[upekkha100]

According to Wikipedia Advaita Vedānta is the following: “Advaita Vedanta is a Hindu tradition of textual exegesis and philosophy that states that jivatman, the individual experiencing self, is ultimately pure awareness mistakenly identified with body and the senses,[2] and non-different (“na aparah”) from Ātman/Brahman, the highest Self or Reality.”

Besides the part about Brahman, is Buddhism also about the fact that our Manomaya Kaya (in other words the soul) is only just pure awareness experiencing reality?

[Lal]

“Besides the part about Brahman, is Buddhism also about the fact that our Manomaya Kaya (in other words, the soul) is only just pure awareness experiencing reality?”

• Manomaya kaya is not a “soul.”
• The soul, by definition, is an everlasting entity.
• At the death of an Arahant, his/her manomaya kaya dies and a “successor manomaya kaya” is not generated.

P.S. This is the critical difference between Buddha Dhamma (Buddha’s teachings) and all other religions/philosophies. They all focus on pursuing a “permanent, suffering-free” existence in this world, either in a Deva realm (Creator God in Abrahamic religions) or a Brahma realm (Hinduism). 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[Christian]

Advaita got nothing to do with Dhamma, I was studying it before Buddhism and if you compare it to Dhamma it becomes like just anothe misinterpratation of reality. Like most of philosophy is based on “romantic” views which will appeal to those with “idealist” mindset but in reality is just sense pleasure for the mind of intellectualist-hobbyist. (especially in the West)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Jittananto

[Jittananto]

Hi Christian can you contact me on my email [email protected] ??  I have some questions for you. :)

[taryal]

Dhamma rightfully views consciousness as a manifestation of causes and conditions (therefore, various kinds of viññāṇa), but other religions portray it as something continuous like a “soul”.

For example, the following are necessary conditions for eye consciousness (chakkhu viññāṇa) to manifest:

object (arammana) + light + physical eye + Peripheral Nervous System (PNS) + Central Nervous System (Brain/mana indriya) + chakkhu pasada + hadaya vatthu

Steps listed:

1. Light reflects off the object
2. Photons are received by eye ball
3. Neurons from PNS transfer electric signals to Brain
4. Brain converts it into a form that chakkhu pasada can receive
5. Mana indriya sends ray signal (kirana) to chakkhu pasada rupa
6. Chakkhu pasada impinges the hadaya vatthu
7. If the person is attentive, awareness manifests at this step
8. So far it is a plain awareness (vipāka viññāṇa). But if it is an object of interest, the initial attachment is automatic.
9. Then the person can choose to generate conscious thoughts about the object or try to avoid it by distracting themselves. This can strengthen the perception of ‘I’ or ‘me’. But if a single condition above is removed, awareness of the object can not occur.

Do you see anything unchanging/eternal above?

[Lal]

I think religions based on a “Creator” attribute any such “imperfections” to “God’s will.”

• On the other hand, one’s destiny (whether one will go to heaven or hell FOREVER) is supposed to be determined by one’s actions. Yet, some babies die within days. How is their destiny determined?

Yes. There are many contradictions.

[taryal]

“Yet, some babies die within days. How is their destiny determined?”

By making excuses. If one is faith oriented, counterarguments are always secondary. But difficult indeed it is to justify the suffering of babies. Some blame the first humans (“original sin” in Abrahamic faiths) while others blame the babies themselves (“karma” in Hinduism). The former is often scrutinized for its injustice of punishing one for the sins of the other while the latter is criticized for it insinuating cosmic cruelty instead of evoking God’s benevolence.

But the other thing is how incompatible these “faiths” are with observation. Reports from Near Death Experiences clearly disprove the “heaven/hell forever” argument. Even agnostics report encountering dead relatives. How is this possible if they were supposed to be sent to hell or get annihilated? This supports paraloka way more than the “soul” argument. I am surprised to see that even some doctors in the west are dumb enough to endorse Christianity. But perhaps there is little one can know without exposure to Dhamma?

[Lal]

“But perhaps there is little one can know without exposure to Dhamma?”

• Yes. That is the key. Unless a Buddha or a disciple of the Buddha explains these concepts, no one can figure out the Buddha Dhamma, i.e., the ultimate laws of nature.
• These “ultimate laws of nature” (embedded in Four Noble Truths/Paticca Samuppada/Tilakkhana) can be discovered only by a Buddha. That is why the birth of a Buddha is so rare; it is not easy to attain the Buddhahood. Sometimes 30 maha kappas (i.e., trillions of years) go by without a Buddha appearing in the world.
• That is why we should not miss this opportunity. It is a “once in a trillion years” opportunity.

[Christian]

Buddha Dhamma is like science for “medieval” people. We may advance in terms of technology, understanding of material works etc. (which are good things) but the existential crisis is more than ever. Buddha Dhamma is science that have insight into it and explains it so ideally science and Dhamma would cover all we need physically and mentally.

[Author]

Posts