No one is "Preaching"

[Guest guest]

Dear members,

 

Before I begin this article, let me assure you all that I donot decry

Hindus and have a great deal of respect for Sankara. That said I may

not agree with everything that he said/practised, just as you donot

agree with Buddha on many terms. Given this difference in opinion, I

donot see the meaning in something like "Try to grasp the meaning of

what Sankara or Mr. Ram Chandran or somebody else said.". I could

advise the same thing about another person to you all.

 

There is further a difference between us. While most of you urge me to

try to understand Sankara, because you BELIEVE he is right, I would

not bother to make you understand what either I say or what Buddha

says since I myself donot beleive everything the Buddha said, nor do I

expect anyone to beleive him or me.

 

However still whatever I have told you is through my experience/

contemplation/meditative insight. For example when I talk of the

contemplative's ability to discern the "movements" of the mind, while

reading or hearing etc., I am telling you through my own experience of

this. Of course names such as vinnana or sanna are Pali terms and they

are taught. But I may wish to call them anything else and it would not

matter. As long as I understand the functionality of the different

parts of the mind it is OK.

 

But I donot expect you to beleive me. If you wish to find out for

yourself and test my words, I can help you. However, I have no vested

interest in forcing any of you to do so, nor would I venture to teach

you anything unless you ask me for it.

 

However, it may be difficult to understand why Buddhists are the way

they are, and hence we make an attempt to just give you a glimpse of

our background and donot claim it to be either great or inferior. We

just hope, that in the same way as we accept Hindus, Hindus would

accept these differences, and understand the reason we question

certain things the way we do.

 

I am not an enlightened being and hence will not talk of

enlightenment. Nirvana, though is a goal for us, we donot yearn for

it. We only try to live a good life, contemplate the truth of the

moment, make our minds subtler to know the subtlest of truths.

 

In this process I trained my mind to be subtle enough to make out when

hearing takes place and when seeing takes place, even though another

uninitiated man would think that he is seeing and hearing at the same

time. So, when I said in one of my posts about such a meditative

stage, I aver that I have myself experienced it. I am also always

aware of the way my body and all particles within it are constantly

changing, thus making me subconsciously aware that the body is not

self. At the same time, I donot expect you to beleive me or accept my

words. You are free to check and see if your mind is capable of doing

it. Of course it will take some time, but if you try, you may soon be

able to see what I mean. However, donot beleive me blindly.

 

Of all the posts that I read, I find message #27519 to be most honest.

It atleast accepts that one needs to have faith in the Veda, rather

than trying to counter and say that reason and Veda are equivalent. I

appreciate this acceptance of the fact that Vedanta's method involves

a considerable amount of beleif.

 

Certain arguements such as "How is it different, if I reject on the

basis of Veda?" in response to my statement that "It is alright if one

rejects on the basis of reason/experience..." are simply empty. The

author himself knows that Veda and reason donot go hand in hand. So

rejection on the basis of reason is after thorough analysis, with

deliberation and discrimination of what is right or wrong, but

rejection on the basis of Veda is only pure blind beleif without one's

own deliberation or discrimination. The same goes for acceptance on

the basis of Veda as against reason.

 

Buddhists come from a culture that gives more importance to

deliberation and discrimination than to any scripture. Of course,

meditative insight is of greatest importance. So a statement like

"Veda is accepted as means of knowledge for things beyond the

intellect" does not satisfy us.

 

We employ our methods of examination, contemplation, and meditative

insight to see what happens when one reads the Veda. I used my

meditative insight and found that reading the Veda is not different

from reading a book on history or mathematics. The psychic control

that we practise allows us to be aware of all the movements of

thoughts in the mind and the changes in the "particles" of the mind,

while reading, walking, seeing, hearing etc.

 

But that the Veda is not a superior means of knowledge is only my

opinion, based on my experience and does not bind you to beleive in

it. I am not forcing you to accept my words on it. You may have your

own opinion.

 

Please rest assured that I have a great deal of respect for Hindus,

and Sankara. But my own deliberation, discrimination and mediative

insight does not allow me to accept every part of it, and I may reject

parts of Advaita and/or Veda as either wrong or as not needed. I hope

you recognize my freedom in this matter. The same way, you have every

freedom to accept certain parts of Buddhism and reject others. Please

note that this freedom is available to every Buddhist to reject or

accept parts of the Buddha's words also. Not everything is binding. It

is with this spirit of freedom that we announce freedom to the world

and peace for all.

