Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 27

Thread: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

  1. #11
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

    Quote Originally Posted by Dharmajim
    Greetings:

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

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

    Namaste Dharmajim,

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

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

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

    Om Namah Shivayya

  2. #12

    Re: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

    Namaste Atanu,

    thank you for the post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Atanu Banerjee
    Again there is some difference in words. I said the ONE who is seeking the truth (apparently) does not vanish. I said "eternal Buddha within" and you said "Buddha nature" is a quality and not matter. Well, isn't it again a play of words? Buddha nature cannot exist without Buddha. Can it?
    yes, Buddhanature exists without Buddhas hence the Solitary Realizers which attain Liberation when there are no Buddhas present in the world system.

    nevertheless, as Buddhagosha so succiently put it:

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

    If Vajradhara meditates well and penetrates through all the 'Buddha nature' part then does He cease to exist?
    the being that is Vajradhara (the poster on this thread) has never existed and thus will not cease to exist. it is quite correct, however, that this ego tends to impute a sense of self unto the 5 clinging aggregates and this can be quite difficult to uproot.

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

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

    metta,

    ~v
    Meditation brings Wisdom, lack of meditation leaves ignorance. Know well what leads you forward and what holds you back.

    ~Buddha Shakyamuni

    *******************************

    I have gained this from philosophy:

    That i do, without being commanded, what others do only through fear of Law.

    ~Aristotle

  3. #13
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    Namaste Atanu,

    thank you for the post.



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

    nevertheless, as Buddhagosha so succiently put it:

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


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


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

    metta,

    ~v

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

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


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


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

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

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


    Om Namah Shivayya

  4. #14
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

    Quote Originally Posted by Vajradhara
    Namaste Atanu,

    thank you for the post.



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


    ~v

    Namaste,

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

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


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

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



    Om

  5. #15

    Re: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

    Namaste Atanu,

    I personally think that Buddhism is not founded on non dualism, atleast in the vedantic sense, and is dualistic. If this is the case, I fail to see how you can reconcile the two systems by brute force. Request Vajradhara to comment on how far Buddhism is close to non dualism, instead of trying to equate the systems on the basis of an underlying reality. Do really the realized sages merge in Nirvana, or is Nirvana an individual affair? There is a possibility that Buddhism has an overlap with both Advaita and Shankya.
    Last edited by TruthSeeker; 16 August 2006 at 01:32 PM.

  6. #16

    Re: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    Namaste Atanu,

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

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

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

    Best wishes,

    Dharmajim

  7. #17
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

    Namaste,


    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    Namaste Atanu,

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

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Dharmajim

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

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






    Quote Originally Posted by TruthSeeker
    Do really the realized sages merge in Nirvana, or is Nirvana an individual affair?
    Can you please explain on this a bit?
    Last edited by atanu; 15 February 2009 at 07:10 AM.

  8. #18

    Re: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

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

    Atanu: Can you please explain on this a bit?

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

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

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

  9. #19

    Re: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

    Good Friends:

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

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

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

    I hope this is of some assistance.

    Best wishes,

    Dharmajim

  10. #20
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Brief Overview of Buddhist Philosophy

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

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

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

    Regards
    Last edited by atanu; 03 September 2006 at 11:05 AM.

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
  •