Why Indo-Asian religions must support each other (correction)

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

This error is so important that I have to correct it. I just said:

>The Middle-Eastern religions tend to believe in God...

 

I meant that they tend to believe in an *external* God other than the

Self, similar to Ishwara.

 

And yes, many Buddhists may say that they do not believe in 'God',

but this again is like the emptiness discussions. They may only

believe that there is no external God, which is how most people think

of the word 'God'. The Buddha clear believed in Enlightenment, and

therefore by implication in his own Pure Consciousness, and we know

that this is the true meaning of 'God' or Atman or Brahman.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin:

 

The advaita philosophy is quite subtle and here is my understanding.

As advaitins, we internalize the external god whereas others

externalize the internal god! From the advaitic point of view, it can

be stated that Buddha's enlightenment is equivalent to Self-

realization. However the Buddhists' perception of 'nirvana' is

just 'emptyness,' nothing more or less. It is very easy for advaitins

to look at other philosophies within the confinement of advaitic

philosophy by distinguishing between the vyavahara and paramarthika

level of realities. Other philosophies fail to recognize these two

states of realites and fail to recognize the 'God' within!

 

Thanks for bringing the unity in the diversity of thoughts,

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

Bangalore, India

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

>

> And yes, many Buddhists may say that they do not believe in 'God',

> but this again is like the emptiness discussions. They may only

> believe that there is no external God, which is how most people

think

> of the word 'God'. The Buddha clear believed in Enlightenment, and

> therefore by implication in his own Pure Consciousness, and we know

> that this is the true meaning of 'God' or Atman or Brahman.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramji, I am not an expert here, but I think the subject is not that

simple. As per my information, Gaudapada and Shankara are even called

crypto-buddhists by some as according to them the theory of two truths was

borrowed by them from the Mahayana Buddhist Philosopher, Nagarjuna. The standard

Vedantin reply for this is that the theory is of Upanishadic origin and

Nagarjuna himself, having Brahminic roots, got it from the Upanishads. I don't

think the truth will ever be found. Regards, Venkat

 

Ram Chandran <rchandran wrote:It is very easy for advaitins

to look at other philosophies within the confinement of advaitic

philosophy by distinguishing between the vyavahara and paramarthika

level of realities. Other philosophies fail to recognize these two

states of realites

 

 

 

 

Plus - For a better Internet experience

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri-s Ramji and Venkatji!

 

I think you are both right. Ramji's is the more inspired

answer and Venkatji's is the more scholarly. But the main point I

was trying to make is the importance of a spiritual path that seeks

experience within by purifying consciousness with yoga and wisdom.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. all understand this.

 

This is to be contrasted with the 'pie in the sky' approach

to religion, where rewards after death are promised in exchange for

worshipping an invisible god in the sky. You know whom I mean.

Although the latter religions have led many people to spirituality of

some sort, sometimes even to a very advanced level, it is an

established historical fact that they have also had an aggressive and

proselytizing streak.

 

I think there is a connection. If people seek internal peace

and illumination within right now in this very life through yoga,

then their mind is calmed right now, and they become more wise,

loving, tolerant etc. On the other hand, if the pie in the sky

approach is taken, then nothing may be done to alleviate present

discontent, and frustration can build up within that can then be

channelled by demonic religious and political figures against the

other 'evil' religions. We can see this even today.

 

And I don't think that it is really possible to find peace

and illumination within unless you believe in your inherent internal

divinity, however you define it (Atman, Emptiness, ...).

 

The Indo-Asian religions understand this view of

spirituality, and that is why I would like to see them cooperate in

their quest to enlighten the world. Perhaps I am a bit simplistic

about this, but there is more than a grain of truth to what I have

said. At any rate, it is not that I was a Buddhist missionary

invading an Advaitin discussion list. I consider the two equivalent,

however naive I may be. Above all, I would like to see Eastern

religions in general become much more 'trendy' throughout the world,

not just in California!

 

Also, I would like to see Eastern wisdom continue to

'invade' the other religions, all voluntarily of course without any

coercion or subterfuge. If the Catholics can ignore the pope on

birth control, then they can surely do so with meditation. (And,

yes, the pope is still officially against even meditation, let alone

any notion of internal divinity. Can you believe that? Sometimes

institutional inertia can be amazing. I was raised a Catholic, so I

have the right to criticize.)

 

Sri Ram, please enjoy your stay in Bangalore, which by all

accounts is one of the most pleasant cities in India. Sri Venkat,

Mumbai may be a bit more gritty, from what I hear, but that is where

the excitement is! I hope to visit both some day.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

> Namaste!

>

> This error is so important that I have to correct it. I just said:

>

> >The Middle-Eastern religions tend to believe in God...

>

> I meant that they tend to believe in an *external* God other than

the

> Self, similar to Ishwara.

 

Namaste Benji,

 

I think actually that is what they do believe in Iswara/Saguna as

opposed to Nirguna. Although the Catholics have a concept of God

Imminant and God Transcendental......ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

wrote:

> Namaste Benjamin:

>

> The advaita philosophy is quite subtle and here is my

understanding.

> As advaitins, we internalize the external god whereas others

> externalize the internal god! From the advaitic point of view, it

can

> be stated that Buddha's enlightenment is equivalent to Self-

> realization. However the Buddhists' perception of 'nirvana' is

> just 'emptyness,' nothing more or less. It is very easy for

advaitins

 

Namaste Ramji,

 

I feel that the Buddhist Nirvana and Nirguna are not different, for

because they contain no energy at all, to our minds they would be

empty........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Tony!

>I think actually that is what they do believe in

>Iswara/Saguna as opposed to Nirguna. Although the

>Catholics have a concept of God Imminant and

>God >Transcendental......ONS...Tony.

 

You're right. I oversimplified the case regarding the Catholic

Church. They do have much metaphysical subtlety in their tradition,

mostly due to Plato and the Neoplatonics ... and Plato probably WAS

influenced (directly or indirectly) by India (since ideas propagated

via trade routes).

 

I guess I have a bit of a gripe against the Church because the Pope

STILL says that salvation can only be through Christ. That kind of

talk in this day and age makes me feel discouraged. He may be a good

man, but he could use some sensitivity training!

 

Well, let us not digress too much from the list. But I do have a

point regarding the spiritual affinity of Vedanta and Buddhism. And

realizing this affinity will help Advaitins develop their heart and

intuition, so that they don't get entangled in the cobwebs of

thoughts and concepts, as they dissect their beloved scriptures.

This is most important! It's an easy trap to fall into.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste!

 

Here is an interesting excerpt regarding the Buddhist understanding

of God from an article at:

 

http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/theravada-writings/introduction-buddhism.htm

 

As you read this, compare with your Advaitin understanding of

Brahman. In particular, when you get to the famous quote below from

the Itivuttaka, see if this does not have a distinctly Advaitin ring!

(At least from the paramarthika level, Sri Ram!)

 

 

Here is the excerpt:

 

We must recognize that the world's major religions are different and

we should accept those differences with respect and appreciation. For

example, Buddhists feel uncomfortable in acknowledging a Creator of

the world, however Buddhists do accept that there is a transcendental

state possible of realization by each and every one of us. We

certainly do not accept the concept of an anthropomorphic god but

many Christians, Jews and Muslims would join us in such a rejection.

Buddhists, generally, are uncomfortable in using the term "God",

because there is no clear definition of to what such a term refers.

In the case of the Buddhists, too, before they criticize other faiths

for their belief in "God", they should ascertain what the person from

the other faith means by "God". Too often, arguments are purely

semantic. What one calls "God" may be covered by another term by your

opposite number. A fundamentalist Christian, for example, would view

God in an anthropomorphic way which is totally different to that of a

mainstream Christian. A Jew or a Muslim would view God in a totally

different sense to the average Christian. Indeed, an anthropomorphic

view of God would be considered by Jews and Muslims to be idolatrous.

If, as is the case with many modern theologians, one holds the

Tillichian view that God is the "Ground of Being" - the very fact of

existence - then no Buddhist could argue with this. However, a

Buddhist would be hesitant in using the term 'God'. The Buddhist

concept of Nirvana, the highest state attainable is described in the

Itivuttaka, one of the books of the Buddhist canon thus:

 

'Monks, there is an unborn, a not-become, a not-made, a

not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made,

not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this

that here is born, become, made, compounded. But, monks, since there

is an unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded, therefore the

escape from this that here is born, become, made and compounded is

apparent.'

 

In Indonesia, for example, where five religions are officially

recognised on condition that they express a belief in God, the above

definition from the Itivuttaka is accepted as the Buddhist definition

of God. This to a Buddhist is the ultimate reality - and is not the

ultimate reality to most religious people an unborn, uncreated,

not-made and not compounded, which is beyond description. To a

Christian, a Jew and a Muslim, this may be termed 'God', whereas a

Buddhist would use the term 'Nirvana'. I feel that we are talking

about a similar concept.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Tony O'Clery" <aoclery> wrote:

> advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <rchandran@c...>

> wrote:

>

> Namaste Ramji,

>

> I feel that the Buddhist Nirvana and Nirguna are not different,

for

> because they contain no energy at all, to our minds they would be

> empty........ONS...Tony.

 

 

When they speak of "emptiness" in Madhyamika, the word may throw

some people off. It's not that it's the emptiness forms in a self-

existent substance, but an emptiness of self-existence in all forms.

Because something arises in dependence on something else, it is

empty.

 

"56. Consciousness occurs in dependence on the internal and external

sense-fields. Therefore consciousness is empty, like mirages and

illusions." - Shunyatasaptati