|
| Stego's FAQ on Nepal travel v.3 - Culture & Religion 2/2 |
|
|
Keywords: Culture & Religion
From: Tilak B. Shrestha <[email protected]>
| Date: 96.04.17 | (Id.: 230) |
People asked Buddha - 'Are you a god ?'. Buddha replied - 'No'. 'Are you an angel ?'. 'No'. 'Then what are you ?'. 'I am enlightened, I am Buddha'. He asks to throw away all mental chain, and to critically examine any 'belief system'. He will ask - 'on what basis ?' about every thing. 'What is the enlightenment ?'. 'It cannot be taught, as a sleeping person would not know the state of being awake. When you get enlightened then you would know for yourself. I can only show you a way, cannot make you enlightened'.
Hindus believe he is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu - the preserver.
He was born 'Sidhart Gautam' in Nepal, a prince, around 560 B.C., married, had a child and lived a luxurious life. But he was acutely aware of the worldly 'suffering '. It really troubled him a lot, and finally decided to search for the cure leaving everything behind. He tried many ways. He tried ascetism and almost died of hunger. He went to many schools and many masters, but he failed to find the answer. One day he was meditating under a fig tree, then suddenly he became enlightened. Thus arose the Buddha.
He taught to hold to the truth objectively and not to be swayed by emotion. One day a pupil greeted him as the most wise person of all times. Buddha asked - 'I assume you know about all the people before me'. 'No Buddha'. 'I assume you know about all the people after me'. 'No Buddha'. 'Then how do you know I am the most wise man ?'.
Buddha asks for personal effort - 'Be lamp on to yourself'. He asks not to be lead by any authority, tradition, book, or miracles; but to 'know for yourself'. Buddha requests to the people claiming to be able to perform miracle - 'please lay an egg'. He insists on the way of knowledge. Miracles/rituals are interesting to observe, but does not add to your knowledge. What you know for sure, however insignificant it may be, is lot better than ununderstood miracles, however spectacular it may be.
Buddha is always focused to his main theme of world's 'suffering'. 'I do not say world is eternal, nor I say world is not eternal. I do not say soul and body is same, nor I say soul and body are different. I do not say this, nor I do say that. Because in any event the suffering exist. Solution for the suffering has nothing to do with any of these metaphysical views. If a person is struck with an arrow, then first thing to do is to pull out the arrow. That is the direct cure for the suffering. Not to sit down and insist that I will not pull this arrow out untill I know what kind of arrow shaft it is, or how the bow is made, or whether the person who shot the arrow is fat or tall.
Buddha is empirical, and asks to go by what we can put our hands on. 'I do not teach whether soul exist or does not exist.
Because for a human being it is not possible to know for sure the existence or nonexistence of soul. Why do people 'like' to believe in existence of soul ?. Because it helps lay down the fear of death, and helps vanity of being immortal. Here, we can recognize and do some thing about the fear and the vanity. Therefore instead of profitless speculation about existence of soul, we should try as a first order of business to control the fear of death and the vanity of being immortal'.
Buddha is scientific. 'How to face death ?'. 'As if, you are about to enter a room where no body has gone in or came out; i.e.
a room of which we know nothing about. Should we be fearful, happy, cautious, full of expectation ? If there is no information exist about the room, then we cannot have any frame of mind. If we assume any of the frame of mind, then it does not reflect what is in the room, rather it reflects the person's past experiences'.
Buddha's approach to problem of life summarized as four 'Noble truth' is like that of a therapist. As long as every thing running smoothly then we would not notice any problem or suffering/dukkha.
When thing does not go smoothly, as a wheel out of joint, then we feel suffering. The reason for such disjoint is the drive for private fulfillment or personal craving. This disease can be cured by overcoming the egoistic drive for separate existence. The way to the overcoming of self-seeking or ego is through the 'Eightfold path'.
The eightfold path then is a course of treatment. But it is not external treatment passively accepted by the patient as coming from outside as a matter of faith. It is not treatment by pill, or cult, or grace. It is treatment through training. The driving force behind the stated ethical system is not the commandment and associated sense of sin and punishment, but through the way of knowledge and compassion. If you do not steal, then it is not because of fear of punishment/hell or expectation of reward/heaven.
Because fear and craving it self are the cause of suffering. The eightfold path is summarized below.
1. Right knowledge, 2. Right aspiration,
3. Right speech, 4. Right behavior,
5. Right livelihood, 6. Right effort,
7. Right mindfullness,
8. Right absorption.
The fourth path 'Right behavior' is further broken down in to five steps.
a. Do not kill,
b. Do not steal,
c. Do not lie,
d. Do not be unchaste,
e. Do not drink intoxicants.
What is a Buddha mind ? As a not enlightened person we can only speculate. Say there is a mind which has searched within itself and is able to recognize and neutralize all the self ego and ego related tinted vision, then whatever is left as a bright conscience without any tint or mental blocks, perhaps is. Coming down to practical world, Buddha has emphasized again and again on 'compassion' towards all forms of life; and he preached again and again the nonviolence or ahimsa, physical or mental, towards all.
Keywords: Culture & Religion
From: Tilak B. Shrestha <[email protected]>
| Date: 96.04.17 | (Id.: 231) |
Tilak B. Shrestha, University of Florida, Summer 1995.
Please allow me to express my humble opinion on this interesting question 'Is Buddhism a part of Hinduism ?'. This writing also deals obliquely with the general sentiment of Hinduism and relations between different sects within Hinduism. I am not a theologian or a philosopher, so please bear with me for possible inconsistencies. I would like to keep the subject as an open discussion and would like to invite questions, comments or criticisms. Perhaps these kinds of discussions would help us understand our religious and cultural roots which are fundamental to the inner strength. I strongly believe that the inner strength is the prerequisite for the progress, in any sense of the word.
Hinduism:
Hinduism consists of many ways of life, wisdom collected over the ages, and inquiries into the universal truths. Hinduism is not a teachings of a particular individual, nor was it started at a given historical time. It consists of teachings and observations collected over time immemorial, by countless and faceless seers and spiritual masters from diverse regions.
Hinduism is not a religion as commonly understood in the west. The problem has come about because of the meaning of 'religion' as understood in socio-political terminology of Judeo- christianity. That is why, questions like whether an individual is a Buddhist or Hindu, or did Hindus oppressed Buddhist or not, have been raised. Such questions have underlying assumptions that people can be neatly separated into well defined groups, and that these groups would invariably struggle for dominance and that stronger group would oppress the weaker. That paradigm is not valid to deal with Hinduism. From Hindus' perspective Judaism and Christianity are not religions but subjective history and politics. Hinduism has its own problems, but not the above.
Hinduism may be looked into in three different ways.
A. Geography : Hinduism is, by definition, the spiritual development occurred in the Indian sub-continent. It is a geographical term, first used by Persians to denote the religiosity/philosophy of the people living in the banks of river Sindhu, and by extension the Indian subcontinent. Thus, by definition, Sikhs, Buddhist, Vaishnavs, Jains, Shaivs etc. are Hindus. Whereas Muslims, Christians are not. As far as syncretic religions like Sikhism, and Bahais are concerned; Sikhs are Hindus, but Bahais are not. Simply because of the geography of their origin. Within the broad Hindu mainstream, Tibet is also included. For example, Kailash and Man Sarober, where Lord Shiva supposed to dwell, are in Tibet.
The Tibetan language and script, along with Tibeto-Burmese (Mongoloid) languages which comprise most of the Nepali jana bhashas, are quite close to the Sanskrit and related languages.
In terms of people, Hindus are not a racially homogeneous people.
