Is Enlightenment Personal - reply to Bhikku Maharaj and others

[Guest guest]

Response:

 

Pranams Bhikku Maharaj,

 

At the outset, you need not have made a reference to me in a veiled

manner. After all, we have no animosity towards each other. We are

friends on the path of Sadhana.

 

Several of the questions raised have been answered earlier. For

example, 'Who is in bondage and who gets enlightenment?' was

answered by me quite recently thus: It is the jiva, who is an

admixture of Pure Consciousness and the anaatma, mind-body complex,

is the one to whom bondage is there, for it is he who experiences

samsara. He takes the aid of the Shastram and Guru and performs

sadhana and it is he who gets enlightenment. The logic: The locus

of bondage will have to be the locus of enlightenment. A number of

Sruti vakyams are there which have been already quoted in support of

this fact.

 

(Brihadàranyaka Upanishad IV.4.23)

(This is the world of Brahman, O Emperor. You have attained this.

Thus said Yajñavalkya.)

 

Yajñavalkya, the Guru, was the one who confirmed that Janaka, his

disciple, had realised Brahman and become a jävanmukta. It is

possible for a disciple to have the delusion that he has realised

the Truth though he is yet to do so. Did not Nàrada mistakenly take

it on knowing pràna that he had known the Truth and stop requesting

Sanatkumàra for further instructions about the Àtman? As a worthy

Guru would, Sanatkumàra corrected Nàrada and led his disciple to the

Truth.

 

(Kena Upanióad II.1)

(If you think that you have known Brahman well …)

 

The Guru may even challenge the disciple's understanding like this

so as to ensure firm, flawless realisation of the Truth.

 

{Bhagavatpàda's bhàshya on the segment of the dialogue between

Sanatkumàra, the Guru, and Nàrada, the disciple, referred to by

Acharyal and occurring in the Chàndogya Upanióad is:

 

(Bhashya on the Chàndogya Upanishad VII.16.1)

Having heard of that pràna which transcends everything, which is to

be seen as one's self and which is the self of all, Nàrada stopped

as he thought "There is nothing superior to this." He did not ask,

on the lines of his having done earlier, "O venerable sir, does

anything exist that is greater than pràna?" Having found Nàrada

satisfied thus with this Brahman (pràna) that is a modification and

is unreal and regarding himself as having realised the highest Truth

and so transcendent in speech but actually not having accomplished

the highest end, Sanatkumàra spoke to his competent disciple and

drew him away from his specific false notion.

 

Introducing the passage of the Kena Upanióad cited by Acharyal,

Bhagavatpàda has written in His Vàkyabhàóya:

 

(Vàkyabhàshya on Kena Upanishad II.1)

Having turned away the mind of the disciple from what is known (such

as a pot) and what is unknown, fixed it upon his own Àtman and

crowned him in the kingdom of his Àtman by negating Brahman's being

an object of contemplation with the words, "Know that to be Brahman

…", the teacher shakes the understanding of the disciple by

saying, "If you think that you know Brahman well …" What, then, is

the purpose of such shaking? The answer is, "For ensuring firm

realisation of the Truth grasped earlier."

 

Coming to the question of 'Will a Jnani entertain the thought that

he has enlightenment?' can be answered thus:

 

Supposing there is an Enlightened Guru who is guiding a sadhaka.

Now, supposing in a hyopothetical sadhana there are ten steps, the

tenth one when successfully gone through culminates in

sakshatkara. Now supposing the Guru (who is enlightened, having

himself passed through all the steps) finds the sadhaka just ready

to take up the tenth step. The question is, how will the Guru

instruct him regarding this crucial step unless he has a reference

point which is none other than his own experience of the culmination

(sakshatkara) and the earlier penultimate step? If the Guru does

not have the consciousness of his own Enlightening experience and

the details pertaining to it, what will he have to compare with as

against the current state of the disciple? Will the Guru take

recourse to scriptures? Will he speculate? The answer is a No.

Acharya Shankara in his Bhashya says: 'Even if a person is well

versed in all the Shastras, let him not venture into Atma sadhana

all by himself, without the aid of the Guru.' It is precisely to

cater to a requirement that we are now considering that the

Upanishads and the Acharya have so very practically emphasised the

role of an enlightened Guru – Tad vijnaanaartham sa Gurum Eva

abhigacchet, Shrotriyam Brahmanishtham (Mundaka). Let an aspirant

of Atma Vidya approach a Guru alone, who is a knower of the

scriptures and is established in Brahman realisation.

 

In the Pañcadashi, it is said: (IX.95) (IX.96) (IX.97ab)

'Having once acquired firm knowledge of the Àtman, the knower of the

Truth is certainly able to talk about It, think about It and to

meditate upon It whenever he wants to do so. If it be said that he

would forget worldly dealings while meditating like a practitioner

of meditation, the response is that he indeed does so but that

forgetting is the consequence of meditation and not that of

knowledge. Meditation is, however, optional for him since liberation

has already been secured by knowledge.'

>From the above it is clear that if a Jnani has to talk about Atman,

the Truth, it is possible only if he is conscious of his own

experience. The denial of this stand would render the valid and

fruitful instruction of Atman Knowledge, upadesha, impossible.

Further, it will militate against the host of Sruti and Smriti

vakyams teaching the Guru-sishya interaction and successful

culmination of such interaction. What makes it difficult to admit

this is the non-admitting of the fact of the possibility of

Jivanmukti.

 

(Mundaka Upanishad II.2.8)

(When the supreme Àtman, which is both high and low, is realised,

the knot of the heart (comprising the host of tendencies and

impressions of ignorance in the form of desires) is destroyed, all

doubts come to an end and one's actions become dissipated.)

 

(Brihadàranyaka Upanishad IV.4.7)

(Then, he who was subject to death, becomes deathless and attains

identity with Brahman while living in this very body – atra Brahma

samashnute)

 

(Bhagavad-Gätà III.17)

(But that man who rejoices only in the Àtman, is satisfied with just

the Àtman and who is contented in just the Àtman - for him, there is

no duty to perform.)

 

(Gauádapàda Kàrikà II.38)

Having examined the Reality in the context of the individual and in

the external world, one should become identified with the Reality,

should have one's delight in the Reality and should not deviate from

the Reality.

 

The upshot of the above is that after attainment of Sakshatkara, the

Jnani does have an ego. But this is not of the binding type. He

has to have this because he has to continue to live till the

exhaustion of prarabdha. Further, in order to teach others he has

to have the ego. If this were not admitted, we will have the (a)

absurd and (b) unfortunate - consequences of the Jnani giving up

his body as soon as enlightenment takes place and no aspirant

getting the guidance of a living enlightened Guru. This will

contradict Bhagavan's statement: Upadekshyanti te jnaanam Jnaaninah

TattvadarshinaH = The Knowers, the Seers of the Truth will instruct

you about the Truth if you…. Only if it is admitted that the

enlightened do retain a certain amount of ego, it would be possible

to account for their being able to look at a disciple's problem from

his (disciple's) point of view and empathise properly with him. The

perfect solution can come only when this is possible.

 

The Sruti speaks of several Muktas – Shuka, Vamadeva, Janaka,

Yajnavalkya, Sanatkumara, Narada, Bhrigu, Varuna, Yama, Nachiketas,

etc., etc., In none of these cases does the Sruti say that they

died the moment they attained Sakshatkara. It is perfectly possible

for Muktas and baddhas, ignorant persons to coexist. We have the

Sruti itself as pramana for this. For, if the Sruti were to

preclude this possibility, it would have stopped by just informing

that Shuka and Vamadeva were muktas. That would be of little use to

others. The Sruti goes on the teach: Tad Vijijnaasasva, Tad

Brahmeti (Taittiriya) , 'Seek to Know That, That is Brahman.' , 'Sa

Aatma, sa vijneyaH' (Mandukya), He is Atman, He is to be Known'.

And it goes on to teach the Lakshanams of such Brahman, the method

of sadhana, etc., etc.

 

If it were imagined that Brahman being Akhanda there would be no

possibility of Muktas and baddhas to co-exist, it would lead to such

absurd consequences as mentioned above. All the teaching of the need

to cultivate daivi sampat and eschew aasuri sampat, the delineation

of sthitaprajna lakhshnas, etc. by the Gita would be futile if the

possibility of Muktas and baddhas coexisting is not admitted. The

question of Arjuna about the behaviour of a Sthitaprajna is another

proof for this. Bhagavan's reply has to be essentially the type that

it enables one to see such behaviour in other Great ones and

cultivate the same in himself. All this will be in place only if

the possibility of Jivanmukti is admitted. In Advaita Vedanta this

is not at all a difficulty because there is a famous maxim:

Brahmaiva sva-avidyayaa badhyate iva, Brahmaiva sva-vidyayaa

muchyate iva = Brahman Itself, owing to ignorance of Its own True

Nature appears as though It is bound and by virtue of gaining the

Knowledge of Its own True Nature, is released as it were. Questions

like 'How can the all-knowing Brahman become ignorant', etc., are

not relevant. Upadhi, Maya, Moha, Ajnana, etc. can explain this.

