There is no self

[Sunya]

Greetings..

 

 

Hi mikaelz: Thank you for noticing.. you know, if i wasn't aware of your affinity for Buddhism, and therefore your reluctance to be anything other than sincere, i might mistake that quote for petty juvenile sarcasm..

 

If you yank your head out of Buddha's butt for a moment and simply observe Life with genuine curiosity, you might see some merit to the observations i posted, and.. that's all i ask, honest evaluation from the perspective of a 'stilled-mind, Clarity.. but, that's unlikely, like most followers of belief systems, whatever they are, the system over-rides Clarity, Authenticity, and common-sense.. the developers of systems are no greater nor lesser than 'you'.. except that you choose to abandon your own authenticity.. while i ask that you simply evaluate information with Clarity, you expect that i accept someone else's interpretations as more accurate than my own.. that i abandon Clarity in favor of dogma? That just doesn't feel consistent with what 'is'..

 

Be well..

 

Don't care about arguing with you, but couple points. First of all you assume that what I say is dogmatic i.e. what I read in a text written long ago rather than my own understanding. Secondly you assume that your own realization is the end-all be-all simply because it is your own experience. You assume all belief systems are bad; that they are the opinions of others rather than methods to bring you somewhere. Your belief is that Buddhism and other paths are interpretations rather than methods in and of themselves that were created by beings with extremely high realizations, people who knew exactly what they were doing. Furthermore, in your belief that 'belief systems' are simply interpretations, or opinions, you assume that there is just one experience which you call 'truth' and that you since you have probably already experienced it, you're done and have all the answers. Having such an erroneous belief is what prevents you from seeing that your realization is not final; it's not the culmination. It seems to me that this is why you're so critical of Buddhism. You believe that since your experience differs, Buddhists must be less realized than you. Clarity, authenticity, stilled mind, all those things are goals for me as well, but as a Buddhist I understand that a unitive experience is not the end goal and you won't convince me otherwise.

[dwai]

OH COME ON NOW

 

If nothing else, we have demonstrated that buddhism predated vedanta by millenia!

 

Vedism does not equal vedanta at all!! There are some brahmins that have never adopted the vedanta!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambudiri

 

For some reason, I was shown a documentary of these very same brahmins in high school. This is mainstream academia!!!

 

Also wikipedia mentions tribals being buddhist in multiple places.....Hopefully you will read some of the references on wikipedia, an actual book or two, and realize the true faith of your ancestors. Your ancestors were buddhist.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ddhism_in_India

 

 

I read in one book that first came buddhism, then came female deity worship, and then finally modern male deity worship.

 

 

Your arguments are so feeble that I don't even have to comment on them. You might have some hidden agenda or not, that point notwithstanding, you definitely need to read up on your Indian history, if you want to practice Indic systems of philosophy and spirituality.

 

I would have no problem accepting that my ancestors were Buddhist, provided they really were. My ancestors however were NOT Buddhist, they came from the lineage of Sage Sandilya, a Vedic Rishi, who lived long before the time of The First Buddha...

 

You don't believe in the Yogachara view of The Historical Buddha being an incarnation of the Eternal Buddha, do you?

 

 

[RongzomFan]

 

I would have no problem accepting that my ancestors were Buddhist, provided they really were. My ancestors however were NOT Buddhist, they came from the lineage of Sage Sandilya, a Vedic Rishi, who lived long before the time of The First Buddha...

 

Yes you would have a problem accepting your ancestors were buddhist. Are you kidding me about this? Do you deny that most of India was buddhist at one point?

 

Ok maybe your ancestors were the minority Brahmin community and continued 100% pure bloodlines to the present day. Congrats. Most Indians are supposed to be descended from sages. Don't give me that shit. I am descended from Baradwaj supposedley.

 

My arguments are too feeble to address? I am not even arguing anything. I am suggesting you read some actual books.

 

I have actually studied Indian history in college at the University of Pittsburgh. I have read many academic history books. I have cited wikipedia entries from which you can read actual history books. They are the references at the bottom. Are you claiming the tribals practicing buddhism references on wikipedia are wrong?

 

So basically the whole of academia is wrong and you are right? Again I challenge you to email any worthwhile historian. I frequently email authors after reading their books. Like James Mallinson after reading his kecharividya book.

 

Explain to me again how vedanta came before the Buddha? I am really curious what you will come up this time. Your precious Sankhya philophy cannot be dated reliably back to that ancient sage you cited. It is post buddhist.

 

Was Adi Shankara or Buddha a time traveler? Logically one of them would have to be, unless you are using the Upanishads in your argument. Are you?

 

And someone cited Vivekananda. I don't know how reliable he is, but don't make me whip out his quotes about hinduism being a hybrid of buddhism, because I will.

Edited April 14, 2010 by alwayson

[contrivedname!]

@ Mikaelz: re-read TzuJanLi's commentary on that quote, he isnt calling him "wrong" he is expanding on it based on his paradigm.

 

and further, yea its great to realize that those are just thoughts, good for you. not everyone realizes this intuitively so if some "buddhist master" goes around using no-self like a cure-all they could perpetuate a lot of suffering.

 

i think CowTao explained my point better than i did.

 

"Even if balanced, true self teachings still affirm fixation in some way. Instead of a small 'i' its a Grand 'I'. The little ego surrenders to the big ego and affirms its own existence through the ultimation of the Ultimate Subject. There is a subtle clinging/grasping happening there. It's hard to see, but its clearly evident to me. True self posits a ground into which you can surrender but still be safe. No self takes that ground away and thus is harder to comprehend since its so counter-intuitive. The mind wants a ground, but this ground is still a subtle concept and isn't real."

 

not the way i precieve you using it. You just claimed that "no self takes that ground away"; that is a ground in itself my friend, the ground of cutting through ego/i/I, which can also be used to create ego fixation. and no it isnt harder, you make it 'harder' through your conception of subtle and hard. i agree the egoic mind wants a ground, and you are creating a great one for it by holding no self on a pedestal above others (thereby informing your ego that a diminishment of ego is accomplishment and furthering fixation). A similar analogy may be drawn regarding the greedy monk. The monk whom has renounced 'worldly greed' could still be as greedy or greedier than the "greedy businessman". By lusting after pure forms of egolessness and samadhi they have "spiritually materialized" their greed.

 

consistently calling 'no self' "harder to comprehend, more subtle, higher realization etc." one is partaking in spiritual hierarchies (who forms these hierarchies, anyhow?, people whom are seen as masters? whom are they seen as masters by? what concieves this respect and grants this authority?). whether self/no self/non-self is "harder to comprehend, more subtle, higher realization" depends on you. Homage to the viewless view and all that.

 

"The original mind is akin to a moment of surprised astonishment". this can mean that original mind is similar to the 'mind before conception'.

[dwai]

Yes you would have a problem accepting your ancestors were buddhist. Are you kidding me about this? Do you deny that most of India was buddhist at one point?

 

No that is utter nonsense!

 

Ok maybe your ancestors were the minority Brahmin community and continued 100% pure bloodlines to the present day. Congrats. Most Indians are supposed to be descended from sages. Don't give me that shit. I am descended from Baradwaj supposedley.

 

My arguments are too feeble to address? I am not even arguing anything. I am suggesting you read some actual books.

 

And I'm suggesting that what you have presented here clearly shows your lack of knowledge. So, you'd be better off following your own prescription.

 

I have actually studied Indian history in college at the University of Pittsburgh. I have read many academic history books. I have cited wikipedia entries from which you can read actual history books. They are the references at the bottom. Are you claiming the tribals practicing buddhism references on wikipedia are wrong?

 

And what percentage of Indian population was ever Tribal, since 7000 BCE? Not even 5 %!

 

So basically the whole of academia is wrong and you are right? Again I challenge you to email any worthwhile historian. I frequently email authors after reading their books. Like James Mallinson after reading his kecharividya book.

 

Explain to me again how vedanta came before the Buddha? I am really curious what you will come up this time. Your precious Sankhya philophy cannot be dated reliably back to that ancient sage you cited. It is post buddhist.

 

Even if you break your vocal cords or invoke the auspices of any of your "Historians", you cannot change the chronology of events. Kapila predated the Buddha by a good 3 millenia.

 

Was Adi Shankara or Buddha a time traveler? Logically one of them would have to be, unless you are using the Upanishads in your argument. Are you?

 

And someone cited Vivekananda. I don't know how reliable he is, but don't make me whip out his quotes about hinduism being a hybrid of buddhism, because I will.

 

I never claimed that Adi Shankara predated Buddha. I said Vedanta is significantly older than The Buddha. Adi Shankara was only a revivalist of Advaita Vedanta. Vedanta, if you must know, has 3 major schools of thought within it...Dvaita, Advaita and Vishistadvaita.

 

When have I ever said that Buddhism didn't influence Vedanta or Yoga? Like I explained to "forestofemptiness", all these disciplines most definitely influenced each other. If they didn't, they wouldn't survive. Have you heard of the Carvakas? Have you heard of the Vaisheshikas?

 

They didn't adapt and got lost in the annals of time.

 

The problem with Western interpretation of Indic history is that most Western Historians still toe the line defined by Max Mueller and his contemporaries. They do not accept the internal chronology presented by the texts or the timelines proposed by traditional scholars (meaning Native Indian). I would recommend you read Dr Subhash Kak's "The Astronomical Code of the Rg Veda" (http://www.amazon.com/Astronomical-Code-Rgveda-Subhash-Kak/dp/8185689989/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271282924&sr=8-1)

 

I would also recommend reading and following the work of Scholars such as Dr Ramakrishna Puligandla. Also would recommend reading Shrikant Talageri, David Frawley, Koenraad Elst, Prof BB Lal, Dr SR Rao, Dr S N Balagangadhara. They do a good job of dispelling myths being regurgitated by the Western Academia since the past 200 years (yeah I know, you'll only accuse them of being Hindutva Scholars)...

[RongzomFan]

No that is utter nonsense!

 

Really now? Really? What part of India are you from by the way?

 

 

And what percentage of Indian population was ever Tribal, since 7000 BCE? Not even 5 %!

 

What does that have to do with anything? All I am saying is that some modern people who were isolated have preserved an ancient religion predating hinduism, which is buddhism.

 

Kapila predated the Buddha by a good 3 millenia.

 

Yeah in mythology, not in actual history. Samkhya in actual history came WAY after the Buddha. You can't argue with this. What are the oldest texts we have?

 

Everyone does this shit. Like in the west certain medieval texts are ascribed to King Solomon. You are not supposed to take it seriously. This is like believing Adi Shankara defeated buddhists in debate. This has been debunked by Eliot Deutsch and others.

 

 

I said Vedanta is significantly older than The Buddha.

 

 

Post ONE piece of evidence to support this statement. It is 13 pages already. It is time to put up or shut up.

 

Heck I don't even need evidence. Just give me ONE logical argument!

 

Did it ever occur to you that Adi Shankara could have resurrrected an ancient form of knowledge that STILL post dates the Buddha? The Buddha is that old!

 

Not even all Brahmins have accepted the Vedanta yet.

 

 

P.S. I admit the Vedas are older than the Buddha. So why do I have read that book about astrological correspondances within the vedas?

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson

[Sunya]

alwayson, check out this article.

 

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pdf_extract/66/3/684

 

It's only an excerpt.. can't find the full version for free anywhere, but interesting.

 

Seems like the kind of research we need. btw, I can't reply directly to Dwai since he probably has me on ignore, but what he says about modern research into Hinduism using dates stemming from a fundamentalist Christian POV is just dead wrong. There is no way any modern academic would do that. This isn't the 1800s. Modern historical analysis is extremely precise, secular, and world-centric.

 

Attached an interesting article.

 

ORIENTALISM AND THE MODERN MYTH OF "HINDUISM"

RICHARD KING

 

Summary

 

Is there really a single ancient religion designated by the catch-all term 'Hinduism'

or is the term merely a fairly recent social construction of Western origin? This paper examines the role played by Orientalist scholars in the construction of Western notions of Indian religion by an examination of the origins of the concept of 'Hinduism'. It is argued that the notion of 'Hinduism' as a single world religion is a nineteenth century construction, largely dependent upon the Christian presuppositions of the early Western Orientalists. However, exclusive emphasis upon the role of Western Orientalists constitutes a failure to acknowledge the role played by key indigenous informants (mostly from the brahmana castes) in the construction of modern notions of 'the Hindu religion'. To ignore the indigenous dimension of the invention of 'Hinduism' is to erase the colonial subject from history and perpetuate the myth of the passive Oriental. The paper concludes with a discussion of the accuracy and continual usefulness of the term 'Hinduism'.

Myth of Hinduism.pdf

Edited April 15, 2010 by mikaelz

[3bob]

@ Mikaelz: re-read TzuJanLi's commentary on that quote, he isnt calling him "wrong" he is expanding on it based on his paradigm.

 

and further, yea its great to realize that those are just thoughts, good for you. not everyone realizes this intuitively so if some "buddhist master" goes around using no-self like a cure-all they could perpetuate a lot of suffering.

 

i think CowTao explained my point better than i did.

 

"Even if balanced, true self teachings still affirm fixation in some way. Instead of a small 'i' its a Grand 'I'. The little ego surrenders to the big ego and affirms its own existence through the ultimation of the Ultimate Subject. There is a subtle clinging/grasping happening there. It's hard to see, but its clearly evident to me. True self posits a ground into which you can surrender but still be safe. No self takes that ground away and thus is harder to comprehend since its so counter-intuitive. The mind wants a ground, but this ground is still a subtle concept and isn't real."

 

not the way i precieve you using it. You just claimed that "no self takes that ground away"; that is a ground in itself my friend, the ground of cutting through ego/i/I, which can also be used to create ego fixation. and no it isnt harder, you make it 'harder' through your conception of subtle and hard. i agree the egoic mind wants a ground, and you are creating a great one for it by holding no self on a pedestal above others (thereby informing your ego that a diminishment of ego is accomplishment and furthering fixation). A similar analogy may be drawn regarding the greedy monk. The monk whom has renounced 'worldly greed' could still be as greedy or greedier than the "greedy businessman". By lusting after pure forms of egolessness and samadhi they have "spiritually materialized" their greed.

 

consistently calling 'no self' "harder to comprehend, more subtle, higher realization etc." one is partaking in spiritual hierarchies (who forms these hierarchies, anyhow?, people whom are seen as masters? whom are they seen as masters by? what concieves this respect and grants this authority?). whether self/no self/non-self is "harder to comprehend, more subtle, higher realization" depends on you. Homage to the viewless view and all that.

 

"The original mind is akin to a moment of surprised astonishment". this can mean that original mind is similar to the 'mind before conception'.

 

Some good points above.... another problem of sorts: how many of us here agree on what the word "mind" means besides or including terms related to it like original, big, egotistical, monkey, aggregate, sub-conscious, super-conscious, pure, divine, etc., etc..

 

As for myself "mind" and all of its aspects are ultimately meant to be servant to Spirit otherwise complications never end. For Spirit has no doubt, and no doubt is happy, and happy smiles like a great Buddha or like a True guru smiles.

 

Om

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

Hi 3bob: I experience 'mind' as the interface between the unique physical experience and the Unified Collective experience.. through which Consciousness experiences itself from both perspectives by knowing that neither perspective dominates the other.. we exist as the unique physical perspective of Consciousness, unique by virtue of temporary attachment an independently functioning energetic form, an interactive 'vehicle'.. the 'interactions' or experiences are shared by Consciousness regardless of prespective.. and useful only by the degree of Clarity afforded by the mind's 'structure'.. beliefs, programming, and ideology are components of 'structure'..

 

Be well..

[Sunya]

alwayson,

 

Perhaps you'll find this interesting as well

 

UPANISADIC TRADITION AND THE EARLY SCHOOL

OF VEDANTA AS NOTICED IN BUDDHIST

SCRIPTURE

 

NAKAMURA HAJIME

 

TOKYO UNIVERSITY

Vedanta Early buddhism.pdf

Edited April 15, 2010 by mikaelz

[contrivedname!]

Some good points above.... another problem of sorts: how many of us here agree on what the word "mind" means besides or including terms related to it like original, big, egotistical, monkey, aggregate, sub-conscious, super-conscious, pure, divine, etc., etc..

 

3bob, you just hit on a great point. that is a huge barrier in discussing these topics and perhaps some of the reasoning that induced so many different 'masters' to use words to convey moving beyond words.

 

when i speak of mind i mean conciousness, intent. when i speak of ego i am referring to the 'thoughtforms' and conditioned constructs we use to shape this conciousness, intent, our preception of reality.

 

by fixation i refer to the habitual tendency of people to fixate on thoughtforms. thought to thought your mind should be free to come and go between, through, around, arising thoughtforms w/out fixation. this isnt negation of thought, a pure form of 'silence'. silence is a gap in thoughtform; if there were no thoughtforms, what would define 'silence'? if there was no silence, what would define thoughtform? emptiness and thought share the same ground, the original mind, the buddha-nature.

 

 

Skillful means abound

While the mind goes 'round and 'round

Self and No Self are just like two, dualistic view

If they dont help you to unskew, what good do they do?

[3bob]

3bob, you just hit on a great point. that is a huge barrier in discussing these topics and perhaps some of the reasoning that induced so many different 'masters' to use words to convey moving beyond words.

 

when i speak of mind i mean conciousness, intent. when i speak of ego i am referring to the 'thoughtforms' and conditioned constructs we use to shape this conciousness, intent, our preception of reality.

 

by fixation i refer to the habitual tendency of people to fixate on thoughtforms. thought to thought your mind should be free to come and go between, through, around, arising thoughtforms w/out fixation. this isnt negation of thought, a pure form of 'silence'. silence is a gap in thoughtform; if there were no thoughtforms, what would define 'silence'? if there was no silence, what would define thoughtform? emptiness and thought share the same ground, the original mind, the buddha-nature.

 

 

Skillful means abound

While the mind goes 'round and 'round

Self and No Self are just like two, dualistic view

If they dont help you to unskew, what good do they do?

 

 

Skillful means abound

While the mind goes 'round and 'round

Self and No Self are just like two, dualistic view

If they dont help you to unskew, what good do they do?

 

wonderful lines... gracious

[Marblehead]

So have y'all found your SELF yet?

 

Peace & Love!

[Z3N]

Mainly the differences between self and no-self are liken to that of fire and water.

 

Refining the differences between the duality leads into a greater capacity of discernment, giving rise to a tactic understanding in conscious knowledge. This is also refining the intent of mind forging experience, this creates psychological transformation allowing access into the real knowledge and essence of the human organism and spirit. The accumulation of these experiences unfolds a communication and relationship between duality changing perception of mind. This perception galvanizes overall awareness increasing the capacity of mind, allowing oneness to unfold. Having freedom, wisdom and space within mind, witnesses the reality functioning in the now as a animating force of complete cosmologic oneness (Tao) .

 

Self is nothing but less than 10% of mind.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

 

When do people release this insipid intellectualism.. Pretending your own wisdoms by parroting the words of past experiencers, while too timid or too lame to explore your own existence.. when do you stop playing word-games, as if Awareness were anything other than the messenger of a reality you haven't the courage to embrace.. Individual persons, bantering their deep understandings of "what they want to hear themselves say", and tacitly approving of each other's pretensions by engaging in the nuance of the pretension, rather than rebuking its absurdity.. no different in its pretentiousness than the cultivated etiquette of social nobility, yet so much more sinister in its influence over the impressionistic minds of the sincerely curious..

