This Is How Buddhism And Vedanta Define The Absolute

[Shanmugam]

Vedanta

"It is this Akshara (the Imperishable), O Gargi, so the knowers of Brahman say. It is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, not red, not viscid, not shadowy, not dark, not the air, not the ether, not adhesive, tasteless, odourless, without the sense of sight, without the sense of hearing, without the vital principle, mouthless, without measure, neither interior nor exterior,. It eats nothing, nobody eats it."

  - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad  3-8-8.

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

Buddhism

“There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.”

 - Buddha (in Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (1))

[Shanmugam]

There is, monks, an unborn— unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned

       - Buddha (in Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (3))

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

Verily, that great unborn soul, undecaying, undying, immortal, fearless is Brahman

 -        Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.25

[ajasatya]

set all scriptures on fire
break free from knowledge
burn it all

[Shanmugam]

@ajasatya  If that happens, that would be great...

 But I posted this for people who cling to a certain school that holds scriptures as authority..

I posted this for people who consider that their ideology or school alone  is superior,  to show them that all these different schools, all these different scriptures are pointing out to the same truth...

I know that there are a lot of confusions which have arisen because of interpretation of scriptures, and people fight with each other saying that their interpretation is correct..

So, there are only two options: either burn them all or show them that all point to the same thing.

 

[Joseph Maynor]

1 hour ago, Shanmugam said:

Vedanta

"It is this Akshara (the Imperishable), O Gargi, so the knowers of Brahman say. It is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, not red, not viscid, not shadowy, not dark, not the air, not the ether, not adhesive, tasteless, odourless, without the sense of sight, without the sense of hearing, without the vital principle, mouthless, without measure, neither interior nor exterior,. It eats nothing, nobody eats it."

  - Brihadaranyaka Upanishad  3-8-8.

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

Buddhism

“There is that dimension, monks, where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress.”

 - Buddha (in Nibbāna Sutta: Unbinding (1))

I love your posts!  I am reading the Upanishads and Brahma Sutras right now.  

Here's my understanding.

The Buddhists generally do not think there is a Self or Absolute.  I take that to mean that they do not think that Awareness is real.  They are like Materialists.  They do not give reality to Awareness, to consciousness.  So, yeah there is consciousness of things, but consciousness itself is not real, not True.  So, there is no Self per se.  There is no Brahman, no Absolute.  All there is is disparate phenomena without a higher-order thing above or underlying it.  The Buddhists are kind of like Materialists and the Hindus are more like Phenomenologists -- if you want to draw parallels to Western Philosophy.  What is cool about Advaita Vedanta is the Buddhist influence on Hinduism, namely the focus on mindfulness and a certain kind of hard-nosed Empiricist attitude, which is strong in Buddhism.  So, Advaita Vedanta is a certain kind of synthesis between non-dual Hinduism and Buddhism.  I think that's what Adi Shankara was up to.  It's a pretty nice marriage.  Shankara is like an Immanuel Kant of Indian Philosophy, a synthesizer.  I'm not endorsing Kant by the way.  I am very opposed to Kantian Philosophy in general (but I respect him and his thought a lot and he was a huge advance); however, I see a similar kind of synthesis happening with Kant's thought in Western Philosophy, with his integration of and transcendence of Empiricism and Rationalism, two formerly well-entrenched Western Philosophy traditions.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant

Edited July 21, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Shanmugam]

@Joseph Maynor  Actually, they only appear to be contradictory...

Both Buddhism and Vedanta have their unique teaching methods...The concepts they use in such teaching methods are only devises for the cessation of suffering. There is a point when all such concepts are to be dropped.

