Ashtavakra Gita

[Guest guest]

Hello Joshua,

Your argument about time was interesting. As I understand it you are saying

that Awareness is permanent because it is there through all experience and

as experience is the source of our judgment of what is Awareness is

permanent or unchanging. Thus the theory of Impermanence is refuted

(Annica).

 

The way of the Buddha is said to be comprised of the Four Noble Truths and

The Eightfold Path and that is what it is, a path and not a philosophical

system. He himself as a reformer wanted to cut through to the central

issues of life and get clear of endless discussions about precedent,

pronounciation and priestly ordinances. The great strength of his message

is psychological, a strong clear description of the mess we are in and the

way out of it. There was no epistemology but a lot of raw feeling. It

seems that he himself did not get involved with a no-self (anatta/anatman)

theory and the claiming of this and the annica(momentarieness) idea as

primative teaching is disputed. Ken Wilber in his 'Sex, Ecology,

Spirituality' traces the complexities of this in an essay long endnote.

Clearly it is an embarassment to Alan Watts (The Way of Zen) as he also

rejects Anatman as an original teaching of the Buddha. Perhaps all that is

the creation of monks in the rainy season as they took a break from

wandering to shelter. An early attempt at the creation of brand difference.

Ken Wilber, if I read him aright, believes that Nagarjuna's theory of

emptiness found its way into early advaita via the ajativada of Gaudapada

cf.Mandukya Karikas. Those who favour full blown illusionism see this as

the core of advaita. Sankara though he wrote a commentary to this (Advaita

Asrama trans. Swami Gambhirananda) would not I think go that far in that he

saw the real as the basis of adhyasa(confusion rope/snake) even on this

relative plane of being. Rather than follow that tributary he was going

back to the vedic source.

I seem to be meandering myself a bit so I'll come to the point; Buddhism is

a path to Moksha for those who are called to it. Some rational bugs in the

statement of philosophical principles are trifling compared to the richness

of the total religion. Vision confirms the devotee and raises him to that

level of truth even though there are contradictions at the level of rational

statement. Truth lies in the transformation of the heart. Religious

doctrines do not have the support of science because they are at a different

level of truth to science. In this way their statements, doctrine/doctrine,

doctrine/science, can contain contrary assertions without you having to say

that one must be right and the other wrong or that they both must be wrong.

Best Wishes, Michael

 

you wrote

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.

 

 

 

_______________

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos:

http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote:

> Hello Joshua,

> Your argument about time was interesting. As I understand it you

are saying

> that Awareness is permanent because it is there through all

experience and

> as experience is the source of our judgment of what is Awareness

is

> permanent or unchanging. Thus the theory of Impermanence is

refuted

> (Annica).

>

 

 

Yes, that's it.

 

> The way of the Buddha is said to be comprised of the Four Noble

Truths and

> The Eightfold Path and that is what it is, a path and not a

philosophical

> system. He himself as a reformer wanted to cut through to the

central

> issues of life and get clear of endless discussions about

precedent,

> pronounciation and priestly ordinances. The great strength of his

message

> is psychological, a strong clear description of the mess we are in

and the

> way out of it. There was no epistemology but a lot of raw feeling.

 

 

This has it's value in immediate practice, but the Genius of

Advaita, I believe, is that it is able to balance practice with

theory - thus lessening the possibility for wrong views to creep in.

Many Buddhists today do believe that there is actually no Self or

core to being, and that liberation is a mere breaking up of the

components of existence - a kind of death.

 

> It

> seems that he himself did not get involved with a no-self

(anatta/anatman)

> theory and the claiming of this and the annica(momentarieness)

idea as

> primative teaching is disputed.

 

 

Yes. When asked if there was a Self or not he remained silent, and

the theory of individual karmic moments which exist in a chain is a

later addition by Abhidhammists (the Thomas Aquinas to Buddha's

Gospels).

 

> Ken Wilber in his 'Sex, Ecology,

> Spirituality' traces the complexities of this in an essay long

endnote.

 

 

I really should read some books by this man.

 

> Clearly it is an embarassment to Alan Watts (The Way of Zen) as he

also

> rejects Anatman as an original teaching of the Buddha. Perhaps

all that is

> the creation of monks in the rainy season as they took a break

from

> wandering to shelter. An early attempt at the creation of brand

difference.

 

 

That's probably how it happened, idleness being the king of all

vices.

 

> Ken Wilber, if I read him aright, believes that Nagarjuna's

theory of

> emptiness found its way into early advaita via the ajativada of

Gaudapada

> cf.Mandukya Karikas. Those who favour full blown illusionism see

this as

> the core of advaita. Sankara though he wrote a commentary to this

(Advaita

> Asrama trans. Swami Gambhirananda) would not I think go that far

in that he

> saw the real as the basis of adhyasa(confusion rope/snake) even on

this

> relative plane of being. Rather than follow that tributary he was

going

> back to the vedic source.

 

 

I will be receiving a book on just this thing either this month or

the next. It is about Gaudapada's Karika, Advaita & Mahayana

Buddhism. Perhaps I'll post a little review after I've read it (and

fully digested it's meaning).

 

> Vision confirms the devotee and raises him to that

> level of truth even though there are contradictions at the level

of rational

> statement. Truth lies in the transformation of the heart.

Religious

> doctrines do not have the support of science because they are at a

different

> level of truth to science. In this way their statements,

doctrine/doctrine,

> doctrine/science, can contain contrary assertions without you

having to say

> that one must be right and the other wrong or that they both must

be wrong.

> Best Wishes, Michael

 

Same to you.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Let's see

 

There is a rope in one corner of the room and a snake in another

corner.

 

The possibilities are ...

There really is a rope in the corner.

There really is a snake in the corner.

There really is a snake in one corner and a rope in another corner.

There really is a room in which one finds the rope and the snake.

I see the rope as a rope.

I see the snake as a snake.

I see the rope as a snake.

I see the snake as a rope.

I see the snake but I don't see the rope.

I see the rope but I don't see the snake.

I don't see either the rope or the snake.

I don't see the room!

 

What is the reality of the rope and the snake and the room?

What is real about my perceptions?

What are the consequences of my affirming any of these states as

correct?

 

Who cares?

 

What does permanence or impermanence have to do with the present time

existence of the room, the rope, the snake and my perception? Or is

that mystical mumbo-jumbo to justify bad logic?

 

Is there a "method" for determining the "real" free of philosophical

and metaphysical doctrine and hair-splitting?

 

I read the "scriptures" and what I see are "consequences", the

conclusions which someone has come to as the result of their

experience. And that becomes a source of conditioning the conscious

to particular conclusions leading to nama-rupa, names and forms. The

paradox is that the attempt to communicate leads to more names and

forms.

 

What has helped me the most is someone who says, "There may be

another way of looking at things. Indeed, there may be another way of

looking. And when I looked "this way" I saw things differently.

Perhaps that will be useful to you as well."

 

Comments?

 

John L.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "johnrloganis" <johnrloganis> wrote:

> What has helped me the most is someone who says, "There may be

> another way of looking at things. Indeed, there may be another way

of

> looking. And when I looked "this way" I saw things differently.

> Perhaps that will be useful to you as well."

>

> Comments?

 

Namaste,

 

Hope these excerpts are in tune with your thinking:

 

Prashna Upanishad:

 

I:2 - "To them that seer said, live with me another year with

austerity, chastity and faith. Then ask us questions according to

your desire and if we know, we shall, indeed, tell you all that."

 

VI:7 - " To them, then he said: only thus far do I know of that

Supreme Brahman........"

 

Taittiriya Upanishad:

 

I:11:2 - ".....Whatever good practices there are among us, they are

to be adopted by you, not others."

 

I:11:3 - "Whatever Brahmanas there are who are superior to us, they

should be comforted by you with a seat....."

 

Aparokshanubhuti:

 

125. "The aspirant should carefully practise this (meditation) that

reveals his natural bliss until, being under his full control, it

arises spontaneously, in an instant when called into action"

 

126. "Then he, the best among yogis, having attained to perfection,

becomes free from all practices. The real nature of such a man never

becomes an object of the mind or speech."

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji!

 

Your prolific quotes are becoming just irresistible. Thanks for all

of them.

 

But these few are just fantastic and most timely. I am sure they

will stand me and other advaitins in good stead. I hope John-Ji has

found his answer.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________________

 

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

>

> Prashna Upanishad:

>

> I:2 - "To them that seer said, live with me another year with

> austerity, chastity and faith. Then ask us questions according to

> your desire and if we know, we shall, indeed, tell you all that."

>

> VI:7 - " To them, then he said: only thus far do I know of that

> Supreme Brahman........"

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

 

I am sure they

> will stand me and other advaitins in good stead.

 

Namaste Madathilji,

 

The crowning instruction, of course, comes from the Lord

Himself: Gita - 18:63

 

iti te GYaanamaakhyaataM guhyaad.hguhyataraM mayaa |

vimR^ishyaitadasheshheNa yathech{}chhasi tathaa kuru ||

 

Thus knowledge more secret than the secret

has been explained to you by me.

Reflecting on this completely, do whatever you wish. [sanderson Beck]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Yes, indeed they are most irristible and helpful. Thanks.

 

John L.

 

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Sunderji!

>

> Your prolific quotes are becoming just irresistible. Thanks for all

> of them.

>

> But these few are just fantastic and most timely. I am sure they

> will stand me and other advaitins in good stead. I hope John-Ji

has

> found his answer.

>

> Regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ______________________

>

> advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> >

> > Prashna Upanishad:

> >

> > I:2 - "To them that seer said, live with me another year with

> > austerity, chastity and faith. Then ask us questions according to

> > your desire and if we know, we shall, indeed, tell you all that."

> >

> > VI:7 - " To them, then he said: only thus far do I know of that

> > Supreme Brahman........"

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "johnrloganis" <johnrloganis> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Let's see

>

> There is a rope in one corner of the room and a snake in another

> corner.

>

> The possibilities are ...

> There really is a rope in the corner.

> There really is a snake in the corner.

> There really is a snake in one corner and a rope in another corner.

> There really is a room in which one finds the rope and the snake.

> I see the rope as a rope.

> I see the snake as a snake.

> I see the rope as a snake.

> I see the snake as a rope.

> I see the snake but I don't see the rope.

> I see the rope but I don't see the snake.

> I don't see either the rope or the snake.

> I don't see the room!

>

> What is the reality of the rope and the snake and the room?

> What is real about my perceptions?

> What are the consequences of my affirming any of these states as

> correct?

>

> Who cares?

>

> What does permanence or impermanence have to do with the present

time

> existence of the room, the rope, the snake and my perception? Or is

> that mystical mumbo-jumbo to justify bad logic?

>

> Is there a "method" for determining the "real" free of

philosophical

> and metaphysical doctrine and hair-splitting?

>

> I read the "scriptures" and what I see are "consequences", the

> conclusions which someone has come to as the result of their

> experience. And that becomes a source of conditioning the conscious

> to particular conclusions leading to nama-rupa, names and forms.

The

> paradox is that the attempt to communicate leads to more names and

> forms.

>

> What has helped me the most is someone who says, "There may be

> another way of looking at things. Indeed, there may be another way

of

> looking. And when I looked "this way" I saw things differently.

> Perhaps that will be useful to you as well."

>

> Comments?

 

Hi John:-) My comment is Seeing sees all.

But if we seek to look at a word,

Then we'll distort what is.

If we See .. then the word arises spontaneously.

 

Also I think the past informs the present thus actualising the Buddha.

Like a pearl rolling forwards & backwards,

Mountains walk.

 

Colette

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "earthsunjoy" <radiantlove@h...> wrote:

> advaitin, "johnrloganis" <johnrloganis> wrote:

> >

> > Comments?

>

> Hi John:-) My comment is Seeing sees all.

> But if we seek to look at a word,

> Then we'll distort what is.

> If we See .. then the word arises spontaneously.

>

 

Namaste,

 

In the language of the Gita: 11:8 -

 

na tu maa.n shak{}yase drashhTumanenaiva svachakshushhaa .

divya.n dadaami te chakshuH pashya me yogamaishvaram.h .. 11\.8..

 

8. What thou hast to see, this thy human eye cannot grasp; but there

is a divine eye (an inmost seeing) and that eye I now give to thee.

Behold Me in My divine Yoga. [sri Aurobindo]

 

 

This also ties in with the 'purification' theme : Gita 5:11

 

kaayena manasaa bud.hdhyaa kevalairindriyairapi .

yoginaH karma kurvanti saN^ga.n tyak{}tvaatmashuddhaye .. 5\.11..

 

11. Therefore the Yogins do works with the body, mind, understanding,

or even merely with the organs of action, abandoning attachment, for

self-purification. [sri Aurobindo]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Hi Collete,

Indeed, and mountains and rivers.

John L.

 

advaitin, "earthsunjoy" <radiantlove@h...> wrote:

> Like a pearl rolling forwards & backwards,

> Mountains walk.

>

> Colette

[Guest guest]

Namaste Celine,

 

I have Balsekar's 'Duet of One', have tried reading it, but could not proceed

beyond 50 pages. What you get is not a commentary on Astavakra Gita but

Balsekar's own viewpoint. So I would reccommend, if you are new to advaita,

Swami Chimayananda's "Astavakra Gita" which has the Sanskrit original, an

excellent english translation and commentary. (I am not sure if it has an

english transliteration). And If you are are already into advaita for sometime,

Swami Nityaswarupananda's book referred to by Dennis is the best.

 

praNAms,

Venkat - M

 

Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

Hi Celine,

My favourite is the one by Swami Nityaswarupananda, from Advaita Ashrama.

Excellent short commentaries and it also has the Sanskrit (devanaagarii) and

word by word translation. I must admit I still haven't seen Ramesh

Balsekar's version though 'Duet of One'

 

 

BT Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry! Offer ends

21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Venkatji,

 

The Chinmaya Mission's publication does have the english transliteration.

 

best regards,

K Kathirasan

>

> S Venkatraman [sMTP:svenkat52]

> Wednesday, December 10, 2003 1:47 PM

> advaitin

> RE: Ashtavakra Gita

>

> Namaste Celine,

>

> I have Balsekar's 'Duet of One', have tried reading it, but could not

> proceed beyond 50 pages. What you get is not a commentary on Astavakra

> Gita but Balsekar's own viewpoint. So I would reccommend, if you are new

> to advaita, Swami Chimayananda's "Astavakra Gita" which has the Sanskrit

> original, an excellent english translation and commentary. (I am not sure

> if it has an english transliteration). And If you are are already into

> advaita for sometime, Swami Nityaswarupananda's book referred to by Dennis

> is the best.

>

> praNAms,

> Venkat - M

>

> Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> Hi Celine,

> My favourite is the one by Swami Nityaswarupananda, from Advaita Ashrama.

> Excellent short commentaries and it also has the Sanskrit (devanaagarii)

> and

> word by word translation. I must admit I still haven't seen Ramesh

> Balsekar's version though 'Duet of One'

>

>

> BT Broadband - Save £80 when you order online today. Hurry!

> Offer ends 21st December 2003. The way the internet was meant to be.

>

>

>

>

>

> Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

> Atman and Brahman.

> Advaitin List Archives available at:

> http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

> To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

> Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

>

>

>

> Your use of is subject to

>