영성, 몸-마음, 젠더, 생태, 평화 Scapbook: Buddhism vs Advaita Vedanta

2024/03/12

Buddhism vs Advaita Vedanta—What's the Difference?

ArshaBodha - Swami Tadatmananda

172K subscribers

12K

Download

Clip

389,520 views Oct 14, 2020

Both traditions address and solve the fundamental problem of human suffering, but they differ on the existence or non-existence of a true, inner self, atma. Q&A with Swamiji #12.

Both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta identify the cause of suffering to be desire, kama or trishna, and identify enlightenment, moksha or nirvana, to be the result becoming free from desire. But Buddhism teaches that freedom from desire is gained by understanding the impermanence of the world, samsara, and the metaphysical absence of an individual person, soul or atma, that is subject to suffering. Advaita Vedanta addresses the problem of desire by leading one to discover the true self, atma, to be sat chit ananda, limitless, uncreated conscious existence, the so-called inner divinity that is the actual source of happiness, ananda, and contentment. Both traditions seek to eradicate ignorance, ajnana.

Swami Tadatmananda is a traditionally-trained teacher of Advaita Vedanta, meditation, and Sanskrit. For more information, please see: https://www.arshabodha.org/

Chapters

View all

Transcript

Follow along using the transcript.

Show transcript

ArshaBodha - Swami Tadatmananda

172K subscribers

Videos

About

2,306 Comments

Sejin Lifeforce 生命

Add a comment...

@swingingcrow124

3 years ago

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 🙏

646

40 replies

@GabCom781

3 years ago

The calmness, clarity and simplicity in expression of this discourse are just sublime! Thank you!

341

2 replies

@lucusshina9357

3 years ago

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.

786

143 replies

@sanjaysinha5252

3 years ago

Sir: Your way of NARRATIVE is admirable. Your analysis do not hurt one. That is great. We need PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

266

12 replies

@jetdeleon

2 years ago (edited)

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.

127

10 replies

@MikeNewham

3 years ago (edited)

Clear and concise overview from a man with a pure heart. Thank you.

1 reply

@ferdinandocoluccelli9574

3 years ago

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.

1 reply

@gyurmethlodroe1774

3 years ago

"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.

322

83 replies

@madnessinheart_balance_in_mind

1 year ago

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. 😀❤️🕉️🙏🙏

1 reply

@sumantachatterjee9861

3 years ago

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.

155

9 replies

@darshanjadhav2148

3 years ago

Im following Buddhism specially vipassana from last 5 yrs..... Doing vipassana daily.....the meditation change my life.

143

25 replies

@PortalEMCioranBrasil

3 years ago

If religions were technologies, this would be the ultimate state of the art.

127

13 replies

@MrPankaj2006

3 years ago

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...

3 replies

@hai3448

5 months ago

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

1 reply

@MyNguyen-uh4qx

3 years ago

I am so much impressed by Swami Tadatmananda's explanation. Thank you very much.

1 reply

@drdeepak1451

3 years ago

"Jnana of Shankara and love of Buddha should guide India " this was swami Vivekananda's message.

🙏Jai Bhagwan Shankar

🙏Jai Bhagwan Buddha

134

22 replies

@peterpaulrobejsek6036

3 years ago

Well spoken! The respect with which you treat a tradition that is not your own clearly shows you to be a master!

@HalfPro

1 year ago

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.

@nathanashley2693

2 years ago

As a Buddhist I found this very interesting

@rohitrai6187

3 years ago

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

3 replies

@sarahk802

1 year ago

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!

@philipsmart1453

3 years ago (edited)

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.

155

47 replies

@praveentripathi8240

1 year ago

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.

1 reply

@sudhirrao3508

3 years ago

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.

@michaelmayron5714

3 years ago

Thank you. Your calm, loving teaching is an inspiration to continue the search/struggle on the path.

1 reply

@mehedihasan-ui6qt

2 years ago

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.

@palmo9823

2 years ago (edited)

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

2 replies

@kelleemerson9510

3 years ago

Thank you for slow explanations with your pleasant melodious voice. 😊

@daithi48

3 years ago (edited)

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.

10 replies

@thatdude_93

3 years ago (edited)

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.

2 replies

@raviagarwal5204

3 years ago

Best and most neutral explanation I have ever heard, Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom. We are indebted

1 reply

@brandonwilliams3788

3 years ago

Just was looking for a video like this, thanks so much!

5 replies

@NickT7

3 years ago (edited)

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.

4 replies

@ramum9599

3 years ago

Swamiji,s analysis very clear,same goal,differnt routes Jaihind.

@geetachhabra3115

13 days ago

Thank you. Swami jee.

Gratitude.

@balwinderjuzan634

1 year ago

Swami ji thank you for your explications .i love your soft calm voice too

@cer0s

3 years ago

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

@sujathaontheweb3740

1 year ago

This is so calming! And so simply elucidated!

@basudebsen

1 year ago

Superb lucid and precise discourse for the common man

@Treviscoe

3 years ago

He's got one of the most resonant voices I've ever heard.

@50-twarzy-raka59

2 years ago

Very informative and clear, just like all your talks. I am very grateful, thank you 🙏

@noahdanielg

3 years ago

Advaita Vedānta and Mahāyāna Buddhism are my dual spiritual paths, they teach the same non-dual essence.

178

73 replies

@kmanoham

2 years ago

What a Beautiful Answer .. so clear, so concise and totally sublime...Thankyou Swami Tadatmananda.

@ivonsmith2024

2 months ago

Very clearly expressed. And a very helpful clarification.

@top5paranormal254

1 year ago

This guy is a great teacher.

@cho1090

3 years ago

I always love to listen to his teaching, he is a great teacher

@himasv

3 months ago

Wow...thats amazing explanation guruji ❤❤❤

@marcoswoortmann

3 years ago

Beautiful exposition, calm and with pure intent, as should be all discussions regarding religion.

Sarva Mangalam

@MrJUANMIGUELZAMORA

3 years ago

I miss the primary distinction between Vedanta and Buddhism, which is the recognition and acceptance of Ishvara.

79 replies

@leandrosilvagoncalves1939

3 years ago (edited)

Thank you for the wonderful explanation. I've always had this doubt.

@VS-jd9iy

3 years ago

Swami ji you are Spiritual divine Genius , full of wisdom.

Thanks. Pranam 🙏🌷🌷🌷🌷

@02sweden

1 year ago (edited)

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.

@naomiseraphina9718

2 years ago

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

1 reply

@PortalEMCioranBrasil

3 years ago

I've always wondered about the differences and afinities between the two. Thank you for the video. 🙏

1 reply

@shiladityadas8791

3 years ago

A deep realisation, and simple explanation of Advaitabad and Buddhism realisation is explained. It deeply touched my mind. Pranam and thank you.

@freyasmith9588

3 years ago

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 :)

@SurjitSingh-lw6cl

2 years ago

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.

1 reply

@gustavosanthiago

3 years ago

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.

4 replies

@craighicksartwork

3 years ago

I could listen to this gentleman all day long.

@santanukumaracharya3467

3 years ago

Clarity of understanding is the reward of this excellent talk that may enlighten the listener. Immensely educative. Pranam.

@albundy9597

3 years ago (edited)

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''.

14 replies

@gregoryx330

3 years ago

You’re the best.

@messiah.complexx

3 years ago (edited)

You described it in a very simple, correct (Samyak) and unconditional way.🙏🏻

@chrisluzecki8357

3 years ago (edited)

Hari Bol Swami. Thank you. One is preparation for the other.

@MarceloSiqueiraLima_CdC

1 year ago

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.

@adamsawyer779

3 years ago

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.

2 replies

@dileepsingh-wk4ii

3 years ago

Thank you Swamiji for this wonderful explanation 🙏

@suntzuwarsword1964

1 year ago (edited)

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..

@HemPat56

3 years ago

Swamiji, to this layperson, the teachings of Advaita and Buddha lead to the same peaceful state ...

:-)

2 replies

@aayushpaliwal3450

3 years ago

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.

4 replies

@vasudevanbalasubramanian8572

1 month ago

Amazing, calm and clear exposition. The exposition of the concepts and pronunciation of Sanskrit words is right up the Indian alley, while the body is language typically more engaging as in the West. Importantly, the subject - the comparison really helps. Pranam Swami🙏🏿

@GaneshSharma-dz5bm

1 year ago

Great clarity Swamiji. My pranam to you

@cosmicsoupmusic

3 years ago (edited)

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!

@user-lw8dr6xx8i

3 years ago (edited)

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.

4 replies

@sarathw5740

3 years ago

Thank you. I posted this video on our Dhamma Wheel discussion forum.

@elasonvt

2 years ago

Thank you for making this video! It found me at the right time.

I highly respect you and I must compliment you on how well and simple you explained it.

@MichaelMartinussen

3 years ago

THE ILLUSION OF SEPARATION

2 replies

@PerikRinpoche

3 years ago (edited)

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.

17 replies

@pradeepacharya5943

3 years ago

So well expounded dear ,reverend Swami Tadatmananda ji.Koti,Koti Naman.

@bhagwanmishra7243

11 months ago

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.

@pawankalyan8368

3 years ago

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.

1 reply

@OnerousEthic

3 years ago

Nice, and interesting, but, IMHO, needs more “Sat Nam” and “So Ham” and to emphasize universal divinity.

1 reply

@ShashidharKoteMusic

1 year ago

Sharanu swamiji Oooh what a clarity in your pravachana Seeking blessings

@annonymoushuman25

1 year ago

Serenity now. You have a pleasant presence. Thank you. Much respect.

@gyniest

3 years ago

As far as I'm aware, the Buddhist Agama reference the deathless numerous times, and also mention "consciousness without surface."

6 replies

@eugenei7170

3 years ago

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".

20 replies

@abhayavasthi5474

3 years ago

Your serenity and sense of balance are so assuring and soothing.Grateful to you.

@edwardkumarkenway1875

3 years ago

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.

@showashowa6194

3 years ago (edited)

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.

6 replies

@bartfart3847

3 years ago

Im a "Buddhist" who believes in Atma. Thank you for your talk.

1 reply

@muzikartestv7267

3 years ago

Thank you for sharing this topic..

@sukantasamanta3768

4 months ago

Pranam Swamiji, thank you. You have very clearly explained the root difference between the two concepts in spiritualism.

@williamdiaz2645

3 years ago

From where I'm sitting, why would we want to eliminate "suffering", it's opposites are comfort, joy, contentment, blessing and health, how is it possible to know one without the other? My two cents!

4 replies

@joeawk

3 years ago

Hit n miss, let trial n error guide the individual. Afterall, is there such thing as time n space?

4 replies

@urkoolUncle

1 year ago

Really appreciate this teaching. He is a true scholar: Can stand back and objectively share without a bias.

I received alot from this video.

@abajaj1510

3 years ago

Excellent analysis from a true swami 🙏

1 reply

@johnwallen438

3 years ago (edited)

Mahayana/Vajrayana developed hundreds of years after the Paranirvana of the historical Buddha.. At this time Hinduism/Vedanta was reasserting itself through scholars like Shankacharya. This might go some way to explaining why later Buddhism is much more Vedanta friendly (tantra/non duality/guru/mahamudra, etc.)

The relationship of Therevada to Mahayana/Vajrayana is a little like the relationship between the Judaic Bible and the Christian Bible. Both accept the ancient texts as true but Jewish people do not accept thje NT. For NT, read sutras outside the Pali canon (and, by extension, teachings based either directly or indirectly upon those later sutras).

5 replies

@dainichinyorai5303

2 years ago

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?

1 reply

@TMTRA

3 years ago

Simple, clear & free flowing talk to develop understanding at right direction.💐👏

@saraswati999

3 years ago

Thank You so much for taking time to answer it

@kantitsamystery6328

3 years ago

You're basically my Guru but just don't know it yet, lol

2 replies

@freakshit22

3 years ago

The identification of inner self is nothing but the unity with the universe, it's called ecstacy.

It's the true nature of matter.

1 reply

@Vibson

3 years ago

So true U can't understand Ur culture in full or Universal laws will stay hidden until U open Ur heart Ur self for other cultures and believes, I love to travel, meet and discover, love Buddhism and so happy to meet Advaita Vedanta, Thank U

@mthewalker

1 year ago

With your balanced arguments and clarity of thought and purpose, you've upheld the basic tenet of Sanatana Dharma: debate is welcome for a more insightful understanding of various positions but do not demean a viewpoint that is in opposition to yours.

I bow to you for this scintillating talk.🙏🏽

@phuntshotenzin7934

3 years ago (edited)

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.

7 replies

@Tequn9q

3 years ago

Hmm... Therevada Buddhism focuses primarily on the "small self" IE no-self as no-concept if I understand it correctly.

Mahayana focuses on the "big self" - the self that includes all beings in all directions and dimensions.

It seems like both paths leads to an experience of no-self as a permanent or unchanging self.

Unconditional, to me, sounds like no identification, which is already no-self as self.

3 replies

@harismind

3 years ago

Thank you for this wonderful video. You have succinctly and precisely explained the similarities and deviations between Vedanta and Buddhism. Much respect.

@prakasmohan8448

3 years ago

Beautiful narration. Calm and quiet flow of words. Really understandable.

@LiGhTSPiRit888

3 years ago (edited)

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"?

16 replies

@edwardsimmonds521

3 years ago

Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are saying the same thing according to this talk, just expressing it in a different manner.

3 replies

@Advaitvaadi

2 months ago

Great informative session

@abhishekvkbrand9539

3 years ago (edited)

Really great explanation, Thank you so much for sharing this wonderful knowledge 🙏

@SusmitaBarua_mita

3 years ago (edited)

The divergence seem to happen in the higher or last two stages of the formless samadhi, which are described as nothingness or empty of perception or non-perception. This is the most subtle non-dual mind consciousness states (atman seem one with Brahman, universal consciousness). In Buddhism there is the 9th state of Nirvana (unconditioned, deathless, unborn), where mind completely drops, self drops, world of perception and feeling completely ceases (nirodha samapatti) and unbinding of five aggregate happens (partial and total parinibbana after physical death). Collapse of both observer and observed into quantum void. In Buddhism consciousness tied with six senses and their objects are not ultimate, they are conditioned into sankharas by mind-body process of identification. All conditioned sankharas are impermanent. Also Buddha gave a 4 stage process of awakening or enlightenment in terms of breaking fetters that bind us to cyclic samsara of confusion and stress. I am inspired by both teaching traditions in India for their knowledge and wisdom in gaining freedom from suffering.

1 reply

@gokulramesh3230

3 years ago (edited)

Great video Swamiji, thank you. I have just one objection. When talking about the Self, referring to it as "inner self" sends the wrong message. There is neither inside nor outside for the Self. Terms like "inner self" are what Buddhists catch to fuel their disagreement with Vedanta, and rightly so. The self rejected by the Buddha is the individual self, which is also rejected by Vedanta. Buddhism doesn't reject the presence of selfless Awareness, which is the Self of Vedanta. The difference lies only in semantics. Disagreements seem to be due to straw-man fallacies from both sides.

10 replies

@mssamsung7651

3 years ago

Thank you Swami Tadatmananda .you have explained avidly well and clear. I love to hear sebsequent video clips. Nameste

@seemamukherji8337

1 year ago

Admirably simplistic manner of delivering profound subjects

@allyoushouldknow5469

3 years ago

I'm confused . In Buddhism we don't take consciousness as nirvana.In Buddhism scripture are originally from paali language not Sanskrit. When converting Pali to Sanskrit lot of meanings of the words are misinterpreted. Anatta means noselff is wrong it's actually means no value(useless). In Buddhism consciousness also appears of cause. which is eye consciousness ,ear consciousness,nose ,etc. Buddha explained nirvana as place where no greed ,anger and delusion.In four Noble truths it shows how consciousness arises with ignorance. In dependant origination it's profoundly explained what causes to consciousness.

Buddha sutra shows how ignorant one can take non self (consciousness)as a self and it can cause to rebirth.

7 replies

@bitzator

3 years ago

inshort-ONE IS ALL, ALL IS ONE

3 replies

@malalachernobyl5594

3 years ago

what a sublime talk abour two two realities in an ever increasingly materialistic world.

@murtiyerrapragada1691

1 year ago

CLARITY EXCELLENT. DELIVERY E CELLENT. WONDERFUL DISCOURSE. THANK YOU SWAMY!

@das9415

3 years ago

The simplest definition between budhism and advait Vedanta is that the budhism teaches about emptyness and advait Vedanta is all about completeness but they have a similarity that they both rejects ritualism but only the tantrik budhism of tibet support's ritualism.

2 replies

@ashwinkumar8775

3 years ago

Buddhism is same as Vedanta , Till consciousness reaches a state of being if we guide anyone with atma knowledge , the mind interprets and creates new identity with this knowledge and it can distract you . However post you attain the state of true consciousness you will not find difference at all , I would say Vedanta is more accurate and Buddhism is more practical

1 reply

@pablobustillo6452

3 years ago

Thanks sooooo much dear Swami. May Love and light always surround you. Namaste

@lobsangdhargya2853

9 months ago

Thanks for sharing your knowledge 💕😇💕🙏💕

@michaelwoodsmccausland915

3 years ago

It’s the same energy of the Golden Thread ! That’s flows through all. Shine Bright! The Egyptians, The Kabalah The Dao The Tao the Zen The Buddha , The Yeshua Christo, The Church of Saul, The Gnostics..... It is the same thread from the Audible Sound. current, The Universe was “ Sung into existence!” The Word of “ God! Collective Consciousness. I am no thing and everything! The Topological Metaphor. A Spiritual being having a physical experience in the form of a Mammal! Suffering can be diverted into a positive energy!

Shine Bright!

Music is the rhythm of thy soul and voice of our Collective Consciousness!

A benevolent leviathan can exist!

Shine Bright!

MWM

1 reply

@anattasunnata3498

3 years ago

Thank you, Swami, for this wonderful video.

As a Buddhist practitioner, I appreciate the way in which you cover this very important topic.

I'd like to ask you a question, if you don't mind:

How can someone 'discover' that consciousness is eternal, all-pervasive and limitless?

What kind of experience can assure that truth?

I think the way one investigates this question may lead one to one tradition or to the other.

I'd really appreciate to know your view on this.

Kind regards, and thanks again!

2 replies

@sirius_s2028

3 months ago

Thank you!

@jamrassbamrongratne9119

3 years ago

I listened attentively and very deeply appreciative of your lucid explanation.

@aryanyadav3690

2 years ago

Buddha never said "I want to make a religion"

@zoranznidaric4518

3 years ago (edited)

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.

1 reply

@katebeatham333

1 year ago

All our paths are beautiful. Love and blessings to all of us.💗🙏

@madariarun8234

3 years ago

The calm ness patience clarity everthing is feeling devine

@Vatulvasava

2 years ago

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 🙏🏼

1 reply

@SithSolomon

1 year ago

Buddhism came from Hinduism. Simple as that. There is no Buddhism without Hinduism. Love each other

2 replies

@ajikumarmsrailway

1 year ago

What a clarity in thinking! Pranams!

@udairajsingh831

2 years ago

Great clarity. Thanks Swami ji🙏🏽

@manoharrailkar2568

3 years ago

Buddha never rnounced Hinutwa. There is an article by mr. Elst proving that abuddha was every inch a Hindu. Manohar

1 reply

@carlo_nd

3 years ago

From the Absolute point of view all differences are imaginary.

2 replies

@thepb77777

3 years ago

Beautifully put. Thank you.🕉🙏🏼

@rexluminus9867

3 years ago

Thank you, happy to see hear it.

@spacecase8888

3 years ago

There's a lot of misunderstanding about Buddhism. Especially by Buddhists. The doctrine of Anatta is not making a statement about the nonexistence of a self or Atman. It is making a statement about the nature of it. That it is not independently existing and not permanent. The Buddha specifically said that to say that the self doesn't exist is annihilationism, which he called Wrong View. Read the Buddha's meeting with Vacchagotara in the Pali canon. Anatta doesn't mean "There is no self." It is translated as "No-self", the meaning of which is sort of akin to calling 7-Up "the uncola". It's a cola, but not perhaps what you may be thinking a cola is.

1 reply

@sanjaygautam7572

3 years ago

Just an explanation ... #Peace

🏹QUESTION: Do you believe in a god?

🎯ANSWER: No, we do not. There are several reasons for this. Like modern

sociologists and psychologists, the Buddha saw that many religious ideas, and

especially the god-idea, have their origin in anxiety and fear. He says:

‘Gripped by fear people go to the sacred mountains, sacred groves, sacred

trees and shrines.’ Dhp.188

Primitive humans found themselves in a dangerous and hostile world. The fear of

wild animals, of not being able to find enough food, of injury or disease, and of

natural phenomena like thunder, lightning and volcanoes was constantly with them.

Finding no security, they created the idea of gods in order to give them comfort in

good times, courage in times of danger, and consolation when things went wrong. To

this day you will notice that people often become more religious at times of crises

and you will hear them say that the belief in their god or gods gives them the

strength they need to deal with life. Often they explain that they believe in a

particular god because they prayed in time of need and their prayer was answered.

All this seems to support the Buddha’s teaching that the god-idea is a response to

fear and frustration. The Buddha taught us to try to understand our fears, to lessen

our desires and to calmly and courageously accept the things we cannot change. He

replaced fear with rational understanding not with irrational belief.

The second reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because there does not

seem to be very much evidence to support this idea. There are numerous religions,

all claiming that they alone have God’s words preserved in their holy books, that they

alone understand God’s nature, that their god exists and that the gods of other

religions do not. Some claim that God is masculine, some that she is feminine and

others that it is neuter. Some claim that God is unitary and others that he is a trinity,

with three natures. They are all satisfied that there is ample evidence to prove the

existence of the god they worship, but they scoff at the evidence opposing religions

use to prove the existence of their gods. It is surprising that despite so many

religions using so much ingenuity over so many centuries to prove the existence of

a god, that there is still no real, concrete, substantial or irrefutable evidence for such

a being. They cannot even agree amongst themselves what this god that they

worship is like. Buddhists suspend judgment until such evidence is forthcoming.

The third reason the Buddha did not believe in a god is because he felt that the belief

was not necessary. Some claim that the belief in a god is necessary in order to

explain the origin on the universe. But science has very convincingly explained how

the universe came into being without having to introduce the god-idea. Some claim

that belief in god is necessary to have a happy, meaningful life. But again we can

see that this is not so. There are millions of atheists and free-thinkers, not to mention

many Buddhists, who live useful, happy and meaningful lives without belief in a god.

Some claim that belief in God’s power is necessary because humans, being weak,

do not have the strength to help themselves. Once again, the evidence indicates the

opposite. One often hears of people who have overcome great disabilities and

handicaps, enormous odds and difficulties, through their own inner resources, their own efforts and without belief in a god. Some claim that God is necessary in order to

give salvation. But this argument only holds good if you accept the theological

concept of salvation, and Buddhists do not accept such a concept.

Based on his own experience, the Buddha saw that each human being has the

capacity to purify the mind, develop infinite love and compassion and perfect

understanding. He shifted attention from the heavens to the heart and encouraged

us to find solutions to our problems through self-understanding.

5 replies

@Asap463

3 years ago

Nothing but active & passive voices

Respect to both 🙏

@revolutionist2468

3 years ago

What a nice explanation!

Pronam Guruji 🙏

Respect from Bangladesh

@marioceva7163

3 years ago

Saint Paul said. " l do not live but Christ in me" is Advaita. ? In my opinion yes.

7 replies

@proudindian2768

2 years ago

The Vedic dharma is always victorious, Adi Shankaracharya already defeated buddhism in debates 😎

7 replies

@martinst8764

1 year ago

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.

@magnusnilsson2531

3 years ago

Thank you all for the elucidating spiritual and philosofical debate! And thank you swami Tadatmananda for excellent vedantateachings. I personally feel that these crucial topics on self and notself are best discussed through a qualified teacher. I am glad for all response and different views of traditions, but feel that i get entangled in the net of views and our thoughts are so diverse so its hard to find any consensus in these matters. Thank you any way.

1 reply

@TerryNails

3 years ago (edited)

The main things that the Buddha rejected regarding Hinduism were its excessive reliance upon ritualism and of course the caste system which is so deeply embedded deeply in Hindu culture. The differences in the teachings are more semantic than structural. The denial of the self in Buddhism is simply the denial of the existence of the illusionary sense of their being a self-standing separate autonomous self. The vedanta tradition simply expands that sense of self to include the entire universe. In essence they both aim for the same destination so to speak but take off in different directions.. a more syncretic approach to the overall teachings may give us a more expensive view and maybe ultimately be more helpful ...

11 replies

@Vatulvasava

2 years ago

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.

16 replies

@ARJUNKUMAR-LtoE

3 years ago

Thank you very much Swami ji for this insightful teaching. Please continue to guide us

@bobsiddoway

1 year ago

Clear, distinct explanation!

@dharmadefender3932

2 years ago

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.

1 reply

@babbarr77

3 years ago

Buddhist teachings are based on personal experience gained through meditation. All the Buddhist teachings are based on experience. Buddha himself said "Don't believe in anything I say. Trust your own experience." There are no beliefs in Buddhism. So, you're wrong from the beginning.

14 replies

@yogasamrat

3 years ago

A very succinct and clear analysis Swamiji! Dhanya Dhanya Om Namoh Narayana!

@dilipganguly2374

1 year ago

Swamiji,pranam to you.Your analytical presentation is clear & excellent to me as an long time advaita vedanta student with some Buddhist knowledge.We are waiting for more and more comparative analysis..

@raounvsss

1 year ago

Most of the slokas of Budhism are from Hinduism.

4 replies

@sallybalkin8507

3 years ago

After 25 years of Tibetan Buddhism, I think I just realised I'm Hindu LOL.

1 reply

@willm5814

6 months ago

Wow! Such a simple, succinct summary. Thank you 🙏!

@NotAHuman948

3 years ago

Beautifully explained difference between Advaita mentioned in Bauddha dharma and Vedic scriptures without going into controversy.Thanks

@angelabaranga569

1 year ago

Thank You 🙏❤ for the wonderful clarity and

Thank You 🙏 ❤ for the transmission beyond words

🙏❤

@jpmarques7

3 years ago

Thank you, swami! I love your non sectarian ways. Truth is the only thing that matters

@sb41kulkarni

1 year ago

I am very happy to see such discussion explicitly explaining , the differenc in advaita and Buddhism.

@brucetownsend691

2 years ago

Thank you for this video. 🙏

@chunaramanju

3 years ago

Rev. Swamiji,s way of explanation on buddhistic and vendantic Outlook emancipation (nirvana)is unique.

@successmeditations110

1 year ago

thank you, thank you for your wisdom and insight. I bow to you.

@mayanksoni83

3 years ago

Thanks for sharing this valuable knowledge

@nunugamer3184

4 months ago

Excelente! Obrigado! 🇧🇷

@supriyagattem

3 years ago

Very clear . Final words are simply perfect for anyone to go beyond the phenomenal/material worlds .... Dhanyosmi Swami ji

@martymckerry5444

1 year ago

Brilliant video. Thank you very much.

@saikrishnasrikantam1123

2 years ago

You are very very honest in your expression and explanation.my humble pranams.

@vsp237

3 years ago

Many thanks, Swami Tadatmananda ☘

@roycostilla3104

3 years ago

Thanks for the kind explanations. Namaste!

@neusam.a.simoes2294

1 year ago

Maravilhoso este vídeo. Obrigada.

@daisybelleamberbush

4 months ago

Very helpful, thank you!

@striker1011

3 years ago

What a wonderful teaching 👏.

@vectravi2008

2 years ago

This man is demonstrating true wisdom on a topic that is generally beyond human comprehension. Not once did he say that one was right and the other is wrong. He only highlights the difference between the two. Didn't the Buddha himself say that his followers should not follow everything he said without question. I believe he said try it for yourself and see how it works for you. Thank you for this talk, I will take from it what is helpful for me. 🙏

@Sg0224

1 year ago

So elegantly explained guru ji ... thank you 😊

@jimwalker3039

1 year ago

explained with simplicity which shows great clarity in your understanding and thought process. Thank you so much. God bless.

@nagodio

9 days ago

This was explained very well.

@ateksudianto6237

3 years ago (edited)

thank yous for your long explanation, your are very open minded person

@Himanshu-hk7xi

3 years ago

]Thankyou for clearing our doubt Prabhuji

@palanisubramaniapillai64

3 years ago

Wonderful clarity in expression and thoughts 🙏 Chidaananda roopah Sivoham Sivoham

@veronicanaranjo6487

11 months ago

Thank you. Very concise and clear.

@willomo

3 years ago

So wise and respectful, I see the commonality and the goal is the same.

@duongrkudo

2 years ago

Thank you for this lecture!

@heffelini4087

3 years ago

Very well explained, thank you sir

@aristeotonytrevino5473

3 years ago

A"M VERY IMPRESSED WITH YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU ARE A GREAT , GREAT PERSON. FROM BAKERSFIEL, CALIFORNIA.

@Satya0001

1 month ago (edited)

I'm a hindu but really like discussion over philosophy of different traditions ❤

I met my first Buddhist friend 6 years ago we shared the idea of our beliefs and really come to conclusions even though we have our own disagreements but such discussions without hate or sense of superiority really helps a lot

@kirstinstrand6292

3 years ago

This is an honest, and sincere approach to Uniity.

Without the ability to live in

Presence, at least for periods of time (2+ hours) on a daily or weekly time frame. Full Consciousness does not occur all at once.

The Shift may be sudden;

however, this is only the door partially opening. Personal work must continue to get the "door" open widely.

@AdityaSingh-wj2rx

7 months ago

This channel is really great !

@bernardputersznit64

3 years ago

thank you for confirming my understanding that the notion of atma is the difference - i was taught this decades ago, but it WAS fuzzy for me ATM

1 reply

@nileshlolayekar4922

3 years ago

Superb narrative...terrific insight! Thank you 🙏

@rudravisions3032

1 year ago

Crystal clear.

@tilakshrestha2573

1 year ago

Thanks, Guru Jee!

@mrmarkus4652

3 years ago

Excellent explanation by Swami.

@vivekparanjape9983

1 year ago

Excellent explanation

@geethahirannayya7621

1 year ago

beautiful explanation 🙏🏼🙏🏼

@iftekharhassan8448

9 months ago

very informative indeed.....

@chipmonkrunning

3 years ago

Thank you for comprehensive comparisons.

