The Ashtavakra Gita - some questions and issues

[Guest guest]

There is also a King Janaka referred to in the Vasistha's Yoga.

 

The checking I have done indicates problems with the dating also.

BTW I couldn't make the links works.

 

I am interested in sources and getting to the core. It seems to me

that the Ashtavakra Gita is pretty near the center in terms of the

ideas of Advaita Vedanta and Jnana Yoga.

 

My major concern is not just for my own practice, but also for

communication to/with other Westerners without all the cultural and

religious trappings. Westerners who get to these kinds of teachings

have a lot of trouble translating the exoticisms and the esotericisms

of, for instance, the Hindu vocabulary. The result is that

disillusioned Christians coming to Yoga and Sanatana Dharma end up

trading "true belief" in Jesus for "true belief" in Shiva --

and "true believers" just end up avoiding real spiritual practice in

favor of "defending the faith".

And that turns to the kind of violences which results in religious

and other kinds of wars with religion as a justification!

 

I started out in Buddhism and ended up in Advaita Vedanta. My point

is that I find many ideas in common. Indeed, it seems to me that the

Buddha was a closet Advaita Vedantist and much of what he had to say

shows up in the later writings of Advaita works. At least there seems

to be some kind of interaction or exchange of ideas influencing each

other.

 

He didn't like all the Brahman/Atman of the Vedanta of his day as so

much useless idol worship. But it seems to me that that is a red

herring -- as the Jnana Yogis seem to use "God references" as

synonyms for the Absolute -- and the description in the Astavakra

Gita (or Samhita) points to nirvanic states as something positive,

the extinguishing is simply that of attachments and ego. The "void"

is to be empty of "thinking" not the void of a vacuum in spatial

terms. Thus the differences seem to be minor actually and are a

matter of language and culture shifts (where the Buddha was speaking

to specific groups of followers who had been in the same traditions

he had tried and gone beyond - and who therefore knew what he was

talking about).

 

Unfortunately his later followers made a religion out of his

revelations -- or I suspect, he would have be simply another in a

long list of Jnana Yogis. Yes? No?

 

Anyone? Please comment.

 

John L.

 

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> advaitin, Jan Sultan <swork@m...> wrote:

>

> >

> > Many thanks for your information.

> >

>

> Namaste,

>

> This story of Janaka and Ashtavakra actually occurs in

> Mahabharata, Vana Parva; so this must be a different Janaka than

that

> of Ramayana! There is another famous king Janaka in dialogue with

> Yajnavalkya of Brihadaranyaka upan.!

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "johnrloganis" <johnrloganis> wrote:

> BTW I couldn't make the links works.

 

Sorry about that! I am really surprised too, as I had copied/pasted

the URLs just before the posting!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "johnrloganis" <johnrloganis> wrote:

> My major concern is not just for my own practice, but also for

> communication to/with other Westerners without all the cultural

and

> religious trappings. Westerners who get to these kinds of

teachings

> have a lot of trouble translating the exoticisms and the

esotericisms

> of, for instance, the Hindu vocabulary. The result is that

> disillusioned Christians coming to Yoga and Sanatana Dharma end up

> trading "true belief" in Jesus for "true belief" in Shiva --

> and "true believers" just end up avoiding real spiritual practice

in

> favor of "defending the faith".

 

 

If people want to understand, they will. If they don't, no amount of

explanation will ever make them do so.

 

> Unfortunately his later followers made a religion out of his

> revelations -- or I suspect, he would have be simply another in a

> long list of Jnana Yogis. Yes? No?

>

> Anyone? Please comment.

>

> John L.

>

 

I, too, was a practicing Buddhist (for a few years) before I began

to study Advaita Vedanta and the relationship between what Buddha

said and what Advaita Vedanta says has been, for me, a frustrating

thing to figure out.

 

Buddha very, very rarely spoke of the liberated state in positive

terms, like an Advaitin would say "Sat-Chit-Ananda" or "Being-

Awareness-Bliss". And when he does make a statement like this, he

very rarely associates it with awareness, and the statements by him

that do mention awareness & the liberated state are written in a

very primitive poetic way which makes it even harder to ferret out

what was meant exactly. It may have been a simple affirmation of

Vedantic thought on the matter or it may have been something

different, as many Orthodox Theravadin (Way of the Elders) Buddhist

point out. - Theravadin, by the way, is the only school of Buddhism

which bases it's teachings on Scriptures we can reasonably be sure

record Buddha's actual words (to a certain extent).

 

I think the real issue comes down to how much he actually knew of

the Vedas & Upanishads before he went teaching. From the texts it is

easy to see that his concept of "Brahma" is very similar to how a

Jew or Muslim would view God - a personal, transcendent being, and

his concept of "Atman" was only a personal, individual doer. If we

limit the terms to just these things, it is understandeable why he

refuted them.

 

However, it is not so simple as that. If Buddha was enlightened and

many others were enlightened by following his path, why is it that

they did not eventually write a commentary on the Upanishads as some

Advaita teachers have done? And why was there even a difference

between Hinduism and Buddhism for so many centuries? If they were

saying the same thing, were they so ineloquent that they - for

centuries saying the same thing - did not understand eachother? This

is very doubtful.

 

Truthfully, whatever Buddha taught, it soon deterioated into various

philosophical schools who were more concerned with abstract

metaphysical questions & endlessly analyzing psychological/physical

components than enlightenment. Some of these Buddhist schools - such

as the Ch'an school of China - square exactly with Advaita Vedanta,

but since the teachings of Advaita Vedanta are rooted in the

Upanishads and not the teachings of Buddha, I think this speaks more

to it's credit than to Ch'an's.

 

We can be sure of this, though: if Buddha's teachings contradict

Advaita Vedanta, Buddha's teachings are untenable - as the main

issue of real contention is whether this extremely subtle

consciousness - Sat-Chit-Ananda - is permanent or impermanent. If it

is permanent (Timeless would be a better word), and Buddha agree's

with this, then yes, Buddha is just another name in a list of Jnani

Yogis. But if Buddha says it is impermanent, this is a falsehood.

 

For:

 

If we analzye "time" we find that it is only the change that occurs

to object. Were there no change in objects, there would be no time

spoken of. So permanency & impermanency have solely to do with

objects. Now, objects are only objects-in-existence and existence is

only known as experience. An existence outside of experience is

irrelevant & unspeakable. And for there to be experience there must

be the presence of knowing that experience or a presence of

awareness (however subtle). Memory of the experience may fade, but

for that period (however short) that the experience was present,

awareness must also have been present. And since all existence is

experience - awareness being a necessary pre-requisite for

experience to occur - awareness is present in all existence, but it

is not an object-in-existence for there is no object that does not

depend upon it. And since it is not an object, it is not subject to

time and is therefore Timeless, not impermanent. If it went out, so

would everything else, there being nothing to gauge it's permanency

or impermanency.

 

Furthermore, the central teaching of Buddhism is that clinging &

desire for impermanent things is suffering. If awareness or

consciousness is impermanent, what suffers when it is gone? And

since awareness has only the single-nature of being aware, of

witnessing, any alteration of this single-nature would be a

destruction of awareness itself, and also the sufferer.

 

But, I personally think that the early Buddhist scriptures favor

that the Buddha spoke of an awareness that was Timeless & True. On

another Advaita board I've given some quotes as to why this is, but

my reasons are based on inference and not on what he actually said.

So I may be relating 2 disconnected statements in a way that denies

his original intention. In any case, Buddha's teachings are not as

clear as Advaita Vedanta IF he did actually agree, and his teachings

were for the brief period of time he taught in - before the monks

turned into petty philosophers - and not today.

 

- Joshua

 

P.S. When I speak of Buddha's teachings I refer only to the Pali

Canon which is the earliest record of them. Later Mahayana texts do

affirm an Atman which is equivalent with the Absolute & Pure,

Timeless Consciousness.

[Guest guest]

Namaste John-Ji.

 

You wrote:

 

"The result is that disillusioned Christians coming to Yoga and

Sanatana Dharma end up trading "true belief" in Jesus for "true

belief" in Shiva --

and "true believers" just end up avoiding real spiritual practice in

favor of "defending the faith".

And that turns to the kind of violences which results in religious

and other kinds of wars with religion as a justification!"

 

[such explicit statements, I am afraid, may lead to controversies.

For everything, there is a time. The Lord's ways are inscrutable.

Please just ask the question, why you didn't enter the Advaitin list

two years ago. Why now? The Lord only has the answer. How one

evolves and where one finds oneself in the religious spectrum is the

Lord's choice. Many fiery vedantins would have been equally

fiery "defenders of faith" had they been born to parents of that

faith.]

 

 

You said:

 

"Unfortunately his later followers made a religion out of his

revelations -- or I suspect, he would have been simply another in a

long list of Jnana Yogis. Yes? No? Anyone? Please comment."

 

[i am in agreement. When it comes to pure philosophical logic, I

have often wondered (to the dismay of my friends, I should say), how

He could be construed as different from an advaitin. About the making

of religions, what you observed is the unhappy story of every teacher

and preceptor. The greater the teacher's personality, the bigger the

group that results. Mind you, even our advaita teacher's are not

exempt to this rule when we look around and see "advaitins" swearing

in the name of Bhagwan Ramana, Yogananda Paramahamsaji, Nisargadatta

Maharaj et al.]

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

About the making

> of religions, what you observed is the unhappy story of every

teacher

> and preceptor.

 

Namaste,

 

As Sri Ramakrishna pithily remarked: "People build piers on

the shore, and scream at each other insisting that what they see in

front of them is called 'aqua, neer, pani, jal, water, etc.' !!!!"

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Thanks Joshua-Ji for your very incisive piece. It came as a summer

downpour after a very long dry drought.

 

I am not that well-read in Buddhism. My comments may, therefore, be

very very superficial. I am perhaps guided more by the later

Mahayana trend referred to by you in your following footnote:

 

"When I speak of Buddha's teachings I refer only to the Pali

Canon which is the earliest record of them. Later Mahayana texts do

affirm an Atman which is equivalent with the Absolute & Pure,

Timeless Consciousness."

 

You very lucidly elaborated on the advaitic logic of existence as

follows:

 

"If we analzye "time" we find that it is only the change that occurs

to object. Were there no change in objects, there would be no time

spoken of. So permanency & impermanency have solely to do with

objects. Now, objects are only objects-in-existence and existence is

only known as experience. An existence outside of experience is

irrelevant & unspeakable. And for there to be experience there must

be the presence of knowing that experience or a presence of

awareness (however subtle). Memory of the experience may fade, but

for that period (however short) that the experience was present,

awareness must also have been present. And since all existence is

experience - awareness being a necessary pre-requisite for

experience to occur - awareness is present in all existence, but it

is not an object-in-existence for there is no object that does not

depend upon it. And since it is not an object, it is not subject to

time and is therefore Timeless, not impermanent. If it went out, so

would everything else, there being nothing to gauge it's permanency

or impermanency.".

 

But, why did you stop short of the final quantum leap? All objects

are in awareness as you rightly noted but, when that appreciation

really sinks in (i.e. when it becomes your constant thought or

companion), the objects simply vanish leaving a Unity that is aware

of Itself. This Awareness is different from our usual awareness in

that we become the whole Universe - a saturated solution without

individual identities and boundaries - temporal or spatial - as

elucidated in the prayer "vyomavat vyAptadehAya DakshinAmoortaye

Namaha". With my rudimentary knowledge of Buddhism, I like to believe

that Lord Buddha had leapt this quatum jump under the tree and, most

probably, what he recounted to his followers subsequently was

misread, misheard or misinterpreted. That is the tragedy of all great

men!

 

I should, therefore, believe that Lord Buddha had only

the "vanishing, transient objects of awareness" in mind when he

warned against clinging to impermanent things. I should also assume

that his teaching (later probably very much overplayed by his

followers) is more or less akin to the advaitin's nityA-anitya viveka

(discrimination between the permanent and impermanent). Don't we

have the verse in B.G. - "dhyAyate vishayAn pumsah,

sangasteshupajAyate......" and have some of us also not overplayed it?

 

Madathil Nair

_______________________

 

advaitin, "takdjc" <yeshuabizon@l...> wrote:

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

For an even more modern interpretation of Buddha's teachings:

 

http://www.euronet.nl/~advaya/sitemap.htm

 

and the thread on New Buddhism from the archives : Advayavada

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Hi John,

 

Absolutely. Most hindus regard Buddha as only one

more yogi or sage along with so many. I am sure he

also regarded himself so.

 

There is no doubt that Buddha was a 'hindu' like

everyone else in Bharatvarsh , though the term 'hindu'

was probably not known at that time. He studied under

two gurus in Varanasi and was influenced by all other

ideas of that time. Even his original ideas were not

as radical as many believe. Not believing in a God,

for example, was not a very radical idea. The much

older Samkhya does not talk of a personal God either.

 

Many christian scholars of the 19th century were

perhaps drawn to Buddha because of his Christ like

persona. They liked the idea of one wandering monk

preaching to his disciples, as also the more concise

teachings attributed to him. 'Hinduism' in comparision

was much more varied and confusing. They tended to

fix the dates of many Indian works post Buddha or at

least contemprory to him, just as they tended to fix

many works post Plato or post Hebrew scriptures. Most

dating of Indian works need to be reviewed through

more modern methods as also through more neutral eyes.

 

Thanks and Regards.

 

Sriram

 

 

--- johnrloganis <johnrloganis wrote:

> There is also a King Janaka referred to in the

> Vasistha's Yoga.

>

> The checking I have done indicates problems with the

> dating also.

> BTW I couldn't make the links works.

>

> I am interested in sources and getting to the core.

> It seems to me

> that the Ashtavakra Gita is pretty near the center

> in terms of the

> ideas of Advaita Vedanta and Jnana Yoga.

>

> My major concern is not just for my own practice,

> but also for

> communication to/with other Westerners without all

> the cultural and

> religious trappings. Westerners who get to these

> kinds of teachings

> have a lot of trouble translating the exoticisms and

> the esotericisms

> of, for instance, the Hindu vocabulary. The result

> is that

> disillusioned Christians coming to Yoga and Sanatana

> Dharma end up

> trading "true belief" in Jesus for "true belief" in

> Shiva --

> and "true believers" just end up avoiding real

> spiritual practice in

> favor of "defending the faith".

> And that turns to the kind of violences which

> results in religious

> and other kinds of wars with religion as a

> justification!

>

> I started out in Buddhism and ended up in Advaita

> Vedanta. My point

> is that I find many ideas in common. Indeed, it

> seems to me that the

> Buddha was a closet Advaita Vedantist and much of

> what he had to say

> shows up in the later writings of Advaita works. At

> least there seems

> to be some kind of interaction or exchange of ideas

> influencing each

> other.

>

> He didn't like all the Brahman/Atman of the Vedanta

> of his day as so

> much useless idol worship. But it seems to me that

> that is a red

> herring -- as the Jnana Yogis seem to use "God

> references" as

> synonyms for the Absolute -- and the description in

> the Astavakra

> Gita (or Samhita) points to nirvanic states as

> something positive,

> the extinguishing is simply that of attachments and

> ego. The "void"

> is to be empty of "thinking" not the void of a

> vacuum in spatial

> terms. Thus the differences seem to be minor

> actually and are a

> matter of language and culture shifts (where the

> Buddha was speaking

> to specific groups of followers who had been in the

> same traditions

> he had tried and gone beyond - and who therefore

> knew what he was

> talking about).

>

> Unfortunately his later followers made a religion

> out of his

> revelations -- or I suspect, he would have be simply

> another in a

> long list of Jnana Yogis. Yes? No?

>

> Anyone? Please comment.

>

> John L.

>

> advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh>

> wrote:

> > advaitin, Jan Sultan <swork@m...>

> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > Many thanks for your information.

> > >

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > This story of Janaka and Ashtavakra actually

> occurs in

> > Mahabharata, Vana Parva; so this must be a

> different Janaka than

> that

> > of Ramayana! There is another famous king Janaka

> in dialogue with

> > Yajnavalkya of Brihadaranyaka upan.!

> >

> > Regards,

> >

> > Sunder

>

>

 

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.