greentara wrote:The Mahayana schools with whom Shankara's Advaita is said to share some similarities are the Madhyamaka and the Yogacara, founded by the Brahmins Nagarjuna, Vasubandhu and Asanga.
NV Isaeva opines that the Advaita and Buddhist philosophies, after being purified of accidental or historical accretions, can be safely regarded as different expressions of the same eternal absolute truth. This is echoed by Ninian Smart, a historian of religion, who notes that the differences between Shankara and Mahayana doctrines are largely a matter of emphasis and background than essence.
"Buddhism and Vedanta should not be viewed as two opposed systems, but one which starts with the Upanishads, finds its indirect support in Buddha, its elaboration in Mahayana Buddhism, its open revival in Gaudapada, (and) which reaches its zenith in Sankara."
JKhedrup wrote:which is seen to have never been apart from the ground of being (GOB).
This term "ground of being" is very similar to the term that you find in the Chittamantrin/ Mind Only School philosophy "mind basis of all".
Here is a portion of the Illuminator Dictionary entry on the topic:
kun gzhi'i rnam par shes pa Alaya consciousness". Translation of the Sanskrit "ālayavijñāna". In the mind-only system and schools that follow its view of consciousness (including the tantras), there are eight consciousnesses རྣམ་པར་ཤེས་པ་བརྒྱད་ "the eight consciousnesses". The consciousness referred to here is the eighth consciousness. It is in itself unobscured and indeterminate. It is the principal consciousness that is ཀུན་གཞི་ an omni-basis that underlies the rest mind and all of experience. It is also the ཀུན་གཞི་ "overall range" upon which all karmic seeds and other things that ripen in a sentient being's experience are planted.
Because of its functions as the place upon which karmic seeds are planted and kept, its name has been translated as the "store-house consciousness" though in fact the name means that "basis that extends under everything" i.e., the basis underlying everything".
Malcolm: Buddhism does not propose a truly existent ground of being.....
The term "ground of being" does not exist in any Buddhist text, nor any Dzogchen text. It is a western gloss, one that is inaccurate.
There is a term "kun gzhi" this is understood differently in different Dzogchen cycles and by different Dzogchen masters. So there isn't a one size fits all definition.
In those texts that speak of the so called kun gzhi -- the kun gzhi is complete free from all extremes. Whatever arises from it therefore, also must be free from all extremes. "Being and non-being" are just cognitive errors.
Jainarayan wrote:I think Vajrayāna Adi-Buddha and Ālayavijñāna are as close as you'd get to Brahman.
Lotus_Bitch wrote:Jainarayan wrote:I think Vajrayāna Adi-Buddha and Ālayavijñāna are as close as you'd get to Brahman.
Except that an adi-buddha is not a formless ground of existence, which phenomena originate from. Samantabhadra for instance, doesn't come out of the pralaya expressed in ignorance, but recognizes phenomena as the nature of mind.
Alayavijnana is a collection of momentary processes, that are impermanent and differentiated into separate mind-streams (i.e dependently originated.)
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Speaking of, does Advaita subscribe to Buddhist - compatible idea(s) about casuality?
This would go a long way to evaluating whether they are the same or different, does Advaita have a concept similar to Dependent origination..or is Brahma still a "first cause"? If it is..that would seem to definitively answer the question.
Looked it up and it appears the answer is yes. If this is so, by definition it cannot be the emptiness taught in Buddhism, it seems to me.
It's also not very "nondual", heh.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:Not quite sure what you mean, are there some forms of Advaita that don't see Brahma as prime mover?
The very idea of any kind of first cause, of creation really, seems to be in opposition to some Buddhist concepts of ultimate reality..the universe being "beginningless" not just a cosmological starting point thing, but part of describing emptiness, with the existence of a prime mover, emptiness is absurd, because something that exists inherently cannot be part of the chain of causality, on the other hand if it is part of the chain of causality, then it does not exist inherently...etc.
However, this is all interesting to me because I have to admit, that Advaita does not seem too different to Zhentong to me..maybe there is a subtle difference there someone smarter than me can explain, because it's making my head hurt.
monktastic wrote:You probably have a better grasp of Advaita than I do
When the reflection of Atman falls on avidya (ignorance), atman becomes jīva — a living being with a body and senses. Each jiva feels as if he has his own, unique and distinct Atman, called jivatman. The concept of jiva is true only in the pragmatic level. In the transcendental level, only the one Atman, equal to Brahman, is true.
Sounds to me like: when buddha-nature encounters ignorance, ego manifests. Each ego feels distinct, but this is only the way it looks from the relative level. On the absolute level, only one Buddha-nature, equal to the Dharmadhatu, is true.
jeeprs wrote:But from my perspective, I didn't see a huge conflict between Ramana Maharishi and the Buddhist teachings, in the context of the modern world. Both Advaita and Buddhist teachings accept the notion of the 'cycle of birth and death' to which we are 'bound by ignorance' and from which we are liberated by a kind of cognitive revolution. ...
So in the context of the modern world, the contrast between Advaita and Buddhist teachings is, perhaps, counter-balanced by what they have in common. I never wanted to believe that the Buddhist view of no-self simply invalidates all of the Advaita teachings, which are also very profound in their own way. This doesn't mean adopting a mix-and-match approach which tries to blend all of them. And I certainly understand why the traditional Buddhist view is to demarcate the Buddhist teaching from the Advaita teaching, as the Brahmins were the traditional opponents, those who the Buddhists needed to distinguish themselves from. But ultimately I would like to understand them both as 'parts of a larger whole' rather than as opposing views which cancel each other out.
Maybe it's because I'm Libran.
Johnny Dangerous wrote:I know what you're talking about, Jewish mysticism also has this concept of what God "was" before being manifest, it still seems to not work with dependent origination.