Advaita and Buddhism( a comparison)

[renuka]

I wish some members can shed some light here..with regards to a few stanzas in Vivekachudamani.

For example there is a verse that goes:

This is the sure decision of Vedanta: Brahman is all ------ the jiva and the world.
To stay in the state constantly is what is called freedom.
And Brahman is One without a second.
The scripture is the testimony(srutyah pramAnam)

Ok this stanza above talks about the Vedas being the Testimony/Authority.


Then there are these 3 stanzas in Vivekachudamani that go:


1st stanza says:

This Atman is ever established in its own glory;that is proof by itself.
To establish it, neither time,place nor purification is necessary.



2nd stanza says:


To know that 'I am Devadatta' does not require any proof;
so,for a knower of Brahman,the knowledge that "I am Brahman" does not require proof.



The 3rd stanza says:

The Vedas,Satra-puranas and all the sacred books and all the teachers of the world have their existence through His existence.How can they manifest Him who is the Knower of all?


My points are:


1)The top most stanza says Vedas is pramAnyam.

2)The other 2 stanzas say "No proof is needed cos Atma is ever established in its own glory".

3)So the other 2 stanzas contradict the earlier stanza that Vedas is the Authority here for Brahman and the 3rd stanza says that even Vedas etc cant manifest Brahman.

4)Adi Shankara spend time debating with Buddhist and finally I feel the other 3 stanzas actually sounds very much like a Buddhistic view where one can reach the state of Buddhahood(Enlightenment) and Vedas is NOT pramAnyam that is Vedas is not a pre requisite to know the Truth.

5)So at the end of the day it seems like Adi Shankara actually "agreed' with the Buddhist.

6)I guess Lord Buddha was called Atheistic for nothing at all!(even though He would have really meant that the Vedas is not pramAnyam to know Brahman)

[Amrut]

I wish some members can shed some light here..with regards to a few stanzas in Vivekachudamani.

For example there is a verse that goes:

This is the sure decision of Vedanta: Brahman is all ------ the jiva and the world.
To stay in the state constantly is what is called freedom.
And Brahman is One without a second.
The scripture is the testimony(srutyah pramAnam)

Ok this stanza above talks about the Vedas being the Testimony/Authority.


Then there are these 3 stanzas in Vivekachudamani that go:


1st stanza says:

<content Clipped>

Namaste,

First quote you gave is taken from vyavahArika satya
rest other verses are talking from standpoint of supreme reality - pArmArthika satya.

We will have to consider both POV. Vedas become non-vedas, etc are found in shruti, as their purpose is solved and there is no point to keep reading them. shruti is pramANa is only vaild within realm of ignorance i.e. for us sAdhaka and not for siddha, one who is established in Self.

The fact the we have to renounce vedas, is said in other shruti-s too. If I am able to pin point the verses I will present them.

A true vedika will never say that advaita has buddhist influence, s/he will say that buddhism is influenced by advaita.

OM

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Some ref from shastras

Uttara Gita

1.21. As milk is not necessary for a person who is already satisfied with the drink of nectar, so also Vedas are not required for man who has already known the Supreme Deity.

Avadhoot Gita

1.34. There are no Vedas, no worlds, no gods, no sacrifices. There is certainly no caste, no stage in life, no family, no birth. There is neither the path of smoke nor the path of light. There is only the highest Truth, the homogeneous Brahman.

Tejo Bindu Upanishad

35-38. Therefore the four moving considerations and the three kinds of relationship exist not. There is no Ganga, no Gaya, no Setu (bridge), no elements or anything else, no earth, water, fire, Vayu and Akasa anywhere, no Devas, no guardians of the four quarters, no Vedas, no Guru, no distance, no proximity, no time, no middle, no non-duality, no truth, no untruth, no bondage, no emancipation, no Sat, no Asat, no happiness, etc., no class, no motion, no caste and no worldly business.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

IV-iii-22: In this state a father is no father, a mother no mother, worlds no worlds, the gods no gods, the Vedas no Vedas. In this state a thief is no thief, the killer of a noble Brahmana no killer, a Chandala no Chandala, a Pulkasa no Pulkasa, a monk no monk, a hermit no hermit. (This form of his) is untouched by good work and untouched by evil work, for he is then beyond all the woes of his heart (intellect).

OM

[Amrut]

AtmA upanishad

II-5(b)-6. What discipline is required to know, ‘this is a pot’, except the adequacy of the means of right knowledge ? Once it is given, the knowledge of the object (supervenes). The ever present Self shines when the means of Its cognition (is present).

II-7. Neither place nor time nor purity is required. The knowledge ‘I am Devadatta’ depends on nothing else.

II-8. Similarly, the knowledge ‘I am Brahman’ of the Knower of Brahman (is independent). Just as the whole world by the sun, by the splendour of the Knowledge of Brahman is everything illumined.

II-9-10(a). What can illumine the non-existent, and illusory, non-Self ? That which endows the Vedas, Shastras, Puranas and all other beings with import – that Knower what will illumine ?

OM

[hinduism♥krishna]

PranAm,

This is the reason why some persons can not comprehend Advaita in its true essence. They may know all is Brahman or Jiva is Brahman, but this is even refuted by the highest aspect of knowledge, which is known as Nirguna Knowledge. Such knowledge can not be expressed in just words. It is understood only at the consciousness level. I'd understood such abstract knowledge only at the age of 13. Without reading any scripture, I had realised that all is one, differences are not real and all jiva are one. So from where such knowledge came? Through scriptures or through my consciousness?

2nd stanza says:

To know that 'I am Devadatta' does not require any proof;
so,for a knower of Brahman,the knowledge that "I am Brahman" does not require proof.

Yes, there is no need of proof to establish the glory of Atma who is everlasting free from bondage. 'I am Brahman ' conviction can be attained only through sharp logical reasoning and by meditating on the self.

The Vedas,Satra-puranas and all the sacred books and all the teachers of the world have their existence through His existence.How can they manifest Him who is the Knower of all?

Yes,these Shastras and Puranas are the subjects of Ignorant people and Vedas had to come at the level of Ignorant man, thinking according to Maya. Veda has no gut to manifest brahman which is not in the scope of words.

Veda doesn't tell us what is actually Brahman. If the mind can not even touch it, how can veda manifest Brahman? No one can manifest Brahman, which is eternal beyond any attribute. What I say, manifestation of Brahman is never possible.

Veda's secret is that it does nothing yet people think Veda gives Moksha. It's just a great illusion. See how mysterious this is, without doing anything it removes Maya. It uses Maya (Knoweledge) itself to remove Maya. It's just like removing one thorn by another thorn. Veda cleverly assume dualities and in the end merging all dualities in the Brahman becomes quite, without saying what actually is Brahman.

So it is very clear that veda imparts knowledge, which is itself born out of Maya. Though it seems that veda is removing ignorance which is veiled over Jiva, it does nothing. Because this ignorance is imagined on true base of Brahman and has no any existence at all. So if this is the reality, how would veda remove non-existent ignorance ? Eg. Ignorant person is seeing foot prints of bird in the sky, he's imagining this. Other well-minded person is saying to him ' Stop this dreaming. There are not footprints at all.' That person awakes and see the reality. So think deeply !Has that person revealed the bird without footprints in a real sense or was he actually seeing that bird only? He was already seeing it (Bird) but was imagining its footprints. Similarly Jiva is already established in Brahman. Though there appears ignorance or knowledge, there's no any change in Brahman. So calling veda has removed ignorance or has manifested Brahman, both these statements are untrue.

4)Adi Shankara spend time debating with Buddhist and finally I feel the other 3 stanzas actually sounds very much like a Buddhistic view where one can reach the state of Buddhahood(Enlightenment) and Vedas is NOT pramAnyam that is Vedas is not a pre requisite to know the Truth.

No need to demolish veda's essence.. What is veda and its real essence is out of the scope of unintelligents.

So at the end of the day it seems like Adi Shankara actually "agreed' with the Buddhist.

Instead of concluding this through vague intellect, I'd suggest you to grow up and increase your logical reasoning power at both intellect and consciousness level. By doing this only, mystery of Shankara's greatest teachings will get unveiled.

I guess Lord Buddha was called Atheistic for nothing at all!(even though He would have really meant that the Vedas is not pramAnyam to know Brahman)

Adi Shankara never rejected Veda Pramana, otherewise he would not have quoted so many verses from scriptures, so if someone is quite intelligent he would not say shankara rejected veda. He would say there must something another reason for why shankara has said that. Use your common sense . Veda-Purana are under the field of maya. Adi Shankara has viewed them comparing with pure highest Brahman. If you are not understanding how, then, I think, you should stay at peace, no need to distort Shankara's vedic teachings into Atheists Buddhists teachings.

Thank You

[renuka]

PranAm,

This is the reason why some persons can not comprehend Advaita in its true essence. They may know all is Brahman or Jiva is Brahman, but this is even refuted by the highest aspect of knowledge, which is known as Nirguna Knowledge. Such knowledge can not be expressed in just words. It is understood only at the consciousness level. I'd understood such abstract knowledge only at the age of 13. Without reading any scripture, I had realised that all is one, differences are not real and all jiva are one. So from where such knowledge came? Through scriptures or through my consciousness?

Yes, there is no need of proof to establish the glory of Atma who is everlasting free from bondage. 'I am Brahman ' conviction can be attained only through sharp logical reasoning and by meditating on the self.



Yes,these Shastras and Puranas are the subjects of Ignorant people and Vedas had to come at the level of Ignorant man, thinking according to Maya. Veda has no gut to manifest brahman which is not in the scope of words.

Veda doesn't tell us what is actually Brahman. If the mind can not even touch it, how can veda manifest Brahman? No one can manifest Brahman, which is eternal beyond any attribute. What I say, manifestation of Brahman is never possible.

Veda's secret is that it does nothing yet people think Veda gives Moksha. It's just a great illusion. See how mysterious this is, without doing anything it removes Maya. It uses Maya (Knoweledge) itself to remove Maya. It's just like removing one thorn by another thorn. Veda cleverly assume dualities and in the end merging all dualities in the Brahman becomes quite, without saying what actually is Brahman.

So it is very clear that veda imparts knowledge, which is itself born out of Maya. Though it seems that veda is removing ignorance which is veiled over Jiva, it does nothing. Because this ignorance is imagined on true base of Brahman and has no any existence at all. So if this is the reality, how would veda remove non-existent ignorance ? Eg. Ignorant person is seeing foot prints of bird in the sky, he's imagining this. Other well-minded person is saying to him ' Stop this dreaming. There are not footprints at all.' That person awakes and see the reality. So think deeply !Has that person revealed the bird without footprints in a real sense or was he actually seeing that bird only? He was already seeing it (Bird) but was imagining its footprints. Similarly Jiva is already established in Brahman. Though there appears ignorance or knowledge, there's no any change in Brahman. So calling veda has removed ignorance or has manifested Brahman, both these statements are untrue.

No need to demolish veda's essence.. What is veda and its real essence is out of the scope of unintelligents.

Instead of concluding this through vague intellect, I'd suggest you to grow up and increase your logical reasoning power at both intellect and consciousness level. By doing this only, mystery of Shankara's greatest teachings will get unveiled.


Adi Shankara never rejected Veda Pramana, otherewise he would not have quoted so many verses from scriptures, so if someone is quite intelligent he would not say shankara rejected veda. He would say there must something another reason for why shankara has said that. Use your common sense . Veda-Purana are under the field of maya. Adi Shankara has viewed them comparing with pure highest Brahman. If you are not understanding how, then, I think, you should stay at peace, no need to distort Shankara's vedic teachings into Atheists Buddhists teachings.

Thank You

Thanks for your reply but you can see my post was asking members opinion..everyone can share their opinions without the need to hint about the presumed ignorance of the poster.

I thought someone was asking in another thread..why not many people post in HDF..this could be one the reasons..being shot down right away and be 'accused" of trying to "distort Shankara's vedic teachings into Atheists Buddhists teachings"

Lets all learn to agree and disagree with each other to enhance our understanding..that is why we have a HDF to start with.

Try not to see anyone who has different views as thy enemy.


Anyway thanks for your post and reply.Glad to know you were in line with Atma Shatakam at age 13 even though you might need to sing the 1st line again "Mano Buddhi Ahankara Chitta Ninaham"..Ahankar is not easy to conquer.

[Amrut]

More from AtmA upanishad

II-27(b). Bondage and liberation may be described as real and unreal and as due to the nescience (concealment of truth).

II-28-29. Brahman suffers from no concealment whatsoever. It is uncovered, there being nothing other than It (to cover It). The ideas, ‘it is’ and ‘it is not’, as regards Reality, are only ideas in the intellect. They do not pertain to the eternal Reality. So bondage and liberation are set up by Maya and do not pertain to the Self.

II-30. In the supreme Truth as in the sky, impartite, inactive, quiescent, flawless, unstained and non-dual where is room for (mental) construction ?

II-31. Neither suppression nor generation, neither the bond nor the striving: neither the liberty seeking nor the liberated – this is the metaphysical truth.

Note:

If there is no bondage (from standpoint of absolute reality), then there is no freedom, hence there is no need for vedas which teach us to 'become free'

I like AtmA Upanishad

OM

[renuka]

Namaste,

First quote you gave is taken from vyavahArika satya
rest other verses are talking from standpoint of supreme reality - pArmArthika satya.

We will have to consider both POV. Vedas become non-vedas, etc are found in shruti, as their purpose is solved and there is no point to keep reading them. shruti is pramANa is only vaild within realm of ignorance i.e. for us sAdhaka and not for siddha, one who is established in Self.

The fact the we have to renounce vedas, is said in other shruti-s too. If I am able to pin point the verses I will present them.

A true vedika will never say that advaita has buddhist influence, s/he will say that buddhism is influenced by advaita.

OM

I found a very beautiful link today and wish to share it with members here.

I would just like to differ here a little..my post was about a comparison and not really saying one influenced another...its like comparing butter and curd and both have the same origin that is Milk.

BTW this is the link I would like to share with members.

http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/co...1981_02_01.pdf

[hinduism♥krishna]

.being shot down right away and be 'accused" of trying to "distort Shankara's vedic teachings into Atheists Buddhists te

PranAm, Renuka.

I am not accusing you. But 'At the end Shankara accepted buddhism' is so offensive to advaitians and some kind of attack on Advaita and that too completely baseless. I didn't get a feeling ,while reading your tread, that you're presenting your view.

Thank You.

[renuka]

PranAm, Renuka.

I am not accusing you. But 'At the end Shankara accepted buddhism' is so offensive to advaitians and some kind of attack on Advaita and that too completely baseless. I didn't get a feeling ,while reading your tread, that you're presenting your view.

Thank You.

Dear Krishna,

I was presenting my view...in fact I started the thread asking members to shed some light on this.

I just wanted everyone's views on this and wrote my post in point to point format to make it easier for everyone to respond.