Why Buddhism over Vedanta?

[seeker242]

I could not agree with any spiritual discipline that thought it was ok to sacrifice animals, regardless of what other things they said or taught. That immediately ruled them out as wrong, with no need to even look any further.

Vedanta is not a discipline which promotes animal sacrifice.

From what I heard, a long time ago, in ancient times, animal sacrifice was performed, by a person which had the authority and knowledge to produce liberation. And if I remember correctly, such animal would not incur further rebirth.

It's important to notice the benefit of the animal was considered. And that the animal was not sacrificed per se, only it's material body was transcended.

I'm not saying that it's a good thing, but maybe there is a specific method to destroy the body as a means of promoting spiritual progress, I don't know.

I'm not sure if it's practiced much today. I was reading about the ancient times and the old scriptures and the idea that an animal somehow benefited from being killed, I thought that was total BS and still do. Some of the scriptures say things like no bad karma is generated from the killing of an animal in sacrifices that are "sanctioned by scripture". It really doesn't promote I think you could say, but it doesn't condemn it either. The fact that it is even sanctioned by scripture, in any way, is what caused me to just dismiss the whole entire thing altogether.

Then I encountered Buddhism and read of the Buddha condemning those practices and saying things like "Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!" Then I said to myself "Finally! Some people who actually know what they are talking about!" Except for Jainism, Buddhism is probably the most animal friendly religion there is. Always thought Jainism was a bit too extreme though.

[Wayfarer]

The Vedic culture of ancient India practiced animal sacrifice as did many or all of the Bronze Age cultures. To get a better understanding of that it is useful to read it through an anthropological perspective on the rationale for sacrifice in ancient cultures. It is certainly true that the Buddha never endorsed any such practices, and that this was one of the ways that he broke from and differed with the received religious tradition of the culture he was in.

The Buddha also redefined the teaching of Karma - whereas in the Vedic religions Karma was associated with the correct performance of rituals, in the Buddhist view it is solely determined by the quality of intention.

But it's also important to know that Vedanta was greatly influenced by Buddhism in the subsequent centuries. Indeed some Hindu sects said that Adi Sankara was too much like a Buddhist. So the Advaita Vedanta that we have knowledge of, is a much more recent development than the sacrificial religions of the early Vedas, which goes back into pre-history.

(Incidentally Christianity also marked the end of sacrificial religion insofar as the Crucifiction signified the 'final sacrifice', I.e. the sacrifice to end the need for any further sacrifices. Hence the imagery of the 'Blood of the Lamb'.)

[dreambow]

Indrajala, "But now I just find myself more interested in lived experience as a fragile and flawed human being. I'm convinced there exists fate or destiny, and 90% of what I experience from the air temperature to people I meet is outside my control"
This struck a cord and its really the way I feel. In addition the only way out of the tyranny of the mind is to let go. Just drop it. Stop the brooding, stop the I should have done this or I could have done that and LET GO!

[Huseng]

This struck a cord and its really the way I feel. In addition the only way out of the tyranny of the mind is to let go. Just drop it. Stop the brooding, stop the I should have done this or I could have done that and LET GO!

To let go of something you need to understand the nature of it. To understand fate and accept it one has to observe the lack of control over most of what is experienced from the weather down to one's own internal bodily functions. In light of that, it logically follows you can either accept come what may or struggle against it and otherwise be dragged along unhappy.

The only thing you have any substantial control over is the will. Anything that happens outside the mind is neither truly good or bad simply because it can either be approached wisely or poorly.

Being struck with betrayal is perhaps undesirable, but as an individual you have the choice to consciously act rationally and virtuously under such circumstances. Conversely, obtaining vast wealth could prove detrimental: you might misspend all the money and ruin yourself in the process.

People suffer not from the events they experience, but rather from the meanings they assign to them. When you understand this you can start to drop unhealthy mental habits which assign too much emotional meaning to past and present experiences.

[BrianG]

So, where are all the bodhisattvas? I've met plenty of nice people in my travels, but whether the training they undergo is really producing the enlightened beings that are supposed to be the result is another matter. To some extent you can account for this based on predispositions from birth owing to immeasurable factors like genetics and so on (in Buddhist astrology their birth stars would be another primary determining factor in their personality which is "baked into the cake" so to speak for life regardless of what they do).

I believe the arya-sangha is probably at it's all time historical low, in terms on the number of living practitioners. In the past it was populous enough for scientific inquiry to be done via extrasensory perception. Now, it's just a person here and there.

I don't believe dharma training is effective as it once was, in India it evolved over time, and stayed relevant, up until the end. The most effective teachings currently practiced today are a snapshot of Buddhism circa 12th century India(or Dzogchen a few centuries later in Tibet). Although I believe aspects of Vajrayana become more powerful as times become more degenerate, overall, I think the practices have become far less effective than they once were in India.

While the arya-sangha was populous, it would not be that hard to introduce new teachings, since credibility could be established through demonstrating siddhis etc.

Without the ability to introduce new teachings, I think it's inevitable that the arya-sangha would diminish. Which creates a destructive cycle, without someone displaying some pretty impressive magical feats, most people would, at best, not take new teachings very seriously. Without new teachings, it makes it much more difficult for people to become Bodhisattvas.

[dreambow]

Indrajala, "But now I just find myself more interested in lived experience as a fragile and flawed human being. I'm convinced there exists fate or destiny, and 90% of what I experience from the air temperature to people I meet is outside my control"
Interesting, why do you say 90%. Why if its 'outside my control' Why not 99% or 100%. Indeed it's a fascinating, philosophical line of insight into the nature of 'how come' and life itself.

[muni]

A more realistic position is that what Hindus and Buddhists means by "liberation" is only superficially similar.

Either side led to people having consistent and enriching experiences of some kind, which may or may not be mutually comparable depending on who you talk to.

Experiences can differ because they themselves are fleeting. It is in any case depending on who you talk and when the experiencer is the same as the experience, there is no comparison possible. Dzogchen has also be seen with suspicious eyes and has not been accepted by some as liberating teaching or the teaching of the Buddha/Awaken.

I describe things simple: All the known is pointing to the unknown. The known must not be focussed, the unknown must be known but can only be known by the unknown. I can replace this known-unknown also in apprehended-unapprehended.

All words, whether simple or complex, are appearances of/in nature which is already there and which is never ever disappeared.
Words by Buddhism and Advaita and whatever which words/things/ones are inseparable Play ( appearances) in/of Nature. Nature is always there, whether we cling to the play or not.

Metaphor: A Buddhist cloud is together with other clouds in the sky. The Buddhist cloud says I can realize to be the totality of the sky ( appearances-emptiness/clouds-sky) but that other cloud not. And the sky? The sky says nothing.

Maybe I am wrong.

[Huseng]

Interesting, why do you say 90%. Why if its 'outside my control' Why not 99% or 100%. Indeed it's a fascinating, philosophical line of insight into the nature of 'how come' and life itself.

It is just a figurative number. We don't have any direct control over most of what we experience in daily life: the weather, chance encounters, internal bodily functions, etc. There's still room for willed action and a degree of control over our immediate lives, but that's again constrained and limited by immeasurable factors and phenomena outside our control.

[MiphamFan]

That's taught in Vajrayana too, not really a non-Buddhist idea.

IIRC, only one out of every 3600 or something breaths a person who has not mastered his channels take is non-karmic.

[muni]

People suffer not from the events they experience, but rather from the meanings they assign to them.

Which is grasping to the experience. To give a meaning to it creates one who experiences or undergoes an experience, which can be pleasant or painful. (conditioned state.)

Great reflection!

[lostitude]

Also, since nobody ever experiences a permanent self, it is just a conceptual fantasy.

How do you know that? Maybe some people have?

[madhusudan]

I entered college planning to major in philosophy, but quickly tired of the endless debate and gravitated toward a religion major, where I encountered Vedanta through the Upanishads. I was inspired by and attracted to the more ultimate and unifying view which they presented. Unfortunately I never took any classes on Buddhism at all, and went to study abroad in Nepal, where I mainly hung out with sadhus at Pashupatinath (hey, I was young!). My best friend and "daai", Shivaratri Giri, advised me when leaving that it was better for me to follow Buddhism. As I've always searched for the ultimate view, the end of the road, I was finally convinced of the truth of Buddha's teaching after a little learning. I take Bodhicitta to be the highest relative view. There is nothing more profound than acting to establish all sentient beings in the state of enlightenment. And, to echo other posters, I take emptiness analysis to be the ultimate understanding of absolute truth. Then, the teachings on the inseparable union of both just blow your mind.


edited for clarity

[Matt J]

Personally, I don't think it's a matter of right or wrong. In a sense, both Buddhism and Vedanta are wrong because they are conceptual.

[MiphamFan]

My best friend and "daai", Shivaratri Giri, advised me when leaving that it was better for me to follow Buddhism.

Interesting. What made him say that?

I had a friend who does Hindu tantra who was also the one who encouraged me to go for ChNN's retreat. He never said anything explicitly about enlightenment in a Hindu context, but really just talked about it being used for power over spirits and humans. I wonder how much the idea of liberation from samsara actually figures into Hindu tantra.

[Rick]

I'm surprised no one mentioned what I (and others) consider to be the most off-putting aspect of (Advaita) Vedanta: that it asserts (incontrovertibly!) Brahman is the one true absolute reality.

For me, this is a show-stopper. To believe it, thus to be enlightened, requires imo a leap of faith. And, having grown up Catholic, belief/faith are pretty much no-no's for me.

[lostitude]

I'm surprised no one mentioned what I (and others) consider to be the most off-putting aspect of (Advaita) Vedanta: that it asserts (incontrovertibly!) Brahman is the one true absolute reality.

For me, this is a show-stopper. To believe it, thus to be enlightened, requires imo a leap of faith. And, having grown up Catholic, belief/faith are pretty much no-no's for me.

Don't you believe there are devas you can't see, boddhisattvas you can't see, ghosts you can't see, hell and heavens you can't see, etc. ? Isn't that the same as believing in God and angels and demons and the like? Doesn't it require a leap of faith? In my opinion, as a newcomer, it definitey does. Buddhism comes with such a huge mythological pantheon that could make catholicism blush...

[frank123]

Hello everyone. I'm new to this forum; it seems like a great resource and I look forward to getting to know the community. I'm not exactly new to Buddhism, but I've only recently become a Buddhist, as opposed to merely a sympathizer. I wanted to ask the community why they chose Buddhism over, say, Vedanta or other mystical and/or meditative traditions. I ask because there's always been a nagging question in the back of my mind. You have two meditation masters who have practiced for decades, one Buddhist and one Hindu.The former teaches dependent origination, impermanence and no-self, the latter teaches the exact opposite, true being/identity and absolute selfhood (atman). I've often wondered how it can be that these two teachers, after meditating and undergoing comparable practices and techniques, wind up in two utterly opposite trajectories, and perhaps more importantly, how one can know who is right (since the high attainments of both are not exactly easily accessible or common experiences)? What does Buddhism say specifically about the pure/infinite/absolute consciousness that Vedantic masters claim to achieve? What persuaded you that Buddhism has got it right over Vedanta? I'm looking for specific reasons, arguments, or references. Thanks in advance.

You wrote : "The former teaches dependent origination, impermanence and no-self, the latter teaches the exact opposite, true being/identity and absolute selfhood (atman). I've often wondered how it can be that these two teachers, after meditating and undergoing comparable practices and techniques, wind up in two utterly opposite trajectories"

Because ultimately they are going towards the same reality but the terminology is different.Try to see beyond the terminology to the essence of what is being experienced.

[Rick]

I'm surprised no one mentioned what I (and others) consider to be the most off-putting aspect of (Advaita) Vedanta: that it asserts (incontrovertibly!) Brahman is the one true absolute reality.

For me, this is a show-stopper. To believe it, thus to be enlightened, requires imo a leap of faith. And, having grown up Catholic, belief/faith are pretty much no-no's for me.

Don't you believe there are devas you can't see, boddhisattvas you can't see, ghosts you can't see, hell and heavens you can't see, etc. ? Isn't that the same as believing in God and angels and demons and the like? Doesn't it require a leap of faith? In my opinion, as a newcomer, it definitey does. Buddhism comes with such a huge mythological pantheon that could make catholicism blush...

I'm not interested in any of those things. That's the nice thing about Buddhist philosophy, it has plenty of secular insight to offer.

[Malcolm]

I'm surprised no one mentioned what I (and others) consider to be the most off-putting aspect of (Advaita) Vedanta: that it asserts (incontrovertibly!) Brahman is the one true absolute reality.

For me, this is a show-stopper. To believe it, thus to be enlightened, requires imo a leap of faith. And, having grown up Catholic, belief/faith are pretty much no-no's for me.

Don't you believe there are devas you can't see, boddhisattvas you can't see, ghosts you can't see, hell and heavens you can't see, etc. ? Isn't that the same as believing in God and angels and demons and the like? Doesn't it require a leap of faith? In my opinion, as a newcomer, it definitey does. Buddhism comes with such a huge mythological pantheon that could make catholicism blush...

The difference is — and it is fundamental — from a [Mahāyāna] Buddhist point of view, all of this is predicated on the common and deluded perceptions of sentient beings — in other words, though it seems real, none of it is at all real. It is all just dreams and illusions.

[Saoshun]

Actually in Kashmir Shaivism you have wonderful practices which you can experience state of bahirava (non dual state I would say as a rigpa) if you disregard philosophy and apply buddhism view it's legit.

And saying beliving and devas and bodhisattvas is just being foolish they are real, but essentially when you are realized into suchness there is nothing real because enlightenment is just clarification of delusions as suffering and three marks of existence comes really from that. Bodhisattvas takes myriad forms and can appear in the physical body (illusionary body) in your room or as vision in dream depends on what will develop you more. Devas are just things like people but on different level of manifestation, you can manifest them into different spheres like water, and other things by occult practices. So saying to believe in them or not it's just misunderstanding, actually if you want to meed bodhisattva face to face or energy to energy recite Usnisa a lot of times (Usnisa dharani) and she will come and transform your life first starting by your energy.

Tu understand those stuff minimum is to attain at least samadhi, then it clarifies itself as in samadhi you can penetrate thru different realms, lokas, beings and all kinds of stuff. Really true experience of samadhi makes stories of devas and heavens as regular as human life compared to this is nothing. That's why occultism and magic is fascinating for people because they can manifest those beings into our realm and think that they attain something have when they palying with the turd thinking that this is something beyond but it's like a joke.