Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: The difference between Sunyata, Achintya Bheda Abheda and Advaita

  1. #1

    The difference between Sunyata, Achintya Bheda Abheda and Advaita

    Hello!

    Please if people could post the philosophical differences between the concepts of Sunyata, Achintya Bheda Abheda and Advaita as a reply to this thread!

    That would be really great!

    Me myself am doubting which of these three is the most close to 'reality'

    Personally I appreciate Achintya Bheda Abheda most although I cannot understand why Sri Chaitanya was so much emphasizing scriptures and the physical form of God, which to me does not seem a necessary conclusion of the concept of Achintya Bheda Abheda, which feels very rational to me and at the same time is the closest to what i seem to experience directly...

    Sunyata on the other hand seems a very sharp and perceptive concept, certainly compared to Advaita in which i find the separation of the relative and the absolute rather simplistic.

    But sunyata leaves me left alone with a deep love i feel for the concept i have of God. It seems that in human experience relationship is a very strong and essential energy, the center of human life, and sunyata seems to forget this fact, as it makes everything rather relative (if i get it correctly of course)

    Please elaborate and show me where i confuse things and if you can, please convince me for one concept out of these three over the others

    If you succeed in this, you would make me very happy

    Very eager for your answers,

    Ananda Sahaj

  2. #2
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: The difference between Sunyata, Achintya Bheda Abheda and Advaita

    Greetings Ananda,

    Re Sunyata vs Advaita

    Could you explain in your own words what Sunyata is?

    Is that stage achieveable in this worldly life itself?

    How is Sunyata, however defined/described by you, different from the completely unconscious state of a stone?

    Thanks and looking forward to an enlightening discussion.

  3. #3

    Re: The difference between Sunyata, Achintya Bheda Abheda and Advaita

    Thank you Wondermonk!

    Ok, here i go

    (i am a little tired right now, but will give it a shot...)

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Could you explain in your own words what Sunyata is?
    Sunyata = objects only exist conceptually

    theoretically explained: objectivity implies independent existence and in reality nothing that manifests has independent existence. Only in conceptual projection 'thingness arises': 'this' and 'that'

    experientially explained: when we look around our awareness focuses and fixes on manifestations exactly on the same time that they are labeled by our conceptual mind. as we grow up we learn: 'chair', 'tree', 'person', 'color' etc, and gradually we start experiencing objects rather then energy. while, strictly perceptivily spoken everything is a blur of energy without conceptual meaning. Our mind divides our 'unlimited' space of experienced in 'things', of which the most important thing is 'I'.

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Is that stage achieveable in this worldly life itself?
    yes, the more we surrender, the more loosened our conceptual framework becomes and this 'thingness' will get more and more relative and can even disappear at times

    'samadhi' is actually the experience of emptiness, as existence still reamains, but not in an subject-object way. object and subject dissolve within samadhi . within sahaja samadhi things are still recognized but in a relative way

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    How is Sunyata, however defined/described by you, different from the completely unconscious state of a stone?
    a stone is non-existent as an object, it does n't matter if it is conscious or unconscious. but there is a stony energy there, so the stone exists, but as an energy that is not separate from the broader existence. i believe there is individual consciousness but it exists in the same way as the stone, more as an energy then as a defined and independent object. So actually form is about fluid manifestation that is never divided, energy is just stronger at one spot then the other but is within a continuum. In this sense formlessness and form or one (and many) in this emptiness. so emptiness is a principle and energy is the reality that is organized according to this principle. so existence is organized in an empty way, but it surely exist as we can experience it. Existence is only valuable in relation to experience.

    I tend to believe that is also the essence of Achintya Bheda Abheda, but i did not have enough opportunity to study it because most texts on it are highly obscured by scriptural emphasis, mostly by Srila Prabhupad, with respect. But sometimes i would rather read Sri Chaitanya directly because he might give a more satisfying explanation then rather say which is true and which is not or to say, this is right and this is wrong. Truth simply is not that simplistic imo.

    Again i am just a seeker and by no means pretend to have knowledge


    Thanks for your answers

    Anand

  4. #4
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: The difference between Sunyata, Achintya Bheda Abheda and Advaita

    Quote Originally Posted by Ananda Sahaj View Post
    Sunyata = objects only exist conceptually

    theoretically explained: objectivity implies independent existence and in reality nothing that manifests has independent existence. Only in conceptual projection 'thingness arises': 'this' and 'that'
    Okay. Now, there are many possible refutations of this idealist position. Perhaps as the thread develops we can look at those.

    I will bring the standard realist response to this position. That is, what causes wrong perception? If a rope did not exist out there, independent of the perceiving mind, why do we conceptually perceive a rope sometimes but other times we wrongly perceive a snake?

