What is the aim of Buddhism?

April 22, 2001

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.

You could not offer any consistent argument to our first point: "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."

As routine, mayavadis and their so-called followers are expert in misleading words and concocted speculations. But they cannot give any answer summarizing their false misconceptions such as that fallacy on jiva-tattva that they spread all over the world.

And brahma satyam jagat mithya jivo brahmaiva naparah is not any sruti mantra, it is a Sankara's statement, therefore cannot be offered as a sastric evidence. We prefer Bhagavad-gita as well as all the other Vedic darsam.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

shvu · April 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You could not offer any consistent argument to our first point: "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."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?

Anyone with average intelligence and is unbiased, will understand from these threads that Buddhism was almost Vedanta by the time of Shankara.

But your logic is quite different as I will show now,

****

When presented with incidences from the life of Shankara, Check if it is positive or negative.

if (positive)

reject it.

else if(negative)

post it in the forums asap.

1 Say Advaita is Buddhism.

2 When shown plain evidence from Sruti, then dismiss it as ridiculous.

Go back to 1

Proceed this way ad nauseam, until the opposition party turns blue in the face and runs away in terror. Then say that Prema-Bhakti is the only true Sanathana Dharma [sic] and Mayavada is for deluding idiots.

This missionary gimmick may work with some, but not here. Anyone can see that your allegations are baseless and stem from plain ignorance.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>As routine, mayavadis and their so-called followers are expert in misleading words and concocted speculations. But they cannot give any answer summarizing their false misconceptions such as that fallacy on jiva-tattva that they spread all over the world.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[yawn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>And brahma satyam jagat mithya jivo brahmaiva naparah is not any sruti mantra, it is a Sankara's statement, therefore cannot be offered as a sastric evidence. We prefer Bhagavad-gita as well as all the other Vedic darsam.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you can let your missionary brain to think straight for once, you will notice that I did not quote it to prove any point. That is the sutra that carries the tenets of Advaita in brief.

Cheers

April 22, 2001

>> That is the sutra that carries the tenets of Advaita in brief.

brahma satyam jagat mithya jivo brahmaiva naparah - You simply cannot post a sutra on the tenets of your own belief, as we are stating that it is a concocted version of sruti made by an acarya that we do not follow. This shows a fanatic approach of the context.

If you want to proof your premise you should post a sruti mantra where it is clear stated that jiva is Brahman covered by avidya. That is all. Very simply. If you cannot oil is boiling!

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

shvu · April 22, 2001

My Dear Satyaraja Dasa,

That was posted as a followup to the previous posting. I suggested some material for people who are interested to know about Advaita. This Sutra was to explain Advaita in one line.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you want to proof your premise you should post a sruti mantra where it is clear stated that jiva is Brahman covered by avidya. That is all. Very simply. If you cannot oil is boiling!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evidence?

There...you just made me break into uncontrollable laughter again!

Cheers

Gauracandra · April 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<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>

I wanted to quickly make a point about this observation. In the past I have quoted from many of the original Indologists for their reasons for starting various Departments of Indology throughout Europe. The most common reason I have found was not to honestly study the culture of India, but rather to use their academic positions to actively undermine Indian Society so as to help Christianize the Indian subcontinent.

It is very difficult to conquer a group of people who have a strong sense of identity. Thus first you must make them realize that they have no or very little identity. Then they become very easily manipulated. "Hey, the Vedas were written by White European men".

The traditional Judaic view of the world is that it is only 5000 years old. With this in mind the indologists needed to find a way to squish the histories of other cultures within this time frame.

I have always found it very interesting that for some unknown reason it appears that civilization sprung up from nowhere just around 3000 B.C. all over the world. Very odd. That just so happens to be when we start to get tool making, architecture, metal work, scriptures and religious organization. That must have been some sort of critical mass of knowledge that spurred civilization forward. Yet this happens all over the world, in various cultures. Yes very odd. It would almost seem as though there were some sort of 5000 year boundary.

Well personally I don't buy it. Many traditions speak of their civilizations that have spanned far greater time frames than the Judaic 5000 year boundary. But we live in a Western dominated world. These Christians were the bringers of civilization not the recipients of it.

