees the activities of the eye, know That alone to be Brahman, and not this (non-Brahman) which is being worshipped.

Isha
Unmoving, It is one, faster than the mind. The senses cannot reach It, for It proceeds ahead. Remaining static It overtakes others that run. On account of Its presence, Matarsiva (the wind) conducts the activities of beings.

On the other hand, this is slowly becoming a joke. I can read "He does not construe a seer" in your citation. Tell me is He himself not the seer? Or does He not construe himself yet sees?

Why He teaches others? Or does He not? Or is He not? Or is not He? Or others are not? One can see or not see objects. One can construe or not construe concepts. But only a madman will say "I do not exist". It is altogether a separate issue that some identify "I" with Panchakosha and invite Dukkha. While others say "I" rises in Brahman as Desire/Sport/Iccha and "I" is distinct from Panchakosha.


The very assertion of khanda as anatta presumes akhanda as atta. Gone into suchness, presumes 'conditioned going unto unconditioned'.

All differences shown by you are merely in the realm of words. Gautama did not discover the suchness.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=29443&postcount=44

Om

[atanu]

Namaste

The Buddha generaly treated questions such as "who am I" or "Who..." or other questions that suppose an "I" as unwise


Namaste Anicca,

May be. I am a lover of sweet, so I am told, "Restraint your sweet intake, else you will suffer". One who hates sweet and takes only bitter gourd, will be advised differently. Isn't it?

For Buddhists, probably Buddha's directive "Person is made of five heaps devoid of Atta" is sufficient because you are all very obedient and believe Guru without verification.

We are not so. We are very doubtful. We verify. To us it is said "Panchakosha is devoid of atta". Yet, to us it is also said "Find out who you are?" And magically, the I is known as fake that arises due to association. When Prajapati asked Indra "Who am I?". Indra replied "If you ask that question then you are that".

Now, the problem is you will cling to the notion that 'That' is not 'Such'. Who is clinging?

I also reiterate (you may say cling) that without experiencing that "I" is devoid of atta, Nibbana is distant. Mere words do not make for realisation. The conditioned needs to experience the Unconditioned, before mindfullness can really work.

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

The last point. Presence of OM in Buddhism is sufficient indication as to what it is.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Anicca]

Namaste



I see a 'him'. So, He attends to ideas or He does not attend to ideas. Well. Well. The point has been this much only. There is a locus mundi for every fervent phenomenon.

The buddha or Arahant can still use words as "him" etc because its conventional language. Part of the problem in buddhahdamma teachings is that people get caught up in the convention of him, i, me, self and take them as meaning something real and solid

The buddha and arahants see clearly so they can use the conventional language of the world without getting caught up in it



Do we understand the above?(Atman has no eyes. How can it see? But because of it eyes see. Atman is indivisible. How can it see an object in itself? But becase of it objects see objects)

This is putting Atman in Buddhadhamma when Buddhadhamma says there isnt anything behind


On the other hand, this is slowly becoming a joke. I can read "He does not construe a seer" in your citation. Tell me is He himself not the seer? Or does He not construe himself yet sees?

"He" is a conventional term thats used by the wordly people for communication, "he" is not a real thing but because of ignorance people assume there is a "he" or "i" as they get caught up in language


The very assertion of khanda as anatta presumes akhanda as atta. Gone into suchness, presumes 'conditioned going unto unconditioned'

You putting a Self of some kind in Buddhadhamma again when Buddhahdamma teaches that this is wrong, it seems an attempt to modify buddhadhamma to fit with Vedanta

metta

[atanu]

Namaste
The buddha or Arahant can still use words as "him" etc because its conventional language. Part of the problem in buddhahdamma teachings is that people get caught up in the convention of him, i, me, self and take them as meaning something real and solid

Namaste,

Yes. That is what i am referring to. Buddhists first need to dispel their errors wrt to solidness of Self. Reader of Gita and enquirer of the Self harbours no such erroneous thought. Atma is partitionless infinite consciousness. It is not solid. Atma is Atma since the non-solid I awareness sprouts in it.

What is shunyata, is devoid of objects. What is Self is also devoid of objects, devoid of partition, but is full/infinite Pragnya. Infinite Pragnya is Brahman.

