Here's the latest episode of the debate (I must disclaim there is some colorful language in use there...no offense intended towards any one):

 http://www.thetaobums.com/The-Eternal-Self-of-the-Buddha-t10981.html

Here's the gist of what has been happening:

 The Buddhists are vehemently  opposed to the concept of The Self (Atman) and tend to jump through hoops in attempts to prove/disprove it's existence.

But then I discovered the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra (also called the Tathagatagarbha Sutra) in which the Self is clearly expounded and the fact is even driven home (purportedly taught by Shakyamuni) that there is indeed an Ultimate Reality, The Tathagata Garbha within every sentient being and that it is Buddha-dhatu (or Buddha element). This Buddha-dhatu is obscured from the sentient being due to kleshas.

This does not in any sense seem to be different from Atman, the eternal Pure Subject. The terms are different but not the purport of the position.

Reality in the Tathagatagarbha Sutras

Prior to the period of the Tathagatagarbha Sutras, Mahayana metaphysics had been dominated by teachings on emptiness in the form of Madhyamaka philosophy. The language used by this approach is primarily negative, and the Tathagatagarbha genre of sutras can be seen as an attempt to state orthodox Buddhist teachings of dependent origination using positive language instead, to prevent people from being turned away from Buddhism by a false impression of nihilism. In these sutras the perfection of the wisdom of not-self is stated to be the true self; the ultimate goal of the path is then characterized using a range of positive language that had been used in Indian philosophy previously by essentialist philosophers, but which was now transmuted into a new Buddhist vocabulary to describe a being who has successfully completed the Buddhist path.[8]

Contrasting with some forms of Buddhism, the Buddha's teaching on 'reality' in the Tathagatagarbha Mahayana scriptures - which the Buddha states constitute the ultimate manifestation of the Mahayana Dharma (other Mahayana sutras make similar claims about their own teachings) - insists that there truly is a sphere or realm of ultimate truth - not just a repetitious cycle of interconnected elements, each dependent on the others. That suffering-filled cycle of x-generating-y-and-y-generating-z-and-z-generating-a, etc., is Samsara, the prison-house of the reincarnating non-self; whereas liberation from dependency, enforced rebirth and bondage is nirvana or reality / spiritual essence (tattva / dharmata). This sphere also bears the name Tathagatagarbha (Buddha matrix). It is the deathless realm where dependent origination holds no sway, where non-self is supplanted by the everlasting, sovereign (aishvarya) self (atman) (as a trans-historical, unconditioned, ultimate, liberating, supra-worldly yet boundless and immanent awakened mind). Of this real truth, called nirvana - which, while salvationally infused into samsara, is not bound or imprisoned in it - the Buddha states in the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra:

"What is the Real (tattva)? Knowledge of the true attributes of Nirvana; the Tathagata, the Dharma, the Sangha, and the attributes of space ... is the Real. What is knowledge of the attributes of Nirvana? The attributes of Nirvana are eightfold. What are these eight? Cessation [of ignorance and suffering]; loveliness/ wholesomeness; Truth; Reality; Eternity, Bliss, the Self [atman], and complete Purity: that is Nirvana."

He further comments: " ... that which is endowed with the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and Purity is stated to be the meaning of 'Real Truth' ... Moreover, the Real is the Tathagata [i.e., the Buddha]; the Tathagata is the Real ... The Tathagata is not conditioned and not tainted, but utterly blissful: this is the Real ...".

Thus, in such doctrines, a very positive goal is envisioned, which is said to lie beyond the grasp of the five senses and the ordinary, restless mind, and only attainable through direct meditative perception and when all inner pollutants (twisted modes of view, and all moral contaminants) are purged, and the inherently deathless, spotless, radiantly shining mind of Buddha stands revealed. This is the realm of the Buddha-dhatu (popularly known as buddha nature) - inconceivable, beginning-less, endless, omniscient truth, the Dharmakaya (quintessential body-and-mind) of the Buddha. This reality is empty of all falsehood, impermanence, ignorance, afflictions, and pain, but filled with enduring happiness, purity, knowingness (jnana), and omni-radiant loving-kindness (maitri).

Reality in Buddhism

QUOTE

The Nirvana Sutra is an enormously important scripture, not least because of its influence on Zen Buddhism and in view of its traditional status as the final Mahayana pronouncements of the Buddha on the eve of his physical death. It is striking for its teachings on the eternal, unchanging, blissful, pure, inviolate and deathless "Self" (ātman) of the Buddha in the interiority of Nirvana: "... if the non-eternal is made away with [in Nirvana], what there remains must be the Eternal; if there is no more any sorrow, what there remains must be Bliss; if there is no more any non-Self, what exists there must be the Self; if there is no longer anthing that is impure, what there is must be the Pure" (Kosho Yamamoto, Mahayanism: A Criticla Exposition of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, The Karinbunko, Tokyo, 1975, pp. 107–108). Here the sutra controverts the familiar Buddhist dictum that "all dharmas [phenomena] are non-Self", and in the Dharmakshema version the Buddha even declares that "in truth there is Self (Atman) in all dharmas". That Self is "indestructible like a diamond" (Mahaparinirvana Sutra, op.cit., Vol. 3, p.6), and yet can assume all manner of forms, including those of the gods Shiva and Vishnu (Buddhist Thought, Professor Paul Williams, Routledge, London, 2000, p. 243). Any idea that the Buddha (who is the immortal Self – Mahayanism, op. cit., pp. 61–62) is impermanent is vigorously rejected by the Buddha in this sutra, and those who teach otherwise are severely criticised. He insists: "Those who cannot accept that the Tathāgata is eternal [nitya] cause misery." (Mahaparinirvana Sutra, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 16). In contrast, meditating upon the eternality of the Buddha is said to bring happiness and protection from rebirth in evil realms. The eternal being of the Buddha should be likened - the sutra says - to indelible letters carved upon stone. Furthermore, protecting and promoting this teaching of the Buddha's eternity is said to bring innumerable and inconceivable blessings to its votaries (Mahaparinirvana Sutra, op. cit., passim).

Let us highlight the important part here --

Any idea that the Buddha (who is the immortal Self – Mahayanism, op. cit., pp. 61–62) is impermanent is vigorously rejected by the Buddha in this sutra, and those who teach otherwise are severely criticised. He insists: "Those who cannot accept that the Tathāgata is eternal [nitya] cause misery." (Mahaparinirvana Sutra, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 16). In contrast, meditating upon the eternality of the Buddha is said to bring happiness and protection from rebirth in evil realms. The eternal being of the Buddha should be likened - the sutra says - to indelible letters carved upon stone. Furthermore, protecting and promoting this teaching of the Buddha's eternity is said to bring innumerable and inconceivable blessings to its votaries (Mahaparinirvana Sutra, op. cit., passim).

Further more:


‘What is the Tathagata [Buddha]? … He is one who is eternal and unchanging. He is beyond the human notion of “is” or “is-not”. He is Thusness [tathata], which is both phenomenon and noumenon, put together. Here, the carnal notion of man is sublimated and explained from the macrocosmic standpoint of existence of all and all. And this Dharmakaya is at once Wisdom and Emancipation [moksha]. In this ontological enlargement of the concept of existence of the Buddha Body [buddhakaya], this sutra and, consequently, Mahayana, differs from the Buddha of Primitive Buddhism … And what is the Dharmakaya? It is a body founded on Dharma. And what is Dharma? It is dharmata[Thusness – the true nature of all things], which is eternal and which changes not …Thus, there comes about the equation of: Buddha Body = Dharmakaya = eternal body = eternal Buddha = Eternity. … What is Nirvana? [Dwelling upon the nature of Nirvana], the Buddha explains its positive aspects and says that Nirvana has four attributes, which are the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure’.