@noraschmalkoke7734

10 months ago

Thank you ❤

@mahajav

1 year ago

Excellent, thank you so much for this video. Very enlightening

@carlossoares712

3 years ago

Thanks, this was really clarifying for me

@bjk7797

2 years ago

Namaskar ,you have a beautiful way of explaining everything ,very much impressed by the way you explain everything .

@atharvpatil1194

3 years ago

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.

@maheshchetty4003

3 years ago

A thoughtful and rational explanation as always. Greetings and thanks from South Africa 🌞

@JR-nm2zu

3 years ago

Thank you, Swami.

@milindsarkar6961

3 years ago

Highly illuminating and enlightening. Thank you.

@MrLorenzobringheli

3 years ago

Thank you so much for this very wonderful video!

@meenacleland9092

3 years ago

This was beautiful inspirational.....thank you

@ariefbudiman1544

1 year ago

very clear explanation.. I learn a great deal from your short discourse.. namaskara

@ShashidharKoteMusic

1 year ago

Swamiji dhanyosmi Jai sanatan

@dctrex

1 year ago

Excellent lecture. Thank you!

@EzraWilson1

2 years ago

I love the pragmatism this perspective brings to the topic of spirituality. What matters is that both paths work, not whether one is "true" in the limited Western sense of the word.

@rolandomonello4971

3 years ago

In addition to some already posted comments, totally agree that we have to distinguish "Buddhism" in its facets - the way you address it as a sum-total is indeed the Pali Hinayana level that serves as the basis and for the respective practitioners is the view total. And that is meant to lead to liberation from cyclic existence.

Neo Advaita sets in where in Buddhism Dzogchen and Essence-Mahamudra are practiced, with a view that concords largely with what you are pointing out and where the focus on consciousness, as you use it, or awareness (Rigpa in Dzogchen, Ösel in Mahamudra) extends to the full awakening.

Besides, the way of your soft spoken manner is soothing and crystal clear at one and the same time, simply beautiful to listen to, thank you!

(From a Dzogchen and Mahamudra practitioner in Switzerland)

@solya1899

3 years ago

Thank you very much for sharing your insight. It is very helpful.

@KaranSharma-df4qx

3 years ago

What a graceful teacher.

@Eva-iy6vy

1 year ago

Thank you for this very clear explanation.

@Andrew-qc8jh

4 months ago

I love the typography of the "arsha bodha center" at the beginning

@klasgroup

3 years ago

Very clear and concise🙏

@ramakrishna6858

3 years ago

Great knowledge... Great explanation... thank you master 🙏🙏🙏

@worldclassish

1 year ago

Thank you and much respect for your knowledge.

@markc1234golf

2 years ago

God this is soooo beautiful THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS :)

@YankDownUnder62

3 years ago

Thank you. Namaste. Peace and be well.

@sankaranarayanan7886

1 year ago

Wonderful explanation convincing the human kind in analysing spainad suffering is only for body andAtma the consciousness is of self realization

@shashibhushansharma5400

3 years ago

Thanks

@hubertplisiecki3989

2 years ago

Very informative. Thank you

@helmerkappert5152

1 year ago

Thank you very much for this clear explanation. It was really helpfull to understand .

Namaste😊

@nandansubramanya

1 year ago

Being a Hindu by birth, having followed (Buddhist)meditation practices for decades, it felt refreshing to hear this talk. For me, from what I hear, they are all the same. Terminology is different. Words can not describe experience, and so the confusion. In words, Buddhism says no soul is carried from life to life; but it same there is "something" that moves from life to life.. some call it habits(karma etc). That something can have any name, but words mean different things for different people and so create confusion.

I feel that there is only one Dharma, we follow what resonates with us based on our past lives. As long as we are making an effort to let go of greed and hatred, we are on the right path.

@venkatasatyanarayanavummid8584

3 years ago

Good narration with clarity

Thank you 🙏

@openyourmind2269

3 years ago

I love both spiritual paths! OM 🙏❤️

@kyleburt2336

3 years ago

This is an excellent video, thank you

@staciwashington3212

2 years ago

Thank you very much.

@chandinip.s.156

3 years ago

Well differentiated thank you swamiji

@aaftabhyr6688

2 years ago

Very nice informative 👍🏻👌🏻👍🏻👍🏻❤️ video Swamy g👍🏻👍🏻

@rmrm8590

2 years ago

Wonderfully and honestly explained!

@ashutoshkulkarni3189

2 years ago

Pranam Swami ji. 🙏🙏🙏

@kitsvn

1 year ago

Thank you, teacher. I am a Soto Zen Buddhist practitioner of shikantaza zazen, but I also read the Pali records. I only learned about Advaita Vedanta sadhana recently, and would like to understand more. This video was very helpful for me to open the door. Thank you for this video.

1 reply

@aubreyekstrom8919

1 year ago (edited)

Thank you for your explanation. You spoke clearly and everything you said was easily understood. I also enjoyed the cadence and tone of your voice.

As a life long Buddhist, my understanding is slightly different. Which is not to say either of us are right or wrong. Partly (maybe largely even) I think interpretation along with semantics and translations (and the limitations of language generally) are likely contributors. I have also learned that Nirvana means to "breath out", and have seen interpretations of that meaning "letting go" and/or "a sigh of relief". Just as one translation of Karma is simply "doing". Your Karma is your doing, literally, by that translation.

As far as extinguishing the "self", OK, sure extinguishing suffering, the source of suffering (i.e. our false identification, and so our illusory self), I can accept and see that interpretation/translation as well, along with the others.

It's true that Gautama doesn't mention or speak specifically of God, or even of a deeper/higher/True Self. Here's where my understanding differs slightly from what you say on this. My understanding of Samadhi, both from my own personal experience, and what I know of other's similar experiences, is that is a direct experience Self, of oneness with God, Cosmic Consciousness, Source... whatever limited label you want to give it.

I come from a Chinese Ch'an/Japanese Zen background and perspective (so some Taoist influence as well). My understanding is that "no self" is really The Self. Rather than go into the details or specifics of that using language, Buddhism emphasizes the path that leads to having that experience for oneself. Enlightenment is also a major goal of Buddhism, along with Nirvana. You can't have one without the other. Buddhism also teaches to see the Buddha Nature in everyone and everything. This also is a way of pointing at the universal being and consciousness that we are all expressions and temporary manifestations of.

Ch'an & Zen also are the result of a specific branch of Buddhism that legend says originated at Buddha's famous silent "lotus flower" lecture where one of his disciples reached enlightenment. Then down the ages to Bodhidharma who then brought it to China. So in the specific school of Buddhism that I am most familiar with and have experience through practice, language and words (including the Sutras) are depreciated, while direct experience through practice is emphasized (despite my wordy comment, LOL).

Thank you again for this insightful and well spoken video.

Amitabha 🙏

@akmand009

3 years ago

Excellent and brief analysis.

@SethRamesh

2 years ago

Beautiful.

@pradeepgade7892

3 years ago

Beautiful explain

@danielx40

3 years ago

So well said. Thank you.

@7thAct

3 years ago

Very good explanation with grace

@girixbushi

3 months ago

Thank you

@lotushealingkenya

3 years ago

Thank u! You have put it so simply and clearly!

@Eric-pj4fm

2 months ago

You could think of the Gospel as simply another path to liberation 🙏

@paganpriest4792

1 year ago

Take all my pranams sir.🙏

@rr7firefly

3 years ago

A wonderful video. Even more wonderful for not having one of those obnoxious NOOM ads at the beginning.

@SudipBhattacharyya

3 years ago

Thank you so much. This video cleared some confusion 🙏

@gourighosh3513

8 months ago

Your speech is very useful to understand the basic ideas of two religion for general people. 14:57

@Nana-Kunwar

3 years ago

Very Interesting

@krishnabhagawan5628

1 year ago

Excellent 🙏🙏

@robodobo653

3 years ago

Hey there! Thanks so much for your work sir

@nch77884

1 year ago

very beautifully and clearly explained. Thanks Sir.

@kanaujchaudhuri5186

3 years ago

Very easy to understandable lucid explanation . thank you.

@roy-nk4vq

3 years ago

Thank you for your work. It helps me.

@watchwitness6407

3 years ago

Gurudev Pranams🙏

@Michael-zp9kl

3 years ago

Wow what a great video, thank you!

@mauriciovega6769

3 years ago

very well explained, thank you!

@homrajramkelawon1831

3 years ago

Thank you Guruji , for presenting your view on the subject. In short your view is that both paths are similar and yet different, it would be ones own nature that would lead to either. But for an advanti seeker this discourse brings some better resolution. 🙏

1 reply

@mathseasyasabcde5995

3 years ago

Nice information

@Veegan4theanimals

3 years ago

I love listening to you 🙏🏻💓

@rajagopalm2065

1 year ago

Vividly explained basically the doctrines of both on the self conscienceness and non existence of the self by his pravachanan and thanks.

@ngedonrabsel4357

3 years ago

Great explanation without any bias, great sadhu!

@PaoloNencini

1 year ago

Thank you

@fizzybubblech8302

9 months ago

thank you

@cyanbloodbane1

1 year ago

Thank you

@davidderidder2667

3 years ago

Is it not so that they both can pacify you, calm down your curiosity, and drive?

Seeking truly what the true nature of our natural state is, that is my state. Acknowledging not knowing. Yet playfully learning through observation and being open.

@-tulsipanchkarauli

3 years ago

Wonderful discourse

@davehardat6508

3 years ago

Thank you. 😊🙏🏼❤️

@tomassusko1390

1 year ago

This man have a very good sadhana. Like a long year monks in christianity. Very nice. Thanks

@mattjohnson9226

2 years ago

Thank you 🙏...

@kkr1827

2 years ago

sathh chitth treatment by advaitha is an ocean in itself! Where the differences begin, the ocean comes into picture.

@AdhiyogaSystem

3 years ago

Very good explanation indeed.

@isabelmorais9430

3 years ago

Very very clear! Thank you 🙏

@nerva1734

3 years ago

really enjoyed this, glad i found this channel :)

@easwarsir-mathsphysicsexpe128

1 year ago

Thanks sir👍om namo shivaya 🙏🙏🙏

@dhanalakshmipennada6914

3 years ago

Wonderful speech

@ruyb001

3 years ago

Amazing this video.

@babyme8886

1 year ago

Namo Buddhaya 🙏☸May every human being be able to get closer to the Supreme Nibbana 🙏

@mohammedlguensat7649

3 years ago

thank you

@mattjohnson9226

2 years ago

You will help many !

@santoshkumar-uy5zg

1 year ago

All these teachings are very highly spiritual and one should possess calm nature and peace in mind. In this competitive time someone to have calm Nature is difficult unless he comes to age of retirement. The same implies to me. We are are on 24*7 office time. So i am following. No hatered. No jealousy.No corrupt acitivites. No immoral activity. Looking after parents well being. Doing some charitable work. I look forward to learn spiritual class lessons definitely in future when I am free from worldly attachments. Everyone live happily and attain spiritual path. Good luck.

@lobsangdhargya2853

3 years ago

However; grateful 🙏 and thank you for your insights of different teachings 💞🙏💞🌈💞🌈💞

@swamiswarupanandpuri674

3 years ago

Love you Swamiji.

@eliastoumaissaeaenlilyacho6042

1 year ago

NAMASTÉ AND THANKS FOR THIS TEACHING

NAMASTÉ

@FrancisdeBriey

1 year ago (edited)

First of all : THANK YOU !

Spiritual quest is sooooo needed today and this video is so enlightening !

I am not a specialist of both traditions but I am so happy to listen and think.

About the difference, could we not say that their difference is ONLY question of perspective, of "line of sight" ?

AV is mainly interested in exploring and explaining the true nature of Reality, whereas Buddhism is its translation into a doctrine of personal "pragmatic" liberation ? AV is the big painting, Buddhism is like a man watching the painting, understanding it, and applying the wisdom gained to liberate and elevate himself during his lifetime.

To me the fact that the essential nature of own consciousness is real (AV) or illusory (Buddhism) is a bit like asking ourselves what is the true sex of Angels... well not sure it's that important...

Personally I am very interested by both spiritual traditions, and I "feel" a bit more towards Atma 😀 but that's because of my Christian education...

@burtonrivera5253

2 years ago

Can t help but think of what it was like to be one of these guys, within existing cultures and models to basically create a new way. The part that relieves me greatly is that it reinforces just how the application of these faiths gradually became weapons, in our time...Samskrita, Sanatana Dharma and the spiral into Kali-Yug

@noodlewhitley

3 years ago (edited)

Very nice discourse! Thank you so much. The Buddhist doctrine of Anatman has plenty of room for confusion, and you have handled it adeptly. I would just add that in Buddhism (especially Tibetan schools) though a permanent self has been logically rejected, that does not mean that nothingness or nihilism has been adopted. That is to say though we may not be able to cling to or identify a consciousness as 'mine', that does not imply an absence of consciousness. Ultimately, the Buddha's teachings are methods to free us from false identification, as you have indicated. I believe that the Advaita Vedanta has the same goal. These two schools are very close brothers and have helped so many people. :)

1 reply

@jeylful

3 years ago

Thank you so much

@Rajaram-mr5bliss

3 years ago

Thank you so much

@Betterthantelly

3 years ago

Thank you so much.

@amaljayamanna9565

2 years ago

You are a very good man

@frankphan5784

3 years ago

Thank you Master from Canada

@sharmsa69

3 years ago (edited)

I feel difference is in semantics, the annatta of Buddhism or atman of Advita are one and same thing. I have not personally experienced these states but I trust the words of Lord Buddha and Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi, both attained similar understanding so my conclusion is that difference is in the way of describing that ultimate state. For ordinary person like me, living honest and truthful life would be a big achievement . Attaining status of Buddha or Ramana would take me many life times. so, I am happy with baby steps and respect and revere both the traditions.

@durgachaitanya

1 year ago

well said.

@AliciaMarkoe

1 year ago

Thank you 🦋

@timelordofinfinitehugs8933

3 years ago

Very beautiful and great comparison and i thank you for it. I’d just like to add that an-atman doesn’t mean there’s no, as hindus would say atman. In fact there is, boddhichitta as we call it. We just say an-atman, to point out it’s thing-less nature: its not nothing, it’s no-thing. Omnipresent and all pervading. This is simply another view on non-duality.

One thing we do differ on however, is the difference between atman and brahmin. In our tradition they’re viewed as one and the same: boddhichitta.

(I love your videos. They’re so calm and well composed!)

1 reply

@teardrop720

3 years ago

Thank you 🙏

@ManuelCocco

1 year ago (edited)

Thank you so much Swami for sharing your respectful, clear and well measured, even if slightly partial (as you himself admit) explanation! With my very limited knowledge of both Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, I feel like you have helped me understand the (to me) slight differences between my two favorite schools of thought. I understand in simple layman terms that if Advaita Vedanta states "Atman equals Brahman, A=B"; then Buddhism (at least Mahayana) accepts that equality, but adds to that equation "equals zero/void", this is, "A=B=0". I may of course got it wrong or at least grossly oversimplified. Now, this is certainly a very significant and relevant difference. And to be honest, as of today, I am not sure which one of these two rings truer to me (I have been an atheist for many years and tend to be very skeptical, but Love has brought faith to my life and I recognize now its immense power and importance for meaningful transformation...so I have been drawn more towards Advaita Vedanta of late). Anyways, when it comes to studying and practicing while still having a normal layman life, I have come to focus much more on the practical aspects, the how rather on the what; and found that if we compare the practice and ethics (i.e. Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, Yamas and Niyamas and the other limbs to the Buddhist principles), it seems to me that the approach and path is in practice very similar, even if, as you explain so well, with a somehow slightly different inherent approach to the teachings. To start with, as far as I see it with my limited understanding, Advaita Vedanta is clearly a religion (even if a very philosophical one); while Buddhism (even if its practiced as a very lithurgic religion by millions of people), technically says that there is no God, or that are illusions and no Brahman is permanent; and therefore should be considered a pure atheistic philosophy. But the actual practice is not so different. Which leads me to believe that all the contrasts and debates focusing on the differences (even if admittedly significant in meaning) seem to me quite futile, if the ultimate objective is Nibbana/Moksha (admittedly also different for each school, but starting with achieving realization by removing the veil of Maya). So I always humbly advice to avoid conflict or proselitism, and simply follow the teachings that ring truer and more inspiring to you. I believe that there are infinite paths to the Ultimate Truth, and all religions and philosophies have things to teach us and prodiced swamis and gurus to learn from. Love and Metta!

@vish2ual

3 years ago

Thank you master 🙏

@ujjwalbhardwaj661

3 years ago (edited)

nice thankyou

@venkatraoguru

1 year ago

Well explained, travelling towards Source/realizing Source one important point. Where is our destination? In sunya? Or Source. Where I strated my journey, I should remember.

@DHARMYOGCOM

1 year ago

I love how he explains things

@tantse2698

3 years ago

Hi Baba Ji, your four years decades study and worshiped in Vedatanta is speechless! As you differentiated Buddha vs Vedanta. I noticed that you put all your core knowledge to differentiate Buddha’s kindergarten level teachings to Vedanta. There are piles of teachings which is for various living beings. So I emphasized the Buddha’s teachings are extraordinary. Because we can see there are common teaching such a Four Noble Truth and uncommon teachings which gives surprises letting know the basic nature of Buddha is within us. Not this much more deeper level his teachings can be elaborated. Okay Ji

1 reply

@berndtfelmerer3654

3 years ago

Interesting.......Kali Mesukiel Akteriel Mahakala Bala Bala jojojo Capalatmika Kalabhairava

@xp9802

3 years ago

Thank you so much !!!

@stimulantdaimamld2099

1 year ago

great

@TheSeeker585

2 years ago

I enjoyed this ty 🙏

@chinmayshah8362

3 years ago

Very well established

@enrothable

3 years ago

Thank you

@bangaliyogi

1 year ago

Thank you.🙏🙏🕉🕉💜💜

@melinafranco2978

1 year ago

Gracias

@zeljkofranin1657

1 year ago

very nice..!

@meghanah6488

3 years ago

What appeals is the argument that comparative study between two or more societies,cultures or religions sheds light on one’s own beliefs!

1 reply

@waldwassermann

1 year ago

It is NOT that there is no self; it is that THERE IS ONLY ONESELF.

@shaldar44

3 years ago

Excellent discourse sir, and thanks for your thoughtful disclaimer in advance. Might I add that I felt that the moment I stop analyzing the differences - both the paths to spiritual liberation look exactly the same. What is zero shunya in one path is infinite in another. Mathematically, if you change domains, zero becomes infinity and vice versa - and true nirvana or moksha lies in the ability to transcend the domains - after escaping the clutches of the mind, the body and the senses..

1 reply

@GururajBN

3 years ago

It is a fine discourse. Thanks Swamiji!

The Upanishads don’t focus on creation of phenomenal world. Their focus is on self realisation. But Advaitha Vedanta introduces the concept of Maya, or illusion which shows the Brahman as world. This Maya is same as Samvarana of Buddhist philosophy, which maintains that the world we see is illusory. Advaitha Vedanta started with Gaudapada, who was Shankaracharya’s Guru’s Guru, according to the tradition.

2 replies

@spookybuk

8 months ago (edited)

I am a Zen adept and, to be honest, I've been watching videos from this channel for a while and I didn't even know Vedanta was not Buddhism... Listening to the explanations in the video, I can see how I would disagree here and there, coming from a Zen upbringing, but all of these "disagreements" would be merely scholarly, I guess. Marginal and superficial matters, which don't really matter. The fundamental point is the same. The treasure is the same. Different ways to get to the same place are only better or worse depending on where you are, and which road is closer to the Other Shore, I guess. This channel is just great. Just learned a lot about historical stuff here too. Thanks! Nice curiosities :)

@Audialeyes

1 year ago

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

3 replies

@dhrumil_108

1 year ago

The thing is concepts of Santana Dharma can well understood and explained by vedangas like jyotish, as a student of jyotish from around 10 years, we can truly understand why anyone is suffering,how long he is going to suffer what's one true nature etc.

@shak7430

3 years ago

Thank you from canada

@simonbean3774

3 years ago

How do people recognise enlightened beings? This incarnation was greatly helped by what it felt to be a creature of light in human form.

@AshwinAttawar

2 years ago

Beautifully explained.. Shat Shat Namaskaram Guruji.. My limited understanding on the essential difference is this - Buddha, through the Jataka Tales, identified his own past births, so there was some "SELF" travelling through those bodies.. So Buddhism's emphasis of "Anatha"/ "NO SELF" means dissolving INTO the Ultimate Brahman, so Not You, but only Brahman exists.. Vedantic interpretation of the same "No Self" is identification WITH the ultimate Brahman/Super Consciousness/Ultimate Reality, you are only THAT Brahman..

Buddha was living in an environment of openly debated Sanathan interpretations.. Dwaita/Vishista Dwaita/Advaita/Anatha.. Maybe that's how it flowed out..

@laika5757

2 years ago

Music to my ears... 🎼🎶🎶🎸

@Eric-pj4fm

2 months ago

I realized that in meditation as a Truth

@tetruspetrus3775

3 years ago

How he knew that I am sitting on a chair?!?!

nice video and thanks :)

@sunilsatawlekar4897

3 years ago

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!

@martincosentino9254

3 years ago

Nice video swami! 🙏, Buddhism is normally called Hinduism for export, as is meant to be simpler and easier to understand, focusing on the self. (Sort to speak really, I travel around India and Asia and is just as any religion with lots of habits, rituals, figurines and so on). I believe for the new ones, interested in Hinduism, may be easier to start either with S. Vivekananda, or Ramana Maharishi, they simplified a lot, from their view. The self bless you all

1 reply

@OnyxIdol

3 years ago

Thank you for this talk. Really, wether or not the Atman exists or not is ultimately not important; as the path to the cessation of suffering remains the same. If you find out that your awareness is unchanging and immortal along the way, well, that's just an added bonus ;)

2 replies

@stephenclarke3990

1 year ago

As interesting as this video is, I think it’s important to add what theBuddha also taught. That being, Convetional & Ultimate states of existence. 🙏🏻

@k.d.tendhar6978

2 years ago

Wow great being really great.

@IlluminatiBuster

3 years ago

Excellently explained. Thank you. The difference is in the depth of insight. The Atman transcends the body and the mind, however, the essence of the Atman is Brahman, the unmanifested divine consciousness, without attributes. People can deceive themselves with the Atman, to have an eternal soul even though they have not realized its true nature. The Buddha avoided all the traps and deceptions of the mind, so he spoke only of complete and final liberation, above the Atman. He did not speak of that highest achievement as Brahman so that people would not cling to that notion as well. The mind always projects itself. That is why the Buddha told the unawakened people who are under the control of the mind, to just do the practice of meditation, calming and purifying the mind, of the whole being. How to wake up from a dreaming mind. Nothing else. He knew that a counter-effect would be achieved if one spoke in advance of the ultimate goal of people who did not transcend the mind, who dream. That is why in Vedanta they became believers in their eternal soul and did not wake up. Buddhists work sincerely and practically on their awakening, they are not deceived by anything that the mind can project before we wake up from the mind. The Buddha does not deny the soul, he does not prejudge its true nature for the practical reasons of mental hygiene.

@ravinandanneelkanth5572

1 year ago

To discover the True divine nature of your own consciousness is Moksha ❤️❤️❤️🕉🕉🕉

@jeffcastaneda7010

1 year ago

I have watched this video so many times, and every time I watch it I learn something new and new questions arise.

I know I probably won’t get a reply from Swamigi, but here are my latest questions:

If in Vedanta enlightenment is the removal of the veil of ignorance and the aha! moment when one truly understand that we are that which we are looking for, AND if the Buddha denied there is an independent being/consciousness/observer, does that mean the Buddha was not enlightened? Was he truly a Buddha then?

And what about the reverse? What if Buddha’s realisation of no self and that there is no independent consciousness means that he was truly enlightened and that the Vedanta sages were not?

Finally, what if neither Buddhism nor Vedanta were enlightened? And what if both were!? How would that work?

Thank you for your teachings, swamigi. I don’t know for whom the bell tolls, but I learn from you, take what’s useful and disregard what I don’t find useful to me.

One final question, if I may. Is there such a thing as secular Vedanta? I appreciate the oxymoron in my question.

@lorranttavares4462

3 years ago

Where can I find more music like the one in the snippet at the beginning of the video?

@alidalavezzari4103

3 years ago

May all living beings obtain illumination.

@dendennis9060

1 year ago

Thank U, infinite intelligence. ♾

@vishalkulkarni5502

3 years ago

👏 this is it

@sachabarriohealey6389

1 month ago

The Anata or no self

teaching of Buddhism I find very practical

However, there no sutra or no buddhas words who teach or declare it. Not to be found. It’s a tool for research into oneself, a great tool

@reinhardjung8196

3 years ago

In practice, and in the best exponents of both traditions, these seeming differences are dissolved. The famous story about the blind men describing the elephant, told by the Buddha and other sages, illustrates that differences are our lack of deep insight into Truth beyond all 'isms'. Heads collide, hearts meet.

2 replies

@yogasamrat

3 years ago

Swamiji you are Vedanta Keshari!

@thetid8852

3 years ago

I personally respond to the Zen teaching that says "If you meet the Buddha on the path, kill him". Which is simply saying "Don't get hung up on or attached to teachers - in the end, the journey is yours alone, though teachers may help you for a while." I think Gautama himself would have agreed with this.

@krish5608

1 year ago

Nice talk. I would like you to make a video of you and one Buddhist master discussion about self or selfless.

@ajaymathur9406

8 days ago

No self is much more deeper concept. You only scratched the surface. I am a Hindu but feel Buddha’s 4 noble truths is the most logical and practical way to live a noble life. Bodhistava goes beyond cessation of suffering for oneself. Swami Vivekanada rightly said about Siddharth Gautam (The sanest human ever walked on earth 🌍, no cobwebs in the brain)

@basho345

2 years ago

Thank you very much.

"Yet the fact remains, they both solve the problem of suffering.

14:05

So, you can't really say that one is better than the other, because they both work; they

14:13

both can free you from suffering."

i would think that once one has freed oneself from suffering - the question of atma or anatma is moot. :) That is, one is no longer immersed in the dualistic state. But then these are also no more than words. :)

@masterthedream9580

6 months ago

Buddhism is very important as a long path discipline and highly respected. The discipline of the long path is necessary for the conversion to the short parth for most people. The long path is a phase of purification and every aspect of our life needs this purification. Thought, Speech, Action, Diet, Emotion, Body and Daily Habit must be purified and this takes time for most people. Once these are purified to a point then the short path will appear that identifies ones consciousness with the All that Is. Focus is moved from the purification to Oneness.

@gangadharhiremath7306

3 years ago

Thank you.But I stand with Buddha's teachings because he lays emphasis on selflessness where as Vedanta revolves around individual

@1000indunil

1 year ago

pranam

@hemmamistry6563

2 years ago (edited)

a brilliantly enjoyble talk. interesting to see that you overlooked what seem to be the most glaring differences, which are in fact political. Buddha rolled out true indian spirituality to the masses and overturned the idea that one could be noble by virtue birth. In fact, the path and goal of buddhism and advaita vedanta are identical to my mind, with the differences being merely semantic. The main reason that Buddha didn't pay homage to Hindu vedas and so on was because they perpetuated a culture of empty ritual, rather than earnest practice per se, and promulgated a caste system that was pernicious and reserved spiritual life for the priveleged classes.

The teaching device of 'no self' helped to overcome this tendency of brahmins to walk around, falsely claiming to be the self, when in fact being merely conceited. The concept of anatta helps us to not take ourselves so seriously, or walk around making premature claims.

If atman is truly pure subjectivity, beyond categorisation, then surely, in truth, it is indistinguishable from 'anatta' - in that there is no object that we can call a self.

Remember, 'all dharmas are empty', in buddhadharma. They were teaching devices. Nothing is permanent and self existing, not even the buddhist concepts and teachings. The Buddha wanted us to go beyond, and not get caught up in our words

Hari Om

@chriswalsh7028

3 years ago

Thanks for the video! I really appreciate the intro that this isn't meant to criticise something that others may find useful.

If I may give my view, one of the main traits of Buddhism is that it leaves out a lot of things, because they simply aren't helpful as a general teaching, and often lead views of illusion. For example, on the question of whether God exists or not, the Buddha remained silent, neither saying "yes" nor "no". ... Hence also why "nirvana" is the main word used, because it means the "blowing out of the flame". In other words what I wanted to say that it isn't a different view towards the existence of something greater, but that the approach of "right speech" on the subject differs.

2 replies

@mortalmortalis1494

3 years ago

Thank You Swami Tadatmananda, i want to share this question, and every seeker of truth will be able to answer it in the same way, relying on his own logic and common sense. If Atma does not exist, then who or what is aware of and experiences Nirvana? And if Nirvana is just extinguished state, then who or what will remain after, to establish, declare and realize that this is Nirvana? Thus, it becomes evident that Atma-jnana, the knowledge of the existence of the Atma-soul, is the complete and final manifestation of the highest truth. And only then the most important question arises, what is the highest meaning of the existence of this Atma, especially after Moksha/Nirvana? And again, the most logical answer is - Bhakti.

1 reply

@ArunYadav-nh3lg

3 years ago

Suyabhu

@pakoperro

3 years ago

... thank you, gracias, namasté... thank you, gracias, namasté... thank you, gracias, namasté

@sikhachadhury8099

3 years ago

divinely enlightening

4 replies

@tzadik36

3 years ago

Pronaams!🙏

1 reply

@rohitchaturvedi8662

3 years ago

@12:05 clearly elucidated as Buddha nature's expression , again not trying to draw parallels, but thought of letting everybody know why Buddhist places of living for the monks are called Viharas, because such dwellings are places of perfect bliss, as people with awakened Buddha nature are dwelling in them

2 replies

@neil6477

7 months ago

A beautiful commentary Swami - thank you. 🙏

Although I follow your position up to a point, it still seems to me that the 'end point' of moksha and nirvana can contain and, more importantly, do not contradict, each other. I don't see a fundamental, ontological difference - more a case of how carefully each is being expressed. Is it not only words which create a separation of paths? In other words, both Vedanta and Buddhism draw the same picture but using different colours.

They are not teaching different ultimate ontological conditions because they both teach that reality is non-dual and non-duality cannot have different forms.

