3 Answers

  1. No, this is not in Buddhism, but in Hinduism. In Hinduism, it is believed that each Self is a part of God. That is, God divides himself into particles that manifest as different selves. In Buddhism, on the contrary, it is believed that every mind is beginningless. Every mind is free. Each mind is a collection of instantaneous phenomena that are constantly moving, changing, but their generality can be mistakenly understood as a constant, motionless Self. In Buddhism, there are three signs of existence in samsara: impermanence, selflessness, and dissatisfaction. That is, such a model contradicts the Hindu one, because in Hinduism, and in particular in Advaita Vedanta, the existence of a permanent God, the self-sufficient existence of the soul, is affirmed.

  2. Advaita is the philosophy of non-duality in Hindu philosophy, it is believed that it was first voiced by Sri Shankara, who criticized Buddhism (namely, the concept of anatman-the absence of Atman ) and became, in fact, the initiator of a new trend in Hinduism, reviving the ancient Vedic traditions that had fallen into decline at that time.

    Yes, the concept of non-duality postulates the absence of differences, the world is seen and felt as One, One. Everything is Atman, everything is I. The basic formula is Tat Tvam Asi – You are That. However, it should be understood that any practical philosophical concept, philosophical system is built on the absolutization of one or two or three basic terms that take on the character of the primary basis, the root cause of everything and everything. The construction of the Advaita philosophy was based on the statement that everything is Atman, and that everything that is not Atman is Maya or illusion.

    At one time, the Buddha shocked the modern public with the news that the Atman does not exist as a stable timeless entity, he acted as a kind of spiritual revolutionary and, thanks to him, the Vedic tradition had to work hard, rethink, pour new wine into its old skins, which became the so-called Advaita philosophy.

    Heated public arguments between Shankara and Buddhist preachers have attracted, by today's standards, almost stadiums of interested truth seekers. The position of Shankara-largely updated and filled with philosophical arguments, compared to the Vedic hymns-looked preferable and more advantageous for Hindus than the position of Buddhists. And the motivation of revenge and resentment for the ancient authority of the Vedas, apparently, played a significant role in the fact that the philosophy of Advaita raised the national, at that time mainly mystical tradition to a qualitatively new intellectual, philosophical level.

    These disputes contributed to a deeper understanding and understanding of the phenomenon of reality, contributed to the development of sophisticated abstract thinking, since they put in the first place not just the “naked” mystical experience of direct knowledge, but the experience of the mystic, enriched with intellectual tools.

    For my part, Buddhists insist on the concept of “what is”, while Advaita adherents postulate the reality of only “who is”. Feel the difference? Who's right?�

    It is natural that for Buddhists there is no “whatness” of being, so to speak; for them there is only eternity, so to speak, only “whatness”. In turn, the preacher of non-duality will claim that there is only “that (he) who is” in the world, in other words, pure “ktoynost”. Because of this, mountains of strict logical argumentation and mutual multi-stage criticism of each other's positions, and implicitly various derived variants of these positions and philosophies, were built…

    So, if the ” whatness “(thought, matter, abstraction, all that is) does not exist, then, naturally, the seepage of its elements as the progenitor of all the “duality” of the world into the consciousness of a person should be prevented, not just any thought about it should be avoided, but thoughts should be avoided altogether, except for one single one-You are THAT (Atman). That is, one should not be scattered into illusions and keep in mind only one object of attention and reverence-Atman, the true “I” that is in all beings of the world. Hence the conclusion that everything material is an illusion, all matter is a deception of perception and, therefore, unworthy of the attention of adepts of Advaita.

    Hence the principle of the “eternal search” for the Atman by following the formula “neti-neti”, i.e., when none of the objects that appear in the consciousness (external or internal world) is accepted as “here it is, Atman!”, but simply ignored as ” not that, not that…”. Such is the strict search for the true G-d with the refusal to consider and accept all the properties and attributes of the environment of His stay. In fact, this is meditation with concentration on the Only One who is omnipresent and has the so-called quality-free nature (“nirguna”, i.e. the absence of gunas, qualities or signs of being). That is why it is impossible to “identify” It based on any signs. That is why no thought, no scripture, no sacred book, no guru can “transmit” this knowledge of the Self in the slightest. The seeker of a sadhaka can only have a chance to know the Self through his own experience. The help of various books and gurus, by and large, can only be in developing the ability of their wards to be a persistent “Thomas the unbeliever” in relation to everything and everyone who tries to pass themselves off as Him. The mind is trained to look at itself, at the whole world around it, as an illusion, a worthless ” what-ness “(initially positioned by Advaita adherents as the duality of the world).

    By the way, it is exactly the opposite that adherents of various Buddhist schools and trends have done and are doing (I am broadcasting my point of view here), directing their search towards pure “whatness”, completely denying the fullness of the existence of “ktoiness”. Buddhism is looking for an answer to the question “what is truth”, it is focused mainly on solving this particular question. In fact, this is why Buddhist philosophy is broader and more ontological than atheism and materialism, since it can be said that the Buddhist concept includes all atheism as part of its teaching, but in no case as the essence. That is why Buddhism has taken root among the people and has become popular, because it has leveled caste, and is, in fact, a philosophical democratic tradition a priori.

    And the philosophical concept of Advaita in a broader view includes (with certain reservations) all theistic traditions that are dedicated to the cult of G-d. That is, every theistic tradition, in one way or another, builds its philosophy on the primacy of “whodunit”, since it answers (each in its own way) the question “Who is the Truth?”.

    At the same time, almost all philosophically developed religious dogmas include as their abstract reference points the “trinity” or three basic instances, which are represented in various empirical variations by the divine “ktoynost”, the divine “chtoynost” and a certain divine ” connecting link “as an intermediary. I.e., pure Advaita philosophy stands apart in this refined trend of Trinitarianism, insistently denying” chtoynost ” at the ontological level (perhaps this was initially psychologically connected with the then confrontation with Buddhism, and then it was historically fixed). Advaitists then and now (unlike, for example, the cult of Krishna or Shiva) are rather an elite trend among the vast complex of Hindu religions, since only the most consistent and persistent Sannyasins agree to deny material and other objects in their thoughts and lifestyle (in search of pure subjectivity as an ontological Subject). And Yes, early Buddhism, most likely, too, was firmly opposed “keynote” (after all, this “trick” was the main position of their ideological opponents in the form of preachers Vedic philosophy in Hinduism), it was only later, in the so-called “mahaska Buddhism” there was a phenomenon of the bodhisattva as a liaison with the ontology of “stoimosti”.

    What is the conclusion? Learn perseverance and total meditative concentration on the One from Advaitists, and also learn the art of meditative deconcentration and dissolution into reality from their ideological sparring partners-Buddhists. The philosophical machines of Advaita and Buddhism are akin, respectively, to a manned spacecraft and an unmanned space station. While studying their structure, do not forget the purpose of their creation: bringing human consciousness into the orbit of truth.�

    Reflect. Learn more. Learn to learn.

    The world is what it is. We are who we are.

    And yes, the division of the world into Advaita and dvaita (or reality and illusion, or ktoynost and chtoynost) is very abstract, but the division into Buddhists and Advaitists is very specific. Or maybe, on the contrary, the most abstract is the most real?

  3. Non-duality is the absence of differences in consciousness. The whole world looks like a perfect single mechanism, there is nothing to change, nothing to strive for, nothing to desire. The desire to “return to duality” cannot arise from such a state of perception, as, in fact, �and any other desire.�

    If you see perfection, do you want to change anything about it?

    But you can't get into a state of non-duality either. If you have a DESIRE (any, even the most noble), it means that you are dissatisfied with the existing order of things, you want to change it for the better, and therefore you perceive the surrounding reality as imperfect.

Leave a Reply