 I would request all Medhavis to help me figure out whether Buddha-dhatu is indeed The Atman or is it simply an epistemic construct without ontological basis.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (21)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Thanks
written by Raju, 2009-08-10 05:16:37

Dear Partha,
I am happy that you pointed me to your blog.
Regards,
Raju

• 
• +0
• 
• 

The last 45 years of the Buddha
written by P. Desikan, 2009-08-10 02:43:56

Thank you dear Raju, for focussing in this last comment on the Buddha rather than on facets of Buddhism. Do you recall my blog in early May this year entitled An Insider's View of Dhammapada?
If you read it, you will follow that I place great value on how the Buddha lived on this planet for 45 years after obtaining enlightenment and before obtaining nibbana.
Regards. Partha

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Buddha embodied Brahman
written by Raju, 2009-08-09 09:17:05

Clarification of position

Puzzling aspects of Buddhism does not in any reflect on Buddha but interpretation/understanding of Buddhism.

It is said that in mediation Buddha maintained distance between self and the consciousness by will power. Buddha with his strong will power was able to conqueror all desires and emotions.

He even refused termination of personality in the ultimate bliss and did not enter transcendent state of consciousness. He instead became perfectly embodied Brahman and a perfect medium of compassion. It is for these reasons in Buddhism there is strong emphasis on are ethics/dharma.

Regards,

Raju

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Experience ontological or psychological?
written by Raju, 2009-08-07 19:19:31

Dear Partha,

This is what I had in my mind when I talked about different experiences of the absolute.

Experience

Truth, freedom and value are the expressions of the absolute for knowing, willing and feeling respectively. In Advaita Vedanta absolute is formulated through knowing (Nirvikalpa Samadhi), is truth, in Buddhism freedom of absolute is achieved by suppressing self (Sunyata) using willpower and in Vaishnavism unity with absolute (Savikalpa Samadhi), is an expression of value which is feeling. (Adapted from article by Stephen Kaplan)


Dear Pradip,

In my view Hindu non-dual Brahman is ontological and I do not know much about much about Buddhist non-dual experience other than what I had said above.

Mind is an instrument and like any instrument it does not have self-illumination power hence I do not how it can have non-dual experience? If we equate mind with ego then it is dual and cannot have non-dual experience. I do not understand non-dual experience by mind.


Ontological status of Mind-space

In different religions we see ontological status given to different things as show below.

Is 'Mind-space Real? Are Phenomena Real?

1. Smkhya-Yoga YesYes
2. Advaita VedantaYesNo
3. Sthavira BuddhismNoYes
4. Madhyamika Buddhism
(paramarthasatya)No ontological claims (silence)
5. Madhyamika Buddhism
(sarmvrtisatya)NoNo
6. Taoism
(Tao Te Ching, Ch. I) Both duality and nonduality 'Real'
7. Theism not ontologically revelatory

{Ref: HOW MANY NONDUALITIES ARE THERE? pp 424
By DAVID LOY
Journal of Indian Philosophy 11 (1983)413-426.

Mr. David Loy has written book - Nonduality : a study in comparative philosophy. New Haven : Yale University Press, c1988 }


Sri Adi Shankaracharya and Buddhism

In Buddhism the state of attributeless, is equated to the Sunyatva or nihilism. The state of Nirvana is the cessation of all attributes, merging one’s own self with the eternal Sunyatva or Nihilation. This is the gist of Sunyavada or Buddhist Theory of Nihilism.

Sri Adi Shankaracharya confronted with all the best scholars of Buddhism and others his time and defeated each and everyone by unparallel arguments in favor of Advaita Vedanta.

All he had to do was to replace the atheist’s Nirvana or total dissolution of the self at the point of realization into an indescribable nothingness, by the Brahman. In other words, the state of nihilation was replaced by the state of all-pervading and eternally present consciousness, the non dual Brahman in every Object and Subject of the Universe.


