Both Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are “big tent” paths with many variants. Comparing the grand labels directly is likely to remain vague. It is probably better to narrow down the focus to comparisons between say the “Neti Neti” approach of Vedanta and the Aniccā, Dukkha, Anattā approach of Buddhism. Will they result in the same insight? If so, why? If not, why not?
Similarly, Moksha vs. Nibbana, five sheaths vs five aggregates , etc.
There are obviously similarities between the two prominent philosophies, to figure out the differences, specific comparisons are better than general concepts.
3 Likes
Buddhism dispels not only the characteristics of anatta, but also the characteristics of anicca and dukkha. According to Buddha, All things are impermanent and that is why you should not cling to them. Any type of consciousness is impermanent: gross or refined, low or sublime. You can say that nibbana is permanent. But nibbana is the extinction of clinging and aggregates. There is nothing there to be permanent or impermanent, since it is an unsigned phenomenon that establishes the absence rather than the presence of something positively existing. Therefore, the idea of a constant, happy consciousness fundamentally contradicts the teachings of the Buddha. If such consciousness always exists, then how does it differ from jivatma, the soul. And why it becomes polluted and drawn into samsara. If it was involved in samsara, then its purification and liberation is a change in it, which means, as we already see, it is not so permanent. And this impermanence, such as new pollution, will manifest itself in the future as suffering. And if this consciousness arises at the moment of awakening, then again it arises, which means it ceases, that is, anicca, and therefore dukkha.
1 Like
Hello Bhante.
What about those Mahayana followers (for example Gelug) who agree that the stream of consciousness consists of momentary purified cittas, that is, formally impermanent, but at the same time remains constantly purified and therefore devoid of dukkha forever.
They do not consider this constancy of purity to be a violation of the law of anicca (after all, nibbana - the extinction of defilements - is nicca in the teachings of the Buddha).
At the same time, they do not agree that their consciousness is atta by nature, because formally it consists of individual impermanent and conditioned moments, and therefore is empty.
Buddha teaches such things because he wants to guide beings to a mind without any clinging. In that they will find real peace, real safety, real protection. Only then they will get what they seek .
Vipassana, contemplating anatta, anicca, dukkha are tools to guide the mind towards this peaceful dispassion, non-agitation, Nibbana.
Does vinnana arise in the mind? Or can vinnana’s also arise in rupa or in space?
Hi NIkolas, I do not know about this Mahayana understanding, so my interpretation may be wrong. But the way you explain it, it seems to break causality/dependency as explained by the Buddha. If they see consciousness as conditioned moments, as you say, then according to Dependent Origination it all has its origin in ignorance. Without ignorance and other defilements, there is no cause/condition to keep conciousness going on forever.
Either way, theoretically/textually we can never come to a 100% conclusion on what the Buddha thought nibbana is. Otherwise there wouldn’t be this many different interpretations. What we can do is determine what is most likely what he meant, and see if we can back that up with direct insight. And it seems very unlikely this Mahayana idea you explain here fits anywhere in the early texts.
Who says “happy” and that it “exist” or not “exist”?
You can comment here↓, this is not a topic for such discussions.
An arahant is supposed to have no avijja but still is a conscious person, seeing, hearing etc.
Seeing, hearing etc does not seem to find its origin in avijja. BUT engaged-seeing, hearing, i.e the eye-ear…mind catching moments, do. And when avijja ceases, this eye-ear…mind catching moments that Buddha often called vinnana’s, do not happen anymore. But there is still seeing, hearing, etc
Without avijja, seeing, hearing etc. also arises but now without eye- -ear-…mind being caught.
I think we can all see the huge difference here and now between seeing and a eye-catching moment.
That last always relies on some attachment or engagement with the sense-object. Some interest, often emotional (like, dislike) but also sometimes as in; this is me, mine, my self’.
If such engagement does not happen, and there are many such moments in the life of every person, there is still seeing, hearing etc but very different from the eye-catching moment. In every sense domain this is the same principle.
The Buddha talked in different ways about engagement, for example in detail 7 anusaya. But in general engagement is what is needed for eye, ear…mind catching moments to happen.
In think we must look into the context what Vinnana really means and also what vinnana-nirodha really means. In general vinnana refers to an engaged, caught kind of knowing (MN28). And this has allready ceased for the arahant. I think vinnana-nirodha does not have to refer to the absence of all knowing but absence of eye-ear…mind catching moments. We must look deeper into what vinnana really means in a given context. But to translate it as consciousness does not help doing that.
As a general observation, I have noticed a tendency in Advaita circles to make Buddhism and Advaita sound similar. I’m not sure why they have a need to do this.
I do not know anything of Advaita but i think that people that look at the fruits of their practice see similarities with other traditions. Is detachment not just detachment? Even christian mystics speak of detachment as fruit. Is this detachment really different from a buddhist who attain detachment?
And why?
Sure is, the teachings and methods are very different but does that mean that they also always lead to different fruits?
I also feel we must not see a Buddha as someone who started a religion nor Jesus.
1 Like
I think you can find similarities and differences when comparing most religious traditions. What I find puzzling is the need some have to find only similarities, denying the differences.
1 Like
4th January 1978
Sadhu Om: Now, in the waking state, we say so many things about the [deep] sleep state,
because we have no clear idea of what sleep is. If we make proper research into sleep, we will
discover that there is no difference between sleep and jnana. We can now take sleep as an
example of the happiness that is enjoyed in the absence of the ‘I’, world and God. Our love of
sleep proves our love of egolessness, as Bhagavan implies in verse 3 of Ulladu Narpadu: ‘[…]
that state devoid of ‘I’ is agreeable to everyone’. What we now call sleep appears to be
limited because on waking we rise again as ‘I’, but jnana has no such limitation, so the
happiness of jnana is unlimited.
Nowadays people try to glorify Bhagavan by saying that he is great because he said
something that Buddha said, something else that Christ said, and so on, as if his greatness
could not stand by itself. Christ, Buddha, Sankara, Ramakrishna and others were all great
examples of jnanis, but outwardly they roamed about arguing, teaching and founding
religions, whereas Bhagavan is jnana itself, so he just kept quiet. It is absurd to try to show
his greatness in the light of these jnanis, because his greatness is the self-shining source of all
light. Doing so is like propping a bamboo at the foot of Arunachala and saying that we are
helping the hill to stand, whereas in fact many such bamboos can grow on it.
We are told that we project the world, but this does not mean that the seer is the projector.
We, the seer (the mind or ego), are part of the projection, as Bhagavan says in verse 160 of
Guru Vachaka Kovai:
The false person [or soul] who behaves as ‘I’ occurs as one among the shadow pictures
[in this world picture, which is like a cinema show].
Who is this ‘I’ we say is the projector? By our investigating ‘who am I?’ the non-existence
of both the projector and its projection will be exposed.
Arguments about world and God are futile, as Bhagavan teaches us in verses 2 and 3 of
Ulladu Narpadu. The manyness of the world allows for dualities such as real or unreal,
conscious or non-conscious, and happy or miserable. Where there is duality there will be
doubt. Self is one, devoid of duality, so self-knowledge will allow no room for dualities or
doubts. Therefore, we should avoid doing research on God or the world, and should instead
do research only on ‘I’. ‘I’ will then disappear along with both God and the world. The
resulting ‘state of egolessness is agreeable to everyone’ (Ulladu Narpadu verse 3), as shown
by our experience of sleep.
The-Paramount-importance-of-sel - Sri Sadhu Om.pdf (923.2 KB)
A few reasons:
- Advaita is not internationalized unlike Buddhism. It is known in detail only to small groups of people who know Sanskrit, studying it through translations are discouraged as translations have a distorting effect and the subject is highly intricate when studied in depth (sort of like Abhidharma on steroids). Early-Buddhism on the other hand is not a particularly scholastic philosophy and is widely understandable to laymen, EBTs are widely translated and widely available online and offline. More Advaitins know Buddhism than the other way round. So they are the ones who can really compare.
- The Buddha was antagonistic to Vedic ritualism but not to the pre-Buddhist Wisdom Traditions (both of which the Brahmins were custodians of). So the Buddha had a love-hate relationship with the Brahminical class. He criticizes ritualist sacrifices while he calls wise people of his own type “brahmins”. This is not clearly understood by most Buddhists who think there was a civilizational conflict between everything Brahmin and everything Buddhist, and then wonder how could the Buddha not be anything other than a direct opponent of everything Vedic and Brahminical. Academic literature also promotes this agenda of Buddhism vs Brahminism.
- Advaitins are attracted to Buddhism as they see the commonalities and they are exposed to it. They are secure in their self-identity and are not scared of being subsumed under Buddhism. Buddhists (specially those who are ideologically-motivated) seek to repel Advaita as they see it as Brahmanical Hinduism seeking to swallow Buddhism whole and which denies their-own understanding of how the Buddha started a civilizational conflict between Buddhism & Vedic brahmanism, and see themselves as heirs of the Buddha and feel obliged to repel Advaita Vedanta to maintain Buddhism’s purity, authenticity and distinctiveness (as well as their own self-identity).
- Advaita vedanta is seen as a philosophy of the Brahmin-elites while early-Buddhism is seen as a common-man’s philosophy - this is the case at least in India.
I hope I have covered most of the reasons, if you feel something is misstated or misunderstood pls let me know.
1 Like
Well that may be the case in some circles but the development of Advaita is much more complex that your statement tries to summarize. There have been a number of teachers of Advaita since the 18th century that had little or nothing to do with “Brahman-elites.” Ramana Maharshi was especially the polar opposite of such a depiction. Hardly a being has existed that lived with more simplicity than he. Other than that, he had nothing more than a basic high school education. Curiously, it was when word got around about his wisdom that pundits and scholars gathered around him to ask him questions (not the other way around).
For the sake of those really interested in the topic of this thread, here is somewhat of a crash course on the different factions that developed within Vedanta as well as comments on the different philosophical perspectives in India at large (from about 5 minutes to 31 minutes).
[/quote]
A bit off topic: In North America I’ve noticed this as well but in reverse. Here there’s a tendency toward eclecticism. I think this is important to bear in mind when assessing how Buddhist lay circles evolve and propogate teachings.
It’s apparent to anyone taking a bird’s eye view that the propagation of the teachings are under the sway of capitalism. (Again, I’m talking about lay communities, which are the main centers of dhamma teaching – perhaps due to a dearth of monastic centers concomitant with the explosion of online marketing platforms supported by Silicon Valley culture.)
This gets reinforced by a rationale (especially by the marketers IMO) that those who’ve been historically oppressed and under-sourced are entitled to capitalist-oriented lifestyles now. Of course, it’s not being said so explicitly but that is effectively what I’ve been hearing. I’m not privy to what people are saying amongst themselves in minority circles about this highly sensitive topic (nor would I be).
White privilege includes picking and choosing what we want, when we want it, and how we want it. This applies to how the white influencers cherry-pick between Advaita and Buddhist teachings (and others) to “package” something they might call Buddhist in public or, at the least, mindfulness. For example, Nisargadatta is frequently cited as a primary source of additional teaching. I enjoy reading his teachings, to be clear. But I know he’s coming from a different tradition.
At the end of the day, everything seems packaged in a way to cause the least upset or disruption – that is, to be the most appealing – because otherwise people wouldn’t pay for it. At least, that’s what I’ve concluded.
On top of that, if what Bhante Sujato writes to frequently is on-spot – that this “movement” positively filters for people with psychological distress – then the whole gestalt represents a nice trifecta. Capitalism, conflation, and genuine need. Maybe the second C = confusion instead.
My issue – the reason I’m closely following this thread – is that the eclectic packages are being marketed to people who have little to no awareness of differences betweeen Advaita and Buddhist teachings (and others). Which, on the face of it, is not my issue if their psychological distress is being addressed.
At the same time, though, I meet countless people who think they are learning genuine Buddhist dhamma. In this regard, they may not be acquiring 8fold noble path practice that leads to deep insight of the four noble truths. Here is where I’d like to understand the nuances, so that I’m not propogating the confusion. I’d like people to know what medications they’re actually taking. If they want eclecticism or a range of modalities, let’s call it that.
I used to say that’s my two cents, but with inflation it’s now my five cents.
1 Like
The solution to your comments boil down to dedication in learning about a tradition or, at least, to know its foundations. Much of what you are relating in your post concerning Advaita refers to what is commonly called neo advaita today. This modern pseudo movement is a travesty of Vedanta, as well as many other modern so-called traditional expressions of traditional Vedanta today.
The tendency to syncretize Advaita with Buddhism is also common to many other religions and traditions (like ‘Christ Consciousness’ for example tries to meld Hinduism with Christianity). The resulting eclecticism(s) would seem to stem from a poor knowledge of the origins of each distinct tradition and a certain desire to reject or even revolt against traditional or institutionalized religions. This is understandable to a certain extent – as the institutionalization of most religions have resulted in veering far from its initial motivations – and yet the desire to separate spirituality from religion has often resulted in such eclectic and confused views. Neo advaita is a prime example.
Moreover, proper translation is an important factor when considering any author or founder of a tradition. Nisargadatta, coming from the Nath tradition, has been widely mistranslated from Marathi to English. I once read and studied all his books (even his teachers’ books) for years but remained relatively confused. To give but one prominent example, many of his translated books (into English) regularly add confusion by separating words like consciousness and awareness. The reader is often left in limbo as to what he was really driving at. As a result, many neo advaitins instrumentalized these confusions to syncretize their newfangled interpretations.
This is another factor that we have to consider when we try to assess the credibility of any teaching, and it applies not only to the teachings of Sri Ramana but also to the teachings of all other sages or gurus , including both those who have truly merged and lost their finite sense of individuality in the non-dual and absolute state of atma-jnana or true self-knowledge, and those who are merely reputed to have attained that state. For example there are many books in English that supposedly contain records of the oral teachings of Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj, the other guru whom Innerself mentions in his comment, but Sri Nisargadatta actually spoke only or mostly in Marathi, so most of the records of his teachings are not in his own words but are only translations of them.
I have seen some quotations in English of what Sri Nisargadatta is supposed to have said in Marathi, and I have glanced through some of the English books that are supposed to contain records of his teachings, and frankly I found that there are many confusing and questionable ideas expressed in statements that are attributed to him. However, since I do not know how accurately such English recordings of his teachings reflect what he actually said in Marathi, and how clearly the people who translated or recorded his oral teachings understood the real meaning of what he said, based on such English recordings I cannot judge how credible his teachings really are.
However, to be fair to the teachings of Sri Nisargadatta, I must admit that what I observed in the English recordings of them is equally true of some of the English translations and recordings of the teachings of Sri Ramana. Unfortunately many of the available English translations and recordings of the teachings of Sri Ramana lack clarity and accuracy, and hence they sometimes appear to convey ideas that are confusing and questionable, and that taken in isolation could therefore raise a doubt about the credibility of his teachings. Therefore I do not think that Innerself is entirely correct in his belief that “… one can trustfully read their books and/or written answers published”.
Since many gurus who have now left their physical body did not actually write any of their teachings but only expressed them orally, we unfortunately do not have any reliable source with which we can compare and judge the accuracy of the available records of them. However, in the case of the teachings of Sri Ramana, we are fortunate that he himself wrote his most essential teachings in clear Tamil poetry and prose. Therefore, though some of the translations and recordings of the teachings of Sri Ramana may not be clear and accurate, we do not have to rely upon such translations and recordings in order to understand the true import of his teachings, because a perfectly clear and accurate record of his teachings exists in his own writings.
This is fascinating, and I think this is the purport of a lot of the discussion about Śūnyatā in Mahāyāna sutras. In particular what is here called ajata vada is the proper interpretation of what Mahāyāna tradition calls anutpattika-dharma-ksanti.
Yes. Obviously different. I’m highly surprised it hasn’t been pointed out.
The difference is that Vedanta claim that they know the metaphysical nature of things while Buddhism (at least originally, as I believe) doesn’t.
It’s goal is to reduce the suffering, and if there should be a benevolent metaphysical entity, it could only approve of it.
Nibbana is a place that offers the most attainable shelter from the inadequacies of human existence relative to immediate human perception of things.
But I know he’s coming from a different tradition … Now, it looks we know quite different things since Nisargadatta Maharaj tradition is based on the idea that there is such state as assertion of one’s being: “I am”, without any additional self-identification as “I am this or that”, and this tradition is perfectly compatible with Khemaka Sutta or more generally with Dhamma knowledge that while sekhas are not freed from conceit “I am” they are free from notions: I am this, I am that".
And generally the shortest, condensed understanding of Dhamma by Nisargadatta Maharaj we can find in his statements:
To be is to suffer. The narrower the circle of my self-identification, the more acute the suffering caused by desire and fear.
Or You are concerned with your own happiness and I am telling you that there is no such thing. Happiness is never your own, it is where the ‘I’ is not.
Now, I don’t try to prove you anything, apart the fact that I classifiy Nisargadatta Maharaj as my kalyanamita but it is based strictly on my understanding of Dhamma, and my understanding of Dhamma says that he was ariya.
On other hand you mentioned venerable Sujato. While we both can be classified as Buddhists, when we start to investigate, our ideas what is Dhamma, what isn’t Dhamma are in contradiction even in the most fundamental things as the nature of viññana anidasana, nibbana cessation of being, and so on.
Of course it is quite possible that our disagreement comes from the fact that I don’t understand Dhamma, on the other hand, it is perfectly orthodox position* that ariya, even if can’t be classified objectively as “a Buddhist” should be more helpful as kalyanamita then Buddhist puthujjana.
*While statement in M 11 is: “Bhikkhus, only here is there a recluse, only here a second recluse, only here a third recluse, only here a fourth recluse. The doctrines of others are devoid [64] of recluses: that is how you should rightly roar your lion’s roar.
- it was valid only for the Buddha’s time, as soon as literally thousands of ariyas appeared in the world, assuming that they had to be born somewhere, it is hard to say -at least for puthujjana, whether certain spiritual tradition was initiated by ariya or not.
Again, you may not agree with that, but I don’t think it is possible to prove that what I have written is in plain contradiction with Dhamma. All you can say is: I don’t think it is so. And what you think about Dhamma may be right or not. Viññana anidasana is what it is, if we don’t agree about what it is, it is so, because our understanding of Dhamma is quite different.
And it looks like Nisargadatta Maharaj is additional point of disagreement since as I argue ariya cannot be classified as “coming from different tradition”.
That understanding seems to align with:
Dispassion for the world is happiness
for one who has gone beyond sensual pleasures.
But dispelling the conceit ‘I am’
is truly the ultimate happiness.” (Ud2.1)