Shankara : Upanishadic Scholar or Crypto-Buddhist?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Advaitins,

 

I came across a interesting article, which refutes the question of many

anti-advaitic scholars, whether " Shankara was a Upanishadic scholar or

Crypto-Buddhist? " . Felt sharing with the group.

 

 

http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11302006-094652/unrestricted/Tenzin_Kenc\

ho_200612_ma.pdf

 

--

gopinath panduranga

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Gopinath Panduranga " <brahmaprajna wrote:

>

> Namaste Advaitins,

>

> I came across a interesting article, which refutes the question of many

> anti-advaitic scholars, whether " Shankara was a Upanishadic scholar or

> Crypto-Buddhist? " . Felt sharing with the group.

>

>

> http://etd.gsu.edu/theses/available/etd-11302006-094652/unrestricted/

Tenzin_Kencho_200612_ma.pdf

>

> --

> gopinath panduranga

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> If I am not mistaken, that is the ideal of

> monasticism that is still at heart of the orthodox Hinduism, and

the organization version is

> considered dubious.

 

For an exposition of the expectations on the Hindu Sannyasi, which I

think is standard for orthodox Hindu schools, please read the

Bhagavatham (I have Gita press transl) Book Eleven, Chapter 18 on the

Duties of anchorites and recluses. Sri Ramakrishna also refers (in

the Gospel) often from Book eleven (on which he had heard from

others). The book also contains teachings of the Avadhuta.

 

The topic has significance for Advaitins in the sense that Sri

Shankara specifically says (right?) that Sannyasa is required for

Moksha (I suppose for majority who need the guided training process,

this is a necessary (or highly recommended!) culmination). So this

scripture might give us a picture of what exactly he envisioned of a

Sannyasi. The scripture also brings out the topic as the culmination

of the ashrama dharma, with the end-goal of 'final beatitude'

(moksha).

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Some excerpt:

 

(13) In the way of a Brahmana who is actually going to renounce the

world the gods in the garb (through the agency) of his wife and so on

place obstacles, for fear lest he should outstrip them and attain to

the Supreme. (One who is bent on attaining final beatitude should

not, however, be deterred by such obstacles).

 

(14) If at all a recluse would have a covering (for his body), he

should wear a piece of cloth barely enough to cover the strip of

cloth used by him to hide his private parts with. Nor should he

retain (in his possession) anything renounced by him (at the time of

entering the order of Samnyasa) other than a staff (used as a token

of Samnyasa) and a Kamandalu ( a water-pot made of the shell of a

wild cocoanut) otherwise in a critical plight.

 

(15) He should take (every) step (only) after the ground he is going

to tread has been scanned with his eyes (lest he should unwittingly

trample any creature); he should drink water strained with (a piece

of) cloth, utter words tested on the touchstone of truth and do that

which has been found correct by reference to his conscience.

 

(16) Silence is the cudgel to control one's speech; abstinence from

interested action, the one to control one's body; and Pranayama is

the cudgel to curb one's mind...

 

(17) A recluse should resort for alms to the four types of Brahmanas

alone (those living by gifts received, teaching, officiating at

sacrifices and gleaning food graines from fields and grain-markets),

avoiding those of reproachful conduct and visit only seven houses not

specified before, and should remain contented with the food got from

these houses (alone).

 

(18) Going to a reservoir of water (such as a pond or tank) outside

the town or village, he should rinse his mouth there and, allotting a

(due) share to those deserving it (viz., Lord Vishnu,... all created

beings) once it has been consecrated, he should silently consume

<underline> all the rest that was brought (by him - neither bringing

more than was required nor laying by anything for another time). <end

underline>

 

(19) With his senses fully controlled he should perambulate this

earth (all) alone and free from attachment, finding recreation and

delight in the Self, self-possessed and viewing all alike.

 

The same topic continues to sloka 37.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> > If I am not mistaken, that is the ideal of

> > monasticism that is still at heart of the orthodox Hinduism, and

> the organization version is

> > considered dubious.

>

> For an exposition of the expectations on the Hindu Sannyasi, which

I

> think is standard for orthodox Hindu schools, please read the

> Bhagavatham (I have Gita press transl) Book Eleven, Chapter 18 on

the

> Duties of anchorites and recluses. Sri Ramakrishna also refers (in

> the Gospel) often from Book eleven (on which he had heard from

> others). The book also contains teachings of the Avadhuta.

>

> The topic has significance for Advaitins in the sense that Sri

> Shankara specifically says (right?) that Sannyasa is required for

> Moksha (I suppose for majority who need the guided training

process,

> this is a necessary (or highly recommended!) culmination). So this

> scripture might give us a picture of what exactly he envisioned of

a

> Sannyasi. The scripture also brings out the topic as the

culmination

> of the ashrama dharma, with the end-goal of 'final beatitude'

> (moksha).

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Namaste,

 

I don't think that one can ultmately separate the 'inner teachings'

of Sankara and Guatama, they are the same and come from the same

tradition. The Upanishads devolve to Buddha just as much as they do

to Sankara. If you are talking about Hinduism and Buddhism then one

is discussing something other than the two sages altogether.

 

Sanyas is in the mind,or rather giving up the mind.........Hupa.

[Guest guest]

> Namaste,

>

> I don't think that one can ultmately separate the 'inner teachings'

> of Sankara and Guatama, they are the same and come from the same

> tradition. The Upanishads devolve to Buddha just as much as they do

> to Sankara. If you are talking about Hinduism and Buddhism then one

> is discussing something other than the two sages altogether.

>

> Sanyas is in the mind,or rather giving up the mind.........Hupa.

>

 

No. If we speak of Shankara, as Sri Kencho mentions in his essay, we

are very much speaking of a saint upholding the Sanatana Dharma (i.e.

Hinduism). You cannot separate him from the religion, although you

can deal with Advaita philosophy by itself. So when Shankara speaks

of Sannyasa, it has much to do with Sannyasa as understood by the

Rishis and the society of that time. It is not just meant to

represent the ideal state of mind or no-mind, but also to be a

specific station of training in life, based on inner and outer

detachment, renunciation and self-surrender, that must (for most)

precede the " giving up the mind " . (It would be nice if you could

elaborate on why talking of Hinduism is discussing something other

than the sage Shankara " altogether " ).

 

The Upanishads can accomodate the Buddha and anyone else you name it,

provided what they say can evolve to the Upanishads' final

conclusions. But part of the evolution of Buddhism is rooted in the

specific negation, I would say for the very purpose of distinction

and separation (without which they would have been absorbed at the

getgo), of the main conclusions of the Upanishads. That is their self-

created barrier, which if they overcome, some effort can be made to

connect the dots.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

namaste

 

Buddhism and jainism comes under the category of nastika darshans (atheist),

just because both did not accept shruthi as parama pramAna,

and as a result both jaina and buddha philosophies suffered severe lacking

of right purpose and goal.

one cannot be emotional to accept this fact.

by stating shankara condemned buddha and jaina philosphy, should not be

taken as in literal sense, shankara condemned the philosophies of buddha and

jaina

not those persons. no where shankara in his works goes to personal level

attacks against buddha and jaina people, unless some of our own vedic

acharayas have done it against shankara.

 

jai gurudeva

Narendra

 

 

 

Namaste,

>

> I don't think that one can ultmately separate the 'inner teachings'

> of Sankara and Guatama, they are the same and come from the same

> tradition. The Upanishads devolve to Buddha just as much as they do

> to Sankara. If you are talking about Hinduism and Buddhism then one

> is discussing something other than the two sages altogether.

>

> Sanyas is in the mind,or rather giving up the mind.........Hupa.

 

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " narendra sastry "

<narendra.sastry wrote:

>

> namaste

>

> Buddhism and jainism comes under the category of nastika darshans

(atheist),

> just because both did not accept shruthi as parama pramAna,

> and as a result both jaina and buddha philosophies suffered severe

lacking

> of right purpose and goal.

> one cannot be emotional to accept this fact.

> by stating shankara condemned buddha and jaina philosphy, should

not be

> taken as in literal sense, shankara condemned the philosophies of

buddha and

> jaina

> not those persons.

 

Namaste,

 

It is apparent from Gautama's statements about there being a beyond

etc that he wasn't an atheist in the common sense. Neither are the

Jains for that matter. Because ultimately the belief in a personal

god is really superstition as are religions. Sankara paid lip-service

due to getting his message across in the vehicle of the time, but the

ultimate teachings of Buddha and Sankar are the same for there is

only one truth and it cannot be found in religion. Religion and

philosophy are crutches that are eventually disposed of, as being

part of the mind.........Hu

[Guest guest]

" ...but the ultimate teachings of Buddha and Sankar are the same for

there is only one truth and it cannot be found in religion. "

 

1) I claim that circles are squares.

2) There is only one truth and it cannot be found in religion.

3) Therefore my ultimate teaching about circles, the Buddha's

teachings and Shankara's teachings are the same.

 

R.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " hupa_ramdas " <hupa_ram>

wrote:

>

> advaitin , " narendra sastry "

> <narendra.sastry@> wrote:

> >

> > namaste

> >

> > Buddhism and jainism comes under the category of nastika darshans

> (atheist),

> > just because both did not accept shruthi as parama pramAna,

> > and as a result both jaina and buddha philosophies suffered

severe

> lacking

> > of right purpose and goal.

> > one cannot be emotional to accept this fact.

> > by stating shankara condemned buddha and jaina philosphy, should

> not be

> > taken as in literal sense, shankara condemned the philosophies of

> buddha and

> > jaina

> > not those persons.

>

> Namaste,

>

> It is apparent from Gautama's statements about there being a beyond

> etc that he wasn't an atheist in the common sense. Neither are the

> Jains for that matter. Because ultimately the belief in a personal

> god is really superstition as are religions. Sankara paid lip-

service

> due to getting his message across in the vehicle of the time, but

the

> ultimate teachings of Buddha and Sankar are the same for there is

> only one truth and it cannot be found in religion. Religion and

> philosophy are crutches that are eventually disposed of, as being

> part of the mind.........Hu

>

Namaste,

a little from Banning Richardson MA.

 

Finally with regard to the doctrine of grace, Christian

criticism of Hindu theology asserts that Hinduism advocates

" pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps " without assistance

from the love of God. Such a statement is, in my opinion,

unfair; but let us look at one of Christ's teachings " For whosoever

hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance;

but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even

that he hath. " (Matthew, XIII, 12). In other words, " In

accordance with each man's own efforts for spiritual

enlightenment shall he be given assistance by God; and those

who make no effort shall lose even what spiritual understanding

they had. " Surely this means that Divine Grace is dependent

on effort; and what true Hindu, whether Shaivite or Vaishnavite,

would deny such a teaching?

 

However, we are not concerned with a defence of " orthodox "

Hinduism; in many respects it is farther from the truth than

orthodox Christianity. But Bhagavan Sri Maharshi answers this

riddle of self-help and grace in final fashion, in my view. In

Sat-

Darshana Bhashya

and Talks with Maharshi we find:

"

Disciple: Then I can dispense with outside help and by

mine own effort get into the deeper truth by myself?

Maharshi:

True. But the very fact you are possessed of the

quest of the Self is a manifestation of the Divine Grace, It

is effulgent in the Heart, the inner being, the Real Self. It draws

you from within. You have to attempt to get in from without.

Your attempt is

Vichara, the deep inner movement is Grace,

That is why I say there is no real

Vichara without Grace, nor is

there Grace active for him who is without

Vichara. Both are

necessary.''

And there are several other similar examples in the same

work and elsewhere in the Maharshi's writings.

 

 

To remove the blinkers from men's eyes, to take away their

spiritual crutches is a great, though painful, task. Men generally

are unwilling to surrender their long-cherished illusions, whether

based on nineteenth century materialism still so widespread and,

indeed, spreading in India or on orthodox religion. It is painful

and lonely to be told that you must strip your soul naked and

depend only on yourself and the divine inner Grace which Christ

called the Holy Ghost if you seek spiritual liberation; that no

amount of prayers or saying `credo' can take the place of this

lone pilgrimage.

 

Most men are unwilling to make, or rarely feel the need

of making such a search. To them one can only say " Depart in

peace. " For such persons it is useless to visit Sri Maharshi's ashram

for darshan, in the hope that this in itself will liberate one. That

is only a beginning, an inspiration the long, stony path lies ahead.

It is a tenet of Hinduism that all spiritual paths lead to

the same goal. In a broad sense this is true, but also it hides

the truth. For if one has followed one religion or another,

one yoga or another, one has still in the end to go through

the process of self-analysis, of inner search and surrender

which is best described in our time by Sri Maharshi. In other

words, the " goal " is not a goal but a path. When one has

learnt everything that one can from one's inherited or

acquired religion or spiritual discipline, he has to take this

prized possession and cast it to one side the most painful of

acts and, starting afresh, follow the simple, scientific method

that the Saint of Arunachala teaches us.

 

 

.................to be continued

 

taken from Golden Jubilee Souvenir 1896-1946

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " hupa_ramdas " <hupa_ram> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

> a little from Banning Richardson MA.

>

> Finally with regard to the doctrine of grace, Christian

> criticism of Hindu theology asserts that Hinduism advocates

> " pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps " without assistance

> from the love of God. Such a statement is, in my opinion,

> unfair; In other words, " In

> accordance with each man's own efforts for spiritual

> enlightenment shall he be given assistance by God; and those

> who make no effort shall lose even what spiritual understanding

> they had. " Surely this means that Divine Grace is dependent

> on effort; and what true Hindu, whether Shaivite or Vaishnavite,

> would deny such a teaching?

>

 

Just today I read from the former Kanchi acharya a parallel statement, that so

long as we

believe in making endeavour, Ishvara's grace is obtained through such and not a

pretense

of surrender. This is standard; Krishna also says " Udhared... " .

 

 

> However, we are not concerned with a defence of " orthodox "

> Hinduism; in many respects it is farther from the truth than

> orthodox Christianity.

 

Surprising indeed that the Golden Jubilee publications of the Ramana Ashram (?)

would

publish such an unsupported statement. But that's from a westerner in the 1940s;

they are

experts at fitting circles into squares, and our editor is soft, not saint.

Still looking to

please the rulers.

 

>

>

> To remove the blinkers from men's eyes, to take away their

> spiritual crutches is a great, though painful, task. Men generally

> are unwilling to surrender their long-cherished illusions, whether

> based on nineteenth century materialism still so widespread and,

> indeed, spreading in India or on orthodox religion. It is painful

> and lonely to be told that you must strip your soul naked and

> depend only on yourself and the divine inner Grace which Christ

> called the Holy Ghost if you seek spiritual liberation; that no

> amount of prayers or saying `credo' can take the place of this

> lone pilgrimage.

 

First Banningji should strip his body naked off his clothes and move about

freely in the

world, before worrying about his soul and Ghost.

 

 

>

> Most men are unwilling to make, or rarely feel the need

> of making such a search. To them one can only say " Depart in

> peace. " For such persons it is useless to visit Sri Maharshi's ashram

> for darshan, in the hope that this in itself will liberate one. That

> is only a beginning, an inspiration the long, stony path lies ahead.

> It is a tenet of Hinduism that all spiritual paths lead to

> the same goal. In a broad sense this is true, but also it hides

> the truth. For if one has followed one religion or another,

> one yoga or another, one has still in the end to go through

> the process of self-analysis, of inner search and surrender

> which is best described in our time by Sri Maharshi. In other

> words, the " goal " is not a goal but a path. When one has

> learnt everything that one can from one's inherited or

> acquired religion or spiritual discipline, he has to take this

> prized possession and cast it to one side the most painful of

> acts and, starting afresh, follow the simple, scientific method

> that the Saint of Arunachala teaches us.

>

 

Test of the pudding ... Banningji, Pl. return to previous comment for real

practice at

becoming and understanding Ramana ... if you do, there is orthodox religion, no

talk. If

not, continue more couch-potato science.

 

 

thollmelukaalkizhu