I admire your fair and enthusiastic presentation on Nagarjuna - a great philosopher from ancient India. Alan Watts described him as "one of the most astonishing minds the human race has ever produced". I wish more Indians knew about him, and studied him.
@@HossainSalahuddin typical over reaction. It’s just a question. It could be read as, “that you have a moslim name shows relgion and spirituality aren’t factious”. Instead, the negative, poisonous, pedantic, asinine, self righteous, over the top, hass ole response. GTH.
@@hershchat imagine if someone will ask why why you use a Hindu name while you are studying Mahayana Buddhism, which is present only in Tibet, China, Korea and Japan.
ब्रह्मिन्द-देविन्द-नरिन्दराजं, बोधिं सुबोधिं करुणा गुणग्गं। पापदीपज्ञ्जलितं जलंतं, वंदामि बुद्धं भव पार तिण्णं । । जो ब्रह्माधिपति, देवाधिपति, नरेन्द्राधिपति हैं और जगत में उत्तम बोधि (ज्ञान) लाभ करने तथा करुणा-गुण में सर्वश्रेष्ठ हैं, ऐसे प्रज्ञा आलोक में आलोकित, भवसागर से पार भगवान बुद्ध की मैं वन्दना करता हूँ।। 🪔 नमो बुद्धाय 🪔 🙏
Dear Swamiji I have followed your talks and teachings from 5 years ago daily...this talk was one of the most amazing and exciting one, really hold my breath till end of 5th slides! lol thanks for all the enlightening...
Wonderful insight which surely solidifies the concept of Advaitha and nondualism. So it represents the core principle of Advaitham where all we see the Maya of Eashwara for the effe ct of pure existence or pure consciousness to support Infiniteness and Bliss.
To quote from page 218 of the Prof. Sharma’s Ph.D. thesis, which Swami Sarvapriyananda alluded to, “It is now well known that Shunyavada is not nihilism; it is absolutism which believes in transcendental reality and negates the world with reference to it. Nagarjuna himself defines “tattva” or ultimate reality thus: That which is realized in immediate experience, that which is calm and blissful, that where all plurality ceases, that which transcends the categories of thought and is super-sensuous, that non-dual experience is Reality; this is its definition.” The thesis cites MMK as the source for this definition, but I am not sure if scholarly types would have reasons to dispute the accuracy of Prof. Sharma’s translation.
@@hershchat Please search on Google for "The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy". The author is Chandradhar Sharma. For full disclosure, my views on Buddhism vis-a-vis Shankara's narrative of the Upanishadic vision of Advaita have evolved significantly since I posted the comment above. Also, I have not read Prof Sharma's thesis fully to arrive at an opinion on the views expressed in it.
I loved it. 😍 Even the negation of the time by logic was mentioned by Prof. Aŕindam Chakraborty. He said "anirbachaniya". Rev. Swami Tyagananda Maharaj also said even no name can be given to or define the absolute. I really loved Nagarjuna's logic ❤❤. This is precise and beautiful lecture😄
Professor Garfield’s characterization of Madhyamika Shunyavada (MS) as “epistemic coherentism and ontological anti-foundationalism” intrigued me and my quick, simplistic investigation of these imposing terms leads me to conclude that traditional Advaitins as well as traditional MS Buddhists are making category mistakes while characterizing the tradition of the other. So, akin to a middle-school student’s presumptuous assessment of a Nobel-winning body of work, I offer these opinions. (1) Advaita and MS use different meta-physical frameworks wherein Advaita employs an ontological schema to arrive at its hierarchical levels of reality, i.e., paramarthika satta, vyavaharika satta, and pratibhasika satta, whereas MS employs an epistemological schema to arrive at its two levels of truth, i.e., paramartha satya and samvrti satya. To draw a one-to-one correspondence between paramarthika and vyavaharika of Advaita with the paramartha and samvrti of MS is a category mistake since levels of reality are not identical to levels of truth. (2) The Advaitic framework uses one axiomatic truth (i.e., satyam) and different levels of reality with respect to this truth whereas MS has one axiomatic reality (i.e., this phenomenological universe) and different levels of truth with respect to this reality. (3) Self-realization in Advaita requires a cognitive shift in one’s ontological view of the world, whereas in MS Buddhism it requires a cognitive shift in one’s epistemological view. So, while an Advaitin negates the reality of vyavaharika satta to get established in paramarthika satta, the MS Buddhist asserts the untruth of samvrti satya to get established in paramartha satya. This may lead a realized Advaitin to say, “The truth about all my experiences is that experiences are unreal” while a realized MS Buddhist may say “The reality of all my experiences is that experiences are untrue”. (4) As an Advaitin, I like Swami Sarvapriyananda’s formulation of shunyata as “no-thing” to reconcile it with the Advaitic world view. However, it seems to me that for this formulation to have any soteriological utility for me, I must be able to assert that “I, as no-thing, give reality to all that apparently exists (or sarvam khalvidam no-thing)”. But an MS Buddhist might legitimately question why sarvam khalvidam which is dependently arisen and is empty of reality needs to be given any emptiness by “I”. (5) The time has come for me to eat crow and disabuse myself of the notion that Advaita provides a meta-physical framework which is grand enough to benignly accommodate all spiritual traditions. It is grand enough for Advaitins alright for them to discover the ultimate truth as well as to characterize and taxonomize other traditions. I can certainly understand why other traditions might consider any overtures from Advaita as unwelcome since they may fear getting digested by Vedic Hinduism the same way as such traditions of yore as Tantrism, Yoga, Sankhya, Nyaya, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism.
Both Advaita and Sunyata are not denying our daily experience of the world as false they are only denying the attributes attached to the experience by our minds, by isolating witness consciousness your making it seem like something special which it is not. we can see not just because of our eyes but also because light exists, one needs the other to work.