Gauracandra

jijaji · April 22, 2001

"Well personally I don't buy it. Many traditions speak of their civilizations that have spanned far greater time frames than the Judaic 5000 year boundary. But we live in a Western dominated world. These Christians were the bringers of civilization not the recipients of it."

I don't buy it either...but keep in mind this massive world-domination campain of Christianity was the result of the original church teachings being highjacked by the ROMANS.

The Church became the outlet for the Romans conquer and destroy tendency...while they repressed the original teachings.

The Essenes and other mystical groups hold that Jesus(Yoshua)traveled to India.

Muslims make that same claim.

He also had contact with the Tibetian Buddhists.

;^)

jijaji

shvu · April 22, 2001

The 5000 year boundary was proved false over 100 years back. Mesopotamian civilization has been shown to be over 8000 years old. Recently they discovered a construction in egypt that is older than the oldest accepted construction in egypt. A case of history begin rewritten to accomodate new findings.

In the case of India, Indian scolars have actively been working for a number of years to try and show India as a older civilzation than originally shown by the European Indologists. But the fact remains that till date, they have come up with nothing concrete. Of course, that does not mean that India is not older than believed. But until something concrete is uncovered, we have to accept history as based on the current findings. That is how science works.

In my opinion, based on what I have read, the British Idologists did not try to show India as barbaric and all advancement came from europe. This was the opinion of those who strongly felt that Aryan Invasion never happened. The period of the Indus valley civilzation was determined by carbon dating and was not based on the biblical 6000 year old earth logic. The dates are valid to this day as determined by Indian scholars. Aryan Invasion too, was a theory to try and explain the sudden demise of the Indus civilization, the striking similarity between Greek, Iranian and sanskrit, and finally the wars described in the Rig-veda. It was by no means a final explanation.

Anyway now that Indology has been in the hands if Indians for a long time now, the western influence angle can be safely ruled out. Perhaps someday, scholars will manage to decipher the Indus script, which has been impossible to decipher till date. That may throw some light on the antiquity of India.

Cheers

Jahnava Nitai Das · April 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>In the case of India, Indian scolars have actively been working for a number of years to try and show India as a older civilzation than originally shown by the European Indologists. But the fact remains that till date, they have come up with nothing concrete.

But the problem in India is there are millions of people living on top of the archeological sites! How can someone try to dig up old Delhi to see if Hastinapura is underneath. India is one of the few places in the world where the ancient cities did not die. They are still living, and there are probably hundreds of layers of existence beneath the present cities.

On the coasts, the cities that previously existed have been washed into the ocean. In the Tamil literature there is mention of three Madurais, two of which were washed into the sea, only the third one still existing. Each time the coast receded, the capital waas shifted further inland.

Jahnava Nitai Das · April 22, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I was reading this thread again and I got to thinking about this example.

Ayamaatma Brahma can be translated as 'Atman and Brahman are one'.

I guess we disagree.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Some examples,

Jndas and this person are one

This person is Jndas

This Krishna is Vaasudeva

Krishna and Vaasudeva are one

These examples are faulty, as both referred objects are exclusive. That is where interpretation comes in. Someone interprets that Brahman is an exclusive object, and therefore concludes that to say "atma is brahman", means "atma and brahman are one".

But Brahman can refer to a number of things. If they are truly one, then by reversing the statement the meaning should remain true. "Brahman is atma." Now remember in this verse atma is refering to the individual soul. Otherwise its relevance to advaita is meaningless. The point is to prove that the individual soul is brahman.

So one one hand we have the statement "The individual soul is brahman." This is an undisputed truth in all schools of Vedanta, vaishnava included.

But the reverse is not true:

"Brahman is the individual soul."

This is not accepted by ANY school of Vedanta, including advaita. To limit Brahman in this way contradicts the very root, brihat.

Thus, I hope everyone agrees that the translation "Atma and Brahman are one." is incorrect, both gramatically and philosophically.

If A equals B, then B should also equal A. And since it doesn't, then we must conclude that A does not equal B.

Besides that, the old SHVU argument would be, "Where in the Sanskrit is the phrase 'are one' coming from?" We have only three words:

ayam - this

atma - soul

brahma - brahman

Look carefully and tell me if the translation REALLY is "The soul and Brahman are one." Does it REALLY say that? I don't think so. It says "This soul is brahman". Quite undisputable, unless someone's goal is to argue that the night is day and the moon is actually the sun.

