Tattva-viveka
Buddhism
Jason - September 22, 2007 4:27 pm
I'm taking a Buddhist Philosophy class that, admittedly, is quite interesting. I was wondering if I could play devil's advocate in attempt to hear (from you all), and get a better grasp on the Gaudiya perspective. Often times, I know what I feel, but haven't the ability to put it within the context of GV to better explain why.
Would it be ok if I posted some thoughts here?
Jason
Madan Gopal Das - September 22, 2007 4:53 pm
Bring it on brother!Jason - September 22, 2007 5:52 pm
While I find some things about Buddhism interesting--there are even some parallels to GV--it leaves me wanting. I thought about how GM talks about the "number line" and getting from negative numbers to "zero". In all the class discussions thus far, this is what Buddhism suggests. I raised my hand and asked, essentially, about positive numbers. The instructor, a psychologist by profession who is quite learned in Buddhism and uses it in his clinical practice, suggested that my whole "need" for there to be something more is a symptom of the western mindset (i.e. for fundementalist Christians--they need to know that there is some big payoff in the end; they'll get to enjoy heaven). He implied that my curiosity about something beyond "sunyata" (emptyness)--is indicative of the western mind and thought process.
We have a few actual monks in the class too. A zen nun and a Tibetan/Theravadan monastic from the monastery down the street from my apartment. They chimed in and reiterated the same.
So, then I'm sitting there thinking about the personal conception of God--something I hold to be very true. We started to briefly discuss some Buddhist sects which have devotional aspects (Amitabha Buddha for example). The professor talked about "rules and regulations" and how practices to bring one to enlightenment may vary, but ultimately, those processes themselves are "maya" and will be left behind. I thought about vaidhi-bhakti and the raga-marg in our tradition. However, our "process" doesn't end when we reach the spiritual world--it is just then perfected and continues, right? Apparently, devotional Buddhism is just a way to bring one to the non-dual conception over time.
I'm having a hard time writing this---so bare with me....so much running through my head.
Buddhist meditation practices aim to get us away from constantly having to have an "object" to focus on. Whereas we focus, during japa and kirtan and reading even, on Krsna--the only "real" thing worth focusing on. Don't focus on temporary things. Buddhism would see devotionalism as just a stepping stone--ultimately we need to move beyond the personal conception. They say, even, that nirvana exists, ONLY from the vantage point of samsara. Once we're enlightened and attain sunyata---neither samsara nor nirvana exist! (My head is spinning).
A Zen Koan - "You never step in the same river twice". A better Zen Koan - "You never step in the same river once" --??? Well, there is no self, nor is there a river to step in---um, huh?
Below is what I wrote in my notes:
Madhyamika School - negativism - "Finger pointing to the moon"/don't get hung up on the words, images, processes. Try to end the mind wanting to make everything "real".
So, from this stream of consciousness rant....if you can pull out any questions, I'm all ears for people to pick it apart and talk about certain things. I'm sure I'll have other questions.
Swami - September 22, 2007 6:30 pm
While I find some things about Buddhism interesting--there are even some parallels to GV--it leaves me wanting. I thought about how GM talks about the "number line" and getting from negative numbers to "zero". In all the class discussions thus far, this is what Buddhism suggests. I raised my hand and asked, essentially, about positive numbers. The instructor, a psychologist by profession who is quite learned in Buddhism and uses it in his clinical practice, suggested that my whole "need" for there to be something more is a symptom of the western mindset (i.e. for fundementalist Christians--they need to know that there is some big payoff in the end; they'll get to enjoy heaven). He implied that my curiosity about something beyond "sunyata" (emptyness)--is indicative of the western mind and thought process.
First and briefly, the notion that there is something beyond sunyta is hardly Western in its origin. It's been around in the East long before Buddhism and is included in all forms of Vedanta, even Advaita Vedanta. The positive numbers of Gaudiya Vaisnavism are hardly about some big pay off. They are about eternal service. Is love about a payoff? Is it void?
Buddhist sunyata, on the other hand, is about a big payoff—the end of suffering, no more work, extinguishing the fire of desire—nirvana. If ultimate reality is void, it has nothing to reveal, but if it has content, it has something to reveal. Thus with good reason we accept the necessity of revelation in order to arrive at comprehensive knowing, because we have concluded that ultimate reality is not contentless.
Swami - September 22, 2007 6:55 pm
In my analogy of negative and positive numbers, it is the negative numbers that most represent looking for the payoff (the realm of karma). If zero is thought to be beyond that, so too and much more so then is the concept of positive numbers.
Syama Gopala Dasa - September 22, 2007 7:17 pm
Could we say that the negative numbers are more about the self and thus the payoff as in ridding the self of desire etc?
Jason - September 22, 2007 7:40 pm
The positive numbers of Gaudiya Vaisnavism are hardly about some big pay off. They are about eternal service. Is love about a payoff?
This is what I thought....what I feel, but he seemed to imply that devotional tendencies--which suggests two persons--was something to go beyond; that we're just conditioned to want to have it all be as simple as a Supreme Person. While I can understand that rules and processes of devotional Buddhist sects are ultimately left behind (akin to spontaneous devotional service), there doesn't seem to be any concept of rasa/relationship w/ the Supreme--so why have any "methods" for attaining elightenment anyway.
Sometimes it comes across that Buddhism is a great way for people to simply be good people--not really much more than that.
Jason - September 22, 2007 7:48 pm
Buddhist sunyata, on the other hand, is about a big payoff—the end of suffering, no more work, extinguishing the fire of desire—nirvana.
So, if the jiva is happiest in a serving relationship--then nirvana would be of no interest..is that correct. Nirvana would be rather boring and uneventful, huh?
Swami - September 22, 2007 8:13 pm
This is what I thought....what I feel, but he seemed to imply that devotional tendencies--which suggests two persons--was something to go beyond; that we're just conditioned to want to have it all be as simple as a Supreme Person.
The way to go beyond two persons or duality (as he is thinking) is love, becasue in love two become one, a dynamic one albeit, and all the better I might add.
Swami - September 22, 2007 8:20 pm
So, if the jiva is happiest in a serving relationship--then nirvana would be of no interest..is that correct. Nirvana would be rather boring and uneventful, huh?
Nirvana means to extinghush material desire. This is included in our prayojana. It is apparent from your question above that you need more nirvana factored into your bhakti. Our prayojana is not about having fun things to do. It is about divine slavery that is full of ananda for the jiva becasue it gives ananda to Bhagavan, ahaituky apratihata yayatma suprasidati.
Philip Breakenridge - September 22, 2007 8:52 pm
Although I'm attracted to Buddhist imagery, the philosophy itself has never appealed to me. I'm not interested in following a path which teaches that there is no personal God. I do, however, respect the Buddhists for their teachings on non-violence and the importance of meditation and chanting.
The main reason I found KC so appealing is that it is a path which emphasizes the personalness of God like no other. Mercifully, God appears in deity form so that one can take darshan of Him. Even if the devotee is not in the presence of the deity, he or she can associate with God at any time just by chanting the holy names. These teachings are a great comfort in a world where people often feel isolated and alienated from the divine.
My love for Buddhist art began when I learned of the Hindu teaching that Gautama Buddha is an avatar of Lord Vishnu. I've always wondered, though, how such an impersonal philosophy originated from an incarnation of the Lord. Perhaps he wanted there to be a path for those who are attracted to impersonalism. Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Syamasundara - September 22, 2007 9:04 pm
The mission of the buddha-avatara is to mislead (but still lead) the atheists. The last Buddha avatara came at a time where people's conception of god worship had degenerated. If I am not mistaken, animal sacrifices were still being performed but with a view to eat meat. People had lost compassion and were lost in the worship of all kinds of minor gods. So Siddhartha Gautama just said, forget God, there is no God, and paved another way for them, that was at least full of compassion and mindfulness.
Vivek - September 22, 2007 11:05 pm
Buddha was silent on existence of God and his disciples construed it to mean that there is no God.
Jason - September 23, 2007 2:24 am
so is there no ananda in nirvana? Can that only be present when there are two persons? What (if any) is the difference between what we refer to as brahmajyoti and nirvana?
Nitaisundara Das - September 23, 2007 3:50 am
so is there no ananda in nirvana? Can that only be present when there are two persons? What (if any) is the difference between what we refer to as brahmajyoti and nirvana?
I think upon attaining nirvana there is no ananda or anything else, who is there t suffer, or who is there to experience joy? GM describes the relief of getting away from a tiger by hiding in some room. But eventually we want to come out and do something....see our friends, eat, etc etc. What to speak of two people, you at least need one to do anything.
I think the concept of nirvana is different then that of brahman. Brahman is consciousness whereas Buddhist believe everyhting is maya(i.e.) no soul). So Buddhist's philosophy is even more empty(which may be a complement to them) than that of Advaita Vedanta, hence our conception that Shiva came as Sankara to give a proggression from Buddhism towards bhakti. The worst part is that so many people flocking towards Buddhism think it is about love, compassion, kindness etc. All things that are symptoms of relationships which retire in there sadhya.
Interestingly I looked up nirvana on the online sanskrit dictonary and some definitions are "dead, deceased, extinguished, lost, cessation" these don't conjure positive feelings in me. Of course I guess in relation to suffering they could be positive, "as much as 0 is positive to negative". So my question is why could one not just commit suicide and attain that goal? And of course the question if one has absolutely no experience of nothingness, never, what kind of blind faith brings one to think it exists?
Just my thoughts please correct me if I know nothing about buddhism.
Syamasundara - September 23, 2007 10:47 am
Yes, cessation of suffering doesn't mean or imply pleasure or happiness. Brahmajyoti means sat and cit, but ananda is not achieved unless and until one experiences Bhagavan.
The point about buddhism coming across as a doctrine of love and compassion is very true. Packaging and marketing are everything...
Committing suicide has entirely different karmic repercussions. It's interesting how the Buddhist accept the law of karma but no legislator. How did this perfect order of things come to be? By chance, and at any time it could become chaos again? This is all so gray, despiriting and unsettling to me. But easy for us to talk. People could say the worst things about our path by just judging from the outside.
For example, my friend Marta is a zen buddhist of some Japanese school. They are the ones that chant nam myoho renge kyo, and as partial as I am to Mahaprabhu, I must admit they have a very healthy concept of mantra yoga. I chanted that mantra for some time just for kicks, and it gives me the same sensation of fullness and reluctance to stop that I get with the maha-mantra (on a good day); no particular emotions, I don't even know what it means, but when I'd hear her talk about their process, maybe my mind was filtering, but she could have very well have been speaking about the maha-mantra... until she would go atheist at the conclusion.
So, it's true, from our perspective, buddhism is very dry and worthless, but still not something to dismiss based on some basic difference we know about both our process and theirs.
It's funny how today, of all times, I talked about Buddhism, meditation and Vedanta Sutra to a couple I gave a ride to on my rksa, and my last ride one hour ago was to some alleged soap opera actor (Bryce of Ways of Life, anyone?) who was also telling me how it appealed to him that the world is about suffering and once you come to terms with it, you are... happy. Or peaceful, whatever he said.
We are a very privileged and exremely fortunate bunch for having come in contact with the secrets Mahaprabhu has come to spread about himself.
Jaya Gaura Hari! Jaya Rasaraja!
Jason - September 23, 2007 2:55 pm
Yes, cessation of suffering doesn't mean or imply pleasure or happiness. Brahmajyoti means sat and cit, but ananda is not achieved unless and until one experiences Bhagavan.
This helps a lot--thanks! In the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism, sunyata is the ultimate transcendence and characterized by the "20 Emptinesses". The list is rather depressing and doesn't appear to leave any possibility of joy. On the other hand, in GV, there are unlimited ways to serve Krsna.
What you said about Buddhists having a slightly different take on the idea of karma (without a legislator) is true. They posit that karma, like all other cause/effect relationships, can ONLY function because things are transient and are void of intrinsic entity. If things were permanent and had intrinsic being in themselves, none of the natural laws (physical, biological, psychological laws) including the law of karma could operate. If something exists that is permanent, the laws of mutation/change can't act on it.
Quite a departure from the idea that Krsna is in control, but not controlled.
Syamasundara - September 23, 2007 5:38 pm
Imagine how far they are from the idea that Krsna is actually SO controlled (bhakti-baddha). That's one of those secrets...
Jason - September 23, 2007 6:52 pm
yeah...nice point! They would be like 
Syamasundara - September 23, 2007 7:18 pm
That would be the reaction of a Vaikuntha bhakta; a buddhist would just have... compassion for you, because you don't know that there is no controller nor controlled, just the fullness of emptiness. No need for such an emotional reaction as . They're like fricking Vulcans or Bejorians, right Krsnangi?
Swami - September 23, 2007 7:29 pm
Yes, cessation of suffering doesn't mean or imply pleasure or happiness. Brahmajyoti means sat and cit, but ananda is not achieved unless and until one experiences Bhagavan.
Actually there is some ananda in the jiva, what to speak of Brahman. It is anu sat cit ananda that the jiva is constituted of. If its ignorance is removed (by say satviki bhakti, as opposed to suddha bhakti), it can experience up to brahmananda. The ananda of Bhagavan realization (hladhini) resulting from the grace of svarupa-sakti in sudha bhakti, however, far exceeds the ananda of Brahman realization.
Syamasundara - September 23, 2007 7:50 pm
So, basically, nirvana and the brahma-bhuta level are the same thing then, since nirvana is the cessation of suffering that comes from ignorance.
Swami - September 23, 2007 8:32 pm
So, basically, nirvana and the brahma-bhuta level are the same thing then, since nirvana is the cessation of suffering that comes from ignorance.
Brahma-nirvana is mentioned in the Gita. Nirvana means to extinguish. Brahma refers to the effulgence of Bhagavan. So extingushing samsara one experiences Brahman. However, Buddhist do not acknowldge the existence of Brahman. Their idea in our terminolgy is perhaps prakrti nirvana, a merging with matter that occurs when the mind and corresponding sense of individual existence is extinguished. Perhaps a merging with the maha tattva. Talk about spiritual suicide.
Swami - September 23, 2007 11:24 pm
Yes, cessation of suffering doesn't mean or imply pleasure or happiness. Brahmajyoti means sat and cit, but ananda is not achieved unless and until one experiences Bhagavan.
In another sense this statement is correct, so small or linited is the ananda of the self or of Brahman. It is really only the cessation of suffering, a negative positive. Like zero in comparison to negative numbers. Attainment of Brahman is attainment of a something unattainable, since it consists of no qualities, etc. Buddhism seeks nothing and Advaita Vedanta seeks something with nothing in it, no qualities, no form, no activity, no one or another. In comparing a drop of water to an ocean it is fair to say that the drop is nothing in comparison. Similarly it is fair to say that there is no ananda in Brahman or in the jiva, when we compare self realization or Brahman realization to God realization. It is only because of the extent of the misery of material existence that relief from it is considered happiness. But if you multiply this a trillion fold it cannot compare to the happines of bhakti.
Jason - November 10, 2007 4:09 pm
Just wanted to mention something else about this Buddhism class. The other night we started talking about the Vajrayana school (Tibetan) Buddhism and their stress on the importance of a teacher. This led to talking about the importance of Guru in other traditions. Since Buddhism (all sects essentially) believe all the tools (deities, mantras, images, techniques, etc.) one uses to help his/herself advance towards enlightenment is ultimately sunyata--not real and will be left behind, I asked about the relationship with the Guru from the Buddhist perspective. The answer I got back was rather shallow and sort of sad really--to think of your teacher as just a tool along the way and ultimately he/she doesn't exist.
One other student said, "But isn't the relationship between teacher and student a joyous one, where the teaching is giving knowledge and if the student is accepting it, there is an emotional bond and there is happiness on both ends?" Our professor suggested that one can't be attached to that relationship. It just made me think about the idea of relationship and rasa and how our philosophy doesn't deny the feelings that one has to guru or God, but further develops those ideas and shows how proper re-direction of all those seemingly mundane sentiments, have a place in transcendence.
I realized just how optimistic Gaudiya Vaisnava is; how merciful Mahaprabhu was by giving what he did.
That's all.
Grant Upson - November 10, 2007 8:35 pm
Since Buddhism (all sects essentially) believe all the tools (deities, mantras, images, techniques, etc.) one uses to help his/herself advance towards enlightenment is ultimately sunyata--not real and will be left behind.
It just made me think about the idea of relationship and rasa and how our philosophy doesn't deny the feelings that one has to guru or God, but further develops those ideas and shows how proper re-direction of all those seemingly mundane sentiments, have a place in transcendence.
I realized just how optimistic Gaudiya Vaisnava is; how merciful Mahaprabhu was by giving what he did.
In Madhyamika Buddhism the Eightfold Path and the other "tools" you mention are often likened to a "raft" used to cross to the far shore (nirvana). The components of the raft are useful only insofar as they facilitate movement towards sunyata (emptiness).
Your post made me think of a much sweeter boat-related methapor in the Gaudiya tradition -- a metaphor that I think well expresses your sentiment regarding the relationship with Sri Guru. (Emphasis below is added.)
"The destination has been settled, but how shall I reach it? When shall I reach it? Those who come to my aid to take me there--they are my masters, my Gurus: Siksa-gurus and Diksa-guru. Whoever helps me to go there is my Guru. He is my guide who will help me to reach my located destination, the station of my innermost hankering (rAdhikA-mAdhavasAM praApto yasya prathitah krpayA sri-guruM taM nato 'smi). He has helped me to locate my destination; he has educated me how and what to aspire after, and how to reach that highest aspired shelter. I have attained all these things through him. He is my all-in-all in life, the master of my life. There is a boat, and he is the helsman (guru-karNa dhAram). I have surrendered unto him, I have accepted him. I have boarded his boat and he is taking me towards the goal of my life." -SSM
Swami - November 10, 2007 11:41 pm
In Madhyamika Buddhism the Eightfold Path and the other "tools" you mention are often likened to a "raft" used to cross to the far shore (nirvana). The components of the raft are useful only insofar as they facilitate movement towards sunyata (emptiness).
Your post made me think of a much sweeter boat-related methapor in the Gaudiya tradition -- a metaphor that I think well expresses your sentiment regarding the relationship with Sri Guru. (Emphasis below is added.)
"The destination has been settled, but how shall I reach it? When shall I reach it? Those who come to my aid to take me there--they are my masters, my Gurus: Siksa-gurus and Diksa-guru. Whoever helps me to go there is my Guru. He is my guide who will help me to reach my located destination, the station of my innermost hankering (rAdhikA-mAdhavasAM praApto yasya prathitah krpayA sri-guruM taM nato 'smi). He has helped me to locate my destination; he has educated me how and what to aspire after, and how to reach that highest aspired shelter. I have attained all these things through him. He is my all-in-all in life, the master of my life. There is a boat, and he is the helsman (guru-karNa dhAram). I have surrendered unto him, I have accepted him. I have boarded his boat and he is taking me towards the goal of my life." -SSM
How beautiful. How profound. How well it articulates the sincere and advancing disciple's feelings.
Jason - November 12, 2007 3:31 am
What a perfect passage! Thanks Grant!
Zvonimir Tosic - December 3, 2007 12:13 pm
A Zen Koan - "You never step in the same river twice". A better Zen Koan - "You never step in the same river once" --???
Jason, thank you for this.
I remember, once I was listening to Krisna Ksetra Prabhu and he compared Zen koans with the maha mantra.
Zen koans impose (il)logical obstacles to the mind, perplexing and paradoxical ideas that literally "shatter mind into pieces", or, they're cooling it down slowly. When the mind is cooled down and not jumping around and about sense objects, one can gradually take control of it.
Vaisnavas do the same with the maha mantra: they fully control the mind by focusing it on Krisna. Krisna is non-different from the maha mantra. When focused on Krisna, mind doesn't fleet around because Krisna is all attractive; he captures the mind completely. Whoever tried to chant maha mantra sincerely even for a minute, knows this is true.
I may add following:
Vaisnavas don't just take their favourite koan, the maha mantra, to give them peace of mind, nirvana and then leave it abandoned. They're so attracted to it, that instead of dissolving in oblivion they'll rather accept eternal slavery to the maha mantra. From every perspective, that kind of sacrifice is far greater than any dissolution. And not just that, from that perspective of the endless divine slavery, any dissolution looks like a puny, endlessly selfish act.
So Vaisnava's self-sacrifice far exceeds any dissolution and is the ultimate negation of self -- through eternal slavery.
PS. So in one way, Vaisnavas are Buddhists to the Buddhists.
Maybe this can be a new koan :Broken Heart:
Ys, Z.