Again Swami, thank you for your teachings. 🙏

@ugc1784

3 years ago (edited)

If one goes through the definition given in the seven shlokas (verses) of the 'Nasadiya Suktum' in the Rigveda (10) - 129, the scene created of the moment just before the 'CREATION' of the universe or what we say 'The Big Bang', one wonders how could those saints come up with such an unimaginable narration more than 10000 BCE.

1 reply

@chandermatrubhutam2384

3 years ago

Wow!

@johnnylin0924

3 years ago

Buddhism also says that the whole existence is one. It's just different terms that make people confused. Because you can say emptiness is also everything, you are emptiness and also everything.

@DonDSelectah

1 year ago

Namaste

@sokuntheasun5796

1 year ago

All are very useful. They are not different in purpose move toward the true nature of yourself. All took place at different era that certain subject is desired and needed to explore deeply to see the true which allow the next evolution possible. Only knowing the true for what it really is that give total complete freedom. I feel that they are continuation as we evolve. non of them is complete even in our time and on. Much like that ever stop growing. It seems to move to higher and more expanded stage as we go closer to all beauty. So they are not in conflict. But in stage of development. As we are to in different stage of growth. That is why they are all helpful or some feel drawn to them because it is working right where you are and not other in that moment in time.

@tenzin__rafcl_067

3 years ago

I learned fiveteen years. I found so many have similare between hindusim n budhist.

@thomashusted

1 year ago

As it is said the paths are many but the truth is One or is Oneness.

@indyd9322

3 years ago

This video was really good, thank you! In some of the later Buddhist teachings, like Vajrayana, they have the idea of "Buddha Nature". I was curious how similar Buddha Nature is to the true self in Vedanta that you mentioned.

2 replies

@TheYellowshuttle

1 year ago (edited)

I enjoy your videos. They are excellent! ❤️🙏❤️

While the Madhyamaka school of Buddhism is very very close to Advaita, the Shentong school is Advaita itself, in Buddhist language.

When the Buddhist is saying there's no permanent essence (anatta), he's talking about the world (Vyavaharika/Transactional). But when Advaita talks about essense, it's making that claim from Paramartha (Absolute).

They are not contradicting each other at all. For example: B is saying the content of the movie on the wall has no permanent substance - its just forms playing & empty if you try to grasp it. While A is saying that the movie is nothing but light. Both points of view are not only true, they are simultaneously true.

Buddhism denies atma to the world and stops there. It declines to go beyond - to talk about "what's going on?" (rightly so; see Nagarajuna's dialectic). Advaita's positive Brahman is exactly this "silence" which the Buddhist is refusing to put in words (and for good reasons).

4 replies

@kingthanvon

3 years ago

No one on earth can understanding of Buddha teaching as long you’re not carefully learning from Buddha teaching but the real one 🙏🙏🙏🙇🙇🙇may Buddha blessings y’all

1 reply

@galaxymetta5974

1 year ago

Buddhism cultivation of the noble eightfold path consists of virtues, meditation absorption and insight wisdom. And the 3 openings into insight wisdom are impermanence (anicca), unsatisfactory (dukkha) and non self (anatta).

Perhaps the most crucial difference in Buddhism is as long as there is a sense of self, including subtle self identification with atman, there is still work to be done. Cheers.

@mu27amaria

2 years ago

I also learn English when he speaks

@guruladakhi7960

3 years ago

Very good explanation without being prejudiced. However, the reason Buddha did not subscribe to the atman as permanent and immutable was because he taught that all phenomena are subject to change as the nature of the world is impermanent, continuous and changing. Further the greatest proponent of Advaitha, Sri Shankaracharya borrowed so much from Buddhism that he is often regarded by scholars as a crypto Buddhist.

@mcgee227

1 year ago

authentic as apposed to what.

@klasgroup

3 years ago (edited)

Buddhists should ask themselves the question who is it that is aware that there is no self. And the answer can be only one. Pure consciousness or or the true self.

Buddha knew this, but Buddha's main purpose was to show the way to common people to end suffering. He taught it in the simplest way that common people could understand.

@davorbuklijas1777

3 years ago

Very nice video. As buddhist I would say that there is even more similarity. Buddhism agrees on there being perfect conciousness at the end of the path - difference would be that this conciousness (in buddhist view) does not have a 'self'. Advaita is indeed very similar path, and I guess only a advanced practicioner would really be testing the difference. Thanks for the insight into Advaita Vedanta.

1 reply

@jyotivyas9286

11 months ago

Vedant is 👌💐

@AR-jo1sv

3 years ago

Venerable Sir, the Budd-hism you have mentioned here is quite different from the original teachings of Gautama Buddha ( Buddha Dharma). With my great respect to your wisdom, I invite you to revisit the teachings especially the first Sermon and Anatta-Lakkana Sutta from an original Pali book.

Many modern day Buddhism teachings are a result of wrong translation from Maghadi Prakrit to Sanskrit or English. For example Nibbana is translated as Nirvana. Nibbana is beyond the Moksha and the "bliss in Moksha" is a temporary achievement.

Also misunderstanding of "Suffering" in first noble truth as just plain physical or mental suffering felt by beings.

@rohitchaturvedi8662

3 years ago

@ 9:24 please what khyentse Ringpoche's video on lotus Sutra to, I'm clarifying as the concept of anatman and Atman identified as Buddha nature both existing within each being is clearly called out in the Lotus sutra

@monikagermundssonjonasmeli536

1 year ago

Hello and Thank you for the thorough explanation. However, if I didn’t misunderstood you, there is a difference of the thoughts of Sukhavati, but I know for a fact that is also viable in Buddhism as well (since I practiced for many years). I find very little difference between various Hindu practices and varies of Buddhist practices. Tibetan, Vadjra school and classical Hindu training you really have the understanding of the atman / anatman (true self or maybe collective?) as a difference, but bakhti and Theravada differs on a different plane all together. Please comment.

Kind regards,

Monika from Sweden

@chinesevirus7139

3 years ago

Goal is one but paths are different!

@BikashKumar-tz6rb

3 years ago

Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta and Jainism all of them are great. All of them helps to eliminate the false identification and prejudice and leads to ultimate realization. That's why all of them coexisted very peacefully from centuries in the eastern society, embracing each other's difference. The difference between them is very subtle. But why should we care about the differences now as most of us have not attained to the higher state to go to the differences between these philosophies. We all are just a traveler to the path of self realization. Some may have covered more distances, while some may have just started.

@alanbiernacki639

3 years ago

Just as the speaker said he was prejudiced against Christianity, this is my story too. I was very heavy with this reality and culture of my country. Like prison.

I had a period of rebellious atheism, and from that period a passion for freedom, non-adherence remained. Being away from any institutional religion or philosophy. I still live like this, free.

I also want to add that both Hinduism and Buddhism are an inspiration for me to search independently, philosophical and spiritual. Like guides around a country.

You might say that some wisdom or truth exists does not mean it has meanings to me, as long as I am not ready to listen. Once I was watching a document about funerals in the Ganges, and the gentleman who worked that way said something interesting. That no matter what someone thinks, if they are 100% convinced of it, this is their level of development, and at the moment - this is their ultimate truth. This could change if he was honest about his own wisdom.

Summing up, they felt the need to be ready to question their own knowledge, understanding, and philosophy. The happiness is that when reborn, we are always reborn at the same level of understanding the world, so nothing is lost.

I do not consider any of these universes of existence and thinking as main, more important. I am starting from a completely different point of view, pragmatism. I take what I understand from every available path / school of thought. I check if it works in life and in MY? is it building my life, is it helping me, is it rich in a simple human way, pragmatically living in "here and now".

That is why many years ago Buddhism inspired me, then it mixed a bit with mystical observations from Christianity (Doctors of the church: Saint Faustina Kowalska, San Juan de la Cruz, they are very ... spiritual in the Eastern way). Then I had a period of silence and work to earn, ordinary life, and now I have a return period, and I became interested again in Hinduism, which is very logical to me now, almost scientific. It describes very well my various mystical experiences of deep meditation.

So now I can say that "now" looks like "truth", My truth.

Thank you very much for the lectures available online - sometimes it's hard to find the right conversation partner where you live. Not everyone is on a "similar wave". I really like the comparison in this lecture, the calm with which they are put, and the understanding that "the apple does not fall far from the apple tree". I don't know myself, I have the impression that the logic of Hinduism suits me better, and I don't think I understand, that is I don't experience, the impersonality expressed in Buddhism. It doesn't mean it's not there, I just can't see it now. I think I will have many incarnations to check and see for myself.

@gurungammar7052

1 year ago

🙏🙏🙏💐💐💐sadhu sadhu sadhu,

@shankarkmandelia866

3 years ago

Excellently explained.With warm Regards. Similar comperision if possible can be made with other religions. Can be tried please. Thanks. PRANAM

@Phoenix-the-Poet

3 years ago

Thank you, Swami Tadatmananda.

@lotustv6271

3 years ago

I couldn’t find your email addresses. By the way how do you compare Paticcha Samuppada teaching in Buddhism with Upanishadh teaching. Thank you.

@dmitrych1528

3 years ago

Description of both religion is correct. But the author only based on the traditional Hinayana way of Buddhism. The Mahayana is having another goal and having a many of schools with different understanding of consciousness. Such as Alaya Vijnana school or Pure Lands as an example.

@faeanor100

1 year ago (edited)

Thank you very much for this very thoughtful comparison. I'd like to point out, however, that when speaking about Buddha's teaching you refer to the cessation of suffering as the ultimate goal of Buddhism. This is only true when looking at Buddha's "first turning of the wheel", ie the teachings of the basic vehicle (Hinayana) where Buddha focussed on the realization of interdependent origination and no-self as the way to put an end to all suffering for oneself.

Yet he also taught the second (Mahayana) and third turning of the wheel (Vajrayana). The latter very much covers the dimension of our true, innermost nature which bis endowed with wisdom and unlimited compassion towards all beings. So when comparing Advaita Vedanta with Buddha's third turning of the wheel, the differences become less pronounced.

@wordscapes5690

10 months ago (edited)

I also felt anatma was very suspicious... until I started doing intense vepassana meditation. The self (that is, the idea of me, mine) is simply not there. Who or what it is observing this not-self, I have no idea, but there is indeed nothing at the core. The Buddha never actually said that there is no separate self. He spoke of not-self, not no self. He left the matter quite open.

@Eric-pj4fm

2 months ago

I did have the light come on about one thing (I am a Christian) if we didn't have any needs to meet, or any desires to Fulfill,we could just be, 😊

@e8root

2 years ago

Nirvana/Nibbana is actually something else than Moksha. I call Moksha as Vajra Samadhi and define as experience of all experiences at all times. Nibbana seems like not experience or beyond experience but it is the same thing just viewed from different angle which changes everything about it but still it is the same thing

@purebuddhism6617

1 month ago

i recommend anyone who wants to learn the difference between buddhism and other theologies or philosophies of the present future or the past to read the Brahmajala sutra , the first sutra of deegha nikaya in therovada buddhism.

@allahjr.8522

1 year ago

I enjoy your explanations and hindu dawahs' cmts 😄

@nandamenon7453

1 month ago

Vedantins and Buddhists have long debated their opposing views about the existence and non-existence of the self. However mathematics shows how both their views may be reconciled.

“The soul has an infinite geometry,

It’s a beautiful singularity,

If you want to understand nothingness,

Just try to solve for 1/x”

This unites Buddhist and Vedantin schools. A singularity occurs in mathematics when the solution to a problem is neither zero, nor positive infinity nor negative infinity. It’s beyond language. Such a problem occurs in the function 1/x when “x” approaches zero. The solution is neither negative infinity or positive infinity nor any number in between. Such are also the opposing idea of non-self and self in Buddhism and Vedanta. They both approach the answer from different directions and hence see two sides of the same infinite existence.

@fabioponte5133

1 year ago

Never too late to know

@Knaeben

1 year ago

There are some differences between Hinayana (Theravadin) and Mahayana Buddhism too.

@andrewmuelleranantababaji8073

3 years ago

I was. Very confused too, till I read Avadhoot Swami book!

1 reply

@trueblissconsciousness2821

1 year ago

When you think about it though, the self in advaita is formless and void without mind or body to experience. So in a way Buddhism does appear to be describing this same thing. The limits of language makes for the differences we see.

@s.c.1494

1 year ago (edited)

I believe the Buddhism upon which you based your comparison is Theravada Buddhism. Mahayana Buddhism on the other hand, is much closer to the Advaita Vedanta you described and describes our true nature (Buddha nature) as this vast, unchanging, pristine, and untaintable awareness. I thought you might want to make that distinction. Thank you.

@sriharimulukunte7881

1 year ago

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".

1 reply

@sundarkanya1602

1 year ago

all are the diff. branches of same tree ......

all belong to us and our great rishis or gurus ☺️☺️☺️☺️

@doydark4ever

2 years ago

Jai bharat

@thatchinaboi1

2 years ago (edited)

Advaita Vedanta explicates the Metaphysical Truths behind the illusory World of Appearances, while Buddhism merely alludes to them, and let's those who are Enlightened discover them for themselves. Buddhism focuses mainly on personal suffering and the experiential World of Appearances. Advaita focuses on the relationship between the Oneness of Being and the illusory lower self that is mis-identification and abstractions.

@lewisliew6479

3 years ago

Many spiritual gurus shared that due to limitations of words and expressions, there is no way one can describe the oneness

1 reply

@yahya2925

2 years ago

Asalaamu alaikum! May The Supreme Reality's guidance and peace be upon you all.

1 reply

@bindra1731

3 years ago

How do the ritualistic practices in the two differ & which offers practical solurions to sufferings or even attaining moksha / nirvana ? P.N Rituals are practiced by each & every relgion in some way or the other.

@varmaTrini

1 year ago (edited)

ATTAINMENT is the word, it means "TO-ATTAIN". On the path of BUDDHISM this translates to ^NIRVANA. On the path of JAINISM this translates to mean ^KAIVALYA(Kevala Jnana) and in SANATANA DHARMA it is called as ^MOKSHAM. They all work towards generating an ability in us to better understand ourselves & remove suffering. Choose whatever that you are drawn most towards.

@vsasana

3 years ago

Swamiji with due respect I would like you to read professor Lal Mani Joshi's book

Brahmanism, Buddhism,

and

Hinduism

An Essay on their Origins and

Interactions

Lal Mani Joshi

@noxot13

2 years ago (edited)

no self is just an expression pointing to the infinite self. it is a way of trying to get the disciples to not trip over concepts of a self but there will always be something to stumble over so having various paths seems like the obvious solution. we are what we are.

@mingonmongo1

3 years ago

Thx for the straightforward explanation. Perhaps the 'cultural' context is also important, as for example the way 'American' Buddhism is a bit different than say, the way it's practiced within Asian culture. BTW, the question of a Soul/Atman or not seems like a pretty profound difference, in any belief system!

1 reply

@jyojyolaa5680

1 year ago

Hlo sir. as Vadanta said there is Atma which is no born no death then how it can be exist, a true nature,atma, bliss, supreme consciousness? Plz ans. Thanks.

@onlinesaidasa9105

3 years ago

Namaste

"Enquire who am I? Sink deep within and abide as Self.

That is God as being"

Sri Ramana Maharishi

@rohitjoshi7737

3 years ago (edited)

Cults of the same religion(dharma) may be different but the goal is the same. The Vedas also state that the rivers are many, their water finally meets the sea. 🙏

@nilkanthpandya2228

3 years ago

Please keep volume high.

@macnicolson5452

1 year ago

What is the difference? Only within the concepts of mind. When I met my first advaita master in person I felt that I had met the Chan master of my dreams.

@olivierpreziosa1707

3 years ago (edited)

We, as human beings, sure have different views sometimes ... which can only makes truth so much more elusive than we can ever imagine when we falsely believe that we finally caught it. Advaita Vedanta to my understanding is just a static Buddhism where you would have taken off the fuel of existence, what gives its motion, meaning dependent origination (Pratītyasamutpāda).

@shridharhegde1272

3 years ago (edited)

Nice. Loved it.

Also, isn't Advaita talk about "Para Brahman"(the ultimate supersoul)? And Atman becoming one with it (or recognizing the indifference between the two), isn't it a significant part of concept of Moksha in Advaita?

And as per my limited knowledge, Buddhism denies the existence of Para Brahman and thus things like ultimate union (yoga/moksha) are not part of Nirvana. No?

@ramborn9

2 years ago

Ramana Maharshi taught on the true nature of Self but observed that some followers started creating an image in their minds of an eternal god-like identity that then became an idea they were aspiring towards, rather than following his actual core teaching to release attachment, allowing obscurations of mind to arise and be dissolved until nothing remains (this will leave you with the direct realisation of our incomprehensible being/nature).

Therefore, I think the Buddha's method is very fitting as a parallel path to the same outcome; dissolution of ego/ignorance, except without too much talk about the end point and rather much more focus on the methods that will result in the desired outcome. Focus on what matters kinda thing

1 reply

@zachary813

3 years ago

I believe that the Buddha formulated his approach of annata, thinking that holding on to the concept of Ata, or Atma, would be another form of attachment.

3 replies

@priyabratadash4542

3 years ago (edited)

So basically saying the same thing .. Ending of ego self which is combination of experiences , identities etc . The images , memories which are object some how construct this illusory self / subject separated from others or universe . Ending of years of propaganda which starts right after birth . What remains is the "" knowing"" which is common to all experiences external or internal . The non judgemental /non biased nirguna( no quality ) knowing or awareness .

@rael7298

2 years ago

When buddha was asked about whether or not there was a higher self, he was silent. My guess is that the idea of Anatta (no self), is the same as the disolution of the jivatma, and that paramatm has no concept of a self, it simply is

@americasleastwanted

4 months ago

I've heard that the Buddhist concept of 'No Self' as being interpreted as 'Not Me', so could have an entirely different meaning to the explanation provided in the video.

@gleidsonjosedacosta9394

3 years ago

Hari Om

Given that both ways take the same initial steps leading to a same place, woudn't this place's description be a minor, maybe insignifficant matter? Or maybe such difference in description is due to being actually two different places/states? Seems to me that they're both one way and those getting there will call it other names ("there's no one here" or "the one here is the true thing").

@gururajaraghavendrarao3362

3 years ago

True

@saraswati999

1 year ago

additionally however I have observed that the west is truly taken by Buddha vs Adi Shankara's teachings even though they are quite similar not yet at the same time. I am wondering what are your thoughts on that ?

@jamescicero776

1 year ago

are there any Advaita Vedanta temples or groups in Chiang Mai, thailand?

@kyawswehan

3 years ago

Attaining Artma (aka clarity, aka Zen, aka true consciousness) is first step in Buddhism. Follow by Vipasana practice which make one realized about Nivana (final cease). It doesn't matter whether you do not accept Nivana as final cease or not, and also doesn't matter if you take Nivana (or Moksha) as blissfulness. Because once you have Artma and know the true causes and effects, it will come to a cease.

2 replies

@OnlineMD

3 years ago

The word Dukkha in Sanskrit translates as sadness/sorrow. Not suffering. I like to think of the Buddha as one of the world's earliest PSYCHOLOGISTS! 😁 People claim wrongly that he taught the concept of Anatta (no-aathma). When approached on the subject, he simply DECLINED to discuss the concept of the Aathman. He didn't think such discussion would help us to resolve the miseries of our minds.

@lokeshk4642

2 years ago (edited)

Very nicely explained Swami-ji! There is a misconception that Buddha hated Hinduism. Buddha lived and died as a Hindu. They also believe in the Dharma/ Karma and Reincarnation as Hindus. The religion Buddhism started nearly 100 years after his death. Even Buddha's direct disciples were Hindus. After couple of generations of Buddha's disciples, they started this new religion.

@youlong1234

1 year ago

Yes you say oh I realised my higher self:-) You are still identity thinker. This is not higher stage it is lower. Mind does not move because it just is. It is tze complete extinction of feeling of 'self'.

eternal consciousness teaching is part of many traditons under different name.

Buddha revolutiinised this thinking!

@yifuxero5408

1 year ago

The notion of Atma as inner Self has to be clarified. Tapping into the Self initially feels like It's an "inner" experience of a dualistic nature. Further practice dissolves the barrier between inner and outer, much like expelling the air from a balloon and that notion of an inner vs outer vanishes. Pure Consciousness is transcendental to inner and outer but encompasses all dualities as subordinate to the totality. As one has a body, the body is subject to suffering; but when the identification vanishes, pain obviously exists and belongs to the body. However (this is a tricky philosophical question): pure Consciousness is expressed as a body/mind and there's no "you" that escapes from relative suffering until the subtle body escapes at physical death.

@avadar5508

3 years ago

everyting is new right now thats why I do not aczept past

@samisiddiqi5411

1 year ago

I'm on that crossroads myself but I don't know upon which basis "consciousness" is described to asserted. I would like to see dialogue on Madhyamaka and Advaita.

@laxmangc9710

3 years ago

@sanjaygowda1143

1 year ago

Buddha never rejected vedas but told people you don't want to depend on scriptures or vedas to spiritual seeking , so he called everyone to meditate and enlightened.

@drpratibhasolanki8969

2 years ago

divine guruji 🙏 i want all vidios in hindi how i get it pls guide me 🙏

@carltoncraton7510

1 year ago

Liberation Salvation Transformation = Freedom 🙌🏼

@tashiasmr4658

3 years ago

Buddha has lot of compassion for Hindu brother and sister

@vijaykumar_151

3 years ago

ADHVAITHAM

What is Adhvaitha? Of what use is it for us? Is it really possible For us to benefit from it or not? Does such a big philosophy Remain just as a philosophy (concept)? Or does it really help us? Let us examine this. What is the meaning of `Adhvaitha’ ? It means ‘That which is Not two’ . However our day to day experience does not corroborate That there is no duality. We see thousands of other living beings. Why should we then say that there is no duality at all? If duality Does not exist, how does it benefit us? Adhvaitha will help us attain what we seek. What do we Strive for? We strive to sec that all our difficulties are removed and Our problems are solved. Is not all our work towards removing all Our hardships and attaining comfort? Removing those hardships Forever – that is possible through Adhvaitha. We work hard to remove poverty, hunger, bad reputation, Conflicts, misunderstandings etc. However is there, a single place Where such problems don’t exist? If one problem is solved, Another pops up. To be happy forever is not possible based on our Present efforts. Even then, we keep our efforts to remove our Sorrows. Our worldly efforts provide a temporary happiness or Peace. If we give medicine for one disease another rares its head. Adhvaitha is the permanent solution to remove such problems Forever. We can get rid of hunger, disease, death, disrepute, Conflict, anger, poverty – all of these and ensure that they do not Recur again, through Adhvaitha. Why do we suffer? The reason is that we have things like Poverty, hunger, poor reputation etc. If these don’t exist it will be Good because, we will know no sorrow. But then all these exist; is It not? Ok, let us examine why these exist. What brings about These? Things such as hunger, disease and so on will be there so long as the body is there. It is because the body exists, these exist. If this body goes, another body comes. This new body too Experiences hunger, thirst disease etc. That is, there are problems As along as the body exists. There is sorrow. Therefore if we create A situation where there is no body, then all these problems will be Removed. We have several births. What is the reason for these births? Why is the body created? We have to experience the effects of our Papa’ and pi-m-yd from our previous births. The Athma cannot Experience the effects of papa and piiilya. We cannot burn the Athma with fire. We cannot cool it by applying sandal paste. Therefore we need a body to experience our karma. Based on our Papa and pCuiya God punishes us by giving us the body and also Making us think that the body is ‘me’ . /sward- punishes us by giving Us the body for the sins we committed. Therefore our sins are the Reason for our body. We must contemplate daily that ‘If we do not Commit any sins from now on, there will be no body. Therefore we Should not commit any sins’. What are the reasons for Papa & Pzinyd (Sins & Virtuous Acts)? We want to desist from committing sins but we are not able To do so. If we want to stop a tree from growing, it is not enough if We cut away the branches. We have to fell the tree and cut out the Roots. If we get white ants again and again on the roof of the house, Is it enough if we treat the roof superficially? That is not good Enough. We will get white ants again in another part. Only if we Remove the mother ant which gives birth to these white ants can we Eradicate the problem completely. Similarly we must know the root cause of our sins and Eradicate that. What is the root cause for sin? Sinful acts are the Roots for sins. Why do we commit such acts? We wish to have Something. We adopt short cuts to attain what we want. That is a sin. What it means is, the desire is the reason why we commit a sin. If an object looks beautiful it creates a desire in our mind. If we see Good things we get a desire to own them. We then get passionate About fulfilling our desire. That our senses recognize something as Beautiful is the reason for the desire. So what is the outcome of everything I have told you till Now? Our body is our punishment for the sins we commit. Sinful Acts are the root cause for sins. Desire is the cause for sinful acts. Therefore only when we tackle desire which is the root cause of all Our miseries, can we find a permanent solution to eradicate Sorrow. How do we tackle desire? Vedhantha which is like a crown to the Vedhas, shows us the Right way to eradicate this sorrow. We have anger and desire towards only those objects that are Separate and different from us. There is no anger or desire created In us, for ourselves. Therefore if desire is only towards things Different from us, if we make those things also as ourselves, there Will be no desire, is it not? If there is no desire, there will be no Effort to do wrong. Therefore there is no sin. If there is no sin, There is no body. If that is not there, then there is no sorrow. That Sorrow which we are unable to eradicate in spite of all our efforts Throughout our lives, such sorrow is vanquished when we Understand and accept that there is nothing ‘else different’ other Than us. The view that says that there is no ‘duality’ is called Adhvaitha.

@rohitchaturvedi8662

3 years ago (edited)

@11:27 this is the definition of the goal in terms of earlier Agama Sutras, please read the life span and expedient means chapter of lotus sutra to understand the ultimate goal of Buddhist practice

2 replies

@JoseAntonioDermengiRios

2 years ago

Very good! And about Brhama Kumaris and Advaita Vedanta? Seems to be the same!

@ganesanvsai7679

3 years ago

Buddhist dhrama can help very Human.the righteous can save the world.please teach the people AUM AUM

@butterflylotus1464

3 years ago

Thankyou for clarifying this. Very helpful. Can you also discuss, if bible, and kuran knowledge drawn from hinduism. Thanks

@jaedelarosa6075

1 year ago

🙏

@travisporco

1 year ago

What is good to read on Advaita Vedanta? (Free of alt-right ideologues)

@Purwapada

1 year ago (edited)

yes amazing video thanks

although I have heard, in presectarian texts it is unclear whther the buddha truly dismissed the exstence of atman.

He might have said 'it neither exists, nor doesnt exist'

@komangdarmawan4101

3 years ago

Namaskar

I am interested to your discourse, I had translated it into Bahasa. I would like to share it by my Facebook wall.

Thank you so much.

@friarzero9841

2 years ago

I think your description perfectly suits Theravada Buddhism (the early Buddhism of India and South-Central asia) but you might find that Zen (or Chan, Seon, Thien) Buddhism also posits that each of us is part of one true consciousness that they call Buddha-Nature. I believe it to be much closer to Advaita Vedanta than Therevada Buddhism.

1 reply

@Freedomnomad555

1 year ago

There are many similarities indeed. There is a lot of emphasis by the Buddha to practice and observe the mind and consciousness in vipassana before making any conclusion about the nature of no self.

@tyanite1

3 years ago

Thank you so much for this educational piece. In trying to understand these approaches, something about the Buddhist philosophy kept nagging at me, and that's the "no self" part. Not that I'm judging, but I'm just pointing out a pattern I noticed. Buddhists are fond of saying something to the effect that mind is empty or is nothingness. Alright, but I wonder what that means and why it's so important to bear repeating quite often.

1 reply

@Simpaulme

1 year ago

Having listened, the question in my mind is whether Nirvana and Moksha can really be different - is the difference not merely apparent, arising from the limitations of language?

@buffbrett6454

1 year ago

Is the atman in hindu belife and the one guru in sihk belife the same or is their a difference?

@rohitchaturvedi8662

3 years ago

@13:57 please read the life span chapter, the parable of the burning house and the teacher of the law chapter 10 to clarify this misconception, there is no conflict in Vedanta and Buddhism on the presence of a true self. Thank you for the wonderful explanations of advait vedanta, very happy to know they are 99.99% same except for the operational definitions or labels

PS I'm a decade long practitioner of the lotus Sutra namyo ho renge kyo

4 replies

@CG-dt1ij

3 years ago

Dear Advaitin and Buddhists friends, please read the teachings of Ajahn Sumedho (a theravadin buddhist monk) and you will be surprised... the synthesis and symbiosis of both Advaita an Buddhism, not only philosophies, but also practice...

🙏🏻

1 reply

@nageshswami8788

3 years ago

सबका मंगल हो .

@johnsiegfried

3 years ago

Thanks! or what is the difference between self realization and awake

1 reply

@Daniel.W.Bridge

1 year ago

if I can say, there s nothing wrong with the self, if we can armonized all things of universe, then the self is there, also armonized, but must stay in its place. to get moksa or nirvana, because you are 'destroyed', would be very easy and very logic as well. But Nirvana is stated to be the supreme bliss in Buddhist Sutra. thank you

@sexydirrtymoney

3 years ago (edited)

actually, there are scholars who rejected that "anatman or anatta" is an original teaching of the historical buddha, as in instead of there's "no-self"...what he meant was..."the self is not this or not that"

2 replies

@Atomic419

3 years ago

At some point, if you haven’t already, might you do a video on the hare Krsnas (ISKCON) and how they differ from advaita specifically and Vedanta in general?

I used to visit Arsha Vidya Gurukulum when I lived in Pennsylvania. I feel grateful for the “coincidence” of you appearing on my YouTube feed. Providence 🙏

1 reply

@arvind4233

3 years ago

Sanatana Dharma ki Jai(Hail Sanatana Dharma)

@vladp7405

3 years ago

This is in fact a comparison between Advaita Vedata and Theravada (Hinayana) Buddhism. However, there is also Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism (with their goal being full enlightenment, as opposed to lesser Nirvana) that are totally overpassing Theravada and its goal. And these levels of Buddhist teachings are much alike Advaita Vedanta in their essence, I guess (not knowing the details of A. V.).

@susanlaprelle9066

3 years ago (edited)

About a year ago, someone who was a new student of Kashmir Shaivism asked me the differences between that and Advaita Vedanda.

The two appear to have similarities and differences, but I’m not sure what. I don’t know a lot about Kashmir Shaivism.

I would love it if you could do a video or perhaps reply to this message on that subject.

Thank you for all of your videos.

1 reply

@rohitchaturvedi8662

3 years ago

@12:31 knowledge of the fact that Buddha nature emanates from the Tathagata garbha which is limitless, vast, supreme and divine is called Anuttara Samyak Sambodhi (perfect unsurpassed enlightenment) which leads to cessation of all suffering and gives one liberation from the sufferings of birth and death

2 replies

@Kevindavegan

1 year ago

How do you listen or see without physicality?

@alanbiernacki639

3 years ago

Long time ago l had experience in /Indian/ meditation, I asked Jesus to show me how its possible that so many religions have so many gods? Jesus took my ✋ and we walk to a room with many gods reasting in lunch brake or evening after work. In that room it was shown to me immortal feald or ocean of non-dual energy-consciousness, there was a drop spilt in some other realm and that was gods in this room. Very Hindu view on Christianity and Buddhism. :-)

@shankargautam6178

1 year ago

It seems all philosophical schools were developed according to the knowledge experienced by the different masters. Whatever they experienced, explained to the society and society excepted there doctrines according to the level of there consciousness.

@imfloridano5448

3 years ago

"A Way" is wat i thought these different rely-gion were originally called.

@rohitchaturvedi8662

3 years ago

@9:07 please read the treasure tower in chapter 12 Lotus Sutra. The inner conscious being has been called Buddha nature emanating from Tathagata Garbha

6 replies

@jdub2378

2 years ago

Have any studies on meditators in a bliss state been documented? Like brain waves?

@HarshGupta-rs4pl

3 years ago

Guruji my humble request, can you tell about the practices in Buddhism and advyeta vedanta

1 reply

@darkknight-bv4vv

3 years ago (edited)

What's the difference between consciousness and the mind/thoughts? Isn't mind needed for consciousness?

@rock5989

1 year ago (edited)

Well its all about stages or phases of the existence from nothingness to something. Both are right. Only thing is we just do not know how something comes out f nothingness. To know that our consciousness needs to vibrate at a certain level frequency from which we can grasp what is the real truth.

@MrJchacoa

2 days ago (edited)

00:08:18

@886888aa

3 years ago (edited)

I would think the Mahamudra or Dzogchen tradition would be more aligned with this? They are found within the Buddhist traditions. Recognizing that Awareness is the nature of mind.

@ashish_sahu

3 years ago

Namaste Swami ji can you make a video on Bhaja Govindam meaning explain in detail 🙏🕉️

2 replies

@raanjoseph

2 years ago

The idea of Atman may easily become an ego affirming attachment which is something Anatta entirely avoids making it simply the better alternative.

@ashwayujaaithal876

3 years ago

To be free from the need to be! That's vedanta!!

1 reply

@hemantsantVadodara

3 years ago

Buddhism ends our journey into A shunya ..which is a closed door..which opens into expanse of the ScienceFirst that all life ,"non life",toys are made of one common clay ,One DivinityInAll 🙏 truth..which most ritualistic Hindu clergy failed to implement or live.. but saints periodically reminded

1 reply

@johnbanach3875

3 years ago

But is the end result or end experience or end state of consciousness the same?

@skm0331

3 years ago

12th video on user submitted questions and it just happens to be that the 12th house of astrology is known in vedic astrology as the house of "moksha."

@st2559

3 years ago

Sir, does advaita vedanta beliefs in cause and effect?

@anishsubedi6192

2 years ago (edited)

8:34 is where the difference starts

@kikum3067

3 years ago (edited)

Death was the mistery in ancient times, those heroes who defined death properly gained much importance among kings and people. That's how new religions, it's branches etc...so how one sees his death is directly related to concern religion at his old age; so all religions are same like "birth"( birth is common in all individuals) but people psychology is different like " death"(mode of deaths are different in people).

@vajraloka1

7 months ago

Both see world as maya or illusion and have a thought free samadhi. Both want to decrease attachments and hankering. Both create peace at times .

@charlesdavis7087

2 years ago

"Certainty" itself can become a problem. To know the Tao/the great flux brings the freedom for a need for certainty. Does the Buddha smile? Or is the Mona Lisa smiling? Are you smiling... inwardly? Get it? Got it. Good!

@markusbieler5384

1 year ago

In regards to Buddhism one question arises for me: When Buddha says that we mistakenly identify ourselves with the body and mind---what is, according to Buddha then our true identity?

Buddha would likely advise not to identify with anything, right? Then one would come very close annihilism---but Buddha argued against it. This is the point about Buddhism which is difficult to grasp for me. If I'm not the body, not the mind and not even consciousness---then what remains?

@billkotas9049

2 months ago

An excellent discussion, however this would be enhanced by a simultaneous dialogue with a Buddhist...

@gopalagrawal3038

3 years ago

Very enlightening.🙏

Swamiji, I have mailed you my question.

My question is what is correct bases (birth or occupation) for deciding one's cast (Varna) as per Hindu texts? Also, let us know the reference in Hindu texts.

Pranam🙏

1 reply

@Older_Mountain-goat_1984

3 years ago

And how does pointing out differences denigrate any aspect of each philosophy?

@fizzybubblech8302

9 months ago (edited)

9:47 - 9:57 who is experiencing suffering in this case?

@subhradeepghosh8263

3 years ago

Why we constantly identify ourselves with the body and mind if it's not the original ME?

@allhdmoviescene1294

1 year ago

wow

@aisabelsilva9815

1 year ago

I think the true inner self in buddhism is the root mind or the very subtle mind.

@nicolacaminha9421

3 years ago

Thanks Swamiji for your clear explanation. A question come to me, where Cashemir Shivaism enters in that descution of the Inner Self ?

3 replies

@muralisub6534

1 year ago (edited)

Both Nirvana and Moksha are one and the same. It is the innocent state with which we all have born with.... and lost when one acquire intellect as one grows.

@ravihm8495

3 years ago

I belive that consious is diffarent from conciousness. Concissonesess is collective memory just like intalligence.

Consious (chitta) is what only shall

Hygher level of cosmic existence

Prove. Micro or macro cosmo. What is not their in u cannot be existing out side, and visa versa.

1 reply

@buddhaneosiddhananda8499

1 year ago

I feel that the guru disciple relationship is going south...

@twinklestar927

2 years ago

Thank you for the videos. I just wonder when Buddha got enlighted, he said everyone has a Buddha nature within, so would that Buddha nature be our soul? Or Buddha thinks soul doesn't exist?

@vvv5210

2 years ago (edited)

ॐ

...i deeply feel that difference comes after putting words into phenomena that is beyond any words...i feel that what Buddha reach is the same what Jnana Yogis reach...maybe i'm wrong, but who can tell exactly that there are two different type of realisation...maybe just the description is different...trully, i deeply feel that realisation of true self is the exactly the same in all religions and spiritual paths, just the words are so limited, languages are different, oratory gifts are different for everyone and from this comes a lot of different interpretation for the same phenomena...for example, if 100 people who had experience the ultimate truth, when they have to put it in words for other people, there will be 100 variations of it, and after 1000 years there will be 100000 spiritual paths due to interpretations of human mind...for me there is no difference at all...all teachings that i had opportunity to touch with, for me they all explain the same truth...the words are different, but the essence is the same...

ॐ

@shivamumbai1

1 year ago

🙏🙏

@C_Masi

3 years ago

Thank you!

Would love a discussion on the difference between non dual Tantra (Trika shaivism) and advaita vedanta someday

1 reply

@_thanksdavid_

2 years ago

No self or no other? At the end of the day they are exactly the same thing. One path finds itself more appealing to persons with different expectations and experiences within spiritual practice

@sivanandinipgss7321

3 years ago

🙏🙏

@sarvajagannadhareddy1238

3 years ago

Dear, Thank you. My doubt is that there is NO difference between Space of the Cosmos and the CONSCIOUSNESS of man. The Space outside our body and in which all Celestial bodies are present is the same SPACE that exists as CONSCIOUSNESS inside body. For example to be clear, there is a Space in a pot of mud called GHATAAKAASH. If the pot is broken the Ghtaakash disappears and merges with Space of the Sky/ Cosmos.

@DupaWangi-oz6mv

6 months ago

please teach us about atma widya from vedic literature, i am hindu but have never read the holy books/catur veda, i can only afford the bhagawad gita, i have read it over and over again until part of the book is torn 😁

🙏🙏🙏

Thanks Guru

@harikiran7620

3 years ago

Walk/dive/enquire/just be/ observe - experience to truly know. Words and language are the most misleading, because they are interpreted by our present state of minds. I mean , our mind translates with its data. So, true knowledge can be absorbed or transmitted only in Silence/beyond the conspiracy of words.🙏

2 replies

@hiteshahir2671

1 year ago

🙏

@BeHappy-ct2ko

3 years ago

If you go briefly through the vedas in Buddhism , you will see much more things

2 replies

@moranplano

3 years ago

I agree with his principles of the Vedas. He uses the terms Inner Consciousness, Eternal Being, Atma but avoids the term SOUL. Nor did I hear the word GOD or HEAVEN. Was there a reason for this? In my religion..ECKANKAR...ATMA is another word for SOUL. Would he agree with this? Blessings...

1 reply

@ashokv341

3 years ago

Guruji kindly explain difference between dvaita. and Advaita.

1 reply

@geoffsmith898

3 years ago

Can someone explain the different meditation techniques? Buddhists practice "mindfulness" right? Advaita practice self inquiry but are there further practices similar to mindfulness?

1 reply

@meditateforawareness

3 years ago

🔥🧘🏽‍♂️🔥

@chandrashekarpitta7605

3 years ago

🙏

@johnf153

2 years ago

But does Buddhism, as you described it, really, totally liberate one from all suffering? Will there not be a suffering from the split in consciousness resulting from rejecting one's True Inner Self. Even if the Buddhist does not accept the reality of consciousness and the True Self they still exist just the same.

@user-ch4ze6kw5e

7 months ago

Madhwa called shankaraachaary "prachanda baudha" Soul is servent of supersoul "

@masterofgarden3472

2 years ago

I'm here because i am suffering. I am not even a monk why do I have to do meditation night and morning? I retired at 37 from traveling the country now fully retired at 40. In return to doing meditation my family have food and shelter. If I stop doing meditation when I die I would go to a dark space with no light. I had a dream that heaven knock down my front door because I stop doing meditation. Need help teacher.

@victortancheongwee

1 year ago

Swami tada, I am lost today, i thought buddism is a better for me.

@kajimagar3488

1 year ago

Dear friend have you reached NIRVANA or Mochay

@22EARTHDOG

3 years ago

As has been said before many times, the only Reality is Sat Chit Ananda, and all else is conceptual--it's like the story of using one thorn to remove another thorn; when successful we discarding them both.

2 replies

@RAHULVERMA-kj8ml

3 years ago

Swamiji dandwat pranaam 🙏🙏. In bhagwad geeta , bhakti yoga is indirectly said to be the best form of yoga (BG 18.62-18.66) so why does advaita emphasis more importance on gyaan yoga than bhakti yoga???

2 replies

@RuslanRimaq

1 year ago

One should ask himself who was teaching and guiding Gautama Siddhartha the Buddha Shakyamuni from birth to birth until final realization? He did iteverything himself or some force was helping him?

@cookiecruncher3260

1 year ago

I love Advaita and I adore Buddha.

@zatoichiable

3 years ago

Which is important to humanity his divinity or his humanity?

1 reply

@helenmadamrose306

1 year ago

They're all very deep religions seeking to penetrate into the essence of this senseless cosmic thread

@doydark4ever

2 years ago

Should we stop thinking right now?

@tseringlama900

3 years ago

Love and compassion ,if we have understood it completely. There is no need for any religion in this World .

@vishakhduttsingh1752

3 years ago

Advaita vedanta and shankaracharya is true and logical... Jai jagatguru shankaracharya kiii jai jagannatg

@widipermono854

1 year ago

🙏🙏🙏

@Aserium

1 year ago

To me the idea of no self and self are one in the same.

No self is to realise that there was never any self, it was always just everything.

Self is to realise that all the ideas of yourself were false and that there only remains the "self" which is empty and free of qualities after all other false selves are dissolved. In the end the self is still "everything" not made up of substance, just the all that was and always will be.

@lightofawareness108

1 year ago

All isms are concepts and concepts block one's the portal to liberation.

@paolagch2977

3 years ago (edited)

I find that the perceived end of nothingness or wholeness is not material because both nothingness and wholeness are eternity. The methods of advaita vedanta and buddhism can be more simple depending on the person so my path has been to find what feels easier and more natural from both, though sometimes I find buddhism grabs a selection of practices of advaita vedanta which proved to be simple for most and that’s the why the experience of buddhist practices can feel more to the point or easy to grasp. It’s harder to get lost.

@mujaku

3 years ago

With regard to the five skandha the Buddha said of each one: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self.’ (naitan mama, naiṣo’ ham asmi, naiṣa me ātmeti). As you can see the Buddha doesn't want us to identify our ātman with the skandha. In Buddhism what transmigrates is not the ātman but vijñāna (dualizing consciousness) which is the fifth skandha. The Buddha rejects annihilationism which in Pali is natthattā (there is not a self) The Buddha taught: "Dwell Monks with the self as an island (attadīpā) with the self as refuge, with no other refuge."

@gleb202

3 years ago

As a Mahayana buddhist I can say these both traditions are over 90% the same. The biggest difference is the concept of "Atman" which is not accepted in Buddhism. But mostly the doctrine of non duality and the way to achieve it is pretty much the same. Don't know if The Four Noble Truths and The Eightfold Noble Way is accepted in Advaita Vedanta though.

1 reply

@krishnegowda3847

3 years ago

Swamiji said atma or Brahma is a conciousness or awareness

@bobvillanueva712

3 years ago

"EVERY WISH FULFILLED" E.T.

1 reply

@Rudra75067

3 years ago

Adiyogi mahadev is the founder of yoga

Follow him

He uses the best practice which gives ultimate result.😊

1 reply

@narendraputta1394

3 years ago

ISKCON(Vaishnavism) Philosophy says beyond Moksha the Fifth Element "LOVE".. Each & every Individual is eternal & have eternal relationship with Supreme Being Lord Krishna in the spiritual world.

@99mahendra100

3 years ago

It is understood that we are not body and mind. How can some one practice to realize the true self in a possible way, please someone help with suggestions/best practices to follow to realize self. Thank you

3 replies

@trzztrzz2477

9 months ago

truth is hustapapanzaeellu!

@choenyichharsumpa8766

1 year ago

SwAmiji.. it’s ok to debate.. Indian philosophies for centuries prospered due to debating, among various school of thoughts.

@jeroenjansen2709

3 years ago

Can you please explain the Buddhist concept of emptiness in your terms?

4 replies

@Vlog-hu8gb

10 months ago

Thank you sir, as long as internet is free( witch I worry how long against liberal hegemony)

@markop.1994

2 years ago

Thank you for the educational video! The esoteric pacifism of this comment section appears to ward off my desire to troll. So instead i shall offer a criticism (to a minority of the commenters) because i did notice something.

There seems to be a common naivety in the form of thinking that self knowledge is and should be gatekept by vegetarianism and non violence. Now any sensible person can see why people might think this, but i assure you moral highroad-ing is a disservice to the cause, only food for the ego. It stands in stark opposition to the very teachings, whether its egoism to buddah, misidentification to the vedic sage, or unbecoming weakness to krishna. I believe the actualized person does not hide in a monastery away from negative karmic ties, but instead meet life on its terms. The goal is not some fancy afterlife but to love life; to appreciate and respect it on the level it deserves, to dance and to dance again in the next life. That is real immortality in my humble opinion.

@rohitchaturvedi8662

3 years ago

@13:31 so does Buddhism by positively asserting your true nature as Buddha nature emanating from the Tathagata Garbha which is limitless, eternal, vast and divine

2 replies

@saammahakala

1 year ago

2:08

He was their teacher a few millennia earlier and he's never left,

well.., not yet anyway.

Warrior, Philosopher, Writer, Sage.

He wants you all to do the same thing.,

fly headlong into finding out what's animating that mask in the mirror while calling out hypocrisy not only from within, but without as well and then making the effort to refine whatever needs adjusting in one's character.

Oh., and don't get trapped in the dead-end of believing you are a specific species, gender, race or class, because it'll all shortly be over and before you know it, you'll find "your" awareness moving onto its next temporary hovel.

When the three separate components of Mind, Soul and Body sync en masse, they produce the phenomena or matrix necessary for the appearances or simulations of both life and death.

To say it's a long ride..,

@MrSANUCET

2 years ago

Advaita says all experiences happen in the ever-present timeless self. But Buddhism says no such self exist, instead the experiences are continuing as a flux unending. Both this doctrine clearly root out the misconceptions of materialism. Even if on the way they diverge, it should be noted that, either the way the reaching truth is that, life is eternal.. India is such a great country where these two possibilities of existence well explored(Advaita and Buddhism are the only two possibilities the existence can have)

@noahachrem

2 years ago

Basically all is self, or no self.

@upanisadinfinite

1 year ago

If there is no self then who wants to be liberated? What is the source of this existence? A humble question to The Buddhism 🙏🙏🙏

2 replies

@ayw5118

1 year ago (edited)

a beginner observation here/question here: so Advaita Vedanta is basically identical as Dzogchen and some related Tibetan Buddhist traditions? because they also positively assert that mind in its pristine condition is supreme bliss, eternal, described as " clear space of luminosity without centre without limit " When I practiced Buddhism I also asked my teacher this question , so is the buddha nature/ essential nature of the mind a thing? an entity? the real self? He said yes and no, as buddhists you shouldn't see it as a solid "thing/state/concept" because it is exactly what prevents us from achieving it. Since advaita vedanta also says the real self is neti, neti beyond conception/perception, can i conclude vedanta and buddhism (tibetan at least) at basically the same thing , its apparent differences being nothing more than trivial linguistic designations?

1 reply

@drblaneyphysics

3 years ago (edited)

dear teacher, i may be missing your point so i ask with all humility: if Hindu/Advaita Vedanta is of the position ["I am eternal, limitless consciousness" + supreme bliss]; and Buddhism is ["I am no-self" + cessation of suffering,] aren't these the same? isn't "no-self" same as "no separation; no separate self"? and isn't this implying I am all-selves, the limitless consciousness we share as one? so, I still see these as equivalent. I do want to understand.

@TheLastOutlaw289

2 years ago

The Buddha himself referred to himself as a Vedagu(Master of the Vedas)

@sandeepnag7311

3 years ago

Will the person who has done bad deeds(crime) be punished? Do you see some process in place which punishes that specific person.?

Yes I do agree that, a part of its(bad karma) results/consequences has to be faced by the society later, but my point is about that particular person being punished.

I see that the person who is doing bad deeds will definitely not get into the blissful state until he is completely out of bad deeds. But we know, a typical human being is anyway far away from this blissful state.

So person doing crime is relatively in same position as a typical human being?? So no difference for criminal?

1 reply

@rohanofelvenpower5566

3 years ago

10:46 isn't enlightement beyond both samsara And nirvana? similar to the popular concept that one must give up siddhis in order to practice further to enlightement. dharmakaya is the vehicle of enlightement. so it's something like:

Nirmanakaya - Samsara and the 5 skhandas

Sambogakaya - Nirvana

Dharmakaya - Enlightement - Dzochen type stuff - empty like the sky type stuff

1 reply

@sheilaroy5376

1 year ago

🙏🙏🙏🙏

@tomdocherty3755

7 months ago

I think it’s crucial to state that at no point did Buddha refute soul or Self!! He refused to comment on the metaphysical, it is reminiscent of Jesus being asked to say what Truth is, they both retained a therapeutic silence, because indirect knowledge, conceptual knowing is forever a thought away from the direct presence, it would only lead to confusion.

So the teaching of Anatta, is a device, an instrument you can apply in meditation to keep stilling the mind-body process, by realising in meditation that every thought-feeling is in fact anatta, not-Self, see! It’s really the ongoing process / repudiation of the ego, personal self as those thoughts-feelings arise. The tendencies and impressions that arise in meditation practice are of course, karma, their resolution is calm abiding, non judgmental, impartial equanimity and seeing them clearly as they are…thoughts think, feeling feel, as is normal in the mind-body.

So Anatta is not to be seen as a dogma, a statement of fact but as a methodology in practice. I hope that is clear, apologies. I have previously lived in Sri Lanka & India as a Yogi and Buddhist anagarika.

@MegaARYARAJ

3 years ago

The meanings of verses, words are totally different when it got translated to Sanskrit and English.. and Mahayana and vajrayana was made in Nalanda .. those are modified version of Buddhism..

1 reply

@Eric-pj4fm

2 months ago

For instance in one place it's written in heaven we won't have to go in and out, but can freely go in and out. Can you see what I'm getting at

@madogsioux5636

8 months ago (edited)

Excellent explanation by Swarmi Tadamananda, but it doesn't mention the 'later' Mahayana teachings of the Buddha. It's there that the 'difference' from the Advaita Vedanta matters. I find the way that Dharma is explained according to Buddhism is very much down to earth compared to the Vedanta; as a result it is far more accessible to human beings as long as they are not born with impaired faculties of body and mind.

The Vandanta emphasizes the possibility of attaining the Atma in order to attain the divine bliss of 'your own eternal, limitless, divine self.' But I find no obvious difference in substance between the two teachings.

But the Swarmi does see an irony, that the reason for the differences is basically due to sharing a common source. But what is seldom being pointed out is the fact that both teachings are separated (within the sub-continent itself) by possibly many thousands of years of, not just time, but also inevitable social and cultural evolutions.

If the problem is not one of substance, then it must be of an adventitious sort, namely presentation and communication of the respective teachings. In short, therefore, the actual problem is in the choosing of the right mode of communication, or language, that is consistent with the times.

The Swarmi says that Buddhism 'completely rejected the authority of all Hindu scriptures' and generally considers itself a new religion. But he also says both religions contain spiritual teachings that are beyond mere 'matters of belief', teachings which I refer to as the 'substance' above.

@broadcastwithatg5195

2 years ago

Nirvana shatkam and Buddhist heart sutra

@nihaljpc

3 years ago

Please give me a definition of suffering.

As long as you have a body you will feel pain and experiencing death...as long as you have a mind you will think and will be affected emotionally.....thus wether one is enlightened or illuminated and come to realize that he is not his body or his mind and is a separate entity that is eternal DOES THE PAIN AND THE EMOTIONS IN RELATION TO YOUR PHISICAL AND METAL STATE CEASE TO BE.? IS THE BODY AND MIND FREE OF PAIN AND SUFFRING?

SO WHAT IS SUFFERING ??????

@11220nan

1 year ago

Becoming Buddha, need four, or forty lives, maybe even longer … what you said is true, but it’s only the first step, a long way to go…

@SanjeeveRao

3 years ago

The speaker said body and mind are material things that decay every moment. IF so, we should be feeling pain every moment. We don't. Physical pain and emotional pain do not belong to body and mind. They belong to the soul, which receives and experiences these pains. Soul is different from body and mind and we all experience the existence of all three. No one wrongly identifies one's mind and or body as oneself which concept Advaita goes to a lot of extent to disprove.

1 reply

@ajaydalaya2195

2 years ago

What does reincarnate then ? As per buddhism.

@kathyryan7611

1 year ago

💖💖💖

@booiiiiibsyoutube

1 year ago

❤❤❤❤❤❤❤

Swamiji

Does This Mean, One Must "Follow Only One?'

Why Not Just Embrace Now, And Free Ineself of This & That?

No Teachings.

Only When One Realizes One's True Nature.

I Never Wanted To Belong to Any Thing

Nor Any Organisation

Nor Any One.

What Do You Say About That?

However,

They All Were My SoringBoards.

Namaskar❤❤

@drgalibhussain

2 years ago

What is the difference between Wahadatul Wajud of Shaik Ibne Arabi and Advaita Philosophy of Shankaracharya

2 replies

@ashishpatel350

3 years ago

All dharmic faiths need to stick together

@kurapika3hunter

3 years ago

This is true for Theravada schools.

But in the Mahayane schools, there is the concept of thathagarba or true self or buddha nature.

@ten-zin868

3 years ago

Thank you Swami ji. Whether any tenets believed on existence of a self or not, is demarcation in-between the followers of Buddha and others, which is stated in the Isha Upanishads as this ‘the self is one. Ever still, the self is swifter than thought, swifter than the senses. Though motionless, he outruns all pursuit. Without the self ….” Buddhism absolutely negates the Unitary (one), independent and permanent/Mortal nature of the self, the belief which is central in most of the Hindu schools of thought, which consequence the distinct path and realization. It is like a quantum physicist questioning the classical interpretation of the sub-particles, in today’s context. Hindu can't accept this philosophical stand, if do so, will completely collapse the Hindu mythology and it's whole belief system, which was building blocks of the Brahminic Indian society. Though both the systems are built to the search of reality of a phenomenon with common base with rich philosophy, yet they are different and have distinct features.

1 reply

@value8035

3 years ago

Thank you for explaining about Vedanta. I am a Buddhist and it was helpful to assert and sharpen my view of Buddhism in contrast to the Vedanta.

But there are few things I need to contrast about your point of view of Buddhism and my point of Buddhism:

8:54 Vedanta is about Athma, and Buddhism is about Anathma (which does not mean Non-Athma)

Even though some of the later disciples like Nagarjuna is considered to interpret Anathma is negation of Athma (as probably a misinterpretation of two truths doctrine), it is not entirely true in the core.

So what is Anathma exactly?

He said this Athma - Non-Athma debate will just add to the suffering, and it is yet another useless clinging. "Pure self - Athma is yet another suffering similar to the problem with body and mind (Bhava thanha / craving for continuation), so as the Non-self - Non-Athma view which is (Wibhawa thanha / craving to cease).

Yet, Buddha did not even reject rebirth. However, "Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer"[1][2][3]

I think Buddhism in India mostly disappeared and re-absorbed to Hinduism in India because of the inability to grasp this distinction between Non-Athma and Buddhist view of Anathma.

Hope you will find the following readings useful. Thank You!

May you all be free from suffering!!

[1] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

[2] https://tricycle.org/magazine/there-no-self/

[3] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn44/sn44.010.than.html

6 replies

@ratnakarshetty3627

1 year ago

With so many religious truths propounded by various streams of thought such as Vedantic, Buddhism, Jainism , how does one seeking truth know which is the real truth? Or is it the case that all truths are same and differences are in the confused minds of the seeker?

@urgenlama7302

1 year ago

Both Buddhism and existing most of spiritual traditions like Vedic, vaishnav, shaiva , Jains etc accept that Body is an ever changing process but the difference is in the Knowing ability that every one possessed. Here most of tradition believes that that knowing ability is saat ( unchanging) and named it" Purus" or "Aatma" but Buddhism says that knowing is a process not noun hence, it is not saat but ever changing process .If one remains in 1st level of samadhi and do investigation through Vipassa ( note Sri S.N goenka ji's vipassana is not one but one among thousand types of vipassana) one see's it and realize that the self we think as it is nothing but like an illusion. In Hinduism the witnesser is the real me which is called Aatma but in Buddhism the grasping of self ( even subtle) is the root of all suffuring .Because if there is me there is mine and other duality and this cause Raag, dwesha and Moha(klesha - that make us feel uneasy) and action done with its influence creats Karma ( imprints in mind) and that karma create Life ( karma is just like an reel of movie and life as it's projection). Hence, this is the major difference in philosophy and what state we called Nirvana. Mokshya in Buddhism is the state " Karma klesha xaya mokshya".

@LokeyeMC

3 years ago

As I understand it, Buddha refers to No-Self as unrestricted awareness. It is because we cannot pin any of it down to show where the outline of the self is, that he uses the word No-Self. But at the end of the day, it sounds like he is agreeing with precisely what the advaita vedanta idea of atman is. Atman too is seen as unrestricted awareness that cannot be pinned down in any way to isolate a container of self. Isn't this then, simply a semantic debate, and they're both saying the same thing?

@cuchulain55

1 year ago

so whats the difference i dont ge t it??

@mj-ot6pw

1 year ago (edited)

If Buddhism doesn't accept the existence of atma then how reincarnation

possible ?

@hemapalaliyanage4709

1 year ago

What about eight noble truth.

@kulajalinigreenaway6835

3 years ago

I also appreciate this balanced approach but notice that Swami doesn't mention the teaching of Buddha Nature that came with the later teachings of the Buddha known as the 3rd. Turning of the Wheel of the Dharma. Buddha only wanted to dispel the ILLUSION of a separate self in order to realise this Buddha Nature which is the equivalent of the Atman without reification or appropriation of it by a personal ego.

@kumardaniel5556

3 years ago

👍👍👍

@geoffreydawson5430

3 years ago

Matter matters but what matters matter more than matter. Just teach the Ten fetters and say any spiritual faith will accomplish this conscious realization.

@andromeda9030

2 years ago

Please any Advaita Vedanta expert here, answer my questions…

What are the fundamental properties of Atman ?

Why Atman is permanent and eternal ?

What metaphysical forces support an eternal Atman ?

If Atman is indeed permanent and eternal why does our physical body decay and eventually die ?

Matter is a form of energy. Atman is also an energy. So how come is that matter is impermanent and Atman is eternal ?

If Atman is permanent and eternal, then, the forces that support the existence of Atman must also have to be permanent and eternal. Karma alone cannot give rise to reincarnation. What other dependencies give rise to reincarnation ?

Nothing comes into existence without a cause. Every energy or matter that exists is dependent on some other energy or cause. No element, force or energy can simply give rise to itself and sustain itself alone. So what forces or energies give rise to Atman, and sustains it eternally ???

Thanks,

I am a Buddhist.

1 reply

@evolveyourself9518

1 year ago

So, if I suffered a horrific tragedy and numerous family members died at once, then it's all in my mind and it didn't really happen?

@josemiguelbaez8112

3 years ago

I am knew to these paths of enlightenment and guidance but what if you identify with the Spirit and Consciousness and you return to G-d and Nature , which are one and the same thing and you enter into a state of being in repose, dormant, passive and latent as spirit and consciousness, what do you call it

In other words if you go from Being to Non-Being, from that which is describable to that which cannot be described then, what happened to you

And why religious leaders in any of the three Abrahamic Faith's, think there's something wrong with me?

Why can't the world accept that there's no separation between G-d and Nature and us and the Universe, and that when you create a God outside of you then, you become a slave to your creation and illusion?

