buddhist hinduism?

[Astus]

The two Surangama sutras:

Taisho 642 (section of Collected Sutras): 佛說首楞嚴三昧經 (Buddha Speaks the Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sutra), translated into English by John McRae as "The Śūraṅgama Samādhi Sutra", published at Numata. Also translated by Lamotte.

Taisho 945 (section of Secret Teachings): 大佛頂如來密因修證了義諸菩薩萬行首楞嚴經 (The Sūtra on the Mantra Spoken from above the Crown of the Great Buddha's Head, and on the Hidden Basis of the Tathagata's Myriad Bodhisattva Practices Leading to Their Verification of the Ultimate Truth), translated into English by Charles Luk & BTTS.

T642 exists in Tibetan, T945 doesn't. T642 is an Indian text, T945 is Chinese.

[conebeckham]

I.E., T945 has no antecedent Indian text, correct? It is purely Chinese?

[Astus]

I.E., T945 has no antecedent Indian text, correct? It is purely Chinese?

Yes. That made it to rise among the most popular texts in East Asia.

[LastLegend]

Thanks for clarifying

Now I wonder how they differ in content. My claim is they don't unless the Chinese one is made up, if they do then we can look at content what's supposed to be there and what's not supposed to be there.

[pueraeternus]

Thanks for clarifying

Now I wonder how they differ in content. My claim is they don't unless the Chinese one is made up, if they do then we can look at content what's supposed to be there and what's not supposed to be there.

These two texts are absolutely different in content. For example, the main protagonist in the Suramgamasamadhisutra is the bodhisattva Drdhamati, while the main protagonist in the Suramgama Sutra is Ananda. The context and key teachings are also entirely different.

[PadmaVonSamba]

A good analogy is the wind. The wind is the movement of air pressure. "it" blows. "it" is cool. "it" can be refreshing or destructive, but there is no "thing" that is wind. When buddhists refer to a continuity whether from moment to moment or from lifetime to lifetime, this does not mean a single, permanent "thing" is moving.

Another analogy is sound. when I speak, my voice vibrates air molecules that bump into one another like a wave of impact travels through a string of connected train cars. The last air molecule hits your eardrum and your brain turns that vibration into a word in your mind. In reality, no word has traveled through the air at all.

Another way to look at this is that it is not the mind which moves from one body to the next at all. It is the bodies which come and go, like people walking past a mirror which never moves. When there is nobody passing by, there is nobody reflected in the mirror. But when a body arises, so does the reflection.

Another way to see this is that the uncountable causes of cognitive awareness are all around but are not consciousness until they come into contact with the right circumstances. An analogy to this is moonlight. When we look to a black sky and see a white moon, we only see the light that is reflected off the moon. But in fact, all around the moon in the black sky there are billions of light particles, photons, which come streaming from the Sun. There are more of them around the moon in the black sky than there are bouncing off the moon and into our eyes. So, likewise, there all all sorts of events going on in the universe, and when they meet the right conditions, when there is a living body and brain and sensory organs then cognitive awareness occurs.

But this is not the same thing as a permanent "me" or soul or atma.

[Anders]

Well well...eating meats lol anyway...

Where else could it come from if not Sanskrit edition? I know the Chinese has a version of Shurangama Sutra in Chinese and Tibetan got one in Tibetan. So my conclusion is they had to come from one source which is Sanskrit original. As for the Chinese one, its history said that it was brought to China by a monk from India. This monk had to cut his skin open put the Sutra (written on sheep's skin in very small letters) in there, sowed the skin until it's healed. Why did he need to do that? Because Shurangama was considered a national treasure that was prohibited to be brought out of the country...prior to this event the Tien Tai guy was praying for 18 years for the this Sutra to come to China...don't ask me for the source, take it or leave it. Or just consider it my opinion.

I did some research but here http://www.longbeachmonastery.org/NEWShurangama.htm. It also came from the words of Master Hsuan Hua.

The thing is, for modern Mahayanikas, this should not be a problem at all. We can know with fairly reasonable certainty that the historical Buddha did not speak the Mahayana sutras. As such, we can consider their religious authenticity is not tied up in the supposed historical authenticity as coming from the mouth of Shakyamuni. It is sufficient that whoever composed them was a Buddha, or received visions or empowerments from Buddhas to do so.

