ADMIN: Apologies

[Frank Maiello]

hariH OM to the One SELF!

Adhering to *any* orthodoxy fails to take into account
that things change in the course of human evolution, and
the method adopted by a given Founder applies to the
mental development of the era; how long it can remain
applicable varies.  Inevitably, modifications have to be
made.  In light of this, Sankara's denouncing the teachings
of Buddha have more to do with what was happening in India
at the time.  There was a low ebb in the national dharma
and a fresh spiritual approach was necessary, since most
were misinterpreting the teachings of the visnu avatar
(something very easily done) and, along with other factors,
there was a prevailing social deterioration.  In response
to this, the siva avatar, Sankara, wiped the national slate
clean, and re-installed vedic wisdom in the crystalized form
of vedanta, establishing it in the four corners of Bharat.
(It should be remembered that the advent of Buddhism was
also due to a low ebb in the dharma of the time, since the
vedas had generally fallen into an empty ritualization, causing
sharp divisions between sects and, more importantly, a
warp and contraction in the psyche.)

Today we have Ramana and Ramakrishna proclaiming the
[unorthodox relative to Adi Sankara] *universality* of
advaita, acknowledging the jnana of Buddha as well as
Jesus, among others.  How do we reconcile this with
Sankara's claim, if not by considering the effects
evolution has on human perception?

It should be pointed out that what Sankara, Buddha, or
Jesus spoke was not the truth, per se, because the truth
cannot be spoken.  It can only be alluded to.  And, in my
view, they've all done this.  But this wasn't the urgency
of their mission.  Alluding to what is true or real has the
purpose of providing a reference point, as well as a map
for developing viveka.  However, the main thrust of their
mission concerned the *fruits* of viveka, which lead to
the capacity for developing vairagya.  Therefore their
purpose was to build a *strategy* for breaking through to
the 'Other Side.'  And strategies are only a means, only
a method for getting there.  Thus they are arbitrary and
expendable.  Now, the benefit in understanding this has
to do with lifting the sense of prejudice associated with
cultures and creeds, which is vital to the individual's
perception--because it can free him from superficial
judgments, representing the greatest obstacles blocking
his/her liberation from ego.  How this specifically gets
done is the whole issue.  A spiritual philosophy is
only as useful as its ability to accomplish this.  The
rest is inconsequential, really.

Namaste.