Fw: Fw: The Sankara contardiction - Something you may find some interest.

August 10, 2006

Namaste Sri Narayana:

First thanks for forwarding the message from Prof. Balaji Hebbar from

George Washington University (GWU). Sri Balaji, teaches Hinduism at

GWU and he was a former member of this list. I know him and his

parents and they are staunch Dwaitins. I am not surprised that he

endorsed totally what Sri Yesupadam has stated. What Prof. C.D

Sharma did in his dissertation is purely an 'academic dissertation

research' and what he "precisely proved" should not be taken as

authoritative. Can the acceptance of his dissertation and/or

publication of an article based on his thesis ever prove that

Sankara's Advaita Vedanta philosophy is identical to the philosophy

of Prasanghika-Vijnanavada school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism?

The list had extensively discussed the similarities between Mahayana

Buddhism and Advaita philosophy. Those discussions are available in

the archive and can be accessed through the link:

advaitin/ and use search engine

for <Mahayana Buddhism>. The search gives about 133 postings

related to this search. Also if you search for the key word,

<Buddhism> you can see 1011 postings. No one can deny some

similarities between Buddhism and advaita and we can see similarities

between advaitin and almost any other religious philosophical

thought. But it is also possible to make several assertions on clear

distinctions between these `look alike philosophical thoughts.' It

should be also pointed out that both language and words are not

always (but they are only available during conversations and

discussions) the best media for describing the underlined Truth

behind any religious philosophy. Given this constraint we have be

very careful while making any assertions on either similarities or

distinctions between religious philosophies.

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

advaitin, "H.S.A.Narayana" <hanasoge

wrote:

>

> -----Forwarded Message-----

> >Balaji Hebbar <bnhebbar

>

> Dear shri Hanasoge:

>

> Moses Yesupadam is absolutely right. To fine tune the

matter

> for precision, I would say that Sankara is closest to

the

> Prasanghika-Vijnanavada school of Indian Mahayana Buddhism.

> This school was founded by the brothers Aryasangha and

> Vasubandhu. The late Prof.C.D.Sharma in his doctoral

> dissertation "Dialectic in Buddhism and Vedanta" precisely

> proved this aforesaid point.

>

> regards

> Hebbar

>

August 11, 2006

Ram Chandran <ramvchandran > wrote:

' It

should be also pointed out that both language and words are not

always (but they are only available during conversations and

discussions) the best media for describing the underlined Truth

behind any religious philosophy. Given this constraint we have be

very careful while making any assertions on either similarities or

distinctions between religious philosophies.

From

Sankarraman

Dear Sir,

It is difficult to understand advaita, or any transcendental philosophy for that matter realized by any sage who does not bracket his articulations within any belief-system, through the tool of words alone, because the word is not the thing. It is worthwhile recalling the following wonderful sutra of sage Patanjali.

"There is confusion of word, object, and mental image because one is superimposed on the other." Patanjali says that all samdhis having the prop of words and objectivity belong to the lower order, and only in the higher stage, when the mind is purged of the conventional sense of memories imposed on the object, the true essence is perceived. According to Patanjali, when, in the super-reflective Samadhi, this clarity arises, the yogin gains inner calm, and by the vision of the flash of insight, which does not pass through the successive stages of the discursive knowledge but has its intended object the reality as it is, goes beyond the realm of words gaining the capacity to understand anything unknown. ( Gaining the contents of relative knowledge in manifold way is surely not the goal according to Patanjali. This is only a step. One should not confound Patanjali to be a mere siddha who revel in such ideas. Patnjali says that even omniscience belongs to

the realm of duality.) This insight is called truth-bearing, there being no misconception in it. Patanjali distinguishes this insight from the knowledge derived through inference and scriptural testimony by holding that its object is a concrete reality and not merely a general notion like the universals. In so far as it has a specific entity for its object, it has closer relation to perception, this being a higher perception to be distinguished from mere conventional memory which confounds the three: the word, the knowledge and the object intended by the word. The individual object, whether it belongs to the subtle elements or to the self, is apprehended only by this truth-bearing insight. In the highest stage of removal of objectification through words, the object becomes one with its own essence. In this stage, according to Patanjali, there is only the discernment of the difference between the satva and the self, which tends towards the contemplation of the

cloud of virtue, the showering of the bliss of virtue. Some others interpret this terminology to mean the last stage of objectivity, hiding the perception of the self like a cloud still even though the earlier stages of savitarka, nirvitarka, savichara, nirvichara, asmita and ananda stages have been crossed. Though this is the highest knowledge that can be conceived in the relative context, still there is some duality involved. This is because the purusa does not perceive anything in the subject-object fashion by uniting with the object, but has the objects shown to it, being a mere mass of knowledge unlike the discriminatory knowledge which functions only the dualistic plane by meditating on the difference between itself and the highest essence. This discriminatory knowledge also collapses, according to Patanjali, in the discovery of the self. This is known as Asampranjata Samadhi in the parlance of yoga. Somewhere Paul Brunton says that long back sage

Patanjali had been aware of the need for a sound semantics in conveying the spiritual knowledge. But I am afraid, what Brunton says is oversimplification. What Patanjali means is crossing the realm of words which are dualistic, in the matter of true understanding. Patanjali defines Samadhi as one of perceiving the object in its own essence that is without the notions of the observer being foisted on it.

Ultimately it amounts to this that both language and words are not the real

media for understanding the Truth.

yours ever in Bhaghavan Ramana

Sankarraman

Talk is cheap. Use Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.

August 12, 2006

Dear Ramachandranji,

I Thank you for the information. I have a long way to go in understanding advaita.

Thanks Aswath

-

"Ram Chandran" <ramvchandran >

Thursday, August 10, 2006 11:17 AM

Fw: Re: Fw: The Sankara contardiction - Something you may find some interest.