Guest guest Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 Namaste to all. When one says " No offence meant " , there sure is a lurking apprehension that the statement made before that might offend someone. Why don't we then better avoid making such statements? I am asking this because I have seen this phrase ( " No offence meant " )included in at least three to four messages in the last couple of days. Regards to all. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv wrote: > > Dear All , >  > Pranams.. My humble opinion : Comparative studies are okay to begin with , but some where along the road it is better to concentrate on one path. Is it not better to continue to dig at one well , rather than digging some here and some there ? >  > No offence meant. This is just my personal opinion and may be of zero value. >  > Pranams >  > ramesh > > > --- On Fri, 5/29/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > > sriram <sriram_sapthasathi > Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > advaitin > Friday, May 29, 2009, 12:57 PM > > Dear vaibhav, > > Namaste. > > Kindly explain why Acharya Sankara refutes Sunyavata in his Dakshinamurthy Stotra (vide reference 5th sloka). > > // deham pranam api indriyanyapi chalam buddhim cha shunyam viduh > stri .........tasmai sri gurumurthaye namah idam sri dakshinamurthyaye // > > I firmly believe that Dakshinamurthy stotra is strictly in line with Advaita Siddhanta which is a suggested primer before undergoing the svadhyaya of advaita siddhanta in amnaya mutts of acharya sankara. > > Here are excerpts from a friend of mine: > > ************ ********* ******** > > Everything is momentary and void. Each and everything is born in one moment, stays for one moment and is destroyed in > the next moment. Everything is self-comprehending i.e. there is no division of the knower and the known. The bodies of the beings are assemblages of the five Skandhas. These Skandhas are: Roopa skandha, Vijnana skandha, Sanjnaa Skandha, Samskara Skandha and Vedanaa Skandha. The objects and sense organs are called Roopa skandha since they are `formed' (Roopa=form) in the mind. Knowledge of the sense-objects and sense organs is christened as Vijnana skandha. > Name, quality, action, species and knowledge of specialty †" this is the fivefold aspect of the Samjnaa Skandha. For the cows, the `name' is stated to be`cow'. The `species' is `cowness', which is inherent in all cows. `Quality' is whiteness etc. `Actions' are referred to when we say, `It goes' etc. `Knowledge of the specialty is of this form: `This animal has horns, four legs and a tail'. Thus, the Samjnaa Skandha is stated to be limited to these five. > Attachment, as also merit and demerit are called Samskara Skandha. Happiness and misery, as also liberation is named as Vedanaa skandha. Verily, apart from these five Skandhas, no other Atman exists at all. Nor is there any creator called Ishwara at all. The world contains in itself all the excellence. > In other words, the various processes in this world, like creation or regulation, take place all by themselves > The world is born out the Skandhas and Paramanus, which are of momentary existence. World of the succeeding moment arises out of the world of the preceding moment. This is what the Buddhists propose. > > Now, remembrance is actually `re-cognition' , cognition of something that has already been cognized. If none existed during the deep sleep state and it was all void according to the Buddhists, then who is it that recognizes himself as, `It is I who slept' after waking up? Devadutta's previous experiences can be remembered or re-cognized by Devadutta only and not by Brahmadutta who did not undergo those experiences. So, this proves the existence of a permanent Atman who endures through all the states of consciousness. > If void is the cause of this world, then the world itself cannot be proved to exist. If there is none to assemble the Skandhas > and the Paramanus, there will be no assemblage since there is no cause to achieve it. In the absence of a potter, the mere existence of clay, wheel and stick will not automatically produce the pot. Similarly, if Ishwara, the sentient creator is not accepted, > then there can be no creation. > > What for does the Buddhist, who denies the existence of the Atman keep religious vows? Since according to him, the `conscious entity' is constantly changing, the `entities' that perform the religious acts like fasting are different, so also the `entities' that will reap the fruits of these acts! If one earns something and another enjoys it, why should the person take all that trouble? > > A person engages himself in some action or desists from it, depending on the previous experience and memories of > pleasure or pain. Actions giving pleasure or pain are repeated, others are given up. This is possible only if the continuity of > the personality is accepted, which is what Pratyabhijnaa or re-cognition indicates. If this Pratyabhijnaa is an illusion, then > no continuity of activities is possible in this world. > > ************ ********* ******* > > with regards, > sriram > > advaitin@ s.com, " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@ ...> wrote: > > > > If the literature of Nagarajuna is closely examined then one would realize that there was no third turning as in adopting the conclusion of advaita. Sunyata is not Brahman. Asunyata is Brahman. In Madhyamika Sutras Nagarjuna uses this term but does not elaborate on it. If one reads Asvaghosa then further elaboration of asunyata is found. In Lankavatara Sutra the term Dharmakaya is used which means the absolute. All these three were before Sankara. There is no way that Nagarjuna could have learnt Sankara's view an even of Upanisads. It was a conclusion based on the teachings of Buddha. Though the Buddha does not speak about metaphysical issues yet he dropped some hints to it. He said that there is a thing unborn, indescribable, that does not change, if this would not have been there would have been no nirvana. If the dialouges of Ananda and Buddha on the concept of self are read one realizes that Buddha was throughout negating the not self. There again > is some influence of Madhyamika doctrine on advaita. Gaudapada's karika adopts the line of reasoning of Madhyamika school. Sri Harsa's famous work Khandana Khanda Khadya uses the dialectical method of Nagarjuna to refute the definitions of Nyaya Vaisesika categories. > > The misunderstanding about Madhyamaika school is mainly because at that point of time it was not clearly understood. Soon this school dissappeared and many of its texts are found in chinese as original sanskrit works are lost. Yogacara school of buddhism was that was foremeost at the time of Kumarila and Sankara and both take great pains to refute these views. There is little that is different between Buddhism and Vedanta and thus Swami Vivekananda talked about their unity even during his famous speech in the Parliament of Religions. > > > > REGARDS, > > VAIBHAV. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advaitin@ s.com, " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > > > > > do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita interpretation of the Upanishads? > > > > > > (Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent for a while :-) > > > > > > The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known. > > > > > > The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of the Upanishadic- Brahman. > > > > > > Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first two turnings. > > > > > > That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective enter Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists realized that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness, as grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held this position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in particular - when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is that *eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more or less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of the Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were independently established and spreading. > > > > > > Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as Brahman? Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also decided to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of the issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous post. > > > > > > thollmelukaalkizhu > > > > > > advaitin@ s.com, " Peter " <not_2@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Rachmeil and friends, > > > > > > > > To put my previous post on the two main types of emptiness in Buddhism into > > > > context. There are said to be three turnings of the wheel of Dharma (the > > > > Buddha's teaching) each emphasising a different aspect of the Dharma. The > > > > first two turnings of the wheel of dharma express the rantong nature of > > > > emptiness (empty of self-nature) . The third turning expounds upon the > > > > shentong nature of emptiness (empty-of-other nature). > > > > > > > > FIRST TURNING: > > > > > > > > This includes the four noble truths, the doctrine of impermanence, > > > > suffering, and non-self, and the specific teachings found in the Abhidharma. > > > > > > > > > The teaching on emptiness here is that if one investigates the five > > > > aggregates one will not find any independent entity call self or ego. (Like > > > > the example of the car, earlier.) This is the doctrine of annatta (not self) > > > > at this stage. > > > > > > > > SECOND TURNING: > > > > > > > > The emphasis here is the real nature of phenomena, namely that all phenomena > > > > are empty of self-nature. Even the elements (also called dharmas) that > > > > arise and pass away from moment to moment and which together form the > > > > compound nature of the personal self are empty of self nature. The whole > > > > nature of the dualism between nirvana and samsara is subjected to > > > > investigation here and found to be empty of self nature. They are said to > > > > be nothing but conceptual labels. Since there is nothing to get away from > > > > (samsara) and nowhere to go (nirvana) the aspiration spontaneously arises to > > > > be where one is helping suffering humanity. This is the beginning of the > > > > bodhisattva path. > > > > > THIRD TURNING: > > > > > > > > The truth about Buddha Nature (Tathagatgarbha) as found in the teachings of > > > > the Uttaratantra of Maitreya and the Mahaparanirvana Sutras. This turning > > > > examines what remains in emptiness once all of the above (the personal self, > > > > all phenomena, the dualism of samsara and nirvana & so on) have been > > > > negated. What is the true nature of the world that we misperceive, that we > > > > misconstrue with name and form (nama-rupa). Is it a mere nothingness, a > > > > vacuum? > > > > > > > > The answer from this perspective is " No " . The true nature of the world is > > > > the ineffable, ungraspable " Thus-ness " - in short buddha-nature itself. The > > > > resonance here with Advaita will be obvious to many in the assertion that > > > > 'the world as world is unreal, while the world as Brahman is real.' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2009 Report Share Posted May 29, 2009 Dear Nairji ,  Thank you very much for your comment . I got the message and shall surely be careful in future...Everyday has its lessons , this is today's lesson for me..  Pranams  ramesh   --- On Fri, 5/29/09, Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote: Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair " No offence meant " - Really offence meant! advaitin Friday, May 29, 2009, 6:44 PM Namaste to all. When one says " No offence meant " , there sure is a lurking apprehension that the statement made before that might offend someone. Why don't we then better avoid making such statements? I am asking this because I have seen this phrase ( " No offence meant " )included in at least three to four messages in the last couple of days. Regards to all. Madathil Nair ____________ __ advaitin@ s.com, ramesh chivukula <ramesh_chiv@ ...> wrote: > > Dear All , >  > Pranams.. My humble opinion : Comparative studies are okay to begin with , but some where along the road it is better to concentrate on one path. Is it not better to continue to dig at one well , rather than digging some here and some there ? >  > No offence meant. This is just my personal opinion and may be of zero value. >  > Pranams >  > ramesh > > > --- On Fri, 5/29/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > > sriram <sriram_sapthasathi > Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > advaitin@ s.com > Friday, May 29, 2009, 12:57 PM > > Dear vaibhav, > > Namaste. > > Kindly explain why Acharya Sankara refutes Sunyavata in his Dakshinamurthy Stotra (vide reference 5th sloka). > > // deham pranam api indriyanyapi chalam buddhim cha shunyam viduh > stri .........tasmai sri gurumurthaye namah idam sri dakshinamurthyaye // > > I firmly believe that Dakshinamurthy stotra is strictly in line with Advaita Siddhanta which is a suggested primer before undergoing the svadhyaya of advaita siddhanta in amnaya mutts of acharya sankara. > > Here are excerpts from a friend of mine: > > ************ ********* ******** > > Everything is momentary and void. Each and everything is born in one moment, stays for one moment and is destroyed in > the next moment. Everything is self-comprehending i.e. there is no division of the knower and the known. The bodies of the beings are assemblages of the five Skandhas. These Skandhas are: Roopa skandha, Vijnana skandha, Sanjnaa Skandha, Samskara Skandha and Vedanaa Skandha. The objects and sense organs are called Roopa skandha since they are `formed' (Roopa=form) in the mind. Knowledge of the sense-objects and sense organs is christened as Vijnana skandha. > Name, quality, action, species and knowledge of specialty †" this is the fivefold aspect of the Samjnaa Skandha. For the cows, the `name' is stated to be`cow'. The `species' is `cowness', which is inherent in all cows. `Quality' is whiteness etc. `Actions' are referred to when we say, `It goes' etc. `Knowledge of the specialty is of this form: `This animal has horns, four legs and a tail'. Thus, the Samjnaa Skandha is stated to be limited to these five. > Attachment, as also merit and demerit are called Samskara Skandha. Happiness and misery, as also liberation is named as Vedanaa skandha. Verily, apart from these five Skandhas, no other Atman exists at all. Nor is there any creator called Ishwara at all. The world contains in itself all the excellence. > In other words, the various processes in this world, like creation or regulation, take place all by themselves > The world is born out the Skandhas and Paramanus, which are of momentary existence. World of the succeeding moment arises out of the world of the preceding moment. This is what the Buddhists propose. > > Now, remembrance is actually `re-cognition' , cognition of something that has already been cognized. If none existed during the deep sleep state and it was all void according to the Buddhists, then who is it that recognizes himself as, `It is I who slept' after waking up? Devadutta's previous experiences can be remembered or re-cognized by Devadutta only and not by Brahmadutta who did not undergo those experiences. So, this proves the existence of a permanent Atman who endures through all the states of consciousness. > If void is the cause of this world, then the world itself cannot be proved to exist. If there is none to assemble the Skandhas > and the Paramanus, there will be no assemblage since there is no cause to achieve it. In the absence of a potter, the mere existence of clay, wheel and stick will not automatically produce the pot. Similarly, if Ishwara, the sentient creator is not accepted, > then there can be no creation. > > What for does the Buddhist, who denies the existence of the Atman keep religious vows? Since according to him, the `conscious entity' is constantly changing, the `entities' that perform the religious acts like fasting are different, so also the `entities' that will reap the fruits of these acts! If one earns something and another enjoys it, why should the person take all that trouble? > > A person engages himself in some action or desists from it, depending on the previous experience and memories of > pleasure or pain. Actions giving pleasure or pain are repeated, others are given up. This is possible only if the continuity of > the personality is accepted, which is what Pratyabhijnaa or re-cognition indicates. If this Pratyabhijnaa is an illusion, then > no continuity of activities is possible in this world. > > ************ ********* ******* > > with regards, > sriram > > advaitin@ s.com, " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@ ...> wrote: > > > > If the literature of Nagarajuna is closely examined then one would realize that there was no third turning as in adopting the conclusion of advaita. Sunyata is not Brahman. Asunyata is Brahman. In Madhyamika Sutras Nagarjuna uses this term but does not elaborate on it. If one reads Asvaghosa then further elaboration of asunyata is found. In Lankavatara Sutra the term Dharmakaya is used which means the absolute. All these three were before Sankara. There is no way that Nagarjuna could have learnt Sankara's view an even of Upanisads. It was a conclusion based on the teachings of Buddha. Though the Buddha does not speak about metaphysical issues yet he dropped some hints to it. He said that there is a thing unborn, indescribable, that does not change, if this would not have been there would have been no nirvana. If the dialouges of Ananda and Buddha on the concept of self are read one realizes that Buddha was throughout negating the not self. There again > is some influence of Madhyamika doctrine on advaita. Gaudapada's karika adopts the line of reasoning of Madhyamika school. Sri Harsa's famous work Khandana Khanda Khadya uses the dialectical method of Nagarjuna to refute the definitions of Nyaya Vaisesika categories. > > The misunderstanding about Madhyamaika school is mainly because at that point of time it was not clearly understood. Soon this school dissappeared and many of its texts are found in chinese as original sanskrit works are lost. Yogacara school of buddhism was that was foremeost at the time of Kumarila and Sankara and both take great pains to refute these views. There is little that is different between Buddhism and Vedanta and thus Swami Vivekananda talked about their unity even during his famous speech in the Parliament of Religions. > > > > REGARDS, > > VAIBHAV. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advaitin@ s.com, " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > > > > > do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita interpretation of the Upanishads? > > > > > > (Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent for a while :-) > > > > > > The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known. > > > > > > The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of the Upanishadic- Brahman. > > > > > > Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first two turnings. > > > > > > That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective enter Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists realized that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness, as grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held this position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in particular - when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is that *eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more or less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of the Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were independently established and spreading. > > > > > > Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as Brahman? Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also decided to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of the issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous post. > > > > > > thollmelukaalkizhu > > > > > > advaitin@ s.com, " Peter " <not_2@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Rachmeil and friends, > > > > > > > > To put my previous post on the two main types of emptiness in Buddhism into > > > > context. There are said to be three turnings of the wheel of Dharma (the > > > > Buddha's teaching) each emphasising a different aspect of the Dharma. The > > > > first two turnings of the wheel of dharma express the rantong nature of > > > > emptiness (empty of self-nature) . The third turning expounds upon the > > > > shentong nature of emptiness (empty-of-other nature). > > > > > > > > FIRST TURNING: > > > > > > > > This includes the four noble truths, the doctrine of impermanence, > > > > suffering, and non-self, and the specific teachings found in the Abhidharma. > > > > > > > > > The teaching on emptiness here is that if one investigates the five > > > > aggregates one will not find any independent entity call self or ego. (Like > > > > the example of the car, earlier.) This is the doctrine of annatta (not self) > > > > at this stage. > > > > > > > > SECOND TURNING: > > > > > > > > The emphasis here is the real nature of phenomena, namely that all phenomena > > > > are empty of self-nature. Even the elements (also called dharmas) that > > > > arise and pass away from moment to moment and which together form the > > > > compound nature of the personal self are empty of self nature. The whole > > > > nature of the dualism between nirvana and samsara is subjected to > > > > investigation here and found to be empty of self nature. They are said to > > > > be nothing but conceptual labels. Since there is nothing to get away from > > > > (samsara) and nowhere to go (nirvana) the aspiration spontaneously arises to > > > > be where one is helping suffering humanity. This is the beginning of the > > > > bodhisattva path. > > > > > THIRD TURNING: > > > > > > > > The truth about Buddha Nature (Tathagatgarbha) as found in the teachings of > > > > the Uttaratantra of Maitreya and the Mahaparanirvana Sutras. This turning > > > > examines what remains in emptiness once all of the above (the personal self, > > > > all phenomena, the dualism of samsara and nirvana & so on) have been > > > > negated. What is the true nature of the world that we misperceive, that we > > > > misconstrue with name and form (nama-rupa). Is it a mere nothingness, a > > > > vacuum? > > > > > > > > The answer from this perspective is " No " . The true nature of the world is > > > > the ineffable, ungraspable " Thus-ness " - in short buddha-nature itself. The > > > > resonance here with Advaita will be obvious to many in the assertion that > > > > 'the world as world is unreal, while the world as Brahman is real.' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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.