@@hulk3077 I never “isolated” Consciousness as you suggest because that would be a logical absurdity. Since Consciousness is all there is, what can Consciousness be isolated from? I therefore invite you to re-visit your faulty premise.
Even when you say consciousness is all that exist you make it sound special it is not all consciousness, the world does exist as it is and consciousness only provides meaning to the subjective experience of perception the claim that consciousness is the basis of reality cannot be proved.
@@hulk3077 You say “the world does exist as it is”. If you mean that the world exists as other than Consciousness, then that assertion is easily falsified by noting that the world at the time you read this is not the world that existed when I posted this and certainly not the world that will exist a second after your read this! In that one second, the earth would have moved around its axis, in addition to moving along its orbit around the sun, and our galaxy would have expanded and all this is just change at a macro-cosmic level. At the micro-cosmic level the configuration of atomic and sub-atomic particles making up the world would have shifted dramatically in that one second. Ergo, the world never exists as it is perceived through our mind. Thus, your conclusions about Consciousness are derived from an invalid premise. Also, Advaita never claims that Consciousness is the “basis of reality” as you seem to have mistakenly concluded. Rather, Advaita asserts that Consciousness is Absolute Reality and what we really are. Furthermore, since Consciousness is not some “thing”, Consciousness cannot be “something special” as you imply. Moreover, when used as an adjective, “special” implies a condition other than usual. Since Consciousness is changeless, the word special cannot be used as an adjective to qualify Consciousness.
Finally, if you were to assert that you are other than Consciousness, then I would note that you could not have made that assertion without Consciousness. Hence, your assertion that you are other than Consciousness cannot be valid and, hopefully, you are now persuaded that you are Consciousness! 😀
Once you called it a 'teaching', you have stated that there is something in it for you to learn from. If you think it teaches you what is right or good, the teaching is then good for you. If you think it teaches you what is wrong or bad, even then, the teaching is good for you. The teaching is just a teaching, like reality. It is you who makes the teaching good or bad. It is you who estimates, underestimates or overestimates the teaching. Don't we humans do this with anything and everything by our judgemental disposition? Doesn't the Ego tell you sometimes, "I know all this very well, don't waste my time!"
@@TimeTraveler2016 The highest realized people in the past were highly judgemental because they knew the difference between right and wrong on a very deep level.
@@TimeTraveler2016 Yes everything in the apparent physical Universe is relative but one of these relations in the apparent Universe is good and bad. I think there is much evidence that the individual ego is a subset of one or many more larger egos. The cause of everything that appears is unknowable even to God because we can only "judge" what appears. I always say it's best to act as though we do have free will just in case we do. 🙏
@@imaginaryuniverse632 my above comments don't seem to have been correctly interpreted. Let me summarize them below again: 1. All teachings are meant to be learned from, as are Buddha's teachings 2. Teachings may reveal to the learner what is good. It is important to learn that and apply it in one's life 3. Teachings may reveal to the learner what is not good. It is important to learn that and apply the teaching accordingly in one's life 4. Teachings are just teachings, like Reality. They have no value unless they are applied in experience 5. There are those who judge teachings within a differential frame of reference. Judgement is an outcome of the Individual Ego 6. Everything just IS, so are teachings. There can be no judgment about Isness 7. Instead of being judgemental, the respective individual has free will to apply the teaching or to let it go.
I like that question who is negating? If nothing ‘is’ then what is to negate. answer is there always ‘is’ and that is you, it is does not matter if you are self realised or not, you are always here, there and everywhere, there was never a time you were not, the truth is neither created nor destroyed, you are neither born nor will die and so is everyone, always eternal. so peace be with you, you are peace. Om Shanti Om. In a dream there is multiplicity, this is Maya. Maya with awareness of self is true, Maya without awareness is entanglements and it is false. Bliss, ignorance or self realisation in all of this the self is always eternally true. It is just a matter of knowing (not belief). Knowing self equals true, not knowing self equals false. In infinity everything is already there, that is why it is infinity. You are infinity and so is everybody as one or as many, infinity divided with names and forms is multiplicity like the gold in many ornaments. Tat tvam asi.
Pranam Swamiji! Thank you for taking us along with you into the academic depths with your intellectual curiosity, pedagogic clarity and spiritual integrity! it's not a de tour ; it was a pleasant royal path!
Praṇāma Swamiji. I am really enjoying these classes. So much profound knowledge is being discussed. Forever thankful for putting this up on TH-cam. I have started to learn Sanskrit so I can read my favorite texts in their original form :)
A very thorough overview of Emptiness! Such open-minded, appreciative engagement with a supposedly rival tradition is so refreshing! Couple of points to clear any remaining confusion: (1) Nagarjuna denies two possibilities: nihilism and eternalism, and takes the middle path between the two (hence 'Madhyamaka') (2) On interpretations of emptiness/nothingness: Firstly, the definition: Emptiness means empty of 'svabhava', or inherent existence, existence on its own. All things exist, yes, but not inherently -- only in dependence on other things, which is not 'true' existence in deep philosophical sense. Like 'Maya'. And there, the concept of Two Truths comes in: in Ultimate Reality, everything is empty; in Conventional Reality, everything is just as we see it.