April 23, 2001

>> Evidence?

There...you just made me break into uncontrollable laughter again!

Me too, just imagine Sri Sankaracarya frying in the caldron as a Tibetan chip laughing. That's Sri Sivaji's mood. Now it is your turn!!! Follow your acarya and for certain Brahman will be waiting for you! Don't worry! You will attain the aim and thereafter you can send us a post with the true realization of Brahman.

shvu · April 23, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Follow your acarya and for certain Brahman will be waiting for you! Don't worry! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Touchè.

The only sensible thing you have posted till date.

Cheers

shvu · April 23, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<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."

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.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was reading this thread again and I got to thinking about this example.

Ayamaatma Brahma can be translated as 'Atman and Brahman are one'. Some examples,

Jndas and this person are one

This person is Jndas

This Krishna is Vaasudeva

Krishna and Vaasudeva are one

Cheers

April 23, 2001

No sruti mantra states that jiva is a product of avidya and hence not eternal. This assertive is Sankaracarya's concoction.

As sruti mantra states: brahmaiva san brahmapy eti. "One can attain the Brahman by becoming Brahman," Sankaracarya offered his argument trying to explain how jiva may become Brahman, simply equalizing jiva and Brahman in all aspects, following his nirvisesa-bheda-vadi reasoning.

But savisesa-abheda-vadi's conclusion to this mantra is that one must qualitatively become one with Brahman. By attainment of Brahman, one does not lose his eternal Brahman identity as an individual soul.

Mayavadis state that after dispelling avidya, jiva becomes Brahman in all aspects, absolutely, and not only qualitatively. Therefore jiva merges in Brahman and lost his identity.

But this interpretation is only possible following their misconception of jiva-tattva as present by Shvuji:

"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."

But 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.

So, one should argue: 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 they 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 · April 23, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

I guess we disagree.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My mistake.

Let me rephrase my statement. The literal translation is 'This Atman is Brahman'. My examples were to show that this statement is equivalent to 'Atman and Brahman are one' by Advaitic Interpretation based on,

Having realised the vast, all—pervading Atman, the calm soul does not grieve.

- Katha 2.1.4

Atman and Brahman are used interchangeably in the Vedanta several times. Besides Advaita does not say that there are multiple Atmans. When interpreted this way, it is not incorrect to say that Brahman and Atman are one.

And by the above logic, one can also say 'this Brahman is Atman'.

Cheers

shvu · April 23, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>But the problem in India is there are millions of people living on top of the archeological sites! How can someone try to dig up old Delhi to see if Hastinapura is underneath<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point. If I remember right, people set out to discover Hastinapura and they did find it. Carbon dating showed that man habitated this place only after 600 BC.

But the real question now is did they locate the whole of Hastinapura or only a part of it? If there is a town/city built over this place, then there is no way anything can be found out.

Cheers

shvu · April 23, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>No sruti mantra states that jiva is a product of avidya and hence not eternal. This assertive is Sankaracarya's concoction<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Read my postings on evidence from Sruti again. Read the 10 main Upanishads. But I guess it will mean little or nothing to your one-track mind. Your Gurus have done a neat job of brainwashing you. No Sruti Mantra say 'Bhakti not Mukti'. By your own logic, your philosophy is concoction.

Now if you will excuse me, I will have to reject your postings en masse as long as you continue to post drivel. If you want to do that, do so by all means and consider yourself to have had the last word.

Cheers

shvu · April 23, 2001

One useful tip:

If one intends to understand Advaita, one must first read the Upanishads. Otherwise it will not make sense. Especially if one approaches Advaita after having read the Puranas without any knowledge of Vedanta, then they will understand nothing.

Cheers

April 23, 2001

>> Your Gurus have done a neat job of brainwashing you. By your own logic, your philosophy is concoction.

You are right. Our gurus have done a great job! They have proof by irrefutable logic and sound sastric argument that in Kali-yuga all philosophical (including ours) are a fake. They said:

harer nama harer nama

harer namaiva kevalam

kalau nasty eva nasty eva

nasty eva gatir anyatha

Therefore we chant harinama instead of stay forever trying to attain some aim with jñana.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

April 23, 2001

Show me some proof for this which is not from Puranas. Proof from Puranas is not irrefutable logic.

