Fwd: Re : Philosophical debates and hoaxes

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I am forwarding this article that I posted on the advaita-L list

(advaita-l/post?act=forward&messageNum=1

007). This thread of discussions between Nanda Chandranm, a member of

our list with several others compare the similarities and differences

between Advaita Philosophy and Buddhism. This thread will be of

interest to several members of this list and I suggest them to go over

the referenced archives of advaita-L list.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaita-l, Ram Chandran <rchandran@c...> wrote:

Namaste Sri Nanda:

 

I was following the discussions on this thread and thanks for

articulating

your insights and wisdom forcefully with lots of patience. These

discussions

were educative to understand the different philosophical thoughts on

the

ultimate reality. We all know that one-size of shoe doesn't fit all

foots

and same is true with respect philsophical framework. Though the

frameworks

of Buddhism and Advaita are different but the realized "ultimate

reality"

has to be necessarily the same. There is no disagreement between all

of us

that there is only one ultimate reality.

 

Here is my understanding of "Nirvana" focusing on the question:

Whether

"Nirvana" represents the ultimate reality? Any meaningful answer to

this

question should be derived from the advaitic framework. In advaita,

Jiva

(self) may be viewed as the fully dressed Brahman (SELF)with the

clothes

made of body, mind and intellect. SELF-realization requires discarding

the clothes made by body, mind and intellect from the self. In other

words

from advaitic point of view, Nirvana represents the liberation from

the

world of prison walled by the body, mind and intellect.

 

It should be also pointed out that the agreement, "Nirvana equals to

SELF-realization" does not imply that Adavaita is equivalent to

Buddhism. I

believe that advaita philosophy stresses the positve aspects of human

life

where as the Buddhism points out the negative side of human life. For

example, according to Buddhism, desire is an evil and needs to be

eradicated. But in advaita, we can desire anything as long as we

agree not

to get agitated if it is not fulfilled. It is possible to bring many

aspects of advaita and Buddhism to show that they are different. But I

do

believe that the "ultimate reality" that we envision is the whether

follow

Advaita or Buddhism.

 

I am fully aware on the pitfalls of intellectually conceptualizing

the ultimate reality. This is just a beginners first step and

ultimately

one has to cross all steps of intellectualism to experience the

reality.

 

Thanks for the opportunity,

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

The reply of Sri Nanda Chandran is forwarded.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaita-l, "nanda chandran" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

>But in advaita, we can desire anything as long as we agree not

>to get agitated if it is not fulfilled.

 

When Shankara says, "don't get seduced by looking at the navel of a

woman", do you think he says, "yes, navel gazing is ok, as long as

you don't get agitated by it"? :-)

 

See only if you are a jnaani will you not get agitated by the

fulfilment or non-fulfilment of desires. For the rest of us, we've

to turn our mind away - that's why they take up samnyaasam. And

Buddha's

view of the world as suffering is not his invention - there're

numerous

similar passages in the Upanishads themselves. And all ethical schools

of Indian philosophy too hold the same view - else why liberation from

samsaara at all?

>I am fully aware on the pitfalls of intellectually conceptualizing

>the ultimate reality. This is just a beginners first step and

ultimately

>one has to cross all steps of intellectualism to experience the

reality.

 

When it is said that Self is beyond the intellect, what it means is

it is only you yourself and thus it cannot be known as an object. This

doesn't give a free for all license to condemn all intellectual

effort.

Because by nature your mind flows outward - so you're integrally bound

to the objects that you experience. You can close your mind to them

mechanically which is very hard or you can use your intelligence and

understand the relationship between yourself and the object and when

you

know its non-substantiality - the hold that the object has on you will

naturally cease.

 

Also as the Roman philosopher Senaca is supposed to have said : "no

wind

is favorable if the port one is heading to is not known". To

intellectually

know what one is aspiring to is very vital - because though reality

may be

beyond the intellect still you're not reality - you're only an aspring

jiva

for whom the intellect is a very useful tool. If you do not use your

intellect well, your attention and effort will either be directed in a

wrong

direction or will not be concentrated in the right direction - and so

will

not yield the desired result.

[Guest guest]

Namaste;

 

Here is Sri Nanda's reply to my previous post.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaita-l, "nanda chandran" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

>Namaste Nandaji:

>

>Though your logic appears compelling, I am sorry to say that I

disagree.

>

>Here is my understanding of Shankara's statement: "don't get seduced

by

>looking at the navel of a woman." Shankara by this statement warns

the

>lower

>ends of human tendencies and ask us to assume the higher levels.

When we

>were children, we get amused by the toys and if we go to a toy store,

we

>want to buy and play with the toys. As children, our mind gets

agitated

>because of our attachment to things that we like and enjoy. But as

adults,

>when we go to the toy store, the same toys that we used to play do

not have

>any impact on us and we are no more agitated.

 

But we have other "toys" to interest us, don't we? Irrespective of

age, I

would think that there'll always be some desire for something external

to

you. Ofcourse I'm only young and have not lived long enough as you -

and

therefore I can only say this from my perspective. If you see Indian

philosophers I think most of them were pretty young too - Shankara was

definitely young. So was Gautama Siddhartha and Nagarjuna. So in their

works

when they write about philosophy they can only express what an young

man

feels. When the philosophical consciousness increases not only does

your

awareness of reality increase, your awareness of samsaara also

increases on

the side - so the lure of the external world is even more heightened.

That's

the reason Shankara warns people not to succumb to sensual desires but

persevere in their spiritual effort.

>Whether you agree or disagree, we have high potential to be a jnani

>and avoid getting mind agitation when seeing objects that bring

sensual

>pleasures. According to Vedanta, we are truly jnanis but our

ignorance and

>false attachment propels desires and we suffer due to their

consequences.

>We do take up samnyaasam slowly and steadily, some can do it faster

and

>others may indulge in worldly things for a longer time. Please

understand

>that the Vedantic view of human liberation is much more appealing

than the

>views expressed in Buddhism.

 

Ram, all this is terribly subjective. Bhartrhari thinks that if you

delay

too much your mind and body will not have the necessary strength for

the

effort that's required to liberate oneself. I think it is in the

vairaagya

shaatakam he says : "there're only two things that're of interest to a

man -

the breasts of a woman and the forest". So I guess even he was pretty

troubled by his desires. But ultimately he did renounce. Likewise if

Shankara had no such thoughts would he have talked about being

attracted by

the navel of a woman?

 

The greatest problem in such matters is you'll not know what suffering

is

unless you take samnyaasam. If you live your normal life doing what

you do

daily and getting what you want, how will you know what suffering is?

I'll

suggest something to you : take three things which are really dear to

you -

which give you a lot of happiness and pleasure - it can be anything -

food,

entertainment, people who're dear to you etc - abstain from them for a

month. See the amount of heartburn and restlesness it will cause.

After

experiencing this think about people who renounce everything for life.

 

I tried this out practically a couple of years back. I quit my job in

the US

and came back home to Madras and didn't take up a job for six months -

though I ate normal food and slept in a bed, I avoided all forms of

entertainment and pleasure and read only spiritual books - it was

sheer hell

and in the end I was only depressed. But I think it was an eye opener

for

me. For prior to that I was fantasising about taking up samnyaasam etc

and

after my experiment I knew how immature I was spiritually - I lacked

the

physical, mental and moral discipline. Most people experience

happiness and

pleasure only because of things external to them - it can be both

material

and subtle like thoughts. We exist every moment in the anticipaton of

experiencing something which will make us happy or give us pleasure -

that's

what sustains our lives amidst all the disappointments - it can be

anything

- food, love of dear ones, a new car or dress, career goals etc. Take

these

external things away and watch how much misery will arise - without

all

these to feed you with happiness/pleasure life will become meaningless

in

the phenomenal sense. You've no idea how much attached you're to

things

unless you give them up. Try experimenting - it'll show you how much

you

presume.

 

The problem is even more compounded when you mind is filled with wrong

notions. Intially when I used to practice meditatation, Yagnavalkyaa's

:

"when you're all there is", used to really depress me. Think about

your ego

which has no identity apart from all the objects it experiences -

thinking

that the end is only itself being the only thing in the world!

 

Ram, I'm not going to go beyond this. You take up samnyaasam - then

you tell

me whether samsaara is suffering or not.

>Vedanta doesn't deny that pain is inevitable

>but it stresses that suffering is avoidable through detachment. You

may

>have a different point of view and may be more convinced with point

of view

>of Buddhism and I fully respect it but I certainly don't agree.

>

>Coming back to intellectual conceptualization, let me restate my

>understanding. Vedanta distinguishes between "para" and "apara"

vidya.

>Apara vidya includes learning and mastering of all scriptures

including the

>Vedas. The Upanishads (also in Vivekachoodamani) states that apara

vidya

>is

>not sufficient for God-realization and it is para vidya that can lead

us to

>Self-realization. The famous quotation of the Upanishads, "the more

we

>know, the more we don't know" signifies why the path of intellectual

>education will never help us realize the Brahman. Please understand

that

>faith is integral part of Advaita Vedanta and "God" is the gate

keeper who

>opens the door for us when the reach the gate to liberation. All the

road

>maps, guides and vehicles that travel can take us may at the most can

take

>us to the Gate. But with only God's grace, the gate will open for

human

>liberation. If you are convinced that without God's grace and with

only

>intellectually, you can be liberated, I respect your view but I

disagree.

>

>Your statements regarding `object,' and `subject' are intellectually

quite

>appealing but it can take us no where as for as I can see. According

to

>Vedanta, we should prepare discard all notions including the notion

of

>Advaita Philosophy to get the liberation. Once again, God's grace

alone

>will

>guarantee our liberation and this statement is the statement of faith

which

>is quite essential in understanding Shankara's Advaita Philosophy.

The

>reading of books and Shastras are only to help us to cultivate

`faith.' St

>Augustine is quite correct when he said: "faith is to believe what we

don't

>see; its reward is to see what we believe."

>

>warmest regards,

>

>Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nandaji:

 

I totally agree that we are talking about the subjective science of

religion and everything that we write or say is likely to be

subjective. This is again a relative statement and some talks and

writings are likely more subjective than on others. My contention is

that Shankara's advaita philosophy is relatively more objective and

open to discussion than other vedantic and other religous

philosophies.

 

Let me conclude my part of these discussions with a note of thanks to

you for your openess and well articulated conversation with patience.

I also want to commend you for your keen interest in advaita and

related philosophies at your young age. Both Joy and suffereings are

mind projected illusions and when we realize our true being, we will

certainly attain total peace!

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

> advaita-l, "nanda chandran" <vpcnk@H...> wrote:

>

> Ram, all this is terribly subjective. Bhartrhari thinks that if you

> delay

> too much your mind and body will not have the necessary strength for

> the

> effort that's required to liberate oneself.