Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka
    #6489814 - 01/23/07 03:30 PM (17 years, 27 days ago)

Madhyamaka Buddhism vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

A Paradigm Shift
by
Acarya Dharmavajra
(Mr. Sridhar Rana)

Many famous Hindu Indian scholars like Radhaêrishnan, Svami Vivekananda and Nepalese scholars like Mr. Chudanath Bhattaraj, Svami Prapannacharya have written that Buddhism is a reaction, a reformation of Hinduism. The Buddha tried to reform some of the malpractice within Hinduism. That is all. He never wanted to create a new religion. In short, according to these scholars, Buddhism is correct Hinduism without any malpractice and evils and what is called Hinduism is the malpractice and distorted form of the vedas. There are three problems with this interpretation of the Buddha's teaching. One is that if these authors really believe that the Buddha came to reform evils, malpractice and wrong interpretation of the vedas then why are they themselves still following these evils and malpractice and not practicing the Buddha's teachings, the reformed form of the Vedas?

Hoe warped and distorted are the minds of people who with one breath proclaim the Buddha as the great reformer of Hinduism and then turn around and call Buddhism (what Buddha taught) wrong. Some of these scholars have even gone to the extent of claiming that although the Buddha actually only wanted to reform the Vedas, his disciples misunderstood him and created a new religion. How illogical to believe that Buddha's own disciples did not understand him whereas Hindu Svamis and Panditas 2000 years later really do understand the Buddha's message. The second problem with this interpretation is that it implies that Buddha was a Hindu. Simply because Suddhodana was a king and therefore called a Ksatriya is absolutely no proof that he was a Hindu. If the Buddha was really a Hindu why did he not call himself the great Brahmin or Mahabrahman like the great ksatriya Visvamitra? It is strange to call Buddha a proponent of Brahmanism when he called himself the great sramana or Mahasramana.

Although a lot of research remains to be done about Sramanism it can certainly be said that a Sramana is not a Brahmana and that Sramanism itself is as old as Brahmanism. Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, also called himself a Sramana. If Buddha was merely reforming the Vedas, why did not call himself a Neo-Vedic, Neo-Brahman or true Brahman, i.e., Mahabrahmana? Why did he call himself a Mahasramana?

I would like to ask those scholars and their followers these questions. Nowhere in the Hindu Sastras are Sraman considered as part of the Vedic fold. And the Buddha called himself a Mahasramana. It was the custom of India from ancient times to call kings Ksatriyas be they of the Sramana or Brahmana group. And even if Suddhodana was of the Brahmin school) of which there is absolutely no proof), the Buddha certainly did not seem to have taken after Brahmanism but rather after Sramanism. Sramanism cannot be called Brahmanism by any historical standard. The third problem is that the teachings found in Buddhism do not in any way appear as a reformation of Hinduism. Any one who was studied Buddhism (If I am not talking about prejudiced Hindu oriented scholars) can see that there is a major paradigm shift between Hinduism and Buddhism, in fact, between all other religious systems and Buddhism. A paradigm shift cannot and should not be misconstrued as a reform. Reforms are changes brought about within the same paradigm. Paradigm shifts are changes in the very foundations. The very basics are completely different. In such cases, it is completely confused thinking to state that one paradigm is a reformation of another paradigm. So Sramanism is a system of religious based on a completely different paradigm than Hinduism and as such it would be gross error to say Buddhism is a reformation of Vedic Hinduism. It is not a reformation, but a shift in paradigm. Even if the Vedic paradigm was the older, they are still different paradigms. But it is even questionable whether the Vedic paradigm is really older than the Sramana paradigm. After all, although Buddhism begins with Shakyamuni, Sramanism is much older, and according to the findings of the Indus valley civilization, was in the Indian sub-continent even before Brahmanism.

It is the purpose of this paper to show how Brahmanism and Buddhism are built on two totally different paradigms even though they share the same language. It is this sharing of the same language that has fooled most scholars, especially Hindu biased scholars who have therefore failed to be sensitive to the fact that these are two completely different paradigms with very little in common except the same cultural background, and their language, metaphor, analogy, and words. But as we shall see, the same analogies etc. express two different conceptual structures (paradigms). When we compare the Advaita Vedanta, especially as interpreted by Sankara and Madhyamaka, whether be it the Svatantrika form of Bhasya or Prasangika form of Candrakirti, the sharing of the same language, culture and analogies while talking about two different paradigms becomes obvious. Because of the use of the same language structure (be it Pali or Sanskrit) and the same analogies to express two different paradigms, many Vedantins or scholars of Buddhism with Vedantic backgrounds have been fooled into thinking Buddhist Madhyamaka is a re-interpretation of Hindu Vedanta. Many think Buddhism is the negative way to the same goal (via negativa) and Hindu Vedanta the positive way (via positiva). One uses negation and the other affirmation but the Sunyata of Buddhism is a negative way of talking about the Brahman of the Vadanta. The issue here is not via negative or via positive at all but rather two different paradigms, or two different goals based on two different paradigms, or two diametrically opposed answers to the burning issue of mankind developed out of diametrically opposed paradigms. In fact, the Buddha, after long years of Brahmanic as well as Sramanic meditation, found the concept of Brahman (an ultimately real, unchanging, eternal substratum to this ephemeral transient world) not only inadequate to solve the basic issue of humanity, i.e., sorrow (duhkha) and questioned the very existence of such an eternal substratum; but also declared that a search for such an imagined (Skt. Parikalpita Atman) Brahman was a form of escapism and therefore not really spiritual but spiritual materialism.

Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (Skt. paramartha sat) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems); when Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (Skt. paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism. Therefore it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism, The affirmation of a ground (Skt. asraya) which is really existent (Skt. paramartha sat) and the denial that such an existent (Skt. satta) can be found anywhere, with in or without, immanent or transcendent, are two diametrically opposed paradigms - not simply variation or reformations of each other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuse. The example I have given above of an eternal base without which Hinduism in its own language would be atheistic (skt. nastika) and the denial (without any implied affirmation) (Skt. prasajya pratisedha) of such an eternally existing unchanging base by Buddhism cannot be said to be a reformation but a deconstruction of the very roots of the Hindu thesis. That is why Buddhist is not a reformation of Hinduism but a paradigm shift from the paradigms on which Hinduism is based.

Many Hindu scholars believe that without an ultimate eternal reality then there can be no liberation from the changing, transient samsara; therefore even though the Buddha denied the ultimate reality, he could have meant only conceptually really existing reality, no the eternal ultimate reality which is beyond concepts. Otherwise there cannot be liberation. The fault with this kind of thinking is that it is measuring the thesis (which is no thesis) of the Buddha (or interpreting the Buddha) from within the Hindu paradigm. Remaining within the Hindu paradigm, an eternal ultimate reality is a necessity (a necessary dead end as the Buddha saw it) for the soteriological purpose, i. e. for liberation. Since according to the Buddha there is no Brahman - such a concept being merely an acquired fabrication (skt: parikalpana) learned from wrong (skt: mithya) scriptures, hankering after, searching for such a Brahman is necessary a dead end, which leads nowhere, let alone liberation. The Buddhist paradigm, if understood correctly, does not require an eternal something or other for liberation. In Buddhism liberation is not realizing such a ground but rather a letting go of all grounds, i.e., realizing groundless. In fact holding on to any ground is ignorance, according to Buddhism. So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this illusory samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahman which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that samsara is meraly an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge is there were no eternal Brahman remaining it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance) an eternal unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation else one would fall into Nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed by Hindu scholars: How can there be liberation if a Brahman does not remain after the illusory samsara vanishes in Jnana? - is a question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana.

First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna samsara is not an illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only 'like an illusion', i.e., interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahmin arises like a sun out of the mist but rather when seeing that the true nature of samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas Brahman and samsara are two different entities one real, the other unreal, one existing, the other non-existing, samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two.

Nirvana is the nature of samsara or in Nagarjuna's words sunyata is the nature of samsara. It is the realization of the nature of samsara as empty which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond samsara but of the way samsara itself actually exists (skt vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it is ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really) of samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of samsara to the unconditioned experience of samsara itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of samsara and nirvana (Skt. samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being samsara in the context of Dzog Chen, Mahamudra and Anuttara tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind. Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming Brahman. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.
To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates such an unproven and unprovable dream as an eternal substance or ultimate reality, be it Hinduism or any other "ism", is propagating spiritual materialism and not true spirituality. To Hinduism such a Brahman is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of the Hindu thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since Buddhism denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha merely meant to reform Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally different paradigm. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all variations of the same paradigm. So truly speaking you could speak of them as reformations of each other. But Buddhism has a totally different paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic- Hinduism. This leads us naturally to the concept of the truths (skt. satyadvaya). Both Hindu Vedanta and Madhyamaka Buddhism (and for that matter all forms of Buddhism) use this concept to clarify its paradigm. But again the same words point at two different paradigms. First of all the concept of two truths clearly stated as in Buddhism comes into Hinduism only after Sankaracarya (Seventh/eight century) whereas the Buddha himself used these words. But even though Sankara copied the use of these words from Buddhism and also copied many other conceptual words from Nagarjuna to elucidate his Vedantic paradigm, the paradigm that he tries to clarify with these words different. In many places these conceptual wordings and analogies are forced to produced the meaning that is required for the Vedantic paradigm. In the Vedantic context, the relative truth (Skt. samvritti satya) is that this samsara is an illusion and the ultimate truth (skt. paramartha satya) is that there is an ultimately existing thing (skt. paramartha satta) transcending/ immanent in this world. The relative truth will vanish like a mist and the both transcendent and immanent Brahman will appear as the only Truth, the world being false. To sum it up, the Vedantic ultimate truth is the existence of an ultimate existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as something which exists (skt. satta).

However, the Buddhist ultimate truth is the absence of any such satta i. e. ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality. That is the significance of Sunyata - absence of any real, independent, unchanging existence (skt. svabhava). And that fact is the ultimate truth of Buddhism, which is diametrically opposite to the ultimate truth of the Hindu Brahman. So Sunyata can never be a negative way of describing the Atman-Brahman of Hinduism as Vinoba Bhave and such scholars would have us believe. The meaning of Sunyata found in Sutra, Tantra Dzogchen, or Mahamudra is the same as the Prasangic emptiness of Chandrakirti, i. e. unfindability of any true existence or simply unfindability. Some writers of Dzogchen and Mahamudra or Tantra think that the emptiness of Nagarjuna is different from the emptiness found in these systems. But I would like to ask them whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable; whether or not the significance of emptiness in these systems is also not the fact of unfindability- no seeing as it could also be expressed. Also some Shentong scholars seem to imply that the Shentong system is talking about a different emptiness. They say Buddha nature is not empty of qualities therefore, Buddha nature is not merely empty, it also has qualities. First of all the whole statement is irrelevant. Qualities are not the question and Buddha nature being empty of quality or not is not the issue. The Buddha nature is empty of Svabhava (real existence). Because it is empty of real existence, it has qualities. As Arya Nagarjuna has said in his Mula Madhyamaka Karika: "All things are possible (including qualities) because they are empty "Therefore the whole Shentong/ Rangtong issue is superfluous. However, in Shentong, Buddha nature is also empty and emptiness means unfindable. In short, the unfindability of any true existence is the ultimate (skt. paramartha) in Buddhism, and is diametrically opposed to the concept of a truly existing thing called Brahman, the ultimate truth in Hinduism.

Now let's examine relative truth (skt. samvritti satya). In Hinduism, the relative truth is the fact that this world is an illusion (skt. maya). It has no existence. In Buddhism, samsara is interdependently arising. It has relative existence (skt. samvritti satta) according to Tsong Khapa or it appears conventionally according to Gorampa Senge and Mipham. It is like an illusion (Skt. mayavat). Like all illusions, it appears interdependently based on various causes and conditions (Skt. hetu pratyaya). It may be like an illusion but it is the only thing we have, there is nothing behind it or beyond it which can be called an ultimate thing or reality. The ultimate reality or truth or fact in the Buddhist sense is the mode of existence of this illusion like samsara i. e. (Skt. nihsvabhava) empty of real existence. So here too we find two different parameters to two different paradigms. Now let us investigate some of the words used by both paradigms.

One word that has created great confusion is non- dualism. First of all Hindu Vedanta is advaita and Madhyamaka Advaya. Although they are sometimes use interchangeably by both systems, their meanings are as used in the two paradigms differ. In Hindu Vedanta, non dualism (advaita) means one without a second Skt: dvitiyam nasti, Chandogya Upnishad). What is the meaning of this? That there is only Brahman which really exists, nothing else really exists. In other words- the world does not exists at all- it is only am illusion. The true English word for this is Monism according to Webster Dictionary. The view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance. Since, as we have been seen already there is no kind of ultimate substance in Madhyamaka Buddhism the meaning advaya (non-dualism) cannot be like in Hinduism. The Madhyamaka scriptures very clearly defines advaya as "dvaya anta mukta" free from the two extremes. The extremes are the of eternalism into which the Hindu vedantic Brahman falls and Nihilism into which many materialistic system like Charvak fall. But it goes deeper. Non dual knowledge (skt. advaya jnana) is the state of mind which is soteriologically free from grasping at the two extremes of knowing in terms of "is" and "is not" and ontologically free from being "existing" or "non existing" Advaita jnana is however the knowledge of the one and only truly existing substance or reality called Brahman in Hinduism. It could also be called by any other name. Even if the Brahman is defined as beyond "is and" is not" as in the Yogavasistha, it is only a round about way of saying that there is an ultimate reality, Brahman, which is beyond concepts of existing and non existing and therefore it still falls within eternalism. There is also the use of :"free from the existence and non existence" in Buddhism and beyond existence and non existence in Hinduism. "Beyond" implies a third something which is neither; but "free" does not necessarily implies a third something which is neither. Some Shentongpas define the Tathagatagarbha exactly like the Brahman of the Vedanta without realizing it and even claim as a higher mediator's view which is not accessible to lower class logicians etc.

Perhaps it is most apt now to talk about two other words used commonly by both paradigms: Nisprapanca (Tib: thro-me) and avikalpa (Tib: Tog- me). Nisprapanca means non fabricated and avikalpa means non- conceptual. In the context of Hinduism, it is the Brahman (the ultimate reality, the ultimate real, the ultimate existing) which is beyond concepts and non- fabricated. It also means a non-fabricated and non-conceptual knowledge of that Brahman. When I am using ultimate reality as a synonym for the Brahman. I am using reality to mean something that exists as per the Webster's Dictionary. I am aware that reality also connotes "fact", i.e., truth and with such a meaning could be used in Buddhism to mean ultimate fact/truth. But as one of its connotations is existing, it is hazardous to use the word ultimate reality in any Buddhist context and it is always safer to use the word ultimate truth instead. Some English translations of Dzogchen, Mahamudra etc. have used the word ultimate reality for Rigpa, co- emergent wisdom (skt. sahaja jnana) Tathagata garbha, rather indiscriminately without the authors even realizing that the use of such lax wording brings them not only dangerously close to Vedantins of one only dangerously close to Vedantins of one form or the other, but also they are actually using Buddhist texts to validate the vedantic thesis. If some of them object that their ultimate reality is empty while the Hindu ultimate reality is not; the Hindu can ask," then how it is an ultimate reality in the sense of ultimate existing"? To avoid this confusion, it is safer and semantically closer to the Buddhist paradigm to use only "ultimate truth".

Now coming back to Nisprapanca and Avikalpa, as for Buddhism, the first verse of Nagarjuna's MulaMadhyamakakarika makes it clear that it is the "pratityasamutpada" the interdependent origination which is nisprapanca and beyond concepts and it is the wisdom that realizes this that is nisprapanca and avikalpa. No Hindu Vedanta would agree that the Brahman is interdependent origination or interdependently originated. The same can be said of words like acintya (inconceivable), anupamya (inexpressible) or apratistha (non- established) etc. for which we need not write separately. This naturally leads us to three crucial words and concepts used in the two paradigms.: Emptiness, (skt. Sunyata), Interdependent Origination (Skt. pratitya-samutpada) and Brahman (the infinite, eternal, unchanging, Truly existing, Non conceptual, unfabricated reality). Many Hindu writers from the 5th/6th century onwards until today have tried to show that the Brahman and Sunyata, mean the same thing. The Yogavasistha (7/8th century) has even very explicitly stated that the Brahman and Sunya are the same reality. (Chapter 3/5/5-6) Modern authors like Dr.

Radhakrishnan, Svami Vivekananda and Vinova Bhave have also tried to show that they mean the same reality. Je Tsong Khapa says in his "Pratityasamutpada stuti Subhasita Hridaya" whatever is dependent on conditions is empty of real existence. This statement makes it clear that dependent origination and Sunyata are two labels for the same condition - two sides of the same coin. Now I would like to ask these Hindu authors "Is Brahman (which according to them is the same as Sunya), dependently originated or origination? Even here in the two words there is a difference. The Brahman can never be a dependent origination because it is a really existing thing. It can only be a dependently originated thing I am sure no Hindu would like to say this of the unchanging eternal independent Brahman. On the other hand, the significance of Sunyata is "dependant origination" or nisvabhava (non real existence). The Tathagatarbha, Mahamudra, Rigpa (Vidya) etc cannot also, empty but not nisvabhava. Such as definition of Sunya (as not nisvabhava) would not only contradict the entire Buddhist paradigms but also would force such so- called Buddhist writers to fall into the "all-embracing" arms of the Vedantin Brahman. If Rigpa, Mahamudra etc. is described without the correct emptiness, then such words as Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Rigpa, Tathagatagarbha are only new names given to the ancient concept of Brahman as found in the Upanishads (some of which are 600 years than the Buddha. Such misconcepts of ultimate realities come not from Buddhist but actually from Hindu Brahman in the garb of Buddhist scholar monks. Some Buddhist writers give lame excuse about meditative experience & theory being different. I would like to reiterate that such a meditative experience is not Buddhist but Hindu because it fits perfectly with Hindu theory of reality. If meditative experiences are going to be different from the theory on which they are based, that would be tantamount to saying that the base has no relation to the path and fruit, or that path is one and the actual experience of the fruit (meditative experience is another). At least the Hindu base- path-fruit is more consistent. They do not being with non real existence and end up with some kind of subtle existence. The Buddhist meditation experience must coincide with its base (basic paradigm). Yes, there is a shift from conceptual to non-conceptual during meditation but that does not necessitate a shift from non-real existence to real existence. If reality is conceptually non real existent it does not become real existent non conceptually. The true Buddhist meditative experience or "non real existence "not" real existence". Some may say that non real existence is only a concept. But the same can be said of real existence. Since Brahman is real existence by itself, independent etc. it cannot be a synonym for Sunyata. Some Shentong Buddhist writers who have not studied Hindu philosophy well enough try to give invalid excuses by implying that the Atma-Brahman of Hinduism is imagined , fabricated, whereas the shentong Tathagatagarbhas is non conceptual (eg. Jamgon Kongtro Lordo Thaye- Gaining certainly about the view 5.2.4.2.). If one has read the Vedanta Shastra one finds that the Atma (self) of the Hindu is also free from mental elaboration like the Tathagatagarbha. So the crux of the different lies in emptiness not in non-elaboration, non conceptual, luminous etc. The Atma of the Vedanta is also not accessible to inferior logicians and not negated by logic because it is uncreated, unconditioned, self existing, self-luminous and beyond concept. So just stating that the Hindu Atman is fabricated and our Tathagatagarbha is not, does not really solve anything. The Atma is what remains after everything else that is not it, has been negated. Last of all the Atman is not the Ego (Ahamkara, Tib. ngak dzin) which is what the Shentong logic negates.

Another word that has confounded many Hindu Svamis is the unborn (skt. ajata or anutpada), unproduced. In the context of the Hindu Vedanta it means that there is this ultimate reality called the Brahman which is unborn, i.e., never produced by any thing or at any time, which means it always was. A thing or super thing even a non thing that always existed and was never ever produced at any period in time which is separate from this born, illusory samsara. In the Buddhist context, it is the true nature of samsara itself which although relatively appears to be "born" ultimately is never born. Advayavajra in his Tatvaratnavali says " The world is unborn says the Buddha". As Buddha Ekaputra Tantra (Tib. Sangye Tse tsig tantra) says, the base of Dzogchen is the samsara itself stirred from its depth. Since the Samsara stirred from its depth is interdependently originated, i. e. not really originated i. e. unborn and since the samsara is only relatively an interdependently originated thing but ultimately neither a thing nor a non-thing (bhava or abhava) that truly exists, the use of the word unborn for Brahman (which is definitely not samsara) and for samsara itself in Buddhism are diametrically opposed. The true meaning of unborn (anutpada) is not dependently originated (pratitya-samutpanna) which is as already mentioned the meaning of a nisvabhava (non real existence) or Sunyata. None of these can be a synonym for Brahman or anything that as kind of ultimate real existence, even if it is called Tathagatagarbha. There is no acceptance of an ultimate existence in any Buddhist Sutra. It is interesting that an exact word for paramartha satta in Tibetan Buddhism is very rarely used. It shows how non-Buddhist the whole concept is. One has to differentiate between satta (existence) and satya (truth) although they are so close and come from the same root in Sanskrit. Even in the Ratnagotra there is one single sentence (Skt. Yad yatra tat tena sunyam iti samanupasyati yat punartravasistam bhavati tad sad ihasthiti yathabhutam prajanati): "whatever is not found know that to be empty by that itself, if something remains knows that to exist as it is)." This statement is straight out of the Vaibhasika sutras of the Theravada (Sunnatavagga) and Sautrantik Abhidharma Samuccaya. It seems to imply an affirming negative. First of all this statement contradicts the rest of the Ratnagotravibhaga if it is taken as the ultimate meaning in the Sutra (as Shentongpas have done). Secondly since it is a statement of the Vaibhasika school (stating than an ultimate unit of consciousness and matter remains), it cannot be superior to the Rangtong Madhyamaka. Thirdly its interpretation as what remains is the ultimately existing Tathagatagarbha contradicts not only the interpretation that found in other Buddhist sutras as "itar etar Sunyata" (emptiness of what is different from it) but also the shentong interpretation of Tathagatagarbha contradicts all the other definition of the Tathagatagarbha found in the Ratnagotravibhaga itself.

This brings us to the word nitya, i.e., eternal or permanent. The Hindu use of the word Nitya for its ultimate existing reality, viz. Brahman is Kutastha Nitya i. e. something remaining or existing unchangingly eternal, i. e. something statically eternally. Whatever the word Nitya is used for the ultimate truth in Buddhism, the Great Pandita Santa rakshita has made it very clear in his Tatvasamgraha that the Buddhist Nitya is parinami nitya i. e. changing, transforming, eternal in another words dynamically eternal. The Buddhist Nitya is more accurately translated in English as eternal continuum rather than just eternal. I would like to remind some western translators of Nyingma and Kagyu texts that it is either the view of Santarakshita's Svatantrika Madhyamaka or the prasangika view that is given during the "Tri" instruction of Yeshe Lama as the correct view of Dzogchen. Now finally I would like to show how the same analogies are used in the Vedantic Hinduism and Buddhist Madhyamaka to illustrate different thesis. The most famous analogy in both Vedanta and Madhyamka is that of the snake seen in the rope. In Vedanta you have the famous Sankaric verse rajjau sarpa bhramanaropa tadvat Brahmani jagataropa, i.e., as a snake is imputed/superimposed upon a piece of rope so is the samsara imposed upon the Brahman. Only the rope or the Brahman is real the snake-samsara is unreal and does not exist at all. They are only illusions. If one studies the analogy one realizes that it is not such an accurate analogy. The rope is not eternal like Brahman. Furthermore the rope is not asamskrita (unconditioned like Brahman so it is not really good example or the proof of a truly existing independent Brahman. It is a forced analogy. And rightly so, because it is a Buddhist analogy squeezed to give Vedantic meaning.

As for Buddhism the rope stands for pratityasamutpada for which it is a good example being itself interdependently arisen from pieces of jute etc. and the snake imputed upon it stands for real existence which is imposed on the interdependently existing rope appearance. Here it is the rope that is the true mode of existence of the samsara (unlike the snake representing samsara in Vedanta) and the snake is our ignorance imputing samsara as really existing instead of experience it as interdependently arisen.

This interdependence or emptiness is parinami nitya i. e. an eternal continuum and this applicable to all phenomena. Of course, this interdependence is the conventional truth whereas nisvabhavata, which is synonymous to emptiness, is the ultimate truth in Madhyamaka. Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is unborn and empty, its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahman but an unconditioned truth i. e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated. Likewise the Mirror reflection analogy is used to show that just like images which have no existence at all appear and disappear on the permanent surface of the mirror so too samsara which is an illusory reflection on the mirror of Brahman appears on the surface of the Brahman and disappears there. In Buddhism this metaphor is used to show that samsara is interdependently arisen like the reflection on the mirror. The mirror is only one of the causes and conditions and no more real that the other causes and conditions for the appearance of the reflection of Samsara. Here too the mirror is a very poor metaphor for the Brahman, being itself interdependently arisen like the reflection on it. Actually such analogies are good examples for pratityasamutpada and not for some eternal Brahman. The mirror Brahman metaphor is only forced. The same can be said of the moon on the pond analogy and rainbow in the sky analogy.

In conclusion, I would like to sum it up by stating that Buddhism (especially Mahayana/Vajrayana) is not a reformulation of Hinduism or a negative way of expressing what Hinduism as formulated. Hinduism and Buddhism share a common culture and therefore tend to use the same or similar words. They do share certain concepts like Karma and re-incarnation, although their interpretations differ. Hindu concepts of karma and therefore reincarnation tend to be rather linear whereas the Buddhist concept is linked with pratitya-samutpada. The Theravada concept of pratitya-samutpada is also rather linear but the Mahayana/Vajrayana concept is more non-linear multidimentional and multileveled interdependent inter-latched. But all similarities to Hinduism end there. The Sunyata of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Candrakirti is by no accounts a negative way of describing the Brahman of the Upanisad-Sankara-Vidyaranya groups.

source: Buddhist Himalaya


Definition and Relevance of
Advaita Vedanta

There are three main schools of thought as far as Vedanta is concerned. These are:
Dualistic or Dvaita,
Qualified Monism or vishistha Advaita, and
Advaita Vedanta or Absolute monism.
All these Vedantic perceptions are true, and indicate one step higher level of Truth than the preceding one. All the three try to expound the relationship between, individual soul (Jiva), this world or nature (Jagat), and the Ruler of the universe or God (Jagdish).

Dualism, mainly propounded by Madhvacharya, maintains that the individual soul and the Supreme Soul are different and there cannot be unity between the two. The Ruler of this universe is creator, sustainer, and the destroyer of this universe. Nature and individual being can manifest and change, but He remains the same. Moreover, He is the repository of all good virtues. There cannot be anything defective or deficient in God. He is just all powerful, and merciful. We can get his blessings and thereby liberation or salvation from the cycle of birth and death by devotion, faith, and worship. Thus mostly, the path of dualism is path of Bhakti Yoga.

Qualified monism of Ramanujacharya, differs from dualistic thought on the ground that whatever we see or perceive is in fact God, and nothing else. The cause i. e. God has become the effect, i.e. this universe including all the nature and ourselves. Thus Jiva, Jagat, and Jagdish are seen to be one and the same. Just as individual being has a body and a soul, so also this God has universe as the body and He is the soul of all souls. As from blazing fire fly millions of sparks, so also we are the parts of that Infinite Being.

Now comes the highest concept in the realm of spiritual philosophy as realized by Shankacharya, Advaita Vedanta. What is Advaita Vedanta then? How does it differ from qualified monism? Advaita Vedanta maintains that the Highest Reality or Existence or Truth cannot be two, but must be one. It has to be all pervading, only One, and Infinite. To think of its modifications into multifarious states is to degrade it to lower level of existence. If the Whole is divided into parts, how can the individual part be taken as the Whole. This is illogical by way of reason, and also on the basis of experience of the ancient Seers who realized the Truth as One and only One.

Advaita Vedanta maintains that there is only one Reality as Absolute Consciousness. Out of ignorance we perceive this One Reality as multifarious. This cosmic ignorance is called Maya.

