Thanks. And I usually don’t adhere to transliteration when writing Sanskrit stuff in English, so you must bear with my sloppiness here

>>I find it difficult to get over my intuitive feeling that consciousness may be materially generated…
Hmm… you’re right but I spoke of consciousness as an experience, and I’m sure you’re aware that there’s a vast difference between the two. Indeed, I do strongly support Aptavakya but then as you yourself said, it is but a mere pointer to the truth: you have to find out the truth for yourself.

>>So all philosophies can be true, I suppose
I think it depends on how evolved a particular school of philosophy is and to what extent the seeker is prepared.

I had only heard the nirvANa-ShaTka ( not conscious that it was called by this name ), your post created an occasion to read it – thanks a lot ( note : ShaTka = collection of six verses, shataka = collection of 100 verses; this one is a ShaTka ).

Coming to the main point; since you believe in a universal consciousness I think advaita would come naturally to you. I find it difficult to get over my intuitive feeling that consciousness may be materially generated ( by chemical reactions, electric pulses etc. ). My belief is based on what people say they experienced – a lot of people who I think are honest, sensible and “strong”. So in some sense the “Apta-vAkya”/verbal testimony kind of pramANa/mode of inference.

Anyway, as shankara himself suggests all written word can only point to the truth, the truth is itself beyond those words. So all philosophies can be true, I suppose.

Thanks for that clarification.

>>The idea of anatman or non-self is a core Buddhist doctrine and much debated.
From my studies of primary sources I tend to go Buddha as upholding the atman principle/theory. Will revert to you with slokas from the primary sources. Froginthewell has pointed one example in the form of “a whole chapter on the brahmana ideal…”

Froginthewell,
Thanks for the kind words. My two-bit on your observations about V.Advaita.
>>…when I talk to you, I don’t refer to your body, I refer to the owner of the body. Similarly, since according to vishiShTAdvaita the jIvAtmans and inert matter all constitute the body for which the paramAtman or nArAyaNa is the soul, the “tvam” in “tat tvam asi” refers to this soul; which is nArAyANa. Hence nArAyaNa is the tat.
In a way this clarifies my stated bias towards Advaita. Now when you equate Tat with Narayana, can I logically ask the proof for Narayana’s existence? Is Narayana a He/She/It? And why only Narayana? Why not Devi/Shiva/Brahma/Arjuna/Guru/Anybody? Methinks V.Advaita stands on the assumption that Narayana=true, in other words, it stands on mere faith/belief in somebody/something called “Narayana.” While the Tat in Advaita stands for Universal Consciousness. I would like to refer you to one of the best expositions of the nature of this Universal Consciousness/Absolute/whatever that Shankara has composed: the Nirvana shataka which I’m sure you’ve read.

>>…but it is vishiShTAdvaita that can explain everything consistently.
Agree fully. But explaining something consistently doesn’t mean explaining it clearly/accurately. Please correct me if this is wrong. Look forward to hearing from you.

Again, thanks for those valuable comments.

Sandeep : regarding your comment above regarding bias towards advaita : while my reading in dvaita and vishiShTAdvaita is near zero, I think they do offer good explanations for tat tvam asi etc.

Here, as far as I can remember, is a vishiShTAdvaitic explanation for aham brahmAsmi – when I talk to you, I don’t refer to your body, I refer to the owner of the body. Similarly, since according to vishiShTAdvaita the jIvAtmans and inert matter all constitute the body for which the paramAtman or nArAyaNa is the soul, the “tvam” in “tat tvam asi” refers to this soul; which is nArAyANa. Hence nArAyaNa is the tat.

I have heard this too ( I don’t know how authentic ) – that advaita elegantly explains the abhEda shrutis, i.e., verses that speak about oneness, dvaita explains the bhEda shrutis well, but it is vishiShTAdvaita that can explain everything consistently.

I am not trying to support any philosophy, but merely summarizing some positions; I myself am biased towards advaita, possibly because of the rAmakRShNa mission etc.

Also regarding the ( refutation of the ) claim that buddhism was a rebel movement : svAmi ranganAthAnanda quotes S. Radhakrishnan’s translation of Dhammapada ( from chapter Brahmana Vaggo ) – eg. “Him I call a brAhmaNa, for who is meditative, free from passions, settled, whose work is done, free from taints, and who has attained the highest end ( of sainthood ).” – to dispute western misrepresentations that buddhism is anti-brAhmaNistic ( Universal message of the Bhagavad Gita; the introductory chapter ). If buddhism was a rebel religion there wouldn’t have been a whole chapter on the brAhmaNa ideal. Some of that chapter reminds me of what yAjn~avalkya tells maitrEyi “Oh maitrEyi, one who leaves this world after knowing the truth is a brAhmaNa. One who leaves without knowing the truth is a kRpaNa”.

