advaita vedanta and buddhism

June 1, 2009

Dear Putranji,

Pranams

I think you raised a very important point:

Quote: Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these

Major Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the

Truth. Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their

systems to seekers of varied capacities.

IMO any authentic master can present truth uncompromisingly and be lucky in

attracting seekers who are able to absorb it that way.

Some masters were quite unlucky in that respect, I guess Jesus was one of them,

he got disciples with very limited abilities. If teaching is in his prarabdha,

he has to find ways to filter truth into their limited minds. He has to present

it in a certain way, in his case in a dualistic way.

Other teachers might be presented with disciples who will open up with the

concept of emptiness or with the concept of fullness or with whatever. The

acharya will make use of what he gets and will out of compassion (and as truth

is beyond concepts anyway), filter truth itself. Or give it only in diluted

form.

This does not make understanding the differences between religions or

philosophies clearly, superfluous. It helps one to find the teaching that is

most conducive to ones own state of mind.

Still, in the end, I would absolutely agree with the above conclusion Sri

Appayya Dikshitarji makes.

Om Shanti

Sitara

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

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

> >

> > A swamiji of the RKMission told me personally. I might have >misunderstood;

but he said regarding Shankara and Ramanuja having >same realization, and the

differences in their assertions of Truth >having to do with semantics, etc. for

the most part.

>

> A respected former member sent the following in private email. This is a

different topic from this thread, which I probably should have avoided raising.

However the following has to be considered.

>

> Quote

>

> ... The following link carries a talk by Ved.Br.Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal in

Tamil on the 'chatur mata saamarasyam'. Sri Appayya Dikshitar in an exclusive

work titled 'chatur mata saara sangrahaH' has worked out the reconciliation of

the four chief schools: Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita and Shivaadvaita. The

main theme of this work has been further condensed by a great scholar: Sri

Polagam Rama Sastrigal. It is his short work that is being lectured upon in

this talk. I hope you will find this talk very useful.

>

> Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these Major

Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the Truth.

Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their systems to

seekers of varied capacities.

> ...

>

http://www.advaita-vedanta.info/player.php?lecturer=mds & f=Special%20Lectures/CMS\

_MD%20on%2023rd%20oct%2007%20dss.mp3

>

> END QUOTE

>

June 1, 2009

advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

>

> Dear Putranji,

>

> Pranams

>

> I think you raised a very important point:

>

> Quote: Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these

Major Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the

Truth. Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their

systems to seekers of varied capacities.

>

Sitaraji, thanks for the comments. Sri Dikshitar has made the issue only more

interesting since he is accepted in our Sampradaya; I have to hear that lecture

still. I doubt if the dvaitins will accept his conclusion - but I may be wrong

there as well. Anyway, from a personal standpoint, I accept Sri Dikshitar's and

your assessments of this topic. But it is a subjective (and pleasing) one which

I do not think is justified in stressing too much in formal settings - after

all, you can guess, Jesus's followers will not like to be assessed as having

" limited abilities " , for that becomes another way of saying that his teachings

as they understand are not the 'highest' truths. (Not sure if Dikshitar meant in

this sense, however). Also, a Vedantin's concern should not be about saving the

image of personalities - they stand for their sampradaya and interpretation of

Sruti; the latter alone is our real concern even when we talk about the Gurus

and what they realized. Many get sidelined here, sometimes.

Anyway, I hope this topic does not get blown up again on Dikshitar's account. At

least, I will keep quiet if it does.

Thanks again.

thollmelukaalkizhu

> IMO any authentic master can present truth uncompromisingly and be lucky in

attracting seekers who are able to absorb it that way.

>

> Some masters were quite unlucky in that respect, I guess Jesus was one of

them, he got disciples with very limited abilities. If teaching is in his

prarabdha, he has to find ways to filter truth into their limited minds. He has

to present it in a certain way, in his case in a dualistic way.

>

> Other teachers might be presented with disciples who will open up with the

concept of emptiness or with the concept of fullness or with whatever. The

acharya will make use of what he gets and will out of compassion (and as truth

is beyond concepts anyway), filter truth itself. Or give it only in diluted

form.

