advaita vedanta and buddhism

[Guest guest]

Puranamji - PraNAms

 

I must say you have raised some interesting and important points.

 

Personally I am not interested in learning how and to what extent Buddhism

agrees with advaita, but what is exactly is the nature of the truth and how to

know it.

 

Yes, you are absolutely right. Vedanta provides not only negation of duality

but assertion of Brahman with positive swaruupa laxaNas - satyam, Jnaanam and

anantam. Consciousness is not just absence of non-consciousness but that because

of which one is conscious of the non-conscious entities too. In fact, I have

discussed earlier Brahman alone has swaruupa laxaNa since it is part-less while

all other objects in the world (except space) can be parted and hence have no

swaruupa laxaNa of their own. Hence Kena slokas provide the positive definition

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

think of - that alone is Brahman not this that you worship here, etc. It is

jyotir jyotiH - light of lights - the consciousness because of which one is

conscious of everything - including both knowledge and ignorance.

 

Jagat mithyaa can be intellectually ascertained by defining real is that which

remains the same in all periods of time and unreal is that which does not have a

locus for existence. But abidance in that knowledge occurs only when I abide in

the knowledge that I am Brahman, the infinite existence-consciousness.

 

Existence is not suunyam, when I say the object exists. It is because of which I

am able to transact with. Krishna says that which exists cannot cease to exist

and that which is non-existence cannot come into existence. If it is suunyam,

there is no difference between existence and non-existence to validate the above

statement. The law of conservation is absolute and creation is only modification

of what is there. Hence Vedanta says - vaachaarambanam vikaaro naamadheyam - the

creation is transformation of kaaraNam or cause into kaaryam or products of just

name and form just as gold into ornaments. This is the reason why Vedanta

addresses that knowing one thing one knows as though everything else - eka

vijnaanena sarva vijnaanam bhavati. Knowledge of Brahman occurs only via the

mind - it is defined as akhandaakaara vRitti - Sree Sastriji has provided an

explanation of what that means.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Sun, 6/14/09, putranm <putranm wrote:

 

Naturally the question arises: what do we mean by ultimate reality?

 

1. IF in the Upanishads, the only thing said about " Brahman " is " Not this, Not

this " - it is not existence or non-existence, etc - shall we conclude that the

Mahavakyas " Aham Brahmasmi " , " Pragnyanam Brahma " etc follow from this? Why is

the latter considered essential for invoking *right* knowledge? Of course, we

can simply assert " Neti, Neti " is the only " mahavakya " we need - and all is

proved!

 

2. In fact, rightly so, using a term Brahman practically synonymously with

negation-of- duality gives no real reason to conclude Brahman denotes the

ultimate Reality behind that duality. In fact, at face value, we have to stop

and conclude our ultimate reality/truth is the negation-of- duality (or

indeterminateness) - nothing more can be said. Really!

 

3. Of course, as Vedantins, we say more: we conclude that this negation-of-

duality affirms an ultimate Reality that is the substratum, essence, what-Is

behind that apparent duality. You may complain as to the usage of such

descriptions - but unfortunately, if I am not clear that " Brahma Satyam " , I

cannot simply claim that " Jagan Mithya " will imply it necessarily. It may, it

may not - what about " Jagat sunya " ? So " Brahma Satyam, Jagan Mithya, jivo

brahmaiva naparaha " - each part is important, and together it is

Advaita-Vedanta. Whether " Brahman is Neti,Neti " + " Jagat is sunya " is the same

as the advaita triple

is quite a big question - we have to create bridges and modifications to achieve

this. But by no means, can we demand our triple is the same that this sum-pair

intended.

 

4. As a followup to the above, is the immanence of Brahman in jagat achieved

necessarily through the sum-pair? The Upanishads (and our advaita triple) are

clear on such metaphysical issues. Well, can we excuse a system that fails to

develop the metaphysics properly and simply claim that its founders meant the

same, or close enough? Are these points to be taken lightly or arbitrarily by a

mumukshu?

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

 

Sadaji, thanks for the clarifying perspectives. Although I made the points, I

still need the conviction that you have - but going through these thorough

discussions (I think) does help in that. I hope to use this session as a

stepping board to focussing on Advaita in a systematic manner.

 

For others, there is a nice response of Rishiji 35103 to an early post of mine,

when I myself was arguing for the " Buddha intended this " . It is interesting that

now I find myself in his shoes. See also his last paragraph.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

>

> Puranamji - PraNAms

>

> I must say you have raised some interesting and important points.

>

> Personally I am not interested in learning how and to what extent Buddhism

agrees with advaita, but what is exactly is the nature of the truth and how to

know it.

>

> Yes, you are absolutely right. Vedanta provides not only negation of duality

but assertion of Brahman with positive swaruupa laxaNas - satyam, Jnaanam and

anantam. Consciousness is not just absence of non-consciousness but that because

of which one is conscious of the non-conscious entities too. In fact, I have

discussed earlier Brahman alone has swaruupa laxaNa since it is part-less while

all other objects in the world (except space) can be parted and hence have no

swaruupa laxaNa of their own. Hence Kena slokas provide the positive definition

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

think of - that alone is Brahman not this that you worship here, etc. It is

jyotir jyotiH - light of lights - the consciousness because of which one is

conscious of everything - including both knowledge and ignorance.

>

[Guest guest]

There seems to be a conflict between advaita and buddhism as the latter gives

positive descriptions of Brahman along with negative ones and the latter uses

only negative language.

First, of all, Brahman is called Sat Chit Ananda in the Upanisads. What does

this mean? These describe the nature of Brahman. In contrast to the world

Brahman's essence is unchanging existence. This existence is itself such that it

cannot be described by words. The reason for this given by Sri Sankara is that

Brahman does not belong to any genus, action, quality, relationship etc. Thus

Tai Up 2.4.1 says that words turn back from Brahman. But words like satyam etc

are used to convey that, " Brahman can only be negatively described, though it is

not a negative indeterminate principle " . (S. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy)

Brahman is essentially inconceivable and thus to clear the misunderstanding that

Brahman is non existent it is called as existence etc. Another point to note is

that Brahman is not 'existent' but 'existence' itself. It points out to the

inconcievablility of nirgun Brahman. Such statements are thus not in conflict

with 'neti, neti'. Sri Ramakrishna narrates a story where a father sends his two

sons to learn about Brahman. After many years they return and the father asks

one of them to describe Brahman. He says that Brahman is beyond all relativity

etc. Then the second is asked the same question. He remained silent. The father

says that he has truly understood Brahman. Swami Vivekananda says that we can

talk about Brahman by only dragging him to the level of the relative. In Brahma

Sutra Bhashya 3.2.17, Sri Sankara narrates the episode of Bahva when he was

asked by King Vaskali about Brahman, He remained silent. On repeated quries he

replies, " Atman is silence verily " . Thus Kena Upanisad 2.3 says, " It is unknwon

to those who know and known to those who do not know. " The human intellect

always loves to understand things by dividing it into categories. But the non

dual Brahman cannot be given the same treatment. S. Radhakrishnan further says,

" The negative descriptions point out how positive attributes known to us are

inadequate to the highest. Contradictory predicates are attached to Brahman to

indicate that so long as we are obliged to use negative conceptions so long as

we employ the dialectics of intellect, though positive features are revealed

when Brahman is intuited. " Existence etc are moreover not different conceptions

of Brahman, for Brahman is a unity. They are synonymous with Brahman and these

positive descriptions themselves reveal the imposiibility to conceptualize

Brahman as pure existence etc. are unimaginable. They can only be contrasted by

relativity. Hence Yajur Veda says, " There is no measure of Him whose glory is

great. " Thus Brahman is totally indescribable, can be indicated only by negative

features but is a something that essentially 'is'. Keeping this in mind the

Vedantin discriminates the unreal world from the real Brahman. But the

limitation of these concepts should also be borne in mind lest we forget that

Brahman is beyond words etc.

Now was Buddha's silence, his timidness, his ignorance? That silence is itself

not such a determination for ignorance has been pointed out in Brahma Sutra

Bhashya 3.2.17. Through his many sayings, specially his sermon at Benares it

gets clear that Buddha believed in an absolute reality. In his famous

Kaccayanagotta Sutta, Buddha says, " Everything exists and nothing exists are two

extremes. Without approaching any extreme, Buddha gives you a doctrine by the

middle. " Th descriptions given of the absolute in Buddha's terms is such,

" neither existent nor non existent, neither both etc " . I have indicated the four

kotis earlier. Nagarjuna nowhere says, " existence is sunyata. " Sunyata is used

for the world to denote its relativity, its unreality in exactly the same sense

we use the word mithya. Further it is said that all entities in their ultimate

nature are tathata. Tathata is the ground of the conditioned world. Now, the

ultimate truth truly cannot be said 'non existent' in Buddhist terms as

indicated earlier. Again there cannot be negative substratum of the world. So

the notion of tathata removes the doubt that according to the Buddhists the

ultimate is sunya. The ultimate is never designated as Sunya. Buddha was totally

unwilling to use any empirical category to decribe Brahman. Thus he uses the

negative description too often. But this nowhere indicates that the ultimate

according to him was sunya, on the contrary, it was for him unspeakable. Why?

This can be understood by the following quote where he says that when an arrow

has stuck a person does he refuse the treatment saying, 'first I wish to know

who has stuck this arrow and from where' or should he first seek the treatment

of his illness.

It is said in the Buddhists literature that at the time of Buddha sixty two

doctrines were prevalent. These doctrines were the two extremes of existence and

non existence pointed out above. Reading all these sixty two views, the

Upanisadic idea of Brahman is nowhere to be found. They were the views of the

creationists ie the theists or of the materialists. Avoiding these two, was the

middle path of Buddha. That Buddha adopted different methods and concepts to

expalain his realization is nowhere the reason to reject him as nastika. Are'nt

they just different ways of stating the same truth. Are the doctrines of Buddha

so irreconciable? Sneaking beneath the surface of words we find the same Brahman

being described by both the advaitins and the buddhists.

Further I was aksed to reconcile the theory of dependent origination with the

theory of pre existence of the effect in the cause. That this latter theory was

of the Sankhyas and was refuted in Gaudapada's Karika is well known. Advaitins

adopt this theory only for the sake of vyavharik reality. Dependent origination

does no harm to the theory. It just means that an effect comes due to a

particular cause under certain conditions. Then an exhaustive list is given

describing ignorance as the root of all klesas, rebirth etc. and this chain can

be broken by eliminating the former named in the list ending with ignorance (ie

taking the reverse order). This can be found in the Kaccayanagotta Sutta. Again

the Sankhya view is not totally accepted. They believe that the cause ad effect

are totally identical. In Brahma Sutra Bhashya Sri Sankara points out to an

objection that the world should also have the same characteristics of Brahman

being the latters effect, that there cannot be absolute identity between a cause

and effect. So this question was irrelevant to me.

It is significant to note that one of the most hard critic of Buddhism like the

great Purva Mimamsa scholar Kumarila in his Tantravartika 1.3.2 says that

Buddhist views of subjectivism, momentariness, and not self theory derive their

inspiration from the Upanisads. I am not endorsing this viewing but it is not

wholly wrong even.

Between Advaita and Buddhism there is only the difference of concepts. Advaita

is not a sampraday. It is the meeting point of all systems. It is a unity that

embraces all. An unnecessary intolerant attitude against Buddhism does not

behove us. Religion only represents man's thirst for the real. It is his attempt

to comprehend the incomprehensible reality. Thus all these attempts deserve

respect. That one such attempt which comes so closer to our own should inspire

us to open our doors and not close them. This age old rivalry should end now. So

I pray for the great future of both Advaita and Buddhism.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@> wrote:

> >

>

> Sadaji, thanks for the clarifying perspectives. Although I made the points, I

still need the conviction that you have - but going through these thorough

discussions (I think) does help in that. I hope to use this session as a

stepping board to focussing on Advaita in a systematic manner.

>

> For others, there is a nice response of Rishiji 35103 to an early post of

mine, when I myself was arguing for the " Buddha intended this " . It is

interesting that now I find myself in his shoes. See also his last paragraph.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

> >

> > Puranamji - PraNAms

> >

> > I must say you have raised some interesting and important points.

> >

> > Personally I am not interested in learning how and to what extent Buddhism

agrees with advaita, but what is exactly is the nature of the truth and how to

know it.

> >

> > Yes, you are absolutely right. Vedanta provides not only negation of

duality but assertion of Brahman with positive swaruupa laxaNas - satyam,

Jnaanam and anantam. Consciousness is not just absence of non-consciousness but

that because of which one is conscious of the non-conscious entities too. In

fact, I have discussed earlier Brahman alone has swaruupa laxaNa since it is

part-less while all other objects in the world (except space) can be parted and

hence have no swaruupa laxaNa of their own. Hence Kena slokas provide the

positive definition - that which mind cannot think of, but because of which mind

has the capacity to think of - that alone is Brahman not this that you worship

here, etc. It is jyotir jyotiH - light of lights - the consciousness because of

which one is conscious of everything - including both knowledge and ignorance.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

sadaji,

I think that on the topic of the positive and negative definition of

Brahman we are on the same boat. You tried to say that Brahman is positive

inspite of all negative defintions and I was trying to say that insipte of all

positive descriptions Brahman can best be negatively described. May be we are

saying the saying the same thing in two different ways. Do you think the same?

(leaving aside for a moment the topic of buddhism).

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@> wrote:

> >

>

> Sadaji, thanks for the clarifying perspectives. Although I made the points, I

still need the conviction that you have - but going through these thorough

discussions (I think) does help in that. I hope to use this session as a

stepping board to focussing on Advaita in a systematic manner.

>

> For others, there is a nice response of Rishiji 35103 to an early post of

mine, when I myself was arguing for the " Buddha intended this " . It is

interesting that now I find myself in his shoes. See also his last paragraph.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

> >

> > Puranamji - PraNAms

> >

> > I must say you have raised some interesting and important points.

> >

> > Personally I am not interested in learning how and to what extent Buddhism

agrees with advaita, but what is exactly is the nature of the truth and how to

know it.

> >

> > Yes, you are absolutely right. Vedanta provides not only negation of

duality but assertion of Brahman with positive swaruupa laxaNas - satyam,

Jnaanam and anantam. Consciousness is not just absence of non-consciousness but

that because of which one is conscious of the non-conscious entities too. In

fact, I have discussed earlier Brahman alone has swaruupa laxaNa since it is

part-less while all other objects in the world (except space) can be parted and

hence have no swaruupa laxaNa of their own. Hence Kena slokas provide the

positive definition - that which mind cannot think of, but because of which mind

has the capacity to think of - that alone is Brahman not this that you worship

here, etc. It is jyotir jyotiH - light of lights - the consciousness because of

which one is conscious of everything - including both knowledge and ignorance.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Vaibhavji - PraNAms

 

I am going to answer the point you have raised with little details about what

self-realization in advaita involves for the benefit of others who may be

interested. Please bear with me.

 

First, let me say I am enjoying your posts pertaining to advaita part. Buddhism

part I am just glancing over since your arguments to show that the end that is

pointed out in both systems is the same. Not knowing those scriptures and giving

a benefit of doubt, it again comes down to the same essence that advaita Vedanta

provides the undisputed pramANa for adhyaatma, since the ultimate teaching in

Buddhism is not different from what Vedanta says, as per your posts. If the

ultimate truth pointed out is the same then let that be, as we are interested

in the truth and means is valuable to reach the true understanding; This

ultimate truth in terms of moksha is different for the other two Vedantic

traditions, dvaita and vishiShTaadvaita, which also criticize Buddhist thoughts.

 

Now relating the point of the positive definition in the advaita - in the

analysis of the Tai. Up. Brahmaananda valli - incidentally we have been covering

the definition part in our class for the past two weeks - from the point of

absolute it can only be nirguNa, nirvisheSha as Shree Sastriji recent post

explains.

 

But Vedanta intended to teach an ignorant person to realize his true nature.

Hence all the discussion pertains to the ignorant one to recognize or realize

that which cannot be described by words. Silence cannot teach; and if one is

capable of learning from silence, he does not need teaching nor Vedanta, or

Buddhism, as VevekachUDAmaNi says - vijnaatepi pare tatve shaastraadiistu

niShphalaa - once one has realized there is no need for Shaastras too.

 

Satyam jnaanam and anantam - or instructions with positive definitive

descriptive pointers of Brahman (which is laxyam) to discriminate or recognize

Brahman from or in and through the ephemeral objective conceptualized knowledge

that is finite. tat vijnaasaswa and brahma jignaasaa, implies an inquiry into

the nature of Brahman by the mind only. Let me go into detail how this is done.

 

The perception of any object possible because it exists, to start with, and the

attributes of the objects also exists. We cannot perceive non-existent objects,

even though existence itself cannot be perceived. Existence and non-existence of

a particular known object can be perceived via senses which gather the

attributive content of the object.

 

Similarly the knowledge of the object is possible when the attributive content

of the object is projected as vRitti in the mind that again exists as a part of

subtle body. Without the vRitti that forms and without that vRitti that is

illumined by the light of consciousness, the knowledge or jnaana of the object

cannot occur. In the knowledge of the object, we are combining, as though, the

consciousness of the subject and the existence of the object, as transformed in

the form of the vRitti as the attributive content, both become united to form

the consciousness of the existence of the object. Meditation, as we discussed in

our class, is to shift the attention from the attributive content of the vRitti,

which is idam or this thought, to the light of consciousness that is reflected

by the vRitti, because of which jnaanam of the vRitti takes place. It is

positive shift in the attention of the vigilant mind from the contents of the

vRitti to the light of

illumination of that vRitti. Consciousness is not the reflected light but

without reflection one cannot recognize the consciousness also.

 

To appreciate this process, let us take an example of object in a lighted room.

When we see the object we are only seeing the reflected light from the object

which forms an image in the mind. That is the vRitti. If light is shining

without the object, that light in the place where the object would be have been,

cannot be seen, since there is no object to reflect that light. Hence it is

interesting to know two things - 1. Without the light illumining the object we

cannot see the object and 2. without the object reflecting we cannot see or

recognize the light too. It is the same thing in the mind too. Without a vRitti

(idam vRitti) or the back ground mind (aham vRitti) reflecting the light of

consciousness, the ever present all illuminating consciousness can never be

recognized or realized. The point is mind being inert cannot realize, and aatma

being all pervading and ever shining cannot realize or more correctly need not

have to realize. samasaara comes

when the reflection of the consciousness occurs and one not knowing I am the

light that is reflecting and get carried away the contents of the vRitti. All

isms are only to teach ajnaani how to become jnaani. We need a postive teaching

for the mind to shift its attention from the contents of the vRttti as not this

but to that because of which the vRitti is known. That is shifting the attention

to the light of consciouseness that is gettting reflected by the vRitti.

 

Here two things in analogy of the outside light happen.

1. The existence of the object cannot be established without the knowledge of

the existence - by the process described above

2. The consciousness of the subject cannot also be established without the

reflection of that consciousness by a vRitti.

Absolute existence and absolute consciousness are anantam and cannot be

described and they are nirguNa and nirvisheSha; but that is paaramaarthika and

no words can reach there as the Upanishad itself declares.

 

Silence is just absence of the vRitti, but yet the mind with silence has to be

there that is reflecting the light of consciousness and that reflected light

only forms the akhaDaarkaara vRitti or unbroken knowledge reflected.

 

Hence Vedanta says - it is upahita chaitanya - or conditioned consciousness only

that can be recognized or realized - but just as from the reflected light one

understands that there is general light which is locally getting reflected by

the object and from which we know there is a general light, similarly from the

reflected consciousness or upahita chaitanya, I understand that I am the pure

consciousness that is getting reflected in the pool of the mind as akhaDaarkaara

vRitti. This is the positive shift in understanding. If we just say suunyam and

nothing can be described about, that kind of teaching is useless for an ajnnani

and for jnaani any teaching is useless.

 

This is where advaita Vedanta teaching rests; as I understand and as I was

taught and as I am convinced.

 

Sorry for the long answer but that is trait passed on by my teacher, Swami

Chinmayanandaji; Shree Gurubhyo namaH.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

--- On Mon, 6/15/09, vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21 wrote:

 

sadaji,

I think that on the topic of the positive and negative definition of Brahman we

are on the same boat. You tried to say that Brahman is positive inspite of all

negative defintions and I was trying to say that insipte of all positive

descriptions Brahman can best be negatively described. May be we are saying the

saying the same thing in two different ways. Do you think the same? (leaving

aside for a moment the topic of buddhism).

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear Vaibhavji:

 

I like your statement - " Advaita is the meeting point of all systems. It is a

unity that embraces all. " At the same time I do not believe that Vedantins have

intolerant attitude against Buddhism. Those of us who have strong conviction

with the advaita philosophy, we have the right to express why we disagree with

other systems. This does not imply that we do not respect others with other

beliefs and convictions. Respect doesn't necessarily mean that we need to

accept everything what is being stated by other systems and beliefs. We have

respect for dwaitans, visistadvaitins, buddhists, christians, jains, and

muslims. At the same time we do have disagreements with their system of beliefs

and these disagreements come relative to what we believe. Great futures are

there (just like the past) for advaitins, dwaitins, visistadvaitins, buddhists,

etc. and agreements and disagreements will likely coexist and this is the law of

Nature.

 

I just noiced that Sadaji have provided a very detailed answers to your other

questions. The fact that this list discusses the merits and demerits of

Buddhism do suggest that we have respect for Bhagwan Buddha and Buddhism. Since

you seem to be more familiar with buddhism, let me ask you a simple question -

can you please find out how many of mailing lists with buddhist theme seriously

discuss the concepts of Vedanta?

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21

wrote:

>

> Between Advaita and Buddhism there is only the difference of concepts. Advaita

is not a sampraday. It is the meeting point of all systems. It is a unity that

embraces all. An unnecessary intolerant attitude against Buddhism does not

behove us. Religion only represents man's thirst for the real. It is his attempt

to comprehend the incomprehensible reality. Thus all these attempts deserve

respect. That one such attempt which comes so closer to our own should inspire

us to open our doors and not close them. This age old rivalry should end now. So

I pray for the great future of both Advaita and Buddhism.

>

> REGARDS,

> VAIBHAV.

>

[Guest guest]

sadaji,

thank you for yor reply. I was only interested to know that you are in

agreement with me on the advaita part which you have confirmed. Also your

statement, " Absolute existence and absolute consciousness are anantam and cannot

be described and they are nirguNa and nirvisheSha; but that is paaramaarthika

and no words can reach there as the Upanishad itself declares. " supplements what

I said earlier on the same topic. As for Buddhism, we may beg to differ on this

and also after a very long and tiring arguement I feel weary to push on the

issue.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

>

> Vaibhavji - PraNAms

>

> I am going to answer the point you have raised with little details about what

self-realization in advaita involves for the benefit of others who may be

interested. Please bear with me.

>

> First, let me say I am enjoying your posts pertaining to advaita part.

Buddhism part I am just glancing over since your arguments to show that the end

that is pointed out in both systems is the same. Not knowing those scriptures

and giving a benefit of doubt, it again comes down to the same essence that

advaita Vedanta provides the undisputed pramANa for adhyaatma, since the

ultimate teaching in Buddhism is not different from what Vedanta says, as per

your posts. If the ultimate truth pointed out is the same then let that be, as

we are interested in the truth and means is valuable to reach the true

understanding; This ultimate truth in terms of moksha is different for the other

two Vedantic traditions, dvaita and vishiShTaadvaita, which also criticize

Buddhist thoughts.

>

> Now relating the point of the positive definition in the advaita - in the

analysis of the Tai. Up. Brahmaananda valli - incidentally we have been covering

the definition part in our class for the past two weeks - from the point of

absolute it can only be nirguNa, nirvisheSha as Shree Sastriji recent post

explains.

>

> But Vedanta intended to teach an ignorant person to realize his true nature.

Hence all the discussion pertains to the ignorant one to recognize or realize

that which cannot be described by words. Silence cannot teach; and if one is

capable of learning from silence, he does not need teaching nor Vedanta, or

Buddhism, as VevekachUDAmaNi says - vijnaatepi pare tatve shaastraadiistu

niShphalaa - once one has realized there is no need for Shaastras too.

>

> Satyam jnaanam and anantam - or instructions with positive definitive

descriptive pointers of Brahman (which is laxyam) to discriminate or recognize

Brahman from or in and through the ephemeral objective conceptualized knowledge

that is finite. tat vijnaasaswa and brahma jignaasaa, implies an inquiry into

the nature of Brahman by the mind only. Let me go into detail how this is done.

>

> The perception of any object possible because it exists, to start with, and

the attributes of the objects also exists. We cannot perceive non-existent

objects, even though existence itself cannot be perceived. Existence and

non-existence of a particular known object can be perceived via senses which

gather the attributive content of the object.

>

> Similarly the knowledge of the object is possible when the attributive content

of the object is projected as vRitti in the mind that again exists as a part of

subtle body. Without the vRitti that forms and without that vRitti that is

illumined by the light of consciousness, the knowledge or jnaana of the object

cannot occur. In the knowledge of the object, we are combining, as though, the

consciousness of the subject and the existence of the object, as transformed in

the form of the vRitti as the attributive content, both become united to form

the consciousness of the existence of the object. Meditation, as we discussed in

our class, is to shift the attention from the attributive content of the vRitti,

which is idam or this thought, to the light of consciousness that is reflected

by the vRitti, because of which jnaanam of the vRitti takes place. It is

positive shift in the attention of the vigilant mind from the contents of the

vRitti to the light of

> illumination of that vRitti. Consciousness is not the reflected light but

without reflection one cannot recognize the consciousness also.

>

> To appreciate this process, let us take an example of object in a lighted

room. When we see the object we are only seeing the reflected light from the

object which forms an image in the mind. That is the vRitti. If light is shining

without the object, that light in the place where the object would be have been,

cannot be seen, since there is no object to reflect that light. Hence it is

interesting to know two things - 1. Without the light illumining the object we

cannot see the object and 2. without the object reflecting we cannot see or

recognize the light too. It is the same thing in the mind too. Without a vRitti

(idam vRitti) or the back ground mind (aham vRitti) reflecting the light of

consciousness, the ever present all illuminating consciousness can never be

recognized or realized. The point is mind being inert cannot realize, and aatma

being all pervading and ever shining cannot realize or more correctly need not

have to realize. samasaara comes

> when the reflection of the consciousness occurs and one not knowing I am the

light that is reflecting and get carried away the contents of the vRitti. All

isms are only to teach ajnaani how to become jnaani. We need a postive teaching

for the mind to shift its attention from the contents of the vRttti as not this

but to that because of which the vRitti is known. That is shifting the attention

to the light of consciouseness that is gettting reflected by the vRitti.

>

> Here two things in analogy of the outside light happen.

> 1. The existence of the object cannot be established without the knowledge of

the existence - by the process described above

> 2. The consciousness of the subject cannot also be established without the

reflection of that consciousness by a vRitti.

> Absolute existence and absolute consciousness are anantam and cannot be

described and they are nirguNa and nirvisheSha; but that is paaramaarthika and

no words can reach there as the Upanishad itself declares.

>

> Silence is just absence of the vRitti, but yet the mind with silence has to be

there that is reflecting the light of consciousness and that reflected light

only forms the akhaDaarkaara vRitti or unbroken knowledge reflected.

>

> Hence Vedanta says - it is upahita chaitanya - or conditioned consciousness

only that can be recognized or realized - but just as from the reflected light

one understands that there is general light which is locally getting reflected

by the object and from which we know there is a general light, similarly from

the reflected consciousness or upahita chaitanya, I understand that I am the

pure consciousness that is getting reflected in the pool of the mind as

akhaDaarkaara vRitti. This is the positive shift in understanding. If we just

say suunyam and nothing can be described about, that kind of teaching is useless

for an ajnnani and for jnaani any teaching is useless.

>

> This is where advaita Vedanta teaching rests; as I understand and as I was

taught and as I am convinced.

>

> Sorry for the long answer but that is trait passed on by my teacher, Swami

Chinmayanandaji; Shree Gurubhyo namaH.

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

>

> --- On Mon, 6/15/09, vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21 wrote:

>

> sadaji,

> I think that on the topic of the positive and negative definition of Brahman

we are on the same boat. You tried to say that Brahman is positive inspite of

all negative defintions and I was trying to say that insipte of all positive

descriptions Brahman can best be negatively described. May be we are saying the

saying the same thing in two different ways. Do you think the same? (leaving

aside for a moment the topic of buddhism).

>

> REGARDS,

> VAIBHAV.

>

[Guest guest]

dear ram chandranji,

after the sheep and the wolf analogy used by a member

earlier, you cannot blame me for saying that we are intolerant towards buddhism.

May be I generalized but some intolerance can still be seen. Again I have been

recieving a few abusive messages backstage which led me write this. My

insistence on opening the doors for Buddhism meant that Buddhism should not be

seen as a rival, nastika school. The case of dvaitins, etc are different. They

are still regarded as Vedantins, belonging to the Vedanta school. The case with

Buddhism is different. In days of yore there was wide spread antagonism for

them. Ofcourse it was on both sides, but part of this antagonism continues to

present times also. Thus my use of the word, 'intolerance'.

If I have hurt your sentiments through this then I apologize for it.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

>

> Namaste dear Vaibhavji:

>

> I like your statement - " Advaita is the meeting point of all systems. It is a

unity that embraces all. " At the same time I do not believe that Vedantins have

intolerant attitude against Buddhism. Those of us who have strong conviction

with the advaita philosophy, we have the right to express why we disagree with

other systems. This does not imply that we do not respect others with other

beliefs and convictions. Respect doesn't necessarily mean that we need to

accept everything what is being stated by other systems and beliefs. We have

respect for dwaitans, visistadvaitins, buddhists, christians, jains, and

muslims. At the same time we do have disagreements with their system of beliefs

and these disagreements come relative to what we believe. Great futures are

there (just like the past) for advaitins, dwaitins, visistadvaitins, buddhists,

etc. and agreements and disagreements will likely coexist and this is the law of

Nature.

>

> I just noiced that Sadaji have provided a very detailed answers to your other

questions. The fact that this list discusses the merits and demerits of

Buddhism do suggest that we have respect for Bhagwan Buddha and Buddhism. Since

you seem to be more familiar with buddhism, let me ask you a simple question -

can you please find out how many of mailing lists with buddhist theme seriously

discuss the concepts of Vedanta?

>

> With my warmest regards,

>

> Ram Chandran

>

> advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@> wrote:

> >

> > Between Advaita and Buddhism there is only the difference of concepts.

Advaita is not a sampraday. It is the meeting point of all systems. It is a

unity that embraces all. An unnecessary intolerant attitude against Buddhism

does not behove us. Religion only represents man's thirst for the real. It is

his attempt to comprehend the incomprehensible reality. Thus all these attempts

deserve respect. That one such attempt which comes so closer to our own should

inspire us to open our doors and not close them. This age old rivalry should end

now. So I pray for the great future of both Advaita and Buddhism.

> >

> > REGARDS,

> > VAIBHAV.

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

 

Shri Sada ji,

 

Pranams,

 

 

 

Again without going much into details, I would want to clarify few points

you have articulated. First of all I do not contest your points on the

subject as the consciousness which is beyond desa, kala paricinnatva. Let me

remind you that the dispute here is not about the subject (sadhya) not being

subjected to spatio-temporal conditions but about the means and its

validity. Since you have touched the particle of Sadhya in your I may

charge you with what is called the 'Hetu-garbha-visesana-Dosah'. Anyway, let

me putforth the premise to insist that Veda-s are region and people

‘specific’. A Vedantin (who is familiar with Tarka) would refine the clause

‘desa-kala Paricinnatvam’ contextually; where ‘paricinnatvam’ here indicates

‘iyatta rahityam’ and not the ‘condition’ per se. ‘Iyatta rahityam’ is a

paribhasika sabda, which only means that Veda-s are dynamic in the sense

that it is fixed within all quarters of the spatio-temporal plane to which

it belongs. Also that the clause ‘Iyatta-rahityam’ in connotation with the

element ‘paricinnatvam’ implies the very nature of ‘abAdyatva’ alone and

nothing more than that. It has nothing to do with individuality or

personality in generic sense as you had stated. Moreover, when you do

samkalpa, you say ‘Jambudvipe bharata varse bharata kande’ and you owe this

to ‘bagavatAgnyA srIman Narayana PrIthyartham’ which categorically reveals

that Veda-s are prescribed to Astika-Arya-vartas.

 

 

 

Further, regarding Pramanya to Vedas, Advaitin-s classify pramAnya into

two-fold. Vyaharika-tattva-vedakatvam and Paramartika-tattva-vedakatvam iti.

Here Paramartika-tattva-vedakatva prAmaNyaM invariably involves

PratipAdya-pratipAdaka sambandaH (in the process of tat-tvam padartha

sodana) until the Bodhya pratipatti is accomplished. Bodhya 'the revealed',

is revealed by the vAcya-vAcaka relation; Vacya is brahmAtmaikya anubhuti.

So Bodhya and Vacya share the Samanadhikarana while Bodhaka and Vacaka are

discarded as vyavahara after realization takes place. Yet the bodhaka and

Vacaka are Vaidika sabda-s that hold pramanya only when they are employed in

a particular krama. In case of Atma-vidya; Vacaka reveals the aikya bodha

only when the seeker sits for the course of Sravana-Manana-Nidhidyasana. The

eligibility for this course is that the seeker ‘must’ be a ‘Dvija’, who

alone can perform Nitya-karma, a mandatory pre-requisite for citta-suddhi to

be called as a Pramata. Pramata, a knower, according to Advaita is defined

as follows ‘nitya-naimittika-prAyascitta-upAsanAnena nirgatha nikhila

kalmasataya-nitAnta-nirmalasvAntaH- Sadhana catuStaya sampannaH pramAta’ and

he is the one who will be qualified to hold to SamitpAnih to approach a

Brahma-nisTaH So it is needless to say that Pramata must undergo

nitya-naimittika karma-s which are apparently karma-bhumi specific. Hence

the term ‘desa-kala-paricinnatvam’ I meant holds a totally significant

meaning than in the common terms in which it is usually conceived.

 

 

 

With Narayana Smrti,

 

Devanathan.J

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote:

 

 

 

Some internet findings.

 

(Look at wikipedia for " Buddha nature " , " Tathagata-garbha " , " History of Mahayana

Buddhism " , " Atman (Buddhism) " etc)

 

1. Mahayana (madhyamika included) sutras are considered by scholars to be made

centuries after the Buddha - starting 1st century BC or Ad with some sutras

being modified to the 8th century. The Theravada school which holds to the

earlier Pali scriptures do not accept the Mahayana interpretations as rightly

representative of Buddha.

 

2. The notion of shunyata-of-all-phenomena is universally accepted in Madhyamika

as ultimate reality. The Absolute as ontological substratum-Reality is not

universally accepted in Madhyamika schools, or by independent scholars of

Madhyamika.

 

3. The notion of Absolute (called Tathagata or Buddha-Nature) in manners akin to

the Upanishadic Brahman appears in sutras like the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana

sutra and other so-called Tathagata-garbha sutras. These are considered to be of

later dates and are suspected by some scholars, etc. of assimilating

Upanishadic/Hindu thought. However they seem to have closest resemblance to the

Upanishadic Brahman. (See also: http://www.spiritandflesh.com/Buddha_nature.htm)

 

QUOTE

 

Although Takasaki notes that there is a difference between the nature of monism

in the Ratnagotravibhaga and in the Upanishads, for the Absolute taught in the

Ratnagotravibhaga is the manifestion of 'sunyata' which is of a quite different

character from the substantial Absolute of the Upanishads, still he believes

" there was an influence from the Upanishadic thought for the 'astivada' of the

Ratna to establish its monistic doctrine

 

See: http://zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ebdha191.htm

 

UNQUOTE

 

 

4. The exponents of Tathagata-garbha are not universally in alignment with

Nagarjuna's teachings (i.e. with Madhyamika). One may expect the viseversa.

 

Read this quote of a Western Buddhist scholar Stephen Hodge:

 

QUOTE

 

In addition to the falling standards within the Sa & #7749;gha, there were

perceived misinterpretations of the very Dharma itself from the perspective of

the compilers of the [Tibetan version of the]Mahaparinirvana sutras. We have

already noted their hostility to the reductionist positions associated with the

Mahîúâsakas, Sarvâstivâdins and Theravâdins, but additionally, the teachings on

the novel form of emptiness espoused by Nâgârjuna and his ilk are particularly

singled out for criticism, since they were considered to be extremely pernicious

and destructive both to the individuals who adopt them and to others – they are

described as moths falling to their deaths in the lamp-flame – since they lead

to the denial of the true nature of the Buddha and of the tathâgata-garbha.

 

http://www.nirvanasutra.net/historicalbackground2.htm

 

UNQUOTE

 

I doubt the scholar would use this language unless there were strongly polar

interpretations/understandings of Nagarjuna within Buddhism. However this may

not be the best-quote.

 

 

5. There are some scholars who consider the Tathagatagarbha doctrines as merely

" positive " language to denote the shunyata-of-all-phenomena. (See also:

http://zencomp.com/greatwisdom/ebud/ebdha191.htm). Others are very clear that

Tathagata has ontological reality.

 

6. A quote of the 14th Dalai Lama on Buddha-Nature (2005):

 

`… when we look at [the] interdependence of mental and physical constituents

from the perspective of Highest Yoga Tantra, there are two concepts of a person.

One is the temporary person or self, that is as we exist at the moment, and this

is labeled on the basis of our coarse or gross physical body and conditioned

mind, and, at the same time, there is a subtle person or self which is

designated in dependence on the subtle body and subtle mind. This subtle body

and subtle mind are seen as a single entity that has two facets. The aspect

which has the quality of awareness, which can reflect and has the power of

cognition, is the subtle mind. Simultaneously, there is its energy, the force

that activates the mind towards its object – this is the subtle body or subtle

wind. These two inextricably conjoined qualities are regarded, in Highest Yoga

Tantra, as the ultimate nature of a person and are identified as buddha nature,

the essential or actual nature of mind.'

 

Apparently, he is *not* identifying here Buddha-Nature as Brahman but perhaps

something like prana, etc. I personally would not take this lightly; I had

recently mentioned of other Buddhists who said that the Dalai Lama does not

think our Advaitic understanding (or the Shengtong's even) is final. See Wiki

for other ideas on this that seem to me much more clearly like our references to

Brahman. However the sutras (like Lankavatara) will explicitly deny that what

they say is same as Atman (possibly not knowing " Ayam Atma Brahma " ).

 

 

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Those interested in this topic should do independent research. Some of these

arguments can be one-sided and misleading.

 

Vaibhavji in a recent post defines Tathata as ultimate nature of entities, then

adds that it denotes the ground of the conditioned world. If you read my Dalai

Lama quote below, I had pointed out how he does *not* refer to the " Buddha

Nature " (ultimate nature, I believe same as tathata) of entities as " ground " ,

but rather as ~ ~prana, etc. The internet defines Tathata as " suchness " , then

adds that the " ground " definition is followed in far-east countries like China

etc (where the Tathagatagarbha group may have a stronger influence). So there is

no need to think all Madhyamikas agree in such things.

 

Vaibhavji says " The ultimate nature is never designated as Sunya " . P.T. Raju in

the book-link (see 45726) says " If the world is identical with the Tathagata and

with Nirvana, which is the same as Sunya [pure Void], then it follows that the

*Tathagata is the same as Sunya* " .

 

Vaibhavji says " Sunyata is used for the world to denote its relativity " . Raju

says that is not enough. He continues

 

" ...the truth of all determinations is indeterminateness... As existence is a

determination according to the Buddhists, sunya is neither existence nor

non-existence. ***This Sunya as indeterminateness is Tathataa, the same as the

Tathaagata or the Dharmakaaya of the school. [WOW!!] *** As we have seen,

Nagarjuna goes even further in his dialectic, and says that even the idea of the

Sunya is not adequate to express the truth which is inexpressible. As the

Tathagata is the truth, he should be called neither sunya nor asunya, nor both,

nor neither. He is beyond every determination and name. "

 

Some logic can make this Advaita. For instance, identify/combine

Existence/Brahman with Sunya/Void (call it Maya), then say Brahman is neither

sunya or asunya... Only thing is that the quote in itself does not indicate that

the Tathagata is " ground " or Existence. He may as well be " Void-Reality of the

world " rather than " Ground-Reality that appears as the world " . Both phrases may

mislead the reader, but lets not naively demand that they are equivalent. It

needs to be asserted on the basis of some Pramana. (What is our pramana/guide

for that decision where the Buddhist schools disagree and logic cannot answer

for sure?) I am sure there are many Buddhists who will choose the former as

correct.

 

In fact Raju soon says that *if* we are to think of the Tathagata as beyond

sunyata, *then* we may identify sunyata with relativity, which is the definition

of Vaibhavji. The author also says that he believes Nagarjuna to be following

not this but the previous one (that suggests Tathagata is Void-Reality), but

says he will leave the issue to the Chinese and Japanese (maybe the

Tathagatagarbha group!!)

 

This shows that there are multiple viewpoints within Buddhism. We should not get

misled by the one-sided constructions of the Buddhist scholars here. Take with

full reservations. The discussions should make us aware of common elements and

differences, without undermining the significance of the details. If words are

different (diametrically!), so are the meanings until we can convince ourselves

otherwise.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> 6. A quote of the 14th Dalai Lama on Buddha-Nature (2005):

>

> `… when we look at [the] interdependence of mental and physical constituents

from the perspective of Highest Yoga Tantra, there are two concepts of a person.

One is the temporary person or self, that is as we exist at the moment, and this

is labeled on the basis of our coarse or gross physical body and conditioned

mind, and, at the same time, there is a subtle person or self which is

designated in dependence on the subtle body and subtle mind. This subtle body

and subtle mind are seen as a single entity that has two facets. The aspect

which has the quality of awareness, which can reflect and has the power of

cognition, is the subtle mind. Simultaneously, there is its energy, the force

that activates the mind towards its object – this is the subtle body or subtle

wind. These two inextricably conjoined qualities are regarded, in Highest Yoga

Tantra, as the ultimate nature of a person and are identified as buddha nature,

the essential or actual nature of mind.'

>

> Apparently, he is *not* identifying here Buddha-Nature as Brahman but perhaps

something like prana, etc. I personally would not take this lightly; I had

recently mentioned of other Buddhists who said that the Dalai Lama does not

think our Advaitic understanding (or the Shengtong's even) is final. See Wiki

for other ideas on this that seem to me much more clearly like our references to

Brahman. However the sutras (like Lankavatara) will explicitly deny that what

they say is same as Atman (possibly not knowing " Ayam Atma Brahma " ).

>

>

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

[Guest guest]

> In closing I would like to point out these words from the very

> Lankavatara Sutra you quoted:

 

> " All such notions

> as....personal soul, Supreme Spirit, ...are all figments of

> the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahamati, the

> Tathagatagarbha is not the same as the philosopher’s Atman. "

>  

> Please note the specific reference is not to the

> " conventional soul " which you would readily dismiss as

> referring to the Ego or " i " , but to the Supreme Atman which

> is Satyam Jnanam Anantam.

 

Dear Shyamji,

 

You left out some important parts in your quote from the Lankavatara Sutra

above. I've included these as capitals below. It should read as follows:

 

" All such notions as CAUSATION, SUCCESSION, ATOMS, PRIMARY ELEMENTS, THAT

MAKE UP PERSONALITY, personal soul, Supreme Spirit, SOVEREIGN GOD, CREATOR,

are all figments of the imagination and manifestations of mind. No, Mahatmi,

the Tathagatagarbha is not the same as the philosopher's Atman. "

 

All the above " notions " are seen as attempts by the mind, which believes

itself to be an independent entity (or ego substance in the buddhist sense

of the word 'atman') separate from others to conceptualise the ultimate

truth and as a result this leads to the erroneous perception of the world to

be made up independent entities whether these be causes, atoms, personal

souls, a Supreme Spirit or a Creator. The ignorant mind has a tendency to

attribute a separate ego substance (or independent entity status) to all of

these. No matter how refined and noble some of these are they are regarded

as conceptual designations, ie " manifestations of mind " .

 

The above is what is refuted. What is affirmed is that realisation " is

beyond the path and usage of philosophers; which is devoid of all predicates

such as being and non-being, one-ness and otherness, bothness and

non-bothness, existence and non-existence, eternity and non-eternity; which

has nothing to do with individuality and generality, nor false imagination,

nor any illusion arising from the mind itself; but which manifests itself as

the Truth of Highest Reality. " (See earlier part of the text.) This is the

nature of Tathagatagarbha.

 

In his commentary, D.T.Suzuki says of such realization that it is like a

precious gem concealed under a soiled garment. Take the garment (ignorance)

off and the shining stone will begin to shed its natural light over things

as they are. " The illumination thus obtained is a state of self-realisation

.. . . The Lankavatara calls it Avikalpa, or Nirvikalpa-jnana, meaning

knowledge of non-judgement or non-discrimination, a kind of direct

perception, or again knowledge of thusness or suchness (tathaatajnana). "

(Studies in Lankavatara Sutra, p106)

 

Best wishes

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

(Studies in Lankavatara Sutra, p106)

 

 

praNAms Sri Peter prabhuji

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

Very interesting quotes from the Lankavatara sUtra, had it not mentioned

that it is very Lankavatara, I'd have thought this quote is from one of the

advaita books!! BTW, I am just wondering what would be the significance

of this name 'Lankavatara' in buddhistic terminology..Is these sUtra-s

originally written in pali or Sanskrit language?? who is the author of

these sUtra-s?? Can anyone help me out with more details please...

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

 

 

[Guest guest]

Bhaskarji! I admire and salute your courage and straightforwardness!

 

Best regards.

 

MN

__________

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> (Studies in Lankavatara Sutra, p106)

>

>

> praNAms Sri Peter prabhuji

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> Very interesting quotes from the Lankavatara sUtra, had it not mentioned

> that it is very Lankavatara, I'd have thought this quote is from one of the

> advaita books!!

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote:

 

> In his commentary, D.T.Suzuki says of such realization that it is like a

> precious gem concealed under a soiled garment. Take the garment (ignorance)

> off and the shining stone will begin to shed its natural light over things

> as they are. " The illumination thus obtained is a state of self-realisation

> . . . The Lankavatara calls it Avikalpa, or Nirvikalpa-jnana, meaning

> knowledge of non-judgement or non-discrimination, a kind of direct

> perception, or again knowledge of thusness or suchness (tathaatajnana). "

> (Studies in Lankavatara Sutra, p106)

 

________________

 

Dear Peterji,

 

WOW! Wasn't what Anandaji said in his 45770, which I vainly tried to clarify

later, something similar to this!?

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhaskarji,

 

In Suzuki's " Studies in the Lankavatara Sutra " , he states Lankavatara

literally means " entering into Lanka " . Lanka might be Sri Lanka, this is not

quite certain. Suzuki says it is one of the nine principle Mahayana texts

in Nepalese Buddhism. Apparently the Sanskrit text was translated into

Chinese around 420 CE. I don't know if there was ever a pali text. Like

many of these texts dating around that time authorship is debated as also

whether it was originally one text of a number of different texts brought

together at some point. As you know there is a similar debate about

Gaudapada's Karika.

 

Hope that helps.

 

Best wishes,

Peter

 

 

 

>

> advaitin

> [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Bhaskar YR

> 16 June 2009 11:54

> advaitin

> RE: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

>

>

> (Studies in Lankavatara Sutra, p106)

>

>

> praNAms Sri Peter prabhuji

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> Very interesting quotes from the Lankavatara sUtra, had it

> not mentioned that it is very Lankavatara, I'd have thought

> this quote is from one of the advaita books!! BTW, I am

> just wondering what would be the significance of this name

> 'Lankavatara' in buddhistic terminology..Is these sUtra-s

> originally written in pali or Sanskrit language?? who is the

> author of these sUtra-s?? Can anyone help me out with more

> details please...

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri MN prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

// quote //

 

 

such realization that it is like a precious gem concealed under a soiled

garment. Take the garment (ignorance)

off and the shining stone will begin to shed its natural light over things

as they are. " The illumination thus obtained is a state of self-realisation

.. . . The Lankavatara calls it Avikalpa, or Nirvikalpa-jnana, meaning

knowledge of non-judgement or non-discrimination, a kind of direct

perception, or again knowledge of thusness or suchness

 

 

// unquote//

 

prabhuji, I dont think anyone dare to say above is not an advaitic

realization...It is really surprising to see the striking similarities

between these quotes & advaita doctrine...Interestingly, my parama guruji

Sri SSS himself refuted mAdhyamika kArika of Nagarjuna contrasting advaita

vedanta as presented in mAdUkya kArika of gaudapAda. Anyway, I ought to

study it in depth, before passing any conclusion.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I am sending this post to inform those who may not be familiar with the previous

discussions on this subject matter during the past years. This will help all of

us to remind once again that it is impossible to intellectually grasp the

relationship between Advaita and Buddhism. We have had lengthy discussions

before and no clear relationship could ever be established. The following may

be of interest to those who follow the discussios on Advaita and Buddhism:

 

In post # 5315, Sri Nanda Chandran (a long-time member of this list who is

currently in England and staying away from all academic discussions) made this

observation:

 

" The subject of the relationship between Advaita and Buddhism is a highly

controversial topic and this is what this series of articles is about. This

article is actually a product of a discussion in the Advaita list and I

apologize to the members for not posting it earlier. " Link:

advaitin/message/5315

 

The next four of a series of 5 articles on Understanding MAdhyamaka can be

accessed by s:

 

advaitin/message/5329

 

advaitin/message/5372

 

advaitin/message/5373

 

advaitin/message/5378

 

The next of the serious discussions started during March 2003 with serious

discussions on Two topics – Consciousness is one and Lankavatara Sutra. The

contributors include Sri Benjamin Root, Sri Nanda Chandran and others.

 

The first of the series of discussions on the Meaning of Consciousness is one

started with the posting:

 

advaitin/message/16093

 

The first of the series of discussions on the Lankavatara Sutra started with the

posting:

 

advaitin/message/16233

 

The above topics and other related topics comparing advaita and Buddhism

continue all through these years and will probably never end! But I do agree

with the wisdom of thought expressed by our dear Nandaji – " The subject of the

relationship between Advaita and Buddhism is a highly controversial topic. " The

subject matter of our discussion is the " subject " and it is paradoxical and we

poor sadhakas try so inadequately to discuss it (as correctly pointed out by our

dear Anandaji).

 

The purpose of all these discussions is to help us to assimilate what we have

read and learnt. While discussing with others we should remind ourselves once

again the unwritten ethical rule for Internet Discussions. The list guidelines

have very clearly stated the importance of being civil and polite we are

responsible to keep our discussions focusing on the subject matter and avoid

pointing fingers at each other. The list has posted several times some golden

rules for the discussants and they are repeated once for our attention:

 

Swami Sivananda states the following quotation from the Manu Smriti: " One should

speak what is true; one should speak what is pleasant; one should not speak what

is true if it is not pleasant, nor what is pleasant if it is false. This is the

ancient Dharma " . To be an austerity speech should combine all the attributes

mentioned in the above verse. Here is the Sanskrit verse that summarizes the

rule for communication and it is good for speaking, listening and

writing.

 

Sathyam Bruyath (speak the Truth)

Priyam Bruyath (speak courteosuly what is pleasant)

Na Bruyath Sathyamapriyam (never utter the truth that causes unpleasantness)

 

I also find the following eternal law outlined by Thiruvalluvar a great Tamil

Poet in Thirukkural (a collection of 1330 short poems on human morality and

ethics) quite appropriate for our list communications. Valluvar describes the

law through ten short verses and one of the key verse is the following:

 

" Iniya ulavaka innatha kooral

kani iruppa kai kavarthandatru " (Tamil verse # 100)

 

Tranlation: Our communication with others by using unpleasant words nstead of

pleasant words is comparable to eating an un-ripened fruit with a bitter taste

when fully ripened sweet fruit is readily available. This verse provides a

simple but a very practical rule for communicating with our fellow members

during the list discussions.

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Bhaskarji, yes. I am also seeing interpretations coming from many schools that

resemble Advaita. Of course, there are always details where we can wage wars;

but this cannot be done with logic alone since the details will then seem minor.

 

Let me ask a question. How is Brahman known to be the Reality, in whatever sense

that it Is?

 

Is It by logic or " experience " (understand as realization, etc - don't get

picky on this word) or Vedas?

 

Logic cannot prove conclusively. Experience makes us *one with Knowledge*. But

it is Veda that gives the exact parameters of that Knowledge - which are beyond

" experience " or exact-expression and are the fundamental Truths of the

THING_AS_IT_IS. Otherwise one jnani will express one way and another another way

- but we will be left with no info about which way is correctly representing the

Truth, although both are referring to the same - the problem being that they

will choose the conceptual parameters for expression, all of which must fall

away in the " experience " and cannot really be said to be the " Right " way. So we

just say that both are valid ways - although unbeknown to us, one may be

actually *right*.

 

The Shunyata of the Buddhist-logicians (supposing they are not positively aiming

for nihilism) is in my opinion actually the right conclusion to have via

experience+logic. They cannot make any further ontological conclusions as to the

nature of that Reality - even whether it IS or IS NOT. The far-east schools that

do so are making a logical-mistake of concluding from their experience the

fundamental ontological Reality in positive terms. (Unless they openly state

that their sutras are their pramana as we say of Vedas - this seems highly

non-Buddhistic.)

 

When we do so, it is because we start with the pramana of the Veda - therefore

we 'know' exactly WHAT-IS our Reality that our " experience " /Silence/Peace

denotes - the logical conundrum of Nagarjuna is avoided only due to our pramana

of Veda - and he will of course not accept our usage of Veda in that sense. Veda

for us is apaureshya; it is our axiom base that tells us of the Truth with

specific " correct " parameters - you may tell why we place such importance in

words of the Vedas, etc. It is all in our methodology of gaining Knowledge -

simply saying " Veda is a compilation of the discoveries of the Rishis " is

actually not doing justice to its importance in our sampradaya.

 

(If you understand this, you can also see why Nagarjuna need not have been

unaware of the Upanishads. He was actually being true to the principle of not

using Veda as pramana for Knowledge.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

>

> prabhuji, I dont think anyone dare to say above is not an advaitic

> realization...It is really surprising to see the striking similarities

> between these quotes & advaita doctrine...Interestingly, my parama guruji

> Sri SSS himself refuted mAdhyamika kArika of Nagarjuna contrasting advaita

> vedanta as presented in mAdUkya kArika of gaudapAda. Anyway, I ought to

> study it in depth, before passing any conclusion.

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> The Shunyata of the Buddhist-logicians (supposing they are not positively

aiming for nihilism) is in my opinion actually the right conclusion to have via

experience+logic. They cannot make any further ontological conclusions as to the

nature of that Reality - even whether it IS or IS NOT. The far-east schools that

do so are making a logical-mistake of concluding from their experience the

fundamental ontological Reality in positive terms. (Unless they openly state

that their sutras are their pramana as we say of Vedas - this seems highly

non-Buddhistic.)

>

> When we do so, it is because we start with the pramana of the Veda - therefore

we 'know' exactly WHAT-IS our Reality that our " experience " /Silence/Peace

denotes - the logical conundrum of Nagarjuna is avoided only due to our pramana

of Veda - and he will of

 

 

Some of this is debatable, since I have not properly discerned the distinction

of experience and logic. For example, that " I AM " is constant and undeniable

experience. So Existence may be implied here by experience. So Nagarjuna may be

seen as working strictly with logic and the " this " aspect (in " I am this " ) of

experience. That he does not even affirm " I AM " in explicit terms should give a

different plane for debate, on what he intended and what he considered valid

Knowledge, etc.

 

However the importance of Veda as Pramana is clear once any question of " What am

I? " etc come into the picture. " What am I? " will require the Vedas to finalize

in exact terms - and (we may argue) as per our sampradaya, that Knowledge is

also essential for liberation in vyavahaara-sense.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

2009/6/16 putranm <putranm

<< The far-east schools that do so are making a logical-mistake of

concluding from their experience the fundamental ontological Reality

in positive terms.>>

 

IMO, it is not quite correct to portray brahman purely as a

fundamental ontological reality. The whole discipline of ontology

presumes a knower who is apart from the objects being studied and

classified as existent or non-existent. brahman involves a " collapse "

(for lack of a better word) of ontology and epistemology. Hence the

statement that brahman is neither being nor non-being.

 

In other words, ontology applies only to empirical or phenomenal

reality (vyavahAra).

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>>

> Some of this is debatable, since I have not properly discerned the distinction

of experience and logic. For example, that " I AM " is constant and undeniable

experience. So Existence may be implied here by experience. So Nagarjuna may be

seen as working strictly with logic and the " this " aspect (in " I am this " ) of

experience. That he does not even affirm " I AM " in explicit terms should give a

different plane for debate, on what he intended and what he considered valid

Knowledge, etc.

>

 

 

However it seems to me that the Buddhists are rather clear that the " I AM "

experience is invalid; so its undeniability is not logically provable, according

to them, and they won't use it as its own pramana. That we accept this

experience as fundamentally representing Truth is because it is validated

through (and conforms to) our Vedic knowledge (or we could (as opposed to

Buddhists) take it as giving valid Knowledge of Reality/Existence in itself).

 

Based on this, one can argue that Nagarjuna's Shunyata precludes even the

conclusion of IS or IS-NOT, in its ultimate sense. The topic of Existence is not

broached; it is not a question of merely not denying it. He is correct if logic

is the only means for deciphering experience. Of course, this brings in the

importance of our pramanas for Knowledge, etc, etc. (One can debate if in truth

he believed in the Absolute or not, etc.; maybe giving some quotes to the

effect. For now, this seems to me the right perspective on Nagarjuna's

approach.)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote:

>

> 2009/6/16 putranm <putranm

> << The far-east schools that do so are making a logical-mistake of

> concluding from their experience the fundamental ontological Reality

> in positive terms.>>

>

> IMO, it is not quite correct to portray brahman purely as a

> fundamental ontological reality. The whole discipline of ontology

> presumes a knower who is apart from the objects being studied and

> classified as existent or non-existent. brahman involves a " collapse "

> (for lack of a better word) of ontology and epistemology. Hence the

> statement that brahman is neither being nor non-being.

>

> In other words, ontology applies only to empirical or phenomenal

> reality (vyavahAra).

>

 

Sorry, take it in the right sense, if there is any. I am using these words a bit

carelessly and ignorantly (got their use from Sri Kotekalji!!) - probably, I am

also not representing the far-east schools correctly then. However I have given

some points in the past three posts that I think are important, in spite of this

objection.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> Based on this, one can argue that Nagarjuna's Shunyata precludes even the

conclusion of IS or IS-NOT, in its ultimate sense. The topic of Existence is not

broached; it is not a question of merely not denying it.

 

 

Better than saying " Existence is not broached " , we should recognize this

strictly logical approach of Nagarjuna as fundamental to conclusions such as

" Sunya as indeterminateness is the Tathata... " .

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>>

> Logic cannot prove conclusively. Experience makes us *one with Knowledge*. But

it is Veda that gives the exact parameters of that Knowledge - which are beyond

" experience " or exact-expression and are the fundamental Truths of the

THING_AS_IT_IS. Otherwise one jnani will express one way and another another way

- but we will be left with no info about which way is correctly representing the

Truth, although both are referring to the same - the problem being that they

will choose the conceptual parameters for expression, all of which must fall

away in the " experience " and cannot really be said to be the " Right " way. So we

just say that both are valid ways - although unbeknown to us, one may be

actually *right*.

>

 

 

 

To add here lest I simplified it, the Veda's role is not merely to enable a

" right expression " of Brahman (such as 'Satyam, Jnanam, Anantam'); the idea is

that only by aligning our minds to such specifications (such as 'Brahman IS' &

" Aham Brahmasmi " ) and guidelines in the Veda will we attain to " right or

complete Knowledge " - therefore, those give the right expression. See also post

45756 of Sadaji.

 

All knowledge pertains to the same Existence or Brahman - even the nihilist's.

Not all denotes complete or correct Knowledge of Brahman.

 

Also for those trying to figure out Shunyata vs Brahman (Shunyata in the purely

logical-sense), I find the movie-screen analogy somewhat helpful. Shunyata

denotes the Movie taken wholly unto itself (wherein all is void of being and

determinateness), whereas Brahman denotes the Screen that appears (due to

ignorance, maya, etc) as the movie - we need Veda to claim such a " Ground " .

 

thollmelukaalkizhu