Buddhism And Vedanta

Hi, Isaiah!
Thank you for your answer to my questions.
Nice to meet you.
Your grandmother was from Fukuoka! Actually all of my family are living in Fukuoka.
Now I'm in Okinawa for one month, but I'll go back there soon.
When you want to visit Fukuoka, I always welcome you.
Isaiah: Thank you.
Mitzuko: I was feeling Vedanta was very simple, but after getting your answer,
I feel it's more complicated.
The questions I asked were what I was not sure for a long time.
maya, Iswara, and relation between awareness and Iswara, doer etc...
I learned basic things, read about 20 sastras in sanscrit under the traditional system in
the ashram in Mumbai for one year, but still many things are not assimilated yet.
I've asked before to James, but I still couldn't get about these topics.
For example, Iswara = Awareness + maya , thus explained right?
But I didn't understand what it exactly means.
Isaiah: Please tell me what is still unclear and I will try help.
Mitzuko: Yes, the Self is not the doer. certainly!
That's why the Self is not the creator, OK.
Maybe I should have wrote the Self appeared as Iswara is the creator.
The Self is not perceiving anything...thank you, I didn't know this.
I'm glad to know clearly that enlightened person can't know everything.
I think many people have misunderstanding in this point.
In my ashram also, many people were believing so. (swami knows everything)
And sometimes we see these description in some books about Indian sages, right?
Isaiah: Yes, you see this idea in books. People love to indulge in spiritual fantasies
about teachers and saints. It is a myth that a person (jiva) can know everything. Only
Isvara has all knowledge of the creation.

Mitzuko: By the way, do you know how siddhi people know other's mind?
I know Vedanta ignores siddhi though...
Isaiah: There is only one mind, the macrocosmic (total) subtle body. It seems that
some individuals have more access to information in the total mind than others.
Vedanta does not ignore this, because Vedanta does not deny anything in the apparent
existence. Anything is possible in maya. But Vedanta does not waste time on yoga
siddhi's because they are spiritually worthless. Being able to read someone's mind
does not make you any less ignorant of your nature as the self. More than likely it will
distract you from the real work, which is self inquiry. In fact, the Yoga Sutras, which
describe the yoga siddhis, tell you to disregard these powers as distractions to the goal.
To further illustrate I'll use a story about the Buddha. One day, the Buddha came upon
a yogi by a river. The Buddha questioned him, What have you learned? The yogi said,
I have been here for a long time practicing very hard. Let me show you! The yogi
rose from his meditation seat and proceeded to walk across the river on top of the
water. When the yogi came back to the Buddha he said, What do you think about
that? The Buddha replied, I think you are a fool to have wasted your time chasing
this power. You could have just paid the boat man a few coins to take you across the
river and done something more spiritually productive.
In other words, yoga siddhi's are just parlor tricks people want to try to make things
work for themselves in samsara. This is why people want to try to read minds and
predict the future. But these tricks will not work, because you cannot win in samsara.
Only knowledge will free you from it.
(Isaiah's quote from previous email) The boddhisattva is also not working out his own
karma.
Mitzuko: Why? They have their own philosophy that they can work their own karma
and get liberated by helping others who want to liberate.
Isaiah: This is the problem with philosophies. They are based on ideas and beliefs, not
fact. This philosophy is based on the idea that you can do certain actions to get
enlightened (remove ignorance). Vedanta does not deal in beliefs, only facts. And the
fact is that action and ignorance are not opposed. The reason we do actions in the first
place is because we are ignorant of our limitless nature. We feel limited, so we do
actions to try to remove this belief in limitation. So action is an effect of ignorance, and

as such, cannot remove it. Only knowledge can remove ignorance.

