Finde diesen Artikel sehr interessant - leider nur in Englisch verfügbar...

Eric Gross - A Key Differnce between Advaita and Zen

A Key Difference Between Buddhism and Advaita
January 7, 2011


First let me say that I am not a religious scholar, so there is the very good chance that everything I’m saying in this post is bullshit. And, of course, that is possible with any of my posts. Only you can decide that. I should tell you, however, that everything I write is written with the greatest sincerity. More than that, everything I write is tested in my own experience as well as my rather extensive background in philosophy and especially zen Buddhism.

But this post might really be bullshit – because I am not a religious scholar and I am going to talk as if I were one. But, having made all of that clear to you, the content of this post is not trivial. In fact, I think it is very important and I also think that most readers will get something quite important from reading this post. That is why I am writing it.

This post deals with the issue of the self. Both Advaita and Buddhism agree that the personal self is a fiction – a cleverly designed illusion that looks and feels like the self, but that isn’t one. They both claim that this self cannot be found.

So far so good.

Now before I say another word, let me say that the difference I’m am trying to address in this post may be more semantic than real … but let’s plow ahead.

She who is self-realized lives effortlessly. Everything happens on its own and there is no aggressive mind saying that this or that shouldn’t have happened because I know better. Anytime we are identified with concepts, and the self is a concept, the world should will arise in consciousness quite often. The self acts and operates in the world as something very separate from it. It stands aside, judging stuff and looking out for #1 – ME. When it is possessive (and it usually is) it will also “look out” for all it believes it possesses – its wife, its religion, its country, etc. This explains all of the abuse, violence, and war we see in this world governed by fear.

Advaita seems to suggest a continuity, which is called Brahmin. This Brahmin is identified as consciousness. Identified as Brahmin and consciousness, it has the appearance of being a thing or object. We thus seek to become Brahmin. And if we believe that consciousness is an object and we give it an exotic name, like Brahmin, then we may very subtly apply effort to be Brahmin or consciousness. This is the life of the seeker.

The Buddha rejected the notion of Brahmin. In contrast, Buddhism talks about each moment born anew in a vast chain of infinite causes and effects. Seen in this light, the content of Mind is IT and IT is in a constant state of change. Thus IT can never be nailed down or defined. It just is. Buddhism, it seems to me, doesn’t draw the same distinction between the floating universe of things and objects moving past a “mind-less” consciousness, as seems to be the case in Advaita. In advaita there is, on one side, the mind with its thoughts, feelings, sensations, and perception, and then there is consciousness – this infinite entity upon which all of the objects of the mind are played out.

There is nothing “to be” in Buddhism. Everything is right here and right now. There is no coming and going.

In my own view, Buddhism is far more real and visceral than Advaita, which seems to focus on the transcendent. In Buddhism, Life boils down to right now. This now has never happened before and it will never happen again. This is life in the moment – alive and intense.

Where Buddhism sees events as a chain of causes and effects, Advaita seems to see the world as one infinite ever-changing substance with only the appearance of cause and effect. It is really just one continuous thing. This “thingness” of Advaita parallels the concept of Brahmin.

So, why is this discussion important?

Anytime the ego (or Fear-Self) seeks to be something or somebody, it will require some degree of will power, desire, and the projection of some outcome, which it seeks. All of these beliefs translate into a lifetime of endless seeking. This is the Navajo monster of frustration living our lives in its thrall. The concept of consciousness and Brahmin may contribute to this life of endless seeking. I know that there are those of you out there who label themselves as Advaitists who will say that I’m not understanding consciousness correctly. They will say that it is not a concept – that the use of that word is just a pointer to what cannot be put into words. And I also know that they are correct. But even when we say that, do we truly live it? That is the question.

Shakespeare said it so much better: To be or not to be? That is the question.

____________________________________
...einfach nur leben...