In fact each soul is potentially That Reality. There is no God sitting in the heaven ready to punish the wicked or the sinners, or grant boons to the good. Evil and good are two sides of the same coin, just as death and life, sorrow and joy. It is all our ignorance that veils our vision about the divinity of our soul. We are, everyone of us, is son of that Immortal Bliss', not a sinner nor a saint!

Relevance
To realize or experience this Truth is the aim of human birth. Scores of great souls have realized the Self in this manner, and of course, it is also our right too.

In this attempt to express the Divinity, values are born. One may not become a saint or a great souls, but even a little manifestation of the divinity is sufficient to make a person fearless and unselfish. The person becomes calm and collected, and love, compassion, and selfless service become his/her second nature. He begins to feel the same divinity in him in all others around him. He can't harm, hate, or be jealous of anybody. Depending upon the refinement of senses these wonderful qualities begin to manifest in his heart by degree. The barrier of 'selfish genes' is at last broken and the person becomes Free. His true nature as pure Consciousness begins to reflect in his personality, which is all love, bliss, and truth. True religion is said to begin with the attempt to manifest this value-system in our life.
– Dr. C.S. Shah


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 20 days
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Sinbad]
    #6490262 - 01/23/07 06:25 PM (17 years, 27 days ago)

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this paper. There are so many points of major interest that I wouldn't know where to begin, however, there are repeated ideas which easily contribute to the popular notion that for Buddhism at base, existence is merely 'absurd.' Not only is it absurd, it is 'suffering' as in the First Noble Truth that "Life is suffering." Many people have maintained that the very absurdity of suffering, such as random cruelties in concentration camps exaccerbated the suffering. As psychiatrist Victor Frankl discovered, it was through 'meaning' that people endured the seeming absurdity of it all. Meaning refers to 'teleology' ( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/teleology ) in the West, and within the 'samsaric' pole of the continuum, teleology links both the 'origination' of the world of form with a future 'direction.' Buddhism's metaphysic of dependent origination attempts to undercut even the Western cosmological notion of the Big Bang. It too belongs to an illusion which, if viewed from Nirvana would ostensibly appear as just another level of unreality. Fine, I can agree to that point, but the further implications of a universe with no Ultimate or [Aristotelian] Absolute Cause is just absurd for me.

The Hindu mind is said to abhor the notion that 'something can come out of nothing,' and even though creation in Western Christian theology calls it creation ex nihilo, it really does not mean that creation came from nothing. It means that creation was 'created' (personification) or 'emanated' (impersonalization) from an Absolute Cause of which 'nothing' can be said. There is a modified dualism in that this Absolute Cause does exist in it Noumenal Transcendental Being 'outside' of human perception, but its Eternal 'Logos' is immanent and pervasive of creation while remaining non-identical with creation. Just another philosophical formulation of something that can not really be conceptualized. Buddhism calls this "eternalism" in your article and elsewhere, and makes a claim for a metaphysical goal that is the absence of a metaphysical goal! This is the epitomy of absurd metaphysics and is more likely a doctrine that 'Teflon-coats' the conceptual model-building mind, preventing attributes howsoever subtle from appearing in connection with "Ultimate Truth" and setting itself up as a false god. (Similar is the the notion of 'association' in Islam). It is here also that the psychological focus of Buddhism to alleviate suffering makes an important appearance. It attempts to prevent us from becoming attached to subtle gods which would subsequently disappoint us by their illusory nature, thereby increasing our suffering.

The absurdity of a religion with NO Summum Bonum makes for a religion of Nihilism which has long been a charge leveled against Buddhism. Nothing matters and nothing means anything. Everything in all its infinite complexity from nuclear forces to the intricacies of intra-cellular life are merely what they are. If it's all about the alleviation of suffering, the mysteries of nature are not an object of inquiry. Without teleology, why enjoin scientific inquiry at all? The only relevant decision based on the metaphysic would be a monastic life aimed toward the acceptable realization of that metaphysic. Most people, and I would dare say, most common Buddhists who would never read an article like this, would reject the practical implications of a metaphysic which 'seems' to result in the same end as simple materialism! I would venture that a good number of Buddhists expect a Transcendental goal, not the complete absence of any realizable infinite/eternal condition. Such an annihilation may well be 'spiritually' possible, but is it a goal that is Good, one to be aimed at? One can only say yes if one decides that it represents the highest Truth about Reality, and only if one really wants to live in accordance with the highest Truth and to become an exponent of that Truth in life.

From my own point of view, everything has a point, a meaning. Truth lies between intuitive perception and paranoid ideation which fabricates meanings. My choice is to live in a meaningful existence, not to escape an absurd one.

Thank ou for posting.

Peace.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #6491684 - 01/24/07 04:26 AM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Quote:

MarkostheGnostic said:

The absurdity of a religion with NO Summum Bonum makes for a religion of Nihilism which has long been a charge leveled against Buddhism.




Only by people who do no not even know that dependent origination is synominous with shunyata. True shunyata view avoids the extremes of eternalism (thinking that th ultimate reality is an 'eternally existent' reality) nilihism(The negation of relative truth, law of karma, etc), both and neither, which are the four extremes. That is why Buddhism is called "The Middle Way", becuase it is the middle path, through all of these wrong views that still lead to samsaric 'lokas' or realms.

Heavenly realms can seem like eternity, but because they arise in dependence upon certain causes and conditions, i.e karmic actions based upon view). Meditation can easily become absorption (which is the Hindu term for samadhi, not the Buddhist kind which is rigpa.

When meditation becomes absorbed in fixation, that you would no longer feel any pain, your mind goes into a state of infinite consciousness, and years can pass like seconds. When one dies in that state, due to causes and conditions, these beings would manifest in the formless realms. This is what many Hindu's practice, but the key thing is that absorption leaves no room for real awareness to shine through. When one gets caught up in the bliss, that becomes cause for God realms of form. if you manage not to get attached to the bliss, then you can complete the third stage of concentrated absorption where the bliss appears as deep formlessness, no-thing-ness. These are all still in Samsara according to Buddhist philosophy.

" The Formless Realm is a purely mental realm, lacking anything visible or tangible, where nothing has form or shape. There are four levels of rebirth here, defined by the quality of the experience of the beings in each one. The levels are:

1. Infinite Space,
2. Infinite Consciousness,
3. Nothingness, and
4. Neither-Cognition-Nor-Non-Cognition.

This final level is the most subtle type of life possible for a being, but even the beings there die eventually. Before he became enlightened, the Buddha Shakyamuni attained the meditation level of Neither-Cognition-Nor-Non-Cognition, but he continued his search for enlightenment, seeing that even this type of rebirth was insufficient.

Beings in the Formless Realm live between 20,000 and 84,000 kalpas.* (fromHarvey, Pp. 34-35.) kalpa=an incredibly long period of time; a Great Kalpa equals eight kalpas "

So why would you still be interested in that? Why not rely on what Buddha fixed about the Hindu paths? The Buddhas path goes beyond all dhayana methods.

Buddhism is about total freedom from cyclic existence an compassionate omniscience. This is the potential that anyone can understand as there real nature. Hindu practices also do not cultivate refuge, bodhicitta, they can only come to understand dependent origination in there practice, if they have previously recognized in previous life. This is what the texts say.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 20 days
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Sinbad]
    #6491742 - 01/24/07 05:52 AM (17 years, 26 days ago)

You still cannot see the absurdity of denying the existence of eternity? You are still positing something because mere negation is meaningless unless it is negating 'something.' All that is negated lies in the human 'pole' of the equation.

I much enjoy paradox and cosmic mindf**k, but there is no point to existence in this very complex metaphysic, which like the parallel complexities of Gnostic myth expresses how not to get caught by Archons or stuck in Aeons, but strive for The Pleroma [Fulness]. It is described in exactly the opposite terms of Emptiness, yet conceptually, many of the Gnostic theogonies (descents of the 'gods' from the Pleroma) and metaphysics run very closely together. I enjoy the mental machinations of men and we could both cite numerous authoriteis in completely different traditions, yet unlike you, I take all of them 'with a grain of salt,' while I continue along the path that is unique for me.

I too can expound upon transcendental experiences and create a system of metaphysical constructs. It is doubtful in this age that anyone will take my own teachings to heart, but that doesn't matter because there is sufficient similarity in practice between traditions that the doctrine that this paper expounded is not, IMO, going make an ultimate difference in the human development of any given being as compared to say, an Advaitist. If you maintain that the Buddhist and his doctrine will be liberated, but the Advaitist will only arrive at some lesser heaven, than the ONLY difference between you and any rabid Christian fundamentalist is that you've taken that 'you'll burn in Hell-fire' trip to the East, and cordially replaced Hell with a mere heaven lasting many kalpas, instead of 'whatever' your claim is for "Ultimate Truth" in Buddhism.

As for me, in my tradition of choice, "being in Christ" is tantamount to entering into the Logos, the aspect of Ultimate Reality that corresponds to human beinghood, and which also has "compassionate omniscience" [Body of Christ] as its Summum Bonum. The less I identify with my mind-body as ultimately me, the less rebirth/reincarnation has any real bearing on my metaphysics. There is no essential 'me' to go anywhere, and this too is an insight of Buddhism. Passing out of existence and remaining Essence is Gnostic Resurrection within The Fullness. Different conceptual format but all we can really discuss is the human side of the equation. I'll not argue the nature of Ultimate Truth because only IT Knows for sure.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #6491764 - 01/24/07 06:29 AM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Quote:

MarkostheGnostic said:
You still cannot see the absurdity of denying the existence of eternity? You are still positing something because mere negation is meaningless unless it is negating 'something.' All that is negated lies in the human 'pole' of the equation.

I much enjoy paradox and cosmic mindf**k, but there is no point to existence in this very complex metaphysic, which like the parallel complexities of Gnostic myth expresses how not to get caught by Archons or stuck in Aeons, but strive for The Pleroma [Fulness]. It is described in exactly the opposite terms of Emptiness, yet conceptually, many of the Gnostic theogonies (descents of the 'gods' from the Pleroma) and metaphysics run very closely together. I enjoy the mental machinations of men and we could both cite numerous authoriteis in completely different traditions, yet unlike you, I take all of them 'with a grain of salt,' while I continue along the path that is unique for me.

I too can expound upon transcendental experiences and create a system of metaphysical constructs. It is doubtful in this age that anyone will take my own teachings to heart, but that doesn't matter because there is sufficient similarity in practice between traditions that the doctrine that this paper expounded is not, IMO, going make an ultimate difference in the human development of any given being as compared to say, an Advaitist. If you maintain that the Buddhist and his doctrine will be liberated, but the Advaitist will only arrive at some lesser heaven, than the ONLY difference between you and any rabid Christian fundamentalist is that you've taken that 'you'll burn in Hell-fire' trip to the East, and cordially replaced Hell with a mere heaven lasting many kalpas, instead of 'whatever' your claim is for "Ultimate Truth" in Buddhism.

As for me, in my tradition of choice, "being in Christ" is tantamount to entering into the Logos, the aspect of Ultimate Reality that corresponds to human beinghood, and which also has "compassionate omniscience" [Body of Christ] as its Summum Bonum. The less I identify with my mind-body as ultimately me, the less rebirth/reincarnation has any real bearing on my metaphysics. There is no essential 'me' to go anywhere, and this too is an insight of Buddhism. Passing out of existence and remaining Essence is Gnostic Resurrection within The Fullness. Different conceptual format but all we can really discuss is the human side of the equation. I'll not argue the nature of Ultimate Truth because only IT Knows for sure.




If i am saying this, there is a reason. That reason being that number 1 i didn't say Hindu's couldn't get liberation. They could, just like Gautama Buddha did. The Ultimate nature is just the nature of all phenomenon, as it is. The mind seems to be intelligent and conscious. It has borrowed this intelligence. The pure awareness, rig pa is the intelligence. The mind merely reflects that awareness, and so appears to be conscious.


--------------------


Edited by Sinbad (01/24/07 06:35 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #6491872 - 01/24/07 08:13 AM (17 years, 26 days ago)

"Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (Skt. paramartha sat) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems); when Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (Skt. paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism. Therefore it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism, The affirmation of a ground (Skt. asraya) which is really existent (Skt. paramartha sat) and the denial that such an existent (Skt. satta) can be found anywhere, with in or without, immanent or transcendent, are two diametrically opposed paradigms - not simply variation or reformations of each other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form: to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuse. The example I have given above of an eternal base without which Hinduism in its own language would be atheistic (skt. nastika) and the denial (without any implied affirmation) (Skt. prasajya pratisedha) of such an eternally existing unchanging base by Buddhism cannot be said to be a reformation but a deconstruction of the very roots of the Hindu thesis. That is why Buddhist is not a reformation of Hinduism but a paradigm shift from the paradigms on which Hinduism is based."


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #6491901 - 01/24/07 08:24 AM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Many Hindu scholars believe that without an ultimate eternal reality then there can be no liberation from the changing, transient samsara; therefore even though the Buddha denied the ultimate reality, he could have meant only conceptually really existing reality, no the eternal ultimate reality which is beyond concepts. Otherwise there cannot be liberation. The fault with this kind of thinking is that it is measuring the thesis (which is no thesis) of the Buddha (or interpreting the Buddha) from within the Hindu paradigm. Remaining within the Hindu paradigm, an eternal ultimate reality is a necessity (a necessary dead end as the Buddha saw it) for the soteriological purpose, i. e. for liberation. Since according to the Buddha there is no Brahman - such a concept being merely an acquired fabrication (skt: parikalpana) learned from wrong (skt: mithya) scriptures, hankering after, searching for such a Brahman is necessary a dead end, which leads nowhere, let alone liberation. The Buddhist paradigm, if understood correctly, does not require an eternal something or other for liberation. In Buddhism liberation is not realizing such a ground but rather a letting go of all grounds, i.e., realizing groundless. In fact holding on to any ground is ignorance, according to Buddhism. So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this illusory samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahman which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that samsara is meraly an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge is there were no eternal Brahman remaining it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance) an eternal unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation else one would fall into Nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed by Hindu scholars: How can there be liberation if a Brahman does not remain after the illusory samsara vanishes in Jnana? - is a question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana."

Did you not even read these paragraphs?


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 20 days
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Sinbad]
    #6493343 - 01/24/07 04:49 PM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Yes, I read the paragraphs, but denial of Eternity and Infinity is like denying the mathematical concept of infinity which is a logical necessity. What are you positing by saying that there is not Eternal Ground? On what level do you think the Infinite exists on, merely abstract thinking as in mathematics. What I get from you amount to saying that 'Nothing Exists.' The universe has existence independently of human perceiving minds. The universe arose at 10 to the -43 seconds ago. I have my personal intuitions as to the Ultimate Source of that phenomenon and that Source is Eternal. The propositions you make and the suppositions upon which they are based strike me only as methodological on your/their part, not actual.

An Eternal Source from which all phenonomenon arises is an a priori. Denying a personification of God is one thing, denying that Ultimate Truth refers to the atemporal, Eternal Ground does not have any meaning for me. It appears as mere absurdity unless it is a koan-like attempt to confound the conceptual mind. If not, it means nothing and is preposterous. The Buddha did not posit something useless, he reformulated excesses which occulted the path to Liberation. His doctrine does not, however, posit a path so radical that it undercuts the insights of all paths East and West, and his path did not and does not change Ultimate Reality Itself, it effects the human apperception of it according to his transcendental understanding of it and his subsequent description of a Way to experience Reality as he did. I do not therefore believe that Buddha, and by extension, his entire doctrine, alone, defines and describes Ultimate Truth and our human place in that Truth. Of course you are perfectly free to believe in and live out whatever vision you choose.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #6493369 - 01/24/07 05:01 PM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Quote:

MarkostheGnostic said:
Yes, I read the paragraphs, but denial of Eternity and Infinity is like denying the mathematical concept of infinity which is a logical necessity. What are you positing by saying that there is not Eternal Ground? On what level do you think the Infinite exists on, merely abstract thinking as in mathematics. What I get from you amount to saying that 'Nothing Exists.' The universe has existence independently of human perceiving minds. The universe arose at 10 to the -43 seconds ago. I have my personal intuitions as to the Ultimate Source of that phenomenon and that Source is Eternal. The propositions you make and the suppositions upon which they are based strike me only as methodological on your/their part, not actual.

An Eternal Source from which all phenonomenon arises is an a priori. Denying a personification of God is one thing, denying that Ultimate Truth refers to the atemporal, Eternal Ground does not have any meaning for me. It appears as mere absurdity unless it is a koan-like attempt to confound the conceptual mind. If not, it means nothing and is preposterous. The Buddha did not posit something useless, he reformulated excesses which occulted the path to Liberation. His doctrine does not, however, posit a path so radical that it undercuts the insights of all paths East and West, and his path did not and does not change Ultimate Reality Itself, it effects the human apperception of it according to his transcendental understanding of it and his subsequent description of a Way to experience Reality as he did. I do not therefore believe that Buddha, and by extension, his entire doctrine, alone, defines and describes Ultimate Truth and our human place in that Truth. Of course you are perfectly free to believe in and live out whatever vision you choose.




Your not reading well perhaps.

"The Buddhist paradigm, if understood correctly, does not require an eternal something or other for liberation. In Buddhism liberation is not realizing such a ground but rather a letting go of all grounds, i.e., realizing groundless. In fact holding on to any ground is ignorance, according to Buddhism. So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of the dynamics of ignorance."

This is the defining characteristic, the fact that no matter how much you search for a ground, it will always allude you, and delude your perception of of the ultimate truth. Discovering that it is groundless, automatically provides the space for genuine bodhicitta to shine through as its capacity. This is genuine wisdom.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMarkostheGnostic
Elder
Male User Gallery

Registered: 12/09/99
Posts: 14,279
Loc: South Florida Flag
Last seen: 3 years, 20 days
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Sinbad]
    #6493392 - 01/24/07 05:11 PM (17 years, 26 days ago)

OK, so YOU are simply calling "Bodhicitta" (Pure Mind, Mind-Heart, etc.) what I am calling the Ground of Being. You know, the word meditation is in the Old Testament in the English, but meditation does NOT mean the same thing in the OT Hebrew context as it does to a Buddhist meditator or a Christian contemplative. Christian contemplation is closer to a Buddhist technique in many cases. OT meditation means a dwelling upon written words to discern the meaning, not a reduction to more subtle undifferentiated mind-stuff, to an awareness of awareness behind the conceptual mind. When two traditions attempt to communicate, it is imperative to understand one another's concept and that often requires that both parties step outside of their respective vocabularies in order to really grok each other's perspective, or else they will never understand, or learn from one another, or respect one another's knowledge base.


--------------------
γνῶθι σαὐτόν - Gnothi Seauton - Know Thyself


Edited by MarkostheGnostic (01/24/07 09:00 PM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: MarkostheGnostic]
    #6493431 - 01/24/07 05:24 PM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Three kinds of bodhicitta, bodhicitta of intention (wishing other to attain liberation). bodhicotta of application (When you do some practice or actions, and dedicate it to the welfare of all sentient beings), Bodhicitta of realization, (this is the manifestation aspect of enlightened activity, e.g shunyata and bodhicitta, non-dual of these). I have read many texts, from Patanjali, Bhagavagita, etc, so i know what im talking about when it comes to these paths.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Sinbad]
    #6494056 - 01/24/07 08:50 PM (17 years, 26 days ago)

Thou protesteth too much. Exactly what are you trying to broach? There's some fine reading here, but I'm not sure what you're trying to allude to in reponse to Mark, who merely stated that Buddhism does not subvert from its Eastern roots. I too have read all the writ, but this shouldn't matter as Truth is perennial. Ultimate Reality is the spectacle and the religion, including Buddhism, is the spectator. It doesn't behold a more enlightened approach to Ultimate Truth any more than other inner traditions.

This too is wisdom realizing this - the universal nature of Truth, wherein someone can humbly investigate all the wisdoms the world has to offer. Good intentions is what liberates a man.


--------------------


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Basilides]
    #6495047 - 01/25/07 05:39 AM (17 years, 25 days ago)

Quote:

Basilides said:
Thou protesteth too much. Exactly what are you trying to broach? There's some fine reading here, but I'm not sure what you're trying to allude to in reponse to Mark, who merely stated that Buddhism does not subvert from its Eastern roots. I too have read all the writ, but this shouldn't matter as Truth is perennial. Ultimate Reality is the spectacle and the religion, including Buddhism, is the spectator. It doesn't behold a more enlightened approach to Ultimate Truth any more than other inner traditions.

This too is wisdom realizing this - the universal nature of Truth, wherein someone can humbly investigate all the wisdoms the world has to offer. Good intentions is what liberates a man.




No he didn't just state that. he stated that both paths lead to the same truth, when this has been shown by not only buddhist masters, but Hindu ones too, that this is just not the case. if they did, then there would have been no reason for the Buddha to have debated with the current Hindu practitioners and correct them. I realize that the roots of Buddhism took in admits a Hindu culture, but i don't see then why they all must be thrown in the same basket and called th same when they are anything but.

There is a lot of wisdom in Hinduism, but lets not confuse wisdom of the fruit or wisdom of the path. Lets not call potatoes, fried chicken.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledblaney
Human Being

Registered: 10/03/04
Posts: 7,894
Loc: Here & Now
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Sinbad]
    #6495088 - 01/25/07 06:20 AM (17 years, 25 days ago)

Quote:

No he didn't just state that. he stated that both paths lead to the same truth, when this has been shown by not only buddhist masters, but Hindu ones too, that this is just not the case.




This very mind is Buddha! If one is able to awaken to his own Buddha-nature because of any path, it is an amazing thing. Personally, I have only really heard of people realizing it through the path of Buddhism. Many paths seem to take people part way but not all the way. However, My knowledge of history and the world and of where people are on the path is very dim.


--------------------
"What is in us that turns a deaf ear to the cries of human suffering?"

"Belief is a beautiful armor
But makes for the heaviest sword"
- John Mayer

Making the noise "penicillin" is no substitute for actually taking penicillin.

"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Sinbad]
    #6495714 - 01/25/07 12:18 PM (17 years, 25 days ago)

So, what you're saying basically is that your religion is the  correct path to Truth? A Buddhist espousing exclusivity instead of inclusivity :crazy: I can already sense the ardent zeal so I'm not going to attempt to convince you otherwise, but I'm curious, were you actually raised Buddhist in a Buddhist country or did you convert? You're definately free to interpret your religion any way you want, though - but if you honestly believe the wisdom in Buddhism attenuates the wisdom of Hinduism, or Western religion for that matter, I'd personally like to hear you explain what is so special about Buddhism that makes its teachings superincumbent over all other spiritual traditions, East and West.


--------------------


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Basilides]
    #6495815 - 01/25/07 12:57 PM (17 years, 25 days ago)

No, what im saying is that the ultimate truth that most Hindu paths reach, is not the same Ultimate truth that Buddhism recognizes. For the sake of clarity and lack of confusion, nothing else. I'm not saying that Buddhism is better or worse than any other religion or path, I'm simply stating that it has a different destination and path than its Hindu relatives. The crux being, that many Hindu paths recognize Buddhism as not being complete, whilst Buddhist have the same idea about Hinduism, but for different reasons.

My personal opinion is that logically, Buddhism results in its fuit, just as logically Hindu paths result in there fruit. But the two fruits are not the same, as the seeds are different and none should be confused. One should know what those two different seeds and fruits are, through tasting. Its a personal thing, when one discovers what rings true for them.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineLion
Decadent Flower Magnate
Male User Gallery

Registered: 09/20/05
Posts: 8,775
Last seen: 1 day, 13 hours
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: dblaney]
    #6495840 - 01/25/07 01:05 PM (17 years, 25 days ago)

Quote:

This very mind is Buddha! If one is able to awaken to his own Buddha-nature because of any path, it is an amazing thing. Personally, I have only really heard of people realizing it through the path of Buddhism. Many paths seem to take people part way but not all the way. However, My knowledge of history and the world and of where people are on the path is very dim.


But how is it that one person can awaken to his Buddha-nature while another remains 'in the dark', so so speak?


--------------------
“Strengthened by contemplation and study,
I will not fear my passions like a coward.
My body I will give to pleasures,
to diversions that I’ve dreamed of,
to the most daring erotic desires,
to the lustful impulses of my blood, without
any fear at all, for whenever I will—
and I will have the will, strengthened
as I’ll be with contemplation and study—
at the crucial moments I’ll recover
my spirit as was before: ascetic.”


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Lion]
    #6495883 - 01/25/07 01:17 PM (17 years, 25 days ago)

Due to the afflictions of ignorance, craving and hatred, which give rise to disturbing emotions .Ones real nature is obscured, like how dark clouds obscure the sun in its vast blue sky.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineBasilides
Servent ofWisdom
Male User Gallery

Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 8 months
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Sinbad]
    #6495996 - 01/25/07 01:52 PM (17 years, 25 days ago)

To me religions are simply ideas in the phenomenal world that pertain to expressing Ultimate Reality. They all have their unique style, rituals and methods, but they are not Reality itself. The fruits you speak of can only be of the phenomenal world if all such experiences are incomparable. Why do you suggest they're different? You mentioned that Buddha "corrected" Hinduism, which is a doctrine based entirely on faith just as it is for Muslims who believe Mohammed renovated Judea-Christianity. That one might suggest that any spiritual tradition is an amendment over others is simply sectarianism is my opinion.


--------------------


"Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleSinbad
Living TheMoment
Male

Registered: 12/23/04
Posts: 2,571
Loc: Under The Bodhi Tree
Re: Markos - Vendanta vs Madhyamaka [Re: Basilides]
    #6496027 - 01/25/07 02:03 PM (17 years, 25 days ago)

Quote:

Basilides said:
To me religions are simply ideas in the phenomenal world that pertain to expressing Ultimate Reality. They all have their unique style, rituals and methods, but they are not Reality itself. The fruits you speak of can only be of the phenomenal world if all such experiences are incomparable. Why do you suggest they're different? You mentioned that Buddha "corrected" Hinduism, which is a doctrine based entirely on faith just as it is for Muslims who believe Mohammed renovated Judea-Christianity. That one might suggest that any spiritual tradition is an amendment over others is simply sectarianism is my opinion.




The fruits that i speak of are not phenomenal, as they are not based upon a cause, but are the maturation of our potential beyond cause and effect. All experiences and paths are comparable on there differences and similarities. Wanting to blur the lines adds to confusion.

The point is, that the historical Buddha was an outcast from the Hindu community due to his no frills approach to spirituality, leaving out all theistic and polytheistic concepts in favor of a system based upon direct, indirect logic and wisdom in our actual living situation and experience. Unlike alot of other religions, nothing is to be taken on faith alone, instead, one is prompted to discover for oneself in ones own experience, how things are.

The Hindu's basically believe that life is suffering, and that we suffer because we fail to see the divinity in ourselves and the phenomenon world around us. This is one way of seeing. The Buddhas idea is based on the four noble truths, which i don't need to explain here, but that is different way of seeing. The ways of seeing are similar, but different in there essential meanings.


--------------------


Edited by Sinbad (01/29/07 02:16 AM)


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Autoflowering Cannabis Seeds   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   North Spore Injection Grain Bag   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* christianity and hinduism zandorf 495 1 11/05/03 08:54 PM
by Kremlin
* Shroud of Turin Documentary Swami 1,040 16 12/23/02 02:25 PM
by Anonymous
* HINDUISM Cosm 1,439 13 02/12/05 12:04 PM
by MarkostheGnostic
* Paradigm Shifts and Aeonics
( 1 2 all )
MiddlemanM 4,126 25 03/05/14 03:30 PM
by LunarEclipse
* HOW WE SHOULD LIVE LIFE: Ants V.S. Lions V.S. Leeches. Sombie 1,064 9 05/03/03 11:39 PM
by Dogomush
* Anyone who feels worthless needs to convert to Hinduism GreenMachine 697 12 12/28/09 06:09 PM
by Icelander
* hinduism BanJankri 736 9 12/11/04 07:18 PM
by Gomp
* Grave Robber v.s. Archaeologist
( 1 2 3 all )
Swami 4,279 58 10/21/02 11:18 PM
by shii-tan

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum
3,157 topic views. 0 members, 5 guests and 8 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.034 seconds spending 0.009 seconds on 14 queries.