[Advaita-l] (no subject)

Sunil Bhattacharjya sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com
Tue Jan 27 02:57:57 CST 2009

Dear Shri Mallampalli,
<<>>The vedic people of Buddha's time did not have a better argument against him, so they converted.>>
This was your statement and not mine. You are throughly confused Shri Mallampalli.
<<and only those who get brahmajnanam end cycle of birth an death.>>
Brahmajnanam cannot be obtained by riruals alone. Adi Sankaracharya did not say that Brahmjnanam can be obtained by rituals alone. You need to read Adi Sankaracharya's work again and that too carefully. A Brahmajnani too will have to do his nitya naimittic Karma. Any action of a Brahmajnani is niskama karma. A Brahmajnanai does not shun the essential work. 
Sunil Kumar Bhattacharjya

--- On Mon, 1/26/09, Bhadraiah Mallampalli <vaidix at hotmail.com> wrote:

From: Bhadraiah Mallampalli <vaidix at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Advaita-l] (no subject)
To: advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Date: Monday, January 26, 2009, 9:48 AM

Dear Shri Bhattacharjya, 
>>The vedic people of Buddha's time did not have a better argument
>>against him, so they converted.
I admire those who converted after hearing a better argument. That is our
>If you have a better argument please do give us and it will be your great
>gift to the world. Do you think that the vedic rituals alone can end the
>cycle of birth and death?
As far as ending the cycle of birth and death goes, Adi Sankara had already
given this necessary arguments. There is nothing to add. He said those
who do not practice rites fall down, those who practice rites alone travel
via path of smoke to reach lunar region, those who practice rites with
meditation go to solar region via path of light, and >>The vedic people of Buddha's time did not have a better argument
>>against him, so they converted. 
If the people doing yajnas claimed they can end cycle of life and death
through doing yajnas, that is their problem. 
What we were originally discussing was whether vedas can be taken as
pramana or not, which has nothing to do with this new question re: ending
cycle of life and birth. 
If vedas are not pramana, upanishats also cease to be pramana (for purva
mimamsiks) and we lose the maha vakyas. I can not comment on uttara
mimamsa followers). Once vedas are accepted as pramana, then the
upanishats which are a part of vedas would kick into effect and we will
have ways and means to attain brahmajnana (yes, yes, removal of
The yajna is just a reflection or foot print of what goes on inside the
individual as the person gets brahmajnanam, so it is deemed to be a
pramana according to purva mimamsa followers. Events that happen in a
person not having brahmajnanam can not be accurately recorded or
described by the person himself, so those events cease to brahmajnanam;
but if some one else (who has brahmajnanam) who would be a guru to this
person can see or sense those events accurately then again this person
can gear up the events for apaurusheya status.   
>>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
>You are thoroughly confused. We are not talking about the scholarship of
>any buddhist scholar. We are talking of Lord Buddha's teachings. 
Agreed, but Adi Sankara and Buddha did not meet each other, so we can't
coment on this. I remember a remark by a commentator of Alatasanti
that Buddhism was a close approximation to advaita, implying the former is
included as a special case of latter. 
>Adi Sankaracharya did not agree with th arguments of the yogachara
>school as advanced by Dignaga and Dharmakirti but that does not mean
>that he denounced Lord Buddha's teachings.  Secondly who is talking of
>converting to Buddhism? I am  a Hindu and a follower of Adi
>Sankaracharya. But I do not know about your religious affiliation.
>Honouring Lord Buddha has been done by people who understood him and
>not by those who did not understand Lord Buddha.
Agreed, but nobody should be "denouncing" Buddha's teachings. It
is just a
matter of argumentation. What Buddha declared as dhamma doesn't
exactly correspond to dharma of vedic terminology. Nirvana doesn't
correspond to kaivalya and other concepts. There is no sameness between
the Buddhist and advaitist ideas; there are many differences. It is up to
individual person to study both and decide what to accept or what not to
accept. But then, it is a natural process that people do change their
opinion after understanding that one's own point of view is wrong according
to pramanas set by oneself. This happens when we study others' opinion,
analyze using our own standards, and realize others' opinions are right or
wrong. If others are right and we are wrong it could be that our pramana
itself in question, so we revise the pramanas. Rejecting Shruti as pramana
without studying it is not the correct procedure. If you say Buddha had
indeed studied vedas why did not stumble upon the mahavakyas? Why did
he not comment on them giving a prime opportunity to Sankara? If
Lord Buddha was busy doing his own meditation to discover something
new that is well and good and I have no dispute (this is my opinion about
Buddha). But his followers could take up the task of comparing with Shrutis
word by word and put up their case. 
Hotmail® goes where you go. On a PC, on the Web, on your phone. 

Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/

To unsubscribe or change your options:

For assistance, contact:
listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org


More information about the Advaita-l mailing list