Regards,
Raju

Note: I believe some non-ontological difference are shown as ontological differences. This makes it difficult to understand things.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

experience
written by P. Desikan, 2009-08-07 15:53:52

In terms of relying on experience per se, (even with different capacities of describing or interpreting or even 'selling' the experience), Raju correctly sees the scope for a pan Indic similarity of approach. Whenever we apply our intellect to the question , mind joins in and it is difficult to separate ontological and psychological products, while not impossible.
Regards. Partha

• 
• +0
• 
• 

ontological or psychological?
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-08-07 10:58:31

Scholars claim that the Hindu non dual Brahman is ontological while the Buddhist non dual experience is psychological in nature. I have had problem understanding the Buddhist position. Can one reject an ontological non dual reality and avoid nihilism? I also do not understand how the Buddhist non dual experience can be psychological in nature? A non dual experience has to go beyond the domain of duality. Our mind works only in duality. So a non dual experience can not be obtained by the working of the mind and hence can not be psychological.

The Buddhist position is very puzzling.

Gangp

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Marketing, experience and differences
written by Raju, 2009-08-07 09:16:08

Marketing

I can say based on what I know that all religions based on experience (anubhava) are true. Hinduism (Advaita Vedanta, Vaishnavism etc) and Buddhism are based on the experience of the absolute. Only the view of the absolute and scope of experience is different.

In the case of religion knowledge determines what one becomes. It is for this reason religion will be always marketed even if it is not based on experience. I believe in the long run only religions based on experience will survive.

Differences

Now how do we arrive at the differences between Hinduism and Buddhism?

Human Self has a changing part and fixed part. On the basis of this we can formulate a following simple equation.

Human Self = Outer Self(Psychological self) + Inner self(Atman)

One cannot realize Nirvana on the basis of changing outer self otherwise we would end in an infinite regress. Existence of eternal Atman is necessary for realizing Nirvana. It is for this reason our above simple equation is valid. (Brahman and Atman are just two different perspectives, universal and individual respectively of Ultimate Reality)

Source of suffering in this world is one’s outer self and we all know Atman is always happy. During ancient times people were doing ritual/praying to their personal Brahman (GOD) to ease their suffering. Then comes Dr. Siddhartha Gautama popularly know as Buddha and he rightly advises people to consider outer self as illusionary and dualistic, Buddha advised people to follow four noble truths, eightfold path etc to realize state of Nirvana to eliminate suffering. It appears that Atman is not focus in Buddhism as Atman is not the cause of suffering. Here we see suppression of Atman. Yet, Gautama Buddha for his great work and scientific approach is rightly recognized as an avatar by Hindus.

In Hinduism existence of both outer self and inner self is recognized. I believe this lead to creation of four Purusarthas of dharma, artha, kama and moksha. Ultimate goal of Hindus is to recognize one’s true nature – blissful Brahman.

Difference between Hinduism and Buddhism is not an ontological difference. Yet these non-ontological differences are real in the sense that these differences exists in the mind of a preacher of Buddhism and follower of Buddhism. "Satyameva Jayate" (Truth Alone Triumphs) is national motto of India and I believe it holds good for every thing and time will erase all minor differences.

Regards,
Raju

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-08-06 20:08:06

“Why do their masters teach them this nonsense”; and...... and...................’ Could be the Master or the student but Buddhism too is agenda driven - spread of ‘religion’ includes distancing from Hindus (Hindutva). For converting through ‘reason’ the converter has to prove that his/her religion is the best. Usually a ‘good’ lawyer is one who selectively appropriates & quotes relevant material and argues well; knowledge level, honesty, justice etc may or may not figure.
“Here are some additional difference between Hinduism and Buddhism”....’perception’.... ‘silence’.
Differences

“No this is not confined only to "Western" Buddhists. This attitude is rooted in the past and arose in ancient India”.
I agree but with a caveat. I have encountered Buddhist teachers who, because they were only concerned with knowledge per se could rise above parochial/ sectarian interests to recognise/ articulate the truth when they saw it. The fingers of one hand are too many to count them, but they do/ did exist even in our life time.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

the variety in Vedanta
written by P. Desikan, 2009-08-06 18:25:03

Extremely scholarly and balanced reflections from our friends, notably from Pradip and Raju who have studied Advaita and different schools of Budddhism in depth. It is a privilege to read such material and of course learn from it.
If we take Advaita Vedanta and compare it with unevolved Buddhism, we will find very little in common.
But there will be found in Advaita as well as some of the other Vedantic Darshanas excellent correlations with evolving Mahayana Buddhist thought. Especially in the perception of 'divine attribute' in an earthly Master, Sadguru, who shows one the way to 'Truth'.
Regards.Partha

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Perception and Silence
written by Raju, 2009-08-06 13:05:27

Dear Dwai,

Here are some additional difference between Hinduism and Buddhism.

Perception

In Buddhism inner perception of Self without content (Brahman) is not denied but not explicitly mentioned or it does not exist on their radar. However Buddhism rightly considers sense-experience/perception of external things and perception of mental states (joyfulness, anguish, fear etc) as illusionary and dualistic in nature.

It is for this reason in Hinduism non-dual nature of Brahman means there is no subject and object duality. In Buddhism non-duality is Sunayata.


Silence

Silence represents both Brahman and Sunayata.
Sunayata: “The most forceful expression of such an empty relationship is silence, though not just any silence or silence-as-such. It is a silence not of ignorance, or hostility, or even awe, but of wisdom (prajina) which is indifferent to formulation, or rejection of formulation.” (Source –article by F.J. Streng)

Regards,
Raju

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Cognition is dualistic!
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-08-06 11:38:35

Dear Dwai,

" title="wikipedia: The "I" is the Pure Subject, the True Self, which is separate from the "I am this or that" (Subject predicate) right? So how can the "I" not exist? Without "I" there can be no cognition. But this "I" is not the egoic I...which is nothing but the "Atman that is not" of the Buddhists. Please correct me if I misunderstood this." rel="nofollow" target="wikipedia">The "I" is the Pure Subject, the True Self, which is separate from the "I am this or that" (Subject predicate) right? So how can the "I" not exist? Without "I" there can be no cognition. But this "I" is not the egoic I...which is nothing but the "Atman that is not" of the Buddhists. Please correct me if I misunderstood this.

Cognition is dualistic. Normally we say,"I see you". You can break this sentence
up into subject and object. In the higher stretches of meditation this equation,
the difference between the subject and its object, breaks down. Then you can't
describe your experience since you have gone beyond the domain of cognition or
duality. Then you have to remain silent.

Brahman is silence, according to Samkara (c. 788-820 AD), Nada Brahman.
"'Sir,' said a student to his master, 'teach me the nature of Brahman.' The
master did not reply. When he was asked a second and a third time, he replied:
"I teach you, but you do not listen. His name is silence.'"

There are no two "Is". The "I" the True Self is mistaken for the ego. Actually our normal everyday "I" is the Atman or the true Self. We mistake the rope for the snake.
We misidentify our "I" and associate it with our body-mind complex. Is it possible
for matter to give rise to self awareness? It is not possible. Even our everyday "I"
is only possible because it is the Atman. We have just hypnotized ourselves and misidentified our I.


" title="wikipedia: [Another irritation (for me at least) is that some Buddhists tend to try and appropriate everything as being Buddhist and insinuating that "The Hindus" stole the ideas from Buddha/Buddhists. Even the term "Sanatana Dharma" is supposedly stolen from Buddhist terminologies." rel="nofollow" target="wikipedia">[Another irritation (for me at least) is that some Buddhists tend to try and appropriate everything as being Buddhist and insinuating that "The Hindus" stole the ideas from Buddha/Buddhists. Even the term "Sanatana Dharma" is supposedly stolen from Buddhist terminologies.]

Buddhistic ideas are there in the Upanishads which certainly predate the historical Buddha. So how can they say that?

" title="wikipedia: [They claim Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are separate, but then turn around and say "Advaita Vedanta" is Crypto-Buddhism." rel="nofollow" target="wikipedia">[They claim Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are separate, but then turn around and say "Advaita Vedanta" is Crypto-Buddhism.]

Dalai Lama once said, while attending a conference of Vishwa Hindu Parishad, that the only difference between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta is about Atman.