Jai Guru Swamiji 🙏 I am always grateful to listen Vedanta lecture. May be there are so many arguments but at the end of the day there is only one ultimate truth, reality or whatever you say. One thing I have understood or realized I am not this, not this...but I am that for sure 🙏❤❤❤
☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️ अनिरोधमनुत्पादमनुच्छेदमशाश्वतम् । अनेकार्थमनानार्थमनागममनिर्गमम् ।। यः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पा दं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शिवम् । देशयामास सम्बुद्ध स्तं वन्दे वदतां वरम् ।। ☸️- माध्यमिक कारिका☸️ जिन सम्बुद्ध ने न निरुद्ध होने वाले, न उत्पन्न होने वाले, न उच्छिन्न होने वाले न शाश्वत, न एकार्थ, न अनेकार्थ, न आने वाले, न निकलने वाले प्रपञ्च के उपशम (शान्ति) स्वरूप और शिव रूप, प्रतीत्य समुत्पाद का उपदेश दिया। उन प्रवचन करने वालों में श्रेष्ठ सम्यक् सम्बुद्ध को प्रमाण करता हूँ। ☸️ आचार्य नागार्जुन ☸️ 🪔बुद्धमं शरणम् गच्छामि 🪔
It's amazing what we can do with nothing with just a little imagination. It's the original rags to riches story that never ends. Some say we can create anything we can imagine. I say we already do. 💓🎶⚕💃
This dude keeps talking about the importance of *tenacity* in spiritual life... And I've seen that he is himself quite a good role model for it. Look at the lengths to which he goes when he wants to understand something -- sounds like he's ready to travel to the other side of the globe in search of the ones who will answer his questions.
Thank you, very much, Swamiji for sharing this! I enjoyed it tremendously and you have clarified many things from this philosophy. Your enthusiasm for Shunyavada Buddhism is delightful and I suspect your teachers delighted in the brilliance of your intellect and ability to see how closely this echoes Advaita. You are helping me so much.
The verse from the Mandukya Karika 2.32 '(na nirodho na cotpattirna baddho na ca sādhakaḥ | na mumukṣurna vai mukta ityeṣā paramārthatā || 32 ||)' This is actually a quotation from the Amrtabindu Upanishad, Verse 10, that Gaudapada is making. It is clear that verses pertaining to Ajatavada are present across the entire Muktika canon of Upanishads.
Vivekananda amalgamated bhakti,gyan,raha,karma yoga. Swami, you have added one more flavour in to it No- Thing. As always, enlightened by your lucid teaching 🙏
"Buddha was a Sanyasi of the Vedanta!"- Swami Vivekananda said!😊👌🙏(1:19:30) After listening to this talk we develop great respect for Buddha & especially Nagarjuna!!🙏
Nagarjuna is one of the best philosophers to ever exist. He inspired Alan Watts so much that Alan Watts once said "Nagarjuna is respected even more than Buddha in some schools".
To be very true, the summary of all religions is the same - "Never to harm, ever to help !" Infact, all religions are good in themselves ! It's we - who make them look ugly - through our questionable conduct ! We spare no effort in denigrating/undermining each others religion in our bid to establish the supremacy of our respective religion and very conveniently hide behind it so as to coverup our misdeeds against each other! We don't even hesitate to make religion the stepping stone so as to settle personal score so as to satisfy our narrow selfish interests and obtain vicarious pleasure thereof with a view to satisfy our selfish ego ! How right was Jonathan Swift in his assessment in saying- "We have enough religions to make us hate each other ; but not enough to make us love one another !"
As I understand Swami Sarvapriyananda describe it, matter is mere appearance, neither created nor destroyed and he uses the example of a movie picture on a screen. I believe that is how I remember him explain it.
According to Rupert Spira, Consciousness (another word for Awareness) projects the world, in which case the world is made of mind. He states “consciousness is not a result of the world. The world is a result of consciousness.” Those who perceive the world believe the world is made of matter. Those who project the world understand the world is made of mind. This does not mean the world does not exist. It has its own existence.
Indian philosopher and scholar Surendranath Dasgupta says that, 'the 'Brahman' of Sankara is quite similar and identical to the concept of 'Shunyata' of Nagarjuna.... What do you think???
Swamiji nagarjuna himself agreed in emptyness karma work but all of us want to be get rid of karma , emptyness never gives it only fullness and completeness gives this is what veda or shankaracharya says. Not negating all things but by seeing truth of the all pervading consciousness . Just accepting the truth name and form are just time bound and enjoy the underlying bliss of child in it.
Ultimately Brahman is the emptiness of space and pervades entire space. So in a way Brahman is also a formeless, nameless emptiness which can only be realized but cannot be described in anyway.
Thank you very much, Swami Sarvapriyananda, for this brilliant teaching, which I’m so thrilled to discover. Hope there will be more to come on the topic of emptiness, in the context of Advaita. Would you also consider speaking on the view of emptiness as propounded by Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292-1361) (which may be even closer to Advaita?).
Intuitively I always felt "Shunyata" and "Purnata" are two sides of the same coin. The Rim of the coin holds both. Rim is known to exist because there are two sides. If there is no one-side, then Rim remains "unnoticeable". Likewise, Shunyata is equivalent to the "unmanifested brahman", Purnata is the "manifested brahman"- the param-Atma as the internal universal soul, the other infinite souls(chetan-jiva)and prakruthi(achetan-jagat) manifested externally(embodied by narayana-rupa). Paramatma indeed is siva-sakthi tattva ( the eternal Sakshi and karta), Narayana-tatva is the bhoktha. Thus the facets of Brahman by role is sakshi-karta-bhoktha and by essence is unmanifested-manifested. All seem to converge in the One Brahman. Swamiji states "Consciousness is the witness illumining the emptiness(Maya)" and once it is said, at once we get into MadyamaKa-Shunyavada, which is self-contradictory. It reminds me of the "paradox of cats life - is the cat alive or dead" in quantum thought experiment in modern science :-)
Actually it is very simple. just go back to how 0 the digit zero how it was discovered. we can go on talking about 0 all our life, like in 00000000000000000000000000... for this we say it is zero. It will not give any happiness, no happiness in this world nor that world. Now bring Self which is 1, then it is suddenly illuminated., it is a big value, it is infinity, I could not type so many 0s to make an infinity appear suddenly but you get it. Negate everything and what remains is the self which cannot be negated any more, now be silent if you know, silence with knowledge, that knowledge which cannot be expressed in language is the 1=infinity. It is you the reader and the non reader also. This can be easily explained with maths and it is very simple. This is how 0 was discovered and we all know what happen when realise a self(1), then everything is illumined.
