Ramana Maharshi on the Buddha (was Re: Antiquity of Advaita Vedanta)

[Ravisankar Mayavaram]

On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 11:29:13 -0600, Sankaran Kartik Jayanarayanan
<kartik at ECE.UTEXAS.EDU> wrote:

>>According to Ramana, the Buddhists misinterpreted Buddha's silence.
>
>From "Talks", Talk no. 273, 23 October, 1936:
>
>D: Buddha, when asked if there is the ego, was silent; when asked if there
>is no ego, he was silent; asked if there is God, he was silent; asked if
>there is no God, he was silent. Silence was his answer to all these.
>Mahayana and Hinayana schools have both misinterpreted his silence because
>they say that he was an atheist...His interpreters are wrong. Is it not
>so?
>
>M: You are right.

We know  what a teacher taught from:

a) his/her  writings
b) Lineage of succession -- that is,  from his disciples

Typically, these are held reliable and trustworthy.

You can add (c) from a jnani who transcends space and time. But I think
here ramaNa's answer is more to keep the welfare and promote peace in the
mind of the devotee who questioned. His question is long and clear about
what answer will put him at peace.

If indeed buddha was silent and emphasized on practice -- to be faithful to
him -- we should not speculate any further on this matter. advaita-vedAnta
is a self contained consistent system, we really need not speculate on what
buddha taught and what he did not.

(on a lighter note, answer might have been
O yeah! You are right!! :-)))
---------

Just switch topics --

1) People always find what they want from ramaNa. This morning I was
reading a page from his talks (randomly). It was on gAyatrI. bhagvan says -
there is nothing that can excel gAyatri. Only those who are incapable of
meditating on gAyatri will look for other things.

2) Just I finished listening the unabridged version of Razor's edge (while
driving) by Somerset Maugham. I think the Sage referred in that book is
ramaNa mahaRshhi. Not that it matters.