Miscellaneous responses

[Guest guest]

List Moderator's Response: The list wants to thank Sri Bhikkuyogi for his

miscellaneous responses. These three posts (this is the third)explain fully

where he stands with respect to the philsophies of Sankara and Buddha. We had

substantial discussions on this subject area and let us all move on to some

traditional topics in advaita philosophy. Thanks again for all who participated

in these discussions. Those who want to continue are encouraged to conduct

private email corresponds with Bhikkuyogiji directly.

---------------------------

 

Dear members,

 

Your responses to my statements are natural and accepted. But not

necessarily do I agree with all of you. At the same time certain posts

confuse me.

 

One post, mentioned that Veda was accepted as pramana after the "acid-

test" of experience. Do you mean to say that experience is a better

truth than scripture according to Vedanta?

 

Another email advises me to join a group of debaters! I am not

interested in debates. It would be the sorriest of state of affairs if

people think that I am debating advaita vedantists here.

 

Yet another post agrees that beleif in Veda as a pramana is only a

beleif, and that the facts of Veda are revealed later to be true

through experience. I assume this gentleman is talking about Shravana,

Manana and Nidhidhyasana. I have dealt with this is the article titled

- Shravana, manana and nidhidhyasana - Sankara's persepctive.

 

And there are those who wish to tell me that dvaita Vedanta (duality)

proves it through logic. But I have read Madhva's arguements and have

not got a good reason to be convinced. The logic is not flawless,

although it is a brilliant display of his wonderful education in

nyaya. Please donot be offended. I am not wanting a debate here.

 

Then there are those posts that think that I belittle the Veda, by

comparing it with a book on history or mathematics. Do you think we

feel the Pali canon is better than history or mathematics? Also, if a

book is difficult to understand, it only means that one needs to

develop his reason, logic, etc. to understand it intellectually, not

that the book is something great. Can the book be blamed if you cannot

understand its contents? All knowledge that arises from books only go

to the intellect, unless the mind is free from desire. I have

discussed this in detail in the article titled "Shravana, Manana,

nidhidhyasana - Sankara's perspective".

 

There is also a sarcastic post that demands to know if even my

"misconceptions" about Hindus is known through meditative insight. But

if Hindus did like the teachings of the Buddha, they wouldn't respond

sarcastically! Besides, misconceptions are not created by meditation,

they are removed. I am not advanced enough in Satipatthana to remove

all misconceptions through insight. But I do practice Satipatthana

enough to be able to know the processes of my own mind. It does not

matter if you disbeleive me.

 

Further there are posts that advise me to beleive - for example "you

must beleive in the words of the Buddha to understand him". But there

is no necessity for that! The Buddha has taught a method of knowing

the truth directly - meditative insight. That post advises me that one

can conclude that "either I am right, or you are right, or others are

right". But about nirvana (which is the subject of the Upanishads, and

the Pali Canon), which can never be thought of correctly, which can

never be understood intellectually, which can only be realized, how

can we rely on any beleifs?

 

There are also some exceptional posts here, which are posted with no

understanding of Buddhism at all. For example, they tell me that the

Buddha had no Vedic learning at all. That the Buddha was considered

God, that the Buddha said that everything is Sunya (I assume the

writer beleives that the Buddha taught that there is no absolute truth

- just plain nothingness) etc. Just as Buddhists make an effort to

understand Vedanta, and find out what other philosophers say, it would

be decent if Vedantists at the least read a little about Buddhism.

Traditionally, Vedantists fear this, (maybe they fear it would be

disastrous to anything other than one's religion) but they don't step

back from saying that Buddhists are wrong, or that they preach this or

that, and don't even care to read a single word of Buddhism! This is

very disturbing. There are vast resources on Buddhism available on the

internet. I request you to visit http://www.accesstoinsight.org

whenever you wish to. If you donot want to go through them, atleast

donot say what you don't know about Buddhism. I have no vested

interest in teaching you Buddhism, but please don't try to teach me

Buddhism!

 

I donot know if I can explain all your misconceptions. But I guess one

of the biggest problems Vedantists have with Buddhism is that of

emptiness (Sunyata). Please refer to the following page http://www.

accesstoinsight.org/canon/sutta/majjhima/mn121.html

 

In the third para: "He discerns that .... Thus he regards it as empty

of whatever is not there. Whatever remains, he discerns as present:

'There is this.' And so this, .... & pure." Please note that the

Buddha did not teach nihilism - he taught a method of knowing that

which is there - "There is this" - and regard everything else as empty

- "of whatever is not there."

 

There are many more such Suttas that point to the real meaning of

emptiness. Please read, and then say that Buddhism is this or that.

Donot blindly conclude that it is nihilism.

 

The Buddha in another Sutta has said: "There is something to be

attained .... if it does not exist, then nirvana is meaningless....".

Emptiness is not nothingness. Nirvana is beyond the dimension of

somethingness and nothingness.

 

Next, in one post somebody asked me why Buddhists think meditative

insight is superior to all? The reason is that insight, shows us what

truly is. It does not allow for imagination (bhrama), but to actually

know them the way they are, directly (prama). What we see through

insight is found to be "according with actuality, is undistorted in

meaning, & pure."

 

Meditative insight in Buddhism is a way of seeing things the way they

are, not the way they appear to one person. There is no scope for

bias, since before that, one learns to discern things without the bias

of the desire. One looks at every phenomenon from a neutral

standpoint, without developing either craving or aversion. Before

meditation, one learns to practise the method of giving up desire, or

developing equanimity. Only one who has developed the faculty of being

aware of phenomena without the bias of craving or aversion, can know

the truth, through meditative insight.

 

Meditative insight is the only scope of knowledge for those to whom

Shravana does not work - I explain this in detail in my article titled

"Shravana, manana, nidhidhyasana - Sankara's perspective"

 

The absolute truth of course does not come to one's knowledge

immediately, but takes time. Of course the time it takes, varies for

different people.

 

To explain how this is concurrent with advaita Vedanta as well, let me

draw an example from Sankara's Katha Upanishad Bhashya - 1-2-20 "....

only to the 'desireless man', one whose mind has been withdrawn from

all outer objects, seen or unseen, to him alone, the Self, whose means

of knowledge are Sravana, Manana, Nidhidhyasana, can see that Glory of

the Self, ie he directly realizes the Self as 'I Am He' and thereby

becomes free of sorrow..."

 

The method of withdrawing oneself from all senses and objects is

taught by Gurus to their students. "But for the man who has desisted

from bad conduct, as also free from the lure of the sense, whose mind

has become concentrated, and is also free from anxiety about the

results of concentration, AND HAS A GURU, he can attain the aforesaid

Self through Knowledge." Katha Bhashya 1-2-24. If one wants he may

read the Satipatthana Sutta which documents the Buddha's teaching of

this method of insight. It is very detailed and gives a complete

documentation of the process of development of desirelessness

(equanimity) and finally, insight.

 

The Yogavasishtha says "O Rama, that Guru, who teaches 'All is

Brahman' before teaching qualities like equanimity has destroyed the

life of the student." The reason is further explained therin ".... for

he (student) forms the bias of beleif and without insight, he does not

live up to the (Guru's) teaching ....."

 

When one learns the technique, he realizes how superior it is to blind

beleif.

 

Finally, there are those that inform me about Sankara's refutation of

the kshanikavada theory. I donot understand the intention of the post.

If you have read the Sutra Bhashya of Sankara, it is written with the

traditional understanding that Buddhism is a school of nihilism, with

a cover of some sort of esoterism. I hope people here have read the

Sutra Bhashya of Sankara. If not atleast read a study given here:

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew27155.htm The author has

clearly shown how Sankara, plainly kept with tradition, and assumed

that Buddhists were basically nihilists.

 

Also, please note that Buddhism does not teach what Sankara refuted.

Sankara refuted that "the Universe is momentary". But Buddhism neither

teaches that it is momentary, nor that it does not exist. It only says

that it is anicca or impermanent (Sanskrit Anitya). Even Sankara

points out in various places in his commentary of the Upanishads, that

nothing in the Universe is permanent and worth having any desire for.

That the Universe is momentary or does not exist or gets annihilated

etc., are not taught by the Buddha. Please refer the Brahmajala Sutta,

which talks of all the misconceptions that one may have of the

Buddha's teachings.

 

Please note that I am not saying that Sankara was wrong, but that he

only stuck with a traditional view that Buddhists are nihilists. It

was not entirely a fault, since such a view had already become

widespread. It would have been good if Sankara had taken pains to read

the Pali canon. But we cannot blame him for that, now.