 

Thus, since the Sruti talks about Muktas and instructs us to 'Know

That', and elaborates on several successful Guru-sishya dialogues,

it goes without saying that it is quite alright to have Muktas and

baddhas simultaneously and that the Muktas, in order to teach those

who seek their guidance, retain a certain amount of ego.

 

Having said this in answer to several questions that appeared in

this thread, let me take leave from participating any further in

this thread. This is because, (a) everything pertaining to this

topic has been said and (b) other topics with which I am preoccupied

demand my attention and time.

 

Warm regards,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Subuji,

 

That was very enjoyable to read and thank you for the time it must have

taken to write it. You are very logical and eloquent in your reasoning.

Also, the quotes from the various scriptures as support are very

educational to me.

 

Thank you,

Love to all

Harsha

 

 

subrahmanian_v wrote:

> Response:

>

> Pranams Bhikku Maharaj,

>

> At the outset, you need not have made a reference to me in a veiled

> manner. After all, we have no animosity towards each other. We are

> friends on the path of Sadhana.

>

> Several of the questions raised have been answered earlier. For

> example, 'Who is in bondage and who gets enlightenment?' was

> answered by me quite recently thus: It is the jiva, who is an

> admixture of Pure Consciousness and the anaatma, mind-body complex,

> is the one to whom bondage is there, for it is he who experiences

> samsara. He takes the aid of the Shastram and Guru and performs

> sadhana and it is he who gets enlightenment. The logic: The locus

> of bondage will have to be the locus of enlightenment. A number of

> Sruti vakyams are there which have been already quoted in support of

> this fact.

>

> (Brihadàranyaka Upanishad IV.4.23)

> (This is the world of Brahman, O Emperor. You have attained this.

> Thus said Yajñavalkya.)

>

> Yajñavalkya, the Guru, was the one who confirmed that Janaka, his

> disciple, had realised Brahman and become a jävanmukta. It is

> possible for a disciple to have the delusion that he has realised

> the Truth though he is yet to do so. Did not Nàrada mistakenly take

> it on knowing pràna that he had known the Truth and stop requesting

> Sanatkumàra for further instructions about the Àtman? As a worthy

> Guru would, Sanatkumàra corrected Nàrada and led his disciple to the

> Truth.

>

> (Kena Upanióad II.1)

> (If you think that you have known Brahman well …)

>

> The Guru may even challenge the disciple's understanding like this

> so as to ensure firm, flawless realisation of the Truth.

>

> {Bhagavatpàda's bhàshya on the segment of the dialogue between

> Sanatkumàra, the Guru, and Nàrada, the disciple, referred to by

> Acharyal and occurring in the Chàndogya Upanióad is:

>

> (Bhashya on the Chàndogya Upanishad VII.16.1)

> Having heard of that pràna which transcends everything, which is to

> be seen as one's self and which is the self of all, Nàrada stopped

> as he thought "There is nothing superior to this." He did not ask,

> on the lines of his having done earlier, "O venerable sir, does

> anything exist that is greater than pràna?" Having found Nàrada

> satisfied thus with this Brahman (pràna) that is a modification and

> is unreal and regarding himself as having realised the highest Truth

> and so transcendent in speech but actually not having accomplished

> the highest end, Sanatkumàra spoke to his competent disciple and

> drew him away from his specific false notion.

>

> Introducing the passage of the Kena Upanióad cited by Acharyal,

> Bhagavatpàda has written in His Vàkyabhàóya:

>

> (Vàkyabhàshya on Kena Upanishad II.1)

> Having turned away the mind of the disciple from what is known (such

> as a pot) and what is unknown, fixed it upon his own Àtman and

> crowned him in the kingdom of his Àtman by negating Brahman's being

> an object of contemplation with the words, "Know that to be Brahman

> …", the teacher shakes the understanding of the disciple by

> saying, "If you think that you know Brahman well …" What, then, is

> the purpose of such shaking? The answer is, "For ensuring firm

> realisation of the Truth grasped earlier."

>

> Coming to the question of 'Will a Jnani entertain the thought that

> he has enlightenment?' can be answered thus:

>

> Supposing there is an Enlightened Guru who is guiding a sadhaka.

> Now, supposing in a hyopothetical sadhana there are ten steps, the

> tenth one when successfully gone through culminates in

> sakshatkara. Now supposing the Guru (who is enlightened, having

> himself passed through all the steps) finds the sadhaka just ready

> to take up the tenth step. The question is, how will the Guru

> instruct him regarding this crucial step unless he has a reference

> point which is none other than his own experience of the culmination

> (sakshatkara) and the earlier penultimate step? If the Guru does

> not have the consciousness of his own Enlightening experience and

> the details pertaining to it, what will he have to compare with as

> against the current state of the disciple? Will the Guru take

> recourse to scriptures? Will he speculate? The answer is a No.

> Acharya Shankara in his Bhashya says: 'Even if a person is well

> versed in all the Shastras, let him not venture into Atma sadhana

> all by himself, without the aid of the Guru.' It is precisely to

> cater to a requirement that we are now considering that the

> Upanishads and the Acharya have so very practically emphasised the

> role of an enlightened Guru – Tad vijnaanaartham sa Gurum Eva

> abhigacchet, Shrotriyam Brahmanishtham (Mundaka). Let an aspirant

> of Atma Vidya approach a Guru alone, who is a knower of the

> scriptures and is established in Brahman realisation.

>

> In the Pañcadashi, it is said: (IX.95) (IX.96) (IX.97ab)

> 'Having once acquired firm knowledge of the Àtman, the knower of the

> Truth is certainly able to talk about It, think about It and to

> meditate upon It whenever he wants to do so. If it be said that he

> would forget worldly dealings while meditating like a practitioner

> of meditation, the response is that he indeed does so but that

> forgetting is the consequence of meditation and not that of

> knowledge. Meditation is, however, optional for him since liberation

> has already been secured by knowledge.'

>

> >From the above it is clear that if a Jnani has to talk about Atman,

> the Truth, it is possible only if he is conscious of his own

> experience. The denial of this stand would render the valid and

> fruitful instruction of Atman Knowledge, upadesha, impossible.

> Further, it will militate against the host of Sruti and Smriti

> vakyams teaching the Guru-sishya interaction and successful

> culmination of such interaction. What makes it difficult to admit

> this is the non-admitting of the fact of the possibility of

> Jivanmukti.

>

> (Mundaka Upanishad II.2.8)

> (When the supreme Àtman, which is both high and low, is realised,

> the knot of the heart (comprising the host of tendencies and

> impressions of ignorance in the form of desires) is destroyed, all

> doubts come to an end and one's actions become dissipated.)

>

> (Brihadàranyaka Upanishad IV.4.7)

> (Then, he who was subject to death, becomes deathless and attains

> identity with Brahman while living in this very body – atra Brahma

> samashnute)

>

> (Bhagavad-Gätà III.17)

> (But that man who rejoices only in the Àtman, is satisfied with just

> the Àtman and who is contented in just the Àtman - for him, there is

> no duty to perform.)

>

> (Gauádapàda Kàrikà II.38)

> Having examined the Reality in the context of the individual and in

> the external world, one should become identified with the Reality,

> should have one's delight in the Reality and should not deviate from

> the Reality.

>

> The upshot of the above is that after attainment of Sakshatkara, the

> Jnani does have an ego. But this is not of the binding type. He

> has to have this because he has to continue to live till the

> exhaustion of prarabdha. Further, in order to teach others he has

> to have the ego. If this were not admitted, we will have the (a)

> absurd and (b) unfortunate - consequences of the Jnani giving up

> his body as soon as enlightenment takes place and no aspirant

> getting the guidance of a living enlightened Guru. This will

> contradict Bhagavan's statement: Upadekshyanti te jnaanam Jnaaninah

> TattvadarshinaH = The Knowers, the Seers of the Truth will instruct

> you about the Truth if you…. Only if it is admitted that the

> enlightened do retain a certain amount of ego, it would be possible

> to account for their being able to look at a disciple's problem from

> his (disciple's) point of view and empathise properly with him. The

> perfect solution can come only when this is possible.

>

> The Sruti speaks of several Muktas – Shuka, Vamadeva, Janaka,

> Yajnavalkya, Sanatkumara, Narada, Bhrigu, Varuna, Yama, Nachiketas,

> etc., etc., In none of these cases does the Sruti say that they

> died the moment they attained Sakshatkara. It is perfectly possible

> for Muktas and baddhas, ignorant persons to coexist. We have the

> Sruti itself as pramana for this. For, if the Sruti were to

> preclude this possibility, it would have stopped by just informing

> that Shuka and Vamadeva were muktas. That would be of little use to

> others. The Sruti goes on the teach: Tad Vijijnaasasva, Tad

> Brahmeti (Taittiriya) , 'Seek to Know That, That is Brahman.' , 'Sa

> Aatma, sa vijneyaH' (Mandukya), He is Atman, He is to be Known'.

> And it goes on to teach the Lakshanams of such Brahman, the method

> of sadhana, etc., etc.

>

> If it were imagined that Brahman being Akhanda there would be no

> possibility of Muktas and baddhas to co-exist, it would lead to such

> absurd consequences as mentioned above. All the teaching of the need

> to cultivate daivi sampat and eschew aasuri sampat, the delineation

> of sthitaprajna lakhshnas, etc. by the Gita would be futile if the

> possibility of Muktas and baddhas coexisting is not admitted. The

> question of Arjuna about the behaviour of a Sthitaprajna is another

> proof for this. Bhagavan's reply has to be essentially the type that

> it enables one to see such behaviour in other Great ones and

> cultivate the same in himself. All this will be in place only if

> the possibility of Jivanmukti is admitted. In Advaita Vedanta this

> is not at all a difficulty because there is a famous maxim:

> Brahmaiva sva-avidyayaa badhyate iva, Brahmaiva sva-vidyayaa

> muchyate iva = Brahman Itself, owing to ignorance of Its own True

> Nature appears as though It is bound and by virtue of gaining the

> Knowledge of Its own True Nature, is released as it were. Questions

> like 'How can the all-knowing Brahman become ignorant', etc., are

> not relevant. Upadhi, Maya, Moha, Ajnana, etc. can explain this.

>

> Thus, since the Sruti talks about Muktas and instructs us to 'Know

> That', and elaborates on several successful Guru-sishya dialogues,

> it goes without saying that it is quite alright to have Muktas and

> baddhas simultaneously and that the Muktas, in order to teach those

> who seek their guidance, retain a certain amount of ego.

>

> Having said this in answer to several questions that appeared in

> this thread, let me take leave from participating any further in

> this thread. This is because, (a) everything pertaining to this

> topic has been said and (b) other topics with which I am preoccupied

> demand my attention and time.

>

> Warm regards,

> subbu

>

>

 

 

 

community blog is at

 

http://.net/blog/

 

"Love itself is the actual form of God."

 

Sri Ramana

 

In "Letters from Sri Ramanasramam" by Suri Nagamma

[Guest guest]

Note from the List Moderator: We request all members to keep the discussions

focused more on the subject matter and avoid as much possible personal

references. Even if they are made with good intentions, they can create

misunderstanding/misinterpretation, etc. Thanks again for your cooperation and

understanding in this matter.

 

Dear Sri Subrahmanian,

 

You wrote:

"At the outset, you need not have made a reference to

me in a veiled manner. After all, we have no

animosity towards each other. We are friends on the

path of Sadhana."

 

Response:

Oh no. It was not in a veiled manner. You are truly

learned since you so readily recall from the Vedantic

Canon and from Sankara's commentaries. You are adept

at quoting right from the source very quickly. Surely

you are learned.

 

Yet since everyone here is more learned than me and

since I am not even competent to say who is learned

etc., it would not be fair to refer to you by name and

say that "this gentleman said this and he is learned."

Instead I thought it would be more courteous to just

refer to you as a learned gentleman.

 

Just as you refer to me as "Maharaj" when I am neither

a king nor a "holy man", but perhaps lovingly call me

so, I thought the title "learned" is respectful

enough. Let me assure you, it was not out of spite.

Please let me know if you would prefer to be called by

some other title. [Pardon me if I addressed you

inappropriately in the beginning of this email.]

 

I read your explanation and tried reading it again and

again to try to understand why exactly Vedantists try

to answer this question in the first place.

 

In my opinion and in what the Buddha has taught, this

question will not lead to enlightenment and its answer

too will not lead to enlightenment. Among the

Buddhists this ia a wise way of tackling a situation

that cannot be answered directly. This is because of

the following complex of confusion:

 

"If the jiva gets enlightened, jiva itself is an

admixture of Atman and Maya. But Atman cannot be mixed

with anything. So jiva is verily belonging only to the

realm of avidya. Then since jiva is really only a

mirage and not real, and since only Atman is real,

no-one truly gets enlightened. Then where is

enlightenment?"