Hindus consists of all the races, African, Caucasian (?), Mongoloid. Hinduism consists of the beliefs and the philosophies coming out of these diverse groups of people. For example, Lord Pashupati is identified with mongoloid Kiranti people. 'Jhankris' and temples of 'Banakali Mai' etc. are still staple of the Nepalese religious map.
The notion that the Vedas are war hymns of barbarians lacking any spirituality, brought to India by foreign invaders, is not true. Neither, the myth of Aryan invasion of India from abroad against cultured Dravidian (original Indians ?) is true.
These are simply misconceptions generated by European scholars (?) like Max Muller, who see world through the Eurocentric and biblical perspective. The term 'Arya' simply means cultured or noble person. Thus, every ancient Indian claims himself or herself to be an Arya and his or her enemies as Anarya or non Arya. It is not a racial terms. The different languages and cultures in different parts of the Indian sub-continents arose simply due to thousands of years of evolution. The derogatory terms like Rakshyas or Pishach are the expression of internecine warfare and politics, not race or religion. Acharya Chatursen gives the origin of the term 'Rakshyas' as the 'Raksya Sanskriti' or the 'defence league' formed by ancient south Indian Kings to protect themselves from north Indian Kings. The term 'Pishach' originates from 'Nisha char' or 'night invaders'. Apparently people from North Indian plains were mortally afraid of the night raids by then Himalayan people. Otherwise both south India and Himalayas are regular features of ancient Indian literature where normal commerce occurred and where Rishis would live among the people.
That is, Hindus as people consist of proto Nepalese or mongoloid people also, and Hinduism as religion consists of the beliefs and philosophies of the ancient Himalayan people also.
B. Democratic forum : Another way to look at the Hinduism is to consider it as the democratic forum for spiritual teachings.
As democracy, Hinduism does not propose any particular set of doctrine, but consists of many competing beliefs and philosophies. They are called sects. A particular sect might claim to have a certain advantage over other sects or may emphasize certain teachings more than others. However, no sect will claim to be only true way, let alone to claim that other sects are wrong.
The corner stones of Hinduism are concepts of 'Samyaktva - Avoidance of dogmatic, intolerant, harmful attitude', and 'Sarva dharma sambhava - Many paths to the same summit'. The revelation in Isavashya Upanishad states 'Yo yo yam yam tanum bhaktah sraddhyaarchitumicchati, tasya tashyaachalaam sraddhaam tameva vidadhamyaham - Whatever form any devotee with faith, wishes to worship, I make that faith of his or her steady'. Krishna states in Gita 'Ishwara sarvabhootaanaaam, hruddese Arjuna tishthati - The lord dwells in the heart of all beings'. Buddha never claimed his way to be exclusive, though he cautioned against spiritual snake oil salesman. That way, Bahais and religions of native American may be also considered Hinduism, but not Islam and Christianity. Simply because, later two religions claim to be exclusive. For example the fundamental Islamic doctrine is 'There is no other God except Allah'; and the fundamental Christian doctrine is 'Jesus is the only way to the heaven'. Different sects among Hindus may debate over a certain religious ideas or metaphysical points, but would not condemn others. Even those disagreements are limited within only the Acharyas of these sects, and do not percolates down to the lay Hindus.
A typical Hindu will go to all the temples, listens to all the discourses, celebrates all the festivals, and participates in all the religious functions. He or she may go more often to a particular temple than others, or participate in a particular function more than in others, depending upon his or her taste, interests, or simply due to proximity. When a Hindu declares himself or herself to be a Buddhist or Vaishnav, he or she is simply stating about the higher influence of that particular philosophy or way of life on himself or herself. It does not mean that he or she would not go to Shiva temple, or condemn Adwaita philosophy. It is only the case of degree, not about separation.
According to Hinduism, an individual in the process of growing up, may be affected more by different ideas at different times of his or her life. That is, each individual goes through a spiritual evolution not religious conversion. In the same theme Alan Watts writes - "A convert to Buddhism is as unimaginable as a convert to cookery, unless the conversion means simply that one has become a cook instead of a cobbler, or that one has become interested in cooking well. For Buddhism, whether Hinayana or Mahayana, is not a system of doctrines and commandments requiring our belief and obedience. It is a method (one of the exact meanings of dharma) for the correction of our perceptions and for the transformation of consciousness. It is so thoroughly experimental and empirical that the actual subject-matter of Buddhism must be said to be an immediate, non-verbal experience rather than a set of beliefs or ideas or rules of behavior." A Hindu may say some thing like 'These days I am interested in Buddhism and in comparing the Mahayan Buddhism with Dwaita philosophy and Theravada Buddhism with Adwaita philosophy'.
However, a Hindu will not say 'I am converting to Buddhism. So, I am no longer a Vaishnav but a Buddhist. Now on Buddha is only God, and Shiva and Vishnu are no God'. Or a Hindu may say 'These days I am impressed with the life style of the Hare Krishnas and trying to be a vegetarian'. But, a Hindu will not insist upon making every body vegetarian. A Hindu might wonder about the influence of Dwaita philosophy on Jesus, when he addresses God as 'father', or of Adwaita philosophy when he talked about 'kingdom within'. However, a Hindu will not say that all the Hindus are saved and will automatically go to heaven, no matter how evil they are; and none of the others are saved and will automatically go to hell, no matter how virtuous they are. A Hindu has no problem recognizing Jesus or any other religious leader as a spiritual master, though would not agree that he or she is the only one.
A Hindu is essentially free to choose to lead his or her own spiritual life. However, Hindus will not condemn others and violently attack or destroy any temple, as a part of their religious belief. If there are such cases, then they are aberrations not a general rule. The reasons for such isolated cases may be found in politics or economics than in religion. For example, when Shankaracharya went around challenging any religious leaders for metaphysical debate, he was not leading an army, nor losers lost their head. Most often, the losers chose to be disciples of Shankaracharya on their own. Some debate losers even committed suicide, because they could not bear the trauma of loosing. However, the point is, though the doctrinal debate did occur in the old days, physical violence did not. Even Buddha, while preaching 'middle way', criticized the strictness of his contemporary Mahabir or Jainism. However, the criticism is limited to a certain issues, not against Jainism at large. Buddha declared that caste should determined by deed, not by birth. It is exactly what it is - an appropriate, limited and positive criticism.
Hinduism may be considered as a supra system, within which many spiritual ideas coexist and compete, and relations foster within the acceptable norm. A parallel may be drawn with democracy in the political field. Democracy does not preach a particular political ideas, rather it provides platform for any idea, where these political ideas would compete and cooperate.
Any political party, including Fascism or Communism, may be considered a part of the democracy as long as it plays by the rule. Within democracy many parties coexist, even develop relations, and would not stop other parties from functioning. A citizen is free to associate with any or all parties as much as he or she wants. A political party would cease to be a part of democracy only when it claims to be exclusive or totalitarian. In Hinduism every body is free to preach or believe whatever he or she deem right. Though there may be debates to distinguish wheat from chaff. Hinduism, like a market place, simply presents smorgasbord of spiritual ideas. An individual is free to chose any, or as much of any, depending upon his or her own conscience and need. That is, Hinduism consists of many ideas and teachings including Carvakism, Jainism, Shaivism, Vaishnavism, Buddhism, Sikhism and so on.
C. Science of spirituality : Hinduism may also be defined as an inquiry into the spirituality or universal/eternal truths, not a given set of doctrines or beliefs. The Hindu term for inquiry into the eternal truth is 'Sanatana'. It may be compared with science and loosely defined as science of spirituality. The division among hindu sects are like that of division among scientists. There are chemists, botanist, geologist and so on.
However, each of the scientists will tell that he or she is dealing with only a narrow field within the general body of science and each scientist works in cooperation with other scientists.
A religion, defined as a set of doctrines, forces people to chose a camp. Thus, it divides people and do not allow individual freedom. For example, an individual cannot be a Muslim and a Christian same time. However, inquiry into universal truths requires to learn from as many sources as possible. For example, a geologist has to learn mathematics, physics, chemistry etc.
Likewise, a Hindu may go to any temple, learn any philosophy or metaphysics, or practice any spiritual system. Thus, Hinduism stresses individuality, without creating religious boundary and dividing people.
A Hindu, never claims to know all the truth, or expresses that his or her religion is the only correct religion. A Hindu, like a scientist, rather admits the limitation of his or her background or upbringing and present living environment, and does as best as he or she can do to improve his or her spirituality, with the help of countless spiritual masters who has left their teachings behind. That is why, if you ask ten Hindus to define Hinduism, you will get twenty different answers.
To consider Hinduism only as rituals and casteism is, as Buddha might have put, ignorance. They are some of the negative aspects of Brahmanism, not Hinduism at large. Brahmanism has its own relevancy, imperative and usefulness. However, unfortunately it also has developed a few strands of objectionable practices through the ages. If told, the saga of exploitation of poor and ignorant by learned and powerful, the evolution of casteism, degeneration into ritualism, Brahmanic adulteration of scriptures, will never end. Those kind of corruptions, like bad apples, need to be discarded. However, we cannot condemn all the apples. Like in any society, there are many problems in the Hindu society. However, they are social problems, not religious. I can imagine a mad scientist, but not a mad science. The answer lies in the moral and intellectual discipline, not in politics.
Sanatana :
The notion that Buddhism is different from Hinduism has come due to the misunderstanding of the nature of 'Sanatana' or inquiry into the universal truth. The difference is the approaches taken by different sects, not the truth per se. After all truth remains the same, though it may be approached or understood from different perspectives.
The eternal truth cannot be understood by us, not because it is mysterious, but because our human faculties like the physical body and the intelligence are limited. Thus, like the fable of an elephant and blind men, we may be able to perceive only partial truth. This is expressed in Sanskrit as 'Ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti - Truth is one, sages call it by different names'.
Sanatana or inquiry of the eternal truth can be done with the available human tools only.
The classical Hindu spiritual masters point out those tools, in order of preference, as - a. Physical observation, b. Logic, c. Simile, and d. Revelations. The truth as understood due to the direct physical observations gets the first preference. Next, in order of preference, is the truths which, though cannot be directly observed, can be logically deductible. Next, would be the use of simile. For example, if we like to know the number of teeth of a live lion, we may count that of a cat instead and make inference. The last source of truth is the so called 'revelations', which needs to be taken with a grain of faith or a grain of salt, as you prefer.
The order of preference pertains to the validity of the truth. We might argue that the validity becomes less credible and more difference in opinion precipitates as we base our inquiry in the later tools. However, if we base our inquiry only within the observable phenomena, then the scope of inquiry will be limited, though arguments will have stronger credibility. This is how a spectrum of sects or metaphysical views have developed in the Hinduism.
Materialist like Carvak bases their world view strictly according to the observable phenomena only. Strictly speaking, they cannot be called atheist, because they do not say that God does not exist. Rather they will argue that there is no physical proof of existence of God. Empiricists like Buddhists and Jains base their world view strictly according to the observable phenomena and logically deductible concepts, but not on revelation or faith. Typically, Carvak would argue that there is not enough physical evidence to prove the theory of Karma. Where as Buddhist would argue that the law of Karma is empirically provable, however it needs higher perspective than that of Carvak's. Vaishnav or Shaiva would consider the law of Karma as a revealed truth. Similarly, Carvak would consider Newton's law 'every action has equal and opposite reaction' as an observable truth, but not the Karmic law. Whereas, others would consider the Newton's law as the physical subset of the universal Karmic law.
The dwaita philosophers like Vaishnavs would add on the article of faith that God exists. They may also talk about their faith that God reincarnates into the human history frequently in different forms and personality according to the human need or divine will. Thus, they will emphasize on relation with God in personal way, through love and prayer. Where as Adwaita philosophers like Shaivs will add on their faith that there exist eternal truth which they call, at the lack of better word, the big one (Brahma). They would argue that all the cosmos, including human being, is simply a transient manifestation of the Brahma. A dwaita-adwaita philosopher may argue that the Brahma does manifest as personified God. Thus, the arguments and metaphysical views continues, till the cows come home.
The Gnan yoga observes that each of these views contains partial truth but not the whole truth. Thus, a student is advised not to attach himself or herself to a particular view but to learn all of them and later to go forward on his or her own strength. The point here is that Hinduism consists of a spectrum of many interconnected world views including that of Buddhism.
Buddhism :
Buddhism need to be understood, not as a faith, but as the rational approach to the truth and according to the priority it assigns. Buddhist approach of truth is strictly empirical, or based on the knowledge, symbolized by Gnan Chachhu or Eye of knowledge. Buddhism's priority is the practical way of lessening the suffering. Other issues, like Buddhahood (Arhat) or metaphysical views are only secondary. Majjhima Nikaya Sutta states - "If a man is struck by an arrow, then as the first order of business the arrow should be pulled out and the wound should be treated. It would not help to insist to know what caste the person belongs to, or what kind of arrow it is, or how tall the man is etc., before pulling the arrow out. Similarly, it is not on the view that the world is eternal, that it is finite, that body and soul are distinct, or that the Buddha exists after death a religious life depends. Whether these or their opposites are held, there is still rebirth, there is old age, there is death, and grief, lamentation, suffering, sorrow, and despair. I have not spoken about these views because they do not conduce to absence of passion, tranquillity, and Nirvana. And what have I explained ? I have explained suffering, the causes of suffering, the destruction of suffering, and the path that leads to the destruction of suffering. For they are useful in life.
Therefore, my disciples, consider as unexplained what I have not explained, and consider as explained what I have explained."
The concepts like Karma, Incarnation, Raj yoga's techniques of meditation, Gnan yoga's technic of inquiry into universal truth etc., which are also the staples of Buddhism existed long before Buddha was born. However, the difference is that Buddha recognized them through empirical means, not as revelation out of Veda. Buddha insists 'Ye be lamp onto your self'. That is why he is correctly called 'Nastik', that his teachings do not depend upon 'Veda' or other scriptures. 'Nastik' does not mean atheist.
It simply means teachings independent of Vedic scriptures, as opposed to 'Aastik', which means teachings dependent upon 'Vedic scriptures'. For example, Krishna considers 'Gita' as milk out of scriptural cow. Otherwise, the truth is the same. Buddha himself had many teachers, who were trained in then prevalent schools of Hinduism.
The greatness of Buddha is that he is able to bring many of the truths, which were considered purely a matter of faith and revelation, within the realm of rational deduction. That is why initially many Brahmans opposed him, and once they understood the importance of the Buddhist approach they recognized him as an incarnation. His way of knowledge was indeed the ignorance shattering. Such height of spiritual innovation is not achieved easily. However, there are other instances also. For example, Krishna's Karma Yoga brings the possibility of Nirvana within the grasp of ordinary people or Grihastha, instead of being only for professional ascetics.
If Hinduism is considered strictly Vedic teachings only then Buddhism, south Indian Shaivism (whose Agamas are independent of Veda) etc. are not Hinduism. Exclusive Vedic teachings and attendant culture may be termed 'Brahmanism'. If, Hinduism is considered as truth in general, then not only Buddhism, but Confucianism, Taoism, physics, mathematics etc. are also different approaches to the same eternal truth. As I said before both 'Hindu' and 'Hinduism' are adopted alien terms. On one hand, Sanatana is not limited within any book, geography or history; though certain book might illuminate certain aspect of it. On the other hand, if every so called concept of Hinduism is purged out of Buddhism, then left over will truly be the heaven of Sunyabad (pardon my pun). Einstein would not have incarnated without the background of Galileo, Newton, Planck, Fitzgerald, Lorentz and countless other physicist.
Any Buddhist doctrine needs to be understood in terms of the Buddhist approach and the context, not taken as an article of faith. Unfortunately, some of the Buddhist doctrines like that of 'Anahata - no soul' some times has been mistakenly considered as a Buddhist faith. As I mentioned before, Buddha neither cares about metaphysical views, nor builds his thesis on faith. Just for the argument sake, consider the fact that Buddhism recognizes the karma and reincarnation. Then question may be asked what connects the one life from the next and keeps the karmic action intact. In Buddha's time the vulgar concept of 'Atma - soul' was the 'Suchsma shareer - microbody', which in English may be termed 'Ego-substance'. As if there is a small etherial or astral body within the larger physical body, kind of trapped inside. This suchsma shareer is supposed to carry the memory and physical attributes of the given life like a seed of a plant. At the death this suchsma sareer escapes out of the physical body and jumps into a new body or goes to heaven, carrying the karmic bundle and the subdued form of memory and attributes from the past life.
This is similar to the christian concept of soul, which after death retains all the attributes and memory of the life.
According to christianity, when resurrection occurs all the souls will come back alive in their previous forms, even the families would come back and live as before, though in happier state. This egocentric concept of Atma is denied (Anahata) by Buddha.
However, the classical Hindu concept of Atma also is not egocentric. Yogavashista states (52.44) - "In reality, there is no such thing as the ego-soul, nor is there any mine and thine, nor imagination. All this is nothing but the manifestation of the universal soul which is the light of pure intelligence." According to classical Hinduism Atma is divine, attributeless, eternal, and is not subject to karmic law.
Buddhism and Vedanta :
The distinction between Buddhism and Vedanta is the approach they take, not the truth they seek. Buddhism takes the bottom up approach and relies on the available human faculties, whereas Vedanta takes the top down approach and relies on revelations in Veda. Vedantist would predicate their argument upon the primary reality. Whereas Buddhist would point out that by definition it cannot be conceptualized and therefore there is no basis of any argument. In the language of statistics, Vedantist would argue that there is a eternal population mean and a sample mean is only a transient imperfect measure. Whereas Buddhist would argue that only fact we have is the sample mean and any inference should be based upon it.
Vedas reveal Brahma as permanent, eternal, impersonal, and attributeless. However, Brahma creates the transitory and conditional attributes out of itself, for itself, by itself.
Brahma is one which manifest itself as eye and makes eye see, manifest as mind and makes mind think, manifests as ego and creates personality. Thus, an individual human cannot observe or understand 'Brahma', because human ego itself is the transitory creation or manifestation of Brahma. However, human mind may comprehend Brahma in its two aspects, as a. observable physical entity (energy) and b. consciousness. The way to know Brahma is by transcending our ego or individuality. This may be accomplished by shedding ego using the techniques of meditation.
Shankaracharya interprets the ancient texts that this truth can be directly experienced (Aparokshanubhuti - self realization) by the way of 'Bairagya - dispassion or renunciation'.
Brahma is the primary reality and is the cause of other secondary transient realities - 'samsar - world', egos, minds, bodies, thoughts, logic, perceptions, natural laws etc. Nirvana or liberation is the transcending from secondary reality to primary reality. Atma or soul is a primary reality, not secondary. There is no difference between Atma and Brahma or Paramatma. A question was put to Shankaracharya - "Is Atma like a drop of water in the ocean of Brahma ?" He replied - "No, it is like water in the drop." Now compare that with the Buddhist concept of Dharmakaya. Dr. D.T. Suzuki writes - "Dharmakaya is the ultimate reality that underlies all particular phenomena; it is that which makes the existence of individual possible; it is the raison d'etre of the universe; it is the norm of being, which regulates the course of events and thoughts. We do not have any transcendental entity called ego-substance. We all are one in the 'System of Being' and only as such are immortal. The one shows us the folly of clinging to individual existence and of coveting the immortality of the ego-soul; the other convinces us of the truth that we are saved by living into the unity of Dharmakaya. When the clouds of ignorance and egoism are totally dispersed, the light of universal love and intelligence will shine in all its glory." Is this Buddhist concept of 'Dharmakaya' different from that of 'Brahma' ? Both of them are identical, so much so that Dr. Suzuki writes - "Here, a very interesting question suggests itself : Which is the original and which is the copy, Mahayanism or Vedantism ? Most of the European Sanskrit scholars would declare that Buddhism must be the borrower. But I am strongly inclined to the opposite view, for there is reliable evidence in favor of it. (Because) writing of Aswaghosh (Mahayanist) dates much earlier than Shankara or Badarayana (Vedantist)." Though Shankara and Badarayana point to Upanishads for their source.
However, chronology is not the issue. Point is both views are the same.
The egoistic secondary reality, though based on the primary reality, cannot grasp the primary reality. In other words, since human ego and the human tools of empirical knowledge, i.e. mind and body are only secondary reality, therefore we cannot perceive the primary reality. Thus primary reality is variously described in the language of secondary reality as - 'which cannot be understood', 'which cannot be explained', 'where subject and object is one', 'where there is no me and you', 'where cause and effect is one', 'where there is no spatial & temporal difference', 'kingdom within', 'where actors, audience and the play is one' and so on. Obviously unexplainable thing cannot be explained and only thing can be done is to approach or point out.
Transcending from secondary reality to primary reality also cannot be explained, and it is variously put as - 'realizing', 'falling into place', 'giving up what we do not have', 'getting more real', 'nirvana', 'enlightenment', 'awakening', 'mokshya', 'release', 'freedom', 'back to basic' and so on. It may be pointed out that transcending or Nirvana is not a journey from one destination to the another. That is only a metaphor. It is simply realization of the true self.
Most of the Buddhist statements would become clearer if we keep in mind that Buddhism uses methods of inquiry within our reach, that is tools within secondary reality only. Let me repeat one more time that each of the following statements are made and valid within secondary reality only. "I am enlightened.
Enlightenment cannot be explained. I can show you the way, but can not make you enlightened." Every existing phenomena is transient and has cause. They would cease to exist if the cause is removed. The Law of karma operates even upon Gods. Any given concept of soul or Dharmakaya is not correct. Anahata or there is no soul. If you take any individual then his or her each and every characteristic, physical or mental, is transient and has cause. If each and every characteristic is taken off one by one, by recognizing and removing the cause, then there absolutely nothing will be left. The reality of each and every egoistic attribute being extinguished cannot be explained nor even be conceptualized. For the lack of better word, we may call it enlightenment or Nirvana. Nirvana is bliss.
Many paths to the same summit :
An example of the different approaches taken by the different sects towards the same truth may be illustrated.
Suppose an individual notices a desirable object, say a good looking bicycle. Then this external stimuli would have a certain effect on the individual according to his or her background. In general these external stimuli creates desires. It is the intrinsic nature of the human mind. This would motivate the individual to pursue a course of action to fulfill the desire.
This very nature of mind always leads to suffering regardless of the fulfillment of the desire or not. Even if a particular object is obtained, in due time the pleasure ends and many more new desires would arise. Every egoistic actions again generates karmic reactions and the ego 'Jiva' has to face the consequences.
|
|
© J. Mário Pires, 4 Mar 97
| LinkExchange Member | Free Home Pages at GeoCities |
Go to the TheTropics GeoPage.
This page is hosted by 
Get your own Free Home Page.
Feedback