@TheNorthernTarot

11 months ago

So basing on your explanation, religions were created to free people from suffering mainly?

@paljor4u

1 year ago

“[Jacobi] knew that it is in the nature of things that many hard problems are best solved when they are addressed backward,”

If you do that many misconceptions about Buddhism and Hinduism become clear.

@surindermarkanda5340

3 years ago

as long as you do not practice violence the ruthless violence you are ok what ever you believe or trust

@hl-hu9ep

3 years ago

🙏

@thesarasohrabi

3 years ago

For me(a beginner Buddhist), the non self idea is more appealing. Because it is understandable more, and every step in the path it seems that we are removing a little self that we identified with previously. So where does it go finally, to absolute no self. Nirvana whose meaning is to extinguish, makes more sense to me in this respect. On the other hand Moksha, (liberation) and Brahman(Universal consciousness), these might well be true, as in what happens after Nirvana? Are we all part of universal conciousness? Might be.... But at least for me this is not a straightforward concept...Like how does it help us practically to know about this consciousness? The path Buddhism provides is a clear road to Nirvana(although its very difficult to attain practically),

Whether Nirvana also implies liberation, is speculative and not so necessary to know also. The point is to eliminate suffering.

@sophied.5483

1 year ago

🙇🙇🙇🙇🙇🙇🙇

@yeapsoon3115

3 years ago

💝

@Akisentertainment

3 years ago

Vedanta:Atma (inner self- soul- eternal limitless divine self)

Buddhism: Anatma (no soul, no inner self)

Vedanta: Moksha (freedom from suffering- the attainment of supreme bliss- attaining true nature of consciousness)

Buddhism: Nirvana (complete cessation of self)

Both identify root cause of suffering = false identification with body and mind.

Both solve the problem of suffering- they both work.

@muralisub6534

1 year ago (edited)

'I am' that is created in us... is created by our mind. Our mind is habituated to name every object and emotions it observes. It also names the observer as 'I am'.

This 'I am' is only created through flow of thoughts. 'I am' is only a shadow created from the object which is seen.

This virtual 'I am' has a role to manage exteriority /external actions through discriminating intellect but has no scope / power to regulate its source (the thoughts) or emotions created out of thoughts.

But through meditation this shadow 'I am' tries to regulates the source ... the thoughts and emotions... with an intention to free from the attachments or bondages.

Meditation gives only temporary relief. All our problems climb back on our shoulders few minutes after we come out of meditations... It is the reality,

Understanding the truth that this 'I am' is only virtual (or an illusion)... will free one from all bondages. It is the eternal freedom called as Liberation or Nirvana. The intellectual understanding that gives this freedom is Enlightenment.

@Frank-si2jd

1 year ago

If I’m not the body and/or the mind, why is it presenting itself like this to the real me? Why not start with the real (consciousness) me, without this appearing to be a physical body?

@nkbguy2193

3 years ago

Where is this I am when in deep sleep or under anesthesia? In my experience in those states the is nothing, no one.

1 reply

@spiritualanarchist8162

3 years ago (edited)

Depends on the kind of Buddhism. Zen shares many basic similarities with Advaita .

1 reply

@ravinandanneelkanth5572

1 year ago

Aham Brahmasmi ❤️🕉❤️🕉❤️

@alankuntz6494

2 years ago

There are certain Theravada's that suggest that no self and Atma are the same.Even Robert Thurman has talks and videos on this topic on youtube.Shankaracharya was actually a major blow to early buddhism and almost wiped buddhism off the planet.

1 reply

@doydark4ever

2 years ago

Since i stop my thought so i cant express any further opinion

@davidgentry891

3 years ago

Let us All stop arguing...

@su-mu

1 year ago (edited)

1:56 '.. for example, I understood American culture clearly and distinctly only after living in India for a while. Because I knew no other culture at that time. In the same way, the teachings of Advaitha Vedantha can be understood much more clearly and distinctly by comparing them with Buddhism'

@ABHAYJAIN2525

1 month ago

Jain dharm also believes in a soul or atma as a separate entity.

@aint.sarcastic

1 year ago

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

@subbalakshmisubrahmanyam4207

1 year ago

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

@Elaphe472

3 years ago

If one has found peace and harmony deep in us, if we feel "connected" with the Universe, it is because we care so much about our individual well-being that we give a hoot about the tragedies of the world, and lack of empathy for the other means that, actually, we are not that spiritual. Outside the monk's monastery there is an ugly reality.

2 replies

@kaholeung9443

3 years ago

support

@anja-karinapahl

2 weeks ago (edited)

Dear Swami, you are only talking about Theravada Buddhism - what is called 'The Small Vehicle' in Tibetan Buddhism. In both Mahayana [the Great Vehicle] and Vajrayana [the Cosmic Vehicle] of Buddhist practise, we also say say that highest truth is highest bliss. However where Advaita apparently says there is an individual divine self at the end, that has no form [which is yet another dualistic view that separates itself from all form], the divine self in Tantric Buddhism is always interdependent with a yet greater divine - which is both formless AND all forms AND neither of them AND not neither of them [resolving all dualism], in an unending, fractally dancing cosmos.

@turkrane12

3 years ago

We are all one consciousness, non attachment is the way out, be attached only to God.

1 reply

@alukuhito

3 years ago

I wonder why Buddha is often portrayed doing the Hindu hand sign (sorry, forget the name right now) which symbolizes body, mind, and senses (middle finger, ring finger, and pinky), and then atma (index finger) in a circle with the thumb (Brahma). Did the Buddha actually use this gesture, or was it added later? Why would he use a gesture that shows that atma and Brahma are the same if he didn't believe in a conscious self (atma)?

1 reply

@chmd22

2 years ago

For this Western-educated mind, Buddhism is very difficult to understand once you scratch the surface, but Advaita Vedanta seems more approachable.

@marcelomiceli5291

1 year ago

question, if Buddha means by not self the nonexistens of the soul, why the believe in reincarnation? What reincarnates then?

And also I read somewhere that they say that the spirit enters the body at the 49 day of pregnancy, then it doesn't make sense denying the soul.

Perhaps I got this wrong, but I think the Buddha means the false self. (what we believe we are and not the real self)

Just my opinion, I really don't know.

@NeverCryWolf64

3 years ago

The Chan and Zen schools , I believe, developed "Buddhism" to a higher degree. The path of the Bodhisattva, and the goal of realizing the "true nature" are beyond what is said of "Buddhism" in this video. I also contend that Buddhism is not a religion. It is a science.

1 reply

@ashton4706

3 years ago

You can find this further step(in addition to just ceasing of suffering )in Mahayana Buddhism : Dharmakaya. But it has indeed nothing related to any kind of Atman

4 replies

@zbigniewmaleszak1310

1 year ago

I have always wondered why the Buddha was so keen on annihilating the Self /Soul. It seems counterintuitive. I guess in his view the idea of existing, even as the subtle Atman was a form of attachment but then one could ask a question “ what is wrong with existing if one is liberated from suffering? “ I know this state of meditation when literally all activities of the mind cease, it’s perfectly still , formless , selfless, it feels like perfect non engagement, it’s only a witness of all phenomena.Perhaps that’s what the Buddha meant by “extinction “ ie Nibbana. The problem is that albeit it is the state definitely free from suffering, it also feels too perfectly detached from life, it’s actually lifeless.

@thoang101

1 year ago

Buddhism isn't just the teaching of the Sutra, there are thousands of different ways of Buddha teachings. If you study the Tantric way of Buddhism, you will find it very similar with the Advaita Vedanta. To me it's in fact the same (just by listen to these videos).

@shivbaba2672

1 year ago

Delhi ruled by videshi vidharmy from budha to east india company to arya samaj congreaa part 2500 year of ravan raj. Shiva paramathma did not come in this time period. So great durgathi for hindu gods (now human ).

@kcsnipes

7 months ago

1.5x 🙏

@achum435

8 months ago

they free you from suffering in the next life - usually

@doydark4ever

2 years ago

Bharat is my ancestry land.i pround of it...now no thought no thought

@williamburts5495

1 year ago

An existences enduring characteristic is it's " dharma " so for there to be truth of how the conscious self and it's dharma of self-illuminosity and being an " eternal in the now existence that knows only sameness or stillness of state of being " that does not lose it's vitality as time goes on and how it contrast the body's dharma of existentially being of neiscience and by being influenced by time to lose it's vitality of physical strength as well as memory and intelligence as time goes on means they run parallel to each other in reality because if they were meshed together as one substance their dharmas would cancel each other out making each an unrealized existence..Being that the dharmas of both existences can only be known through the conscious self the conscious self is that which makes reality understood. So " truth " is the property of the conscious self alone. So understanding of moksha and nirvana are all realizations of a conscious self.

@nukustudio6882

3 years ago

I adore the vedanta, only I find the Buddha Dharma very scientific and on point.

1 reply

@chaitanyavarada6737

2 years ago

Then there's vishistaadvaita..

@purumr

3 years ago

One says you are nothing / emptiness / no self, another says you are everything/ Brahman. But both says identification with something is the cause of suffering. I think, difference really is semantics and not really material.

@siddhartharai3059

3 years ago (edited)

Respected guru..shankeracharya..never understand what is sunyata... and anatma......once....buddhist master.. said

@tickle296

3 years ago (edited)

Buddhism is the structured form of Upanishads. It was HE who structured Upanishads for common people to understand Upanishads. Actually there exists no difference. So long the existence of SOUL is not established, this paradox within human mind would continue. And the rest would follow.🙏

1 reply

@clintton888888

11 months ago

"I would like to express my thoughts on this matter, but I kindly request that you refrain from reading further if you have a biased perspective. I want to clarify that Buddha did not reject Hindu teachings because he failed to attain enlightenment. He explained that he could not find a satisfactory answer to the concept of reincarnation, despite having memories of his past life as a god seeking answers to the mysteries of life and death." "Buddha had discovered the way to end all suffering and generously shared it with others.

@HitheshKumarplus

3 years ago

what do you mean by all hindu scriptures? when did buddha completely rejected the authority of all hindu scriptures? do have any pointed answer?

1 reply

@rohitchaturvedi8662

3 years ago

@13:08 and they end on the same note as well, no difference whatsoever, just that the labels change

2 replies

@allardvandenberg7584

3 months ago

does the buddha not simply mean that conciousness is not personal just like thougts and feeling are not personal? Advaita vedanta states that you are consciousness, but also states that you are not a separate consciousness but there is only one consciousness

@JoseTGomez-pj1vv

3 years ago

Actually the Mahayana is based on the perfection wisdom sutra, the teachings of emptiness ; “Emptiness is form and form is emptiness “ this is the science of meditation on true nature of the mind, beyond the self consciousness or individual self or creator. The creator of all our perceptions is Our own mind, that by essence is empty by nature luminous and the energy display of this wisdom mind is wisdom and compassion beyond duality of subject and object: OM GATE PARA GATE PARA SAM GATE BODHI SOHA , GO Beyond, beyond to the other side where the enlighten mind is.

1 reply

@magnusnilsson2531

3 years ago (edited)

Everyone is dependent on nuitrition and food to stay alive and grow, but we all eat different dishes in different cultures and traditions. But the substance and the essence is the same, if it nourishes your soul and makes you grow into an ethical and mature person, well then it does'nt really matter what you call it. Because the map is not the territory, the menue is not the dish, the sign is not the destination. It neither mean that everything is the same, of equal value, that would be a spiritual oxymoron. We can honor our differences, because the world would be a much more boring and uninteresting place without them.

2 replies

@drashishniroula8455

1 year ago (edited)

Both can free from suffering but how do you know they have really understood ? They may think they are free but they may be deceiving themselves . Please throw your light .

@spmishra9575

3 years ago

Advait vedant is father of all spirituality

@mocherlavkp6360

3 years ago

MY SOURCE IS

AVATAR MEHER BABA

WHO HAS ENLIGHTENED

THE ONENESS IN ALL

EXISTING RELIGIONS .

● AVATAR MEHER

BABA'S DIVINE HIGHLIGHT IS •••

1)) ALL LIVING BEINGS

ATTAIN HUMAN LIFE

FINALLY IN THE

COURSE OF EVOLUTION

AND REINCARNATIONS .

2)) THE ULTIMATE

GOAL OF A HUMAN

BEING IS••• TO ATTAIN

SELF CONSCIOUS

CONSCIOUSNEES ,,

WHICH DOES NOT DEPEND ON EXTERNAL

VANISHING BODIES

AND EVERCHANGING

MIND OF WORLDLY

LIFE BINDING

SAMSKARAS OR WLB

KARMAS .

●ANY HUMAN BEING

CAN ATTAIN SELF

CONSCIOUS CONSCIOUSNESS ONLY

BY THE HELP OF THE

AVATAR OR ANY

LIVING PERFECT MASTER

WHO IS HIMSELF SELF

REALIZED .

●SHIRIDI SAI BABA ,,

RAMA KRISNA PARAMAHAMSA ,, etc

Were previous PERFECT

MASTERS .

●THERE ARE ALWAYS

5 LIVING PERFRCT

MASTERS ON THE

EARTH AT ANY TIME .

●LORD BUDDHA WAS

ONE OF THE

PREVIOUS 5329

AVATARS .

●THE MISUNDERSTANDING

BY BUDDHISTS IS

••• THERE IS NO

CONSCIOUSNESS IN

FINAL NIRVANA STATE .

●AS PER AVATAR

MEHER BABA ,, THERE

IS SUPERCONSCIOUNESS

IN MANONASH//NIRVANA

STATE FOR 3 DAYS AS

PER OUR GROSS

UNDERSTANDING &

AFTER 3 DAYS ,,

A MAN //WOMAN

EXPERIENCES

I AM GOD ETERNAL

STATE ,, ONCE & FOR ALL.

JAI AVATAR MEHER BABA

@Amila5209

1 year ago

I'm my perspective, "Moksha" and "Nirvana" are not the same. Moksha of course itself gives a person a relief from his suffering while Nirvana release from suffering once and for all.

@999titu

1 year ago

Budha believed and knew about Aatma but didn't talk about it because it can't be explained through human languages logically and he didn't want to make people superstitious without experiencing it for yourself .

He was all about logical and methodical approach so that people don't start imagining enlightenment as in the case of many modern masters, how it has been explained by the master.

@PaliSuttas

3 years ago

This view of the Buddhist view of atman is based on the notion that the Buddha denied the existence of a self in any sense. This would be an Ajivaka view. What he denied was identification with the notion of a self that can be characterized or specified in any way. The luminous essence of "self," which is dynamic and not static, and therefore not actually an essence but a process, is a function of the infinite differentiation of the transdual infinite mind; it is continuous and individual, but any notion of self, ego, or identification with anything at all, including any notion it might have of itself, is illusory. The reality is utterly transrational and translinguistic. When one knows that and, knowing that, experiences it as a matter of complete realization, one is emancipated through nirvana, in which desirous attachment is annihilated, which, the Buddha clearly says IS blissful, into the goal of the path which is Amrita, ecstasy, transcendence, and timelessness. That is the Buddhist teaching as I understand it.

@abinashmishra8630

1 year ago

Buddha, the 9th Avatāra of Vishnu and Gautama Buddha are two different personalities as per Shankaracharya of Rgvediya Govardhana Matha, Puri, Odisha, India, which is one of the 4 mathas or monasteries established by Ādi Shankarāchārya Bhagavatpāda himself... And He found just another Hindu philosophy under the Nāstika Branch, under which other philosophies like Ajñāna, Ajivika, Cārvāka and Jainism come...

@qdcshiva

1 year ago

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

@tseringdawaLama

3 years ago

I very much respect your wisdom . But here is my understanding . In the ancient tradition of Tibetan Buddhism known as Nyingma Tradition Buddhism is broadly classed into 9 levels. The highest being Dzogchen or The Great Perfection. Consider them as classes in school. From class 1 to 9. What you are comparing Advaita Vedanta with is comparing with the lower 5 levels . So try comparing with higher levels of Buddhist teachings. I hope this will open new understanding .

@youlong1234

1 year ago

Actually Buddha teaching way one step further. When Buddha was teaching he by all means tried to avoid trap of coming into 'lower or higher self'. He thought this way exactly to avoid any identification of 'self'.

Now what he smartly tought is when you reach the first stage of realising 'non self' you will know what is there...

How can in non duality be higher and lower....?

@samwell707

5 months ago

I prefer advaita because the language used is more straight to the point and less in parables

@bakedlotus3150

1 year ago

how can there be reincarnation if there is no self? if there is no self, then death would be the end of existence for you. even if you achieved nirvana, it would only last until the death of the body and then oblivion.

@ruparkyitin

1 year ago

Does Buddhism accept reincarnation.??

First, it is to define

What is reincarnation?

@profile_01

3 years ago

Perhaps original Buddhism taught 'not-self' , this is not the self- that is not the self. But maybe some sort of 'self' did exist and later was changed but we will never know

1 reply

@vladimirnachev324

3 years ago

The inner self is neither existent nor non-existent because it has never came into being nor it has ceased to be. Basically it's eternal in a way that is beyond the concept of mind

2 replies

@jitendrasemil342

1 year ago

buddhism is the mother of vedanta

@feelsokayman3959

3 years ago

All religions secretly point to the same Truth anyways. The problem is peoples interpretations. The ego will try to turn all teachings into its own and keep people from realizing their true nature.

@briansprock2248

6 months ago

limitless divine self (moksha) = exactly the same as nibanna/nirvana's emptiness and no self - this is just a matter reading between the lines - here you have a fine vid with the explanation of how redefinition of slightly more old skool hinduism and simple conclusions Mr Buddha made about the nature of reality.

Either way...... if the path does not lead to the merger of yin and yang in harmony........... then there is no cessation of suffering

@dannysmith8278

3 years ago (edited)

Thank you for this lovely video.

However I must point out some things I think are misleading and incorrect.

Buddha di d not say that there is “no self”. He said there is “no self” that exists inherently.

Buddha taught that there is a self/consciousness but it does not exist independently or permanently as it constantly undergoes momentary change.

The concept of “no self” is taken too literally by many people. It should actually read “no inherently existent self”

Nirvana is not a state of no self. Nirvana is the permanent cessation of suffering through realising there is no “inherently existing self”. In nirvana there will still be a self, a consciousness , a perceiver, but one that understands its nature correctly so that it doesn’t produce the causes of suffering.

2 replies

@johnnyjay1165

1 year ago

Isn't the atman gone when it merges with the Brahman anyway? Or, made one, rather?

@raoulsamuelkray7628

1 year ago

the concept’s of atma and no-self are basically the same if you get it right…

1 reply

@pintsotshering940

1 year ago (edited)

The difference is in their idea of self and non self, identity and identityless attachment towards god and not being attached towards anything even god. Speaking of non dualty still not ready to drop the idea of god?

@MushroomGravy

3 years ago

No, you can do it at any "time" you want

..that's why he threw out the scriptures haha :)

He had full and total Awareness.

2 replies

@ruparkyitin

1 year ago (edited)

Did Buddha say how the Universe is formed?

1 reply

@Kosem72

10 months ago

In the Five Nikayas, the earliest of the pre sectarian buddhist texts, the buddha does not deny the Atman.

@brpragyanchaitanya5941

3 years ago

6:26 Problem of wrong identification

@kirchunetwork1986

3 years ago (edited)

The moment someone starts saying their belief/Religion is better than others it becomes commodity product to be marketed and sold in a market place.The ego/Ahankara is the evil.

@ezraepstein6933

3 years ago

Interesting, but the emphasis on Your Own consciousness (individual/personal/separate/distinct) is incorrect and would in fact be a dead end. Rather that experience, freed from the unfounded belief in separation is the doorway to the realization where both paths merge.

@ramkrishnadas4230

2 years ago

What is the meaning of this statement of BUddha then:

There is, monks, an unborn[1] — 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.

@saroskybird

3 weeks ago

Why isn't self and no-self the same concept? But just using words in a different way to get to that concept?

@mymetaphysicallife369

1 year ago

🕉💟☮️💟

@zalamander8

2 years ago

Can both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta agree that there is no 'separate' self?

1 reply

@nicksmith-chandler458

1 year ago

Yes eliminate suffering, but yet it states in Buddhism that there is divinity in everything. Even the illusion then!

@jppittman6067

3 years ago

Isn't the whole point of the gita that the Atma and the Brahman are one? In that sense, isn't the Atma a concept, and the Buddhist perspective is still identical to the Vedantic perspective?

@leighburton7048

8 months ago

If you cant say that one is better than the other and they both work to free you from suffering, then why choose one over the other?

1 reply

@dialaskisel5929

2 years ago

When it comes to the concept of atma, wouldn't you say the Mahayana concept of śūnyatā is, in most respects, simply reframing the same concept in a different light? If you read The Diamond Sutra, it explicitly espouses the idea that belief in the existence OR non-existence of Self is an unenlightened position... as all human knowledge and understanding of such a thing would be an observation of phenomena, thus making any actual Truth about such a concept unknowable, as opposed to the concept simply being non-existent.

Mostly just splitting hairs from an ontological perspective, I know, but my personal interest in spirituality deals more with ontology than the cessation of suffering anyway.

1 reply

@charlesthompson5645

6 months ago

Did the people they knew Buddha benefit from his presence the most?

@emilromanoagramonte9190

3 years ago

Deep Gassho!

@mwmingram

1 year ago

The Dalai Lama would say that the core of Buddhism is compassion.

@aryanyadav3690

2 years ago

Being Hindu you can follow Buddha or anyone

Bcoz even he was Hindu (Sanatana Dharma)

@amondal3442

3 years ago

Truth never need any label or tags - truth is as it is.

Buddha said find the truth

Never claim anything as first chapter. By find that one should deep dive into meditation or your true inner self - and this is a just method of finding of Truth.

If God exists find it but never claim it's existence based on other's learning and priorly read scriptures.

On the other hand many Vedantic text starting with prayer of God

One should not claim it on the first place without proving it if some one specialy going through phylosophical or arguable, i. e. logical method. After proving it, it's okay - but not in the first place.

I think that is major difference.

As I read both I find Buddha never lost calmness and control over mind on the other hand many Vedantic sages get anger and cursed to others. Even Shankara became angry over a Chandal, Buddha never gave curse to anyone.

There is no example find that Buddha never do any work which is not according to his own words.

Even today's world many Buddhist monk show unimaginable endurance through mind-as an example the incident of Vietnam where a monk sit meditation and burn himself alive and he did not move not even just an inch-and that is true incident and there are many more example. It is rare to found such mental stillness on other school. And this is also a difference.

I hope reader will understand my points.

2 replies

@Abc-nb9yt

3 years ago

I think that induism and buddhism are not completely religions, but more based on science that the really religions that is base only in beliving

@mintusaren895

2 years ago

Perception oneness!

@rohanawijesekara9695

1 year ago

With no malice or prejudice whatsoever, Buddhism unveils the truth and reality and advocates an infallible unique methodology to achieve or attain total enlightenment based on cause and effect theory. Yet this enlightenment or nibbana is neither a cause nor an outcome redult or effect of any cause. In Buddhism the ultimate goal is to achieve that supreme blissful sublime state where no self or athma or any desirous or expectant consciousness is present to perceive or experience such bliss of emancipation. In advaitha vedantha however, there remains the very consciousness or the self that experiences or perceives such bliss which is part and parcel of the universal consciousness.

@damarubhatta

3 years ago

🌼🎇🙏🙏🌼🎇

@outsaneoutsane2747

2 years ago

Great video but I think it is a misunderstanding. They are the same and this is why.: Buddha preached anatma because he didn't want to make our true reality into another concept, a mental idol. He wanted us to find this unameable truth by negating ignorance. He wanted us to experience that bliss by not giving it a name, which runs the risk of more intellectual movement. That's all, he just meant that atma amd bliss shouldn't be given names like vedanta does. He didn't think it was as helpful from his point of view

@signlogin9

3 years ago

Swamiji, if there there is no difference in Hinduism and Buddhism then why suject kept as verses?

1 reply

@yogeshkagliwal834

3 years ago

I hope you known how Shankaracharya defeted great bhuddh scolar in long debate

@muralisub6534

1 year ago

I am ...

Only from our thoughts ... the non existing 'I am' is created as an illusion as if 'I am' exists.

We generally assume that our thoughts are getting created from a permanent identity called as 'I am'... but it is not so.

If there is no thought... there is no 'I am'...

'I am' is only a thought...

There is no thought in deep sleep and hence 'I am' is also not there.

Each thought has an Experiencer and the Experience together...

There is no Experiencer without an Experience... also there is no Experience without an Experiencer...

Only an Experience creates the Experiencer... not the otherway...

'I am' is only an Experience...

Who am I?

'I am' is only an experience.

Our memory is only a collection of experience.

'I am' is only a collection of experiences related to my name, my place, my education etc.

Where there is no experience... there is no 'I am'...

Only when anger occurs the angry person appears.

The angry person is not getting the anger.

Only after anger appears... the angry person is getting created.

We can express ourselves only with some type of experience.

Experiencer is created as a shadow of experience. So 'I am' is also an experience.

So... within us there is no permanent person as 'I am'.

As the experience are impermance in nature... this 'I am' is also impermanence within the experience.

@HarishMTharayil

1 year ago

Doesn't all other religions too offer different approaches to the same goal of moksha?

3 replies

@scraggybear

3 years ago

They have different names but when you observe them in detail I believe

they are the same thing.

@nageshv1847

3 years ago

Vedanta is like tree of wisdom, Krishna is supreme

Consciousness but the Buddha was enlightened in the shade of already existing truth he did nothing

But understood core reality

Of our ancient scriptures any enlightened being can

Reach that Buddha hood

In my point of view lord Krishna himself a light of truth. Buddha ventured that truth ... Krishnam vande Jagadguru..

@sophied.5483

3 years ago

🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

@WalletmoneyOnline

1 year ago

In Buddhism scriptures Buddha said that he was Ram in his old Life.

@pratikpratik8495

1 year ago (edited)

I think this question is not relevent , what is your true self once you attain nirvana or moksha or enlightenment as once you reach there you will know if there is anything like this. Main goal should be to know true self by come out of this illusionary world and both Vedanta ,Budhha ( or even Jainism ) are helping to reach there

@paineite

3 years ago

Truth is truth. It matters not a single jot if you're talking to Buddhists, Advaitists, or 7th Day Adventists.

9 replies

@AmitRay47

1 year ago

I would like to comment that during Buddha's time there was no term HINDUISM, nor this term is found in Upanishads, Vedanta, the epics Ramayana and Mahabharata. Gautama, the Buddha preached almost everything that is found in Upanishads. The new thing he brought to his teaching was COMPASSION. He tried to be pragmatic as much as the time, in which he was living, allowed him.

@fourtwentythree

3 months ago

The Buddha sat under a tree until he got enlightened then taught people his understandings from meditation?

This is comparable to a new age devotee getting a download and teaching that 🤔

@vimana108

3 years ago

My understanding is that Siddhartha was not the Buddha. He became a Buddha. There have been many Buddha's.

Another understanding is that Buddha always descends in the age of Kali yuga to stop animal slaughter.

Yes I have also heard that he was the 7th or 9th incarnation, of Vishnu.

So one of the Buddha's main teaching was ahimsa, non-violence to animals, and further, any non-violence, even in thought.

In Buddha's time animal slaughter was going on because it was sanctioned in the Vedas or so they thought.

But the Vedas only mentions that in the previous age before Kali, qualified Brahmans performed the Yuga Dharma of that age, Ragasuya, horse sacrifices.

Only meant for elevated Brahmans who did not incur karma from it as we do in Kali yuga.

The Vedas do sanction the killing of one goat per month on a full moon, for those too addicted to meat eating.

In the offering to Goddess Kali the offer must recite a prayer stating that in his next life he understands that he could come back as a goat to suffer the same fate.

This is to make one give up or to become conscious that he is inflicting harm to himself.

Another understanding I have is that the Buddha always based everything on Atman and Brahman and never did teach no self or no soul.

It was about 1,300 years after the Buddha that this idea about no self emerged in Buddhism.

Anyway, though the Buddha started a movement away from Vedanta his real mission was ahimsa and to accomplish that he had to reject the Vedas

that sanctioned animal sacrifice.

Others came later to reestablish Vedanta such as Shankar, Rumanugha, Madhvacarya etc...

Just my 2 cents. good day, excuse my spelling.

@johanngeorgblomeyer9800

1 year ago

Truth is also helpful. Today we know that the human being has had its history. There were beings which had no intelligente, as the homo erectus. We were all of the opinion that our present constitution is the final. But it has been proved by Nietzsche and Sri Aurobindo that the present homo sapiens is not the final species and a far superior being will definitiv replace him. So any talking of the present spiritual situation with in the limited mind level and the small frame of the English language will not be possible any more. There exists Divinity in all aspects and forms, Sachchidanada is its essence. To find this essence in ourselves is the very task of our earthly life.

@threestars2164

3 months ago

AV is just the buddhist shunya in disguise.

@burtonrivera5253

2 years ago

( i m a saint murugan fan )

@Metabrotropic

3 years ago

Buddha refused to teach of the self because it is unconditioned and formless. To give it a name is is to point to something that is not "it". It is too easy to create a concept of "self" that is rooted in separation and identify with it. Anatta is the same as atman, but because it is the eternal, unconditioned, and nameless "essence", Buddha rightfully provided a path that uses negation to point to what it is and is not.

2 replies

@VitaminM1

3 years ago

Actually they both using little bit different words but pointing out same realization...

There is no difference...

5 replies

@rohitchaturvedi8662

3 years ago (edited)

@12:14 Tathagatagarbha from which Buddha nature emanates is unborn and uncreated therefore it is eternal,formless and limitless, vast and all pervasive

@justchill7002

3 years ago

Both are belong to sanatan culture

@danif1359

3 years ago

How could have buddha and the rishis reach different conclusions?

4 replies

@smartins2008

2 years ago

Form is emptiness. Emptiness is form. There is no individual self, it is an illusion, a hologram of light, this body and mind are systems within systems, but then what supports these systems, ultimately? Negating the self is not the complete satisfactory answer! Cogito ergo sum! But if I am not this body/mind, what am I? What is this phenomenal existence? What are these systems created from, what is the base constituent essence of existence?

1 reply

@Daniel.W.Bridge

1 year ago

by the way rekon most of buddhist scholars and monks too did get sunya as a nichilistic, and also anatman, that was a mean to deta hed from ego, was got as a theory while Buddha never proposed any theory. So Shakyamuni never taught a no self theoty or philosophy, actually no self dharma is listed within the 62 wrong views in the Sutra. Na me so atta, was the general formula, this is not me. So never denied the self, but as correctly ven. Tadatmananda, they both trying to help people to free their spirit-mind if i well understand, thank you

@VSM101

3 years ago

Atma is the truth.

@AryanSingh-zg4ri

1 year ago

But what's the truth? Are we atma or no atma?

@Losang8

2 months ago

There are two fallacies presented here: (1) it’s not that Buddhism claims non existence of atman or consciousness. That would be nihilism (the other extreme being eternalism). It posits and proves that even consciousness itself is empty of inherent existence. In this regard it’s a step further than AV.

(2) Nirvana does not exclude moksha. On the contrary, moksha is attained as one step, but warned against dwelling in it.

One should study Madhyamaka masters and their works, and especially the Prāsaṅgika ones in order to understand these subtleties which are of immense importance for a serious scholars and practitioners.

@emonredix

3 years ago

Tell me about "Nirvana"??? than pls talk about Buddha and Buddhism...

@samyoungblood3740

3 years ago

They sound the same or similar using different language and identification. Let go of Ego-of Materialistic behaviors-

1 reply

@deepblue3682

3 years ago

Advaita vedanta is a modified version of buddhism with vedic inputs... As sankarachryars gurus guru was a buddhist

@raoulsamuelkray7628

1 year ago

the one who thinks that needs to be free from suffering doesent exist at all.

@veera5388

1 year ago

Please release videos on Islam. Compare Western monolithic religions with hinduism, buddhism, sikhism, jainism and the other eastern philosophies

@yutaolife6724

1 year ago

The type of buddhism the swami was referring to is the school of theravada buddhism. I am sorry to say that the swami's understanding and explanation of the doctrine of No-Self is off, unfortunately.

@krishnansrinivasan8313

2 years ago

Swamiji, I have some very very important questions, but your email I'd is extremely small. Pls send your email id legible. Pranam.🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏

@vladimirnachev324

3 years ago

Nice 👍 moksha=gnosis

@hpsauce1078

3 years ago

1.25 ftw

@SkyPilot54

1 year ago

Hmmmim

This is fundamental Vedanta , Vedanta has a mystical aspect also ,,, as does Buddhism

@melingliu5259

3 years ago

I just know advaitha means non dualism between real I and the spirit of universe..

1 reply

@Fazlulkader

3 years ago

The Buddhist concept of Rebirth is different from the Vedantic concept of Reincarnation .

1 reply

@SI-ln6tc

3 years ago

Some say Buddha was born in Nepal.

@TheGuiltsOfUs

1 year ago

Buddha was a Vedic Indian, he had no intention of creating a new sect!

@RobertFullStop

3 years ago

The problem of any explanation of Buddhism by a non Buddhist is that they fail to understand the true meaning of Buddha's teachings. They usually stick to Sutta and Nirvana and ignore the higher teachings like nature of mind and also Bön tradition. One thing I agree with is: whatever works for you. ✌🏼

1 reply

@KAUNTINYA22

3 years ago (edited)

The differences are moot and overdone by both sides. Ramana and Buddha state the same thing

Kenopanishad

There is a changeless reality at the innermost core of man, unborn , ageless, deathless, and fearless, which is revealed to the intelligence of the wise, and which expresses itself through the functions of the ear and other sense-organs, being the one source of all their diverse energies

BUDDHA

"There is, monks, an unborn, uncreated, an unconditioned. Here, monks, I say there is no coming, no going, no standing, no ceasing, no beginning. Not fixed, not movable, it has no support. Just this is the end of suffering."

@nageshv1847

1 year ago

Difference between Buddha and Sri Krishna is Buddha is transformed, enlightened, awakened one but lord krishna is a transformer a supreme conscious, eternal

A true divinity ultimately paramatma in other hand

Buddha reached his (krishna 's supreme conscious) by rigorous practice to attain moksha that is called budda hood any one can achieve this

State by sadhana but no one can achieve parmatma state like budda hood by any means

As it is not a state to attain...

1 reply

@prakxyz

1 year ago (edited)

Buddhism is just a branch of thought which grew from culture of Vedic tree.

@niteshsrivastava6435

2 years ago

but vaam marg of buddhism is not so good specially 5 makkar

@subramanyam2699

2 years ago

Very interesting and enlightening. In this way, I feel Buddhism is truly atheistic in nature. But mostly limited to solve the problem of suffering only.

However, I'm curious why Buddhists scripture has so many stories about afterlife, if it rejects the idea of Athman.

@damindadineshimaduwagamage9044

3 years ago (edited)

the Atma of Vedantha is almost similar to God in Abrahamic traditions such as Christianity and Islam. Vedantha, Christianity, and many other mainstream religions talk about that permanent oneness, which the Buddha rejected. For Buddhists, that oneness is also part of the mind, in other words, it is a thought.

1 reply

@arungupta3509

3 years ago

The historical/cultural fact is that the "Vedic "gods like Saraswati and Indra travelled with "Buddhism" to far-away places from India like Japan. The chief Vedic deity Indra, as Skanda, was frequently depicted as the protector of the Buddha. Even within the Vedic traditions, there are strands of philosophy for whom the existence/non-existence of God is irrelevant. While there are Hindus and Buddhists as followers of specific traditions, "Hinduism" and "Buddhism" as "religions" is a creation of the encounter of the West with these peoples. There really is no creed like the Nicene creed or the Kalima that makes one a Hindu or a Buddhist; it is the traditions one chooses to practice. The metaphysics is somewhat irrelevant in that until one has severed the wrong self-identification, it doesn't really matter what you believe. After you have severed the wrong self-identification, you have direct experience and don't need to rely on scriptures - as much utility as a well in a flooded land. Which brings me to one last distortion arising from the "religion" framework - the English term "scripture" to describe what is primarily an oral/spoken tradition. The writing is for mnemonics; it is not authoritative, unlike with the "religion".

@pal-a

1 year ago

Sada siva samarambam Sankaracharya Madhyamam Ahmad Acharyah paryantham Vande Guru paramparam.

@hibro--

3 years ago

Gautama the Buddha and the first Buddha were two different persons. Stories of 1st Buddha and Gautama were intermingled by historians. Gautama was not considered the ninth avatara of Vishnu.

@chipmonkrunning

3 years ago

I grew up in Buddhist family, but after studying Advaita, I understand my Buddhist much better. 🙏

@AMAL648

3 years ago

I think Buddha never rejected the austerities, sacrifices, yajnas, etc. He said that the person doing all this stuff, if he/she is not awaken, or well aware, then there's no point. He said, to open your vivek (perception). If you have deep perception onto your actions, you're on spiritual path....These are my thoughts....No offence needed...

@BiZarre-Events

3 years ago

My body is a thing - sure. But my thoughts are a thing too...? That I am not my thoughts is clear, but that my thoughts are actually also supposed to be things (i.e. material) just like my body...? Hmmm...?!

1 reply

@marthell6159

1 year ago

As a Buddhist, I really appreciate this respectful comparison between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism. In the last few years, I've been practicing Advaita Vedanta and I now see the Buddhist teaching of "no self" as a way of Lord Buddha teaching that there is only the reality, or what Vedantins calls "consciousness" and it isn't individual but universal. In that context, there is noting apart from it to be a separate self, therefore anatma.

3 replies

@pwilki8631

3 years ago (edited)

MAYBE SUFFERING IS THE POINT OF ALL THIS. WHY SO MUCH FOCUS ON ENDING IT? Just wondering.

1 reply

@kumarsmarimuthu9704

3 years ago

Advaitha Vedantha was actually Buddhist origin! During 8th.century CE Adi Sanggarar incorporated this Buddhist thought system into Vedic Brahminism!

4 replies

@Sumon-bj2rq

2 years ago

Days go new thinkers come and devide us make more enemy which could have done otherwise

@robis66

1 year ago

I really appreciated this video, however, I disagree with the conclusion the Swami came to around minute 11. Yes, Buddhism posits that there is "no self" and what we call the self is simply an aggregate of impermanent attributes. But I have studied Buddhism for 4 decades and there is a TON of discussion of "attainment of supreme bliss" as the teacher states about Hinduism. We don't use that term, but discuss our consciousness with phrases like the "ground of being" or "buddha nature" or "true nature." Swami goes on to talk about Hinduism conception of this as formless, limitless and all-pervasive. This is exactly the kind of language we use in Buddhism. We discuss the Unborn and the the infinite pure potential. It is all-pervasive and limitless. It is beyond what we can discuss and ineffable.

I studied Zen specifically, and in that literature you'll find the above, but it is also framed in paradox. "Form is no other than emptiness, emptiness no other than form." Emptiness meaning formless, limitless, the absolute. This is from the most important Mahayana text, the "Heart Sutra." What makes Buddhism so useful is that it non-dualistic and always destroying our conceptions, which are by their very nature, dualistic. The Absolute is exactly the same as the relative. The supreme emptiness is the same as everyday phenomena, or the "10,000 things."

So yes, there is much talk in Buddhism about "no self" and transcending the limits of ALL self-identification, but there is definitely discussion of the absolute state of consciousness that is beyond all duality, basically The One. You could say that is like the the Hindu "Brahman." And yes, in Buddhism there is no Atman, BUT, we are IT. We are the Brahman nonetheless. "That thou art." Beyond all conception, beyond words, beyond any category, each one of us is IT. And yet, there is no self.

In conclusion, I have to admit, I have been in an internal debate the last few years about the True Self, the higher self, the Atman. I am wondering if it is a worthwhile conception and perhaps we are better off with that idea than without it. So I am perhaps in the midst of a conversion from Buddhist to Hinduism, but I wanted to try to clarify what I consider a misrepresentation or misunderstanding by the Swami. I hope this supported those less familiar with Buddhist doctrine, texts and teachings.

Many bows to my fellow travelers....

@simplysimple2622

1 year ago

Guru ji I'm a hindu by birth but i daily practice Vipassana meditation. In my opinion buddha never accepted or rejected the idea of Atman bcz he wanted the practitioners to find out by themself.

He just gave us the tool which we can use to understand and experience the true nature of self and beyond.

Secondly for Buddhist also moksha is the ultimate state. In Buddhism they believe that if a person attains nirvana then he will no longer take more than seven rebirths. The person who has attained nirvana is bound to get moksha within 7 rebirths.

My knowledge is limited. So pardon me if i've said something wrong.

5 replies

@summer12151

1 year ago

Advaita Vedanta of Shankara is a morphed Buddhism. Buddhist nihilism is rewritten as Maya of Advayta of Shankara...which is markedly ddifferent from the original Vendantic Advaita in the Vedas. Thats why i call it Shankara's Advaita and not Vedantic Advaita.

@pwilki8631

3 years ago

Ahhhhh, the experts in the comment section......if i ever did a video like this i would shut off the comments.....

@slhermit

3 years ago (edited)

Buddha was most likely raised in a Jain family. He however clearly stated that veda (Brahmi knowledge) does not

lead to end of suffering, and rejected their teachings.

Samadhis in Veda -Brahmin give birth in Brahma realms with long life span only and will not lead to end of suffering according to Buddha (since buddha consider birth as "dukka", even birth in celestial realms are considered Dukka).

All those realms are impermanent hence seeking permeances in an impermeant universe is meaningless.

Buddha therefore did not see "Bhava" (existence) as pleasurable, he encouraged end of Bhava/Samsara by realizing

the reason for the birth, which is "Thanha" (craving). Then he went to develop a new technique (now called vippassana)

to systematically train mind to a level that mind will realize his reason of the existence. When mind see the reason, it give up

clinging to "Thanha".

You have a clear understanding of Buddha's teaching - Athma and Anathma. Those who think Buddhism is an extension of Hinduism clearly do not know both.

@emilromanoagramonte9190

3 years ago

When you see a fellow Buddha on the road?...

3 replies

@marimuthuas4165

3 years ago (edited)

First of all, Buddha's teachings were the truths of life - nothing but the truth. Truth is to be experienced & realized.

Truths were neither philosophy nor hypothesis nor expert opinion or explanation etc..etc... unlike the rest. It is the reality in each one.

Even the best Knowledgeable Hindu of reputed standing in Buddha's times when questioned Buddha, the latter gave 2 options to the questioner.

If he wanted his reply ? Or

If he wanted the solution (truth) ?

Buddha was prepared to give his reply to all queries of that gentleman, then & there. But, those reply would not solve his issues.

If the gentleman wanted only solution, he himself should realize it. He could realize the truth on his own if he were to stay with him (Buddha ) for a year.

After one year, it happened that the Knowledgeable Hindu himaelf acknowledged that he realized the truth for all his doubts.

Truth can not be compared with anything else. Truth stands on its own.

1 reply

@alampribadi6578

2 years ago

so advaita vedanta and buddhism can not be mine

@satyacsit

1 year ago

Advaita is more advanced science, which means there is only one supreme 🙏

@sonamngodup9566

3 years ago (edited)

Hindus believes in karma..and hindu have creator.. how this two coexist together.. when your all karma is already set by the creator how then this karma works? Karma is exists only when there is no creator..

1 reply

@nahanng7791

3 years ago

There's no difference. The truth is only one.

@Elaphe472

3 years ago

I wonder about sufferings of children (abuse, child pornography, child enslavery, starvation, poverty, etc). How can they be "free" of such suffering? I have the feeling that religions and philosophies forget the 25% of humans that makes up the world´s population.

2 replies

@asomaskanda

3 years ago

First of all there were 10 Buddhas, the last one being Gautama Buddha whom we call the Buddha of the current Buddhism. The problem with Buddha was that he was born into wealth and prosperity and he had failed many times at meditation. His last meditation that resulted in his 'enlightenment' only went up to the penultimate stage of Sunya, where you experience void and progressed no further. The final state of SAT, CHIT, ANANDA completely eluded him. Even Quantum physics talks about a Quantum vacuum or Void, but they also assert that it's not not a simple vacuum or void but it's one of unimaginable creativity, where particles blink in and out of existence. That's why Buddhism died out in India where the Truth of Vedanta holds sway. That's why even in most Buddhist societies, a Hindu deity like Vishnu is also worshipped. All the Buddhists have no reservations about worshipping in a Hindu temple and vice versa.

@gabrieleingrassia2703

3 years ago

When you are everything you are also nothing

@esneliamunoz4475

3 years ago

🕉🕉🕉🙏

@user-Void-Star

3 years ago

One different is creator and no creator.

2 replies

@vallabhanenivenkatanarayan6744

3 years ago (edited)

Small clarity here , Buddha and guathama buddha are two different persons in the sense. Buddha is incarnation of Vishnu. Guathama buddha all you know in present days of Buddhist religion. But looks wise both were in same dressing style.

@cuchulain55

1 year ago

from what i can gather there rwally isnt much difference between advaita vedanta and buddhism.

@stephanefaure2049

2 years ago

Thank you to explain but you compare shravaka Buddhist so called today Theravada. In reality adveta vedenta was inspired by Mahayana Buddhism and mainly schools which emphasized on luminosity of mind. In this context, it was better the bhramanic view instead of reality of consciousness which appear to me the genuine difference. Conception of Athtman has been rosted in the madhyamaka schools and at the end it’s difficult to see differences between theses two kind of deep system if we forget bhramanic system which sustain adveta vedenta. Don’t you think? Sorry for my French English

4 replies

@claudelebel49

7 months ago

I am surprised to hear Advaiia equated with Hinduism.

3 replies

@adruvitpandit5816

1 year ago

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.

@artdadamo3501

1 year ago

It seems the Buddhist and Hindu view of true self are two different perspectives which agree on the facts. Here’s why. I am not the body, emotions, thoughts. Atma is my true self. But my atma differs not at all from your atma. Atma is One. Brahman is One. Therefore, I have no true self that individuates me from anyone else. My body, emotions, and thoughts individuate me, but they are not my true self. So, (Hindu) atma is my true self, but being One my atma does not individuate me from anyone else. So, (Buddhist) I have no true self that distinguishes me from anyone else. Thus, non-self.

@ruparkyitin

1 year ago

Buddha knew about the true nature of consciousness and also the state of bliss.

It is similar to 5 th Jhanna state.

Brahmas dwell in highest jhana state and their lifetime is many billions of years ( many Kappa).

Brahmas believe that the best and they enjoy to stay like that being free from suffering.

However that state of blissful mind is not eternal.

It seems eternal because their lifetime is very very very long.

Some brahmas have consciousness only. No body or matter.

Some Brahmas have body ( matters) only and no consciousness.

Highest blissful state of consciousness that Brahmas obtain is not Nibana.

The state of Nibana is free from consciousness nor subconsciousness or

matter (Rupa) nor submatter.

@jitend7776

3 years ago

Follow Eckhart Tolle s teachings for self realisation, Pranayam make it easier to understand n follow, postpone all the other scripture reading till then

@mintusaren895

1 year ago

Jungle vs house full.

@Roundyfield

1 year ago

I am no expert and my mind leans towards Vedanta keenly however something inside me tells me that this leaning is the primary source of attachment. The attachment to my unique specialness regardless of how hidden or how entangled in the material word it may be.

1 reply

@user-xp7kd6cw4q

3 years ago

ใช่หลวงพ่อแต่ละศาสนาไม่ได้ปิดกั้นให้ผู้อื่นเข้ามาก็มีเหตุผลแต่ละเหตุผลความคิดถูกคนมันไม่เหมือนกันเราค้นหาคำตอบที่นั่นไม่เจอแล้วก็ไปค้นหาคำตอบที่อื่นอาจเป็นเช่นนั้น

1 reply

@TarunKumar-uo5gn

3 years ago

Both are 2 sides of the same coin.

@cvenkat7766

1 year ago

It may not be correct that Buddha rejected all Hindu scriptures . I studied in some Buddhist text that Buddha admitted himself that he got influence from the Upanishads and Sankhya and Nyaya Darshanas .

@kaceobrwa7039

2 years ago

both of them came from indian mind

2 replies

@jamesstevenson7725

2 years ago

Both are Sanatana Dharma

@jannikmoller5929

3 years ago

It is all intellectual gossip. And the goal in Buddhism is not Nirvana. Nirvana in Buddhism is a state of rest . But the goal is compassionate action.

@barunsiddhartha6581

1 year ago

Correct explanation BUDDHA & VEDA : ( BUDDHA : third Nobel truth : Glass water is added to Ocean , then glass of water becomes it self OCEAN , when BAD karna removed and complete perfect purification enlightens complete knowledge Then NIRVANA ,

BUDDHA Fourth NOBEL TRUTH : Buddha ASHTANGA marga : ( 1 Right view : knowledge of correct understanding ) ( 2 Right speech : speak truth , no bad words ) ( 3 Right determination : strong determination of moral life ) ( 4 Right livelihood : Earn livelihood honestly ) ( 5 Right Destiny : Good marriage life or saint life , Remove bad sexual things and remove bad imaginative sexual things ) (6 Right effort : keeping mind peaceful remove BAD EVILS thoughts by YOGA and MEDITATION ) ( 7 Right mind full : keep mind peaceful , senses of humour , balance of judgement , knowledge ) ( 8 Right concentration : Above Buddha righteous path makes Life free from BAD EVILS and BAD EVILS thoughts , one who conquered all BAD EVILS and EVIL thoughts eligible for path to NIRVANA , NIRVANA have several states ( 1 State of Nirvana : who are you , where you come , who is GOD , who created ... All questions are answered ) ( 2 nd states NIRVANA : removing effects of past SINS and past BAD KARMA )

... There several states in Nirvana , FINAL state of NIRVANA is complete perfect purification is enlightens complete knowledge and complete knowledge gives cessation of misery is NIRVANA , ( BUDDHA says in NIRVANA Suffering not possible and own will full death of Body removing like clothes removing and in reality Death not possible in NIRVANA) ( Buddha says complete perfect purification enlightens complete knowledge gives cessation of misery = NIRVANA )

@kasionline

1 year ago

Who said Hindu is a religion?

@godisgooey

3 years ago (edited)

HU M I?

AHAM AHAM

@rajkaregakhalsa3030

3 years ago

That is why you find buddhism on the outskirts of India before this all of india had become Buddhist because of King Ashoka

1 reply

@LumenSequere1

3 years ago

Buddhist philosophy's origins lie in Upanishads and so does Advaita Vedanta's. In order to understand them read the Upanishads, especially the earliest 12.

@MagdiNonDuality

3 years ago (edited)

In my experience, the cessation of suffering goes hand in hand with the recognition of your true nature.

In other words, cessation of suffering means cessation of 'mistaken identity' and once the false drops off, that which is real remains.

Our true nature, our true universal eternal and infinite self is revealed once the false drops off and do longer arises. Suffering does not end as long as self knowledge (universal consciousness) is not realized.

Cessation of ignorance and self knowledge are one.

One more note: The inner self (Atman) is the self of everything. It starts as an inner self and eventually we realize that this inner self (Atman) is beyond the notion of inner and outer. Neither inner nor outer.

@samyoungblood3740

3 years ago

Isn’t this how people evolve? From one Enlightened being bringing new religion rooted in older? From Hindu to Buddhism, to Jesus and Christianity, to Mohamed and Islam... If all are rooted in love and are to lead humanity to it’s highest spiritual place in the Cosmos-Maybe starting with the oldest spiritual teachings to practice them all with love and compassion toward others and nature. And evolve-

@user-oc3mk6cj7q

3 years ago

Regards Buddha selflessness you could be misunderstood, because as long causes and effects remain condition arises due to good and bad karma creates by cycle of self existence, hence therefore Buddha emphasizes on interdependent which means nothing exist without causes and conditions.. understanding of these interdependence you’re Not rejecting self nor emptiness shunyata.. which’s called self-Awaken through awareness..🌈likewise rainbow arises depending on causes and conditions but essence of its nature is emptiness although it’s colourful patterns itself luminosity.. it’s there at the same time its Not their as well..🙏🙏🙏🌷🌻🌹♥️

@gassesv

2 years ago

All are paths to the same one creator, call them Brahman, Allah, Hari, etc. it’s all the same.

@gainerm5845

3 years ago

Anyday bhudhdhism

@shiwanikumari2822

3 years ago

Gautam Buddha never left Sanatan dharma or indian civilizational values which comprises of different panths or paths like hinduism, sikhism, jainism and buddhism.

Neither he did any reform to hinduism nor he left hindu dharma.

He just made one sect out of hinduism like other sects had been created before Buddhism.

Many of the people are diverted to wrong information due to assumption of colonial powers as it is a different religion. You can check this fact.

1 reply

@snowboy245

1 year ago

Buddhist accepts the atma but Buddha take to other direction anatma because people may become selfish considering oneself me/I/myself/mine which won’t thing of others wellbeing.

@nand3576

3 years ago

The explanation is like eating of peeled banana

@rjbullock

3 years ago

There are a number of mischaracterization of Buddhism here. Nirvana is NOT the ultimate spiritual goal of Buddhism. Recognizing that samsara and nirvana are the same is. Buddhism does not reject natural intelligence-awareness, i.e., the tathagata heart. It points out however that such intelligence-awareness is not a “self” or an identifiable entity. This is actually a big debate in Buddhism, whether awareness can even be called the “true self” or not, but that is kind of beside the point. Let the philosophers debate but wisdom is wisdom.

1 reply

@Sanatani7727

3 years ago

All are part of Sanatan Dharma. Follow anyone it will lead to the same

@Daniel.W.Bridge

1 year ago (edited)

Buddha never answer to those questions about atman or not, etc,, cause he did not want to produce conceptual ideas about it to his listeners. He kept the Noble Silence, so they say.

@iwayansudarta5143

3 years ago

"Om Svasti Astu" in Bali well known Siwa Siddhanta ( the last portion of veda teaching or the last conclution of the vedas ) also known Siwa buddha as tat and twam. They actually came from the same source. We call Siwa buddha is one in the same ( tunggal ). One looking outward & another looking inward. Similarly microcosmos & macrocosmos. Atman and Brahman is not two but one ( tunggal ) . Thank you. "Om Santih Santih Santih Om"

2 replies

@ajithkumara9611

3 years ago

Buddha denied existence of eternal self "athma" and self is coming into being when a whole of panchase saknada together..skanda or consciousness can not existed without other four ...physical form, sensations, perceptions and mental form. It is very clear mind can not create a perceptions without existence of other hence how can exist consciousness without existence of other..though it is required a long philosophical or scientific explanation, this is very simple truth...

1 reply

@ashokwarade2657

1 year ago

Ye samay vadvivad la nahi vaidik dharm ko el munch per laneka hain . Taki samat nahi kharab hain

@tedmoehring6959

2 years ago

Are Buddhism and Vedanta mutually exclusive? If the Atman exists then the Anatman exists, that would be dualistic thinking. Advaita or non-dualistic thinking would equate the Atman with Anatman, equating the two I would think be true non-dualistic thinking. If you examine the Atman through the lens of, "neti, neti", does it not lead to the conclusion that the Atman is, "nothing", in the sense that it is not a "thing", existent in a dualistic world, it is transcendent. Wouldn't a non-dualistic outlook lead to the idea that the self is both everything and nothing? Both Atman and Anatman. The self is everything in the sense that it created everything, yet it is nothing in the sense that it is not a dualistic thing existing within the universe. It is both transcendent and immanent.

@MegaARYARAJ

3 years ago (edited)

Here, going through the comments I can see an argument which I think is totally useless.. actually these are all marketing .. Buddhist monks fails to market Buddhism.. whereas other monks doesn't fail to do so.. read Buddhism (most of the actual script written from the saying of Buddha were actually burnt/ destroyed by the Mughals.) .. first try to read those 52 books in the pali canon and talk.. (other books are indeed destroyed through various invasions).

1 reply

@lunevermeil1400

3 years ago

This will help those interested in Buddhism the same way it will help those interested in Advaita Vedanta..

To the knower of the Field all knowledge is useful.

My grandmother raised me a Shaolin Buddhist heavy on the Confuciusm/Daoism (asian studies professor, I was her experiment), while our family was Catholic with voodoo roots.

It was only after being forced into a Christian school, then studying Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism that I began to understand all the teachings I learned as a child.

Krishna says all who worship with true devotion are worshiping him whether they worship Ancestors, Devas, Phantoms what have you.

@RK-dj4xb

3 years ago

The comparison should have been between, Advaita & Dvaita. Comparison between Buddism & Advaita seems silly.

1 reply

@paulmercury6571

3 years ago

I don't believe that the Buddhists deny the existence of a self , to my knowledge they promote the knowledge and awareness of the Ego.

@kartik3782

3 years ago

Buddha said all human beings are suffering. all over the world millions of people follows buddha s path.

1 reply

@yaahqappaadaikkalam7971

2 years ago

The Buddha and the Christ

+++++++++++++++++++++

Both these names are titles and not the names of the persons , the first has its origins in poo(பூ) of Tamizh meaning flowering that is Siddhartha had a flowering of Wisdom within him and came to be called as the Buddha, the second is from Christos of Greek meaning the anointed for a mission the same as Messiah in Hebrew, they say more of the outer budding of history into a utopian society led by the Christ and his bride the Church.

Both this inner and outer phenomenon is needed in forming the perfect human of Creation ,here we see the east meeting the west in conceiving the child of evolutionary perfection and today we are blessed to be witnessing this great event. The event of the great introspective perceptions of Asia merging with the great extroverted progress of Europe. The result of which is the Awakening that is beyond any time of history.

It is pertinent upon us to make the best use of this unprecedented time in not causing more hatred and animosity but building bridges and friendships to come up with the best human existence possible in this fine planet. The challenge of climate change is before us and the possibility of human( not the planet) extinction also. The uneven imbalances of the righteousness produced by the Buddha and the Christ is at the root of this trouble.

If ever the world will see the light of inner(அகம்) and outer(புறம்) Perfection which alone can save us it is undoubtedly in the coming together of the best that the east and west has produced and that is the personal revolution of the Buddha and the societal transformation of the Christ...

@kisan-majdoorkalyansamiti7390

3 years ago

Let me clarify few things

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 .

2 replies

@TheGuiltsOfUs

1 year ago

The teaching of the buddha - dependent origination - only applies to living beings, nothing else. Those today who attempt to use it to explain everything do not follow from the teachings of the historical Buddha!

@dibbabibba9359

1 year ago

Whether it is Buddhism, Sikhism or Jainism.. everyone was Sanatani & all of them picked Bhagavad Geeta & their gurus used those BG teaching as their ☺️☺️If anyone says Buddha is Vishnu Avatar.. this is wrong as other Avtar have not created different religion. All Hindus worship Vigrah of Vishnu’s except Buddha as it is different religion. Sab Sanatan Dharm ke the aur sab leader baan kar apne ko pujwana chahte the aur sab ne Bhagavad Geeta uthaye woh usse cheep de apne granth mein..

@tenzingwangdak7548

2 years ago

I think he has to learn more deeply Buddhism.

@mlomesh1

1 year ago

Has anyone saw Atman !! What's the proof of it's existence.

ArshaBodha - Swami Tadatmananda

1 reply

@williamstgeorge7289

2 years ago

Thich Nhat Hanh may be unique in Buddhism in that he does not regard anatma as anything more than a pedagogical tool. Since the Self is beyond the Mind it can not characterized by Mind. Vedanta and Buddhism are simply taking two different Mind points of view. Nirvana is going beyond the Mind just as Samadhi does. In these rarefied areas language becomes useless.

@anantsaini

3 years ago

Jainism must be next.

@JohnDoe-mz1nk

3 years ago

Too much poise in the delivery. I prefer a little more descension.

@arjunkinekar5335

3 years ago

continued.... Ramanujacharya , Madwacharya , swami vivekanand and acharya, Rajanish are thins never ever his works are original.

@thedoubtfuls

3 years ago (edited)

U skip past the scholarship on the buddhist influences on the later arriving vedanta. Also the distinction is hardly so simple. It has been said that extinction is a path to fullness, just as the true self is a path to universality and so no self at all. Buddha did not exactly say there is no self as he said neither self nor no self are quite right. This balancing act can be seen thro'out his teachings.

@sethshams

2 years ago

how did you know i am on a chair ??!! 😜

@frank2778

3 years ago

TAT TVAM ASI

@rantromse2051

1 year ago

What Buddha thaught was not beliefs or a religion - it was the opposite - to not believe in anything; just to find the truth.

@srsingh1653

3 years ago

Nothing like Buddhism just a path to Nirvaan/moksh/self realization or union of Self into Him as Bhagawan Buddha says His Dhamma Sanantano or Aishh Dharm Sanatana h.It is a section of Sanatan Dharm like Arabic Hindu ism Jain ism etc.All is ism but not Christian ism! Adherents of a few hundred years preaching eternal adherents is matter of debate

1 reply

@kssubramanian4793

3 years ago

It is bad taste to compare one religion with the other and why ?

@drnandakumarakvelu1581

2 years ago

Gratitude..Bear with me, for my little understanding..Nirvana leadds to cessation..After that .What AM I..whom AM i..as per Buddhist...If i am not ..a..speck from the Root..then Me..after ..Nirvana..BECOMES an ALIEN..Then..i..MISS..IDENTIFICATION,with ETERNITY..THEN..where is the CAUSE OF ,,,MY EXISTENCE,,,then,,WHAT IS THE NEED OF,,,FURTHER EXISTENCE,,AND,,why if at all,,I,,should EXIST,,,if i,am to follow ,,Buddhist,,path..I,,,FIND,,and i am,,INTENT with ADVAITHA VEDANTA..forgive for my POOR INTERPRETATION and UNDERSTANDING,,With,LOVE...remain,i,,,,Dr Nanda

@harveytruffautparis

3 years ago

I do not perceive any difference. Neither in view, nor path, nor fruit. This at least is my current realisation.

2 replies

@davidjones5059

1 year ago

Your comparison is incorrect, you compare it with Hinayana buddhism which is the lower teaching for beginners and contains rather relative truth but not absolute Truth.

if you look at higher teachings they are more profound and contains description of Nature of reality (which is true self). Also Nirvana is not a final goal of higher schools

@ikartikthakur

1 year ago

Nirvana is above Brahman ? Why it is not in Hindu philosophy then?

1 reply

@newcruiser

1 year ago

7:50 They are not YOU. if those things are not YOU or I the atma is not I because I or YOU is an illusion, It "seems" there is "someone" but there must be "no one" there. This is a paradox because "I" am perceiving the world and living. This is the puzzle to solve. OMG !.

@werels8895

3 years ago

When there is no revision to tradition, it degenerates into superstition. -Deng Ming Dao

@sanjaygautam7572

3 years ago

QUESTION: I read that Buddhism is just a type of Hinduism. Is this true?

ANSWER: No, it is not. Buddhism and Hinduism share many ethical ideas, they use

some common terminology like the words kamma, samadhi and nirvana, and they

both originated in India. This has led some people to think that they are the same or

very similar. But when we look beyond the superficial similarities we see that the two

religions are distinctly different. For example, Hindus believe in a supreme God while

Buddhists do not. One of the central teachings of Hindu social philosophy is the idea

of caste, which Buddhism firmly rejects. Ritual purification is an important practice in

Hinduism but it has no place in Buddhism. In the Buddhist scriptures the Buddha is

often portrayed as criticizing what the brahmins, the Hindu priests, taught and they

were very critical of some of his ideas. This would not have happened if Buddhism

and Hinduism were the same.

QUESTION: But the Buddha did copy the idea of kamma from Hinduism didn’t

he?

ANSWER: Hinduism does teach a doctrine of kamma and also reincarnation.

However, its versions of both these teachings are very different from the Buddhist

version. For example, Hinduism says we are determined by our kamma while

Buddhism says our kamma only conditions us. According to Hinduism, an eternal

soul or atman passes from one life to the next while Buddhism denies that there is

such a soul, saying rather that it is a constantly changing stream of mental energy

that is reborn. These are just some of the many differences between the two

religions on kamma and rebirth. However, even if the Buddhist and Hindu teachings

were identical this would not necessarily mean that the Buddha unthinkingly copied

the ideas of others.

It sometimes happens that two people, quite independently of each other, make

exactly the same discovery. A good example of this was the discovery of evolution.

In 1858, just before he published his famous book The Origin of Species, Charles

Darwin found that another man, Alfred Russell Wallace, had conceived the idea of

evolution just as he had done. Darwin and Wallace had not copied each other’s

ideas; rather, by studying the same phenomena they had come to the same

conclusion about them. So even if Hindu and Buddhist ideas about kamma and

rebirth were identical, which they are not, this would not necessarily be proof of

copying. The truth is that through the insights they developed in meditation Hindu

sages got vague ideas about kamma and rebirth which the Buddha later expounded

more fully and more accurately.

1 reply

@justinkitkat4489

3 years ago

Baba hindi bolo

@garyp1432

1 year ago

With no god how can a belief be a religion?

@gaurimathur55

3 years ago (edited)

I have noticed that Buddhist of western origin always have a reason to divide the 2 religions although they are same. Have same roots in meditation matra puja yantra puja tantra puje mantras are mainly in sanskrit believe in gods and goddess - Tara is the same as goddess kali. yoga karma reincarnation raising of kundalini attainment of moksha/ nirvana and the list goes on. I would like the monk to show any where in Buddhist scriptures where Buddha said I am not a Hindu. His followers named it Buddhism after he passed away.

STOP CONFUSING PEOPLE AND DIVIDING COMMUNITIES

@KevinFitzMauriceEverett

1 year ago

Advita Vedanta and Buddhism start great and do tremendous work to remove material ego (identification with the body, mind, experiences, possessions, titles, achievements, etc.). However, they both fail in the end by accepting spiritual ego. Buddha can only be called an ego-maniac with all the self-praise and claims he makes in Buddha legends, myths, and stories. Hinduism believing that we are all the atman and the atman is divine, is also spiritual ego. Both Buddhism and Hinduism come close to the truth but fail at the final step. However, some Hindus have true humility and believe they are only a vessel for God, not a god, one with god, or part of god themselves (atman consciousness). There might also be Buddhists who understand this fact. Yes, you can be a part of God and live in God but only in the sense that a cell in your body is part of your body and living in your body. The final distinction between self and God (self as a host for God) and the right relationship between self and God (total dependence on God) are the two main differences between spiritual success and spiritual failure. Christianity, currently, not historically, fails in both regards: material and spiritual ego. I am thankful for Hinduism and Buddhism for helping me overcome the material ego.

4 replies

@I-am-not-a-number

3 years ago

Why has this man wasted his life denying his physical self?

The mind and body is all of you, nothing more, nothing less.

@briansprock2248

6 months ago

nibanna moksha same same no difference if there is a difference then there is an error in understanding different words same meaning - no self is no suffering is your true nature - stillness is your true nature - or perfect balance is another way to describe it. stillness is heaven bla bla bla and hahaha Buddhism is better at defining it for logic - some people like the abstract more internal dialogue stopping that so that it does not interfere with the subjective conditioned perception. makes it easier to read between the lines or think outside the box. understanding and achieving the ultimate harmony moksha or nibbana oneness with God......... yeah.... like a plant grows towards the light we are no different..... our consciousness wants to expand and merge with the ultimate consciousness

I think advaita vedanta is slightly more old skool in it's approach - works fine. Jesus his teachings also work fine to understand the concepts.

I think even modern scientific terminology can help you come to the same understanding

the mundane > the mystery of life.......

Sri Ramana Maharishi - self inquiry

@Ndo01

1 year ago

Both different ways of talking about the same thing.

@arjunkinekar5335

3 years ago

shankaracharya being a Vedanti , he believes in castism. He always thought his nambudry Brahmins are great. In his presence a

Buddhist stupa at Nagarjunakonda was destroyed and lands other property were distributed to Brahmins. For this act archaeological evidence are there.

2 replies

@GopiK-xy7ji

7 days ago

No difference between both it's only word difference I am talking with evidence

@sunilkhadilkar7161

3 years ago

Sanatan religion is deeper than Ocean higher than sky smaller than atom bigger than mountain softer than butter harder than diamond... what to say more?? I am not poet..

@shobhamv6135

3 years ago

Vishnu's avatara of Buddha is not this gowthama buddha, Gowthama s descipiles started buddism. And they made as religion.

@NIRANJANMANANDHAR

1 year ago

?=?

@rajkaregakhalsa3030

3 years ago

It was the founder of vedanta who expelled buddhism out of India because they did not believe in The SUPREME BEING

1 reply

@drashokn

1 year ago

Some say adhisankara turned to buddhism prior to his death. His sanathana vedic followers got angry with adhisankara for his buddhist inclinations. No god in Buddhism.

@SumithDammika

1 year ago

Sad to these Hindu and adwaitha and Hindu scholars trying to be equal with the Buddha and his teachings.

But it is far from the true sense.

They themselves say they dont accept the principle of Anaththa (sanskrit Anathma)instead they believe the concept of a self or "Aththa" (Athma in Sanskrit)

That totally against the Buddhas teachings.

Believing a permanent self is an extreme.(Eternal existence ).

And also if one say there is no self, there is no Athma is also is also an extreme(Nihilism)

But concept of anaththa is neither of those.

When you understand the dependent origination you could understand that the concept of a self is a delusion.(no self is a wrong interpretation of anatta)

One of those adwaidic debater named Sachchaka once argued with the Buddha about the cincept of athma and Buddha clearly defeated his wrong perception of a Athma In the Sutta of the thripitaka.

The sutta is named as " Chula Sachchaka Sutta on the Majjhima Nikaya On pali canon thripitakaya.

Please read will you!

@stephananemaat

1 year ago (edited)

"Buddha himself was raised in a Hindu family." - With respect to the venerable sir, this is not correct.

The Buddha's family and clan (the Sakyans) actually belonged to a non-Vedic religion. The Sakyan clan's religion was called "Ādicca nāma gottena" or "kinsmen of the Sun" as they were a Sun worshipping religion.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakya

3 replies

@bhargavashivohum9228

3 years ago

Comparing hindhuism ,budhism is not correct its actually compare to sikkhism, Jainism, adhvaitha vedanta ..they all have there own ritual to move forword to moksha...hindhuism is to know perfectly what the universe is...than start meditation upon a highest that realization comes ..than you can start your own religion or practice to make all go for moksha that's happening in India from lakhs year ago...so we can see 1000 of ritual here that's all reach you liberation ..that's y hindhuism called way of life ...

@yashdixit3645

3 years ago

Sri Shankaracharya had copied advita Vedanta from Pragnyaparamita sutra.

Advita is an offshoot of Buddhism

4 replies

@fujispirit

3 years ago

Main difference Advaita teaching goes all the way to the realisation on Atman - absolute divine Self, supreme self. Buddha couldn't be satisfied with that realisation as a final understanding. Buddha discovered there is no even Atman. He left samsara completely. Even Atman is not eternal. His teachings was about Anatta, no Self.

4 replies

@MM-dh3wr

2 years ago

appearance of Brahman = disappearance of soul(nirvana) in a binary system

@danielx40

1 year ago (edited)

Just to add on to it. Buddhism does have an emphasis on Self, but they don’t call it that. In Hinduism, Self is Nothingness. Atman is the first vibration of Nothingness, still pretty much nothing and therefore can be talked about as a thing. Atman is the cognizance, an approximation of nothing but not completely nothing. The point of much of the Hinduism is to identify with this consciousness of nothingness. In Buddhism, this nothingness is the Truth Nature (性) or Self True Nature (自性). The purpose of all Buddhism is to come back to the Self True Nature. In Buddhism, Atman is referred to as individual self, not the big Self. An-Atman means no individual self. Atman in Buddhism is the Cognizant Heart (心). Brahman is called the “Foundation”/“Origin of All Individual Things” (本), as appears to individual things (末). Everything in Buddhism can be explained with Hinduism and vice versa. They have no fundamental conflicts. They focus on different aspects of the same truth. Buddhism emphasis on the nature experience of reality, while Hinduism focuses on the nature of reality. Buddhism delves into the mechanism of how your mind processes specific kinds of thoughts and emotions, while Hinduism mostly just consider them all Subtle Forms. Also, there are correspondence of Causal, Subtle and Gross as well. For realms, in Buddhism Casual Form is 业相, Subtle Form is 转相, Gross From is 境界相. For the Bodies, Gross Body is 化身/色身/应身, Subtle Body is 报身, Causal Body is 法身 -the Dalai Lama calls it “Very-Very Subtle Body”. Those are not some isolated cases being discussed, but are involved in every Sutra. The real difference between the two traditions, is the use of words. Emptiness means Nothingness or Space or Atman in Hinduism, but Totality or the equivalent of Brahman in Buddhism; Heart means mind in Hinduism but Space/Cognizance in Buddhism. Buddhism also don’t see Nothingness as the self. Because is the Self is Nothingness, it is nothing, then it is no thing, then it don’t exist, therefore no-self. They refer to Self as True Nature/Buddha Nature, and use self only for individual selves. Hinduism use Self/Atman for an approximation of nothingness, because if it is truly nothing then it can’t be called Self, by logic. With some comparative study, the understanding of Hinduism will drastically help you clarify Buddhism Sutras and commentaries. And the study of Buddhism will help further articulates the teachings of Hinduism. When you understand the equivalence, all Hindu scripture become a Buddhism Sutra and all Buddhist Sutras became Hindu scripture.

@zanaismail8757

2 years ago (edited)

In order for anyone to be able to say that there is no self,there must be a self already to conclude and to say that there is no self.

With other words: The only thing no one can denies is the self. Why ? because to deny the existance of self, the self must be pre- existing,otherewise who says that there is no self.Who is the speaker ??!!

So Budda is wrong en Hinduism en Upanishads are telling the truth

3 replies

@andrewmuelleranantababaji8073

3 years ago

Your talking about 2 different Buddha's see Avadhoot Maharja boo, "Will the real buddha please stand up!" Amazon prime members read free online otherwise $3

1 reply

@st1952

3 years ago

atman is no self, it is problem of translation

@businessswot1003

3 years ago

Advait is more powerful who are monk's

@taidelek9994

3 years ago

Thanks for sharing the distinct difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. It is unethical to consider Buddha as 13th incarnations of Vishnu when Buddha himself rejected the God theory.

1 reply

@yoganandhanmoodley3754

1 year ago

Is this truth to crrde one another in God. Is God a gsme

Every one must be in equilibrium to liberate of spiritual stupidity arrogance pride

You should be talking yoganandhan union for umanity

To know humanity in the ultimate to know the ulti. Mate jn Fhe no thing viscosity energy in the now thing in aria bsktha

You and the many as you must do this unpeace

You should follow 1955 portal from the allness

You verse this in humanity to humanity man lady civilization science spirituality

Aeon to aeon manss rupam to putudha rupam

Purusha rupam to manss rupam

This day to the 19 th

You tuite your sanity of pariah behave and be a Hari Jin in color clothing and purport truth occulplogy

1510151

Read the energy on your palms and scroll the energy from God

@heinzgassner1057

1 year ago

It always irritates me a bit, how Advaita Vedanta (and Buddhists) appreciate the always other, but both claiming to go further. Buddha Nature is not only ‚freedom from suffering‘’. It is the true nature of consciousness. As Buddha said: The unborn, the unoriginated, the uncreated, the unformed - for me this is a useless ‘battle’ about concepts and words. Anyway, the true self is, always was and will be the true self, Buddha Natur or whatever we desperately try to call it. Time to be silent again ❤

@amitendrasingh2128

3 years ago

I keep on moving from space to space but don't move from my permanent self past and future gives an impression of infinite time but the ever-present and everlasting happenings are always happening inthis moment here only only our cognition and limited memory gives an illusion of division between past present and future wherein they are seamlessly intertwined that they can not be separated hence the only reality is present and nothing else

1 reply

@korashortss

3 years ago

Swamiji,

It is absolutely wrong to compare whole Bhuddhism with just a small Advaita Vedanta schools. Instead, the most basic school of bhuddhism, Chitamantra school of bhuddhism is more than enough to open up your mind, Swami ji.😆

Post Bhuddhism has so much influence on the sanatan dharma, Advaita Vedanta is a living example which has so much influence from Bhuddhism.

1 reply

@nirbhaynandan72

3 years ago

why Buddhism and advait vedant is ancient wisdom and not modern...i mean it here since ancient time and still alive very much then why people call these tradition ancient...same goes with Yoga. Nonsense!

1 reply

@djyashmusic8314

2 years ago

both Things are from Sanathan Drama so no Problem

@haydenreynolds6960

3 years ago

lovely elocution, but the man takes quarter of an hour to speak about one paragraph.

1 reply

@mikel4510

3 years ago

Things that take 15 minutes to explain the difference between are just smoke and mirrors.

2 replies

@tandinpenjor4580

1 year ago

Advatia vedanta scholars forget to quote their references.. and Buddha being born in hindu family is a misconception coz all archeological artifacts didn't mention anything of hindusim, and hindu word itself is new word recently written......

1 reply

@patrickbonny2927

3 years ago

Wow a lot of opinions down here.lol.

@mindlessmindwatch7807

3 years ago (edited)

I fully agree with Buddha and not with Advaita vedanta I allso do not believe in 'counsiousness' as beeing sepreated from the agregates. Free from suffering requires disapating agregates and mind. That there is an all pervaisive 'consiousness' is a Hindu believe that come's from a believe in a god as Jews and christians do. Not true in my opinion but based on personal experience and therefore agregate-bound and false. blessed be.

@agnimitra501

3 years ago

Advaita Vedanta came after what we call early Buddhism.

Mahayana and advaita evolve side by side even shankara was called hidden Buddhist.

4 replies

@fumax3035

3 years ago

NO Buddha didn't reject Hindu Scriptures. The teachings of Buddha clearly appreciates the Vedas. The Nyaya Gautam Buddha are based on Maharishi' Gautama's Sutras

@viruj4th

3 years ago

I love Buddhism and Jainism than Hinduism.

@appatitthita

3 years ago

Unfortunately, Swami repeats the common misconception: "Buddha taught that individual person is nothing more than an aggregate of five factors: body, sensations, emotions, thoughts and consciousness" (8:40-8:54 in the video). The Buddha never taught anything like that.

5 replies

@souvikdas

3 years ago

You use the word "Buddha" as if it were a proper noun. There was no one by that name. It is a title that means "the Enlightened One" just as "the Christ" means "the Anointed One". His name was Siddhartha Gautama. We say "Gautama Buddha" in the same sense we say "Jesus Christ". "Christ" is not a part of Jesus's name, just an honorific. Similarly, "Mahatma" was not Gandhi's first name, it is a honorific that means "Great Soul".

@prakashtiwari8003

3 years ago

Adi Shankaracharya defeated Buddhist monk and that's how Buddhist become Hindu.

5 replies

@mikelong7748

3 years ago

Well i don't think it's fare to say buddah.rejected the hindu scriptures s as much as it's dogmatism.sure has lot less than most things but he did leave a form a new philosophy.but rest assured he took many anceint truths with him reincarnation so forth.

@peterq6598

3 years ago

There is a Difference between Culture and Myths ...the USA like many Western Countries left behid the Myths of Gods with wings on their heels, and Lightning Bolt in their hands plus a Hammer thrown as Thunder from the skies...India is still in the Past where it will keep its billion people in total disarray MORE for Poilical than Cultural purpose...US fought a Civil war to free the slaves and India is Charmingly evading the caste system by promoting Myths and religious Hocus Pocus to keep the Ignorant in Check... after all IGNORANT is BLISS and Pundits are Supreme

2 replies

@AnuCampbell

3 years ago

God ,heaven,hell etc.concept made by man.

1 reply

@jacek3863

3 years ago (edited)

True primary teaching of Buddha about Atman as AN-ATMAN is twisted by clergies during riots and war inside Tibet at VII century.. Teaching about AN-ATMAN is illogical. Central teaching of Buddha is about "Wheel of Dharma" on which during progress disciple is approaching it's center. A Wheel can't exists without its axle.

Axle of the wheel of Samsara is the goal of any life. This Goal is ATMAN who is not AN-ATMAN.(egoistic self also called Atman). Buddha didn't teach about nihilistic "NOTHING" at the center of Dharma which is goal of progress of every being

@Mrtrainer100

3 years ago (edited)

Nice video. However, with all due respect, the consciousness and mind are synonyms. According to Gautama's teaching, consciousness arises as the result of volition. In turn, consciousness serves as the condition that causes mentality and matter to come into conditional existence. Thus, consciousness (or mind) is one of the dozen links of the chain, that forms unenlightened beings and causes their suffering. Gautama taught us to break the chain, to stop clinging to anything, even to consciousness. Clinging to consciousness is the cause of suffering, friends. Let it go! Contrary to many comments here, Nibbana is not consciousness. And that is why Nibbana is the ultimate freedom and bliss.

1 reply

@NavjotKaur-cy4jf

3 years ago

I think religions evolve too with the humans. But still they talk of the same thing one supreme soul Almighty doesn’t matter how you address whether it’s Allah, God, Ek onkar. 💖

1 reply

@satyamARAS

1 year ago

Stop bhuddhism Vs that ism , it was required according to that time , focus more on consionous part that only right way what ever you seek.

@angrymohan3534

2 years ago

Namaste Swami. Thank you for this very measured explanation. However, as a Buddhist I have a few comments to make:

1. It's unlikely that the Buddha was a Hindu. The Manusmṛti lists the Śākya as a Non-Āryan tribe following contact with which ritual purification was required. Moreover, the Buddha himself describes himself as a Mahāśrāmaṇa

2. Also, Avidyā (Ignorance) in Buddhism is defined as identification with the concept of a permanent and unchanging self, i.e. Ātman. Identification with the body as self is a relatively gross obscuration that is cleared in the first stage of englightenment (1st Bhūmi in Mahāyāna; Śrottapanna in Theravāda). Further, enlightenment is not escaping from the mind into Anātman, but the recognition of the nature of mind itself as Anātman (and Anitya and Duḥkha); this is achieved in stages, with a Samyaksambuddha being completely free of Avidyā.

3 replies

@Octavus5

3 years ago

Buddhism vs. Advaita is an ironic title. It might have been better to call it, Buddhism and Advaita.

What's the difference? That's another ironic branch to go down as both teachings are non-dual and any difference you perceive is just illusion.

2 replies

@zammonster6413

9 months ago (edited)

When you say "Buddhism" you have to state clearly if its Theravada, Mahayana, or Vajrayana. Theravada (that bases its teaching on ONLY the 4 true early Nikayas, which are Digha, Majjhima, Saṃyutta, Anguttara Nikaya. And rejects Abhidhamma, Visuddhimaga, etcs that came long after time of Buddha) is the original real teachings of Siddhartha Gautama. Mahayana is another religion from China while Vajrayana is a totally different religion from Tibet. Mahayana/Vajrayana label themselves as "Buddhism" despite not originating from Siddhartha Gautama & their suttas/practices contradicts alot with the original teachings of Siddhartha Gautama (as per the 4 main Nikayas in Tripitaka)

3 replies

@dineshlamarumba4557

7 months ago

brahmana means pure conciousness. sunyata means lack of conciousness. thats all the difference. brahmana is the reason reality exists, multiple universe exists. sunyata means lack of pure conciousness. sunyata is one step deeper into truth. brahmana is someting which is resonsible for creating reality, it is the God all religion describes. quantum feild in scitific term is brahmana pure conciousness. where brahman can create reality-mltiple reality. it is when person has some level of desire, curisity, ignorance that brahmana is created. without desire as buddha said, even brahmana, pure conciousness don't comes into existence. also told by shiva to saptarishi when one asked who created reality what is reality. shiva has told reality/universe is dream, illusion. until spritual person don't abadons brahmana, pure conciousness, god, the creator of reality, he cant escape from samsara-reality-dream-illusn. so buddhism vanishd from india at that time cas at taht time more realized buddhist guru was not present in india. the true buddhist and hindu sages are only prestn in nepal. not in india, aryans do'nt have that level to understand all this. buddhism is pholspy which matches with modern scice more than advanta etc, including shiva's teacings.

now one can say so if i'm un-concious or dead etc, isn't brahmana dead as i'm totally unconcious? no. u'r just unaware just like animals, the brahmana still exists for u. Note: noting is real. with every intent universe/reality is shifiting for u. consider brahaman as reason reality exists. emptyness as ceasion of brahmana though ceasaion of desire totally i.e presence of no sub-nocious vibrations also.

shiva's teaching is buddhas teaching also. brahmins were outward focues homo sapins before comming in indian subcontinet so theri natural insintct of curisoty didn't understood sunyata.

in math way say a point(x,y,z) in 3d space. 3d space in brahman and point is something, reality brahman created in this 3d space, brahman is observer not space itself with no bondary. now what is emptyness here? emptyness is not looking at space or point. so even if i don't watch the point in this 3d axis dont it exists? it don't if u'r brahman has cessed or u'r advaned sage who can play with u'r brahman. i.e ability to vanish from one place to another all this phenonmen which physical logic can never descirbe such things happens when u have acess to u'r brahman. wt about othr pepls brahman or even animals brahman? => brahman is illusion. neither u have brahman nor they have.

Note: If you accept brahman as supream reality like brahma considered himself infront of shiva. you will never get moksha, nirvana cas u r still identifying u'rslf with brahman. which can't exists without thought, something to describe eg. a point in space. it exists but is not ultimate reality as reality itself don't exists as ultimate.

@showashowa6194

3 years ago (edited)

THE GREAT FOREST TRADITION THAI BUDDHIST MASTER AJAHN MAHABOOWA's TESTIMONY ON HIS OWN PRACTICE:

Please notice that it is the citta that is dominated by the kilesas. Once paññã has totally shattered and cleared the kilesas away, the citta will be transformed into the state of purity.

This is the genuine purity. How can it vanish? Were it to disappear, how could it be pure?

Everything else dissolves and disintegrates, but this one is the genuine amata (the Undying). It is deathless by way of purity. This is not the amata that spins with the vatta cakka (the revolving wheel of birth and death).

The other is called the undying, but it also whirls with the vatta cakka.

This amata is undying and does not revolve.

It is vivatta – undying and nonrevolving. This is the real and true essence existing in the midst of our khandhas

@DiscoverTaiji

3 years ago

A division in words only.

@Quaterzau

8 months ago (edited)

Actually if you look deeply, no-self and true self: it is the same.

In Vedanta it tells you are Atman and Atman = Brahman.

Brahman is all and everything without a second. In both there is no individual I. All or noting, both is the same. All in between the two, is the illusion.

Interesting too: In Mahayana like Dzogchen or Zen they also tell you are the ONE. In Zen they call it you are Buddha, all is Buddha (nature). Buddha here comes as synonymous of Bhrahman. And both is the same. If you are not existing, all that is, is the ONE, call it how you like or call it I. Or call it Consciousness, though this I find misleading at times. It has nothing to do with an individual consciousness, which even fades when falling asleep, but also is here synonymous to Brahman or Buddha (nature), the ONE.

So actually there is no own consciousness, what would be TRUTH, this would imply two already, but Advaita means nondual. There is not me and my consciousness but there is only consciousness, and nothing else.

@devkishore1349

3 years ago (edited)

Buddhist believe in only one consciousness and no atman/soul. philosophy doesn't change life. Actual experience of a consciousness and oneness will change your life. None of the people who experienced enlightement believe in atman/soul. For that matter let me put here what Ramana Maharashi one of the widely-recognized person who experienced the oneness with consciousness said - “Soul, mind and ego are mere words. These are not real entities. Consciousness is the only truth.”

@vladimirkrisnov4322

3 years ago (edited)

Anathma is denial of existence of Creator, the One Designer. How can one be fully enlightened if one dont even recognise the existence of one Designer of Universe?

I agree that if One walks on his path of morality and end his suffering, is outstanding enough. Can leave the Designer alone, let Him do his own work. Nobody bothers.

1 reply

@prabhaswor

2 months ago

Plenty of mistakes here:

1. What Buddha taught wasn't similar to the ancient Rishis. It was fundamentally different. The ancient Rishis believed in a creator God and an unchanging, independent, singular soul. Buddha taught quite the opposite.

2. Buddha wasn't born in a Hindu family. And he didn't learn from Hindu teachers. He went to meditation teachers of that time who were not the followers of Vedas or Upaniṣads.

3. Buddha's religion wasn't rooted in Hinduism. In fact, there was no Hinduism at that time! It was Vedic religion. Hindu is a name later coined when many other streams merged with the Vedic tradition.

4. According to Buddha, the person is an aggregate of five factors: body, sensations, mental designations (labels, ideas etc.), habitual and volitional tendencies, and consciousness.

5. Nirvana is not only the extinguishing of suffering. It is great bliss! (Nibbānaṁ paramaṁ sukhaṁ; Dhammapada, verse 203 and 204)

3 replies

@mintusaren895

2 years ago

Evolution can be rejected.

@adarshkrishnan7941

1 year ago

Both THESE Great Souls however were not great Warriors , Not Great Strategists , Without Food even the Buddha cannot save a starving men , without Purpose Adi shankara would have died as an Unfruitful Seeker , Even with Their Teachings the World will continue its Suffering . The Truth about this be The Fact The Fight is not with something , rather the Fighting against Nothingness and Emptiness and Untrue and Non Falsified things will ensure Everything in the end is Meaningless by nature . Both these Great Teachings becomes the Resistance to Absoloute Meaninglessness . both these teachings only wish to bring out the Natural nature in Things.

@anandmurumkar5190

3 years ago (edited)

500 BC. In india there is Chaturvarnya, Bramhin, kshatriya Vaishya and Sudra. Threre no Hindu word at that time.Hindu word came in india 1200 years ago.

If Buddha is the ninth incarnation of Lord vishnu no hindu accept Buddha's teachings no hindu follow Buddha. If Buddha is the incarnation of lord vishnu why they denied Buddha's teaching.

You only see Buddha's statue in Hindi Tv seriels.... or decorate walls.

2 replies

@sundarex

3 years ago (edited)

Zen practitioners are in the habit of calling Gautam Buddha "the joker ..." For to them, there is no such thing called enlightenment or realization - precisely because you/me/we have NEVER BEEN BORN!! The waking life, like the sleep/dream state, that we undergo each day are BOTH illusions, i.e. NOT REAL. The difference between them is that the former is longer in duration than the latter. Nevertheless, both are UNREAL. One is always in the birthless and deathless state of [neither being] and [non-being] but are simply unaware of it. If we have never been born and have never died, then REBIRTH or REINCARNATION is a non sequitur, illogical, irrelevant. What is born, and what died, are both concepts only. Now you know why there is also a book with this title :

"If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him !" authored by Sheldon B. Kopp**. You can watch a recently-published video on the subject of no birth/no death : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGXB8qjmUmE

If You Meet the Buddha on the Road, Kill Him!

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=if+you+meet+the+buddha+on+the+road+kill+him+meaning+

5 replies

@hemantabrahma7494

1 year ago (edited)

Lets me clear that Hinduism comes after Buddhism. There is no Hinduism when Buddha was born. So there is no question of rejecting hindu scriptures by Buddha.

If donot believe go check UNESCO world heritage sites and see Vedas is only 1464AD

3 replies

@sanekabc

2 years ago

The assertion of a true inner self is false. This is why Vedanta gets it wrong here. When no self is seen, what emerges from those ashes? The nameless.

2 replies

@TheRowanmoses

3 years ago

I disagree that Hinduism preceded Buddhism. There is a seal from the Indus valley civilization (which preceded Hinduism and Vedic religion) depicting a man in a meditative posture. You can look it up yourself. The Vedas were interested in sacrifices, you can see the whole horse sacrifice play out even in Valmiki's Ramayana. What made them change to contemplation all of a sudden. My thesis is that they encountered existing "Sharvanic" traditions that later got articulated as Jainism and Buddhism. So we need to look back and rediscover this because Hinduism with its political power almost wiped these religions. Jainism is dwindling while Buddhism survives outside India.

5 replies

@Nattapong69

2 years ago

Greetings. Buddhist here. The Buddha did not teach no soul. The Soul is Nirvana. It's called the "Primordial Citta" in the Thai forest tradition of Theravada Buddhism. And in Mahayana it's in the Nirvana Sutra translated into English by Tony Page. If there was no Soul that would mean when you become an Arahant, and you pass away, you just disappear forever. Uhhh, what? No lol. There is no Anatman doctrine in Buddhism. There is just a description of what is Anatman. IE, the mind and body. And what else is there besides the mind and body? Your eternal, unchanging, Primordial Citta, outside of your mind and body, that returns back home after you become an Arahant.

12 replies

@minodhirusha27

1 year ago

Paticchasamuppada is the Dharma preached only by the Buddhas. It is not taught in other religions. In particular, there is no absolute soul in Buddhism. Similarly, the chathurarya sathya are the absolute truth of the world. Buddhism rejects the creation of a god.

1 reply

@connor1414

5 months ago

I have a serious question. Presupposing that their is a true self that is prior to mind and body… how can we know if we keep identifying as this true self forever or maybe not at all once we know die… how can i know this isnt just a thought experiment(although a true one) and it will actually last after death?

@sonarbangla8711

1 year ago

The Yadava tribe of Krishna gave the first religion for humanity and gave the first civilization, the first philosopher Krishna (9500 bc) who discovered the divine design through meditation and gave the first monotheistic god Vishnu (the oldest) and the Sanatan religion (VISHNU PURANA records Krishna died at the end of the ice age). But by 1900 bc they were overtaken by greed and lust for power, when the Turks entered India after the fall of the Harappan civilization and were called Kuru who were led and armed by Babylonians, who destroyed the Yadava in the Kurukshetra war 1500-1200 bc and replaced the superior theology of Sanatan with the Semitic religion of Hinduism with god Rama (Ramses II). And broke the spine of the Indians, from which they never recovered. Buddhism arose as a result which in line with the Sanatan, gave non-violence, rule of law, freedom, human rights etc., and gave Bodhisattva, which was voluntarily embraced by he whole of civilized world.

7 replies

@yj9032

1 year ago

You are way better than that Sadhguru.

@vladimirnachev324

3 years ago

Buddha goes over moksha, moksha is the 8th heaven but Nirvana is the 9th

2 replies

@waltersobchak7275

3 years ago

How did you get into this religion? Was it from psychedelics??

@bluelotus.society

1 year ago

Anatta and Shunytta = Brahman

@rock5989

1 year ago (edited)

Buddhism advocates about nirvana and non-self and advaita advocates about para bramhan and the self. After reading and researching i found some very interesting stuff. According to my analysis Nirvana and para bramhan is one and same. According to vedas and Upanishads para bramhan is not a being but a reality itself. That para bramhan is neither higher nor lower nor middle it is the absolute reality which pervades existence itself from that everything emerges like quantam reality. From quantam reality our physical reality emerges exactly how from para bramhan whole existence emerges. Para bramhan is very subtle reality more subtler than quantum reality. We may say para bramhan as emptiness. On the other hand nirvana is also state of non existence or emptiness. The whole purpose of Enlightenment is annihilate the self and realise and experience that reality or para bramhan or nirvana or emptiness. when we annihilate the self or I ness or our ego only thing will be left is emptiness. emptiness being part of emptiness is ultimate goal for every soul or spirit. Buddha reached that level emptiness. In other words emptiness is even beyond God. Exactly why Buddha never said anything about God. Because he reached level higher than God and deities.

OM PARAM ISHWARA NAMAH.🙏 SARVAM KALVIDAM BRAMHA.🙏

1 reply

@gregland5534

2 years ago

Swarga not heaven

Naraka not hell

Atma not soul

Mandir not temple

Bhagvan not god

Guru not teacher

Many many words not interpreted right meaning or you can not interpret.

@ALOK-pe5fp

1 year ago

Buddhism once tried to destory Hinduism but at the end itself got defeated the just did copy edit paste that's why they vanished in their birth place nepal and india glory to great rishis

@philmason7860

1 year ago

'A Course In Miracles' teaches all the same things and at the same time embraces all. ✨✨😊😊✨✨

@Abhishekbabuyadav

3 years ago

This all come from sanatana dharam

@fourtwentythree

3 months ago

How did the Buddha know that it was even possible ? who was enlightened to tell him that it was something attainable for him to even try ?

3 replies

@MegaARYARAJ

3 years ago (edited)

Rectifying the first mistake done by this monk .. at the time of Buddha his hindu teachers/rishis failed to answer the questions asked by Buddha so he went to gain the actual knowledge by his own through enlightenment.. no hindu scriptures actually solved his doubt in a logical way.. later Vedas were highly edited from the Buddha and Buddhists scriptures by the Brahmans and pandits to save Hinduism.. thats why Buddha rejected all the hindu claims at that time as it was less logical and less clarity.. whatever Hinduism we read now or Vedanta is a upgraded version what was then.. most of the Buddhists scriptures were destroyed and later burned by Mughals and pandas(bramhans/pandits)..

1 reply

@uvrocker

1 year ago

There is NO difference between the two philosophies. Pls do not waste your time in getting into unnecessary theory. Do your Karma like a Warrior and find your Freedom. Soham.

1 reply

@gregland5534

2 years ago

Hindu is geological name. Therefore Gautama is Hindu. And his massage nothing but from Veda.

5 replies

@xXKillaBGXx

6 months ago (edited)

I'm sorry, but if Advaita Vendatist claim that the true nature (in this case, the soul), to be eternal, then that does not end suffering as Buddha's goal was to end samsara (the cycle of death and rebirth) with nirvana. The Advaita Vedantist would be in a perpetual state of death and reincarnation and will continue to suffer infinitely. No amount of false identification with your body and mind will free yourself from aging, sickness and death. You claim the Advaita Vendantist took a step further, but they did not. They took a step backwards. It sounds as if that Adi Shankara was propagating falsehood to keep people in samsara with the help of Mara under the illusion of maya.

9 replies

@d.l.7399

1 year ago

What's the difference...?? 😂🤣

@truthalonetriumphs6572

1 year ago (edited)

Nirvana and Moksha are the same. Emptiness and fullness are the same. As long as your self-identification (with the ego) is gone, does it matter that it is zero or infinity? Buddha says 0 and Upanishads say ♾️. Take your pick.

2 replies

@farhadhossain2821

3 years ago

My one of the favourite philosopher is Buddha.He is honoest and truely love the nature

1 reply

@praneeth5127

9 months ago

Can somebody answer this question?

Did Buddhists, Buddha, and buddhism lose to shankaracharya's advaitha philosophy?

Was shankaracharya successful in proving that Buddhism and Buddha's teachings were baseless and far from truth?

7 replies

@cesarpadilla6754

4 months ago

I was hoping to hear about the differences between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, but every time he enphasized a point where supposedly Advaita took a "different approach", what I heard coming out of his mind were the same buddhist teachings I've been hearing as a follower and student of buddhism since I began this path.

In Budhism it is taught that Budha Nature is the pervasive "nothingness" with limitless potential from which everything arises, unborn, uncreated, eternal and timeless, and that all sentient being posses this Buddha Nature, but that it is obscured like a diamond trapped inside a rock. And that the experience of achieving this state of being is pure bliss. In other words, that the true nature of all sentient beings is the limitless pervasive non-dual self or "non-self" that Advaita describes as Moksha.

Budhism precisely describes the achievement of Nirvana as the final escape from Samsara, meaning gaining total freedom from the eternal cycle of rebirth and suffering. Exactly what he mentions "distinguishes" Advaita from Buddhism.

It seems to me, that we are getting caught up in semantics, but that what Advaita might describe as the ultimate self, Buddhism describes as non-self, but the difference is a mere choice of apparently contradictory words to describe something almost impossible to describe in human language. And both are in fact describing the same fact, the same idea, the same conclusion, and the same reality.

It seems to me then, that the supposed differences are a mere illusion of false or incorrect beliefs about one another. Either that, or the entirety of Mahayan Buddhism has been incorrectly identifying itself as Buddhism for centuries and should've called itself Advaita to begin with.....except Mahayana is far older than Advaita.

I think it would be tremendously enriching to hear a conversation between him and a Mahayana monk, perhaps we may discover these supposed differences further dissolving.

2 replies

@magnusnilsson2531

3 years ago

Buddhism is much older than smarta hinduism, and patanjali borrowed a lot from buddhist thought as well a shankaracharyas teacher Gaudapada was influenced by buddhism. The castesystem is still disgrace on humanity sanctioned by the brahmanincal system. Buddha did'nt beleive in caste. Nirvana is a concept from buddhism but in the Gita it is used as Brahma- nirvana.

18 replies

@gopisadilingam682

3 years ago

Buddhism is religion.

Buddha sasana = advaita vedanta

@itakasky6146

3 years ago (edited)

I really don't care what religion u are. But if u cannot stop eat animals meat and harm animals. U will have live sick reality in the end.. You cannot be enlightenment... I know that i been there. So those young generation obey this laws if u wish have good life..

@sanvi2215

1 year ago

There is no difference at all.

@solovelynaturals

3 years ago

The way Buddhism is now is nothing as it was originally. The dhammapada mentions the soul/Self 576 times. 574 times saying “....... is not the soul”. The other 2 times it says “the soul is the only refuge” and the soul/self is charioteer, same concept found in India and Egypt. The way most people comprehend annata is in a wrong way from it’s original meaning. The soul/self is nirguna-no quality. To say it exists gives it quality. Same way in advaita the self does not exist in the 3 gunas. There is no individual self/soul. The complete realization of that is anatta/moksha/liberation/universal consciousness. Even then to label it whatever means nothing, unless one has experienced it one will not know it. The wise stay silent. Words is vanity

@anthonygenovese5338

1 month ago

Wrong. The Buddha NEVER taught that there is no Soul/Self. I challenge you to show me where in the Five Nykayas he said that. You wont be able to do it.Commentaries and opinions from those who changed the teachings( Theravada, Mahayana , Zen, Tibetan)is not Original Buddhism, they cannot be found in the Nykayas, and therefore, false.Btw, the original name for "buddhism"was Brahmayama, The Way to the Absolute!(Brahman/Atman)

1 reply

@Daniel.W.Bridge

1 year ago

The difference in my vision is that in Advaita there is utimately like all is projection or emantions of Brahmatman. In Buddhadharma, leaving apart the nichilistic adrift of the last centuries, is somehow, illogically, the various dharma are existent in a sort of magic , in the Sunyata way, which is not just emptiness, but still real there, and also not. like the main is that

the form is sunya sunya is form so is very esoteric and beyond logic human mind habit

@Eric123456355

11 months ago

Here is the great misunderstanding of buddhism also unfortunately common among many modern buddhists . Buddha didn’t teach literally not existence of something essential what Hindu calls Atman/Self etc Buddha was teaching that that something called in Buddhism : Truth or Dhamma or Unborn and many other names is beyond any concepts: Neither exists or Not exists. Buddhism is about removal the conceptual attachments(psychological Yoga) clearly Vedanta is philosophy buddhism not. That is the main difference. One man (theist) asked Buddha : Does God exist. He answered No. An atheist asked this same . The answer was yes. Gautama clarified that both were wrong and he did answer like that to set them up for further search otherwise they couldn’t find truth being fixed in they ideas about something what completely cannot be conceptualised and both were equally wrong because concepts are not real.

1 reply

@endyou569

3 years ago

▪ Buddha taught his followers not to believe in 10 things,

▪ namely: 1) oral tradition, 2) hereditary teachings, 3) people said, 4) scriptural words, 5) logical reasoning, 6) reasoning through conclusions, 7) contemplation of reason, 8) acceptance of views after thinking about them, 9 ) a speaker that seems convincing, and 10) because we think that person is a teacher.

••• buddha, pitaka, other scriptures. Is a reference and should be researched ..

● Islam is 100% proven

1. The Quran is proven 80% and 20% cannot be proven

2. Prophet Muhammad's prophecy about Arabia, Arabs will be rich

3. Prophet Muhammad, 1400 who ago knew the immortal tailbone

4. Syarifudin khaalifah from taznia

- he was born into a Catholic family and refused to be baptized

- he memorized quran and 5 languages without learning, miracles and he is still alive 2020

••• According to Dhamapada “Sacred Books of East vol 10 pg. 67 Jathagata / Buddha is only a reminder, just like the Prophet Muhammad who is only a reminder.

■ How could a buddha not believe in God, but believe in = the day of destruction. (Prophecy)

● god in buddha, namely = sutta pitaka, udana vlll: 3 is = not having parents (no one gives birth). Not created (exists alone). There is nothing in common with anything. Eternal

▪ Asankhata in the Pali language means the Supreme One or eternal or Absolute.

● Prophet Muhammad is the last Buddha

▪ In chakkavati sinhnad suttand D. 111, 76 = the last buddha will share unseen knowledge. Prophet Muhammad Israj and Mijraj

● You cannot ask God to be weak, to be human, to be many.

••• if there are many gods, the gods will confer.

••• if God becomes human, God will be despised, need to eat, even die (God is immortal and holy)

● komhucu

••• The concept of divinity in Confucianism can be found in the Yi Jing (Book of Changes). In this book God is described by the term Q, i.a.n. This means that God exists alone.

••• In the book L.i.J.i (Book of Morality) God is often also termed the term Da Yi, which means One Most Great,

1 reply

@shikhaserene

3 years ago

Adwait vedanta,Buddhism, Jainsim have similarities and was founded but never were part or branch of Hinduism...

2 replies

@davidjohnzenocollins

3 years ago

How cute. We are not the thoughts, emotions, and sensations that we feel in our bodies - oh, no! Instead we are the consciousness that observes all those things. That, supposedly, is our true self. Therefore, if you want to see someone who has no thoughts, emotions, sensations, etc., take care of someone in the end stage of Alzheimer's disease. Nothing there but pure consciousness, baby!

6 replies

@urgenlama7302

1 year ago

Buddha was born and raised in the Hindu family ? this phrase is used again and again by almost every Hindu masters without re-checking the fact and history. Can you please show me the word Hindu in any old religious scripture ? At the time of Lord Buddha there were 2 stream of religious path in Indian sub-continent .1. Vedic Brahmanism : Priest used to perform fire sacrifice to please god and goddesses in order to make life easy and these priest were called as "Agnihotri".

2. Shramans: Theses were seekers who left their home and went to jungle and meditate on questions like who am i? what is this life? Is there any thing beyond this? etc ,Shankya, Jainism, Buddhism, Shaivism, Vaishnavism , charvak etc were shraman traditions. Vedic Brahmin's who weren't satisfied with just fire sacrificing rituals would left there home and became disciple of these shraman master's.Mahavir ji of Jain called himself Shraman and Lord Buddha was called Maha Shraman by his disciple.At time of Lord Buddha there just 3 veda not even 4 veda was completed , there mention of Tri veda in Tri pitika .There are two parts in vedanta purva mimamsa (older) and uttar mimamsa (later) , this uttar mimamsa were created after the interaction with these shraman's. Later on Shankhya ,Vaishnavism and Shaivism was integrated into vedic system which is todays Hinduism but many Brahmin's weren't satisfied with this kind of integration that is why one can find sloka's like " Brahmin's those who has taken initiation in Vaishnavism ,Shaivism or other( Jainism and Buddhism) aren't Brahmin's even if they know all 6 limbs of veda. Due to distraction of hundred of Buddhist Mahavihara's like Nalanda, Vikramasila, sompuri, jagadalla etc many masters were killed or forced to fled to either Nepal , Tibet or china and due to lack of these pure unbroken enlightened lineage masters, as Buddhism is not faith based but wisdom based religion, Buddhism gradually declined in Indian subcontinent and until 17 th century Buddhism was completely lost , that is why people used to think that Buddhism was always a minority but the truth is once there were upto 75% of Buddhist population in Indian subcontinent and in Central Asia. People think that Buddhism is influenced by Hinduism but the truth is Hinduism is heavily influenced by Buddhism as it has rained for more then 1800 years the essence can be seen in todays Hindu culture and religion. Patanjali was born 3-400 years after Lord Buddha ,his Astangik yoga is heavily influenced by Buddhism , there are words like Chatur Brahma vihara, Dharma megha which are Buddhist terms which many Patanjali Yoga guru's cannot explain can be found . And Great grand teacher of Shankaracharya was "Gaudapada" , he used to salute Lord Buddha first before Badarayana (writer of Brahma sutra) , he was heavily influenced by Buddhist masters of his time like Nagarjuna and Vasubandhu , in his writing . He has even copied and pasted some sloka's of these masters that is why even hindu masters has accused Shankaracharya as cryto Buddhist.

4 replies

@MrMeetmeagain

2 years ago (edited)

Seems like shankaracharya, just copied Buddha

1 reply

@zazzyz4558

3 years ago

Bud-Hism? Please stop!

ArshaBodha - Swami Tadatmananda

1 reply

@merrybolton2135

3 years ago

There is no difference ,they are both man make

@jozefbania

3 years ago (edited)

Self is an one H ₂ O particle in the water tank.

@user-er4ir1hv8d

5 months ago

Perfect explanation!

Actually What Advaita Vedanta talks already contain in Buddhism!

That is a higher level of formless JHANIC absorption,it is known as the state of pure consciousness.(there are 4 formless Jhanas this the second level,even beyond this,there are another two others also talk by the Buddha)

In Buddhism you can never find a permanent entity even at the state of the pure consciousness ! Thats Buddhism rejects the Athma concept.

Athma is the False identification !

To realize this is not an easy thing,One needs perfect Samadhi as well as the highest level of Wisdom!

So..Buddhism is a million miles away from Advaita Vedanta!

Guru Ji without being stuck to this ATHMA concept dive deeper into the Dhamma.

All things are impermanent(including that Athma itself )

Thats why the buddha said there is nothing called athma.

If it is an Athma why that Athma cannot retain forever ???

@siva36_11

1 year ago

Both are stolen and copycat of Saivam ✡️ 💥💥💥💥💥 🙏🏽

@selfseeker143

10 months ago

I respect Buddha, but If nothing is there, then why to search it ? If there is no athman (Existnece concioiness bliss) then from where this mind is orginating ? If mind shines by itself, why it is not shining in deep sleep ? Is Nirvana is same as deep sleep state(sushupti) then why to mediate ? We should sleep happily to become nothing 😴. This is incomplete theory.

Advaitha vednatha of Upanishds explains the complete theory.

Mind (life on the earth) is continuously searching for happiness, fearing to loose existence (death) and want to be concious forever. Because Existnece-conciousness-bliss (athman) is the source of mind.

Like galalxies moving towards its source black holes, mind moves towards its source athman.

But mind, instead of searching at its source inwardly, it is searching with five senses in in five elements results in suffering. That is the mistake. Suffering is nothing but a chance to realize that mistake and turn inwards. Mind want bliss, but it is getting only happiness. That's why desires are not ending.

Man concious search for happiness is unconscious search of his true Self (Conciouness bliss) ~ Ramana Maharshi

1 reply

@dzistone43

3 years ago

4 decades of learning ? Lol , Buddhism is nothing but everyday practicality . Buddhism is the air u breath . It’s not a religion , simple ways of life . Hinduism is complicated , yes Buddha was a Hindu born. Don’t make Buddhism a religion , Buddha never claimed it to be a religion. Stop thinking it wrong .

@sandersdev

3 years ago

Original buddhism,and Christian spirit are the ways.

@coconutzloco-nutz116

1 year ago (edited)

Lol trying to prove one is better. But missing the point that it's just paths. Lot of satanic dharmics comments too feeling they know better. Same shoe's doesn't fit all and be great full there is shoes for all. Quit spending time on proving ur belief is right. Try to know u and which suits you to enjoy the journey of soul which is anyway taking it's course even if you don't. Having said, I know nothing that's what came to mind when I thought to say. I'm just a fellow youtuber 😂

3 replies

@TheLastOutlaw289

2 years ago

THE BUDDHA NEVER TAUGHT THAT THERE IS NO SOUL/NOT SELF. READ BELOW from Pali translator Ken Wheeler! He quotes from the Pali Nekayas taken from the pillar edicts of King Asoka.

The single most philosophically important passage in all buddhist doctrine [MN 1.436]:-

"Whatever form, feelings, perceptions, experiences, or consciousness there is (the five aggregates), these he sees to be without permanence, as suffering, as ill, as a plague, a boil, a sting, a pain, an affliction, as foreign, as otherness, as empty (suññato), as Selfless (anattato). So he turns his mind/will/spirit (citta, Non-aggregate) away from these; therein he gathers his citta (nous/spirit/mind) within the realm of Immortality (amataya dhatuya). This is tranquility; this is that which is the most excellent!" [MN 1.436]

It is of course true that the Buddha denied the existence of the mere empirical "self" in the very meaning of "my-self" (this person so-and-so, namo-rupa, an-atta), one might say in accordance with the command 'denegat seipsum, [Mark VII.34]; but this is not what our writers (above) mean to say, or are understood by their readers to say; what they mean to say is that the

Buddha denied the immortal (amata), the unborn (ajata) and Supreme-Self (mahatta') of the Upanishads. And that is palpably false, for he frequently speaks of this Self, or Spirit (mahapurisha), and nowhere more clearly than in the too often repeated formula 'na me so atta', "This/these are not my Soul" (na me so atta'= anatta/anatman), excluding body (rupa) and the components of empirical consciousness (vinnana/ nama), a statement to which the words of Sankhara are perculiary apposite,

"Whenever we deny something unreal, is it in reference to something real"[Br. Sutra III.2.22]. It was not for the Buddha but for the nihilist (natthika) to deny the Soul! "Nihilists (natthiko) [those who deny the Soul] go to terrible hell"[SN 1.96].

@govindaaggarwal103

3 years ago

Can we say Buddha actually don't recieve Hindu teachings because if he were then why would he shocked from the death of a person?

The first thing they tell you that, you are not the body. By that, it's very clear that death will happen.

Also, I don't agree with the fact that Buddha rejected Hinduism but he didn't allow his experience to be written in Sanskrit because Sanskrit wasn't the language of common folk.

I find Buddhism to be a nice way to get the gist in easy way. Hinduism on the other hand is super broad and complicated.

What I understand is, according to Buddha, the source of creation has no consciousness, hence atheist, which I find amusing and absurd.

You said Nirvana means extinguished. But isn't it mean eternal bliss?

I always think that eternal bliss is same as absence of suffering (Moksha).

@sevinfurly9346

3 years ago

In a nutshel, Buddhism does not have beliefs.. its all about understanding universal reality. how and why things as they are

@dawnfm00

3 years ago

Advaita Vedanta was influenced by Mahayana Buddhism

1 reply

@62gkm

3 years ago

“Before you call yourself a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu or any other theology, learn to be human first.”

― Shannon L. Alder

@bedajangamhorata2313

2 years ago

Islam is better yar. No confusion and complex concept about God. Just simply pray him, do as per Quran you will get heaven after that full enjoyment and parties. You don't have to work, no pain, no struggle. Whatever you wish it will appear and u enjoy.

3 replies

@lucyslegacy27

3 years ago

Advaidha vedhanta is the Chinese version of buddhist teachings...which is not practical to follow.But coz of too much endorsements over centuries...people have a concept that its great!! And the saddest part is that 98% of the people who says it is great dnt have any clue wat advaitham is🙄

@Elaphe472

3 years ago (edited)

I wonder why gurus, spiritual teachers, budhists, monks, priests, Popes, etc. do not share their messages face to face with people been tortured, raped, enslaved, bombarded by airplanes, mutilated because of war, people having to escape their countries to avoid been killed or mass-raped by fanatics; with kids dying of cancer, of hunger. Tell a 10 y/o girl while been rape day and night as a sex slave about the "fundamental problem of human suffering", tell her that she is suffering because she "craves for desires", since "all suffering has its roots in craving for: pleasure, material goods, and immortality". Really? I see plenty of people having a swell time craving for pleasure, and people suffering who craves just for justice. It is so simplistic and naive to say that people suffer because they "desire" things, as if they were guilty of their suffering. "You suffer because you desire to be immortal..." How silly... Some believe that we keep reincarnating until we get to some sort of existential level and then we remain in bliss... Isn't that a desire to be immortal? The woman in Sudan seeing her kids dying of starvation has indeed desires: desires for bread and help, not for immortality or a new car. And that bread and help will not come from arm-chair gurus. -- I wonder why "spiritual" people don´t take the place of the sufferer; maybe because some are too confy seating on their buttocks wrapped with colorful silks, without the need to take the bus to go to work so to feed their family. Some don´t need to bother: they are fed, they have a roof over their head. They are too LAZY. How easy it is to be "spiritual" when all is fine and dandy. Some live in Lalaponia looking theatrical as the owners of the truth and the source of harmony. There is a selfish desire for the "I" (ego) to get to Nirvana; individual happiness; me, me, me, which is a contradiction with the idea of the "no-self". "I don't believe in the 'self' but hey... Listen to me because I know the secret of the whole shebang" .¿Reincarnation? Probably the Cosmos doesn't give a hoot if we come back as a wise philosopher or a donkey; we have this craving for our-self wellbeing and an explanation why we are here, when in reality we are precious (with some exceptions...) but at the same time, we are a tiny grain of temporal dust with limited capabilities of knowledge, a tiny spark in the infinitude of the Universe. And to compare and contrast seating-enlighted-sages with others with a more pragmatic attitude, there are doctors, volunteers, people commiting themselves to care for others going from jungles to battlefields, fighting disease and dictators, risking their own life, risking sickness and political torture without ballyhoo; or people that belong to organizations which try to free slaves and dismantle child-porn gangs, who solve real problems with real solutions; anonymous people who do not have a soft mattres to sleep on. I am myself no example of anything, but how bothersome it is to see "spiritual" truth-owners when they themselves are useless comedians. And if they think they can change the mind of a torturer, a rapist, or a selfish person by making videos talking about karma, it is because maybe they live in a bubble and don´t want to be disturbed by reality and get dirt in their pristine white robes. Do they want to make a real change in the world? Mr. monk: Infuse the harmony you are talking about knocking at the door of victimazers. Go with your wisdom and talk to drug-pushers and pimps; see what they say about Advaita Vedanta, Jainism, Mosk/Nirvana, Atman-Brahman and Mymamma. --- By the way, the day you´ll have to see a doctor, you won't be told that you are suffering from hemorrhoids because you "crave for pleassure", but because you've been seating on your ass too long.

@Kosakosmic

5 months ago

Both are theories and both don't qualify itself anyone to anything be it enlightenment moksha or salvation. Both lacked emphasis on inner man and truthfulness and righteousness in a man should live. Both parties never had dynamic awareness but brahma aka written knowledge. The one who has dynamic awareness is one more station away from enlightenment aka personal liberation. That is, far cry from written gyan. Dynamic awareness is very rare but you'd see everyone copy paste from books as the way it's written or contemplation on them except having direct transmission or having the presence of god or highest intelligence inside ones own heart. This state is scientifically verified by bio neuro feedback so claimers should be careful as no false claims accepted and its well studied and analysed if someone is in it or having the hightened spiritual activities happening inside brain or not. Neither Buddha gained total liberation for this reason and it's only an awakening oneness and then passed away. The last stage is light and transparent truth state that is higher than enlightenment as truth is above than any gods and it's a state that is only available to people who lived that life that is guided by angels aliens stars and so on. It's a testing system too so no can cheat universal tests and so on. Sankara only had that knowledge of light and above. Rarely there was oneness until the time of Krishna and Jesus. Their world is typically a 4d world mostly engaged with mantras and polkas. The one with gyan zen or dynamic awareness does not need any mantra due to the higher frequency and realm power authority given to them as they proven their life in truth before all heavenly witnesses. Jesus was almost above than 5 d yet never made improve from kingdom of god state ( oneness). There is non finalists always on emptiness but this is not the final as they don't get inner light to go across the infinite consciousness and infinite emptiness. Some to most don't realise this due to ego and denial also due to delusions and cognitive bias from books as they chose external gurus instead of internal guru exclusively. Ramana and nisargadatta had the same stuck and given no maha(big)leela to evolve human evolution to another bigger.

Finally they are talking about the same tao in duality and non duality perspectives is the main difference yet the one who claims tao is not the Tao. It's in a child and the man who doesn't know he has...

Tao Te ChingII

@zachsmith5515

1 year ago

well Buddhism is delusion and Advaita Vedanta is delusion - they are both Maya

@mupsoftaren

3 years ago

Both sounds Gnostic and evil.

@beinglearner3590

3 years ago

Buddhism is scientific religion & Buddha teach only reality human life. Buddha don't teach inhumanity culture like cast system, inequality. Please don't Compared with anyone.

@DharmaKriti-el6ds

1 month ago

Advaitha Vedanta is plagiarised Buddhism ,by Adi Shankara,accused of being a GUPT BOUDH (closet buddhist) by his own Hindu contemporaries.

I’d rather stay with the original teachings of the SAMMASAMBUDDHA,

instead of a second hand plagiarised version.

Vedanta and Buddhism are definitely not the same.

@perpetuallearner8257

11 months ago

Buddha's family were not Hindu 🙃

1 reply