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". The Hindu considers Buddhism to be a part of his own heritage.

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

then, the mother's love is unconditional.

 

dhanyavaadaH

Ramesh