New Member

[Guest guest]

Dear Moderators and members,

 

Thankyou for giving me a chance to be part of this group. I am

traditionally a Buddhist, but to me Buddhist or Hindu or Christian do

not make a difference. There are only two kinds of people -

enlightened ones and non-enlightened ones. After reading through the

English translation of the Yogavasishtha Samhita, I thought that

Vedanta does not appear to be dissimilar to the teachings of the

Tathagata. But I still had some doubts - hence I joined here.

 

I know little about Advaita in general and shall mostly be silent on

the group. I understand that Hindus (even if they claim to be

Vedantists) generally donot like Buddhists, or the method of

enlightenment of the Buddha as against their idea of God realization,

but I hope that you can tolerate the "presence" of a silent spectator,

who promises not to indulge in your personal beleifs.

 

I may have some incorrect notions about Advaita, and beg you to

correct me if I am wrong. I have some doubts which I shall be grateful

to get clarified. I shall be mum while reading - please donot think

that absence of replies indicate any disagreement or disinterest.

 

1. Advaita Vedanta is essentially monotheistic for the non-enlightened

one and non-theistic for the enlightened one. i.e., There is a change

in the Supreme truth depending on one's state of enlightenment. I

heard that Sankara a famous propounder of Advaita has written, that

when one is enlightened, God vanishes and the Vedas have no meaning.

This then means that truth changes with dependence on conditions. Then

how do we call it "Truth" if it is subject to change?

 

2. The body is supposed to be mundane and the Self supreme. Then how

do bodily differences such as gender or caste decide spiritual

upliftment? If not then why is Veda or Upanishad the forte of only

Brahmans or 'twice borns'? Does the caste and gender apply to the Self

also?

 

3. A major problem that we face with understanding Advaita is that it

claims to be very scientific, but imposes blind beleif in God and

Veda. One may claim that it is only like the faith in the words of an

elder brother, but in that case we can point out an error in the elder

brother's statement and can question it. However Vedanta does not

allow one to question the Vedas. This is not at all scientific.

 

4. I have heard that Sankara did not decry or condemn animal

sacrifices, nor did he practice them. His silence in the matter does

not clearly tell us anything about his opinion of 'Ahimsa'. This is

disturbing to us "Buddhists", because we are not supposed to kill

animals at any cost. Ethics and morals to us are the foundations of

Dhamma and any amount of metaphysical discussions is futile without

adherence to them. Similar is the astounding case of Nisargadatta

Maharaj who smoked cigarettes and claimed enlightenment.

 

I shall stop here for want of brevity. I hope you can clarify these

points.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

praNAm-s all,

 

Bhikku yogi-ji, welcome to the group. I'm sure you'll get better replies

than this, but I'll try to say some things in the process of learning,

myself. Before I start, let me say it out that *no one* stopped anyone from

questioning the veda/vedaanta. Thats the reason we have so many bhaashya-s

on scriptures, including debates. This, you can see here in this list also.

I would also like to mention here that in my replies, I've included as many

references to texts as you have, that is: zero!

 

Bhikku yogi-ji wrote:

1. ...There is a change in the Supreme truth depending on one's state of

enlightenment... truth changes with dependence on conditions. Then how do we

call it "Truth" if it is subject to change?

 

praveen:

There are two angles to looking at things: vyavhaaric & paramaarthic. The

Truth is the same, but as seen through Maya it *appears* different. Its like

watching the world through coloured glasses. Or as Ramakrishna Paramahamsa

puts it, the person with jaundice sees the world yellow, though it is not

so. What Shankara says has a deeper meaning than such straightforward

interpretation. Consider a flowing river merging into the sea. Would it be

wrong to say that the river vanishes into the sea? The water is still the

same while being a river or a sea. Why should the river waters, once having

become one with the sea waters, care whether there's sea or river?

 

 

Bhikku yogi-ji wrote:

2. The body is supposed to be mundane and the Self supreme. Then how do

bodily differences such as gender or caste decide spiritual upliftment? If

not then why is Veda or Upanishad the forte of only Brahmans or 'twice

borns'? Does the caste and gender apply to the Self also?

 

praveen:

Nothing says that gender & caste decide spiritual upliftment! They only

decide the dharma to follow, that has more to do with vyavhaaric than

paramaarthic. Shankara says that with (only) Vedic followings, etc, one can

get heaven, at most, not moksha. There have been other achaarya-s who have

elaborated that not following vedic dharma (eg, sandhyaa) gathers sins, but

following them doesn't accrue virtues. Back to spirituality, following one's

dharma in any gender or caste purifies the person while *study* of

scriptures (vs. performing rituals), per se, is open to everyone. Of course,

the said attributes don't apply to the Self.

 

 

Bhikku yogi-ji wrote:

3. A major problem that we face with understanding Advaita is that it claims

to be very scientific, but imposes blind beleif in God and Veda... However

Vedanta does not allow one to question the Vedas. This is not at all

scientific.

 

praveen:

If something claims itself as scientific, it should make understanding easy,

not otherwise! No one imposes beliefs on others in advaita. Any scientific

process ought to provide steps and that advaita very much does with its

*neti-neti* refutation. And definitely no advaitic text talks of Gods

(unless you're reading highly superficially in some rare cases). The other

part is commented upon at the start of my mail.

 

 

Bhikku yogi-ji wrote:

4. I have heard that Sankara did not decry or condemn animal sacrifices, nor

did he practice them... This is disturbing to us "Buddhists", because we are

not supposed to kill animals at any cost. Ethics and morals to us are the

foundations of Dhamma and any amount of metaphysical discussions is futile

without adherence to them... Nisargadatta Maharaj who smoked cigarettes and

claimed enlightenment.

 

praveen:

Shankara may not have considered this important at all in his *vedaantic*

works. I've read Shankara commenting on animal sacrifices in passing though,

wherein he's just stated what veda says about these. Personally, I feel

you're mixing up things; Nisargadatta never claimed of (traditional) advaita

following. Next, you may be contradicting yourself from your point 1 where

things needn't change after enlightenment, as there's supposed to be one

Truth. All N. Maharaj said was that you saw him smoking cigarettes earlier

and you see him doing so later; he never changed himself, nor did he find

the need to do so. As a related point on ethics and morals (as they're

defined by society/whoever) may I remind you of a Buddhist story where a

senior monk was accompanied by a junior monk and while crossing a water

stream, the senior helped a beautiful young woman across, carrying her on

his back. Later the junior brought this morality/ethics issue and the senior

said: "why are you still carrying the woman (in your thoughts) while I

dropped her across the waters?"

 

Sorry for my ignorance, but I wonder if all Buddhists follow this *rule* of

ahimsa. I've read about monks in Tibet who consume (yak?) meat in the

terrible cold for need of *survival*.

 

jai bajrangabali,

--praveen

[Guest guest]

[bhikku Yogi wrote:]

>

> I understand that Hindus (even if they claim to be

> Vedantists) generally donot like Buddhists, or the method of

> enlightenment of the Buddha as against their idea of God realization,

 

** Please please do not have such misconceptions. Yes, there were

debates in ancient times between between Vedic schools such as

Vedanta on the one hand and Buddhist schools like Vijnanavada on the

other. At the same time, there were debates between various Vedic

schools as well (as also between various Buddhist schools). But that

certainly does not translate into any kind of hatred, or at least it

was nothing in comparison to the kind that existed/exists between

other communities.

 

Buddhism and Hinduism grew out of the same civilization that gave to

the world such concepts as dharma, karma, samsara and punarjanma.

Though Patanjali's Yoga is a Vedic school, many yogic concepts are

found in Buddhism as well, as your own name indicates. Tantra is

another discipline that is common to both, and the Vajrayana Buddhism

of Tibet is in many ways similar to the Hinduism of the Indian

subcontinent.

 

The fact remains that even though it did not affirm the Vedas,

Buddhism built upon Vedic concepts. Without the Upanishads, there

would have been no Buddhism. And even though Advaita Vedanta builds

upon the Upanishads, the Gita and the Brahmasutras, I seriously doubt

if it would have emerged the way it did had there been no Buddhism.

 

Also, in ancient India, sectarian afflilations were largely restricted

to monks, priests and the like. "Buddhist" essentially meant "Buddhist

monk". Similarly "Vedantin" essentially referred to sanyasis like

Shankara. For commoners, there was no real distinction between the

Vedic and the Buddhist. Of course, a commoner might hold a Buddhist

school in high esteem, but he might simultaneously revere a Vedic

school.

 

To a fair extent, this syncretism persists even today in India among

the indigenous traditions. For example, Hindus & Sikhs commonly visit

each others' temples and read each others' scriptures. Buddhism has

had a long "off period" in most parts of the subcontinent, and so this

syncretism is less evident. But you can still see it in some areas,

such as Nepal. You can also see a similar syncretism between Taoism

and Buddhism in China, or between Shintoism and Buddhism in Japan.

 

Indeed for many Indians (including myself) Hinduism actually refers to

all the deeply interlinked spiritual traditions of the subcontinent,

and not merely to the Vedic tradition. I have visited quite a few

Buddhist temples/monasteries in the subcontinent and certainly feel at

home in them.

 

Swami Vivekananda, a Vedantin, famously said that Buddhism and

Hinduism can not exist without each other. DS Sarma, in his "A primer

of Hinduism" refers to Buddhists as "heart of our heart and soul of

our soul".

 

One last point - names like Siddhartha & Rahul, and even

Tathagata/Sanghamitra are used by Hindus too. I had a childhood friend

named Tathagata and he did tell me that he was named so after Gautama,

the Buddha.

 

So I hope you realize how close the two dharma-s are.

 

Regards

Ramesh

 

PS: Is Bhikku Yogi your real name? A fairly unusual name, I must say.

[Guest guest]

Bhiku Yogi wrote:

>> 4. I have heard that Sankara did not decry or condemn animal

sacrifices, nor did he practice them. His silence in the matter does

not clearly tell us anything about his opinion of 'Ahimsa'. This is

disturbing to us "Buddhists", because we are not supposed to kill

animals at any cost. Ethics and morals to us are the foundations of

Dhamma and any amount of metaphysical discussions is futile without

adherence to them. Similar is the astounding case of Nisargadatta

Maharaj who smoked cigarettes and claimed enlightenment. <<

 

 

Dear Bhiku Yogi,

 

Just as a matter of information rather than to develop a conversation or debate

on the issue of diet. I know a number of Tibetan Buddhists, and/or those that

follow in one or another of its traditions, who do eat meat. It seems, so they

argue, that it is OK to eat meat providing one has not killed the animal oneself

and/or the animal has not been killed to feed you specifically. I can imagine

there is plenty of food for discussion here on the ethical issues of this

stance.

 

The Dalai Lama (who eats meat every other day, according to himself and his

biographers) says the following on meat diet, extracted from the article below:

 

"A Survey of the Paths of Tibetan Buddhism"

By His Holiness Tenzin Gyatso, 14th Dalai Lama of Tibet

 

[extract….]

 

<snip>

The Buddhist position with regard to diet, even as it is presented in monastic

discipline, with the exception of the flesh of certain specific animals, is that

there is no general prohibition of meat. Monks in Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand

eat meat.

In the scriptural collections of the Bodhisattvas, eating meat is generally

prohibited. However, the prohibition is not very strict. In his text called

Heart of the Middle Way, Bhaviveka deals with the question of vegetarianism in

the Buddhist way of life, and concludes that since the animal is already dead

when its meat is eaten, it is not directly affected. What is prohibited is

eating meat which you know or suspect has been killed for you.

In the three lower classes of tantras, eating meat is strictly prohibited.

But in the Highest Yoga Tantra, practitioners are recommended to partake of the

five meats and five nectars. The perfect practitioner of Highest Yoga Tantra is

someone who is able to transform the five meats and five nectars into purified

substances through the power of meditation, and is then able to utilize them to

enhance the body's energy. But if someone tried to justify eating meat by

claiming to be a Highest Yoga Tantra practitioner, when they came to eat the

five meat and nectars they could not be choosy, relishing some and rejecting the

others in disgust.

<snip>

 

( from: http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/4886/dalai2.htm )

 

Kind regards,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

I am on the same side of fence with Sri Praveen, however,

 

Sri Praveen.R.Bhat wrote:

 

"Back to spirituality, following one's dharma in any gender or caste

purifies the person while *study* of scriptures (vs. performing

rituals), per se, is open to everyone."

 

The second part of the sentence needs to be qualified. Many advaitin

achAryas still insist on upanayanam before starting the study of

upanishads and as bhikku yogi has correctly pointed out, it is given

to "twice borns" only.

 

However, let us also realize that advaita teachings have come to us

through a culture that evolved its rituals and beliefs much earlier

than the arrival of concepts of egalitarianism etc. It would be unfair

to demand why their rituals could not be framed so as to suit the

sensibilities of all the people for all the times. However otherwise

we may like it today, within its ritualistic framework, vedic learning

was a specialised occupation restricted to a certain class only.

 

That said, it would not be out of place to mention that within the

same framework, Gita-- which is said to be the essence of vedanta --

and numerous other prakarana granthas of the highest order which speak

nothing but vedanta-- did not require any pre-condition of upanayanam.

Why everything was not accessible to everyone is a moot point, but it

would be unfair to say that knowledge of vedanta was inaccessible to

non-dwijas. And should anyone still felt restricted in ones spiritual

growth, exceptions were always made for eligible students and more

liberally so in current times.

 

Sri Bhikku-yogi ji wrote:

 

"I have heard that Sankara did not decry or condemn animal sacrifices, nor

did he practice them... This is disturbing to us "Buddhists", because we are

not supposed to kill animals at any cost."

 

It only shows that there are differences between beliefs of buddhism

and hinduism. Whether Sankara liked animal sacrifices or not is beside

the point, but he could not have decried it as long as it is

sanctioned by vedas. Even though "ahimsa" is given emphasis in

hinduism also and it is part of tapas for every mumukshu, still it is

not an absolute ideal in itself. In fact no ideal of hinduism is

absolute in vyAvhArik stage.

 

"Ethics and morals to us are the foundations of Dhamma and any amount

of metaphysical discussions is futile without adherence to them...

Nisargadatta Maharaj who smoked cigarettes and claimed enlightenment."

 

Ethics and morals are important in hinduism upto a point. Beyond that

"ko vidhi^h, ko nisheda^h". Again this does not mean that a jnAni

starts indulging in immoral or unethical practices, but just that his

actions are naturally aligned with dharma. Nisargadatta Maharaj

in-fact ate non-vegetarian also apart from smoking cigarettes. And

while many have doubted his enlightenment on other grounds, no one

would hold his smoking and non-veg eating against him as something

essentially adhArmik that proved his non-enlightenment.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

On 8/5/05, Ramesh Murthy wrote:

> ** Please please do not have such misconceptions. Yes, there were

> debates in ancient times between between Vedic schools such as

> Vedanta on the one hand and Buddhist schools like Vijnanavada on the

> other. At the same time, there were debates between various Vedic

> schools as well (as also between various Buddhist schools). But that

> certainly does not translate into any kind of hatred, or at least it

> was nothing in comparison to the kind that existed/exists between

> other communities.

 

Just wanted to add that on philosophical matters, vedic schools

vehemently attacked Jainism also, on grounds similar to that used

against Buddhism. However, it would be foolish to conclude that Hindus

do not like Jainas or vice-versa.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

On 8/5/05, Sri Bhikkuyogi wrote:

> 1. Advaita Vedanta is essentially monotheistic for the non-enlightened

> one and non-theistic for the enlightened one.

 

For the non-enlightened one, advaita vedanta can be either

mono-theistic or poly-theistic. For the enlightened ones, it is

non-theistic. There have been vehement debates on differences of

non-theistic concept of advaita vis-s-vis buddhism, however some

realized advaitin sages such as Raman Maharshi have proclaimed them

non-contradictory on deeper levels.

> i.e., There is a change

> in the Supreme truth depending on one's state of enlightenment. I

> heard that Sankara a famous propounder of Advaita has written, that

> when one is enlightened, God vanishes and the Vedas have no meaning.

> This then means that truth changes with dependence on conditions. Then

> how do we call it "Truth" if it is subject to change?

 

As per advaita, truth is trikAlAbadhitam satyam. It is our

understanding of the truth that is subject to change, not the truth

itself.

> 3. A major problem that we face with understanding Advaita is that it

> claims to be very scientific,

 

It is incorrect to claim that advaita is "scientific" in the usual

sense of the term. No doubt many findings of modern physics and

mathematics have been found to be consistent with advaita, however,

that is beside the point. In advaita, jurisdictions of science and

shruti are separate. Conclusions of advaita cannot be used to

invalidate science neither can scientific conclusions be used to

invalidate advaita. They operate in different realms. That said, use

of scientific concepts to illustrate a point of advaita is not

inconsistent as long as the analogy is not stretched endlessly.

> but imposes blind beleif in God and

> Veda. One may claim that it is only like the faith in the words of an

> elder brother, but in that case we can point out an error in the elder

> brother's statement and can question it. However Vedanta does not

> allow one to question the Vedas. This is not at all scientific.

 

As earlier mentioned vedanta does not claim to be "scientific" in this

sense. Apauresheyatva of veda is accepted on axiomatic grounds. Among

the vedic scholars, apart from Bhagvan Madhva, no one else has

seriously tried to establish the apauresheyatva of vedas on logical

grounds. Bhagvan Madhva is, incidentally, also the most vehement

critic of advaita vedanta. His arguments about apaurusheyatva of vedas

are more or less accepted by all the three schools. I encourage you to

visit dvaita.org site to understand more about Bhagvan Madhva's

position on apaurusheyatva of vedas. However, let me caution that even

his arguments are based more on achieving internal consistency than

replying an argument from the outside. Argued purely from an outsiders

point, it is as difficult to prove the validity of shruti as validity

of any other pramANa. The reason for assuming apaurusheyatva of veda

on axiomatic grounds is same as arguing the proof of pudding is in the

eating.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhikku Yogi,

 

Welcome to the group. I found some passages from Letters on Yoga by

Sri Aurbobindo that may be of use to you:

 

"Buddha, it must be remembered, refused always to discuss what was

beyond the world. But from the little he said it would appear that he

was aware of a Permanent beyond equivalent to the Vedantic Para-

Brahman, but which he was quite unwilling to describe."

 

"The Buddhist Nirvana and the Adwaitin's Moksha are the same thing.

It corresponds to a realization in which one does not feel oneself

any longer as an individual with such a name or such a form, but an

infinite eternal Self spaceless (even when in space), timeless (even

when in time)."

 

"It [Nirvana of Buddha] is the same [as Brahman Nirvana of the Gita].

Only the Gita describes it as Nirvana in the Brahman while Buddha

preferred not to give any name or say anything about that into which

the Nirvana took place."

 

Hopefully these help and you'll begin to see the essential unity of

the teachings of Lord Buddha and of Vedanta.

 

Best wishes,

Nathan

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAm,

 

Sanjay-ji wrote:

I am on the same side of fence with Sri Praveen, however...

 

praveen:

Agreed. I submit that it was more of a wrong choice of word on my part and

here's the corrected sentence:

 

"... while *knowledge* of scriptures (vs. performing rituals), per se, is

open to everyone."

 

With the use of the word *study*, I didn't mean the veda-s, but the

puraana-s and the like that carry the core in stories simpler to understand

than the mega-complex vedic scriptures. (Bhikku yogi-ji, if it helps, some

have seen this as a *concession* than a *restriction* to non-dvijaa-s)

 

I'd also like to say that it is difficult to say whether or not Buddha's

nirvaaNa (experience) was different from sanaathana dharma's moksha (even

lingaayat's shUnya, for that matter), since Buddha kept silent about many a

things. There's a story that tells how Buddha didn't answer the Qs related

to nirvaaNa by a visitor. On the latter's leaving, Buddha drew an analog to

this and told the others so: (in my words, of course) "I was passing by a

house that was on fire and while helping the people out, they started asking

me questions on whether it was raining outside, or there's heat and such. I

calmly left from there!"

 

Bhikku yogi-ji, may I suggest that Shri Aurobindo's works or Shri RL

Kashyap's works on Veda samhita-s explain how the vedic animal sacrifices

came into being as outer yajna to preserve, as a tradition, the crux that is

inner yagna, which has nothing to do with animal sacrifices? Anyway, the

rest has been worded by Sanjay-ji.

 

krishNArpaNamastu,

--praveeN

[Guest guest]

namastE.

> Sorry for my ignorance, but I wonder if all Buddhists follow this

> *rule* of ahimsa. I've read about monks in Tibet who consume (yak?)

> meat in the terrible cold for need of *survival*.

 

Gautama Buddha was supposed to have died (of food poisoning or because

of the size of the meal) after eating a dish made of meat (Sukaramaddava

-- soft pork). Ref: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebdha192.htm

 

I think it is quite clear that vedic Indians ate meat. It may not have

been a regular part of the diet, but only on special occassions such as

a yajna. The food chain is part of nature.

 

The manu smriti advises brahmins never to refuse some varieties of meat,

fish, etc when given as a gift (dAna). However, it also says that is

much better to not eat meat at all.

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

[Peter quoted:]

>

> text called Heart of the Middle Way, Bhaviveka deals with the question of

> vegetarianism in the Buddhist way of life, and concludes that since the

> animal is already dead when its meat is eaten, it is not directly affected.

> What is prohibited is eating meat which you know or suspect has been killed

> for you.

 

** I got a somewhat similar response from a Buddhist monk in Bhutan. I

had visited Bhutan in 2002 and went to quite a few monasteries there.

Members may be aware that Buddhism in Bhutan is closely related to

Tibetan Buddhism, and Guru Padmasambhava is especially revered.

 

Unfortunately, I could not carry the discussion further. But on

subsequent interaction with my Bhutanese hosts and my own reasoning, I

came to the following conclusion:

 

A complete prohibition of meat was not practical in the Himalayan

belt, given the relative unreliability of agriculture. At least, it

was not practical not to consume the meat of an animal that died of

natural causes. Given that the animal was not killed specifically for

consumption, it was alright to consume it. However, this "leeway" has,

over the years, made meat "acceptable". Hence, today one can order

meat in Bhutanese restaurants where, quite obviously, animals are

being killed for consumption.

 

Similarly, avoiding fish is often impractical in coastal areas. True,

there are vegetarian communities in places like Tamil Nadu and Kerala,

but in percentage terms, vegetarians are more numerous in northern

India.

 

[Peter quoted the Dalai Lama:]

> In the three lower classes of tantras, eating meat is strictly

> prohibited. But in the Highest Yoga Tantra, practitioners are recommended to

> partake of the five meats and five nectars. The perfect practitioner of

> Highest Yoga Tantra is someone who is able to transform the five meats and

> five nectars into purified substances through the power of meditation, and

> is then able to utilize them to enhance the body's energy. But if someone

> tried to justify eating meat by claiming to be a Highest Yoga Tantra

> practitioner, when they came to eat the five meat and nectars they could not

> be choosy, relishing some and rejecting the others in disgust.

 

** As I mentioned in my earlier post, Tantra is a discipline that is

present in Hinduism as well as in Buddhism. I'm sure several members

of this group would be more knowledgeable than me about Tantra. But I

would like to mention here that several "against the grain" practices

in Tantra, including consumption of meat and liquor, maithuna rituals,

etc are restricted to the most advanced spiritual aspirants. One

should not "indulge" in these things for sensory pleasures. As the

Dalai Lama says, one should not relish some while rejecting others in

disgust, implying that this is permissible only when one is able to

control the senses. I believe Ramana Maharshi also said (please

correct if I am wrong) that a jivanmukta would not be affected by meat

consumption, as such a person would have already gone beyond the

senses.

 

Hari Om

Ramesh

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAm-s,

 

Ramachandra-ji wrote:

The manu smriti advises brahmins never to refuse some varieties of meat,

fish, etc when given as a gift (dAna). However, it also says that is much

better to not eat meat at all.

 

praveen:

I'm not sure if translations are correct and I've particularly doubted Max

Muller's translation that I have, but manu smriti also asserts that a

brahmin accrues sins if he refuses to eat meat offered in annadaana at a

shraadha! As you said, it mattered then at yajna-s and I'm not sure if we

have such yajna/shraddha now, when meat is cooked.

 

jai bajrangabali,

--praveen

[Guest guest]

--- bhikkuyogi <bhikkuyogi wrote:

 

I have some doubts which I shall be grateful

>

> to get clarified. I shall be mum while reading - please donot think

> that absence of replies indicate any disagreement or disinterest.

 

 

Bhikkuyogi

Pranaams and welcome to the advaitin list.

 

 

>

> 1. Advaita Vedanta is essentially monotheistic for the non-enlightened

>

> one and non-theistic for the enlightened one. i.e., There is a change

> in the Supreme truth depending on one's state of enlightenment. I

> heard that Sankara a famous propounder of Advaita has written, that

> when one is enlightened, God vanishes and the Vedas have no meaning.

> This then means that truth changes with dependence on conditions. Then

>

> how do we call it "Truth" if it is subject to change?

 

Advaita vedanta is not monotheism but non-dualism - the non- standing

for not only to duality but to -ism as well. It is non-duality inspite

of apparent duality.

 

It is oneness inspite of apparent plurality- just as gold is one while

the ornaments are many. There is no change in the superme when it is one

which is nothing but infiniteness. Gold does not change even though

ring is becoming a bangle and bangle in bracelet.

 

When one realizes what one is - there is nothing but one (adviata) which

is infinite and God does not vanish but God is understood. Hence truth

remains as truth but that apparent divisions within the truth that there

is creator and creation are undestood as one appears to be meany. It is

realization not reordering of the what it is. There is no thing to

change but understood that all changes are in the infinte and infinite

cannot change, by definition.

 

 

>

> 2. The body is supposed to be mundane and the Self supreme. Then how

> do bodily differences such as gender or caste decide spiritual

> upliftment? If not then why is Veda or Upanishad the forte of only

> Brahmans or 'twice borns'? Does the caste and gender apply to the Self

>

> also?

 

Body differences are at body level. Let me give you simple example - I

know now that all atoms are nothing but electrons, protons and neutrons.

That is a fact. Now does that make a difference in my differentiating

that this is food, this is garbage, etc.

 

The qualifications at the body (body, mind and intellect) level is only

how the matter elements are packaged, even though the essence is the

same. Some bodies are trainable as doctors, some as engineers and some

prefer to be only couch-potatos. The qualifications for admission for

any shcool is meeting the prerequisites needed for the course, is it

not. Hence those who are contemplative can pursue the path of

contempation while those who want to wark or serve the society since the

mind is less satvik, they are guided to karma yoga etc. The

classification of the mind and its growth is universal but it got

degenerated into birth rather than on the intrinsic quality.

Everyone is eligible for self-realization but the path that one needs

to take depends on his/her mental vasanaas.

> 3. A major problem that we face with understanding Advaita is that it

> claims to be very scientific, but imposes blind beleif in God and

> Veda. One may claim that it is only like the faith in the words of an

> elder brother, but in that case we can point out an error in the elder

>

> brother's statement and can question it. However Vedanta does not

> allow one to question the Vedas. This is not at all scientific.

 

All the vedanta discussions are discussions between the teacher and the

student. No blid belief is encouraged in the vedanta. Advaita does not

impose any blind belief in God or Veda. What it does is Vedanta as

pramaana - as means of knowledge. For that one needs to understaand what

is pramaaNa means - it is means of knowledge. Pratyaksha (or perceptual

knowledge) and anumaana or logic does not work in that which is beyond

the intellect - Hence Vedas are only means of knowledge - veda means

knowledge and vedanta is ultimate knowledge. To know the truth vedanta

provides the only means of knowledge.

> 4. I have heard that Sankara did not decry or condemn animal

> sacrifices, nor did he practice them. His silence in the matter does

> not clearly tell us anything about his opinion of 'Ahimsa'. This is

> disturbing to us "Buddhists", because we are not supposed to kill

> animals at any cost. Ethics and morals to us are the foundations of

> Dhamma and any amount of metaphysical discussions is futile without

> adherence to them. Similar is the astounding case of Nisargadatta

> Maharaj who smoked cigarettes and claimed enlightenment.

 

Ahima is not killing nor not killing - it is not only at body level but

at mental level. Ahimsa, brahmacharya and satyam - are the foundations

of the saadhana or spiritual practice. But what that means has to be

understood. KrihaNa is preaching Arjuna to fight against adharma -

Ahimsa is not passive non-violance but reinforcement of dharma - and

what is my dharma is the essence of the whole bhagavad geeta.

 

>

> I shall stop here for want of brevity. I hope you can clarify these

> points.

 

 

It is said that 'Conclusion with experimentation is unscientific' -

Conclusion without analysis is also equally unscientific.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Praveen-ji.

 

Sri Praveen.R.Bhat wrote:

 

" Bhikku yogi-ji, may I suggest that Shri Aurobindo's works or Shri RL

Kashyap's works on Veda samhita-s explain how the vedic animal sacrifices

came into being as outer yajna to preserve, as a tradition, the crux that

is inner yagna, which has nothing to do with animal sacrifices?"

 

I feel the above needs to be qualified. Sri Aurobindo is respected as

a great scholar of vedas, however inside the tradition, his writings

carry little weight. Not because his conclusions are wrong, but

because of the technical flaw in his methodology. Sri Aurobindo has

tried to provide justifications of vedic percepts based on reason and

logic. Technically, it is considered an illegitimate encroachment of a

pramANa in someone else jurisdiction. In regard to dharma and moksha,

reason and logic are considered subordinate to shruti, not independent

of it. It would be as fallacious to provide justification of a vedic

percept through reason alone, as it would be to provide proof of a

scientific theory from vedas alone. Both are not opposed to each other

but separate. Under vedic tradition it is futile to look for

justification of animal sacrifice from anywhere else, but the veda

itself. The only thing that can provide justification or otherwise for

an animal sacrifice is not whether it is reasonable, but whether it is

consistent with the rest of the veda.

 

 

"I'm not sure if translations are correct and I've particularly doubted Max

Muller's translation that I have, but manu smriti also asserts that a

brahmin accrues sins if he refuses to eat meat offered in annadaana at a

shraadha! As you said, it mattered then at yajna-s and I'm not sure if we

have such yajna/shraddha now, when meat is cooked."

 

In regard to dietary preferences, it is the shishTAchAra that sets the

rules. No one consults a book to decide what to eat. Accepted dietary

preferences are learnt through the family, relatives and other members

of the community. What may be perfectly dhArmik for a Bengali Brahmin

may not be so for a Tamil Brahmin. Usually as one moves on the

spiritual path (or many times as one advances in age), one starts

leaning to vegetarianism as part of tapas. However it is not

considered the essence of ones dharma. It is due to this reason alone

that a meat eating Nisargadatta Maharaj or a Ramakrishna Paramhamsa

will be perfectly acceptable as a sage.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Namaskar to all divine souls here,

 

I am surprised to know that one has got enlightenment while eating

non-veg and smoking cigarettes. So far I know only few saints who

had attained smoking hukka, cigarette etc. But this name I am first

time listening. and where can I get his full details. Is there any

website on his name? Samartha Sadguru Sainath, my beloved God, used

to smoke "hukka" (one kind of smoking) and he used to prepare non-veg

and he had never forced vegetarians to take non-veg and non-

vegetarains to stop it.

 

Please advise.

 

Sai Devotee

 

advaitin, Sanjay Srivastava

<sksrivastava68@g...> wrote:

> I am on the same side of fence with Sri Praveen, however,

>

> Sri Praveen.R.Bhat wrote:

>

> "Back to spirituality, following one's dharma in any gender or caste

> purifies the person while *study* of scriptures (vs. performing

> rituals), per se, is open to everyone."

>

> The second part of the sentence needs to be qualified. Many advaitin

> achAryas still insist on upanayanam before starting the study of

> upanishads and as bhikku yogi has correctly pointed out, it is given

> to "twice borns" only.

>

> However, let us also realize that advaita teachings have come to us

> through a culture that evolved its rituals and beliefs much earlier

> than the arrival of concepts of egalitarianism etc. It would be

unfair

> to demand why their rituals could not be framed so as to suit the

> sensibilities of all the people for all the times. However otherwise

> we may like it today, within its ritualistic framework, vedic

learning

> was a specialised occupation restricted to a certain class only.

>

> That said, it would not be out of place to mention that within the

> same framework, Gita-- which is said to be the essence of vedanta --

> and numerous other prakarana granthas of the highest order which

speak

> nothing but vedanta-- did not require any pre-condition of

upanayanam.

> Why everything was not accessible to everyone is a moot point, but

it

> would be unfair to say that knowledge of vedanta was inaccessible to

> non-dwijas. And should anyone still felt restricted in ones

spiritual

> growth, exceptions were always made for eligible students and more

> liberally so in current times.

>

> Sri Bhikku-yogi ji wrote:

>

> "I have heard that Sankara did not decry or condemn animal

sacrifices, nor

> did he practice them... This is disturbing to us "Buddhists",

because we are

> not supposed to kill animals at any cost."

>

> It only shows that there are differences between beliefs of buddhism

> and hinduism. Whether Sankara liked animal sacrifices or not is

beside

> the point, but he could not have decried it as long as it is

> sanctioned by vedas. Even though "ahimsa" is given emphasis in

> hinduism also and it is part of tapas for every mumukshu, still it

is

> not an absolute ideal in itself. In fact no ideal of hinduism is

> absolute in vyAvhArik stage.

>

> "Ethics and morals to us are the foundations of Dhamma and any

amount

> of metaphysical discussions is futile without adherence to them...

> Nisargadatta Maharaj who smoked cigarettes and claimed

enlightenment."

>

> Ethics and morals are important in hinduism upto a point. Beyond

that

> "ko vidhi^h, ko nisheda^h". Again this does not mean that a jnAni

> starts indulging in immoral or unethical practices, but just that

his

> actions are naturally aligned with dharma. Nisargadatta Maharaj

> in-fact ate non-vegetarian also apart from smoking cigarettes. And

> while many have doubted his enlightenment on other grounds, no one

> would hold his smoking and non-veg eating against him as something

> essentially adhArmik that proved his non-enlightenment.

>

> praNAm

[Guest guest]

I think you are looking for Nisargadatta Maharaj of Mumbai, teacher of

Ramesh Balsekar, about whom, there is a whole lot of information

available on the net. Just do a net search with the name. He is rated

very high - particularly in the West. He used to chain-smoke beedies

(not cigarettes).

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "vasu145" <vasu145> wrote:

> I am surprised to know that one has got enlightenment while eating

> non-veg and smoking cigarettes. So far I know only few saints who

> had attained smoking hukka, cigarette etc. But this name I am first

> time listening. and where can I get his full details. Is there any

> website on his name?

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAm-s,

 

Sanjay-ji wrote:

Sri Aurobindo is respected as a great scholar of vedas, however inside the

tradition, his writings carry little weight. Not because his conclusions are

wrong, but because of the technical flaw in his methodology. Sri Aurobindo

has tried to provide justifications of vedic percepts based on reason and

logic. Technically, it is considered an illegitimate encroachment of a

pramANa in someone else jurisdiction. In regard to dharma and moksha, reason

and logic are considered subordinate to shruti, not independent of it. It

would be as fallacious to provide justification of a vedic percept through

reason alone, as it would be to provide proof of a scientific theory from

vedas alone. Both are not opposed to each other but separate. Under vedic

tradition it is futile to look for justification of animal sacrifice from

anywhere else, but the veda itself. The only thing that can provide

justification or otherwise for an animal sacrifice is not whether it is

reasonable, but whether it is

consistent with the rest of the veda.

 

praveen:

As a tradition, we wouldn't question the authority of vedas at all, being

shruti. This was pertaining to someone who questioned this following and

thence, there's no other solution to it but a *pseudo-solution* such as

logic. What Aurobindo did is precisely this and hence, the pointer. IMHO,

Aurobindo/Kashyap's works that I refer to are not logic alone; they've given

translations of the text and categorized why a particular sanskrit word need

be translated so. Again, they maybe as wrong as anyone could be, but I'm

particularly satisfied with their answer to this question. But I do agree

that *within* the tradition, these lose meaning.

 

 

Sanjay-ji wrote:

In regard to dietary preferences, it is the shishTAchAra that sets the

rules. No one consults a book to decide what to eat. Accepted dietary

preferences are learnt through the family, relatives and other members of

the community. What may be perfectly dhArmik for a Bengali Brahmin may not

be so for a Tamil Brahmin.

 

praveen:

For the same reason, we wouldn't throw out manu smriti, would we? I'd assume

that the "learning through families" must've had something to do with manu

smriti then, even if now, I agree it is as you said. Moreover, the question

posed seemed how it came about than why its so now. Sorry, if I'm totally

overboard here.

 

jai bajrangabali,

--praveen

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it was done in this message!)

 

 

Dear All,

 

Sri Aurobindo was a Divine Man, in whom intellectuality and divinity found

the perfect blend. Experimention, observation, hypothesis. generalisation

and classification - all these are scientifc methods and he rightly proved

that

Vedic precepts are hypothetico-observational as well, along with being

intuitive. He experience the 3 faculties of the Intuitive Reason -

Revealation, Inspiration and Intuition. All his observations were based on

experienced realities, not mere intellectual discussion. Vedas are both

scientific and supra - scientific

 

G Kumar Astro Scholar, Philosopher & Programmer

www.e.com

 

-

<praveen.r.bhat

<advaitin>

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Note: List wants to thank the members for their continued

support to list policies and guidelines. Please do not include the previous

posters' messages in the tail end (or in the beginning) of your message while

sending your replies. Both the new members and other members do seem to continue

to repeat doing this. The list appreciates your cooperation in keeping the

message crisp and clear by removing all unnecessary parts of previous messages.

(As it was done in this message!)

 

What does diet or smoking or any other mundane activity have to do

with enlightment?

 

The non-dual state has nothing to do with anything in the world, yet,

everything in the world is related to the non-dual state, in exactly

the same manner.

 

 

On 8/7/05, vasu145 <vasu145 wrote:

> Namaskar to all divine souls here,

>

> I am surprised to know that one has got enlightenment while eating

> non-veg and smoking cigarettes. So far I know only few saints who

> had attained smoking hukka, cigarette etc.

[Guest guest]

Sri Manuel Delaflor wrote:

> What does diet or smoking or any other mundane activity have to do

> with enlightment?

 

In the paramArthik stage-- none. In the vyAvhArik stage -- some life

styles are more conducive to the realization of truth than others.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Namste Praveen-ji.

 

Sri Praveen Bhat wrote:

> I'd assume that the "learning through families" must've had something to do

> with manu smriti then, even if now, I agree it is as you said.

 

Conversely you can also say that Manu Smriti must've had something to

do with the "learning through families".

 

Manusmriti is not an invention of Manu but a codification of practices

which were considered in line with sanAtana dharma. As long as

shishTAchAra is not in conflict with shruti or smriti, it is an

equally valid authority on dharma. In matters such as meat eating

where shruti and smriti have accepted both the choices (though one is

more favored than the other), it is the shishTAchAra of the learned

members of the community that defines the finer details of dharma.

 

praNAm

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAm-s,

 

Sanjay-ji wrote:

Conversely you can also say that Manu Smriti must've had something to

do with the "learning through families".

 

Manusmriti is not an invention of Manu but a codification of practices

which were considered in line with sanAtana dharma.

 

praveen:

Thanks, agreed.

 

shivam shaantam advaitam,

--praveen

[Guest guest]

This is my first post/reply and I would like to thank the moderators

and members for giving me an opportunity to participate in the

discussions. From the responses I can see that the members are very

knowledgeable and a lot of them seem to be subject matter experts.

As far as my intro, I have always been interested in Advaita Vedanta

and the teachings of the Buddha and I am a regular practitioner of

Vipassana. I have several unanswered questions and I hope I can get

answers for those in this forum. I would also be sharing my thoughts

on certain topics.

 

Sri Bhikku-yogi ji wrote:

 

"I have heard that Sankara did not decry or condemn animal

sacrifices,

nor

did he practice them... This is disturbing to us "Buddhists",

because

we are

not supposed to kill animals at any cost."

 

If I remember correctly, Buddha in one of his discussions mentioned

that the Bhikkus may not eat meat if they know that the meat was

specifically prepared for their consumption.

> "Buddha, it must be remembered, refused always to discuss what was

> beyond the world. But from the little he said it would appear that

he

> was aware of a Permanent beyond equivalent to the Vedantic Para-

> Brahman, but which he was quite unwilling to describe."

>

> "The Buddhist Nirvana and the Adwaitin's Moksha are the same

thing.

> It corresponds to a realization in which one does not feel oneself

> any longer as an individual with such a name or such a form, but

an

> infinite eternal Self spaceless (even when in space), timeless

(even

> when in time)."

>

> "It [Nirvana of Buddha] is the same [as Brahman Nirvana of the

Gita].

> Only the Gita describes it as Nirvana in the Brahman while Buddha

> preferred not to give any name or say anything about that into

which

> the Nirvana took place."

>

> Hopefully these help and you'll begin to see the essential unity

of

> the teachings of Lord Buddha and of Vedanta.

 

I would like to add a few things to this discussion.

Buddha refused to discuss/answer certain metaphycical questions as

they were deemed ethically useless and intellectually uncertain and

deliberations would be just speculations and would not yield any

answers. According to Buddha the theory of conditional existence is

very profound and he did not want anyone to miss its importance by

diverting their focus to metaphysical discussions.

Dr. Radhakrishnan and Rhys Davids have mentioned in their

works that Buddha was born, brought up and died as a Hindu.

Walpola Rahula once asked J Krishnamurti:- "Are you not saying

what the Buddha said?" .

Krishnamurti asked Walpola:- " May I ask, Sir, with due respect, why

do you compare?".

Walpola replied "There is no necessity to compare. Comparison is not

necessary and not needed as The Teachings are The Teachings. The

Dhamma is the Dhamma".

These are the Teachings of Truth taught by Buddha,Shankara and

others and has no copyright.

We can engage ourselves in endless conversations and discussions

about what Buddhism says and what Vedanta says, but IMHO the

bottomline is, they are The Teachings and no comparions are

required. The aim should be to absorb the essence of these Teachings

and put them to practice.

 

Vijay