Then there were the Sramanas, which were ascetics, but it's not clear if they were actually a Vedic tradition (there are debates to what extent). The Sramana traditions were probably most pertinent to Buddha's historical context. And these were about extreme asceticism.

But I don't think there were any core teachings at the time as it was not yet integrated into 'Hinduism'. More a range of traditions.

I'm not sure to what extent two people from the subcontinent would have considered each other to be practicing "the same religion" (or philosophy) back then. Even today it's more of a cultural artifact, to provide social cohesion (even to the point that most Hindus consider Buddhism just another form of Hinduism).

I think if you're going on texts and sort of 'general' interpretation, yes, Advaita often leans more towards some type of essentialism, but I don't think it's always that way. Depends on the teacher.

There are teachers who have reached what's called Anatta here in the Advaita tradition and those in Buddhism who have not.

I think that if you have a temperament that leans more towards nihilism, you might find Advaita to very balancing. For me, I ended up a little more in the substantialist view after studying Advaita, and have found Buddhism very helpful lately.

Also want to re-iterate that 'neo-Advaita' and many of the 'non-dual' teachers in the youtube sense that might call what they teach Advaita, but it is not. Advaita Vedanta has a rich tradition of methods and logic that can be very beneficial and direct.

Also when you say “neo-advaita” are you referring to the John Wheeler and Sailor Bob types, that basically say the only thing that is necessary is to recognize that “I am that” ? or do you mean the Tony Parsons/Jim Newman types? Or both?

> I am eternally pure and detached. I am formless, imperishable. I manifest myself as the Perfect Bliss. I am that absolute I. —Adi Shankara (as translated in A History of The Dasnami Naga Sannyasis)

vs:

> I am a mayfly metamorphosing (...)

> I am a frog swimming happily (...)

> I am the child in Uganda, all skin and bones (...)

Call Me By My True Names, by Thich Nhat Hanh

Regarding the asymmetry, many teachers claim that the world depends on Brahman and not vice versa. E.g.:

> The relation between Brahman and the world, if we can speak of any relation at all, is an asymmetrical one, because even though the world is pervaded by Brahman, Brahman cannot be said to be pervaded by the world. The world is a form of appearance of Brahman, but appearances cannot be said to be the stuff of which Brahman is made. --Prof. Haridas Chaudhuri, in The Concept of Brahman in Hindu Philosophy

> The world entirely depends on Brahman but Brahman does not depend on the world. Brahman has no relationship with the world. --Swami Sarvapriyananda

Are there authoritative sources that claim that Brahman depends on appearances?

Re: Brahman being separate, you are right, it's very commonly taught that way. However not always.

"Brahman and Ishvara are non-separable. They always exist together."

From page 16 of:

Swami Dayandanda Saraswati lineage. This is what I am most familiar with.

It is definitely presented more directionally than Buddhism though, no doubt.

Before I discovered these guys who’s main message is to recognize what the I Am is pointing to, I must confess, the emptiness of Buddhism did seem kind of nihilistic to me. I spoke to someone about it and it was suggested to recognize the sense of I Am first for this very reason.

There are some downfalls the Papaji type idea of 'instant enlightenment' and 'no method, no practice'. There were a lot of people who got a glimpse or first awakening and then started teaching assuming they had got the whole thing. And then the shadow stuff comes up and these teachers and their students sort of shuffle it away because it didn't fit in the model. I was exposed to a lot this thinking in the 90s as a teen and it definitely got me excited but also left some incorrect ideas.

As long as it's seen as a starting point and there is understanding that shadow work is important, yes absolutely. That's been my path too.

(Please take note that nothing I say is authoritative. Hopefully others will step in if they find my descriptions to be imprecise.)

(and to head off any disagreements from others, I'll admit that Brahman is not usually thought of as being empty of itself, vs Shunyata which usually is.)

Maybe it's exactly as the AtR guide presents after all. Dammit.

Definitely led from 'All subject' to 'no division between subject/object'.

I haven't seen Advaita teachers expressing anatta. Even those like Rupert Spira are talking about one mind sort of substantialist nondual, not anatta.

"Author: krodha

Date: Thu Jun 28, 2018 2:39 AM

Title: Re: Advaitin vs. Buddhist takes on awareness/reality

Content:

That is debatable. An Advaita teacher I know said that he’s only encountered a single master of

Advaita state that even Brahman or consciousness is not found at the end of the Advaitin path.

According to him this position is incredibly novel and he theorizes that this master must have refined

his insight to a degree that others have not.

This statement was also not published publicly, perhaps because of its controversial nature. "

Even then, I remarked to John Tan years ago that this particular teacher (Krodha was referring to Greg Goode discussing about Atmananda) could simply be expressing a state of no-mind rather than realization of anatta.

This is something I discussed recently in https://www.facebook.com/cyberlogy/posts/pfbid0zvkHhEzQNRHG9iYMjiPJGj1vQyEDdd2Yv8JRZNjFs1AyCygcTy2QnJr879nTe3dsl?__cft__[0]=AZUZ7h1Nm-ramBxEsG3ErtNFI5mVBT1Nn_0OF3kCFjr4MtcRDANvXTt_XG7XLYBOTV6u0cPzGstnXCkzcs7t4oprhOhiIZn0LKFGPwSK6-HDcudSBceVck_TKfsZXrhfjOJbmFEw3Ni6oEvbyq4wuFfK&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R

Soh Wei Yu

onpdersSto049maf62 M58rebi02eah4tPilautu:9 0 5e2h791uS p1t9l · Shared with Your friends

Realising non-duality of perceiver and perceived is not the same as realising anatman/no-self. Realising anatman/no-self is one step further.

Comments

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

In Yogacara there is a teaching: "Emptiness is the non-difference in nature of grasper and grasped (grāhya-grāhaka)." What do you think it means?

Reply

2w

Edited

Soh Wei Yu

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

That statement is ok. By nonduality of subject and object i mean subject object is nondivided. This is not yet the realisation that subject and object lacks intrinsic nature, nor realising dependent designation and dependent origination.

The nondivision of subject and object just means you realised there is no line or demarcation. It does not mean inherent existence is seen through

Reply

2w

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

It sounds a little confused to me that there would be non-division and no line nor demarcation, and yet for each to have a difference in nature.

Reply

2w

Soh Wei Yu

Stian Gudmundsen Høiland

It can be like the view of a monist nondual substance. Consciousness being all there is without subject object division but still reified.

Session Start: Sunday, August 31, 2008

(2:08 PM) Thusness: wah u wrote so much about one taste.

(2:08 PM) Thusness: kok ur head!

(2:10 PM) AEN: huh where

(2:10 PM) AEN: lol

(2:10 PM) AEN: i just updated my post

(2:10 PM) AEN: removed some part and added some part

(2:10 PM) Thusness: every place.

(2:11 PM) Thusness: next time must do a constant check on the url awakeningtoreality.

(2:11 PM) Thusness: One Taste here and there...kok ur head

(2:11 PM) AEN: orh u mean google haha

(2:11 PM) AEN: i tot u mean sgforums

(2:11 PM) Thusness: yeah. Although ken wilber experience is non-dual, it is not exactly One Taste yet.

(2:11 PM) AEN: oic y

(2:11 PM) AEN: one taste include emptiness?

(2:12 PM) Thusness: yes din i tell u?

(2:12 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:13 PM) Thusness: The non-duality of advaita sort of understanding is different from buddhism.

(2:13 PM) Thusness: how could one reaches the phase of One Taste without understanding the emptiness nature?

(2:14 PM) Thusness: The One Taste realisation is of 2 parts: No object/subject split and both object/subject are empty of any inherent existence.

(2:15 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:15 PM) Thusness: Penetrating these 2 aspects, insight arises of the One Taste.

(2:15 PM) Thusness: Since when did i tell u about Advaita sort of understanding is non-dual of Buddhism?

(2:15 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:16 PM) Thusness: So many times I told u it is the empty nature that Buddha came to teach us, not only the luminosity aspect.

(2:16 PM) Thusness: The non-dual luminous nature is described all over the Vedas

(2:17 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:17 PM) Thusness: kok ur head!

(2:18 PM) Thusness: Anyone not talking about the 3 seals, understanding the anatta sort of non-duality is not talking about Buddhism.

(2:19 PM) Thusness: anyone that lead to the understanding of Brahman is deluded in Buddhist perspective. The One Mind, the One Reality is the non-inherent in nature.

(2:19 PM) Thusness: it should not be understood from a dualistic and inherent perspective.

(2:19 PM) AEN: oic but ken wilber talk about brahman meh

(2:20 PM) Thusness: Yes.

(2:20 PM) AEN: oic

(2:21 PM) Thusness: Therefore the experience is non-dual but the insight isn't.

(2:21 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:23 PM) AEN: so next time i shld show them the charlie singer article instead

(2:23 PM) Thusness: Charlie still need further refinement but it is already very good.

(2:24 PM) Thusness: There are not many good articles.

(2:24 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:24 PM) Thusness: Many do not have the clarity of the differences

(2:25 PM) Thusness: They are unable to discern correctly the difference. In terms of experience and insight.

(2:25 PM) AEN: icic..

(2:25 PM) Thusness: U have to be careful when telling ppl.

(2:25 PM) Thusness: Fortunately u always quoted the bahiya sutta...haahah

(2:26 PM) AEN: oic.. haha

(2:26 PM) Thusness: it is both.

(2:26 PM) AEN: wat u mean both

(2:26 PM) Thusness: both non-dual in terms of experience and insight

(2:26 PM) AEN: oic..

(2:28 PM) AEN: the insight means theres insight into emptiness

(2:28 PM) AEN: ?

(2:28 PM) Thusness: yes

Reply

2w

Greg Goode: Oh, another thing - Advaitins don't see (what we're calling) susbstantialism or essentialism as a bad thing. For them, it is the only thing. Since Brahman = truth, being and freedom from suffering, it makes no sense to be without it. One needs it even to deny it, is the thinking there. So even the standards of evaluation are different. Not to mention the varna/caste system, which is defended on upanishadic, doctrinal grounds. Oops, I just mentioned it!

February 10 at 12:33pm · Like · 3

Greg Goode: I love the Mandukya Upanishad and the Gaudapada Karika. I think it is effective and profound, and like many views, doesn't need to be reconciled with other views. I know that some Advaitins shy away from that Upanishad because of gossip about G's Buddhist influences. I studied that text for a few years, and it never felt subversive to me...

February 10 at 12:43pm · Like · 4

And as Mipham wrote, "Mipham:

Although traditions may claim to be free from extremes, in the end since they constantly depend upon a conceptual reference for a Self, or Brahma, and so forth, how could this manner be the Middle Way? . . . The Great Perfection is the culmination of extreme profundity, so it is difficult to realize. Most who cultivate idiot meditation—those who do not fully eliminate superimpositions182 regarding the abiding reality through study and contemplation, or who lack the key points of the quintessential instructions—wind up [making a] similar [mistake]. Without gaining certainty in primordial purity, a mere impassioned thought of a ground that is neither existent nor nonexistent will bring you nowhere. If you hold on to such a ground, which is empty of both existence and nonexistence, as separate and established by its own essence, whether it is called the inconceivable Self, Brahma, Viṣṇu, Īśvara, wisdom, etc., it is merely a different name for a similar [mistaken] meaning. The abiding reality that is free from the four extremes183—the luminous clarity of the Great Perfection which is realized reflexively—is not at all like that. Therefore, it is important to rely on the authentic path and teacher. Although [we share] mere words such as “illusory,” “nonentity,” and “freedom from constructs,” it does not help if you do not know through a firm conclusion, with certainty induced by reason, how Buddhist emptiness is superior to the limited emptiness of non-Buddhists. If you do know, you understand that what the Buddha taught has not been experienced in the slightest by those [non-Buddhists] such as Viṣṇu, and you know that the traditions of “Awareness” and “the Middle Way” they describe are mere words. Although the words may be similar, Buddhists and non-Buddhists cannot be separated by words; the difference, which is like the earth and space, is in the profound essential point. —WORDS THAT DELIGHT GURU MAÑJUGHOṢA, 470–72

Duckworth, Douglas; Mipam, Jamgon. Jamgon Mipam: His Life and Teachings (pp. 146-147). Shambhala. Kindle Edition.

....

Bötrül’s teacher and Mipam’s student, Khenpo Künpel,

states as follows in his commentary on Mipam’s Beacon of Certainty:

In general, if the essence of Buddha-nature were not empty, it

would not be different from the permanent Self of the non-Buddhists;

therefore, the nature of the three gates of liberation was

taught. Also, if the wisdom of luminous clarity did not exist, being

an utterly void emptiness like space, there would be no difference

from the Nirgrantha; therefore, the unconditioned wisdom of

luminous clarity was taught. Thus, the definitive scriptures of the

middle and last Word of the teacher show the empty essence and

the natural clarity.66

"

I am not here to defend Advaita - I've said a number of times in this thread alone that I am finding Buddhism the most helpful and accurate now for myself.

However, it seems wild to me to think that someone who has awakened to non-dual would never reach the next step simply because of the way its framed intellectually. I have no problem thinking that an Advaitin could get to 'Brahman is empty of Brahman'. Maybe they wouldn't be super forthcoming with that view, but still, it must have happened. Which is what I was saying.

To think only Buddhists reach a certain stage of awakening doesn't makes sense to me. There are plenty of people that realized Anatta spontaneously. Why that would somehow NOT happen to someone with a particular tradition over 1200 years... makes no sense

With your insight now, what is Brahman to you?

Do you still sense Brahman? How does it feel?

Brahman used to feel like a way to point at pure undifferentiated awareness. But now, that is simply a concept, albeit a very refined one.

Now, there is a sense of mind and perception as ripples in water. But also no water, really. No real boundary between nothing/something. Unless the mind looks there, and then it might see a deep vast emptiness/void. But that's not really there either - that's how the mind reflects.

It’s really not being about sympathising or apologising. It is ok to label anything on any insight.

But it is good to be extremely clear on our insights because it will lead us down to very very different road.

is there an acute sense of every senses knowing itself, like self-aware?

Not only just ripples, just literally.. acutely AWARE?

And there’s no you nor no mind that is aware..

The senses are always aware of itself…the whole universe with stars moons sun aware of themselves.

If you realise this, can you locate Brahman? Which sense is Brahman? The sun/ moon/ poop/flower?

Deepening has been very noticeable literally every day.

Like Geovani says, there is the arising of the thoughts of hearing, etc, but they are only thoughts. Thoughts and perceptions are not inside or outside or in separate places. Thoughts and perceptions are in the same 'place'.

I don't really perceive this as a blob or mass of consciousness. There is sensation in the head and body, and that seems to give the feeling of 'isness', but it's also seen to be just that - a sensation, which is undefinable and essentially unarisen.

Anatta.. is too special.

Lol.

I don’t want to overemphasise but I don’t know how ppl can don’t overemphasise.

Cant talk more, strapped for time.

I will let Soh continue.. and we will have to meet space

The 'isness' or solidity is borrowed from body sensation and imputed onto outside reality.

Am saying that there is no division between inside/outside, and also the there is no substance to experience. The substance is an illusion, a mistaken superimposition of body sensation and thought.

Also just to clarify - I am not trying to convince you of my having achieved anything. I am exactly where I am. To me it is inescapably non-dual, and lacking substance. But I am sure there are many other insights forthcoming. It has been very rapid fire for me lately.

Vivid presence to me means that there is an ineffable and indescribable beauty to phenomenon that is seen precisely because it is empty