 

It is because of this cultural background of freedom of thought that

Buddhists question scripture and authority the way they do. We beleive

in NO authority. So kindly donot think that I am trying to preach my

religion, like Mr. Ram Chandrn thought. Rest assured, I possess

nothing at all in this world. There is therefore, nothing called 'my

religion' or 'your religion'. The same way, there is nothing called

'my Dharma' or 'your Dharma'.

 

Dharma/Dhamma is the means to unbind all our fetters, to complete

enlightenment. It is free for all, and is Universal. You don't have to

be a Buddhist or Vedantist or anything else to practise it.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhikku Yogi,

 

I'm one of the members that you address--although I'm here mostly to

learn rather than comment--so I thought that you might be interested in

hearing another viewpoint.

 

The advice to "try to grasp the meaning ..." is merely summarizing the

FAQ's and other information you received when you joined the list.

 

If I want to learn about the myriad of formal spiritual groups and

religious experiences in the universe, I can Google until my fingers ae

sore, but I came to this list to learn about Advaita Vedanta according

to Sankara/Shankara.

 

You seem highly intelligent, which makes it more difficult to understand

why you haven't responded to the original request to "get on board."

 

Best wishes,

 

Bob Freedman

 

 

 

bhikkuyogi wrote:

> Dear members,

>

>Given this difference in opinion, I

> donot see the meaning in something like "Try to grasp the meaning of

> what Sankara or Mr. Ram Chandran or somebody else said.". I could

> advise the same thing about another person to you all.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Bob Friedman:

 

Thanks for summarizing your thoughts very beautifully!

 

Let me add the following additional thoughts and they are mostly

address to Sri Bhikku Yogi:

 

Namate Bhikku Yogi:

 

Thanks for reaffirming your beliefs/convictions and your doubts about

Sankara's philosophy. As a Vedantin, I respect your viewpoints on

Vedas, Dharma, etc. but at the same time I do disagree. I have no

intention to start (request others not to start) a debate comparing

the merits/demerits of the philosophies of Sankara and Buddha.

 

In this list we tried several such debates comparing different

schools of thoughts and our experience strongly indicates that such

debates ended up in dead-end streets. If you want to engage in

debate, please note that the list has no interest to start another

one. We have seen such debates eventually degenerate from the subject

matter to personalities without meaningful outcome.

 

IMO: Personally, I tried to learn about the philosophy of Buddha by

several means which include – browsing through websites, reading

archives of mailing lists specifically oriented for Buddhism and

books. Also if I want to share my knowledge on Shankara's Advaita

Philosophy, I post my views in lists with primary focus on Sankara's

philosophy. I have NEVER attempted to force my views on Sankara's

philosophy on mailing lists which focus on Buddha's philosophy or

other philosophies.

 

Here are my understanding of the term - preaching, religion and

dharma. The term, `preaching' is very subtle and most of the time the

preachers don't recognize their acts! Religion is also a subtle

expression of one's belief and everything that we say eventually

become `our religion.' Finally Dharma is the subtlest of one's acts

and thoughts and Dharma is the true expression one's character and

personality.

 

Thanks again,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "bhikkuyogi" <bhikkuyogi> wrote:

> Dear members,

>

> It is because of this cultural background of freedom of thought

that

> Buddhists question scripture and authority the way they do. We

beleive

> in NO authority. So kindly donot think that I am trying to preach

my

> religion, like Mr. Ram Chandrn thought. Rest assured, I possess

> nothing at all in this world. There is therefore, nothing

called 'my

> religion' or 'your religion'. The same way, there is nothing called

> 'my Dharma' or 'your Dharma'.

>

> Dharma/Dhamma is the means to unbind all our fetters, to complete

> enlightenment. It is free for all, and is Universal. You don't have

to

> be a Buddhist or Vedantist or anything else to practise it.

>

> Hope I am clear.

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

 

advaitin, Bob Freedman <rlfreed@p...> wrote:

> Dear Bhikku Yogi,

>

>

> The advice to "try to grasp the meaning ..." is merely summarizing

the

> FAQ's and other information you received when you joined the list.

>

[Guest guest]

Humble praNAm,

 

I submit my apologies in advance for the sarcastic tone in the mail.

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

"Try to grasp the meaning of what Sankara or Mr. Ram Chandran or somebody

else said.". I could advise the same thing about another person to you all.

 

praveen:

Definitely, but only when anyone comments about that another person. You

were asked to look into it for very clear reasons that you showed interest

in Sankara and that mandates you to *grasp* the meaning. By saying the

above, you have yourself agreed that you are not interested in grasping the

meaning and so, not interested in Sankara philosophy either. Personally,

that leaves very little to be discussed between you and anyone else on this

list on *relevant* topics, unless you change your mind on *grasping*.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

There is further a difference between us. While most of you urge me to try

to understand Sankara, because you BELIEVE he is right, ...

 

praveen:

Wrong again! Even to say that someone is wrong, you *need* to grasp what he

says.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

For example when I talk of the contemplative's ability to discern the

"movements" of the mind, while reading or hearing etc.,... If you wish to

find out for yourself and test my words, I can help you...

 

praveen:

Discerning the movement of the mind is not only restricted to Buddhism, my

dear Sir. This was dealt with patanjali ages back with his "chitta vritti

niroga" (loosely translated & commented as "stopping/restricting/watching

the modifications of the mind"). So we do understand all that and we value

it as a preparatory measure, on the way, in advaita vedanta, not a goal.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

Certain arguements such as "How is it different, if I reject on the basis of

Veda?" in response to my statement that "It is alright if one rejects on the

basis of reason/experience..." are simply empty. The author himself knows

that Veda and reason donot go hand in hand.

 

praveen:

I'm startled at the way you twist words to your convenience! If you knew

what the author himself knows, there would've been no any exchange of words

at all! If you need it more clearly, here's what I meant: How is rejecting

on the basis of *meditation* different (not reason/experience)? Sorry for

leaving scope for confusion.

 

 

Bhikku-ji wrote:

I used my meditative insight and found that reading the Veda is not

different from reading a book on history or mathematics.

 

praveen:

Congratulations! Quoting your own words: "I know little about Advaita in

general", "Hindus generally donot like Buddhists!", "I hope that you can

tolerate the "presence" of a silent spectator". I hope there is scope for

all this, unless you've meditatively concluded on those too. (the sarcasm is

intentional)

 

 

shivam shaantam advaitam,

--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!)

 

 

Hi

After reading your entire article, I cme to these conclusions.

 

You believe

1. that whatever comes to your experiance is the truth(May be by meditation,

or any other means)

2. Logic plays a greater role than the Belief.

3. What ever Man cannot realize through his logic is not knowledge.

 

I want to start by answering your second point. Belief is very important

atleast at the start. You need to belive in Budda t understand him

completely. Then you can say whether he wrong or Right Trying to understand

something without believing it is like not understanding.So Believe (in what

ever) before you understand, and it is a natural phenomina. You are

articulating your words becasuse You Believe in It, can you ask a simple

logical question, Why Does I believe in it.

 

The answer to this Logical Question would be youur First Point "It came to

My Experiance" so I believed in it. Then if that didn't come to my

experiance it is wrong. But in the world there can be only one truth, either

what you beleieve or what I believe.. or Other believe. Then which will it

be?

 

Then you go into a lillte higher answer it as 3, what comes to Humans Mind

is true, means what you see, what you here. and other stuff.. what is

perseived by the Indriyas.

 

Now ask is it correct to assume what ever you see as true. then you find Not

Always. Lot of things what I see, what I here are not, becasue they keep

changing forms, then you will come to assumption the change is "truth". If

there is some thing changing in this world, there should be a reason for

changing and some thing is changing to you. If you observe little closely,

you will realize same thing might keep appearing in differnt forms (as

Physics also proved..there are only two things available in this universe 1.

Matter and 2. Energy and einstein proved matter is also "Energy"), So one

thing is not tranforming, but appears to be transformed because its every

where. That one thing which appears to transforming is what is called GOD,

and if you want to realize this you need to Believe First.

 

The basic flaw in your approach ( I am not really sure whether its been

preeched by Budda) is to think Believing is Bad.After all Budda also

believed that there is no Sukha in Samsara, and he went in serach of the

peace in sanyasa, If he would have believed, that dying, living, dieses are

all part of Human life, and is not separable with what ever amount of

realization you get, but you don't have any choice to accept it as a part of

life and acheived this realization in samsara itself, He would have become a

Vedanti.

 

Yoga Ratova, Boga Ratova, Sanga Ratova Nissangatvenha, Yasya Brahmani Ramate

Chittam Nandati Nandati Anandatyeve.

WHether you are in Yoga, Or Bhoga or with people or without people , if your

heart is filled with Brahma You will be always happy.

 

My Two Cents...

 

Prashanth

 

On 8/10/05, praveen.r.bhat <praveen.r.bhat

wrote:

>

> Humble praNAm,

>

> I submit my apologies in advance for the sarcastic tone in the mail.

>

> Bhikku-ji wrote:

> "Try to grasp the meaning of what Sankara or Mr. Ram Chandran or somebody

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri Bhikku Yogi prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

BY prabhuji:

 

We only try to live a good life, contemplate the truth of the moment

 

bhaskar :

 

Are you a kshaNikavAdin (upholder of truth of ONLY momentary consciousness)

prabhuji?? If you are aware of shankara's works on bruhadAraNyaka shruti

(it is one of principal sacred scriptures) & vEdAnta sUtra-s (Vedantic

aphorisms), you can find shankara's logical refutation of this kshaNika

vAda theory based on our day to day experience. Ofcourse, do you agree

that what has been in our very experience cannot be negated through some

dry logic!! Kindly dont think think we are simply pointing our fingers to

your school (if at all you belong to that!!) when trying to answer your

queries/challenges against our school/authority of vEda. But it is simply a

fact that we want to bring to your kind notice that our paramAchArya was

aware of this school & refuted it by bringing out its fallacies based on

logic/reasoning.

 

BY prabhuji:

 

Of all the posts that I read, I find message #27519 to be most honest.

It atleast accepts that one needs to have faith in the Veda, rather

than trying to counter and say that reason and Veda are equivalent. I

appreciate this acceptance of the fact that Vedanta's method involves

a considerable amount of beleif.

 

bhaskar :

 

Kindly note, advaita vEdAnta/vEdAnta does not believe anything blindly as

you think!! Our uncompromising belief in authority of vEda is based on our

day to day experience. advaita before accepting anything put it into acid

test of our own experience which is universal & it does not build its

theory on any individual unique experience!! shankara explicitly discusses

the importance of this universal experience in his vEdAnta aphorisms

commentary. Basically vEdAnta draws its core teaching based on thorough

examination of our three states i.e. waking, dream & deep sleep states.

(we call it *avasThA traya* in vEdAnta terminology). This is primarily

taking the dream state & deep sleep state quite seriously as against normal

& conventional belief in waking state's reality. Waking reality /

perception of objects in waking state is fundamentally like a dream, even

though some vEdAntins till today still hold solid reality of waking world &

feel that there are some obvious differences between these two states. But

it is a fact that this is the only way that can make sense in the

declaration of our sacred scripture such as 'Brahman is the only Reality'

(brahmaiva satyaM) and 'Brahman is Consciousness' (prajnAnaM brahma).

Again, these assertions are not stemmed out of some blind belief, it has

the solid experience of every one that uninterrupted & continuous existence

of consciousness in all the three states.

>From this objective view point of all the three states, advaita clarifies

how the apparent duality/plurality of the world can really be the oneness

of Brahman. When we awaken from the dream, the objects of the dream are

realized to have been only the consciousness of the dreamer (we call it

svapna prapaNcha in vEdAnta & we have one sacred scriptures which discusses

these states in a detailed way i.e mAndukya shruti another principal sacred

scriptures in vEdAnta ). The many seen as objective reality in dream are no

different from the one seer, and this is the core teaching of vEdAnta, note

this is not based on any blind belief but from the point of view of common

sense & universal experience.

 

Finally, prabhuji, kindly note, if we spend little bit of more

contemplative time in studying of these three states from the analytical

view point, it helps us to reveal the fact that our sacred scriptures are

advocating the truth which is purely based on universal experience & not

entirely on blind faith!!. prabhuji, dont you think at least our little

theoretical discussion like this can reassure you that advaita vEdAnta /

vEdAnta is not mere theory of some bunch of blind followers. Kindly also

note objective analysation of these view points without any prejudiced mind

set throws ample light on the whole system of vEdAnta & its method of

teaching as enunciated by shankar bhagavadpAda in advaita siddhAnta which

are entirely compatible with universal experience and common sense.

 

Humble praNAms onceagain

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar