To Yogendra-ji was re: (replying to Chittaranjanji and Bhaskarji)

[Guest guest]

Note to moderator: Though this is a response to Bhikku Yogi's posts, it is

NOT a discussion of Buddhism in general, but mostly serves to explain

certain aspects of Vedanta. So I request that this post be allowed.

--\

--------

 

While Rishi-ji has made some pertinent points in response to Bhikku Yogi's

posts I just wanted to add the following.

 

While shruti pramaaNa is an important element of advaita-vedA.nta (AV), it

is, strictly speaking, relevant only if one wants to understand/teach the

philosophical system as a whole, or to debate with other schools that follow

the same pramaaNa. But for the seeker, it is of no real relevance. If I want

to follow AV, I will study the prakaraNa gra.ntha-s such as vivekacUdAmaNi,

and try to find an AcArya to guide me. A student can very well achieve

jnaana, even under a traditional AcArya, without studying a single word of

shruti.

 

The reason for this is very simple. No amount of reading or hearing can

"create" jnaana, which is ever present. Once the veil of ignorance is

removed, light shines forth on its own. shruti is an aid to removing this

ignorance, but so is the gItA, the various prakaraNa gra.ntha-s, the

AcArya's words and even plain Atma-viCara. Take the example of Ramana

Maharshi. He actually became a jnaani without having had a shaastraic

education and without even a guru, but was well accepted by the orthodox

tradition as a jnaani.

 

AV seeks to establish a practical path to liberation. shruti pramANa is

relevant as a contributor to establishing the path, but not to following the

path itself. As a seeker on the path of AV, I have no particular need to

bother about whether or not the shruti is unauthored, or even to read the

shruti itself.

 

You wrote:

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

Therefore, each statement can be questioned, and

tested - provieded the question helps in

enlightenment. Nothing is to be accepted as authority.

Things such as 'Gotama the Buddha was truly

enlightened' is also open to question and you are free

to disbeleive that too. You are invited to learn about

the teachings of the Buddha, test it and when you know

for sure that his teachings are right, useful, and

conducive to the good of one and all, then and only

then, you need to accept it and live up to it.

-

What you have written above holds true for AV and the entire Upanishadic

tradition as well. No advaitin is sitting on other people's heads and

condemning them to hell if they dont follow AV or accept the shruti. On the

contary, questioning and testing are an integral part of the tradition. Any

statement, whether from the shruti or Adi Sankara's writings or from the

AcArya's mouth, has to be questioned, analysed, tested and only then

accepted. That is why the process of SravaNa, manana and nididhyAsana.

Borrowing from your own writing - "You are invited to learn about the

teachings of AV, test it and when you know for sure that the teachings are

right, useful, and conducive to the good of one and all, then and only then,

you need to accept it and live up to it."

 

 

Now, who is a bauddha (Buddhist)? A bauddha is one who accepts the teaching

of the buddha. He might have tested & analysed the teaching and then

accepted it, or he might have accepted it on "faith" (for lack of a better

word). But if either way he has not accepted the teaching, he is not a

bauddha. Similarly, a vedA.ntin is one who accepts the teaching of vedA.nta.

He is entirely welcome to test the teaching before accepting it. In fact, if

he is a serious sAdhaka, he is expected to analyze & test the teaching.

 

Any system has to have reference point. In Buddhism it is a personality

called the SAkyamuni. In vedA.nta its the upaniShad-s (part of the veda).

You might say that the term "Buddha" refers not merely to the SAkyamuni but

to a "realized person" in general, to which I might say that the term "veda"

refers not just to the 4 "texts" compiled by vyAsa but to "knowledge" in

general. Either way, it would be dishonest to say that Buddhism is more or

less dogmatic than vedA.nta. Sankara or any of the great vedA.nta AcArya-s

could have appealed to their own personal experience and established their

own systems. But all of them emphasized that they were merely continuing the

teachings of yore. Instead of making personalities as a reference point,

they chose the shruti that has been handed down for generations. The

bauddha-s got labeled as nAstika-s only because the early bauddha-s insisted

that what the SAkyamuni said was something entirely new that had not been

anticipated at all by the old tradition. The system always prized personal

realization over any specific dogmatic theory. But it is natural that any

group claiming that the personal experience of their leader was something

utterly new (and that the giants of the past represented by the tradition

had no clue of the same) would find it difficult to establish its

credibility.

 

All the sampradaaya-s of India, whether any of the Astika darSana-s or

bauddham or jainam, derive from the same mother culture - that established

by the Rsi-s & muni-s and various communities that inhabited ancient India.

While (most of) the other sampradaaya-s acknowledge their mother, Buddhism

behaves like a rebellious teenager that disowns its own mother. But while a

child can disown its mother, the mother can never disown her child. That

explains why the Hindu considers the Bauddha as one of his own. As an 8-year

old, I read an elementary book on Hinduism by DS Sarma, and it said, "as for

the bauddha-s and the jaina-s, they are heart of our heart and soul of our

soul". As a Hindu, I consider Buddhism to be a part of my own heritage.

Unfortunately, many bauddha-s dont reciprocate that sentiment. But then, the

mother's love is unconditional.

 

dhanyavaadaH

Ramesh