Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!data.nas.nasa.gov!news From: pingali@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern Subject: Re: Buddhism and Hinduism Message-ID: <1991Jan3.013248.28147@nas.nasa.gov> Date: 3 Jan 91 01:32:48 GMT Sender: news@nas.nasa.gov Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst Lines: 134 Approved: prabhu@amelia.nas.nasa.gov I am a latecomer to this debate - so I hope all participants will be kind if I repeat points that have already been made in articles that I did not see. I think I have the gist of it so far. Let me say that I lay no claims to expertise - but my background might place me in a position to contribute here. I was raised in the Brahminical tradition and I started out by reading the Upanishads. However, the type of meditation that I practice is vipassana - and I attempt to lead what might be termed a Buddhist life. In article <1990Dec31.003738.13819@nas.nasa.gov> david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) writes: [deleted] > >Since I don't know much in detail about the "orthodox" schools, I >just have a couple of questions here. Can you give a brief >outline of the Sankya school and how it differs from Vedic >philosophy? Can you explain in some detail how Buddhism is "very >very close" to the Upanishadic philosophy? I often hear this >latter notion bandied about quite loosely, usually by people who >are pretty ignorant of Buddhism (and probably of the Upanishads >too, for all I know). Since I get the impression that you >actually *do* know a fair bit about the "orthodox" schools, we >might have an interesting and educational exchange here. The above is addressed to Ramesh. I can point some things out from my experience. Buddha Dharma makes no demands in terms of faith (sraddha being somewhat different - as Bandula points out). However, there are certain underlying attitudes that make the mind less resistent to the insights that develop in meditation. The notion that "we are not we think we are" is very strong in Hinduism as well and is not unique to Buddhism. That life is characterized by dukkha (dissatisfaction/pain) and that dukkha arises from tanha (craving) and ignorance is an underlying theme in practically every Hindu school. This is one of the messages of the Gita. That non-attachment is a state to be strived for is also accepted in Hinduism. Obviously, an "intellectual" understanding of these notions is not the real thing. But, my experience has been that my cultural conditioning has greatly aided me in my (Buddhist) meditation practice. These notions, along with a sense of karma, seem to make the mind less judgemental about all the stuff that arises during vipassana meditation. These views (facts, actually) are very fundamental to Buddhist practice - yet I trace all the predispositions in my mind regarding them to my Hindu background. > [much on castes deleted] > I do not have much to say about this except that there is a distinction made between men of *learning* and men of *wisdom*. More often than not, sanyasis were regarded as men of wisdom. Sanyasis (renunciates) were exempt from all caste rules - in fact, they have no caste. Caste rules, purificatory ceremonies etc., were prescribed for householders. As an aside, it is a mistake to regard Brahmins as the "priestly class". The role of Brahmins was to study and teach and only a very small percentage of them were (or are) priests. That said, it is fairly obvious that Buddhism has a far more egalitarian attitude. Many Hindu schools made a distinction between open and hidden knowledge - an attitude that the Buddha explicitly condemned. > 7. Brahminism and Buddhism also have very different approaches to > meditation. Brahminism tends to stress the attainment of very > deep states of *tranquillity*. In most Brahmanical traditions, > such states are believed to lead to (re)union with the Atman. > Often this is believed to involve the destruction of the "ego", > the phenomenal/individual self. In order to achieve these deep > states, Brahmanical practices usually stress exercises in > *concentration* which is usually defined (in both Brahminism and > Buddhism) as "one-pointedness" of mind. > > Buddhism is very different. Here, the point is not the > attainment of tranquillity (samatha) but the development of > *insight* (vipassana) into the nature of the mental/physical > "person". The essential meditative technique for the > development of insight is the cultivation of *mindfulness* > (smrti), not of concentration (samadhi). (The central Buddhist > sutra on meditation is entitled "The Setting Up of > Mindfulness".) Rather than developing an ever narrower > concentration on a particular object, material or mental, > Buddhist meditation involves an open ended attention to mental > and physical processes as they arise and pass away. The > attainment of the ultimate in insight ("awakening") is believed > to involve a thorough seeing into the "emptiness" of the person. > In other words, rather than seeking to destroy or subdue the > "ego", one sees directly that there is no such thing. There is much that is accurate in this - yet this is not fully correct. Most "Hindu" schools stress samatha meditation. Yet the fundamental difference between Hindu and Buddhist practice does not lie here. It lies in the fact that most Hindu schools lay stress on the "guru-shishya" (teacher-disciple) relationship. Most Vedantic schools seem to use the technique of the teacher helping push the student into a corner - until he has no choice but to see the answer to the question "Who am I"? Meditation is used more to train the mind in concentration. Tranquility is not seen as an end in itself. Gaudapada (Sankara's guru's guru) wrote a treatise (Karika) on the Mandukya Upanishad, in which the student is advised to maintain an attitude of non-attachment towards *everything*. He must give up craving for the state of transcendental bliss (satchitananda) - this is not possible if the state achieved is one of *absorption*. Absence of craving seems to indicate mindfulness. The approach seems koan-like - but I am not qualified to comment further on this. It is not true that the Upanishads require a subjugation of the ego - it is true that they describe the notion of a separate, individual existence as false. Ramana Maharshi, who was an extraordinary sage, used several different ways to teach. He advised people to relentlessly follow every thought with questions - who am I, where does the "I" thought come from? In addition, there was the remarkable effect of his silent presence. He *discouraged* people from seeking blissful mind states - and advised them to cultivate pure attention instead. I have not actually *practiced* any Hindu method formally. I cannot say what effect that would have. I love Buddha Dharma because of the clarity, depth and consistency that I see in it. As a systematic development of a map of the mind - *and* the path to see it for ourselves - I am aware of no body of work better than the Pali Canon. The teachings are direct and accessible. They require no obvious intermediary - though there is no doubt in my mind that a good teacher would be *very* helpful, almost essential. The Buddha gets right to the point - suffering, and the end of suffering. Mindfulness practice has an obvious and rapid effect on our daily lives.