Ramana Maharshi and Self-Enquiry
INTRODUCTION
Considering that Buddhism originated in India, that the Buddha was Indian, perhaps an explanation as to why it may be interesting—and important—to Buddhist Geeks everywhere to have a general introduction to the ancient milieu of scientific, transformative spirituality that India has produced is not necessary. Some Buddhists tend to ignore or denigrate the philosophical matrix out of which Buddhism emerged along the lines of certain Christian and Islamic groups denying the roots of their religions in Hebrew scripture and practice. Indeed, so many Hindu and Buddhist concepts and terms are used interchangeably, that the need for an essential understanding of what some of them originally referred to should be self-evident.
In recent Buddhist Geeks posts including interviews with Kenneth Folk, it is evident how these overlapping concepts play into modern Vipassana practice, for example. In The Witness, Turning the Light Around posted on April 7, 2010 by Kenneth Folk and Joel Groover, Folk states that the “next level” (what he calls 2nd Gear) in practice involves asking the vichara popularized in the practice of Ramana Maharshi early in the 20th century in India: “Who Am I?” But as we learn in the following essay, this method of self-enquiry is much, much older, while at the same time it is found in modern times in the Zen instruction of Shunyru Suzuki, as well as by his contemporary, the Tibetan Buddhist Tantric master Chogyam Trungpa.
This essay is offered in a more scholarly format than is usually seen in Buddhist Geeks posts, so that through the notes the student may have the opportunity of going even deeper into the subject matter if they so choose. -JE
THE VEDAS
“Who am I?” Enquire in this way, turning the mind backward to its primal state. The enquiry “Who am I?” is the only method of putting an end to all misery and ushering in Supreme Beatitude. Whatever may be said and however phrased, this is the whole truth in a nutshell. – Ramana Maharshi [1]
In the Rig Veda (c. 1200-900 B.C.), the oldest of the sacred corpus of Indian scriptures known as the Vedas—primordial truths “seen” by ancient Rishis (seers)—Brahman first appears. Brahman is the universal support, the Absolute reality, of everything knowable and unknowable. Muhyiddin Ibn ‘Arabi termed this incomprehensible area the “Universe of the Divine Nature” ‘alemi-l lahut, also known as the First Presence—Ghaybi-l mutlaq, where, “All the Names and Qualities are buried in annihilation in the Ipsiety of God.” [2]
The world is illusory; Brahman alone is real; Brahman is the world. – Ramana Maharshi
The identity of the Absolute is questioned in order to draw the personal awareness into universal Self-enquiry:
…where was he born? What was he created from? Breath of the gods, embryo of the universe, this god wanders where he pleases. His sounds are heard, but his form is not seen… – Rig Veda [10.168] [3]
Vedic scholar Jeanine Miller writes,
The ancient Brahman of the Rig Veda is a drawing forth out of the subconscious layers of the psyche of that power, creative in the widest sense and dynamic, which lies latent in each human being, and which is directly related to the spirit, or atman. The plunge into the depths of consciousness –a subjective action which is in the essence of absorption (dhyana) and marks a step further than thinking –with mind completely stilled and in a poised, receptive state of awareness, results in…an active participation, by means of mental energy and spiritual insight, in the divine process.” [4]
UPANISHADS
The Upanishads—the word literally means to “sit near devotedly” and receive esoteric knowledge. They are a group of ever-evolving secret Vedic teachings and explanations that emphasize transcendental metaphysics. The earliest Upanishad appeared sometime around the 9th century BC. Here, the Atman, the innermost sense of oneself, is identified as identical to the universal Brahman, and the two are intertwined as a single concept or recognition of being as the “Self.” In a sense, Atman is the subjective nature of the objective Brahman, although in unity, and ultimately in the dissolution of even the idea of “unity” there is no subject or object.
Of all religions thou art the source,
The light of thy knowledge shining,
There is no day or night,
Nor being nor non-being-
Thou alone art.
-Svetasvatara Upanishad [5]
ADVAITA VEDANTA
Advaita Vedanta (lit. Non-dualism: Veda’s End) is a blanket term for the metaphysical non-dualism expressed in the Upanishads as they relate to core ideas originally found in the Vedas. Advaita Vedanta also refers to all subsequent schools of thought, pantheistic, monotheistic, or panentheistic that have emerged from this “non-dual end of primordial truth.” Generally speaking –recognizing that there are exceptions, some more subtle than others- in texts and various schools relating to Advaita Vedanta there is one singular Reality that only appears to be multitudinous. This is echoed in Islamic Sufism in the concept of Tawhid:
Tawhid then comes to mean the recognition of plurality as no other than the fact that what seemingly appears as many or varied is in reality One and Only in Essence. – Bulent Rauf [6]
YOGA APHORISMS OF PATANJALI AND JIVANMUKTA
It is somewhat difficult to place Patanjali, the famous author of the “Yoga Aphorisms” in a particular timeframe. The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad mentions Patanjali as a family surname, and most scholars speculate that he lived in the 2nd century A.D. His work ultimately deals with what was later labeled the “Philosophy of Liberation,” a way of attaining “enlightenment,” for example, while still maintaining a corporeal existence, Jivanmukta. It appears at first glance that he broke with the idea of the One Reality espoused by the Upanishads and later works by positing that there exist both the Purusha or transcendental Self, and Prakriti, the transcendent aspect of Nature. It could however be argued that Liberation occurs with the reconciliation of these two apparently dual principals. When it is considered that Purusha generates everything associated with Nature, then it is seen that the body, and all that is perceived as internal/external, is a vehicle for liberation. The “Self” or Purusha initially engenders a yearning in the Buddhi (intellect) to “shake off” the illusory nature of Maya, and encounter the Real.
This “shaking off” is the immutable part, Purusha or “Self” which always exists, asserting – as it is always serene and passive it requires the human vehicle, the ego, for example, to perform realization of itself as Self – through the mutable Buddhi, or intellectual sense of “myself” the supreme Reality. Consider the Yoga Aphorisms of Patanjali,
Book II, 25: The absence of alliance that arises from lack of it is the freedom and that is the state of liberation of the Seer. Refer back to Book I, 20. Note 2: “I know myself, ‘I’ is Seer (Purusha, the Supreme Soul, Absolute Awareness) or pure consciousness, immutable; ‘myself’ is unconsciousness (Buddhi), the rest of ‘I’, knowledge of objects is supplementary to the cognition ‘I know myself.’” [7]
Every thing other than “I” is mutable, transient, changeable, in passing, subject to the appearance of movement, etc.
Book II 24. (The alliance has) Avidya or nescience as its cause.
Avidya: Misapprehension; wrong knowledge; type of affliction.
Seeing the world and gaining knowledge of objects through Buddhi, one only gains a colored misapprehension of Purusha, and mistakes one for the other, Seer with seen, “I” for “myself.”
(Referring back to Bk II 25.): Buddhi is dependant upon an alliance through misapprehension, Avidya, with Purusha in order to accumulate -or attempt to accumulate- knowledge. Once the realization arrives through this accumulation that information gathering and the mutable knowledge gained therefore is not Wisdom, the alliance (Avidya) disappears and only Purusha remains, immutable and free. Then one realizes the “liberation of the Seer.” Not that Purusha in itself “needs” liberation, of course, it is only expressed in this way to indicate the state of one “liberated while still alive” (Jivanmukti). Mukti= liberation from sorrows.
Book IV, 30. From that afflictions and actions cease. “Jivanmukti: One who has attained liberation from sorrow but has not yet given up one’s body; one purified by true knowledge while still living and therefore freed from the cycle of births…Erroneous knowledge being the cause of rebirth.”
Afflictions belong to all that is other than Purusha, and actions come out of “constructed mind” (Nirmana chitta) almost the way an actor acts, with intent toward a particular end, with no identification other than in the knowledge that the action is subject to Buddhi, and in the service of relieving the suffering of others.
Remaining perfectly happy and experiencing enjoyment in all that is expected of him, he performs all actions while abandoning the misconception of doership. -Yoga-Vasishtha (V.77.7ff.)
SHANKARA
Shankara, (trad., 788-822 A.D.) received Advaita Vedanta from his teacher Govinda, a disciple of Gaudapada, author of the Mandukya-Karika, an early metaphysical treatment of Advaita Vedanta philosophy. Shankara’s subsequent commentaries and original writings contributed to the resurgence of ancient Vedic non-dualism as espoused in the principal Upanishads. Early on, it appears that Shankara studied Patanjali’s work, ultimately leading him to the evolution of thought bringing about liberation through self-enquiry. [8]
In his work entitled Aparokshanubhti – Self-Realization we find the following Self-enquiry:
12. “Who am I? How is this (world) created? Who is its creator? Of what material is the (world) made? This is the way of that Vichara (enquiry).”
16. “As I am also the One, the Subtle, the Knower, the Witness, the Ever-Existent and the Unchanging, so there is no doubt that I am ‘That’ (ie; Brahman). Such is this enquiry.”
RAMANA MAHARSHI
Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950) began life as an average child born of an average family in the small town of Tiruchuzhi (Tamil), in South India . At the age of 16 he underwent what is commonly referred to now as a “NDE” (Near Death Experience). What sets this particular NDE apart from most is that it included within it Jivanmukta.
Distracted as we are by various thoughts, if we would continually contemplate the Self, which is Itself God, this single thought would in due course replace all distraction and would itself ultimately vanish. The pure Consciousness that alone finally remains is God. This is Liberation. To be constantly centered on one’s own all-perfect pure Self is the acme of yoga, wisdom, and all other forms of spiritual practice. Even though the mind wanders restlessly, involved in external matters, and so is forgetful of its own Self, one should remain alert and remember: ‘The body is not I.’ – Ramana Maharshi
As the young man lay on the floor convinced that he was dying he was seized by fear and asked himself “Now death has come; what does it mean? What is it that is dying? This body dies…But with the death of the body am I dead?…The body dies but the Spirit that transcends it cannot be touched by death. That means I am the deathless Spirit.” [9]
Above the senses is the mind, above the mind is the intellect, above that is the ego, and above the ego is the unmanifested Cause. Beyond is Brahman, omnipresent, attributeless. Realizing him one is released from the cycle of birth and death. – Katha Upanishad (II. iii. 7-8)
The question arises as to why an enlightened being such as Ramana Maharshi would continue on in the body, as a Jivanmukti. The most common response would be that it is done out of compassion for all who are yet to become freed from the illusion of suffering, from the conceptualization of “birth” and “death”.
Referring back to Patanjali, Book IV, 30. From that afflictions and actions cease. “Jivanmukti: …one purified by true knowledge while still living and therefore freed from the cycle of births…Erroneous knowledge being the cause of rebirth.” In the commentary by Vyasa, -legendary compiler of the Vedas, the Mahabarata, and other works- it is pointed out that one who remains in the body rather than transcending it does so because of “residual latent impressions.” [10] This implies that when one is absorbed completely in the Atman-Brahman, (Purusha, Self, etc.) there is no separate idea of anything, including “body,” as being other than Brahman, the Absolute. When this arises in Jivanmukta, it is simply a phenomenal illusion, a sense impression, or function of memory, given no more validity than a passing thought, a phantasm, a “color” whirling around the still center that has no center or stillness. Anything being “born” or “dying” is given the same consideration, until only what is (conceptually) immortal is present. This is how, through innate awareness, through “true knowledge” one is freed from the cycle Avidya (misapprehension; wrong knowledge) of the conceptual affliction of “birth and death.” [11]
Of course, it is unfathomable to realize exactly why Ramana Maharshi chose to remain in bodily form on Earth for 55 more years after his spontaneous Awakening. Most likely it is because the true realization of Brahman dissolves all conceptuality, including “body” and “Earth.” He settled on the famous holy mountain of Arunachala , and espoused a simple and elegant method of Shankara’s Self-enquiry, boiled down to asking “Who Am I?”
As the clouds of Avidya pass by and the sun of wisdom appears, “Who Am I” peels back the layers of self-deception until the Self shines forth. When a thought arises, “Who is thinking?” Applying this enquiry to all aspects of life, of apparent action in the world, cuts like an axe-blade of discrimination.
Ramana Maharshi stressed that those ready to follow the path of Self-enquiry should meditate in this way on identity, while others at a beginning level should work first on controlling the breath. He also suggested that if the aspirant finds the path of total absorption in the Self, or Brahman, to be beyond their capacity they should instead, or first, follow the paths of Bhakti (devotion), or Karma (ritual actions). [12]
What is the use of knowing about everything else when you do not yet know who you are? (We) avoid this enquiry into the true Self, but what else is there so worthy to be undertaken? – Ramana Maharshi
Jnana, (knowledge) the way of wisdom, involves the transmission of knowledge from teacher to student. This transmitting process has crystallized into a wide range of teachings and texts, some, such as the Vedas, and Upanishads discussed in this essay are among the most ancient in the world dealing with spiritual subjects. In 8th century Tibet , direct Dharma transmission arrived from India in the person of vidyadhara Tantric master Padmasambhava. This teaching has survived in the lectures and books of Chogyam Trungpa, Rinpoche (d. 1987), who asked again the question “Who am I?” calling this method “…nontheistic spirituality in its fullest sense.” [13]
Swami Vivekananda, (1863-1902) famous disciple of Parmahansa Ramakrishna and early 19th century transmitter of Advaita Vedanta to America labeled Jnana “creedlessness,” a stage above and beyond creeds. [14] All scriptures, instructions, poems, words, thoughts, eventually point to the abode of eternal silence, Absolute Reality.
When a man knows his true Self for the first time something else arises from the depths of his being and takes possession of him. That something is behind the mind; it is infinite, divine, eternal…you may give it what name you wish.
What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world, the individual soul, and God are all appearances in it, like silver in mother-of-pearl; these three appear at the same time and disappear at the same time – Ramana Maharshi
One aim stands beyond all others in these teachings: the pursuit of liberation, specifically liberation from misguided conceptualization. Here is the paradox, repeated beyond India in metaphorical ways around the world in almost every culture: control of the mind, or the negation of thought related to “mind” is the goal, yet the only vehicle present to achieve this is mind. Within a discussion of Dharma transmission, Ch’an master Hsi Yun (circa 840 A.D.) noted: “By their very seeking for it they produce the contrary effect of losing it, for that is using…mind to grasp mind.” And: “The understanding of mind implies [the realization that] there is no mind and no Dharma.” [15]
Self-enquiry, as first espoused in the Vedas, articulated in the Upanishads, elucidated by Patanjali, revived by Shakara, and brought into the context of our times by Ramana Maharshi, is a simple way to realize who you are, here and now.
There is neither creation nor destruction, neither destiny nor free-will; neither path nor achievement; this is the final truth. – Ramana Maharshi
FOOTNOTES
1. All Ramana Maharshi quotes in this essay are taken from the following sources: Osborne, 1970; Wilber, 2000; The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi, 1972; and The Spritual Teaching of Ramana Maharshi, 1972.↑
2. Kernal of the Kernal, a translation by Ismail Hakki Bursevi of Ibn ‘Arabi’s Lubbul Lubb, Gloucestershire, Beshara Publications, nd., Chapter 3, p10.↑
3. Doniger-O’Flaherty, v. 3-4 p 176.↑
4. Miller, p 48-49.↑
5. Although a core 108 original Upanishads are extant, Shakara recognized only sixteen as being authentic. The tradition continues, however, the most recent Upanishads were composed in the 20th century.↑
6. Bulent Rauf, Addresses, Roxburghshire, Beshara Press, 1986, p 62.↑
7. All references to the Yoga Aphorisms are derived from: Yoga Philosophy of Patanjali, by Samkhya-yogacharya Swami Hariharananda Aranya, SUNY Press, Albany , 1983.↑
8. 8. See also, Ramanuja (1017-1137 A.D.) who formulated the Vishishta-Advaita (Qualified Non-dualism) school of thought, based in part on Bhakti, or devotion.↑
9. Osbourne, pp 18-19.↑
10. Yoga Philosophy of Patanjali, ibid, p 399.↑
11. A typically poetic “latent residual impression” goes like this: “Human life exists only because Kundalini deludes herself into believing that she and the limited body-mind personality are identical. When Kundalini is fully awakened, she realizes she is Shiva’s Shakti…In such circumstances the body cannot continue to exist, because Kundalini will immediately forget it and will remember Shiva. She sacrifices her identity to Him, undergoing instant enlightenment in the process.” –Dr. Robert Svoboda, Prakruti – Your Ayurvedic Constitution, Geocom, Wilmot, 1988, p 185.↑
12. Ramanuja felt that Bhakti is ultimately a form of Jnana (Wisdom).↑
13. Chogyam Trungpa, Crazy Wisdom, Boston, Shambala, 1991, pp 3-13. See also the same author’s Journey Without Goal, Boston, Shambala, 1981, chap 15, “Maha Ati” p 133-142.↑
14. The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Vol. 5, p 272, Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta, 1989.↑
15. “Some Mahayana Philosophies,” The Teachings of the Compassionate Buddha, by E.A. Burtt, New American Library, New York, 1955, p196, and p203. See also: Buddhist Mahayana Texts, ed., by E.B. Cowell, Dover , New York , 1969.↑
Related Posts:
Very nicely written.
A small correction: The terms Jivanmukta and Jivanmukti have been inadvertently interchanged in their usage; A Jivanmukta refers to one who has been liberated (Jivan: living; during life of the jiva, the individual atman. Mukta: a liberated one). Jivanmukti refers to the state (mukti: liberation).
There is a well-known stream of teaching– in Tibetan Buddhism– about 'the Four Denials' [monism, dualism, eternalism, and nihilism] in which the influences, or 'matrix' of Indian religious philosophy, are addressed, They are taught to be what Buddhism is NOT, and those holding them are described as 'tirthikas' [Sanskrit for 'heretic' or something like it, or so I've been told]. In any attempt to come up with a grand unified Theory of Everything, it is wise to refrain from over-conflating. Sometimes the distinctions between things are more significant than the similarities.
Wow. What a great post–so nice to see all of this summarized in one place.
Regarding this comment:
"Some Buddhists tend to ignore or denigrate the philosophical matrix out of which Buddhism emerged along the lines of certain Christian and Islamic groups denying the roots of their religions in Hebrew scripture and practice."
Stephen Batchelor is a great example of someone who regards Buddhism as some kind of clear break from the Indian approaches to spirituality that preceded it. He made this assertion repeatedly during his recent talks at IMC on 03/20/10. These can be downloaded for free on IMC's Audio Dharma Web page. His argument seemed a bit forced, but I'm definitely no scholar.
Batchelor's interpretation of Buddhism (that is derived from the Pali Canon, by the way) is one that is based on non-theism (not atheism, mind you!) There is certainly a clear break that the Buddha took from the previous Indian approaches to religion during his time. For a fuller and more coherent account of agnostic Buddhism, as he calls it, here is a link to Batchelor's Dharma Talks at DharmaSeed. He does a fine job, in my opinion, of extricating the Dharma from Buddhism (considered as Religion) by doing away with all the mythical elements. In short, he demonstrates, quite successfully, that the Dharma is really the core of Buddhism, and that it in a Western setting, which advocates a much more egalitarian vision of society based on rationality, it is the Dharma that needs to be put forward and spread and not the Religion. I fully agree with Batchelor's reasoning.
Thanks Vikram, those were obviously typos. I appreciate that you pointed that out. -JE
Sure thing, John.
As far as why Ramana remained in bodily form after becoming a Jivanmukta, you might be aware of the traditional explanation of Prarabdha Karma. It is said that the liberated one remains in the body until exhaustion of the prarabdha karma with which the body was assumed (however, the karma ceases to bind the individual). It's like a fan remains spinning for a while owing to momentum, even after you have turned off the power switch.
I like that analogy, Vikram. Along with that it could be said that as there is no doer-ship, what choice is to be made, and by whom? Conceptually, there is only the conscious play of the elements of earth, water, fire air, ether and the intermingled shades of the gunas.
I believe the "brahman alone is real" quote is actually from Shankara.
It is attributed to Ramana Maharshi in The Collected Works of Ken Wilber, Volume 8, p 466. Of course, Shankara said many similar things in his Crest Jewel, Vivekacudamani, Aparokshanubhuti, etc.
That's funny–I posted the comment after re-reading some Wilber where he attributes the quote to Shankara. Which is it, Ken!? l)
Was it in ONE TASTE? If so, he says in there somewhere (paraphrasing:) "Ramana Maharshi, echoing Shankara…[then the same quote]."
I think that resolves it. Not that it's all that critically important, but here's an example of the quote being attributed to Shankara. http://integrallife.com/editorial/brahman-world
If there is no difference in Vedas and Buddha’s teaching, why did Buddha teach at all? Why the writer of above article forgets that Buddha denounced practices like animal sacrifice which are praised in the Vedas? Even the things like Gayatri Mantra are denounced by Buddha in suttas like Tevijja Sutra.
The Sankara mentioned in above article is largely credited by many for driving Buddhism out of India and replacing it with system of inequality like castism and worst form of slavery like untouchability.
Tathagata was opposed to both of these. Same Rigveda contains notorious suktas like Purusha Sukta which try to attribute devine origins to the system of four varnas – the worst form of racism that has ever existed on the face of earth!
Trying to ascribe hindu origins to Buddha and Buddhism is mischief. A systematic mischief played for imposing the hindu system of devine inequality and slavery on the world. This, I think must be kept in Mind. It is because of this sort of people, the teachings of Buddha which are for benefits of many and welfare of many disappeared from India.
Great points, Rajendra. I think the author was trying to show that the Witness practice, or turning the light of attention around so that it illuminates the subject rather than the grosser objects of awareness, can be found in both Buddhism and in the ancient spirituality of India that preceded Buddhism. One might ask, what is Buddhism but self-enquiry? Who am I? Is there an I at all? If so, where can it be found? Can it be found in the impermanent, unsatisfying and ultimately irritating cascade of objects of which the body-mind is aware? If it is not its objects, what is it? If even the subject can be objectified, what's going on?!
In this limited sense it marks a continuation of the older tradition–the Buddha's whole journey started when he saw a wandering ascetic on the road. As you point out, however, Buddhism did mark a break from tradition in many, many significant ways. Batchelor is articulate on this point as well in describing Buddhism's radical egalitarianism and other conscious departures, like its admonitions about rites and rituals.
As far as I know, and what I read from Pali Scriptures (by the way, I have a Hindi translation of Rig Veda), after he renounced home, Siddhartha studied under different teachers for about six years. Out of all the teachers, two taught contemplative techniques– Alar Kalaama and Uddak Ramaputta. None of these two subscribed to Vedas. Vedas are more known for hymns of praise of different Gods and how to please them by offering sacrifices, though references to contemplation can be found in them. But its not their main focus. Another problem is they are regarded as “apaurusheya” (not written by any human or alternatively, divine and therefore can not be questioned. Its good to take useful teachings from different sources including the Vedas. But there is danger involved. Mixing up had led to disappearing of Dhamma from Indian soil and establishment of something different in its place.
I patiently read many of the comments and articles in this blog. I am very sorry to say that most of you have no knowledge of the very teaching of the BUddha. Buddha never taught Tibatan Tradition, Chinese Tradition, Theravada Tradition or Mahayana Tradition. Buddha taught only the Dharma. The Buddha never used Sanskrit. His langauge was Pali. All his real teachings remained in Pali which have been translated by one of our great scholar monk ven. Bhikkhu Bodhi (American) into our Language. These discourses are available now. Please find them in "www.wisdom publication.com".
The books are:
1. Majjhima Nikaya ( The Middle Length sayings of the Buddha)
2. Samyutta Nikaya ( The Connected discourses of the Buddha)
If you read these two books the answers for your questions can be found easily. These are the original teachings of the Buddha. If we, as Americans, follow another tradition we are certainly farrrrrr away from the very teachings of the Buddha. " Do not follow mere tradition, do not take it simply becasue it is there in the scriptures" said the Buddha. Thanks.
Vidarshana, the consensus amongst contemporary Buddhist scholars is that the Buddha probably taught in Magadhi but no one knows definitively which language really. Pali came much later, and in fact, we do know that the Pali Canon was compiled at least a couple of hundred years after the Buddha's death. There is also evidence (for instance, through morphological analyses of the literature in the Canon) to suggest that not everything in the Pali Canon contains the Buddha's original words. What is more, there is a lot of "propaganda" material contained in the Canon that was useful for spreading the religion in its early days. So, when talking about the historical Buddha and his teachings, we must tread the ground cautiously.
Vidarshana, I dont claim to know everything. Rejecting teachings of inequality (purush sukta) isnt Talibanism. Rejecting things like sacrificing animals in sacred fires (yajna) is not talibanism.
I have both books you mentioned. Only thing they are in Pali with Hindi translation by Bhikkhu Dharmarakshita. I repeat again. Many places in Pali suttas, killing of animals is denounced (call it Talibanism or otherwise). Many places in Pali Suttas, castism is denounced (which I think isnt Talibanism).
Here I would like to quote the story of ordination of Ven. Upali (who was greatest expert on Vinaya). Upali was born a barber. He accompanied the Sakyans of Kapilvastu who approached the Tathagata for granting them entry into the Bhikkhusangha. Buddha ordained Ven. Upali first followed by the Sakyans. He did that so that Ven. Upali would be a senior monk compared his sakyan companions. And because of this, these monks of sakyan origin had to pay respects to Ven. Upali after that for rest of their lives. This act of Buddha shows that he was against the caste/ Varna divisions to which the Vedas assign divine origins.
Isn't it true that Buddha never taught "Buddhism" ? As far as I know he taught Dhamma (Pali). The way out of suffering. So did Ramana Maharshi, as I understand. He never taught Hinduism, either.He accepted people irrespective of their religious belief.
Both Maharshi and Buddha taught heart-center practice to realize the truth beyond the ego-self. Why quarrel on ism's when the liberated teachers always taught Dharma (sanskrit) and way to liberation.
Let there be peace on earth. :!)