advaita vedanta and buddhism

[Guest guest]

Dear Sriram

 

I think we are both saying the same thing , only your language is more

technical.

 

Pranams

 

ramesh

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear sir,

 

Namaste. Who said God is *only One*. Which veda, agama, tantra say so?

 

If God is only one, then why so many suktas in Rg Veda related to Agni, Vayu,

Mitra, Matarisvan, Varuna, Indra etc.

 

First of all, the concept of *God* itself is christianised term. There is no

concept of God in Sanatana Dharma. It is *Devata*.

 

There was heated discussion on other forum regarding these issues.

 

If you want, i can post them FYI.

 

regs,

sriram

 

advaitin , Baskaran <baskaran42 wrote:

>

>

>

>

>

> Hare krishna, namaskarams.

>

>  

>

> God is only one and knowledge of that god as self is also

> one. it can never be that only hindus and that too only a few castes can read

> Upanishads and are entitled to get that knowledge. every religion in this

> universe should and must have paths leading to this knowledge which we may not

> be aware off. in this millions and millions of people of the world there could

> many such persons who have the knowledge and unknown to us or to this list.

>

>  

>

> Couple of centuries back vedas could be read or known only to

> a selected few but thanks to people like swami chimayananda and his disciples

> like swami dayanada saraswathi and swami paramarthananda it  is known to

people like us who otherwise would

> never have read all that we talk of now. Who knows, it is possible that such

traditions

> are still nurtured in secrecy and not available to people like us.

>

>  

>

> May lord Krishna bless us

> all.

>

>  

>

> baskaran  

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

Bollywood news, movie reviews, film trailers and more! Go to

http://in.movies./

>

>

[Guest guest]

Shree Sriramji - PraNAms

 

First, I request you AGAIN not repeat the entire post of the previous poster in

responding, other than those relevant parts.

 

God is normally defined as jagat kartaa - the creator - As per Vedanta that

involves both intelligent and Material cause. The word God may be english but

the concept of creator is there in all religions.

 

Tai. Up starts Brahmanadavalli with the definition of Brahman and goes into the

creation aspect. Starts with Brahman which is also identified as aatma, the self

- where creation starts with aakaasha, vaayu etc with five subtler elements

which grossify by panchiikarana process. Maaya is the power by which ONE becomes

many. MayaadhyaaksheNa prakRitiH suuyate .. says Krishna. Hence God or creator

is one, whatever name you give.

 

Brahmasuutras define Brahman as janmaadyasya yataH as the creator, sustainer and

annihilator as Brahman - that is the Iswara one. Tai. Up also discusses how by

proper upasana one can become that first born, Hiranya garba, in the next life,

who will have the power of creation. All so-called gods serve the Hiranyagarbha

since He the one from which many came - including agni, vaayu etc. All those are

discussed exhaustively in Vedanta.

 

Hence Shree Bhaskar is right that God is one and one becoming many is the

creation. ManDukya analysis of that one.

 

No sir, we do not need the heated discussions about gods from other list serves.

We seem to have enough heat here to keep us warm.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

--- On Fri, 6/5/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

 

Who said God is *only One*. Which veda, agama, tantra say so?

 

.....

There was heated discussion on other forum regarding these issues.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Baskaran <baskaran42 wrote:

 

> Who knows, it is possible that such traditions

> are still nurtured in secrecy and not available to people like us.

 

Dear All,

 

This is a wise statement, since it starts on the basis that we don't

know.

 

Someone climbing a mountain from the north side can't see oher fellows

mountaneers climbing it from the south side, they will have different

obstacles, although is always about climbing.

And when they both reach the top, they both rejoice with the same

wonderful view...

 

Yours in Bhagavan,

Mouna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

>

>

> QUOTE

>

> The greatest name that man ever gave to God is Truth! Where is the question of

creating an asthika 'advaita' and a 'nastika' advaita ? sunderji , that is a

contradiction in terms .

>

> read chapter 13 verse 5 , sri mad bhagvad gita

>

> rsibhir bahudha gitam

> chandobhir vividhaih prthak

> brahma-sutra-padais caiva

> hetumadbhir viniscitaih

>

> UNQUOTE

>

> Do I have to say anything more? Our friend has hit the mark.

>

> If the question still remains, kindly name the nAstika philosophy you have in

mind.

>

 

Namaste all,

 

It would indeed be the greatest dream to hear this echoed by all

traditions!

 

Equivalent quotations from other traditions would surely be as good as

'vedAnta-DiNDima' (drum-beat).

 

Leaving aside the Vedas altogether, the conclusion reached is

articulated in at least the 4 'mahA-vAkya'-s. Any philosophy which rejects these

(including the one in the subject title) would be 'nAstika'.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh wrote:

> Namaste all,

>

> Leaving aside the Vedas altogether, the conclusion reached is

articulated in at least the 4 'mahA-vAkya'-s. Any philosophy which rejects these

(including the one in the subject title) would be 'nAstika'.

>

 

Sunderji, I had written essentially the same point earlier this morning but did

not post.

 

'nastika' historically refers to those who reject the Vedas or Vedic authority.

If such a nastika rejects " Aham Brahmasmi " (or Brahma Satyam,...) as ultimate

truth, then their philosophy is not advaita. So, what is *their direct view* on

the Upanishadic truths?

 

Can such philosophy still lead its follower to advaita? Perhaps; even as we may

say a P.mimamsaka or dvaitin may by following their path end up *crossing their

boundaries and ending up* in advaita. Chitta-suddhi is common ground. This

aspect however does not mean we implicitly endorse these philosophies' negation

of advaita.

 

As my Vaishnava friend said, ~ " we don't say you are wrong. You are partially

right, but after realizing the self, you have to realize God. " So in that sense,

yes: even the advaitin's path leads in the right direction, provided it

concludes in Visishtadvaita!!

 

Although this speculative humanitarian work has its social value, in a

philosophical setting, we may be better off stating the philosophical positions

and the corresponding paths and goals, as they are taught and followed by the

various traditions. If others deny our views, then formally, their path led them

there.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

> in a philosophical setting, we may be better off stating the philosophical

positions and the corresponding paths and goals, as they are taught and followed

by the various traditions. If others deny our views, then formally, their path

led them there.

>

 

Namaste Putranji,

 

 

Thank you for stating this more clearly than I did.

 

Whether 'advaitic mukti' is attainable by following a 'nAstika'

path cannot be our concern, nor need we equate the latter's

view of the ultimate with the former.

 

Gita's view is expressed in 8:6 -

 

yaM yaM vaapi smaranbhaavaM tyajatyante kalevaram.h .

taM tamevaiti kaunteya sadaa tadbhaavabhaavitaH .. 8\-6..

 

6. O son of Kunti, thinking of any entity whichever it may be, one

gives up the body at the end, he attains that very one, having been

always engrossed in its thought.

 

As we have no way of knowing what anyone's final thought is

will be, each one can pursue the path that suits and convinces one best.

 

As the advaitic path has been attested to by thousands of Rishis,

Siddhas, Saints, Aptas, over thousands of millenia, there really seems to be no

need to convince anyone else who chooses not to pursue it.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear sadananda-ji,

 

Pranams.

 

The words from any language are closely related to the culture/religion of that

people using that language.

 

We only have brahman, atman, deva/devI and some people might believe in a

concept of Ishvara. It is a huge misunderstanding to think brahman and god are

the same. Generally, are making a very fundamental mistake when they say God is

normally defined as so and so in vedAnta. VedAnta does not talk about the God

fellow. The word God is specific to Abrahamic religions christianity or islam

and it does not apply to us.

 

What is said below is entirely correct if the God fellow is replaced by the word

Ishvara or brahman Because of this there is no God in Hinduism. If I say

sat-chit-Ananda or brahman.. what work do you refer to understand that term?

Apparently, upanishats, the gIta etc.

 

By the same token to understand the word God isnt it apt and appropriate to

refer to the Bible.

 

Now if you compare the biblical notion of God with the upanishadic notion of

brahman they are way way apart. As an example, if I say to christian that I can

become a first born and be powered to create, he will slap me saying that it

amounts to blasphemy.

 

Because of " God is not one " in Hinduism, there is brahman and then this hiranya

garbha but definitely no one God.

 

With this, i stop this thread.

 

regards

sriram

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> > Hence Shree Bhaskar is right that God is one and one becoming many is the

creation. ManDukya analysis of that one.

>

> >

>

> --- On Fri, 6/5/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> Who said God is *only One*. Which veda, agama, tantra say so?

>

> ....

> There was heated discussion on other forum regarding these issues.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji.

 

That is a new definition for the word nAstika, which I am sure Dennisji would

like to include in his dictionary of advaitic definitions. However, I can't

accept it at my current stage of development.

 

I grew up with the pedestrian meaning for nAstika, i.e. one who doesn't believe

in the existence of God. Later, I began relating the word to 'asti' (exists) of

Sanskrit and thought most of our theologies and vedanta of all hues that we

confront fell under the Astika ubrella.

 

Reading Peterji, Mounaji et al recently at the List, I thought I could pull

under the umbrlla 'the one in the subject title' too alhough it had been stamped

utter nihilism. I didn't know I was being too liberal. If I were, I would

blame it on our secular saMskriti where we vibe with everything without

insisting on reciprocation.

 

That is our greatness and there is hope in it. If we should continue so is a

matter to be debated in the light of your very stringent defintion. That would

be putting the clock back. This is my personal opinion.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh wrote:

 

> Leaving aside the Vedas altogether, the conclusion reached is

articulated in at least the 4 'mahA-vAkya'-s. Any philosophy which rejects these

(including the one in the subject title) would be 'nAstika'.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

>

> We only have brahman, atman, deva/devI and some people might believe in a

concept of Ishvara. It is a huge misunderstanding to think brahman and god are

the same. Generally, are making a very fundamental mistake when they say God is

normally defined as so and so in vedAnta. VedAnta does not talk about the God

fellow. The word God is specific to Abrahamic religions christianity or islam

and it does not apply to us.

>

> Because of " God is not one " in Hinduism, there is brahman and then this

hiranya garbha but definitely no one God.

>

> With this, i stop this thread.

>

> regards

> sriram

 

Dear Sriram,

Brahman is attributeless (nirguNa). When associated with mAyA, Brahman is known

as saguNa brahman and this is Ishvara. This Ishvara is also known as `antaryAmi'

since He is the inner controller in all living beings. The word Ishvara appears

any number of times in the bhAShya. The word Ishvara is translated as God by all

those who write treatises on Vedanta in English, including myself. This has

nothing to do with the Bible. Brahma sutra 3.2.38 says that it is Ishvara who

gives the fruits of karma to all beings. This Ishvara is God. The word `god'

with a small letter `g' is used to denote the deities such as Agni, Indra,

VaruNa, etc. These are many, but they are all only aspects of the supreme

Brahman. There is only one God in Hinduism. It was the ill-informed westerners

who used to say that the Hindus worship innumerable Gods. It is ridiculous to

say that we have many Gods and this is what we have always been trying to

explain to non-Hindus.

 

The gods such as Agni, etc., have also been referred to in brahma sutra 1.3.26.

The question whether these gods are entitled to attain self-knowledge has been

examined in this sUtra and it has been held that they are entitled.

 

Incidentally, Sadananda-ji, a professional scientist, is a person who has

mastered advaita vedanta. Swami Chinmayananda was so impressed with his

knowledge of advaita Vedanta that he made him a part-time teacher in the

Chinmaya Mission in USA. He continues to give lectures there. He does not have

to be told that in advaita brahman and Ishvara are not the same. Instead of

obstinately sticking to your wrong understanding it will be better if you make a

serious study, with the help of a teacher if possible. To say that Hinduism has

many Gods is the most ridiculous statement possible.

 

I am taking the liberty of writing in this manner because I am 87 years old and

you are perhaps only old enough to be my grand-son. I am eager that you should

not make statements which will make you the laughing stock of the group.

With best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Hari Om

 

Can you see anything without Iswara?

 

We have no one God in our Sanathana Dharma, we have *only God* as Pujya

Swami Dayananda repeats in every talks.

 

We cannot see anything including our knowledge/perception to see anything

without the Iswara presence.

 

I strongly feel that the person who is writing this mail with the Nama

Roopa Mr. Sriram should listen to Swami Dayananda, Swami Tejomayananda,

Swami Paramartananda to get the right knowledge before making such

statements. We have with us Brahma Shri S N Sastry who has also nicely

explained the mail in his usual - non hurting style.

 

In His Seva

 

Kalyan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 8:49 AM, sriram <sriram_sapthasathiwrote:

 

>

>

> Dear sadananda-ji,

>

> Pranams.

>

> The words from any language are closely related to the culture/religion of

> that people using that language.

>

> We only have brahman, atman, deva/devI and some people might believe in a

> concept of Ishvara. It is a huge misunderstanding to think brahman and god

> are the same. Generally, are making a very fundamental mistake when they say

> God is normally defined as so and so in vedAnta. VedAnta does not talk about

> the God fellow. The word God is specific to Abrahamic religions christianity

> or islam and it does not apply to us.

>

> What is said below is entirely correct if the God fellow is replaced by the

> word Ishvara or brahman Because of this there is no God in Hinduism. If I

> say sat-chit-Ananda or brahman.. what work do you refer to understand that

> term? Apparently, upanishats, the gIta etc.

>

> By the same token to understand the word God isnt it apt and appropriate to

> refer to the Bible.

>

> Now if you compare the biblical notion of God with the upanishadic notion

> of brahman they are way way apart. As an example, if I say to christian that

> I can become a first born and be powered to create, he will slap me saying

> that it amounts to blasphemy.

>

> Because of " God is not one " in Hinduism, there is brahman and then this

> hiranya garbha but definitely no one God.

>

> With this, i stop this thread.

>

> regards

> sriram

>

> advaitin <advaitin%40>, kuntimaddi

> sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

> >

> > > Hence Shree Bhaskar is right that God is one and one becoming many is

> the creation. ManDukya analysis of that one.

> >

> > >

> >

> > --- On Fri, 6/5/09, sriram <sriram_sapthasathi wrote:

> >

> > Who said God is *only One*. Which veda, agama, tantra say so?

> >

> > ....

> > There was heated discussion on other forum regarding these issues.

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sastriji,

 

You are absolutely right. In fact, there is nothing but God in Hinduism.

Everything is God to us and, therefore, sacred. The intelligence and material

of creation are non-different in our understanding as per the spider (UrNanAbhi)

analogy of Mundaka.

 

Sir, you will be surprised that the above understanding is shared even by

intelligent followers of other faiths. I have been fortunate to associate with

some enlightened Muslims who hold the exalted view that there is nothing but

Allah.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

..... There is only one God in Hinduism. It was the ill-informed westerners who

used to say that the Hindus worship innumerable Gods. It is ridiculous to say

that we have many Gods and this is what we have always been trying to explain to

non-Hindus.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

Shastriji, can you please clarify briefly the right definition of " nastika " ?

Nairji had raised the point.

 

I stated:

 

Quote:

 

'nastika' historically refers to those who reject the Vedas or Vedic authority.

If such a nastika rejects " Aham Brahmasmi " (or Brahma Satyam,...) as ultimate

truth, then their philosophy is not advaita.

 

Unquote

 

Is this correct, or should we be concerned about the more pedestrian meanings

like " atheist " , etc? Would the Buddhists fall in this definition, as per

sentence 1 and more in particular, as per sentence 2? (My approach to Buddhism

is distinct from that to Christianity, etc, due to its historical connections).

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

putranm ji :

 

OM POORNA MADAH POORNA MIDAM

POORNAAT POORNA MUDACHYATE

POORNASYA POORNA MAADAAYA

POORNA MEVAA VASHISHYATE

OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTIHI.

 

While i am not translating the sloka,if one understands the entire purport of

it=advaitham.=non-duality.

 

so,ultimately all schools of vedantam,have to neccessarily merge into advaitham

only,is my understanding spiritually thus far.

 

suresh.

[Guest guest]

sastri ji :

 

omg,sir.you have verbalised it so well,i am in ananda.thank you thank you.

 

suresh.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri@> wrote:

>

> Shastriji, can you please clarify briefly the right definition of " nastika " ?

Nairji had raised the point.

>

> Is this correct, or should we be concerned about the more pedestrian meanings

like " atheist " , etc? Would the Buddhists fall in this definition, as per

sentence 1 and more in particular, as per sentence 2? (My approach to Buddhism

is distinct from that to Christianity, etc, due to its historical connections).

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Dear Putran-ji,

Please see the following for the meaning of aastika and naastika.

 

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/glimpses.html#chapter1

 

I have stated there that the term 'aastika' has been defined as referring to a

person who, or a system which, accepts, (1) the authority of the Vedas, (2) the

doctrine of rebirth and (3) the existence of other 'lokas' or spheres of

experience.

This is the definition given in standard works on Vedanta.

Sankhya does not accept the existence of God, though it accepts the vedas. If

belief in God is taken as the meaning of `aastika', then sankhya would become

naastika, but sankhya is included among the astika darshanas.

Buddhism does not accept the authority of the vedas. It is therefore naastika.

 

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Namaste to all.

 

What I am writing here may not be acceptable to some of the members. Those who

do not agree may kindly ignore this and not feel `horrified', as some one was at

one of my posts in the past.

 

Many years ago, when I was learning German there was the following sentence by

the German philosopher Meister Eckehart in my German text-book: Ist nicht die

ganze ewigkeit meine? – Is not the entire eternity mine? I was struck by this

sentence. I felt that he was saying that he was eternal, which is what advaita

says. This has remained etched in my memory. From what I have read about

Eckehart it appears to me that he had at least a glimpse of the advaitic truth.

 

I have now been reading `The Power of Now' by Eckhart Tolle (referred to by

Nair-ji in one of his mails). He says, " Be always in the present " , which was

what Swami Chinmayananda always used to stress. Tolle says, " You must give up

your identification with the mind " , which is exactly what Advaita also says.

 

Another statement: " Being is the eternal ever-present One Life beyond the

myriad forms of life that are subject to birth and death. However, Being is not

only beyond but also deep within every form as its innermost invisible and

indestructible essence. This means that it is accessible to you now as your own

deepest self, your true nature " .

 

Yet another statement: " So when you listen to a thought, you are aware not only

of the thought but also of yourself as the witness of the thought. A new

dimension of consciousness has come in " .

 

Do these statements not sound like advaita? There are many other statements like

this.

 

He repeatedly says, " Do not try to understand this with your mind " .

Vedanta also says that the Reality cannot be grasped by the mind.

 

These statements seem to spring from his personal experience and not from a

study of the upanishads or other scriptures. He uses a totally different

terminology from what we are familiar with, but we can grasp his meaning.

 

Best wishes

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> That is a new definition for the word nAstika, which I am sure Dennisji would

like to include in his dictionary of advaitic definitions. However, I can't

accept it at my current stage of development.

>

> I grew up with the pedestrian meaning for nAstika, i.e. one who doesn't

believe in the existence of God. Later, I began relating the word to 'asti'

(exists) of Sanskrit and thought most of our theologies and vedanta of all hues

that we confront fell under the Astika ubrella.

>

> Reading Peterji, Mounaji et al recently at the List, I thought I could pull

under the umbrlla 'the one in the subject title' too alhough it had been stamped

utter nihilism. I didn't know I was being too liberal. If I were, I would

blame it on our secular saMskriti where we vibe with everything without

insisting on reciprocation.

 

Namaste,

 

The definition of Astikyam given by Shankara in Gita Bhashya 18:42 -

 

Astikyam - astibhAvaH shraddhadhAnatA AgamArtheShu

 

 

Sw. Chinmayanadaji's commentary:

 

FAITH (Aastikyam) --- Unless one has a deep faith in what one has studied and

lived, the living itself will not be enthusiastic and full. This ardency of

conviction which is the motive-force behind one who lives what he has

understood, is the secret sustaining power that steadily converts KNOWLEDGE into

" wisdom. " This inner order, this intellectual honesty, this subtle unflagging

enthusiasm, is called " FAITH. "

 

 

Sw. Gambhirananda's translation:

 

astikyam, faith, the idea of truth [Truth of the scritpures, existence of God,

etc. In place of asti-bhavah Ast reads astika-bhavah, the feeling of conviction

with regard to the existence of God and the other world. Tr.] Sw. Gambhirananda

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Sastriji,

 

I thank you very much for your post on Tolle. It helps to remove our

misconceptions about him.

 

Tolle's insights, which have a lot to do with the teachings of the East, have a

valuable practical aspect. They help us recognize and accept our 'pain-bodies'

(http://www.donshewey.com/2005_zine/PAIN-BODY.html) and assure us final release

from the tyrranny of our misidentifications.

 

His teachings have a lot to do with our recent topic of dealing with anger and

are of great practical value to Advaitic sAdhana.

 

Kindly also read his " A New Earth " .

 

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

> From what I have read about Eckehart it appears to me that he had at least a

glimpse of the advaitic truth.

>

> I have now been reading `The Power of Now' by Eckhart Tolle (referred to by

Nair-ji in one of his mails). He says, " Be always in the present " , which was

what Swami Chinmayananda always used to stress. Tolle says, " You must give up

your identification with the mind " , which is exactly what Advaita also says.

>..........

>

> These statements seem to spring from his personal experience and not from a

study of the upanishads or other scriptures. He uses a totally different

terminology from what we are familiar with, but we can grasp his meaning.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

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

> >

> > advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri@> wrote:

> >

> I have stated there that the term 'aastika' has been defined as referring to a

person who, or a system which, accepts, (1) the authority of the Vedas, (2) the

doctrine of rebirth and (3) the existence of other 'lokas' or spheres of

experience.

 

> This is the definition given in standard works on Vedanta.

> Sankhya does not accept the existence of God, though it accepts the vedas. If

belief in God is taken as the meaning of `aastika', then sankhya would become

naastika, but sankhya is included among the astika darshanas.

> Buddhism does not accept the authority of the vedas. It is therefore naastika.

 

Namaste,

 

 

Kanchi Mahaperiyaval has made these comments: on Sankhya as rejecting

Ishvara as 'kartA' (creator), and pUrva-mImAMsA as rejecting Ishvara as

'karma-phala-dAtA' (dispenser of the 'fruits' of actions).

 

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part12/chap2.htm

 

No Concept of God in Mimamsa

(HinduDharma: Mimamasa - Karmamarga)

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

> These statements seem to spring from his personal experience and not from a

study of the upanishads or other scriptures. He uses a totally different

terminology from what we are familiar with, but we can grasp his meaning.

>

> Best wishes

> S.N.Sastri

>

 

 

Shastriji, I just want to point out that your statement above is quite

debatable. I think someone before had said " Old wine in new bottle " .

 

Anyway, I don't have too great references to challenge. However this opinion is

echoed here with regard to a related book " New Earth " :

 

 

" While lots of Hindu beliefs are mentioned in the book, Hinduism is hardly

mentioned by name. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Hinduism cannot fail

to notice this lacking. As Shukla explains, " A New Earth is nothing but a

partial rendition of Advaita Vedanta, but without proper credit or citation.

***Eckhart Tolle himself, outside of the context of the book, has acknowledged

amongst his main sources of inspiration the teachings of Ramana Maharshi and the

Bhagavad Gita. " *** "

 

http://www.hinduismtoday.com/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=1252

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

> From what I have read about Eckehart it appears to me

> that he had at least a glimpse of the advaitic truth.

 

Dear Shastri-ji,

 

First of all, I have really appreciated your recent posts. As you have

rightly said, in my view, " when we say that brahman is the only reality and

all jivas are brahman, it follows that every jiva, whether Indian or

Westerner of African, is brahman. " To believe only one group of people has

the sole means to realise the only reality is counter intuitive. I would

also like to add that such a view does not in the least diminish the value

of our own path.

 

You mentioned Meister Eckhart in your last mail as someone who had a glimpse

of Advaitic realisation. I couldn't resist sharing some quotes from Eckhart

on the nature of God. I believe all these reflect an Advaitic understanding

and direct experience.

 

" Only God has isness.

Therefore everything that is created

is in itself nothing. "

 

" Being is God's circle

and in this circle

all creatures exist.

Everything that is in God

is God. "

 

Here is what Eckhart says about realisation:

 

" In this Breakthrough

I discover

that God and I

are one.

There

I am what I was,

I grow neither smaller nor bigger,

and I am an unmovable cause

that in turn moves all things. "

 

There are many more sayings along similar lines. Importantly, Eckhart also

believed " this Breakthrough " was possible for all beings of whatever

spiritual tradition.

 

" All paths lead to God

For God is on them all evenly

for the person who knows with transformed

knowledge. "

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

>

>

>

> > From what I have read about Eckehart it appears to me

> > that he had at least a glimpse of the advaitic truth.

>

> Dear Shastri-ji,

>

> You mentioned Meister Eckhart in your last mail as someone who had a glimpse

> of Advaitic realisation. I couldn't resist sharing some quotes from Eckhart

> on the nature of God. I believe all these reflect an Advaitic understanding

> and direct experience.

>

> " Only God has isness.

> Therefore everything that is created

> is in itself nothing. "

>

> " Being is God's circle

> and in this circle

> all creatures exist.

> Everything that is in God

> is God. "

>

> Here is what Eckhart says about realisation:

>

> " In this Breakthrough

> I discover

> that God and I

> are one.

> There

> I am what I was,

> I grow neither smaller nor bigger,

> and I am an unmovable cause

> that in turn moves all things. "

>

> There are many more sayings along similar lines. Importantly, Eckhart also

> believed " this Breakthrough " was possible for all beings of whatever

> spiritual tradition.

>

> " All paths lead to God

> For God is on them all evenly

> for the person who knows with transformed

> knowledge. "

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Peter

 

Dear Peter,

I thank you for your additional quotations which are very enlightening and

clearly show that he had attained advaitic realization.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

 

>

> Do these statements not sound like advaita? There are many other statements

like this.

>

> He repeatedly says, " Do not try to understand this with your mind " .

> Vedanta also says that the Reality cannot be grasped by the mind.

>

> These statements seem to spring from his personal experience and not from a

study of the upanishads or other scriptures. He uses a totally different

terminology from what we are familiar with, but we can grasp his meaning.

>

> Best wishes

> S.N.Sastri

 

Namaste Sri. Sastriji,

 

It is my understanding that those who teach Vedanta

do not say that it is impossible for someone to

gain self-knowledge without access to the

teachings of Vedanta.

 

I believe that within the tradition we even have

an English word which is commonly used to describe

someone who has gained self-knowledge, but who doesn't

have an effective way to teach others the same thing.

 

The word is 'mystic,' which in this context may have

a slightly different meaning from the meaning which

is commonly attributed to it.

 

These are some of the types of statements I have heard

regarding a 'mystic.' A mystic, through his or

words or presence, can inspire another, but a mystic

cannot make another mystic.

 

Whether this statement is a blanket statement or not,

I don't know, but I think that generally it is true.

 

The reason I think that it is generally true is that

it matches my own experience. In my long search to

find a teacher who could 'show me' the truth, I met a

lot of people, some of whom claimed to know

the truth, and some of whom may even have known the

truth, but none of whom seemed to have an effective

way to help another know what they themselves knew.

 

The beauty of Vedanta, IMO, is that it can take

a student step by step to the clear recognition

of the truth by using the tried and true methodology

which the teachings employ.

 

There may be other systems and teachings which can

do this, but I have never encountered another, (which

is not to say categorically that another doesn't exist.)

 

But what I have repeatedly encountered are people who,

I would say, are trying to reinvent the wheel, in that they

are writing books, and even trying to come up with

systems and methods to enable their students to

know. Generally, from what I've seen, their efforts

are not very successful.

 

The beauty of Vedanta, IMO, is that the 'wheel'

is already here. There is a time-honored, tried and true,

methodology right here, and it is not a system of

'hit and miss.'

 

After one has soaked in these precious teachings

for awhile, I think that one can then read the words

of 'mystics' and understand what those words mean.

Even prior to that, one may intuitively feel that the

words are pointing out the truth, but one may find

that truth inaccessible.

 

One can be in the presence of a 'mystic' and come

away feeling inspired, or perhaps feeling calm and

peaceful. What one walks away with is a pleasant

experience, which one may want to repeat, but what

one generally does not walk away with is self-knowledge,

(even after a lot of repeats.)

 

In my experience, very few people know about the

systematic methodology of Vedanta and how it works,

although these same people may indicate that they are

interested in understanding nonduality.

 

From the vantage point of having encountered the teachings

of Vedanta, I am sometimes amazed and perplexed that these

people are not attracted to study Vedanta, but there it is.

 

One of Tolle's statements which you quoted, IMO, is

the type of statement which can cause a lot of confusion

if not properly explained.

 

" He [Tolle] repeatedly says, " Do not try to understand this

with your mind. "

 

This statement of Tolle's, and similar statements by others

which I've heard, IMO, can cause a lot of confusion. I've

generally found that many people accept and use such statements

as a guide in their search. And it is this for this reason that

they may reject a teaching (such as Vedanta) which is systematic

and which uses the mind.

 

Reality is 'beyond'(or prior to) the mind, but that

doesn't mean the mind cannot be used to understand it,

(or perhaps a better way to put that is that the mind

can be used as a means for recognizing what that reality is.)

 

It is statements such as the one above by Tolle which

confused me for a very long time. It was not until

I met a teacher of Vedanta who was very clear on the

subject that I began to understand what is meant by

'beyond the mind,' and that 'beyond the mind,' does

not mean that the mind should not be used.

 

So, I do feel that there are those who have arrived

at the truth, perhaps through a variety of ways,

or perhaps in a way that just appears to have been spontaneous,

but from what I've seen, these same people do not have

an effective way to help another recognize the same 'thing.'

 

In my experience, it is the efficacy of the teachings of

Vedanta which makes them unique and so entirely precious.

 

Pranams,

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Sastriji,

>

> His teachings have a lot to do with our recent topic of dealing with anger and

are of great practical value to Advaitic sAdhana.

>

> Kindly also read his " A New Earth " .

>

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

 

Dear Nair-ji,

Thank you very much. It was from your mail that I came to know about this book.

I am enjoying reading it. One must have an open mind to appreciate such works. I

shall get the other book also.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri