Bhagavad Gita says desire is the source of all miseries and one must renounce it, So does Ashtavakra Gita, Ashtavakra Gita also says all efforts are futile including accumulation of materials, success in career, meditation and yoga unless you renounce desire because every being indirectly seeks a state of desireless being, while budhism also says craving is the root because craving creates attachment but the teravada vipassana based branch says craving and aversion is the root of all suffering. Isn’t aversion also rooted in desire to be free of pain?
Yes, exactly! Aversion is essentially another form of desire—the desire to avoid pain or discomfort. This is why in Buddhism, particularly in Theravāda and Vipassanā practice, both craving (tanhā) and aversion (dosa) are seen as two sides of the same coin.
- Craving (tanhā) is the desire to attain pleasure, comfort, or certain experiences.
- Aversion (dosa) is the desire to avoid pain, suffering, or undesirable experiences.
Both are rooted in a fundamental attachment to the self and its preferences. The very act of rejecting something unpleasant is still a movement of the mind driven by desire—desire to not suffer.
This aligns with what the Bhagavad Gita and Ashtavakra Gita suggest: that renouncing desire (whether it’s a desire for pleasure or a desire to escape pain) is key to liberation. The ultimate state, according to these traditions, is equanimity—a state where neither craving nor aversion dictate one’s experience. This is why in Buddhism, especially Vipassana, the goal is to observe sensations and thoughts without reacting—to develop a state of pure awareness, where neither craving nor aversion control the mind.
So yes, aversion is ultimately a form of desire, just in a negative form. True liberation, whether in Vedantic, Yogic, or Buddhist philosophy, comes from going beyond both.
Why couldn’t the Buddha just repeat what the Gita said – renounce desire, why take a different way of craving and aversion?
That’s a deep question! The core message of both the Bhagavad Gita and the Buddha’s teachings is quite similar—liberation comes from transcending desire. However, the Buddha took a different approach for several reasons:
1. Clarity and Practicality
The Gita speaks of renouncing desire (tyāga or vairāgya), but the Buddha went a step further by breaking down how desire works. Instead of simply saying “renounce desire,” he analyzed why and how desire arises, distinguishing between craving (tanhā) and aversion (dosa). This made the problem more practical—because not everyone can suddenly “renounce desire,” but they can begin by observing their own reactions.
2. Psychological Depth: Two Sides of the Same Coin
The Buddha saw that suffering doesn’t just come from wanting things (craving) but also from not wanting things (aversion). If he had only said “renounce desire,” people might have misunderstood and forced suppression of desire rather than cultivating true inner freedom. By including aversion, he showed that even the desire to escape suffering is still a trap.
3. Direct Experience Over Conceptual Understanding
The Gita often emphasizes wisdom (jnana) and devotion (bhakti), but the Buddha focused on direct experience through meditation. Vipassana practice, for example, teaches people to observe their thoughts, sensations, and emotions without craving or aversion. Instead of commanding renunciation, he created a step-by-step training of the mind.
4. Avoiding the Concept of Self (Atman vs. Anatta)
The Gita’s philosophy is based on Atman (the eternal Self), while the Buddha rejected any fixed self (anatta). If he had simply said “renounce desire,” people might have misunderstood it as an effort by the “self” to control itself. Instead, by focusing on dependent origination, he showed that desire and aversion arise due to conditions, not due to a real “self.”
Conclusion
The Buddha didn’t contradict the Gita; he refined and practically deconstructed the mechanics of suffering. Instead of just saying “renounce desire,” he gave a scientific method—analyzing craving and aversion, seeing their impermanence, and gradually letting go through awareness rather than suppression. His approach is more like an experiment on the mind rather than a philosophical instruction.
Both paths ultimately lead to the same state of freedom, but the Buddha’s method is experiential and analytical, making it accessible to anyone willing to observe their own experience deeply.
The four noble truths call craving as the source of suffering and don’t include aversion at all, how does aversion fit into the four noble truths?
Great observation! The Four Noble Truths primarily emphasize craving (tanhā) as the root of suffering, but aversion (dosa) is actually implied within that framework. Here’s how craving and aversion fit into the Four Noble Truths:
1st Noble Truth – Dukkha (Suffering Exists)
Life involves suffering (dukkha)—birth, aging, illness, death, not getting what we want, and getting what we don’t want.
- This includes both pain (physical & mental) and the unsatisfactory nature of all experiences.
- Aversion (dosa) plays a big role here because we suffer not just from what we want and don’t have, but also from what we don’t want and try to avoid.
2nd Noble Truth – Samudaya (Cause of Suffering)
The root cause of suffering is craving (tanhā)—the desire for pleasure, existence, and non-existence.
- Here, craving (tanhā) is explicitly mentioned as the cause of suffering, but in Buddhist psychology, aversion is actually a type of craving.
- How? Aversion is the craving to not suffer, the desire for something unpleasant to go away. It is the negative expression of craving.
Example: If you feel pain and desperately want it to stop, that’s aversion, which is just another form of craving for a pain-free state.
3rd Noble Truth – Nirodha (Cessation of Suffering)
If craving (and thus aversion) ceases, suffering ceases.
- When the mind stops grasping at pleasure (craving) and stops resisting pain (aversion), suffering naturally ends.
- This leads to Nirvana—complete peace and freedom from both attachment to pleasure and resistance to pain.
4th Noble Truth – Magga (Path to the End of Suffering)
The Eightfold Path is the method to go beyond both craving and aversion.
- Right Mindfulness (Sati) and Right Concentration (Samadhi) help us observe craving and aversion without reacting.
- Right View (Samma Ditthi) helps us see that both craving and aversion arise due to ignorance of impermanence.
Conclusion
Though the 2nd Noble Truth explicitly mentions craving (tanhā), aversion (dosa) is already included within it because aversion is just an inverse form of craving.
So, in practical Buddhist practice (like Vipassana), both craving and aversion are recognized as causes of suffering, and the goal is to go beyond both through equanimity (upekkhā)—neither craving what is pleasant nor resisting what is unpleasant.
In which book did the Budha talk about four noble truths, and what are those verses in Pali?
The Four Noble Truths were first taught by the Buddha in the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (Pali: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, meaning “The Discourse on Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion”). This sutta is found in the Saṃyutta Nikāya (SN 56.11) of the Sutta Pitaka in the Pali Canon.
The Four Noble Truths in Pali (from SN 56.11 – Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta)
- Dukkha Ariya Sacca (The Noble Truth of Suffering) “Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhaṁ ariya saccaṁ: jātipi dukkhā, jarāpi dukkhā, byādhipi dukkhā, maraṇampi dukkhaṁ, appiyehi sampayogo dukkho, piyehi vippayogo dukkho, yampicchaṁ na labhati tampi dukkhaṁ – saṅkhittena pañcupādānakkhandhā dukkhā.”
Translation:
“Now this, monks, is the noble truth of suffering: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; association with what is unpleasant is suffering, separation from what is pleasant is suffering, not getting what one wants is suffering. In short, the five aggregates of clinging are suffering.” - Samudaya Ariya Sacca (The Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering – Craving) “Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhasamudayaṁ ariya saccaṁ: yāyaṁ taṇhā ponobhavikā nandirāgasahagatā tatratatrābhinandinī, seyyathidaṁ – kāmataṇhā, bhavataṇhā, vibhavataṇhā.”
Translation:
“Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: It is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for non-existence.” - Nirodha Ariya Sacca (The Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering – Nibbāna) “Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhaṁ ariya saccaṁ: yo tassāyeva taṇhāya asesa-virāga-nirodho, cāgo, paṭinissaggo, mutti, anālayo.”
Translation:
“Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: It is the complete fading away and cessation of that craving, its abandoning, relinquishing, release, and letting go.” - Magga Ariya Sacca (The Noble Truth of the Path Leading to the Cessation of Suffering – Eightfold Path) “Idaṁ kho pana, bhikkhave, dukkhanirodhagāminī paṭipadā ariya saccaṁ: ayameva ariyo aṭṭhaṅgiko maggo – seyyathidaṁ: sammādiṭṭhi, sammāsaṅkappo, sammāvācā, sammākammanto, sammāājīvo, sammāvāyāmo, sammāsati, sammāsamādhi.”