So if actions cannot remove ignorance, how can a boddhisattva perform actions that
will help others get enlightened? It is not possible. Furthermore, there is the idea that
the boddhisattva puts off their own enlightenment to help others get enlightened. But
how could an ignorant person help another ignorant person get enlightened? This
would be like a blind person asking another blind person what the sun looks like.
Mitzuko: I'd been concentrating for my own liberation, but actually, I felt myself very
closed, dry, lost contact with society and people.
Isaiah: This feeling is not due to lack of contact with people. It is due to ignorance.
Ignorance makes you, the non-dual self, seem to be limited, incomplete and separate.
Then, owing to this ignorance, we go out to do actions to remove this feeling of
separation. This is samsara. But actions are not opposed to ignorance. Because as you
surely know, no matter how many friends you have, no matter how many parties you
go to, no matter how many boyfriends you have, they never remove the sense of
separation. Only knowledge will, because you are already non-separate from
everything, you just don't know it.
If it makes any difference, when I was younger I had many friends. I partied all of the
time and had many girlfriends. But no matter how many friends I had or how many
parties I went to, the feeling of isolation never left. None of those actions worked. I
even ended up marrying a very wonderful woman, one of the best people I have ever
met. However, this too did not remove my sense of limitation or separation. Only the
knowledge, that I am the limitless self, non-separate from everything, worked.
Mitzuko: I met Dalai Lama and he gave me mantra, I'm practicing Buddhist also,
studying Vedanta too.
I need Buddhist teaching, compassion, so I can keep my balance.
Isaiah: I saw the Dalai Lama once too. He was an exceptionally charming and sattvic
man. I nearly cried in his presence, and I was a hundred feet away! Seeing him made
me think about practicing Buddhism, but in the end, Buddhism did not make sense.
So Mitzuko, I am not trying to be critical, but helpful. I want to save you from a lot of
potential confusion. So please hear me out on this topic. Why do you need to practice
both Buddhism and Vedanta?

If Buddhism is a complete teaching and gives you everything you need, then why would
you need Vedanta? On the flip side, if Vedanta is a complete teaching, and it gives you
everything you need, then why would you need Buddhism? If they are both incomplete
teachings then why wouldn't you go find a different teaching altogether?
So the question is: are both Buddhism and Vedanta incomplete teachings? What is a
complete teaching? A complete teaching is one that explains both the real (satya i.e.
awareness), mithya (the apparent world), and the difference between them. The satya
part explains the truth of reality, meaning the self. The mithya part explains what the
world is, how the world works, why it is not real, and how one should live their life in
that unreal world.
So by this definition I would say that Buddhism is not a complete teaching. It gives an
explanation of the world. It also gives a person many practices to live their life in the
world. But it does not talk about the self. In fact, it outright denies that there is a self.
Without the teaching of the self, a person can only manage their life in samsara, never
be free from it. So they will always be subject to periods of pleasure mixed with
periods of pain. This is not acceptable is it? Having no teaching of the self also creates
another very big problem: it means that you do not exist. But you know very well that
you exist. It is obvious. Even if you didn't exist, you would have to be there to know it,
wouldn't you?
So Buddhism is not a complete teaching. However, it does give one practices to help
them in life. Fair enough. But does Vedanta lack these practices? Is Vedanta
incomplete?
The answer is no. Vedanta is a complete teaching that explains both the self and the
apparent world. For those who are not yet qualified to understand this teaching,
Vedanta has the ultimate way to manage your life in this world: karma yoga. Contained
in karma yoga is bhakti: love, devotion, compassion. The self is love. This means YOU
ARE LOVE. You do not need to seek it, just understand that you are it. Studying Vedanta
and doing inquiry is devotion, because it is love for yourself. Also, everything is the self,
and you are the self. So the only real way to develop compassion is to understand this.
Because if you are the self, and everyone else is the self, how can you not be
compassionate? Whatever is done to others is just done to yourself.
Mitzuko: But usually Vedantin criticize Buddhism...
But I think Buddhist teaching is teaching the same as Vedanta, I know Vedantin will not

accept it.
Isaiah: Vedanta just points out that there is a difference between itself and Buddhism.
This is nothing personal. It is the same as pointing out that there is a difference
between a pineapple and a banana. They are both fruit, yes. It is true they share some
similarities. But they are certainly not the same. If you ask me for a pineapple and I
hand you a banana you would certainly notice this and point it out.
In the same way, Buddhism and Vedanta may share some similarities. After all,
Buddhism developed from Vedic culture. But they are not the same. Most importantly,
Buddhism says there is no self. This puts is at definite odds with Vedanta because
Vedanta is based on nothing but the knowledge of the self. Also, Buddhism invariably
formulates enlightenment as experience, another thing that Vedanta sternly refutes.
In fact, here is a quote from a teacher of Dzogchen Buddhism, a school of Buddhism
that is perhaps the closest to Vedanta:
From HH Dilgo Khyentse Rinpoche:
Simply plunging directly into meditation in the moment now, with our whole being,
free from hesitation, boredom or excitement, is enlightenment.
You see? He is describing enlightenment as an experience of meditation. According to
Vedanta this is impossible because all experiences begin and end. So what we have is
Buddhism, which says there is no self and that enlightenment is an experience. Then
we have Vedanta that says you ARE the self and that enlightenment is just knowledge.
These are differences that cannot be ignored or reconciled.
Now, I am not pointing this out to be difficult. But if you are practicing two teachings
that are saying two different things, don't you think this can lead to some major
confusion? If you go to one teacher that says one thing, and another teacher that says
something totally opposite, how will you know what is right? How will you make
progress?
If you want to be a Buddhist this is no problem. But you will be a much better Buddhist
without Vedanta because Vedanta will constantly contradict Buddhism. All of the time
you spend studying Vedanta could be devoted to Buddhism, and this will help your
practice as a Buddhist progress much faster.
But of course, I wouldn't be a good Vedanta teacher if I didn't encourage you to study

Vedanta. It is a perfectly crafted means to enlightenment. It is a complete teaching and

does not need Buddhism to make it work. It has love and compassion in spades,
because the self is love. If you don't understand this I will be happy to discuss it with
you further.
Mitzuko: I mean helping "others" are same as doing for myself, because there is no
others.
Isaiah: If helping others is the same as doing for yourself, then why do you need to help
others? Helping Mitzuko would be the same as helping others, because there is no
difference between Mitzuko and others. Mitzuko needs to help herself. She is ignorant
of her limitless nature. When she removes this ignorance, she will be a great help to
others just by existing.
Another way to look at it is to examine Mitzuko's motivations. Why does she help
others? Is it for them? No, it is for herself. Helping others makes Mitzuko feel good. It
also gives her a feeling of connection with others, something that she craves. Also, if
Mitzuko is helping others so she can work for her own enlightenment, then she is doing
those actions for herself, because she wants enlightenment.
Lastly, if there is nothing but the self, and you are the self, then how can you do an
action that is not for yourself?
Mitzuko: So helping other's enlightenment is working for my own enlightenment.
Isaiah: No, it is not. You are already enlightened, you just don't know it. That is
ignorance. Only knowledge can remove ignorance, not actions, like helping others.
Mitzuko: Buddhism helps me, so I can't deny this benefit.
Isaiah: I'm sure Buddhism does help you. It's practices make nice people. But Vedanta
wants you to understand that you are not a person, and are therefore free. If you still
think you are a person, the karma yoga of Vedanta will help you be a better person.
There is no need for other practices in this area.
Mitzuko: But I accept the definition of enlightenment is are different in both, and the
vedantic definition of enlightenment is more logical for me. (who is aware of the
emptiness?)

Isaiah: If you have two definitions of enlightenment, and one is logical, and the other is
not, then why not throw out the definition that is not logical? How is holding onto to a
useless idea of enlightenment helping you? Also, by saying that the definition of
enlightenment in Buddhism and Vedanta are different, you have said yourself that they
are not the same.
Mitzuko: I understood about marriage. Thank you.
Isaiah, thank you very much for you time, energy and care.
I guess you took a lot of time for this e-mail.
I really appreciate you.
Love, Mitzuko
Isaiah: You are very welcome Mitzuko. I am glad we have been able to talk. Ram and
Sundari have said many nice things about you. By the way, I did not respond to your
friend request because I do not use Facebook.
Love,
Isaiah