rks@princeton.edu (Ramesh Sitaraman) (12/31/90)
First of all, I must apologise to David who construed my comments
on a "western distortion"of Indian history to mean him in particular.
On the contrary, I quite admire his erudition.
Let me summarise the points I was trying to make:
Suppose I were to give you the 9 or so philsophical schools of India,
including Vedanta and Buddhism, WITHOUT the surrounding cultural
baggage and the assumptions that people, especially westerners, seem
to make. A classification based only on the philosphical standpoint
would be very very different from classifications such as "Hindu",
"Buddhist", "Brahminical" etc etc, which in fact have no historical
precedence in India itself !
A broad classification by doctrine would see a continous stream of
thought starting at the upanishads (the metaphysical portions of the
Vedas) flowing through Buddhist teachers like Buddha and Nagarjuna
and to Vedantic ("Hindu") teachers like Sankara and Ramanuja.
A different stream will connect up the schools of Sankya (Hindu) and
Yoga (Hindu). Jainism would form a unique stream on its own, a tradition
dating as far back as the Vedas themselves. The ritualistic part of
the Vedas would flow and culminate in the Mimamsa school.
Besides all this, one has the Tantric schools which flow right
across and has many "Buddhist" as well as "Hindu" variations.
That the Buddha did not refer to the Upanishads (Vedas) as
a source book has been overplayed to the extent that some even
say that he rejected it !!! The reasons are ofcourse purely
pragmatic and perhaps cultural. Buddha's teachings were for the
common man in the common man's language (not Sanskrit!!).
And there is no real need to reference abstract metaphysical works
for what must really be felt. Even in this Buddha is not different
from other "Hindu" teachers. The most recent example is ofcourse
Ramana Maharishi who taught in the common man's language and in
his own words. It is said that he later realised on enlightenment
that what he felt has indeed been given a name in the hoary past
in the Upanishads !!
That the Buddha rejected animal sacrifice and the zillion ritualistic
practices of the Brahmins of his time. The non-metaphysical part
of the Vedas do in fact prescribe sacrifices and rituals. So is this
going against the Vedas ? Actually, yes. But one must remember that
Sankara (a Hindu teacher) condemned every one of those ritualistic
sacrifices as well !! Reverence to the Vedas are to a great extent
a cultural aspect of India among the Brahmins. This has seldom implied
any constraint on what philosphical stands one could take up at
any point of time. In fact it would even be simply impossible
to "follow" the Vedas in its entirety since there is NO single
view of life espoused by it, NO single author, NO single philosophy.
It has polytheism, monotheism, Vedantic monism, ritualism all in one.
It is to a great extent a cultural record of India around 1500 BC !!
Many scholars would agree that the teachings of the Buddha can be
thought of as logical extensions of the Upanishads. To give a couple
of quick examples, consider Mayavada (the world as illusory) of the
Buddha. Or the "not this, not this" (neti neti) argument of Nagarjuna.
Or the conversation between Milinda and Nagasena (Milindapanha).
All of these analyses and concepts can be seen in the upanishads (1300 BC)
and could infact have been written by later day Vedantic teachers !!
Ramesh Sitaraman
--
ARPA: rks@cs.princeton.edu | When you make the two one, inside
SPRINT:(609) 683 1979 (Home) | like outside, and outside like inside
(609) 258 1794 (Off) | .....then thou shall enter the Kingdom
| of God. -Christ, Gospel of Thomas 37.20-35pingali@umvlsi.ecs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali) (01/03/91)
I am a latecomer to this debate - so I hope all participants will be kind if I repeat points that have already been made in articles that I did not see. I think I have the gist of it so far. Let me say that I lay no claims to expertise - but my background might place me in a position to contribute here. I was raised in the Brahminical tradition and I started out by reading the Upanishads. However, the type of meditation that I practice is vipassana - and I attempt to lead what might be termed a Buddhist life. In article <1990Dec31.003738.13819@nas.nasa.gov> david@star2.cm.utexas.edu (David Sigeti) writes: [deleted] > >Since I don't know much in detail about the "orthodox" schools, I >just have a couple of questions here. Can you give a brief >outline of the Sankya school and how it differs from Vedic >philosophy? Can you explain in some detail how Buddhism is "very >very close" to the Upanishadic philosophy? I often hear this >latter notion bandied about quite loosely, usually by people who >are pretty ignorant of Buddhism (and probably of the Upanishads >too, for all I know). Since I get the impression that you >actually *do* know a fair bit about the "orthodox" schools, we >might have an interesting and educational exchange here. The above is addressed to Ramesh. I can point some things out from my experience. Buddha Dharma makes no demands in terms of faith (sraddha being somewhat different - as Bandula points out). However, there are certain underlying attitudes that make the mind less resistent to the insights that develop in meditation. The notion that "we are not we think we are" is very strong in Hinduism as well and is not unique to Buddhism. That life is characterized by dukkha (dissatisfaction/pain) and that dukkha arises from tanha (craving) and ignorance is an underlying theme in practically every Hindu school. This is one of the messages of the Gita. That non-attachment is a state to be strived for is also accepted in Hinduism. Obviously, an "intellectual" understanding of these notions is not the real thing. But, my experience has been that my cultural conditioning has greatly aided me in my (Buddhist) meditation practice. These notions, along with a sense of karma, seem to make the mind less judgemental about all the stuff that arises during vipassana meditation. These views (facts, actually) are very fundamental to Buddhist practice - yet I trace all the predispositions in my mind regarding them to my Hindu background. > [much on castes deleted] > I do not have much to say about this except that there is a distinction made between men of *learning* and men of *wisdom*. More often than not, sanyasis were regarded as men of wisdom. Sanyasis (renunciates) were exempt from all caste rules - in fact, they have no caste. Caste rules, purificatory ceremonies etc., were prescribed for householders. As an aside, it is a mistake to regard Brahmins as the "priestly class". The role of Brahmins was to study and teach and only a very small percentage of them were (or are) priests. That said, it is fairly obvious that Buddhism has a far more egalitarian attitude. Many Hindu schools made a distinction between open and hidden knowledge - an attitude that the Buddha explicitly condemned. > 7. Brahminism and Buddhism also have very different approaches to > meditation. Brahminism tends to stress the attainment of very > deep states of *tranquillity*. In most Brahmanical traditions, > such states are believed to lead to (re)union with the Atman. > Often this is believed to involve the destruction of the "ego", > the phenomenal/individual self. In order to achieve these deep > states, Brahmanical practices usually stress exercises in > *concentration* which is usually defined (in both Brahminism and > Buddhism) as "one-pointedness" of mind. > > Buddhism is very different. Here, the point is not the > attainment of tranquillity (samatha) but the development of > *insight* (vipassana) into the nature of the mental/physical > "person". The essential meditative technique for the > development of insight is the cultivation of *mindfulness* > (smrti), not of concentration (samadhi). (The central Buddhist > sutra on meditation is entitled "The Setting Up of > Mindfulness".) Rather than developing an ever narrower > concentration on a particular object, material or mental, > Buddhist meditation involves an open ended attention to mental > and physical processes as they arise and pass away. The > attainment of the ultimate in insight ("awakening") is believed > to involve a thorough seeing into the "emptiness" of the person. > In other words, rather than seeking to destroy or subdue the > "ego", one sees directly that there is no such thing. There is much that is accurate in this - yet this is not fully correct. Most "Hindu" schools stress samatha meditation. Yet the fundamental difference between Hindu and Buddhist practice does not lie here. It lies in the fact that most Hindu schools lay stress on the "guru-shishya" (teacher-disciple) relationship. Most Vedantic schools seem to use the technique of the teacher helping push the student into a corner - until he has no choice but to see the answer to the question "Who am I"? Meditation is used more to train the mind in concentration. Tranquility is not seen as an end in itself. Gaudapada (Sankara's guru's guru) wrote a treatise (Karika) on the Mandukya Upanishad, in which the student is advised to maintain an attitude of non-attachment towards *everything*. He must give up craving for the state of transcendental bliss (satchitananda) - this is not possible if the state achieved is one of *absorption*. Absence of craving seems to indicate mindfulness. The approach seems koan-like - but I am not qualified to comment further on this. It is not true that the Upanishads require a subjugation of the ego - it is true that they describe the notion of a separate, individual existence as false. Ramana Maharshi, who was an extraordinary sage, used several different ways to teach. He advised people to relentlessly follow every thought with questions - who am I, where does the "I" thought come from? In addition, there was the remarkable effect of his silent presence. He *discouraged* people from seeking blissful mind states - and advised them to cultivate pure attention instead. I have not actually *practiced* any Hindu method formally. I cannot say what effect that would have. I love Buddha Dharma because of the clarity, depth and consistency that I see in it. As a systematic development of a map of the mind - *and* the path to see it for ourselves - I am aware of no body of work better than the Pali Canon. The teachings are direct and accessible. They require no obvious intermediary - though there is no doubt in my mind that a good teacher would be *very* helpful, almost essential. The Buddha gets right to the point - suffering, and the end of suffering. Mindfulness practice has an obvious and rapid effect on our daily lives.