 

Life is an elegant simplicity, it is experienced by a unique individualized Self, plainly obvious without resorting to conceptual constructions that conflict with the basic function of awareness, to observe.. The absence of faith in one's own existence, or the belief in 'no-self' by self, is hardly the criteria for posting advice about, or 'pointing to', 'self-formed' opinions regarding a reality with which you have no familiarity.. Liberation is experienced when there is no need to define 'self/no-self', that need is unmanifested due to the self-evident nature of observing your existence without 'expectations'.. 'expectations' that are constructed by attaching to belief systems, programming, gurus of choice, or the unfounded fears of 'self' passing into non-existence.. it is the latter, the fear of 'self' passing into non-existence, that inspires the belief in 'no-self', which ironically, is a deep attachment to self.. as if by pretending there is 'no-self' then it can't pass.. Self is constant, eternal, and merely changes perspectives to accomodate its own existence and the evolution of its self-awareness..

 

Be well..

[Marblehead]

 

Self is nothing but less than 10% of mind.

 

Nicely spoken Z3N, although I would jack that 10% up a bit.

 

Peace & Love!

[Marblehead]

... existence without 'expectations' ...

 

What a lovely concept!!!!

 

Peace & Love!

[RongzomFan]

mikaelz

 

Thanks for those articles!

 

Looks like our friend dwai is actually carrying out the tradtion of European orientalists NOT ME!

[Z3N]

[philbowser]

Advaita and Buddhism

 

The influence of Buddhism on Advaitam has been a hotly debated topic right

from the time of the VedAntin BhAskara who accused Advaitam of being

"prachanna bauddham" or Buddhism in disguise. And on this list too the

topic has surfaced from time to time resulting in heated debates. As can be

seen by arguments of those who endorse such influence and those who don't,

the issue is pretty complex with no clear solution arising. So in this

article I endeavour to compare the two streams of thought, present the

similarities and the differences and my conclusion to the members.

 

First a brief exposition of Buddhism itself :

 

The life of the Sakyamuni is common knowledge. He renounced his advantages

as a prince, wandered as an ascetic and found enlightenment. And what did he

teach?

 

The Sakyamuni taught only the four noble truths : 1. That life is suffering.

2. The cause of suffering is desire. 3. To escape suffering one must

renounce desire. 4. This can be done by the eight fold path which would

result in nirvAna.

 

The first seven steps of the eight fold path is only ethics stressing the

urgency of the moral task. The eight step is meditation.

 

Though the Sakyamuni taught the path, he was silent about the nature of the

result - the ultimate reality - nirvAna. In one rare passage in the UdhAna,

he says that it's unborn, uncreated and eternal. But beyond that he would

not speculate about it.

 

Besides that, in his teachings we find that the Sakyamuni didn't stick to

any particular theory : he taught the atomic theory, the soul theory, the no

soul theory, the consciousness theory etc

 

The is a famous incident when a wandering ascetic, Vacchagotta by name, asks

the Sakyamuni, whether there is a Soul? He receives no answer. He then asks

whether there's no soul. Again silence. After he's departed, the disciple

Ananda asks the muni why he was silent? The muni replies that if he had

affirmed that there was a Soul, he would have endorsed the stand of the

eternalists who believe that Soul is eternal. If he had affirmed there is no

soul he would have endorsed the stand of the nihilsts. Then he says that

both views represent extreme positions and that the truth is in the middle -

between Soul and no Soul! He also adds that if he had told this to Vaccha,

the poor man would've been totally confused!

 

The history of Indian philosophy reveals this process - first we've a seer

who has realized the truth. He teaches it to his followers using various

analogies. And it takes quite a period of time for the followers to refine

the teachings and get at the truth. In Buddhism also we see this.

 

One of the earliest texts after the Sakyamuni is the Milindapanha which is a

debate between the Greek king Menander and the bauddha bhikshu Nagasena. The

monk works out a philosophy using a combination of the atomic and the no

soul theory. He denies the soul this way - as a chariot is made up of parts

so is man (the parts are the skandhas - form, feeling, mind, predispositions

and consciousness). Apart from the parts there's no substantial identity.

The Soul is just a series of mental states and nothing more. After nirvAna

there's only the underlying elements of existence - the dharmas (as can be

observed dharma has a different meaning in Buddhism).

 

By this time Buddhism was heading for a split. The brAhmanas who were

converted to Buddhism, fused the Upanishadic teachings into the Sakyamuni's

teachings. Quite in the line of the Upanishads, they felt that reality had

to be an inborn quality in man which just had to be brought out and not

something new to be achieved. They were the MahAsangikas who later became

the MahAyAnists (the great vehicle). Those who clung to the original

teachings were termed by them as the HinayAnists (the lesser vehicle).

 

The HinayAnists themselves had two more speculative schools of pluralistic

realism (SaravAstivAda) - the VaibhAsikas and the SautrAntikas. Both the

schools denied the Soul. The VaibhAsikas slightly modify Nagasenas theory.

They think that there's a permenant consciousness in man during his

lifetime. But nirvAna is again only the elements of existence - a material

state - which is the underlying eternal truth in man and the world. The

SautrAntikas don't approve of either the permenant consciousness or the

eternal dharmas - for them everything is momentary.

 

Ashvaghosa is one of the earliest exponents of the MahAyAna. History reveals

that he was originally a brAhmana VedAntin poet who was defeated in a debate

and thus converted to Buddhism. In his ShradothpAdashastram, we find a heavy

fusion of the VedAnta with Buddhism. The materialistic nirvAna of the

HinayAnists is discarded in favor of a spiritual nirvAna - which is pure

being. So what's the relation between samsAra and nirvAna? Ashvaghosa thinks

that samsara and nirvAna are but two sides of the same coin. Samsara being a

mirage with nirvAna being the underlying changeless reality. The cause of

this mirage being avidhya, which Ashvaghosa identifies with consciousness

which rises from the depths of pure being.

 

Ashvaghosa with his one changeless Soul theory is definitely a black sheep

amongst the bauddhas who have all traditionally denied the soul.

 

We've seen how the Buddha's teaching of the Soul, no Soul, the atomic theory

were all brought out by the different schools with the passage of time. The

last theory left is the consciousness theory. And this is where the

vijnAnavAdins come in.

