[Advaita-l] nAstika mata (bauddha mata) khaNDana in rAmAyaNa

[Sunil Bhattacharjya]

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaaya

Namaste,

Unlike what many people thiunk Lord Buddha had utmost regard for the Veda and he advised the brahmins of his time to understand the true meaning of the Veda. In fact he wanted to take his next birth in a brahmin family, obviously to show how an ideal  brahmin should lead his life. Adi Sankaracharya fits the bill..

One has to understand the true meaning of the Vedas as lord Buddha had advised. One who has understood the scriptures does not need them any more. You seem to have missed the Lord Krishna's statement: 

yaavaanartha udapaane sarvatah  samplutudake
taavaansarveshu vedeshu braahmanashya vijaanatah

Sincerely,

Sunil KB
--- On Sun, 5/1/11, श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com> wrote:

From:
 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] nAstika mata (bauddha mata) khaNDana in rAmAyaNa
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org>
Date: Sunday, May 1, 2011, 4:59 PM

*श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <http://www.lalitaalaalitah.com>
lalitAlAlitaH <http://about.me/lalitaalaalitah/bio>*



On Sun, May 1, 2011 at 10:57, Sunil Bhattacharjya <
sunil_bhattacharjya at yahoo.com> wrote:

> One has to go beyond the shastras


What do you mean by "go beyond" ?
If "we have to perceive more than what is
 propounded in shAstra" , then tell
me the mean by which you will do that. Not with your mind, as it is not
pramANam. Not with meditation, repeating vR^itti of one AkAra only produces
concentration and nothing more. And if it produces something it means you
mind was deviated from that. Moreover, mind is not pramANam too.
And what is the basis of you words. Your free will or any word of shAstra
itself.
You are not someone with extra organs for perception of things which are
beyond grasp of others. Moreover, there is always chance to doubt you as
fraud, etc. So, "one has too.." is of no use.
If words have origin in shAstram, then you have to get it's meaning so that
it is not contradicted with other parts of it as "तं त्वौपनिषदं पुरुषम्"
etc.

as they are meant to aid our understanding of the truth and once truth is
> realised the shastras are left behind.


If
 this was meant by first part of your sentence, then we have no conflicts.


> Lord Buddha also said that one has to do free enquiry for oneself  and not
> necessarily stick to what a great man says or what the shastra (with the
> different interpretations) says.


Free inquiry ?  Free from Apta and shAstram you mean ? Then why you said
that "they are meant to aid".

What matters is one's own realization.  Lord Buddha never said that there is
> no God.
>

Own realization is OK. But if you mean own realization originating from
"Free inquiry", then I've to  say something. How would you determine
whatever you realize is truth and not imagination. Same for meditation. One
who is doing "free inquiry"can not have knowledge of truth. So the thing on
which he meditates is not truth too. Now tell me the mean by which you came
to know that there is a relation between
 meditation and realization , i.e.,
meditation on an unreal thing will lead you to realization of real.
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

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