Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

[Nirguna]

Namaste All,

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

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.

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

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

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

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



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

According to the theory of emptiness, any belief in an objective reality grounded in the assumption of intrinsic, independent existence is simply untenable.

All things and events, whether �material�, mental or even abstract concepts like time, are devoid of objective, independent existence [...] [T]hings and events are 'empty' in that they can never possess any immutable essence, intrinsic reality or absolute �being� that affords independence.[50]

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

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

Pretty much.

[Nirguna]

Namaste Jainarayan,

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

That's actually what I said, that's why I didn't capitalize the "s" in "no-self"/ anatman.
Anyway, thank you for your post.

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

[Kumar_Das]

Namaste,

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

[Nirguna]

Namaste,

Advaita pervades Buddhism.

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

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

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.

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

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

Namaste,

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

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.

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

Yes.

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

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

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

[Nirguna]

Namaste,

'Enlightenment' as generally understood in Buddhism is moksha in my view. But I'm just one small voice out of over 1 billion Hindus and Buddhists.

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

[Jainarayan]

Namaste.

Namaste,


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

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

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

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

In consonance with this, researcher on the Nirvana Sutra, Dr. Tony Page, comments:

On the specific question of the supramundane or nirvanic Self, it is apparent that the [Nirvana] Sutra does assert an eternally abiding entity or dharma � what we might call the �Buddha-Self�, since the Buddha utters the equation �Self = Buddha� - as an ever-enduring reality of the highest order. That Buddha-Self is one with Nirvana.[61]

Positive language



According to some scholars, the language used in the Tathāgatagarbha genre of sutras can be seen as an attempt to state orthodox Buddhist teachings of dependent origination using positive language instead. Yamamoto points out that this �affirmative� characterization of nirvana pertains to a supposedly higher form of nirvana�that of �Great Nirvana�. Speaking of the 'Bodhisattva Highly Virtuous King' chapter of the Nirvana Sutra, Yamamoto quotes the scripture itself:

What is nirvana? ...this is as in the case in which one who has hunger has peace and bliss as he has taken a little food.[62]

Yamamoto continues with the quotation, adding his own comment:

But such a nirvāna cannot be called �Great Nirvāna�". And it [i.e. the Buddha�s new revelation regarding nirvana] goes on to dwell on the �Great Self�, �Great Bliss�, and �Great Purity�, all of which, along with the Eternal, constitute the four attributes of Great Nirvana.[63]

Quotations

Gautama Buddha:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana

[Nirguna]

Thank you for your insightful posts Jainarayan!