65: Upadesha Sahasri (ch16 v35-37) Thousand Teachings of Adi Shankara (Selected Verses)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 тра 2024
- Vedanta class taught by Swami Tadatmananda at Arsha Bodha Center. Selected verses. Videos of all classes taught so far are available here: • Upadesha Sahasri - One...
Text with Swami Tadatmananda's translation available here: arshabodha.org/teachings/upad...
Vedanta is not a subject matter, a spiritual doctrine, or a philosophy - it is a method of self-inquiry (atma-vichara) based on the wisdom (vidya) of the ancient rishis, as found in the Upanishads, a part of the sacred Vedic scriptures. This method can lead you to discover your true, divine nature (sat-chit-ananda atma) and gain moksha, freedom from suffering.
Swami Tadatmananda is a traditionally-trained teacher of Advaita Vedanta, meditation, and Sanskrit. For more information, please see: www.arshabodha.org/
Thank you dear Swamiji! Blessings! 🙏
Shanti, shanti, shanti 🙏🏼
Pranam Swami ji
🙏 Thank you Swami ji.
Pranam Guruji 🙏
Namaste, Swamiji, 🙏 yes, agree language fails to adequately describe/ express and when we examine the language it is words, labels assigned to try and express /communicate in a conventional world. One can clearly see the discord that existed in ancient times and persists among the various spiritual traditions to this day. In my personal opinion, there is knowledge, and benefit in both Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. ♥
Thank you, Swami-ji. 🙏 Just as an aside, not only do most Japanese have Shinto rituals as children and Buddhist funerals, but Christian weddings are the most popular type of weddings in Japan now. A woman in a white dress and a man in a tuxedo, in a church, is seen as very romantic.
Om Tat Sat
Salutations, Guruji! Thank you for a very informative and enjoyable discussion. It is amazing that hundreds of years post Sri Shankara, there appears to be no resolution of the differences in ideology. I also wonder if one of the main reasons Buddha shied away from ancient Vedic scriptures is because of the highly ritualistic nature which was not amenable to the vast majority of followers, much less understanding the symbolism behind them. Om Shanti 🙏🏼
Comforted to note that Swamiji’s observations about Buddhist philosophy in this video validate my current understanding of that subject. As I understand it, the Buddhist view on the Absolute Truth is perhaps best captured by the following statement by Rev. Dr. Walpola Rahula, a noted Theravada monk and scholar, in his book titled “What the Buddha Taught”.
_Now, what is Absolute Truth? According to Buddhism, the Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in this world, that everything is relative, conditioned and impermanent, and that there is no unchanging, everlasting, absolute substance like Self, Soul, or Atman within or without. This is the Absolute Truth_
The irony of the logical contradiction in the above Buddhist position is not lost upon Advaitins like me. If we accept that “the Absolute Truth is that there is nothing absolute in this world” then, logically, there is nothing absolute about the subsequent Buddhist assertion “This is the Absolute Truth”!😀
Setting such hair-splitting disagreements with our Buddhist friends aside, both Advaita and Buddhism recognize that whatever is objectified through our mind (with or without our senses) is impermanent. Advaitins use the term mithya to designate the ontological status of all that is available for objectification through our mind while Buddhists use the term sunya to designate the epistemic status of the same. Further, both Advaitins and Buddhists would agree that the Absolute Truth cannot be known through sense perception and reasoning alone. Since Buddhism relies solely on sense perception and reasoning, it can offer no further insight on the Absolute Truth. In contrast, Advaita is not similarly handicapped since it has the benefit of the Upanishads. As noted in this video, the Upanishads reveal knowledge about the Absolute Truth which cannot be arrived at through sense perception and reasoning alone. Specifically, the Upanishads reveal that the Absolute Truth is what we are. Further, they reveal unique knowledge needed to remove our mistaken beliefs and uncertainties about our true nature.
Typically, Buddhist criticism of Advaita Vedanta is based on their mistaken assumption that Atman is some kind of worldly or other-worldly “substance” or that Atman is a “substantive foundation”. Their criticism melts away once that faulty assumption is countered as was done by Sri Shankara in these verses of the Upadesha Sahasri.
What might help you understand the Buddhist position is that there is no negation of reality as 'mithya' in Buddhism. In Buddhism reality is mithya-vat - like mithya, like and illusion BUT not an illusion, rather arising due to causes and condition.
@@Goto147 FYI, the Sanskrit term “mithya” does not translate to the English term “illusion” in Advaita. Also, there is no negation of reality in Advaita. Rather, Advaitins negate the erroneous belief that mithya is absolutely real. This enables us to recognize mithya for what it is, i.e., the appearance of absolute reality. Cutting to the chase, has any Buddhist ever declared “I am suffering-free Absolute Reality” as many realized Advaitins have? If not, how may an enlightened Buddhist fill the blanks in the following incomplete sentence “I am ……. suffering ……”?
