What is the aim of Buddhism?

[Guest guest]

When we state that Buddhism and its branches and Sankara's mayavada are the same, for certain we are not saying that they are equal in all aspects of their misleading words and concocted speculations.

 

We are stating that their aim is the same; i.e., sunyava, nirvisesa-vada, nirvana, and other kinds of abominable sayujyia-mukti that are against jiva's eternal svarupa.

 

Any comment?

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

[shvu]

 

The eternal svarupa of the Jiva is the position of some Traditions. Advaita however, states that the Jiva is a product of Avidya and hence not eternal. Buddhism generally says that the world is a dream. Naturally their interpretion is on the same lines as Advaita.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Advaita however, states that the Jiva is a product of Avidya and hence not eternal.

 

So, quote the sruti mantras that prove this assertive.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

[shvu]

 

How about one from each Veda?

 

ayamatma Brahma [Atman and Brahman are one] - Mundaka

tattvamasi [Thou art that] - Chaandogya

aham brahmasmi [i am Brahman] - Brihadaranyaka

prajnanam brahma [Absolute knowledge and Brahman are one] - Aitareya

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>...their misleading words and concocted speculations<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Perhaps the version of Buddhism and Advaita in Brazil have misleading words and concocted speculations. Since we people who live in other countries know nothing about this, can you enlighten us by giving some examples of such words and speculations?

 

Otherwise, this will have to be dismissed as yet another of your many absurd statements.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>

ayamatma Brahma [Atman and Brahman are one] - Mundaka

tattvamasi [Thou art that] - Chaandogya

aham brahmasmi [i am Brahman] - Brihadaranyaka

prajnanam brahma [Absolute knowledge and Brahman are one] - Aitareya

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

These verses, which Shankara considered as mahavakyas, are quite non-substantial. Their meaning can be taken in a number of ways, as is evident by the various vedanta schools.

 

For example, the statement 'aham-brahmasmi' is certainly not in dispute among any vedantic school. The dispute is on how the word brahman is defined in this context.

 

Vaishnavas make a distinction between brahman and para-brahman, as indicated in the Gita shloka, param brahma param dhama.

 

The fact is everything is brahman, sarvam khalv idam brahma. But the question that remains is if there is spiritual variety within brahman.

 

As far as prajnanam, it is refering to the chit-shakti, which is anti-material, or brahman in short. Again there is no difference of opinion on this. The difference only comes in defining brahman.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Just as a side note, I would disagree with the translations you have provided. For example, 'ayamatma brahma' does not mean "Atman and Brahman are one" as you have given. That is an interpretation of the verse. It simple states "This soul is brahman."

 

Why make a distinction on this translation? Because the statement, "I am american", and "I am America" are quite different. There is a similar case when we use this incorrect translation for ayamatma brahma.

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Just as a side note, I would disagree with the translations you have provided. For example, 'ayamatma brahma' does not mean "Atman and Brahman are one" as you have given. That is an interpretation of the verse. It simple states "This soul is brahman." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

I have no disagreement with that. That is how you want to interpret it.

 

Regarding the way these Vakyas are interpreted by other traditions, I have no objections there either. It is common knowledge that different schools will naturally interpret them in different ways.

 

I am showing the Vedantic roots of Advaita for the benefit of a few who falsely believe that the tenets of Advaita where borrowed from Buddhism. That is my objective.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

Dear Shvuji;

 

Again you are only presenting some misleading words and concocted speculations. These mantras cannot prove clearly that jiva is a product of avidya and hence not eternal. They may have several other interpretations according saviseva-abheda point of view.

 

When you quote:

 

Sarvam Kalvidham Brahma.

 

We should ask; To whom does this avidya belong?

 

Following your interpretation, this mantra is opposite to these other:

 

brahma satyam jñanam anatam brahma and ekam eva dvitiyam.

 

These slokas are clearly stating that Brahman is described as the embodiment of knowledge, bliss and truth in all the three phases of time and that there is no other substance besides Brahman.

 

How then can Brahman be afflicted by avidya? From where did this second substance called avidya come from? If you argue that avidya is false, for its is neither real or unreal, how can it touch and even surpass Brahman?

 

And what is the origin of this independent jiva-tattva which is separate from Brahman??? If you allege that Brahman was afflicted by avidya and become jiva, then it is Brahman, and not jiva, which was the original shelter of avidya, and therefore as sarvam kalvidam brahma, avidya is Brahman.

 

So, your misleading words and concocted speculations are only a symptom of own avidya, that you could no be freed by reading srutis by yourself.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

 

[animesh]

Satya ji,

You have written

 

__________

When we state that Buddhism and its branches and Sankara's mayavada are the same, for certain we are not saying that they are equal in all aspects of their misleading words and concocted speculations.

__________

 

I really do not understand why you use the phrase "misleading words and concocted speculations". I am not saying you are wrong. I am not saying you are right. Unless you explain why you used this phrase, I can not decide whether to agree or disagree with you.

[animesh]

Satya ji,

Before we proceed further, could you tell the aim of which branch of Buddhism is same as that of Sankara's "mayavada"? Buddhism has many branches now. Most of them appeared after Sankaracarya. If Sankaracarya's teachings are found to be similar to the teachings of the branch of Buddhism that came after him, then it is impossible that Sankaracarya might have been affected by that.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

I forgot to mention a small point on one of the previous threads. Now the threads are so long I don't know where it was, so I will mention it here.

 

According to the traditional biographies, Shankara appeared over 2,000 years ago. Of course this isn't accepted by the modern indologists. They prefer to keep everything as having occured after Christ.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

But my point was that the translation was incorrect. The correct literal translation for ayamatma brahma is "This soul is brahman." I don't think anyone will disagree that this is different from what you offered, namely "Atma and Brahman are one."

 

Anything else is not a translation, but an interpretation or commentary. Interpretations are also valid, but not when one tries to establish something solely based on it.

 

For example, if someone offered that "Advaita says..." That would be fine. But if someone says, "here is the proof that..." and then quotes an interpretation, and not a translation, then that would be faulty.

 

[Guest guest]

Advaita however, states that the Jiva is a product of Avidya and hence not eternal.

 

You made this assertive and thereafter had mentioned some slokas that are out of context. These mantras don't states that jiva is a product of avidya, and they also may have different interpretation according dvaita-vada point of view of eternal savisesa-abheda between Brahman and jiva-tattva.

 

So, instead of misleading words and concocted speculations, it is better you quote some mantras where it is clearly stated that jiva is a product of avidya and hence not eternal.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>The correct literal translation for ayamatma brahma is "This soul is brahman." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Like I said, I am ok with this translation.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>For example, if someone offered that "Advaita says..." That would be fine. But if someone says, "here is the proof that..." and then quotes an interpretation, and not a translation, then that would be faulty. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

Sure.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Shvji has offered as an evidence that jiva is a product of avidya and hence not eternal, the following sloka:

 

aham brahmasmi [i am Brahman] - Brihadaranyaka

 

For certain we won't criticize his knowledge of Sanskrit, but his own concocted translation only proves the opposite of his premise.

 

Brahman is to be considered eternal and he cannot be under the spell of avidya, otherwise avidya would be different than Brahman and in fact the Brahman who keep the other Brahman under spell. Under these conditions, Brahman would not be neither eternal nor absolute. He would be a fake.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

Very simple, SD. When everything is Brahman, there is no scope for duality and hence no distinct Jiva.

 

This self was indeed Brahman in the

beginning. It knew itself only as "I am

Brahman." Therefore it became all. And

whoever among the gods had this

enlightenment, also became That Brahman. It

is the same with the Rishis, the

same with men. The seer Vamadeva, having

realized this self as That, came to know: "I

was Manu and the sun." And to this day,

whoever in a like manner knows the self

as "I am Brahman," becomes all this

universe. Even the gods cannot prevent his

becoming this, for he has become their Self.

 

-Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10

 

Now, if a man worships another deity,

thinking: "He is one and I am another," he

does not know. He is like an animal to

the gods. As many animals serve a man, so

does each man serve the gods. Even if one

animal is taken away, it causes anguish to

the owner; how much more so when many are

taken away! Therefore it is not pleasing to

the gods that men should know this.

 

-Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.11

 

Note the bold letters in the second verse. That explains Avidya. The first verse explains how when one realizes the truth as everything is Brahman, becomes Brahman. That is the dispelling of Avidya. In brief, all duality springs from Avidya.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Brahman is to be considered eternal and he cannot be under the spell of avidya, otherwise avidya would be different than Brahman and in fact the Brahman who keep the other Brahman under spell. Under these conditions, Brahman would not be neither eternal nor absolute. He would be a fake. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

This is an old, hackneyed, wornout argument. Surely you are not hoping to get anyhwere with it, are you?

 

Sarvam Kalvidham Brahma. This being the case, how can there be anything separate from Brahman? Read my previous posting.

 

If still not clear, let me know and I will post more. It is the least I can do to dispel your Avidya. :-)

 

Cheers

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Animeshji

 

We posted in the first msg:

 

We are stating that their aim is the same; i.e., sunyava, nirvisesa-vada, nirvana, and

other kinds of abominable sayujyia-mukti that are against jiva's eternal svarupa.

 

Did the other Buddhist lines have changed their final aim?

[Guest guest]

>> Shankara proved to the world that the concept of a distinct Jiva is born out of Avidya. Hence to the Advaitins, the Jiva is a product of Ignorance and is not eternal. by Shvu

 

But this is also a legend that only some of his blind followers may believe.

 

Sankaracarya presented avidya as something inexpressible by stating: 'sat asat vilaksana anirvacaniyatra', meaning that avidya is beyond description as it is neither existent or non-existent. This is clearly Buddhism and factually is no different from Gautama Buddha's timeless theory.

 

How then can Brahman be afflicted by avidya? From where did this second substance called avidya come from? If you argue that avidya is false, for its is neither real or unreal, how can it touch and even surpass Brahman?

 

And what is the origin of this independent jiva-tattva which is separate from Brahman??? If you allege that Brahman was afflicted by avidya and become jiva, then it is Brahman, and not jiva, which was the original shelter of avidya, and therefore as sarvam kalvidam brahma, avidya is Brahman.

 

Please answer these questions according Sankaracarya's mayavada.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>According to the traditional biographies, Shankara appeared over 2,000 years ago. Of course this isn't accepted by the modern indologists. They prefer to keep everything as having occured after Christ.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

That was a confusion that arose because the biographes say that, Shankara was born during the 14th year of the reign of king Vikramaditya. There have been several Vikramadityas and so this can mean anyone. Some mapped this to the Vikramaditya of the North, who lived before Christ and said Shankara was as old as 2000 years. But this is not possible, because Shankara refers to the works of some authors who were post Christ. This along with several other evidences show that 700 - 800 AD seems to be the most reasonable period for Shankara.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Again you are only presenting some misleading words and concocted speculations. These mantras cannot prove clearly that jiva is a product of avidya and hence not eternal. They may have several other interpretations according saviseva-abheda point of view.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

You keep harping about misleading words and concoted speculations. How about giving proper examples? I already asked you once, and you provided no answer.

 

It is common knowledge that there are other interpretations. However that is not our concern here. I have set out to show that Advaita is based on Vedanta and not copied from Buddhism as you have been wrongly misinformed. The evidence that I have presented is pretty clear.

 

Read the Brihadaranyaka Verses that I have posted to see what Avidya is. I hope you are not specifically looking for the word Avidya. I take it you are more intelligent than that (although I could be wrong).

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>But this is also a legend that only some of his blind followers may believe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

This statement is typically something that a missionary would say, and as usual to be dismissed as silly chatter.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sankaracarya presented avidya as something inexpressible by stating: 'sat asat vilaksana anirvacaniyatra', meaning that avidya is beyond description as it is neither existent or non-existent.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

This is keeping in line with 'everything is Brahman' and is Vedanta. For more details, go back to the thread on Advaita and Buddhism. I have posted details on how Buddhism evolved over time, and how similar Buddhism was to Vedanta by the time of Gaudapada, the Parama-Guru of Shankara.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>This is clearly Buddhism and factually is no different from Gautama Buddha's timeless theory. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

This concept of Buddhism was borrowed from the Vedanta. btw even your Goloka is timeless, surely. Or do you say that Goloka is not beyond space and time?

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

>> even your Goloka is timeless, surely. Or do you say that Goloka is not beyond space and time?

 

Yes, but we do not say that jiva is Goloka covered by avidya. As you may known we are savisesa-abhedis, we state that jiva a sakti eternally different than the other Bhagavan's saktis.

 

This is very clear in Bhagavad-gita, and we do not need to create any misleading words and to make any concocted speculations to conclude it, here is the exact definition of jiva-tattva:

 

apareyam itas tv anyam / prakrtim viddhi me param

jiva-bhutam maha-baho / yayedam dhayate jagam

(B.g. 7.5)

 

Anyway, you may argue that this is only our vain argument. We are still waiting for your cabal explanation of mayavada's jiva-tatva:

 

Sankaracarya presented avidya as something inexpressible by stating: 'sat asat vilaksana anirvacaniyatra', meaning that avidya is beyond description as it is neither existent or non-existent. (as he has done this assertive in Sanskrit his cultists consider it as Vedantic)

 

How then can Brahman be afflicted by avidya? From where did this second substance called avidya come from? If you argue that avidya is false, for its is neither real or unreal, how can it touch and even surpass Brahman?

 

And what is the origin of this independent jiva-tattva which is separate from Brahman??? If you allege that Brahman was afflicted by avidya and become jiva, then it is Brahman, and not jiva, which was the original shelter of avidya, and therefore as sarvam kalvidam brahma, avidya is Brahman.

 

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

 

[shvu]

 

How about you quoting the Sruti instead of the BG?

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sankaracarya presented avidya as something inexpressible by stating: 'sat asat vilaksana anirvacaniyatra', meaning that avidya is beyond description as it is neither existent or non-existent. (as he has done this assertive in Sanskrit his cultists consider it as Vedantic)

 

How then can Brahman be afflicted by avidya? From where did this second substance called avidya come from? If you argue that avidya is false, for its is neither real or unreal, how can it touch and even surpass Brahman? And what is the origin of this independent jiva-tattva which is separate from Brahman??? If you allege that Brahman was afflicted by avidya and become jiva, then it is Brahman, and not jiva, which was the original shelter of avidya, and therefore as sarvam kalvidam brahma, avidya is Brahman. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

In other words, you want me to explain the whole of Advaita philosophy to you. I would have to say no for the following reasons,

 

1. It is not relevant to the discussion.

 

2. It is simply too long and detailed to post here.

 

My point was to show that allegations on Advaita being a copy of Buddhism, and the stories of Shankara passed around by the Gaudiyas are all false. And I have furnished enough information to prove that beyond doubt.

 

Anyone who is interested to know more on Advaita and how Shankara gave a consistent picture of Vedanta, read the 10 main Upanishads and then the Upadesha-Sahasri, which is a work by Shankara himself.

 

Cheers

[shvu]

 

A nice time to quote this,

 

Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva naparah

 

- Shankara

 

Cheers