 

The vijnAnavAdins are also called yogAcAras since they advocate that

liberation is possible only by those who practice yoga. So here we find the

fusion of yoga with the Sakyamuni's teachings. Yoga as an astika school is

more psychological than metaphysical. The yogacarins take it one step

further - they totally deny the world! They assert only the existence of

consciousness - which in its various forms represent the intellect, the

mind, the ego etc The external world is only an imagination. With the

purification of consciousness, there's the absolute changeless nirvAna.

 

Thus all theories of the Sakyamuni's teachings were exhausted, with each

school claiming to be the true exponent of his doctrines.

 

And along comes NAgArjuna, a telanga brAhmana convert, who is one of the

greatest thinkers Bharath has produced. He sees all these theories and goes

for the jugular. His argument is that there's a flaw in reason itself and

thus knowledge is an impossibility. Proving that, he renders as

inconsequential (shUnyA) all theories of rival schools.

 

So is NAgArjuna merely a sophist who disproves all theories without

forwarding a theory of his own? He is a bauddha and there can be no Buddhism

without a nirvAna. And what is his nirvAna?

 

For NAgArjuna, nirvAna or the paramArtha is the changeless absolute, beyond

all empirical knowledge. It's to be realized only by intuition, when all

dogmatic theories with standpoints are abandoned.

 

So what about all the teachings of the Sakyamuni? NAgArjuna answers that the

teachings are of relative value only - samvritti. But it's only through the

relative that the absolute can be achieved.

 

And the relation between the relative and absolute? NAgArjuna says that both

are actually the same. It's basically how one views it. With standpoints

we've the relative and without standpoints - the absolute. Thus he declares,

the true teaching of the Sakyamuni is the relinquishment of all views -

theories - standpoints. NAgArjuna's schools is the MAdhyamaka or the Middle

Way.

 

Now that we've an idea of what Buddhism is, let's now try to determine the

influence of brAhmanism on the two : Sakyamuni and Buddhism.

 

The Sakyamuni's teachings show both direct and indirect influence.

 

Being a kshatriya, he was exposed to Vedic learning. This is affirmed by the

LalitavistAra. When he became a renunciate, his first gurus were Alara

Kalama and Uddhaka Ramaputta, two brAhmana samnyasins who were SAmkhya/Yoga

exponents. Here he would've been exposed to the SAmkhyan "changeless eternal

soul" theory and yogic psychology. The nikhAyas also show that he learnt the

lokAyata doctrines. His teachings also show a familiarity with Vaishesika

atomic theories. All these reflect the influence of the existing

philosophical conceptions in his teachings.

 

Now let's analyze the similarity between his teachings and ths Upanishads.

Both he and the Upanishads are clearly against ritualism and seek salvation

from suffering, which is to be achieved by ethical perfection and knowledge.

Both consider that the apparent world is not all and there's an underlying

reality. Though the Upanishads uses the term, "Self", it indicates that the

true Self is actually selflessness - without individuality. The same is

brought out by the Buddha using the negative teaching of 'anatta' or non

Self. They both arrive at the same thing, but from different standpoints.

And it's to be noted that nowhere in his teachings does he deny the

existence of the Upanishadic brahman. That the Sakhyamuni's teachings is

derived from the Upanishads is a view of, as orthodox a thinker as KumArilla

Bhatta himself.

 

Thus the common claim that the Sakyamuni's doctrines are totally original is

untenable. Even he admits that his teaching is but the PurAna Arya dharma.

 

With regard to the external influence on Buddhism itself, it's a

historically recorded fact that some of the greatest acharyas of the

bauddhas came from brahmana ranks - Ashvaghosa, NAgArjuna, Buddhaghosa,

VAsubandhu, DignAga, Dharmakirti etc And we've also observed how they

contributed to the progress of bauddha thought, which evolved from a

materialistic realism to a spiritual absolutism.

 

Finally let's analyze the similarities and differences between Buddhism and

Advaitam.

 

1. Ethics wise, both advocate the same thing - selflessness, control,

charity, compassion etc

2. Both stress on the need for renunciation for salvation.

3. Both are against ritualism as the method for liberation.

 

Philosophically Advaitam cannot be identified with the materialistic realism

of either NAgasena or the SaravAstivAdins. That leaves the Mahayana.

 

The Vijnanavadins seem pretty close to Advaitam, since both identify Reality

with consciousness. But this is only a superficial similarity and closer

analysis reveals a lot of differences :

 

1. Sarvam buddhimayam jagat - for the VijnAnavAdins the empirical world

doesn't exist and is only a product of the mind. Logically Advaitam doesn't

approve of this. Only in the absolute sense is the world of duality false,

but that doesn't mean that the world doesn't exist. The duality is what is

false - sarvam dvaitam manas.

 

2. The yogacarins advocate a subjective reality to the exclusion of the

world. Advaitam advocates the submerging of the individual subject itself

into the reality of brahman which includes the world.

 

3. The Yogacarins refute the Soul and insist only on consciousness. For

Advaitam the Soul is pure consciousness.

 

4. The yogacarins believe in the purification of vijnAna for nirvana. For

advaitam the atman is already liberated. All purification is only in the

level of vyavahAra.

 

Actually the MAdhyamaka is much closer to Advaitam :

 

1. Both refute the ultimate validity of the sources of knowledge - pramAnas.

2. Both believe in the two levels of reality - samvritti or vyavahAra and

paramArtha.

3. Both believe that it's only due to avidhya (mAyA in the metaphysical

sense) that nirvAna is viewed as samsAra.

 

But again there are differences :

 

While the MAdhyamakas refuse to bridge the relative to the absolute,

Shankara does it in his adhyAsa bhashyam and identifies reality with pure

consciousness.

 

While the MAdhyamakas refuse to make any statement on the absolute, Advaitam

clearly identifies it as being.

 

While the MAdhyamakas advocate prAjna (awareness of the untenability of both

Soul and no Soul theories), Advaitam clearly takes the stand with the Soul.

 

And to cap it Advaitam swears by the shruti, the authority of which has

traditionally been repudiated by the bauddhas.

 

Though to the casual observer the differences may not seem too sharp, in

actuality, the philosophical implications of such differences give shape to

clearly distinct results.

 

Finally the million dollar question : Is Advaitam "prachanna bauddham"?

 

As we've seen, the Sakyamuni himself borrwed considerably from brahmanism.

We've also seen that how the early HinayAnists remained only material

realists. Then with Ashvaghosa comes the influence from VedAnta which gives

a spiritual turn to Buddhist philosophy, which is taken to its extremes by

the vijnAnavAdins, only to be tempered again by NAgArjuna. With the

available evidence, to his credit NAgArjuna must be given the honour of

creating first an absolutistic philosophy with two levels of reality, though

the germs of such thought are already present in both the Upanishads and

earlier VedAnta.

 

It must also be noted that the concept of the two levels of reality is

directly related to the denial of the ultimate validity of the pramAnas.

Again this might not have been a totally original Bauddha discovery, as even

the absolute nihilistic school of the LokAyatas, of which JayarAsi Bhatta is

an exponent, assert the invalidity of all pramAnas (but of course, they use

that to deny any reality to the world). And many scholars trace this

discovery of the ultimate invalidity of the pramAnas to the rigorous

analysis of logic, which was part of traditional brAhmanic learning.

 

Also it's foolish to think, that the Astika schools were sitting and

watching idly while the nAstikas matured. They too grew with the nAstikas

and each learnt from the other. So it cannot be clearly asserted as to who

really borrowed from whom. And comparitively it's a much smaller step from

the identity with difference vedAnta of BAdarAyana (even if it wasn't

advaitam) to absolutistic advaitam, than from materialistic saravAstivAda to

the absolutistic mAdhyamaka.

 

Another main reason that Advaitam is linked with Buddhism is that the last

chapter of the Mandukya KArikA of GaudapAda, the first formal exposition of

Advaitam, shows distinct MahAyAna leanings. So it's declared that GaudapAda

was actually a Buddhist who interpreted the shruti from the bauddha view.

OK, if the last chapter shows MahAyAna leanings, what about the first three

chapters? The first three chapters are clearly Vedic and VedAntic, which

uses terminologies related to Astika schools. And the central tenets of

Advaitam - the non dual identify of Atman and Brahman, AjativAda, mAyA - are

clearly explained in these chapters itself. If the AchArya had closed the

text with these chapters, it would have still served as a complete guide on

Advaitam. So why the fourth chapter?

 

The last chapter is called the AlAtasAnti PrAkarna or the quenching of the

fire brand. Here the AchArya opens up the chapter saluting the Buddha (or

Narayana as the traditionalists interpret it. Doesn't make a big difference

as even Astika tradition identifies Buddha as an avatar of Lord Narayana).

Then using VijnAnavAda and Madhyamaka techniques he engages in dialectic.

First he points out that even for the bauddha concept of momentariness of

work, you need a substratum - brahman. Then he takes up the Madhyamaka

fourfold negation of reality as - neither being, nor non being, neither nor

both - and states that even to form this equation one needs a being to start

with. Thus Being is reality - brahman.

 

The title quenching of the firebrand is loaded with meaning. The timeless

strength of the Vedic religion is the ability to assimilate even radical

views into its folds. Since over a period of time, both the Astika and the

nAstika streams had moved pretty close to each other in terms of philosophy

and religion, it's the AchArya's subtle way of telling the bauddhas to

quench the firebrand of Buddhism into the very source it arose from - the

Vedic religion. And that's the sole intent of the last chapter. (It must be

noted that the four fold negation used cleverly by the AchArya doesn't

reflect the true position of the MAdhyamaka, for they have no postion. But

still the AchArya's attempt to assimilate is laudable and his reasoning is

significant since it reveals the implied inadequecy of any position without

the concept of being to start with.)

 

To conclude, I think with the current evidence available, one cannot really

assert as to who influenced whom and the extent of any such influence. But

to call Advaitam "prachanna bauddham" clearly betrays a lack of

understanding of both Advaitam and Buddhism.

[philbowser]

Why Buddhism Died in India

 

 

In my mind factors like the monastries getting destroyed or religious persecution by other sects, by itself could not have wholly wiped out Buddhism in India.

 

It might be easy to kill people or destroy buildings - but how do you destroy ideas? The negative standpoint of Buddhism - anatta, shunyavaada, vijnaanamaatra - had always had its share of admirers in India. Even if there weren't any major Buddhist monastry or teacher present, still over the centuries several intelligent persons could have engaged in philosophical enterprise based on Buddhist ideas. But no such thing has happened – after a point in time it seems to have lost popularity and waned out.

 

In my mind there's a fundamental philosophical reason for the death of Buddhism in India.

 

I would like to analyze the development of some core issues in Buddhist philosophy on this issue:

 

1. The Buddha - the Buddha is distinct from other philosophical streams due to his teaching of anatta. Most schools taught the reality of the Self – knowing the self is salvation - so the path is subjective. In contrast the Buddha ignored the self and taught the control/discipline of the non-self - his path thus is objective.

 

But it is to be noted that nowhere do we find the Buddha denying the atman - anatta only meant the all that's not the self - the non-self.

 

In my mind there are two fundamental reasons for the teaching of anatta:

 

a. When reality is beyond the mind and is not be attained by any action, why does it need to figure in spiritual practice at all? Understanding and disciplining the non-self - the mind/body/senses - is what is required. Including reality in a spiritual scheme only results in endless speculation on it which is actually counter productive to spiritual progress.

 

b. Also in the ultimate sense, one needs to let go of the will which is the root of the "I" sense for reality to manifest.

 

It is in these two contexts that the Buddha taught anatta.

 

2. Hinayaana especially the Milindapanha has an axe to grind. Engaging in polemics against the other ethical schools it leans heavily on anatta and asserts that there's no substance at all. Everything is momentary. The Sarvaastivaada schools indulge in some metaphysical speculation - atomism etc

 

3. Naagaarjuna comes in with two fundamental objectives :

 

a. to warn against excessive stress on anatta and

b. to condemn the speculative trend in Sarvaastivaada.

 

He too follows the Buddha in his fundamental teaching:

a. to understand and reject unreality using shunyataa

and b. to abandon the will using the chatushkoti and bhakti (devotion).

 

Till here Buddhists by always cleverly talking only about unreality or referring to liberation in phenomenal terms as "end of suffering" or "elimination of kleshas", had always maintained an ambiguous stand on reality. Naagaarjuna provides some ontological hints - "cessation of plurality" and the "world removed from the lens of causation is itself nirvaana" etc. But his heavy negative dialectic in condemning the unreal had earned shunyavaada the reputation of nihilism. Also the trend in Maadhyamika circles to get caught in the intellectual loop and make the chatushkoti itself a view needs to be corrected.

 

4. So the Yogaacaarins come into the picture with the main objective : after chatushkoti, the necessity to practice yoga so as to attain the reality of pure consciousness (vijnaanamaatra).