The Self is (apparently) negated in deep sleep by the Veil of Ignorance. This is why the memory of deep sleep is one of dense darkness. Once the apparent negation of the Self commences, Samsara by Externality, Multiplicity and Inversion of Perception.
58:35 Why don't enlightened people agree about the Self? Somebody insists as Satchitananda and is an atheist; and somebody says it's my Divine Mother Kali with four arms! Jai Sri Ramakrishna!
Respected Swamiji, so we were fighting over semantics with Shuynta and Brahman.. So , at practical level all great masters like Buddha, Nagarjuna, Shankara, Swami Ramkrishna and Sri Ramana were talking same thing. Please correct if I have misunderstood.
Shunyata is Poornam (Brahman) & Poornam is Shunyam. In deep, deep Meditation when there is no Body or Mind, there is nothing, Shunyata. In that state, there is Pure Awareness which is Infinite, Poornam, Brahman. What people were fighting over, were the words, Shunyata & Brahman, without understanding the depth of zero & infinity. When you look up into the blank sky, there is zero & there also is infinity. No words can represent the Absolute, appropriately. Nor can anyone understand the Absolute through language Om Tat Sat 🕉
@@TimeTraveler2016 shunyata of madhyamika meant by NO -SELF too in addition to NO NON-SELF,,, but advaita Vedanta and upanishads clearly extolled NO NON-SELF ( maya, jagath, jivas, all Loka vyavaharam, transactions of universe as they r just an appearance which doesn't Hv real status once transcend them) but established only SELF /ATMAN ( POORNAM, AKHANDA BRAHMAN).. so SHUNYATA is only relative to POORNATHA/ only SELF, but not synonyms ... It's not about semantics since both are Sanskrit words and cant carry same meaning, if so shunyam would have been found multiple times in Upanishads..hari om tat sat..
Swamy, if this book of Nagarjuna is a Pramana to Buddhist or others. Then this pramana is also Shunya and does the knowledge gained from Shunya becomes true?
Namaskar Swamiji! Your lecture is amazing.I have a request that How can I get Dr Chondrdhor Sharma's research work.plz help me.I am also a research scholar and I intereste in this topic but I can't get proper meterials on this topic. So I am very puzzle and frustrated.plz help me.I have a one more request for you that plz delivered a lecture on this particular topic in bengali.Thank you
Here is the invocatory verses if any one wants read from the Mark Siderits and Shōryū Katsura translation of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK) anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam | anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam || yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam | deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam || I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators, who taught the doctrine of dependent origination, according to which there is neither cessation nor origination, neither annihilation nor the eternal, neither singularity nor plurality, neither the coming nor the going [of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvāṇa characterized by] the auspicious cessation of hypostatization.
I admire your fair and enthusiastic presentation on Nagarjuna - a great philosopher from ancient India. Alan Watts described him as "one of the most astonishing minds the human race has ever produced". I wish more Indians knew about him, and studied him.
You use a Muslim name?
@@hershchat and this remains important to you after watching this video about the nature of reality? Try to look beyond concepts and categories.
@@HossainSalahuddin typical over reaction. It’s just a question. It could be read as, “that you have a moslim name shows relgion and spirituality aren’t factious”. Instead, the negative, poisonous, pedantic, asinine, self righteous, over the top, hass ole response. GTH.
Bro nagaarjuna was indian , he was his ancestor. Indians don't talk bad about their ancestors
@@hershchat imagine if someone will ask why why you use a Hindu name while you are studying Mahayana Buddhism, which is present only in Tibet, China, Korea and Japan.
ब्रह्मिन्द-देविन्द-नरिन्दराजं, बोधिं सुबोधिं करुणा गुणग्गं। पापदीपज्ञ्जलितं जलंतं, वंदामि बुद्धं भव पार तिण्णं । ।
जो ब्रह्माधिपति, देवाधिपति, नरेन्द्राधिपति हैं और जगत में उत्तम बोधि (ज्ञान) लाभ करने तथा करुणा-गुण में सर्वश्रेष्ठ हैं, ऐसे प्रज्ञा आलोक में आलोकित, भवसागर से पार भगवान बुद्ध की मैं वन्दना करता हूँ।।
🪔 नमो बुद्धाय 🪔
🙏
So grateful for Maharaji. Like rain in a desert. These "information dumps" he gives us are astounding.
Incredible lucidity here!
Dear Swamiji I have followed your talks and teachings from 5 years ago daily...this talk was one of the most amazing and exciting one, really hold my breath till end of 5th slides! lol thanks for all the enlightening...
Wonderful insight which surely solidifies the concept of Advaitha and nondualism. So it represents the core principle of Advaitham where all we see the Maya of Eashwara for the effe ct of pure existence or pure consciousness to support Infiniteness and Bliss.
Pranam Maharaj 🎉❤
What an explanation thanks guruji 👍🏾
To quote from page 218 of the Prof. Sharma’s Ph.D. thesis, which Swami Sarvapriyananda alluded to, “It is now well known that Shunyavada is not nihilism; it is absolutism which believes in transcendental reality and negates the world with reference to it. Nagarjuna himself defines “tattva” or ultimate reality thus: That which is realized in immediate experience, that which is calm and blissful, that where all plurality ceases, that which transcends the categories of thought and is super-sensuous, that non-dual experience is Reality; this is its definition.” The thesis cites MMK as the source for this definition, but I am not sure if scholarly types would have reasons to dispute the accuracy of Prof. Sharma’s translation.
Might you kindly share a link to that thesis? I’ll like to peruse it too. Thank you!
@@hershchat Please search on Google for "The Advaita Tradition in Indian Philosophy". The author is Chandradhar Sharma.
For full disclosure, my views on Buddhism vis-a-vis Shankara's narrative of the Upanishadic vision of Advaita have evolved significantly since I posted the comment above. Also, I have not read Prof Sharma's thesis fully to arrive at an opinion on the views expressed in it.
অসাধারণ একটি মুহূর্ত অনুভব করলাম
ধন্যবাদ
I loved it. 😍 Even the negation of the time by logic was mentioned by Prof. Aŕindam Chakraborty. He said "anirbachaniya". Rev. Swami Tyagananda Maharaj also said even no name can be given to or define the absolute. I really loved Nagarjuna's logic ❤❤. This is precise and beautiful lecture😄
NarJUNA he who
Clearly explain real
Buddisam
Real word of
Sakya mni
What a nice and extremely knowledgable man. Thank you.
Professor Garfield’s characterization of Madhyamika Shunyavada (MS) as “epistemic coherentism and ontological anti-foundationalism” intrigued me and my quick, simplistic investigation of these imposing terms leads me to conclude that traditional Advaitins as well as traditional MS Buddhists are making category mistakes while characterizing the tradition of the other. So, akin to a middle-school student’s presumptuous assessment of a Nobel-winning body of work, I offer these opinions.
(1) Advaita and MS use different meta-physical frameworks wherein Advaita employs an ontological schema to arrive at its hierarchical levels of reality, i.e., paramarthika satta, vyavaharika satta, and pratibhasika satta, whereas MS employs an epistemological schema to arrive at its two levels of truth, i.e., paramartha satya and samvrti satya. To draw a one-to-one correspondence between paramarthika and vyavaharika of Advaita with the paramartha and samvrti of MS is a category mistake since levels of reality are not identical to levels of truth.
(2) The Advaitic framework uses one axiomatic truth (i.e., satyam) and different levels of reality with respect to this truth whereas MS has one axiomatic reality (i.e., this phenomenological universe) and different levels of truth with respect to this reality.
(3) Self-realization in Advaita requires a cognitive shift in one’s ontological view of the world, whereas in MS Buddhism it requires a cognitive shift in one’s epistemological view. So, while an Advaitin negates the reality of vyavaharika satta to get established in paramarthika satta, the MS Buddhist asserts the untruth of samvrti satya to get established in paramartha satya. This may lead a realized Advaitin to say, “The truth about all my experiences is that experiences are unreal” while a realized MS Buddhist may say “The reality of all my experiences is that experiences are untrue”.
(4) As an Advaitin, I like Swami Sarvapriyananda’s formulation of shunyata as “no-thing” to reconcile it with the Advaitic world view. However, it seems to me that for this formulation to have any soteriological utility for me, I must be able to assert that “I, as no-thing, give reality to all that apparently exists (or sarvam khalvidam no-thing)”. But an MS Buddhist might legitimately question why sarvam khalvidam which is dependently arisen and is empty of reality needs to be given any emptiness by “I”.
(5) The time has come for me to eat crow and disabuse myself of the notion that Advaita provides a meta-physical framework which is grand enough to benignly accommodate all spiritual traditions. It is grand enough for Advaitins alright for them to discover the ultimate truth as well as to characterize and taxonomize other traditions. I can certainly understand why other traditions might consider any overtures from Advaita as unwelcome since they may fear getting digested by Vedic Hinduism the same way as such traditions of yore as Tantrism, Yoga, Sankhya, Nyaya, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, and Shaktism.
I’d love to learn more from you. 🙏🏽
Both Advaita and Sunyata are not denying our daily experience of the world as false they are only denying the attributes attached to the experience by our minds, by isolating witness consciousness your making it seem like something special which it is not. we can see not just because of our eyes but also because light exists, one needs the other to work.
@@hulk3077 I never “isolated” Consciousness as you suggest because that would be a logical absurdity. Since Consciousness is all there is, what can Consciousness be isolated from? I therefore invite you to re-visit your faulty premise.
Even when you say consciousness is all that exist you make it sound special it is not all consciousness, the world does exist as it is and consciousness only provides meaning to the subjective experience of perception the claim that consciousness is the basis of reality cannot be proved.
@@hulk3077 You say “the world does exist as it is”. If you mean that the world exists as other than Consciousness, then that assertion is easily falsified by noting that the world at the time you read this is not the world that existed when I posted this and certainly not the world that will exist a second after your read this! In that one second, the earth would have moved around its axis, in addition to moving along its orbit around the sun, and our galaxy would have expanded and all this is just change at a macro-cosmic level. At the micro-cosmic level the configuration of atomic and sub-atomic particles making up the world would have shifted dramatically in that one second. Ergo, the world never exists as it is perceived through our mind. Thus, your conclusions about Consciousness are derived from an invalid premise.
Also, Advaita never claims that Consciousness is the “basis of reality” as you seem to have mistakenly concluded. Rather, Advaita asserts that Consciousness is Absolute Reality and what we really are. Furthermore, since Consciousness is not some “thing”, Consciousness cannot be “something special” as you imply. Moreover, when used as an adjective, “special” implies a condition other than usual. Since Consciousness is changeless, the word special cannot be used as an adjective to qualify Consciousness.
Finally, if you were to assert that you are other than Consciousness, then I would note that you could not have made that assertion without Consciousness. Hence, your assertion that you are other than Consciousness cannot be valid and, hopefully, you are now persuaded that you are Consciousness! 😀
🙏we must not underestimate the teaching of Lord Buddha 🙏😁
Once you called it a 'teaching', you have stated that there is something in it for you to learn from. If you think it teaches you what is right or good, the teaching is then good for you. If you think it teaches you what is wrong or bad, even then, the teaching is good for you.
The teaching is just a teaching, like reality. It is you who makes the teaching good or bad. It is you who estimates, underestimates or overestimates the teaching. Don't we humans do this with anything and everything by our judgemental disposition? Doesn't the Ego tell you sometimes, "I know all this very well, don't waste my time!"
@@TimeTraveler2016 The highest realized people in the past were highly judgemental because they knew the difference between right and wrong on a very deep level.
@@rapisode1 All distinctions, including right or wrong, are made by the Individual Ego. Reality is, as it just is, in the immediate now.
@@TimeTraveler2016 Yes everything in the apparent physical Universe is relative but one of these relations in the apparent Universe is good and bad. I think there is much evidence that the individual ego is a subset of one or many more larger egos. The cause of everything that appears is unknowable even to God because we can only "judge" what appears. I always say it's best to act as though we do have free will just in case we do. 🙏
@@imaginaryuniverse632 my above comments don't seem to have been correctly interpreted. Let me summarize them below again:
1. All teachings are meant to be learned from, as are Buddha's teachings
2. Teachings may reveal to the learner what is good. It is important to learn that and apply it in one's life
3. Teachings may reveal to the learner what is not good. It is important to learn that and apply the teaching accordingly in one's life
4. Teachings are just teachings, like Reality. They have no value unless they are applied in experience
5. There are those who judge teachings within a differential frame of reference. Judgement is an outcome of the Individual Ego
6. Everything just IS, so are teachings. There can be no judgment about Isness
7. Instead of being judgemental, the respective individual has free will to apply the teaching or to let it go.
*EXCELLENT TALK*
TRULY ENJOYED MYSELF.
SHIR SASHTANG PRANAMS TO
SWAMIJI.
JAY RAMAKRISHNA.
I like that question who is negating? If nothing ‘is’ then what is to negate. answer is there always ‘is’ and that is you, it is does not matter if you are self realised or not, you are always here, there and everywhere, there was never a time you were not, the truth is neither created nor destroyed, you are neither born nor will die and so is everyone, always eternal. so peace be with you, you are peace. Om Shanti Om.
In a dream there is multiplicity, this is Maya. Maya with awareness of self is true, Maya without awareness is entanglements and it is false. Bliss, ignorance or self realisation in all of this the self is always eternally true. It is just a matter of knowing (not belief). Knowing self equals true, not knowing self equals false.
In infinity everything is already there, that is why it is infinity. You are infinity and so is everybody as one or as many, infinity divided with names and forms is multiplicity like the gold in many ornaments. Tat tvam asi.
Pranam Swamiji! Thank you for taking us along with you into the academic depths with your intellectual curiosity, pedagogic clarity and spiritual integrity! it's not a de tour ; it was a pleasant royal path!
Praṇāma Swamiji. I am really enjoying these classes. So much profound knowledge is being discussed. Forever thankful for putting this up on TH-cam. I have started to learn Sanskrit so I can read my favorite texts in their original form :)
A very thorough overview of Emptiness! Such open-minded, appreciative engagement with a supposedly rival tradition is so refreshing!
Couple of points to clear any remaining confusion:
(1) Nagarjuna denies two possibilities: nihilism and eternalism, and takes the middle path between the two (hence 'Madhyamaka')
(2) On interpretations of emptiness/nothingness: Firstly, the definition: Emptiness means empty of 'svabhava', or inherent existence, existence on its own. All things exist, yes, but not inherently -- only in dependence on other things, which is not 'true' existence in deep philosophical sense. Like 'Maya'.
And there, the concept of Two Truths comes in: in Ultimate Reality, everything is empty; in Conventional Reality, everything is just as we see it.
हरिः ॐ
Jai Guru Swamiji 🙏 I am always grateful to listen Vedanta lecture. May be there are so many arguments but at the end of the day there is only one ultimate truth, reality or whatever you say. One thing I have understood or realized I am not this, not this...but I am that for sure 🙏❤❤❤
हरी: ऊॅं 🙏🏻
Pranam Swami Sarvapriyanandaji 🙏🏻
Pranam Guruji 🙏
☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️☸️
अनिरोधमनुत्पादमनुच्छेदमशाश्वतम् ।
अनेकार्थमनानार्थमनागममनिर्गमम् ।।
यः प्रतीत्यसमुत्पा दं प्रपञ्चोपशमं शिवम् ।
देशयामास सम्बुद्ध स्तं वन्दे वदतां वरम् ।।
☸️- माध्यमिक कारिका☸️
जिन सम्बुद्ध ने न निरुद्ध होने वाले, न उत्पन्न होने वाले, न उच्छिन्न होने वाले न शाश्वत, न एकार्थ, न अनेकार्थ, न आने वाले, न निकलने वाले प्रपञ्च के उपशम (शान्ति) स्वरूप और शिव रूप, प्रतीत्य समुत्पाद का उपदेश दिया। उन प्रवचन करने वालों में श्रेष्ठ सम्यक् सम्बुद्ध को प्रमाण करता हूँ।
☸️ आचार्य नागार्जुन ☸️
🪔बुद्धमं शरणम् गच्छामि 🪔
Thank you dear Guruji.....
It's amazing what we can do with nothing with just a little imagination. It's the original rags to riches story that never ends. Some say we can create anything we can imagine. I say we already do. 💓🎶⚕💃
Shree Gurubhyo namaha 🙏🙏🙏
Great insight
Wow such a clear crystal way of telling such complex philosophies..even helpful for writing in exam.
Thank you.
Thank you !
This dude keeps talking about the importance of *tenacity* in spiritual life... And I've seen that he is himself quite a good role model for it. Look at the lengths to which he goes when he wants to understand something -- sounds like he's ready to travel to the other side of the globe in search of the ones who will answer his questions.
Thank you, very much, Swamiji for sharing this! I enjoyed it tremendously and you have clarified many things from this philosophy. Your enthusiasm for Shunyavada Buddhism is delightful and I suspect your teachers delighted in the brilliance of your intellect and ability to see how closely this echoes Advaita. You are helping me so much.
Nomoh Budhhe!
Always pleasure to learn under your .
Yesterday’s swamijis live stream is private but I want to listen to it again
I cannot access it !
It will be available after a few days
@@premaprakash9519 thank you
@@premaprakash9519 thank you
@@premaprakash9519 ok, thanks
1:03:29 Nagarjuna is caught red handed? But no. This is EXACTLY what Nagarjuna was pointing towards. What the Tibetans want to say is "don't say it."
The verse from the Mandukya Karika 2.32 '(na nirodho na cotpattirna baddho na ca sādhakaḥ |
na mumukṣurna vai mukta ityeṣā paramārthatā || 32 ||)' This is actually a quotation from the Amrtabindu Upanishad, Verse 10, that Gaudapada is making. It is clear that verses pertaining to Ajatavada are present across the entire Muktika canon of Upanishads.
Vivekananda amalgamated bhakti,gyan,raha,karma yoga. Swami, you have added one more flavour in to it No- Thing. As always, enlightened by your lucid teaching 🙏
🙏🙏🙏🙏
Ooooooooo...
This was sooo exciting !!
SWAMI.. You are my BFF ( best friend forever).. 😊
9:32 Chandradhar Sharma... His book on Indian philosophy is what I am studying now... excellent author
🙏🙏🙏 thank you guruji.
Imagine the future of advaita Vedanta and Shunyavada Buddhism in the centuries to come!
Budhham smaranam gachhami, dharmam samranam gachhami, samgham smaranam gachhami.
I think the name given to him justifies him.Sarvapriya literally means liked by everyone.😊
I didn't get everything however loved the way Swamiji respects other views. Pranaam Swamiji
8:49 Swami Sarvapriyananda went to Swami Mokshadanandaji to ask questions that he thought no one else could answer.
Thank you. This is exactly the answer to a question I asked earlier today. And look, it has appeared before my eyes!
"Buddha was a Sanyasi of the Vedanta!"- Swami Vivekananda said!😊👌🙏(1:19:30)
After listening to this talk we develop great respect for Buddha & especially Nagarjuna!!🙏
Pranams & Thank you Sir 🙏🙏🙏
Greatful swamiji you are dragging us to advita or sunyata more lectures please
Nagarjuna is one of the best philosophers to ever exist. He inspired Alan Watts so much that Alan Watts once said "Nagarjuna is respected even more than Buddha in some schools".
59:00
To be very true, the summary of all religions is the same - "Never to harm, ever to help !" Infact, all religions are good in themselves ! It's we - who make them look ugly - through our questionable conduct ! We spare no effort in denigrating/undermining each others religion in our bid to establish the supremacy of our respective religion and very conveniently hide behind it so as to coverup our misdeeds against each other! We don't even hesitate to make religion the stepping stone so as to settle personal score so as to satisfy our narrow selfish interests and obtain vicarious pleasure thereof with a view to satisfy our selfish ego !
How right was Jonathan Swift in his assessment in saying- "We have enough religions to make us hate each other ; but not enough to make us love one another !"
How matter gets created from consciousness.
As I understand Swami Sarvapriyananda describe it, matter is mere appearance, neither created nor destroyed and he uses the example of a movie picture on a screen. I believe that is how I remember him explain it.
@@EMon-gh8cm why is matter seen experienced.
And consciousness our own self hidden.
According to Rupert Spira, Consciousness (another word for Awareness) projects the world, in which case the world is made of mind.
He states “consciousness is not a result of the world. The world is a result of consciousness.”
Those who perceive the world believe the world is made of matter.
Those who project the world understand the world is made of mind.
This does not mean the world does not exist. It has its own existence.
@@EMon-gh8cm that is solipsism
57:58 According to Sadhguru also the ultimate reality is No-Thing, which he calls shi-va
I like that Nick name Shunyavadin 😃😃
Indian philosopher and scholar Surendranath Dasgupta says that, 'the 'Brahman' of Sankara is quite similar and identical to the concept of 'Shunyata' of Nagarjuna....
What do you think???
🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
🙏😍
Swamiji nagarjuna himself agreed in emptyness karma work but all of us want to be get rid of karma , emptyness never gives it only fullness and completeness gives this is what veda or shankaracharya says. Not negating all things but by seeing truth of the all pervading consciousness . Just accepting the truth name and form are just time bound and enjoy the underlying bliss of child in it.
Wonderful lesson Swami. Thank you.
1:00:02 who is negating? Hahahaha. Nirodbaran Chakravarti teaching western philosophy wow so exciting thank you Lord i love this
Ultimately Brahman is the emptiness of space and pervades entire space. So in a way Brahman is also a formeless, nameless emptiness which can only be realized but cannot be described in anyway.
🌹🌹🙏
1:07:43 this is Maya! And Brahman is indescribable
27:00 refutation of change
Bless you Revalation4.7
1:17:42 epistemic coherentism sounds like sat asat anirvachaniya .... and the great shloka from Tibetan Buddhism "shunyam adhyatmika".
Why are some videos private or unlisted on the channel? We request Vedanta NY to please make them accessible. 🙏🏼
Swamiji please discuss the Vaishnava Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta..🙏
10:02 original found yesterday!!!
15:09 Nagarjuna formidable logic
30:00 in vedanta too, who is liberated?
26:49 accepted principle of logic ... beginning less and endless
Thank you very much, Swami Sarvapriyananda, for this brilliant teaching, which I’m so thrilled to discover. Hope there will be more to come on the topic of emptiness, in the context of Advaita. Would you also consider speaking on the view of emptiness as propounded by Dolpopa Sherab Gyaltsen (1292-1361) (which may be even closer to Advaita?).
You mean Shentong Buddhism? yes he has mentioned in one of his videos that Shentong could be a final uniting doctrine for buddhism and vedanta
28:20 illusion ..... must watch!!!!!!!!! Deep
😍🌻💛
🙏
Intuitively I always felt "Shunyata" and "Purnata" are two sides of the same coin. The Rim of the coin holds both. Rim is known to exist because there are two sides. If there is no one-side, then Rim remains "unnoticeable". Likewise, Shunyata is equivalent to the "unmanifested brahman", Purnata is the "manifested brahman"- the param-Atma as the internal universal soul, the other infinite souls(chetan-jiva)and prakruthi(achetan-jagat) manifested externally(embodied by narayana-rupa). Paramatma indeed is siva-sakthi tattva ( the eternal Sakshi and karta), Narayana-tatva is the bhoktha. Thus the facets of Brahman by role is sakshi-karta-bhoktha and by essence is unmanifested-manifested. All seem to converge in the One Brahman.
Swamiji states "Consciousness is the witness illumining the emptiness(Maya)" and once it is said, at once we get into MadyamaKa-Shunyavada, which is self-contradictory. It reminds me of the "paradox of cats life - is the cat alive or dead" in quantum thought experiment in modern science :-)
1:09:47 two parts of the Hard Problem of Consciousness. And now Nagarjuna will attack that tension in the cord.
32:40 advancing upon the master logician of Nyaya....
Please bring more content of Nagarjuna.
Actually it is very simple. just go back to how 0 the digit zero how it was discovered. we can go on talking about 0 all our life, like in 00000000000000000000000000... for this we say it is zero. It will not give any happiness, no happiness in this world nor that world.
Now bring Self which is 1, then it is suddenly illuminated., it is a big value, it is infinity, I could not type so many 0s to make an infinity appear suddenly but you get it.
Negate everything and what remains is the self which cannot be negated any more, now be silent if you know, silence with knowledge, that knowledge which cannot be expressed in language is the 1=infinity. It is you the reader and the non reader also.
This can be easily explained with maths and it is very simple. This is how 0 was discovered and we all know what happen when realise a self(1), then everything is illumined.
The Self is (apparently) negated in deep sleep by the Veil of Ignorance. This is why the memory of deep sleep is one of dense darkness. Once the apparent negation of the Self commences, Samsara by Externality, Multiplicity and Inversion of Perception.
2nd one is close to Gautam Rishi - Naya Sutra sir ?
58:35 Why don't enlightened people agree about the Self? Somebody insists as Satchitananda and is an atheist; and somebody says it's my Divine Mother Kali with four arms! Jai Sri Ramakrishna!
11:01 Nagarjuna's invocation!
Pranam Swamiji 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Respected Swamiji, so we were fighting over semantics with Shuynta and Brahman.. So , at practical level all great masters like Buddha, Nagarjuna, Shankara, Swami Ramkrishna and Sri Ramana were talking same thing. Please correct if I have misunderstood.
Shunyata is Poornam (Brahman) & Poornam is Shunyam. In deep, deep Meditation when there is no Body or Mind, there is nothing, Shunyata. In that state, there is Pure Awareness which is Infinite, Poornam, Brahman.
What people were fighting over, were the words, Shunyata & Brahman, without understanding the depth of zero & infinity. When you look up into the blank sky, there is zero & there also is infinity. No words can represent the Absolute, appropriately. Nor can anyone understand the Absolute through language
Om Tat Sat 🕉
@@TimeTraveler2016 Thanks for the explanation.
@@TimeTraveler2016 shunyata of madhyamika meant by NO -SELF too in addition to NO NON-SELF,,, but advaita Vedanta and upanishads clearly extolled NO NON-SELF ( maya, jagath, jivas, all Loka vyavaharam, transactions of universe as they r just an appearance which doesn't Hv real status once transcend them) but established only SELF /ATMAN ( POORNAM, AKHANDA BRAHMAN).. so SHUNYATA is only relative to POORNATHA/ only SELF, but not synonyms ... It's not about semantics since both are Sanskrit words and cant carry same meaning, if so shunyam would have been found multiple times in Upanishads..hari om tat sat..
Swamy, if this book of Nagarjuna is a Pramana to Buddhist or others. Then this pramana is also Shunya and does the knowledge gained from Shunya becomes true?
Namaskar Swamiji! Your lecture is amazing.I have a request that How can I get Dr Chondrdhor Sharma's research work.plz help me.I am also a research scholar and I intereste in this topic but I can't get proper meterials on this topic. So I am very puzzle and frustrated.plz help me.I have a one more request for you that plz delivered a lecture on this particular topic in bengali.Thank you
You can sodhganga where all Ph.D theses are kept
1:14:27 modern Advaita Vedanta and other schools took each other's DNA... yet Advaita is an Upanishadic siddhanta
Even the name Advait is being madhyamika as it only says its not dvait and doesnt accept any stand
G🎉❤
Namasthe swamiji if shunya and bramhan are one and the same shunya definition of naiswabhvya etc how matches with bramhan
Here is the invocatory verses if any one wants read from the Mark Siderits and Shōryū Katsura translation of the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK)
anirodham anutpādam anucchedam aśāśvatam |
anekārtham anānārtham anāgamam anirgamam ||
yaḥ pratītyasamutpādaṃ prapañcopaśamaṃ śivam |
deśayāmāsa saṃbuddhas taṃ vande vadatāṃ varam ||
I salute the Fully Enlightened One, the best of orators, who taught the doctrine of dependent origination, according to which there is neither cessation nor origination, neither annihilation nor the eternal, neither singularity nor plurality, neither the coming nor the going [of any dharma, for the purpose of nirvāṇa characterized by] the auspicious cessation of hypostatization.
Lord Buddha was a true vedantist and shankaracharya was hidden Buddhist.
Might I add, a true advaita vedantist.
but they are the same brahman
Nonsense
Nagarjuna was a Buddhist Brahmin philosopher.
According to gowdapadacharya bramhan is beyond chatushkoti then asthi foor bramhan is to be understood in what way
The difference between anatma and emptiness please state ?
@Anonymous absolutely right answer.
35:49 Tibetans... wow!