reincarnation and mayavada

[theist 1]

harish posted this on another thread. It is very important to understand this point.

 

Maybe someone will help us by explain the differences(if any) between mayavada and Buddhism also.

 

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

 

harish:

Since everything is illusory except Brahman, how does Mayavada explain reincarnation?

To say that a particular Atma lived several lives would be strange when the existance of the Atma itself is negated by mayavada!!

 

 

 

 

[harish 0]

I think the explanation is that all that can't be explained by mayavada is vyavaharika.

Mathematically I think Buddhism is atheistic (everything is ZERO)

Mayavada says only Brahman exists (ONE) there is no meaning for anything else, since nothing else ever exists, ONE is same as ZERO.

Mayavada stands negated by Brahmasutras unless you read them with Sankara's extraneously added prefixes.

 

Just to clarify, does Gaudiya Vaishnava school accept difference between Brahman and Atman and betweem Atman and Atman?

If Brahman and Atman as accepted to be different, is the difference permanent?

[theist 1]

to the top

[Guest guest]

I was wondering how buddhists can believe in reincarnation when they don't believe in the self at all? Can anyone explain this?

[theist 1]

how do the Buddhists account for the sense of I am that we all have? Maybe they identify the self with ahankara and then try to dissolve it and the rest of the subtle body that reincarnates.

[harish 0]

Tradition says Buddhism was to mislead asuras towards atheism. Mayavada is a disguised buddhism, you just have to change terms.

Mayavada is also ideal for asuras because ......

1. There is an Ahankara that I AM GOD. Puranas are replete with asuras who wanted to replace god (hiranya kashipu)

2.UNdeserving people can be satisfied by the fact that everyone is god, even dog is god, a murderer is God.

3. No need for humble worship through Bhakti, Bhakti is delegeated to a inferior place. Devas always displayed humility to God while asuras stayed away from true Bhakti and challenged even those who granted them boons.

4. Asuras always tried to usurp through violent means, mayavada commentary stands on violent manipulation of Brahma sutras, Saatvic Puranas like Bhagavatha have been ignored. Even Sankara opposed Vyasa on Vedanta whereas Vyasa himself was the original compiler.

5. Asuras HATE Vishnu, so Mayavadins never consider Vishnu as supreme(the only asuras who loved Vishnu were Prahlada, Bali, Vibheeshana)

6. Asuras mislead by illusion, so Mayavada is full of confusing signals with conflicting statements at the same time such as Nirguna/Saguna Braman.

7. Asuras hate and are jealous of Vishnu's qualities (Gunas), so they made Brhman as Nirguna.

8. Most mayavadins depend on Tamasic puranas, Tamasic is dear to Asuras.

 

 

Agunaya Gunodreka Swaroopayaadhikarine

VidaaritariSanghaya vasudevaya te namaha

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I used to wonder if every philosophy said at different times were apt for that particular situation of time in that particular place.

If we observe consistently God appeared at different times in different forms of Guru whenever religious principles were misinterpreted by the arrogant fallen gurus who were doing atrocities.

Before Sankara, Ramanuja, Madva....Buddha (incarnation of Lord) came primarily in the begining of Kali to establish the basic principles of religion that was going really wrong during His time after Krishna's period was over in much earlier years. So for that particular time period, His philosophy was required or say designed by Lord to bring calmness in society and make people to follow the path of spirituality in practice by observing non-violence, controlling the desires, non-vegetarianism which are basic principles. This did not mean He was against God, but He was against wrong doing Gurus who were misguiding people and wrongly performing sacrifices etc etc misinterpreting the vedas. So for this time period Buddha was right. But again in course of time His followers became arrogant and became separated and started talking there is no God, without realising the actual fact and even not following what Buddha (Lord) wanted to establish.

When this atrocity of misreligion became intense, He (Supreme personality of Godhead) came down as Sankara to establish the path of religion and said "Yes there is God and its upto us to realise".

The Spiritual master who understands clearly and talk on a particular philosophy say Sankara who stressed on Ahambrahmaasmi also quoted that Narayana as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. During His time, there was no Saivism/Vaishnavism difference. Sankara as the individual although was clear in His explanation from the knowledge of Puraanas and vedas, but unfortunately none of his followers at later date probably did not understand what He meant actually and started misusing the concept.

Hence Supreme God, came down again as The next Guru Sri.Ramanuja who explained Ahambrahmasmi is not right. God spoke like that primarily because that was right from that time and He felt concept of Ahambrahmaasmi was somting difficult to understand and hence largely misinterpreted by fallen people resulting in misguidance. Hence He established strong Vaishnavism philosophy. This was further refined later by Madvacharya that was required at that time during His period.

 

Basically its the same Supreme Personality of Godhead who takes the Human form as Gurus in different time points during this Kali yuga to establish some path of religion that would be more apt for that time period.

If we observe the evolution carefully, we notice that once in every two centuries in some part of India He appeared as some Guru who remained really spiritual and guided people. Its so unfortunate, or may be the fate of kaliyuga that everytime when a spiritual master come and go, every other group of followers form and hardly understand that ever master's basic philosophy was one and the same which is primarily to reach the Lord.

 

In the course of this evolution, Supreme personality has come to a stage where He appeared as people like Prabupaada and now said, just chant Krishna's name and this itself will lead you to Vaikunta.

 

See to what level actually God has come to help the souls reach Him.. In very olden days one has to perform severe penances and austerities and then got reduced to few sacrifices, then reduced to praying and practicing vegetarianism, further reduced now to just chanting His name alone.

 

From my understanding of reading all the Guru's work, (to whatever that is accesible to me) all of them tried to teach us the same "HOw to reach Shree Hari"..

there is no superior or inferior philosophy and nothing needs comparison.

By doing these comparison it only results in different subdivisions which is what has been happening (Probably the fate of Kali yuga that leads to religious confusions).

 

Ideal spiritual development would be to analyse why each time the philosophy appears different and accepting the essence rather than criticising or arguing.

 

Each Guru at everytime is surely Lord, but we are yet to realise Him that He is helping us in different ways. Can Lord be superior or Inferior?

 

Raghavan

[harish 0]

The sastras approached from different directions can be contradictory. Puranas like the Bhagavatha, talk about supremacy of Vishnu, some other about Shiva; Looking at vedas alone you would say Hinduism is a pantheon of almost equal gods. Parts of Vedanta look Atheistic. That is why Yama tells Nachiketa that understnding Vedic knowledge is as difficutl as walknig on a razor's edge.

The sutras also say 'Tatthu Samanvayat', or "reconcile the pramanas"

 

ALL the gurus, mathacharyas are greats irrespective of what way they interpreted. There must be an active exchange between shcools of thought to ensure that the knowledge of a schools is constantly polished.

 

This thread in particular questioned how Mayavada can be close to Vedas, Bhagavatha and Geeta and is it not making some basic concepts like re-incranation look a bit hollow?

Also my last comments worked up some objections to the fact that due to historic reasons, Mayavada is widely seen to be the main concept of Hinduism whereas Bhakti is relegated to a lesser place. All Vaishnava schools stress on Bhakti as equally as on Gnana. Raising this as this is a Vaishnava forum.

 

Prabuh-. says that since Bhakti is the way, fine, go ahead and all of us need not go into depth of the Vedas.

[Guest guest]

The ultimate essence is how to reach Lord and thats what is told by all the Gurus of different times. For spiritual renuciation, one has to take the essence and try to follow the path, since its difficult to understand the actual meaning of different opinions setforth by differnt acharyas primarily, since those acharyaas are not alive now. We have to listen to their followers who may not have understood everything in the sense what the original first acharya of that group had thought in His mind. This is the reason it appears to have lots of contradictions while one thing that is not contradictory is reching Lord.

So anyway the ultimate is to reach Lord.

More sensible would be to take the essence rather than fighing or getting confused.

This is not happening just with Sanathana Dharma philosophy alone, but also happened with christianity or Islam too.

During the time of Jesus, there was no divion, but see how many divided christians are there now, from catholic, protestants, 7th day adventists, pentaghost, etc etc.. and each says that they are right. Simillarly, in islam too they have shias and sunnis and that is now playing havoc within arab world. Each says that they are original and other is wrong.

Finally all these confusions (fate of kaliyuga) can be gone only when people start realizing that "ULtimate Truth" Parabrahman is one and the same and to reach Him each time He came in different areas at various times to help the fallen souls. But unfortunately the fallen souls are falling more and more by not realising the truth bbut fighting among themselves for the superiority over other group.

 

What appears as contradictions may not even be contradictory actually and that itself may be an illusion created for the confusion. So this argument of right and wrong will never end as everyone is right in one way which is "Reaching the Lord"

So wise thing would be not to criticise anything, any Guru's and even someone does out of ignorance or arrogance, we should try to explain thhe ultimate truth is one and the same and if they are not willing to accept, more ideal would be to stop arguing or stop getting worked up to reduce further damage for our realization.

 

ONly by this ways of patience and patience and tolerance, one can really spread the Krishna Consciousness to have peace in the world. It is not possible for everyone to have the same level of understanding and it will surely take time, and hence people involved in real spiritual guidance to others need lots of patience, understanding of different philosophies and give the essence in nutshell without degrading anything.

I am pretty sure, this is what Swami Prabupaada implied by asking people to follow perfectly whatever religion they are following, but practice with perfection as set forth.

Raghavan

[Guest guest]

"Tradition says Buddhism was to mislead asuras towards atheism. Mayavada is a disguised buddhism, you just have to change terms.

Mayavada is also ideal for asuras because ......

1. There is an Ahankara that I AM GOD. Puranas are replete with asuras who wanted to replace god (hiranya kashipu)

2.UNdeserving people can be satisfied by the fact that everyone is god, even dog is god, a murderer is God.

3. No need for humble worship through Bhakti, Bhakti is delegeated to a inferior place. Devas always displayed humility to God while asuras stayed away from true Bhakti and challenged even those who granted them boons.

4. Asuras always tried to usurp through violent means, mayavada commentary stands on violent manipulation of Brahma sutras, Saatvic Puranas like Bhagavatha have been ignored. Even Sankara opposed Vyasa on Vedanta whereas Vyasa himself was the original compiler.

5. Asuras HATE Vishnu, so Mayavadins never consider Vishnu as supreme(the only asuras who loved Vishnu were Prahlada, Bali, Vibheeshana)

6. Asuras mislead by illusion, so Mayavada is full of confusing signals with conflicting statements at the same time such as Nirguna/Saguna Braman.

7. Asuras hate and are jealous of Vishnu's qualities (Gunas), so they made Brhman as Nirguna.

8. Most mayavadins depend on Tamasic puranas, Tamasic is dear to Asuras."

 

So are you saying Vivekananda, Yogananda, and other saints like Sankaracharya are ASURAS?

 

How do you explain the varying scriptures saying Vishnu is the greatest, no Shiva is the greatest, etc.?

 

Also, the scriptural anecdotes about Buddhism and mayavada are poor refutations of these philosophies. We don't know whether the Brahmins were jealous of these philosophies or seeking to maintain the popularity of Vaishnavism or whatever. These anecdotes could have been written with some other intent than TRUTH.

 

I'm not saying Buddhism or mayavada is necessarily right, but I am saying that there needs to be an actual debate about the basic tenets of these principles rather than relying on scriptures which most of us can't read, nor understand since they were written in a different time.

 

[Guest guest]

If Sankara philosophy is interpreted as Mayavada, then the one who calls Him like that has not understood HIm properly.

He is never against Vishnu. He was the first who wrote the Commentary for Vishnu sahasranama in most understandable way so that it reaches people and benefit them.

If you read his Kanakadhara Stothram, He actually praises Supreme Personality of Godhead as Narayana, Damodara etc.

He was the one who sung BajaGovindam.

 

So its clear that what is called as mayavadha philosophy or Aham brahmaasmi is not properly understood as how Sankara thought originally.

Aham Brahmaasmi does not implicate any Ahankara. Its a high level spiritual maturity but its not possible for everyone to become like Sankara and some of His followers or fallen gurus who practiced it became really arrogant in course of time without understanding His level of spiritual maturity hence God descended down and taught the Vaishanava Philosophy.

If you observe Buddha's PHiolosophy, its actually an essence of Gita and nothing else.

NOn-vegetarianism, getting rid of desires since desire is the root cause of all evils (This comprises evrything from desires for land, woman and money).

When one gives up this (that is really a spiritual maturity) then actually he realise the parabrahman God and hence he becomes somene who is beyond any thing what the less understood people observe to reach God.

 

So neither Buddism nor Sankara were wrong, but it only needs careful analysis and when we really really follow what they have mentioned, its nothing different from the essence of what Shree Krishna has mentioned in His Gita. It is not really right to criticise Aacharyaas like Buddha, Sankara, Ramanuja, Swami Vivekanandha, Swami Prabupaada because their level of SPiritual renunciation is something so high, we have to be really careful in understanding them first before we come to conclusion and say one is right and other is wrong just because we dont understand.

 

Its in our eyes and mind to look through.

Raghavan.

 

[harish 0]

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

I'm not saying Buddhism or mayavada is necessarily right, but I am saying that there needs to be an actual debate about the basic tenets of these principles rather than relying on scriptures which most of us can't read, nor understand since they were written in a different time.

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

My comments were based on the scriptures, which I meant Vedas,BrahmaSutras,Upanishads,Bhagavata Purana, Gita.

Also I did not mean to go into personalities and just painted mayavada using some concepts in the scriptures as I was questioning it in a predominantly Vaishnava forum.(When I first heard of Isckon, Chaitanya and Prabhu-., I was under the impression that they preached Advaita)

 

My original question was does not Mayavada militate against basic concepts like re-incarnation and Bhakti? So as Buddhism does as well.

 

As for the question whether the scriptures(or parts of them) themselves are proof, I agree it is a valid question. I say if you have no theistic basis (pramana), you can never get anywhere unless you want to be an atheist and follow path of science alone.

For Christians, words of Jesus and the Bible are the Pramana, for muslinms, it is Moahmmed and Islam.

 

So where do we start finding the truth.