 

So here for the first time, necessiated by the excessive negativity of the Maadhyamika, Buddhism is forced to compromise on its ambiguous stand on reality and come forth with a clear assertion on the nature of reality.

 

5. Now along comes Gaudapaada - a philosopher who notes the similarity of the teachings of the Mahaayaana with the Upanishads. It is to be noted that the Vedaanta was not in vogue and atbest practiced only in very select circles as historically we do not have a record of other schools even talking about it before the rise of Advaita - but now using Mahaayaana dialectic it is revived.

 

Gaudapaada only shows that all epistemological or psychological observations of Mahaayaana presupposes a metaphysical base - you can dispute the metaphysical conceptions about the object but cannot deny the object itself. It can be said that the world is like a circle created by waving a firebrand. But still without the firebrand even such an analogy would not be possible. The negative is only the luxury of the mind but without conceptual construction every single instance of our conscious experience only affirms something and never denies anything. Nobody says : "I'm not" or "this is not". Consciousness (here I'm talking about basic awareness and not mind consciousness) itself implies something positive to be conscious about. And even with respect to conceptual construction, the negative has no value in itself and exists only in relation to something else.

 

The negative standpoint has its use but if you take it to its extreme it only winds up in nihilism. Affirming an absolute is the natural next step after the chatushkoti. The analysis of the three states of the waking, dream and deep sleep which reveals the existance of a changeless part of our identity due to which our identity survives the three states, is itself the pointer to reality.

 

Metaphysics if logically reconciled with Mahaayaana thought, can end only in the spiritual absolutism of the Upanishads. Only the Buddha didn't teach it - naitad Buddhena baashitam - out of practical interest. Gaudapaada provides numerous quotes from the Upanishads to support his interpretation of non-duality.

 

Here the Buddhists could have protested that Gaudapaada was hijacking their philosphy. But the chronological superiority of the Upanishads over the Buddha is the deciding factor here. The Upanishads had taught it first and so the Buddhists are on the defensive now.

 

Some liberal minded Bauddha scholars like Bhaavaviveka reach out to Gaudapaada in agreement. But other Bauddhas like Chandrakirti, anxious to preserve the distinct identity of Buddhism, are opposed to it. But even here they only oppose any expression of the absolute and not the absolute itself.

 

But clearly understanding that they cannot maintain their distinctness on the philosophies of Naagaarjuna and Vaasubandhu, other Buddhists - Dignaaga, Dharmakirti et al - again revive the doctrine of momentariness. So from Yogaacaara absolutism, it degenerates to Sautraantika nihilism. But it is a lost cause since the doctrine had already been discredited by Naagaarjuna and Vaasubandhu themselves - "it existed before but doesn't exist now - entails the error of nihilism" - Mulamaadhyamaka Kaarikaa - Examination of Essence.

 

One thing to note here is that Buddhism is more a religion of reason than its other Indian counterparts - unlike the saints of Shaivism or Vaishnavism the majority of whom are poets who gained their popularity through devotional poetry (even Shankara is popular among the masses only for his highly inspired devotional hymns) - every Bauddha aachaarya was an intellectual. Buddhism sustained itself on its philosophical subtleties attracting the intelligensia in the society - naturally it caused a heavy brain drain from the braahmanical ranks.

 

But the rise of Advaita Vedaanta which "completes the full picture", by cooly reconciling Buddhist epistemology and psychology with Upanishadic metaphysics, with its historical prestige rooted in scripture and powered by as inspiring a figure as Shankara must have heavily stemmed the intellectual flow thus sapping the interest in Buddhist philosphy over a period of time.

 

Buddhist philosophy had helped the Indian mind to climb to a certain level - without doubt the concepts of maayaa and its implication - advaya or non-duality - are Buddhist contributions without which there would be no Advaita at all - but after a certain stage it was helpless to prevent itself from being assimilated into/by Advaita Vedaanta.

 

Losing its strong point - philosophy (though in the negative sense) - it failed to attract new talent and gradually died out.

 

But again please note that I'm not saying that Adavita and Buddhism are the same - both have different set of ideals and practices - just that the differences themselves weren't enough for Buddhism to sustain its individual identity in India.

 

It is also to be noted that a couple of centuries after the fall of Buddhism, the Indian intellect had rejected most of the other philosophies and turned it attention towards interpreting the scriptures - numerous schools of Vedaanta has arisen.

 

In conclusion, I've to assert that Buddhism never died in India, but survives in the form of Advaita Vedaanta, which represents the best of both the great traditions - Buddhism as well as the Vedic religion.

 

Some time back I'd read an article on the rediff - on the net - about the Ayyappan temple in Kerala, and in that article the author made a statement that it was Buddhism and modern day Hinduism, and not Upanishadic Brahminism, that are the true religions of India and it's pride. That set me to thinking and the more I think about it the more I disagree! The much touted cliche that Hinduism is a way of life and not a religion, will quite explain my point.

 

What is 'way of life?' It's the way we live - our basic morals, our clothing, our food, the way we keep our home, our marriage, the way we raise our children, the way we live together with our kith and kin, our festivals, our ceremonies, the way the society functions etc. If one cares to observe, rules and regulations exist or influence us in each of these situations. For example, take the typical Hindu marriage, which generally spans 2-3 days with it's rituals and ceremonies. The Hindu marriage rituals are based on the Rama-Sita marriage, explained in the Ramayana. For building homes, there exists the 'Vastu' shastra, which people generally adhere to. The eating habits, again for certain sections of the society, is based on laws and rules laid down in the scriptures. Our morals and philosophy of life, are based on our scriptures, the ithihasas (epics), the Ramayana and the Mahabharatha and the Puranas. The sari or the dhothi have existed from time immemorial. Our festivals are mostly based on our religious myths - the Deepavali or the Dashara. The way the society functions has also been influenced by the morals and the way of living expounded in the epics, the Puranas or the smritis, like the Bhagavat Gita or the Manusmriti. Even our traditional music and dance is devotional in nature. For it's the way we live - the Hindu way of life.

 

But Religion is a totally different cup of tea! The word 'religion' is derived from the Latin root 'religio', which means 'to link.' Link what, to what? The Upanishads, which are part of the oldest set of scriptures known to man, the Vedas, is in many ways also the most modern - with as much priority given to science and reason, as to tradition. It presents an age when man, not bound by any doctrines or dogmas or pre-existing rules, had the courage and vision to pursue and unravel the secrets of the universe and his relation with respect to it. Mind you, it's not just idle philosophizing, but a desperate and passionate search for the Truth, the meaning to life. So where would he start? Not at some temple, not by trying to understand some complex school of thought, not by trying to see some mythical God - for all these didn't exist then. The basis of man's search was himself! For that's what he was searching for - what's the purpose of his life? Who created him?

