SuttaCentral
Even Buddha said in Sutta Nipata - Nanda’s question.
I do not say that all recluses and brāhmaṇas
are in the grip of birth and old age.
Those who have abandoned the seen, the heard, thought, as well as virtue and practice,
and have abandoned the various other ways too,
and who have fully known craving and are taintless,
they, indeed, are “men who have crossed the flood,” I say.
I repeat.
they, indeed, are “men who have crossed the flood,” I say.
What I don’t understand is where Theravada was at that time
possible explanations are
1.majority of indian theravadin converted to Mahayana
2. There are no theravadin in India in the first place all are mahayanist
Could anyone help me to understand this ?
Thanks
May you all be happy and at peace 
I think if what advaitin means by pure consciousness is arahant’s consciousness then advaitin can be called Buddhist too because that’s what Buddha said regarding arahant’s consciousness
Mn7
“Bhikkhus, suppose a cloth were defiled and stained, and a dyer dipped it in some dye or other, whether blue or yellow or red or carmine; it would look poorly dyed and impure in colour. Why is that? Because of the impurity of the cloth. So too, when the mind is defiled, an unhappy destination may be expected. Bhikkhus, suppose a cloth were pure and bright, and a dyer dipped it in some dye or other, whether blue or yellow or red or carmine; it would look well dyed and pure in colour. Why is that? Because of the purity of the cloth. So too, when the mind is undefiled, a happy destination may be expected.
Notice the word “pure” and “bright” there
And I think the mind are both defiled and undefiled since beginingless time like how quantum mechanics govern particles, mind too have 2 states at once
I don’t see this view conflicts with Buddhism, the advaitin would ask "if consciousness is impermanent then who witness that disappearing consciousness ?
There’s support for advaita’s consciousness in sutta for example
Dn11
“Where do water and earth,
fire and air find no footing;
where do long and short,
fine and coarse, beautiful and ugly;
where do name and form
cease with nothing left over?”And the answer to that is:
“Consciousness that’s invisible,
infinite, entirely given up:
that’s where water and earth,
fire and air find no footing.
Sn1.23
Those in whom greed, hate, and ignorance
have faded away;
the perfected ones with defilements ended—
they have untangled the tangle.
And where name and form
cease with nothing left over;
as well as impingement and perception of form:
it’s there that the tangle is cut.”
Ud1.10
In the place where the water, earth, fire, and wind find no footing,
There the stars do not shine, nor does the sun give light,
There the moon does not glow, there darkness is not found.
And when the sage, the brāhmaṇa, has experienced nibbāna through his own sagacity,
Then from both form and formless, happiness and suffering, he is free.”
Note that there’s no sun or moon which should mean no light at all which is darkness but Buddha said that not even darkness is there so it must be radiant by itself, it has its own light, it’s self illuminated or it’s light itself
Now compare it to this Geetha verse
The sun does not illumine there, nor the moon nor the fire. That is My supreme abode. Having reached there, people do not come back to the temporal world.
- Chapter 15 Yoga of the Supreme Spirit Purushottama Yoga Verse 06 495
Or this
Mundaka upanishad 2.2.10
The sun shines not there, nor the moon and the stars. Nor do these lightnings shine. How could this fire? All shine after him who shines. All this is illumined by his radiance.
Or this
katha upanishad 2.2.15
The sun does not shine there; nor do the moon and the stars, nor do these lightnings shine. How could this fire? Him shining, all shine after. All this shines by his light.
It isn’t, see above.
The quotes you compare in your post are not equivalent, they are only superficially similar. They are based on totally different philosophies.
What a fascinating thread.
I met a Buddhist monk who was formerly ordained as a Hindu monk (Bhante Vipassi of Nauyana Sangharama of India), and for quite a long time. He formally studied Hinduism as a monk, actually formally practising in that system.
I’m no expert on Hinduism, but he did say that the Hindu concept of attaining to “Atman” does equate to attaining to Buddhism’s 6th Jhana (the Base of Infinite Consciousness).
Hello @Javier . Your depth of knowledge in this field is very impressive! I’m especially enjoying reading your posts.
Having said this, I would say that the EBT’s do have something close to the Advaita Vedanta’s non-duality (“monistic consciousness”), which is “the ending of nama-rupa”.
The teaching of nama-rupa/“name-and-form” is used in several different ways throughout the EBT’s, depending on context, and it seems one of the ways it can be used, kind of goes like this:
When one enters a meditative and very right-brain-hemisphere sort of mind-state (and this can be done outside of formal meditation, during the course of a normal day’s activities, which aren’t terribly complicated, and problem-solving in nature), and one stops focusing on particular objects, but rather takes in all the sensory data, ignoring nothing in the present, where all sense of self drops away, awash in all that richness of the present, that can be called the overcoming of name and form. The duality of subject-object also drops away. This ongoing, carefully-fostered experience of “the ending of name and form” is felt as blissful (when done right), and perhaps another Buddhist way of stating it would be “contact with the Deathless Element”. Abiding in the ongoing Brahmavihara of upekkha/equanimity is also very congruent to this.
Having achieved the Jhanas at a fairly-recent, earlier time goes a long way towards being able to more easily do this “ending of name and form” outside formal meditation.
I think the Advaita Vedanta was privvy to this same sort of lived experience, which can possibly follow on from achievement of Samadhi in formal meditation.
Hi Bhante
Yes I agree with you that in Buddhism, there are meditative experiences which are similar to the experiences of Vedantic systems. However, these are seen as just certain dependently arisen meditative states and are not interpreted as meaning that ontologically there is only a single consciousness. On the contrary, these are seen as conditioned states and as suffering, while in Vedanta, the Oneness experience is seen as the ultimate reality. What I was talking about was the philosophical view of Vedanta is incompatible with Buddhism, not that there aren’t shared contemplative experiences.
Great point! 
This is a very well-stated distinction.
I 100% agree with you!
Coincidentally, I did a recent Dhamma Talk, trying to very carefully make this same point myself:
“Syncretism vs. Consilience - Categorical Agreement vs. Making a Distinction”:
you don’t believe advaita’s argument that some consciousness is permanent, you argue that all consciousness without exception are all impermanent but these arise 2 questions
Now advaitin argues that this witness is the eternal unchanging real self they call it the seer
Thanks
May you be happy 
May you be free from suffering 
May you not lose what you already gain
The witness is the consciousness aggregate, which is impermanent, empty of a self and suffering.
Ok! Hypothetically accepting your view, tell me , who is the witness to these arising of dependent impermanent consciousness ? Who/what is the witness to the flux? Against what the flux is not static? If you are moving in a train at the same speed with another train, you will see both trains as stationary. A perception of speed requires comparison with a stationary object. Likewise, perception of flux requires a changeless object for measure of standard. Who/What is that?
If it’s empty of self, how can there be suffering?
It’s knowing, and does knowing arise and cease?
Can one sankhara know another sankhara?
The very transient process which is consciousness (vijnana) is that “witness” (of itself as process), its just not a single thing nor is it static. The very assumption that to measure change you need something static is the problem here.
Knowing, consciousness, awareness etc (vijnana) is just a dependently arisen phenomenon like all other phenomena. It is self-reflexive, like a convex mirror, so it can know itself as a process. But its not static, like a river and is not a self, since it is not fixed nor eternal.
Well, that might be how you experience it to be, but I experience that it doesn’t arise and it’s not affected at all by any arising and ceasing. It has no dimension to it.
Actually that’s what Buddha argues that suffering is not self
Many people experience different types of meditative experiences and develop different views about them. These views are all empty and hollow, since they are just our interpretations of these experiences. The Buddha saw through all these stories and taught us to let go of all them, including monism and all self views.
I don’t talk about the meditative experience. I talk about knowingness, and that is experienced in the ordinary mind. And in knowing there is no self that knows, it’s empty and only knowing knows—no mental suffering in knowing.
Unknowingness
I asked Bhante Vipassi what he thought after reading this thread. Here was his response:
Hinduism is not a singular religion or philosophy but a constellation of social norms, ideologies, mythologies, and meditative states. A Hindu will be willing to accept all religions as true and Buddha is even considered an avatar in India! Most of the Hindu meditations aim at states of concentration. Advaita is a particular branch of Hinduism which tries to make a coherent interpretation of all the preceding texts. Advaita does not mean Monism, but it means non-dualism. The line is fine and confusing. Also, this is variously interpreted by practitioners. The absolute for most is often confused with pure consciousness or other formless states which appear to ‘persist in time’ but there are others who conceive of duality like the Taoism schools as interdependence or complementary nature of subject-object or vinnana-namarupa. In either case, advita is a philosophy which provides a framework for a pragmatic seeker to make the path intelligible.
Buddha’s dhamma in his own words is the Bodhipakkaya dhamma. It is not interested in description or philosophy but a direct invitation to develop states of mind conducive to freedom from dissatisfaction. There are many descriptive frameworks being used in the early buddhist texts like dhatu, skanda and ayatana but these are more in spirit of tools than facts, and the urgency of task is more central than the specific tool employed. Even anatta is not a declaration but an invitation! Is consciousness which is impermanent, dissatisfying, perishing, worthy to be considered as Self?
Current forms of buddhism have been heavily been influenced by meditative experiences which are central to hindu doctrines like light nimmita or as we hear of unconditioned nibbana paramattha in later text which has all the vibes of the Absolute. Also many theravada schools have fallen into nihilism and atomism. On the other hand, the modern forms of advait has taken up aspects of Buddhist practices like cittanupassana and animitt cetosamadhi.
My feeling is that for someone wishing to travel this sublime path, the Suttas provides multiple options out of which something is likely to resonate with every practitioner. But for someone who has a wish to get an intellectual clarity or a philosophical footing into the matter before they dive in, it is possible that a limited but penetrative philosophy like advaita or even some version of western phenomenology can be of great assistance.
Phenomenal answer, Bhante Vipassi! 
In Wikepedia say that in Katha Upanishads they aim is going beyond the Self. Beyond Reality. To the Highest Parusha. That’s why in DN. Buddhas are called Parushas. But I’m searching. Because it seems early on Buddha didn’t use no names. Like in suttanipata. Maybe because he just got enlightenment. But for me Tripitaka might have been subverted Buddhism by Brahmins that’s why there is similarities. Trying to explain a way Indians could have understood.
But I find interesting that in Katha Upanishads. I find this.
Atman, smaller than the small, greater than the great, is hidden in the hearts of all living creatures. A man who is free from desires beholds the majesty of the Self through tranquillity of the senses and the mind and becomes free from grief.
Though sitting still, It travels far; though lying down, It goes everywhere. Who but myself can know that luminous Atman who rejoices and rejoices not?
The wise man, having realised Atman as dwelling within impermanent bodies but Itself bodiless, vast and all−pervading, does not grieve.
This Atman cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas, or by intelligence, or by much hearing of sacred books. It is attained by him alone whom It chooses. To such a one Atman reveals Its own form.
I Started with reading Upanishads it’s after I found book of Buddha. But I never am aware of these similarities than now. I feel it doesn’t actually matter about names. Atman actually in in the heart. Names are used as support for the mind to concentrate on a meaning. I am is in the mind so Buddha might have chosen mind instead.
But I read somewhere in Buddha mind wasn’t taught. So it must be actually heart. No difference them. We think Buddha brain. But he just wanted to say atman without a name
Beyond the Atman , states Katha Upanishad, is the Avyaktam (unmanifested Reality), and Purusha(cosmic Self) is beyond the Avyaktam , and beyond the Purusha , there is nothing - for it is the goal, for it is the highest road.[49]
Sounds what Suttas do with Nirvana.
I don’t think Buddha meant Nirvana was unborn and unconditioned. That he was probably talking about reality.