48:10 - What's the definition of "evolute" in this context? "Gunas like Tamas and their evolutes".
I came across that word the first time when I read some of Divine Life Society's online texts sometime ago. I looked it up and just saw the mathematical explanation. I'm still unclear about what it is exactly and my best guess was it's a way to describe a curve. But my gut tells me that it's an important word to understand so I remembered it.
🙏
its said in the keno upanishads that the Atman is the mind of the mind, the eyes of the eyes, the ears of the ears, etc etc..can you chat about the zen buddhist Orginal Face? that is the Atman in the beyond the beyond?
Ananda Cooamaraswami said Buddhism is Hinduism made for export.
Ken Wheeler speaks poly!
Is sadness present in Consciousness or is sadness present in the mind but revealed by Consciousness?
The latter
If we are talking from our personal perspective then the latter.
Ultimately there is only counsouness, so anything that is in existence including sadness is an appearance in consciousness. So
With due respect I would like to present two two points in contrast to what the Teacher is presenting here on Buddhism :
Firstly :
It’s Interesting how Buddha’s Teachings is refuted on the basis that one should first receive scriptures from the divinity ( whatever that might mean) ..
and goes on to say that the Buddha did not receive that so his teachings are just human ..
I think venturing into spirituality should first go by INVESTIGATIONS and not by someone’s scriptures
In the end it is the Rishis who understood what they understood
Their understandings was deemed incomplete by the Buddha ..
he refuted 62 views of his time in Digha Nikaya sutra !!
Any way Buddha ventured out in an unorthodox way and discovered Samyak Sambodhi ( Correct Full Wisdom) that no other Vedic Brahmin or the anti Vedic Shramanas had ever experienced .. before him !!
Secondly :
The 4 postulates of Nagarjuna’s “Chatuskoti Binirmukti” is incorrectly interpreted .. The teacher here says as a mere philosophical statement ..
and the teacher here seems to be totally oblivious that the 4 statements were about pointing at the inexpressible wisdom ( Sambodhi) which remains beyond the 4 possibilities of appearance and existence .. the “yathabuta gyana” of the Buddha .. and not just a philosophical logic !
I think there is a muddled up , unclear and inadequate understanding of the Buddhas position therefore an incorrect refutation of the Buddhas Teachings 🙏
While I appreciate and applaud Swami-ji's intention to teach his students to understand, and thereby refute, the teachings of the Buddha, the truth is that this lecture is riddled with errors and misconceptions regarding Buddhism. Here are a catalogue of errors from the first 12 minutes of the video.
1. The Buddha did not teach in Pali. Pali is a constructed language. It is most likely that he taught in Magadha Prakrit, the dialect most prevalent in the regions where he taught. The teachings were later codified into various languages in keeping with the Buddha's instructions --- these include Sanskrit and numerous Prakrits. In fact, the oldest Buddhist manuscripts so far discovered are the Gandharan Manuscripts, and they are written in Gandharan Prakrit and belong to the Dharmaguptaka school.
2. The Theravada IS NOT the oldest form of Buddhism. The original Buddhist sangha split into the Shthaviravada and the Mahasamgika schools, and these in turn split into the 18 (or 22, depending how they're counted) schools of Early Buddhism. Theravada is the only surviving denomination of the Shravakayana school, which itself descended from the Sthaviravada. The Mahayana descended from the Mahasamgika.
3. At least once Swami-ji asserts knowledge of what Buddhism looked like during the time of the Buddha. How is he privy to this information?
4. Tibet is to the immediate north of the Indian Subcontinent.
5. No school of Buddhism claims Buddha to be a divinity, and if any school takes such a position it can no longer be considered Buddhist. In the Dona Sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya of the Theravada Canon, the Buddha is asked by the Brahmin Dona if he's a human, a yaksha, a gandharva or a deva. The Buddha rejects all of these labels and tells Dona that he is the Buddha and that he is neither human nor divine.
6. The original meaning of the term Hinayana was "Small Vehicle", as opposed to the "Large Vehicle" that is the Mahayana. This is so because the Shravakayana (Hinayana) is the Vehicle of Individual Liberation, while the Mahayana is the Vehicle for the liberation of all sentient beings.
Again, I appreciate Swami-ji's efforts, but it behoves one teaching a subject as complex and nuanced as Buddhist philosophy to know the subject matter well and teach the same without errors, else one will only end up arguing against strawmen.