[Advaita-l] bauddha mata

[श्रीमल्ललितालालितः]

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



On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 10:33, Satish Arigela <satisharigela at yahoo.com>wrote:

>
> Many people have an incorrect understanding of the tathAgata.

They see him
> through the lenses of their own making – a pure philosopher disinterested
> in
> ritual, a proto-Marxist, a social reformer or simply a saint in the mold of
> a
> much later version.


How could you say that you are seeing without lenses ?


> But he was in reality quite different


How ? How did you reach this ?


> – he saw himself as an
> insider to the vaidika tradition of the Arya-s


Source please ?


> who was redefining its structure,
> texts and worldview from within, albeit in a rather radical manner.


What does it mean...by destruction..?


> As part of
> this activity he was on one hand a philosopher who debated with his rivals
> of
> mImAmsaka and other parivrAjaka traditions and on the other hand, like
> them, he
> too was mantravAdin. He sought to defeat them not just in philosophical
> debates
> but also emerge as a superior mantra-vAdin with more powerful mantra-s.
> This
> latter aspect is apparent in his battle with the brAhmaNa uruvela jaTila
> kAshyapa or the skull-tapping brAhmaNa va~NgIsha. While in his subversive
> philosophy departed even farther from the mainstream than the muNDaka
> upaniShat,
> it is likely that he was more conservative with his mantrashAstra. While
> the
> tathAgata probably subtly tried to encourage his own worship, in mantra
> practice
> for practical gains he still had to stick to the basics –this is in fact
> reflected in his advice to the councilors of the vR^iji gaNarAjya to
> continue
> their rituals as ordained to the deva-s and to the brAhmaNa-s to continue
> studying their veda. The MVR, coming early in the Sanskritic tradition of
> the
> tAthAgata-s, is in large part an adaptation of the Astika mantrashAstra. In
> this
> regard it tries to imitate both the proto-tAntrika as well as the late
> vaidika
>
> systems.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> The early-bauddha-s are not much differenet from shaiva-s and vaiShNava-s.
> One
> possible reason why they got seperated and isolated is because:
>  ------------------------------------------------------------
> "Likewise, both the AstIka subversionists (shaiva-s and vaiShNava-s) showed
> some
> exclusivist tendencies in their later but not early development. The
> radical
> departure of the bauddha-s was in erecting blatant nara-stuti (at least
> vAsudeva
> and balabhadra were merely emanations of viShNu) and more importantly
> rejecting
> deva-bhASha and chandas. This linguistic departure more than anything else
> was
> probably to set the bauddha mata aside for ever as a nAstIka tradition.
> This
> came as we know from siddhArtha’s own mouth as he forebade the brAhmaNas
> from
> composing his work into vedic hymns."
>

Without evidence this whole thing is useless. And what our tradition wrote
as history is opposed to this. For that you may check sha~Nkara-digvijaya of
mAdhvAchArya, and other works.