[Prev][Next][Index]
Re: Lord Buddha
-
To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: Lord Buddha
-
From: Bon Giovanni <bongiovanni@delphi.com>
-
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 95 21:46:15 -0500
-
From news@news1.delphi.com Wed Mar 22 21: 58:07 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Delphi (info@delphi.com email, 800-695-4005 voice)
-
References: <3ko13i$o39@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Nathan Parker <nparker@crl.com> writes:
> "Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord
>Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose
>of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist." (S.B. 1.3.24)
>
> Srila Prabhupada gives a detailed description of Lord Buddha and
Those who see that verse in Sanskrit, might note that there is no such
phrase as `just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of
the faithful theist. Sura might be considered faithful theists by those
who take themselves as faithful theists, but that is not what the verse
says. It is good to look at commentary, but not good to mistake Commentary
for Scripture. A word for word interlinear might serve all readers, should
any have such at hand.
I spent the day noting the many commentaries in the Tenth Canto of The ISKCON
version of Srimad Bhagavatam, and now appreciate why some argue more than others
asto what a verse means. It is good to note that commentary is not Scripture.
The following is my commentary, and as ever, unless I quote my elders, this is
but my opinion.
------------------------------------------------
--&&&&'------------&&'--------------------------
-&&'-&&'----------------------------------------
-&&'-----&&&&'----&&&'--&&'&&&'--&&&&'---&&'&&'-
--&&&&'-----&&'----&&'---&&&'&&'----&&'-&&&&&&&'
-----&&'-&&&&&'----&&'---&&'-----&&&&&'-&&'&'&&'
-&&'-&&'&&'-&&'----&&'---&&'----&&'-&&'-&&'&'&&'
--&&&&'--&&&'&&'--&&&&'-&&&&'----&&&'&&'&&'--&&'
------------------------------------------------
Using the tweezers of the knowledge of the truth I have managed to extract the
painful thorn of endless opinions from the recesses of my heart.
-Ashtavakragita 19.1
It is said that Buddha did not reach God, He reached Nirvana. One might ask,
but God-realisation, Moksha, Nirvana- what is the difference.
There is only one yoga, only one mystic union: mergence via devotion. Since
Buddha never addressed God, He never sought union or devotion with God, and so
never knew the bliss of yoga: union. How can God-realization exempt God? See,
that is just what Buddha did- He exempted GOD from mental formulation and so
denied Himself the chance to experience GOD. The difference between
GOD-realization and Nirvana is that the self in Nirvana appears as Illusion,
while in God-realization the self, which Buddha willfully called illusion,
flowers as Creation/Creator/Creating. Icchashakthi persists to the very end,
and can influence all mentation.
Nirvana is the conscious ending of all conditioned vritti, vasana and
fascination with senses- that leads to a steadiness of profound calm and
samadhi. It could be likened to sahaj samadhi. There are levels beyond that,
levels which even the Buddha did not experience, but only because He willed
not to- He decided God was but a delusion. Because GOD is ever gracious, He
permited Buddha that conclusion and did not reveal Himself. God frequently
seems to absent Himself where He is not appreciated.
Moksha, freedom, is in one sense Nirvana, but Nirvana is not full Moksha.
Moksha is knowing who You are, and living accordingly. Nirvana is knowing who
you are not. Buddha experienced freedom from discursive thoughts and the
awakening of the divine intellect. YOGA is more than that.
Whatever concept the devotee, or critic, holds of Deity, the Lord will make
that faith firm. Thus it is very important to have neither preference nor
repulsion in finding Him, or oneself. Preferences and repuslions are good for
beginners, unfortunate in Buddhas.
*+*
> Technically Lord Buddhas philosophy is called atheistic because
>there is no acceptance of the Supreme Lord and because that system of
>philosophy denied the authority of the Vedas. But that is an act of
>camouflage by the Lord. Lord Buddha is the incarnat ion of the Godhead. As
>such, he is the original propounder of Vedic knowledge. He therefore
>cannot reject Vedic philosophy. But he rejected it outwardly because the
Anyone who can find any Scripture (not commentary) saying that the Avatar comes
`only just for deluding' is welcome to post it. Lord Buddha is accepted as
Avatar, and thus must have come for some reason other than to `delude'. I
suspect
that He came in order to cleanse the buddhi, and that He does a superb job of
that. Vipassana practicioners tend to have far less an argumentative nature
than any of their critics.
This is my considered opinion.
*+*
