I’m very much impressed and surprised to read all the comments under this video. No hateful, no childish arguments of whether which is superior than the other. It struck to me, how wonderful a healthy discussion could be if we really respect eachother while having firm faith in our respective search for the ultimate. Keep going spiritual brothers and sisters. May you all find the perfect realisation 🙏
Sir, As a Hindu I respect spiritual leaders of Hindu, Buddist, jain and Sikh traditions. Even if Jesus or tao visited India, Hindus would have respected them as any other sage
@Hearing.Chanting Remembering.Krsna you are evidently from Iskcon. it's not correct nor helpful to attack Shankaracharya's path as atheism. It is the path of jnana-bhakti. A few points: 1) Bhakti without proper understanding of the basics leads us to emotionalism and cultish behavior. 2) Shankaracharya who composed the beautiful Govindashtakam was obviously a devotee of Sri Krishna, but he left it to the sadhaka as to how to actually put Krishna bhakti into practise. 3) Modern youth are intellectually inclined. As such, we need to present them the philosophy of Vedanta ab-initio, rather than start with making prasadam and sankeertan. 4) The way Iskcon evolved, it seems to mirror Church-based Christian movements - prophet-centric, "mono-theistic" - whereas Vaishnavism is more subtle and more holistic. If we don not reconcile the various paths within Sanatana Dharma and instead force everyone down the path of exclusive Krishna bhakti, we may be shooting at our own feet. I am a devotee of Sri Krishna, but rejoice in uttering the names of Ganapati, Siva and the Goddess. I see no contradiction in that. All these are manifestations of Brahman, the ultimate pure consciousness.
Swamiji. I do research on Buddhism in Bihar. Adi Guru Shankaracharya was clearly a Buddhist monk and took part in debates for Buddhists which has been wrongly thought that he was debating for Hindus. Xuan Zang clearly takes his name as one of King Ashoka's key Brahmins. The debate Xuan Zang describes is ditto the story of the debate between Shankaracharya and Mandan Mishra sans the mythological part. The debate according to Xuan Zang took place in Huddi Diara which is north of Pach Mahala which was Ashoka's palace. Xuan Zang also shows the spot where Ashoka made a rock house for Adi Guru Shankaracharya. That rock house still stands today.
When I was 3 years old, I fell into a swimming pool and began to drown. Without having ever been exposed to the concept of 'death", my cosciousness felt a 'knowing' of what was about to occur and I felt a sense of total peace and almost joyful anticipation. At the moment I began to feel the transition, a relative that saw me and jumped into the pool swept me up. I've been trying to understand that experience ever since by studying various spiritual paths, philosophies, and practices. Many come close, but what you described in this video is the closest thing to that experience that I've come across so far. I'm now very much curious to learn more about Advaita Vedanta. Also, I've been a devoted admirer of Ramana Maharshi for a number of years now. Thank you.
If you understand Hindi then I can suggest you a person who explains advaita vedanta and consciousness in a perfect way. Because of him I was able to know the actual truth about life about Advaita Vedanta as a whole. I tried to swim through the very depths of advaita but was unsuccessful in doing so. But after 20 years of my life I was able to realise it with the help of that master. That's when I realized the importance of a Guru or master in one's own realization of the self.
@@vineet2815 So do you mean that learning Hindi is indispensable for grasping the Vedantic tradition? I have been studying advaita Vedanta for several years solely from English resources available on the internet..
I kind of relate with you here, for the physical nature of experiences or physical experiences that can teach a lot about spirituality if one is in certain state of perception and able to create a gap between their own mind and experiences.
As Sanatan Dharmic I have learnt that Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Advita Vedanta are just brothers from same parent but have different approach towards Mosksh/Nirvana and spiritual well being.
Words are auditory or written perceptions , that at best reach for truth and at worst conceal it . ( don't know who came up with this but I keep it close at heart ,mind , and soul ) . Namaste .
They should have never given me internet see I don’t agree with you,it’s not about striking things on your own,the veda or the upanishads are the ground path for moksha,For that you need to give up your thoughts on this materialistic matter for that atleast you need Some source,Hence there are vedas and upanishads that’s all.
Buddhist theory that no purusha (shiva)/no prakrithi (shakthi) and the world/universe is an illusion and does not exist is flawed. Buddhist meditation technique is correct (since it was copied from vedas) but the conclusion based on their embodied meditative experience - that is 'Nirvana" is wrong. Obviously, they are wrongly concluding based on their pre-conceived (based on ego) flawed theory to differ from Vedas.
Yes Buddhism and Advaita are center arround suffering, in the same way that christianism are center around devil. The kabbalah is centered about "The Creator", defined as the source of all, the good and the bad. Suffering in kabbalah is due to lack of connection with the Creator, when you are connected with the Creator, the suffering is translated to a suffering of the Creator due to a lack of correction in me. Buddhism, Advaita are related to conscience, mind, body. Kabbalah is related to desire, desire to bestow and desire to receive.
Sir: little knowledge of Sanatan Hindu dharma i have THERE IS NO SATAN LIVING ELSE WHERE. It is all within us. Talk of ADVAITA OR DWAITA, we are the part of GOD. However we have to act with the senses s/he has provided us and BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS GOOD OR BAD.
Sir: Perhaps you do not know exactly. It is 'capturing PRAKARS (shapes) of ONE GOD THAT TOO IS 'BRAHMAN' which is TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, INFINITY combined ( as per UPNASHIDIC DEFINITION). Say you are aged 45 years. You will have photos from your age of one month to 45 years and your loved ones (eg. Parents) would love to have and enjoy. Now you make idols of photos particularly when camera were not there. Result is same. In fact as per sages Sanatan Dharma (ETERNAL DUTIES) essence in Hinduism is CREATOR, PRESERVER, DESTROYER FOR TRANFORMING INTO NEW . They r BRAHMA, VISHNU, SHIVA. By concentrating on a point it is easier to do MEDITATION. Hence Hindus make IDOLs. Can you defile the photos of your loved ones or revered ones saying it is just a photo? Your heart will not allow. It is exactly same here.
@SEAN JAMES you r not my model Sir. You r also not my teacher. Hinduism encorages one to experience. However you have your right. In fact a great sage in India said that if two blind men are asked to describe an elelephant one might say it is like a pipe ( feeling the truck), other may feel the legs and say it is like a tree. I am blind. So you r for me. However, it is no creditable thing to say one does not worship his forefathers. We do . Not every day. But once a year definitely. Let us END DEBATING. ADAGE IS 'ONE CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL IS UNCONVINCED STILL'
I am a Buddhist Teacher. I like your approach, your way of interpretation and relate with your way of thinking mostly. And a huge respect to advaida Vedanta also. Most religious people seem to forget that, we all are on the spiritual path. And until we reach the highest level of practice, the specialty of any one particular religion couldn't and doesn't need to be distinguished.
Regardless of whether one reaches samadhi, we all are already that - Shiva + Shakthi. There is nothing other than that. it is the reason why there is perpetual duality cycles of intelligent energy (Shakth) which cannot happen without Shiva (self) which is both immanent and transcendent. It also means, the nirvana conclusion of Buddhists, that there is no shiva/no shakthi and the world/universe is an illusion does not exist, is flawed.
@@Dharmicaction brother all religions like buddhism , Sikhism... have stolen our concepts from Hinduism centuries ago .And still stealing in 21st century . According to these fools meditation ,yoga& 7 chakras xyg stuff all discovered by buddha 🤡
@@Dharmicaction Bruhh I am shavite from himachal and I would love to learn more things from you ......Can u plz share ur gmail id or anything .....through which I can ask some questions from u to clear my doubts .It will be a great help to me 💫🙏
Being a Hindu I know Advaita Vedanta, but I listen to your beautiful explanation completely. Vedanta not only talks about freeing one from the earthly sufferings but also identifying oneself with the Supreme Consciousness / Param-Atman. Like one drop of water get itself mixed with the vast unfathomable ocean of Super consciousness. I pay my respect to you Master. You are 'Rishi' / Monk. Namaste. Om Shanti . Let there be peace.
Shiva is also the experiencer of individual 5 senses. In other words, Shiva is the actor behind every human karma roles and non human dharmic roles. Everything is just Shiva + Shakthi and there is nothing other than that.
Madhavacharya himself has said Shankaracharya stole from Buddhism. He called him "Prachhanna" bauddh. And it is very obvious from his half baed theory that he stole from "Shoonyavaad/Śūnyatā" theory from Buddhism. Which came in existence in 3rd century BCE atleast a 1200 yrs before shankaracharya who was born in 8th century. None of the Hindu scriptures have the word Sanatan in it, its stolen from Buddhism. There is a inscription of Emperor Asoka saying "Iss Dhammo Sanantano" , Brahman Dharm doesnt have any evidence of its existence before 10th century. And even then Brahmins had not written Vedas because it will take another 400 Yrs for Devanagari to be completely developed when they first started writing Vedas. Although the document of rigaveda ckaimed to be from year 1468 that was sent to Unesco for preservation has now been retracted and Unesco has removed it from their website deeming ot to be fake. So in realty Hindu/Brahman dharm has absolutely zero inscription or manuscript.
@@adruvitpandit5816 We don't consider Madhvacharya's views as real because he was influenced by Abrahmic believes. He was the follower of dvaita which is actually not a correct interpretation of vedas and brahmsutras. Shankaracharya was not born in 8th century he was born in 2nd century bce, we have the birthdate and biography of every Shankaracharya in our traditional mathas. And why hindu dharma is called Sanatan because it's etarnal because Brahm is etarnal and in Hinduism we worship Brahm that's why it's called Sanatan, Actually this a group type of religion is a very western thing. In Bharat we don't have that type of group type religion in which they consider believers as their people and those who don't believe in their god as other. In our Dharma there's no othering we say everyone, everything is the menifestation of the Brahm. And it vedas as we have them now is compiled by Vedvyasa 5000 years ago. People learn the Vedas and then teach the new generation orally that's how the Vedas have been preserved till now. and because we have a oral tradition that's why we can't find archeological evidence of books but the astronomical data which is in those books if we date those astronomical data then we find that vedas are thousands of years old.. And even sarasvati river is one of the strong proof that vedas are thousands of years old.. Ok Gajpoot now go f yourself
"I have been immersed in Vedanta for four decades, that has shaped my personal perspective" , with this line he wants us to know that his comparison may not be unbiased, free and fair. This line shows what a highly realised being he is. I a Buddhist monk who never before heard of Vedanta bow to this Swami. Buddhism donot restrict its followers from respecting and showing appreciation to wise man of other religion. If any religious community call themselves buddhist but restricts you from this freedom then you are among the cultish spirit worshippers like NKT and DS cults.
If someone is a follower of Vedanta for years, there's no rule that says that the follower should be biased or essentially become biased. The follower could be objective as well. But you are definitely prejudiced. This anybody could understand.
Thank you dear brother. You are a very good man, a very good soul, a wonderful teacher. All you do explain becomes very clear, due to your perfect choice of words and ideas, your clearness of view. You are a gift for us, so for you I thank God. May you have all the blessings.
I have always been drawn to Advaita Vedanta, because of the distinction you just explained. I like the idea of eternal consciousness/bliss to be my true inner self, and not nothingness or just the end of suffering. You talk very clearly, I like listening to you a lot. 😀❤️🕉️🙏🙏
@@pranayakansakar2278 where can you find Vipassana meditation. Hinduism, Upanishadh or which tradition. I found it Satipattana Sutta which is Buddhist teaching
Vipassana is based on Sankhya metaphysics which combines both Advaitha (SHIVA) and Dvaitha (SHAKTHI). It means, we all are already that (Shiva + Shakthi). Shiva and Shakthi cannot exist without each other. But, Buddhists despite copying and practicing vipassana, wrongly concluded "Nirvana" and said no shiva, no shakthi and the world/universe is an illusion and does not exist. They murdered Sankhya. Duality cycles of Shakthi cannot happen without Shiva which is both immanent and transcendent. Even after the dissolution of the universe, it (shakthi) exists as primordial sanskrit vibration within Shiva
I'm a Mahayana Buddhist of the Gelug school and I'm excited to hear this lecture! We have some different views to what he says here, he seems to be speaking primarily of Theravada. In Mahayana, we don't believe that consciousness ends with nirvana, we also agree consciousness is eternal, and we say that nirvana is bliss
You are true. Due to this similarity between Mahayana Buddhism and Advita you will not find Buddhism as a separate religion in its birthplace -India. All its essence has been absorbed in Advita
When I listened, I felt as if I was sitting before a "true" rishi who imparts the supreme knowledge. May you be there for ages to enlighten people on the earth...
Yes u r right religion is technology which u can produce after having its base engineering mathematics and science in your lab to help others but for your sake your own mathematics and science is enough to understand your inner engineering.
Advaita Vedanta is not a technology because essentially the main teaching is Ajata, meaning that there was never creation but only pure consciousness; consciousness that is directed only on itself, as there is not two but one. If you look at Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi's teachings, particularly Nan Yar and Ulladu Narpadu, he makes it really clear about what is real and imaginary or mind (ego) produced. Technology is an act of doing. What is the point of doing because Karma will only accumulate, and I don't think karma yields liberation. If it did, we would all have awoken from this dream by now. The anma viddai or atma vichara is about ignoring phenomena and and turning 180 degress towards " I am" However, all this jargon learnt will have to be forgotten if we truly wish to know our true nature. We have to give up the false sense of " I am this body" to know the knowledge that always is. This means essentially giving up everything. Not just material, but identity. Pretty much everything that wishes to feed on form, as how Bhagavan Sri Ramana puts it in verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu.
There is no reincarnation in Buddhism. It is the five aggregates which together cause a physical force which fashions a new body. Reincarnation is Aathma in Hinduism. In Buddhism there is complete extinguishment of the physical force & there is no creator God, but in Hindiusm the Aathma remains & combines with a creator God
Thank you swami for your detailed and diplomatic answer to this question. There are so many schools and practices of Buddhism that it is impossible to choose one and to compare it to the (also varied) traditions of Advaita Vedanta. Having lived and practiced in an Advaita Vedanta community and a Mahayana Buddhist community it can be seen that once the delusion of personal self is known on an experiential level rather than a conceptual level (maya is seen through), it doesn't matter what tradition is followed. There can only be one truth and this truth is the ultimate goal of all true spiritual traditions. I feel the main difference between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta is that Advaita Vedanta teachers who have experienced truth go on to motivate and encourage by describing the truth as being like this, this and this (ie., sat, chit, ananda) and that the end of suffering is a by-product of knowing truth. Buddhist teachers who have experienced truth motivate and encourage by stopping short of trying to describe the indescribable (which may lead to further maya producing concepts) and instead encourage by promising that all suffering will cease when you experience truth. In short Advaita starts its teaching at transcendent truth as a goal to encourage and Buddhism starts at the personal level of human suffering and encourages a path to end suffering whereby indescribable transcendant truth will be known. Both result in the one truth.
Well spoken ! Advaita gives a much clearer ellucidation of Truth. Advaita is simpler to comprehend and hangs out to the advaitin the carrot of Moksha and Jnana which is no different to oneself! Buddhism complicates the subject with it's nihilism and offers no Realized Self only negation of the impermanent. The product is the same and the paths are basically the same. But o choose to strive for the perfect Self. By not talking of Self and only talking of the removal of nonself Anatman Buddhists try to differentiate from Advaita which is absurd because the paths are one and the same. Need I say more?
@@yogasamrat These are just semantics, there are different kinds of expression of Buddhist Philosophy, check out Tathagarbha nature way of Buddhist Expression. :)
Buddha did not help the poor in any way, he just ignored the real problems and meditated. What an amazing love for the weak. Both hinduism and buddhism are garbage religions or whatever you call them. SAnaTAN DHARMA
I grew up with Buddhism and have temporarily experienced sudden enlightenment (about a year ago) where I felt the cessation of thoughts, suffering, etc. and felt like I was bliss. I studied the no-self teaching from Buddhism awhile ago and recently I discovered Advaita and it's explanation on an eternal, limitless consciousness seems to make more sense to me... Even when I experienced my true nature, I'm not sure how to describe in words what our true nature is but I think both teachings are probably correct
Buddha first takes out from your petty self happiness about God and makes you first know yourself which is very difficult Then advait after you know yourself makes you understand the param tatva So it's mostly advised to start from shunyavaad else if you start from advait you'll end up doing worship of God without finding 😊
@@rishikeshwagh I was just being present in the moment without doing anything and suddenly i just experienced sudden enlightenment. But also I went through an awakening and an ego-death so these fleeting experiences come and go “randomly”
@@rishikeshwagh it was temporary. Maybe less than 30 seconds. With my ego-mind temporarily "turned off", I understood that our perception of physical reality was all perceived from the mind - that includes the five senses, the mind's phycological perception of linear time, and it's identification with the physical body. When I was no longer perceiving the world through the mind, I realized that the true-self was me that is never changing and that is "real" while physical reality is "not real" due to everything being subject to change. My ego-mind came back "online" and I perceived reality through the mind again, and felt " normal ". I was already well aware of how people described reality from studying spirituality and Buddhism but to experience it first-hand pretty much confirmed it for me.
@Raibeart MacPhadraig Athma is the self (Shiva) and mind/thoughts and body are made up of Shakthi or intelligent energy which is part of Shiva. Neither Shiva nor Shakthi can exist without each other. Buddhist Nirvana theory based on their wrong assumption that there is no Shiva or Shakthi and the world/universe is an illusion and does not exist is flawed.
Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are different fingers pointing at the moon. The purpose in each case is the same. Select the path you prefer. However, intellectual explanation and conceptual thinking keep us focussed on the finger. Huang Po, Guru Rinpoche and Ramana remind us of this.
All Indian Philosophies are meant to answer the question of Dharma.... Be it advaita, dwaita, or Buddhism or jainism... They all are systems within Dharma.... Question of self and question of God differs between them.... Cuz these questions are secondary in establishing Dharma
@@rsr9200 there is a reason why Dharma and Karma rhymes.... As I explained above.... Also, to do Karma.... U don't necessarily need an idea of self.... Or an idea of God.... You need reasons as human beings for ur Karma (actions).... This is the prime focus of entire Indian philosophies
@@rsr9200 these reasons are Dharma... It can be derived through dialogue as observed in Bhagwad Gita, education (shiksha), gyaan (knowledge), experiences, Yoga, Siddhi, Dhayana, and innumerous other ways are there which can ensure that you act and do Karma in reasonable manner
@@rsr9200 if you don't do an action or Karma in reasonable manner, then it can be due to two causes.. 1. U had the idea (dharma) but u cudnt act... 2. U had the wrong idea (ADharma)... In both cases u shud try to correct ur idea as well as ur act.... For example if you comment here but there are typos tht ur comment is not understood what wud u do.... U wud try to correct it lol....
I love this man! His epistemology is always cleared, I wish clearing up one's epistemology was taught to every young student all over the world. Many people (probably most) don't really know their own epistemology and that follows all these chaos.
Thanks for this clarification. I like the relative simplicity of Buddhism, but having a Christian heritage, I never felt comfortable with the idea of no self, so I appreciate the perspective of Advaita Vedanta.
As a Christian we have a concept of true self as well. Our true self is a child of God, Abba Father. This identity we have through Jesus Christ who we say is both fully divine and fully human. The early church recognized that Jesus became human so that we might share his divinity. Through Jesus and him alone we have Union with God. We are to be like him, we partake in the divine nature while remaining human. As Christians we do not deny our individuality, our unique personhood but that at the core of who we are is children of God.
I too pray to Christ. Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana buddhism are very similar. Please allow me to interrupt. I do research on how Buddhism disappeared in Bihar. I realized it never disappeared from Bihar. Buddhists simply failed to research Indian Buddhism. They looked at Buddhism through the sphere of their own cultures searching for only the Buddha. Buddha had a myriad of names in different villages according to his teachings there. Example. His favorite teaching was 'Lust and desire causes pain. Remove lust and desire, and pain is removed'. Translated into Bihari (where the Buddha story took place) it is DHUKH HARAN meaning to remove dukha. Three dozen villages pray to DUKH HARAN Baba. Its clear that DUKH HARAN Baba is none other than the Buddha. Problem is Buddhists are searching only for the Buddha. In the real Vaishali the Buddha begged for alms. The locals there pray to 'BHIKHAINI' Baba (Beggar Baba). Bhikhaini was mispronounced by Buddhists as Bhikshu. Who is BHIKHAINI Baba. The Buddha no doubt. But people are searching for a man called Buddha. In the real Vaishali, in Beluha the Buddha suffered a sickness and felt he had grown old. The locals pray to 'BURHA' Baba (Old Baba). Who is BURHA Baba. The Buddha no doubt. In the real Vaishali the Lichavies pressurized Buddha not to die. They trailed him to Bandagawan pressurizing him not to die. To put pressure in Hindi is DABESHWAR. Three dozen villages around the stupa where Buddha gave the Lichavies his patra, the villagers pray to Baba 'DABESHWAR NATH' meaning the man who won the pressurizing game. It was the the Buddha no doubt as he gave the Lichavies his patra and succeded in sending them back. But Buddhists are searching for the Buddha. In Pidhauli (Vaishali) the local deity is Bardiha Baba. Bardiha means the Baba who didn't allow us to stay where he was staying. Bardiha Baba is the Buddha no doubt because he didn't allow the crowd of Lichavies to stay with him in Bandagama. Forgive me for commenting out of the topic. I just wanted to impart this information to Buddhists. Thankyou
I would like to add my bit. I do research on how Buddhism disappeared in Bihar. I realized it never disappeared from Bihar. Buddhists simply failed to research Indian Buddhism. They looked at Buddhism through the sphere of their own cultures searching for only the Buddha. Buddha had a myriad of names in different villages according to his teachings there. Example. His favorite teaching was 'Lust and desire causes pain. Remove lust and desire, and pain is removed'. Translated into Bihari (where the Buddha story took place) it is DHUKH HARAN meaning to remove dukha. Three dozen villages pray to DUKH HARAN Baba. Its clear that DUKH HARAN Baba is none other than the Buddha. Problem is Buddhists are searching only for the Buddha. In the real Vaishali the Buddha begged for alms. The locals there pray to 'BHIKHAINI' Baba (Beggar Baba). Bhikhaini was mispronounced by Buddhists as Bhikshu. Who is BHIKHAINI Baba. The Buddha no doubt. But people are searching for a man called Buddha. In the real Vaishali, in Beluha the Buddha suffered a sickness and felt he had grown old. The locals pray to 'BURHA' Baba (Old Baba). Who is BURHA Baba. The Buddha no doubt. In the real Vaishali the Lichavies pressurized Buddha not to die. They trailed him to Bandagawan pressurizing him not to die. To put pressure in Hindi is DABESHWAR. Three dozen villages around the stupa where Buddha gave the Lichavies his patra, the villagers pray to Baba 'DABESHWAR NATH' meaning the man who won the pressurizing game. It was the the Buddha no doubt as he gave the Lichavies his patra and succeded in sending them back. But Buddhists are searching for the Buddha. In Pidhauli (Vaishali) the local deity is Bardiha Baba. Bardiha means the Baba who didn't allow us to stay where he was staying. Bardiha Baba is the Buddha no doubt because he didn't allow the crowd of Lichavies to stay with him in Bandagama. Forgive me for commenting out of the topic. I just wanted to impart this information to Buddhists. Thanks.
The big quantum difference between Vedanta and Hinduism is in the extreme negative perception of Buddism which equates Life to Suffering while Vedanta is so positive in its affirmations that "You are that =Tat Tvam Asi" ", "Aham Bramhasmi" , "Pragnanam Bramha " and "Ayam Atma Bramha".
Wow, I’m so glad this video appeared in my feed. I have been studying Buddhism for years but have never learned about Advaita Vedanta. I am fascinated! You are a wonderful teacher. Thank you!
If “No suffering” = “Bliss” = relief = mukti, then differences are in the language not in the essence. Any further words of explanation brings new suffering and extinguishes bliss. Excellent comparison of similarities. Thank you.
I felt like as if I was having awakening while listening to you. Explanation with such clarity not only reaches to mind but also to heart. You are such a great teacher. Lots of love.
The approach of a dvaiti towards what Upanishads may really stand for is likely to be different from that of an advaiti.. Acceptance or rejection of Iswara comes under one's belief in certain concepts whereas a sincere seeker tends go beyond both. Swamiji seems to be a mango eater...realization.
Errm, there is more to this, as Ishvara as a concept is itself in the realm of adhyasa for advaitins. For a fuller discussion of how Buddhim's tenent of pratitya-samutpada , and a lack of a substrate (brahman) on which superimpositions occur, and advaita vedanta adhyasa according to Shankaracharya's tradition, see here at Sri Swamiji Satchidanandendra's English language introduction to his Sanskrit work Mandkuya Rahasya Vivrittih : adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=english&book_id=015&pagenum=0047#page/147/mode/1up
That difference, Isvara, may rest on a deeper divergence: a different understanding of time and the manifestation of our world. According to MahaPrajnaparamitaSastra, each moment arises independently, that's why Ishvara is rejected. But the Gita tells us "Sarvasti", past and future, it's all there, we just can't see it. Take your pick. Personally, I prefer to rely on my own action. How can you rely on Isvara, which may not even exist?
I'm a Buddhist and from my perspective existence of gods is a rather minor issue ;) Personally I don't believe in gods. Many Buddhists do, but even then this belief shouldn't be more important to them than teachings of the Buddha.
Thank you for the great Teaching! To me it seems that Advaita and Buddhism are rooted in the same experience of mystical consciousness, and that their difference is merely semantic. This becomes especially evident when taking into consideration the more explicitly non-dual vehicle of buddhism, Mahayana, and also the Mahamudra/Dzogchen and Zen teachings. I believe what is meant by the realizing of the emptiness of all phenomena - including the 'self' - is the same as what is meant by realizing that Atman is Brahman. Blessings.
Namo Buddhaya 😊🙏! Buddhism actually believes in middle path . And that is one of the many differences. But thank you so much for being respectful. Have a nice day 😊🙏
I appreciate your insight on this. I have been studying both Vedanta and Dzogchen and wondered about the e in no-self (no-ego?) vs atman. I’m going to look into this further.
I love how Swamiji has explained this topic with poise and gracefulness. Yes, all eastern philosophies start with this one quest of how to end pain and suffering, and in that sense all have a common goal. But where they differ is the path and process to achieve it, and what they realize as the ultimate truth. Swami Vivekananda's Jnana Yoga book beautifully illustrates this entire quest starting from a cave man, and the rise of different schools of thought!! And finally he shows how Advaita Vedanta solved the duality problem of both Buddhism and Dvaita Vedanta tradition in Hinduism. I would highly recommend it to anyone without any bias towards any particular tradition. Just read it with an open mind and try to relate with your own personal experience.
Thank you for the explanation, I really love this as I am on quite the journey but also am obsessed with learning about religious ideologies and philosophies. It's a shame that you don't have a video series going into depth on every world religious tradition. The way you articulate is truly masterful, delivering complicated concepts in such a way that absorbing them is nearly effortless. Also you have such a calming voice I could enter a state of mindful meditation while learning. Truly, thank you. 🙏
I love your videos, sir! Your teachings are food for thought and are improving greatly my spiritual experiences and knowledge. Thank you very much for taking the time to do this
I sincerely hope the Indian youths in this generation dive deep into their rich glorious history , culture and be able to learn something from there towards becoming a better human being. In the international arena it's a crime how much underappreciated Indian philosophical schools are.
I'd like you to know this about India. Please allow me to interrupt. I do research on how Buddhism disappeared in Bihar. I realized it never disappeared from Bihar. Buddhists simply failed to research Indian Buddhism. They looked at Buddhism through the sphere of their own cultures searching for only the Buddha. Buddha had a myriad of names in different villages according to his teachings there. Example. His favorite teaching was 'Lust and desire causes pain. Remove lust and desire, and pain is removed'. Translated into Bihari (where the Buddha story took place) it is DHUKH HARAN meaning to remove dukha. Three dozen villages pray to DUKH HARAN Baba. Its clear that DUKH HARAN Baba is none other than the Buddha. Problem is Buddhists are searching only for the Buddha. In the real Vaishali the Buddha begged for alms. The locals there pray to 'BHIKHAINI' Baba (Beggar Baba). Bhikhaini was mispronounced by Buddhists as Bhikshu. Who is BHIKHAINI Baba. The Buddha no doubt. But people are searching for a man called Buddha. In the real Vaishali, in Beluha the Buddha suffered a sickness and felt he had grown old. The locals pray to 'BURHA' Baba (Old Baba). Who is BURHA Baba. The Buddha no doubt. In the real Vaishali the Lichavies pressurized Buddha not to die. They trailed him to Bandagawan pressurizing him not to die. To put pressure in Hindi is DABESHWAR. Three dozen villages around the stupa where Buddha gave the Lichavies his patra, the villagers pray to Baba 'DABESHWAR NATH' meaning the man who won the pressurizing game. It was the the Buddha no doubt as he gave the Lichavies his patra and succeded in sending them back. But Buddhists are searching for the Buddha. In Pidhauli (Vaishali) the local deity is Bardiha Baba. Bardiha means the Baba who didn't allow us to stay where he was staying. Bardiha Baba is the Buddha no doubt because he didn't allow the crowd of Lichavies to stay with him in Bandagama. Forgive me for commenting out of the topic. I just wanted to impart this information to Buddhists.
Thank you for explaining...ive followed buddhism for 40 years..compassion kindness..reincarnation..renunciation..ect even went to see the Dalai lama ...then i discovered advaita vedanta well that put icing on the cake and i LOVE It..sri bhagavan ramana maharshi simply awesomeness...thank you swami tadatmananda🙏🙏🙏 in essence i find upanishads..vedas..advaita vedanta ect way easier to understand than buddhism..
Very respectful, and honest at the same time. Coming from a Judeo-Christian-culture myself, it is not so hard to take to heart the idea of a divine inner self, it is a comforting and familiar thought.
I've practiced as both Buddhist and Vedantin, and Buddhism is what I find most helpful. Vedanta is an interesting metaphysical philosophy, but as a spiritual and practical practice, Buddhism is more useful. Metta.
I like Hinduism more ... it is more juicy. It is good to be rich, but not to be attach to material wealth. There is no such school of thought in Buddhism.
Dear Sir, I feel blessed, and an spontaneous admiration emerges in my heart. This, I presume, must be for two reasons: 1) The choice of your words and the way of your expression - without hurting, in any way, one or the other; 2) The clarity with which you brought out the difference between two very subtle philosophies. I wish you a long and healthy life so that you will keep on inspiring.
Concepts are not truths, concepts are constructions whose building materials are ideas. Interested detachment without any philosophical basis works just as well, the only mantra needed is :- ''It is as it is, I accept''.
Will you did not come up with a new concept which has new building blocks of ideas in in certain schools of vajrayana in schools of yogic tradition there are tremendous amounts of parts which work without any conceptual basis of course considering some of the Karmic duties and responsibilities but everything is based on spiritual realise ation which is Inside Out not outside in and if padmasambhava or Guru matsyendranath say something which smart people like you will consider concept which is not true because its building blocks are ideas well that type of definition is a bit silly or ludicrous to a yogi or a Buddha because his conceptual explanation is largely contra punctual to his experience someone who who is feeling the fire as hot writes down a poem about the burning power of Fire and the feelings and sensations that he experienced then his concept is contra punctual to his experience so there is no question of falsehood......
@formless777 You can't KNOW anything regarding this subject but you can believe or trust all you want if it helps you. I don't quite know what is meant by suffering, unless you are living in Syria or the like most of us don't really suffer as such. Where I am it is 2 am, I can't sleep because of a tooth ache but that isn't suffering, life is a miracle, if you want it to be wonderful it is, if you want to suffer you will. Delve into whatever concept you want, there are thousands of them, words, words, words, none of them are so awe inspiring as my grandchillds smile or watching a calf stand up after birth. Be grateful for life as it is, concepts can be interesting but they have no soul, no humility.
@@albundy9597 Emerging soul consciousness moves through the relative world, and is fuelled initially by the motivation to escape suffering. Suffering at the mental level is unprecedented today. The fuel is becoming a much higher octain.
Buddha never affirmed or denied the existence of a permanent self. In general, in Buddhism the concept of non-self indicates the non-existence of an individual self: there are no waves in the river, but river in the waves; therefore, only the river exists, they say. Therefore, we can conclude that Buddha realized that there are no individuals or individual souls, but only existence itself.
In the Mahaparinirvana sutra, the Buddha explains that there is one, eternal, indestructible, unchanging Self, the Buddha nature- pure awareness. The real difference between advaita vedanta and buddhism is rhetoric. For example, the buddhist will say there is no self because there is no unchanging reality that could be labelled as a self. Only pure awareness is unchanging. On the other hand the advaitan would say that only the self is an unchanging reality, it is atman which is identical to Brahman, that obviously being pure awareness. In other words, buddhism reaches absolute non-dual consciousness through negation while advaita [vedanta] through assertion. The same teachings realised, practiced and taught through opposite means. Love and Light 🤍
Thank you for this insightful, clear, and beautifully phrased video. You have answered a question that has been prickling at my consciousness for years. I myself am not a Buddhist, but whenever I have read Buddhist literature or listened to Buddhists speak of their spiritual work and belief system, it has always reminded me so much of Vedanta, that I couldn't fathom why a separate religious path needed to be discovered in the first place. It is good to know that the apparent similarities are real, and it is good to learn once and for all what the technical differences are. It is both gratifying and profoundly humbling to learn that the Rishis had the problem of the human condition completely figured out and solved thousands of years before now. What modern, half-baked self-help regimen can possibly provide even a shadow of the peace and liberation brought about by practicing Vedanta? Still... I suppose that anything that helps is still... helpful. Blessed be all that you experience and achieve. Go n-eiri leat! --N
What I’ve read is that Buddha never said if there was a an atman or not. His emphasis was on for people to find for themselves. People took his non declaration or non validation of atman as a stand in itself that there is no atman. Osho (in his commentry on Gita) even goes on to say that before passing Buddha finally told of the truth that is atman.
True, even when asked emphatically to deny that there is no soul he never denied that there is no soul but just said what good would it do you to know.
@@indianmilitary there are Buddhists who worship Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva and other God forms are of the same nirguna Brahman. Buddha didn't want to conclude anything but just the process. So that everyone finds the truth for themselves.
Há muitos anos a literatura budista me encanta, especialmente o Zen Budismo! Mas, agora conhecendo o Advaita vedanta- NÃO dualidade me identifiquei e fiquei fascinada pela beleza dos textos quando dizem: Você já está iluminado! Sem aquela "PRESSÃO" do budismo para alcançar a iluminação. Isso de ter de praticar a meditação cada vez mais para atingir a iluminação, por dias inteiros e quanto mais melhor para ficar iluminado, nos causa ESCRAVIDÃO DA MEDITAÇÃO. Gosto de meditar sem pressão por resultados. Afinal já somos o que procuramos! AMO O ADVAITA VEDANTA. 💯
Buddha was actually pointing to the awareness as the only unconditioned and unborn reality, as it was stated in many places in the Pali Canon. Awareness without surface, without end, radiant all around, is not experienced through the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the radiance of fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas [and so on through a list of the various levels of godhood to] the allness of the All. - MN 49 Those who know this unfabricated state, their minds released through the ending of [craving], the guide to becoming, - Iti 44 Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering to it, in the same way the Tathāgata - freed, disjoined, & released from these ten things - dwells with unrestricted awareness. - AN 10.81 There is, monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, escape from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned. - Ud 8.3 Whether you call this Awareness "Self" or "No-Self" does not matter, it's only linguistics. Another quote on that from one of the greatest Buddhist masters: "It is the single nature of consciousness which encompasses all of Samsara and Nirvana. Even though its inherent nature has existed from the very beginning, you have not recognized it; Even though its clarity and presence has been uninterrupted, you have not yet encountered its face. Even though its arising has nowhere been obstructed, still you have not comprehended it. Therefore, this (direct introduction) is for the purpose of bringing you to self-recognition. With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers). Some call it "the nature of the consciousness" or "consciousness itself." Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self." The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self." The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta." (Padmasamhava, Self Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness) The purpose of the Buddha's teaching of anatta was simply pedagogical: to prevent our sense of human self to be projected to and confused with the Self of Atman, and also to dissolve our habitual tendency to associate all thigs and all sentient beings that we perceive with their imaginary separate selves (which created the imaginary world of dualities). So, his approach was rather cataphatic: the reality of awareness has to be known from direct experience, but not fabricated from any mind-created concepts or senses of "self".
@eugene, thank you, insightful- your concluding sentence - “ the reality of awareness has to be known from direct experience... “ seems similar to advaita Vedanta which states our true nature is available in our experience, that we can know our true nature”
@@SB-vj5sn Exactly, and in Buddhism it is also called "true nature", "the nature of mind", but since it is beyond names and concepts, whether we call is "Self" or "no-Self" is irrelevant. "Know one thing and everything is freed - Remain within your inner nature, your awareness!" (Padmasambhava) "This present naked awareness is actual liberation itself" (Jigmed Lingpa, Yeshe Lama)
100% this! The Buddha recognized the same nameless, unconditioned "Buddha nature" that Advaita Vedanta recognizes as the self, but Buddhism takes some extra steps to prevent the mind from attempting to conceptualize (and therefore corrupt) it.
Thank you. Excellent presentation. I am Shingon Esoteric Buddhist background. I have wondered if we are in middle between Buddhism and Hinduism. We are Buddhist, but we also believe in Dainitinyorai or Maha Vairocana, which seem to be similar to additional step you described. Respect to all good paths.
Duality cycles of shakthi cannot happen without Shiva (self) which is both immanent and transcendent. Advaitha (shiva) is INCOMPLETE without Dvaitha (Shakthi).
@Pawan Giri In my experience, Shiva represents the underlying supreme logic, emptiness, and stillness that allows all potential configurations of existence to be, while Shakthi is the manifestation and flow of every potentiality. They are both infinity, and they are both fundamentally inseparable. Infinite stillness is the same as infinite motion.
12) At 10.55 You say Later Buddhist teachers explain nirvana as extinguishing the false sense of being an individual person.... Again you are mistaken. This is not later Buddhist Teachers but the teaching given by the Buddha himself . In the Anguttara Nikaya, Ekaka Nipat , the Buddha does clearly say to meditate on Anatta and emptiness ( Aniccato, Dukhato,Anattato, Suññato. Where does he ever say meditate on the Atman/Atta ?. There is no proof anywhere in the Early or later , Theravadin or Mahyana or Vajrayana that he accepted an Ultimate Atman/Self after everything else that is Not Self has been eliminated like the Vedantic Neti Neti/Not this Not this as said by Yagyavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II iii 1-6? Yes Anatta is not an ontological entity , as I’ve clearly said but is more the denial of Atta/Anatman/Self to be found anywhere as he has never affirmed there is a final Self/Atman/Atta but rather repeatedly talked of using Anatta to see that fact . Now for Western Scholars about Early Buddhism and ANATTA :- Anattā is a composite Pali word consisting of an (not, without) and attā (soul).( Thomas William Rhys Davids and William Stede , The Pali English Dictionary ) The term refers to the central Buddhist doctrine that "there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul."(Encyclopedia Britannica). It is one of the three characteristics of all existence, together with Dukkha (suffering, dissatisfaction) and Anicca(impermanence).( ibid. Encycloprdia Brit. and Rhys Davids) Anattā is synonymous with Anātman (an + ātman) in Sanskrit Buddhist texts.( Ibid Encyclopedia Brit, and Johannes Bronkhorst , Buddhist Teachings in India ) In some Pali texts, ātman of Vedic texts is also referred to with the term Attan, with the sense of soul.( ibid. Rhys Davids). An alternate use of Attan or Atta is "self, oneself, essence of a person", driven by the Vedic era Brahmanical belief that the soul is the permanent, unchangeable essence of a living being, or the true self.( ibid . Rhys Davids and Johaness Bronkhorst , Buddhist Teaching in India ) In Buddhism-related English literature, Anattā is rendered as "not-Self", but this translation expresses an incomplete meaning, states Peter Harvey ; a more complete rendering is "non-Self" because from its earliest days, Anattā doctrine denies that there is anything called a 'Self' in any person or anything else, and that a belief in 'Self' is a source of Dukkha (suffering, pain, unsatisfactoriness)( Peter Harvey . !3) At 12 .11- 12.37 You begin the definition of Consciousness /Atman but that is exactly the definition of Mind /Vigyan in Buddhism , except it is is changing in a continum/Santana whereas the Vedantic Atman is Sat and therefore really existing and unchanging ( Sankaracharya , Tatvabodha Chapter 8 verses 8.0-8.1) but the Buddhist consciousness is not unchanging but Changingly eternal Parinami Nitya as it is a continuum. The Atman/Consciousness that is unchanging is a logical mistake as an unchanging Awareness/Sakshi cannot be aware . Awareness is a a process a function and function demands change . If the Awareness -Atman /Witness is the KNOWER of "the world around you and your thoughts and emotions " as you yourself has said at 9.42 then it cannot be unchanging Sat and is just what we Buddhist call Vigyana/Mind ? Otherwise it is an Unconscious Consciousness and what use is realizing such an Unconscious thing for liberastion/Mukti ? 14) At 12.54 You say Moksha is the recognition of your own eternal , limitless , divine Self . But we have already shown above that there is no such Self anywhere to be found except in scriptures which say there is such a thing as an unchanging eternal Self as your core . 15 ) At 13.01 you say that we can say Buddhism and Vedanta start out on the same foot.... But this is not true ? I've already said clearly that Buddhosm start out with Anatman as Avidya/NescienYe and Vedanta starts out as Lack of knowledge of the True Unchanging eternal Atman as Avidya/Nescience . So they start out right from the beginning in two different directions . You have taken only the outer gross elements of Buddhism like attachment to mind and body as a similarity but this point is just an external side effect of attachment to Atman of any kind for Buddhism . Avidya is defined as Sahaja Atman Graha / Clinging to the concept of any kind of Self/Atman ( not just the ego , mind you ) . 16) At 13.05 you say THEY BOTH IDENTIFY THE ROOT CAUSE OF SUFFERING TO BE FALSE IDENTIFICATION WITH YOUR BODY AND MIND . This is Vedanta not Buddhism .It is the FALSE IDENTIFICATION WITH ANY KIND OF ATMAN THAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF SUFFERING IN BUDDHISM. I'm sorry but eventually like all Hindu Swamis you too have totally distorted BUddhism here .. 17 ) I think the rest of what you say has already been shown as false for Buddhism ( you are right about Vedanta ) . But there are verses which say Nirvanam Paramamam Sukham ( Dhammapada ) too so your idea that Vedanta goes further is also inaccurate . Thank you for attempting to describe Buddhism from your Vedantic perspective but this does great disservice to Buddhism by confusing people about Buddhism . It would be better if you Swamis refrained from giving false interpretations of Buddhism which you have inadequately understood .Thank You 🙏🏼
Thank you for such detailed refutation. I hope all those who have jumped into the wrong conclusion would understand the difference between Buddhism and Vedanta.
@@freakboostez6971 There is no belief in a creator god in the Buddhism. Some mahayana texts are against eating meat, but it is not mentioned in the Buddhist Pali canon. Theravada is the oldest form of buddhism
Thank you Swamiji! 🙏🏻 I think it's good to remember that nirvāṇa as the goal of buddhadharma applies well to the Hīnayāna schools, but not so much to the Mahāyāna schools. In the later, the goal is to help every sentient being to be free of duhkha, so enlightenment becomes only a means (the best means) to do that. That's why H.H. the Dalai Lama, for example, has reincarnated again and again even though he's already enlightened. This, to me, seems like another difference between Advaita and Mahāyāna.
I agree with you and you’ve provided a great example of the Dalai Lama, a true bodhisattva. But if I may, I would like to tell you, to eschew the use of the term ‘Hinayana’ because it doesn’t set well with our Buddhist brothers of Theravada. Other than that, great points 👍
@@swingingcrow124 thank you for reminding me of that! You're completely right! I'm still looking for a good term that's not too specific (like śrāvakayāna) and not too vague (like "foundational buddhism")...
Thank you for this. I would like to add that a key point to understand about the Buddha's original teaching is that it is entirely, 100%, a practice - there is no metaphysical speculation. I'm happy to believe that the two paths lead to the same inner experience - it's the interpretation of experience that differs. In ordinary everyday terms, the major difference between the two seems to be that Buddhism generally insists on a lot of commitment to a meditation practice whereas Vedanta does not - relying more complete on enquiry into experience. There are plenty of people who have experienced awakening with precious little meditation practice. There seems to be advantages both ways and for this reason the teacher I most connect with is Adyashanti, who seems to integrate both seamlessly.
Difference is vedic book has blasphemy penalty and buddhist books don't have. Another pure difference is mosha of hinduism and nirvanna of buddhism. These two are kinda similar but very different. Btw we can live well without following a religion. We just need to abide the law ,treat the neighbors well and live a good life.
The Infinite Eternal Consciousness, is also about voluntarily heading into, or close to suffering (from the point of view of an individual Soul) sometimes. Those who only focus on escaping problems (or in their minds, 'solving' problems for themselves, and ignoring or not doing much for others, beyond offering superficial, simplistic, non-relatable solutions), are disconnected from the Infinite Eternal Consciousness, to that extent. Still, good talk.
That is the reason why it is important to follow dharma which is neither good nor bad karma. Dharma is the balance of natural law. In Baghavad Gita, there is Jnana yoga which is nothing but Viapassana copied as Vipassana by Buddhists and Karma yoga (action without karma). So, both Jnana + Karma yoga compliment each other and are important. Otherwise there is a high probability of creating karma especially those who are leading a worldly life.
Not well versed with some of the theory (which, I expect to be of value) and terms you referenced, but get the general feel that I may agree with you, when I sufficiently or fully get it.
3:22 the avatar of vishnu concept is most unacceptable to most Buddhist...haha 6:37 well said on wrong identification on body and mind 8:52 5 skhandas should be: form, sensation, perception, volition/formation, consciousness 9:57 clinging/staganation state upon the 5 skandhas =>not liberated; free of clinging upon the 5 skandhas => enlightened and liberated being 10:08 The Chan/Zen/Seon/Thien Buddhist tradition emphasizes on realizing the true nature as empty , no contradiction . Aggressive investigation meditation techniques are used such as 'What is this?' 'Who is this?' 'What's the original face?' 11:16 Buddhism has Vimutti ， Vimoksha terms. 13:44 Buddhism has the same affirmitive terms use as well, the word Buddha confirms this, there are other terms used in the Mahayana context similar to Advaita Vedanta as well: Permanent , Ultimate Bliss, Self, Pure, referring to the state of liberation. Note that these does not refer to a physical substantial object, it is only a way of expressing.
Buddhism not entirely pluralistic. Yet the idea that there is a buddha-nature, and the idea of becoming buddha, is very close to the avatar concept. By realizing ones own intrinsic nature, the buddha nature within is revealed - this is extremely similar. Vishnu is not a theistic deity, but rather monistic - so practically no hindu believes that vishnu is a deity in the strictest of sense, but simply brahman. To a degree this rejection of pluralism is not necessarily a good idea, it is the same as if the christians say their god is not the same as allah. While the avatar idea is clearly different from the idea of buddha-hood, the deeper you go into practice with the 5 dhyani buddhas, you actually end up with a methodology and worldview very very similar to the more tantric aspects of vishnuism. The 5 dhyani buddhas for example are matched in the vyuha idea of vishnu, which is part of the pancaratras. Vishnu is an image of the self, primarily, and buddhism rejects the idea of the self. Idealogically you are correct, but on a deeper inspection i have to disagree - its just separatism. Vishnu, his incarnations and iconography are allegorical forms of the awareness, of that which assumes states - whichever qualia they may be. As such when atma mergfes with paramatma (vishnu) then it realizes its brahman-nature and achieves either mukti or vimukti.
@@thenaturalpeoplesbureau I understand what you mean, different sects of Buddhism has similar ideas of what you said but used terminology that fits well into the [Buddhist terminology concept context], like what you said in the 5-Buddha concept, and your paratman last paragraph, but i believe there are still very subtle differences (probably) in the bigger picture.
@@thenaturalpeoplesbureau Many past Indian mainland religious histories are recorded in Chinese Text Sources, not all are known to the English world. Deducing from many different socio- political facets of the Chinese Buddhism sources, there are many reason as to why so many similarities are seen here. 1. competition between buddhist sects: new improvised doctrine from the root are developed to 'perfect' the old ones, as to satisfy the needs of the devotee and to show superiority compared to other buddhist sect. So these new ideas mutually influence non-Buddhist sect as well, or the other way round of borrowing the idea from non-Buddhist sect. 2. At the same time, Buddhism sect with its own internal conflict has to meet the challenge from non-Buddhist sect as well. So some ideas maybe borrowed from non-Buddhist sects to incorporated to the Buddhist philosophical doctrine. Or it maybe other way round as well whereby non-Buddhist sect borrowed idea from newly developed philosophy from Buddhist sect. If we view the current development of Buddhist and non-Buddhist sect in the modern era, it is still happening in an evolution manner...:)
@@thenaturalpeoplesbureau Hinduism, has higher proportion of figurative, allegorical way of expression than Buddhism. It is a beautiful way of expressing with lots of stories, but in the same time it may be confusing to later generations. (I came across Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's talks as well, and he decoded some and warned not to take the stories on face value)
@@showashowa6194 indeed there are many differences, it is similar-different, some core concepts exist in both worldreligions, others are unique. I appreciate the discipline behind buddhistic techniques like tummo, which i have basically adopted into my routines :D I have combined that technique with what i learned from reiki and this has really boosted my visualisation and willpower. Hinduism is very allegorical, and many layered. Some philosophical tenets are quite different but maybe they aim at the same thing in a different way.. Both traditions have deeply shamanic aspects.
I can tell for sure this individual has true peace in his mind. His mind is a blank slate. I can tell, he's extremely close to giving up attachments and attain liberation.
5) At 6.14 You gloss over the different meanings of ignorance in Vedanta and Buddhism using the same ord ignorance as if it has to mean the same things. But it is not. In Vedanta ignorance is removed by Atman Gyan but in Buddhism Atman Gyan is itself the very definition of Ignorance and it is removed by SEEING clearly and directly there is no such a thing as an UNCHANGING ETERNAL ATMAN. So they are not the same. 6) At 6.40 you have said that Buddhism also believes wrongly identifying yourself as Body and mind is ignorance. . Can you quote any Buddhist Suttas or sutras that define ignorance as you have said . ? In Buddhism ignorance is identifying yourself with any kind of Atman, no matter what ( Sahaja Atman Graha) and there is no Self/Atman beyond the mind. You also make the same typical mistake about Buddhism that any other Hindu Swami makes. This is a falsification of Buddhism that has been carried on for a thousand years by Hindus like you. 7) At 7.19 you say Buddhism believes that emotional discomfort belongs to the mind. This is false. In the Anguttara Nikaya, Ekakanipat, Aschharasanghata Vaggo, the Buddha says clearly these emotional defilements are adventitious /Angatuka and do not belong to the mind. They are not Chitta but Chaitta/Mental factors .So again falsifying Buddhism without even taking pains to study it properly like all the rest of Hindu Swamis. 8) You say Buddhism says you identify with your body and mind and that is the problem, just as the Rishis say. That's again false. It is not your identification with these but rather your identification with the Identifier, the Knower, the Awareness itself that is wrong , while identification with the body and mind is considered only a gross manifestation of identification with any kind of Atman/Self "in here or out there ". And there is no Knower /Awareness / Drasta / Sakshi beyond the mind and mind is everchanging not some unchanging Self/Atman. You completely missed the point as is typical of all Hindu Swamis , always implying that the Buddha did not negate the Atman. If you want i can give you all the sources of the Buddha Vacan where he has negated Atman of any kind as Mithya dristi/False view 9) At 9.16 You say in HIS PALI LANGUAGE . This is incorrect . The Buddha did not speak in Pali . Pali was a language created like Panini Sanskrit from the Saurseni Linguistic group of Indic languages to encode the Buddha's teachings accurately . This Linguistic group belonged to the Avanti Mahajanapada which was 1000 miles away from where the Buddha was born and his field of work . At the same time the Sarvastivadins encoded his teaching in Sankrit too. So to say IN HIS PALI language is a inaccurate . 10) At 9.42 the definition of of Atman you give as Sakshi /witness of the world around you and your thoughts and emotions is the exact definition of Mind/vigyana in Buddhism. Vijanati'ti Vigyanam/ Knowing is the the mind /Vigyanam . ' 11) At 10.30 you say Buddhism calls it Nirvana and Vedanta calls it Moksha . Again this seems to imply that you haven't really studied Buddhism properly . Buddhism also uses the word Moksha/Mokkha and Mukti /Mutti . And by the way the Bhagavat gita has also appropriated nirvan . The term Brahma-nirvana appears in Chapter two verses 72 and Chapter 5 verses 24-26 of the Bhagavad Gita. It is the state of release or liberation; the union with the Brahman. ... According to Zaehner, Johnson and other scholars, nirvana in the Gita is a Buddhist term adopted by the Hindus.
@@SleazyRider86 Sounds like is right and that's because you haven't taken the pains to properly study it under a proper authentic Buddhist Masters . Actually it isn't . It is the Middle path free from both Eternalism/Saswatvada and Nihilism/Ucchedavada. You cannot possibly get it if all you do is try to understand it from the words of Hindu Vedanta Masters like these . As far as Buddhism is concerned they do not know the ground from their elbow.😊 .
He prefaced this by stating he really has no direct experience of Buddhism and to take his perspective with a grain of salt. I practice Buddhism and it truly cannot be understood intellectually. In fact , Buddhist methods show how to actualize the realization that beliefs are concepts and are merely mental projections with no corresponding independent reality. The people who teach usually have 3-6 years of solid retreat, meditating 12 hours a more a day. ( At least one the Tibetan tradition) In this way , they can teach based on actual realization and not concepts /belief. This guy has 40 years of practice under his belt. He has to have some actual realization beyond concept that should be respected . Basic Mahayana: Do not aim to be the best . All Dharma teachings are for a single purpose : to reduce ego clinging.
Dear Sir, there is no Hindu... It is a term given by Arabs to people living across the River Sindhu... We all are practitioners of Sanatan Dharma... All Indian Philosophies, whether Astik or Nastik are our own philosophies with primary focus to the establishment of Dharma
Thank you Swami Tadatmananda for helping to dispel all the confusion here. Speaking clearly seems simple and easy but it is a treasured focus that comes from much experience. Keep on keeping on... well :)
These traditions are very similar philosophically. Realization in the mind of a Buddhist is also reaching a primordial state of supreme bliss though. Completely the same. I praise both these wonderful traditions 🙏 Om Swasti
@@TheGuiltsOfUs that's what makes them unique from each other, all the ancient sages had their own paths which differ from each but has the same goal to reach moksha/nirvana and be one with the cosmos/God.
So clear, insightful and factual! This is much appreciated. From my experience with both traditions: My opinion is that the "Self" and the "no-self" are two sides of the same coin. As consciousness and its contents are in actuality without separate identification, they could be described as being self-less. But as consciousness is the root of all experience, we could say it is the root of identification, or our "true Self". I think the differences between the two views are simply a matter of semantics. I am open to re-evaluation of this perspective however!
We all are already that - Shiva + Shakthi regardless of whether of one realizes through meditation or not. There is nothing other than Shiva + Shakthi.. Be firmly established in understanding that everything is divine and it is the actor (Jnana yoga) behind every human karmic and non human dharmic role and by following dharmic action (karma yoga) avoid karma. Stay in the dharmic zone. This is meditation 24/7. This is yog aoff the mat. This is maintenance of personal dharma of mind and body which also protects universal dharma.
2:25 "After years of intense spiritual practice, he "FAILED" to gain enlightenment. I'm neither into Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta or any other religions. But I do know this, another's self path will never be a failure, how can one judge a failure when you did not walked the path of the other?? failing to see the wisdom of what that soul needed to learned ? Perhaps in that meditation by the tree, all of those years he "failed" was shown to him the truth of his soul. Perhaps all those years of "failure" was what he needed to find enlightenment. So the mind begs the question... Was it a "failure"?
First thing enlightenment is wrong word in english no proper word. Buddha also practice one greate Tantra practice called Tara Devi which only Sage vishvamitr achived ,vishavamitra is highest in sage , in Tantra practice female is required but the girl was doing that practice start taking intrest in buddh than deep meditation practice then buddh leave that path . Tantra gives highest level of wisdom and spritual power and use sex energy to transform and that help to protect from insane madness and death these 3 are side effect of Higest level of meditation practices . Time of buddha no word hindu and relegion means best practices to make human life better .
The context of ‘failure’ is that the Buddha felt he did not achieve what he had hoped to, through the intense spiritual practice as prescribed by the ancient Hindus and therefore ‘rejected all Hindu scriptures’. It’s another story that what he eventually propounded is actually an off-shoot of Hindu thought wherein the key differences have been outlined in this video. The Self vs No Self. The provision and existence of the Self in Hindu thought, is explained in Advaita Vedanta as Jivatma & Parmatma (Individual & Universal Soul) eventually being one. The simple and brilliant rationale in defence of the existence of the Self in Advaita, is that it cannot be denied. Who denies the Self?
I bow to you great Rishi of present time. Your expression and teaching make me to understand clearly the doctrines of non dual Vedant and nothingness of Buddhism. May god you live and teach the people for hundreds years and more.sadar pranam to great monk.
While Advaita Vedanta practitioners were happy with their discovery of Atma and thought it existed inherently, Buddha went further by investigating the atma itself (soul) and found out that even Atma or soul does not have an inherent nature of self existence, which Buddha described as 'Shunyata' (loosely translated as 'Emptiness'). In realizing and abiding in emptiness, all the spiritual path is exhausted and is consumed by the fire of Shunyata and your true face of sky-like empty nature yet conscious of itself called ' Rigpa' or your primordial unborn unceasing Buddha nature pervades and that’s what Buddha referred to as Complete Enlightenment.
Other then the self is nothing called shunya . happyness identified then two things are exist, me and Happy. When self identified sunya then the self is already exist . identified other then one thing means i am there. In advaida there is no meaning for happy and sad . everything is myself happy - sad , good- bad, day- night. But yogis maintain the dual atma and paramatma (thuvaitha) state for experience the ultimate happyness . (Sorry for bad English)
Phuntsho Tenzin - Buddhist Nirvana means no shiva/ no shakthi and the world/universe is an illusion and does not exist. This is an ideology based on ego (to differ from vedas). It contradicts even basic laws of nature like law of thermodynamics let alone profound vedic metaphysics like Sankhya which combines both Advaitha (shiva) and Dvaitha (Shakthi).
@@Dharmicaction Buddha's teaching doesn't contradicts anything, all it does is that it reveals the truth behind all the appearance and phenomena and exposes the unfabricated, naked ultimate nature of reality itself. Moreover, you shouldn't confuse between Buddha's teaching on relative truth and ultimate truth, otherwise you will end up misunderstanding the way you have now.
As a relatively casual follower, it seems to me, that Buddhism's denial of self is only the same as Vedanta's denial of Body and mind. After all, Buddhism recognises consciousness, which Vedanta recognises as the true self, or Atman. So, what Vedanta recognises as the self, is also recognised by Buddhism. It sounds strange, that Vedanta suggests that Buddhism's denial of 'self' amounts to denial of Atman. Is it just a misunderstanding due to different usage of the term 'self', by each tradition. A Shingon Buddhist monk told me that my true self was Dainichi Nyorai (Japanese cosmic Buddha), who is a representation of the whole universe. Surely, this is the same as Vedanta telling me that my true nature is Atman, which is a representation of Brahman?
The Buddha tell about no-self actually means we already have in jnana yoga says that egoism of self in you should be removed,which is very profoundly understood by Sri Bhawan Ramana Maharshi . Egoic self is known to arise of mind , Of all the thoughts that rise in the mind, the thought 'I' is the first thought.
Then why do they say Nirvana and the world/universe is an illusion and does not exist? It comes from no self (shiva) and no shakthi assumption to differ from vedas (due to ego)
Buddhist Nrivana conclusion is flawed. They murdered Sankhya metaphysics. Duality cycles cannot happen without the immanent and transcendent self. In other words, neither Shiva (Advaitha) nor Shakthi (Dvaitha) can exist without each other. It means there is perpetual duality cycles of creation/destruction, birth/decay, summer/winter, wave/particle, day/night etc.
@@Dharmicaction Buddhist metaphysics is actually diverse, with plenty of inter-sect debate, though there are obviously commonalities. When it comes to tantra, there is essentially no difference in Buddhism and Hinduism except for the deity symbols/names and minor variations of techniques (at least that I'm aware of). As I see it, the Hindu yoga focus on the particle-like nature of mind, and the Buddhist emphasis on its wave-like nature, are simply tendencies, as in reality it's wavicles, or partiwaves, if you like. Both take duality (and nonduality) into account. There is a history of fruitful cross-pollination, discourse, and debate among contemplatives in dharmic traditions in India that's thousands of years old. I don't deny that an intellectual interpretive framework is part of the process, but the activity of inner inspection (praxis) is indispensable to contemplative yoga. As for Atma, that's another big topic. Briefly, you *could* conceive of the eighth jhana (neither-perception-nor nonperception) as Self. The Buddha had already attained the formless jhanas of infinite space, infinite consciousness, and nothingness by the teaching of Hindu yogis who themselves had attained it. The reason Self is denied is more pragmatic, as the Buddhist technique (relating to the catvari aryasatyani) is an emphasis on cycles of contact, craving, feeding, and stress. Even formless jhanas can be consumed, and thus the process of feeding still inhabits full release. While it's the ultimate ease, pre-conceptualizing and interpreting Nirvana as a permanent self (within the frame of everlasting time, even though it's timeless/deathless) leads to more feeding. Noting that it is simply the full absence of stress and distress leads to the ninth aspect of the aryastangamarga. It's "consciousness without surface." Is this truly a denial of the reality of Atman/Brahman? I don't think so. But this is a highly debated and controversial topic. Certainly, there is no shortage of polemics between Hindu and Buddhist yogis, such as Adi Shankara, Patanjali, and the brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu, on these issues. As for poorly conceived metaphysics, no dharmic tradition in India seems to have a monopoly on that. Also, I fully admit that my research could be mistaken, and I make no claim to being enlightened myself. I go by historians, practitioners, translated primary sources, and some experience.
@Rahul Good point. I was generalizing, perhaps overgeneralizing. Both traditions note both aspects of consciousness. Patanjali defined yoga as cessation of mind-waves, or the stream of consciousness, if you will. But he also mentioned how the highest level of concentration is the ability to see individual drops of rain in a rainshower, which is likely an analogy to witnessing thought-forms, though yogis may literally be able to do this with rain as well. Moreover, the word dharma (or its plural) as it's used in Buddhist discourse can refer to what in English would be loosely translated as "atom." Interestingly, some scholars think Patanjali was a Buddhist, but later Hindu editors changed parts of the Yoga Sutras to reflect a more Vedic perspective (or at least the Sankya darshana, but theistic). I don't know about that, though. Another thing I found out recently (I forgot where the article is, but if I find it I'll share it) is that some of the earliest references to 15 Asana were from Buddhist yogis, several centuries before the Hatha Yoga Pradipika. Again, it goes to show how fluid these dharmic boundaries were in India (though they're certainly there!).
Now that I think about it, if anything Buddhism probably focuses more on the particle aspect of mind, and Hinduism the wave aspect. (And to answer your earlier question Rahul, no, I wasn't referring to a physical particle as in Vaisheshika darshana - which, as an aside, I believe is about than just atoms). I was probably thinking of the koshas (bodies) of tantric metaphysics, and also the tattvas of Sankya. However, the five "skandas" in Buddhist discourse are sort of like bodies, or units (I believe one metaphor is a pile of bricks). The Abidharma is also full of discrete divisions, but it should be noted that it's the analysis that divides everything up; reality itself isn’t necessarily split up like this (to quote Watts: "You can't cut a wheel of cheese with a line of longitude").
This is the most calm, clear, and constructive comparison of two of the most elevated systems of enlightenment from ancient India. My humble and sincere Namaskara to the wise and enlightened Guru here!
I’m very much impressed and surprised to read all the comments under this video. No hateful, no childish arguments of whether which is superior than the other. It struck to me, how wonderful a healthy discussion could be if we really respect eachother while having firm faith in our respective search for the ultimate. Keep going spiritual brothers and sisters. May you all find the perfect realisation 🙏
Me too🖖
@Joe Publico Buddhist's "Nirvana" theory is flawed
Sir,
As a Hindu I respect spiritual leaders of Hindu, Buddist, jain and Sikh traditions. Even if Jesus or tao visited India, Hindus would have respected them as any other sage
Yes, no US evangelicals here, lol :)
@Hearing.Chanting Remembering.Krsna you are evidently from Iskcon. it's not correct nor helpful to attack Shankaracharya's path as atheism. It is the path of jnana-bhakti. A few points:
1) Bhakti without proper understanding of the basics leads us to emotionalism and cultish behavior.
2) Shankaracharya who composed the beautiful Govindashtakam was obviously a devotee of Sri Krishna, but he left it to the sadhaka as to how to actually put Krishna bhakti into practise.
3) Modern youth are intellectually inclined. As such, we need to present them the philosophy of Vedanta ab-initio, rather than start with making prasadam and sankeertan.
4) The way Iskcon evolved, it seems to mirror Church-based Christian movements - prophet-centric, "mono-theistic" - whereas Vaishnavism is more subtle and more holistic. If we don not reconcile the various paths within Sanatana Dharma and instead force everyone down the path of exclusive Krishna bhakti, we may be shooting at our own feet.
I am a devotee of Sri Krishna, but rejoice in uttering the names of Ganapati, Siva and the Goddess. I see no contradiction in that. All these are manifestations of Brahman, the ultimate pure consciousness.
The calmness, clarity and simplicity in expression of this discourse are just sublime! Thank you!
don't think he has something you havn't.
@@user-xb4mh6jz3g That would be the fast food form of enlightenment lol 😀
Swamiji. I do research on Buddhism in Bihar. Adi Guru Shankaracharya was clearly a Buddhist monk and took part in debates for Buddhists which has been wrongly thought that he was debating for Hindus. Xuan Zang clearly takes his name as one of King Ashoka's key Brahmins. The debate Xuan Zang describes is ditto the story of the debate between Shankaracharya and Mandan Mishra sans the mythological part. The debate according to Xuan Zang took place in Huddi Diara which is north of Pach Mahala which was Ashoka's palace. Xuan Zang also shows the spot where Ashoka made a rock house for Adi Guru Shankaracharya. That rock house still stands today.
When I was 3 years old, I fell into a swimming pool and began to drown. Without having ever been exposed to the concept of 'death", my cosciousness felt a 'knowing' of what was about to occur and I felt a sense of total peace and almost joyful anticipation. At the moment I began to feel the transition, a relative that saw me and jumped into the pool swept me up. I've been trying to understand that experience ever since by studying various spiritual paths, philosophies, and practices. Many come close, but what you described in this video is the closest thing to that experience that I've come across so far. I'm now very much curious to learn more about Advaita Vedanta. Also, I've been a devoted admirer of Ramana Maharshi for a number of years now. Thank you.
If you understand Hindi then I can suggest you a person who explains advaita vedanta and consciousness in a perfect way. Because of him I was able to know the actual truth about life about Advaita Vedanta as a whole.
I tried to swim through the very depths of advaita but was unsuccessful in doing so.
But after 20 years of my life I was able to realise it with the help of that master. That's when I realized the importance of a Guru or master in one's own realization of the self.
@@vineet2815
So do you mean that learning Hindi is indispensable for grasping the Vedantic tradition? I have been studying advaita Vedanta for several years solely from English resources available on the internet..
The easy answer is that you were having a spiritual experience... LoL...🥰🥰
I kind of relate with you here, for the physical nature of experiences or physical experiences that can teach a lot about spirituality if one is in certain state of perception and able to create a gap between their own mind and experiences.
Yes Ramana Maharishi’a teachings will take u “ there”.🙏
As Sanatan Dharmic I have learnt that Jainism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Advita Vedanta are just brothers from same parent but have different approach towards Mosksh/Nirvana and spiritual well being.
Then you should also take a look at dvaita vedanta
Yes, the parent is Tantra, and the children of Tantra respect each other and are well behaved.
Words are auditory or written perceptions , that at best reach for truth and at worst conceal it . ( don't know who came up with this but I keep it close at heart ,mind , and soul ) . Namaste .
An opinion is just that, an opinion.
They should have never given me internet see I don’t agree with you,it’s not about striking things on your own,the veda or the upanishads are the ground path for moksha,For that you need to give up your thoughts on this materialistic matter for that atleast you need Some source,Hence there are vedas and upanishads that’s all.
Sir: Your way of NARRATIVE is admirable. Your analysis do not hurt one. That is great. We need PEOPLE LIKE YOU.
Buddhist theory that no purusha (shiva)/no prakrithi (shakthi) and the world/universe is an illusion and does not exist is flawed. Buddhist meditation technique is correct (since it was copied from vedas) but the conclusion based on their embodied meditative experience - that is 'Nirvana" is wrong. Obviously, they are wrongly concluding based on their pre-conceived (based on ego) flawed theory to differ from Vedas.
Yes Buddhism and Advaita are center arround suffering, in the same way that christianism are center around devil. The kabbalah is centered about "The Creator", defined as the source of all, the good and the bad. Suffering in kabbalah is due to lack of connection with the Creator, when you are connected with the Creator, the suffering is translated to a suffering of the Creator due to a lack of correction in me. Buddhism, Advaita are related to conscience, mind, body. Kabbalah is related to desire, desire to bestow and desire to receive.
Sir: little knowledge of Sanatan Hindu dharma i have THERE IS NO SATAN LIVING ELSE WHERE. It is all within us. Talk of ADVAITA OR DWAITA, we are the part of GOD. However we have to act with the senses s/he has provided us and BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS GOOD OR BAD.
Sir: Perhaps you do not know exactly. It is 'capturing PRAKARS (shapes) of ONE GOD THAT TOO IS 'BRAHMAN' which is TRUTH, KNOWLEDGE, INFINITY combined ( as per UPNASHIDIC DEFINITION).
Say you are aged 45 years. You will have photos from your age of one month to 45 years and your loved ones (eg. Parents) would love to have and enjoy. Now you make idols of photos particularly when camera were not there. Result is same. In fact as per sages Sanatan Dharma (ETERNAL DUTIES) essence in Hinduism is CREATOR, PRESERVER, DESTROYER FOR TRANFORMING INTO NEW . They r BRAHMA, VISHNU, SHIVA.
By concentrating on a point it is easier to do MEDITATION. Hence Hindus make IDOLs. Can you defile the photos of your loved ones or revered ones saying it is just a photo? Your heart will not allow. It is exactly same here.
@SEAN JAMES you r not my model Sir. You r also not my teacher. Hinduism encorages one to experience. However you have your right. In fact a great sage in India said that if two blind men are asked to describe an elelephant one might say it is like a pipe ( feeling the truck), other may feel the legs and say it is like a tree. I am blind. So you r for me. However, it is no creditable thing to say one does not worship his forefathers. We do . Not every day. But once a year definitely. Let us END DEBATING. ADAGE IS 'ONE CONVINCED AGAINST HIS WILL IS UNCONVINCED STILL'
I am a Buddhist Teacher. I like your approach, your way of interpretation and relate with your way of thinking mostly. And a huge respect to advaida Vedanta also.
Most religious people seem to forget that, we all are on the spiritual path. And until we reach the highest level of practice, the specialty of any one particular religion couldn't and doesn't need to be distinguished.
Regardless of whether one reaches samadhi, we all are already that - Shiva + Shakthi. There is nothing other than that. it is the reason why there is perpetual duality cycles of intelligent energy (Shakth) which cannot happen without Shiva (self) which is both immanent and transcendent. It also means, the nirvana conclusion of Buddhists, that there is no shiva/no shakthi and the world/universe is an illusion does not exist, is flawed.
@@Dharmicaction brother all religions like buddhism , Sikhism... have stolen our concepts from Hinduism
centuries ago .And still stealing in 21st century . According to these fools meditation ,yoga& 7 chakras xyg stuff all discovered by buddha 🤡
@@Dharmicaction Bruhh I am shavite from himachal and I would love to learn more things from you ......Can u plz share ur gmail id or anything .....through which I can ask some questions from u to clear my doubts .It will be a great help to me 💫🙏
Inzabum, Balak
Namaste Guruji
Being a Hindu I know Advaita Vedanta, but I listen to your beautiful explanation completely.
Vedanta not only talks about freeing one from the earthly sufferings but also identifying oneself with the Supreme Consciousness / Param-Atman. Like one drop of water get itself mixed with the vast unfathomable ocean of Super consciousness.
I pay my respect to you Master. You are 'Rishi' / Monk.
Namaste. Om Shanti . Let there be peace.
Shiva is also the experiencer of individual 5 senses. In other words, Shiva is the actor behind every human karma roles and non human dharmic roles. Everything is just Shiva + Shakthi and there is nothing other than that.
The rule was to experience.
Madhavacharya himself has said Shankaracharya stole from Buddhism. He called him "Prachhanna" bauddh. And it is very obvious from his half baed theory that he stole from "Shoonyavaad/Śūnyatā" theory from Buddhism. Which came in existence in 3rd century BCE atleast a 1200 yrs before shankaracharya who was born in 8th century. None of the Hindu scriptures have the word Sanatan in it, its stolen from Buddhism. There is a inscription of Emperor Asoka saying "Iss Dhammo Sanantano" , Brahman Dharm doesnt have any evidence of its existence before 10th century. And even then Brahmins had not written Vedas because it will take another 400 Yrs for Devanagari to be completely developed when they first started writing Vedas. Although the document of rigaveda ckaimed to be from year 1468 that was sent to Unesco for preservation has now been retracted and Unesco has removed it from their website deeming ot to be fake. So in realty Hindu/Brahman dharm has absolutely zero inscription or manuscript.
@@adruvitpandit5816 We don't consider Madhvacharya's views as real because he was influenced by Abrahmic believes.
He was the follower of dvaita which is actually not a correct interpretation of vedas and brahmsutras.
Shankaracharya was not born in 8th century he was born in 2nd century bce, we have the birthdate and biography of every Shankaracharya in our traditional mathas.
And why hindu dharma is called Sanatan because it's etarnal because Brahm is etarnal and in Hinduism we worship Brahm that's why it's called Sanatan, Actually this a group type of religion is a very western thing. In Bharat we don't have that type of group type religion in which they consider believers as their people and those who don't believe in their god as other. In our Dharma there's no othering we say everyone, everything is the menifestation of the Brahm.
And it vedas as we have them now is compiled by Vedvyasa 5000 years ago. People learn the Vedas and then teach the new generation orally that's how the Vedas have been preserved till now.
and because we have a oral tradition that's why we can't find archeological evidence of books but the astronomical data which is in those books if we date those astronomical data then we find that vedas are thousands of years old..
And even sarasvati river is one of the strong proof that vedas are thousands of years old..
Ok Gajpoot now go f yourself
Namo Buddhaya 😊🙏!!!
"I have been immersed in Vedanta for four decades, that has shaped my personal perspective" , with this line he wants us to know that his comparison may not be unbiased, free and fair. This line shows what a highly realised being he is. I a Buddhist monk who never before heard of Vedanta bow to this Swami. Buddhism donot restrict its followers from respecting and showing appreciation to wise man of other religion. If any religious community call themselves buddhist but restricts you from this freedom then you are among the cultish spirit worshippers like NKT and DS cults.
Buddhist is great
If someone is a follower of Vedanta for years, there's no rule that says that the follower should be biased or essentially become biased. The follower could be objective as well. But you are definitely prejudiced. This anybody could understand.
@@zoomdog2048 why
Teach u to know yourself
@@zoomdog2048 so you teach yourself that only budhdhist is great
Clear and concise overview from a man with a pure heart. Thank you.
Namo Buddhaya 😊🙏!! Have a nice day 😊!
Thank you dear brother. You are a very good man, a very good soul, a wonderful teacher. All you do explain becomes very clear, due to your perfect choice of words and ideas, your clearness of view. You are a gift for us, so for you I thank God. May you have all the blessings.
@@user-xb4mh6jz3g I'm sorry for your terrible brain washed :(
I have always been drawn to Advaita Vedanta, because of the distinction you just explained. I like the idea of eternal consciousness/bliss to be my true inner self, and not nothingness or just the end of suffering. You talk very clearly, I like listening to you a lot. 😀❤️🕉️🙏🙏
exactly 💯
Im following Buddhism specially vipassana from last 5 yrs..... Doing vipassana daily.....the meditation change my life.
@curios one can you explain
@@lotustv6271 vipassana is a meditation technique that is not exclusive to any one religion
@@pranayakansakar2278 where can you find Vipassana meditation. Hinduism, Upanishadh or which tradition. I found it Satipattana Sutta which is Buddhist teaching
Vipassana is based on Sankhya metaphysics which combines both Advaitha (SHIVA) and Dvaitha (SHAKTHI). It means, we all are already that (Shiva + Shakthi). Shiva and Shakthi cannot exist without each other. But, Buddhists despite copying and practicing vipassana, wrongly concluded "Nirvana" and said no shiva, no shakthi and the world/universe is an illusion and does not exist. They murdered Sankhya. Duality cycles of Shakthi cannot happen without Shiva which is both immanent and transcendent. Even after the dissolution of the universe, it (shakthi) exists as primordial sanskrit vibration within Shiva
@@Dharmicaction could you please name some books or websites to read about the teaching of Sankaya Vipassana
I'm a Mahayana Buddhist of the Gelug school and I'm excited to hear this lecture! We have some different views to what he says here, he seems to be speaking primarily of Theravada. In Mahayana, we don't believe that consciousness ends with nirvana, we also agree consciousness is eternal, and we say that nirvana is bliss
You are true. Due to this similarity between Mahayana Buddhism and Advita you will not find Buddhism as a separate religion in its birthplace -India. All its essence has been absorbed in Advita
@Hus Loy you are true. In India spiritual concepts are in constant evolve through time. Advita has been reinvigorate by Adi Shankara after Budhha.
When I listened, I felt as if I was sitting before a "true" rishi who imparts the supreme knowledge. May you be there for ages to enlighten people on the earth...
Hinduism And Buddhism are analogous
Namo Buddhaya 😊🙏 ! Have a nice day !
@@tushargite1354 Thank you for your opinion. But we respectfully reject your opinion. So it comes back to you 😊Namo Buddhaya ! 😊🙏
@@tushargite1354 mahayana Buddhism
If religions were technologies, this would be the ultimate state of the art.
Could it be considered as a technology? Definition of technology origin is of an art or craft?
@@tauraszukaitis3195 whatevah
Yes u r right religion is technology which u can produce after having its base engineering mathematics and science in your lab to help others but for your sake your own mathematics and science is enough to understand your inner engineering.
Advaita Vedanta is not a technology because essentially the main teaching is Ajata, meaning that there was never creation but only pure consciousness; consciousness that is directed only on itself, as there is not two but one. If you look at Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi's teachings, particularly Nan Yar and Ulladu Narpadu, he makes it really clear about what is real and imaginary or mind (ego) produced. Technology is an act of doing. What is the point of doing because Karma will only accumulate, and I don't think karma yields liberation. If it did, we would all have awoken from this dream by now. The anma viddai or atma vichara is about ignoring phenomena and and turning 180 degress towards " I am" However, all this jargon learnt will have to be forgotten if we truly wish to know our true nature. We have to give up the false sense of " I am this body" to know the knowledge that always is. This means essentially giving up everything. Not just material, but identity. Pretty much everything that wishes to feed on form, as how Bhagavan Sri Ramana puts it in verse 26 of Ulladu Narpadu.
There is no reincarnation in Buddhism. It is the five aggregates which together cause a physical force which fashions a new body. Reincarnation is Aathma in Hinduism. In Buddhism there is complete extinguishment of the physical force & there is no creator God, but in Hindiusm the Aathma remains & combines with a creator God
Thank you swami for your detailed and diplomatic answer to this question. There are so many schools and practices of Buddhism that it is impossible to choose one and to compare it to the (also varied) traditions of Advaita Vedanta. Having lived and practiced in an Advaita Vedanta community and a Mahayana Buddhist community it can be seen that once the delusion of personal self is known on an experiential level rather than a conceptual level (maya is seen through), it doesn't matter what tradition is followed. There can only be one truth and this truth is the ultimate goal of all true spiritual traditions. I feel the main difference between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta is that Advaita Vedanta teachers who have experienced truth go on to motivate and encourage by describing the truth as being like this, this and this (ie., sat, chit, ananda) and that the end of suffering is a by-product of knowing truth. Buddhist teachers who have experienced truth motivate and encourage by stopping short of trying to describe the indescribable (which may lead to further maya producing concepts) and instead encourage by promising that all suffering will cease when you experience truth. In short Advaita starts its teaching at transcendent truth as a goal to encourage and Buddhism starts at the personal level of human suffering and encourages a path to end suffering whereby indescribable transcendant truth will be known. Both result in the one truth.
Thank you, a most excellent explanation!
Well spoken ! Advaita gives a much clearer ellucidation of Truth. Advaita is simpler to comprehend and hangs out to the advaitin the carrot of Moksha and Jnana which is no different to oneself! Buddhism complicates the subject with it's nihilism and offers no Realized Self only negation of the impermanent. The product is the same and the paths are basically the same. But o choose to strive for the perfect Self. By not talking of Self and only talking of the removal of nonself Anatman Buddhists try to differentiate from Advaita which is absurd because the paths are one and the same. Need I say more?
@@yogasamrat These are just semantics, there are different kinds of expression of Buddhist Philosophy, check out Tathagarbha nature way of Buddhist Expression. :)
@@yogasamrat check out my other comments on another way of expression on top as well from another Buddhist master
Is consciousness is an intelligence eternal existence or just an existence which makes all the difference.
"Jnana of Shankara and love of Buddha should guide India " this was swami Vivekananda's message.
🙏Jai Bhagwan Shankar
🙏Jai Bhagwan Buddha
Buddha did not help the poor in any way, he just ignored the real problems and meditated. What an amazing love for the weak. Both hinduism and buddhism are garbage religions or whatever you call them. SAnaTAN DHARMA
@@zfg07 As far as you indentify yourself with material body, you're nothing but trash of ignorance
@Savage Comment He is definitely ricebag convert
@@zfg07 Which religion do you prefer
Thank you, I am settled here!
I grew up with Buddhism and have temporarily experienced sudden enlightenment (about a year ago) where I felt the cessation of thoughts, suffering, etc. and felt like I was bliss. I studied the no-self teaching from Buddhism awhile ago and recently I discovered Advaita and it's explanation on an eternal, limitless consciousness seems to make more sense to me... Even when I experienced my true nature, I'm not sure how to describe in words what our true nature is but I think both teachings are probably correct
Buddha first takes out from your petty self happiness about God and makes you first know yourself which is very difficult
Then advait after you know yourself makes you understand the param tatva
So it's mostly advised to start from shunyavaad else if you start from advait you'll end up doing worship of God without finding 😊
How did you come about this sudden enlightenment?
@@rishikeshwagh I was just being present in the moment without doing anything and suddenly i just experienced sudden enlightenment. But also I went through an awakening and an ego-death so these fleeting experiences come and go “randomly”
@@hai3448 I see. So is this enlightenment permanent? Or temporary? Has it changed your world view forever or was it only for the time being?
@@rishikeshwagh it was temporary. Maybe less than 30 seconds. With my ego-mind temporarily "turned off", I understood that our perception of physical reality was all perceived from the mind - that includes the five senses, the mind's phycological perception of linear time, and it's identification with the physical body.
When I was no longer perceiving the world through the mind, I realized that the true-self was me that is never changing and that is "real" while physical reality is "not real" due to everything being subject to change.
My ego-mind came back "online" and I perceived reality through the mind again, and felt " normal ". I was already well aware of how people described reality from studying spirituality and Buddhism but to experience it first-hand pretty much confirmed it for me.
Advaita Vedānta and Mahāyāna Buddhism are my dual spiritual paths, they teach the same non-dual essence.
Yes!
Yes!
Here and now.😉
@Raibeart MacPhadraig Athma is the self (Shiva) and mind/thoughts and body are made up of Shakthi or intelligent energy which is part of Shiva. Neither Shiva nor Shakthi can exist without each other. Buddhist Nirvana theory based on their wrong assumption that there is no Shiva or Shakthi and the world/universe is an illusion and does not exist is flawed.
@@Dharmicaction its just your opinion..that does not necessarily mean you are right..
Well spoken! The respect with which you treat a tradition that is not your own clearly shows you to be a master!
Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are different fingers pointing at the moon. The purpose in each case is the same. Select the path you prefer.
However, intellectual explanation and conceptual thinking keep us focussed on the finger. Huang Po, Guru Rinpoche and Ramana remind us of this.
All Indian Philosophies are meant to answer the question of Dharma.... Be it advaita, dwaita, or Buddhism or jainism... They all are systems within Dharma.... Question of self and question of God differs between them.... Cuz these questions are secondary in establishing Dharma
@@rsr9200 Dharma is simply every idea, dialogue and thought process, rules etc, you need to do Karma...
@@rsr9200 there is a reason why Dharma and Karma rhymes.... As I explained above.... Also, to do Karma.... U don't necessarily need an idea of self.... Or an idea of God.... You need reasons as human beings for ur Karma (actions).... This is the prime focus of entire Indian philosophies
@@rsr9200 these reasons are Dharma... It can be derived through dialogue as observed in Bhagwad Gita, education (shiksha), gyaan (knowledge), experiences, Yoga, Siddhi, Dhayana, and innumerous other ways are there which can ensure that you act and do Karma in reasonable manner
@@rsr9200 if you don't do an action or Karma in reasonable manner, then it can be due to two causes.. 1. U had the idea (dharma) but u cudnt act... 2. U had the wrong idea (ADharma)... In both cases u shud try to correct ur idea as well as ur act.... For example if you comment here but there are typos tht ur comment is not understood what wud u do.... U wud try to correct it lol....
I love this man! His epistemology is always cleared, I wish clearing up one's epistemology was taught to every young student all over the world.
Many people (probably most) don't really know their own epistemology and that follows all these chaos.
Namo Buddhaya 😊🙏!have a nice day
Thanks for this clarification. I like the relative simplicity of Buddhism, but having a Christian heritage, I never felt comfortable with the idea of no self, so I appreciate the perspective of Advaita Vedanta.
I am also from a Christian household, i am now practicing Vedanta for the same reason
Yin yen is more Hindu then Buddhist tough...
As a Christian we have a concept of true self as well. Our true self is a child of God, Abba Father. This identity we have through Jesus Christ who we say is both fully divine and fully human. The early church recognized that Jesus became human so that we might share his divinity. Through Jesus and him alone we have Union with God. We are to be like him, we partake in the divine nature while remaining human. As Christians we do not deny our individuality, our unique personhood but that at the core of who we are is children of God.
Advaita's "S"elf and Buddha's Non self are same.
Just like View on Glass Half full or Half Empty.
I too pray to Christ. Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana buddhism are very similar. Please allow me to interrupt. I do research on how Buddhism disappeared in Bihar. I realized it never disappeared from Bihar. Buddhists simply failed to research Indian Buddhism. They looked at Buddhism through the sphere of their own cultures searching for only the Buddha. Buddha had a myriad of names in different villages according to his teachings there. Example. His favorite teaching was 'Lust and desire causes pain. Remove lust and desire, and pain is removed'. Translated into Bihari (where the Buddha story took place) it is DHUKH HARAN meaning to remove dukha. Three dozen villages pray to DUKH HARAN Baba. Its clear that DUKH HARAN Baba is none other than the Buddha. Problem is Buddhists are searching only for the Buddha. In the real Vaishali the Buddha begged for alms. The locals there pray to 'BHIKHAINI' Baba (Beggar Baba). Bhikhaini was mispronounced by Buddhists as Bhikshu. Who is BHIKHAINI Baba. The Buddha no doubt. But people are searching for a man called Buddha. In the real Vaishali, in Beluha the Buddha suffered a sickness and felt he had grown old. The locals pray to 'BURHA' Baba (Old Baba). Who is BURHA Baba. The Buddha no doubt. In the real Vaishali the Lichavies pressurized Buddha not to die. They trailed him to Bandagawan pressurizing him not to die. To put pressure in Hindi is DABESHWAR. Three dozen villages around the stupa where Buddha gave the Lichavies his patra, the villagers pray to Baba 'DABESHWAR NATH' meaning the man who won the pressurizing game. It was the the Buddha no doubt as he gave the Lichavies his patra and succeded in sending them back. But Buddhists are searching for the Buddha. In Pidhauli (Vaishali) the local deity is Bardiha Baba. Bardiha means the Baba who didn't allow us to stay where he was staying. Bardiha Baba is the Buddha no doubt because he didn't allow the crowd of Lichavies to stay with him in Bandagama. Forgive me for commenting out of the topic. I just wanted to impart this information to Buddhists. Thankyou
Most westerners say Boo-dha, Boo-dhism
It's a nice touch, that swamiji says Būd-dha, Būd-dhism, the way it is uttered in India
Boo-dha is how some Americans pronounce it. Europeans pronunciation is closer to the Indian way.
@@tjsmcr I used to laugh so much on this some years back , now I'm used to it lol.
@@user-ml1mr1ls2y absolutely agree!
I would like to add my bit. I do research on how Buddhism disappeared in Bihar. I realized it never disappeared from Bihar. Buddhists simply failed to research Indian Buddhism. They looked at Buddhism through the sphere of their own cultures searching for only the Buddha. Buddha had a myriad of names in different villages according to his teachings there. Example. His favorite teaching was 'Lust and desire causes pain. Remove lust and desire, and pain is removed'. Translated into Bihari (where the Buddha story took place) it is DHUKH HARAN meaning to remove dukha. Three dozen villages pray to DUKH HARAN Baba. Its clear that DUKH HARAN Baba is none other than the Buddha. Problem is Buddhists are searching only for the Buddha. In the real Vaishali the Buddha begged for alms. The locals there pray to 'BHIKHAINI' Baba (Beggar Baba). Bhikhaini was mispronounced by Buddhists as Bhikshu. Who is BHIKHAINI Baba. The Buddha no doubt. But people are searching for a man called Buddha. In the real Vaishali, in Beluha the Buddha suffered a sickness and felt he had grown old. The locals pray to 'BURHA' Baba (Old Baba). Who is BURHA Baba. The Buddha no doubt. In the real Vaishali the Lichavies pressurized Buddha not to die. They trailed him to Bandagawan pressurizing him not to die. To put pressure in Hindi is DABESHWAR. Three dozen villages around the stupa where Buddha gave the Lichavies his patra, the villagers pray to Baba 'DABESHWAR NATH' meaning the man who won the pressurizing game. It was the the Buddha no doubt as he gave the Lichavies his patra and succeded in sending them back. But Buddhists are searching for the Buddha. In Pidhauli (Vaishali) the local deity is Bardiha Baba. Bardiha means the Baba who didn't allow us to stay where he was staying. Bardiha Baba is the Buddha no doubt because he didn't allow the crowd of Lichavies to stay with him in Bandagama. Forgive me for commenting out of the topic. I just wanted to impart this information to Buddhists. Thanks.
So what who cares how you pronounce the name buddha!
The big quantum difference between Vedanta and Hinduism is in the extreme negative perception of Buddism which equates Life to Suffering while Vedanta is so positive in its affirmations that "You are that =Tat Tvam Asi" ", "Aham Bramhasmi" , "Pragnanam Bramha " and "Ayam Atma Bramha".
You are that
Yes but you suffer
Here suffer means rebirth
To escape this is the goal .
Wow, I’m so glad this video appeared in my feed. I have been studying Buddhism for years but have never learned about Advaita Vedanta. I am fascinated! You are a wonderful teacher. Thank you!
If “No suffering” = “Bliss” = relief = mukti, then differences are in the language not in the essence. Any further words of explanation brings new suffering and extinguishes bliss.
Excellent comparison of similarities. Thank you.
I felt like as if I was having awakening while listening to you. Explanation with such clarity not only reaches to mind but also to heart. You are such a great teacher. Lots of love.
I miss the primary distinction between Vedanta and Buddhism, which is the recognition and acceptance of Ishvara.
I agree. This guy is too politically correct for my tastes. Differences are a good thing
The approach of a dvaiti towards what Upanishads may really stand for is likely to be different from that of an advaiti.. Acceptance or rejection of Iswara comes under one's belief in certain concepts whereas a sincere seeker tends go beyond both. Swamiji seems to be a mango eater...realization.
Errm, there is more to this, as Ishvara as a concept is itself in the realm of adhyasa for advaitins. For a fuller discussion of how Buddhim's tenent of pratitya-samutpada , and a lack of a substrate (brahman) on which superimpositions occur, and advaita vedanta adhyasa according to Shankaracharya's tradition, see here at Sri Swamiji Satchidanandendra's English language introduction to his Sanskrit work Mandkuya Rahasya Vivrittih : adhyatmaprakasha.org/php/bookreader/templates/book.php?type=english&book_id=015&pagenum=0047#page/147/mode/1up
That difference, Isvara, may rest on a deeper divergence: a different understanding of time and the manifestation of our world. According to MahaPrajnaparamitaSastra, each moment arises independently, that's why Ishvara is rejected. But the Gita tells us "Sarvasti", past and future, it's all there, we just can't see it. Take your pick. Personally, I prefer to rely on my own action. How can you rely on Isvara, which may not even exist?
I'm a Buddhist and from my perspective existence of gods is a rather minor issue ;) Personally I don't believe in gods. Many Buddhists do, but even then this belief shouldn't be more important to them than teachings of the Buddha.
Thank you for the great Teaching!
To me it seems that Advaita and Buddhism are rooted in the same experience of mystical consciousness, and that their difference is merely semantic. This becomes especially evident when taking into consideration the more explicitly non-dual vehicle of buddhism, Mahayana, and also the Mahamudra/Dzogchen and Zen teachings. I believe what is meant by the realizing of the emptiness of all phenomena - including the 'self' - is the same as what is meant by realizing that Atman is Brahman.
Blessings.
Namo Buddhaya 😊🙏! Buddhism actually believes in middle path . And that is one of the many differences. But thank you so much for being respectful. Have a nice day 😊🙏
I appreciate your insight on this. I have been studying both Vedanta and Dzogchen and wondered about the e in no-self (no-ego?) vs atman. I’m going to look into this further.
I love how Swamiji has explained this topic with poise and gracefulness. Yes, all eastern philosophies start with this one quest of how to end pain and suffering, and in that sense all have a common goal. But where they differ is the path and process to achieve it, and what they realize as the ultimate truth.
Swami Vivekananda's Jnana Yoga book beautifully illustrates this entire quest starting from a cave man, and the rise of different schools of thought!! And finally he shows how Advaita Vedanta solved the duality problem of both Buddhism and Dvaita Vedanta tradition in Hinduism. I would highly recommend it to anyone without any bias towards any particular tradition. Just read it with an open mind and try to relate with your own personal experience.
Thank you. Your calm, loving teaching is an inspiration to continue the search/struggle on the path.
Namo Buddhaya 😊🙏! Have a nice day!
As a Buddhist I found this very interesting
Thank you for the explanation, I really love this as I am on quite the journey but also am obsessed with learning about religious ideologies and philosophies.
It's a shame that you don't have a video series going into depth on every world religious tradition. The way you articulate is truly masterful, delivering complicated concepts in such a way that absorbing them is nearly effortless. Also you have such a calming voice I could enter a state of mindful meditation while learning.
Truly, thank you. 🙏
Best and most neutral explanation I have ever heard, Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom. We are indebted
Namo Buddhaya 😊🙏! Have a nice day!
Just was looking for a video like this, thanks so much!
In conclusion, Buddhism is better.
@Tanmoy Podder that's why there is so much division and racism in your country.
@@DoodleDoo there is no racism in our country. However caste bias exists due to class differences
@@DoodleDoo your comment shows how puny minded you are .
@@DoodleDoothat's called ignorance
Buddhism came from Hinduism. Simple as that. There is no Buddhism without Hinduism. Love each other
Exactly! Buddha wouldn't even dream of creating a new cult!
If hinduisms was there before then why Buddha makes his own teachings and laws. Because something was missing in Hinduism.
It comes from Sankhya philosophy
Hindu came after Arabs came to India. Buddhism was started before 2500 years
Proof?
I love your videos, sir! Your teachings are food for thought and are improving greatly my spiritual experiences and knowledge. Thank you very much for taking the time to do this
I sincerely hope the Indian youths in this generation dive deep into their rich glorious history , culture and be able to learn something from there towards becoming a better human being.
In the international arena it's a crime how much underappreciated Indian philosophical schools are.
I'd like you to know this about India. Please allow me to interrupt. I do research on how Buddhism disappeared in Bihar. I realized it never disappeared from Bihar. Buddhists simply failed to research Indian Buddhism. They looked at Buddhism through the sphere of their own cultures searching for only the Buddha. Buddha had a myriad of names in different villages according to his teachings there. Example. His favorite teaching was 'Lust and desire causes pain. Remove lust and desire, and pain is removed'. Translated into Bihari (where the Buddha story took place) it is DHUKH HARAN meaning to remove dukha. Three dozen villages pray to DUKH HARAN Baba. Its clear that DUKH HARAN Baba is none other than the Buddha. Problem is Buddhists are searching only for the Buddha. In the real Vaishali the Buddha begged for alms. The locals there pray to 'BHIKHAINI' Baba (Beggar Baba). Bhikhaini was mispronounced by Buddhists as Bhikshu. Who is BHIKHAINI Baba. The Buddha no doubt. But people are searching for a man called Buddha. In the real Vaishali, in Beluha the Buddha suffered a sickness and felt he had grown old. The locals pray to 'BURHA' Baba (Old Baba). Who is BURHA Baba. The Buddha no doubt. In the real Vaishali the Lichavies pressurized Buddha not to die. They trailed him to Bandagawan pressurizing him not to die. To put pressure in Hindi is DABESHWAR. Three dozen villages around the stupa where Buddha gave the Lichavies his patra, the villagers pray to Baba 'DABESHWAR NATH' meaning the man who won the pressurizing game. It was the the Buddha no doubt as he gave the Lichavies his patra and succeded in sending them back. But Buddhists are searching for the Buddha. In Pidhauli (Vaishali) the local deity is Bardiha Baba. Bardiha means the Baba who didn't allow us to stay where he was staying. Bardiha Baba is the Buddha no doubt because he didn't allow the crowd of Lichavies to stay with him in Bandagama. Forgive me for commenting out of the topic. I just wanted to impart this information to Buddhists.
Thank you for explaining...ive followed buddhism for 40 years..compassion kindness..reincarnation..renunciation..ect even went to see the Dalai lama ...then i discovered advaita vedanta well that put icing on the cake and i LOVE It..sri bhagavan ramana maharshi simply awesomeness...thank you swami tadatmananda🙏🙏🙏 in essence i find upanishads..vedas..advaita vedanta ect way easier to understand than buddhism..
This guy is a great teacher.
He's got one of the most resonant voices I've ever heard.
Superb lucid and precise discourse for the common man
Very respectful, and honest at the same time. Coming from a Judeo-Christian-culture myself, it is not so hard to take to heart the idea of a divine inner self, it is a comforting and familiar thought.
I've practiced as both Buddhist and Vedantin, and Buddhism is what I find most helpful. Vedanta is an interesting metaphysical philosophy, but as a spiritual and practical practice, Buddhism is more useful.
Metta.
Well said .
Swamiji,s analysis very clear,same goal,differnt routes Jaihind.
Thank you for slow explanations with your pleasant melodious voice. 😊
This is so calming! And so simply elucidated!
your presentation was very calm and soothing | thank you
Most Helpful and much pleasing.,.hrudaya poorvak namaskaargalu
Very informative and clear, just like all your talks. I am very grateful, thank you 🙏
Swamiji, to this layperson, the teachings of Advaita and Buddha lead to the same peaceful state ...
:-)
if that was the case why conclude Nirvana (which is flawed)
@@Dharmicaction Have you achieved Nirvana?
May Jesus help you find peace in your heart so you can stop trying to fill the hole by copy pasting a generic message everywhere. Amen
I like Hinduism more ... it is more juicy. It is good to be rich, but not to be attach to material wealth. There is no such school of thought in Buddhism.
Pursuing wealth or anything for the matter within the framework of dharma does not create karma. It is Karma yoga.
What a Beautiful Answer .. so clear, so concise and totally sublime...Thankyou Swami Tadatmananda.
Swami ji thank you for your explications .i love your soft calm voice too
Dear Sir, I feel blessed, and an spontaneous admiration emerges in my heart. This, I presume, must be for two reasons: 1) The choice of your words and the way of your expression - without hurting, in any way, one or the other; 2) The clarity with which you brought out the difference between two very subtle philosophies. I wish you a long and healthy life so that you will keep on inspiring.
Namo Buddhaya 😊🙏! Have a nice day!
Concepts are not truths, concepts are constructions whose building materials are ideas. Interested detachment without any philosophical basis works just as well, the only mantra needed is :- ''It is as it is, I accept''.
Will you did not come up with a new concept which has new building blocks of ideas in in certain schools of vajrayana in schools of yogic tradition there are tremendous amounts of parts which work without any conceptual basis of course considering some of the Karmic duties and responsibilities but everything is based on spiritual realise ation which is Inside Out not outside in and if padmasambhava or Guru matsyendranath say something which smart people like you will consider concept which is not true because its building blocks are ideas well that type of definition is a bit silly or ludicrous to a yogi or a Buddha because his conceptual explanation is largely contra punctual to his experience someone who who is feeling the fire as hot writes down a poem about the burning power of Fire and the feelings and sensations that he experienced then his concept is contra punctual to his experience so there is no question of falsehood......
@formless777 You can't KNOW anything regarding this subject but you can believe or trust all you want if it helps you. I don't quite know what is meant by suffering, unless you are living in Syria or the like most of us don't really suffer as such. Where I am it is 2 am, I can't sleep because of a tooth ache but that isn't suffering, life is a miracle, if you want it to be wonderful it is, if you want to suffer you will. Delve into whatever concept you want, there are thousands of them, words, words, words, none of them are so awe inspiring as my grandchillds smile or watching a calf stand up after birth. Be grateful for life as it is, concepts can be interesting but they have no soul, no humility.
Reactive mind is the cause of suffering, observer mind is the root of happiness
Al bundy, what you have accepted previously can block your progress. Only when beliefs have been eradicated, then knowing emerges from not knowing .
@@albundy9597 Emerging soul consciousness moves through the relative world, and is fuelled initially by the motivation to escape suffering. Suffering at the mental level is unprecedented today. The fuel is becoming a much higher octain.
Buddha never affirmed or denied the existence of a permanent self. In general, in Buddhism the concept of non-self indicates the non-existence of an individual self: there are no waves in the river, but river in the waves; therefore, only the river exists, they say. Therefore, we can conclude that Buddha realized that there are no individuals or individual souls, but only existence itself.
In the Mahaparinirvana sutra, the Buddha explains that there is one, eternal, indestructible, unchanging Self, the Buddha nature- pure awareness.
The real difference between advaita vedanta and buddhism is rhetoric.
For example, the buddhist will say there is no self because there is no unchanging reality that could be labelled as a self. Only pure awareness is unchanging.
On the other hand the advaitan would say that only the self is an unchanging reality, it is atman which is identical to Brahman, that obviously being pure awareness.
In other words, buddhism reaches absolute non-dual consciousness through negation while advaita [vedanta] through assertion. The same teachings realised, practiced and taught through opposite means.
Love and Light 🤍
@@erykpatrykchudy5675 good morning. You are totally correct. Om.
Thank you. Swami jee.
Gratitude.
Wow! Such a simple, succinct summary. Thank you 🙏!
Thank you for this insightful, clear, and beautifully phrased video. You have answered a question that has been prickling at my consciousness for years. I myself am not a Buddhist, but whenever I have read Buddhist literature or listened to Buddhists speak of their spiritual work and belief system, it has always reminded me so much of Vedanta, that I couldn't fathom why a separate religious path needed to be discovered in the first place. It is good to know that the apparent similarities are real, and it is good to learn once and for all what the technical differences are.
It is both gratifying and profoundly humbling to learn that the Rishis had the problem of the human condition completely figured out and solved thousands of years before now. What modern, half-baked self-help regimen can possibly provide even a shadow of the peace and liberation brought about by practicing Vedanta? Still... I suppose that anything that helps is still... helpful. Blessed be all that you experience and achieve. Go n-eiri leat! --N
You are Irish?
I always love to listen to his teaching, he is a great teacher
What I’ve read is that Buddha never said if there was a an atman or not. His emphasis was on for people to find for themselves. People took his non declaration or non validation of atman as a stand in itself that there is no atman.
Osho (in his commentry on Gita) even goes on to say that before passing Buddha finally told of the truth that is atman.
True, even when asked emphatically to deny that there is no soul he never denied that there is no soul but just said what good would it do you to know.
aayush Paliwal - then why do Buddhists say Nirvana? It means no shiva, no shakthi and the world/universe is an illusion. Nice try
@@indianmilitary If the universe is an illusion, then where are we?
@@indianmilitary there are Buddhists who worship Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva and other God forms are of the same nirguna Brahman. Buddha didn't want to conclude anything but just the process. So that everyone finds the truth for themselves.
Há muitos anos a literatura budista me encanta, especialmente o Zen Budismo! Mas, agora conhecendo o Advaita vedanta- NÃO dualidade me identifiquei e fiquei fascinada pela beleza dos textos quando dizem: Você já está iluminado! Sem aquela "PRESSÃO" do budismo para alcançar a iluminação. Isso de ter de praticar a meditação cada vez mais para atingir a iluminação, por dias inteiros e quanto mais melhor para ficar iluminado, nos causa ESCRAVIDÃO DA MEDITAÇÃO. Gosto de meditar sem pressão por resultados. Afinal já somos o que procuramos! AMO O ADVAITA VEDANTA. 💯
Buddha was a Vedic Indian, he had no intention of creating a new sect!
Buddha was actually pointing to the awareness as the only unconditioned and unborn reality, as it was stated in many places in the Pali Canon.
Awareness without surface, without end, radiant all around, is not experienced through the solidity of earth, the liquidity of water, the radiance of fire, the windiness of wind, the divinity of devas [and so on through a list of the various levels of godhood to] the allness of the All.
- MN 49
Those who know this unfabricated state, their minds released through the ending of [craving], the guide to becoming,
- Iti 44
Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering to it, in the same way the Tathāgata - freed, disjoined, & released from these ten things - dwells with unrestricted awareness.
- AN 10.81
There is, monks, an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated. If there were not that unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born - become - made - fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn - unbecome - unmade - unfabricated, escape from the born - become - made - fabricated is discerned.
- Ud 8.3
Whether you call this Awareness "Self" or "No-Self" does not matter, it's only linguistics. Another quote on that from one of the greatest Buddhist masters:
"It is the single nature of consciousness which encompasses all of Samsara and Nirvana.
Even though its inherent nature has existed from the very beginning, you have not recognized it;
Even though its clarity and presence has been uninterrupted, you have not yet encountered its face.
Even though its arising has nowhere been obstructed, still you have not comprehended it.
Therefore, this (direct introduction) is for the purpose of bringing you to self-recognition.
With respect to its having a name, the various names that are applied to it are inconceivable (in their numbers).
Some call it "the nature of the consciousness" or "consciousness itself."
Some Tirthikas call it by the name Atman or "the Self."
The Sravakas call it the doctrine of Anatman or "the absence of a self."
The Chittamatrins call it by the name Chitta."
(Padmasamhava, Self Liberation through Seeing with Naked Awareness)
The purpose of the Buddha's teaching of anatta was simply pedagogical: to prevent our sense of human self to be projected to and confused with the Self of Atman, and also to dissolve our habitual tendency to associate all thigs and all sentient beings that we perceive with their imaginary separate selves (which created the imaginary world of dualities). So, his approach was rather cataphatic: the reality of awareness has to be known from direct experience, but not fabricated from any mind-created concepts or senses of "self".
@eugene, thank you, insightful- your concluding sentence - “ the reality of awareness has to be known from direct experience... “ seems similar to advaita Vedanta which states our true nature is available in our experience, that we can know our true nature”
@@SB-vj5sn Exactly, and in Buddhism it is also called "true nature", "the nature of mind", but since it is beyond names and concepts, whether we call is "Self" or "no-Self" is irrelevant.
"Know one thing and everything is freed - Remain within your inner nature, your awareness!" (Padmasambhava)
"This present naked awareness is actual liberation itself" (Jigmed Lingpa, Yeshe Lama)
Anatta. You know man. ✌
Non self. Mind is the 6th sense.
Someone once said "all religions are essentially the same, especially Bhuddism" 🤣🤣
100% this! The Buddha recognized the same nameless, unconditioned "Buddha nature" that Advaita Vedanta recognizes as the self, but Buddhism takes some extra steps to prevent the mind from attempting to conceptualize (and therefore corrupt) it.
@@Metabrotropic yes rightly sad
Thank you. Excellent presentation. I am Shingon Esoteric Buddhist background. I have wondered if we are in middle between Buddhism and Hinduism. We are Buddhist, but we also believe in Dainitinyorai or Maha Vairocana, which seem to be similar to additional step you described. Respect to all good paths.
Duality cycles of shakthi cannot happen without Shiva (self) which is both immanent and transcendent. Advaitha (shiva) is INCOMPLETE without Dvaitha (Shakthi).
@@Dharmicaction what does Shiva and Shakti symbolises anyway?
Namo Buddhaya 😊🙏! Hope you have a nice day😊🙏! Have faith on Supreme Buddha and karma. Try to get closer to Supreme Nibbana 😊🙏and spread kindness 🙏
@Pawan Giri In my experience, Shiva represents the underlying supreme logic, emptiness, and stillness that allows all potential configurations of existence to be, while Shakthi is the manifestation and flow of every potentiality. They are both infinity, and they are both fundamentally inseparable. Infinite stillness is the same as infinite motion.
12) At 10.55 You say Later Buddhist teachers explain nirvana as extinguishing the false sense of being an individual person.... Again you are mistaken. This is not later Buddhist Teachers but the teaching given by the Buddha himself . In the Anguttara Nikaya, Ekaka Nipat , the Buddha does clearly say to meditate on Anatta and emptiness ( Aniccato, Dukhato,Anattato, Suññato. Where does he ever say meditate on the Atman/Atta ?. There is no proof anywhere in the Early or later , Theravadin or Mahyana or Vajrayana that he accepted an Ultimate Atman/Self after everything else that is Not Self has been eliminated like the Vedantic Neti Neti/Not this Not this as said by Yagyavalkya in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad II iii 1-6?
Yes Anatta is not an ontological entity , as I’ve clearly said but is more the denial of Atta/Anatman/Self to be found anywhere as he has never affirmed there is a final Self/Atman/Atta but rather repeatedly talked of using Anatta to see that fact .
Now for Western Scholars about Early Buddhism and ANATTA :-
Anattā is a composite Pali word consisting of an (not, without) and attā (soul).( Thomas William Rhys Davids and William Stede , The Pali English Dictionary ) The term refers to the central Buddhist doctrine that "there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul."(Encyclopedia Britannica). It is one of the three characteristics of all existence, together with Dukkha (suffering, dissatisfaction) and Anicca(impermanence).( ibid. Encycloprdia Brit. and Rhys Davids)
Anattā is synonymous with Anātman (an + ātman) in Sanskrit Buddhist texts.( Ibid Encyclopedia Brit, and Johannes Bronkhorst , Buddhist Teachings in India ) In some Pali texts, ātman of Vedic texts is also referred to with the term Attan, with the sense of soul.( ibid. Rhys Davids). An alternate use of Attan or Atta is "self, oneself, essence of a person", driven by the Vedic era Brahmanical belief that the soul is the permanent, unchangeable essence of a living being, or the true self.( ibid . Rhys Davids and Johaness Bronkhorst , Buddhist Teaching in India )
In Buddhism-related English literature, Anattā is rendered as "not-Self", but this translation expresses an incomplete meaning, states Peter Harvey ; a more complete rendering is "non-Self" because from its earliest days, Anattā doctrine denies that there is anything called a 'Self' in any person or anything else, and that a belief in 'Self' is a source of Dukkha (suffering, pain, unsatisfactoriness)( Peter Harvey .
!3) At 12 .11- 12.37 You begin the definition of Consciousness /Atman but that is exactly the definition of Mind /Vigyan in Buddhism , except it is is changing in a continum/Santana whereas the Vedantic Atman is Sat and therefore really existing and unchanging ( Sankaracharya , Tatvabodha Chapter 8 verses 8.0-8.1) but the Buddhist consciousness is not unchanging but Changingly eternal Parinami Nitya as it is a continuum. The Atman/Consciousness that is unchanging is a logical mistake as an unchanging Awareness/Sakshi cannot be aware . Awareness is a a process a function and function demands change . If the Awareness -Atman /Witness is the KNOWER of "the world around you and your thoughts and emotions " as you yourself has said at 9.42 then it cannot be unchanging Sat and is just what we Buddhist call Vigyana/Mind ? Otherwise it is an Unconscious Consciousness and what use is realizing such an Unconscious thing for liberastion/Mukti ?
14) At 12.54 You say Moksha is the recognition of your own eternal , limitless , divine Self . But we have already shown above that there is no such Self anywhere to be found except in scriptures which say there is such a thing as an unchanging eternal Self as your core .
15 ) At 13.01 you say that we can say Buddhism and Vedanta start out on the same foot.... But this is not true ? I've already said clearly that Buddhosm start out with Anatman as Avidya/NescienYe and Vedanta starts out as Lack of knowledge of the True Unchanging eternal Atman as Avidya/Nescience . So they start out right from the beginning in two different directions . You have taken only the outer gross elements of Buddhism like attachment to mind and body as a similarity but this point is just an external side effect of attachment to Atman of any kind for Buddhism . Avidya is defined as Sahaja Atman Graha / Clinging to the concept of any kind of Self/Atman ( not just the ego , mind you ) .
16) At 13.05 you say THEY BOTH IDENTIFY THE ROOT CAUSE OF SUFFERING TO BE FALSE IDENTIFICATION WITH YOUR BODY AND MIND . This is Vedanta not Buddhism .It is the FALSE IDENTIFICATION WITH ANY KIND OF ATMAN THAT IS THE ROOT CAUSE OF SUFFERING IN BUDDHISM. I'm sorry but eventually like all Hindu Swamis you too have totally distorted BUddhism here ..
17 ) I think the rest of what you say has already been shown as false for Buddhism ( you are right about Vedanta ) . But there are verses which say Nirvanam Paramamam Sukham ( Dhammapada ) too so your idea that Vedanta goes further is also inaccurate .
Thank you for attempting to describe Buddhism from your Vedantic perspective but this does great disservice to Buddhism by confusing people about Buddhism . It would be better if you Swamis refrained from giving false interpretations of Buddhism which you have inadequately understood .Thank You 🙏🏼
Thank you for such detailed refutation. I hope all those who have jumped into the wrong conclusion would understand the difference between Buddhism and Vedanta.
Beautiful exposition, calm and with pure intent, as should be all discussions regarding religion.
Sarva Mangalam
Swami ji you are Spiritual divine Genius , full of wisdom.
Thanks. Pranam 🙏🌷🌷🌷🌷
Im a "Buddhist" who believes in Atma. Thank you for your talk.
@@freakboostez6971 There is no belief in a creator god in the Buddhism. Some mahayana texts are against eating meat, but it is not mentioned in the Buddhist Pali canon. Theravada is the oldest form of buddhism
Thank you Swamiji! 🙏🏻 I think it's good to remember that nirvāṇa as the goal of buddhadharma applies well to the Hīnayāna schools, but not so much to the Mahāyāna schools. In the later, the goal is to help every sentient being to be free of duhkha, so enlightenment becomes only a means (the best means) to do that. That's why H.H. the Dalai Lama, for example, has reincarnated again and again even though he's already enlightened. This, to me, seems like another difference between Advaita and Mahāyāna.
I agree with you and you’ve provided a great example of the Dalai Lama, a true bodhisattva.
But if I may, I would like to tell you, to eschew the use of the term ‘Hinayana’ because it doesn’t set well with our Buddhist brothers of Theravada. Other than that, great points 👍
@@swingingcrow124 thank you for reminding me of that! You're completely right!
I'm still looking for a good term that's not too specific (like śrāvakayāna) and not too vague (like "foundational buddhism")...
@@gustavosanthiago I think they prefer being called “Theravadins” 😊
@@swingingcrow124 Yes absolutely.
Yeah. Later, they made up all kinds of things
Thank you for the wonderful explanation. I've always had this doubt.
I could listen to this gentleman all day long.
Thank you for this. I would like to add that a key point to understand about the Buddha's original teaching is that it is entirely, 100%, a practice - there is no metaphysical speculation. I'm happy to believe that the two paths lead to the same inner experience - it's the interpretation of experience that differs. In ordinary everyday terms, the major difference between the two seems to be that Buddhism generally insists on a lot of commitment to a meditation practice whereas Vedanta does not - relying more complete on enquiry into experience. There are plenty of people who have experienced awakening with precious little meditation practice. There seems to be advantages both ways and for this reason the teacher I most connect with is Adyashanti, who seems to integrate both seamlessly.
I've always wondered about the differences and afinities between the two. Thank you for the video. 🙏
Difference is vedic book has blasphemy penalty and buddhist books don't have.
Another pure difference is mosha of hinduism and nirvanna of buddhism.
These two are kinda similar but very different.
Btw we can live well without following a religion.
We just need to abide the law ,treat the neighbors well and live a good life.
The Infinite Eternal Consciousness, is also about voluntarily heading into, or close to suffering (from the point of view of an individual Soul) sometimes.
Those who only focus on escaping problems (or in their minds, 'solving' problems for themselves, and ignoring or not doing much for others, beyond offering superficial, simplistic, non-relatable solutions), are disconnected from the Infinite Eternal Consciousness, to that extent.
Still, good talk.
That is the reason why it is important to follow dharma which is neither good nor bad karma. Dharma is the balance of natural law. In Baghavad Gita, there is Jnana yoga which is nothing but Viapassana copied as Vipassana by Buddhists and Karma yoga (action without karma). So, both Jnana + Karma yoga compliment each other and are important. Otherwise there is a high probability of creating karma especially those who are leading a worldly life.
Not well versed with some of the theory (which, I expect to be of value) and terms you referenced, but get the general feel that I may agree with you, when I sufficiently or fully get it.
3:22 the avatar of vishnu concept is most unacceptable to most Buddhist...haha
6:37 well said on wrong identification on body and mind
8:52 5 skhandas should be: form, sensation, perception, volition/formation, consciousness
9:57 clinging/staganation state upon the 5 skandhas =>not liberated; free of clinging upon the 5 skandhas => enlightened and liberated being
10:08 The Chan/Zen/Seon/Thien Buddhist tradition emphasizes on realizing the true nature as empty , no contradiction . Aggressive investigation meditation techniques are used such as 'What is this?' 'Who is this?' 'What's the original face?'
11:16 Buddhism has Vimutti ， Vimoksha terms.
13:44 Buddhism has the same affirmitive terms use as well, the word Buddha confirms this, there are other terms used in the Mahayana context similar to Advaita Vedanta as well: Permanent , Ultimate Bliss, Self, Pure, referring to the state of liberation. Note that these does not refer to a physical substantial object, it is only a way of expressing.
Buddhism not entirely pluralistic. Yet the idea that there is a buddha-nature, and the idea of becoming buddha, is very close to the avatar concept. By realizing ones own intrinsic nature, the buddha nature within is revealed - this is extremely similar. Vishnu is not a theistic deity, but rather monistic - so practically no hindu believes that vishnu is a deity in the strictest of sense, but simply brahman. To a degree this rejection of pluralism is not necessarily a good idea, it is the same as if the christians say their god is not the same as allah.
While the avatar idea is clearly different from the idea of buddha-hood, the deeper you go into practice with the 5 dhyani buddhas, you actually end up with a methodology and worldview very very similar to the more tantric aspects of vishnuism. The 5 dhyani buddhas for example are matched in the vyuha idea of vishnu, which is part of the pancaratras. Vishnu is an image of the self, primarily, and buddhism rejects the idea of the self. Idealogically you are correct, but on a deeper inspection i have to disagree - its just separatism. Vishnu, his incarnations and iconography are allegorical forms of the awareness, of that which assumes states - whichever qualia they may be. As such when atma mergfes with paramatma (vishnu) then it realizes its brahman-nature and achieves either mukti or vimukti.
@@thenaturalpeoplesbureau I understand what you mean, different sects of Buddhism has similar ideas of what you said but used terminology that fits well into the [Buddhist terminology concept context], like what you said in the 5-Buddha concept, and your paratman last paragraph, but i believe there are still very subtle differences (probably) in the bigger picture.
@@thenaturalpeoplesbureau Many past Indian mainland religious histories are recorded in Chinese Text Sources, not all are known to the English world. Deducing from many different socio- political facets of the Chinese Buddhism sources, there are many reason as to why so many similarities are seen here.
1. competition between buddhist sects: new improvised doctrine from the root are developed to 'perfect' the old ones, as to satisfy the needs of the devotee and to show superiority compared to other buddhist sect. So these new ideas mutually influence non-Buddhist sect as well, or the other way round of borrowing the idea from non-Buddhist sect.
2. At the same time, Buddhism sect with its own internal conflict has to meet the challenge from non-Buddhist sect as well. So some ideas maybe borrowed from non-Buddhist sects to incorporated to the Buddhist philosophical doctrine. Or it maybe other way round as well whereby non-Buddhist sect borrowed idea from newly developed philosophy from Buddhist sect.
If we view the current development of Buddhist and non-Buddhist sect in the modern era, it is still happening in an evolution manner...:)
@@thenaturalpeoplesbureau Hinduism, has higher proportion of figurative, allegorical way of expression than Buddhism. It is a beautiful way of expressing with lots of stories, but in the same time it may be confusing to later generations. (I came across Sadhguru Jaggi Vasudev's talks as well, and he decoded some and warned not to take the stories on face value)
@@showashowa6194 indeed there are many differences, it is similar-different, some core concepts exist in both worldreligions, others are unique.
I appreciate the discipline behind buddhistic techniques like tummo, which i have basically adopted into my routines :D
I have combined that technique with what i learned from reiki and this has really boosted my visualisation and willpower.
Hinduism is very allegorical, and many layered. Some philosophical tenets are quite different but maybe they aim at the same thing in a different way..
Both traditions have deeply shamanic aspects.
A deep realisation, and simple explanation of Advaitabad and Buddhism realisation is explained. It deeply touched my mind. Pranam and thank you.
I can tell for sure this individual has true peace in his mind. His mind is a blank slate. I can tell, he's extremely close to giving up attachments and attain liberation.
5) At 6.14 You gloss over the different meanings of ignorance in Vedanta and Buddhism using the same ord ignorance as if it has to mean the same things. But it is not. In Vedanta ignorance is removed by Atman Gyan but in Buddhism Atman Gyan is itself the very definition of Ignorance and it is removed by SEEING clearly and directly there is no such a thing as an UNCHANGING ETERNAL ATMAN. So they are not the same.
6) At 6.40 you have said that Buddhism also believes wrongly identifying yourself as Body and mind is ignorance. . Can you quote any Buddhist Suttas or sutras that define ignorance as you have said . ? In Buddhism ignorance is identifying yourself with any kind of Atman, no matter what ( Sahaja Atman Graha) and there is no Self/Atman beyond the mind. You also make the same typical mistake about Buddhism that any other Hindu Swami makes. This is a falsification of Buddhism that has been carried on for a thousand years by Hindus like you.
7) At 7.19 you say Buddhism believes that emotional discomfort belongs to the mind. This is false. In the Anguttara Nikaya, Ekakanipat, Aschharasanghata Vaggo, the Buddha says clearly these emotional defilements are adventitious /Angatuka and do not belong to the mind. They are not Chitta but Chaitta/Mental factors .So again falsifying Buddhism without even taking pains to study it properly like all the rest of Hindu Swamis.
8) You say Buddhism says you identify with your body and mind and that is the problem, just as the Rishis say. That's again false. It is not your identification with these but rather your identification with the Identifier, the Knower, the Awareness itself that is wrong , while identification with the body and mind is considered only a gross manifestation of identification with any kind of Atman/Self "in here or out there ". And there is no Knower /Awareness / Drasta / Sakshi beyond the mind and mind is everchanging not some unchanging Self/Atman. You completely missed the point as is typical of all Hindu Swamis , always implying that the Buddha did not negate the Atman. If you want i can give you all the sources of the Buddha Vacan where he has negated Atman of any kind as Mithya dristi/False view
9) At 9.16 You say in HIS PALI LANGUAGE . This is incorrect . The Buddha did not speak in Pali . Pali was a language created like Panini Sanskrit from the Saurseni Linguistic group of Indic languages to encode the Buddha's teachings accurately . This Linguistic group belonged to the Avanti Mahajanapada which was 1000 miles away from where the Buddha was born and his field of work . At the same time the Sarvastivadins encoded his teaching in Sankrit too. So to say IN HIS PALI language is a inaccurate .
10) At 9.42 the definition of of Atman you give as Sakshi /witness of the world around you and your thoughts and emotions is the exact definition of Mind/vigyana in Buddhism. Vijanati'ti Vigyanam/ Knowing is the the mind /Vigyanam .
' 11) At 10.30 you say Buddhism calls it Nirvana and Vedanta calls it Moksha . Again this seems to imply that you haven't really studied Buddhism properly . Buddhism also uses the word Moksha/Mokkha and Mukti /Mutti . And by the way the Bhagavat gita has also appropriated nirvan . The term Brahma-nirvana appears in Chapter two verses 72 and Chapter 5 verses 24-26 of the Bhagavad Gita. It is the state of release or liberation; the union with the Brahman. ... According to Zaehner, Johnson and other scholars, nirvana in the Gita is a Buddhist term adopted by the Hindus.
Thank you for elaborate explanation!
Buddhism sounds like nihilism by the sounds of it.
@@SleazyRider86 Sounds like is right and that's because you haven't taken the pains to properly study it under a proper authentic Buddhist Masters . Actually it isn't . It is the Middle path free from both Eternalism/Saswatvada and Nihilism/Ucchedavada. You cannot possibly get it if all you do is try to understand it from the words of Hindu Vedanta Masters like these . As far as Buddhism is concerned they do not know the ground from their elbow.😊 .
@@Vatulvasava Buddha would be proud of your ego lmao
He prefaced this by stating he really has no direct experience of Buddhism and to take his perspective with a grain of salt. I practice Buddhism and it truly cannot be understood intellectually. In fact , Buddhist methods show how to actualize the realization that beliefs are concepts and are merely mental projections with no corresponding independent reality. The people who teach usually have 3-6 years of solid retreat, meditating 12 hours a more a day. ( At least one the Tibetan tradition) In this way , they can teach based on actual realization and not concepts /belief. This guy has 40 years of practice under his belt. He has to have some actual realization beyond concept that should be respected . Basic Mahayana: Do not aim to be the best . All Dharma teachings are for a single purpose : to reduce ego clinging.
Buddha never rnounced Hinutwa. There is an article by mr. Elst proving that abuddha was every inch a Hindu. Manohar
Dear Sir, there is no Hindu... It is a term given by Arabs to people living across the River Sindhu... We all are practitioners of Sanatan Dharma... All Indian Philosophies, whether Astik or Nastik are our own philosophies with primary focus to the establishment of Dharma
THE ILLUSION OF SEPARATION
Yes but it does not mean there is no Athma
Forgive mMichael's ignorance. She hasn't figured it out yet. She should start with the first video in the series.
who experiences the illusion?
Thank you Swami Tadatmananda for helping to dispel all the confusion here. Speaking clearly seems simple and easy but it is a treasured focus that comes from much experience. Keep on keeping on... well :)
These traditions are very similar philosophically. Realization in the mind of a Buddhist is also reaching a primordial state of supreme bliss though. Completely the same. I praise both these wonderful traditions 🙏 Om Swasti
Very true!
All dharmic yogic paths are united on that topic - sure, no doubt about that. Their differences are more important imo.
@@TheGuiltsOfUs that's what makes them unique from each other, all the ancient sages had their own paths which differ from each but has the same goal to reach moksha/nirvana and be one with the cosmos/God.
So clear, insightful and factual! This is much appreciated.
From my experience with both traditions: My opinion is that the "Self" and the "no-self" are two sides of the same coin. As consciousness and its contents are in actuality without separate identification, they could be described as being self-less. But as consciousness is the root of all experience, we could say it is the root of identification, or our "true Self". I think the differences between the two views are simply a matter of semantics.
I am open to re-evaluation of this perspective however!
Nice, and interesting, but, IMHO, needs more “Sat Nam” and “So Ham” and to emphasize universal divinity.
We all are already that - Shiva + Shakthi regardless of whether of one realizes through meditation or not. There is nothing other than Shiva + Shakthi.. Be firmly established in understanding that everything is divine and it is the actor (Jnana yoga) behind every human karmic and non human dharmic role and by following dharmic action (karma yoga) avoid karma. Stay in the dharmic zone. This is meditation 24/7. This is yog aoff the mat. This is maintenance of personal dharma of mind and body which also protects universal dharma.
2:25 "After years of intense spiritual practice, he "FAILED" to gain enlightenment. I'm neither into Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta or any other religions. But I do know this, another's self path will never be a failure, how can one judge a failure when you did not walked the path of the other?? failing to see the wisdom of what that soul needed to learned ? Perhaps in that meditation by the tree, all of those years he "failed" was shown to him the truth of his soul. Perhaps all those years of "failure" was what he needed to find enlightenment. So the mind begs the question... Was it a "failure"?
to each his own karma no comparison is needed
@@aprilturk1559 agreed
First thing enlightenment is wrong word in english no proper word.
Buddha also practice one greate Tantra practice called Tara Devi which only Sage vishvamitr achived ,vishavamitra is highest in sage , in Tantra practice female is required but the girl was doing that practice start taking intrest in buddh than deep meditation practice then buddh leave that path .
Tantra gives highest level of wisdom and spritual power and use sex energy to transform and that help to protect from insane madness and death these 3 are side effect of Higest level of meditation practices .
Time of buddha no word hindu and relegion means best practices to make human life better .
@@kisan-majdoorkalyansamiti7390
ENLIGHTENMENT:
An opening to intelligence infinity
The context of ‘failure’ is that the Buddha felt he did not achieve what he had hoped to, through the intense spiritual practice as prescribed by the ancient Hindus and therefore ‘rejected all Hindu scriptures’.
It’s another story that what he eventually propounded is actually an off-shoot of Hindu thought wherein the key differences have been outlined in this video. The Self vs No Self. The provision and existence of the Self in Hindu thought, is explained in Advaita Vedanta as Jivatma & Parmatma (Individual & Universal Soul) eventually being one.
The simple and brilliant rationale in defence of the existence of the Self in Advaita, is that it cannot be denied. Who denies the Self?
Very clearly expressed. And a very helpful clarification.
I bow to you great Rishi of present time. Your expression and teaching make me to understand clearly the doctrines of non dual Vedant and nothingness of Buddhism. May god you live and teach the people for hundreds years and more.sadar pranam to great monk.
While Advaita Vedanta practitioners were happy with their discovery of Atma and thought it existed inherently, Buddha went further by investigating the atma itself (soul) and found out that even Atma or soul does not have an inherent nature of self existence, which Buddha described as 'Shunyata' (loosely translated as 'Emptiness'). In realizing and abiding in emptiness, all the spiritual path is exhausted and is consumed by the fire of Shunyata and your true face of sky-like empty nature yet conscious of itself called ' Rigpa' or your primordial unborn unceasing Buddha nature pervades and that’s what Buddha referred to as Complete Enlightenment.
Great points 👍
Other then the self is nothing called shunya . happyness identified then two things are exist, me and Happy. When self identified sunya then the self is already exist . identified other then one thing means i am there. In advaida there is no meaning for happy and sad . everything is myself happy - sad , good- bad, day- night. But yogis maintain the dual atma and paramatma (thuvaitha) state for experience the ultimate happyness . (Sorry for bad English)
@@omnamashivaya8300 YODA, is that you ?
Phuntsho Tenzin - Buddhist Nirvana means no shiva/ no shakthi and the world/universe is an illusion and does not exist. This is an ideology based on ego (to differ from vedas). It contradicts even basic laws of nature like law of thermodynamics let alone profound vedic metaphysics like Sankhya which combines both Advaitha (shiva) and Dvaitha (Shakthi).
@@Dharmicaction Buddha's teaching doesn't contradicts anything, all it does is that it reveals the truth behind all the appearance and phenomena and exposes the unfabricated, naked ultimate nature of reality itself. Moreover, you shouldn't confuse between Buddha's teaching on relative truth and ultimate truth, otherwise you will end up misunderstanding the way you have now.
As a relatively casual follower, it seems to me, that Buddhism's denial of self is only the same as Vedanta's denial of Body and mind. After all, Buddhism recognises consciousness, which Vedanta recognises as the true self, or Atman. So, what Vedanta recognises as the self, is also recognised by Buddhism. It sounds strange, that Vedanta suggests that Buddhism's denial of 'self' amounts to denial of Atman. Is it just a misunderstanding due to different usage of the term 'self', by each tradition. A Shingon Buddhist monk told me that my true self was Dainichi Nyorai (Japanese cosmic Buddha), who is a representation of the whole universe. Surely, this is the same as Vedanta telling me that my true nature is Atman, which is a representation of Brahman?
Exactly, there are Buddhists who claim this, like zen Buddhists. It's just misunderstanding.
inshort-ONE IS ALL, ALL IS ONE
I prefer ONE IS, ALL IS NOT from an absolute perspective and ONE IN ALL, ALL IN ONE from an empirical perspective.
My Hero Academia 🤣
@@truetool fullmetal Alchemist 😅😅
Really appreciate this teaching. He is a true scholar: Can stand back and objectively share without a bias.
I received alot from this video.
*You described it in a very simple, correct (Samyak) and unconditional way.🙏🏻*
After 25 years of Tibetan Buddhism, I think I just realised I'm Hindu LOL.
All were actually hindus from Tibet to Indonesia. Even Kalki puran mentions Tibet.
The Buddha tell about no-self actually means we already have in jnana yoga says that egoism of self in you should be removed,which is very profoundly understood by Sri Bhawan Ramana Maharshi . Egoic self is known to arise of mind ,
Of all the thoughts that rise in the mind, the thought 'I' is the first thought.
Then why do they say Nirvana and the world/universe is an illusion and does not exist? It comes from no self (shiva) and no shakthi assumption to differ from vedas (due to ego)
As far as I'm aware, the Buddhist Agama reference the deathless numerous times, and also mention "consciousness without surface."
Buddhist Nrivana conclusion is flawed. They murdered Sankhya metaphysics. Duality cycles cannot happen without the immanent and transcendent self. In other words, neither Shiva (Advaitha) nor Shakthi (Dvaitha) can exist without each other. It means there is perpetual duality cycles of creation/destruction, birth/decay, summer/winter, wave/particle, day/night etc.
@@Dharmicaction Buddhist metaphysics is actually diverse, with plenty of inter-sect debate, though there are obviously commonalities. When it comes to tantra, there is essentially no difference in Buddhism and Hinduism except for the deity symbols/names and minor variations of techniques (at least that I'm aware of).
As I see it, the Hindu yoga focus on the particle-like nature of mind, and the Buddhist emphasis on its wave-like nature, are simply tendencies, as in reality it's wavicles, or partiwaves, if you like. Both take duality (and nonduality) into account. There is a history of fruitful cross-pollination, discourse, and debate among contemplatives in dharmic traditions in India that's thousands of years old.
I don't deny that an intellectual interpretive framework is part of the process, but the activity of inner inspection (praxis) is indispensable to contemplative yoga.
As for Atma, that's another big topic. Briefly, you *could* conceive of the eighth jhana (neither-perception-nor nonperception) as Self. The Buddha had already attained the formless jhanas of infinite space, infinite consciousness, and nothingness by the teaching of Hindu yogis who themselves had attained it.
The reason Self is denied is more pragmatic, as the Buddhist technique (relating to the catvari aryasatyani) is an emphasis on cycles of contact, craving, feeding, and stress. Even formless jhanas can be consumed, and thus the process of feeding still inhabits full release.
While it's the ultimate ease, pre-conceptualizing and interpreting Nirvana as a permanent self (within the frame of everlasting time, even though it's timeless/deathless) leads to more feeding. Noting that it is simply the full absence of stress and distress leads to the ninth aspect of the aryastangamarga. It's "consciousness without surface."
Is this truly a denial of the reality of Atman/Brahman? I don't think so. But this is a highly debated and controversial topic. Certainly, there is no shortage of polemics between Hindu and Buddhist yogis, such as Adi Shankara, Patanjali, and the brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu, on these issues.
As for poorly conceived metaphysics, no dharmic tradition in India seems to have a monopoly on that.
Also, I fully admit that my research could be mistaken, and I make no claim to being enlightened myself. I go by historians, practitioners, translated primary sources, and some experience.
Buddhist it's not flawed Buddhists shunyata is same as nirguna brahman
@Rahul Good point. I was generalizing, perhaps overgeneralizing. Both traditions note both aspects of consciousness.
Patanjali defined yoga as cessation of mind-waves, or the stream of consciousness, if you will. But he also mentioned how the highest level of concentration is the ability to see individual drops of rain in a rainshower, which is likely an analogy to witnessing thought-forms, though yogis may literally be able to do this with rain as well.
Moreover, the word dharma (or its plural) as it's used in Buddhist discourse can refer to what in English would be loosely translated as "atom."
Interestingly, some scholars think Patanjali was a Buddhist, but later Hindu editors changed parts of the Yoga Sutras to reflect a more Vedic perspective (or at least the Sankya darshana, but theistic). I don't know about that, though.
Another thing I found out recently (I forgot where the article is, but if I find it I'll share it) is that some of the earliest references to 15 Asana were from Buddhist yogis, several centuries before the Hatha Yoga Pradipika.
Again, it goes to show how fluid these dharmic boundaries were in India (though they're certainly there!).
Now that I think about it, if anything Buddhism probably focuses more on the particle aspect of mind, and Hinduism the wave aspect. (And to answer your earlier question Rahul, no, I wasn't referring to a physical particle as in Vaisheshika darshana - which, as an aside, I believe is about than just atoms).
I was probably thinking of the koshas (bodies) of tantric metaphysics, and also the tattvas of Sankya. However, the five "skandas" in Buddhist discourse are sort of like bodies, or units (I believe one metaphor is a pile of bricks).
The Abidharma is also full of discrete divisions, but it should be noted that it's the analysis that divides everything up; reality itself isn’t necessarily split up like this (to quote Watts: "You can't cut a wheel of cheese with a line of longitude").
Clarity of understanding is the reward of this excellent talk that may enlighten the listener. Immensely educative. Pranam.
This is the most calm, clear, and constructive comparison of two of the most elevated systems of enlightenment from ancient India. My humble and sincere Namaskara to the wise and enlightened Guru here!