Buddhism is the same as Advaita

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Madathilji,

 

Thankyou for pointing out the similarity. I recognize that even this

not contrary to holding a pramana, though it is far from accepting a

pramana. It is difficult to note this since not being contrary to

some opinion does not mean acceptance of authority and neither does

it mean having a different opinion. That means opinions may be the

same, but accepting somebody else's opinion as authority on something

about which no opinion is adequate is a different matter.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste dadiji,

 

A poet couldn't do better. Thankyou. But what about my queries on the

path to realization of the Truth?

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

> > When I said 'Buddhism is same as Advaita' I meant that their

> > essence is the same.

>

> But there is no essence in Buddhism. :-)

>

 

That is chauvinism and entirely opposed to the spirit of a debate in

Vedanta. Even a buddhist can say "There is no essence in Advaita.".

It will lead nowhere and will only result in more strife. The attempt

was not to show any of any in poor light but to show them as both

having the same essence. If you still don't agree, so be it.

>

> > Besides the sameness between two things cannot be on one basis

> > in one school of thought and the other basis in another school

> > of thought. Samanya/jati is the basis everwhere for sameness

> > between two objects

>

> That's interesting. Then why does Mahayana Buddhism refuse to

believe

> in jati? I would think that samanya would make the Buddhist drop

his

> pretensions of momentariness.

>

 

Good point. Mahayana doesn't make an assertion that the world has the

same nature as Brahman. It simply doesn't make any assertion at all.

So the sameness in the nature of Brahman and that of the world is not

refuted, but not asserted either. Therefore there is no need for

jati. In Advaita on the contrary, to support the sameness of the

nature of Brahman and the universe, jati/samanya are necessary.

 

Note however, that while it is good to make the observation that

Brahman's nature is that of the world, it has not served the purpose:

Countless advaitins still don't know the ultimate truth. Again in the

same light note that not asserting anything has also led to the same

result: Countless Buddhists still don't know the Truth.

 

The point is, asserting or not assreting should not be our subject of

focus. Ours on the contrary should be practice and realization.

Therefore in essence, for the true sadhaka, to whom this assertion or

non-assertion of the Ultimate Truth means nothing, the essence of

Mahayana and Advaita are the same.

> It is true that words do not reach Brahman, the Source of words,

but

> that does not mean that words are inefficient. In Vedanta, Brahman

> creates the universe through words. A Buddhist may belittle words,

> but a Vedantist does not. The Vedas are eternally in Brahman and

they

> are the sphurana of Brahman.

>

 

"The nature of Brahman is the same as that of the world. The

ignorance of this is an illusion, caused by incorrect cognition."

 

I have wordified the Truth in Vedas, the Upanishads and Advaita. Have

you now realized the truth? (I mean no offense sir. Please don't

misunderstand me.) I agree that the Vedas speak only the truth of the

Brahman, but what if they do so? I haven't realized the truth. So

many of us haven't. It is in this sense that words are inefficient.

Anubhuti or practice will lead to correct cognition, and then after

realization, the words become useless in describing the truth. They

were useless before the realization and after it. When are they

efficient?

 

The above must not be misunderstood to think that Vedas are useless.

The answer to the above question is: They are useful, when studied in

right measure, during the process that the sadhak undertakes to

attain liberation.

> In Buddhism, there is no substratum, and naturally

> the jagat "becomes" shunya.

 

If I make the statement

 

'The mirage has no nature of itself.'

 

it is not wrong, but is not the same as

 

'The mirage looks like a lake.' (which is also correct, for a thirsty

person)

 

Again note that by merely stating that it has no nature of itself, a

lake does not become shunya. Now the following concept is required

for understanding:

 

'There exists a lake' (drawn as analogy for 'There is He, Brahman')

 

But if I don't say that the mirage looks like the lake, I don't need

to make this assertion either. Note this assertion is not wrong, for

there does exist at least one lake. But the non-assertion (silence in

the matter of the existence of a lake) does not make a lake shunya.

>From this analogy, how can jagat become shunya, when no substartum is

present? Please don't misunderstand. I am still not able to see the

concept of shunya from your viewpoint. From my viewpoint they both

appear perfectly valid.

> Most Advaitins have respect for the Buddha, and indeed accept him

as

> one of the Hindu avataras.

 

I donot consider him to be an avatara, though I have respect for him.

I donot accept the concept of avatara used for anyone, even Shankara

or Ramakrishna. They were surely great saints, but that they were

avataras is something I don't know about. What is the necessity for

me to accept this? How is it going to aid me in realizing the truth?

 

Please don't misunderstand me.

> > True knowledge is one's own anubhuti,

>

> No, true knowledge is independent of the intellect and experience -

> it is simply what is. This is the Advaita view. The "attainment of

> knowledge" is strictly not an experience. So, let's not try to

> describe it. Those that are "liberated" say that there is no

> difference between samsara and liberation. Bondage is a myth. (Ah,

> but what a myth! Maya is "truly" anirvacaniya!)

 

 

Would you like it if I say, "True knowledge comes through

realization/liberation"? It appears the word Anubhuti doesn't please

you, but you still hold that the truly knowledgable ones are the

realized souls and the liberated souls.

>

> > through one's OWN EFFORT (I mean no God will make an effort

> > for you)

>

> Who is the one that makes an effort and who is God?

 

 

If no one makes an effort and whiles the time off, how will it be?

If God were to make any effort for us (in place of us), why don't we

all simply sit and wait for him to liberate us? He is supposed to

have infinite mercy, why didn't he liberate us right away. Here the

term God refers to the one used in popular Hinduism. Not the absolute

Brahman thingy.

>

> Again, please don't misunderstand what I am saying. I have much

> sympathy with your desire to find a common base between Buddhism

and

> Advaita - and I think there is much that is common - but there is

> also a vast difference between the doctrines of the two

philosophies.

 

Be sure, I don't misunderstand anyone. Please hold your view as it

is, and let us stop this futile effort of trying to refute or

establish that which was never ever said. I never meant to post this

message to call for a global unity of Advaita and Buddhism. That it

is perhaps not possible right now, is something I accept.

 

The idea of the post was to urge the seeker to see that such

differences in schools of thought in matters we don't know anything

about, should not concern us. The practice should be our primary

concern.

 

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Dear Balaji,

 

> > > When I said 'Buddhism is same as Advaita' I meant that

> > > their essence is the same.

> >

> > But there is no essence in Buddhism. :-)

>

> That is chauvinism and entirely opposed to the spirit of a

> debate in Vedanta. Even a buddhist can say "There is no

> essence in Advaita.".

 

 

When I said there is no essence in Buddhism, I meant that Buddhists

do not believe in essences. :-)

 

Let this discussion now rest in peace.

 

Om Shanti.

 

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Balaji!

 

you wanted to know the "truth"

 

Remember

 

 

You need not tell the truth,

unless to those who have

a right to know it all.

 

But let all you tell

be truth.

 

so, you think Buddha is not one of the Ten AVATRARS? ok? does it

matter ? as long as you have a Buddha-mind whether Shri Ramakrishna

or even Buddha was an avatara?

 

Your daadi is just thinking out aloud...

[Guest guest]

Thank you dadiji,

 

Do I have the right to know the path to realize the truth? I don't

want to know the truth from you or anyone. I want to know the path.

But your advice of accepting someone as a guru is fine with me. I

have accepted (though have not been initiated) H H Sringeri

Pithadhipati as a physical guru. But that is a personal matter. My

own guru, I have to finally come to a conclusion will have to be

discrimination or Viveka.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

My sweet Grand-son (sun )

 

Of course! You have the rightto know the path to realize the Truth!

not only the right, but a RESPONSIBILITY as a human being that too

male of the species ...

 

AS our beloved ADI SHANKARA says in Viveka chudamani verses 3 and

5 ...

 

These three things are hard to achieve, and are attained only by the

grace of God - human nature, the desire for liberation, and finding

refuge with a great sage.

 

Who could be more foolish than the man who has achieved the difficult

attainment of a human body and even manhood but still neglects his

true good? 5

 

SO, my SWEET grandson you are on the right Track!

 

But Dadiji is not 'fit' or qualified to Teach you about "truth", not

yet, anyway!

 

I am delighted you are approaching the H H Sringeri Pithadhipati as

a physical guru.

 

this is great news - the Rajaguru !

 

with viveka , one needs "vinaya" too!

 

read the following opening verse from adi shankara's shatpadi

stotra

 

 

Avinayam apanaya vishno amaya manah

samaya vishaya mriga-trishnaam;

Boota dayaam vistaaraya Taaraya samsaara saagaratah

 

 

IN the Shatpadee Stotra, Sri Adi Sankara prays to God to remove

Avinaya, evils like arrogance, which are opposite qualities to

Vinaya. Then Sri Adi Sankara prays to God to keep his mind under

control (Damaya manah). When the mind is brought under control,

it will cease to race after transient pleasures, and

will remain steady in the thought of God. The next

prayer is to eradicate the desires prompted by the

senses. (Samaya vishaya mrigatrishnaam) when we no longer

hanker after worldly pleasures. (LIKE NAME, FAME,ETC) .

 

So Sri Adi Sankara next prays to enlarge his

compassion for all creation (Bhoota dayaam vistraaraya).

When the mind is so elevated spiritually step by step,

the inevitable result will be the end of birth and

death or the crossing of the ocean of Samsaara. So he

prays, Taaraya samsara saagaratah.

 

(courtesy- kamakoti.org)

 

**********************************************************************

Bala-ji! i am real proud of you...

 

as far as your profile is considered, do not worry! chasing girls is

not a 'sin' at your age ! it is quite normal ... i have children your

age ... they never apologize about having girl/boy friends ! this is

quite healthy!

 

((((((((((((((((hugs)))))))))))))))))))

[Guest guest]

Dear Balaji,

 

It is the greatest thing in the world to find a Guru. The Guru will

show you the path as well as the truth. The Guru is the truth. The

Guru is your Self in human form that "takes you" to the Self. Without

the Guru, your discrimination and Viveka will abandon you. Viveka

gets easily hijacked by the ego, and it is the Guru that makes the

ego bow down to let the sword of Viveka take you to the Truth.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

> Thank you dadiji,

>

> Do I have the right to know the path to realize the truth? I don't

> want to know the truth from you or anyone. I want to know the path.

> But your advice of accepting someone as a guru is fine with me. I

> have accepted (though have not been initiated) H H Sringeri

> Pithadhipati as a physical guru. But that is a personal matter. My

> own guru, I have to finally come to a conclusion will have to be

> discrimination or Viveka.

>

> Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji,

 

Your advice is well taken. I shall require more time on the Guru

thing. But I'm going to find it difficult with my special

requirements of 'I can't take up sanyas now' thingy. I think, more is

required for me to do before even seeking a Guru.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Grand son-ji!

 

You have found a guru or rather the guru has found you ! so, what is

this special requirement you are talking about ? why sanyas? there

are many who have taken shelter at the lotus feet of a Guru without

taking to 'sanyas'?

 

Balaji ! You already said 'voveka' is your guru... You are already

endowed with 'vairagya' ... once you cultivate 'vinaya' , you are all

set! ready to roll!

 

this is what Lord Krishna advised Arjuna, ANOTHER FAVORITE VERSE OF

MINE ...

 

tad viddhi pranipatena

pariprasnena sevaya

upadeksyanti te jnanam

jnaninas tattva-darsinah

[bg. 4.34]

 

For knowledge we have got to go to the right person, tattva-darsi.

Tattva-darsi means "one who has actually seen or experienced the

Absolute Truth." So unless we find out such a person who has actually

seen the Absolute Truth or who has in his experience what is Absolute

Truth, so there is very little chance of our spiritual advancement.

 

If we can find out such a person who is experienced in the Absolute

Truth, and if we follow the principles, as it is stated here,

pranipatena pariprasnena sevaya. Pranipata means to surrender, and

pariprasna means to inquire, and sevaya means service. Three things.

You should find out a person who is self-realized, who has experience

in the Absolute Truth, and, on your part, you have to surrender

there, and you have to inquire, and you have to render service. When

these things are completed, there is no doubt about one's spiritual

salvation.

 

If we have actually found out a person who is self-realized and we

have surrendered there honestly, with inquiry and service, then we

must know that our spiritual salvation is guaranteed. Guaranteed.

There is no doubt about it.

 

(FROM THE WEB)

 

So you have found the Guru ! his HH Sringeri swamigal himself ! What

is stopping you, dear one?

 

Take the plunge! swim , swim till you reach the shoreless ocean of

Brahman!!!

 

my infinite blessings ! may be after you realize the Truth, you can

give me Diksha!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

> Namaste Chittaranjanji,

>

> Your advice is well taken. I shall require more time on the Guru

> thing. But I'm going to find it difficult with my special

> requirements of 'I can't take up sanyas now' thingy. I think, more

is

> required for me to do before even seeking a Guru.

>

> Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Well dadiji,

 

It was something that set me thinking when someone today urged me to

consider, why I do not wish to take up sanyas. Are you sure I don't

need sanyas right now? Please understand that recognizing that all of

you are much older than me, I am taking your advice very seriously.

 

So kindly advice after thought, it is easy to have an advicing

attitude, the moment you find someone young. But let's not make a

mistake..... You are dealing with someone really sensitive to the

issue of anubhuti. Just today, someone in this group told me to think

of sanyas. (I don't remember who said that) and now, suddenly I don't

need sanyas!!! Please give me sane advice only if you think you have

the authority to do so. (The question is not whether I think you have

the authority, the question is 'Do you think you have the authority.')

 

Since you are all older than me, I am taking your advice very

seriously. So, dadiji, I seek your advice. And so do I seek advice

from others.

 

As far as accepting H H Saradapeetham as guru is concerned, I cannot

approach him to help me gain anubhuti with the precondition that I

don't want to take sanyas. He will simply drive me away. How can he

teach a person, who cannot remain with him 24 hrs, who cannot take

sanyas..... And then, why would he want to take me as disciple, there

are so many others. Hence, he can at best be accepted at heart as a

spiritual guru. (i.e. mentally)

 

Approaching him, like many others do, for mantra upadesha is not

correct in my opinion. In my opinion, it is not the right treatment

of a guru. He himself doesn't seem to enjoy it. So I have had to come

to the conclusion that viveka will have to be my guru as long as I

find a person willing to teach me. I can spare a few days at length

to reside with him, learn something and come back, put things to

practice and so on. This is my position.

 

As far as Viveka losing to ego is concerned (told by Chittaranjanji)

I am still thinking how I plan to circumvent the problem. I guess

right now I should just let it to my past deeds to determine the

course of eventualities with respect to ego and viveka.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

>

> Approaching him, like many others do, for mantra upadesha is not

> correct in my opinion. In my opinion, it is not the right

treatment

> of a guru. He himself doesn't seem to enjoy it.

 

 

Why is it not correct in your opinion? Are there reeaosn?

 

Are you saying HH or any teahcer does not enjoy doing mantra japa?

 

If so, how do you know that? Where did you get that impression

from?

 

SA.

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

I think I wrote as to why I think the following in response to the

following question posted here. But somehow, it does not appear here.

I am sending it again.

> > Approaching him, like many others do, for mantra upadesha is not

> > correct in my opinion. In my opinion, it is not the right

> treatment

> > of a guru. He himself doesn't seem to enjoy it.

>

>

> Why is it not correct in your opinion? Are there reeaosn?

>

> Are you saying HH or any teahcer does not enjoy doing mantra japa?

>

> If so, how do you know that? Where did you get that impression

> from?

>

> SA.

 

When I recently went to Sringeri and while trying to get his grace

and darshan, my family and I were visiting him. Just then, someone

just before us asked His Holiness for a mantra upadesha. His Holiness

replied as such (he spoke in Tamil. I shall translate it for you.)

 

'Why do you want this mantra? If everyone keeps asking for such

upadesha (I cant translate the words 'adhu rasikkadu' better. He

meant, it is not enjoyable.) The mantras are in the Upanishad. One

such mantra needs no upadesha at all. Chant that if need be'

 

This incident was in front of me. There was a second such incident

which happened long time ago. Possibly before my birth. (I was told

of this event later) My father approached H H Sri Mahasannidhanam for

a mantra upadesha. What actually happened, I don't know. But this is

being recounted to me for years and I don't have any reason to think

it may be told incorrectly to me intentionally:

 

'What is the use of a mantra? The whole world is mad about it. It is

not a magic spell, that will enlighten you one fine day.'

 

He then said:

 

'A mantra is like a walking stick used by a handicapped person. Can a

handicap climb a mountain with his stick in hand? He will have to

learn to walk without it first. Then learn to run and then to climb.

His first step towards his goal of climbing the mountain is to leave

his walking stick aside and learn to walk. He may fall, but he must

persevere. This attachment to a mantra will never help you reach your

goal.'

 

When insisted he asked:

 

'Do you do your sandhyavandanams? You are a brahmin. Do you do them

regularly?'

 

Finally when satisfactorily answered, he said:

'Ok, since you are insisting, I shall do this upadesha. Come tomorrow

morning after snanam.'

 

Again a similar incident occured with someone else recently.

 

Please note that I am not against the use of a mantra. Those who wish

to may do so without any problems. These incidents led me to think

that H H may not be enjoying upadesha of mantras. I am confident

however, that he must be enjoying japa of the mantras. But why would

a teacher of the universe not like to do this upadesha? The best

possible answer to that is that he may not think that it leads to the

complete cessation of our sorrow. (Please read Ch 1 Yogavasishtha

Samhita 'Sorrow of Rama', to understand this, just like I had to

finally conclude.)

 

Please do not misunderstand me. I agree with those who would still

emphasize on the importance of chanting. I do agree with him/her and

am not against his ideas. Please, I cannot say that it would lead to

the complete cessation of all sorrow, even though I agree they may be

important.

 

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Hello,

 

On the other hand, there are people whom he initiates into Srividya

etc.

 

Some of HH's suggestions are for that particular individual(s).

They may not be taken as applying to everyone in this world.

 

There is a mention of one incident with ChandraShekhara Bharati

swami, where he clearly mentioned to other ppl watching him give

some advice to a gentleman, that, that particular suggestion is not

for them.

 

Rgds

 

> Please note that I am not against the use of a mantra. Those who

wish

> to may do so without any problems. These incidents led me to think

> that H H may not be enjoying upadesha of mantras. I am confident

> however, that he must be enjoying japa of the mantras. But why

would

> a teacher of the universe not like to do this upadesha? The best

> possible answer to that is that he may not think that it leads to

the

> complete cessation of our sorrow. (Please read Ch 1 Yogavasishtha

> Samhita 'Sorrow of Rama', to understand this, just like I had to

> finally conclude.)

>

> Please do not misunderstand me. I agree with those who would still

> emphasize on the importance of chanting. I do agree with him/her

and

> am not against his ideas. Please, I cannot say that it would lead

to

> the complete cessation of all sorrow, even though I agree they may

be

> important.

>

>

> Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam