Guest guest Posted February 10, 2007 Report Share Posted February 10, 2007 “ … our views about Buddha are that he was not understood properly by his disciples. … ShAkya Muni came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came to fulfill and not to destroy. Only, in the case of Jesus, it was the old people, the Jews, who did not understand him, while in the case of Buddha, it was his own followers who did not realize the import of his teachings ... the Buddhist did not understand the fulfillment of the truths of the Hindu religion. Again, I repeat, ShAkya Muni came not to destroy, but he was the fulfillment, the logical conclusion, the logical development of the religion of the Hindus… “… it was his glory that he had the large-heartedness to bring out the truths from the hidden Vedas and throw them broadcast all over the world … On the philosophic side the disciples of the Great Master dashed themselves against the eternal rocks of the Vedas and could not crush them, and on the other side they took away from the nation that eternal God to which every one, man or woman, clings so fondly. And the result was that Buddhism had to die a natural death in India … the land of its birth.” - Swami Vivekananda at the Parliament of Religions Sept 26, 1893. Namaskaram, The following is an analysis based on some of the perspectives raised by Buddhists in opposition to Advaita, based on what Sri Neilji stated in his post around Feb 1 (connected to Intro to Vedanta-5). The word Brahman. When we tag on such things as “eternal existence”, “pure consciousness”, “substratum of consciousness”, “intrinsic reality”, etc., it is making a conceptual attenuation for the mind to grasp the “Ultimate”. Brahman with the tag-ons is equivalent to a reference like Ishvara denoting the same. The Self is neither an objective entity nor a conceptual reality: “Tat Tvam Asi, Svetaketu”. The later upanishads indicate It by “not this, not this”, only through a negation of anything within the reach of thought, and that includes characterizations like “intrinsic”, etc. The very attempt to find (intellectually affirm) the “substratum” (for “You are It”) or negate it (for “You are It”) are essentially laughed at. The focus is to let go of the superimpositions that the mind holds on to, which is what I believe the Buddha also had at the back of his great teachings. The Truth/Self is not to be “attained”, “realized” or “merged” in: It is always the One Reality. Only the identity-associated mind must be let go off, or the “ego surrendered”. Our scriptures are quite clear that the scriptures are for those who are seeking freedom and not for the “free”. Perhaps in the finer elevations of the “consciousness”, that Truth appeared to the sages in certain finer aspects, and they gave such mental-frames for accessing the Truth. Thus it is very natural that for us who must play with words, the sages indicate It through words; for us, who must think through pictures, the sages indicate It through pictures. Attempts to affirm or negate through reason, logic, or perhaps even yoga or meditation, must hover at these lower levels alone. Does Shiva care that the jiva searches for Him with this puny mind and comes out with a Yea or Nay? Above, Behind, Beneath, Before, Is Two, Is One, Is, Not, and more ... We should also keep in mind that a (formally) Bhaktha-saint such as Sri Ramakrishna and a (formally) jnani-saint like Sri Ramana Maharshi give descriptions of the same Reality (and also things like “Samadhi”) that seem to differ as if between one world and another. One will say “realize the Mother”, the other “nothing to realize” for “realization alone is”. The Sanathana Dharma is impossible to bind to one small corner: as many tastes, so many paths. No doubt, there was a need to focus things properly given the divergent flow of Buddhist thought, and Sri Shankara is one of the primary forces in this regard. We may also ask whether Nagarjuna and others were simply “aiming” for Truth, or were working very hard to ensure that the Buddha’s conclusions look diametrically opposite to the Upanishads. The Buddha, mark, did NOT do this himself. The Buddha, as I see it, was against certain portions of the karma-kanda of the Vedas and the blind belief in Vedic injunctions without a follow-up of real religion. His teachings were not directed against the highest philosophic conclusions contained in the Upanishads; rather we can envision him as among the greatest commentators with a direct approach to the people’s needs. “ … Buddha is the only prophet who said, “I do not care to know your various theories about God. What is the use of discussing all the subtle doctrines about the soul? Do good and be good. And this will take you to freedom and to whatever truth there is.” He was, in the conduct of his life, absolutely without personal motives; … This great philosopher, preaching the highest philosophy, yet had the deepest sympathy for the lowest of animals, and never put forth any claims for himself. He is the ideal Karma-Yogi, … the first great reformer the world has seen. He was the first who dared to say, “Believe not because some old manuscripts are produced, believe not because it is your national belief, because you have been made to believe it from your childhood; but reason it out, and after you have analysed it, then if you find that it will do good to one and all, believe it, live up to it, and help others live up to it.” - Swami Vivekananda in Karma Yoga The last quote is a universal instruction for seekers of Truth, and I humbly add should be understood properly. The path of jnana does not necessitate a conceptual affirmation of Self. When the mind operates, the experience of superimposition or duality is called maya. Hence that is the issue to be resolved. A correlate of this “maya” is the knowledge of impermanence of everything within the scope of the mind. This is what Buddha focused on. He affirmed impermanence at the level of the mind, and the mind through this relentless analysis withdraws. The residuum Reality can be referred to as Sat-Chit-Ananda or Emptiness. By Sat, we imply That beyond sat and asat, and similarly the rest. What is identified within the mind’s range is considered not-bliss; so any reference beyond mind can be called Ananda or bliss. Whatever is within mind’s range is known to be impermanent: so we may refer to That beyond mind as Permanent. It is without mental affirmation or denial; so the reference may also be Emptiness. (We call sleep a state of bliss; another may call it no-bliss, etc. Sleep is sleep; the characterization is our business. We wage wars due to conceptual differences of the same Truth.) A jnana path is ultimately a focusing on the nature of samsara or maya. The goal is to eliminate the “false” and not to separately affirm the True. The Buddhists also have used a set of conceptual-indicators for this very purpose. It is incorrect to suggest they reveal a new truth thereby, for such an assertion can ONLY happen at the conceptual levels: the Truth is not an object for analysis FULL STOP In the spectrum of Hinduism, such an uncompromising jnana approach is advised only to the rarest few. For the majority, the path will be one of simultaneous affirmation of Reality and corresponding denial of the unreal/impermanent. This is important and necessary in the preliminary stages of religious practice. The indicators of Truth are themselves our strongest tools to eliminate ignorance. It is also not wrong entirely, for the Reality is inclusive of all this, albeit in a lower frame of reference. We can perhaps say that the Buddha was a bit too uncompromising in this regard. However he must have felt intensely the stagnation that follows often from compromises and holding to mental-crutches. Hence he was unyielding. However, while he did not allow affirmation, he also did not allow denial. An affirmation of Negation of Self is not only utterly ridiculous to attempt but is also directly against the main message of Buddha: focus on putting out the fire on your house; all else, Peace and Truth, will follow by themselves. The majority however need some knowledge of the Why behind whatever they are doing, a definitive framework in which they can associate their individuality with Truth. And such a need propelled the creation of gigantic theories of negation that formalized in opposition to the affirming-language of the Upanishads. The consequence is that only a few who follow the highest flights of Upanishadic thought and the subtleties of Buddha’s method can bypass the apparently un-resolvable conflicts at lower philosophical levels, and determine the compatibility of the two. “EKAM SAT | VIPRA BAHUDHA VADHANTHI |” “Truth is One. Sages speak of It variously.” thollmelukaalkizhu An independent thought on terminology Consider the movie-screen and cinema pictures analogy. Suppose I am a cinema picture character. I see a world of various figures of light, and I make an assessment that the truth is pure light. This is the best possible assessment I can make. Some other character can say then that the pure light itself has no locus standing and is itself like a chimera, etc. I feel this is like the statement of “pure consciousness” with regard to the Reality. It is the best we can say of it from the ego’s perceptive or intuitive standpoints. BUT the picture character can never in this manner assess that the Truth is the screen, which is what should be the right correspondent to the Self. “Tat Tvam Asi” is a lost fact so long as the “character” exists in the smaller frame of reference. thollmelukaalkizhu We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): TV's Guilty Pleasures list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Dear Putranji, Thank you for your post. I think you bring up a lot of important points and in particular, represent well the position of Vivekananda and a host of other modern Hindu thinkers. This issue I think has to be addressed with great care and is a difficult one too. Vivekananda and other modern Hindus are very fond of the notion that the Buddha's disciples misunderstood him and that in reality he was only protesting against the karma-kanda and not against the Upanishads, etc... Personally, I think this position is absolutely unwarranted and even demeaning towards Buddhists. What Vivekananda is claiming is that he understands the Buddha's teachings better than the Buddha's disciples, who lived with him and talked with him, and many of whom the Buddha himself declared to be liberated saints. Was the Buddha so useless a teacher that even he couldn't even get the right point across to his own disciples? It is, of course, possible that this is the case - such a possibility cannot be dismissed just like that. However, if it is dismissed, one needs to provide very very strong evidence. It is easy to say Buddha, Christ, etc... all taught Vedanta but were misunderstood by their disciples - it is far, far harder to provide evidence to this extent. This might be controversial, but I think this intellectual degeneration is one of the contributions of Vivekananda's style of mysticism to modern Hindusim. All religions are the same because they all say that reality is non-conceptual and so they must be talking about the same experience. "The Buddha, mark, did NOT do this himself. The Buddha, as I see it, was against certain portions of the karma-kanda of the Vedas and the blind belief in Vedic injunctions without a follow-up of real religion. His teachings were not directed against the highest philosophic conclusions contained in the Upanishads; rather we can envision him as among the greatest commentators with a direct approach to the people's needs." This is not true. The Buddha explicitly negates an eternal, unchanging Self. He also negates a changeless substratum. You may say these are "just words" to be laughed at, but Vedanta is a shabda-pramana and words are absolutely essential. The traditional position is that apart from words revealing the nature of the Self through a certain methodology, there is no way to liberation. In Buddhism too, the importance of learning the dharma correctly is very strongly emphasized and meditation without a Buddhist view is not a Buddhist practice. Buddhists frame the process in terms of view/ground (bhumi), path (marga), fruit (phala) - in this process the correct understanding of the Buddha's teachings is essential. It is not a matter of remaining agnostic and just doing good and meditating and hoping everything goes as it should. "The residuum Reality can be referred to as Sat-Chit-Ananda or Emptiness." The problem is that most Buddhist teachers explicitly reject any "residium." This is a kind of Vedantic imperialism whereby we force Vedanta into other people's systems. I think we have to be honest about these things and not always run into the safety of some mystical, non-conceptual position where anything goes as long as you like the person saying it. Mainstream Buddhists explicitly reject substratum, changeless Self, etc... Vedanta explicitly asserts these. The description of what understanding liberation entails, etc... are also going to be very different. Without proper reasons, we shouldn't just freely claim whatever we want - its just a matter of faith. I have faith that the Buddha and many other Buddhist teachers are liberated - but this is purely a matter of faith due to personal reasons. Even when I believe that these people are liberated, it doesn't mean that what they say has to be right - they might still say things which happen not to be correct or useful. If this is the case, we have to look into and analyse the positions of people we may respect, whether it be Vivekananda or the Buddha. I hope my message was not too harsh, Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane > wrote: I have faith that the Buddha and many other Buddhist teachers are liberated - but this is purely a matter of faith due to personal reasons. Even when I believe that these people are liberated, it doesn't mean that what they say has to be right - they might still say things which happen not to be correct or useful. If this is the case, we have to look into and analyse the positions of people we may respect, whether it be Vivekananda or the Buddha. Dear Sir, How are we to judge that somebody is liberated or not, which itself is an unmitigated act of duality? The Vedantins feel that anything outside the ambit of Upanishads falls short of truth? By the term Upanishads are we to understand the mere texts or something beyond all the pramanas? If it is the latter case, in what way does Buddhistic emptiness constitute an inferior philosophy except it is by view of the attachment to one's conclusions. with regards Sankarraman Cheap Talk? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Namaste to all, There have been so many wonderful posts of late. I apologize for having been otherwise disposed and unable to participate in the discourse. I spent some time in retreat, in deep meditation, and have been working on integrating that rather extraordinary experience into my understanding of my path. I will try to catch up over the next few days, as Prof. VK's initial response to my posts on the Madhyamika-Mahayana contrasted with Advaita (my extremely uneducated understanding of Advaita, that is), warrants continued discussion. In what I have come to appreciate deeply as his typical fashion, he makes some rather striking observations that require considerable thought to respond to articulately (and to figure out whether I agree with him or not!) As do today's posts regarding the Buddha's original teachings with respect to Vedanta. On which, I should note first that what the Buddha may have originally taught, or perhaps even originally intended, is not necessarily the same as what came to be known as the Mahayana, let alone the Madhyamika-Mahayana that arose over the course of approximately one and a half millennia after the historical Buddha left his body. This is critical, and I strongly recommend the following essay, by Bhikku Bodhi, one of today's preeminent masters of Theravada. In it, he addresses, from a Theravadan perspective, both Advaita nondualism, and Mahayana Buddhism, and I think very succinctly articulates the distinctions between these three traditions. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html In reading this (it is not very long, I really encourage those interested in this discussion to peruse it), he makes several observations worth consideration, including two quite pertinent to this discussion: (1) that no meditative tradition is worthwhile without a conceptual framework, and this framework defines the particular paths and distinguishes them; and (2) that the three traditions hold radically different notions of what "nondual" means (or even if, in one instance, it can even be called "nondual", in the sense of reconciling or uniting two apparently separate concepts. It is late here, and I need to get to sleep. I will try to say a bit more tomorrow, when I have rested. Namaste, Neil _____ advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf Of Putran Maheshwar Saturday, February 10, 2007 12:50 PM advaitin The BUDDHA as we see Him " . our views about Buddha are that he was not understood properly by his disciples. . ShAkya Muni came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came to fulfill and not to destroy. Only, in the case of Jesus, it was the old people, the Jews, who did not understand him, while in the case of Buddha, it was his own followers who did not realize the import of his teachings ... the Buddhist did not understand the fulfillment of the truths of the Hindu religion. Again, I repeat, ShAkya Muni came not to destroy, but he was the fulfillment, the logical conclusion, the logical development of the religion of the Hindus. ". it was his glory that he had the large-heartedness to bring out the truths from the hidden Vedas and throw them broadcast all over the world . On the philosophic side the disciples of the Great Master dashed themselves against the eternal rocks of the Vedas and could not crush them, and on the other side they took away from the nation that eternal God to which every one, man or woman, clings so fondly. And the result was that Buddhism had to die a natural death in India . the land of its birth." - Swami Vivekananda at the Parliament of Religions Sept 26, 1893. Namaskaram, The following is an analysis based on some of the perspectives raised by Buddhists in opposition to Advaita, based on what Sri Neilji stated in his post around Feb 1 (connected to Intro to Vedanta-5). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane wrote: > Vivekananda and other modern Hindus are very fond of the notion that > the Buddha's disciples misunderstood him and that in reality he was > only protesting against the karma-kanda and not against the > Upanishads, etc... Personally, I think this position is absolutely > unwarranted and even demeaning towards Buddhists. What Vivekananda is > claiming is that he understands the Buddha's teachings better than the > Buddha's disciples, who lived with him and talked with him, and many > of whom the Buddha himself declared to be liberated saints. Was the > Buddha so useless a teacher that even he couldn't even get the right > point across to his own disciples? ============ Dear Sir, The same Vivekananda has told us to be rational to the core also. (Quote) Lastly, it is imperative that all these various Yogas should be carried out in practice; mere theories about them will not do any good. First we have to hear about them, then we have to think about them. We have to reason the thoughts out, impress them on our minds, and we have to meditate on them, 'realise' them, until at last they become our whole life. No longer will religion remain a bundle of ideas or theories, nor an intellectual assent; it will enter into our very self. By means of intellectual assent we may today to many foolish things and change our minds altogether tomorrow. But true religion never changes. Religion is realisation; not talk, nor doctrine, nor theories, however beautiful they may be. It is 'being and becoming', not 'hearing or acknowledging'; it is the whole soul becoming changed into what it believes. That is religion. (Unquote) Until we do this speculation about our philosophy, about others' philosophy, other's realization will continue. Sankara says that Buddha was not a realized soul and he went very near to Atman and couldn't realise. Swami Vivekananda says that his disciples could not understand what he taught. But my question is, does these things help a wee bit to get rid of 'our ignorance'? You have told that: Buddha's disciples, who lived with him and talked with him, and many > of whom the Buddha himself declared to be liberated saints. Was the > Buddha so useless a teacher that even he couldn't even get the right > point across to his own disciples? ==== But tell me as a rational human being how can we say ay or nay to this statement? isn't to say anything to this either in affirmation or negation would be our speculation and personal opinion? As you have brought forth you personal opinion i believe Swami Vivekananda also said his. It purely our choice to appreciate or not which depends entirely on one's faith in him. Advaita calls for subjective orientation and i feel we should always try to remember. Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Namaskarams Sri Risrajlam, Thank you for your points. I wanted to bring up one of the perspectives, for those here who can find it useful. Your arguments are not new either (and certainly not harsh). It is for each here to walk the path and judge the possibility. I tried my best in my posts to emphasize that the word "residuum", etc. are conceptual characterizations, that yes the Vedantin chooses to put. Their negations also happen at the conceptual levels alone. If you say "substratum", well I can say "no substratum". The choice will reflect and affect your perspective and your path: it will not change the Truth. The focus for all religious seekers is to follow the path and not get unduly caught with gibberish about the End, which is unknown. This was Buddha's main message, as I see it. But as they say, it takes a Buddha to know a Buddha. thollmelukaalkizhu risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane > wrote: Dear Putranji, Vivekananda and other modern Hindus are very fond of the notion that the Buddha's disciples misunderstood him and that in reality he was only protesting against the karma-kanda and not against the Upanishads, etc... Personally, I think this position is absolutely unwarranted and even demeaning towards Buddhists. What Vivekananda is claiming is that he understands the Buddha's teachings better than the Buddha's disciples, who lived with him and talked with him, and many of whom the Buddha himself declared to be liberated saints. Was the Buddha so useless a teacher that even he couldn't even get the right point across to his own disciples? It is, of course, possible that this is the case - such a possibility cannot be dismissed just like that. However, if it is dismissed, one needs to provide very very strong evidence. It is easy to say Buddha, Christ, etc... all taught Vedanta but were misunderstood by their disciples - it is far, far harder to provide evidence to this extent. This might be controversial, but I think this intellectual degeneration is one of the contributions of Vivekananda's style of mysticism to modern Hindusim. All religions are the same because they all say that reality is non-conceptual and so they must be talking about the same experience. "The Buddha, mark, did NOT do this himself. The Buddha, as I see it, was against certain portions of the karma-kanda of the Vedas and the blind belief in Vedic injunctions without a follow-up of real religion. His teachings were not directed against the highest philosophic conclusions contained in the Upanishads; rather we can envision him as among the greatest commentators with a direct approach to the people's needs." This is not true. The Buddha explicitly negates an eternal, unchanging Self. He also negates a changeless substratum. You may say these are "just words" to be laughed at, but Vedanta is a shabda-pramana and words are absolutely essential. The traditional position is that apart from words revealing the nature of the Self through a certain methodology, there is no way to liberation. In Buddhism too, the importance of learning the dharma correctly is very strongly emphasized and meditation without a Buddhist view is not a Buddhist practice. Buddhists frame the process in terms of view/ground (bhumi), path (marga), fruit (phala) - in this process the correct understanding of the Buddha's teachings is essential. It is not a matter of remaining agnostic and just doing good and meditating and hoping everything goes as it should. "The residuum Reality can be referred to as Sat-Chit-Ananda or Emptiness." The problem is that most Buddhist teachers explicitly reject any "residium." This is a kind of Vedantic imperialism whereby we force Vedanta into other people's systems. I think we have to be honest about these things and not always run into the safety of some mystical, non-conceptual position where anything goes as long as you like the person saying it. Mainstream Buddhists explicitly reject substratum, changeless Self, etc... Vedanta explicitly asserts these. The description of what understanding liberation entails, etc... are also going to be very different. Without proper reasons, we shouldn't just freely claim whatever we want - its just a matter of faith. I have faith that the Buddha and many other Buddhist teachers are liberated - but this is purely a matter of faith due to personal reasons. Even when I believe that these people are liberated, it doesn't mean that what they say has to be right - they might still say things which happen not to be correct or useful. If this is the case, we have to look into and analyse the positions of people we may respect, whether it be Vivekananda or the Buddha. I hope my message was not too harsh, Regards, Rishi. It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Toolbar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 A couple of nice quotes: " ... Brahman, this Reality is unknown and unknowable, not in the sense of the agnostic, but because to know Him would be a blasphemy, because you are He already. We have also seen that this Brahman is not this table and yet is this table. Take off name and form, and whatever is reality is He. He is the reality in everything." - Swami Vivekananda in "Advaita Vedanta the Scientific Religion" " D: How to find the Atman? M: There is no investigation into the Atman. The investigation can only be into the non-self. Elimination of the non-self is alone possible. The Self being always self-evident will shine forth by itself." - from Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi (pg 80) The practical message is "Take off name and form": the theoretical conclusion: "because you are He ...whatever is reality is He". The practical message: investigate non-self and eliminate. The theoretical conclusion: The Self ... will shine forth by itself. Where do we argue? the theoretical conclusions, about the Brahman which is unknowable, about the investigation into the Atman. I highly doubt the Buddha's main message was any different than the Maharshi's or Swami Vivekananda's. It is those who don't get it who jump onto the verbal and conceptual frameworks of the End, and start imagining that their imaginations on liberation will define liberation and unless they imagine rightly, all will be undone. (And such people verily are unfit for jnana, which is one reason it is left for the few and far between, at least in Hinduism.) thollmelukaalkizhu Putran Maheshwar <putranm > wrote: Namaskarams Sri Risrajlam, Thank you for your points. I wanted to bring up one of the perspectives, for those here who can find it useful. Your arguments are not new either (and certainly not harsh). It is for each here to walk the path and judge the possibility. I tried my best in my posts to emphasize that the word "residuum", etc. are conceptual characterizations, that yes the Vedantin chooses to put. Their negations also happen at the conceptual levels alone. If you say "substratum", well I can say "no substratum". The choice will reflect and affect your perspective and your path: it will not change the Truth. The focus for all religious seekers is to follow the path and not get unduly caught with gibberish about the End, which is unknown. This was Buddha's main message, as I see it. But as they say, it takes a Buddha to know a Buddha. thollmelukaalkizhu Recent Activity 6 New Members 4 New Files Visit Your Group Give Back for Good Get inspired by a good cause. Y! Toolbar Get it Free! easy 1-click access to your groups. Start a group in 3 easy steps. Connect with others. . Finding fabulous fares is fun. Let FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2007 Report Share Posted February 11, 2007 Neil Glazer <nlg_108 (AT) comcast (DOT) net> wrote: Namaste to all, I strongly recommend the following essay, by Bhikku Bodhi, one of today's preeminent masters of Theravada. In it, he addresses, from a Theravadan perspective, both Advaita nondualism, and Mahayana Buddhism, and I think very succinctly articulates the distinctions between these three traditions. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/bps-essay_27.html In reading this (it is not very long, I really encourage those interested in this discussion to peruse it), he makes several observations worth consideration, including two quite pertinent to this discussion: (1) that no meditative tradition is worthwhile without a conceptual framework, and this framework defines the particular paths and distinguishes them; and (2) that the three traditions hold radically different notions of what "nondual" means (or even if, in one instance, it can even be called "nondual", in the sense of reconciling or uniting two apparently separate concepts. Recent Activity 5 New Members 2 New Files Visit Your Group HotJobs What are you worth? Find jobs that match your worth Mail Get on board You're invited to try the all-new Mail Beta. Y! Messenger Make free calls Call PC-to-PC worldwide- free! . Sri Neilji, I perused the essay of Bhikku Bodhi: he is "working very hard to ensure that the Buddha's conclusions look diametrically opposite to the Upanishads". That is fine; not worth arguing further on it, and I will not. Most of Buddha's perspectives are shared by all: even in a heavily Bhakthi scripture like the Bhagavatha, the emphasis of impermanence and the suffering that follows is tremendous. We don't put a PATENT on such things, and our goal is also to bring about the end of suffering ("the cessation of suffering", we may see is not an "actuality in the final sphere of comprehension" that Bhikku Bodhi proudly proclaims for Buddhism (along with other concepts such as rebirth)). Of course, they may argue on that as well, but again no matter: my main desire in writing the essay was to give support to the favourable opinion that we have of the Buddha, irrespective of how the Buddhists try and define the borders. (They must, lest they be swallowed by the Mother Religion.) Sorry :-) thollmelukaalkizhu Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 13, 2007 Report Share Posted February 13, 2007 --- risrajlam <rishi.lamichhane > wrote: > Dear Putranji, > > Thank you for your post. I think you bring up a lot > of important > points and in particular, represent well the > position of Vivekananda > and a host of other modern Hindu thinkers. This > issue I think has to > be addressed with great care and is a difficult one > too. > > Vivekananda and other modern Hindus are very fond of > the notion that > the Buddha's disciples misunderstood him and that in > reality he was > only protesting against the karma-kanda and not > against the > Upanishads, etc Sri Rishiji, Neilji, Sorry for my final post(s) last Sunday. They were perhaps egotistic and derogatory of Buddhism. I was not in a mood to extend the discussion and felt I had to if I was to reply further. The result was a bad get-away. I hope for a better one here. Sri Rishiji, your points are good. I agree with your final comments regarding the liberating possibility in other paths and yet a mis-assessment of the Truth. I also have a firmer faith in the conceptual frameworks of the Upanishads, as being more appropriate. I don’t endorse the Buddhist framework on theoretical grounds at all, but primarily on practical grounds, we can accede to their approach. And on theoretical grounds, they can be justified by the Vedantin EVEN if differently from the Buddhist. The Buddha emphasized the impermanence of phenomenal world. He said that an improper knowledge of the truth of impermanence causes suffering. By knowing that all things ultimately are empty of sat, we obtain freedom from attachment and are liberated. Can not the Vedantin accommodate this perspective? It is a purely vyavahaarik perspective of reality, confining the truth to the reference frame of the mind. In fact, the Vedantin accepts all of this exactly (at its level) but says that there is another spiritual dimension, in which this “emptiness” of phenomena is in truth the “fullness” of God. This faith in the “self-evident” Self and non-interference of this “self-evidence” with mental calculations creates a totally contrasting appearance in the Vedantic approach. The concept of emptiness is not going to defeat “Tat Tvam Asi”. It brings “thing” to “no thing” and ends there. It brings “self” to “no self” and ends there. I think the Buddhists should be true to their “actuality” approach and end it there: they should not go further and say “whatever you say is also wrong”. The Self of the Vedanta is not in the domain of Buddhist-approach, although incidentally a Neilji, etc. can end up here. Now let us come to the Buddha. The “Vivekananda school” which includes Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Ramana Maharshi and myself (all but Swami Vivekananda not having direct scholarship of Buddha) are indeed fond of the idea that the Buddha was truly enlightened. This means that whatever we hold to be highest truth, we grant that the Buddha (or Christ, etc) had also realized. So we reconcile the differences in his message from ours as being only apparent. We do it in two ways: 1. The message was given in a manner fit for the student. 2. The student extended the message in wrong directions. Our opinion is that the Buddha was aware of people getting stuck in conceptual affirmations of Brahman and not progressing to true freedom. As Neilji said in his earlier post, the Buddha himself may have been such a victim wandering in lost directions for years before finally rejecting them and getting back to himSelf. In the end, having realized “Tat Tvam Asi”, he decided that the Vedantic method had crystallized into ineffective barriers from Truth, and the best way to break open the Upanishadic highway is to reject the whole construction and uptake an entirely practical approach. FOCUS on the non-self, viewing it strictly from the context of the mind (as impermanent and cause of suffering) and not from the transcendental perspective of Self. So the very terminology of Self, Substratum, etc, must be rejected, for they all though having the same practical objectives, yet implicitly are affirming the final Truth. For unfit students, such information of the End can confuse and become a barrier. And at his time, the “must accept the Vedas” was the greatest barrier from freedom and Truth that the Vedas themselves proclaim. So the Buddha rejected that baggage wholesale. For whom is substratum? For the one identified with consciousness. For whom is Truth the Ocean? For the wave. For whom is the reality Space? For the Pot. For whom is the Sun? For the one seeing the reflected sun in the pot of oil. These conceptions are relevant only in the relative standpoint, and as such, they can be denied from the standpoint of “Tat Tvam Asi”: don’t say it is “Sun” after “pot is broken” -- then you don’t get it. So the Buddha’s negation can be justified by Vedantins along these higher theoretical lines as well. In short, the “Vivekananda school” has a number of reasons to justify the favourable opinion we have of Buddha. Sri Shankara’s assertions to the contrary can also be viewed from practical perspectives. His objective was to reject the message that had come to bear the man’s name, so his attack on Buddha was incidental. This is similar to Buddha’s own rejection of the Upanishads: the real objective is different. The rest of the problems we throw on his students: the very fact they started a religion under his name shows that his message was too high. “EKAM SAT | VIPRA BAHUDHA VADHANTHI|” thollmelukaalkizhu Sri Neilji, as for your not joining any “ism”, etc., I suggest that you keep it as the ideal. As you see, we all get caught in that, but it matters less as we move on, if we can keep mind open. A path and conceptual perspective should be followed even if we don’t want our head caught in the noose. (But that is what they say: i am an ignoramus and very, very proud to be Hindu!) “It is great to be born in a Church but terrible to die there.” - Swami Vivekananda Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.. Try it now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 Dear Putranji, I do not think your comments were at all derogatory or egoistic; on the contrary they were extremely respectful and well thought out. I am sorry if my response suggested otherwise - rest assured that is entirely my fault. Thank you for your reply once again. "Can not the Vedantin accommodate this perspective? It is a purely vyavahaarik perspective of reality, confining the truth to the reference frame of the mind. In fact, the Vedantin accepts all of this exactly (at its level) but says that there is another spiritual dimension, in which this "emptiness" of phenomena is in truth the "fullness" of God." Here, in terms of canonical Buddhism, I don't think such an argument is appropriate. In the Vaibhashika and Sautrantika, the Self is none of what constitutes world (form, perceptions, feelings, will conciousness) and explicitly, there is no other self apart from this. So no self in the five-skandhas or beyond the five skandhas. They are clearly rejecting any Self above and beyond what has been refuted. The Yogachara clearly asserts that conciousness is momentary and there is no conciouness that is eternal. The Madhyamika on the other hand says that all phenomena are empty of self-nature AND that there is no fullness/substratum. So it is clear that Buddhists clearly reject what you propose to do (to say that Buddhist is right about phenomena in general but there is a Reality beyond). However, if we are honest about the fact that Buddhism rejects this interpretation, we are still free to give such interpretation as Vedantins. So we could say that following the via-negativa, even with an explicit a-priori rejection of Self/God, some Buddhists can arrive at the Truth. So essentially, even if they are not correct about the conclusion, their general method is such that it is quite possible that they discover the nature of Reality. In this case, however, we would have to go one step further. Not only the aspiring Buddhist practioners get liberation without knowing the Self, but even those Buddhists who do get liberation still might not be able to talk in terms of the Self/God of Vedanta. As Vedantins, once again, this is not really a problem. It would mean that through the via-negativa, some of they achieve liberation, but because they are no srotriyas, they do not have Vedanta as a pramana and so cannot communicate the nature of Reality directly. This is not really a problem because most Vedantins accept that there can be brahmanishtas who are not srotriyas, but that these people will not be ideal teachers (though fully liberated). "I think the Buddhists should be true to their "actuality" approach and end it there: they should not go further and say "whatever you say is also wrong". The Self of the Vedanta is not in the domain of Buddhist-approach, although incidentally a Neilji, etc. can end up here." Right, so we could assume that some Buddhists, being true to this method, would remain objective and not pass final judgement and thus discover the nature of the Self after making appropriate negations. However, since they traversed this last part of their path with non- conceptuality, without use of words, they do not automatically understand the method of revealing Reality with words. Note, that until now, I am presenting what is my own position on this matter. This is not only for Buddhists but anyone else who does not have an appropriate vehicle for teaching but who do attain liberation. "So the Buddha's negation can be justified by Vedantins along these higher theoretical lines as well." I agree with this as well. From the highest Vedantic viewpoint, there is nothing to be said about the Self ("yato vAco nivartante aprApya manasA sah"). So the Vedantic words special power is not that they are true (as such, they are not) but rather that they are a pramana which reveals the nature of the Self which is immidiately available. This, in my opinion, defends the position that a knower of the Truth does not neccesarily know Vedanta as a pramana. The only person who knows Vedanta as a pramana is someone on whom it has been employed (a srotriya). "His objective was to reject the message that had come to bear the man's name, so his attack on Buddha was incidental. This is similar to Buddha's own rejection of the Upanishads: the real objective is different." Now, this position in my opinion is different from mine. I don't mean just the position quoted above, but the general position that the Buddha knew Vedanta, as it were, but did not employ its terminology because it could have been misleading for students. In that case, the Buddha refined the tradition of the Upanishads. However, why then, does Vivekananda himself to the unrefined Upanishadic teaching rather than the refined teachings of the Buddha? Why does Vivekananda talk about substratum, Self, etc...? On another note, I think there is another important point to consider in general, which didn't really bring up yet. It is not entirely clear whether the Buddha himself (looking just at the Pali Canon) refutes a reality like Brahman. In Udana: "There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, emancipation from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned." This is an extremely important verse and there are some other verses alone these lines, but they are still very few. The standard interpretation is that it refers to Nibbana (Nirvana). These verses are also controversial and interpreted in various ways and Theravada commentarial material and there is debate even their circles even today. So perhaps the Buddha's own position is not entirely settled (if we accept the Pali canon alone as authoratative). Also, in some Mahayana Sutras (for instance the Nirvana Sutra), the Buddha explicitly talks about an eternal, unchanging Self. He says that first he taught the selflessness of all phenomenon only to later teach the true Self, which is also the Tathagatagarbha. This is the position of several Chinese and Japanese schools of Buddhism. According to Tibetan Buddhism (which is closest to late Indian Buddhism), these texts teach a provisional doctrine for those attached to self-ideas. These interpretations/texts are generally quite different from most of Buddhism and too much shouldn't be made of them but they do show that some Buddhists and perhaps the Buddha himself were not entirely unaware of a more substratum/final reality-style language. I am sorry if this post is really exceedingly long, but I get carried away by such topics. I also apologize if its off-topic with relation to the advaitin group, but I think it is quite relevant because we understand how to understand Vedanta as a pramana and to what extent brahmanishtas who are not srotriyas can be understood. Regards, Rishi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 14, 2007 Report Share Posted February 14, 2007 advaitin, "risrajlam" <rishi.lamichhane wrote: > Now, this position in my opinion is different from mine. I don't mean > just the position quoted above, but the general position that the > Buddha knew Vedanta, as it were, but did not employ its terminology > because it could have been misleading for students. In that case, the > Buddha refined the tradition of the Upanishads. However, why then, > does Vivekananda himself to the unrefined Upanishadic > teaching rather than the refined teachings of the Buddha? Why does > Vivekananda talk about substratum, Self, etc...? Dear Sir, Swami Vivekananda has never said that unpanishadic teachins are unrefined. The following passage will make his stand clear on this topic: (Quote) The Katha Upanishad, which we have been studying, was written much later than that to which we now turn -- the Chhandogya. The language is more modern, and the thought more organised. In the older Upanishads the language is very archaic, like that of the hymn portion of the Vedas, and one has to wade sometimes through quite a mass of unnecessary things to get at the essential doctrines. The ritualistic literature about which I told you, which forms the second division of the Vedas, has left a good deal of its mark upon this old Upanishad, so that more than half of it is still ritualistic. There is, however, one great gain in studying the very old Upanishads. You trace, as it were, the historical growth of spiritual ideas. In the more recent Upanishads, the spiritual ideas have been collected and brought into one place; as in the Bhagavad - gita, for instance, which we may, perhaps, look upon as the last of the Upanishads, you do not find any inkling of these ritualistic ideas. The Gita is like a bouquet composed of beautiful flowers of spiritual truths collected from the Upanishads. But in the Gita you cannot study the rise of the spiritual ideas, you cannot trace them to their source. To do that, as has been pointed out by many, you must study the Vedas. The great idea of holiness that has been attached to these books has preserved them, more than any other book in the world, from mutilation. In them, thoughts at their highest and at their lowest have all been preserved, the essential and the non - essential, the most ennobling teachings and the simplest matters of detail stand side by side; for nobody has dared to touch them. Commentators came and tried to smooth them down and to bring out wonderful new ideas from the old things; they tried to find spiritual ideas in even the most ordinary statements, but the texts remained, and as such, they are the most wonderful historical study. We all know that in the scriptures of every religion changes were made to suit the growing spirituality of later times; one word was changed here and another put in there, and so on. This, probably, has not been done with the Vedic literature, or if ever done, it is almost imperceptible. So we have this great advantage, we are able to study thoughts in their original significance, to note how they developed, how from materialistic ideas finer and finer spiritual ideas are evolved, until they attained their greatest height in the Vedanta. Descriptions of some of the old manners and customs are also there, but they do not appear much in the Upanishads. The language used is peculiar, terse, mnemonic. (Unquote) On the subject philosophy as taught by Buddha there was a talk given by Swami Ranganathanandaji in chennai, which was published in a booklet form later, whoose title is Bhagavan Buddha and our Heritage. I hope the follwoing excerpt of it will be of some interest. Coming close upon the age of the Upanishads, wherein the foundations of the subsequent developments of culture and religion in India had been laid, Buddha stands closest to the spirit of the Upanishads. In fact, it is not possible to appreciate the life and teachings of Buddha adequately without understanding the spirit of the upanishads. There are at least a few western scholars who appreciate this fact. A large number of western scholars who have written books on Buddha have been unduly harsh on the prevailing Vedic religion, often confusing their estimates of it with post Buddhistic developments. It looks as if they sought the growth of the plant of the Buddha movement at the cost of the soil in which it was raised and reared, to trace its life development outside that soil and climate. But there have been , as I said, a few western scholars who have realised that Buddha could not be understood except in the context of the spiritual soil and philosophical climate provided by the sages of the Upanishads. One such author whom i would like to quote, one who has made a sympatetic study of Buddha, is Edmund Holmes. In his book, The Creed of Buddha without understanding the Upanishads is absolutely essential, for it is against that Himalayan thought background that we can realise the significance of the new advances that Buddha made in the thought and practice of that great philosophy. Writes Edmund Holmes at the commencement of his fifth chapter entitled 'A Misreading of Buddha' page no 98 (Quote) ' Thoose who have followed me thus far will, i think, admit that Buddha's scheme of life coincides, at all its vital points, with the scheme that i worked out by drawing practical deductions from the master ideas of that deeply spiritual philosophy which found its highest expression in the upanishads' Again page no 102-103.. 'The cumulative evidence afforded by these facts, added to the internal evidence which has already been set forth in detail, seems to point with irresitible force to one conclusion, namely, that Buddha accepted the idealistic teaching of the upanisads-accepted it at its highest level and in its purest form and took upon himself as his life's mission to fill the obvious gap in it. In other words, to make the spiritual ideas, which had hitherto been the exclusive possession of mankind. If this conclusion is correct, we shall see in Buddhism, not a revolt against the "Brahminic" philosophy as such, but an ethical interpretation of the leading ideas of that philosophy- a follwoing out of those ideas, not into the word-built systems of (so called) thought which the metaphysicians of the day were constructing with fatal facility, but into their practical consequences in the inner life of man.' (End of Quote) There are few points in the teachins of Buddha which have always been points of controversy, wherein great interpreters have differed from one another. The most important of these are two: first, the wll- known anatta doctrine, hte teaching that there is no permant soul; this teaching is so pervassive of Buddhism that we can taken it as part and parcel of the original Buddhism. In the second discourse delivered by Buddha at the very beginning of his public ministration at sarnath, entitled the anattalakkhana sutta, we have an exposition of this anatta doctrine; so that it is necessary for us to understand what Buddha meant by this anatta or Anatma doctrine, which apparently represents a fundamental point of departure from the great teachings of the Upanishads on the subject of the true nature of individuality. The second is with regard to the nature of the ultimate reality. When man attains nirvana, what does he realise and what happens to him? Does he attain something positive or something negative? On this subject the launguage of the Upanishads is clear, in spite of all the prefaces with which they have expounded it, stating that the ultimate truth is that from which speech and thought recoil, that it transcends all specification. In spite of this kind of reservation, the upanishads leave us in no doubt that the ultimate truth is 'yes' and not 'no'. It is a positive something and not a negative nothing; the upanisads speak of it as brahman, the one without a second, the self of all, beyond sense and thought, the Impersonal, the Transcendent as well as the immanent. Even though it transcends specifications by speech and thought, yet it is a positive reality. The katha Upanishad Says Naiva vaca na manasa praptum sakyo na caksusa Astiti bruvatonyatra katham tad upalabhyate The self cannot be reached through the organs of speech or thought or sight. How can it be realised except through one who says "It is" Asti ityeva upalabhavyah It must be comprehended as "is"( and not as "is not"). The last category of thought can only be a position and not a negation according to the upanishadic thought. On this basis when we proceed, we do not see in the teachins of Budddha any clear reference to the reality of a changeless being behind the fluctuations of becoming. As in the case of the soul, it is something composite, impermanent, and ultimately substantial, so in the case of the world, it is also impermanent and insubstantial; but with regard to the ultimate reality realised in nirvana, Buddha did not say that it also is impermanent and insubstantial. He did not say anything about it at all. He was silent about it, as he was also silent about the nature of the individual in the state of nirvana, and evaded giving direct answeres to questions relating to them. That is a point which we shall have to discuss, the meaning of this silence of his on the subjcet of the ultimate reality in man and in the universe, and to determine his position in the great philosophical tradition of the upanishads......... He met atleast two great buddhistic personalities. One is D.T. Suzuki an accomplished and popular Zen master, who opined that Buddism should be seen in the light of vedanta to get the real understanding. Another was a simhalese monk whose name i cannot recall, who upheld the same view. Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 15, 2007 Report Share Posted February 15, 2007 advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote: > Dear Sir, > > Swami Vivekananda has never said that unpanishadic teachins are > unrefined. The following passage will make his stand clear on this > topic: Dear Advaitins, There is a spelling mistake in the above paragraph. Please read it as under: Swami Vivekananda has never said that upanishadic teachins are unrefined. The following passage will make his stand clear on this topic: Sorry for the inconvenience caused. Yours in Sri Ramakrishna, Br. Vinayaka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.