What is the difference between Brahman and Sunya?

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

Here is a question which is nagging me. What is the difference

between nirguNa brahman of Sankara and Sunya of the buddhists? Please

answer the question only if you are reasonably sure about your

answer. Or atleast in case you are not sure, please mention so.

Otherwise I will end up getting confused.

 

Thanks

Siddharth

[Guest guest]

Namaste

The SUnya of the buddhists is what remains after one negates

everything including the negator.

The nirguNa brahman of advaita is what remains after one negates

everything except the Reality of the negator.

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nagarjunasiddhartha-ji,

>Here is a question which is nagging me. What is the

>difference between nirguNa brahman of Sankara and

>Sunya of the buddhists? Please answer the question

>only if you are reasonably sure about your answer.

 

 

Well, naturally, I just have to chime in, even though I promised to

take this discussion to my own new discussion group. (And I won't

annoy anybody by repeating the URL. You could always send me an

email!)

 

I have studied Buddhism for ~10 years on my own and Advaita for ~3

under an excellent Swamiji as well as the excellent Sadanandaji. So

I am 'reasonably sure' of my answer.

 

First, though, let me repeat why I seem a bit obsessed with this

topic. It is not missionary zeal, heaven forbid! I know about the

turmoil that is causing in India, and I am against any kind of

aggressive proselytization (though I have some reservations about

legislation that seems to call into question certain fundamental

civil liberties ... but let us not get sidetracked on that). The

reason I dwell on this is because I have had beautiful flashes of

insight from the scriptures of both traditions, and my heart is

yearning to reconcile the two. After all, the Truth must be ONE, by

the very definition of the truth. So for me it is personal, not

political. Blessed list members, please remember this, though as I

said I will continue the discussion in the privacy of my own group.

 

By the way, your name has a lot of Buddhism packed in it! Very interesting...

 

Prof V. Krishnamurthy skirts perilously close to the truth in his

previous message, but I must differ in one important but subtle point.

 

We both agree that the Sunyata of the Buddhist serves the same

purpose as the 'Neti, Neti' of the Upanishads. That is to subdue the

conceptual mind which superposes the distinction of subject and

object, and hence ego and suffering, upon the undivided, homogeneous,

stainless purity of the Infinite Consciousness. There is no doubt

that both Advaita and Mahayana Buddhism are 'nondual' in this sense,

and thus soar in the stratosphere of the spiritual heights, far above

religions based upon concepts and dogma. So far, so good.

 

But where I differ with the distinguished professor is in what

remains after the purgation of Sunya. He says that nirguNa brahman

is what remains, and if I read correctly between the lines, he is

implying that the Mahayana is deficient in this most essential

Reality. If that is his implication, then I must respectfully beg to

differ. The simple fact is that Consciousness is what remains for

anybody of any creed, and this Consciousness cannot be denied, as the

good professor asserts. Those who say that the Buddhists deny it are

mistaken and are being fooled by words. The Buddhists speak

constantly of 'Enlightenment', and what sense does Enlightenment make

unless there is a Consciousness to be enlightened? As I said,

Consciousness simply cannot be denied.

 

The reason the Mahayanists placed so much emphasis on Sunya, to the

point of giving a mistaken impression of their doctrine (even to

other Buddhists who accused them of 'nihilism'), is because Buddha

was primarily a doctor of the spirit and not a theoretician (like the

Brahmins). He wanted to withdraw the arrow of suffering, not discuss

it. Hence, the great emphasis on the soteriological value of Sunya.

 

But in summary, consciousness simply cannot be denied. It can only

be purified into Consciousness. QED

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Professor,

 

Is not negation of the negator a contradiction in terms?

 

I claim to be a scholar of neither Advaita nor Buddhism; but have read a bit of

both. IMHO the Nirguna Brahman of Advaita and Shunya of Buddhism should

logically mean the same thing. The logic is as follows:

 

When all else except the negator is negated (negator by definition cannot be

negated)

 

Buddhism says there is NOTHING (Shunya) but the negator and

 

Advaita says there is ONLY (Puurnam) the negator.

