[Advaita-l] (no subject)

Bhadraiah Mallampalli vaidix at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 25 05:16:36 CST 2009

Dear Shri. Bhattacharjya, >There are lot disinformation on Lord Buddha. 
Yes, there is also a lot of misinformation about Christianity, that is why a Hinduized Bible is coming up.
Jesus learnt yoga in Kashmir so that one day India can re-colonized or a portion of Kashmir can be claimed.  >Lord Buddha was not against the brahmins. He told what a true brahmin should be like. 
>An entire chapter of Dhammapada is devoted to brahmin. He also said that the next Buddha 
>would be born in a brahmin family. He did not want the brahmins to think that Vedic ritualism 
>is the only thing for the brahmins. He did not stop the Vedic yajna of Bimbisara.  In India, castes are in other "religions" also. So they have to deal with that issue. 
West has race, so western Christians are divided on race. Coming to terms with local
issues has nothing to do with universal principles.  If the term 'brahmin' has a higher meaning, it is contra-indicated by Buddha's own 
violations of dharma.   >He only cited the Vedas to tell him that the Vedas do not sanction animal sacrifice. Agreed. Animal sacrifice is only symbolic because it can happen only when the parents,
a sibling and a creature from the same clan agrees with the sacrifice (somewhere in Ai.Br.)
Ch.U says never meats in year then never eat it life in time. 
This is just a social reformation, what does it have to do with higher inquiries?>People think that the Vedas comprise all the Samhitas, the Brahmanas, the Aranyakas 
>and the upanishads. However Lord Krishna told us in the Bhagavad Gita that he is the 
>source of the Veda as well as of the Vedanta thus drawing a difference between the two. >Sayanacharya included only the Samhita and the Brahman portion in the Vedas. 
>In the Bhagavad Gita Lord Krishna told Arjuna to go beyond the Traignyavisaya Vedas 
>and to become Nistraigunya. Mundaka Upanishad also says that Vedic knowledge is 
>Aparaa Vidya. One has to go to the Paraa Vidya.  You are batting all around. There are diverse ways to liberation, so? >If Lord Buddha can be said to be against  the Vedas then Lord Krishna and the 
>Mundaka Upanishad should also be said to be that much against the Vedas. 
>Because of the prejudiced thinking about Lord Buddha people started thinking 
>that Lord Buddha was anti-Vedic so he is anti-Hindu. The Vedic brahmins 
>of his time had to admit to Lord Buddha that the Vedas did not say that 
>one would  be able to cross the cycle of birth and death through these 
>ritualistic practices. That is why he left his home to look for the answer. 
>So much is the logic part. Lord Krishna participated in yajna, did Buddha participate in it? Did he at least recite vedas?  Krishna/Mundaka's criticism was a search for a better alternative to liberation.
Such a quest was always there in vedas. Sankara also argues when a knowledgeable 
person comes and sets up a new condition that becomes an overriding injunction
over all past practices and arguments. The vedic people of Buddha's time did not 
have a better argument against him, so they converted. Mandan Misra didn't have
a better argument against Sankara so he accepted loss. Did any Buddhist defeat
an advaitist since that time? Why do we have to accept Buddha or convert to
Buddhism without arguing about what he taught? Honoring him as a teacher
was already done by including him in avataras. Kausitaki Brahmana does say
one becomes immortal by doing agnihotra backed by the knowledge of the ritual.  >To me Lord Krishna, Lord Buddha and Adi Sankaracharya are great teachers the 
>world had seen and they do not essentially differ in their views. This is my personal view. 
>Ramakrishna Paramhansa told that there is no doubt that Lord Buddha is an Avatara of God. 
>Swami  Vivekananda told that Lord Buddha was one of the greatest teachers the world had seen.  "All religions are same". A non-serious argument. But why did Buddha not think 
vedas can also give liberation? Why is always one way? Why don't Christians say openly
vedas and upanishats give liberation? Is it just to soften the prey for a one-way conversion? >Dr. S. Radhakrishnan told that Lord Buddha was a reformer of Brahmanisn.Did or didn't he also write about Sankara being a reformer of Buddhism which got corrupted socially?  
Social reformation always happens when leading thinkers perceive some social ills.  As for reforming theory, it is now clear that the meaning of Vedas was forgotten
(due to natural causes) so there is no justification for discarding them. So much
research was done on Buddhism by his followers in subsequent centuries, now
most of it was forgotten, Buddhist books are now much like vedas whose meanings
need interpretation. There are jataka stories similar to puranas. Buddhists also included all 
features of vedic such as tantras, etc, just for the sake of competition, like Roberto De Nobili
wearing saffron clothes and the new Hinduised bible coming up. Should we now discard the
Buddhist books as well and move on to the next book? Why do research at all? Vedic culture is all about sharing ideas and argumentation and question everything.
Pramana is always a personal choice. You can personally reject MKS system as a standard, 
it is your choice. But when we tell others we need to discuss and explain why. 
We can not reject vedas or Buddha or any other religion or belief without a discussion. 
We must reject all these if we find they are wrong, which is what advaita itself says: not this, not this,
but only after a discussion. There is a huge market for belief systems because it is an easy way to 
gain market share. Discussion is hard. 
HotmailĀ® goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone. 

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list