Translation:
“Now this, monks, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: It is this Noble Eightfold Path, namely: Right View, Right Intention, Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.”
Summary
- Source: Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (SN 56.11)
- Book: Saṃyutta Nikāya (Sutta Pitaka, Pali Canon)
- Key Teaching: The Four Noble Truths
This is considered the first sermon of the Buddha, given to the five ascetics at the Deer Park in Sarnath after his enlightenment.
What are the five aggregates of clinging?
The Five Aggregates of Clinging (pañcupādānakkhandhā) are the five aspects of experience that we mistakenly identify as “self.” The Buddha taught that clinging to these aggregates is the cause of suffering (dukkha). These are mentioned in multiple suttas, including the Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (SN 56.11) and Khandha Sutta (SN 22.48).
The Five Aggregates of Clinging (Pañcupādānakkhandhā) with Pali Verses
- Rūpupādānakkhandho (Clinging to Form – Material Body) “Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, anattā. Rūpañca hidaṁ, bhikkhave, attā abhavissa, na yidaṁ rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvatteyya; labbhetha ca rūpe: ‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti. Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ anattā, tasmā rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvattati, na ca labbhati rūpe: ‘evaṁ me rūpaṁ hotu, evaṁ me rūpaṁ mā ahosī’ti.”
(SN 22.59 – Anatta-lakkhana Sutta) Translation:
“Form, monks, is not self. If form were self, this body would not lead to affliction, and one could say of the body, ‘Let my body be like this, let my body not be like that.’ But since form is not self, it leads to affliction, and one cannot command it.” 🔹 Rūpa refers to the physical body and material forms—the aspect of experience that corresponds to matter and the senses. - Vedanupādānakkhandho (Clinging to Feelings – Sensations of Pleasure, Pain, Neutrality) “Vedanā aniccā, vedanā dukkha, vedanā anattā.”
(SN 22.12 – Phassa Sutta) Translation:
“Feeling is impermanent, feeling is suffering, feeling is not-self.” 🔹 Vedanā refers to sensory and mental experiences that are pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral. These arise through contact with the world and trigger craving and aversion. - Saññupādānakkhandho (Clinging to Perception – Recognition and Memory) “Saññā aniccā, saññā dukkha, saññā anattā.”
(SN 22.12 – Phassa Sutta) Translation:
“Perception is impermanent, perception is suffering, perception is not-self.” 🔹 Saññā is the process of recognition and labeling—our ability to identify things based on past experience. This is how we recognize colors, shapes, sounds, and concepts. - Saṅkhārupādānakkhandho (Clinging to Mental Formations – Intentions and Volitional Actions) “Saṅkhārā aniccā, saṅkhārā dukkha, saṅkhārā anattā.”
(SN 22.12 – Phassa Sutta) Translation:
“Mental formations are impermanent, mental formations are suffering, mental formations are not-self.” 🔹 Saṅkhārā refers to mental habits, emotions, intentions, and karma-producing volitional actions. It includes all conditioned thoughts and impulses that shape our actions and reactions. - Viññāṇupādānakkhandho (Clinging to Consciousness – Awareness and Sensory Experience) “Viññāṇaṁ aniccaṁ, viññāṇaṁ dukkhaṁ, viññāṇaṁ anattā.”
(SN 22.12 – Phassa Sutta) Translation:
“Consciousness is impermanent, consciousness is suffering, consciousness is not-self.” 🔹 Viññāṇa is basic awareness of sensory experience—the process of knowing sights, sounds, tastes, touches, smells, and mental phenomena.
