advaita vedanta vs buddhism reddit
This comparison of the two traditions by Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche is quite thorough and well informed since he practiced both systems. He talks about meeting a Tibetan lama and he said to the lama I am studying your tradition right now, Madyamika. AFAIK the story goes that the demons are conducting ceremonies taught in the Vedas, and thus became too strong to defeat. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQAPIykUL0&t=2976s. In the last 200 years, with the cross-fertilization between East and West, Advaita Vedanta got modernized, and there was also a new movement that derived from it, called neo-Advaita by scholars . If I ask the Vedantins they say the Self is pure consciousness that is the ultimate existence appearing as the world and individuals. It also is understood, as Dzogchungpa point outed, as a consciousness devoid of subject and object, as the Ḍākinīvajrapañjara[-mahā]tantrarājasya pañjikā[-prathamapaṭala-]mukhabandha-nāma: One is a nondual consciousness. You seem to be under the impression that the Hinduism landscape we see today is the same landscape 3 millennias ago. I think that's pretty amusing, especially since a few schools of Buddhism assert that the teaching of Vairocana Buddha was skillful means to teach dharma to theists. If I ask the Vedantins they say the Self is pure consciousness that is the … Those similarities have attracted Indian and Western scholars attention, and have also been criticised by concurring schools. ; Advaita and Buddhism: the position of Buddhism on these issues as opposed to Advaita. In both, the aspirant is asked to use his powers of mind to reason out the truth from their teachings and not to accept them without thinking. Well, according to some Hindu scriptures, Vishnu emanated as Siddhartha Gautama in order to teach Vedanta to atheists. I would guess that you'll get some philosophical debate on here about how these are different, but to me it's semantics. There is no one non-dual perspective. I know a lot of people here have probably studied both philosophies and might not be as biased as other communities that's why I came here to see if anyone had good ideas or insights regarding this topic. When it comes to their respective philosphical underpinnings the two views are very different. These quotes are not exhaustive, but they show that "nondual" in Buddhadharma is really quite different than Advaita. Objectivity vs Subjectivity in Light of Vedanta - Advaita Vedanta Purpose of this article is to bring light to an uninvestigated pillar in the spiritual world (irrespective of Religion, philosophy). New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast, A reddit for all kinds of Buddhist teachings, Press J to jump to the feed. But in other traditions of Buddhism, there are more profound teachings than not-self. Advaita Philosophy: a concise explanation of the basics of Advaita Philosophy; Excerpts: Excerpts from the chapters of the book, The Circle of Fire. There also seem to be a theory that the uniqueness of Buddhism is that it attempt to even deconstruct this True Self/Pure Witness, with the insight and realization of 'Emptiness'. That thread is just a bunch of perennialist nonsense. No, not at all. He consolidated the doctrine of the school. The essential teaching is that Atman (Individual soul), is identical to Brahman (Cosmic soul). as an oral tradition, and around 1500 B.C. A self implies other, and Brahman has no other, Brahman is existence. So, God is omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent. There are other boats to other shores of duality like Buddhism, Jainism etc. One of the disciples of Vivekananda wrote: "The difference between Shankara and Nagarjuna is Shankara says the I is Brahman. To be fair I too used to uphold this same idea, that Advaita Vedanta [sanatanadharma] and the buddhadharma are essentially equivalent and the differences are merely nominal. The path to liberation is to realize that Atman and Brahman are identical, and they were never separate. What we understand vidyā to be is completely different. They just don't call it that. So historically there is this first revelation in India, maybe 1,000 years BC, whatever. What was the main difference that caused a split to form a different ideology? Since there are no mental discriminations, there is no conceptual clinging of mutual dependence.". ; Advaita and Quantum Physics: A discussion on the relevance of Advaita in Quantum Physics. I have been studying Advaita Vedanta lately. Many Shaiva and Vaishnava Puranas suggested that God incarnated upon earth as the Buddha to delude evil people (Asuras) with his radical, perverted, and atheistic teachings to prepare them for their final destruction. Nagarjuna dissolves the I there and there itself. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsQAPIykUL0&t=2976s. Davis%uses%a%“hermeneuticalOphenomenological%strategy”%to%interpret%teacherO student%dialogues.Sheunderstandstheinteractioninbothtraditionsasa% Vedanta is one of the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy. How are you going to understand Buddhism or Advaita well enough to see how they compare if you don't look at the prior literature? I've been exploring this a little bit. There is only one true God. From a Non dual perspective, what are your thoughts? This is not true. Is it just different ways of looking at the same thing? Of course, the Buddha rejected such ideas, along with all other theories of the atman. In short, I think the main difference between Advaita and Buddhism is that Advaita claims Brahman to be real, whereas in Buddhism, sughatagarbha is an illusion. ", "You appreciate both as grand systems in their own right and take them at their word and see that the system works." ~ Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Traktats Logico-Philosophicus" Dude, Advaita Vedanta came long after Buddhism. First of all, the way the term ["non-dual"] is used in Buddhadharma and Advaita are very different. The 4 fold negation of Madhyamika is best summed as "Advaya" or non-dual in the sense of "not 2, not 1"; where as Advaita-Vedanta is summed as "Advaita" or non-dual in the sense of "not 2, but 1". This model is quite different from Advaita Vedanta, for example, which proposes a single transpersonal awareness. The purpose of this path is essentially to realize no-self, or suchness. Those schools of Buddhism reject both an Atman (Individual Soul) and a Brahman (Cosmic Soul). He was a student of Govinda Bhagavatpada, who was a student of Gaudapada. I'm sorry if this doesn't help much, but I don't know of any more clear way to spell out the distinctions than that. Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism share significant similarities. I am not fully familiar with Advaita Vedanta to a great extent, I have researched it a bit, in the light of the influence of Ramana Maharshi and other teachers like Mooji and his teacher Papaji who learned under Ramana. Gaudapada borrowed Madhyamaka terminology and philosophy (as well as that of Yogācāra / vijñapti-mātra / Representation Only) after having allegedly studied at a Madhyamika (Mahayana) Buddhist temple. "God created Buddhism to bring atheist to salvation, becoming a Christian is taking the next step up in truth.". This is why "right view" [samyag drsti] is first and foremost on the Noble Eightfold Path. It is very similar to Einstein’s theories of relativity. Whereas the "ultimate" for the buddhadharma is a species of non-dual consciousness that is wholly epistemic and personal. They invented a whole lot of Puranic mythology to explain why Buddhism was neither superior nor ideal for liberation. Vedanta literally translates as “end of the Vedas”, and refers specifically to the Upanishads and the philosophies interpreting them. Specifically, they are Nondualists. Find more subreddits like r/nonduality -- This is a place that welcomes all forms of **NonDual expression** and exploration. This talk by Swami answered a lot of my questions. Both adhere to the highest standards of logic and reason. One says it's all consciousness, and the other says it's all emptiness. Much confusion has been generated by this problem both in traditional sources, and the work of modern scholars. And so, the Upanishads are called the Vedanta, the end of the Vedas. And if so, why the need to create Buddhism in the first place if Advaita Vedanta was already a thing? They're both denying the real existence of the world and the appearance of these individuals who identify as their ego/mind/body, except their view of the "ultimate reality" differs. Why is everyone who starts to attempt either Buddhist Advaita synthesis or Buddhist Advaita polemics these days operating so independently of the actual past discourse on the subject in the respective traditions? In my personal experience, I think Buddhists sometimes get too rigid in their ideas about the idea of "non-self", whereas perhaps other traditions like versions of Hinduism might get a bit too personal about the whole thing, getting stuck on the idea of a permanent soul or self. That this is the only boat and nothink like a crocodile to take you to non-duality. Brahman without qualities, however, is nondual (advaita) in the sense of being beyond the differentiation of unity and diversity. This may be true but the basic idea of the self that they are working with was in existence at the time of the Buddha as can be seen in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. If you consider not-self as the ultimate view, then maybe there is little difference. Why is this history lesson important? Two is an apprehending subject and an apprehended object. Its most famous historical exponent was Adi Shankara, who in the 7th century revived Hinduism in a Buddhism-dominated India, winning over several opponents in debate. (Alhough Buddha supplanted Hinduism’s concept of a divine atman with the teaching of “anatman,” or “no self,” he was raised a Hindu, studied with Hindu teachers, and to this day is revered by Hinduism as one of its greatest sages.) They do recognize the other Gods of Hinduism, but they are not the one true God from which everything manifests - they are like the angels of Christianity. I once heard a Christian tell me that very same thing! Some may incorrectly say that the doctrine is the same as that of Madhyamika/Yogācāra Mahayana Buddhism, but in fact those schools of Buddhism spent quite a lot of time refuting the views of Advaita Vedanta. This fascinating and innovative book explores the relationship between the philosophical underpinnings of Advaita Vedanta, Zen Buddhism and the experiential journey of spiritual practitioners. In my opinion, the truth is not quite so rigid. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts. The most famous adherent of Advaita Vedanta was Adi Shankara - also referred to as Shankaracharya. In my opinion, what matters is experience and realization. The 4 fold negation of Madhyamika is best summed as "Advaya" or non-dual in the sense of "not 2, not 1"; where as Advaita-Vedanta is summed as "Advaita" or non-dual in the sense of "not 2, but 1".. I shall consider how this aspect is treated in three important Indian systems: Samkhya-Yoga, early Buddhism, and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. There are many different kinds of non-dualism. advaita vedanta points to liberation via non dual awareness buddhism points to liberation via right insight & dispassion in buddhism, liberation is the destruction of craving in advaita vedanta, liberation is the destruction of dualististic thinking in my humble opinion, the experiences are quite different Buddhism (Zen) & Non-Duality: Buddhism looks at non-duality also as the absence of the sense of a separate ego. The four Vedas end with what we call the Upanishads, which consist of the philosophical aspect of the Vedas. Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are the two most intellectual religious philosophies that arose in human civilization. He says but you are an Advaitan. Here endeth the opening paragraph of Chapter 4. 04/28/2014 02:26 pm ET Updated Dec 06, 2017 Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent. > From a Non dual perspective, what are your thoughts? Are there subtle differences in the non-dual states described in Dzogchen and Advaita Vedanta. While certain things were borrowed from Buddhists, they were couched in a philosophy that is both eternalist (positing an eternal soul) & substantialist (positing a truly existent substrate to the universe - Nirguna Brahman). Both are very similar in many respects. Atman and Brahman are not separate in any way, the sense of separation lives in a dualistic thought. These are the questions Advaita Vedanta is committed to answer; the answers being at the very core of Advaita philosophy." This is quite a dangerous position to take on the matter since it compromises the integrity of both systems. Those schools of Buddhism reject both an Atman (Individual Soul) and a Brahman (Cosmic Soul). He talks about both Vedanta and Buddhism and how to reconcile them. Vedanta means the end of the Vedas. So it's saying that Buddhism is the wrong path, even though the Buddha is said to be Vishnu. This thesis deals with the relation of Samkara's Advaita Vedanta to the Madhyamika Buddhism of Nagarjuna. Both the other reasons you have given are very good to get into Advaita. In my opinion, I could see how one might use different terminology for the same things, and I think there is probably (at the least) a ton of overlap in these things. Advaita is the only non-dual path. It's largely fault for one's spiritual stagnation, inconsistent relationships with the other (Objects, people, etc) – and disharmony with one's own existence. Or the Kaumudī, a famous Buddhist tantric commentary, states: Because of the absence of inherent existence, the nondual essence of all phenomena is emptiness. Another article which goes into Advaita Vedanta, specifically from a meditation and experiential point of view is, Enlightenment via Who Am I – Advaita Vedanta Neti Neti Meditation. Advaita is a non-dual tradition from India, with Advaita Vedanta, a branch of Hinduism, as its philosophical arm. Isn't this just another interpretation of Anatta? Beneath such superficial and pretentious comradery, one cannot help noticing the negative attitude of ancient Vedic scholars towards the Buddha. For this discussion, I’m focused primarily on Advaita Vedanta, which is the oldest school of Vedanta, dating back to the 8th century. The idea of a perennial philosophy originated with a number of Renaissance theologians who took inspiration from neo-Platonism and from the theory of Forms. Incidentally the Buddha rejected Samkhya. Once again, here Advaita and Buddhadharma are absolutely incommensurate, and as I pointed out, it is only Hindus who imagine that Advaita and Buddhadharma are talking about the same thing, i.e., knowledge of Brahman. I totally respect their school. If I ask the Buddhists they say that there is no Self and all is Emptiness, only there appears to be a world and individuals due to Maya. When that yogin dwells in the experience of nonconceptual discerning wisdom [prajñā] and experiences nonduality, at that time, ultimately, the entire reality of objects of knowledge are as follows, of the same characteristics, like space, appearing in the manner of a nonappearance since their characteristics are nonexistent, therefore, there isn't even the slightest thing that is not empty, so where could there be emptiness? Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) argued that there is an underlying unity to the world, the soul or love, which has a counterpart in the realm of ideas. For example, the Tarkajvakla, a famous commentary on Nagarjuna 's MMK states: Therefore, that which is the inner earth element, that is is the external earth element, that is the meaning of nondual. Both traditions address and solve the fundamental problem of human suffering, but they differ on the existence or non-existence of a true, inner self, atma. Buddhist non-dualism is not the same as Vedantic non-dualism. @rohit , Buddhism is seven hundred to a thousand years older than full-fledged Advaita, but some of the Vedas are at least a thousand years prior to Shakyamuni. What are the main differences? Right, but in the buddhadharma, view informs one's practice and therefore also informs one's realization. Advaita Vedanta Hinduism is monotheistic Hinduism. Vishnu then became the Buddha to teach people away from the Vedic ceremonies, they became weaker, and then conquered. They followed the same st… So whereas the awareness of Vedanta is a global and all-encompassing, ontological principle, the species of awareness proposed by Dzogchen (and other Buddhist tenet systems in general) is relegated to an individuated mind-continuum. The dalai lama has basically said that hinduism, at least certain forms, is basically a "twin religion" to Buddhism. Advaita Vedanta came long after Buddhism, but Samkhya yoga, which Advaita is based on, was around in the time of Buddha Śākyamuni. Both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are rooted in the Hindu tradition. Definition Renaissance. The only resemblance between Advaita and Buddhadharma is that we both seek to solve the same problem — avidyā. What even is non-dualism, it feels like a catch-all phrase these days to make any school of thought sound somehow more legit or transcendental, but it might just be me being ignorant though. In my opinion, what matters is experience and realization. Now take this dialogue and seal the last doubt about the teachings. New comments cannot be posted and votes cannot be cast, A reddit for all kinds of Buddhist teachings, Press J to jump to the feed. Consciousness, even fully refined and pure is still not-self in Buddhism. In Buddhism, emptiness is the way things actually are, which is that they have no inherent nature. Not to say that I'm a scholar of Advaita Vedanta. The similarities have been interpreted as Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta, though some deny such influences, or see them as expressions of the same eternal truth.
Stella At Shadow Creek Ranch, Latest Processor For Mobile, Camping Background Images, Jbl Eon One Price In Sri Lanka, Flying Birds Clipart Black And White, Fuddruckers Jalapeno Cheese Nutrition, Betta Mahachai Vs Smaragdina, Endodontic Diagnosis Table, Simple Coral Reef Coloring Page, Best Cat Food,