All your understanding is from the ground of solidity, taking the self as your body-mind. So you cannot see that Atman is shunya-- devoid of objects but is full of Pragnya -- which again is not solid. Atma is shunyata but shunyata is not Atman. Shunyata cannot reveal intelligence, awareness, senses, life. But Atman is shunya yet can give rise to a world, bhikkus, and Buddha teaching the Bikkhus. The same emptiness (devoid of objects) is but full of Pragnya and thus is Brahman. Since Pragnya is Brahman.

Buddha cannot emerge from shunyata to teach, if shunyata is devoid of Pragnya. On the other hand, if Shunyata is full of Pragnya, then shunyata is just another name for Brahman, created for clinging minds to dispel the ignorance of solidity.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

THE SPEAKING TREE

The Purpose, Utility And Futility Of Identity

Sri Sri Ravi Shankar

The universe is a multilayered existence; there are many levels: there are the molecular, the atomic and the subatomic levels. So also the human consciousness: though one, yet, it is many.

An eight-year-old child in India was always given the Brahma Gyan first, before any other knowledge. The first upadesha or formal advice given during the Upanayanam or holy thread ceremony is called Brahmopadesha, where the highest identity of oneself is revealed as a secret. In this ceremony, the guru, father and mother whisper in the ear of the child: “You are THAT!” And then all the varnashrama dharmas, or lesser identities are taught and the duties are promulgated.

The lesser identity is essential to perform limited duties that include those as student, son or daughter, husband or wife, father or mother, professional or citizen. Lesser identities strengthen the ‘karta’ or doer and enable him to complete the karma. Another utility of lesser identity is to move one from tamoguna to rajoguna. Krishna reminds Arjuna of his being a warrior and his warrior dharma, again and again after educating him in the Sankhya yoga, the highest knowledge of atma-gyan. He tells him about his kshatriya dharma and what people will say if he doesn’t do his duty, something that is irrelevant to a Brahmagyani.

So, to come out of tamoguna, rajoguna is essential. And while moving from rajoguna to satoguna, all identities get dropped. That’s why Buddha said the world is all sorrow and misery; so take sanyas. His teachings were simple, plain, convincing, logical and so could be understood far and wide, whereas Krishna’s are complicated, confusing and contradictory and so they remained confined to India. Krishna also says “Anityam Asukham Loka”. The universe is anitya, asukha (transient, devoid of happiness) – he doesn’t say it is dukham – and further he says “Imam Prapya” --Achieving this, “Bhajaswamam” – merge into Me. (Gita, Ch. 9)

In the Vedantic tradition, there are two paths: One is that of negation “neti neti”, which the Buddhists have adopted. The other is simply moving beyond negation. That is the path of Taitriya Upanishads, also called the varunya. The varun was given introduction … food is Brahmn, then told Prana Brahmn, without negating the previous. Then as the higher planes of manobrahma, vigyan-brahma and anandam-brahma are introduced, the previous identities are naturally superseded; no negation is used in this. You don’t need to negate being a householder to be a good citizen of your country and you don’t need to negate being a good citizen in order to be a world citizen; they all fall in place. The lower identities simply get absorbed and enriched as well. This is incomprehensible for a linear-thinking Occident.

The dharmashastras and Brahmagyanis have all along been guiding when there is a conflict between the dharmas of different identities like between a grihastha-dharma or that of a householder and raja-dharma or that of a citizen. While identities are useful for performing the karmas, their futility is obvious in the field of knowledge or gyana. Like the membrane around the seed, which stays till the seed sprouts, identity will remain till the Brahmagyan is attained – they help one to complete their karmas.

In the Gita, Krishna cleverly adopts both these methods, to bring both vairagya (to get out of sorrow) and to perform the duty, which Arjuna had to. “Na budhibhedam … karma sanghinam.”

[atanu]

Svetaketu's father points the empty space inside a seed and says "Svetaketu You are That".

We all are empty space. Shunya. Yet each seed encloses, as if, within the empty space a law: "This will sprout so". What came before? The law or the seed that covers the empty space? Brihadaraynaka says: There was nothing whatsover in the beginning, IT was covered by Death, Desire. Desire=Death creates the cover. Did Buddha teach a new knowledge, unknown to sages of Chandogya or Brihadaraynaka? In fact Buddhism appears to have nothing equivalent of Nasadiya or Mandukya. I would love to be proven wrong.

Om Namah Shivaya

[TatTvamAsi]

Namaste Atanu,

Simply brilliant explanations you have given.

It is such confident, knowledgeable, yet noble way of discussion (quite unlike mine I might add) that makes this thread one of the best on this entire forum.

I suggest Satay make this a 'sticky' so everyone has a chance to read it.

I am amazed the lengths these westerners go to argue with their apparent logic to "prove a point".

I was chastised by a so-called professor here in the States for mentioning the non-difference, philosophically speaking, between Hinduism & Buddhism.

Namaskar.

[Anicca]

Greetings


I am amazed the lengths these westerners go to argue with their apparent logic to "prove a point".


Some degree of logic needs to be used in any debate, even Buddha would make use of logic on occasion


metta

[TatTvamAsi]

I see that the word "apparent" is not so apparent after all! :rolleyes:


Greetings




Some degree of logic needs to be used in any debate, even Buddha would make use of logic on occasion


metta

[rcscwc]

Namaste,

I have been listening to the bhagavad Gita and I noticed it seems very similar to buddhism. So I asked on E-Sangha (buddhist forum) about some of the concepts shared between the religions. I asked about the Atman being similar to buddha nature. And also about the worship of deities not as separate from oneself, which buddhist do too. This was the reply

From the Lankavatara Sutra....



So just a question, Did Buddha really bring about something he thought was superior to the Yogis of Hinduism? I thought uniting ones atman with the Divine was Moksha or aka Liberations nirvana. Yet it seems buddhist think if you have these hindus view you will be stuck in samsara. How do we reconcile this?
Whatever its philosophical merits, this book is clear hijacking of Yoga plua trying to scorn Hinduism. Mahamati is Ravana, and is, then Buddha could not improve him and failed. Real Buddha never ventured out of North Bihar, yet he is shown in Lanka! An attempt to make Buddha time travel. Prior to this book, no other book ever mentions an encounter of Ravana with Buddha like person. Lastly, this book is not earlier than about 500-600 CE, maybe later. It was never noticed by Gaudapada, Nagarjuna, Shankar etc. It might be post Shankar even.


The book bears a clear imprint of Yoga philosophy, in fact it is associated with Yogachara School.

[Sahasranama]

Namaste,

I have promised that I won't be replying to MahaHrada's posts & I expect him to observe the same discipline (if he can't maintain the objectivity during discussion & sticks to his "I know better than you", "You don't know anything" etc. attitude) to avoid unnecessary bitterness in discussion. I come to this forum for "satsang" & not for egotistical fights.


Mahahrada's post were analytical, whether they are right or wrong can be easily verified looking up the facts. I guess people rather talk vaguely, so they can't be proven wrong.

[rcscwc]

Namaste,

I have been listening to the bhagavad Gita and I noticed it seems very similar to buddhism. So I asked on E-Sangha (buddhist forum) about some of the concepts shared between the religions. I asked about the Atman being similar to buddha nature. And also about the worship of deities not as separate from oneself, which buddhist do too. This was the reply

From the Lankavatara Sutra....



So just a question, Did Buddha really bring about something he thought was superior to the Yogis of Hinduism? I thought uniting ones atman with the Divine was Moksha or aka Liberations nirvana. Yet it seems buddhist think if you have these hindus view you will be stuck in samsara. How do we reconcile this?

Whatever its philosophical merits, this book is a clear attemot of hijacking of Yoga plus trying to scorn Hinduism. If Mahamati is Ravana, and is, then Buddha could not improve him and failed. Real Buddha never ventured out of North Bihar, yet he is shown in Lanka! An attempt to make Buddha time travel. Prior to this book, no other book ever mentions an encounter of Ravana with Buddha like person. Lastly, this book is not earlier than about 500-600 CE, maybe later. It was never noticed by Gaudapada, Nagarjuna, Shankar etc.

The book bears a clear imprint of Yoga philosophy, in fact it is associated with Yogachara School.

[kstrosper]

The Theravadas have corrupted buddhism greatly and the west clings to theravada and uses it as the base for buddhism and that is the undoing of those that speak of buddhism and teach it. Theravada is a total coruption of buddhism.
the buddha never denied the Devas or the existance of the soul or a personal god or an afterlife for total death of the ego. the theravdas do and they have destroied buddhism to a great extent.

pureland buddhism is just an ethnic version of vishnavaism. amida buddha is vishnu/krishna. every stupa stature and discription of buddha is of Vishnu. clear and simple. Buddhism is Vishnava!

If i lived near a Hindu temple i would think nothing of attending and worshipping Vishnu. I do not even live near a Buddhist temple/sanga.