Thank you. The idea of anatman or non-self is a core Buddhist doctrine and much debated. I did refer to this in context of your mention of “atmadipo bhava” although the Buddha did say that – be a light to oneself.

You are right on the word “hina”. Hence southern Buddhists prefer the term “theravada” which means the “way of the elders”.

Best

That was HUGELY enlightening, and EXPECTED. I intuitively knew you WOULD comment, thanks.

Some additions follow:
>>Btw, pratekya Buddha does not mean half-knowledgeable. It only means the “silent Buddha” i.e. the enlightened one who achieved Nirvana on his own exertion but who does not preach the way. The concept belongs more to the Hinayana school.
Agree to some extent. The literal meaning of “pratyeka” is “separate” or “unique” or “different.” Pratyeka Buddhas as you rightly pointed out were self-trained Nirvanists and belonged to Hinayana. If you notice, “Hina” means “lesser/contemptible” (path). I wrote about Pratyeka Buddhas in this sense that there arose several individuals who hadn’t fully understood the Buddha’s teachings.

>>But then, as Swami Ranganathananda mentioned, we might as well say that Buddha was a prachanna Vedantin!
I’ve read this LOL In fact, the Buddha has himself said that his teachings are not really different from Vedanta (I’ll quote the slokas in a day or to, don’t know them by rote). Tthe difference lies in his approach and to a great degree, language.

>>The crux of Sunyavada or Madhyamika is that all existence as we know it (or any intellectual position thereof) is self-contradictory.
Indeed. Wait for my next part which deals only with Shunyavada. Will post in a couple of days.

>>Advaita Vedanta instead posits that existence is one and that the phenomenal world is superimposed upon the undifferentiated oneness when viewed through the categories of space and time. The phenomenal world is relative or Maya (mistranslated as unreal) and does not have absolute reality. The self alone is real and that is the absolute. The absolute is one.
My bias is towards Advaita because it is consonant with Vedantic teaching. The words in bold above: Tat twam asi, which Shankara also used as Aham Brahmasmi and Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma.

>>Buddhism does not use the concept of a self or atman.
Can I assume you referred to my mention of atmadipo bhava? Please clarify for I need to base my response on this.

The Buddha spoke Magadhi Prakrit. His word was put down in writing in Pali in turn based on the spoken form of Ujjain.

One can not deny the parallels between Mahayana philosophy and Vedanta. In fact, Shankaracharya and his guru Gaudapada were dismissed as “prachana Bauddha” or secret Buddhists by Ramanuja and Madhva given the parallels between their interpretation of Vedanta (i.e. Advaita) and Buddhism. But then, as Swami Ranganathananda mentioned, we might as well say that Buddha was a prachanna Vedantin!

Of course, the neo Buddhists of India and their Marxist mentors at JNU would hotly deny all this claiming instead that Buddhism was a social and intellectual revolt by the underclass against Brahmanic tyranny! And this despite the fact that all the principal scholars of the Mahayana school were Brahmins – Ashwaghosha, Nagarjuna, Bodhidharma and Vagbhatta being examples.

The crux of Sunyavada or Madhyamika is that all existence as we know it (or any intellectual position thereof) is self-contradictory. One could make an assertion and then immediately contradict that with the very opposite. Thus, nothing is absolute. All is subject to contradiction. With the phenomenal world being relative and subject to change, it can be dismissed as devoid of any absolute reality. With all existence reduced to the void, Shunya or zero is all that really exists – from the absolute standpoint.

Advaita Vedanta instead posits that existence is one and that the phenomenal world is superimposed upon the undifferentiated oneness when viewed through the categories of space and time. The phenomenal world is relative or Maya (mistranslated as unreal) and does not have absolute reality. The self alone is real and that is the absolute. The absolute is one.

Now, the void (i.e nothingness) and oneness (everything) are but two sides of the coin. So is Mahayana and Vedanta that different to begin with. Of course, all this is way beyond the scope of India’s Marxist intellectuals like Romila Thapar and Meera Nanda who see Buddhism as a complete departure from Hinduism.

Btw, pratekya Buddha does not mean half-knowledgeable. It only means the “silent Buddha” i.e. the enlightened one who achieved Nirvana on his own exertion but who does not preach the way. The concept belongs more to the Hinayana school. Another correction – Buddhism does not use the concept of a self or atman.

Hinduism and Buddhism share basic concepts of Dharma, Karma, Samsara and Moksha, not to mention the meditative path. They are sister religions.

Best regards