    More generally, how do you differentiate between veridical and false cognitions? If objects exist only in cognitions why should a cognition misfire?

    experientially explained: when we look around our awareness focuses and fixes on manifestations exactly on the same time that they are labeled by our conceptual mind. as we grow up we learn: 'chair', 'tree', 'person', 'color' etc, and gradually we start experiencing objects rather then energy. while, strictly perceptivily spoken everything is a blur of energy without conceptual meaning. Our mind divides our 'unlimited' space of experienced in 'things', of which the most important thing is 'I'.
    Couple of points here. Just because the manifestation of a thing is simultaneous with its labelling does not mean that that thing does NOT exist if it were unmanifested. While you have stated your position, I would like you to possibly provide an inference for the above, if you could.

    Also, are you arguing for one universal mind or do you allow for the existence of individual discrete separate minds?

    yes, the more we surrender, the more loosened our conceptual framework becomes and this 'thingness' will get more and more relative and can even disappear at times
    You present the "thingness" as though it is an object of consciousness. When the "thingness" disappears, does the consciousness disappear as well? What remains, if at all, during this stage? If everything, including consciousness disappear, how exactly is this state recollected/remembered?

    a stone is non-existent as an object, it does n't matter if it is conscious or unconscious. but there is a stony energy there, so the stone exists, but as an energy that is not separate from the broader existence. i believe there is individual consciousness but it exists in the same way as the stone, more as an energy then as a defined and independent object. So actually form is about fluid manifestation that is never divided, energy is just stronger at one spot then the other but is within a continuum. In this sense formlessness and form or one (and many) in this emptiness. so emptiness is a principle and energy is the reality that is organized according to this principle. so existence is organized in an empty way, but it surely exist as we can experience it. Existence is only valuable in relation to experience.
    Hmm..I am unsure how this answers my question. Let me be more direct. Assume that the stone has no feeling/thought/consciousness. How is the Buddhist nibbana different from no feeling/thought/consciousness? Is it more a negative state like "absence of pain" or a more positive state like "bliss"?

  5. #5

    Re: The difference between Sunyata, Achintya Bheda Abheda and Advaita

    Quote:
    'Okay. Now, there are many possible refutations of this idealist position. Perhaps as the thread develops we can look at those.
    I will bring the standard realist response to this position. That is, what causes wrong perception? If a rope did not exist out there, independent of the perceiving mind, why do we conceptually perceive a rope sometimes but other times we wrongly perceive a snake?'


    I am not saying it is 'wrong' perception, i am only saying the perception is different and depends on which view one has on phenomens. If one can see the difference between form and non-form one will have a different experience then if one cannot because one will see experience is very relative to conditions. This changes our whole outlook on things. And these changes are desirable imo'


    Quote:
    'More generally, how do you differentiate between veridical and false cognitions? If objects exist only in cognitions why should a cognition misfire?'


    We experience what we experience, it does not matter if it is 'real' or 'unreal' these are again concepts, which again is fine.

    but it is indeed valuable to see our conceptualisation.

    that there are no unchanging independent (absolute) objects outside of our experience. this realization gives the experience of freedom which is enjoyable

    still our experience remains valuable, nothing wrong with it, it just is not as absolute as most people tend to think

    Quote:
    'Couple of points here. Just because the manifestation of a thing is simultaneous with its labelling does not mean that that thing does NOT exist if it were unmanifested. While you have stated your position, I would like you to possibly provide an inference for the above, if you could.'

    Again, experience is experience and speculation is speculation. both say nothing about what is true and one is not better then the other, but it is indeed valuable to be conscious of what we do with our perception, because we tend to fool ourselves all the time (ego/identity)

    Quote
    'Also, are you arguing for one universal mind or do you allow for the existence of individual discrete separate minds?'

    I do not know what is true but when I experience sahaja/spontaneous samadhi i loose all attributes that describe me as an individual but i do not loose this center of awareness.

    So up till now i cannot say that there exists only one universal mind. In samadhi i feel a strong intuitive connection with 'God', and i do not perceive the whole universe in my mind, so still there is an individual mind there in my experience that relates to a 'bigger' source.

    This is what makes me doubt advaita and tend more to 'Achintya Bheda Abheda' (inconceivable one-ness and difference).


    Quote:
    You present the "thingness" as though it is an object of consciousness. When the "thingness" disappears, does the consciousness disappear as well? What remains, if at all, during this stage? If everything, including consciousness disappear, how exactly is this state recollected/remembered?

    'no, when thingness dissapears, consiousness remains. only consiousness if you go to the extreme. but there is no need for a state like that. Thingness can just remain, there is no problem with 'thingness' if we realize what it is and what it is not. Too me thingness is a creation of God and is just as valuable as anything else.

    It is the seeing that is important, nothing has to change but that we start seeing. and even that is not necessary, but we will remain in suffering and apart from the experience of 'God' if we remain blind for the true nature of 'thingness'

    Quote:
    Hmm..I am unsure how this answers my question. Let me be more direct. Assume that the stone has no feeling/thought/consciousness. How is the Buddhist nibbana different from no feeling/thought/consciousness? Is it more a negative state like "absence of pain" or a more positive state like "bliss"?[/quote]

    To me nibbana does not mean the cessation of experience. it does not exclude any experience, but it also does not hold on to any experience. it is just full experience, fully, without interference of an ego-will. Sadchidananda is the experience of nibbana. Bliss is really an attribute of the realization of the true nature of things. and this true nature is nothing else then Sri Krishna in my opinion. Lord krishna is nibbana: all forms, all energy and all consiousness. all divisions and all unity. Krishna is the alfa and the omega...

    in this sense i feel Krishna-consciousness is not different from nibbana...

    nice discussion

    greets!

    ananda

  6. #6
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: The difference between Sunyata, Achintya Bheda Abheda and Advaita

    Quote Originally Posted by Ananda Sahaj View Post
    Quote:
    'Okay. Now, there are many possible refutations of this idealist position. Perhaps as the thread develops we can look at those.
    I will bring the standard realist response to this position. That is, what causes wrong perception? If a rope did not exist out there, independent of the perceiving mind, why do we conceptually perceive a rope sometimes but other times we wrongly perceive a snake?'


    I am not saying it is 'wrong' perception, i am only saying the perception is different and depends on which view one has on phenomens. If one can see the difference between form and non-form one will have a different experience then if one cannot because one will see experience is very relative to conditions. This changes our whole outlook on things. And these changes are desirable imo'


    Quote:
    'More generally, how do you differentiate between veridical and false cognitions? If objects exist only in cognitions why should a cognition misfire?'


    We experience what we experience, it does not matter if it is 'real' or 'unreal' these are again concepts, which again is fine.

    but it is indeed valuable to see our conceptualisation.

    that there are no unchanging independent (absolute) objects outside of our experience. this realization gives the experience of freedom which is enjoyable

    still our experience remains valuable, nothing wrong with it, it just is not as absolute as most people tend to think
    The analysis of illusory perceptions when cognition misfires provides an important clue towards the right metaphysics and ontology of existents. Realist schools of thought provide a fairly powerful explanation of the same via a causal process - which is what I was hoping you would refute. I am unable to discern any specific point you have made apart from claiming that there is no right or wrong perception.

    Again, experience is experience and speculation is speculation. both say nothing about what is true and one is not better then the other, but it is indeed valuable to be conscious of what we do with our perception, because we tend to fool ourselves all the time (ego/identity)
    Sure, the false identity of the self with the non-self is considered the very cause of bondage in Hinduism. But this was never the question. The question was that you appeared to be arguing for idealism because the so-called "outside/external" object is ALWAYS manifested by thoughts/mind/consciousness. As a result, we can do away with the "outside/external" object as that would be multiplying entities unnecessarily. Is this not what you were arguing for? If yes, one rebuttal to this is to ask you to provide a reasonable explanation for those cases where cognition misfires and is not truth hitting. You seem to argue that there is no right/wrong perception/cognition at all, yes? I think this is a way of avoiding the issue of misperception and I do not find it convincing.

    'no, when thingness dissapears, consiousness remains. only consiousness if you go to the extreme. but there is no need for a state like that. Thingness can just remain, there is no problem with 'thingness' if we realize what it is and what it is not. Too me thingness is a creation of God and is just as valuable as anything else.
    Consciousness alone exists as was held by Yogachara school and other idealist schools of thought. Advaita actually treads the middle-path and is as much anti-realist as it is anti-solipsist.

    To me nibbana does not mean the cessation of experience. it does not exclude any experience, but it also does not hold on to any experience. it is just full experience, fully, without interference of an ego-will. Sadchidananda is the experience of nibbana. Bliss is really an attribute of the realization of the true nature of things. and this true nature is nothing else then Sri Krishna in my opinion. Lord krishna is nibbana: all forms, all energy and all consiousness. all divisions and all unity. Krishna is the alfa and the omega...

    in this sense i feel Krishna-consciousness is not different from nibbana...
    Ok. That is nice to know.

  7. #7

    Re: The difference between Sunyata, Achintya Bheda Abheda and Advaita

    ok, wundermonk this is a very interesting discussion which surely is helping me to bring my meditationexperience in line with local thinking, from which i can learn a lot about the true nature of reality.

