Emanyalpsid

That's your interpretation. His closing message is clear: "This issue has been clearly answered." Besides this, the differences between Buddhism and Hinduism are fundamental in their view of enlightenment. To not discuss them would be closed minded and dogmatic. The differences will confuse people who want to reach enlightenment, as teachings from buddhism and hinduism are used interchangeably by a lot of people.

Don't try to diminsh me and ignore the facts.

Well, today a topic on the forum was closed by Leo. Without the topic breaking any rules and the discussion was in the subforum where it fits. Buddhism holds there is no absolute, this is in contrast with Leo's conviction. It seems Leo didn't want us to talk about it further. So he decides what we should and should not talk about, even within the rules of the forum. Thereby, he places himself above us. https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/28840-differences-between-hinduism-and-buddhism/ Then I called him out as to why he did this, in this topic. https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/28966-why-did-the-topic-buddhism-hinduism-got-closed/ This topic got closed also, without an answer. So the facts; - You are not allowed to doubt the absolute (the thing Leo preaches and holds for true) - Leo places himself above the rest - He does not account for his behavior to the community You tell me if that is cult-like or not.

If there is truth, there is non-truth, cause what would this truth be if it were not true? Truth beyond words is also supernatural. Yes, of course the words "beyond nature" are. As these words are within nature, which is categorized. If it is not categorized, or beyond experience, it is outside nature or supernatural. Thank you for answering my questions, I know enough.

If there is truth, there is non-truth, cause what would this truth be if it were not true? What is this truth? If it is beyond categories, it is beyond nature.

Okay, so it can not be explained and can not be understood. What truth? Is there a truth opposed to no-truth? It can be and it is not an object, you can explain the relative. If someone can understand the explanation is something else. May I invite you to read my explanations from page 6 in this topic? https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/28840-differences-between-hinduism-and-buddhism/?page=6 Beyond being experienced? So, it is supernatural, outside nature. A pointer to something which is beyond experience? My mind is gone, I am fully open-mindedness.

Sorry, I dont want to overload you. Thanks for asking the questions. I am just trying to understand Brahman. But it seems you cant understand it right? You have to experience it? Else, you would have been able to explain what it is. Or you can understand it but you have not understood it. To give a bit more background to why I am asking this. I am an enlightened Buddhist, meaning someone who attained nirvana in the buddhist context, and I am just trying to establish the differences between Brahman and what I will call here 'no-thingness' (which is not nothing) following Nirvana in buddhism. You are the only one I know of on this forum who attained enlightenment, in the Advaita vedanta view. Therefore, I hope that you would be able to help shine a light on this Brahman. The no-thingness in buddhism can be understood and explained. So either there is a difference between Brahman and no-thingness. Meaning, no-thingness in buddhism can be explained and Brahman not. Or there is a difference between our understanding of these and they are the same. Meaning, you dont understand Brahman, but you do experience it.

Does Brahman change?

But it comes close to this discription?

Is it absolute? (without form of course)

Okay let me rephrase that: is it always present?

But it is always there right?

I see that on this forum a lot of people use input from different religions interchangeably. This is understandable as a lot of concepts used in Hinduism are also used in Buddhism. For example, non-duality is a part of Hinduism as well as Buddhism, however how this non-duality is seen from both religions is quite different. Non-duality is used in a lot of religions or streams as one can see on wikipedia, most of these are based on Hinduism or Buddhism. There are some fundamental differences between Hinduism and Buddhism and if someone doesn´t know these, he will probably get confused if he uses input from different religions to achieve´enlightenment.´ Enlightenment in Buddhism is different from enlightenment in Hinduism and if one doen´t know the differences they will be misguided. Therefore I will name some important similarities and differences. I am familiar with Buddhism, however, I am not that familiar with Hinduism, so if someone can complement or correct me, that would be nice. Similarities Both religions see the self (Atman) as cause of suffering. Therefore, in both religions, seeing through the self is part of the way to enlightenment. Before you attain insight in the self, this self consists out of your body, your psych (thoughts, etc) and possibly your soul (depending on your worldview). Differences In Hinduism they hold that there is a soul or self in every being. Atman is often refered to as a soul of an individual and is within Brahman. Other religions or streams refer to Brahman as infinite consciousness, absolute infinity, or god and is the cause of everything and everything is in it. Brahman is the cause of Atman. So in Hinduism part of the self stays, namely the soul, and there are two absolutes, namely Brahman and Atman. Buddhists see that everything of Atman (thus including the soul) has a cause and that this cause lies in ignorance, or not knowing. This ignorance or not knowing refers to the cause of the self and the nature of reality as a whole. If you gain insight into the cause of the self, which is the nature of reality, one removes the first cause and the whole of Atman is dissolved. For a buddhist, any attachment to something absolute is caused by ignorance or not-knowing and is an illusion and a cause of suffering. They see that the nature of reality is of dependent origin and everything is relative. Everything is dependent upon something and something is dependent upon everything else. A flower is only a flower because there is a universe, time, matter, gravity, a planet, a soil, water, sun, etc. So, buddhists see that without a reality there is no consciousness and without consciousness there is no perceived reality. However, reality, without us perceiving it, exists, so existence is not dependent upon consciousness, only our reality. Space is dependent upon time, matter is dependent upon gravity, life is dependent upon its surrounding, etc. There is no absolute in buddhism. So, for buddhists, holding on to Brahman or Atman is a piece of the self that remains, as it is the belief, out of ignorance or not-knowing, in the soul and an absolute consciousness. So for a buddhist, people who believe in a soul or absolute consciousness are people who have not attained full enlightenment yet and still suffer. How do they suffer? Well, if you believe in a soul or absolute consciousness, this comes from your interpretation of what you experience, which comes from your desire for meaning. This desire for meaning is the cause of your suffering, because when you have a desire you are unsatisfied. So, you hold on to this soul or absolute consciousness, they are who you are. So, you are still something, although this something is formless. This desire is also the cause of negative emotions, like agitation or doubt, which can be triggered if you are confronted with information which conficts with your belief, like this text. There is something you don't know.. This will eat at you.

...truth... The mind exists within the absolute and the absolute exist within the mind. If you can not look passed the mind, you will not see it. You are a former scientist if I remember correctly? Then you probably have a strong and resilient mind.

Ah that is why you are here, I wondered. If Brahman or One is always there, even if formless so unable to conceptualize, in the strictest sense of non-duality, this is not non-duality. As this One or Brahman, which can not be conceptualized, is there, opposed to nothing. Truth is only in the mind.

.

Of course, that why they differ and that's why we are talking about it. Can't conceptualize no-thing. Different eyes see different things. I see no-thing, you may see something. Neither is wrong or right. There is mind and no-mind. The important question is; where is suffering? Thanks for the connect and sharing btw! Through this discussion my understanding of Hinduism is also deepend, and the way I can explain Buddhism also.

Is it wisdom gained through what you;ve pointed to in Buddhist understanding as everything being relative in relation to something else, conscious/reality, flower/soil/sun/earth, feelings/body/mind. This wisdom is a no-thing? Exactly, this wisdom is a no-thing, it is not something but also not nothing. The thing with no-thing is that you can not conceptually grasp it, as there is no-thing to grasp. If you conceptualize it, you make a distinction, which turns no-thing into something. This wisdom is not gained by understanding, but by becoming aware in reality. Meaning, you have to look at a flower and not think about the flower. To relate this to the absolute where you are coming from; In your mind the absolute is there, being the absolute truth/ consciousness/ infinity/ god/ Brahman, however, it only is there in your mind as a direct experience. In your mind you can verify it. Like serotoninluv said; Because it is inexplicable. That’s the point. One needs direct experience to realize. Outside the mind there is no verification, so the absolute does not exist outside the mind and can therefore not be explained. Now if we look at the mind, is the mind absolute? Is there nothing outside your mind? Of course you only directly experience your mind, but does this mean there are no other minds? If you talk with other people, you realize that there are other minds. So the mind is not absolute. If you realize that your mind is not absolute, it is dependent upon something. This something seems to be your body as different minds are in different bodies. This causes the body-mind distinction to dissolve. Now there is no my mind anymore and therefore no distinction between my mind and reality. This opens up the possibility to look at the flower without interference from the mind. This makes you able to see the flower as it is. You experience no-thing and see reality for what it is.

I agree, if you focus too much on the verbal information, you tend to neglect or overlook the non-verbal information. This shifts our 'perception' towards the intellect.

Yes this is the absolute in the relative of human form. If something is absolute, it is not non-dual as it is something opposed to nothing. If I referred to nothingness, I meant no-thingness. Which is literally no-thing, but also not nothing. It is relative and therefore unlabeable as it is no-thing. If truth arises, no truth or belief arises. Truth is only truth opposed to no truth or belief. As knowledge is only knowledge opposed to no knowledge. It is just a creation of the self trying to label something, by labeling it. The self is very stubborn and tries to hold onto things by trying to label something to identify to. To have a sense of grip, an illusion to be in control of your consciousness as being something out there as a source. You can identify with a so-called truth or knowledge. This truth or knowledge only exist in the mind. This mind is open for everything. I can put any truth in it, but it will only be my truth. I can put any knowledge in it, but it would only be my knowledge. Absolute in the relativity of my mind. The truth is in my mind and the belief is outside my mind. The knowledge is in my mind and no knowledge is outside my mind. My mind can verify things, therefore claim a truth, outside my mind there is no verification, therefore no truth or belief.

The irony on this forum is that a lot of people are pointing to the absolute and say you have to experience it to know it, without having any explanation to what it is. Which makes it almost the same as a religion like Christianity. Besides this, these people on this forum, who point to this absolute, behave and react as if they hold the absolute truth, however they cant explain it. I can explain everything, however, I do not claim to any truth.

I worked my way through some, but I was fortunate to not be deluded by different non-duality interpretations and by some half-ass advice from people who are somewhere on the path, but dont know which path and dont know where they are. That would only have confused me and I would most likely had not attained Nirvana by now. If you stick to a paved path you have a good chance to reach the top. If you are trying to make the path for yourself, you end up somewhere, but this most likely will not be the top. Then you are trying to become buddha by yourself. But everybody should do what they please.

Sadly, the several users dont understand what I am saying. Only Mu_ seems to understand my messages. The dependent origin goes beyond the absolute, meaning you let the absolute go. The absolute is something opposed to nothing, so you are still something (!). In Nirvana, in the buddhist context, there is complete emptiness, which is not something, it is no-thing, but this is not nothing. Everything becomes relative, meaning non-existence. This is not no existence. It is a place between existence and no existence, in the relative space in between. This no-thing is between something and nothing. There is non-perception, which resides between perception and no perception. This something and nothing are explained by dependent arising, like distinction and no-distinction, etc. So, I understand and know what you are pointing to, but I am trying to explain how a buddhist sees this. However, none of you seem to be listening or are open to hear what I say, besides Mu_. You are pointing to this absolute, and I am saying; I see this absolute but look at this. I don't make it personal, I am just a human being, so a lot of behaviour I can tolerate and some I can not. We are social creatures, thats why we are here.

And how should one behave after attaining Nirvana, according to you hmm? Look I have compassion for the guy, just as I have compassion for a murderer, this however does not mean I should tolerate all their behaviour. This was just me saying; Leo stfu if your only trying to defend your truth, without giving any further explanation than saying everything is absolute and do drugs to see it, and leave no room for the possibility your truth might be up for debate, without me actually saying this. Cause if I would say this directly to him, I would get banned. He does not want to hear he might be wrong as he is right. Its his forum, so I should conform to his rules. Therefore, I stopped into the direction he did not want me to go. This thread is discussing the known differences between Hinduism and Buddhism, which there are, elsethey would not be different. So to claim they are not, without knowing what buddhism is really about, meaning what nirvana constitutes in a buddhist context, is just being close-minded or one-eyed. However, we are al in this together and I celebrate Leo for a lot of interesting videos he made and starting up this website, he is really doing the work. In every good marriage there are tougher periods, but we are going somewhere here. Ill post a nice tune to lighten up the mood. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hI1Xe1sAPgY

The dogma here is absolute. If you claim something else than absolute, you will find a moderator or Leo to come and correct you pretty fast.