Bouddha clarifications!!!

Vidyasankar Sundaresan vidya at CCO.CALTECH.EDU
Tue Feb 10 19:14:54 CST 1998


> Are the differences with respect to the creator or God? And are these on

Differences between whom and whom? And is any religious conception of God
completely independent from that of a creator, or vice versa?

> the subjects in which the Buddha maintained silence? Are there any major
> differences with respect to the Buddha's original teachings (forget the
> theories of later Bouddha philosophers).

Pardon my bluntness, but what makes you think that somehow you know the
Buddha's "original" teachings independent of later bauddha philosophers?
The Buddha did not write any texts - anything we know of his teachings
comes from, and only from, the texts of the various Buddhist traditions,
like the three pITakas of the theravAdins, and the various sUtras of the
mahAyAnikas.

> Who said anything about Advaitam?

Didn't you ask, "then is the Buddha the first Advaita teacher"? And wasn't
this question based on the notion that gauDapAda actually salutes the
buddha, but that Sankara deliberately says that it is nArAyaNa, because he
was anti-buddhist, whereas gauDapAda was not?

> >the second false premise that his silence was only about the existence
> of
> >God,
> As one cannot prove that it's true, it cannot be proved otherwise too.

I would suggest that you read some authoritative exposition of the
Buddha's doctrines before making such statements. Silence is eloquence,
they say, and so, after this one post, I shall be silent too. No more of
this vyartha argument.

>
> >the third false premise that the middle path is more
> >about an ascetic/non-ascetic way of life than about fundamental
> >philosophical thought,
> Is it false in totality?

It is partly false, which is why it is more misleading than being totally
false. I repeat that the middle path of the Buddha is fundamentally
philosophical in nature.

>
> >the fourth false premise that his *original*
> >teaching was somehow changed totally out of character in later
> centuries.
> Some of Buddha's followers interpreted Buddha's silence as nihilism.

No, every single one of Buddha's followers rejects nihilism. It is only
those who argue against Buddhism who say that it (or at least some portion
of it) is nihilistic. In fact, one of the earliest schools of Buddhism was
called sarvAsti-vAda. You can get an  idea of their thought from the name
given to their school, but go and read about their texts for yourself.

> Suppose  it wasn't, then the teaching definitely has been changed
> totally out of character.

Or misunderstood by non-Buddhists. If there is one central teaching where
advaita differs from any Buddhist school, it is that although advaita will
say "not this, not this," it will also say "It exists," and then keep
silent about It, but Buddhism will *not* say, "It exists". The one school
of Buddhism (vijnAvAda0 which comes close to saying such a thing has been
extremely severly criticized within the mahAyAna tradition.

> reputed Indian school of thought supports nihilism? Forget the Caravaka
> materialists! If there's no such school, isn't it strange that something
> so radical would have come out?

As it turns out, no Buddhist school is so totally nihilistic as is
portrayed. But then, neither does any Buddhist school posit an Absolute,
non-dual or otherwise. Specifically, no Buddhist ever accepts an eternal,
unchanging ground of Being, simply because it is logically inconsistent
with the Buddhist teaching of momentariness.

And if you want to understand the philosophical implications of the
Buddhist middle path, you must understand both momentariness and the
notion of interdependent co-origination (pratItya samutpAda for the
mahAyAnikas, paticca samuppAda for the theravAdins).

> As Ramana Maharishi said, it's regretable that something as simple and
> pure as this (Advaitam or Spirituality etc), has been complicated to
> such great extents to lure and enlarge the following of each school of
> thought.

Great, now we come to politics again, with words like "lure" and
"following". Firstly, I don't know when and where Ramana Maharishi said
such a thing, and would appreciate a reference. Secondly, I strongly
disagree with the implications of the above statement.

> Even in Thirukural we find that Valluvar maintains silence on
> Moksha. It makes absolute sense because Moksha or Brahman is something
> which has to be experienced. What's the use taking about issues which in
> no way contribute to your salvation?

So, we must keep silence about Brahman/Moksha, and we must also keep
silence about all other issues which do not contribute to Moksha. Where
does that leave the Tirukkural and other texts then? Or is it that we can
talk all we want of any topic other than Moksha, and that somehow it will
all contribute to Moksha?

> BTW, was there anybody in those days who supported the theory that
> Buddha was only expounding the philosophy of the Upanishads?

Perhaps he was not. After all, we live two and a half millennia after the
Buddha lived. However much hindsight can offer us, let us give some credit
to the intellects of - 1. those who lived and learned with the Buddha, and
2. those who rejected his teachings.

I'm sorry to sound so curmudgeonly, but I detect both an anti-intellectual
stance and a notion of intellectual superiority among those who want to
accept everything "original" and reject everything that came "later". The
search for the "original" is based upon a rejection of everything that
came "later" and therefore reveals the notion of intellectual superiority.
And once an "original" teaching is found, or imagined to be found, to
posit that all "original" teachings are the same identical thing, reveals
an anti-intellectual stance. This is a peculiarly modern phenomenon, and
the sooner it is gotten rid of, the better it will be for a genuine
appreciation of the spirituality and the teachings of each tradition.

Anyway, as I promised earlier, no more from me. maunam sarvArthasAdhakam.

Vidyasankar

>From  Tue Feb 10 16:06:32 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.160632.0500.>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 16:06:32 -0500
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Organization: Home Personal Account
Subject: Kalpasutra/Vedanga?
Comments: To: Advaita List <Advaita-L at tamu.edu>
Comments: cc: Gregory Goode <goode at DPW.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The following paragraphs briefly explain Vedangas and Kalpasutras.
Thanks for bringing these questions to the attention of the list
members. Wish you all the best and have a nice day.

There are three different sources of vedic knowledge, called
prasthana-traya. The Upanisads are known as sruti-prasthana, the
scriptures following the principles of six limbs vedic knowledge
(Vedangas) as well as Mahabharata, Bhagavad-gita, and Puranas are known
as smrti- prasthana and Vedanta-sutras which present the vedic knowledge
on the basis of logic and arguments is known as nyaya-prasthana. All
scientific knowledge of transcendence must be supported by sruti, smrti
and a sound logical basis (nyaya ). Smrti and nyaya always confirm that
which is said in the sruti.

Vedic injunctions are known as sruti. From the original Veda Samhitas up
to the Upanisads are classified as sruti. The additional supplementary
presentations of these principles as given by the great sages are known
as smrti. They are considered as evidence for vedic principles.
Understanding the ultimate goal of life is ascertained in the
Vedanta-sutras by legitimate logic and argument concerning cause and
effect.
There are six aspects of knowledge in the Vedas known as Vedangas:
     Siksa - phonetic science
     Vyakarana - grammar
     Nirukti - context (conclusive meaning)
     Candas - meter
     Jyotis - time science (astronomy & astrology)
     Kalpa - rituals

The seers who have realized these aspects of knowledge from the Vedas,
have composed sutras (short but potent phrases which convey a lot of
meanings) on each Vedanga. Kalpa-sutras are of four categories:
srouta  -  collective sacrifices
grhya   -   family rituals,
dharma - occupational duties and
sulba     - building of sacrificial fireplaces, altars etc.

According to the different levels of conditioned consciousness there are
instructions in the Vedas for worship of different controllers, with the
aim of reaching different destinations and enjoying different standards
of sense enjoyment. Agamas (emanated scriptures) are books which are
classified into five for this purpose:
     energy - Sakti - Sakta Agamas
     visible source (Sun) - Surya - Soura Agamas
     controller - Ganapati - Ganapatya Agamas
     destroyer - Siva - Saiva Agamas
     ultimate source - Visnu - Vaikhanasa Agamas

>From the point of view of common human activities sense gratification is
the basis of material life. To cater to this aim, there are three paths
mentioned in the Vedas:

The karma-kanda path involves fruitive activities to gain promotion to
better planets. Using the methodology from the first five Vedangas, the
Kalpa-sutras explain this path.

Upasana-kanda involves worshiping different controllers for promotion
to their planets. The Agamas explain this path.

Jnana-kanda involves realizing the Absolute truth in impersonal feature
for the purpose of becoming one . The Upanisads explain this path.

Though these paths are all from the Vedas, and the Vedas do explain
them, one should not think that that is all the Vedas have. The real
purpose of the Vedas is to gradually push one in the path of  self
realization to the point of surrender in devotional service to the
Supreme Grace.
--
Ram Chandran
9374 Peter Roy Ct.
Burke, VA 22015
Ph.703-912-5790

>From  Tue Feb 10 13:30:29 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.133029.0500.>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 13:30:29 -0500
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Organization: Home Personal Account
Subject: Kalpasutra/Vedanga?
Comments: To: Advaita List <Advaita-L at tamu.edu>
Comments: cc: Gregory Goode <goode at DPW.COM>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Greetings Greg:

The following paragraphs will partly explain briefly Vedangas and
Kalpasutras. I am sure that Shri Vidyasankar Sundaresan will give you
more detailed explanations to your questions. Thanks for bringing these
questions to the attention of the list members.
Wish you all the best in your pursuit of Truth and have a nice day.

There are three different sources of vedic knowledge, called
prasthana-traya. The Upanisads are known as sruti-prasthana, the
scriptures following the principles of six limbs vedic knowledge
(Vedangas) as well as Mahabharata, Bhagavad-gita, and Puranas a re known
as smrti- prasthana and Vedanta-sutras which present the vedic knowledge
on the basis of logic and arguments is known as nyaya-prasthana. All
scientific knowledge of transcendence must be supported by sruti, smrti
and a sound logical basis (nyaya ). Smrti and nyaya always confirm that
which is said in the sruti.

Vedic injunctions are known as sruti. From the original Veda Samhitas up
to the Upanisads are classified as sruti. The additional supplementary
presentations of these principles as given by the great sages are known
as smrti. They are considered as eviden ce for vedic principles.
Understanding the ultimate goal of life is ascertained in the
Vedanta-sutras by legitimate logic and argument concerning cause and
effect.

There are six aspects of knowledge in the Vedas known as Vedangas:

     Siksa - phonetic science
     Vyakarana - grammar
     Nirukti - context (conclusive meaning)
     Candas - meter
     Jyotis - time science (astronomy & astrology)
     Kalpa - rituals

The seers who have realized these aspects of knowledge from the Vedas,
have composed sutras (short but potent phrases which convey a lot of
meanings) on each Vedanga. Kalpa-sutras are of four categories, viz.,
srouta (collective sacrifices), grhya (fami ly rituals), dharma
(occupationalduties) and sulba (building of sacrificial fireplaces,
altars etc.).

According to the different levels of conditioned consciousness there are
instructions in the Vedas for worship of different controllers, with the
aim of reaching different destinations and enjoying different standards
of sense enjoyment. Agamas (emanated scriptures) are books which are
classified into five for this purpose:

     energy - Sakti - Sakta Agamas
     visible source (Sun) - Surya - Soura Agamas
     controller - Ganapati - Ganapatya Agamas
     destroyer - Siva - Saiva Agamas
     ultimate source - Visnu - Vaikhanasa Agamas

For those who are below standard for vedic purificatory process, Lord
Siva gave the Tantra sastras. These have two general classifications,
right and left. While the right aspect contains regulations for
purification for those who are grossly engaged in meat eating,
intoxication and illicit sex, the left aspect contains low class
activities like black magic etc.

>From the point of view of common human activities sense gratification is
the basis of material life. To cater to this aim, there are three paths
mentioned in the Vedas:

The karma-kanda path involves fruitive activities to gain promotion to
better planets. Using the methodology from the first five Vedangas, the
Kalpa-sutras explain this path.  Upasana-kanda involves worshiping
different controllers for promotion to their planets. The Agamas explain
this path.

Jnana-kanda involves realizing the Absolute truth in impersonal feature
for the purpose of becoming one . The Upanisads explain this path.

Though these paths are all from the Vedas, and the Vedas do explain
them, one should not think that that is all the Vedas have. The real
purpose of the Vedas is to gradually push one in the path of  self
realization to the point of surrender in devotion al service to the
Supreme Grace.

--
Ram Chandran
9374 Peter Roy Ct.
Burke, VA 22015
Ph.703-912-5790



More information about the Advaita-l mailing list