Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

advaita vedanta and buddhism

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

bhaskar ji :

 

>>Because, according to them,

ultimate can be achieved ONLY at a foreign land like vaikunTa at the lotus

feet of four handed mahAvishNu..<<

 

Vaikuntam,Kailasham,Golokam...etc are realms of residence of the Ishta

Devatas,which is ever existent,when ones third eye is opened by anugraha of the

ishta devata,is my understanding.Otherwise all our enlightened masters would

have given us the latitude longitude for us to locate these residences of the

lord.As far the four hands or multiple hands...my understanding is,behind one

individual there are n number of people to assist the Ishta Devata.Since most of

the figurines or artistic pictures were conceived millions of yuge back,that is

what the system of depiction as a visual aid.

 

Shangu Chakra Gadhadhara....all these shangu, chakram, gadham..etc are mired in

antiquity,but which can be still designed as as weaponry for fighting against

evil.

 

suresh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Devanathanji - PraNAms

 

 

--- On Sun, 6/7/09, Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

 

Your points are well taken. Moderators only want to insure that there are no

derogatory comments about other teachers. Respecting all teachers including

chaarvaaka is our culture, while following all aachaaryaas is sign of a confused

mind.

 

There we discriminate the teaching to insure it is in line with the Vedic

understanding. Adhikaaritvam for seeker is meant for self-evaluation to insure

where I stand in terms my understanding – if it is complete and full – to

insure that it is an understanding not as just a thought but as a fact. It is

not meant for evaluation of others since no one can evaluate others mental

state. What we can examine is the teaching and see how far that is in tune with

the Vedic understanding. We apply this rigorously whether we examine dvaita,

vishiShTaadvaita or any teaching of any master. In that senses Vedanta provides

the pramANa. It is pure science whether one accepts it or not.

 

We are doing Ti. Up - just started Brahmaananda valli - following closely

Shankara Bhaashya.

 

It starts - brahmavidaapnoti param - knower of Brahman attains the supreme. The

rest of the chapter is the expansion of this aphoristic statement with the

definition of what Brahman is, how to attain it and what is meant by param. The

Upanishad first provides the brief answers to the above statements – by

defining Brahman as satyam, Jnaanam and anantam and it has to be found in the

very inner core of ones own heart of the individuality and param is the supreme

purushaartha, that is Moksha or freedom from limitations, that one is longing

for in all pursuits in life, pravRitti and nivRitti. In essence that is the

basic and fundamental advaitic teaching – Brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa and

jiiva brahma eva na aparaH. The rest of the chapter along with pancakosha

vivarana is trying to recognize these facts, is it not?

 

Without evaluating whether a particular teacher is realized or not or judging

him where does he fall in the adhikaari ladder, we need to only examine what is

his teaching and is it in tune with the Vedantic understanding of the

fundamentals.

 

I have studied Bhagavan Ramana’s two texts upadesha saara and sat darshanam

thoroughly enough to say that there is no deviation from the Vedantic teaching,

although his emphasizes the jiiva vicaara or more correctly aatma vicaara than

jagat and Isvara vicaara. The pacakosha vicaara is embedded in the slokas. Here

I am not referring to students of Ramana and their understanding of his teaching

but only Bhagavan teachings as emphasized in his texts. The teaching echos the

Tai. Up aphoristic statement above as emphasized in the very invocation sloka of

sad darshanam – that starts with sat pratyaayaah kinnu vihaaya santam .. where

satyam, Jnaanam and anantam as well as aprameyam aspects of the absolute are

emphasized. In explaining the sloka, I found myself covering Tai. Up.

Brahmaanandavalli only. I dare not Judge Bhagaan Ramana in terms of his

adhikaaritvam. His simple teaching is Self-revealing.

 

Now about Tolls’s teaching, I have heard his CDs of both texts that Nairji

mentioned. He presents beautifully the consciousness aspect as oneness pervading

in all living things. I find his teaching is incomplete in the sense that it

does not account for ‘I am’ as the all pervading principle, of jiiva and

jagat, unlike Bhagavaan Ramana’s teaching. He quotes Jesus teaching 'I am the

way’ and recognizing I am is pure consciousness and that is the way and not

Jesus is the way. Even in the analysis of ‘now’ – about the time concept

– recognition that now alone counts is clearly accounted but in the process of

analysis of ‘now’ there are still two aspects – I am and this is – both

are in Now and what is the relation between I am and this is not accounted hence

it is incomplete and leave with multiple jiivas of I am only without clear

understanding that this is mithyaa. He dwells in terms of pain bodies etc which

are perhaps the

praarabda and karma but how exactly that is related to I am is not there. Hence

it is only aatma vit not brahmavit since connection between aatma and brahma is

not accounted. Hence it falls short of the Tai. Up that says – Knower of

Brahman (alone) attains the Moksha. The same problem in JK teaching too. When

one is one with the universe as in tranquil state of mind, one is peaceful but

as soon as dvaita is seen you are back to samsaara or what he says conditioned

mind. Brahma satyam, jagat mithyaa and jiivo brahma eva na aparaH is the

fundamental declaration of Vedanta – with the statement knower of Brahman

alone reaches the highest or Moksha - as Shankara states - Brahmaatmaika bodhena

moksha sidhyati na anyathaa - only with the identity of jiiva with Brahman is

the freedom from samsaara.

 

Devanathanji – Vedas are pramaaNam only because they declare the truth

independent of any personality. Who ever echoes the Vedantic understanding is

the right teacher, other wise, not. If they help me to go to the next step then

they are needed but if I get stuck with the teaching then Lord out of

compassion will help me, as He promises in the 6th chapter where I will be born

in an conducive environment for my rapid growth.

 

The approach I follow is to not evaluate teachers per sec but the teaching

itself to see if it follows the Vedanta. In that sense only it is a science of

reality and therefore a pramANa.

 

Shree Sastriji as mentioned that he is busy in moving and may choose to respond

at his convenience.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> Would the Pope or any minister or bishop preach AdvaitA or acknowledge that

> someone like Ramana achieved salvation without first accepting Christ as

> His one True God and Savior? Would a Maulvi consider that someone like

> Amritananda Ma who rejected the idea that Allah was the one and only true

> God and Reality had achieved the status of Total Oneness with the Supreme.

>

>

> praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji

>

>

 

Namaste,

 

Mystics are always a problem for the Churches and Religions as they have no

religion or philosophy...St Teresa de Avila, St John of the Cross..In Islam they

martyred Sufis like Mansour. A Yogi/Mystic doesn't follow the man made rules and

interpretations as they are above them and this offends the egos of the

religious leaders, in some cases..........Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>>

> Devanathanji †" Vedas are pramaaNam only because they declare the truth

independent of any personality. Who ever echoes the Vedantic understanding is

the right teacher, other wise, not. If they help me to go to the next step then

they are needed but if I get stuck with the teaching then Lord out of

compassion will help me, as He promises in the 6th chapter where I will be born

in an conducive environment for my rapid growth.

>

> The approach I follow is to not evaluate teachers per sec but the teaching

itself to see if it follows the Vedanta. In that sense only it is a science of

reality and therefore a pramANa.

>

 

Sadaji,

 

Some thoughts, some of which is in your post. You can correct me if I am misled

here. One approach to why Vedas is pramanam is to take the orthodox view that

Shyamji gave. It may not seem rational but the Knowledge in question is beyond

reason or science. So to assert " Vedas is *right* pramanam, and nothing else "

requires some more justification than that it is not personality-based; the

latter merely gives some protection from the potential excesses of focussing on

personalities.

 

However even if we want to avoid giving " special " status to Vedas, we may just

start off from it without looking for justifications:

 

The Knowledge in question is transcendental, and cannot be `proved' with reason

or science alone. So we need a different pramana. Our tradition takes the Vedas

as this pramana - and it is considered complete unto itself. So " Right

Knowledge " is what is contained in the Vedas – it is our accepted starting

point. We find comfort in this axiom-base since several sages have testified to

its truths, including Ramana Maharshi. In that sense, there is a partly

" scientific " validation to our chosen pramana – but the real validation comes

when the same realization dawns in us as well – till then, it is " astika buddhi "

that is said to be all-important for the mumukshu.

 

Now must a Ramana have studied the Vedas to realize its truths? Possibly not

(say, in this life!). But our sampradaya will not accept his words as

independent pramana – they have the status similar to smrithi and must

ultimately be corroborated with the Shruthi. It might be different with the

staunch devotees of Ramana; but for us, this is the case: our chosen pramana is

Vedas and Vedas alone – and we accept Shankara's bhashyas only since he has

decisively shown his interpretation is in alignment with the Vedas, only since

he represents for us the Vedas alone (and not his own realization of Truth).

 

Even if Ramana's words corroborate with Vedanta, any further claims of " Ramana's

realization " (or even Shankara's) is our personal business and can never become

a starting point for our sampradaya to assess his words. We guess at his

realization only since he himself agrees with Vedanta and to the extent his

teachings fit directly with it - beyond this, the topic is irrelevant. If this

is properly understood, then it should be clearer why we resolutely reject

Buddha and his teachings - for Buddhism is nastika to begin with and Buddha

himself did not try to reconcile with the Vedas. It may be the case that we can

reassess Buddha's words and make it fit Vedanta - but this only amounts to our

translating the words into Vedanta - any further idea of " Buddha's realization

of truth " is our personal business and can never stand as pramana. Even Ramana

or his greatness can never become our pramana for judging Buddha - all he can do

is reassess Buddha's words to fit in line with Vedanta. These dubious aspects of

secondary sources of knowledge are taken as obvious in our sampradaya; we give

them the place they deserve and are clear of their limited scope. We place full

faith only in the Shruthi and take guidance from Shankara's bhashyas on them.

These are our starting points, and all else is subsidiary for our sampradaya.

 

Conclusion: Our tradition accepts only Sruthi as pramana for transcendental

knowledge. The Vedas are Poornam; they are our only pramana to judge the

validity even of the words of saints. Their words by themselves are not taken as

pramana for this Knowledge.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Dear All,

 

All major spiritual traditions, including Advaita Vedanta, have a tendency

to question or reject the validity of the source of other spiritual

traditions. Hence they also have a tendency to question or reject the

validity of the realisation of saints and sages of traditions other than

their own. Each tradition believes it can present valid arguments to its

own devotees, based upon it own scriptures, to support such views. Of

course, such arguments never convince the devotees of other traditions who

have their own scriptures and revelations claiming the opposite.

 

Where there is an acceptance (sometimes merely a grudging acceptance) that

other spiritual traditions *may* lead to the same goal as 'our own', each

tradition can also show to its devotees based on its own scriptures how its

path is superior to all the rest. " We may all be on the same ladder to God,

its just that everybody else is on a lower rung of the ladder than us. "

 

There seems to be no end to the arguments at this level.

 

Even in the case of those who accept the Vedas as revelation, not all accept

Sankara's views and the propositions of Advaita Vedanta. There are heated

debates about this too between different schools based on the Vedas.

 

There are some members in this group who appear to find it totally abhorrent

to think there could be any commonality between Advaita and Buddhism,

because Buddhism rejects the Vedas. Yet Prof. S. Radakrishnan, himself born

into a Brahmin family and whose philosophy rested on Advaita, states in his

book on Indian Philosophy that as " a matter of fact " it was the non-dual

philosophy of buddhism which influenced the system of Gaudapada and

Sankara's Advaita Vedanta. He writes of Advaitins being called " Parisuddha

Saugatas " (purified buddhists).

 

" As a matter of fact, such advaitic philosophy seems to be only a revised

version of Madhyamika metaphysics in vedic terminology. " (1999,

Radhakrishnan S., Indian Philosophy, vol 1, p259, Oxford University Press.)

 

I'm not saying Radakrishnan is right or that I agree with him. I'm just

saying there are differences of views and different sensibilities even among

those who accept the Vedas.

 

I was not born into the Vedic religion and culture. I am drawn to the

Upanishads and teachings of Advaita as expounded by Gaudapada, Sankara and

particularly by Ramana Maharshi because I love them, they strike a profound

chord in my heart and mind - hence I devote myself to their study.

 

Likewise, there are times when I reflect upon the teachings of other

traditions, or talk with their devotees, and I feel once again that profound

chord resonating within. This leads me to believe that while outwardly

there may appear to be many important differences between one tradition and

another, behind the different words and forms there is an underlying truth

and reality we all have in common. I have not once felt that to acknowledge

the truth or value in another's belief or path has in anyway diminished the

value of my own.

 

Importantly, one thing we all have in common is we are all struggling, each

in our own way, from the unreal to the real, from darkness to light. It

seems to me a noble endeavour to recognise and build upon what we may have

in common with our fellow travellers of whatever tradition than to persist

in using our marvellous intellects and abilities to focus on all the ways in

which we are different or superior.

 

I hope this doesn't offend anyone.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> Conclusion: Our tradition accepts only Sruthi as pramana for transcendental

knowledge. The Vedas are Poornam; they are our only pramana to judge the

validity even of the words of saints. Their words by themselves are not taken as

pramana for this Knowledge.

>

 

 

That we accept only Sruthi as pramana for Self-Knowledge does not mean a

categorical denial of other paths or other sources in general. Shastriji

mentions of Smrithi, which however is accepted in the tradition as being founded

in the Sruthi - that is why this is accepted for non-dvijas. As to other means

outside of our Shastras, this is not in our domain of knowledge; we have no

basis for this except speculation, i.e. a separate " astika " buddhi for

validating such possibility. We don't do this either, except in rejecting those

who specifically take the nastika position. Shastriji has said that this is

God's business - I accept, and I won't make specific claims about it - but for

us, where we do make astika-claim is in the validity of our Pramana. Appealing

to our sentiment is not going to win anything new; let others have their own

pramanas - as Shyamji said, we don't deny their worth in the common progress as

per Ishvara's order. To try and equate them as identical is unnecessary, given

our limited personal knowledge.

 

If you ask for a reasonable pramana for accepting other Pramanas for

Self-Knowledge, we have to appeal to specific sages like Sri Ramakrishna who

claimed to have practiced other religions and also attained to the same Truth.

But this type of acceptance is not an essential part for our sampradaya. The

rest of us giving nods based on our own logic is an irrelevant over-assessment

of ourselves.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Putranmji - PraNAms

 

You have raised some interesting questions. I will try to answer to the best I

can.

 

But before that, I must say in spite my any traditional cap that people see that

I am wearing, I am an outright scientist to the core, as you may notice in all

my writings. I cannot accept even in science also, unless it is rational and

therefore devoid of personality.

 

I look at the truth as truth and from the truth point the analysis has to be

examined. Scientists as well as Rishis are great mahatmas who could discard

personal biases to discover the truth. Vedas for me is the text of the truths

codified and edited by Vyaasa. Since the language is necessarily mystic as it

communicates that which cannot be communicated, we relay also for

self-consistency on the teachers like Shankara and other advaitic masters who

could communicate to us in the language that we can understand that truth that

is beyond any personalities. Vedas also record of the knowledge of the

experiences of the great Rishis but samanvayam or self-consistency in the

teaching is brought out by Bri. Suutras of Baadarayana.

 

The statements of Individual mahatmas who have experienced the truth are valid

as long as they tally with the Vedantic knowledge. Otherwise we have a problem

to whom we follow as the standard if the individual mahatma’s knowledge of

their experiences differs. Hence Vedas form the pramaana for that which is

beyond the pratyaksha and anumaana etc.

 

There is no problem for individuals to follow their teacher – if the teacher

is teaching the absolute truth, they will also know. As for as I am concerned,

there is no old wine 0r new wine – it is pure truth as in say gravitational

force. Who ever teaches that he is teaching the truth of that only – there is

no old gravitational force in new bottle or new gravitation force in old bottle.

The truth is absolute and that is what Vedas declare hence they are pramANa.

They are darshanas as mirror to show who we are in contrast to what we think we

are. There are no other direct paths to the truth. Only path is learning the

truth. It is like I have direct path to gravitational force. That is jumping

from 10th floor.

 

One can learn the truth immediately by listening to the teaching as in the 10th

man story, but if the mind has lot of pre-conceived notions, it takes lot of

sharvana, manana and nidhidyaasana. Hence what Devanathanji pointed out is the

adhikaari or qualification of the student which Shankara states as saadhana

chatushTaya sampatthi. Those are the tools needed to understand the absolute

truth declared in Vedanta. Everything else is paraphernalia.

 

Having stated that let us examine the comments you made.

-----------------

 

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, putranm <putranm wrote:

Some thoughts, some of which is in your post. You can correct me if I am misled

here. One approach to why Vedas is pramanam is to take the orthodox view that

Shyamji gave. It may not seem rational but the Knowledge in question is beyond

reason or science. So to assert " Vedas is *right* pramanam, and nothing else "

requires some more justification than that it is not personality- based; the

latter merely gives some protection from the potential excesses of focussing on

personalities.

 

----

KS

 

Once we accept that Vedas are recordings of the knowledge gained by Rishis of

the yore and passed on by confirmation by generations, they form the fundamental

source as means of knowledge for us to proceed as working hypothesis. Shyamji as

well as Sastriji are emphasizing the same thing each in their own way. Vedas are

extremely logical about the truth that is beyond logic.

 

Shyaamji statement that ‘Nothing else matter' is not what it sounds like.

Nothing new can be there that is not already stated in the Vedas since they are

exhaustive recordings of the many many Rishis. Hence we accept any mahatma’s

teaching as long as it tallies with Vedanta since they form unbiased knowledge

of experience of the advaita. We reject any new discoveries that are not in tune

with Vedanta. Each mahatma can emphasize one aspect or better approach or to

discover the same absolute truth as long on understands that truth that was

pointed is beyond any means -aprameyam- as Vedanta states.

 

 

In that sense only Vedas are the right pramaana, since they are accounts of

established discoveries of the Scientists of the yore. Otherwise every body can

write his own new physics book. Physics at least is evolving, no final word can

be there and there also we accept new physical laws only after validation by

many many scientists, analytically and experimentally. It is the same for

Vedanta too. Only difference is there are many Upanishads containing

declarations of many many scientists and the truth that is established is

absolute. There cannot be any new findings in that other than new approaches to

arrive at the same truth. But the way the bhaashyas and bhaashyas on bhaashyas

are developed in Advaita where it is treated as absolute science taking into

consideration objections, counter objections, counter to counter objections etc,

all possible loopholes have been thought off and analyzed - that is what

sampradaaaya means - for those who think they

have new approach to the problem. The adhyaatma science is firmly rooted in

unshakable grounds - that is why our literature is so vast. Not that all that is

really needed - but needed if some have some doubts about the teachings. That is

the reason why emphasis on a traditional teacher who has gone through all these

to be able to help a student who are not able to cross the limits of their

conditionings or biases.

------------

Putranmji

However even if we want to avoid giving " special " status to Vedas, we may just

start off from it without looking for justifications:

-----------

KS: No body need to give any special status to Vedanta. They get special status

automatically only because they talk about the absolute truth – not by

somebody giving or not giving - which is time tested and established. No one has

to give any special status to ‘physics book’ – but if I want to know

without anyone giving my own theory of physical world, I need to study physics

book. It is as simple as that. Vedanta declares about the knowledge of the truth

and one who wants to know has to study the truth. Of course one can reinvent the

wheel. There is no problem in that – but since it is about the subject which

cannot be objectified, the new inventor or the followers of new inventor has to

have a reference to insure what is discovered is absolute truth – that

reference is Vedanta which is time tested. If his discovery of the truth differs

from Vedanta, then we have a choice to follow him or Vedanta and also on what

basis? That is the reason

why the time tested that passed by guru shishya parampara forms the absolute

reference. Hence the statement follows:

We accept all teachings as long as they are in-tune with Vedanta. The truth

counts, not the personalities.

-------------

 

Putranmji

 

Now must a Ramana have studied the Vedas to realize its truths? Possibly not

(say, in this life!).

 

KS: That is your conclusion. That is not true. The Satdarshanam has the tat tvam

asi statement and pancakosha vivarana as I have pointed out. He is emphasizing

the understanding of tvam padaartha since that form the basis of any other

analysis. The first person I start first (standing for jiiva) then the second

person you (standing for entire world jagat) and third person He (Iswara) are

the divisions. Shankara starts with adhyaasa bhaaShya with the same statement.

Ramana know Vedanta in essence.

--------------------

 

Putranmji

But our sampradaya will not accept his words as independent pramANa – they

have the status similar to smrithi and must ultimately be corroborated with the

Shruthi. It might be different with the staunch devotees of Ramana; but for us,

this is the case: our chosen pramANa is Vedas and Vedas alone – and we accept

Shankara's bhashyas only since he has decisively shown his interpretation is in

alignment with the Vedas, only since he represents for us the Vedas alone (and

not his own realization of Truth).

 

KS –Nobody need to give any mahaatma any certificate. We look at the teaching

only. No body forms an independent pramaana either. There is no independent

pramANa – What Bhagavaan Ramana said is what is echoed in Vedanta – that

will come across crystal clearly and his texts are taken for analysis in any

traditional schools of Vedanta. PramANa are only six as we are dealing in

knowledge series. We accept Bhagavan Ramanas Teachings only because it echoes

Vedanta teaching. Hence the statement no individual is pramANa it is only Sastra

or science is pramANa.

-----------------

 

Putranmji

Even if Ramana's words corroborate with Vedanta, any further claims of " Ramana's

realization " (or even Shankara's) is our personal business and can never become

a starting point for our sampradaya to assess his words. We guess at his

realization only since he himself agrees with Vedanta and to the extent his

teachings fit directly with it - beyond this, the topic is irrelevant. If this

is properly understood, then it should be clearer why we resolutely reject

Buddha and his teachings - for Buddhism is nastika to begin with and Buddha

himself did not try to reconcile with the Vedas. It may be the case that we can

reassess Buddha's words and make it fit Vedanta - but this only amounts to our

translating the words into Vedanta - any further idea of " Buddha's realization

of truth " is our personal business and can never stand as pramANa. Even Ramana

or his greatness can never become our pramANa for judging Buddha - all he can do

is reassess Buddha's words to

fit in line with Vedanta. These dubious aspects of secondary sources of

knowledge are taken as obvious in our sampradaya; we give them the place they

deserve and are clear of their limited scope. We place full faith only in the

Shruthi and take guidance from Shankara's bhashyas on them. These are our

starting points and all else is subsidiary for our sampradaya.

 

KS: Putramji, apply same rule as you apply to any science. It is the Shaastra

that is the pramANa not individuals, right. Same applies to Vedanta. We respect

all aachaaryaas. I am not the one who can give certificates to people who are

realized or not. I look at the teaching and see if it agrees with Vedanta.

Shankara did not discover now things either he provided a clear treatise to the

Vedanta and showed self-consistency in the teaching. It is not Shankara, Ramana,

Buddha, Nisargadatta maharaj, or any other teacher for that matter. What counts

is the truth. The truth is what Vedanta establishes. Hence it is a science and

we follow the science of the truth.

If you have better understanding of Buddhas teaching than Shankara did, and if

think it agrees with vedanta, that also shows that vedanta is the pramaana,

right. That is exactly what we are takinig, is it not? Vedanta alone provides

the ultimate pramaana. If Buddha's teaching differs from Vedanta, now what are

you going to follow - buddhas teaching or Vedanta's teaching and what besis are

you going to decide? Are you going to evaluate both and see what is more

correct, My best wishes.

---------------------

 

Putranmji

 

Conclusion: Our tradition accepts only Sruthi as pramANa for transcendental

knowledge.

 

KS: Putranmji – there is not traditional and non-traditional knowledge. There

is the knowledge of the absolute truth. Vedas also considered as apara vidyaa

only. That Vedas themselves declare – that is why it is book of truth. What is

the supreme knowledge is absolute knowledge of the truth that is para vidyaa.

That is the ultimate knowledge – Vedanta- as the very word signifies.

-----------

Putranmji

 

The Vedas are Poornam; they are our only pramANa to judge the validity even of

the words of saints. Their words by themselves are not taken as pramANa for this

Knowledge.

 

 

KS: No, Vedas are not poornam – they point about poornam. That is what

implication of apara and para vidyaa means. No body’s words are taken as

pramANa – they are taken as pramANa if they are in tune with the truth – the

truth is what Vedanta points out.

 

Hope I am clear.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

The real difference between Sanathana Dharma and all others is only this..

" Thatvamasi " will never be touched by other religions who believe in Human gods!

This my humble opinion!

Pranams to all

 

http://www.acupressuresocks.com

 

http://www.srajahiyer.sulekha.com/

 

--- On Mon, 6/8/09, Tony OClery <aoclery wrote:

 

Tony OClery <aoclery

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

advaitin

Monday, June 8, 2009, 9:01 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr@ ...> wrote:

 

>

 

>

 

> Would the Pope or any minister or bishop preach AdvaitA or acknowledge that

 

> someone like Ramana achieved salvation without first accepting Christ as

 

> His one True God and Savior? Would a Maulvi consider that someone like

 

> Amritananda Ma who rejected the idea that Allah was the one and only true

 

> God and Reality had achieved the status of Total Oneness with the Supreme.

 

>

 

>

 

> praNAms Sri Shyam prabhuji

 

>

 

>

 

 

 

Namaste,

 

 

 

Mystics are always a problem for the Churches and Religions as they have no

religion or philosophy.. .St Teresa de Avila, St John of the Cross..In Islam

they martyred Sufis like Mansour. A Yogi/Mystic doesn't follow the man made

rules and interpretations as they are above them and this offends the egos of

the religious leaders, in some cases....... ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , SURI <SURI441 wrote:

>

> The real difference between Sanathana Dharma and all others is only this..

> " Thatvamasi " will never be touched by other religions who believe in Human

gods!

> This my humble opinion!

> Pranams to all

 

Namaste,

 

In the Bible there is the phrase I am, and then Jesus saying 'before Moses was I

am'..So Tattwamasi isn't a real difference.

 

The real difference is what India gave to the world 'Sakshin' or the concept of

witness, or that there isn't a 'God' actually getting involved or interfering in

delusion............Cheers Tony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Putranji said in an earlier post:

Even if Ramana's words corroborate with Vedanta, any further claims of " Ramana's

realization " (or even Shankara's) is our personal business and can never become

a starting point for our sampradaya to assess his words. We guess at his

realization only since he himself agrees with Vedanta and to the extent his

teachings fit directly with it - beyond this, the topic is irrelevant. If this

is properly understood, then it should be clearer why we resolutely reject

Buddha and his teachings - for Buddhism is nastika to begin with and Buddha

himself did not try to reconcile with the Vedas. It may be the case that we can

reassess Buddha's words and make it fit Vedanta - but this only amounts to our

translating the words into Vedanta - any further idea of " Buddha's realization

of truth " is our personal business and can never stand as pramana. Even Ramana

or his greatness can never become our pramana for judging Buddha - all he can do

is reassess Buddha's words to fit in line with Vedanta.

******************************************************************

We can accept Sankhya and Purva Mimamsa as astika schools even though their

teachings do not match with the teachings of Vedas, just because they pay lip

service to the Vedas. My question is if Buddha wished to go against the

Upanisads why did he call his teachings as 'Arya Dharma'? We have to be clear

here that Buddha had no intention to contradict Upanisads. He was against Vedic

ritualism. Buddha did not approve of Brhamanical supremacy over the society. He

denied blind traditions. Buddha was a reformer and not a revolutionary. Even Sri

Krishna in Bhagavad Gita does not approve of the attitude of people who intend

to perform sacrifices and thus get an easy way to heaven. Sankara performed the

funeral rites of his mother even though this is forbidden for a sanyasi. Great

saints are known for going against the wrong beliefs and tendencies that society

of their times blindly cling to. Yes, Buddha was aginst tradition, like all

saints are, but he was against tradition because they contradicted the spirit of

Sanatana Dharma. The antagonsim of Brahmins and impudence of latter buddhists

was the cause of the division that is so great that it persists even today.

If nastika is one who approves of the basic teachings of Vedas ie Brahman and

Atman are identical then the Vaisnavas, Sankhya, Purva Mimamsa, Nyaya etc should

be considered nastika and Buddhists as astika. If Nastika is one who believes in

the authority of Vedas then mere lip service to Vedas would be enough. If both

are included in the definition then Advaita becomes as exclusive sect. We cannot

do greater injustice to our sages than making the teachings of Advaita

sectarian. Nastika and Astika are useless words. Only the self realized sages of

in truth Astikas and we who just divide people into different compartments are

Nastikas in actuality.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@> wrote:

> >>

> > Devanathanji †" Vedas are pramaaNam only because they declare the truth

independent of any personality. Who ever echoes the Vedantic understanding is

the right teacher, other wise, not. If they help me to go to the next step then

they are needed but if I get stuck with the teaching then Lord out of

compassion will help me, as He promises in the 6th chapter where I will be born

in an conducive environment for my rapid growth.

> >

> > The approach I follow is to not evaluate teachers per sec but the teaching

itself to see if it follows the Vedanta. In that sense only it is a science of

reality and therefore a pramANa.

> >

>

> Sadaji,

>

> Some thoughts, some of which is in your post. You can correct me if I am

misled here. One approach to why Vedas is pramanam is to take the orthodox view

that Shyamji gave. It may not seem rational but the Knowledge in question is

beyond reason or science. So to assert " Vedas is *right* pramanam, and nothing

else " requires some more justification than that it is not personality-based;

the latter merely gives some protection from the potential excesses of focussing

on personalities.

>

> However even if we want to avoid giving " special " status to Vedas, we may just

start off from it without looking for justifications:

>

> The Knowledge in question is transcendental, and cannot be `proved' with

reason or science alone. So we need a different pramana. Our tradition takes the

Vedas as this pramana - and it is considered complete unto itself. So " Right

Knowledge " is what is contained in the Vedas – it is our accepted starting

point. We find comfort in this axiom-base since several sages have testified to

its truths, including Ramana Maharshi. In that sense, there is a partly

" scientific " validation to our chosen pramana – but the real validation comes

when the same realization dawns in us as well – till then, it is " astika buddhi "

that is said to be all-important for the mumukshu.

>

> Now must a Ramana have studied the Vedas to realize its truths? Possibly not

(say, in this life!). But our sampradaya will not accept his words as

independent pramana – they have the status similar to smrithi and must

ultimately be corroborated with the Shruthi. It might be different with the

staunch devotees of Ramana; but for us, this is the case: our chosen pramana is

Vedas and Vedas alone – and we accept Shankara's bhashyas only since he has

decisively shown his interpretation is in alignment with the Vedas, only since

he represents for us the Vedas alone (and not his own realization of Truth).

>

> Even if Ramana's words corroborate with Vedanta, any further claims of

" Ramana's realization " (or even Shankara's) is our personal business and can

never become a starting point for our sampradaya to assess his words. We guess

at his realization only since he himself agrees with Vedanta and to the extent

his teachings fit directly with it - beyond this, the topic is irrelevant. If

this is properly understood, then it should be clearer why we resolutely reject

Buddha and his teachings - for Buddhism is nastika to begin with and Buddha

himself did not try to reconcile with the Vedas. It may be the case that we can

reassess Buddha's words and make it fit Vedanta - but this only amounts to our

translating the words into Vedanta - any further idea of " Buddha's realization

of truth " is our personal business and can never stand as pramana. Even Ramana

or his greatness can never become our pramana for judging Buddha - all he can do

is reassess Buddha's words to fit in line with Vedanta. These dubious aspects of

secondary sources of knowledge are taken as obvious in our sampradaya; we give

them the place they deserve and are clear of their limited scope. We place full

faith only in the Shruthi and take guidance from Shankara's bhashyas on them.

These are our starting points, and all else is subsidiary for our sampradaya.

>

> Conclusion: Our tradition accepts only Sruthi as pramana for transcendental

knowledge. The Vedas are Poornam; they are our only pramana to judge the

validity even of the words of saints. Their words by themselves are not taken as

pramana for this Knowledge.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

 

Sadaji, I think most of what you say makes sense to me, though we may be

assessing some things slightly differently. However it is not quite that

serious, or it may take the topic off on a tangent.

 

As for Vedas being Poornam, I meant that we don't need a further objective

source of Knowledge that needs to supplement the Vedas. Anyway most other things

I am following without serious misgivings. Thanks.

 

I especially appreciate your response:

 

Quote

 

It is the Shaastra that is the pramANa not individuals, right. Same applies to

Vedanta. We respect all aachaaryaas. I am not the one who can give certificates

to people who are realized or not. I look at the teaching and see if it agrees

with Vedanta. Shankara did not discover now things either he provided a clear

treatise to the

Vedanta and showed self-consistency in the teaching. It is not Shankara, Ramana,

Buddha, Nisargadatta maharaj, or any other teacher for that matter. What counts

is the truth. The truth is what Vedanta establishes. Hence it is a science and

we follow the science of the truth. If you have better understanding of Buddhas

teaching than Shankara did, and if [you] think it agrees with vedanta, that also

shows that vedanta is the pramaana, right. That is exactly what we are takinig,

is it not? Vedanta alone provides the ultimate pramaana. If Buddha's teaching

differs from Vedanta, now what are you going to follow - buddhas teaching or

Vedanta's teaching and [on] what basis are you going to decide? Are you going to

evaluate both and see what is more correct, My best wishes.

 

Unquote

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Sada-ji

 

PranAms - beautiful post.

Just a quick note -more in the nature of a clarification.

 

The vedAs as a pramana for self-knowledge i.e. in the context that we are having

this entire discussion - IS in fact parAvidyA alone.

 

The distinction, as you point out, is made in the Mundaka Up.

 ***

Tasami sa hovAca: dve vidye veditavye iti hasmayad brahmavido vadanti parA caiva

aparA ca.

TatrAparA rg-vedo yajur-vedah sAma-vedo’tharva-vedah shikshA kalpo vyAkaranam

niruktam chando jyotisam iti

atha parA yayA tad aksharam adhigamyate.

 

To him he said: “Two kinds of knowledge have to be acquired: thus the Knowers

of Brahman have declared. These are (i) the lower and (ii) the higher.â€

Of these the lower one consists of the Rig Veda, the Yajur Veda, the Sama Veda,

the Atharva Veda, phonetics, rituals, grammar, etymology, prosody and astronomy.

But the higher one is that through which the Imperishable is attained.

***

Thus we see Rshi Angiras divide the knowledge obtained from the VedAs into a

lower portion apara vidyA and he lists them as the Rg, Yajus, etc and then says

that higher than is this the VedAs also impart the knowledge pertaining to the

Supreme Brahman and this is parAvidyA. Thus in the context in which we talk

about the VedA being a pramanA, the VediC instruction is parAvidyA alone.

 

This is further corroborated in the concluding lines of the Upanishad where-in

is stressed the qualifications of a seeker to whom such a parAvidyA be imparted,

and a warning to not impart it to those not so qualified.

***

kriyAvantah shrotriyA brahmanishthAs svayam juhvata ekarshim shraddhayantah,

tesham evaitAm brahma-vidyAm vadeta shirovratam vidhivad yais tu chirnam.

 

Those who have performed their duties well, who are learned in scriptures, who

intensely aspire for Brahman, who faithfully worship the sacred fire called

Ekarshi, who have undergone the vow of the head, to them alone this Brahma-Vidya

should be told.

 

naitad achirnabrato’dhIte - This Vidya should not be studied by one who has

not followed the prescribed rules.

***

 

I was not sure if this distinction was clear in the way you had worded it - the

fact is that parAvidyA IS indeed the knowledge obtained from the VedAs

alone - hence wanted to add this clarification.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

advaitin

Tuesday, June 9, 2009, 8:42 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KS: Putranmji – there is not traditional and non-traditional knowledge. There

is the knowledge of the absolute truth. Vedas also considered as apara vidyaa

only. That Vedas themselves declare – that is why it is book of truth. What is

the supreme knowledge is absolute knowledge of the truth that is para vidyaa.

That is the ultimate knowledge – Vedanta- as the very word signifies.

 

KS: No, Vedas are not poornam – they point about poornam. That is what

implication of apara and para vidyaa means. No body’s words are taken as

pramANa – they are taken as pramANa if they are in tune with the truth – the

truth is what Vedanta points out.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

Recent Activity

 

 

 9

New Members

 

 1

New Photos

 

 2

New LinksVisit Your Group

 

 

 

Give Back

for Good

Get inspired

by a good cause.

 

Y! Toolbar

Get it Free!

easy 1-click access

to your groups.

 

 

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21

wrote:

>

> Putranji said in an earlier post:

> Even if Ramana's words corroborate with Vedanta, any further claims of

" Ramana's realization " (or even Shankara's) is our personal business and can

never become a starting point for our sampradaya to assess his words. We guess

at his realization only since he himself agrees with Vedanta and to the extent

his teachings fit directly with it - beyond this, the topic is irrelevant. If

this is properly understood, then it should be clearer why we resolutely reject

Buddha and his teachings - for Buddhism is nastika to begin with and Buddha

himself did not try to reconcile with the Vedas. It may be the case that we can

reassess Buddha's words and make it fit Vedanta - but this only amounts to our

translating the words into Vedanta - any further idea of " Buddha's realization

of truth " is our personal business and can never stand as pramana. Even Ramana

or his greatness can never become our pramana for judging Buddha - all he can do

is reassess Buddha's words to fit in line with Vedanta.

> ******************************************************************

> We can accept Sankhya and Purva Mimamsa as astika schools even though their

teachings do not match with the teachings of Vedas, just because they pay lip

service to the Vedas. My question is if Buddha wished to go against the

Upanisads why did he call his teachings as 'Arya Dharma'? We have to be clear

here that Buddha had no intention to contradict Upanisads. He was against Vedic

ritualism. Buddha did not approve of Brhamanical supremacy over the society. He

denied blind traditions. Buddha was a reformer and not a revolutionary. Even Sri

Krishna in Bhagavad Gita does not approve of the attitude of people who intend

to perform sacrifices and thus get an easy way to heaven. Sankara performed the

funeral rites of his mother even though this is forbidden for a sanyasi. Great

saints are known for going against the wrong beliefs and tendencies that society

of their times blindly cling to. Yes, Buddha was aginst tradition, like all

saints are, but he was against tradition because they contradicted the spirit of

Sanatana Dharma. The antagonsim of Brahmins and impudence of latter buddhists

was the cause of the division that is so great that it persists even today.

> If Astika is one who approves of the basic teachings of Vedas ie Brahman and

Atman are identical then the Vaisnavas, Sankhya, Purva Mimamsa, Nyaya etc should

be considered nastika and Buddhists as astika. If Astika is one who believes in

the authority of Vedas then mere lip service to Vedas would be enough. If both

are included in the definition then Advaita becomes as exclusive sect. We cannot

do greater injustice to our sages than making the teachings of Advaita

sectarian. Nastika and Astika are useless words. Only the self realized sages of

in truth Astikas and we who just divide people into different compartments are

Nastikas in actuality.

>

> REGARDS,

> VAIBHAV.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> >

> > advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@>

wrote:

> > >>

> > > Devanathanji †" Vedas are pramaaNam only because they declare the truth

independent of any personality. Who ever echoes the Vedantic understanding is

the right teacher, other wise, not. If they help me to go to the next step then

they are needed but if I get stuck with the teaching then Lord out of

compassion will help me, as He promises in the 6th chapter where I will be born

in an conducive environment for my rapid growth.

> > >

> > > The approach I follow is to not evaluate teachers per sec but the teaching

itself to see if it follows the Vedanta. In that sense only it is a science of

reality and therefore a pramANa.

> > >

> >

> > Sadaji,

> >

> > Some thoughts, some of which is in your post. You can correct me if I am

misled here. One approach to why Vedas is pramanam is to take the orthodox view

that Shyamji gave. It may not seem rational but the Knowledge in question is

beyond reason or science. So to assert " Vedas is *right* pramanam, and nothing

else " requires some more justification than that it is not personality-based;

the latter merely gives some protection from the potential excesses of focussing

on personalities.

> >

> > However even if we want to avoid giving " special " status to Vedas, we may

just start off from it without looking for justifications:

> >

> > The Knowledge in question is transcendental, and cannot be `proved' with

reason or science alone. So we need a different pramana. Our tradition takes the

Vedas as this pramana - and it is considered complete unto itself. So " Right

Knowledge " is what is contained in the Vedas – it is our accepted starting

point. We find comfort in this axiom-base since several sages have testified to

its truths, including Ramana Maharshi. In that sense, there is a partly

" scientific " validation to our chosen pramana – but the real validation comes

when the same realization dawns in us as well – till then, it is " astika buddhi "

that is said to be all-important for the mumukshu.

> >

> > Now must a Ramana have studied the Vedas to realize its truths? Possibly not

(say, in this life!). But our sampradaya will not accept his words as

independent pramana – they have the status similar to smrithi and must

ultimately be corroborated with the Shruthi. It might be different with the

staunch devotees of Ramana; but for us, this is the case: our chosen pramana is

Vedas and Vedas alone – and we accept Shankara's bhashyas only since he has

decisively shown his interpretation is in alignment with the Vedas, only since

he represents for us the Vedas alone (and not his own realization of Truth).

> >

> > Even if Ramana's words corroborate with Vedanta, any further claims of

" Ramana's realization " (or even Shankara's) is our personal business and can

never become a starting point for our sampradaya to assess his words. We guess

at his realization only since he himself agrees with Vedanta and to the extent

his teachings fit directly with it - beyond this, the topic is irrelevant. If

this is properly understood, then it should be clearer why we resolutely reject

Buddha and his teachings - for Buddhism is nastika to begin with and Buddha

himself did not try to reconcile with the Vedas. It may be the case that we can

reassess Buddha's words and make it fit Vedanta - but this only amounts to our

translating the words into Vedanta - any further idea of " Buddha's realization

of truth " is our personal business and can never stand as pramana. Even Ramana

or his greatness can never become our pramana for judging Buddha - all he can do

is reassess Buddha's words to fit in line with Vedanta. These dubious aspects of

secondary sources of knowledge are taken as obvious in our sampradaya; we give

them the place they deserve and are clear of their limited scope. We place full

faith only in the Shruthi and take guidance from Shankara's bhashyas on them.

These are our starting points, and all else is subsidiary for our sampradaya.

> >

> > Conclusion: Our tradition accepts only Sruthi as pramana for transcendental

knowledge. The Vedas are Poornam; they are our only pramana to judge the

validity even of the words of saints. Their words by themselves are not taken as

pramana for this Knowledge.

> >

> > thollmelukaalkizhu

> >

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

PranAms.

I wanted to touch on two points - one of which I forgot to mention in my last

post and the other, in response to the question Nair-ji raised.

 

The first is the one that Respected Shastr-ji pointed out - which is the

adhikartvam for jnAnA for those considered unfit or unqualified for the study of

the VedAs.(Brahmasutra 1.3.38). Here Shankara does admit that such persons, as a

result of good works done in their past lives, can indeed gain self-knowledge

from the ItihAsAs and PurAnAs, instead of directly from the VedAs. The point to

be noted here is that these scriptures are indeed based on the VedAs alone,

and have the VedAs alone as their source.

 

For example - this is how the RAmAyanA is presented-

 

Vedavedye pare pumsi Jate Dasarathatmaje

Vedah Pracetasadasit Saksadramayanatmana

" As the Supreme Being, who is so exalted as to be known by the Vedas, was born

the son of Dasaratha, the Vedas themselves took birth as the child of Valmiki

[in the form of the Ramayana]. "

 

And of course the MahAbhAratA is popularly referred to as the fifth VedA.

 

So one can see that the PuranAs, and even the itihAsAs, are nothing but the

VedAs in essence.

On a side note, in this context about VidurA, it is interesting to note the

words of the Wise VidurA himself in the MahAbhAratA, Note here how the King, a

kshartiyA, and recognizes and acknowledges, ViDurAchArya who by birth is a

ShudrA, as his teacher, and how ViduRa himself, though Wise, responds by a

adherence to Dharma....the following passage well illustrates the concept of

DharmA in our tradition.

***

Dhritarashtra said: If there is anything still left unsaid by thee, O Vidura,

say it then, as I am ready to listen to thee. The discourse is, indeed,

charming.

Vidura said: O Dhritarashtra, O thou of the Bharata race, that ancient and

immortal Rishi Sanat-sujata who, leading a life of perpetual celibacy, has said

that there is no Death. That foremost of all intelligent persons will expound to

thee all the doubts in thy mind, both expressed and unexpressed.

Dhritarashtra said: Do thou not know what that immortal Rishi will say unto me?

O Vidura, do thou say it, if indeed, thou hast that degree of wisdom.

Vidura said: I am born in the Sudra order and, therefore, do not venture to say

more than what I have already said. The understanding, however, of that Rishi,

leading a life of celibacy, is regarded by me to be infinite. He that is a

Brahmana by birth, by discoursing on even the profoundest mysteries, never

incurs the censure of the gods. It is for this alone that I do not discourse to

thee, upon the subject.

Dhritarashtra said: Tell me, O Vidura, how with this body of mine I can meet

with that ancient and immortal one (Sanat-sujata)?

Vaisampayana said: Then Vidura began to think of that Rishi of rigid vows. And

knowing that he was thought of, the Rishi, O Bharata, showed himself there.

Vidura then received him with the rites prescribed by ordinance. And then after

having rested a while, the Rishi was seated at his ease.

Vidura addressed him, saying: O illustrious one, there is a doubt in

Dhritarashtra’s mind which is incapable of being explained away by me. It

behoveth thee, therefore, to expound it, so that listening to thy discourse,

this chief of men may tide over all his sorrows, and to that gain and loss, what

is agreeable and what disagreeable, decrepitude and death, fright and jealousy,

hunger and thirst, pride and prosperity, dislike, sleep, lust and wrath, and

decrease and increase may all be borne by him. "

***

 

The second point has to do with Nair-ji's poser below about mystics. Mystics are

certainly not a 20th or 21st century phenomenon! From Meerabai to Sant Kabir to

Guru Nanak to Sant Tukaram there are hundreds of thousands of mystics who have

ever graced our land. Shankara in the Sutrabhashyas does make a reference to

them [- I had previously quoted this, not too long ago, but i think it is worth

repeating here again -]

 

***

Purvapakshin: Your account does not leave open the possibility of the authority

of the Smrti-texts, such as the Yoga Sutras and the Samkhya source-texts, or the

authority of rishis like Kapila. The Samkhya is also not concerned with things

that are " to be done " but only with true knowledge, which is the means to

release. But there is no room in your account for the texts of the Samkhya and

so they thereby become meaningless. Since many people cannot understand the

meaning of the shruti-texts, they rely on the Smrti-texts, which are composed by

recognized authorities (prakhyata-pranatr). And the knowledge (jnana) of such

men, like Kapila, is said to be unobstructed (aprahita) like that of the rishi

(arsha).

 

Siddanta: If we admit your doctrine, then it, in turn, will render other

Smrti-doctrines useless (like the " Vedantic " portions of the Gita, e.g.). And it

is not possible for someone to perceive (upalabhate) super-sensory (ati-indriya)

objects (artha) without the aid of revelation (shrutim-antarena), because there

are no means (nimitta) to do so.

Purvapakshin: It is possible in the case of siddhas like Kapila because they

have unobstructed (aprahita) knowledge (jnana).

 

Answer: No, because powers (siddhi) such as super-sensory perception are

dependent upon certain practices (anushthana) and such practices are

characterized by things that are " to be done " (codana).

 

Nor can we count on some recognized (prasiddha) sage (mahatmya) like Kapila,

since even here there will be no foundation, because the teachings of these

recognized sages (mahatmya), as well as the founders of the other schools

(tirthakara, i.e., the Buddha, Mahavira, etc.), all mutually contradict one

another (paraspara-vipratipatti).

 

Besides, even assuming that we can trust in the authority of these siddhas,

because they instruct by way of so many different doctrines (bahu-siddhanta),

their teachings will all be in conflict (vipratipatti) with one another. And

then, as people are multiform (vaishvarupa) in their opinion (mati), (if we

accept these teachings) the undesirable consequence (prasanga) will follow that

truth (tattva) will be unregulated and without basis (avyapasthana). The Vedic

revelation, on the other hand, is an absolutely independent (nirapeksham) and

self-constituting authority (svarthe pramanyam). But human dicta

(purusha-vacasam) are dependent upon an external basis and mediated (vyavahita)

by memory (smrti) and discourse (vaktr).

 

(Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.1.1)

 

***

 

Shankara concludes this section with a very categorical assertion -

 

" We have thus established the perfection of this - our knowledge- which reposes

on the Upanishads, and as apart from it perfect knowledge is impossible, its

disregard would lead to 'absence of final release' of the transmigrating souls. "

 

Trust this clarifies.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Shyamji - PraNAms

 

Yes, the point you made is correct in the sense that vedanta points out by way

of mahaavaakyaas the identity of the jiiva and brahma. Yes in that sense it is

pramaaNa for brahma vidya.

 

Yet, the truth that is being pointed out is beyond the

pramaana-prameya-pramaata, tripuTi. In that sense, Vedas only form indicators of

the truth than revealer of the truth. It indicates by negating what it is not

since direct knowledge of the truth in this case is not possible by way of

teaching. It is still aparoxa or immediate knowledge since the truth is self

evident all the time. Hence from that point, they fall into apara as part of

vyaavahaarika only as the truth is aprameyam. Hence the statement kRitvaa

jnaanam svayam nasyet jalam katakarenu vat. The knowledge also drops out after

one realizes like kataka nut powder that is dropped to clean the water from

dust.

 

Hence vedas themselves drop out in the awakening of the knowledge that I was

never ignorant to start with. This is one of the criticisms by dvaitin and

vishishTaadvaitin that Vedas are also considered as vyavahaarika and that is one

of the reasons why they call Shankara as Pracchhanna boudha since in advaita

Vedas are not given the importance that these matas give. They question, how can

vedas that are not valid in paaramaarthika can awaken a jiiva to paaramaarthika

state.

 

Anyway the point you made is right.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Tue, 6/9/09, Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

 

The vedAs as a pramana for self-knowledge i.e. in the context that we are having

this entire discussion - IS in fact parAvidyA alone.

 

The distinction, as you point out, is made in the Mundaka Up.

 ***

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Hari OM~

 

Shri Nair ji, Pranam-s,

 

 

 

Prathamakalpika is one who is in the preliminary levels of self-assessment

while Prajnajyotih is one who already posess the truth bearing ‘insight’. He

is said to have the Rtambhara-prajna. Prajnajyotih pays approach into the

process of Self-inquiry adhering to the scriptures which prathamakalpika

does not. This distinction allows Prajnajyotih to have the upper hand over

the Prathamakalpika. Indeed prajnajyotih has the responsibility to guide

prathamakalpika and help him out of confounding convictions to which one may

get afflicted to in the process of any metaphysical inquiry.

 

 

 

I leave it to you; for you may call academicians either prathamakalpika or

Prajnajyotih – in either of the case, an academician will have every right

to sit on judgement over the other. If we identify an academician as a

Prathamakalpika, it only amounts to saying that the academician will be the

only authority to sit in judgement over a fellow prathamakalpika; for none

can be more familiar with people of their sort. Secondly, if you may

consider an academician as Prajnajyotih, then it is apparent that he is very

much qualified to have a say over the Prathamakalpika.

 

 

 

With Narayana Smrti,

 

Devanathan.J

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21

wrote:

>We have to be clear here that Buddha had no intention to contradict >Upanisads.

He was against Vedic ritualism. Buddha did not approve of >Brhamanical supremacy

over the society. He denied blind traditions. >Buddha was a reformer and not a

revolutionary.

 

Vaibhavji, Take what I say below as just some frank personal statements, and not

necessarily what I think is the right standpoint of the sampradaya. I have

argued for the latter in the last few posts - and they are the same still.

 

My personal standpoint, and as I would like to think of Buddha, is exactly along

the lines you have mentioned above. It is quite a sentimental " Hindu " thing,

since my personal knowledge of Buddha or Buddhism is very little. You are

possibly more justified in your views than I would know.

 

In this formal " Pramana " question setting, however, I start with the Sruthi as

Pramana and to the extent the persona of Buddha (through his teachings or

through Buddhism that followed) represents its rejection, I reject " him " , as

being at most, partially representative of Truth and not dependable - hence best

taken for inspiration rather than full guidance. It is not at all a

person-thing; the rejection is really of the Nastika standpoint that negates my

Pramana of transcendental Knowledge - to not do so would mean that I am

considering the need for other Pramana (i.e. Buddha). Lip service or not, that

is the formal stand - and the name " Buddha " here represents only a standpoint.

 

*If* as you say Buddha really upheld the Upanishadic truths in a reformed

manner, then the possible points of difference become centered around the

karma-kAnda - where Shankara and other Vedantins have also separated themselves

from Purva Mimamsakas but in a re-interpretive manner rather than via a total

rejection. How inhibitive the rejective position in karma-kanda matters may be

in terms of guiding one to the final goal - I don't know, but it is tempting to

make light of them. Doing this, and reassessing Buddha's teachings based on our

Vedanta-pramana, we can probably look upon him as truly realized. Whatever the

Buddha stood for, the path of rejection led to the latter-day Buddhism which

consolidated explicitly the Nastika standpoints.

 

(As I argued with you before, I would find it much more difficult to grant the

same benefit-of-doubt to Nagarjuna and others. But with Buddha, his greater

'silence' in general gives us the room to do so, if a Vedantin should want to

save the Person from the traditions that followed him: this 'want' however is

not to be imposed on our sampradaya.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

>

> *If* as you say Buddha really upheld the Upanishadic truths in a reformed

manner, then the possible points of difference become centered around the

karma-kAnda

 

Probably, this is more serious than I am making it out. Shyamji in post 45449

discusses a bit in his paragraph 2 concluding with " One cannot simply use the

cloak of ajativada or some other paramarthic standpoint, and push all these

issues under it. " But my (informal) post as I said was meant to give as much

allowance as possible - to " save " Buddha's ultimate understanding rather than

the path etc.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

We accept Bhagavan Ramanas Teachings only because it echoes Vedanta

teaching. Hence the statement no individual is pramANa it is only Sastra or

science is pramANa.

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

After reading above, my mischevous mind throwing a stupid question, which I

am not able to stamp within myself.

 

 

If what bhagavan, a maharshi, written is absolute truth, why we are

hesitating to give it a status of shruti!!?? dont we say upanishats are

the declaration of truth by various maharshi-s! if that is the case, why

we are not ready to give shruti status to another maharshi's intuitive

utterances?? Is it because, in this case we know the author here !!

Kindly dont think I am saying this keeping only bhagavan ramaNa maharshi in

mind, I am having the same doubt with regard to all noble works of all

maharshi-s in vedanta saMpradAya i.e. including Sri ramakrishna

paramahaMsa, Sri chandrashekharendra saraswati, Sri chandrashekhara

bhArati, Sri SSS, nisargadatta mahArAj etc. etc. I am not sure, if these

names faded away without any trace, after 5-6 generation from hereon

bhagavan & all these Acharya-s works may get the status of shruti without

any authorship claims...We always love to reward anything posthumously is

it not :-)) that too after considerable time gap, in centuries ususally

:-))

 

 

Kindly dont think otherwise, a lazy mind's time pass question after heavy

lunch at office canteen :-))

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

3.If everything is temporary..' BEING MOMENTARY(ACC TO THEM)THE INTELLECT NEVER

RETAINS THE IMPRESSIONS OF MEMORY " ..(AGAIN RECOGNITION IS SAID TO BE DUE TO

MISCONCEPTION OF SIMILARITY BUT)THERE IS NO CAUSE OF SIMILARITY(BETWEEN THE

PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING MOMENTS)

> (IF ON THE OTHERHAND ,A WITNESS PERCEIVING BOTH THE MOMENTS ARE ADMITTED)THE

DOCTRINE OF MOMENTARINESS IS ABANDONED..

> PAGE 175

*****************************************************************

Suriji,

this polemic is directed against both idealists and the nihilists.

According to the theory of kshanikvada, every thing is momentary, it exists for

one moment only and perishes the other but passes on the momentum to the

succeding moment. This theory is more elaborately refuted by Sri Sankara in

Brhadaranyaka Upanisad Bhashya and Brhma Sutra Bhashya. What is said here is

that it is impossible to retain the impressions of memory by the intellect,

because the intellect recieiving these impressions would have perished in a

moment and a new intellect would have arisen. According to the opponent the

cause of recognition is its similarity to the impression of a previously

percieved thing but the theory of momentariness cannot allow this as there is

nothing permanent persisting between one moment to another and the object say a

jar that was percieved at one moment cannot have similarity with a fresh

experience of jar as the latter is a different moment from the former one. Again

if a witness is admitted then too the theory would stand refuted for the witness

will have to persist for more than one moment.

But a word of caution here, the Madhyamikas are not nihilists.

Nagarjuna takes great pains in Ch 25 to show that his theory is not nihilism. He

maintains an ultimate reality about which nothing can be said as it is non

conceptual. Unfortunately this school has been labelled as nihilsts which is not

the fact. This error is shared by all schools of Hindus. The probable reason

could have been that the teachings could have been lost as many of its exponents

were gone by the time of Sankara and even many of its Sanskrit texts have been

lost but fortunately this school moved to China and these texts today exists in

chinese. Also note that there was a nihilst school of Buddhism which did not

rise to any prominence, these were the Vaipulyakas.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , SURI <SURI441 wrote:

>

> From what little I have understood from Upadesa Sahasri of ADI SANKARA,and as

interpreted by SwamiJagadananda(RK Mutt) in Chapter XVI..verses 23 to 28 and as

explained by my Guruji,Swami Paramarthananda,I feel the following:-

>

> 1.Sankara challenges the only Budhist Theory " Nihilism " which comes closest to

Advaitha,and all other Budhists theories dont even need any explanation..

>

> 2.In Nihilism everything is temporary..including Consiiousness which acc

Sankara,Nihilists have accepted Consciousness principle..

> 3.If everything is temporary..' BEING MOMENTARY(ACC TO THEM)THE INTELLECT

NEVER RETAINS THE IMPRESSIONS OF MEMORY " ..(AGAIN RECOGNITION IS SAID TO BE DUE

TO MISCONCEPTION OF SIMILARITY BUT)THERE IS NO CAUSE OF SIMILARITY(BETWEEN THE

PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING MOMENTS)

> (IF ON THE OTHERHAND ,A WITNESS PERCEIVING BOTH THE MOMENTS ARE ADMITTED)THE

DOCTRINE OF MOMENTARINESS IS ABANDONED..

> PAGE 175

> 4.I wd like to get common man's explanation for these verses once again from

learned scholars as I am writing from my notes/the book mentioned above..

> In conclusion Nihilism tho' colosest to advaitham,is eliminated for

its " Momentariness " ..

> 5.I have read a book by Dalai Lama " The Universe on an Atom " where He is more

talking about Adavaithic truth intodays context Vs Scientific Failures to prove

anything about Consciousness..

> Pranams to all

> s.rajah iyer

>

>

> http://www.acupressuresocks.com

>

> http://www.srajahiyer.sulekha.com/

>

> --- On Wed, 6/10/09, putranm <putranm wrote:

>

> putranm <putranm

> Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

> advaitin

> Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 9:53 AM

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

advaitin@ s.com, " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@

....> wrote:

>

> >We have to be clear here that Buddha had no intention to contradict

>Upanisads. He was against Vedic ritualism. Buddha did not approve of

>Brhamanical supremacy over the society. He denied blind traditions. >Buddha was

a reformer and not a revolutionary.

>

>

>

> Vaibhavji, Take what I say below as just some frank personal statements, and

not necessarily what I think is the right standpoint of the sampradaya. I have

argued for the latter in the last few posts - and they are the same still.

>

>

>

> My personal standpoint, and as I would like to think of Buddha, is exactly

along the lines you have mentioned above. It is quite a sentimental " Hindu "

thing, since my personal knowledge of Buddha or Buddhism is very little. You are

possibly more justified in your views than I would know.

>

>

>

> In this formal " Pramana " question setting, however, I start with the Sruthi as

Pramana and to the extent the persona of Buddha (through his teachings or

through Buddhism that followed) represents its rejection, I reject " him " , as

being at most, partially representative of Truth and not dependable - hence best

taken for inspiration rather than full guidance. It is not at all a

person-thing; the rejection is really of the Nastika standpoint that negates my

Pramana of transcendental Knowledge - to not do so would mean that I am

considering the need for other Pramana (i.e. Buddha). Lip service or not, that

is the formal stand - and the name " Buddha " here represents only a standpoint.

>

>

>

> *If* as you say Buddha really upheld the Upanishadic truths in a reformed

manner, then the possible points of difference become centered around the

karma-kAnda - where Shankara and other Vedantins have also separated themselves

from Purva Mimamsakas but in a re-interpretive manner rather than via a total

rejection. How inhibitive the rejective position in karma-kanda matters may be

in terms of guiding one to the final goal - I don't know, but it is tempting to

make light of them. Doing this, and reassessing Buddha's teachings based on our

Vedanta-pramana, we can probably look upon him as truly realized. Whatever the

Buddha stood for, the path of rejection led to the latter-day Buddhism which

consolidated explicitly the Nastika standpoints.

>

>

>

> (As I argued with you before, I would find it much more difficult to grant the

same benefit-of-doubt to Nagarjuna and others. But with Buddha, his greater

'silence' in general gives us the room to do so, if a Vedantin should want to

save the Person from the traditions that followed him: this 'want' however is

not to be imposed on our sampradaya.)

>

>

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

He maintains an ultimate reality about which nothing can be said as it is

non conceptual.

 

 

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

though I am not at all familiar with any of the buddhistic work..Just a

curious question ..do you mean to say here there is absolutely no disparity

in establishing the truth here between advaita & nAgArjuna's mAdhyandina

kArika school?? pls. clarify.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> The Vedas is the short form for a 'particular interpretation of the

> Vedas'. Each tradition has its own interpretation. There can be radical

> differences. Like the man told me about the Kerala coalition of Marxist

> Peking and Marxist Moscow - " Difficulties are there " .

>

> Whilst there has always been a verbal homage to the idea that all paths

> lead to the same goal there also existed a strong feeling that the other

> man's compass was unreliable. If a man's wisdom was undeniable then that

> could only be because he had in a previous life had contact with the

> " truth " . Such childish rationalisations can mutate into fundamentalism.

>

 

Michaelji,

 

This is one reason why I am against the childish " undeniable " anointing of

saintly people (following other interpretations/pramanas) with " perfect wisdom " ,

in the first place - other man's compass is naturally unreliable for me if it is

not the compass I am working with directly. So best I leave it alone. If I want

to anoint " perfect wisdom " , then I have to indulge in childish rationalizations

of making the compasses match perfectly.

 

Well, the sampradaya may have many an esoteric claim including the one you

mentioned. In what sense is it fundamentalist, and how has its fundamentalist

history compared with that of Islam and Christianity? There are local in-house

issues, but the relationship with other religions has been acceptant overall,

far from mere verbal homage - and that carries through to this day. When Shyamji

said that we don't negate the worth of other paths (including in our differences

to other Vedic paths), he meant it exactly like that, that is truth for us, no

mere " homage " : can people get that? No one can put Hinduism into the same blob

of " fundamentalism " that some other religions represent. There are inbuilt

protective barriers at every level.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> Well, the sampradaya may have many an esoteric claim including the one you

mentioned. In what sense is it fundamentalist, and how has its fundamentalist

history compared with that of Islam and Christianity? There are local in-house

issues, but the relationship with other religions has been acceptant overall,

far from mere verbal homage - and that carries through to this day.

 

My point in reference here is with regard to what is instigated by philosophical

position/viewpoint; not with respect to what is better termed as reactionary.

Mahabharatha gives classic examples for both. They are distinct and should not

be identified as same, even if we choose to respond in like-manner - that's a

different debate. Even in its " childish rationalizations " , Hinduism is motivated

to find unity through identity, or seeing the other as a different expression of

itself, or somehow connected to itself in a perfect manner; my point: adults

should find the same unity in diversity even in fundamental philosophical

positions.

 

thollmelukaakizhu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

Bhaskarji,

This is my understanding regarding the madhyamikan methodology.

 

Buddhist phenomenology describes five aggregates which categorize

all human experience -

1. rUpa (Form or matter)

2. vEdana (sensation)

3. samjna (perception, cognition)

4. samskAra (mental formations)

5. vijnAna (consciousness)

 

All these are aggregates which arise under mutually dependent

conditions and eventually get destroyed.

Different schools of Buddhism have different opinion on the causal

relation and dependency between these aggregates . (Some believe

that these phenomena arise and get destroyed in each moment.

Some say that they all arise from a mental store-house of consciousness.

Realist schools believe that rUpa arise from

four basic elements and rest of the aggregates arise from rUpa).

 

The cause of suffering is the clinging to these aggregates.

The eventual goal is to figure out that these aggregates do not have

any " inherent reality " or " self-nature " in them. This realization

brings nirvAna or liberation from suffering, which is a state of

freedom from all conceptions ( including the concept of a eternal

Self).

 

The differences in methodology are obvious : In Advaita, one start

with his limited self-existence and push the boundary until the

whole world is seen as one's Self.

 

In Madhyamika, one analyses the phenomenal appearances (including

the concept of one's self) and realize the emptiness and falsity of

all of them.

 

" When views of " I " and " Mine " are extinguished

Whether with respect to the internal or external

The appropriator ceases

This having ceased, birth ceases "

- mUlamAdhyamikakArika:Chapter 18- Examination of Self and Entities

 

 

Advaita makes positive assertions about the Self-nature as

Sat-Chit-Ananda. (Eternal-Knowledge-Bliss).

Madhyamika avoids making any positive assertion about reality or

self-nature:

 

" Having passed into nirvAna, the Victorious Conqueror

Is neither said to be existent

Nor said to be non-existent

Neither both nor neither are said.

 

So when the victorious one abides, he

Is neither said to be existent

Nor said to be non-existent.

Neither both nor neither are said. "

- mUlamAdhyamikakArika : Chapter 25 - Examination of Nirvana

 

 

The paths are obviously different, but the end-goal might be the same.

The choice of path, of course, will be based on one's own

cultural background and personal beliefs and biases.

 

Like majority of Hindus, I too belong to a class who in olden days

were not supposed to study vEdas. So I don't feel the need to defend

the unfallibility of vEdanta compared to other philosophic systems.

But I must admit that I am more comfortable with advaitic methodology

- witness prakriya, tri-state prakriya etc., compared to madhyamikan

analysis of phenomena described in mUlamAdhyamikakArika.

 

Regards,

Raj.

 

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> He maintains an ultimate reality about which nothing can be said as it is

> non conceptual.

>

>

> praNAms

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> though I am not at all familiar with any of the buddhistic work..Just a

> curious question ..do you mean to say here there is absolutely no disparity

> in establishing the truth here between advaita & nAgArjuna's mAdhyandina

> kArika school?? pls. clarify.

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...