Advaita Vedanta & Tibetan Buddhism | Sam Harris & Swami Sarvapriyananda (JivanMukti Viveka)

[@Анандху]

00:06 Advaita Vedanta emphasizes the understanding of limitless being and consciousness. 03:16 The relationship between Consciousness and the experienced 06:02 Consciousness in Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamaka perspectives 09:12 Consciousness is the only reality and everything appears as a modification of Consciousness. 12:23 Consciousness may only arise in complex systems 15:37 Engaging with science in spiritual pursuits is beneficial 18:37 Faith in Advaita Vedanta is based on inquiry and observation, not blind belief. 21:32 Cultivating non-duality and the stages of thought liberation 24:37 Jivan Mukti - living Liberation in Advaita Vedanta 27:38 Three components of full Liberation in Advaita Vedanta 30:25 Discussion on spiritual teachings and book recommendations. pin

[@cpadman5800]

I never expected that Sam Harris would agree to have a conversation with Swamy Sarvapriyananda but it has happened, that is beyond belief. Just like Sam Harris, I am also an agnostic. I enjoyed this conversation. Advaita Philosophy is very intellectual and fascinating.

[@pauldirc..]

But didn't it claim too much about reality without giving any concrete evidence, means i also like it as philosophy but when i hear lecture about advait, i only hear metaphors as evidence

[@jaymondal7775]

​@@pauldirc..Whoever experienced the reality,they experienced a state of no experience so if you don't follow the path and don't try to experience yourself how will you know....? To guide you they obviously need metaphors to give example. Did you read or just listen to lectures ?

[@kishanshivakoti256]

@@jaymondal7775🙏

[@Jimmy-el2gh]

Of course he would talk to him

[@OfficialGOD]

@shivadasa Sam is a neuroscientist and like every other scientist, due to his professional commitments, he does not publicly align himself with any spiritual tradition. He is no longer a strong Atheist, he is a "New Atheist" - an atheist with a spiritual side. Btw he has endorsed Jainism. "Harris isn't against all religion. He endorses Jainism, a religion-philosophy from India that finds God in the unchanging traits of the human soul" - WashingtonPost

[@dipalibiswas8873]

Finally hearing two great minds in laying the foundation of The Ultimate Truth gave me immense joy. OM Shanti 🙏🙏🙏

[@msimp0108]

Minds are the obstacle to the “Ultimate Truth”. There are no great minds. The Heart is it’s own Source of Joy. Don’t be fooled by words…even these words.

[@LieutenantBoreyko]

@@msimp0108 The mind is not an obstacle. A mind immersed in ignorance is an obstacle. Mind is a manifestation of Brahman, like everything else. In fact, the only chance for liberation lies in a mind capable of understanding the truth. Therefore, no one has been enlightened in a state of deep sleep. You wrote this comment using your mind, right? You might as well have used your mind better and written something smarter. The "heart" is an aspect of the mind. Pseudo-nondualists can always be identified by their "it's just the mind" talk. You have exalted yourself above Buddha, Shankara and other great minds with this stupid comment.

[@kozmicblues7758]

Incredible meeting.....of incredible minds of two gentlemen. Om Shanti!

[@chriswoodson6643]

I am so happy to finally see Sam Harris and Swamiji in a conversation!

[@cothat]

Both are my teacher 🙏

[@msimp0108]

Sam Harris is a dunderhead

[@shrirambhandari1463]

​@@msimp0108 why ?

[@msimp0108]

@@shrirambhandari1463 Why? Because he goes around acting like a Guru while criticizing Gurus, because he clings desperately to a physicalist cosmology and relegates spiritual phenomena to brain activity, because he criticizes religion without distinguishing between monotheistic religions and Vedic religions, because he ignores the great Realizers that the monotheistic religions have produced, because he has no understanding whatsoever of the Wisdom of the Vedas, because he trivializes the Truth that Reality is Satchitananda-Existence Consciousness Love-Bliss, because when faced with the truth he falls back on his physicalist dogma and pretends that Advaita can be explained within that cosmology, because he has a meditation app and he doesn’t have a clue about the actual profundity of meditation. Harris is lucky the Swami is a kind soul who allowed him to be the dunderhead that he is without calling him out for the obvious contradictions that are inherent in his interpretation of reality.

[@PuBearsticks]

​@@msimp0108You're a dunderhead

[@drake8846]

Very Heart warming. Sam really brought out the best in a very kind and beautiful teacher. Peace and love.🙏

[@waldwassermann]

Grateful YOU are here. Bless you all. Big hug.

[@MountainDharma]

Advaita is exactly like Buddhism. Swami Ji’s explanation of full and complete liberation is exactly the same as the Buddha’s Sila (morality/purification of mind), samadhi (meditation), and panya (wisdom/discernment of ultimate reality).

[@OfficialGOD]

Yes, ultimately it's all the same but life is a celebration not suffering here and there is the individual self that goes through rebirths if unrealized.

[@vish2553]

Only problem is Advaita existed a long long ago and long before Buddha was born . Correct statement is Buddhism is a lot like Advaita Vedanta.

[@MountainDharma]

@@vish2553 hmmm, not so sure that’s true but it doesn’t matter, both originate with the Upanishads as their context. Buddhism definitely was more fully formed prior to Advaita even if Advaita existed in some early stages around the time of the Buddha

[@OfficialGOD]

Yes, Advaita was popularized by Shankara due to his exceptional interpretations. Upanishadic tenets that are foundational to Advaita: 'Prajñānam brahma' - 'Consciousness is Brahman' (Aitareya Upanishad). 'Aham brahmāsmi' - 'I am Brahman' (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad). 'Tat tvam asi' - 'That Thou art' (Chandogya Upanishad). 'Ekam evadvitiyam' - 'He is One only without a second' (Chandogya Upanishad)

[@MountainDharma]

@@OfficialGOD have you tried to see if there is any overlap between the Buddha’s teachings and Advaita? Or do you think the Buddha was dismissing these principles as well? For example, when the Buddha says we have to get rid of all “I making” (ahamkara) and “my making” (mamankara), is he referring to these principles of Advaita as well, or is the Buddha and Advaita pointing at the same ultimate reality from different directions?

[@AndyAnaya]

This is real talk.

[@AndyAnaya]

This was my dream conversation, to have these two meet! Where Shankara meets Nagarjuna is exciting space, chat it up all day long! Someone needs to make a Harris AI and a Sarvapriyananda AI and do a 24-hour livestream of their discourse, they ride a good line

[@anagha.aniruddha16]

Namaskar Swami Sarvapriyanandaji Maharaj🙏🏻 & Sam Harris 🙏🏻

[@nandinidumblekar7107]

Amazing dialogue. Loved it, enjoyed it thoroughly.

[@QED_]

In speaking of *Sat-Chit-Ananda,* the threefold nature of Reality, Sarvapriyananda gives a good explanation of *Sat* ("Being") . . . and *Chit* ("Consciousness") . . . but seems to downplay *Ananda* as mere "pleasures". In fact, *Ananda* is really at the same universal level as *Sat* and *Chit.* It is the nature of Reality as pervasive *Goodness* or *Divine Love* . . .

[@TrendingTigerBerserk]

It's not love it's the feeling of infinite contentment (Satisfaction.. Completeness)

[@vajraloka1]

Fantastic discussion. Definitely Have pondered these subjects .

[@Jax_66687]

Thank your sir.

[@sumitdutta7043]

Have yo got the Donald Hoffman and Swami Sarvapriyananda talk.

[@OfficialGOD]

don't think there is one

[@sumitdutta7043]

​@@OfficialGODno a talk happened recently, a philosophy channel showed about the talk in their community post.

[@Infinitenothingness180]

Sam is right that the we cannot scientifically evaluate a subjective state and that everyone can only describe his/her first person experience . However, he misses the point that the process of spiritual growth is about sublimation to a no-mind state, a state beyond the first person experience itself .

[@aswinhoola]

Please upload the whole interview!!!!! 😭😭😭😭

[@OfficialGOD]

Check the description

[@narutodragon3545]

​@@OfficialGOD the link is not getting highlighted... Please post it once again

[@OfficialGOD]

​​@@narutodragon3545here you go dynamic.wakingup.com/?share_id=6FE8429C

[@rajj59]

Wonderful to hear both of them.. And this clip needs more than million views but stands at 23k 😢

[@kesavatadipatri9078]

You are not worried about knowing the truth, but obsessed with number.

[@PP-ss3zf]

Is there such thing as ‘the one’ ? My heart says there is only one person for me, and not to even try to love another.. my seeking to higher truth gives me a feeling that it’s not the case, it is currently a conflict within

[@waldwassermann]

I ♥️ YOU my friend and I appreciate You are here. Bless you.

[@yoeyyoey8937]

There is for some people but you don’t know it’s for you until it happens. There’s a lot of ways to look at that

[@OfficialGOD]

Notes: _Buddhism:_ - Emphasizes the impermanence and unsatisfactoriness of all conditioned phenomena, including the self. - Teaches that suffering arises from craving and attachment. - Proposes that liberation is possible through the Eightfold Path, which includes ethical conduct, meditation, and wisdom. - Emphasizes the practice of mindfulness as a means to see reality as it is. _Advaita Vedanta:_ - Asserts that pure consciousness or Brahman is the fundamental reality and that the individual self (atman) is identical to Brahman. - Teaches that ignorance of this identity is the cause of suffering and that realization of this identity brings liberation. - Proposes that liberation is possible through the practice of self-inquiry (Atma-vichara) and meditation. - Emphasizes the importance of a qualified teacher (Guru) to guide the aspirant in the practice. _Take Away:_ - Many people have glimpses of the true nature of reality, but may not be able to fully live it or embody it. - Full liberation requires not just realization of the truth through herbs or mystical experience, but also purification of the mind and advanced training in meditation. - Becoming a guru or teacher prematurely can be harmful to oneself and others if the necessary groundwork has not been done. - Strict moral conduct and deepening one's meditation practice are important for staying in touch with the truth and embodying it in daily life. - The goal of liberation is not a final state or accomplishment, but rather a perpetual process of new beginnings and deeper understanding. Full talk: dynamic.wakingup.com/course/COFFD9B

[@eternalreality4346]

Thank you so much for this 🙏 ❤ One of the best discussions I've ever heard 🙏🙏🙏🙏

[@sumitdutta7043]

Thanks for this

[@thetransferaccount4586]

this is only a small portion of the full talk

[@OfficialGOD]

yes, full talk is here dynamic.wakingup.com/course/COFFD9B

[@maheshseshadri490]

Consiouness is a subject and Science is object based.

[@VedantaKesari]

"What brought the senses into existence? The elements. How do you know of these elements? Through the senses. Is not that reasoning in a circle? This establishes the illusory nature of the world in the wakeful state." ~~Swami Rama Tirtha

[@monkkeygawd]

Sam Harris doesn't really grasp Advaita in some important ways, because there are literally ZERO "contradictions" when Consciousness is Primal and pure being. It solves everything in an ultimate sense.

[@PuBearsticks]

That's not true. I don't disagree that he lacks a complete understanding however there are a ton of paradoxes in Advaita such as who realizes that reality is Non Dual? There are no distinctions and yet there is an appearance of separateness. Just to point out 2 of them.

[@monkkeygawd]

@@PuBearsticks no offense, but then you don't grasp nondiality. Reality is one mind playing out dreamlike scenarios; playing every part. Egos are simply dissociated perspectives of the One Mind of God/Primal Consciousness.

[@PuBearsticks]

@@monkkeygawd I would say that sounds like you're stuck halfway. Those disassociated perspectives have a relative existence. They do not exist fundamentally but borrow existence from that Non Dual fundament. The teaching that they don't exist is a tool to help divorce the sense of self from the transient and realign it with the transcendent. I'm not sure if you know of Donovan but he puts it very well in one of his songs. "First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is." Don't get stuck at no mountain. Relative existence is still existence.

[@monkkeygawd]

@PuBearsticks in your own dreams, does your dream avatar self and dream world and dream people REALLY exist or just borrow a seeming existence from your sleeping brain? Same with Primal Consciousness. It's all a dream played out IN Consciousness. No material world of matter, simply awareness.

[@PuBearsticks]

@@monkkeygawd Yes, it really exists as an experience. It has conditional/dependant existence but as I said earlier this is still existence. If it weren't why would it be referred to as dependant "existence" which is an Advaita term

[@yifuxero9745]

This exchange is only a first step. The two are NOT in agreement since Sam is still hung up on the neurophysiology model: That Consciousness arises from brains. He doesn't quite get the point of Advaita Vedanta. To use a Zen saying: "A dirt clod is the Buddha" This means that a dirt clod and the Buddha are both Pure Consciousness ("In-Itself"), but the Buddha is more advanced in the subset of consciousness "of" things, the physiology to experience this awareness, and the knowledge and interpretation of the experience. But again, everything in the universe IS Pure Consciousness, whether it's a rock or a Saint, or the Creator. The whole universe as one living organism as the "One" (from Plotinus), pure Substance of Consciousness, or Brahman.

[@OfficialGOD]

Sam is a neuroscientist so he can't be in an agreement, it is part of his character. Unless it comes from Western science these people will remain like this in public, and that's the programming.

[@mickshaw555]

o basically, Harris is implying the "Small I" doesn't necessarily merge with a "Big I", when one masters the meditative technique to establish oneself in "witness consciousness". Its more of a "blissfull nothingness". Swamiji's school believes the end goal is Small I & Big I merging as an end result of the meditative technique. Its still impossible to scientifically prove which one is correct, or if even both are. Both Sam's perspective and Swamiji;s perspective is experiential in nature. The way of reaching the meditative state may be methodical (similar to scientific a method), however science and rationality still cannot explain the phenomena of consciousness. This subject is under the purview of "purpose", while the "standard model of science & evolution" falls in the category of "function".

[@kenkaplan3654]

Harris is inching ever so closer to intention. Something might be an appearance, a modification of itself that has no independent reality, but this does not mean the appearance has no purpose or meaning.

[@FasterPATH]

Where did Conscious begin?

[@OfficialGOD]

@@FasterPATH concept of time is in consciousness. consciousness is beginning-less. Anadi, Brahman.

[@FromPlanetZX]

Nobody in his right mind will considere Sam Harris a philosopher. Bernardo Kastrup gives him a clear description.

[@kuleebaba9014]

Really? If Philosophy is the study of fundamental truths about the world, Sam fits that bill - and then some. On the other hand, Bernado Kastrup is an abusive cult leader who has nothing on Sam Harris.

[@manusha1349]

Love Sam Harris ❤️ he's on a genuine quest for Enlightenment. I miss Christopher Hitchens 😢 would have loved to hear his view on vedanta, although he didn't study Eastern philosophy. Can imagine what he would have said ....

[@Octavus5]

Harris' idea of enlightenment seems to be nuking Muslims, destroying Christianity, and defending Israel. Harris is morally objectionable. The guy argued the media should be in cahoots to destroy Trump, regardless of truth.

[@ananthan8951]

What of your own quest?

[@pauldirc..]

But didn't it claim too much about reality without giving any concrete evidence, means i also like it as philosophy but when i hear lecture about advait, i only hear metaphors as evidence

[@manusha1349]

@@pauldirc.. yes, agreed. Fact is nobody knows. We can only live the best lives we can. I don't think the path really matters. Each person has to find the one that works for him.

[@michaeldillon3113]

I would have loved to see Christopher Hitchens ( or even anyone from the Atheist Experience) up against Bernardo Kastrup . A grown up argument.

[@radhikaschwartz3499]

Wish both of them would learn to edit their thought, they both go on and on . Simple short concise speaking would be so appreciated. They are both brilliant and so in their heads

[@justasimpleguy7211]

Swami Sarvapriyananda didn't even get warmed up. LOL! There is no simple, short and concise way of speaking about it. Intellect can't grasp it nor language verbalize it. It requires a lot of talking around the 'edges' using metaphor and analogy. And even then if it ever does 'hit' you the metaphors and analogies can't hold a candle to it. For instance I can say it's like the waking equivalent of a lucid dream but that doesn't even begin to do it justice. Not even remotely close although it's about the most relatable one I can think of.

[@vajraloka1]

I didn't find it "going on and on" these are deep subjects ,not zen koans. Imo

[@justasimpleguy7211]

@@vajraloka1 Yup. It's a vast corpus of Eastern philosophy spanning thousands of years, all the way back to the Vedas. Summarizing into short and concise sentences just doesn't cut the mustard. I've listened to hundreds upon hundreds of hours of Swamiji's talks as well as read the ten principal Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita, Ashtavakra Gita and two 900+ page books on Vivekananda and Ramakrishna and I've just scratched the surface.

[@bodhiheeren]

I started thinking wether Harris ever would be allowed to say something 😉

[@justasimpleguy7211]

@@bodhiheeren No great loss. Harris isn't anywhere near as interesting or entertaining as Swamiji. ;-)

[@RamdasDhore-p4i]

❤

[@cvisuali]

Let me clarify a better way to approach this because the title is too vast and consequently discussion is all over the place, is to compare purusha from samkhya with What is the difference between purusha in samkhya vs rigpa in Tibetan dzogchen buddhism In the philosophical system of Samkhya and in Tibetan Dzogchen Buddhism, the concepts of "purusha" and "rigpa" represent different ideas and have distinct meanings. While both terms relate to spiritual aspects of human experience, they emerge from different philosophical traditions and have different implications. Purusha in Samkhya: In Samkhya philosophy, purusha refers to the eternal, unchanging, and pure consciousness or spirit. According to Samkhya, the universe consists of two fundamental realities: purusha (consciousness) and prakriti (matter). Purusha is considered to be distinct from the physical body and the material world. It is characterized by pure awareness, devoid of any attributes or qualities. In Samkhya, the ultimate goal is to attain liberation (moksha) by realizing the distinction between purusha and prakriti and disidentifying with the material world. Rigpa in Tibetan Dzogchen Buddhism: In Tibetan Dzogchen Buddhism, rigpa is a term used to describe the innate, primordial awareness or pure consciousness. It is considered to be the intrinsic nature of mind, which is naturally present in all sentient beings. Rigpa is seen as the ultimate reality that transcends dualistic conceptual thinking and ordinary perception. It is a state of non-dual awareness that is open, clear, and luminous. In Dzogchen, the focus is on recognizing and directly realizing rigpa as the true nature of mind through direct experience, leading to liberation or enlightenment. While both purusha in Samkhya and rigpa in Dzogchen refer to consciousness or awareness, there are some differences between the two: Context: Purusha is a concept within the Samkhya philosophical framework, which is one of the six classical schools of Indian philosophy. Rigpa, on the other hand, is a concept specifically within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, particularly associated with Dzogchen teachings. Emphasis: Samkhya places emphasis on understanding the duality between purusha (consciousness) and prakriti (matter), and liberation is achieved through discerning their distinction. Dzogchen, on the other hand, emphasizes recognizing and resting in the non-dual nature of rigpa, directly realizing it as the essence of mind. Approach: Samkhya philosophy involves a systematic analysis of the components of existence, including the mind-body complex, to discern the nature of purusha and prakriti. Dzogchen, on the other hand, emphasizes direct non-conceptual awareness and the direct transmission of rigpa from a qualified teacher. It's important to note that this explanation provides a general understanding of the concepts of purusha and rigpa. Both Samkhya and Dzogchen have complex and nuanced teachings, and further exploration and study would yield a deeper understanding of these concepts within their respective traditions.

[@cvisuali]

To now further clarify What is the difference between brahman Atman in Advaita vedanta and rigpa in Tibetan Buddhism dzogchen In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman refers to the ultimate reality, the absolute, infinite, and indivisible principle that underlies all existence. It is described as the essence of consciousness, existence, and bliss. Atman, on the other hand, refers to the individual self or soul. Advaita Vedanta posits that the true nature of the individual self (Atman) is identical to Brahman. The goal of spiritual practice in Advaita Vedanta is to realize this identity and experience liberation (moksha) from the cycle of birth and death. In Tibetan Buddhism, specifically in the Dzogchen tradition, the term Rigpa is used to describe a similar concept. Rigpa is often translated as "primordial awareness" or "pure awareness." It is considered the fundamental nature of mind, which is said to be inherently clear, luminous, and non-conceptual. Rigpa is the intrinsic awareness that underlies all mental activity and experiences. While there are similarities between Brahman and Rigpa, there are also some differences: Scope of Reality: In Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is understood as the ultimate reality that transcends both the phenomenal and noumenal realms. It is considered the source and substratum of all existence. In Dzogchen, Rigpa is primarily focused on the nature of mind and consciousness, and its exploration is centered on recognizing the true nature of mind and its liberation. Emphasis on Non-Duality: Advaita Vedanta places strong emphasis on non-duality, asserting that the individual self (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman) are ultimately one and the same. Dzogchen, although also pointing to the non-dual nature of reality, tends to emphasize the inseparability of awareness (Rigpa) and appearances, recognizing the interplay of emptiness and clarity. Cultural and Philosophical Context: Advaita Vedanta is rooted in the Hindu philosophical and cultural tradition, while Dzogchen is a practice and philosophical system within Tibetan Buddhism. These different contexts give rise to variations in language, terminology, and emphasis, even when exploring similar philosophical concepts. It's worth noting that both Advaita Vedanta and Dzogchen share the goal of realizing the true nature of reality and attaining liberation or enlightenment. However, the specific frameworks, practices, and terminologies used in each tradition may differ due to the historical and cultural contexts in which they developed.

[@chefhomeboyardee8]

Chat gpt much?

[@Anonymous-cf8fq]

@@chefhomeboyardee8lol

[@kenkaplan3654]

You are misstating Advaita (not two).Consciousness (Purusha=Brahman ) is not distinct from matter. Matter is an appearance of the Brahman, indivisible. The sky is colorless but appears as different colors at different times.

[@lax2k]

🙏💌

[@sumitdutta7043]

Is it the whole video or a part of it ?

[@OfficialGOD]

Description

[@bensmith4749]

Anatman (Buddhism) is a very different concept to Atman (Hinduism)

[@OfficialGOD]

on the surface yes

[@bensmith4749]

@@OfficialGOD anatman is the result of realising one’s beginningless ignorance. Atman has always been perfect..?🙄They are completely different concepts. It’s obvious why there is the terrible hindu/brahmin jati/caste system.

[@VedantaKesari]

Yes, but concepts are not the Reality. Two opposing concepts, though, can be pointers to Reality.

[@bensmith4749]

@@VedantaKesari there’s also no inherent reality (atman)…only conventional reality. Ultimate reality (anatman)/conventional reality

[@VedantaKesari]

@@bensmith4749 The so-called conventional reality IS the Atman but most people don't know it. That's why Swami Vivekananda said that everyone is seeing God (Consciousness) but are only aware of objects. That is also why Meher Baba said "Why is it so difficult to find God? Because you're looking for something you've never lost." Your ability to even engage in this conversation proves the inherent Reality, Atman. "The only God is Reality."--Da Free John

[@Erwin70000]

Blind leading the blind. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

[@traceler]

W need a talk between Swami Sarvapriyananda and B. Alan Wallace, also a talk of Swami ji with Jordan Peterson will be great.

[@FromPlanetZX]

Jordan Peterson is no philosopher.

[@FromPlanetZX]

@Boulanger948 I will agree to that. I listen to Barnardo Kastrup. What about you?

[@kenkaplan3654]

Talking with Jordan peterson is a waste of time.

[@tomofield]

Sam is like most Westerners, myself included, wedded to misery and rumination 😂 Mind you, Europe, and America in particular, encourages it with their 'Death of God' and the love of trinkets 😂 Love these two lads ❤

[@kenkaplan3654]

I think Harris has done some real work on himself.

[@ckreddy]

Is this the full conversation?

[@OfficialGOD]

no

[@ckreddy]

​@@OfficialGOD Can you please share the full conversation

[@OfficialGOD]

here :) dynamic.wakingup.com/course/COFFD9B @@ckreddy

[@taidelek9994]

When was Advaita vetanda written?

[@Anshu.24383]

Advait vedanta philosophy is totally based upon upnishad which was written many thousand years ago and before that it was transmitted orally. Adi shankracharya was the prominent propogator of this philosphy who propogate this philosophy around the whole indian subcontinent with their logics and written his commentry on 11 upnishads, brahmsutra and bhagwat gita.

[@taidelek9994]

@nomad.7232 which script they used in their oldest recorded book ? I doubt they were written during 14th century 🤔

[@Anshu.24383]

@@taidelek9994 who?? Upnishads??

[@AnAn___]

@@taidelek9994 Sanskrit. The Upanishads are more than 3 thousand years old. But precisely how old is debated.

[@maheshseshadri490]

It is believed 3000 years before.

[@msimp0108]

There is no end to the path because there is no path and there never was.

[@AnaRodriguez-ry8ix]

🥰💙🌊🕯 🙏🏻

[@bennguyen1313]

Regarding how the Buddhists teaching of non-dual (via the Tibetan traditions like Dozchen, Mahamudra.. and Zen teachings), How does Advaita/advaya refutes Samkhya (tirthika)? Or its answer to Madhyamaka? For example, I understand Advaita (non-dual) is not talking about some THING ('S'elf/Atman/Brahman).. and Madhyamaka Buddhism isn't talking about NOTHING.. and that BOTH are talking something that is not a thing (NO-THING). And is the path to end of psychological suffering via Madhyamaka Buddhist śūnya (void) or Advaita's Purna (infinite), the same? 1 - religion faith 2 - yoga techniques to mystical experience (chant/breath/etc) to show you are not the mind 3 - Samkhya ->advaita inquiry: hearing/study, contemplation/reason, meditation I understand Chan (Chinese school of Mahāyāna Buddhism) later became Zen in Japanese.. but I've heard Zen is like Taoism with a splash of Buddhism.. but what is the key differences between dzogchen , Taoism and advaita. Dzogchen practice allows you to recognize the lack of self in every moment?

[@OfficialGOD]

Advaita is non dual and Samkhya is dualistic.. and Madhyamaka Buddhism with idea of "Shunyata" or emptiness, which is often misunderstood as nihilism but it actually refers to the interdependent origination and emptiness of inherent existence in all phenomena. Advaita on the other hand says that while the phenomenal world is not ultimately real (appears like a dream), it emanates from and subsides into Brahman, which is the substratum of all existence. Both philosophies appear similar as they both point towards a state that is beyond conceptual understanding, the only difference is in their propositions. Same with Zen, Taoism, Dzogchen and others.

[@yoeyyoey8937]

Zen is most Ike advaita. Vajrayana is more like “tantra”. But really zen is a part of yoga if you think about it (dhyan)

[@yoeyyoey8937]

Advaita really just means nondual and Vedanta means what follows the vedas. So it’s non dual philosophy from the point of view of the Vedic tradition (Veda or vidya really just means knowledge or wisdom)

[@holyvlogs4366]

Is this real talk

[@OfficialGOD]

Yes

[@markstevens1729]

I love this subject, yet not this interchange. Spirituality suffers from any sales effort, and materialism hides in its own bubble at it’s peril. If spiritual truth must “win” on the playing field of suffering and materialism, it faces an impossible task. Define the object from the subject’s point of view. The opening must come from a desire to escape the “dukka” of life.

[@OfficialGOD]

Dukkha stuff is Buddhism. Here life is a celebration and not about escaping dukkha but realizing one's true nature which is beyond dualities/dukkha. The realization of the non dual nature of the Self, which transcends both subject and object, so there is no 'winning' or 'losing' for it transcends dualities.

[@markstevens1729]

@@OfficialGOD says you, but that is not the nature of this discussion. You seem to want your comment section to exist outside the realities of life. Good luck with that.

[@VedantaKesari]

The strength of Advaita Vedanta is it requires no faith but is based completely on reason and logic.

[@mathrodite]

Sam doesn't get it. He's mired in mind and materialism.

[@samwell707]

I don’t care for Harris, but Sawmiji is god 🙏

[@licandres01]

Sam also, haven't you learned anything from the swami? Lol

[@antiabrahamicreligion]

​@@licandres01 *God alone is

[@sonarbangla8711]

Indian tradition started with Krishna 11,000 years ago and it began with divine design "Vishnu was the cause of the evolution of the world (universe)" and humans were related to this design, Humans were created by Vishnu with duty to promote evolution by doing good works (karma). The only way to make Vishnu happy is by doing good karma. Vishnu had three steps of 'creation', 'preservation' and 'destruction' in an eternal cyclic universe without end. At the end of the Harappan civilization, Turks (Kuru) from central Asia entered India and replaced Sanatan religion with Hinduism (a Semitic religion) and destroyed the Yadava tribe in the Kurukshetra war 1500-1200 bc, led by the Babylonians, with god Rama (Ramses II- an Egyptian king who had saved the Levant from the ravages of the Sea people). They manipulated the Indian scriptures and theology of Sanatan and replaced it with the Babylonian theology that mankind can reach the status of the divine (like the Sumerian Gilgamesh syndrome). This manipulation created Vedanta, Advaita Vedanta etc. these were polished by the Buddhists but philosophy of Ramanuja prevailed debunking the Sanatan philosophy of Shankara Acharja.

[@OfficialGOD]

false, Advaita is in Rig Ved and you can't spread fake stories during the age of information.

[@mausperson5854]

The mind doesn't distinguish between dreaming and waking life in terms of truth evaluation. So it seems your whole proposition falls on its face. We have no definition for consciousness that tells us anything meaningful. It seems to me this line of reasoning is hopeless. We only see what we name consciousness in beings with minds (and mind isn't well defined itself). You claim to know the cause of a state we cannot conceptualise. You can't step outside of consciousness unless someone puts a bullet in your brain, for example. Qualia doesn't seem so much a mystery to me, as Sam said 'mind' could be instantiated in any substrate where computation exists. Suffering IS the hard problem, not intellect. The numinous matters but 'spirituality as commonly elucidated is an empty term.

[@sanjoyghose1952]

Why are you so much worried about ultimate truth in Tibetan Buddhism and non-dual Vedanta? What is ultimate truth in Christianity? Have you ever tried to find out the same? Hinduism is sitting duck for any criticism and very safe for any comment by any Tom, Dick and Harry. Is not it?

[@OfficialGOD]

ultimate truth is the one and the same truth

[@sanjoyghose1952]

@@OfficialGOD How ultimate truth could be one, when there are so many religions? While, socialism has miserably failed in contest with capitalism, you are propagating theory of socialism in field of religions. Laughing matter.

[@sanjoyghose1952]

@@irenerayne7332 Ha Ha. I very well know religious socialism as a tool for neocolonialism.

[@nirjhardas7333]

​there can be only ONE "ultimate", otherwise it is not ultimate enough.

[@sanjoyghose1952]

@@nirjhardas7333 In that case that Ultimate God is highly lonely. How is He living His monotonous life, without any probability of death?

[@BajaJones-iq2cp]

Sam Harris a block of cheese. His thought process is an inch deep and mile wide. Total flop.

[@OfficialGOD]

that's fine, you can't expect him to understand

[@msimp0108]

Sam Harris is the avatar of misunderstanding in the matter of spiritual awakening. The fact that he titled his book “Waking Up” could not be more ironic given his unrelinquished white-knuckled grip by which he clings to his unawakened materialistic beliefs in spite of whatever spiritual insights and basic logic of the “hard problem” he confronts that belie those beliefs and point to the obvious inability of science to offer an explanation within the confines of a physicalist model . The Swami dealt with him patiently.