Swami Sarvapriyananda, the minister in charge of the Vedanta Society of New York, gave this lecture on Friday July 21 2023, in the Santa Barbara Temple.
Emptiness reveals the infiniteness ( Ananta) value of pure self.Whatever concept any one applies to its character, becomes a finite entity,.Exploring infinity with finite entity is not possible, that makes total silence. 🌹Jai Shree Ramakrishna.🌹
I like your teaching on Buddhism. Rarely we hear such teaching, which touch the core of our living. Pranam.❤ Edited by me to add. Science also says, whatever our five senses grasp from outside , 99.99 Percent is Emptiness, and the remaining point 9999 percent also is Emptiness. But this emptiness is filled, poornata, from which all force emerges, even the nuclear power, capable of destroying the entire world.....
Today I enjoyed by shinning personality like complete body enlightened into inspiring soul full of vibrations and got that feelings by DARSHAN. The discourse too too overloaded behind the intellect but best enjoyed by soul touching DARSHAN.🙏🙏🙏
Another totally genius talk from the Great Communicator Swamiji. Flawless as always and if you contemplate emptiness you just got a great leg up and if you always shied away from it the welcome mat is now out for you.
I am sitting here waiting for the talk to start when I realize this introduction could not be more direct and pure of an explanation of emptiness unless my computer screen could somehow disappear.
you may find this useful......रामायण के आध्यात्मिक रहस्य [ English subtitles ] - Hrishikesh Brahmachari , Govardhan Math Puri ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rhi_R037GPQ.html
La premier réponse de Ramana était le silence et il faisait référence à une parole dans mes écritures chrétiennes ‘« reste silencieux et sache …JE SUIS …..DIEU DAKSHINAMURTI ses disciples ses sont éveillés grâce au silence de leur Maître
Very exciting lecture! Both prasangika and advaita deny the individual "self". The only difference is after denying the "self", prasangika keep quiet about the ultimate reality which advaitins call the "Self". The advantage Buddhists have is they are not grasping at anything. The disadvantage advaitins have is in grasping for the "Self" they may misunderstand chidabhasa or I AM as Self. Self is beyond concepts, beyond ego, beyond mind.
@@arronstern6710 mind keeps on changing, you are changeless. To know others you need mind. You are pure content less awareness the illumining principle not the knowing. You are the self luminous principle knowing yourself by yourself.
@@threestars2164 Advaita denies the body mind ego as the self but gives the answer to the ultimate question: Who am I ? That thou art. You are the reality. You may call it Brahman, Self whatever..
Buddha never told there is no self. He told non-self teachings as he told there is not a permanent self cause in each minute it can be changed.If there were no self at all then it wasn't enlightment either, a consciousness itself is a self as well which is always changing.Self is always changing however it's an illusion that's what he told.He never denied there is a soul,but his philosophy was by non-permanent self teachings.The illusion of the self is equal to the illusion of the seperation from God.But we live in that illusions,only fully samadhi experience is out from this illusion. Samadhi,fullness,nothingness, emptiness,selfless is all equal. When the consciousness or the soul wakes itself up from the selfless,fullness,nothingness, which is an absolute heavenly passive state,duality begins,that means the soul or the not permament self gets into the illusion of the duality for having activity on dual planets like this. And here everyone is having a self.However before we didn't have a self cause we weren't dual. So buddha went through the planets of the spiritual worlds with his non self to getting back into selfless,samadhi,nothing.A bhakta would tell,he goes with his soul to Krishna,buddha tells he goes with non-self consciousness to nothingness.Not so many differences.
What a brilliant talk by Swamyji. But on another note. It's been my experience that the analogies make more sense after "recognition"has happened. But analogies do not help in the recognition. It only makes us knowledgeable and parrot all the great philosophies.
