NIRVANASHATKAM

[egodust]

Ramakrishnan wrote:
> Egodust wrote:
> >Allan Curry wrote:
>>> What I was trying to say was that any "Atman" that can be thought about
>>> is a concept. As long as we cling to concepts *about* Atman, we are still
>>> dealing with fiction.  What is the  case in the abscence of thought is my
>>> real concern here and (IMO) it just does not matter how anybody likes to
>>> think *about* that. It only matters that it is directly realized
>>> (without the mediation of thoughts about it).
>>>
> >Concur.  This also is the import behind the ajatavada doctrine of advaita,
>
> Whether it is ajAtivAda or otherwise, _every_ advaitin says that Atman
> is beyond words. So that has nothing to do with ajAtivAda per se.
> ajAtivAda is that causality does not make sense (as proved clearly by
> shrI gauDapAdaa) and hence Atman is unborn.
>

True enough, yet it also asserts "no liberation, no-one to be liberated,"
which suggests the *idea* concerning atman can itself be self-defeating if
it is adhered to as a concept vs the actual spirit of the thing [atmanishta].

> >as well as what Buddha was attempting to convey in his silence in response
> >to questions re the idea [and *not* the nature] of atman
>
> Unfortunately, the spoken word of Buddha contradicts this. The pali
> canon is considered to be genuinely Buddha's words and in the kacchAyana
> gotta sutta, his disciple asks him about reality. He replies that "some
> say asti (is)" and some say "na asti" (is not), clearly references to
> vedAntins and materialists respectively. He further says he has examined
> all doctrines and found none of them sufficient and expounds his way,
> viz, the middle path. It would be a great mis-understanding to claim
> that Buddha was saying Atman is beyond words by this. The upanishhad-s
> already said so and Buddha claimed that these were not sufficient.
> Buddha very clearly said that there is no substratum behind the
> illusion. It is very convenient to interpret the "void" as Atman, but
> Buddha makes it clear that is not what he means.
>

It's well known that he sanctioned the state of nirvana.  Obviously there
has to be someone or something as a backdrop to [or substratum of] this state,
or why is it thus named?  Shunyata (tantamount to nihilism) applies only to
the modifications within the changeable mind that need to be diffused in order
to realize or enter into nirvana [which is only a void relative to cognition].
Thus, who or what is in nirvana?  This should lead one to believe that--
semantics and lexicologies aside--the esoteric intent of his teaching is
equivalent to advaita.

> All advaitins, including our Ramana Maharshi (as shown by my quote)
> clearly belong to the "asti" bandwagon and not otherwise.

Nisargadatta could be interpreted at times to be *off* the "asti" bandwagon,
yet the spirit of his teaching is unmistakably on it.  This is why it's
important to catch the intent implied rather than allow words to perhaps
mislead.

>  There is no
> need to include the Buddha in the advaitic band-wagon. It is neither
> necessary nor is advaita validated just because the Buddha said so
> (which he clearly did not). Not only that it would make shrI gauDapAda
> and shrI sha.nkara complete ignoramuses for trying to prove the
> fallacies of Buddhism and shrI gauDapAda makes it _very_ clear that he
> was refuting Buddha.

Only on this one point [viz. the existence of the atman] to my knowledge,
in his Karika (IV.99).  And didn't his refutation have more to do with the
resurgence of vedic philosophy (culminating with Sankara) in the face of
the revolution of Buddhism at the time (i.e. he was necessarily polarizing
Vedanta and Buddhism for the purpose to reestablish the sanatana dharma)?
Anyway, being a jnani isn't a guarantee their relative knowledge is flawless.

Namaste.

_______________________

"There are no answers
       because
there are no questions."
_______________________

http://digital.net/~egodust