Originally Posted by
silence_speaks
Dear savithru,
Whether truth was on my side or not is not the matter.
the matter is what is the Truth. There is no place for personal feelings and emotions here.
Absolutely, this is nothing personal, its about the Truth which you followers of Shankara fail to understand.
What do you want me to prove or disprove ?
You have some views. you base them on belief ....
I cannot prove or disprove your belief... since belief is a belief, not based on logical deductions.
Belief is based on scriptures and tradition and that is our ultimate Pramana and Pradhana and not logical deductions. Our Rishis were not Logicians.
And then you claim Shankara taught buddhism ... if so what ? Buddha was an enlightened one ... its good that there are so many similarities ! That just goes to show that liberated living is nearly the same, expressions may be slightly different !
What similarities? Buddhism is completely incompatible with the Vedas and the Upanishads and Shankara himself criticized Buddhist philosophy fanatically.
General assessment of Buddhist philosophy
"No further special discussion is required. From whatever points of view the Buddhist systems are tested with regard to their plausibility, they cave in on all sides, like the walls of a well dug in sandy soil. [Buddhist philosophy] has, in fact, no foundation whatever to rest upon, and thus it is foolish to adopt it as a guide in the practical concerns of life. Moreover, the Buddha,3 by presenting three mutually contradictory systems of philosophy — teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of consciousness-only, and general emptiness — has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to making incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings moved him to propound absurd doctrines that would thoroughly confuse all who might take him seriously. Thus, the Buddha's doctrine must be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness."
- Shankara
Shankara's commentary on the Vedanta Sutras
Only ignorant and foolish people think that Buddhism is compatible with the Vedas and the Upanishads. Sure there are different levels of enlightenment and Buddha too was enlightened but that doesn't mean his teachings should be taken as the ultimate ignoring what the Sruti texts are saying about the ultimate reality.
From your quotations etc I get a doubt. Is Aurobindo's Advaita also called "Vishishtadvaita " ?
Love!
Silence
No, Ramanuja gives too much emphasis to the Saguna Brahman ignoring its Akhand attributeless Nirguna qualities. Aurobindo's advaita dates back to at least 3000 BC and Brahman is both Saguna and Nirguna which is the only correct view.
- What does Nirguna Brahman mean?
Ramanuja argues vehemently against understanding Brahman as one without attributes. Brahman is Nirguna in the sense that impure qualities do not touch it. He provides three valid reasons for staking such a claim:
Shruti/ Shabda Pramana: All shrutis and shabdas denoting Brahman always list either attributes inherent to Brahman or not inherent to Brahman. The shrutis only seek to deny Brahman from possessing impure and defective qualities which affect the world of beings. There is evidence in the shrutis to this regard. The shrutis proclaim Brahman to be beyond the tri-gunas which are observed. However, Brahman possesses an infinite number of transcendental attributes, the evidence of which is given in vakhyas like "satyam jnanam anantam Brahma" (Taittiriya Upanishad).
Pratyaksha Pramana: Ramanuja states that "a contentless cognition is impossible". And all cognition must necessarily involve knowing Brahman through the attributes of Brahman.
Anumana Pramana: Ramanuja states that "Nirgunatva" itself becomes an attribute of Brahman on account of the uniqueness of no other entity being Nirguna. Ramanuja had simplified relationship between bramha and soul.According to him though soul is integral part of bramha it has independent existence.
- Vishishtadvaita
Bookmarks