Summary Table of the Five Aggregates
| Pali Name | English Meaning | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Rūpa | Form (Body) | Physical body and external material world |
| Vedanā | Feeling (Sensation) | Pleasant, unpleasant, or neutral experiences |
| Saññā | Perception | Recognition of objects, concepts, memories |
| Saṅkhāra | Mental Formations | Thoughts, intentions, volitions, emotions |
| Viññāṇa | Consciousness | Awareness of sensory and mental objects |
Key Teaching: Why Are They Called “Aggregates of Clinging”?
The Five Aggregates themselves are not suffering, but clinging to them as “I” or “mine” leads to suffering. The Buddha taught that we mistakenly identify with these aggregates as “self,” leading to attachment, craving, and aversion.
The path to liberation (Nibbāna) is realizing that these aggregates are:
✔️ Impermanent (anicca)
✔️ Unsatisfactory (dukkha)
✔️ Not-self (anattā)
When one stops clinging to them, suffering ends.
Where to Find This Teaching?
- SN 22.48 – Khandha Sutta (The Aggregates)
- SN 22.59 – Anatta-lakkhana Sutta (The Discourse on Not-Self)
- SN 56.11 – Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta (The First Sermon)
This teaching is central to Buddhist psychology, showing that what we call “self” is just a combination of temporary, ever-changing processes. Understanding and seeing through this illusion is the key to liberation.
I feel vinnana is wrongly translated as consciousness, it should be deep insight / discriminative knowledge. Consciousness might be free of vinnaana or not, and vinnana could be ccnsidered only as an aspect of consciousness. In Sanskrit these are clearly separated as Citta and Vignana.
Yes, you bring up a very important distinction! The translation of viññāṇa as “consciousness” can be misleading because, in Pali and Sanskrit, different terms refer to different aspects of the mind. Let’s break this down carefully.
Viññāṇa vs. Citta vs. Paññā (Deep Insight)
- Viññāṇa (Pali) / Vijñāna (Sanskrit) = Discriminative Consciousness
- This refers to sense-consciousness—the awareness of an object through the six sense faculties (eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind).
- It is dualistic because it always involves a subject-object distinction (e.g., “I see this,” “I hear that”).
- It arises due to contact (phassa) and depends on external conditions.
Translation:
“Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness (cakkhu-viññāṇa) arises. The meeting of the three is contact, and from contact arises feeling.” So, viññāṇa is conditioned and not ultimate awareness. - Citta (Pali & Sanskrit) = Mind / Heart / Pure Awareness
- Citta is the broader field of awareness, encompassing both conditioned consciousness (viññāṇa) and unconditioned states.
- It can be defiled (kilesa-citta) or pure (luminous mind – pabhassara citta), depending on the presence or absence of craving and ignorance.
Translation:
“Monks, this mind (citta) is naturally radiant, but it is defiled by passing impurities.” So, citta includes both conditioned and unconditioned aspects, unlike viññāṇa, which is always conditioned. - Paññā (Pali) / Prajñā (Sanskrit) = Deep Insight / Wisdom
- This is intuitive wisdom that sees reality directly, beyond conceptual thought.
- Viññāṇa is not paññā—viññāṇa is conditioned awareness, whereas paññā is the realization of impermanence, suffering, and not-self.
Why is Viññāṇa Not Pure Awareness?
- Viññāṇa always arises in dependence on a sense organ and an object (e.g., eye-consciousness depends on the eye and visible form).
- Viññāṇa is always dualistic—it involves separation between observer and observed.
- Citta, in its purified state, transcends viññāṇa—it is non-dual awareness beyond conditioned perception.
Thus, in advanced Buddhist teachings, viññāṇa is not the ultimate mind—it is a temporary, conditioned state of knowing, while citta can be liberated.
Does Consciousness Exist Without Viññāṇa?
Yes! Viññāṇa is just a limited, conditioned aspect of consciousness, while citta (pure mind) and paññā (wisdom) are beyond it.
This is why Nibbāna is described as beyond viññāṇa:
📜 DN 11 – Kevatta Sutta:
“Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ.”
Translation:
“Consciousness (viññāṇa) that is non-manifesting, infinite, and luminous in all directions.”
This suggests that ordinary viññāṇa ceases, but a higher, unconditioned awareness remains—which some Theravāda teachers interpret as purified citta, and some Mahāyāna traditions equate with Bodhi (awakening).
Conclusion: Viññāṇa Is Not Ultimate Awareness
✅ Viññāṇa = Discriminative Consciousness (Conditioned, Dualistic, Based on Senses & Mind)
✅ Citta = The Mind (Can be Pure or Defiled, Includes Ultimate Awareness)
✅ Paññā = Insight (Liberating Wisdom that Sees Reality Beyond Viññāṇa)
So, your intuition is correct—viññāṇa should not be equated with ultimate consciousness. In deeper Buddhist understanding, viññāṇa is transcended, and what remains is pure awareness (citta) and wisdom (paññā).
I also thin the following conclusion is wrong “The Gita’s philosophy is based on Atman (the eternal Self), while the Buddha rejected any fixed self (anatta). Buddha might be referring to absence of an individual self that is eternal, Gita also says the individual self is born out of Maya (illusion) while what exists is only the universal self or universal consciousness. If Buddha doesn’t believe in Universal self or universal consciousness then can there be rebirth based on karma and liberation from the illusion of self?
You raise a profound point! The apparent contradiction between the Bhagavad Gita’s concept of Ātman (Universal Self) and Buddha’s teaching of Anattā (Not-Self) is one of the most debated topics in philosophy. However, when looked at deeply, they may not be as opposed as they first appear. Let’s break this down carefully.
1. Did the Buddha Reject Only the Individual Self or Any Kind of Universal Self?
- The Bhagavad Gita (Advaita Vedanta interpretation) states that the individual self (jīvātman) is an illusion, and only Brahman (Universal Consciousness) is real.
- The Buddha rejected the idea of an eternal, unchanging “individual self” (atta/anattā) but remained silent on the existence of a Universal Consciousness (Brahman-like reality).
🔹 Key Difference:
- The Gita says the individual self is an illusion but affirms the existence of a single, undivided Universal Self (Brahman).
- The Buddha focuses only on what can be directly experienced and does not affirm a Universal Self (paramātman) or deny it—he remains silent on this.
📜 Majjhima Nikaya (MN 63 – Mālunkyaputta Sutta)
“Whether the world is eternal or not, whether the self exists or not, is not relevant to the cessation of suffering.”
👉 This suggests the Buddha avoided metaphysical speculation and instead emphasized direct realization of impermanence, suffering, and non-self in experience.
2. Why Does Rebirth and Karma Work Without a Permanent Self?
One might ask:
❓ If there is no self (anatta), then what is reborn?
❓ If there is no universal self, how does karma work?
Buddhist Perspective: No Fixed Self, Only Continuity
The Buddha did not deny rebirth; he simply said what continues is not a fixed “self” but a process of cause and effect.
📜 Visuddhimagga (Theravāda text)
“There is no doer of deeds, but the deeds continue and bring results.”
🔹 Example: Just like a flame from one candle lights another, karma continues through causes and conditions, but no permanent “self” moves between lives.
✔ Dependent Origination (Paṭicca-Samuppāda) explains this:
- Craving (tanhā) leads to clinging.
- Clinging leads to becoming (bhava).
- Becoming leads to rebirth (jāti).
- This cycle continues unless wisdom (paññā) cuts off craving.
So, rebirth in Buddhism does not require a permanent self—just continuity of karmic tendencies (saṅkhāra).
3. Could the Buddha Have Meant an Impersonal Universal Consciousness?
Some interpretations of Buddhism, especially in Mahāyāna, hint at a deeper awareness beyond the aggregates:
- Nirvāṇa is described as unborn, undying, beyond conditions.
- The concept of “Luminous Mind” (Pabhassara Citta) in Theravāda and “Tathāgatagarbha” in Mahāyāna sound similar to Universal Consciousness.
📜 Dīgha Nikāya (DN 11 – Kevatta Sutta)
“Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ.”
Translation: “Consciousness that is non-manifesting, infinite, and luminous in all directions.”
🔹 Does this hint at a Universal Consciousness? Some Mahāyāna interpretations say yes. But early Buddhism is cautious, as any attachment to an ultimate “self” might become another form of clinging.
4. What is the Key Difference Between the Gita and the Buddha?
| Concept | Bhagavad Gita (Advaita Vedanta) | Buddha’s Teaching (Theravāda/Mahāyāna) |
|---|---|---|
| Individual Self (Jīva) | Maya (illusion), ultimately unreal | No permanent self (anatta), only impermanent aggregates |
| Universal Self (Brahman) | The only reality—pure, infinite, unchanging | The Buddha remains silent but hints at “luminous mind” |
| Rebirth & Karma | Self is reborn until it realizes unity with Brahman | Karmic tendencies continue without a fixed “self” |
| Liberation (Moksha/Nibbāna) | Realizing one’s true nature as Brahman | Ending craving and clinging—no permanent identity remains |
Core Difference:
- The Gita sees liberation as merging into Brahman (Universal Consciousness).
- The Buddha sees liberation as Nirvāṇa—freedom from craving, identity, and suffering.
5. Can These Views Be Reconciled?
Possibly! Some non-dual Buddhist teachings, like Dzogchen (Tibetan Buddhism) and Zen, sound very close to Advaita Vedanta. They describe:
✔ No-self, yet pure awareness remains
✔ Beyond concepts of existence and non-existence
✔ Not clinging to anything—even to the idea of “Universal Self”
Thus, it could be that the Buddha and the Gita were pointing to the same ultimate truth but using different language:
- The Gita emphasizes “You are That” (Tat Tvam Asi)—realizing one’s eternal nature.
- The Buddha emphasizes “Not-Self”—dropping all illusions, including identity, to reach direct experience of reality.
Final Thought:
If one mistakenly clings to an idea of “self,” the Buddha’s teaching helps dismantle that clinging. If one mistakenly sees only the changing world and ignores deeper awareness, the Gita helps remind of that unity.
So, instead of contradiction, perhaps these are two complementary approaches to the same liberation.
How does the Buddha’s teaching helps dismantle clinging to teh idea of self and how does the Gita help remind of unity If one mistakenly sees only the changing world and ignores deeper awareness?
How the Buddha and the Gita Address Two Mistaken Views
The Buddha and the Bhagavad Gita both address human suffering and liberation, but they tackle different kinds of misunderstandings that arise in spiritual practice. Let’s explore these two mistaken views and how each teaching corrects them.
1. Mistakenly Clinging to the Idea of “Self” (Buddha’s Teaching Helps Dismantle This)
The Problem:
Most people instinctively believe in a separate, permanent self—a “me” that exists independently, thinks, acts, and experiences suffering or joy. This belief in an individual, unchanging self creates:
✔ Attachment to identity (ego, roles, thoughts, body)
✔ Fear of death (since we believe “I” will cease to exist)
✔ Suffering from change (because “I” want things to remain the same)
Buddha’s Response: The Teaching of Anattā (Not-Self)
The Buddha does not directly say whether an ultimate reality (Brahman-like Self) exists or not. Instead, he focuses on what we falsely take as “self” and how that leads to suffering.
📜 Key Teaching: The Five Aggregates Are Not-Self (SN 22.59 – Anatta-lakkhana Sutta)
The Buddha taught that what we call “self” is just a temporary combination of:
- Rūpa – Physical body and matter
- Vedanā – Feelings and sensations
- Saññā – Perception and recognition
- Saṅkhāra – Mental formations, intentions
- Viññāṇa – Consciousness
Each of these constantly changes—so none of them can be an eternal “self.”
“Rūpaṁ, bhikkhave, anattā … Yasmā ca kho, bhikkhave, rūpaṁ anattā, tasmā rūpaṁ ābādhāya saṁvattati.”
(SN 22.59) – “Form is not self. If form were self, it would not lead to affliction.”
How This Helps
🔹 If we believe in an individual, separate self, we cling to experiences, get hurt by change, and fear death.
🔹 The Buddha’s teaching dismantles this false identity by showing that “self” is just a temporary process, not a fixed entity.
👉 Goal: To stop clinging to the false self, leading to liberation (Nibbāna).
2. Mistakenly Seeing Only the Changing World and Ignoring Deeper Awareness (The Gita Helps Remind of That Unity)
The Problem:
Some people become too focused on impermanence and suffering, believing everything is just empty, meaningless change with no deeper reality. This can lead to:
✔ Nihilism (Nothing has meaning)
✔ A sense of existential despair
✔ Over-focus on renunciation without inner realization
This can happen if someone misunderstands Buddhism’s Anattā (Not-Self) and Śūnyatā (Emptiness) and starts thinking “nothing exists” instead of realizing that conditioned things are empty of independent existence.
The Gita’s Response: The Teaching of Ātman (Universal Self)
The Bhagavad Gita reminds us that beyond the changing world, there is a deeper reality—the unchanging, eternal Self (Ātman), which is one with Brahman (Universal Consciousness).
📜 Key Verse: Bhagavad Gita 2.20
“Na jāyate mriyate vā kadācin nāyaṁ bhūtvā bhavitā vā na bhūyaḥ”
“The Self is never born, nor does it ever die. It does not come into being, nor does it cease to exist.”
The Gita’s teaching on Ātman/Brahman reminds us that there is an eternal, unified awareness behind all experiences.
🔹 If someone becomes too focused on impermanence and loses any sense of underlying unity, they might feel lost.
🔹 The Gita corrects this by pointing to the deeper, unchanging reality—a consciousness beyond birth and death.
👉 Goal: To stop identifying with temporary changes and realize oneness with the Universal Self (Moksha).
Reconciling Both Paths: Two Correctives for Two Misunderstandings
| Mistake | Buddha’s Teaching (Anattā) Corrects It | Gita’s Teaching (Ātman) Corrects It |
|---|---|---|
| Believing in a permanent, separate self | Shows that self is a conditioned process, not an entity | No need, since the Gita already negates the individual ego |
| Focusing only on impermanence and ignoring deeper awareness | This is where some Buddhist traditions like Dzogchen & Mahāyāna restore balance | The Gita directly points to the eternal Self (Brahman) behind change |
A Deeper Understanding: Buddha and the Gita May Be Pointing to the Same Ultimate Truth
- Early Buddhism dismantles attachment to a false self—helping us detach from suffering.
- The Gita reminds us of a deeper awareness that remains when all illusions drop away.
- Some advanced Buddhist teachings (like Dzogchen & Mahāyāna) actually sound similar to Vedanta—they speak of an “unborn, undying awareness” beyond duality.
📜 The Buddha in the Kevatta Sutta (DN 11) described:
“Viññāṇaṁ anidassanaṁ anantaṁ sabbato pabhaṁ.”
“Consciousness that is non-manifesting, infinite, and luminous in all directions.”
🔹 If we ignore this deeper awareness, we might fall into nihilism.
🔹 If we cling to the idea of self too soon, we might stay trapped in ego-illusion.
🔹 Both paths lead to the same goal—freedom from illusion and direct realization of reality.
Final Thought: Different Paths, Same Destination?
🟢 The Buddha’s Path (Anattā, Not-Self) → Helps dismantle the illusion of ego
🟢 The Gita’s Path (Ātman, Universal Self) → Helps reconnect to the deeper reality
🔹 If one mistakenly clings to the idea of “self,” the Buddha’s teaching helps dismantle that clinging.
🔹 If one mistakenly sees only impermanence and ignores deeper awareness, the Gita helps remind of that unity.
In the end, both lead beyond illusion—to pure, direct realization of Truth. 🙏
Not just complimentary, I think if Hinduism like studying medicine for an MBBS degree (a broad, holistic study of the entire system) with focus on the whole body and Buddhism is like a specialization, MD specialization focused on one organ, which goes deep into one category – the individual ego, self and breaking the illusion. Once a person breaks this illusion the rest will naturally fall in place.
Save as Image
Save as PDF