>

> This does not make understanding the differences between religions or

philosophies clearly, superfluous. It helps one to find the teaching that is

most conducive to ones own state of mind.

>

> Still, in the end, I would absolutely agree with the above conclusion Sri

Appayya Dikshitarji makes.

>

June 1, 2009

Namaste Sitara-ji.

I admire your liberalism.

However, stalwarts among the current crop of Shankara followers don't share it.

They simply can't accept the " all roads lead to Rome " business. If you include

the Jesus road among the alternatives, then you will have a very big problem,

when even the local Buddha and Mahaveera streets are taboo. None of them accept

Vedas as pramANa is another big impediment.

Dikshitar's was a cry in wilderness!

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

___________________

advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17 wrote:

>> Some masters were quite unlucky in that respect, I guess Jesus was one of

them, he got disciples with very limited abilities. >

>

> Still, in the end, I would absolutely agree with the conclusion Sri Appayya

Dikshitarji makes.

_________________

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

> > Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these Major

Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the Truth.

Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their systems to

seekers of varied capacities.

June 1, 2009

praNAms

Hare Krishna

They simply can't accept the " all roads lead to Rome " business.

> Yes, even Sri Shankara bhagavatpAda for that matter!! If all theories

driving us to the 'same' practical experience (this itself is a subject for

lengthy deliberation among various theistic schools) , why on the earth we

should fight each other in the name of 'doctrine' (siddhAnta) ?? shankara

seen problems in baudha's kshaNikavAda, vijnAna vAda, shUnyavAda...Sri

ramAnuja has noticed problem in advaitin's mAyAvAda, avidyA and ekAtma

vAda...so, was the point raised & refuted by madhvAchArya...By the way, I

donot know, from which stand point (vyAvahArik or pAramArthik) they have

noticed these problems in other's presentation :-)) One should think, if

all these noble souls' realization is one and the same, then they should

have come up with a doctrine that insists more on the ultimate realization

part (ultimately that is what matters is it not??) and less on the

theoritical part..but what we are seeing today in their works is

completely otherway round!! Is this due to their incapability to express

their realization in appropriate terms or is it because of untoward

influence of their overpowered intellectual mind over & above the

realization :-))

Anyway, I, for the one, donot want to to 'all-embracing'

approach to reality...you can call me dogmatic, I dont mind :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

June 1, 2009

Dear Putranji, dear Nairji

Pranams

Putranji, I did not mean to put Jesus followers down. I was referring only to

the first ones, who as far as I know, were all simple people with uneducted

minds. They certainly were good people, after all they did recognize Jesus and

were ready to accept his conditions of disciplehood (which were quite strict).

But their minds were untrained. You certainly could not have discussed

philosophical issues with them.

Today things look very different - in positive as well as negative respect. But

I don`t want to go into any more detail about this.

Nairji, I am not sure whether I got all the subtleties of your remarks. Anyway,

concerning

quote : the stalwarts among the current crop of Shankara followers

I don't know whether I even know them or their respective position. What I know

is my own truth and where I find it mirrored. And even if it might be wrong, I

trust it, until it is proved to me that it is wrong.

This is what I learned from my first Guru of more than 20 years, and I am deeply

deeply thankful for it - for though he was not an advaitin teacher, the

assimilation of his teaching has directed me to the truth of Advaita Vedanta.

Om Shanti,

Sitara

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Namaste Sitara-ji.

>

> I admire your liberalism.

>

> However, stalwarts among the current crop of Shankara followers don't share

it. They simply can't accept the " all roads lead to Rome " business. If you

include the Jesus road among the alternatives, then you will have a very big

problem, when even the local Buddha and Mahaveera streets are taboo. None of

them accept Vedas as pramANa is another big impediment.

>

> Dikshitar's was a cry in wilderness!

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ___________________

>

> advaitin , " Sitara " <smitali17@> wrote:

> >> Some masters were quite unlucky in that respect, I guess Jesus was one of

them, he got disciples with very limited abilities. >

> >

> > Still, in the end, I would absolutely agree with the conclusion Sri Appayya

Dikshitarji makes.

> _________________

>

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

> > > Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these

Major Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the

Truth. Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their

systems to seekers of varied capacities.

>

June 1, 2009

2009/5/30 Peter <not_2:

>

> Yes, it's a puzzle to me that Gaudapada and Sankara (in his commentary on

> Gaudapada's Karika) do so - especially with very little analysis of what

> those school's maintain. For example, dismissing the entire Madhyamika

> school as arch-nihilists without a single reference to Shentong Madhymaka.

As I pointed out in an earlier mail, we often think that we have

precisely understood the intent of a Gaudapada or a Shankara when we

might only be projecting our own views onto their writings. 'Nihilist'

is not a Sanskrit word.

> Dismissing the views of other schools of thought seems to have been an

> established formality in those days. It is as if each school sought to

> higlight just one or two aspects of the opposing school(s) with which to

> create a caricature relatively easy to dismiss. I have read buddhist

> commentaries that dismiss Advaita, Samkhya, and opposing schools of buddhism

> in a similar fashion.

>

> The aspects of similarity and agreement between the two schools are omitted.

Actually the polemical texts focus on the differences for a very

simple reason - the similarities already exist in the background and

are the reason why doubts arise in the first place.

>

> Just like Gaudapada and Sankara's commentary, Nagarjuna (who composed his

> Mulamadhymaka Karika many years earlier) disputes the reality of objects.

> Nagarjuna's views on non-origination and Gaudapada's views on ajatavada have

> many similarities in their arguments, which is why some people assert the

> influence of Buddhism on the Karika.

>

Yes, there is non-origination in both traditions, which is why the

question arises as to whether they are both the same.

The Bauddha-s say that Reality is free from the pairs of opposites

(the essence of the middle path), including the extremes of eternalism

and nihilism.

The Advaitin accepts thus far, and merely goes on to say - " and that

Reality which is free from the pairs of opposites is YOU "

And thus the debate continues.

--

santoá¹£aá¸¥ paramo lÄbhaá¸¥ satsaá¹…gaá¸¥ paramÄ gatiá¸¥ I

vicÄraá¸¥ paramaá¹ jÃ±Änaá¹ Å›amo hi paramaá¹ sukham II

- Yoga VÄsiá¹£á¹ha

June 1, 2009

Dikshitar's was a cry in wilderness!

praNAms

Hare Krishna

I think Sri appayya deekshita has tried to reconcile the differences within

the traditional school of advaita vedanta like bhAmati & vivaraNa...I dont

think he has tried to reconcile the differences among dvaita, advaita and

vishishtAdvaita...I am saying this keeping texts like siddhAnta lesha

saMgraha, siddhAnta kalpavalli etc. in mind...Sri Sastri prabhuji any help

on this topic??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

June 1, 2009

Dear Putran-ji,

On Nagarjuna's advaya being " dvyanta mukta " whereas the Vedantic

advaya/advaita being " dvitiyam nasti " :

It must be noted that the Vedantic advaya/advaita automatically

implies dvyanta mukta as well, though it is more commonly to mean

dvitiyam nasti. This is because Brahman is dvyanta mukta!

Now in Nagarjuna's teaching, what is it that is dvyanta mukta?

I suppose the response would be " Reality is dvyanta mukta " , or " Truth

is dvyanta mukta " .

Now if we add " And that Reality is YOU " , it becomes Vedanta.

If you look at the classical Vedantic texts, you will note two

categories. There are the teaching texts, such as the Bhashya-s. Then

there are texts that are like the expressions of a jivanmukta. A

classic example is the first chapter of the Ribhu Gita. Some portions

of the Mandukya are also like this. These are the texts which talk

purely in terms of ajativada and will contain expressions such as:

It is neither cause nor effect

It is neither bound nor free

It is neither sat nor asat

It is neither dR^ik nor dR^ishya

It is neither saguNa nor nirguNa

and so forth.

The dvyanta mukta aspect comes out very clearly here.

--

santoá¹£aá¸¥ paramo lÄbhaá¸¥ satsaá¹…gaá¸¥ paramÄ gatiá¸¥ I

vicÄraá¸¥ paramaá¹ jÃ±Änaá¹ Å›amo hi paramaá¹ sukham II

- Yoga VÄsiá¹£á¹ha

June 1, 2009

dear bhaskar,

What about *chatur-mata-sara-samgraha* of Shri Dikshitar?

regs,

sriram

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

> Dikshitar's was a cry in wilderness!

>

> praNAms

>

> Hare Krishna

>

> I think Sri appayya deekshita has tried to reconcile the differences within

> the traditional school of advaita vedanta like bhAmati & vivaraNa...I dont

> think he has tried to reconcile the differences among dvaita, advaita and

> vishishtAdvaita...I am saying this keeping texts like siddhAnta lesha

> saMgraha, siddhAnta kalpavalli etc. in mind...Sri Sastri prabhuji any help

> on this topic??

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

> bhaskar

>

June 1, 2009

Dear Peter-ji/Mouna-ji/Krishnamurthy-ji and others

Thank you for your messages.

The Vedas decalre there is one Self that is Eternal, that is Existence, and is

Consciousness. Do the Buddhists from any of the numerous schools accept this? If

they dont then this entire facade that is being erected of equating the two

opposed philosophies crumbles.

In trying to erect such a facade one per force has to gloss over some very

fundamental issues about

- how knowledge takes place? - what is the means to knowledge? - what is error

and what causes error? - causality and codependence of origination or lack

thereof? - the nature and " existence " of God or Ishwara? the nature of the

individual soul or atma? what is liberation - its locus, its content, its fruit?

is realization personal? One cannot simply use the cloak of ajativada or some

other paramarthic standpoint, and push all these issues under it.

What I have done in my message is merely provided a reference to what Bhagwan

Shankara has unequivocally written about both Buddhism and the Buddha Himself.

When He condemns Buddhism and says " sikatakupavadvidiryate " ...... " it crumbles

like a well dug in sand. " or categorically condemns the Buddha, I personally, do

not have the audacity to question this, nor dismiss it on the grounds that it

sounds " fundamentalist " and unpalatable, nor do I find the need to explain it

away by saying thet He misunderstood Buddhism.

If we mere ego-centric mortals recognize that " all roads lead to Rome " , and that

liberation cannot be the exquisite or exclusive privilege limited to only

astikas " believers in the VedAs " , should not Bhagwan Shankara, a paramajnAni,

have also had this same accomodating insight? Why the need to spend a

significant portion of his bhashyas on painstakingly refuting the Buddhists and

other nastikA views, and actually condeming the same outright and in unequivocal

terms??

Adi Shankara states categorically " Brahman is known independently only through

the Shastra, the valid means of its knowledge,..the Vedanta textx purport to

teach it exclusively " Also as I quoted in my earlier post - " But knowledge of

Reality springs from the Upanisadic texts alone, as is stated in such passages

as " One who is not versed in the Vedas cannot reflect on the Great Enetity " (-

Tai Br 3.12.9.7) - so I find it surprising that someone would assert that the

issue of Vedanta as a pramana is not fully accepted by " all schools of advaita "

- any one disputing this can only do so at the cost of contradicting Adi

Shankara Himself.

Also Mouna-ji, E=mc2 is a fact - if asserted it is not fundamentalism -

" knowledge cannot take place without a valid means of knowledge " - this is a

fact. Stating this fact is not the same as asserting without any shred of logic

- " Believe in Christ your one true savior or else you will suffer eternal

damnation (from a loving God) " is fundamentalism - I hope the difference is

clear. If you feel knowledge can take place without a valid means of knowledge,

then you need to posit how such knowledge can take place? how does one judge the

validity of the same? or if not, then postulate how another pramana, besides the

Shruti, can be operational in revealing knowledge about the Self.

When you talk about Ramana Maharshi, I have previously shown a direct quotations

where he acknowledges the Vedas to be the original source from which is derived

knowledge of the Self by all Masters.

If the validity of a teaching is based on the belief that its originator was

" Realized " then we are left with no choice but to freely choose to follow one of

a million different teachings, all of which of course would have the same

validity. The sad consequences of such misguided fanaticism is only too obvious

for me to spell out.

Accomodating other people's religious beliefs has ever been the hallmark of

Sanatana Dharma - I accept another person's right to harbor a set of beliefs -

it does not mean I accept his set of beliefs as being equivalent to mine!

We in this forum are here to understand Advaita based on the teachings of a

tradition that has been handed down to us by Adi Shankara. The teaching

tradition has been faithfully handed down across the generations with no loss of

integrity nor message nor efficacy. If someone feels that " institutions start

flowering around that focus mainly in the literal level (or first steps) of such

teachings, churches/faiths/philosophies of all kinds loosing the actual meaning

of the actual teaching " holds true for this sampradaya as well, then the onus is

on that individual to substantiate this kind of a malicious charge.

If someone comes to Advaita from Buddhism, or any other spiritual tradition, I

suggest, that we do him a greater service by first pointing out the ground

realities, including what Shankara's views on Buddhism were, and then leaving it

to the individual (and perhaps his fate!) as to where he wants to pitch in his

affinities instead of erecting fragile bridges that cruble when stepped on, and

perhaps lead to a no-mans land.

Lastly, all spiritual practices are based on the common premise of lightening

one's ego and empowering the soul to get closer to the Divine. And in this

sense, every spiritual tradition, whatever be its basis, is valid in its own

realm. A Buddhist monk thus shares all the values of ahimsa, amanitvam, etc as

an Advaitic sannyasi as would a devout Christian or Sufi saint - there is no

question that a mere intellectual understanding of Vedanta, bereft of a

transformation of one's persona, would pale into complete insignificance, when

compared to the treasurehouse of shatsampatti and the consequent spiritual

insights and upliftments acquired by each of these diverese practices, and I

fully and humbly acknoweldge and appreciate that. And it is precisely for this

reason, that I feel it is best to leave people to their own belief systems and

traditions, and encourage them to focus on its devout practices, be that

chanting a rosary or developing virtues, etc and only help them understand the

nuances of Advaita, if and only if, they genuinely are ready, rather than

hashing out a contrived synthesis, which doesn't remain faithful to any

tradition.

Hari OM

Shyam

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

> Dear Shyam-ji,

> From your email below I get the impression this is not important to you,

> bearing in mind you have dismissed the validity of any and all spiritual

> paths that do not first accept the Vedas.

> >

> With best wishes,

>

> Peter

>

June 2, 2009

PraNAms to all

Discussion has been interesting from the general principle that advaita by

definition is beyond any dvaita or concepts or conceptualization of the truth.

I consider Vedanta as pramANa or means of knowledge for one very good reason.

For me it is a science like physics or chemistry - science of absolute truth

that transcends space, time and objectivity or desa, kaala, vastu parichhinna

atiitam or rahitam. Hence it is not centered on any individual or person or

prophet or even God. Shree Sastriji recently echoed these statements too why we

respect Buddha as incarnation of Vishnu but do not follow his teachings while we

respect Krishna also but follow him since the Krishna's teaching echoes the

Vedanta. If Buddhaâ€™s teaching are in line with Vedanta irrespective claims or

contrary claims, objections or lack of them, the science is science, whether one

agrees with it or not. If one extracts the same meaning out of the teaching,

that meaning if in tune with Vedanta then it is about the fact only.

Hence it is not the individuals that are pertinent but the teaching and if it

echoes the science of reality - Vedanta then it is accepted and if it is not

then it is not. It is as simple as that. Whether it can be Krishna, Buddha,

Bhagavaan Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Mehar baaba, Shiridi baaba, or

Satya sai baaba, or any other one that is considered as Bhagavan - it is not the

individuals and we resent any formation of any cult around any individual but

the teacher is revered for the teaching of the fact - the facts are

Brahma satyam

Jagat mithyaa

Jiivo brahma eva naaparaH

Swaatma darshanam eve Iswara darshanam - says Ramana in tune with the advaitic

doctrin - vision of oneself is the vision of God - but that oneself is the self

in all - aitadaatyma idagam sarvam, tat satyam, sa aatmaa, tat tvam asi,

svetaketo - The essence of everything and anything is the essential

existence-consciousness principle that you are - saya MuDaka.

The rest of the conversion, I think, he thinks, we think etc have from the point

of absolute reality, is what Bhagavaan Ramana calls as mudaa vivaadaH. What is

important is to turn our attention to that because of which we have the capacity

to think or not to think - that alone is the absolute truth which is beyond the

presence or absence of any thing or everything and which underlies all the

thinking and not thinking. Yan manasaa na manute, yenaahur manomatam - tadeva

brahma tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upaasate - says Kena - it is that which mind

cannot think but because of which mind has the capacity to think, know that

alone is Brahman not this that you worship.

Let us invoke or recognize that advaita which is pure ever present ever

conscious ever full Brahman that we are. All are in us, but none are in us. That

is the beauty of this creation. Us is only a royal We here, since it is raja

vidyaa! That is where all isms merge and disapper - including non-dualism.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Hari Om!

Sadananda

June 2, 2009

In advaitin , " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote:

> Also Mouna-ji,...

Dear ShyamJi PraNams

I was going to write a long response to your recent posting, but Sri

Sadaji's most recent one (#45451) put me in perspective as to what

priorities one should keep in all aspects of one's moments in life, so I

decided to back up and present my apologies if my statements were not

clear enough (or not solid enough) to present my point of view.

Nevertheless I have a brief remark regarding your statement:

> When you talk about Ramana Maharshi, I have previously shown a direct

quotations where he acknowledges the Vedas to be the original source

from which is derived knowledge of the Self by all Masters.

I just want to make the observation that although I missed your direct

quotations (one day I would kindly request you to send them to me

again), Bhagavan Ramana on one occasion pointed out, as the essence of

Vedanta, two phrases that happen to be... biblical statements! " I am

that I AM " and " Be still and know that I am God " . To my understanding,

this demonstrates that He was definitely not bound to any sampradaya,

but rather knew what " tool " worked better for every specific situation,

no matter what brand fabricated it.

Anyhow, I decided to follow His advice in this moment.

Thanks for the discussion,

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

June 2, 2009

--- On Mon, 6/1/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

Swaatma darshanam eve Iswara darshanam - says Ramana in tune with the advaitic

doctrin - vision of oneself is the vision of God - but that oneself is the self

in all - aitadaatyma idagam sarvam, tat satyam, sa aatmaa, tat tvam asi,

svetaketo - The essence of everything and anything is the essential

existence-conscious ness principle that you are - saya MunDaka.

-----------

The last quote is from Ch. Up and not from MunDaka for those who are particular.

It is also satifying to know that Krishna says in Giita - I am also the cause

for the forgetfulness! - If anybody is particular to know where he says this, I

have to dig up the Giita slokas.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

June 2, 2009

Dear Shyam-ji, Mouna-ji, Sada-ji and others:

Thank you for writing with such wonderful eloquence, insight, and logic.

Bhagavan Ramana did indeed say that Vedas are the means of knowledge of the

Self. He also stated that essence of Vedanta is found in " I am that I AM "

and " Be still and know that I am God " .

It is well known to the devotees that Bhagavan is not a traditional

advaitin. When asked which Ashram he belonged to, he replied clearly " Beyond

all Ashrams " .

Bhagavan's teaching is entirely based on Advaita as that was his own

Realization. When he felt that the Advaitic realization was also reflected

in certain statements in other scriptures and sages, he simply pointed that

out.

For Self-Realization, faith in the words of the Guru play a critical role.

Hearing the Mahavakya from the Guru, if there is complete faith, the student

is unable to contradict the Guru, all doubts vanish resulting in

Realization.

We have all heard the story of King Janaka. His Guru said, " Stop! " Janaka

was about the climb on the horse. But on hearing the Guru say " Stop " ! and

obeying the Guru and surrendering completely, Janaka stopped. His body and

mind stopped. Everything stopped.

Thus having complete faith led to Self-Realization.

Namaste and love to all

Yours in Bhagavan

Harsha

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf

Of Mouna

Tuesday, June 02, 2009 2:33 AM

advaitin

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism