[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Article : About Hinduism and Buddhism
Giri <gmadras@engr.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
>Can you provide some sort of proof that the Tibetan system believe
>in *changeless* ultimate reality (brahman) ? I guess Shankara and others
>would agree on a changeless brahman. To support the tibetan system, a quote
>from the Dalai lama would be nice.
No, Dalai Lama will not state this the way you have said. The
Upanishadic statement is a positive statement. The Tibetan statement is a
negative reading of the Ultimate Reality. In his book "The Essential Teachings"
, Dalai Lama says this about the Ultimate Reality called Shunyata: "When our
understanding of the view of shunyata becomes more profound, we have an
experience of it and we then realize that the "I" that appears real and
independent to us has in fact no existence whatsoever.(p 117)" Apparently, in
this experience you will find that the entire phenomenal world has disappeared,
everything is empty, because the "I" has vanished. Now the point here is that
Dalai Lama calls this "I" the atman. We will of course call this "I" ego. In
fact if you read the book you will feel that you are reading Advaita except
that he is calling the ego atman and he is showing that the atman does not
exist because it disappears during the experience of Shunyata! The Ultimate
Reality, Shunyata, is experienced when "I" and the phenomenal world has
disappeared. Does this not sound like a negative description of Brahman?
>> however, one major difference. Hindus believe that the Atman transmigrates
>> from one birth to another.
>Not neccessarily. Neither did Shankara. If you forget the
>wranglings on defining hinduism, you can safely assume Shankara is a
>Hindu. See upadeshasahasri (Prose,50) 'The teacher says 'You are the
>*non-transmigratory* supreme self, but you wrongly think you are one
>liable to transmigration.'..' Or see upadeshasahasri (18,44) 'Who is the
>experiencer of transmigatory existence as it cannot belong to the Self
>which is changeless, neither to the reflection which is not real nor to
>the ego which is not a conscious entity.' I will leave it to you to
>read 18,55 for the answer.
You are taking the absolute point of view. From that point of view
there is no birth, no death, no world and no liberation. Only Brahman is.
I am taking the relative point of view. From that perspective all these
things exist and the Atman transmigrates. Actually, you can not even talk
of the liberated individual from the absolute point of view. It is because
you are so knowledgable that you even caught this. One other netter also
pointed this out.
>>Sri Ramakrishna says that both positions are true and depends on the
>> wish of the liberated person. If the liberated person is a devotee, he will
>> not want to become sugar but want to eat sugar. Thus the devotee will retain
>> his individuality to enjoy God's love. On the other hand, those who are
>>jnani wants to merge with Brahman. Sri Ramakrishna also makes the point that
>Let me ask you this. If the person is liberated (a jnani), does
>(s)he have an individual will or wish other than the wish of Brahman ?
>As I understand it, you are trying to say that if the devotee wishes to
>become one with Vishnu (for example), his wish will be granted and he
>will become a jnani. That would be ridiculous from a dvatic view
>(especially the eternal bheda funda).
You are assuming that only the Jnani is liberated. What about the
devotee? You are taking the classic Advaita position. Sri Ramakrishna does
not agree with that. About your question about the Jnani all I can say is that
whatever the Jnani wishes will come true. I do not know more than that.
Now my answer to your question about the devotee: Yes, if the devotee
asks the Personal God for Jnana, then in Sri Ramakrishna's view, it will be
granted. This is because in his view, the absolute is an aspect of the Personal
God. Brahman is Personal-Impersonal with many Personal forms. Also when the
devotee becomes one with the Absolute aspect of the Personal God, the Personal
God is not sublated. The Personal God, out of love for the devotee, holds His
or Her Personal Form in abeyance. Of course, a devotee can not merge with the
Personal Form Itself.
It is possible that dvaitis will not agree with this view. They
reject Shankara's Advaita position also. I find Sri Ramakrishna's view more
reasonable than the classic Advaita, Vishsistadvaita or dvaita points of view.
I, however, realize that many will not agree with me.
>> Nirvikalpa Samadhi. In that state there is no I and thus no you and thus no
>> world. However, you can not keep yourself at such a high state and your
>> consciousness has to come down. Then you see the world again. Thus Sri
>> Ramakrishna says that the Advaita position is a philosophical position. He
>Nisargadatta Maharaj has explicity stated that 'he does not come
>down.' It (non-dualism) is not a philosophical position, but a position
>which is experienced in daily life by the jnanis. Or are you just denying
>them ?
Let me first discuss the classical Advaita position about this issue.
I know you are aware of this but it will help me formulate my answer. Then I
will give the view of Sri Ramakrishna and then I will answer your question.
Advaita Position
It is commonly believed that in meditation the highest stage is
Nirvikalpa Samadhi where a man experiences the Absolute (Brahman). In that
stage all connections with the relative world are severed. In classical
Advaita this complete separation is assumed to mean the sublation of all
objectivity. What does sublation of objectivity mean? It means the total
non-existence of the world even when it is perceived. Thus what Nisargadatta
Maharaj is saying is that the world (including the person he is talking) is
nonexistent even when Nisargadatta Maharaj is talking to him. This is because
his mind has forever severed all connection with the relative plane.
You may ask what has happened to N. Maharaj's ego sense. After all
he still has a body. The explanation given is, that the Prarabdha (previous)
Karma is the reason for the ego sense and the body of the Jivanmukta (free
while living). The analogy given is that of an arrow already released which
will continue till it reaches the target. The Sanchita (stored up) and Agami
(future) Karmas are, however, all burnt up in Enlightenment. There is a catch
in this explanation, however. This explanation is really for the Murkha (dull-
witted) person. The real story is that for the Jivan-mukta the body has
already disappeared. If you or I actually see the body of the Jivan-mukta then
this is really the product of our ignorance. You may wonder why the Jivan-
mukta does not have a body. The reason is, since his mind is in the absolute
plane, it has no connection with the body and hence such a body can not really
exist. It is our mind that keeps our body alive. If all connection with the
body is severed we will not even feel hungry.
Sri Ramakrishna's Position
He disagrees with Sankara's position on Jivan-mukta. He says that
the jivan-mukta (or Vijnani) can move from the absolute to the relative. That
is why he does have an ego-sense and does have a body. This ego-sense is,
however, not like our ego-sense but is really the Will of God (or in his
case the Divine Mother). He disagrees with the idea of the Prarabdha Karma
because according to him Karma by itself is insentient. Karma is an expression
of the Divine Will. The Karmic arrow will stop as soon as God wills it. Thus
the Jivan-mukta is forever free of all kinds of Karma. He also disagrees with
the Advaita position that the Jivan-mukta sees the world to be non-existent
even when he is perceiving it. Sri Ramakrishna agrees with Sri Shankara that
the Jivan-mukta does have a completely different perception of the world
compared to the unenlightened. The Jivan-mukta actually sees in agreement with
the Upanishads that only Brahman is. That, however, does not mean that the
world is non-existent. In fact he sees that the world is real only because
Brahman sports as the world.
I do not deny Nisargadatta Maharaj's experience. I do not understand
it. I do not see how he can see the non-existence of the world even when he is
talking to an inhabitant of that world. I just find Sri Ramakrishna's
explanation more reasonable.
>>What does a monk renunciate ? Wealth/action or ego ? Did buddha
>>say that renunciation of action is necessary ?
>From what I have understood, monks have to renunciate ego and evil desires.
I do not know the answer to your last question.
Regards
Pradip