For example, In Vedanta there is a method called Adhyaropa apavada

"Who so knows the Self, thus described, as the fearless Absolute (brahman), himself becomes the Absolute, beyond fear. This is a brief statement of the meaning of the entire Upanishad.  And in order to convey this meaning rightly, the fanciful alternatives of production, maintenance and withdrawal, and the false notion of action, its factors and results, are deliberately attributed to the Self as a first step. And then later the final metaphysical truth is inculcated by negating these characteristics through a comprehensive denial of all particular superimpositions on the Absolute, expressed in the phrase 'neither this nor that'. Just as a man, wishing to explain numbers from one to a hundred thousand billion (points to figures that he has drawn and) says, 'This figure is one, this figure is ten, this figure is a hundred, this figure is a thousand' , and all the time his only purpose is to explain numbers, and not to affirm that the figures are numbers; or just as one wishing to explain the sounds of speech as repre sented by the written letters of the alphabet resorts to a device in the form of a palm-leaf on which he makes incisions which he later fills with ink to form letters, and all the while, (even though he point to a letter and say "This is the sound "so and so"') his only purpose is to explain the nature of the sounds referred to by each letter, and not to affirm that the leaf, incisions and ink are sounds; in just the same way, the one real metaphysical principle, the Absolute, is taught by resort to many devices, such as attributing to it production (of the world) and other powers. And then after wards the nature of the Absolute is restated, through the concluding formula 'neither this nor that', so as to purify it of all particular notions accruing to it from the various devices used to explain its nature in the first place'.

- Brhad. Bh.IV.iv.25 by Shankara

Not only that.. any term that is used to define the absolute is only a teaching device. They are not ultimately real.

 

[Shanmugam]

@Joseph Maynor Read these excerpts of various commentaries by Shankara:

"The Absolute is that in which there is no particularity. There is no name, no form, no action, no distinction, no universal, no attribute. It is through these determinations alone that speech proceeds, and not one of them belongs to the Absolute. So the latter cannot be taught by sentences of the pattern 'This is so-and-so'.

In such upanishadic phrases and words as "The Absolute is Consciousness-Bliss' (Brhad.III.ix.28.7) . 'A mere mass of Consciousness' (Brhad.II.iv.12) , 'Brahman', 'Atman', the Absolute is artificially referred to with the help of superimposed name, form and action, and spoken of exactly in the way we refer to objects of perception, as when we say 'That white cow with horns is twitching'.

But if the desire is to express the true nature of the Absolute, void of all conditioning adjuncts and particularity, then it cannot be described by any positive means whatever. The only ' possible method then is to refer to it through a comprehensive denial of whatever positive characteristics have been attributed to it in previous teachings, and to say 'neither this nor that'.

- (Brhad.Bh.II.iii.6) - Shankara

 

"Nor can the Absolute be properly referred to by any such terms as Being or non-being. For all words are used to convey a meaning, and when heard by their hearers convey the meaning the speaker had in mind. But communicable meaning is restricted without exception to universal, action, attribute and relation....

The Absolute, however, does not belong to any universal (genus), so it cannot be expressed by a noun such as 'Being' or 'non-being'. Being without attributes, it cannot be described by any adjective denoting an attribute. And being actionless, it cannot be expressed by any verb denoting activity.

For the Upanishad speaks of it as 'Without parts, without activity, at rest' (Svet .VI.19) . Nor has it any relation with anything. For it is 'One', 'without a second', 'not an object' and 'the Self. Hence it cannot be expressed by any word. And the upanishadic texts themselves confirm this when they say 'That from which words fall back' (Taitt .ll.9) , and in other passages."

          - (Bh.G.Bh.XIII.12) - Shankara

 

And because the Absolute has no particular characteristics, the Veda indicates its nature by denying of it the forms of all other things, as is shown, for instance, in the following pa sages: 'And so, therefore, the teaching is "neither this nor that"' (Brhad.II.iii.6) , 'It is other than what is known, and above the unknown' (Kena I.U), 'That from which words fall back without obtaining access, together with the mind' (Taitt .II.9) .

