Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

I'd give even money this was posted somewhere here already, but in case not I found an interesting article comparing some different perspectives on enlightenment. I'd love to know what you guys think.

Check it out:
ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/26715.htm

There is some stuff about this question written in this thread:

kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/3910058/Enlightenment

Thanks for the link Owen. I found it to be an enjoyable read. I liked the compare/contrast of different systems of viewing subject and object.

Truly great stuff. I always wondered what the link was between nondual and buddhist enlightenment. We are pulling that together here, with Kenneth's 3rd gear, but there is still a question in the air of why the 3rd gear fits and what it's all about. This article suggests that the versions of enlightenment are the same but that they are experienced from different points, views, etc. That essentially liberation is the same in both traditions, but how we describe the experience is different because of the vehicles we use to attain to it.

At least, this is how I understood it. This makes a lot of sense to me, but another question pops up: is there any model or system that can encompass all of this?

Same destination different route!

It's sad that I don't have access to it, but there is a VERY interesting chapter in the book "Transformations of Consciousness" (by Ken Wilber, Daniel P. Brown and Jack Engler, the chapter is written by Brown) about intercultural development of consciousness. As far as I remember he also compares Buddhist and Hindu traditions. And if I am not completely mistaken, there was something very interesting about the correlates of enlightenment states in the brain that suggest that actually the difference in focus might be grounded on activation of different brain regions. But I'm not sure if I'm now making this up or if it was really written in the book. I have to see that I can get the book from the local library.

"... another question pops up: is there any model or system that can encompass all of this?"

I think the article's point is that to the extent one uses a inductive/conceptual model, it becomes the nondual-one Vedantic explanation, and to the extent that one says the description of the phenomenological experience is the model, it becomes the Therevadin nondual-nothing explaination. Truth/reality being unexplainable ultimately in either case. Does that seem right?

It's interesting that the paper goes on to say "such an approach will probably be more pleasing to Vedantins and Mahayana Buddhists, since they can see it as a vindication of their own position. Insofar as Theravada Buddhists have made a metaphysic out of the Buddha's phenomenology, one is happy to discomfort them."

To me, since the phenomenology is the only thing that can be experienced, his paper seems more supportive of the phenomenology model, despite his conclusion. Still haven't thought that idea through yet.

Good stuff!

excellent read; great clarity in resolving different perspectives. thanks for sharing! ^__^

The similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism is clearly described in David Loy's essay -- it is the non-divison of subject and object. But in Buddhism it is not only non-dual insight that is important - the insight of non-inherency (which has two aspects - emptiness of subject, and emptiness of object) is just as important as the insight of non-duality.

David Loy clearly stated that Non-duality is either No Self or All Self, and permits no duality between a 'true self' and 'not self', observer and observed. Which is true. So he is right that both Buddhism and Advaita is non-dual teaching, but it is not the whole story.

What is overlooked/not mentioned here is that though non-duality may be experienced as an All-Self and hence subject and object are not divided, one can still extrapolate all phenomena as being extensions of a universal substratum (i.e. reifying Brahman as an Absolute/Universal Consciousness) -- and hence seeing reality as an inherent ontological essence. Non-duality here is seen as the union/inseparability of objects with Subject, but the insight of No-Subject has not arisen.

In Anatta, there is only vivid reflection and manifestation without mirror/Subject, there is no mirror (Ultimate Subject) reflecting or being in union with the manifestations. 'Everything' is a process, event, manifestation and phenomenon, nothing ontological or having an essence. There is no agent, not just no subject/object division. Awareness is just a label for manifestation. Seeing is just the seen, no seer, no subject.

I cannot speak for Kenneth, but this is how I see Kenneth's 7th stage is different from 3rd gear.

The difference between Advaita's non-dualism of brahman and world and Buddhism's Anatta is the difference between Thusness's Stage 4 and 5: awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/...s-of-experience.html

"there is a VERY interesting chapter in the book "Transformations of Consciousness" (by Ken Wilber, Daniel P. Brown and Jack Engler, the chapter is written by Brown) about intercultural development of consciousness."

Here we are, got the book, it's right in front of me. In my eyes, it's one of the most amazing books on meditation I've seen so far. I mean, it's really hardcore. Scientific. And deep. Just as I like it. I recommend checking it out.
Haven't had time so far to read through the whole chapter again, but here's some extract from the abstract:

"The results [of a study done by Daniel P. Brown] strongly suggests that the stages of meditation are in fact of cross-cultural and universal applicability (at a deep, not surface, analysis).

Not only does this cartography tend to support the more literary claims of a 'transcendent unity of religions,' it goes a long way towards helping to resolve some of the central conflicts between 'theistic' and 'nontheistic' approaches to contemplation (e.g., Hindu versus Buddhist). By cutting his analysis at ta sufficiently deep level, Brown is able to demonstrate 'how a Hindu and Buddhist meditator progress through the same eighteen stages of meditation and yet have different experiences along the stages because of the different perspectives which are taken. Since perspectivism is unavoidable in meditation, as in any other mode of inquiry, each of the descriptions of meditation experience in the respective traditions is valid, though different.' The perspective, however, has an influence on the outcome of the progression of experiences: while the path of meditation stages is similar across cultures, the experience of the outcome, enlightenment, is not. In this sense, Brown's conclusion is the opposite of stereotypical notions of mystical experience that perennial philosophers have usually meant by the... [continued]

...'transcendent unity of religions': there are many paths to the same end. Brown's in-depth analysis of meditation experiences suggests the opposite: there is one path which leads to different ends, different enlightenment experiences."

There we are. I'll try to post a summary of this chapter soon.

I have read the whole chapter in "Transformations of Consciousness" written by Daniel P. Brown. I have to say, it's quite hard to understand, even for me as an experienced meditator. Maybe it's because of the terminology, maybe because it's so detailed that you're simply not used in aligning what is written there in such a detail with your own experience. Anyway, let's give a short report:

According to Brown, there is a very important distinction between (Therevada) Buddhist and Hindu styles of meditation as well as philosophy. (He also talks of Vajrayana Buddhists, but I will simplify here and leave them out of discussion.) Whereas the Hindus from a philosophical standpoint argue that behind the ever changing flow of experienced mind moments there is some kind of non-changing substratum, the Buddhists exactly deny this point. For them, there is ONLY the ever chaning flow of experienced mind moments and nothing behind. This difference in the explanatory framework leads to different meditation instructions and thus the meditative experience, although in essence the same, is not only being explained differently but in the end experienced differently.

To give a short comparison: Two people see an elefant. Although they see the same thing, one looks at it and focuses on its color, because this is what he was taught. He'd thus say: "Being an elephant means being gray." Another person looks at the elephant and being taught to look at the size of it will say: "Being an elephant means being really big."

The situation for the Hindus and Buddhists, according to Brown, is similar - but worse. Why is it worse? Because the two points of view are contradictory and indeed lead to contradictory conclusions and modes of experience.

The Buddhist instruction on Vipassana meditation is: Observe the stream of discontinuous mind moments and recognize that they are... [continued]

[continued] impermanent, non-self and suffering. The student will do as told and come to the corresponding conclusions. He will really see that there is no self whatsoever in any of the mind moments.

The Hindus however give their instructions differently: Observe the stream of discontinuous mind moments and recognize the element common to all of them. The student will do as told and come to the corresponding conclusion: Although all mind moments just pass, there is some kind of "common taste" to all of them as their very base. This then finally leads him to the conclusion, that there must be some continuous, non-ending, quasi-eternal substratum which is prior to all experience, leading to insight into the correctness of different Hindu philosophical concepts such as Atman.

Thus, although in fact they observe the same "mind stuff", because of different instructions given, they come to contradictory conclusions about the real nature of mind. The traditional Therevada point of view is said to be "nihilistic" because it implies that there really is "no self" and in fact nothing permanent whatsoever. The traditional Hindu point of view (maybe I should say "Vedanta" instead) is said to be "eternalist" because it implies that there is really an eternal, unchanging "self" behind all phenomena.

Nice summary and interesting points. Especially interesting is the notion of one view being nihilist and the other being eternalist, as these two positions are considered poles in the mahayana teaching of the "four extremes". (The other pole is variously characterized; a common version is dualist-monist).

It's interesting to me because this Mahayana teaching seems to have arisen in a milieu which included Theravada and Vedantic elements-- indeed, Nagarjuna who is often credited with this teaching, has some connections to both schools if I'm not mistaken. So perhaps part of the social context which brought forth Mahayana (and Vajrayana) was an attempt by some Buddhists to handle this encounter in a more-than-apologetic way.

Rather than defending the traditional Theravada view, what might practice look like if meditators were explicitly NOT given either of these binary instructions? What would the realization look like if at the outset eternalism and nihilism, dualism and monism were pointed out to be merely descriptions or models, rather than propogated as doctrines- as absolute truths?

A thousand years later you have Zen sayings such as Awakening is leaping beyond the One and the Many?.....

"Especially interesting is the notion of one view being nihilist and the other being eternalist, as these two positions are considered poles in the mahayana teaching of the "four extremes". (The other pole is variously characterized; a common version is dualist-monist)."

I intentionally left out some important stuff that Daniel P. Brown writes about the Mahayana position "in the middle" between the two. But it's there in his essay.

Also, of course, the general reader should be aware (as you seem to be, jhsaintonge) that "nihilist" and "eternalist" here does NOT conicide with the traditional philosophical points of view which are named this way. Already the historical Buddha in the Pali-canon, as far as I know, rejected both of these points of view. Hence, the terms as I used them here (as well as Brown uses them in his treatise) do mean points of view that are not speculative but in fact are based on real awakening/self-realization/satori experiences. Depending on the perspective you take, you come to the corresponding conclusions (Buddhist: Anatta, Dukkha, Anicca etc., Vedanta/Hindu: Atman, Brahman etc.).
This is definitely not the same as mentally concluding that "nothing exists" (nihilism in the traditional meaning) or "there is an eternal soul" (eternalism in the traditional meaning) or the like, which in most cases is only silly philosophizing about something never experienced.

For me the message is clear, and murky -- ANY philosophy, POV, or concept is just more mind stuff. Mind stuff, while clearly survival positive, also is mind making itself comfortable with that which it cannot truly ever "get." So my answer to what appears only to the conceptual mind as a conundrum is to learn to live with the conundrum, which is what I think is the deepest meaning of "I don't know."

The hint, I think, lies in the very maleability we're talking about here (there is no permanence, no self at all vs there is permanence or at least some underlying self/Atman - all depending on the view taken). When I see that kind of thing and see my own experience in meditation I am forced into a Nagarjuna-like middle way where either, both and neither are true.

"For me the message is clear, and murky -- ANY philosophy, POV, or concept is just more mind stuff. Mind stuff, while clearly survival positive, also is mind making itself comfortable with that which it cannot truly ever "get." So my answer to what appears only to the conceptual mind as a conundrum is to learn to live with the conundrum, which is what I think is the deepest meaning of "I don't know.""

Well, yeah, I'd certainly agree - but this was not the original intention of the thread:

"comparing some different perspectives on enlightenment"

So, here were my 2 cents.

Anyway, I also think it's a very interesting topic from another perspective: Maybe some people have a natural ability to accept either a nihilist or an eternalist point of view when starting to meditate. And if a meditation teacher knew this as well as several different instruction sets to be given to those people (e.g. rather a "Buddhist" or a "Vedanta" POV), maybe the practitioner could actually get to self-realization/stream entry faster than using the other instruction set.
See what I mean? I think this discussion is relevant not only from a scholarly point of view, but it might actually mirror certain characters of meditators. Of course, at the moment this is mere speculation.

"Anyway, I also think it's a very interesting topic from another perspective: Maybe some people have a natural ability to accept either a nihilist or an eternalist point of view when starting to meditate. And if a meditation teacher knew this as well as several different instruction sets to be given to those people (e.g. rather a "Buddhist" or a "Vedanta" POV), maybe the practitioner could actually get to self-realization/stream entry faster than using the other instruction set.

See what I mean? I think this discussion is relevant not only from a scholarly point of view, but it might actually mirror certain characters of meditators. Of course, at the moment this is mere speculation."

I wouldn't say it's mere speculation, Fckw, but neither would I say that it is news. In other words, everything we do on this site begins and ends with the idea that pragmatism is king. The best way to help any yogi to stream entry and beyond is to triangulate, introducing practices and theoretical frameworks from anywhere and everywhere, tossing out what doesn't work and bringing in what does in an effort to find the ideal conditions for the individual yogi's growth.

" And if a meditation teacher knew this as well as several different instruction sets to be given to those people (e.g. rather a "Buddhist" or a "Vedanta" POV), maybe the practitioner could actually get to self-realization/stream entry faster than using the other instruction set." Fckw

May I introduce you to the Three Speed Transmission?

"
For me the message is clear, and murky -- ANY philosophy, POV, or concept is just more mind stuff. Mind stuff, while clearly survival positive, also is mind making itself comfortable with that which it cannot truly ever "get." So my answer to what appears only to the conceptual mind as a conundrum is to learn to live with the conundrum, which is what I think is the deepest meaning of "I don't know."

The hint, I think, lies in the very maleability we're talking about here (there is no permanence, no self at all vs there is permanence or at least some underlying self/Atman - all depending on the view taken). When I see that kind of thing and see my own experience in meditation I am forced into a Nagarjuna-like middle way where either, both and neither are true.

"

Yeah--- it does seem that the niether-nor of negating the *absolute* or doctrinal versions of each extreme view, on the philosophical level, corresponds with a both/and on the experiential level. As in, whatever works It's tricky because as you point out we have a tendency, on the mind level, to want to wrap things up in neat packages (as in, it's either annatta, OR atman) but on the experiential level, from moment to moment, both experiences are totally possible and in any combination.

P.S. fckw: I'm intrigued the punchline of your Dan Brown excerpt, the critique of naive perrenialism-- rather than many roads to one destination, "one" road (the deep structure of the awakening process) leading to many destinations (realization, inevitably colored by the methodology/view of one's path). After all, each one has to walk the road themselves-- deep structures or no, only individuals can awaken, and we're all unique to begin with (even though there are deep structures to the mundane developmental process, each unawakened individual is unique too. Why wouldn't each awakening be unique then, right?)
--Jake

Hi. (My first post.)

This is giving me some ideas, here.

If you put two coins on a table and said 'tell me about these coins," one person would tell you how they differ while another person might detail how they are similar.

The discussion about the two enlightenment states seems to belong in the same category. So, okay, what kind of person am I?

And why does Vedanta's description of enlightenment make more sense to me?

V

Is enlightenment a state? Maybe that's the problem...