 

I think this question is simply worthless and is not

worth any attention for it only diverts us into

metaphysics, when we should be concentrating on

developing dispassion, compassion, equanimity and

wisdom. So I am very sorry for putting forth such a

stupid question.

 

Please also don't misunderstand me. I am not saying

that Vedanta is wrong in answering this question. As

you can perhaps see, it is not a fault of Vedanta, but

of us, who are trying to answer a question that

deserves no answer. Is it because of our fundamental

beleif (perhaps incorrect) that a school of philosophy

is complete only if it answers all possible questions

and provides an answer to all possible twists? This

may not be true. A philosophy intending to inspire a

person into spiritual quests need not answer all

questions and need be consistent only so much as it

serves the purpose of enlightenment.

 

Any philosophy meant for other sorts of

accomplishments like metaphysical pursuits, may

discuss them to whatever extent they please.

 

For example, Buddhism leaves certain questions

regarding Self, Creation, God, who gets enlightened,

etc. unanswered. Exactly in the same way, perhaps,

Ajati vada of Gaudapada was his first step towards

diverting us from worthless questions like these to

the spiritual path. He and Sankara affirm that

Creation is not the subject of Brahman who is 'unborn'

and whom this world of avidya does not affect. Again,

by saying that Ishvara belongs only to the realm of

avidya, perhaps, he diverts our attention towards that

Supreme unconditioned Brahman beyond the attributes we

attach to Ishvara.

 

I think doing justice to Sankara who got enlightened

in his own right, we should also drop this worthless

question that only leads to sorrow and further

confusions.

 

I am not advising all here, since you all know this

already and perhaps even better than me. I am only

saying this to remind myself of this fundamental

approach of diverting one's mind towards things like

viraga [dispassion] and 'panna' [wisdom].

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi

wrote:

>> Dear Sri Subrahmanian,

>

Pranams Bhikku Maharaj,

(The title is normally used to address or refer to a Monk. I have

observed this in the Sri Ramakrishna Mutt. Since i am under the

impression that you are a monk, i follow that tradition.)

 

You write,

> I read your explanation and tried reading it again and

> again to try to understand why exactly Vedantists try

> to answer this question in the first place.

>

> In my opinion and in what the Buddha has taught, this

> question will not lead to enlightenment and its answer

> too will not lead to enlightenment. Among the

> Buddhists this ia a wise way of tackling a situation

> that cannot be answered directly. This is because of

> the following complex of confusion:

>

> "If the jiva gets enlightened, jiva itself is an

> admixture of Atman and Maya. But Atman cannot be mixed

> with anything. So jiva is verily belonging only to the

> realm of avidya. Then since jiva is really only a

> mirage and not real, and since only Atman is real,

> no-one truly gets enlightened. Then where is

> enlightenment?"

>

> I think this question is simply worthless and is not

> worth any attention for it only diverts us into

> metaphysics, when we should be concentrating on

> developing dispassion, compassion, equanimity and

> wisdom. So I am very sorry for putting forth such a

> stupid question.

>

> Please also don't misunderstand me. I am not saying

> that Vedanta is wrong in answering this question. As

> you can perhaps see, it is not a fault of Vedanta, but

> of us, who are trying to answer a question that

> deserves no answer. Is it because of our fundamental

> beleif (perhaps incorrect) that a school of philosophy

> is complete only if it answers all possible questions

> and provides an answer to all possible twists? This

> may not be true. A philosophy intending to inspire a

> person into spiritual quests need not answer all

> questions and need be consistent only so much as it

> serves the purpose of enlightenment.

 

Response:

 

Despite my decision to keep off this thread, the above observations

of yours compell me to make a reply. First, pl. appreciate that i

replied your long post containing several questions, stated, re-

stated and rephrased by you only because you had stated that you

would like to know or learn. Did you expect me to simply ignore

your post? Or did you expect a reply and then declare that 'You see,

this is what i expected: you replied what ought not to have been and

thereby proved that Vedantists are wrong'? This is the impression i

get from your specifying a code of conduct for Vedantists to follow

by having the Buddhist's wise code of conduct as a reference

manual in such matters.

 

You say:

>This is because of the following complex of confusion:

>

> "If the jiva gets enlightened, jiva itself is an

> admixture of Atman and Maya. But Atman cannot be mixed

> with anything. So jiva is verily belonging only to the

> realm of avidya. Then since jiva is really only a

> mirage and not real, and since only Atman is real,

> no-one truly gets enlightened. Then where is

> enlightenment?"

 

Response:

The above only shows that you have not understood the concept of

Adhyasa of Vedanta. And the above clearly shows

the 'Nairaatmyavaada' of the Buddhist. Vedanta never says 'jiva is

really only a mirage and not real.' The very essence of the Vedantic

teaching is 'Jiva-Brahma-Aikyam'. Neither the Upanishads nor

Acharya Shankara dismisses the jiva as a non-entity. 'Jeevo

Brahmaiva na aparaH', 'Jiva is none other than Braham' is the Key

Advaitic teaching. The message of the Upanishads is: If jiva gets

enlightened, the jivatvam is transcended in the realisation of the

native Brahmatvam. None of the schools following the Upanishads,

like Dvaita or Visishtadvaita, reduces the jiva to a nothingness.

 

You say:

>

> I think this question is simply worthless and is not

> worth any attention for it only diverts us into

> metaphysics, when we should be concentrating on

> developing dispassion, compassion, equanimity and

> wisdom. So I am very sorry for putting forth such a

> stupid question.

>

> Please also don't misunderstand me. I am not saying

> that Vedanta is wrong in answering this question. As

> you can perhaps see, it is not a fault of Vedanta, but

> of us, who are trying to answer a question that

> deserves no answer. Is it because of our fundamental

> beleif (perhaps incorrect) that a school of philosophy

> is complete only if it answers all possible questions

> and provides an answer to all possible twists? This

> may not be true. A philosophy intending to inspire a

> person into spiritual quests need not answer all

> questions and need be consistent only so much as it

> serves the purpose of enlightenment.

 

> Any philosophy meant for other sorts of

> accomplishments like metaphysical pursuits, may

> discuss them to whatever extent they please.

>

> For example, Buddhism leaves certain questions

> regarding Self, Creation, God, who gets enlightened,

> etc. unanswered. Exactly in the same way, perhaps,

> Ajati vada of Gaudapada was his first step towards

> diverting us from worthless questions like these to

> the spiritual path. He and Sankara affirm that

> Creation is not the subject of Brahman who is 'unborn'

> and whom this world of avidya does not affect. Again,

> by saying that Ishvara belongs only to the realm of

> avidya, perhaps, he diverts our attention towards that

> Supreme unconditioned Brahman beyond the attributes we

> attach to Ishvara.

 

Response:

Please understand that the Upanishads could have just declared that

the jiva is unreal (as you think) and stopped with that. All the

teaching pertaining to Creation, the Atman, the anatman, the

sadhana, etc., has been delineated not to provide employment to the

Pundits and a passtime to their audience. Vedanta is

Mokshashastra. It is addressed to the jiva. He has to be shown who

he is in truth, what the universe that he interacts with is in truth

and what his sadhana should be and above all, most importantly, what

the sadhana will lead him to. A teaching that does not discuss

about the Goal and how it will be realised is not worth even looking

at. The Brahmasutras are divided into four parts of which

the 'Sadhana' and ''Phalam' constitute the two latter adhyayas.

 

Please also note that Ajati-vada is not the kindergarten teaching of

Vedanta. Only he who has a proper grounding in the Srishti Shrutis

and followed that teaching in appreciating the role of Saguna

Brahman can ever grasp Ajati-vada to his advantage. Ajati-vada is

not meant to be an intellectual curiosity for scholars to debate

about its greatness as against the shrishti shrutis. Again, it would

be suicidal to an unprepared mind to take to the teaching 'Ishwara

is in the realm of Avidya' without first going through sincere

Ishwara aradhana. The Upanishads provide the Supreme teaching of

Aham Brahmaasmi only in a graded manner, taking into consideration

the level of each aspirant. There is a verse:

 

Ajnasya ardha-prabuddhasya sarvam Brahmeti yo vadet |

Mahaa-niraya-jaaleshu sa tena viniyojitaH ||

 

If someone were to teach 'Everything is Brahman' to an ignorant and

half-baked disciple, it is tantamount to consigning him (the poor

disciple) to horrible hells.

 

In the spirit of the above caution, the Upanishads teach all

aspects, none of which could be proved to be irrelevant or a waste

or worthless.

 

 

You write:

> I think doing justice to Sankara who got enlightened

> in his own right, we should also drop this worthless

> question that only leads to sorrow and further

> confusions.

>

 

Response:

 

Do you think the question of 'who is it that gets enlightened' a

worthless one? My God! It is a question of life and death for a true

aspirant. If this crucial question is not first evoked, if one does

not care to ask out of ignorance, and addressed leaving no doubt,

misconception or non-apprehension, that would indeed be the clear

case of 'the blind leading the blind'. Fortunately for us, the

Upanishads do not commit this grievous mistake.

 

Further, if in your opinion, this question is irrelevant, why and

for whom did the Buddha teach the four-fold or eight-fold path? And

when practiced, to lead to what? Is not Nibbana stated to be the

Goal? ( i have not studied Buddhism in any detail.) What is wrong in

stating in clear terms the nature of the Goal? Is it not that when

that is specified clearly an aspirant's journey is rendered well-

focused like a traveller in possession of a reliable map?

 

At last you say:

> I am not advising all here, since you all know this

> already and perhaps even better than me. I am only

> saying this to remind myself of this fundamental

> approach of diverting one's mind towards things like

> viraga [dispassion] and 'panna' [wisdom].

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

 

Response:

Somehow, from what you suggested in the beginning that 'Buddhism has

a wise way ..., and Vedantists ought not to answer these questions,

etc' and finally end with this note, one is left in doubt with

respect to your motives. Let me add that my silence would only send

wrong signals to other members and the policy and purpose of this

List would go undefended. That constitutes the reason for this

response.

 

Pranams,

subbu

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Subrahmanian,

 

"Further, if in your opinion, this question is irrelevant, why and

for whom did the Buddha teach the four-fold or eight-fold path? And

when practiced, to lead to what? Is not Nibbana stated to be the

Goal? ( i have not studied Buddhism in any detail.) What is wrong in stating in

clear terms the nature of the Goal? Is it not that when that is specified

clearly an aspirant's journey is rendered well-focused like a traveller in

possession of a reliable map?"

 

I shall respond to the above personally to you. Finally,

 

"Somehow, from what you suggested in the beginning that 'Buddhism has a wise way

...., and Vedantists ought not to answer these questions, etc' and finally end

with this note, one is left in doubt with respect to your motives. Let me add

that my silence would only send wrong signals to other members and the policy

and purpose of this List would go undefended. That constitutes the reason for

this response."

 

Let me clarify again, that I donot intend to tell the Vedantists what to do and

what not to do. I donot intend to show that Vedantists are wrong in any way as

you presumed earlier too. I only draw a conclusion for myself in as much as

reminding myself of the goal of Nibbana and to stop speculating about the

unknown. Our analysis of Sankara's works can only be approximate. They are

complete only if we are enlightened too. So what is the point in speculating

about something beyond us? Yet, to know that there is something that needs

understanding that is beyond the senses is good. I agree that you answered only

my question. But I think you also missed that I begged forgiveness for having

asked a stupid question in my last post.

 

So, I am not saying that you are wrong in answering my question, but that I am

wrong in expecting an answer for it.

 

About your point that I am trying to prove the greater wisdom of Buddhists, I

would suggest that we drop this war of wisdom which Vedantists and Buddhists

fight for no reason and concentrate on the goal of Nibbana or moksha. Neither am

I saying that Buddhists are wiser nor am I saying that they are ignorant. Yet

for some reason I think your response to this effect would not have been so

defensive had I not been a Buddhist and had I not talked of Buddhism. Suddenly

all schools including Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita become your friends at war

against Buddhism!!

 

More than focussing on the metaphysics of Sankara's philosophy, I would focus on

his teaching of vairagya and sadhana. More than reading about Buddhist

metaphysics developed around 600AD, I would focus on the teaching of Anatta

["not mine" or "not self"] of the Buddha. Rest assured that I revere both sages

equally and am not out to show one inferior to the other.

 

I shall discuss about the points on jiva with you off-list.

 

Thankyou

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

 

Celebrate Earth Day everyday! Discover 10 things you can do to help slow

climate change. Earth Day

 

 

[Guest guest]

On 4/20/06, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi wrote:

 

Yet for some reason I think your response to this effect would not have

> been so defensive had I not been a Buddhist and had I not talked of

> Buddhism. Suddenly all schools including Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita become

> your friends at war against Buddhism!!

>

>

Not always!

 

Prabupada has repeatedly declared advaitins as greater "rascals" than

buddhists :-)

So, we have some common grounds after all :-))

 

praNAm