Sat, Chit, Ananda - reply to Sri Sankarraman

April 8, 2006

Dear Sri Sankarraman,

> I did not mean

> to suggest in my contribution on this topic that the

> fact, " I exist," is a a dogmatic assumption.

Don't worry, I did not make that assumption, nor did I

think you suggested that. Besides, I only wanted

confirmation that I understand Sankara's position on

'sat, chit and ananda' correctly and wanted help in

correcting it if it were wrong.

Thanks a lot for your detailed elucidation of the

point.

I shall write on a separate topic later.

-Bhikku Yogi

April 8, 2006

Dear sirs,

I do not want to get into the middle of your talk, but I´d like

to write a few words for you.

I think the basic difference from Buddhism to Advaita is the

affirmation made by Advaita that the Self is ever-existing sat-chit-

ananda. I think many people were mistakenly taking this statement of

Hinduism when Gautama Buddha lived, and He probably wanted people

not to misunderstand the truth, so that he rendered the truth in a

different form, denying the Self and its permanence. Probably -- and

this is only my guess -- Gautama saw that many people were losing

interest in attaining Samadhi because of the statement that one is

already self-realized now, so many people probably were engaging in

very non-virtuous deeds of all the type. So Gautama emphasized the

change in everything, and the substratum of samsara -- which is to

say, the character of ordinary states of consciousness which is

suffering, and pointed out nirvana, which is bliss.

It is my personal experience that only in rare moments I

experience that Bliss that I know to be my own nature. So samsara

(suffering created because of ordinary state of consciousness) is

very real indeed. So one needs a method to remove suffering (which

is again only due to ordinary states of consciousness). So Gautama

taught the Eightfold Path, probably because he thought that people

would attain Samadhi by following this Path, and He Himself must

have attained to Samadhi by following this Path.

So, in my opinion, the basic difference is that Gautama wanted us

to remember: "ordinary consciousness (samsara) is suffering". "the

cause of ordinary consciousness is desire.", "there is an end to

ordinary consciousness (nirvana or nirvikalpa samadhi)". "there is a

path that leads one to nirvana (the end of ordinary consciousness or

Samadhi).". So He formulated these 4 noble truths as they are

called, but they were then interpreted to mean a different thing, so

Buddhists began quarreling with each other and several schools

emerged. This was due to erroneous interpretation of His basic

statement: ordinary consciousness (samsara) is SUFFERING. The end to

suffering is ATTAINING SAMADHI or NIRVANA as He put it. This is my

view.

Pranams,

frederico

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi

wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Sankarraman,

>

> > I did not mean

> > to suggest in my contribution on this topic that the

> > fact, " I exist," is a a dogmatic assumption.

>

> Don't worry, I did not make that assumption, nor did I

> think you suggested that. Besides, I only wanted

> confirmation that I understand Sankara's position on

> 'sat, chit and ananda' correctly and wanted help in

> correcting it if it were wrong.

>

> Thanks a lot for your detailed elucidation of the

> point.

>

> I shall write on a separate topic later.

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

>

April 9, 2006

Dear Mr. Frederico,

I would not agree with you wholly. Yet there are points in your article that

provoke interesting analysis. I hope you won't mind if I point out the

inadequacy [rather gross inadequacy] of your understanding of the Buddha/his

teachings.

1. I donot think Sankara/Advaita makes the statement: 'Self is ever-existing'.

Our understanding of existence is conditioned by our knowledge or perception of

material and mental existence. We cannot fathom the truth revealed by the

Upanishads and cannot understand the nature of Brahman since it is beyond the

horizon of our experience. Thus words such as 'ever-existing' donot apply.

Existence and non-existence are terms that donot apply to Brahman. This is my

opinion and in the last few emails of this thread, this is the very thing that I

have tried to ascertain. Are you telling me that Advaita itself deviates from

this position in several places - that it is inconsistent as a philosphy? Or are

you telling me that I have misunderstood your statement? Or is it the case that

I don't understand Sankara's position on the question of the 'existence' of

Brahman. Or is it that Sri Sankarraman and several others on this list who have

confirmed my understanding are incorrectly

representing Advaita?

2. It is but hard to understand how you presume to understand the Buddha better

than his own disciples living in those days? Yet it is possibleif your kamma is

better than theirs. Still, let me point out the following to you.

a. Gautama the Buddha never denied the Self and it's permanence or

non-permanence. It is clear that you are unaware of his position. In the

Brahmajala Sutta, the Buddha explains all the different views regarding the Self

that he does not endorse. The Buddha endorses none of the views existing in

those days or later. He in fact, rejects all views. But the point to be noted is

that he does not make any statement of his own on the self either, except that

we incorrectly perceive it as the material and the mental phenomena.

Accordingly, we have ego. This ego is the cause of misery and once this ego is

eradicated, on the basis of wisdom and right view, all misery is ended -

Nibbana. Thus the Buddha did not deny the self or anything, he only said what is

not the self - the body, the feelings, the perceptions, the fabrications and

consciousness.

b. I did not understand how one could say that "he rendered the truth in a

different form, denying the Self and its permanence.". First of all, this

statement of yours assumes that the permanent existence of the Self [as stated

by you] is the truth. Second, it assumes that your representation of the truth

is the best. Third, you think that the people of those times in India were very

immature to misunderstand the truth and that people like you [and if you like

me, you would include me too ] can understand it better. Fourth, you are

saying that denying the Self is a way of affirming the Self [which according to

you is the truth]. I shall not argue with you on this, but shall just point out

the weaknesses of your statements.

3. "Gautama saw that many people were losing interest in Samadhi", but then why

did he have to teach other very important things. The Buddha's teachings are not

confined to Samadhi and meditation as you might believe. The Buddha has very

much talked of panna (Prajna) or wisdom. He has also talked of Samadhi and has

left us a suite of meditative techniques to choose from and to practise to learn

a lot from . Besides these, he also gives a lot of similies to explain how these

techniques function. He also gives a very detailed description of what actually

happens in these meditative techniques and in samsara per se. Most important of

all the Buddha's stress on morals, virtue, ethics has been totally disregarded

here. For your information, a third of the Pali literature of the Buddha's

teachings are about morals. His emphasis on viraga (dispassion) has been

forgotten by you, wherein he says that dispassion is the tool used to get

Prajna, but even dispassion is only a phenomenon

and hence the completely enlightened one has neither passion nor dispassion.

4. "So Gautama emphasized the change in everything, and the substratum of

samsara -- which is to say, the character of ordinary states of consciousness

which is suffering, and pointed out nirvana, which is bliss." This is correct.

Yet this is not all. One needs to spend time to read the Buddha's teachings to

understand him better. Please try to read about it before speculating. Please

don't mind this, but I am rather disappointed that people are ready to form

opinions about another philosophy without even giving it a good reading.

5. "So He formulated these 4 noble truths as they are called, but they were then

interpreted to mean a different thing, so Buddhists began quarreling with each

other and several schools emerged.". What according to you is the meaning of the

four noble truths, which the Buddha intended to teach. What according to you is

the meaning the Buddhists today have conjured up? Isn't it a little pretentious

to assume that you understand the Buddha much better 2500 years after his death

than people at his time. What proof or evidence do you have for that?

6. "It is my personal experience that only in rare moments I experience that

Bliss that I know to be my own nature. So samsara

(suffering created because of ordinary state of consciousness) is

very real indeed. So one needs a method to remove suffering (which

is again only due to ordinary states of consciousness). So Gautama

taught the Eightfold Path, probably because he thought that people

would attain Samadhi by following this Path, and He Himself must

have attained to Samadhi by following this Path.". Here let me point out the

following:

a. According to the Buddha, since you say 'It is my personal experience that

only in rare moments I experience that Bliss that I know to be my own nature',

by virtue of the word 'my', 'I' and 'own', you have no idea of Nibbana. In

Nibbana, there is no concept of 'I' or 'my' or 'mine'. I think in what I have

understood about Vedanta it is the case with Moksha as well. Correct me please

if I am wrong. Besides, according to the Buddha, the experience of Nibbana is

not something that we 'experience' and come out of. There is no place called

Nibbana or thing or experience. Nibbana is beyond description or classification.

b. According to the Buddha as long as the passion for 'my own nature' remains,

you will keep searching for it. You like and love yourself. You want yourself to

be asserted (or denied in case you beleive otherwise). Neither a search for the

self nor an attempt to prove it's non-existence will help in the noble path. The

Buddha says that one will wander in all the wrong directions, and will waste his

time without cultivating the primary quality of viraga [dispassion] due to which

this passion of 'my own nature' and questions of 'Do I exist?' 'Who am I?' etc.

will vanish and in it's place will be questions like 'What is the worth of

clinging to the body or mind or consciousness? Let me let go of it and live in

peace.' It is questions of the latter type that will lead one to enlightenment

according to the Buddha.

If you have any further doubts about this, kindly write to me directly, so that

we may not disturb the others on the group.

-Bhikku Yogi

Blab-away for as little as 1¢/min. Make PC-to-Phone Calls using

Messenger with Voice.

April 10, 2006

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi

wrote:

>

> If you have any further doubts about this, kindly write to me

directly, so that we may not disturb the others on the group.

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

====

Namaste Frederico and Yogendra,

I agree. Going offline for this would be a good idea. It's not the

job of the advaitin list to be a forum to discuss the adequacy of

people's understandings of other paths. It can be a springboard for

discussion, but I think the nitty-gritty of those discussions is

better handled elsewhere.

--Greg

April 10, 2006

A request to List Moderator Mr. Goode,

As the Upanishadic and Shankaran position is set forth in this post

of mine, it may pl. be allowed so that there will not remain any

confusion regarding this. Thanks.

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi

wrote:

>

> Dear Mr. Frederico,

>

> 1. I donot think Sankara/Advaita makes the statement: 'Self is

ever-existing'. Our understanding of existence is conditioned by our

knowledge or perception of material and mental existence. We cannot

fathom the truth revealed by the Upanishads and cannot understand

the nature of Brahman since it is beyond the horizon of our

experience. Thus words such as 'ever-existing' donot apply.

Existence and non-existence are terms that donot apply to Brahman.

This is my opinion and in the last few emails of this thread, this

is the very thing that I have tried to ascertain. Are you telling me

that Advaita itself deviates from this position in several places -

that it is inconsistent as a philosphy? Or are you telling me that I

have misunderstood your statement? Or is it the case that I don't

understand Sankara's position on the question of the 'existence' of

Brahman. Or is it that Sri Sankarraman and several others on this

list who have confirmed my understanding are incorrectly

> representing Advaita?

Namaste Bhikku Maharaj,

The above observation of yours makes it imperative that a

clarification is offered about the Upanishadic/Shankaran position

regarding the term 'existence'. What was clarified in the 13th

chapter verse that i pointed out to you earlier is this: The Self is

not to be put in the category of 'existence' or 'non-existence'

because, the Self is not of the kind that can be called 'existent'

just like for instance a pot which does come into existence in order

to be called and transacted as a pot. Likewise, when it is

destroyed, it becomes 'non-existent'. Surely the Self does not come

into existence and go out of existence like a pot. So, in order to

separate the Self from this type of existence and non-existence this

clarification was given.

The Upanishadic position of the Self is never confusing to

understand. It is Nitya, Eternal, Existence, Sat, with the E and S

in capital. The Gita, and the Shankara-bhashya on the Second

chapter verse 12 makes this clear:

2.12 But certainly (it is) not (a fact) that I did not exist at any

time; nor you, nor these rulers of men. And surely it is not that we

all shall cease to exist after this.

Why are they not to be grieved for? Because they are eternal. How?

Na tu eva, but certainly it is not (a fact); that jatu, at any time;

aham, I ; na asam, did not exist; on the contrary, I did exist. The

idea is that when the bodies were born or died in the past, I

existed eternally. [Here Ast. adds ghatadisu viyadiva, like Space in

pot etc.-Tr.] Similarly, na tvam, nor is it that you did not exist;

but you surely existed. Ca, and so also; na ime, nor is it that

these ; jana-adhipah, rulers of men, did not exist. On the other

hand, they did exist. And similarly, na eva, it is surely not that;

vayam, we; sarve, all; na bhavisyamah, shall cease to exist; atah

param, after this, even after the destruction of this body. On the

contrary, we shall exist. The meaning is that even in all the three

times (past, present and future) we are eternal in our nature as the

Self. The plural number (in we) is used following the diversity of

the bodies, but not in the sense of the multiplicity of the Self.

2.13 As are boyhood, youth and decrepitude to an embodied being in

this (present) body, similar is the acquisition of another body.

This being so, an intelligent person does not get deluded.

As to that, to show how the Self is eternal, the Lord cites an

illustration by saying,'...of the embodied,' etc. Yatha, as are, the

manner in which; kaumaram, boyhood; yauvanam, youth, middle age; and

jara, decrepitude, advance of age; dehinah, to an embodied being, to

one who possesses a body (deha), to the Self possessing a body;

asmin, in this, present; dehe, body-. These three states are

mutually distinct. On these, when the first state gets destroyed the

Self does not get destroyed; when the second state comes into being

It is not born. What then? It is seen that the Self, which verily

remains unchanged, acquires the second and third states. Tatha,

similar, indeed; is Its, the unchanging Self's dehantarapraptih,

acquisition of another body, a body different from the present one.

This is the meaning. Tatra, this being so; dhirah, an intelligent

person; na, does not; muhyati, get deluded.

A part of the commentary for the verse 16:

Therefore, asatah, of the unreal, viz body etc. and the dualities

(heat, cold, etc.), together with their causes; na vidyate, there is

no; bhavah, being. And similarly, satah, of the real, of the Self;

na vidyate, there is no; abhavah, nonexistence, because It is

constant everywhere. This is what we have said.

Tu, but; antah, the nature, the conclusion (regarding the nature of

the real and the unreal) that the Real is verily real, and the

unreal is verily unreal; ubhayoh api, of both these indeed, of the

Self and the non-Self, of the Real and the unreal, as explained

above; drstah, has been realized thus; tattva-darsibhih, by the

seers of Truth. Tat is a pronoun (Sarvanama, lit. name of all) which

can be used with regard to all. And all is Brahman. And Its name is

tat. The abstraction of tat is tattva, the true nature of Brahman.

Those who are apt to realize this are tattva-darsinah, seers of

Truth.

Therefore, you too, by adopting the vision of the men of realization

and giving up sorrow and delusion, forbear the dualities, heat,

cold, etc.-some of which are definite in their nature, and others

inconstant-, mentally being convinced that this (phenomenal world)

is changeful, verily unreal and appears falsely like water in a

mirage. This is the idea.

What, again, is that reality which remains verily as the Real and

surely for ever? This is being answered in, 'But know That', etc.

2.17 But know That to be indestructible by which all this is

pervaded. None can bring about the destruction of this Immutable.

tu, But-this word is used for distinguishing (reality) from

unreality; tat viddhi, know That; to be avinasi, indestructible, by

nature not subject to destruction; what? (that) yena, by which, by

which Brahman called Reality; sarvam, all; idam, this, the Universe

together with space; is tatam, pervaded, as pot etc. are pervaded by

space. Na kascit, none; arhati, can; kartum, bring about; vinasam,

the destruction, disappearance, nonexistence; asya, of this

avyayasya, of the Immutable, that which does not undergo growth and

depletion. By Its very nature this Brahman called Reality does not

suffer mutation, because, unlike bodies etc., It has no limbs; nor

(does It suffer mutation) by (loss of something) belonging to It,

because It has nothing that is Its own. Brahman surely does not

suffer loss like Devadatta suffering from loss of wealth. Therefore

no one can bring about the destruction of this immutable Brahman. No

one, not even God Himself, can destroy his own Self, because the

Self is Brahman. Besides, action with regard to one's Self is self-

contradictory.

Which, again, is that 'unreal' that is said to change its own

nature? This is being answered:

2.18 These destructible bodies are said to belong to the

everlasting, indestructible, not knowable by the senses, embodied

One. Therefore, O descendant of Bharata, join the battle.

End of the Quote.

Thus the Upanishadic and the Shankaran position on the Self is

decidedly that it is Nitya, Eternal. This position is consistently

held. This is said so in clear terms without giving room for doubt

or confusion.

In the Vivekachoodamani verse 410, 'prakriti-vikriti-shunyam' the

meaning is: Because the Self is Nitya and Niravayava , Eternal and

Impartite(not having parts), It is bereft (=shunyam) of prakriti= a

cause for Itself, and vikriti = an effect of Itself. That is, the

Self being Eternal, is uncaused and being without parts, does not

bring forth any effect. The word 'shunyam' is simply 'bereft of' as

for example in the word 'viveka-shunyaH = one who does not have

viveka'. It has not a definition of Atma as shunya.

Again, in Sadhana, the first limb, Viveka, is defined as 'Nitya -

anitya vastu viveka'. Nitya vstu is Brahman and anitya vastu is the

jagat. The Vivekachoodamani defines this as 'Brahma-satyam and

jagan-mithya'. The Commentary by Sri Chandrashekhara Bharati

Swamigal is very interesting in this: If Brahman is said to be Nitya

and Jagat is Anitya, there is the possibility for some to say: Even

if it is anitya, i would vote for the jagat sukham. In order to

teach strong vairagya, Shankara says Brahma satyam and jagat

mithya. In this case, since the jagat sukham is mithya, akin to

what is perceived in a dream, dridha vairagyam is possibole. For,

one who longs for a kingdom would never settle for a dream-kingdom.

(This is only an aside point.)

Trust this puts the Upanishadic and Shankaran position in clear

terms. The Self is Nitya, Eternal.

Pranams,

subbu

>

April 10, 2006