 

In fact even as I type these words, it strikes me that the term 'Nirguna

Brahman' may be a very beautiful syntheseis of the two viewpoints:

 

Nirguna = Shunya

Brahman = Fullness

 

Considering the inadequacy of my knowledge on the subject, I might have

overreached myself. Correct me, if in the process, I have gone wrong. Regards,

 

Venkat

 

 

 

"V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk wrote:

Namaste

The SUnya of the buddhists is what remains after one negates

everything including the negator.

The nirguNa brahman of advaita is what remains after one negates

everything except the Reality of the negator.

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

 

 

 

 

Plus - For a better Internet experience

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Venkat

>Considering the inadequacy of my knowledge on the subject,

>I might have overreached myself. Correct me, if in the process,

>I have gone wrong. Regards,

 

 

Venkat, I agree with what you said in that message. But above all, I

wish to learn your humility.

 

Surely you are the Venkat of Mumbai ...

Sometimes I am not quite sure, since 'Venkat' is not uncommon as a

name in India.

Maybe you need to sign it Venkat-M ... something like Advaita-L !

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, S Venkatraman <svenkat52> wrote:

> Namaste Professor,

>

> Buddhism says there is NOTHING (Shunya) but the negator and

>

> Advaita says there is ONLY (Puurnam) the negator.

>

> In fact even as I type these words, it strikes me that the

term 'Nirguna Brahman' may be a very beautiful syntheseis of the two

viewpoints:

>

> Nirguna = Shunya

> Brahman = Fullness

>

> Considering the inadequacy of my knowledge on the subject, I might

have overreached myself. Correct me, if in the process, I have gone

wrong. Regards,

>

> Venkat

 

Namaste,

 

This is all semantics of course. Philosophical philandering so to

speak. Nir means no or nothing. Guna means modes or movement. Nir

means no or nothing.....Vana means blowing or wind. As I see it the

blowing is the movement of the mind or gunas.

 

Sunyat means void, void of what? void of manifestation and delusion

that's what. Brahman means expansion expansion of light or what.

These are all words and concepts of course. I do not consider you

have overeached, you make sense to me, but then 'Who am

I'?....ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Venkat:

 

I want to express my disagreement with your observation that the

term 'Shunya' retains the negator intact as you seem to interpret. If

it is so, then 'Shunya' needs a change in its original definition.

But we do need to recognize that any redefinition of `shunya' will

likely lose the original intended meaning! We can't have the `cake'

and eat it too!!

 

The rest of my comments focuses on the posts by several others and

not necessarily directed to Sri Venkat. Any comparison between the

two philosophies postulated by Sri Sankara and Sri Siddhartha should

be conducted in the context of the Vedic religion and Culture.

Philosophy by definition is an enquiry into the nature of things

based on logical reasoning rather than an investigation by empirical

methods. Any postulation of a new philosophy in the context of a

religion is either to support that religion or to undermine that

religion. Sankara's advaita philosophy emerged to revive and support

the Vedic religion and culture. In contrast a major focus of

Buddha's philosophy was to refute Vedic religion and culture. The

acceptance or rejection of any new philosophy was done by scholars

who are well versed in Vedic scriptures which include the Vedas

(including Upanishads), Bhagavad Gita and others. The advaita

philosophy was validated by Sankara and other scholars of his time

through open debates. Sankara wrote the commentaries for major

upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and Brahmasuutra to explain the

appropriateness of Advaita philosophy with respect to the truth as

spelled out in those scriptures. Sankara was victorious in his

debates with the pundits and scholars of his time and after the

victory, he propagated the advaita philosophy all over India.

 

Sri Siddhartha's philosophy of Buddhism fundamentally refuted the

utility of Vedas – the heart of the Vedic religion and culture. I

don't see how one can equate the philosophy of Buddhism with advaita?

Any philosophy including advaita or Buddhism is just an enquiry into

the nature of things based on logical reasoning and it can neither be

proved nor refuted!

 

In the current discussion, the two philosophies are compared based

only on logical reasoning without consideration to their origin and

what they support or refute. If we take into consideration several

other aspects of these two philosophies, we can discover why these

two philosophies are a mile apart! I don't believe that we should

divert our attention on such intellectual exercises. I am also

wondering why it is important that these two philosophies should be

viewed as identical by spiritual seekers with different levels of

spiritual maturity.

 

Sanskrit is not only a sacred language (from the point of view of the

followers of the Vedic religion and culture) but also its

(grammatical) structure is recognized to be most suitable for

developing the artificial intelligence. Anyone who attempts to break

a word or combine two words should to obey the rules established by

Panini, the Grammarian. Please do not attempt to equate Nirguna =

Nirvana by illogically separating those words to validate your

hypotheses by making erroneous inference. Let us be humble enough to

admit and state all associated caveats before stating any

hypothetical similarity between the two philosophies. Let us also

further recognize that the identity of these two philosophies is not

yet an established fact. Let us also avoid the temptation to extend

our mathematical logic to impermissible situations such as

metaphysics: In mathematics, the inference if A= B and B= C then C=A

may become valid. Even the validity of this inference is restricted

to relationships that are `one-to-one'!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, S Venkatraman <svenkat52> wrote:

> I claim to be a scholar of neither Advaita nor Buddhism; but have

read a bit of both. IMHO the Nirguna Brahman of Advaita and Shunya of

Buddhism should logically mean the same thing. The logic is as

follows:

>

> When all else except the negator is negated (negator by definition

cannot be negated)

>

> Buddhism says there is NOTHING (Shunya) but the negator and

>

> Advaita says there is ONLY (Puurnam) the negator.

>

> In fact even as I type these words, it strikes me that the

term 'Nirguna Brahman' may be a very beautiful syntheseis of the two

viewpoints:

>

> Nirguna = Shunya

> Brahman = Fullness

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ram!

>Sankara's advaita philosophy emerged to revive and support

>the Vedic religion and culture. In contrast a major focus of

>Buddha's philosophy was to refute Vedic religion and culture.

 

 

Ramji, I am most reluctant to continue the debate here. Your

carefully written message requires an equally careful answer, and the

resulting potentially lengthy discussion would annoy most people here.

 

You did give me permission to quote you over at my new site. I am

thinking of giving a detailed and careful answer to your message.

But it won't appear for a couple of days (if at all), so you have

plenty of time to ask me offline not to post it, if you wish. Also,

after it is posted, you can supply any rebuttal you wish, either by

joining or by sending me a private email, which I will then post.

 

Needless to say, I think that the 'disputes' between Advaita and

Buddhism were primarily semantical and political, though I admit that

I am not an expert Indologist. (Indeed, the academic Indologists

differ sharply among themselves.) I base my views on my own

insights, for what they are worth, into the inner meaning beneath the

superficial words of the scriptures in question. (All scriptures

must be interpreted. That is what this list is about as far as

Advaita is concerned.) Anyone is free to reject my insights. The

whole point of a spiritual discussion is to share and evaluate

insights and interpretations. The problem is that my brain is

sufficiently active that I will always have a rebuttal to any

rebuttal! Therefore I will not continue that discussion here. It

would become an an infinite loop.

 

Still, let me leave you with some questions for your own private

reflection. Is the Truth not One? I presume you think it is. Now,

were Shankara and Buddha not both 'enlightened' in some deep and

meaningful sense? I will not put words in your mouth. But if the

answer is yes, then there is some explaining to do. Of course, you

could raise the same questions with Ramanuja and Madhva, but that

would bring Sri Jay back!

 

(The analogy is actually not very good. Many authoritative spiritual

voices have said that Advaita and Mahayana are quite close through

their common key theme of 'nonduality'. The same cannot be said with

respect to Visistadvaita and Dvaita. I also feel that the

'enlightenment' of the dualists must be at a somewhat lower level,

though still very excellent it its own way. And that statement will

no doubt bring upon me the wrath of some dualists.)