In Gitopanisad 2.54 is stated:

sruti-vipratipanna te / yada sthasyati niscala

samadhav acala buddhis / tada yogam avapsyasi

"When your intelligence becomes detached from hearing various interpretations of the Vedas, and when it becomes free from all other attachments while remaining steadfast in Paramesvara, then you will attain the fruit of yoga."

In sastra there are two types of subjects: uddista and nirddista. The subject which is the highest objective of any sastra is called uddista-visaya. That instruction which indicates uddista-visaya is called nirddista-visaya. For example, because it is so dim, the Arundhati star is very difficult to see in the sky without assistance. If someone's objective is to see it, he must first take an indication from the biggest star closest to it. So, if Arundhati is the uddista-visaya, the biggest star closest to it is the nirddista-visaya.

All the Vedas indicate suddha-bhakti to be the uddista-visaya. Because suddha-bhakti cannot be understood immediately, the Vedas first describe saguna-tattva (reality with the gunas, that are the basis of philosophical systems) which is the nirddista-visaya. Thus maya, consisting of the three modes sattva, rajas and tamas, initially appears to be the subject matter of the Vedas. Some parts of the Vedic literatures describe karma in rajo-guna and tamo-guna. Other parts describe jñana in sattva-guna, and in specific places there is a description of nirguna-bhakti (suddha-bhakti). So, one should attain nitya-sattva (pure spiritual existence) by becoming free from dualities such as honour and dishonour. In other words, by sadhu-sanga, one should renounce the endeavour for yoga (acquisition) and ksema (preservation) sought after by the processes of jñana and karma and, by the process of buddhi-yoga, attain nirguna.

If you find some reference from sruti texts showing an easier way to attain this suddha-bhakti besides harinama, please inform us.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

shvu · April 24, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>They have proof by irrefutable logic and sound sastric argument that in Kali-yuga all philosophical (including ours) are a fake<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Show me some proof for this which is not from Puranas. Proof from Puranas is not irrefutable logic. The eternal [timeless] Vedas have not imposed restrictions to people of Kali-yuga and that takes precedence over any other source.

Your tradition accepts the Puranas as an unquestionable authority, even at the cost of overriding Sruti at times. So among your own, the Puranas provide irrefutable logic. But remember that it does not apply to others. For a classical vedantic tradition, it is the Sruti alone that qualifies as irrefutable proof. Be very clear about that.

Cheers

shvu · April 24, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you find some reference from sruti texts showing an easier way to attain this suddha-bhakti besides harinama, please inform us.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that this is one of the easiest methods. There is also the Karma-yoga way of doing your duty by surrendering to the Lord. But in my opinion, this is not as easy as it sounds.

Besides all this, there is the important factor of individual preference. Different paths appeal to different people. Otherwise I guess one would not see 3 paths in the same work [bG for example]. There would have been only one path.

Cheers

kailasa · April 24, 2001

The letter for shvu.

Excuse for mine English.

I not absolutely have understood impersonal brahman, it is the Supreme aspect?

shvu · April 24, 2001

Hello Kailasa,

Yes, Brahman is the Supreme. And impersonal is an incorrect word to use with Brahman.

Brahman is different from Brahma the creator.

Cheers

kailasa · April 25, 2001

Thank shvu

Whether correctly I understand, all are equal in Brahmane and he(it) does not have source? If there are relative reasons and consequences, whether there is their absolute analogue? Absolute in my question means final and constant.

shvu · April 26, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Whether correctly I understand, all are equal in Brahmane and he(it) does not have source?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

'All are equal to Brahman' should be changed to 'all are Brahman'. Brahman is all there is.

All this is, indeed, Brahman.

Mandukya Upanishad 2

He is the Lord of all. He is the knower of

all. He is the inner controller. He is the

source of all; for from him all beings

originate and in him they finally disappear.

Mandukya Upanishad 6

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If there are relative reasons and consequences, whether there is their absolute analogue? Absolute in my question means final and constant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me, I did not understand this question. Can you put it in simpler terms?

Cheers

Sign In

What is the aim of Buddhism?

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post