Non-duality AND Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
Post Reply
PaulC
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:57 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by PaulC »

Some Advaita sages, such as Ramana Maharshi and Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, would seem to come very close to Buddha Dhamma.

To the point that to distinguish between, say, parabrahman (as presented in those texts) and the thirty-three synonyms for Nibbana (for example) might seem, in some ways, to be mere nit-picking/pedantry ...

(As has been pointed out, one thinks, also, of the use of the term "Self" in some Zen texts, such as Shibayama's Mumonkan, and of the clear ways in which Patanjali and Shankara were influenced by Buddhism ...)

However ...

As pointed out by Ven. Analayo in his masterful study of Satipatthana (p. 209) the "Self" oftentimes connotes (or implies?) "notions of mastery, permanence and inherent satisfactoriness" that easily lead to narcissistic inflation.

A survey of contemporary Advaita teachers would seem, to me, to bear this out. (Whereas the Dhamma might be seen to foster the precise opposite ... i.e. an admirable self-effacement).

So it's closer to Buddhism than is usually credited, but in this vital respect, it's not close enough. IMHO
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by christopher::: »

Good points, Paul.

I think one of the limitations of the Advaita path is that since practitioners identify with awareness they may come to believe they have "arrived" (awakened) when in fact they still have a lot of work left to do. There is this danger with Buddhism as well, imo. Not sure if such traps are avoidable, the Buddha warned about this, right? Any time a conception of one's Self as Enlightened arises, its a trap.

That's the meaning of the phrase "If you meet the Buddha in the road kill him" in Zen. In other words if you think "I am an awakened Buddha" then you are most definitely not. Such ideas, if they arise, should be thrown out the door.

:toilet:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by Individual »

clw_uk wrote:Greetings


Ive been studying advaita vedanta lately and it strikes me how close it is to Buddhadhamma, i was in discussion with a follower of it and even found it hard to debate with him on the differences between the two, one thing i was surprised at was to hear him say that Atman isnt "I" and "I" is illusionary


Did Buddhadhamma influence advaita vedanta? Some Hindus claim its the other way around


Metta
Theravada Buddhism predates Advaita historically by quite a bit of time, although Mahayana Buddhism may have been influenced by it.

Buddhism and Advaita share similarities, but Advaita likely has many of its own superstitions. Buddhists also technically reject "Atman," but the Atman of Advaita isn't really the same thing as the atman of Theravada. Advaita's notion of Brahman and Atman can certainly be compared to ideas like suchness, Buddha-Nature, True Self, in Mahayana Buddhism... And I'd say these ideas, while possibly complicating things more, aren't necessarily contradictory to early Buddhist texts.

One big difference is that I think both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists would hold dualism and non-dualism to both be contrived views.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

One big difference is that I think both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhists would hold dualism and non-dualism to both be contrived views.
You need to hang around Mahayana forums a bit more.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

The Dawn of Tantra; Herbert V. Guenther, Chogyam Trungpa; ed. Michael Kohn, illustrated Glen Eddy and Terris Temple; The Clear Light Series; Shambala; Berkley & London; 1975

Guenther: The term advaita, as we use it, stems from Shankara's Vedanta. The Buddhists never used this term, but used rather the term advaya. Advaya means "not-two"; advaita means "one without a second." The conception of "one without a second" puts us at once into the realm of dualistic fictions. Rather than remaining in immediate experience, with the idea of "one" we posit a definite object. This would then necessarily be over against a definite subject, which is the implication Shankara wanted to deny with the "without a second." By saying "not-two" you remain on solid ground, because "not-two" does not mean "one." That conclusion does not follow.

