Seeker196

This came up in the Hinduism vs Buddhism class of oriental phil.

Both are 'ultimate reality' views of reality (i.e. layer of illusions concealed the real reality)

In Hinduism, all is One. We just have to realize that. Absolute, and total unity. A concept a level beyond gods and devils, and Creation, because even contradictions, even nothingness, and even illusion, is part of the Absolute Unity, existence (and non-existence, and non-non-existence, according to the texts) are contained within a logically incomphrensible Total Unity. Refreshingly for a religion, this is based on (bad) philosophy, the observation that we cannot observe any 'real' divisions in the universe, or any real seperateness. Because there are now boundaries and no discrete 'pieces' of time and matter, all must be one (time too). Obviously, this predates the 'Planck time' and quanta, although a Hindu could speculate that there may be an unobseravble 'sub-Planck' space/time which goes 'all the way down forever'.

In Buddhism, the Ultimate Reality is nothing, or No-thingness more accurately.
Hinayana is actually the most complex and well thought out of Eastern phils. It starts with the famous Chariot Deconstruction where the king shows Buddha his Chariot and aks him to explain why he thinks that there is no chariot. Buddha lists the parts, and goes on to say that all of these have parts and so on, none being chariot. There is only the illusion of chariot, created by language, and language is created by Mind or Self. And Mind is like the chariot, composed of divisible parts 'all the way down' so that, in fact what we call 'mind' is just nothing. Personality and mind disappear at very small intervals of time, which monks can concentrate on. At the level of a fraction of second, there is no you, so why say there is a you at 2 seconds? And so on for all facets of the mind. Obviously, the Buddhists don't believe in the 'greater than the sum of its parts' thing.
Infact, stripped of flowery language, it is astonishing that the ancient Indians arrived at a psychology and body of neurological knowledge similar to our own through empirical observation except for 2 things:
1. That Nirvana exists and can be 'attained' by a human.
2. Why would anyone actually want to have total not-wanting, total self-extinction, or Nirvana )in short why is Nirvana desirable?

Here is my question I asked in that class:

What is the difference between absolute nothing and absolute unity? How could someone living in either universe tell the difference?

Also: What is the difference between a sufficiently* convincing illusion, and the thing itself?1 Descrartes said that the illusion of existing and existing must be the same. Isn't the illusion of diversity the same as diversity and the illusion of existence the same as existence?

*sufficient to all tests, only a God could tell.

1 If a sufficiently convincing illusion can logically be considered reality, what basis for knowledge or truth? Is science mistaken in ruling out the Evil Genii Hypothesis of star formation? Well, I guess that really isn't a sufficient illusion, but there might be some other things which we could be profoundly wrong about. I don't see what, but there must be some.

Agricola Senior

Logically, it is impossible to differentiate between "absolute unity" (One) and "absolute nothing".

Darth Dane

I have posted another thread about same such matters. It´s Called "Thou art God" in existance of God(s) board.

I am of the opinion that both Hinduism/Yoga and Buddhism is pointing to the same thing. They just call it something different, but since words are symbols, they can be pointing at the same thing. Samadhi with Yogi´s, Satori with Zenbuddhism, Nirvana in buddhism, Heaven in many western traditions. Jesus from the bible and more importantly "The Gospel of Thomas", Absolute conciousness, Allah to Muslims and on, it´s all poiting to the same thing. But with this funny diversion of illusions we cannot express both at the same time, that being a word and a none word. The full and the void, One. Jesus amongst many many others, had been able to merge fully conciously in the One thing whatever it is.

In "Crouching tiger Hidden Dragon" they talk about nothing being real or an illusion, but she also says that he could feel her hand, and he was immensely pleased.

Check out this perhaps http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/vision.htm

There are many others that have said that "Nirvana = Samsara"





DD - Oneness Spliff

lugotorix

Acutally, that wasn't the Buddha. It was the monk Nagasena and the text it comes from is the non-canonical Questions of King Milinda. King Milinda was also known as King Menandros of Bactria.

As I have posted elsewhere in this forum, Nirvana does not equal total self-extinction. I can retrieve a relevant quote from the Yamaka Sutta if you'd like to see it. The only things that get extinguished (nirodha) are the defilements (greed, hatred, and ignorance). Nirvana is describe in the Theravada scriptures as total freedom, freedom from these three Poisons and from a limited point-of-view.

Since Nirvana is not the same as total nothingness, the question is not meaningful from a Buddhist perspective. My own guess would be that with nothing to act as a contrast, total unity would be indistinguishable from total nothingness.

To the beings beguiled by the illusion, it would be reality. But a sufficiently spiritually advanced being (a Buddha or Arhat in Theravada, or Buddhas and Bodhisattvas in Mahayana) would be able to rightly distinguish between the illusion that traps other beings (Samsara) and what really exists (Nirvana). (The possiblity that there are beings who can see through the illusion and teach others to is one of the few things that we Buddhists have to take on faith. )

Imagine an audience watching a good hypnotist who is making them believe they're all in a cave. The Buddhas, Arhats, and Bodhisattvas are like people who have snapped out of it and can see that the rest of the audience is trapped.

Well, at a macroscopic level, the desk my computer is setting on seems real enough; at a sub-atomic level, it would be mostly space. Both viewpoints are valid, at the same time. In Buddhism there is a similar concept of the two levels of truth -- the conventional and the ultimate. The former is what ordinary beings see as real and enlightened beings see as only provisionally real; the latter is what enlightened beings actually experience.


lugotorix

eh

Are you sure Buddhists believe in a nothingness, rather than emptiness? I think there is a difference.

monkey mind

heheheh, i like that... Hinduism vs. Buddhism, let's get it on!




I don't think this is accurate, as to me it seems to leave out the very fist thing the Buddha is said to have taught after enlightenment; the middle path. I'd say a more accurate description of the Buddhist view of ultimate reality is that there is everythingness and nothingness, but the ultimate reality is in between. I'm sure you can find many articles about the middle path teaching online with a little searching.



When you say Hiinayana, do you mean what is commonly referred to by Buddhists as Theravedan?



or not-attained, or not exists as it were. Once again, theres plenty of Buddhist philosophy dealing with whether nirvana exists or not-exists and where it is attained or nothing is attained at all.


Because wanting is the cause of suffering. This is from another of the Buddha's (reportedly) very first teachings; the four noble truths. Once again, I'm sure you could easily find a lot of writing on the four noble truths online if your interested.



Well okay, go ahead with your thinking that the Buddhist view of ultimate reality is no-thingness. What self is there to make extinct?



To me this seems to be a contradiction in terms since Nirvana is no desire.



I don't know. There probably isn't a difference.



If there is a difference, it doesn't matter to us here on earth.

I'm sure there are things we are profoundly wrong about. Live and learn eh?

In my mind, a common misunderstanding people have when approaching Buddhism is that it is meant to explain the universe. If you want an explanition, or a reasoning of the universe, there are far better ways. Actually, Buddhism (that is, the teachings credited to Guatama Buddha) are only considered with one thing; eliminating suffering. IMO Buddhism is the best path for this purpose.

It's not meant as a substitute for science, medicine, cosmology, or even philosophy.

(edited to correct a silly mistake on my part)

Sattwic

Shunyavada or NOTHINGness is a latter Buddhist idea, constructed by Philosopher Nagarjuna.

Buddha taught that: There is no SINGLE source of all causation, everything being dependent caused.. this very moment giving raise to the next and so on..
Likewise, no SINGLE event gave rise to the universe, since it begs the answer, what caused that single event...

los

As I believe others have alluded, it is quite difficult to have a distiniction between "unity" and "nothingness". However, and we return to the old cliche, what is nothing?

Unity then has a purpose.

Answerer

I hoped to clarify something. Emptiness should not be regarded as 'pure void', due to the fact that stillness(motionless state) is not nothingness(no state). The concept of absolute holds no meaning in Buddhism as everything in nature is empty of 'self'.

Seeker196

I wish you wouldn't talk to me as if I hadn't read about the Middle Path, samsara, etc.

I have read many texts, but I disagree with many of the contemporary Buddhist interpretations of the meaning of those texts.

Our class was mostly about those texts written in Pali in the time immediately after the death of gautama.


I believe strongly that you cannot understand the original buddhist phil of mind with out reading the Pali language texts and not their later translations, because then you are reading a translation of a translation.

the 'Small Vehicle' is the Theravada buddhism of Thailand. However, I believe that modern Theravada is a little corrupted by Mahayana influences, for example why have statues of the Buddha* when that effort could be put into helping others, cooking a good meal, or writing more enlightening texts?

*I know what the monks say, but I don't thing it really washes. If you watch what the people do, it looks an awful lot like some kind of worship.