This following verse unites the Buddhist and Vedantin schools… “The soul has an infinite geometry, It’s a beautiful singularity, If you want to understand nothingness, Just try to solve for 1/x” - Nanda Menon This unites Buddhist and Vedantin schools. A singularity occurs in mathematics when the solution to a problem is neither zero, nor positive infinity nor negative infinity. It’s beyond language. Such a problem occurs in the function 1/x when “x” approaches zero. Tje solution is neither negative infinity or positive infinity or any number in between. Such is the idea of self in Buddhism and Vedanta. They both approach the zero from different points and hence see two sides of the same infinite solution.
Vedantins and Buddhists have long debated their opposing views about the existence and non-existence of the self. However mathematics shows how both their views are reconciled. “The soul has an infinite geometry, It’s a beautiful singularity, If you want to understand nothingness, Just try to solve for 1/x” This unites Buddhist and Vedantin schools. A singularity occurs in mathematics when the solution to a problem is neither zero, nor positive infinity nor negative infinity. It’s beyond language. Such a problem occurs in the function 1/x when “x” approaches zero. The solution is neither negative infinity or positive infinity nor any number in between. Such are also the opposing idea of non-self and self in Buddhism and Vedanta. They both approach the answer from different directions and hence see two sides of the same infinite existence.
Swami Sarvapriyananda, the minister in charge of the Vedanta Society of New York, gave this lecture on Friday July 21 2023, in the Santa Barbara Temple.
Even someone as intelligent, educated, and spiritually mature as Swawmi does not undrrstand dreams. Dream structure and origin within the individual self confirm Advaia that there is a Self, a central organied intelligence to life. As above so below. Dreams have purpose, precision, guid ance and direction as communication and healing aspects of self. Because dreams are controlled by the unconscious, this stands as parallel for the Brahman in its function as Ishvara.
I heard swami vivekananda also used to talk about Buddha's teaching, he followed Buddha's foot step. Correct me if someone have knowledge about it about vivekananda.
you may find this useful......रामायण के आध्यात्मिक रहस्य [ English subtitles ] - Hrishikesh Brahmachari , Govardhan Math Puri ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-rhi_R037GPQ.html
The book Swamiji mentions is really great -- as you can imagine if it impressed him. Just saying if this topic is of interest, the book is excellent. And emptiness is not incompatible with Advaita IMHO.
To follow up on that, Swamiji is an Advaitin (and a Vedantin). His understanding of the Buddhist emptiness teaching is academic, and not a result of a formal practice from within one of the Tibetan traditions. That isn't meant to say that this and other talks by him don't have merit! I value them immensely, and consider him my teacher!
Thank you very much Swami for explaining in such easy to understand terms. Grasping emptiness is indeed also attachment, attachment to emptiness and the idea of emptiness; emptiness as opposed to what? In The Song of Enlightenment, Yung-Chia Hsuan Chueh (665-713) explains this in the very first verse: There is the leisurely one, Walking the Tao, beyond philosophy, a person with nothing to do and nothing to master, who neither rejects thought nor seeks truth? The real nature of ignorance is buddha-nature itself. The empty, illusory body is the very body of the Dharma.
Under the trees it was very quiet; there were so many birds calling, singing, chattering, endlessly restless. The branches were huge, beautifully shaped, polished, smooth and it was quite startling to see them and they had a sweep and a grace that brought tears to the eyes and made you wonder at the things of the earth. The earth had nothing more beautiful than the tree and when it died it would still be beautiful; every branch naked, open to the sky, bleached by the sun and there would be birds resting upon its nakedness. There would be shelter for owls, there in that deep hollow, and the bright, screeching parrots would nest high up in the hole of that branch; woodpeckers would come, with their redcrested feathers sticking straight out of their heads, to drive in a few holes; of course there would be those striped squirrels, racing about the branches, ever complaining about something and always curious; right on the top-most branch, there would be a white and red eagle surveying the land with dignity and alone. There would be many ants, red and black, scurrying up the tree and others racing down and their bite would be quite painful. But now the tree was alive, marvellous, and there was plenty of shade and the blazing sun never touched you; you could sit there by the hour and see and listen to everything that was alive and dead, outside and inside. You cannot see and listen to the outside without wandering on to the inside. Really the outside is the inside and the inside is the outside and it is difficult, almost impossible to separate them. You look at this magnificent tree and you wonder who is watching whom and presently there is no watcher at all. Everything is so intensely alive and there is only life and the watcher is as dead as that leaf. There is no dividing line between the tree, the birds and that man sitting in the shade and the earth that is so abundant. Virtue is there without thought and so there is order; order is not permanent; it is there only from moment to moment and that immensity comes with the setting sun so casually, so freely welcoming. The birds have become silent for it is getting dark and everything is slowly becoming quiet ready for the night. The brain, that marvellous, sensitive, alive thing, is utterly still, only watching, listening without a moment of reaction, without recording, without experiencing, only seeing and listening. With that immensity, there is love and destruction and that destruction is unapproachable strength. These are all words, like that dead tree, a symbol of that which was and it never is. It has gone, moved away from the word; the word is dead which would never capture that sweeping nothingness. Only out of that immense emptiness is there love, with its innocency. How can the brain be aware of that love, the brain that is so active, crowded, burdened with knowledge, with experience? Everything must be denied for that to be. Habit, however convenient, is destructive of sensitivity, habit gives the feeling of security and how can there be alertness, sensitivity, when habit is cultivated; not that insecurity brings alert awareness. How quickly everything becomes habit, sorrow as well as pleasure and then boredom sets in and that peculiar thing called leisure. After habit which has been working for forty years, then you have leisure or leisure at the end of the day. Habit had its turn and now it's the turn of leisure which again turns into habit. Without sensitivity there is no affection and that integrity which is not the driven reaction of contradictory existence. The machinery of habit is thought which is always seeking security, some comforting state from which it will never be disturbed. It is this search for the permanent that denies sensitivity. Being sensitive never hurts, only those things in which you have taken shelter cause pain. To be totally sensitive is to be wholly alive and that is love. But thought is very cunning; it will evade the pursuer, which is another thought; thought cannot pursue another thought. Only the flowering of thought can be seen, listened to, and what flowers in freedom comes to an end, dies without leaving a mark
Phenomenal reality is empty of any true intrinsic nature or substance.... And the ultimate reality is also empty from phenomenological standpoint as it lies beyond explanations...
As an Advaitin with no dog in the fight between Prasangikas and Shentongpas, it seems to me that Prasangikas are not as eager to compromise on the logical soundness of Buddhism as Shentongpas seem to be. Clearly, they both agree that the absolutely true meaning of the term “emptiness” or sunyata cannot be known through our mind. Thus, the Prasangika position is that neither reasoning (anumana) nor ordinary perception (pratyaksha), which are the only primary pramanas (means of knowledge) accepted by Buddhism, is sufficient to arrive at the absolutely true meaning of “emptiness”. Protestations of the Shentongpas notwithstanding, the “sword of logic” used by Prasangikas to cut down the Shengtong position on the oxymoronic “non-conceptual wisdom mind” is just reasoned logic which is accepted as a legitimate pramana in Buddhism. So, Shentongpas have no legitimate complaint under the rules of engagement in Buddhism. Consequently, it is understandable why Prasangikas would dismiss the claims of Shentongpas that rely on extraordinary mystical experiences which are not accepted as a legitimate pramana in Buddhism.
@@randomrock3439 In simple terms, Buddhist sub-school #5 (Shentong) got pwned by Buddhist sub-school #4 (Prasangika Madhyamaka)! I am afraid I cannot make it any simpler than that.
🙏Saadar Pranaam, Good video today's young generation says.... "If you watch a few movies of Charlie Chaplin you will realize that his movies his character and the good message it has in his movies, moral of the story is better than teachings, preaching katha stories and discourse of Yogananda then Mahavataar baba then so called God Shiva and Rama himself all of them put together I would rather idolize Charlie Chaplin then Yogananda Mahavatara Hanumana Shiva or Rama." सादर प्रणाम! आज का युवा वर्ग कहेता है के ...... "अगर आप चार्ली चैपलिन की फिल्मे देखोगे तब आप यह समाज पाओगे तब आप को यह ज्ञात होगा के उनकी फिल्मो में उनका किरदार, फिल्म में सन्देश सार, तात्पर्य योगानन्दा फिर महावातारा बाबा फिर सोकोल्ड गॉड शिवा और रमा सभी का मिलाके जितने भी प्रवचन कथा है उससे अच्छे है उपयोगी है बेहतर है जी शायद योगानन्दा महावातारा बाबा हनुमान शिवा रामा से मैं चार्ली चैपलिन को अपना आदर्श मानना अधिक ठीक है ??!!"
Did Buddha teach emptiness? Yes he did and freedom from samsara is possible if you clearly understand the emptiness. In heart sutra this teaching was given at Gidratakro near Rajgir. If any one interested to know the emptiness he or she should go to an authentic teacher. One should have practiced lot of compassion and other practices. Otherwise I personally seen many people gone crazy as they misunderstood the teaching of emptiness.
Pure consciousness means consciousness without any subjective attribute or objective form; that is, it is consciousness that is totally empty of subjective phenomena and objects: a void consciousness, therefore. In other words, it is the conscious emptiness of Tibetan Buddhism.
Emptiness means not empty as if nothing. Emptiness means the absence of inherent existence. Meaning everything is nonsingular and a product of everything else, thus without its own essence. Since everything exists this way there can’t be 2 or more entities as everything is without any differences. The only difference exists in minds concepts. Thus all is one and non dualistic. Right?
I don't think a mind which is dual by nature will ever understand emptiness as emptiness is samadhi where nobody has any mind only brain which is in trance and dosen't understand anything from the situation but sleepy😮. Then highest consciousness is stepping in and wakes up the mind on another level where it has to understand with it's dual nature what is happening then trancformation begins.Buddha calls it higher consciousness through non self,bhakta calls it working with Krishna,pastor tells serving Jesus.Selfless state cannot be explained to selves it can be experienced.And later nobody believes.🎉
Swamiji is unsuccessfully trying to find meeting point between super consciousness of his nondual Vedanta and Sunyata or emptiness of Mahāyāna Buddhism, which means that "all things are empty of intrinsic or essential existence and nature. The Prajñāpāramitā (Perfection of Wisdom) Sutras teaches that all entities, including religions, are empty of self, essential core, or intrinsic nature, being only conceptual in nature. The "things" we are conscious of are "mere concepts", not 'the thing in itself', like that explained in story of Cave of Plato. This concept of emptiness or sunyata has close resemblance to Charbak philosophy, according to which, all religions, concept of God etc., are creations of wise people to fool laymen and to earn livelihood at their cost.There is no afterlife and death consists of destruction of both body and soul or Atman or Consciousness. So, enjoy what you have in lieu of austerity in search of nonexistent Bramhan or God. Besides, what Tibetian Buddhist philosophy has given to residents of Tibet, except obsolete lifestyle under control of people's republic of China. So, confront life in lieu of discarding it as dream, as theory of "emptiness" itself, could be empty of self, essential core, or intrinsic nature, being only conceptual in nature.
No... You developed incomplete view of Sunyata... In ratnabali Nagarjuna himself explained that truth is of two types... Relative and absolute....or in other words samvriti and paramartha...the absolute reality is sunnya because it is beyond any phenomenological explanations or inexplicable, and dharma, nirvana, samsara are empty as they are relative and devoid of any ultimate reality....Nagarjuna's shunyavad is far from Charvak philosophy....
@@SouhardyaBanik Do you mean to say that Sunyata doctrine is much more extreme than Charbak philosophy in the rejection of all religious and moral principles, in the belief that life is meaningless? Besides, is it the drama named Ratnabali, you are talking about? That was about a beautiful princess named Ratnavali, and a great king named Udayana. But, it was written by emperor Harshavardhan, Ad 606 to 648.
@@sanjoyghose1952no.... Charbak philosophy is nowhere near Nagarjuna's concept of emptiness.... And ratnavali is written by nagarjuna, translated in english as precious garland...nagarjuna used the word shunya in twofold way....Absolute reality is shunya as it is beyond phenomenological explanations and phenomenological world is shunya as it is devoid of absolute reality... This twofold use of same word created misconception.... His shunyata in terms of phenomenological view is relative nafure of things actually..... You have to read much more before commenting.
@@sanjoyghose1952nagarjuna said samsara is meaningless also not only the religion, dharma or nirvana... Those things are empty because those are mere conceptions... Truth is something that should be realized directly...In swami shissya samvad swami vivekananda said his disciple sarat chandra chakrobarty that from absolute point of view all our works, religion are false.... The foolish mind which thinks that nirvan, religion, dharma are false but grasps the impermanent pleasures of life is actually misleading his or her own self..... This is kind of fooling one's own self... One does so to keep his attachments with material and sense pleasures intact..... But that is the view of charvaka not Nagarjuna's view.... Absolute truth is beyond conceptions... Dharma, religion, and the concept of nirvana are relative supports necessary to train a mind in his early days for the absolute.....in that sense dharma, the concept of nirvana are not absolute.so they are empty in absolute point of view.
@@SouhardyaBanik Then, as per your writing Buddhist monks are foolish enough to waste time and entire lifespan to attain Nirvana, but Swami Vivekananda and his disciple Sarat chandra are wise enough to understand the same. Anyway, don't you think it is foolish enough to waste things in hand, to seek something which might not exist at all? Charbak philosophy has been mentioned in Gita, and although writer of Gita condemns it, could not say anything to prove that philosophy is unfounded. Charbak philosophy is the most logical philosophy, out of seven philosophies in Hinduism. But, it has not become popular, only due to the reason that it does not give hope of anything after death. People like to live with hope that their atmans are immortal and likely to take rebirth in affluent families. Gita also gives such hope in endeavor to remain popular.
I quite enjoy his talks, and the eagerness to engage with other traditions HOWEVER, it is probably ill-advised to accept Swamiji's presentation on the various schools, sub-schools etc, and their treatment of Emptiness, as authoritative, because (let's be honest) he is an amateur. By that i mean that Emptiness is a core teaching in many of the Tibetan schools, and has been developed over 'centuries'. They all have immensely subtle takes on it, all the while treating it simply as a TOOL for bringing a student to the final point. Thats it.
I love Swami Sarvapriyananda's lectures, and I love Advaita Vendanta, but I don't understand how buddhism ever caught on in the first place. I don't care for hairsplitting sophistries pretending to be "logic", and I KNOW that emptiness itself is an illusion. Worse than an illusion, emptiness is a fantasy. The experience of Samsara is the illusion, but when we awaken from it, we are still right here. We do not know what we are- THAT is Samsara. THAT is the suffering. Know the truth, and you are freed from pain and fear, but you are flooded with the great FULLNESS of the PRESENCE of the divine truth. "Emptiness" is a terribly misleading word for it.
Instead of grappling with the burning issues of bare quality survival as may have been the guiding force of Swami Vivekanand; we are wasting time and energy on useless meaningless issues and topics… Directionless parasatic Nature as also the Human Nature! Perhaps all as Divinely Ordained 🌺🛐☪️🔯☦️☯️🕎🕉️🌺
When it professionals go to us for job what makes you to do this kind of activities in us. What made you feel you are an authorised agent for a religion. Which religion you are endorsing. Are you not ashamed when your community is accusing christians for spreading their religion in india you are spreading your religion in us. What significiance people will experience on hearing your doctrine. Do you charge your so called devotees or you allow them for free. How you manage to aurvive in us or yiu have got your own revenue model.
