Nonduality is not sameness, non-differentiation

[eputkonen]

Originally Posted by ajay00

The Self as per Advaita in Hinduism means pure awareness.

Awareness in Advaita and emptiness in Buddhism mean the same thing. The essence is the same , it is just the expressions that vary.

Yes...agreed.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by ajay00

The Self as per Advaita in Hinduism means pure awareness.

Awareness in Advaita and emptiness in Buddhism mean the same thing. The essence is the same , it is just the expressions that vary.

That is not correct. The essence of all phenomena in buddhism is emptiness, i.e. the essence of awareness is emptiness and the essence of the essence emptiness is again emptiness.
Emptiness of what? Emptiness of true, i.e. inherent, existence.

So the crucial difference between advaita and budhism is that advaita claims what buddhism negates: true, i.e. inherent, existence.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by eputkonen

Not necessary. Buddhism's THAT does not infer a theistic belief.

This THAT is yours and not buddhism's and you have claimed:

Originally Posted by eputkonen

THAT has a will and creates the motion within itself.

An claiming creative will is a characteristic theistic feature. Buddhism does not claim creative will but merely expresses dependent arising.

Originally Posted by eputkonen

... Actually, theism and not-theism is dualistic. What I am talking about is nonduality.

your talk is dualistic.
Nonduality means not-duality because it is a negation ('non') of duality and being a negation it is dualistic. Nonduality is a contradiction in terms. That is why for a believer in the mere concatenation of characters 'n o n d u a l i t y' this word means what this believer imputes.

[eputkonen]

Originally Posted by Ground

This THAT is yours and not buddhism's and you have claimed:

An claiming creative will is a characteristic theistic feature. Buddhism does not claim creative will but merely expresses dependent arising.

We have a will...we are not other than THAT...and so THAT has a will.
Or are you suggesting a duality - of us versus THAT?
Or simply that we have no will and this is all a clockwork mechanism?

[eputkonen]

Originally Posted by Ground

That is not correct. The essence of all phenomena in buddhism is emptiness, i.e. the essence of awareness is emptiness and the essence of the essence emptiness is again emptiness.
Emptiness of what? Emptiness of true, i.e. inherent, existence.

So the crucial difference between advaita and budhism is that advaita claims what buddhism negates: true, i.e. inherent, existence.

Emptiness is Form and Form is Emptiness.

You seem to be grasping emptiness, but it is voidless-void.

[iamthat]

We use words like existence and emptiness but they are simply mental concepts. So what Ground is saying is that his concept of emptiness is different from his concept of existence, and thus there is a difference between Advaita and Buddhism.

Perhaps when we realise non-duality we realise that we can call it both emptiness and existence, and there is no contradiction. It is both.

Peace.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by eputkonen

We have a will...we are not other than THAT...and so THAT has a will.

No. There is no 'we' which might have anything. And THAT cannot be found and is mere fiction like a reflection on a mirror.

Originally Posted by eputkonen

Or are you suggesting a duality - of us versus THAT?

Duality arises naturally and dependently and ceases naturally and dependently.

Originally Posted by eputkonen

Or simply that we have no will and this is all a clockwork mechanism?

There is no mechanism there is only dependent arising and dependent cessation.

Originally Posted by eputkonen

You seem to be grasping emptiness, but it is voidless-void.

Where is that 'you' which might be grasping anything?

[Ground]

Originally Posted by iamthat

We use words like existence and emptiness but they are simply mental concepts....

That is simply a mental concept.

[eputkonen]

Originally Posted by iamthat

We use words like existence and emptiness but they are simply mental concepts. So what Ground is saying is that his concept of emptiness is different from his concept of existence, and thus there is a difference between Advaita and Buddhism.

Perhaps when we realise non-duality we realise that we can call it both emptiness and existence, and there is no contradiction. It is both.

Peace.

Exactly.

Although I like negating it all with it is not emptiness, nor existence, nor both, nor neither.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by eputkonen

Exactly.

Although I like negating it all with it is not emptiness, nor existence, nor both, nor neither.

That is based on the misunderstanding that emptiness would negate existence but it does not. 'Emptiness' means being empty of inherent existence only. That means that even though all things are empty they still can be causes, conditions and/or effects. Actually causes, conditions and effects can exist only - although not inherently - because of emptiness.