Part 1

Sorry what is TEC?

The Episcopal Church, specifically The Episcopal Church USA

I like how you worded this as different perspectives and focuses with potential a singular underlying messages rather than the common saying, which I dislike, of they’re different paths up the same mountain.

I mean, I do think they’re paths to the same point, but that particular expression I’m not too big a fan of. Up the same mountain makes it sound, firstly, like a slog, and secondly like the paths themselves are similar. I prefer Vivekananda’s version

“As different streams having their sources in different places all mingle their waters in the sea, so, Oh Lord, the different paths which men take through different tendencies various though they appear, crooked or straight, all lead to Thee”

I also quite like his story of the frog in the well. That’s not exactly relevant here, but it’s a google story, and I like it a lot. Lol

May I ask how do you handle big and/or cosmological differences? Or do you focus on the advaita one’s? As far as big cosmological issues go, I really don’t handle them. Haha. I just sort of ignore things about gods or heavens and hells, and chalk them up to mostly metaphor, and the ways in which people try to understand the world around them, or the ways in which they try to impart wisdom to those who might not understand another method. I don’t know how literally I believe really anything, but especially issues like cyclical time, or Agni the deva of fire. Given what you’ve said, I’m assuming you probably also don’t take a literal view of the various gods, demons, heavens and hells that are present in a lot of Buddhist thought.

Where do you land on rebirth/reincarnation? Also, what branch of Buddhism do you practice?

One of the biggest reasons I haven’t studied any form of Hinduism is the main Buddhist critiques of it. Non-self/atman, anti-caste, no eternal source, and no creator god.

So, my personal idea of Brahman is less creator deity and more universal constant. If there is truly not-two, then all things are brahman, all things are in common. I don’t see brahman as a distinct, physical god, but as the collection of the entirety of existence. Pantheism, perhaps panentheism depending on the day.

I also, find the three marks of existence quite logical as well as the four noble truths.

From what I’ve read, I also quite like the three marks of existence (though I knew them as the Universal Truths) and the four noble truths. I don’t know as much about Buddhism as I’d like, though, and I need to learn more. It’s honestly just a weird fluke that I ended up with more knowledge of hinduism than of buddhism, considering how much more popular buddhism is in the states. I’ve always enjoyed learning about other traditions, especially ones that are very foreign to my current understanding. I had just come off a kick on Norse Paganism when I started reading about Advaita, and it just… clicked. Never really looked back. I hadn’t done the same with Buddhism because I mistakenly thought I knew what it was all about. Found out later I had very little understanding of Buddhism, and I’ve only just recently started really looking into it.

Though I study it academically I also follow it personally. If I understand correctly your current method or interest is taking advaita as your core but studying traditions around it to gain other perspectives?

Less that one is my core and I’m studying things around it, and more that I am trying to study as many as possible objectively, and attempting to find my own core. As current, Advaita is the closest I have to come to expressing what I have always believed internally, and consequently gives me a language to explain how I feel about the universe, and a framework to help understand things that I currently do not. I’m not dogmatic about it, though, and am willing to grow, adapt and change my views when new information or traditions are presented.

it’s fun that the Buddha ran into some big religious traditions if his time and had debates with them so there is a record of exactly the sort of back and forth you are interested in.

I need to look those up. That sounds like exactly the kind of thing I would like to start reading!

Have you watched Let’s Talk Religion’s videos on Advaita?

I have! They’re quite good. John Green is doing a religions series on Crash Course, and I’m spamming the comments on each episode asking him to do an episode specifically about nonduality. Haha

May I ask what about nondualism interests you? And what about Kashmiri Shaivism carried this interest? What is the difference with Shiva as center? What does that imply for the practice?

So, there’s nothing specific, for me, about having Shiva at center. It’s less about the image that people hold of the godhead, and more just another tradition attempting to explain nonduality, and the nuances of it that make it interesting. I use Advaita as a shorthand to explain what I believe, because, again, its quite close. But ultimately, its nonduality that is most essential, so just about any nondualist tradition is of interest to me. Kashmiri Shaivism and Advaita have a lot of difference… Most of which I don’t understand well enough to explain. Haha.

I actually used to have this understanding as well until I read this book by James Laidlaw: https://archive.org/details/richesrenunciati0000laid His main point, which is a good point to understand for religion in general, is that in Jainism as understood through its texts and Jainism as its lived can be wildly different traditions with little pressure for lay people to renounce. The particular city he did his fieldwork in showed that many Jains were wildly rich though they supported those who renounced. If you only approach it from its texts it appears the only point of the traditions is to renounce. This is was a pretty eye opening moment for me in school that lived religion is the best approach. This comes as a critique of how early Protestant scholars of religion only studied religions based on what their texts said then would label its followers as good or bad based on that. If one follows this method there are few Buddhists in East Asia, when in reality there are millions.

I will check out that book! It can be sort of… Disconcerting, realizing the difference between the religious texts or a philosophical tradition and the actual lived religion of the people. I remember when I made one of my first Hindu friends, and I was so excited to chat about nondualism, cyclical time, and other sort of deep cuts from people like Shankara and Ramakrishna. And they were like “I do pooja, and I don’t really think about it otherwise” And I realized Hindus were much like Christians in that regard. Haha. Probably the same for just about any religion outside of tiny cults.

I guess because of my more Buddhist views I have trouble being interested in more creator centered traditions. I, like you, was brought up Christian and one of the big eye opening moments for me in Buddhism besides emptiness and impermanence was no creator god. In the nondualism you study is Brahman necessarily a creator god or are there forms where they are not?

Plenty of the nondualists/advaitins I’ve spoken with do not really understand Brahman through the lens of a creator god. Brahman, to my understanding, isn’t generally viewed as a creator deity, but more as universal existence itself. The creator deity in Hinduism is (at least, in most branches) is Brahma, not Brahman. The Hindu trimurti is Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva. Brahma creates, Vishnu sustains, and Shiva destroys. But Brahma and Brahman are not the same thing, just a similar sounding word. There are two major concepts of Brahman, Saguna and Nirguna. Nirguna Brahman is the formless, atributeless, unexplainable, ineffable divine existence that permeates all. It is the paramatman, the soul from which all souls spring (though, even that kind languages implies a duality. Better to say the soul from which all souls appear to spring). Saguna Brahman is sort of like philosophical training wheels. Saguna Brahman is basically up to the believers choice. You can choose to imagine Saguna Brahman as Vishnu, or Shiva, or your own mother if you’re so inclined. It is simply an aspect of Brahman, the true Nirguna Brahman, that allows you to focus your mind until you are ready to understand the true nature of Brahman as Nirguna Brahman.

I hope I don’t come off as aggressively Buddhist. I also enjoy reading about what your talking about. Really fun to listen to podcasts on all of it and Great Courses talks. Studying at the phd level has somewhat ripped away my non-Buddhist time and care since it’s my job lol.

Not at all! I hope I don’t across as aggressively any-one-thing. Haha. I’d love to learn more about Buddhism, if you wouldn’t mind educating me and pointing me to some places to begin.

When I was more Buddhist-Christian I really did enjoy such nondualist traditions within Abrahamic and potentially South Asian religions as they sort of bridged my way.

IDK if I already asked it but what particularly about nondualism interests you? And outside of that what about those two traditions way above interest you?

I think I’ve already sort of gone into that above, but I’m too lazy to check. Haha. Nondualism gives me a framework to explain what I’ve always sort of known/believed internally. We are not-two. It also helped me explain my universalism within my Christian framework, as I’ve never really believed in hell, and could not jive the concept of a benevolent, loving God and eternal damnation. Infinite punishment for finite crimes and all. It led to me Universal Reconciliation.