[ramakrishna] Bhagavad Gita Question from Galina

[Guest guest]

No objection vinaire.

 

The Vedas are the source of many sects, simply not Buddhism. Brahman is not many Ultimate Realities, however, for the very term is implicit of One. What the Vedas do expound on, however, is that all the various gods and all the sentient creatures have as the true nature the One. Buddhism totally rejects this. I have no quarrel with ones beliefs, but the facts are in the history and the content.

 

Whereas the Vedas expound on the Absolute as being unreachable with the notions and replications of the mind, Buddhism does hold this as well. But the critical difference is this: Buddhism holds the void, being devoid of any qualities as the highest, whereas traditional Hindu thought which pervades the Major Sects holds that there is a universal Subject which is at the heart of every 'individual' being. The Vedas, and Hindu thought is one of Consciousness/Awareness which is the fount and source of all 'limited beings.' It is the thread which is the same in all, the Witness. Buddhism totally rejects this Universal Witness at the heart of every being. Buddhism holds that consciousness is cause and effect, with each moment creating the next, and holds that Consciousness is not permanent.

 

This is the huge chasm between Hindu and Buddhist thought, as Hindu thought holds that Consciousness is the basis for all 'objective' experience. How can one relate one moment or experience to the next if not for a third, which is beyond the play itself? Consciousness is the backdrop for Reality in Hinduism, whereas it is simply a phenomenon in Buddhism.

 

Buddhism totally rejects this universal Subject. In fact, Buddhism rejects gods of any sort. Whereas in traditional Hindu thought, all the gods and goddesses are merely aspects of the One.

 

Very real, very different conclusions. One not even need a book, for the web provides many sites which expound on the Buddhas rejection of Vedic thought and Vedanta.

 

I applaud you on your tireless inquiry.

 

Gurubhakti M

- vinaire

Ramakrishna

Saturday, March 04, 2000 1:53 PM

Re: [ramakrishna] Bhagavad Gita Question from Galina

"vinaire" <vinaire

I do not believe that Buddha rejected the Vedas, simply

because it is pretty self-evident to me that the basis of

Buddhism is the Vedas. There is no other basis.

 

But I can understand and agree with you if you say that

Buddha rejected the contemporary Hindu interpretation

of the Vedas existing in his times, which regarded BRAHMAN

as the Supreme Being. The idea of BRAHMAN as the

Supreme Being goes against the philosophy expounded in the

Vedas itself. To Vedas, BRAHMAN is neither a being nor a

non-being. BRAHMAN is an actuality which is beyond being

and non-being. Call it what you may, but this actuality is

certainly not the Supreme Being according to the Vedas.

 

Now, a manifestation of BRAHMAN is what is called an

ATMAN. In ATMAN we arrive at the concept of a Being.

It should be well understood that BRAHMAN cannot be

quantified but the manifestations of BRAHMAN can be.

Thus, there can be unlimited number of ATMANs (beings).

 

An ATMAN in its supreme pure state is what we may

call a PARMATMAN (Supreme Being). From the preceding

statements we can see that the number of PARMATMAN

(Supreme Being) is not necessarily limited to one. There

can be more than one Supreme Beings, because

PARMATMAN (Supreme Being) is ATMAN (being) in its

supreme state of purity. Beyond PARMATMAN is the

unmanifested state of BRAHMAN. Buddha called it Nirvana.

 

Of course, Buddhism itself got corrupted with the passage

of time. But if you logically study the great insights

documented in the Vedas, you will find that those insights

to be at the very basis of Buddhism.

 

I may not have answered your objection fully. So, please

let me know if you want me to address another aspect

of your objection.

 

 

-

M

Ramakrishna

Friday, March 03, 2000 7:23 PM

Re: [ramakrishna] Bhagavad Gita Question from Galina

"M" <currwamp

 

The teachings ofVedas, and also that of Buddha, have always focused on enlightenment,so that one could actively participate in the game of life withoutbeing unnecessarily restrained.

 

The Buddha expounded the Buddhist philosphy after rejecting the Vedas and the main schools of traditional Hindu thought.

 

Buddhism as opposed to traditional Hindu thought holds that there is not a Supreme Being, but a supreme state, which is void of qualities. Buddha maintained that enlightenment is to be brought about by individual effort, whereas the mystical application in tradition Hindu thought is that there is no 'individual' effort, but rather, the Supreme Lord is the fount and source of all effort that is incorrectly perceived as 'individual.' Grace is integral in traditional Hindu thought vs. individual effort in Buddhism.

 

The Self has very different meanings in Hinduism and Buddhism.

 

Gurubhakti M

 

 

 

 

 

Sri Ramakrishnaye NamahVivekananda Centre Londonhttp://www.btinternet.com/~vivekananda/