 

Finally, regarding your quote above, you are surely aware that

reforms have occurred *within* Vedic culture. Advaita was a reaction

against ritualism, for example. Buddha may also have been reacting

to an overly ritualistic manifestation of Vedic culture. There is no

such thing as a unique and homogeneous 'Vedic culture'. Just look at

the stark and undeniable differences between Advaita, Visistadvaita

and Dvaita? But now I am starting the discussion here that I said I

would not.

 

On a pure and enlightened planet, there is no philosophical

discussion, only luminous realization.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

Thanks for letting me know your position on the current discussion.

As I have stated in my private email to you, my posts to this list

can be quoted by you or others without seeking my position. As for as

I can see we both address the problem differently. At the same time,

I fully respect your position whether I agree or disagree with you

partially or completely. Your assessment that lengthy discussion on

this topic in this list will certainly annoy most people is quite

correct. I respect your decision to continue your viewpoints on

the 'clearvoid list.' Let me share my understanding of certain

questions that you have raised in this post. I also do not want to

continue this discussion any further and this will be my last post on

this thread:

 

1. I do believe that both Sri Sankara and Sri Siddhartha are realized

souls. For my background and my understanding based on my belief and

conviction that they both have "Realized the Brahman." The question,

whether 'Nirvana' is equal to 'Nirguna Brahman' can't be answered

using this information! My disagreement is only with respect to the

hypothetical equation, equationg the Brahman (the unmanifested or the

eternal compression of everything) to Shunya (emptyness). In very

simplistic term, labeling the Brahman as 'nothing' is unacceptable to

those who follow and practice the Vedic Religion and culture. You

seem to imply that the words of the 'Buddha' should be accepted

unconditionally by the Vedic Religion because he is realized. Please

note that the entire 'Vedas' are the 'revealations' came through the

words of realized souls like Sankara and Buddha. Does it make sense

to accept the words 'Buddha' who refutes the words spoken by the

realized souls of previous generations.

 

As you rightly pointed out both Sankara and Buddha were reformers of

Vedic rituals. Why did the Vedic culture accepted the reforms

suggestted by Sankara and refused to accept Buddha's reforms?

Pundits of their time challenged the reformers; Sankara was able to

explain how the reforms suggested by him didn't contradict the Vedic

religion. As a minimum, it seems, at least in appearance that Buddha

challenged the validity of Truth of Vedas. The rest is history! After

many centuries, Buddhism which originated in India almost completely

disappeared!!

 

I do also want to point out that though most of 'buddhism'

disappeared from India, Buddha is very highly regarded in the modern

India and he is considered as a 'avatar.' It seems that instead of

Buddha converting the Hindus to Buddhism, the Hindus converted him as

a 'Hindu God.' As a Hindu God, he was forced to accept the rituals

that he hated the most!!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

>

> Ramji, I am most reluctant to continue the debate here. Your

> carefully written message requires an equally careful answer, and

the

> resulting potentially lengthy discussion would annoy most people

here.

>

> You did give me permission to quote you over at my new site. I am

> thinking of giving a detailed and careful answer to your message.

 

 

> would not.

>

> On a pure and enlightened planet, there is no philosophical

> discussion, only luminous realization.

>

> Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste ,

with due respect, I am writing this;

 

As far as my understanding goes, the doyen of compassion after attaining

the buddha-hood, never hated anything and he had love for all the so

called bad things in life.

What he did was moving away from the karma-khandis (those who strictly

emphasize on the rituals and with the belief that wud do lead to

moksha). Sri buddha figured out that this particular idealogy was not

helpful for most of the people and he told people to move away from the

ritual-centric life.

 

Rgds

--ranga

 

 

 

It seems that instead of

Buddha converting the Hindus to Buddhism, the Hindus converted him as

a 'Hindu God.' As a Hindu God, he was forced to accept the rituals

that he hated the most!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranga-ji,

 

You said

>As far as my understanding goes, the doyen of compassion after attaining

>the buddha-hood, never hated anything and he had love for all the so

>called bad things in life.

> ...

>What he did was moving away from the karma-khandis (those who

>strictly emphasize on the rituals and with the belief that would lead

>to moksha).

>Here, I think, what they mean by buddha is not the physical form but the

>underlying essence of everything. As you may be aware, the word buddha

>was derived from the sanskrit root word - Budh, which roughly translates

>to knowledge/wisdom and it has got a similarity with the word "vidh",

>which means "to know" and this the root word of veda. Does it sound any bell?

 

 

Ranga-ji, you understand perfectly and express it so well.

 

Maybe Sri Ram will listen to you more sympathetically, since

you are an earnest Hindu student from the womb of Mother India! :-)

 

Thank you for coming to my rescue, as I have forsworn discussing this

anymore on this list ... though I may still congratulate those who do

make the point well! ;-)

 

Perhaps you may enjoy continuing this discussion at my new group at

 

clearvoid/

 

where we are free to take a bird's eye view of the glories of Indian

spirituality.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ranga:

 

Your points are well taken and let me provide a brief explanation to

my earlier posts. As spiritual seekers we all have high respect for

Buddha and we all recognize him as a realized soul. Both Sankara and

Buddha are reformers. Sankara didn't want people to give up

the 'karmas' but just asked them to change their attitude and

suggested to them - "Don't expect that these karmas will provide you

with a set of expected results." Karma need not be given up but they

should be conducted with the 'yagna' spirit.

 

Vedanta doesn't stipulate the seekers to give up everything to attain

Moksha; only they need to give up their attachment to their

possessions. Buddhism's Nirvana implies giving up everything! There

is a mountain of difference between these two positions. We don't

need to become 'empty' but we can enjoy being 'full' in the detached

state!

 

At one-time, Buddhism was widespread across the length and breadth of

India but later it became almost extinct. Why? The reason is quite

simple. Everything what Buddha stated was achievable by the Hindus

without changing their religion. What they need is a clearer

understanding (or removing their ignorance) of the scriptures and a

change in attitude to their life. The Vedic religion and culture have

undergone many reforms by accomodating various philosophical thoughts

that occured at different periods of time.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Chakkara Rangarajan \(crangara\)"

<crangara@c...> wrote:

> Namaste ,

> with due respect, I am writing this;

>

> As far as my understanding goes, the doyen of compassion after

attaining

> the buddha-hood, never hated anything and he had love for all the so

> called bad things in life.

> What he did was moving away from the karma-khandis (those who

strictly

> emphasize on the rituals and with the belief that wud do lead to

> moksha). Sri buddha figured out that this particular idealogy was

not

> helpful for most of the people and he told people to move away from

the

> ritual-centric life.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin-ji,

I know that sri Ram-ji can speak for himself;But Knowing little of him

from the email exchanges, I can safely vouch that he has got respect for

buddha and buddhism and he accepts buddha as a realized soul.

 

In my view, the messages on buddha/ism or cross-comparison of cultures

has to be done within the parameters of the group's policy. We have to

respect that and leave aside the discussions in the group.

 

In 1 of the Q-A, either sariputta(brahmin convert)/ananda asked Sri

buddha, why he is not forcing people to come to his path. Sri buddha

replied, "People wud tend to listen to his teachings as and when they

want to do it and there is no point in forcing anybody". In fact, Sri

buddha believed in that and lived by that, as he never gone for a debate

with the greatest of jinas (sri mahavira), who was his contemporary. (as

per historical recordings, in their tours, the closest they came to each

other was by 40 miles).

 

I really appreciate ur knowledge on either side and it is helping my

sadhana. As sri buddha maintains, let us follow a middle path - we will

discuss as and when it is required and not discuss, when it is not

required.

 

Once again, thanks for your invitation and will join ur group.

Rgds

--Ranga

PS :

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

wrote:

Vedanta doesn't stipulate the seekers to give up everything to attain

Moksha; only they need to give up their attachment to their

possessions. Buddhism's Nirvana implies giving up everything! There

is a mountain of difference between these two positions. We don't

need to become 'empty' but we can enjoy being 'full' in the detached

state!

 

 

Namaste,

 

IMO this is just a semantic or dialectic difference. Giving up

attachments is everything, including the attachment to the body and

ego/mind. There are different levels of Vedanta as there are Buddhism

as opposed to the teachings of Gautama........ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

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

>wrote:

>Vedanta doesn't stipulate the seekers to give up everything to attain

>Moksha; only they need to give up their attachment to their

>possessions. Buddhism's Nirvana implies giving up everything! There

>is a mountain of difference between these two positions. We don't

>need to become 'empty' but we can enjoy being 'full' in the detached

>state!

 

 

I didn't quite follow this, maybe Ram could explain further.

 

thanx

 

Charles

 

_______________

Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!

http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Honestly speaking, this is quite a complex area where the experience

of Buddha or the Vedantic Self-realization can't be described in

words. The comparison on the equality between two systems of

philosophies is just a waste of time because this can't be resolved

intellectually. It should be also pointed out that `Nirvana' is

being interpreted differently by various schools associated with

Buddhism. All that I have stated before and my current additional

clarifications here are on the basis of my understanding of buddhism

which is very likely incomplete and sloppy

 

Often nirvana is characterized merely as a process of the cessation

of the states of unhappiness, satisfaction, and happiness. Buddhism

visualizes human existence as suffering and the state of nirvana is

interpreted, as the cessation of suffering. According to my

understanding of Buddhism, physical possession and/or desires for

physical possessions is the root cause for those sufferings. The

state of nirvana seems to imply cessation of all desires and

physical possessions!

 

Vedanta recognizes that the root cause of human suffering is due to

misidentification (due to ignorance) of SELF as body-mind-intellect.

The attitude of detachment means that one learns to overcome the

consequence of non-fulfillment of the desires that entertain body,

mind and intellect. Bhagavad Gita declares the person who has

cultivated the attitude as described above as a `Karma Yogi.' The

Karma Yogi recognizes that the real evil is not in physical

possessions themselves but in attachment to those possessions. The

essence of Vedanta philosophy is described in verse 70 of chapter 2

of Bhagavad Gita.

 

Verse in Sanskrit:

apuryamanam acala-pratistham samudram apah pravisanti yadvat

tadvat kama yam pravisanti sarve sa santim apnoti na kama-kami

 

Translation: He unto whom all desires enter as waters into the sea,

which, though ever being filled is ever motionless, attains to peace

and not he who hugs his desires.

 

In conclusion, we do need to recognize that Shankara who hypothesized

the advaita philosophy validated his theology by using statements in

support of his contention from the Upanishads, Bhagavad Gita and

Brahmasuutra. The Vedic scholars of his time have accepted his

philosophy and Vedic religion and culture have been revived. The

religion of Buddhism and associated religions were evolved after

Buddha's experience of Nivana. The paths suggested by Vedic religion

(to Self-realization) and Buddhism (to the state of Nirvana) do not

appear identical because the means of reaching the destination are

mile apart!.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: While browsing over the Internet, I noticed this interesting

site with 15 definitions (or understanding) of `Nirvana.' These

distinctive definitions confirm why we need to pay more attention

while making comparisons between philosophies with distinct religious

paths.

 

 

advaitin, "Charles the Bald"

<charles_the_bald@h...> wrote:

> I didn't quite follow this, maybe Ram could explain further.

>

> _______________

> Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!

> http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I forgot to include the site address mentioned below and it is:

http://www.selfknowledge.com/109719.htm

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

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

wrote:

>

> Note: While browsing over the Internet, I noticed this interesting

> site with 15 definitions (or understanding) of `Nirvana.' These

> distinctive definitions confirm why we need to pay more attention

> while making comparisons between philosophies with distinct

religious

> paths.

[Guest guest]

Sri Ram!

 

Just some quick comments on what you said. Basically, I am leaving

this topic behind on this list, so don't worry!

 

>Often nirvana is characterized merely as a process of the cessation

>of the states of unhappiness, satisfaction, and happiness

 

This is strictly correct only for the original Buddhism (Hinayana),

started by Buddha 5 or 6 centuries before Christ. This was a

religion primarily of ethics and self control. Rather pessimistic.

This variety of Buddhism has been somewhat revived in India among the

Dalits, which is perhaps why you think all Buddhism is like this.

 

>Vedanta recognizes that the root cause of human suffering is due to

>misidentification (due to ignorance) of SELF as body-mind-intellect.

>The attitude of detachment means ...

 

The later Mahayana Buddhism, which has died out in India but which

survives in Far Asia, has many ideas very similar to Self

Realization, in my opinion. It is clear to me that there was

significant interaction between Mahayana and Advaita starting around

the time of Christ and culminating around the time of Shankara. I am

not a professional scholar but have read some. I will continue this

on my site.

 

I do want to say that the language between Mahayana and Advaita can

often be strikingly similar. I once gave a long sequence of quotes

on this list (can't remember the message number), but didn't get much

of a response, which surprised me.

 

Regarding the Vedas, let me just say that if I am right that there

are fundamental similarities between Mahayana and Advaita, then of

course Mahayana was *indirectly* influenced by the ancient Vedas.

This is not so surprising. We have seen cases in academia where

professors build careers on the ideas of others without giving full

acknowledgement. It is called plagiarism. But in religion it serves

a good cause, so it is OK.

 

Anyhow, in discussing Advaita and Buddhism, it seems we have each had

our own idea of Buddhism, which contributed to the confusion.

Because Shankara is such a towering figure in Advaita, it is clearer

what Advaitic doctrine is. Buddha did not serve the same role,

because the many schools of Buddhism all claimed that they were

recording the words of the Buddha. Sometimes magical stories were

invented for how these words were 'rediscovered' and how Buddha had

different messages for different people. What matters is that

individual Advaitic or Buddhist sages that we trust have achieved a

state of consciousness worth emulating.

 

It is probably better to plunge wholeheartedly into the school of

your choice and follow it to he end. That would be best for sadhana.

I am simply fascinated by comparative religion, as some are

fascinated by butterflies.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Benjamin:

 

I truly admire your enthusiasm and let me thank you for sharing your

thoughts and insights on the similarities between Advaita and

Buddhism. I agree with most of what you have said. The list members

and the moderators are fully aware about your keen interest in the

comparative analysis of various religious philosophies.

 

The new list, "Clearvoid" list is an excellent forum where you will

have ample of opportunities to complete your enquiry. You are certain

to get enthusiastic reception by the members of the new list who will

have parallel interests like you.

 

Whenever you complete a series of comparative analysis, please post a

summary of those discussions in this forum. Many members of this list

would love to read such a well written summary by an expert editor

like you. Those summaries will provide insights and also will become

a useful resource for enhancing the knowledge of advaita philosophy.

I do believe those summaries certainly fall within the scope of this

list.

 

This list will remain open to new insights and such insights are

helpful means to further enhance our understanding and appreciation

of Sankara's advaita philosophy. At the same time, the list wants to

focus primarily on Shankara's advaita philsophy and consequently the

list will limit discussions when they tend to diverge away from its

scope.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>

>

> I am simply fascinated by comparative religion, as some are

> fascinated by butterflies.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

The fundamental difference between Advaita and any other

philosophy is the ignoring of dream and sleep states, and their

relationship to the waking state.

 

It would be educative to know if a refutation of Mandukya

Upanishad or Gaudapada Karika and Shankara Bhashya on them, has ever

been successfully launched.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

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

wrote:

> This list will remain open to new insights and such insights are

> helpful means to further enhance our understanding and appreciation

> of Sankara's advaita philosophy. At the same time, the list wants

to

> focus primarily on Shankara's advaita philsophy and consequently

the

> list will limit discussions when they tend to diverge away from its

> scope.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji

>It would be educative to know if a refutation of Mandukya

>Upanishad or Gaudapada Karika and Shankara Bhashya on them,

>has ever been successfully launched.

 

I am a big fan of Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada Karika. I

consider these texts to be the closest in Advaita to both Mahayana

Buddhism and what I call 'subjective idealism'. I think this is the

viewpoint of those who spend the most time in Samadhi and the least

time interacting with the world. Shankara may have been slightly

more 'realistic' in his outlook, because of his considerable

interaction with the world. Just my speculation.

 

You are also right that Avaita raises some deep questions with the

topic of deep sleep. Deep sleep is to me one of the most mysterious

aspects of my consciousness.

 

Readers can find both Madukya and Karika at

 

http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/mandukya.htm

 

translated by Swami Nikhilananda.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

Ramana Maharshi was an adept in 'interacting' with the world

and remain in samadhi ['sahaja nirvikalpa'] simultaneously! He chose

the purest advaita texts to instruct those who sought his wisdom.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

> I am a big fan of Mandukya Upanishad and Gaudapada Karika. I

> consider these texts to be the closest in Advaita to both Mahayana

> Buddhism and what I call 'subjective idealism'. I think this is

the

> viewpoint of those who spend the most time in Samadhi and the least

> time interacting with the world. Shankara may have been slightly

> more 'realistic' in his outlook, because of his considerable

> interaction with the world. Just my speculation.

>

> You are also right that Advaita raises some deep questions with the

> topic of deep sleep. Deep sleep is to me one of the most

mysterious

> aspects of my consciousness.

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

>> Readers can find both Madukya and Karika at

>

> http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/mandukya.htm

>

> translated by Swami Nikhilananda.

>

 

Namaste,

 

There is a fine collection of translated texts at:

 

http://www.geocities.com/hindu_shastras/

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji,

>Ramana Maharshi was an adept in 'interacting' with the world

>and remain in samadhi ['sahaja nirvikalpa'] simultaneously! He chose

>the purest advaita texts to instruct those who sought his wisdom.

 

 

If there is anything that fascinates me more than the 'formless'

samadhi of deep meditation - which I can *barely* comprehend - it is

the samadhi of interaction with the world. In other words, I can

somewhat understand 'dwelling in unity' if we are deep in meditation

with no sense-objects to distract us. But to remain in purity and

unity while interacting with the 'circus' of the phenomenal world is

a neat trick indeed! (Though not a circus trick!)

 

Thank you for the references.

 

Regarding the old Advaita vs. Buddhism debate... Your mention of

Ramana has made me think a bit and has produced a change of heart. I

like to think of myself as basically an 'American individualist' ...

though hopefully without too much ego. So applying that

'individualism' to the spiritual realm, I now realize that what I

really care about is *individual* spiritual masters whom I can have

faith in ... Ramana, Nisargadatta, Shankara, Buddha, Bodhidharma,

Hui Neng, ... The brand name becomes somewhat irrelevant.

 

Now an interesting question is how a mere unrealized seeker such as

myself can know for sure whom to have faith in. How can I really

know? Did not Ramana say that only a sage knows a sage? Yet I do

have complete faith in Ramana, Nisargadatta, etc. Somehow I can just

tell that either they are it, or the entire universe is a vast cosmic

joke. The latter is not a respectable scientific explanation, so I

choose the alternative.

 

Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Benjamin Root <orion777ben>

wrote:

> Now an interesting question is how a mere unrealized seeker such as

> myself can know for sure whom to have faith in. How can I really

> know? Did not Ramana say that only a sage knows a sage? Yet I do

> have complete faith in Ramana, Nisargadatta, etc. Somehow I can

just

> tell that either they are it, or the entire universe is a vast

cosmic

> joke.

 

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

As Ramana, and others, have re-iterated countless times, it

is not the 'body' one has to have faith in, but the teachings and how

they themselves practised them. Faith and sincerity in one's own self

is the critical issue. The teachings that the Masters convey will

then come to one's rescue as suits that particular person at

different times. As the Gita puts it, faith is the reflection of the

degree to which one's 'sAttvik' character conforms.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder