Author Topic: Differences and similarities between Ramana's teaching and that of Buddhism?  (Read 3617 times)

Kicsi108

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Namaste to All,

For example, Ramana teaches that only the Self is real. Is(n't) Self as such denied in Buddhism?

I would like to know more about the Self according to Ramana and Buddhism. What are their views on it if compared?

Thank you for your kind help.

Arunachalam

Kicsi108

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
So.... does it mean that Buddhism does acknowledge the Self (the eternal, non-born, real I, that Ramana calls Self and Buddhism calls it Buddha Nature) and denies only the I (aka. ego)?

Is it really true that Shankara's teaching and that of Buddhism go hand in hand - as you say it?
Because while trying to compare them, I also have found this and yet many say they are different, Buddhism does not acknowledge the Self (the real I), etc.

I am waiting for others' insight as well.

Thank you for the answers.
Arunachalam

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6082
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Dear kisci108,

My opinion is same like Sri Tushnim's,that Buddha only used different word,Emptiness,and Bhagavan used,the Self. But essence is really the same. With Emptiness,Buddha also tried to point on non duality,and egolessness. It means that all is empty,in a way,thatnothing have independent existence. There is only the Self,That,Supreme,one Reality. Non duality. He only didnt used word Self to avoid misunderstanding with ego self. But philosophy is very much the same in essence. Thats my opinion. Both Bhagavan and Buddha theach that there is no separate entity,that there is only Supreme,and that main cause of ignorance is indentification with body-mind,which created ego in the first place,when ego is in reality non existent.

Here are some interesting quotes on Buddhism which i find in accordance with Bhagavan teaching.

 "Monks, we who look at the whole and not just the part, know that we too are systems of interdependence, of feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and consciousness all interconnected. Investigating in this way, we come to realize that there is no me or mine in any one part, just as a sound does not belong to any one part of the lute."
"-Samyutta Nikaya, from "Buddha Speaks""

"It is important to remember always that the principle of egolessness does not mean that there was an ego in the first place, and the Buddhists did away with it. On the contrary, it means there was never any ego at all to begin with. To realize that is called 'egolessness'."

"Sogyal Rinpoche"

 "The one thing to be attained is essentially void and compassionate. Let me explain. 
The realisation of voidness is the absolute spirit of enlightenment; it is seeing that all things are unborn. 
Compassion is the relative spirit of enlightenment; it is reaching out in love to all beings who have yet to realise that they are unborn. 
Those who follow the Mahayana path should develop these two forms of the spirit of enlightenment."
"Drom Tonpa"

 
" *Samadhi Raja Sutra*

Know all things to be like this:
A mirage, a cloud castle,
A dream, an apparition,
Without essence, but with qualities that can be seen.

Know all things to be like this:
As the moon in a bright sky
In some clear lake reflected,
Though to that lake the moon has never moved.

Know all things to be like this:
As an echo that derives
From music, sounds, and weeping,
Yet in that echo is no melody.

Know all things to be like this:
As a magician makes illusions
Of horses, oxen, carts and other things,
Nothing is as it appears.
"The Buddha""

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43530
    • View Profile
Dear  Jewell,

I think you have summarized correctly. What Buddha called SunuatA, Sri Bhagavan called it as Self or Atma.

As regards ego, there is a great difference between them.  Sri Bhagavan said that Ego is there for everyone, and one should
try to vanquish it to become egoless. Egoless state is Moksha.  Buddha said that there is no ego at all, and all of us are ego less
and to gain egolessness is only to gain what is already there.


Again as Jivan Mukti, in living in body after attainment of the Self realization, is not talked about in Buddhism.

Arunachala Siva.     


Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6082
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Dear Sri Subramanian sir,

I think that Bhagavan too pointed out that ultimatievly there is no ego. He said many times:"Search for where the I spring forth,and you will see that there is no such thing like "I"." I dont kniw exsact words. But that is essence. To realise nonexistence of ego. I find that teaching same like egolessness. They sure used different approach and words. But i also believe that Buddha didnt deal with question of Jivan mukta coz it applies duality. In reality,there is no such thing like jJivan mukta. Also,Buddha thought how to act,behave,Darma principles,which is by my thinking for students in the begining of learning,how to say. Same with that Bhagavan teachings,about jnani behavior. Its only to satisfy our wish to understand. It deppends to whom is mentioned,but ultimatievly,philosophy is non dualism.  And again,there are two different words,the Self and Emptiness. Buddha wanted to avoid misunderstanding,but Emptiness too become subject of misunderstanding. I guess it will like that with every teaching,coz there is no right word for Reality.

Well,the mettods differ,but the essence is the same. That is my opinion.

With love and prayers,
« Last Edit: March 29, 2013, 05:08:09 PM by Jewell »

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43530
    • View Profile
Dear Jewell,

According to Sri Bhagavan, a Sadhaka  does not start with egolessness, as pointed out by Buddhists. Whether ego is a ghost or real
it is there at the beginning.  Otherwise why should He state that egoless state is mukti.  Everybody if they start with egoless state,
then everybody is a Mukta even as the word go. But in practice it is not.

Arunachala Siva.

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6082
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Dear Sri Subramanian sir,

Yes,very true.But i dont think in Buddhism also sadhaka start with egolessness. If that was the case,why should he strive for awakening,or enlightenment. Buddha never states that all are muktas,but that there is no such thing like attaining or non attaining. That there is no such thing like "all" are free,but there is no all at all,and with it no ego. Only reality. I think that is subbtle point behind that. It is in ultimative sense. Like Bhagavan said all is the Self. That is also not like that in practice,whille we are believing we are separate.
I see only differencess in mettod and approach,but view on Reality i see pretty much the same.

With love and prayers,

Subramanian.R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 43530
    • View Profile
Dear Jewell,

PrajnApAramita essays which I have been posting says;  There is no Atman at the back of the psychological phenomena, so there
is not Atman at the back of external world. This is technically known as egolessness of things, both inner things and outer things.
All thins outside and inside are all declared empty. 

Arunachala Siva.   

Jewell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6082
  • Love,always love and only love
    • View Profile
Dear Sri Subramanian sir,

I believe that Advaita also says that there is no Atman at the back of all phenomena. All IS Atman. By emptiness i believe Buddha wanted to point that Reality is not something which can be thouched,or smelled,or tasted,seen,experienced. Like Bhagavan also said that all bodies and things are empty shells. All is emptiness with enormus possabilities,and by such they are not literaly empty,or literaly nothing. Anyway,it is again only play of words,and i think there is no word good enough to describe something which is beyond words.

With love and prayers,

ksksat27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
    • View Profile
Namaste to All,

For example, Ramana teaches that only the Self is real. Is(n't) Self as such denied in Buddhism?

I would like to know more about the Self according to Ramana and Buddhism. What are their views on it if compared?

Thank you for your kind help.

Arunachalam

Dear Kicsi108 ,

In this forum,  we already compared and contrasted our beloved Sri Ramana Maharishee with too many saints.  I think Sri Ramana would have been really fed up when he would be alive now --  'enough enough ,  what you all are doing to Swami.  Swamitvam has these many difficulties in internet forums '  .  This is what He would have told in his style of humorous expression.

So we are really tired of this comparisons --  perhaps you posted a bit late,  our dearest Maharishee is unique ,  nobody can be compared with him ok  :D :D

Kicsi108

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 45
    • View Profile
Namaste to All,

Thank you so much for all the answers. They are a great help to me now. Really. Now I can understand more of it than I did before submitting this question.

Dear ksksat27,
I hope I didn't make you bored by this question. :)

Arunachalam

ksksat27

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
    • View Profile
Namaste to All,

Thank you so much for all the answers. They are a great help to me now. Really. Now I can understand more of it than I did before submitting this question.

Dear ksksat27,
I hope I didn't make you bored by this question. :)

Arunachalam

Hi kicsi108,

no,  not at all.  But I think though we tend to compare like this,  every teacher is really unique.  we canot really compare them with anybody or any past teaching.