In the works of Saraha and other Buddhist teachers, it is said that it is impossible to say "one" without prejudgment of experience. But Shankara and his followers were forced by the scriptural authority of the Vedas to posit this One and so were then forced to add the idea "without a second." What they wanted to say was that only Atman is real. Now the logic of their position should force them to then say that everything else is unreal. But Shankara himself is not clear on this point. He re-introduced the idea of illusion which had previously been rejected by him. Now if only Atman is real, then even illusion apart from it is impossible. But he was forced into accepting the idea of illusion. So he was forced into a philosophical position which, if it were to be expressed in a mathematical formula, would make absolute nonsense. So intellectually, in this way, it could be said that the Vedanta is nonsense. But it had tremendous impact; and, as we know, the intellect is not everything. But as the Madhyamika analysis showed, the Vedanta formula simply does not hold water. And Shankara himself, as I said, was not completely clear on this point.

In translating Buddhist texts, it is necessary to take great care with the word "illusion." Sometimes it appears in what is almost an apodictic or judgmental sense. This happens especially in poetry, where one cannot destroy the pattern of the flow of words to make specific philosophical qualifications. But the basic Buddhist position concerning illusion, as prose works are careful to point out, is not the apodictic statement made by the followers of Shankara that the world is illusion. The Buddhist position is that the world may be like an illusion. There is a huge logical difference between saying the world is an illusion and saying the world may be like an illusion. The Buddhist position suspends judgment.

So while it has been suggested that Shankara was a cryptoBuddhist, because, in fact, he took over almost the entire epistemological and metaphysical conception of the Buddhists, there remains this very crucial difference.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Individual
Posts: 1970
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 2:19 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by Individual »

Thanks for that quote, Tiltbillings. I think I remember seeing somebody posting that before. I'm a bit skeptical that there's seriously a discernible difference between advaita and advaya. I'd like to know on what basis Guenther says that.

With that said, in Suzuki Roshi's Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, I remember him saying that reality is not two and not one.
The best things in life aren't things.

The Diamond Sutra
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

Individual wrote:Thanks for that quote, Tiltbillings. I think I remember seeing somebody posting that before. I'm a bit skeptical that there's seriously a discernible difference between advaita and advaya. I'd like to know on what basis Guenther says that.
I quoted it before here. And Guenther's basis would be a careful reading of the texts, being proficient in Sanskrit and Tibetan and being a highly regarded scholar of things Indian and Tibetan. He makes a distinction, but no one yet, were I have posted this, picks it up.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:
The Dawn of Tantra; Herbert V. Guenther, Chogyam Trungpa; ed. Michael Kohn, illustrated Glen Eddy and Terris Temple; The Clear Light Series; Shambala; Berkley & London; 1975

Guenther: The term advaita, as we use it, stems from Shankara's Vedanta. The Buddhists never used this term, but used rather the term advaya. Advaya means "not-two"; advaita means "one without a second." The conception of "one without a second" puts us at once into the realm of dualistic fictions. Rather than remaining in immediate experience, with the idea of "one" we posit a definite object. This would then necessarily be over against a definite subject, which is the implication Shankara wanted to deny with the "without a second." By saying "not-two" you remain on solid ground, because "not-two" does not mean "one." That conclusion does not follow.

In the works of Saraha and other Buddhist teachers, it is said that it is impossible to say "one" without prejudgment of experience. But Shankara and his followers were forced by the scriptural authority of the Vedas to posit this One and so were then forced to add the idea "without a second." What they wanted to say was that only Atman is real. Now the logic of their position should force them to then say that everything else is unreal. But Shankara himself is not clear on this point. He re-introduced the idea of illusion which had previously been rejected by him. Now if only Atman is real, then even illusion apart from it is impossible. But he was forced into accepting the idea of illusion. So he was forced into a philosophical position which, if it were to be expressed in a mathematical formula, would make absolute nonsense. So intellectually, in this way, it could be said that the Vedanta is nonsense.
Yeah, i remember you posted this before, tilt. Where was that?

As i recall we all went on for at least a page or two with people challenging Guenther's views and rather dualistic definitions. Neither side seemed to budge. Guenther seems a bit hostile and intolerant towards Advaita, but i could be misunderstanding him...
"So intellectually, in this way, it could be said that the Vedanta is nonsense."
Yeah... okaaaay...

:coffee:
Last edited by christopher::: on Sun Jul 05, 2009 7:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

And you make my point of the msg that precedes your, you really do not address Guenther's point.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:And you make my point of the msg that precedes your, you really do not address Guenther's point.
Could you provide a link to the last time we discussed this, tilt? There's a very deja vu quality to this conversation...

I'm not a scholar of either Buddhism or Vendanta, but I do have a fairly good nose for word games and dualistic logic, which Guenther seems to employ, at least in these quotes. This is not the path, to argue logic. The way suggested both by more highly realized Advaita and Buddhist teachers (imo) is to keep awareness outside the bounds of dualistic conceptualizations, and avoid, such logic games...

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:And you make my point of the msg that precedes your, you really do not address Guenther's point.
Could you provide a link to the last time we discussed this, tilt? There's a very deja vu quality to this conversation...
Here http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=1236" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; and no one actually addressed Guenther's point.
I'm not a scholar of either Buddhism or Vendanta, but I do have a fairly good nose for word games and dualistic logic, which Guenther seems to employ, at least in these quotes. This is not the path, to argue logic. The way suggested both by more highly realized Advaita and Buddhist teachers (imo) is to keep awareness outside the bounds of dualistic conceptualizations, and avoid, such logic games...

:namaste:
Well, what you just said here is an attempt at trying to side step actually dealing with the issues.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by christopher::: »

Thanks for the link, tilt. We went through this already. Individual's post over there is still pretty close to how i view this. But again, an intellectualized view is not reality or realization. You argued with Individual's points (below) over there before, and can do so again if you wish.

Many people agreed with you last time, some of us didn't.
Individual wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:
"The Dawn of Tantra; Herbert V. Guenther, Chogyam Trungpa; ed. Michael Kohn, illustrated Glen Eddy and Terris Temple; The Clear Light Series; Shambala; Berkley & London; 1975 pp. 74-76

"The term advaita, as we use it, stems from Shankara's Vedanta. The Buddhists never used this term, but used rather the term advaya. Advaya means "not-two"; advaita means "one without a second." The conception of "one without a second" puts us at once into the realm of dualistic fictions. Rather than remaining in immediate experience, with the idea of "one" we posit a definite object. This would then necessarily be over against a definite subject, which is the implication Shankara wanted to deny with the "without a second." By saying "not-two" you remain on solid ground, because "not-two" does not mean "one." That conclusion does not follow.
I'm not sure what he says is right. If Pali and Sanskrit are related languages, then they would share the same roots. According to this Sanskrit dictionary, Advaita means "non-duality" and Dvitva means "duality". According to the PTS dictionary, Dvaya means "two-fold" and thus, Advaya means "not-twofold", as he says.

But since the two sets of words seem to be of the same etymological roots, distinguishing them seems weird. Adding the a- prefix is a negation in Pali or Sanskrit. Now, of course early Buddhists didn't speak Sanskrit. But Dvitva also can be translated as "couple" or "pair". So, you could also interpret Advaita as meaning "not two" also. Furthermore, the common usage of language doesn't necessarily follow logic, so it's entirely plausible that Advaya in Pali could mean both non-dualism or monism, in addition to being a description of the Buddhist rejection of both dualism and non-dualism.

Also, I believe some the Advaitins reject monism and dualism as well, by saying that the individual atman (self or soul) is an illusion. The great "Atman" is upheld as supreme ideal, or ultimate, but you have the same notion in Buddhism, regarding Nirvana, the Deathless, etc., although it isn't referred to as Atman. Not referring to it as Atman is a difference, but only a trivial one, really. Both seem to be dialectical monism... Both "self is real" and "self is not real" are refuted as views in favor of direct insight. This disagreement really only arises out of a Theravadin stubbornness to take philosophical positions and conflating the Advaitin Atman with the idea of an existent agent or soul.
No offense, but i'd rather not re-hash all this again online, arguing philosophical positions.. which as you pointed out elsewhere, are fabrications of the mind.

:namaste:
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

Yes the rather unfortunate fixation on a dictionary reading of adavita, ignoring how the tradition, past and living, define the term. You are still not addressing Guenther's point.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
User avatar
christopher:::
Posts: 1327
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by christopher::: »

tiltbillings wrote:Yes the rather unfortunate fixation on a dictionary reading of adavita, ignoring how the tradition, past and living, define the term. You are still not addressing Guenther's point.
How can I? Does Guenther have direct long-term experiential knowledge of the Advaita tradition past and living? Was he an Advaita practitioner who worked with a teacher? Did you, do I?

As Individual said:
Both "self is real" and "self is not real" are refuted as views in favor of direct insight.
Direct insight.

This is what the Zen Buddhist path is about. It seems this is what many Advaita teachers stress as well. Guenther's points are a scholar's critique. He calls Vendanta nonsense. For me, to discuss a respected spiritual tradition in this manner is nonsense. It has nothing to do with direct experience, which is what most traditions are really all about.

I'm gonna pull a Zen card on this one and bow to the nondual wisdom of Seng Tsan. This will be my last post in this discussion thread, for a day or two at least.

Hope you have a good weekend, Tilt. Take care everyone.

:namaste:

HSIN HSIN MING: Verses on the Faith Mind
by The 3rd Zen Patriarch, Seng T'san

"The Great Way is not difficult for those who have no preferences. When attachment and aversion are both absent everything becomes clear and undisguised. Make the smallest distinction, however, and heaven and earth are set infinitely apart.

If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind. When the deep meaning of things is not understood the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

The Way is perfect like vast space when nothing is lacking and nothing is in excess. Indeed, it is due to our choosing to accept or reject that we do not see the true nature of things.

Live neither in the entanglements of outer things nor in inner feelings of emptiness. Be serene in the oneness of things and such erroneous views will disappear by themselves.

When you try to stop activity to achieve passivity your very effort fills you with activity. As long as you remain in one extreme or the other you will never know Oneness.

Those who do not live in the single Way fail in both activity and passivity, assertion and denial. To deny the reality of things is to miss their reality; to assert the emptiness of things is to miss their reality.

The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth. Stop talking and thinking, and there is nothing you will not be able to know.

To return to the root is to find the meaning, but to pursue appearances is to miss the source. At the moment of inner enlightenment there is a going beyond appearance and emptiness.

The changes that appear to occur in the empty world we call real only because of our ignorance. Do not search for the truth; only cease to cherish opinions. Do not remain in the dualistic state -- avoid such pursuits carefully.

If there is even a trace of this and that, of right and wrong, the Mind-essence will be lost in confusion. Although all dualities come from the One, do not be attached even to this One.

When the mind exists undisturbed in the Way, nothing in the world can offend, and when such a thing can no longer offend, it ceases to exist in the old way. When no discriminating thoughts arise, the old mind ceases to exist.

When thought objects vanish, the thinking-subject vanishes, as when the mind vanishes, objects vanish. Things are objects because of the subject (mind); the mind (subject) is such because of things (object)."
Last edited by christopher::: on Sun Jul 05, 2009 9:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
"As Buddhists, we should aim to develop relationships that are not predominated by grasping and clinging. Our relationships should be characterised by the brahmaviharas of metta (loving kindness), mudita (sympathetic joy), karuna (compassion), and upekkha (equanimity)."
~post by Ben, Jul 02, 2009
User avatar
tiltbillings
Posts: 23046
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

Post by tiltbillings »

christopher::: wrote:
tiltbillings wrote:Yes the rather unfortunate fixation on a dictionary reading of adavita, ignoring how the tradition, past and living, define the term. You are still not addressing Guenther's point.
How can I? Does Guenther have direct long-term experiential knowledge of the Advaita tradition past and living? Was he an Advaita practitioner who worked with a teacher? Did you, do I?
If you don't why are you saying all this stuff about it. As for Guenther, as far as I know he could have been a very realized man.

You are still not addressing his very fundamental point.
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12

This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.

“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
Post Reply