Comments on: Ramana Maharshi and Self-Enquiry http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/ Discover the Emerging Face(s) of Buddhism Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:27:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: tom http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3550 tom Sun, 01 Aug 2010 23:48:59 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3550 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. :!) 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. :!)

]]> By: No Buddhism without Hinduism - Page 17 - Religious Education Forum http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3549 No Buddhism without Hinduism - Page 17 - Religious Education Forum Tue, 25 May 2010 23:09:48 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3549 [...] nice info on this subject. Ramana Maharshi and Self-Enquiry*|*Buddhist Geeks __________________ "Consciousness minus conceptualization is the eternal Brahman." [...] [...] nice info on this subject. Ramana Maharshi and Self-Enquiry*|*Buddhist Geeks __________________ "Consciousness minus conceptualization is the eternal Brahman." [...]

]]> By: Rajendra Jadhao http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3548 Rajendra Jadhao Thu, 06 May 2010 12:38:34 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3548 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. 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.

]]> By: Vishal Lama http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3547 Vishal Lama Thu, 06 May 2010 03:50:23 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3547 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, 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.

]]> By: Vidarshana http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3546 Vidarshana Wed, 05 May 2010 14:14:11 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3546 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. 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.

]]> By: Rajendra Jadhao http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3545 Rajendra Jadhao Wed, 05 May 2010 06:10:01 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3545 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. 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.

]]> By: JoelG http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3544 JoelG Tue, 04 May 2010 11:25:28 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3544 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. <a href="http://integrallife.com/editorial/brahman-world" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://integrallife.com/editorial/brahman-world</a> 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

]]> By: JoelG http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3543 JoelG Tue, 04 May 2010 11:22:56 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3543 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. 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.

]]> By: Rajendra Jadhao http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3541 Rajendra Jadhao Tue, 04 May 2010 06:09:07 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3541 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. 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.

]]> By: John Eberly http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3540 John Eberly Tue, 04 May 2010 02:12:33 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3540 Was it in ONE TASTE? If so, he says in there somewhere (paraphrasing:) "Ramana Maharshi, echoing Shankara...[then the same quote]." Was it in ONE TASTE? If so, he says in there somewhere (paraphrasing:) "Ramana Maharshi, echoing Shankara…[then the same quote]."

]]> By: Vishal Lama http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3542 Vishal Lama Tue, 04 May 2010 01:35:56 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3542 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 <a href="http:\/\/dharmaseed.org\/teacher\/169\/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Batchelor's Dharma Talks</a> 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. 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.

]]> By: JoelG http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3539 JoelG Mon, 03 May 2010 11:44:39 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3539 That's funny--I posted the comment after re-reading some Wilber where he attributes the quote to Shankara. Which is it, Ken!? l) That's funny–I posted the comment after re-reading some Wilber where he attributes the quote to Shankara. Which is it, Ken!? l)

]]> By: John Eberly http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3538 John Eberly Mon, 03 May 2010 02:46:15 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3538 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. 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.

]]> By: JoelG http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3537 JoelG Sun, 02 May 2010 22:10:10 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3537 I believe the "brahman alone is real" quote is actually from Shankara. I believe the "brahman alone is real" quote is actually from Shankara.

]]> By: John Eberly http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3536 John Eberly Sun, 02 May 2010 14:28:42 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3536 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 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.

]]> By: Vikram http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3535 Vikram Sun, 02 May 2010 08:10:46 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3535 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. 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.

]]> By: John Eberly http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3534 John Eberly Sun, 02 May 2010 03:59:33 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3534 Thanks Vikram, those were obviously typos. I appreciate that you pointed that out. -JE Thanks Vikram, those were obviously typos. I appreciate that you pointed that out. -JE

]]> By: JoelG http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3532 JoelG Sun, 02 May 2010 01:44:29 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3532 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. 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.

]]> By: gate http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3533 gate Sat, 01 May 2010 22:42:46 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3533 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. 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.

]]> By: Vikram http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/04/ramana-maharshi-and-self-enquiry/#comment-3531 Vikram Sat, 01 May 2010 11:26:00 +0000 http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/?p=1581#comment-3531 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). 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).

]]>