 

In trying to understand himself, man realized that the true 'him' was not the body, nor the five senses or it's aggregate, nor the ego, nor the mind - but something within, which was so elusive, that he had to concentrate and try hard to maintain connection with it - to link with it. He also realized that that entity, which we call the "Atman" and the West calls the "Soul", was totally free from the suffering and joy which the world experiences and that while all phenomenon in the world is transient in nature, this was the only entity that was permanent and thus immortal. Further analyzing brought the knowledge that this entity was the same in all living things and matter and finally that this entity was also the Creator. Hence the immortal saying in the Chandogya Upanishad, where Sage Uddlaka winds up the exposition to his son Svetaketu on questions about the Creator, "Tat tvam asi" or "that thou art" - You are the Creator or Brahman, referring the Soul within. But as befits human infirmity, these revelations were interpreted differently by different people, each claiming the supremacy of his own school, thus spawning the six orthodox or astika schools of Hindu philosophy - Samkhya, Yoga, Nyaya, Vaisesika, Purva Miimamsa and Uttra Miimamsa (also known as Vedanta). But again as long as there was striving, whatever the path, it wasn't all too bad.

 

The Katha Upanishad states, "When all the desires in the heart fall away, the mortal becomes immortal and attains Brahman even here" and to state it in a nut shell, man has to be in total control of his body, his ego, his mind, his senses, with an exceptional sense of morality, to realize the Soul within. These teachings, profound though they may be, appeals to a very small minority of any populace and even amongst this small number, very few can persevere to implement it in their lives. The Brahmins as a community tried to preserve the teachings and live a life conducive to spiritual progress. As Shankara and his paramaguru Gaudapada (It may be that Gaudapada was himself a Buddhist as the identity of the person he's saluting in his Mandukyakarika is in question? Buddha or Lord Narayana? That's the reason Vedantic teachers of other schools accuse Advaitam as pracanna Buddham or Buddhism in disguise.), in the beginning of all their texts explicitly state the requisite qualifications of the reader - pure of mind, with full control of the senses, devoid of ego - for Truth is a double edged sword and if one doesn't have the mental maturity for it, it will destroy him. This is the reason Buddha, who sought to preach to all people irrespective of caste, gave high priority to expounding morality, rather than abstract philosophical musings, whatever their value maybe. For if a man reaches the high moral level set by the Eight Fold Path and reaches Nirvana - the annihilation of the senses, Moksha would automatically follow. Thus the reason for Buddha's silence about God and his high stress on morality, for the Buddha considered the law of Dharma as God and insight into it as Enlightment.

 

Buddhism too followed the path of Sanatana Dharma. After the Compassionate One's death, various schools, each claiming to teach his original teachings, sprung up. The Theravada (founded by Brahmin convert, Buddhaghosa) and the Mahayana being the foremost amongst them. Nagarjuna, the peerless logician, founded the Madhyamika school inside Mahayana itself, preaching the concept of emptiness or shunyata. But none of them strayed too far from the core teachings of their original master - high morality. But again this is the reason for the downfall of Buddhism in India! The Madhyamika concept of shunyata promoted an atheist atmosphere in the country and this is when Adi Shankara, India's greatest philosopher, appeared on the horizon. Adi Shankara is wrongly accused of destroying Buddhism in India. All he did was address the Buddhist in their philosophical points and rejuvenate Sanatana Dharma through Advaitam. Even the great Kumarilla Bhatta of the Purva Miimaamsaa school and Udhayana of the Nyaaya school, who went out of the way to attack Buddhism, can't be given full credit (Legend has it that Kumarilla Bhatta converted to Buddhism to learn Bouddha philosophy and after learning it, defeated his own Bouddha guru with Vedic philosophy, who committed suicide! As is the dharma of a sishya who caused the death of his guru, Kumarilla too followed suit!). While Hinduism pervaded all aspects of life, Buddhism with only it's highly moral teachings towards Nirvana couldn't sustain the initial enthusiastic response. It's said that even early Buddhists, though they embraced the Compassionate One's teachings, still practiced the normal Hindu way of life. For even the most sincere Buddhist, would feel it his duty to marry off his daughter and would hence revert to Hindu marriage customs. A final outcropping of Buddhism called Vajrayana, incorporating totally alien concepts like magic, ritualism, sex and sacrifice, surfaced, representing the final decay of a once great religion. Buddhism died a natural death in the country of it's origin, it's departure hastened by invading Moslem hordes.

 

Buddhism and Upanishadic Brahminism are both religions in it's true sense. But while the former is dead, the latter still survives - the reason being it's esoteric nature. No, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the club should be exclusive in a discriminating way, but that it is only for the discerning. For example, Appaiya Dikshitar, a great Tamil Brahmin saint, declared a few centuries back that he would teach the Vedas to anybody who was willing to undergo the rigours of the years of training. If people were so willing, there should be a lot of non-Brahmin Vedic teachers around, no? But are there? For the temperament of an average human doesn't naturally veer towards religion sincerely, but only for personal ends, false reasons etc - the reason being human infirmity. So what we call modern Hinduism, is not actually a religion, but a 'way of life'.

Edited April 15, 2010 by philbowser

[philbowser]

[dwai]

mikaelz

 

Thanks for those articles!

 

Looks like our friend dwai is actually carrying out the tradtion of European orientalists NOT ME!

 

 

Dream on brother. I speak the perspective of traditional scholars of India, based on scriptural references, internal astronomical details and records within the literature, not Max Mueller's version (which too incidentally proves my point about the chronology of the Vedic literature, which includes the Samhitas, Aranyakas, Brahmanas and Upanishads (aka Vedanta)) as predating the Buddha. There are 108 known Upanishads today, of which 10 are the most important. These ten predate Buddha definitely...

 

 

[dwai]

Advaita and Buddhism

 

 

 

Succinct and very well articulated. Thanks for sharing...

[RongzomFan]

are 108 known Upanishads today, of which 10 are the most important. These ten predate Buddha definitely...

 

 

FINALLY

 

Some logic.

 

Thats all I wanted. Congrats.

 

Now you just have to acknowledge that "India" was buddhist at one point.

 

BTW, philbrowser, that amateur discussion is the biggest load of crap I have read in a long time.

Edited April 15, 2010 by alwayson