quote:
Originally posted by Christi
quote:
Hi Christi,
I said, "refutes a higher Self or a Lord God." The Buddha refutes a Brahman. The subtle distinction arrives where Brahman is experienced as consciousness. The Buddha's view is that emptiness is beyond consciousness and that consciousness clinging is a hindrance. the Buddha asserts that consciousness is enmeshed in the interdependent web of existence. Brahman, Ishvara and purusha is a manifestation, consciousness. Consciousness depends on mind, intellect and Self. Therefore, the Buddha refuted both a Lord God Brahma and unitary Self or Brahman as aggregate and thereby unreal.
The Buddha rejected also purusha and atma; he asserts selflessness and absence of soul. Look at book 1, verse 17 of the Yoga Sutras, "Samprajnata samadhi is accomplished by reasoning, reflecting, rejoicing and pure I-am-ness." <-- This statement is antithetical to the Buddha's core teaching that nirvana is the relief from "me-ness," "my-ness" and "I-ness," even in the pure "I-am-ness" sense of a purusha or a Brahman.
Besides, Patanjali refers consistently to Ishvara not Brahman and Ishvara is God. I don't find the word "Brahman" in the Yoga Sutras. And I'm looking at the Sanskrit. The Buddha sought to dispel the contradiction yogis make that consciousness is one, yet consciousness consists of mind, intellect and self. Even AUM is A, U and M, aggregate.
Why didn't the Buddha use the word "Brahman"? If it was just a semantic difference, then why didn't he just stick with the old language? Why come up with dependent origination, selflessness, soullessness and emptiness? If it weren't for this distinction the Buddha would be Sri Gotama Swami Brahmananada.
This is why the Buddha claimed to be the teacher even of the Gods; while Patanjali instructs that Ishvara is the teacher of the oldest teachers.
Maybe you should read up on this before you assert that the Buddha wasn't trying to radically reform yoga, Christi.
We can't always force a square peg into a round hole, and I like round holes as much as the next guy. Then again, what do I know, I'm way off the mark. Both Dharma and Yoga adhere to truth, nature and intelligence exist for our emancipation.
HA!
Hi TMS
I still think you are way off the mark, and have simply failed to understand both the Buddha’s teachings and that of Patanjali.
In Yoga, Brahman is beyond consciousness. Consciousness arises with sense perception. Brahman is beyond both sense perception, and consciousness. Brahman, Ishwara, the Parapurusha, are beyond all manifestation, and thus are non-aggregate.
When the Buddha talked about the absence of a separate self (anata), he was talking about the ahankara, the ego. After the Buddha’s enlightenment, he was still there, no? And able to tell a lot of other people how to follow him. 
Ishwara is Brahman. Ishwara means the Lord and refers to Brahman. So why did the Buddha not use the word Brahman? I believe he thought that so many people misunderstood its actual meaning that it was better to avoid the use of the word. A bit like the word "enlightenment" today.
I don't think the Buddha was trying to radically reform yoga. I think he was trying to correct some misunderstandings in yoga that were around at the time in his locality.
I still think you would benefit from reading up on all this before trying to assert that Buddhism and Yoga are in some ways opposed to each other.
And you could do that before writing Mahayana Buddhist practices off as being a waste of time. 
Christi
I've read it all many times, dear. It's all I do. Before you dispense with your judgment and sentence that I am ignorant, try to consider that my interpretation of it is different. Also try to consider that my point of view has some weight. Also try to accept a little bit that I bring these findings, not so that I can be correct, but because my insights are relevant and important to crossing the divide into perfect peace. I'm here for the meditators who would benefit from advanced experience. If I'm not helping, I'll take my toys and go play by myself.
Why didn't Patanjali say Brahman? Ishvara is God as Creator. This discussion is about Patanjali's Yoga who was in the Samkya school. What you are describing, the unmanifest Brahman is Advaita Vedanta. Have you even read the Yoga Sutras? I think I probably have about twelve translations in my possession. All commentators on the Yoga Sutras translate Isvara as God or Lord. I also know from experience with Indian culture, that Ishvara is God and purusha is soul. Patanjali could have used Brahman but didn't. His practice included bhakti, something Buddha rejected. Brahman is consciousness. You can say unmanifest consciousness if you want, but I would say that "unmanifest consciousness" is an oxymoron. Consciousness is a manifestation of mind, intellect and Self. Patanjali lays this out in the first stanzas of the Yoga Sutras.
Yoga is a big topic with many schools. I can easily say that the Buddha's school of Anatta Yoga was an innovation over Samkya and Advaita Vedanta. The Buddha was a reformer and the most well regarded teacher of meditation. His innovation over the old regime is very hard to understand in debate format. It has to be expressed as the meditator enters samadhi. It is not God as the object of meditation that allows you to cling to nothing whatsoever and thereby enter Nirvana, but not clinging to an object of meditation.
The Buddha introduced these concepts of emptiness and dependent origination to allow the meditator to let go. Otherwise, we warned the meditator would hit a dead end in meditation, become frustrated and suffer, usually resorting to base ceremony and blind devotion.
It is a common error of my who are new to the path to see every path as ONE, ignoring the distinctions points and counter points. It is a nice gesture, though; we should all get along. Unfortunately, a serious student of these matters must address the reality of the difference and the reality of the similarities.
One could say, "Gee Surrender, You are clinging to selflessness." Maybe, I'm harping on this point, and that is ending now, but, in fact, if there is no self, then I can't cling to it, and you can't cling to something that isn't there. I certainly can't cling to an absence of something. The Buddha said that realizing emptiness in meditation is for the "wise."
Whatever philosophy you want to spew, no matter what the spew says, if it is in your mind in meditation, "I am that," you are in compound land and have hit a dead end. If you are in no-mind samadhi bliss you are equally at a dead end, because without mind you cannot realize and integrate this wisdom into your life. The final deconstruction of "I am that" results in descontruction of "I" and "that." "I" is an aggregate, and so is "that"/consciousness. This avenue is beyond the scope of the philosophical department of metaphysics. This is beyond the scope of debate and discussion.
I can easily say there is no selflessness either; it won't matter. What matters is the Buddha's only exhortation and admonition to "cling to no thing whatsoever." Consciousness is a thing, Christi, put the puppy down so that it can go play and you can achieve real stillness.
HA!
Respect and blessings
TMS