    Please help me to really understand these philosophical positions, as i am more of a mystic then a philosopher and i feel i have to align these two ways of understanding to better understand this existence...

    ok i will answer your questions:

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    The analysis of illusory perceptions when cognition misfires provides an important clue towards the right metaphysics and ontology of existents. Realist schools of thought provide a fairly powerful explanation of the same via a causal process - which is what I was hoping you would refute. I am unable to discern any specific point you have made apart from claiming that there is no right or wrong perception.
    ok i will see if i can/want to refute the realist view

    ok from your words i understand you say realist view says there is an external reality, and you proof this with the example of the rope/snake


    I would say the rope is a common experience, experienced by more bodies, while the snake is an individual experience, experienced by a fearing body. experience here is the predominator, not the question of real/unreal.

    I feel this is not a 'realist view' but also not a nihilist view. What view is this then, according to eastern philosophy?

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Sure, the false identity of the self with the non-self is considered the very cause of bondage in Hinduism. But this was never the question. The question was that you appeared to be arguing for idealism because the so-called "outside/external" object is ALWAYS manifested by thoughts/mind/consciousness. As a result, we can do away with the "outside/external" object as that would be multiplying entities unnecessarily. Is this not what you were arguing for? If yes, one rebuttal to this is to ask you to provide a reasonable explanation for those cases where cognition misfires and is not truth hitting. You seem to argue that there is no right/wrong perception/cognition at all, yes? I think this is a way of avoiding the issue of misperception and I do not find it convincing.
    I cannot say there is no existence outside my mind. the rope/snake story proofs this. I can only say that the objectivation process happens in my mind. Why, because i am aware that my experience changes with the way i focus on perception signals. as soon as my awareness is closing in on an object i start being aware of this thingness. if i relax in the openness of meditation, the thingness leaves, the meaning leaves

    so i would say experience can be more about objects or less

    what is out there i cannot know, but i know i experience different modes of more or less object. and that the nature of this mind-object is depending on former conditioning

    so it seems absurd to talk about real/unreal because either my experience is conditioned, or it is inconceivable. what i can conceive is always conditioned.

    so reality as it is i cannot know at this point...


    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Consciousness alone exists as was held by Yogachara school and other idealist schools of thought. Advaita actually treads the middle-path and is as much anti-realist as it is anti-solipsist.
    wow this goes deep...

    i feel existence is not really solipist and not really realist and not an universal soilipism either

    i feel the predominator is experience, i can only say there is experience, and the knowing of experience. this knowing is non-substantial. so actually i feel experience is existence, real or unreal are abstract concepts.

    so form or non-form are concepts, which describe an experiantial existence that is form and formless at the same time. the experience is solipsist but that does not mean 'reality' is solipist. and within this solipist experience there is also the experience of concepts of an outside world, and the rifferent modes of thingness exist also within this experience.

    so i only know this experience, that's it. i can never know what is beyond it, i can only speculate. this speculation is part of experience.

    so what is is, but i do not know what this 'is' actually is

    but real/unreal have a value if you understand them 1) in relation to the experience of human society: is it a common experience or a individual experience and: 2) also how it influences the experience of pain or joy.

    experiencing a rope or a snake:

    rope is a community experience within your experience. snake is aindividual experience within your experience

    rope is a non-painfull experience while snake is a painfull experience

    certainly i am not a nihilist as within experience there definitly is the experience of meaning, of substance, of 'reality'. and saying it is unreal is absurd, just as saying it is real: it is just what it is: experience, and within it is meaning...

    so in fact this is rather middle way?

    thanks!!!

    ananda

  8. #8
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: The difference between Sunyata, Achintya Bheda Abheda and Advaita

    Quote Originally Posted by Ananda Sahaj View Post
    ok, wundermonk this is a very interesting discussion
    Yes, I find this discussion interesting also.

    I would say the rope is a common experience, experienced by more bodies, while the snake is an individual experience, experienced by a fearing body. experience here is the predominator, not the question of real/unreal.
    Given that you are not (?) arguing for only one universal mind, the former statement of yours is additionally an argument for realism. If a thing can be experienced by more than one person similarly and simultaneously, it would seem pretty convincing that our common-sense view that there is an external world and a multiplicity of minds is accurate.

    I feel this is not a 'realist view' but also not a nihilist view. What view is this then, according to eastern philosophy?
    Why would you argue that the above common-sense view is nihilist. It seems robustly real to me.

    what is out there i cannot know, but i know i experience different modes of more or less object. and that the nature of this mind-object is depending on former conditioning
    Once this is admitted, there is only a very short jump to solipsism or brain in a vat or evil genie.

    so reality as it is i cannot know at this point...so i only know this experience, that's it. i can never know what is beyond it, i can only speculate. this speculation is part of experience. so what is is, but i do not know what this 'is' actually is
    Okay. This is partly the Advaitin position also. The outside world needs to be assumed to exist because it is cognized. But it can NOT be proven to exist in a non-circular way. I have NOT been arguing in this thread that such a proof can be provided. All I am highlighting in this thread is that the idealist position also has issues that need addressing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •