Differences between Hinduism and Buddhism

[captainamerica]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

They are not different enlightenments but one and the same.

"Soul" refers to a subtle aspect of the individualized self. That too is eventually transcended into pure nonduality regardless of which path you take. "Soul" is a technical term. It refers to subtle states of consciousness. Nondual is beyond even that.

Transcendence goes:

Gross >> Subtle >> Causal >> Nondual

@Leo Gura

Is the "Soul" eternal like absolute/nothingness etc. ?

 

[Preetom]

Hinduism and Buddhism (or any legit spiritual path) must be one and the same in it's essential message. If that wasn't the case, then none of it would be worth pursuing.

The debate and shit slinging contests we see over different religions through ages are differences of language and superficiality; Not the difference of essence.

It was/is mostly done by pundits and intellectual scholars who have fallen into the trap of taking scriptures as the Absolute Truth. They have taken the map as the territory. What else can we expect. Of course, they are gonna fight and bicker with each others. Their very identity, livelihood and intellectual security is on the line!

No Truth was ever on the line in any debate  

[winterknight]

Basically this is a long-standing argument.

Hindus by and large are happy to say that Buddhism is pointing to the same truth that Hinduism is.

Many immature Buddhists hate this idea... it's like the rebellious teenage kid who's like "I am not like my father in any way..." (since Buddhism has its roots in Hinduism). Often these are the Buddhist fundamentalists, too, who claim that only Buddhism has the truth.

But the wiser, more mature Buddhists understand that the non-dual truth goes beyond words and can be formulated in many different ways. Hinduism has certainly learned and benefitted a great deal from Buddhism over the centuries.

Edited December 10, 2018 by winterknight

[Sockrattes]

14 minutes ago, Preetom said:

Hinduism and Buddhism (or any legit spiritual path) must be one and the same in it's essential message. If that wasn't the case, then none of it would be worth pursuing.

To be fair: That's an unproven axiom.

[Preetom]

42 minutes ago, Sockrattes said:

Yes. That's my question. Where does the contents come from and why?

Brahman is existence-consciousness-bliss and hindu scholars and scriptures are extremely convincing in what they are claiming. But i can't abide in it as long there is no real explanation why all this is.

"Brahman makes all this to know himself" or "this is a game" won't fit to those deep philosophical explanations of prasthanatrayi.

That's a very good question actually which I myself was seeking intellectually for a while and as you rightfully pointed out that those playful explanations weren't that satisfying either. I think I already touched upon this on another post in this thread.

Quote

Brahman alone appears as the shared physical Universe and the multifarious lenses(subjects) simultaneously. This Subject-Object relationship is dual and one can't legitimately exist without the other. But none of that affects Brahman. You can't legitimately claim the existence of an object(universe) unless you(as a knowing subject) is present. Vice versa, you can't have your 'human consciousness' stand alone without the perception of an object(just like your human consciousness collapses in deep sleep). Only Brahmanic Consciousness alone exists and can stand on it's own ground; thus it is called the Absolute.

What you are calling the ''witness consciousness'' is not actually Brahmanic Consciousness. The ''witness consciousness'' is a knowing subject/field that knows all other objects. It is a subject-object dual knowing. One can't stand without the other. But that 'knowing' element with which you know, does not belong to you as a human mind. That 'knowing' is infinite and you can't ever know that 'knowing' like you know an object; Because you ARE it! You can't know yourself in subject-object relationship.

The very fact you are asking about the objects of Consciousness, shows that you are not Enlightened yet. That means back to self-inquiry salt mines  If you were Enlightened, you wouldn't see 'objects'. You'd only be the presence of knowing/being. Now that's why it is incommunicable and we have to actually get enlightened to 'experience' what's that like. All objects and things are categories in the mind. And the mind itself is found non-existent.

I'll quote Ramana Maharshi to support this claim,

''Q: How long should Inquiry be continued?

A: As long as there are impressions of objects in mind, inquiry must go on ceaselessly''

It shows that the very appearance of 'objects' is due to delusion. So ultimately, there is no objects of consciousness and their workings. But we have to realize that directly through Enlightenment.

42 minutes ago, Sockrattes said:

"Brahman makes all this to know himself" or "this is a game" won't fit to those deep philosophical explanations of prasthanatrayi.

These all feel like noob, childish explanations to me. These are all human thought biased explanations. I'm grateful that you brought up this topic. It takes up to the very limit of thoughts and motivates us to go to that placeless 'place' and see for ourselves through self-inquiry  

No thought or explanation will ever satisfy or replace Truth.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Preetom

[Preetom]

4 minutes ago, Sockrattes said:

To be fair: That's an unproven axiom.

That brings up a question.

Is the Absolute Truth one or many?

It is logically impossible to have more than one Absolute Truth.

So if Hinduism and Buddhism don't recognize this, are they prescribing 2 different Absolute Truths? That's just not right..

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, Preetom said:

I have a question.

How do you know this or make this claim?

Do you see that in order to make any claim whatsoever, there has to be a 'knowing' of it. Or else you're just spreading gibberish. This knowing itself is Brahman/Buddha mind/infinite that no space, time, object can bound and which alone exists. Actually it's factually wrong to say Brahman exists, is conscious, is blissful. Brahman is existence itself, consciousness/knowing itself, bliss itself.

I am trying to understand it. Brahman is the whole of existence right? Is this existence absolute? Does the existence exist upon itself?

1 hour ago, Preetom said:

That is not Advaita Vedanta. That is pretty much all religious philosophy. This is just a fancy way of saying that ''God created the Universe'.  If you say that 'something' appears in Consciousness, then how will you explain that something?

Got it.

1 hour ago, Preetom said:

Advaita Vedanta says that Brahman itself 'appears' as the multifarious subjects (all sentient creatures) and Objects (The common, physical universe). But none of it can ever stain or bind Brahman. There is nothing else other than Brahman.

Yeah this is similar with Brahman is existence right?

1 hour ago, Preetom said:

And you mention that Atman is the soul. But that is not the case. The soul is called Jeeva. Jeeva is the person we take ourselves to be with all our conditioning. With the death of the body, Jeeva does not die. It keeps on moving from body to body until it's karma gets burnt and thus get liberated.

But the whole purpose of Spiritual paths is to directly realize that Jeeva is ultimately non-existent and it never existed. Atman was wrongly identified with Jeeva by imagining itself as Jeeva(like a dream). Once this realization dawns(Enlightenment), the Jeeva nature vanishes once and for all and the equation becomes like this,

Atman=Brahman

There were never 2 things(atman and brahman) in the first place.

So Atman is dissolved into Brahman?

[Preetom]

2 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

Brahman is the whole of existence right? Is this existence absolute? Does the existence exist upon itself?

Brahman is Existence itself. So there can be no whole or part or absolute or relative when it comes to Brahman. That's why it is incommunicable and unbelievable. Anyone pushing you to believe what Brahman actually IS, is trying to sell his/her pitch to you. You can never 'know' what Brahman is, because you are it! But you can intellectually know what Brahman is not (neti neti).

7 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

So Atman is dissolved into Brahman?

That's just another pointer in the path and ultimately a misconception. There is not a thing called Atman to be dissolved into a 2nd thing called Brahman.

Through Enlightenment, both ignorance and enlightenment are recognized as non-existent. It was a helpful pointer on the path, but was never the Truth.

[Emanyalpsid]

2 hours ago, Preetom said:

Do you seriously consider that as the 'Truth'?

It is not a truth, it is more like a realization. A transcendtal understanding as an insight into the nature of reality.

Quote

If so, then your explanation is very anthropomorphic(human thought biased). There is actually no such thing as a 'flower'. You see a batch of colors through your human lens and name that a 'flower'. Go ask a dog or fish what a flower is. They don't see a 'flower' like you do. Same thing with time, space, gravity and anything you can perceive or conceive.

Of course, the flower is only a flower when it is defined as a flower. Therefore its essence is empty. But the flower is also not nothing.

Quote

When Hindus say that there is no Universe, they mean that there is no Universe as you think it is. But there is definitely 'something'. This 'something' is perceived one way through our human lens, different ways through a dogs lens, a bee's lens, a fish's lens etc. There is no objective physical universe with soil, water, air, humans, objects etc as we assume. It only appears like that to our human lens.

Here is the fundamental difference. Buddhists see that we indeed only see the universe through our lenses, but this universe seems to be there without us perceiving it, however it is not absolute.

Quote

Now what is that 'something'? Beneath any illusion or appearance, there must be a Reality. For example, the mirage in the desert appears like a 'pond', but it's Reality is ''a play of light''. The TV screen appears like the Breaking Bad show, but it's Reality is a flat, contentless screen.

Agreed

Quote

That 'something' is Brahman/Absolute Consciousness. Brahman alone appears as the shared physical Universe and the multifarious lenses(subjects) simultaneously. This Subject-Object relationship is dual and one can't legitimately exist without the other. But none of that affects Brahman. You can't legitimately claim the existence of an object(universe) unless you(as a knowing subject) is present. Vice versa, you can't have your 'human consciousness' stand alone without the perception of an object(just like your human consciousness collapses in deep sleep). Only Brahmanic Consciousness alone exists and can stand on it's own ground; thus it is called the Absolute.

In Buddhism they also see the dependent origin of the human conscious. However, they are not aware of a brahmanic or absolute consciousness. In buddhism, without human consciousness there is nothing experienced.

Quote

Note that, this Consciousness is NOT human consciousness, or subject-object dual consciousness. Vedanta gives a straightforward definition of Brahman Consciousness. Anything you can be aware of, is NOT it. Any consciousness you think about, is NOT it.

 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Emanyalpsid]

28 minutes ago, Preetom said:

That brings up a question.

Is the Absolute Truth one or many?

It is logically impossible to have more than one Absolute Truth.

So if Hinduism and Buddhism don't recognize this, are they prescribing 2 different Absolute Truths? That's just not right..

1 hour ago, Preetom said:

@Emanyalpsid

The bottom line is, if we rely on language or a thought form as irrefutable Truth, then that can always be challenged. No claim can ever stand on itself. It will inevitably collapse. I'll pose some questions.

1) What are we defending when we argue in the name of 'Truth'?

2) That which is actually True, does that need any defending? Does Truth care if it is defended or not?

3) What is Truth 

In Buddhism there is no absolute truth or anything absolute. "The four noble truths" are just a poor translation into English, they had better translated them into "The four realizations".

In buddhism they see that truth is dependent upon your belief.

[Forestluv]

15 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

In Buddhism there is no absolute truth or anything absolute. 

The Buddhist heart sutra points to the Absolute.

[Sockrattes]

59 minutes ago, Preetom said:

What you are calling the ''witness consciousness'' is not actually Brahmanic Consciousness. The ''witness consciousness'' is a knowing subject/field that knows all other objects. It is a subject-object dual knowing. One can't stand without the other. But that 'knowing' element with which you know, does not belong to you as a human mind. That 'knowing' is infinite and you can't ever know that 'knowing' like you know an object; Because you ARE it! You can't know yourself in subject-object relationship.

The very fact you are asking about the objects of Consciousness, shows that you are not Enlightened yet. That means back to self-inquiry salt mines  If you were Enlightened, you wouldn't see 'objects'.

Actually i'm just using the terminology from Swami Sarvaprijananda from the Ramakrishna Order.

But your statements in this part of your comment are kinda patronising and maybe you should open yourself up to further explanations and insights. You are talking about the illusionary state of objects which is common for many die hard Advaitans. When i hear something like this i immediately must think about the notion of fake-enlightenment and how i have felt into this trap myself repeatedly.

You have no clue what i know. Don't be so condescending. ^^

Quote

You'd only be the presence of knowing/being. Now that's why it is incommunicable and we have to actually get enlightened to 'experience' what's that like. All objects and things are categories in the mind. And the mind itself is found non-existent.

I'll quote Ramana Maharshi to support this claim,

''Q: How long should Inquiry be continued?

A: As long as there are impressions of objects in mind, inquiry must go on ceaselessly''

It shows that the very appearance of 'objects' is due to delusion. So ultimately, there is no objects of consciousness and their workings. But we have to realize that directly through Enlightenment.

Quote

 

That brings up a question.

Is the Absolute Truth one or many?

It is logically impossible to have more than one Absolute Truth.

So if Hinduism and Buddhism don't recognize this, are they prescribing 2 different Absolute Truths? That's just not right..

 

I'm honestly not sure if you are enlightened. Why are you claiming that truth must be experienced directly and then you go on and state that the existence of an absolute truth must be logical?!

 

If you ask me, there is not one or many truths.

Truth is "not-two"... non-dual. Which implies all truths, since uncertainty is the very fabric of every singularity. It is like dividing by zero. Your calculator will say "error". Mathematicians will say the result is not defined. Does that make the equation "divided by zero" nonexistent? 

In that sense @Emanyalpsid might be right. 

[Preetom]

@Sockrattes I never claimed to be Enlightened. And sorry if I sounded condescending. It was a way of speaking. By 'you' I didn't mean you personally. That's why I used 'we' a few times if I remember. 

And yes you're right that Truth is 'not two'. But see the twist here? It never says what the Truth actually is. it relies heavily on negative terms so that Truth can't be formulated in anyway. Saying Truth is one, is saying one thing too many

If you recognize the validity of objects, then of course it comes with all its relative explanations and workings. But on nondual level, how can you explain objects? Objects, as opposed to what? We are back in duality again.

48 minutes ago, Sockrattes said:

Why are you claiming that truth must be experienced directly and then you go on and state that the existence of an absolute truth must be logical?!

That was another post but you can intellectually derive that how there can't be more than one Absolute Truth(Jed mckenna did it, and it was a fun thought experiment). 

The bottom line is, The thought or idea of Absolute is Not the Absolute. A claim about Absolute is not the Absolute. But still, there is 'something' there worth looking into. 

(Again, we are discussing scriptures and foundational theory which anyone can research and share; not measuring who is enlightened or not. Sorry if I sounded otherwise!)

[Emanyalpsid]

1 hour ago, Preetom said:

Brahman is Existence itself. So there can be no whole or part or absolute or relative when it comes to Brahman. That's why it is incommunicable and unbelievable. Anyone pushing you to believe what Brahman actually IS, is trying to sell his/her pitch to you. You can never 'know' what Brahman is, because you are it! But you can intellectually know what Brahman is not (neti neti).

So Brahman is existence and consciousness in it, but we can't name it because we are it. I got this.

With regard to your previous example:

Now what is that 'something'? Beneath any illusion or appearance, there must be a Reality. For example, the mirage in the desert appears like a 'pond', but it's Reality is ''a play of light''. The TV screen appears like the Breaking Bad show, but it's Reality is a flat, contentless screen. That 'something' is Brahman/Absolute Consciousness. 

A Buddhist would say, yes but this play of light comes from the sun and it has mass. And the existence of mass is dependent upon gravity. So the light is empty of existence upon itself, without gravity or mass there would be no light. The same holds for the screen as matter has mass and is dependent upon gravity. For the light and the screen to be there, they need everything around them, space, time, matter, etc. So they are full of everything but also nothing as they do not exist upon themselves. So, for a buddhist nothing exists upon itself, not even existence or Brahman. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[Preetom]

35 minutes ago, Emanyalpsid said:

So Brahman is existence and consciousness in it, but we can't name it because we are it. I got this.

With regard to your previous example:

Now what is that 'something'? Beneath any illusion or appearance, there must be a Reality. For example, the mirage in the desert appears like a 'pond', but it's Reality is ''a play of light''. The TV screen appears like the Breaking Bad show, but it's Reality is a flat, contentless screen. That 'something' is Brahman/Absolute Consciousness. 

A Buddhist would say, yes but this play of light comes from something and this something has mass. And the existence of mass is dependent upon gravity. So the light is empty of existence upon itself, without gravity or mass there would be no light. The same holds for the screen as matter has mass and is dependent upon gravity. For the light and the screen to be there, they need everything around them, space, time, matter, etc. So they are full of everything but also nothing as they do not exist upon themselves. So, for a buddhist nothing exists upon itself, not even existence or Brahman. 

So it turns out that Absolute Relativity is the Truth, in the way you explained things.

But notice that, this notion of 'Absolute Relativity' is a thought/idea, a 'formulation' of Truth. Exactly in the same way, Brahman is an idea or a 'formulation' of Truth.

I think Winterknight said it more accurately. Non dual truth goes beyond words but can be formulated in many different ways.

So is it possible that Hinduism and Buddhism both have formulated the Same Truth in 2 technically sounding different ways, but many people got lost with the formulations(aka taking the map for the territory)?

 

[Jack River]

The self loves to depend on a formula. To reach what the formula/map promises. A self will avoid the map as it is actually(self activity) and seems to be more interested in what the map should be(various paths/formulas and such. This shows some of the trickery of a self. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by Jack River

[Emanyalpsid]

2 hours ago, Preetom said:

So it turns out that Absolute Relativity is the Truth, in the way you explained things.

But notice that, this notion of 'Absolute Relativity' is a thought/idea, a 'formulation' of Truth. Exactly in the same way, Brahman is an idea or a 'formulation' of Truth.

I think Winterknight said it more accurately. Non dual truth goes beyond words but can be formulated in many different ways.

So is it possible that Hinduism and Buddhism both have formulated the Same Truth in 2 technically sounding different ways, but many people got lost with the formulations(aka taking the map for the territory)?

 

Well, I doubt it. This Brahman thing seems to make the difference. According to buddhism, If there is an absolute there is an attachment.

I also see that people find holding on to a truth very important. What I said earlier, in Buddhism the truth is seen as dependent upon your belief. 

Edit: it seems that for 90% (if you have to make an estimation) they are roughly the same. Only in the end, meaning close to Nirvana, there seems to be a difference.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Emanyalpsid

[purerogue]

The funny thing with truth is that it is any truth , but none truth at the same time, so you can say there is no truth when there is actually truth., but there isn't at the same time. and I do not see any way to escape this paradigm,  just as Ralston said , as if falling back into same soup of consciousness.

 

[Forestluv]

2 minutes ago, purerogue said:

The funny thing with truth is that it is any truth , but none truth at the same time, so you can say there is no truth when there is actually truth., but there isn't at the same time. and I do not see any way to escape this paradigm,  just as Ralston said , as if falling back into same soup of consciousness.

This is digging into the heart of the soup. 

[purerogue]

7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

This is digging into the heart of the soup. 

It does not really matter what way you look at it , digging, or not digging, outcome will be the same,