" title="wikipedia: [Of course, my interaction with Buddhists has been recent and limited to some "Western" Buddhists...but it seems like they all seem to have been taught by Tibetan or other Asian Buddhists. If this is the state of knowledge dissemination, then there is something wrong. Why do these people that way? And why do their masters teach them this nonsense?" rel="nofollow" target="wikipedia">[Of course, my interaction with Buddhists has been recent and limited to some "Western" Buddhists...but it seems like they all seem to have been taught by Tibetan or other Asian Buddhists. If this is the state of knowledge dissemination, then there is something wrong. Why do these people that way? And why do their masters teach them this nonsense?]

No this is not confined only to "Western" Buddhists. This attitude is rooted in the past and arose in ancient India.

Regards

Pradipda

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Syntactical differences
written by Dwai Lahiri, 2009-08-06 10:41:19

Friends,

Thanks for your astute comments. I find a few things very prevalent in the various threads of interaction with the TTB "Buddhists" --

1) They misunderstand what Atman/Brahman means in Vedanta
and as a corrolary thereof , their Atman (which they so try to disprove) is actually The Antahkarana complex (which are the subtle apparatuses that act as sensors for Consciousness) -- which they rightly identify with the 5 jhanas
2) They claim consciousness is a phenomenon but cannot prove it. Their claim is that Consciousness is only valid when taken in context with objects it "illuminates". ie, Consciousness too is a phenomenon that is dependently originated and empty of self-nature and self-awareness.

Pradipda,

The "I" is the Pure Subject, the True Self, which is separate from the "I am this or that" (Subject predicate) right? So how can the "I" not exist? Without "I" there can be no cognition. But this "I" is not the egoic I...which is nothing but the "Atman that is not" of the Buddhists. Please correct me if I misunderstood this.

Another irritation (for me at least) is that some Buddhists tend to try and appropriate everything as being Buddhist and insinuating that "The Hindus" stole the ideas from Buddha/Buddhists. Even the term "Sanatana Dharma" is supposedly stolen from Buddhist terminologies.

They claim Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are separate, but then turn around and say "Advaita Vedanta" is Crypto-Buddhism.

Of course, my interaction with Buddhists has been recent and limited to some "Western" Buddhists...but it seems like they all seem to have been taught by Tibetan or other Asian Buddhists. If this is the state of knowledge dissemination, then there is something wrong. Why do these people that way? And why do their masters teach them this nonsense?

• 
• +0
• 
• 

self as illusory!
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-08-06 10:24:39

Dear Dwai,
Hindu Yogis say that the "I" vanishes during higher meditation. Let me post
here Sri Ramakrishna on the nature of "I".

Think of Brahman, Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute, as a shoreless ocean.
Through the cooling influence as it were, of the bhakta's love, the water has
frozen at places into blocks of ice. In other words, God now and then assumes
various forms for His lovers and reveals Himself to them as a Person. But with
the rising of the sun of knowledge, the blocks of ice melt. Then one doesn't
feel any more that God is a Person, nor does one see God's forms. What He is
can not be described. Who will describe Him? He who would do so disappears. He
cannot find his 'I' anymore.

If one analyzes oneself, one doesn't find any such thing as 'I'. Take an
onion, for instance. First of all peel off the red outer skin; then you find
thick white skins. Peel these off one after the other, and you won't find
anything inside.

In the state a man no longer finds the existence of his ego. And who is
there left to seek it? Who can describe how he feels in that state - in his own
Pure Consciousness - about the real nature of Brahman? There is a sign of Perfect
Knowledge. Man becomes silent when It is attained. Then the 'I', which may be
likened to the salt doll, melts in the ocean of Existence-Knowledge-Bliss
Absolute and becomes one with It. Not the slightest distinction is left.

- Sri Ramakrishna

So even Hindu dharma says that the self or ego is illusory. It would seem that
there is agreement with Buddhists. The water is muddied when Buddhists identify
the ego with Atman. It is this misidentification by the Buddhists that is the
problem.

Regards

Pradipda

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Brahman and Buddha-dattu
written by Raju, 2009-08-06 10:00:44

Dear Dwai,

I do not see any difference between Brahman and Buddha-dattu. Here is my explanation.

Buddhism

Here are some concepts from Buddhism.

#1
Anatta (being without a persisting self, without independent existence) principle only purports to state that a dharma (impersonal processes) is "void of a self".

#2
Four noble truths and noble eightfold path are concepts and methods to realize Nirvana. Concepts of four noble truths and noble eightfold path do not have any ontological status.

#3
Nirvana is a realization of state of existence that things rise and dissipate in human life. In short Nirvana is awareness that human self is non-Self. Nirvana does not claim to refer to ontological status of ultimate reality.

#4
In Buddhism emptiness/sunayata/true nature of existence is not "being" nor "non-being" nor "both being and non-being" nor "neither being nor non-being." This applies well to human life but does not claim to refer to ontological status of ultimate reality.

#5
According to Buddhism that all moments of existence are relative -relative not to some absolute but relative to each other. This applies well to human life but does not claim to refer to ontological status of ultimate reality.

Differences

Here are some differences between Hinduism and Buddhism.

In Buddhism (vipassana meditation etc) Consciousness has content and type where in Hinduism Consciousness has no content. It appears that Buddhism refers to human consciousness where as for Hindus Consciousness mean equal to Brahman. Consciousness has different meaning for Hindus and Buddhist.

Goal of Hindus is to know absolute self/moksha where as goal of Buddhist is to realize Nirvana/emptiness (Sunayata) i.e. non-Self of human life in order to overcome suffering or happiness in this world.

Conclusion

What we see here that Nirvana, Dharma, Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path and Sunayata do not claim any ontological status.

Vedanta tells us that only Brahman exists. Now one must exist in order to realize emptiness (Sunayata). Hence Self must exists even in Buddhism.

It appears that difference in goals, attitude, and awareness are differences in nature of knowledge, its presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity. Difference in goals, attitude, and awareness in Hinduism and Buddhism are not difference between Brahman and Buddha-dattu. These doses not constitute an ontological difference.

Regards,
Raju

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by narensomu, 2009-08-05 23:34:19

Dwai and other Medhavis
The article and comments are very eduative.
Yes, the Buddhists seem to be talking about the same concept but the terminology is different.
i was just wondering whether the Eastern Buddhists who havent been exposed to Western thoughts have the same attitude as some of the commenters in the Tao site.
The new Buddhists of Western descent , seem to have this " Hindu /Vedanta inferior/ ;Buddhist concepts superior attitude.

I think Dwai is right in engaging them in discussions-otherwise people would start believing [as art History books say ] Dharma , Karma and Moksha are Buddhist thoughts.:-)A number of educated people believe this.

Making some fellow educated Indians see how wrong this is a tiring task.

Indic concepts like this have been around , well tested , much-discussed ,experimented with , since long before Shankara or Buddha came .

[The great teachers too played the part meant for the particular act or scene they appeared in.

Most important,the more we think, the more we realise the great need to dig in to the knowledge storehouse of the Vedas as Shri Chandra Sekarendra Swamiji pointed out -learn-discuss their timeline,get more people aware and thereby sort things out.[ like this argument- Advaita borrowed from Bouddha]-or all great Hindu thoughts are really Buddhist!

I am also reminded of this profound oneliner.
" Shakespeare's plays werent written by him but by someone of the same name"

Well, most of us may call it by any name , but we all in our own ways,strive to find it within-while engaging ourselves in discussions like these -they spice the little journey up.
Regards
ns

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-08-05 18:21:31

Here it is a case of deciding whom one wants to believe and to what extent. For the Buddhists with whom Dwai is arguing the situation is similar to that of Hindus faced with Christians - Karigar’s recent blog, (?)Father George ...

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Buddhadhatu or Dharmakaya
written by Dr. Pradip Gangopadh, 2009-08-05 12:43:45

Dear Dwai,

My position is that Dharmakaya or Buddhadhatu or whatever you want to call it is the Ultimate Reality. Buddha nature is called Dharmakaya. Dalai Lama in his book "Essential Teachings (ET)" defines Dharmakaya as the "body of dharma" which is the essential nature of Buddha which is one with the the Transcendent Reality, the essence of the universe. Thus Dharmakaya is the absolute transcendent reality which is also immanent in the universe. Since Dharmakaya is absolute, it has to be eternal. If this reading is true then Dharmakaya is the same as Brahman of the Upanishads. Radhakrishnan also says that Dharmakaya is Brahman. Of course Buddhists will not agree.

The implication of the eternal reality Dharmakaya which is both transcendent
and immanent is profound. This just means that Mahayana Buddhists do have a concept of God or Ultimate Reality. I am convinced of this because I personally saw Dalai Lama
give an interview in the PBS program of the late William Buckley a few years ago. The person introducing him (Michael Kinsley) mentioned that Buddhists do not believe in God. Dalai Lama smiled and said "That is not exactly true". So the claim that Mahayana Buddhism is an athiestic religion is also false. There are, however, some versions of Buddhism that seem to me to be close to athiesm.

Regards

Pradipda

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Let them!
written by P. Desikan, 2009-08-05 05:21:22

Dear Dwai,
Your thesis has been developed using available Mahayana postulates and you have arrived at an inevitable conclusion that cannot be questioned.
At least in the evolved Mahayana form, Buddhism legitimises the supreme nature of the Buddha through the Vedantic mechanisms of understanding the quest of Jivas to find the ultimate Truth, which is different from the sensed cycle in which they seem to be driven around endlessly. Mahayana thus simply uses Vedanta without its terminology. As Deshika says, 'Let them!'
It is just a few logical steps from awareness that the Sadguru is pointing to the path to Truth and that he therefore should be knowing the path, to the final awareness that Guru is saakshaat param brahma.
Warm regards. Partha.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Another tangent
written by P. Desikan, 2009-08-05 05:06:22

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Deshika.N.Kumar, 2009-08-05 03:43:19

For what it is worth....
I had an amusing experience a few years ago. A Jesuit priest (?Father George), a Hindu turned B’ahai and a Muslim shared the dias. The priest gave a long lecture telling us about Jesuit ‘sadhana’, the atma as the kingdom of God, etc. Then the B’ahai took over and tried to point out that Chrisitianity and Hinduism are the same, all of us now need to accept B’ahaiullah as the last prophet. He couldn’t get his sentences out in one go for the priest kept interrupting with, “they are not the same”/ “but they are not the same”. However since Fr George kept using Hindu terms and had done such a good job of conveying his message, the B’ahai kept repeating “see they are the same”!!! Similarly, try telling most Christians that the Bible is not the word of Jesus Christ.....
So perhaps it is best to go along with the believers as long as it doesn’t affect one. As you have pointed out most of those who study Buddhism don’t think the atma and Buddha-dattu are one and the same. Contrarily many Hindus regard Buddha as an avatar.

• 
• +0
• 
• 

...
written by Jim Clark, 2009-08-04 06:24:41

DWAI

perhaps this is the question of the spiritsoul or the self..?

ATMA is also a JIVA the individual self who is a minute part of KRISNA or the eternal TAO..

the SANKARACARYA concept is that there is that the self is one with KRISNA or the eternal TAO..

the BUDDHA often spoke of the self..
the aspects of the Eightfold Path are the discipline of true BUDDHIST thought..

out of the work of H. Saddhatissa in THE LIFE OF THE BUDDHA

Right Understanding means seeing life as it is as well as realizing the nature of existence as summed up in the Four Noble Truths

Right Thought means a pure mind

Right Speech means cultivating the same characteristics in ones words as in ones thoughts

Right Action or Right Livelihood are straightforward...

Right Effort is constituting a moral training through which the other obligations of the Eightfold Path can be fulfilled

Right Mindfulness is the development of intellectual awareness in the service of spiritual progress...

Right Concentration is the practice of meditation that leads to the full grasp or understanding of the impermanence of things with the focus on NIRVANA

indeed the BUDDHA talked of the self

great indepth article

JIM

• 
• +0
• 
• 

Name

Email

Website

Title

Comment

smaller | bigger

Subscribe via email (registered users only)

Add Comment Preview