Vedanta Shastra Pramana

[Guest guest]

Dear Brian

 

When you say "I accept quite freely that "All is Brahman",..but it

is 'preposterous' to say the Buddha was not enlightened", I

respectfully submit that there is a fundamental misconception about

the teachings of the Buddha, and the teachings of Advaita Vedanta.

 

In order to clarify my assertion, please allow me to present a brief

introduction into 'Buddha Dharma 101':

 

The teachings of Lord Buddha were not written down until at least

150-200 years ofter his death. The first formulation of his doctrine

was that of Hinayana Buddhism (which consisted of two subdivisions

Sarvasti Vadins and Sautantrika) It was a realistic doctrine which

rejected the reality of a true Self, but accepted the reality of

'Ultimate Existents'. In about 100 AD.Nargarguna rejected not only the

reality of a true Self but also the reality of 'Ultimate Existents'

and proclaimed the 'Emptiness' of all phenomena, both Self and

Non-Self,ie; everything is 'Empty of Inherent Existence'. This was the

begining of Mahayana Buddhism. In the fourth century Asanga and

Vasubanda rejected Nargarjunas' Sunya Vada, and put forth the doctrine

that everything is the Mind alone (Chittamatra). The Mind is

continuous and momentary (Santani Kshnika Vijnana Vada). These are the

three main schools of Buddhism that were existing at the time of

Shankara.(I might add that in the 9th century a new school of Buddhism

made it appearence known as 'Dzog Chen', which held that the Absolute

reality was Pure Intrinsic Awareness, but unlike the Advaitins , they

said that this Intrinsic awareness was "Dynamic", and its very nature

was to be constantly changeing.)

 

Shankara has examined these three main schools of Buddhism

and refuted them in his Sutra Bhasya. If you agree with his refutation

then you are an 'Advaitin, "All is Brahman alone", and the

Buddha,which ever school he actually upheld, was not an'enlightened'

sage.

If you think that the Buddha did teach that "All is Brahman", or

that any school of Buddhism, or any writer on Buddhism, held such a

view, then I kindly ask you to provide me one shred of evidence

supporting that fact. No Buddhist ever put forth the view that your

true Self is Brahman and that Brahman is the Non-Dual Reality. That

teaching is only found in the Upanishads.(The Asadarna Dharma-The

Unique teaching of Vedanta).

 

Hari Om

Atmachaitanya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote:

> | Dear Brian:

> |

> | After a careful reading of your posting, I find strong evidence

that

> | you have serious doubts about Shankara's Advaita Vedanta

> | Philosophy.

>

> Not so. I accept quite freely that "All is Brahman". I am an

initiate in the Holy Tradition of which Shankara is a key persona.

>

> I don't understand the way some people interpret it - especially if

they say such (to me) preposterous things as, "This is the only way",

or that Christ or Buddha weren't enlightened.

>

> I have serious doubts about some propositions from, for example,

Atmachaitanya which apparently reject transcendental experience as

valid or necessary in expanding our awareness.

>

> Sri Shankaracharya was revered as an unmatched master of philosophy

and debate who was able to win over the whole of the sub-continent to

his view.

>

> Is it too much to expect his strongest adherents to be able to

express some of these arguments? Is that not one of the purposes of

this forum?

>

> Brian

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Brian:

 

Thanks for the clarification, and I regret my earlier assessment. The

doesn't approve anyone to make derogatory remarks on saints and sages

including Lord Buddha or Jesus Christ. Such remarks are uncalled for

and I hope members refrain from making such statements. As I have said

before, the list will enforce moderation on members who violate list

guidelines and policies. At the same time the list respects members

to express their view points freely within the stipulated list

policies.

 

Thanks again,

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Brian Milnes <b.milnes@b...> wrote:

>

> Not so. I accept quite freely that "All is Brahman". I am an

initiate in the Holy Tradition of which Shankara is a key persona.

>

> I don't understand the way some people interpret it - especially if

they say such (to me) preposterous things as, "This is the only way",

or that Christ or Buddha weren't enlightened.

>

> I have serious doubts about some propositions from, for example,

Atmachaitanya which apparently reject transcendental experience as

valid or necessary in expanding our awareness.

>

> Sri Shankaracharya was revered as an unmatched master of philosophy

and debate who was able to win over the whole of the sub-continent to

his view.

>

> Is it too much to expect his strongest adherents to be able to

express some of these arguments? Is that not one of the purposes of

this forum?

>

> Brian

..

[Guest guest]

Sri Murthyji eloquently echoes my thoughts on the matter. I was born

as a Hindu in an Advaitin family and in many ways am conditioned to

reflect that origin. Somehow it never occurs to me that I am a Hindu

and therefore fundamentally separate from those of other faiths, etc.

It is my observation and experience that great sages rise in all

traditions and tend to be universal in their approach and

understanding.

 

Sri Brianji has contributed to the discussion with logic and reason

and with reference to the Upanishads. He is clearly learned with

great deal of experience and wisdom and does not deserve a reprimand.

 

We have to respect Sri Brian's amicable way of presenting his points

which we can all learn from.

 

 

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

>

> namaste.

>

> I was following this discussion on vedAnta shAstrapramANa.

> This discussion turned out to be meandering and touched on

> many aspects. Like many other members, I also look forward

> to shri Atmacaitanya-ji's promised essays on how study of

> the upanishads lead to AtmajnAna.

>

> As members of the past many years know and as can be seen

> from the archives, I am one of those who revere the upanishads

> the utmost, and have presented many articles on that topic.

> So, naturally, I fully share shri Atmacaitanyaji's views

> on upanishads and the vedA-s.

>

> However, I differ from him on the way his support of the

> upanishads is articulated. Firstly, in the recent post, he

> said Christ and Buddha were not enlightened. That statement

> is unnecessary, unwarranted and cannot be proven one way or

> other. That statement is unnecessary because it would not

> support his basic point that the upanishads are the pramANa.

> On the other hand, such statement turns off people like

> shri Brian or shri Ken who are making great attempts to

> understand the Truth of advaita. They are making these

> attempts in spite of the fact that they were brought up

> in an environment where advaita is only a minor part of

> the vocabulary in their formattive years. Such attempts

> have to be appreciated and every effort has to be made to

> explain what shri shankara's advaita is, to the best of

> one's ability and understanding, rather than bludgeoning

> them with statements like Christ is not enlightened,

> Buddha is not enlightened, samAdhi is like deep-sleep, etc.

>

> I look forward to shri Atmacaitanya-ji's elucidations on

> the vedAnta as pramANa, but with the advice to keep the

> inflammatory statements to a minimum.

>

> Regards

> Gummuluru Murthy

> --------------------------------

[Guest guest]

Dear Atmachaitanya

 

I bring Sri Ramana Maharshi to the debate:

 

--------------------------------

The mind is a unique power (sakti) in the Atman, whereby thoughts occur to one.

On scrutiny as to what remains after eliminating all thoughts, it will be found

that there is no such thing as mind apart from thought. So then, thoughts

themselves constitute the mind. // Just as the spider draws out the thread of

the cobweb from within itself and withdraws it again into itself, in the same

way the mind projects the world out of itself and absorbs it back into itself.

//

If in this manner the mind becomes absorbed in the Heart, the ego or 'I', which

is the center of the multitude of thoughts, finally vanishes and pure

Consciousness or Self, which subsists during all the states of the mind, alone

remains resplendent. It is this state, where there is not the slightest trace of

the 'I'-thought, that is the true Being of oneself.

//

All scriptures without any exception proclaim that for attaining Salvation the

mind should be subdued; and once one knows that control of the mind is their

final aim it is futile to make an interminable study of them. What is required

for such control is actual enquiry into oneself by self-interrogation: 'Who am

I?' How can this enquiry in quest of the Self be made merely by means of a study

of the scriptures?

 

One should realize the Self by the Eye of Wisdom. Does Rama need a mirror to

recognize himself as Rama? That to which the 'I' refers is within the five

sheaths (physical, vital, mental, knowledge-experience, and bliss), whereas the

scriptures are outside them. Therefore, it is futile to seek by means of the

study of scriptures the Self that has to be realized by summarily rejecting even

the five sheaths.

 

To enquire 'Who am I that is in bondage?' and to know one's real nature is alone

Liberation. To keep the mind constantly turned within, and to abide thus in the

Self is alone Atma-vichara (Self enquiry), whereas dhyana (meditation) consists

in fervent contemplation of the Self as Sat-Chit-Ananda

(Being-Consciousness-Bliss). Indeed, at some time, one will have to forget

everything that has been learnt.

---------------------

 

And of course I will highlight by repetition the following phrases:

"once one knows that control of the mind is their final aim it is futile to make

an interminable study of [the scriptures]"

"'Who am I?' How can this enquiry in quest of the Self be made merely by means

of a study of the scriptures?"

"Therefore, it is futile to seek by means of the study of scriptures the Self

that has to be realized..."

 

Regards

 

Brian

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

 

I would vote for 'Zero Tolerance'!!

 

Mandukya Karika: III:16,17,18 -

 

aashrmaastrividhaa hiinamadhyamotkR^ishhTadR^ishhTayaH |

upaasanopadishhTeya.n tadarthamanukampayaa ||

 

There are three stages of life corresponding to three -the lower, the

middle, and the high-powers of comprehension. The Scripture, out of

compassion, has taught this devotion [or discipline] for the benefit

of those [who are not yet enlightened]. 16.

 

svasiddhaantavyavastaasu dvaitino nishchitaa dR^iDham.h |

paraspara.n virudhyante tairaya.n na virudhyate ||

 

The dualists obstinately cling to the conclusions arrived at by their

own enquiries [as being the Truth] So they contradict one another;

whereas the Advaitin finds no conflict with them. 17.

 

advaitaM paramaarthii hi dvaita.n tadbheda uchyate |

teshhamubhayathaa dvaita.n tenaaya.n na virudhyate ||

 

As non-duality is the ultimate Reality, therefore duality is said to

be its effect [kaarya or bheda]. The dualists perceive duality either

way [i.e. both in the absolute and in the phenomena]. Therefore the

non-dual position does not conflict with the dualist's position. 18.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

advaitin, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

 

with the advice to keep the

> inflammatory statements to a minimum.

[Guest guest]

dear mr. brian

u r right

a controlled mind only can succeed in yoga also

LORD HAS SAID IN GITA THE SAME THING

see chapter 6 verse 36

http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna/index_text.html

with regards

n k bali

 

 

 

 

--- Brian Milnes <b.milnes wrote: >

Dear Atmachaitanya

>

> I bring Sri Ramana Maharshi to the debate:

>

>

--------------------------------

> The mind is a unique power (sakti) in the Atman,

> whereby thoughts occur to one. On scrutiny as to

> what remains after eliminating all thoughts, it will

> be found that there is no such thing as mind apart

> from thought. So then, thoughts themselves

> constitute the mind. // Just as the spider draws out

> the thread of the cobweb from within itself and

> withdraws it again into itself, in the same way the

> mind projects the world out of itself and absorbs it

> back into itself.

> //

> If in this manner the mind becomes absorbed in the

> Heart, the ego or 'I', which is the center of the

> multitude of thoughts, finally vanishes and pure

> Consciousness or Self, which subsists during all the

> states of the mind, alone remains resplendent. It is

> this state, where there is not the slightest trace

> of the 'I'-thought, that is the true Being of

> oneself.

> //

> All scriptures without any exception proclaim that

> for attaining Salvation the mind should be subdued;

> and once one knows that control of the mind is their

> final aim it is futile to make an interminable study

> of them. What is required for such control is actual

> enquiry into oneself by self-interrogation: 'Who am

> I?' How can this enquiry in quest of the Self be

> made merely by means of a study of the scriptures?

>

> One should realize the Self by the Eye of Wisdom.

> Does Rama need a mirror to recognize himself as

> Rama? That to which the 'I' refers is within the

> five sheaths (physical, vital, mental,

> knowledge-experience, and bliss), whereas the

> scriptures are outside them. Therefore, it is futile

> to seek by means of the study of scriptures the Self

> that has to be realized by summarily rejecting even

> the five sheaths.

>

> To enquire 'Who am I that is in bondage?' and to

> know one's real nature is alone Liberation. To keep

> the mind constantly turned within, and to abide thus

> in the Self is alone Atma-vichara (Self enquiry),

> whereas dhyana (meditation) consists in fervent

> contemplation of the Self as Sat-Chit-Ananda

> (Being-Consciousness-Bliss). Indeed, at some time,

> one will have to forget everything that has been

> learnt.

>

---------------------

>

> And of course I will highlight by repetition the

> following phrases:

> "once one knows that control of the mind is their

> final aim it is futile to make an interminable study

> of [the scriptures]"

> "'Who am I?' How can this enquiry in quest of the

> Self be made merely by means of a study of the

> scriptures?"

> "Therefore, it is futile to seek by means of the

> study of scriptures the Self that has to be

> realized..."

>

> Regards

>

> Brian

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

 

=====

 

with best wishes,

 

N.K.BALI

 

Visit my site on ' Bhagavad Gita ', a spiritual delight.You will love it.

http://in.geocities.com/gitabykrishna

 

 

 

______________________

Looking for a job? Visit India Careers

Visit http://in.careers.