Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 89

Thread: Buddha and bhagavad gita?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Age
    37
    Posts
    840
    Rep Power
    0

    Buddha and bhagavad gita?

    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 )
    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    November 2007
    Age
    67
    Posts
    844
    Rep Power
    560

    Re: Buddha and bhagavad gita?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spiritualseeker View Post
    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.
    Last edited by MahaHrada; 16 June 2009 at 12:33 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: Buddha and bhagavad gita?

    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
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  4. #4

    Re: Buddha and bhagavad gita?

    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

    OM. VAJRA. VISHNUYA. SVAHA
    OM. VAJRA. GARUDA. CALE CALE. HUM PHAT


    OM. AMOGHA VAIROCANA. MAHA-MUDRA. MANI PADMA JVALA PRAVARTTAYA. HUM

    Om Saha Nau-Avatu |
    Saha Nau Bhunaktu |
    Saha Viiryam Karava-Avahai |
    Tejasvi Nau-Adhii-Tam-Astu Maa Vidviss-Aavahai |
    Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||


  5. #5
    Join Date
    November 2007
    Age
    67
    Posts
    844
    Rep Power
    560

    Re: Buddha and bhagavad gita?

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post
    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.

    OM
    All 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.
    Last edited by MahaHrada; 16 June 2009 at 05:12 PM.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    November 2007
    Age
    67
    Posts
    844
    Rep Power
    560

    Re: Buddha and bhagavad gita?

    Quote Originally Posted by shian View Post
    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?
    Last edited by MahaHrada; 16 June 2009 at 05:08 PM.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Age
    37
    Posts
    840
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Buddha and bhagavad gita?

    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?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Age
    37
    Posts
    840
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Buddha and bhagavad gita?

    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.
    Last edited by Spiritualseeker; 16 June 2009 at 08:31 PM.

  9. #9

    Re: Buddha and bhagavad gita?

    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

    OM. VAJRA. VISHNUYA. SVAHA
    OM. VAJRA. GARUDA. CALE CALE. HUM PHAT


    OM. AMOGHA VAIROCANA. MAHA-MUDRA. MANI PADMA JVALA PRAVARTTAYA. HUM

    Om Saha Nau-Avatu |
    Saha Nau Bhunaktu |
    Saha Viiryam Karava-Avahai |
    Tejasvi Nau-Adhii-Tam-Astu Maa Vidviss-Aavahai |
    Om Shaantih Shaantih Shaantih ||


  10. #10
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    741
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Buddha and bhagavad gita?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spiritualseeker View Post
    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.

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
  •