A Note on Nonduality (Ranjeet/Michael)

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Oh gosh! I should refrain from answering, but I just have to get this in.

 

Ranjeet said:

>Its the 24th of May....and I still dont know what

>exactly jnAna-bhakti is according to Shri Sankaraacharya!

>(except from what I read from 3 or 4 mails this month)

>Respected members.. please stick to the topic of the month

>and dont let the mind and ego take you for a ride !!!

 

Ranjeet-ji! There have been MANY MANY more than 3 or 4 mails this

month on Jnana/Bhakti. Furthermore, nobody is being prevented from

discussing this topic. It merely seems we've run out of ideas. I

don't think that Sri Ram ever said that the month's topic should

*monopolize* the list ... only that we should concentrate on it,

which we've done. Above all, please do not think there is an ego

ride going on. I'm deadly serious about it ... maybe THAT is the

problem!

 

 

Michael said:

>The third variety of Bauddha doctrine, viz. that everything is empty

>(i.e. that absolutely nothing exists), is contradicted by all means

>of right knowledge, and therefore requires no special refutation.

>For this apparent world, whose existence is guaranteed by all means

>of knowledge, cannot be denied, unless some one should find out some

>new truth (based on which he could impugn its existence) - for a

>general principle is proved by the absence of contrary instances.

>- Brahma Sutra Bhasya

 

I simply must comment briefly on this interesting quote, which is no

doubt genuine, although please remember the ambiguities of

translation. In fact, this quote may indicate the source of the

problem: perhaps Shankara and other Advaitins misunderstood the

Buddhists, or else heard a degenerate form of Buddhism where the

'emptiness' notion was over emphasized and became a caricature of

itself. Emptiness means emptiness of ego and concepts (and ego is

indeed a concept of the mind). Advaita totally agrees with this; it

is intrinsic to Maya (illusion) and Adhyasa (superposition).

Furthermore, in my opinion, 'matter' is also a concept that the mind

superposes on Brahman. Ego and matter are two sides of the same

coin. This is all very Advaitin!

 

The real Mahayanists were and still are most emphatic that

'emptiness' does NOT mean nihilism (i.e. that 'absolutely nothing

exists'). This is absurd, since consciousness simply cannot be

denied, as I've repeated ad nauseum. Therefore, it refers to the

enlightened or realized state of consciousness. Please note that the

emptiness concept has also caused much trouble within Buddhism. This

is perhaps what happens when we try too hard to express the

experience of paramarthika (the Absolute) within the language of

vyavahara (the relative).

 

PLEASE gentlemen and gentlewomen ... please look for the unity in

Indian thought, at least at the highest levels, so that the full

glory of this tradition may be realized. Mere sectarianism benefits

no one and leads to stagnation.

 

Hari Om! Hari Om! Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Michael said:

> >The third variety of Bauddha doctrine, viz. that everything is empty

> >(i.e. that absolutely nothing exists), is contradicted by all means

> >of right knowledge, and therefore requires no special refutation.

> >For this apparent world, whose existence is guaranteed by all means

> >of knowledge, cannot be denied, unless some one should find out some

> >new truth (based on which he could impugn its existence) - for a

> >general principle is proved by the absence of contrary instances.

> >- Brahma Sutra Bhasya

>

> I simply must comment briefly on this interesting quote, which is no

> doubt genuine, although please remember the ambiguities of

> translation. In fact, this quote may indicate the source of the

> problem: perhaps Shankara and other Advaitins misunderstood the

> Buddhists, or else heard a degenerate form of Buddhism where the

> 'emptiness' notion was over emphasized and became a caricature of

> itself. Emptiness means emptiness of ego and concepts (and ego is

> indeed a concept of the mind). Advaita totally agrees with this; it

> is intrinsic to Maya (illusion) and Adhyasa (superposition).

> Furthermore, in my opinion, 'matter' is also a concept that the mind

> superposes on Brahman. Ego and matter are two sides of the same

> coin. This is all very Advaitin!

>

> The real Mahayanists were and still are most emphatic that

> 'emptiness' does NOT mean nihilism (i.e. that 'absolutely nothing

> exists'). This is absurd, since consciousness simply cannot be

> denied, as I've repeated ad nauseum. Therefore, it refers to the

> enlightened or realized state of consciousness. Please note that the

> emptiness concept has also caused much trouble within Buddhism. This

> is perhaps what happens when we try too hard to express the

> experience of paramarthika (the Absolute) within the language of

> vyavahara (the relative).

>

> PLEASE gentlemen and gentlewomen ... please look for the unity in

> Indian thought, at least at the highest levels, so that the full

> glory of this tradition may be realized. Mere sectarianism benefits

> no one and leads to stagnation.

 

Hello Benjamin,

Sankara was following the instruction of the Queen to Alice(?) , 'start at the

beginning, go on to the end and then stop'. He starts from the common sense

position - awareness. To go from there to 'awareness of the world' or

'consciousness' is to enter into the realm of philosophical speculation. That

is the night and day basic given of our existence. The first philosphical

question to arise out of that is 'how does that otherness get in here ?'i.e how

are we conscious? This question only goes on all fours if that otherness is

basic data. This is a pre-enlightenment situation, there is no question of an

intuition of emptiness or 'inherent emptiness'. That is a position of gnosis.

We are not there yet and to start with that is speaking out of turn.

 

As he saw it, why should you take what is clear and obvious and can be accounted

for both by rational argument and argument from authority and exchange it for

something that is contrary to reason and scripture. How is intellectual

dissent sectarianism? I take Buddhism to be an excellent path with powerful

psychological insights and practices. 'Annica' and 'annata' are

philosophically incoherent as stated. Unanimity is more likely to lead to

stagnation.

Best Wishes, Michael.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> PLEASE gentlemen and gentlewomen ... please look for the unity in

> Indian thought, at least at the highest levels, so that the full

> glory of this tradition may be realized. Mere sectarianism

benefits

> no one and leads to stagnation.

>

> Hari Om! Hari Om! Hari Om!

> Benjamin

 

 

 

If Indian thought is a unity, then what of Greek thought, Chinese

thought, or any other area-specific thought?

 

We see, in Greece, that there were rival groups who did not conceive

themselves united, yet who had similar assumptions and methods.

There were Stoics, Epicureans, Platonists, etc.

 

And in China, there were Confucianists, Taoists, Motseists, etc.

 

These, like the schools of Indian thought, presented their ideas in

written form. They had discussion and interaction with their rival

schools. The wrote refutations of the rival schools. They debated

members of the rival schools. Much of their thought may have

developed in response to the refutations of rival schools. In these

situations, Indian thought is not much different than any other area-

specific thought that has a few divisions in it.

 

In India, the Jains have refutations of Buddhism in their

scriptures, and the Buddhists have refutations of Jains. The

Samkhyas have refutations of Vedanta, and Vedanta has refutation of

the Samkhyas. There do exist Buddhist refutations of Vedanta, and

many Vedanta refutations of Buddhists. And there's plenty of Samkhya

refutation of Buddhists, and Buddhist refutation of Samkhya.

 

Then there's Advaita refutations of Dvaita, and Vishisthadvaita

refutations of Advaita, etc. and there's Madhyamika refutations of

Chittamatra, and "Hinayana" refutations of Madhyamika, etc. - even

among Buddhist and Vedantic schools there are debates, rival views,

and not merely cordial ones either; many times, the school that is

criticized is actually implied to be a false school, or, at least, a

backward school. There's even claims that one's own school is alone

correct, and all other schools are false and cannot lead to

liberation at all.

 

To say that all of these schools are all speaking the same thing is

different than saying they are all correct. The schools themselves

do not say they are speaking the same thing, but this doesn't mean

that, for the individual who follows them at the time, they are not

the correct path for that individual or that they are totally void

of all merit. Usually, if someone says they are all speaking the

same thing, this means "they all agree with me, and if they don't,

then they're not practicing their religion right." It's a sectarian

view in its own right.

 

I think it's fairer and more curteous to the different schools to

accept their own definitions of themselves, rather than impose my

own definition of what they ought to be, and accept what they,

themselves, say rather than to try and transmogrify what they say

into agreement with what my own views.

 

As regards Vedanta and Buddhism, Shankara supposedly studied under

the Buddhists, demonstrates a knowledge of their terms and theories

in his Brahma-Sutra Bhasya, yet said that "Buddha's doctrine has to

be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own

happiness." - He bases his critique on something very important to

every living creature; their own happiness. So, to bring out a

critique like that isn't any crueler of narrow-minded than a father

or mother telling their child, "Playing with scorpians has to be

entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own

happiness." The same can be said of the Buddhists' critique of

Vedanta, or any school which critiques it.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "concordance909" > >

> As regards Vedanta and Buddhism, Shankara supposedly studied under

> the Buddhists, demonstrates a knowledge of their terms and theories

> in his Brahma-Sutra Bhasya, yet said that "Buddha's doctrine has to

> be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their

own

> happiness." - He bases his critique on something very important to

> every living creature; their own happiness. So, to bring out a

> critique like that isn't any crueler of narrow-minded than a father

> or mother telling their child, "Playing with scorpians has to be

> entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own

> happiness." The same can be said of the Buddhists' critique of

> Vedanta, or any school which critiques it.

 

Namaste All,

 

It is my rather simple opinion, that Sankara said this for he knew

that unsophisticated minds would take the Annata of Buddhism to be

Atheism, and that the emotion of Bhakti was better appreciated by the

ordinary person. Happiness is mostly 'good emotion' for the general

population. I remember him best for saying that the world is real

whilst one is in it and Bhaja Govindam is more important than

dialectics etc........ONS...Tony.