Non-duality AND Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism

[Individual]

As i recall we all went on for at least a page or two with people challenging Guenther's views and rather dualistic definitions. Neither side seemed to budge. Guenther seems a bit hostile and intolerant towards Advaita, but i could be misunderstanding him...

That's why I'm skeptical. One person hostile to Advaita citing a scholar hostile to Advaita... So what if he's proficient in ancient languages and cultures. There are Christian creationists with similar knowledge of history and biology. I'd like to know on what basis he says Advaya and Advaita are different. At what point did someone decide that such etymologically connected words would have such a nuanced contrast of meaning? Is the entire Sanskrit language really defined by Advaita and the entire Pali language is defined by Buddhism? I just don't find it to be very credible, without understanding why he makes such an extraordinary claim.

How can I? Does Guenther have direct long-term experiential knowledge of the Advaita tradition past and living? Was he an Advaita practitioner who worked with a teacher? Did you, do I?

I don't think it matters at all. The validity of a claim depends on the basis of the evidence cited, not who said it or in what context. Also, would he not have to be alive for several centuries to meet the critera you just set? Long-term experiential knowledge of the Advaita tradition -- past and living? How could he achieve that without being some kind of immortal? That's a very strict criteria. Would you say you need to be a long-time Christian to have an informed opinion of it? I've heard Biblical fundamentalists tell me that before -- that you can't rightly judge Christianity until you're born again.

As Individual said:

Both "self is real" and "self is not real" are refuted as views in favor of direct insight.

Direct insight.

This is what the Zen Buddhist path is about. It seems this is what many Advaita teachers stress as well.

You seemed to skip over the distinction I made and focused on two words to draw a tenuous comparison. Lots of religions and philosophies could try to attach themselves to "direct insight."

Do followers of Advaita regard "self is not real" and "self is real" as both convoluted views? If not, then it's a bit confusing to call them "Advaita" (contrasted with Dvaita schools of Hinduism). If so, then there's a distinction there between Buddhism and Advaita.

Hope you have a good weekend, Tilt. Take care everyone.

People sometimes become over-polite as a sign of hostility.

[tiltbillings]

For all the above stated in the immediately above msg, still no one is addressing Guenther's point. Lot of inappropriate huffing and puffing about hostility. Oh, well.

[nathan]

I have recently been presenting my dependently originated causally compounded consciously conceptual considerations on these issues, in contradistinction to essentialist/eternalist conceptions here:

http://dharmaoverground.wetpaint.com/th ... +Amoral%3F" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

metta & upekkha

[Individual]

For all the above stated in the immediately above msg, still no one is addressing Guenther's point. Lot of inappropriate huffing and puffing about hostility. Oh, well.

I don't know on what basis Guenther says advaya is distinguished from advaita, and without knowing that, I don't accept what he says as true on the basis of him being one among many biased experts. I don't require your source to be an Advaita guru, but at least cite several independent scholars who don't sound like they're trashing a belief system, as if they have a personal stake in the matter... Guenther is a Tibetan Buddhist too. Let's say he has an article which trashes Theravada or exalts Tibetan Buddhism. If such an article contains extraordinary claims which are unsubstantiated, would you simply take Guenther at his word?

A fair analysis would involve hearing what others say, both Guenther's supporters and critics. You're suggesting we accept a one-sided point-of-view at face value, because of his credentials.

my dependently originated causally compounded consciously conceptual considerations

[tiltbillings]

For all the above stated in the immediately above msg, still no one is addressing Guenther's point. Lot of inappropriate huffing and puffing about hostility. Oh, well.

I don't know on what basis Guenther says advaya is distinguished from advaita,

You want citations and all? Guenther's comment was an aswer in Q&A part of a more formal talk. His source for avdaita is, obviously Shankara's writings. Have you read Shankara? Guenther is pretty much on the mark.

and without knowing that, I don't accept what he says as true on the basis of him being one among many biased experts.

He said, displayimng a distinct bias. Even if he is biased, it still does not negate Guenther's point, which no one has actually addressed, yet.

Let's say he has an article which trashes Theravada or exalts Tibetan Buddhism. If such an article contains extraordinary claims which are unsubstantiated, would you simply take Guenther at his word?

He has criticized the Theravada. I have no problem with that. It does not mean he is right about it, but I can at least address the poinrt he raised.

A fair analysis would involve hearing what others say, both Guenther's supporters and critics. You're suggesting we accept a one-sided point-of-view at face value, because of his credentials.

I am not suggesting any dumb-assed thing of the sort. I simply saying there is a small but vital point that Guenther makes, which has yet to be addressed.

[nathan]

Conceptions of an essence or eternal consciousness quality fail under the reality testing of direct examination and in no other way. Thus right view, 'all conditions are dependently originated', 'what arises passes', is both preliminary to the right path and ultimately conclusive in full release.

metta & upekkha

[Individual]

For all the above stated in the immediately above msg, still no one is addressing Guenther's point. Lot of inappropriate huffing and puffing about hostility. Oh, well.

I don't know on what basis Guenther says advaya is distinguished from advaita,

You want citations and all?

I want his sources and his claim verified. He says advaya is distinct from advaita. Is this claim standard knowledge or is it his own view? In either case, upon what does he base it on?

There's nothing about the words themselves that suggest advaya means "not-two" but advaita means "one without a second", because they're both formed the same way, to my knowledge, as a negation of dvaya or dvaita. Dvaita, dvaya... dualism. Thus, advaita, advaya, the negation of dualism. Same with Atta and Anatta, Mula and Amula, Dosa and Adosa, etc.. It's a definition through negation of another term, like in English, there's do and undo, fold and unfold, make and unmake, etc.. If you were asked what these words meant, you could say they meant "the opposite of do, the opposite of folding, the opposite of making", but if you were to translate these terms into a foreign language, people might come up with a diversity of possible translations, and the process of translation can obscure the meaning.

Now, in virtually every literature that uses this term, do they ALWAYS use it in such a way that it's explicitly "not-two" for advaya and "one without a second" for advaita? You couldn't use the term both ways? I don't know if that's true, but if Guenther is biased, I can't accept this claim at face-value; he's only one scholar.

But if they are a negation, it suggests a duality. There is the obvious duality between dualism and non-dualism, pluralism and monism. Advaya means "not-two" and "advaya" means two. A very simple and obvious duality. But with advaita, Guenther claims that advaita means "one without a second," but then what does dvaita mean? Two without one? If dvaita does indeed mean pluralistic, dualistic, many, etc., than it seems pretty plausible than advaita means a negation of that, and Guenther's just wrong, obscuring the meaning of the word by creating a peculiar rendering of it that narrows the meaning to avoid any possible overlap with Buddhist ideas.

Guenther's comment was an aswer in Q&A part of a more formal talk. His source for avdaita is, obviously Shankara's writings. Have you read Shankara? Guenther is pretty much on the mark.

Is that his only source for it? That is, did Shankara invent the term "advaita," does he always use it in such a way that it means "one without a second," and did every Indian or follower of Advaita since then use the term in the same manner? This is relevant to Guenther's point. If he doesn't have the evidence to back up such a claim, his point doesn't stand.

[tiltbillings]

I want his sources and his claim verified. He says advaya is distinct from advaita. Is this claim standard knowledge or is it his own view? In either case, upon what does he base it on?

Upon years of study of primary sources and studying with Indians in India. You might do well to actually read Shankara and some classic Advaita stuff.

There's nothing about the words themselves that suggest advaya means "not-two" but advaita means "one without a second", because they're both formed the same way, to my knowledge, as a negation of dvaya or dvaita. Dvaita, dvaya... dualism.

Your knowledge, as has been shown when you brought this up before, is - at very best - limited. "One without a second" is a classic gloss of advaita, by Advaita Vedantins and it is still used by traditional Advaitans to this day, as has been very carefuilly shown to you. Dictionaries are extremely useful, but are not always the last word on how a term is used and understood within a tradition.

Thus, advaita, advaya, the negation of dualism. ....

Your "thus" is not grounded in any actual working with the traditions in question, but that aside, you are still not addressing the very interesting, fundamental point Guenther is making.

[Individual]

I want his sources and his claim verified. He says advaya is distinct from advaita. Is this claim standard knowledge or is it his own view? In either case, upon what does he base it on?

Upon years of study of primary sources and studying with Indians in India.

Does he wear a large, impressive-looking hat too?

[tiltbillings]

I want his sources and his claim verified. He says advaya is distinct from advaita. Is this claim standard knowledge or is it his own view? In either case, upon what does he base it on?

Upon years of study of primary sources and studying with Indians in India.

Does he wear a large, impressive-looking hat too?

No. He is presently quite dead, but your snotty answer is not worthy of you. There is a point Guenther made that is worth looking at. Rather than all your side track stuff, maybe you might want to look at that.

[nathan]

I recommend reviewing the words of the Blessed One in these regards.
MN 1 - Mulapariyaya Sutta: The Root Sequence
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

By means of Jhana, the mindful attention of consciousness can be reduced, reified or concentrated to one condition. The sphere of awareness of that one condition is the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception; which is to say, only this one condition, without second or in other words without 'the duality of this condition as subject and a secondary condition or group of compounded conditions as object'.

In keeping with this understanding, this single subtlest of conditions, is the same condition which in sequences of contact with any and all arising and passing conditions produces formations or the conventional objects of perception and thereby produces cognizance of all things in the sequences of individuated experience.

This condition arises and passes like all others - very rapidly. This condition appears and in doing so it makes contact or 'clings' momentarily and then vanishes only to arise again in contact with the next object of cognition. In keeping with the conditions pertaining to any given arisen kamma (be it active and/or resultant) it rapidly moves on to take up one object after another in rapid series' of cognitions.

By the uninstructed and untrained these forms of awareness are then misperceived and misconceived as being any number of things that all of this conditionally dependent phenomena is actually not. One such misperception and misconception of our circumstances is that posited by Advaita Vedanta.

Unfortunately, for all parties in disagreement in these regards, this contest cannot be satisfactorily resolved by debate or reasoning, it must be investigated directly and this requires the extensive development of skill in satipatthana and samathavipassana. This kind of meditative work is what I would encourage anyone who truly seeks to satisfactorily resolve these questions undertake to do.

[christopher:::]

Good points Nathan. One cannot get at the heart of this matter with debate and dualistic reasoning.

Both systems (Buddhist and Advaita) point out what a waste of time that is. These are intellectual ego games. And the only way one can participate is to play that way, configure your mind to think that way. No thanks.

Once again, I'll share the key points made by Seng Tsan, which are in line with what nathan just said. Such discussions simply serve no useful purpose, from the perspective of both Advaita and Zen.



"If you wish to see the truth then hold no opinions for or against anything. To set up what you like against what you dislike is the disease of the mind. When the deep meaning of things is not understood the mind's essential peace is disturbed to no avail.

The more you talk and think about it, the further astray you wander from the truth. Stop talking and thinking, and there is nothing you will not be able to know. To return to the root is to find the meaning, but to pursue appearances is to miss the source. Do not search for the truth; only cease to cherish opinions. Do not remain in the dualistic state -- avoid such pursuits carefully.

If there is even a trace of this and that, of right and wrong, the Mind-essence will be lost in confusion. When the mind exists undisturbed in the Way, nothing in the world can offend, and when such a thing can no longer offend, it ceases to exist in the old way. When no discriminating thoughts arise, the old mind ceases to exist."

~Seng Tsan

[tiltbillings]

Good points Nathan. One cannot get at the heart of this matter with debate and dualistic reasoning.

Both systems (Buddhist and Advaita) point out what a waste of time that is.

Actually, Buddhists, such as the Gelugpas, Sakyapas, and probably the other two schools see a great deal of advanatge in establishing Right View. Hindu monism is something thatr is clearly rejected.

And if you want dualism, in spades, then non-dualism is the way to go. I have not seen anything more dualistic than all the talk about non-dualism.

Also, one of the interesting things about jhana meditation is that it can be very easily colored by one's beliefs. It is a good way to "attain non-dualism," or make yourself think that you have.

As far as the "One" is concerned, "One" what?

[mikenz66]

I don't know enough to contribute to this thread, but I am frustrated by the strange logic that is being used, which seems to be saying something like:

"Analysis is dualistic, therefore I win because you are analysing..."

By all means, if you don't want to engage in analysis, don't. It may well be a waste of time to do too much analysis. But why keep repeating that in a thread where analysis is the whole point?

Mike

[tiltbillings]

IBut why keep repeating that in a thread where analysis is the whole point?

Mike

Because non-dualism is a warm fuzzy thing that makes people feel good. There is a natural self driven tendency towards its, and those committed to it want to reduce everything to it.