So whether a sutra was composed in India, China or Korea is less relevant to modern Mahayana. In fact, it was not a definitive criteria in earlier times either. There are examples of sutras in the Chinese canon where their origins in China are recorded as well, as visionary sutras revealed to uneducated laypeople and so forth.

As such, we need different criteria for evaluating the authenticity of Mahayana sutras than historical ones. I think Ronald Epstein is on the money in his Reappraisal of the Shurangama Sutra's Authenticity. In particular this bit:

If we wish to understand the thinking of that community that lead to the text's acceptance, it is necessary to look into the very different criteria which Chinese Buddhists used to determine authenticity. In closing, allow me to give a single example, which I hope will be somewhat provocative.

As already mentioned, the Shurangama is connected with enlightenment of the well-known Ming Dynasty Ch'an Master Han-shan Te-ch'ing. According to his autobiography, he used the work to verity his enlightenment. He explains in his autobiography that he had never heard lectures on the Sutra and did not understand its meaning at all. Then, according to his own account, he studied the Sutra using the power of yoga pratyaksa, or direct veridical perception, claiming that it is impossible to grasp the meaning of the work if one gives rise to a even a little bit of discriminating consciousness. After eight months of constant study, he tells us that he came to a total understanding of the work that was devoid of doubt.

In other words, I think we can say that, for Ch’an Master Han-shan, the Sutra was seen as an imprint of a mind in which discriminating consciousness had been totally eliminated. Of course, Han-shan did not ascribe to prevalent modern Western scholarly ideas about the historical development of Buddhist texts and believed the Sutra had come directly from Sakyamuni Buddha himself, but that is not the point. What is important here is that Han-shan's experiential verification that the text is written on the level of non-discriminative awareness reinforced his belief in the genuineness of the text. Such a criterion lies beyond the narrow band of historical and philological issues that have so far dominated modern scholarly studies of textual authenticity. It seems to me that further study of traditional criteria such as this their own terms must be a prerequisite for evaluation of their relevancy, or lack of it, in terms of the methodology and goals of modern Buddhological research.

[LastLegend]

I think you are right.

Studying the content is important and how it is related practice. So I think that the best verification comes from experience of the practitioners.

[consciousness]

The difference in brief. Those who believe there is an actor behind action think there is a self/soul. Those who realise that the mind is empty, without a self, understand that it is buddha-nature.

quite untrue. "If one actually studies the vedas, the upanishads and the latter puranas, the non-dulaistic brahmanic soul and the buddhist consciousness are one and the same" shankaracharya. Referring to the markenda puranas and various shakta tantras, there is no reference to soul and god as ever existence and apart. The mythical 'soul' simply refers to consciousness. The karmic bondage of past actions are stamped on ones consciousness and thus follow from one life till the next, until the path of self-realization is instituted, facilitating the abolition of past negative karmas.

The mind being empty and void of consciousness is NOT boddhi-gyan; or attainment of a siddhi in nirvana/moskha in brahmanical sense.

One also has to bear in mind what the non-dualistc vedanta doctrine is delineating. With the static and dynamic aspects of perceivable consciousness.

[Malcolm]

...

[consciousness]

no nothing in the physical world is permanent, all is created, propagated and desolated - devi mahatymam
i think you are confusing the two modes of the brahmanic qualities of consciousness the static and dynamic component, however these are not permanent.

The supreme state free from suffering (sanskrit dukkha) or infinate sukha - is a self-realization and internal process, not fusion with a creative force or external deity - that is also what is stated in the shakta teachings - explaining what the goddess is. The Nirvani principle - or the causal force of enlightenment. To further elaborate on this esoteric, tantric answer i have given would involve imbibing certain things i can not, or will not divulge on a open message board.

Think of life as a winnowing basket, where one must differentiate between the 'truth and the illusions that cloud and cement us towards attachment and thus suffering' - Dhumavati stotram

[consciousness]

its strange as coming from a hindu/buddhist background - i have learn to use both as i do my left and right hand. IMO both compliment each other and compound my spiritual awakening.

Rather than argue and degrade other religions, one should look inside ourselves through deep mediation, dhyanam and seek relief of our own suffering and what attaches us to the world. Through acts of selflessness and compassion can we achieve the potential infinite good within (Shiva).

Nirvana: "Nirvana is the supreme state free from suffering and individual existence. It is a state Buddhists refer to as "Enlightenment". It is the ultimate goal of all Buddhists. The attainment of nirvana breaks the otherwise endless rebirth cycle of reincarnation. Buddhists also consider nirvana as freedom from all worldly concerns such as greed, hate, and ignorance. No one can describe in words what nirvana is. It can only be experienced directly" - this is precisely what defines moksha or a state of union with chandika - devi mahatymam

As HH Tenzin Gyatso stated: "state beyond sorrows," or a "state of freedom from cyclic existence." durgayai durgaparayai = state beyond sorrow

For me i see no contradiction between the two. As both Master Gyatso told me, as did Adi Shankaracharya when asked between the apparent contradiction that reem on the surface: when you achieve that state of consciousness that you are mindfully aware of what is within, and stop seeking what is not attained - then you know you are on the right path.

om mane padme hum

[xabir]

Hi everyone,

I'd like to ask for some thoughts regarding the idea of Buddha-nature in some Buddhist schools, and whether there is any meaningful difference Buddha-nature and Hinduism's atman. It has been my understanding that Buddhism has generally tried to deconstruct metaphysical ideas like self and substance. Buddhism, in my understanding, does not want to reify a self or reason about some pregiven essence behind the phenomenal world. Now, perhaps it should be expected that, in spite of this, such notions would resurface within Buddhism, since it seems almost wired into our thinking and, naturally, build into our language to speak in essentialist categories and dualistic terms. But if Buddhism admits that there is some kind of "essence" behind the phenomenal world that is absolute, unchanging, etc., is this not identical to Hinduism's atman metaphysics? For instance, I have read Buddhist teachers who teach of there being a fundamental and unchanging "awareness" that exists absolutely unchanging to itself, and the phenomenal world appears as images in a mirror, leaving the mirror (awareness) unchanged.

Peace and thanks for reading,
Mike

"Similarly, that tathaagatagarbha taught in the suutras spoken by the Bhagavan, since the completely pure luminous clear nature is completely pure from the beginning, possessing the thirty two marks, the Bhagavan said it exists inside of the bodies of sentient beings.

When the Bhagavan described that– like an extremely valuable jewel thoroughly wrapped in a soiled cloth, is thoroughly wrapped by cloth of the aggregates, aayatanas and elements, becoming impure by the conceptuality of the thorough conceptuality suppressed by the passion, anger and ignorance – as permanent, stable and eternal, how is the Bhagavan’s teaching this as the tathaagatagarbha is not similar with as the assertion of self of the non-Buddhists?

Bhagavan, the non-Buddhists make assertion a Self as “A permanent creator, without qualities, pervasive and imperishable”.

The Bhagavan replied:

“Mahaamati, my teaching of tathaagatagarbha is not equivalent with the assertion of the Self of the non-Buddhists.

Mahaamati, the Tathaagata, Arhat, Samyak Sambuddhas, having demonstrated the meaning of the words "emptiness, reality limit, nirvana, non-arisen, signless", etc. as tathaagatagarbha for the purpose of the immature complete forsaking the perishable abodes, demonstrate the expertiential range of the non-appearing abode of complete non-conceptuality by demonstrating the door of tathaagatagarbha.

Mahaamati, a self should not be perceived as real by Bodhisattva Mahaasattvas enlightened in the future or presently.

Mahaamati, for example, a potter, makes one mass of atoms of clay into various kinds containers from his hands, craft, a stick, thread and effort.

Mahaamati, similarly, although Tathaagatas avoid the nature of conceptual selflessness in dharmas, they also appropriately demonstrate tathaagatagarbha or demonstrate emptiness by various kinds [of demonstrations] possessing prajñaa and skillful means; like a potter, they demonstrate with various enumerations of words and letters. As such, because of that,

Mahaamati, the demonstration of Tathaagatagarbha is not similar with the Self demonstrated by the non-Buddhists.

Mahaamati, the Tathaagatas as such, in order to guide those grasping to assertions of the Self of the Non-Buddhists, will demonstrate tathaagatagarbha with the demonstration of tathaagatagarbha. How else will the sentient beings who have fallen into a conceptual view of a True Self, possess the thought to abide in the three liberations and quickly attain the complete manifestation of Buddha in unsurpassed perfect, complete enlightenment?"

~ Lankavatara Sutra

..............

(33) Further, in his practice of samadhi, such a good person's mind is firm, unmoving, and proper and can no longer be disturbed by demons. He can thoroughly investigate the origin of all categories of beings and contemplate the source of the subtle, fleeting, and constant fluctuation. But if he begins to speculate about self and others, he could fall into error with theories of partial impermanence and partial permanence based on four distorted views.

First, as this person contemplates the wonderfully bright mind pervading the ten directions, he concludes that this state of profound stillness is the ultimate spiritual self. Then he speculates, "My spiritual self, which is settled, bright, and unmoving, pervades the ten directions. All living beings are within my mind, and there they are born and die by themselves. Therefore, my mind is permanent, while those who undergo birth and death there are truly impermanent."

......

Because of these speculations of impermanence and permanence, he will fall into externalism and become confused about the Bodhi nature. This is the third externalist teaching, in which one postulates partial permanence.

~ Shurangama Sutra

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... ha-on.html

[xabir]

its strange as coming from a hindu/buddhist background - i have learn to use both as i do my left and right hand. IMO both compliment each other and compound my spiritual awakening.

Rather than argue and degrade other religions, one should look inside ourselves through deep mediation, dhyanam and seek relief of our own suffering and what attaches us to the world. Through acts of selflessness and compassion can we achieve the potential infinite good within (Shiva).

Buddhist and Hindu teachings compliment and compound my spiritual awakening as well, but I found Buddhist teachings to reveal subtler truths. Here's my e-journal: http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/ ... urnal.html

[ronnewmexico]

On the initial question...."But if Buddhism admits that there is some kind of "essence" behind the phenomenal world that is absolute, unchanging, etc., is this not identical to Hinduism's atman metaphysics? For instance, I have read Buddhist teachers who teach of there being a fundamental and unchanging "awareness" that exists absolutely unchanging to itself, and the phenomenal world appears as images in a mirror, leaving the mirror (awareness) unchanged.".....there do exist forms of Buddhism that to my opinion contain such notions, and I'd suppose some forms of Hinduism do approximate Buddhism, in that regard.

All religions serve equally to bring their successful practitioners to human happiness.

But there seemingly do exist forms of Buddhism which do not admit to a unchanging uncaused essence or Buddha nature.
I claim no form of personal Buddhism, for myself nor speak for Buddhists... but is it denied that such forms do exist?

In some of this discussion it is mentioned the selflessness of mind, is the selflessness of pheonomena considered in this consideration equal to that of mind in attaining this nirvana as goal we want to attain? Or is it supposed only is found thing of mind then empty and other things then not empty? . Is a nirvana attainable as goal reached...I would suppose in some contexts yes, and in others not.
But I'm but a layperson with little understanding of these things and know little Hinduism.
So kindly explain.

[platypus]

Dharmakaya and adi-buddha seem quite like Hindu concepts to me.

[mudra]

Dharmakaya and adi-buddha seem quite like Hindu concepts to me.

I suppose, that is if someone had no idea what those two are....

Though of course it wouldn't be much of a starter.

[Jikan]

Dharmakaya and adi-buddha seem quite like Hindu concepts to me.

Would you please explain your meaning a bit? There are a few ways to interpret this, and I don't want to get you wrong.

[Enochian]

Many people these days in Zen understand terms like "One Mind" exactly in the same sense as Advaita. Which is why we see cross-over teachers like Adyashanti and so on.

How is this different than what you said about all Buddhas sharing the same one mind?

Also, since according to Mādhyamaka philosophy, there is actually NO difference between a Buddha and a sentient being, wouldn't EVERYONE share the same one mind?

[Malcolm]

Many people these days in Zen understand terms like "One Mind" exactly in the same sense as Advaita. Which is why we see cross-over teachers like Adyashanti and so on.

How is this different than what you said about all Buddhas sharing the same one mind?

Also, since according to Mādhyamaka philosophy, there is actually NO difference between a Buddha and a sentient being, wouldn't EVERYONE share the same one mind?

As for your first question: all Buddhas share the same realization. In this sense they "share" the same mind. The wisdom of a Buddha is free from being one or many. Since the dharmakāya is free from all extremes, it does not make sense to assert that Buddhas have differentiated mind streams. Their omniscience is identical because, to put it into relative terms, their minds and the object of their realization, emptiness free from extremes, have merged since Buddhas are in a constant state of equipoise on reality.

In terms of Madhyamaka, Buddhas and sentient beings are the same in so far as neither are ultimately established. Conventionally speaking, however, sentient beings have not abandoned everything to be abandoned and realized everything to be realized, but Buddhas have. That constitutes the difference between buddhas and sentient beings.