Fwd: The BUDDHA as we see Him

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Putran Maheshwar <putranm wrote:

 

" … 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.