And the Vedic texts also relate how when Badhva was questioned by Baskalin he gave his answer merely by not speaking. 'Sir, teach me in words', Ba§kalin said. But the Teacher remained silent. Finally, at the second or third time of asking, Badhva replied, 'I am telling you, but you do not understand. This Self is utter silence'

- (B.S.Bh.III.ii.17) - Shankara

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

This teaching method 'Adhyaropa apavada' is not properly followed by many modern teachers who teach Vedanta today. That is why people get stuck in all kinds of concepts..I recently came across books by Swami Satchidanandendra Saraswathi, who was a Sanskrit scholar and vedantic monk. He dedicated his whole life in bringing out the kind of teaching method that was actually adopted by Shankara. He lived up to the age 94 and has written over 200 books. In fact, he rediscovered this teaching method again. 

Here is how he describes in short, in one of his books:

(a) In order to disclose the nature of the self as Brahman in itself Srutis like the following negate all specific features
superimposed on it by the unenlightened common mind :-

"It is this Akshara (the Imperishable), 0 Gargi, so the knowers of
Brahman say. It is neither gross nor subtle, neither short nor long, not
red, not viscid, not shadowy, not dark, not the air, not the ether, not
adhesive, tasteless, odourless, without the sense of sight, without the
sense of hearing, without the vital principle, mouthless, without measure,
neither interior nor exterior,. It eats nothing, nobody eats it."
             - Br.3-8-8.

(b) Lest, by this strict denial of all properties it may be taken to be absolute nothing (s'unya), it is taught by means of
illusory attributes seemingly pertaining to it owing to Upadhis (apparently conditioning factors). 

(c) At the close of the teaching the rescission of even the imputed attributes used as a device for purposes of teaching, lest it should be regarded as actually belonging to it.

(modern teachers stop with (a) and (b) )

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

And Buddhism has a different teaching model, uses different kinds of concepts but ultimately the goal is the same. All theories in traditions are only  teachings devices, they are not the truth themselves. For example, many people don't know that Vedanta itself is an intentional superimposition to remove superimposition on Self. 

 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Ananta]

25 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

For example, many people don't know that Vedanta itself is an intentional superimposition to remove superimposition on Self. 

 

It meets you in duality (ie. Karma yoga, ect), to bring you out of it. 

[Shanmugam]

@Joseph Maynor  (more excerpts, especially for you, because I noticed that you started a few threads about definitions of the absolute)

"Hence that Brahman cannot be denoted by the epithet 'jnanam' (knowledge) either. Nevertheless, it is indicated though not expressed, by the word ''jnanam'  denoting the semblance of consciousness which is really a modification of the mind. It is not directly denoted by that term because Brahman is devoid of genus and other specific features which alone are the occasion for the application of words to a thing. So is it with regard to the term 'Satyam' (truth). For Brahman is by its very nature devoid of all specific features. The term Satyam really refers to the genus 'being' inhering in external objects, and when Brahman is described as 'Sat yam' (Real), it is only indicated by that term. But Brahman is not actually expressed by the term 'Satyam'.
 Shankara - Tai. Bh. 2-1, p. 285.

[Shanmugam]

2 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

It meets you in duality (ie. Karma yoga, ect), to bring you out of it. 

Didn't get it.. Can you elaborate?

[Shanmugam]

@Joseph Maynor

Here is a very important point to understand why Buddha said there is no Atman. It is also from Shankara's commentary:

"Objection : "Is not even Atman denoted by the word
'Atman' ?

Reply: No. for there are Srutis like 'From which words fall back',
'That in which one sees nothing else'.

Question: How then do texts like 'Atman alone is below ... .' and 'It is Atman' reveal Atman ?

Reply: This is no fault. For, the word (Atman), primarily used in the world of differences to denote individual soul as distinct from the body it possesses, is extended to indicate the entity which remains after the rejection of body and other not-selfs as not deserving that appellation, and is used to reveal what is really inexpressible by words".

 - Shankara - Ch. Bh. 7-1-3, p. 542.

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

Buddha directly denied Atman as it is used by the people in the world (an individual soul existing in the body) . Upanishads extended the word Atman to mean the absolute (and changing the meaning of the word Atman)..

 

Read the following Buddhist Sutta, it looks like the neti-neti method:

"So, bhikkhus any kind of form whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near, must with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not myself.'

"Any kind of feeling whatever...

"Any kind of perception whatever...

"Any kind of determination whatever...

"Any kind of consciousness whatever, whether past, future or presently arisen, whether gross or subtle, whether in oneself or external, whether inferior or superior, whether far or near must, with right understanding how it is, be regarded thus: 'This is not mine, this is not I, this is not my self.'"

         -  Anatta-lakkhana Sutta

Edited July 21, 2017 by Shanmugam

[Ananta]

5 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

Didn't get it.. Can you elaborate?

It explains the teaching with concepts and a cosmology to explain duality (meeting someone where they are), gives practices like karma yoga to the apparent person. Then, through the teaching methodology and Jnana yoga brings that same apparent person/jiva out of duality and into Self-realization, then Moksha. This is a condensed explaination, you didn't understand my original, so I expanded a tad.

[Shanmugam]

@Anna1  Yes, but not just cosmology alone; The teaching method followed by Shankara finally negates all words that was deliberately used in the first place, including the words like 'consciousness' (or awareness), being,knowledge etc... 

[Ananta]

1 minute ago, Shanmugam said:

@Anna1  Yes, but not just cosmology alone; The teaching method followed by Shankara finally negates all words that was deliberately used in the first place, including the words like 'consciousness' (or awareness), being,knowledge etc... 

Ok fine (I don't really know), but some word, to me, needs to be used. Otherwise, how can we discuss Brahman? I usually say, awareness, but on this forum I expand that to what the poster seems to understand. As I try to be somewhat flexible.

[Ananta]

14 minutes ago, Shanmugam said:

For, the word (Atman), primarily used in the world of differences to denote individual soul as distinct from the body it possesses, is extended to indicate the entity which remains after the rejection of body and other not-selfs as not deserving that appellation, and is used to reveal what is really inexpressible by words".

To me, Atman is the portion of Brahman that at any given time is permeating the body/mind, but ultimately is Brahman alone. Any type of soul reference relates to the subtle body, not Atman.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Anna1 There is no subtle body.  That is an illusion.  All distinctions are existentially false.  Reality is Nothingness.

Edited July 21, 2017 by Joseph Maynor

[Dodo]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Anna1 There is no subtle body.  That is an illusion.

While I don't know what the subtle body really is, I'd like to add that the Ego is also an illusion. There is no separate self. If the subtle body is a separate self (aka Soul), then it is illusion I agree!

 

[Ananta]

8 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Anna1 There is no subtle body.  That is an illusion.  All distinctions are existentially false.  Reality is Nothingness.

Just because it's Mithya (illusion) doesn't mean it doesn't exist phenomenally. 

Edited July 21, 2017 by Anna1

[Shanmugam]

30 minutes ago, Anna1 said:

Ok fine (I don't really know), but some word, to me, needs to be used. Otherwise, how can we discuss Brahman? I usually say, awareness, but on this forum I expand that to what the poster seems to understand. As I try to be somewhat flexible.

Not saying that words should not be used... The point of the whole discussion is to say that words are only pointers.. They are just teaching devices. I thought it may be helpful for people who cling to ideologies and concepts..

 

[Ananta]

1 minute ago, Shanmugam said:

Not saying that words should not be used... The point of the whole discussion is to say that words are only pointers.. They are just teaching devices. I thought it may be helpful for people who cling to ideologies and concepts..

 

Words are only pointers, agree 100%! But, not everything can be an analogy or a metaphor, so a discussion it may seem "concrete" to some, but it's always only pointing.