vedam was given to us by spiritual masters (or whatever of the many terms we choose)
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dharmic traditions only: How would you know if you had an Atman?
- Thread starter Rick O'Shez
- Start date
Vedam was written down yes in 5000 BC but they DON'T have a language to begin with but the chosen language was Sanskrit. Vedam or Vedas are the transcendental sounds that are heard by vaidika rishis in their deepest levels of meditation. Hence they are called Shabda(Sounds). There is no author of Vedam
Notice even before you posted this I had removed the word 'written'. Great minds think alike.
The only problem with this is that Buddha said that such a line of questioning of "it is by means of Self that I perceive not-self, etc." does not lead to liberation. :/
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
Papoon
Active Member
That's right. No assertions about self or no self lead to liberation.
This thread is merely a discussion about the use of the word atman.
I was making an observation that the word refers to the being liberated by spiritual practice. That's all.
And, BTW, I no longer care what Buddha or guru Bananananda said. That's just gossip. I don't use any of these terms in my daily life unless having a discussion on RF.
I don't feel bound or moved by any claims of spiritual authority.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Nice word. For Buddha it meant no sorrow, for me it means absence of unanswered questions. My homage to Lord Buddha (being Hindu, I will say that).
shivsomashekhar
Well-Known Member
I think by leaving behind everything, people like the Buddha and Ramana had little possibility of experiencing sorrow - liberated or not. Therefore, I am inclined to acknowledge the possibility that the Buddha's "no sorrow" state may just have been a consequence of his renunciations and nothing more.
It would be interesting to see a householder who is supposed to be liberated claim to be beyond sorrow - especially in the face of tragedy. Somehow, I think that is not possible.
To me, liberation can only be an inference. Because -
1. It cannot remove sorrow (not unless the person has unequivocally renounced everything). If the person's child suffers, the person suffers, due to the attachment.
2. It does not eliminate physical pain. The so-called liberated person can still pick up cancer and its associated pain.
With the above limitations, the idea of liberation of a living person is logically flawed.There are quite a few doctrines in India which hold that liberation can only happen after death.
Last edited:
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Why? I am a house-holder and I have no sorrow (more or less)*, just being an uninvolved witness to 'leela' (happenings). Non-attachment, samata, equanimity are the key words.
"Mātrā-sparshāh tu, Kaunteya, śītoshna-sukha-duhkha-dāh;
agama apayinah anityah tān titikshasva, Bharata." BhagawadGita 2.14
Arising from sensory perception, O Son of Kunti, like cold and heat (of seasons), happiness and distress are impermanent and appear and disappear. O Scion of Bharata dynasty, just try to tolerate them (without getting disturbed).
* Which means there are still some situations when I can get disturbed. Not completely liberated in that sense.
Last edited:
Nothing big. Only realising that body is not self.
This is interesting - you think matter and energy exist independent of consciousness? Or are you making an analogy?
Which would be anatta in Buddhism.
No, I do not think matter and energy exist independently of consciousness. I guess my wording was so because I was trying to connect with someone who might not grasp Advaita concepts.
OK, was just checking!
At first blush, the ideas of Advaita are certainly not intuitive
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
So how do you approach these questions from a Left Hand Path perspective?
Same way Buddha does: the apophatic method. No self views, only through defining what is not-self. From the sutta:
"He attends appropriately, This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the way leading to the cessation of stress. As he attends appropriately in this way, three fetters are abandoned in him: identity-view, doubt, and grasping at precepts & practices. These are called the fermentations to be abandoned by seeing.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru
Yeah, after all they are brother religions. I fail to find any difference (except 'do not engage in unfruitful debates').
Rick O'Shez
Irishman bouncing off walls
The anatta v. atman thing looks like a significant difference to me.
Neither Advaita nor Buddhism teaches Nihilism.
Shankara teaches us to be constantly aware of the distinction between 'aware self' and 'non aware non self' and then to attain to the knowledge that self is not different from brahman. His main thesis is of unveiling of effect of mAyA due to 'superposition' of effect on the cause. In sanskrit it is called adhyaasa. He gives an example of a heated iron ball. A person may mistake property of 'iron' to be 'red hot' and nature of 'heat' to be 'hard'. It is called double adhaasya-double superposition.
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/real/adhyasa.htm
So, Shankara definitively teaches about self. He teaches us to abide in its essential nature of 'awareness', which is distinct from inertness of all body-mind components/aspects. As per Shankara and advaita, only by a successful discrimination between the aware self and non aware non-self, the wisdom rises, culminating in samadhi. In samadhi, when the consciousness remains free of mental objects (that create the magical (mAyA) divisions in homogeneous consciousness and the resultant superpositions and errors of judgement leading to misery), the oneness of self and brahman is revealed, ending the misery of samsara.
http://www.sankaracharya.org/vivekachudamani1.php
I find, the vichara, the constant awareness of anatta in Buddhism to be same as 'vichara of self and self-non self' of advaita. These two are only apparently different. The experience is the same.
Shankara teaches us to be constantly aware of the distinction between 'aware self' and 'non aware non self' and then to attain to the knowledge that self is not different from brahman. His main thesis is of unveiling of effect of mAyA due to 'superposition' of effect on the cause. In sanskrit it is called adhyaasa. He gives an example of a heated iron ball. A person may mistake property of 'iron' to be 'red hot' and nature of 'heat' to be 'hard'. It is called double adhaasya-double superposition.
http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/real/adhyasa.htm
So, Shankara definitively teaches about self. He teaches us to abide in its essential nature of 'awareness', which is distinct from inertness of all body-mind components/aspects. As per Shankara and advaita, only by a successful discrimination between the aware self and non aware non-self, the wisdom rises, culminating in samadhi. In samadhi, when the consciousness remains free of mental objects (that create the magical (mAyA) divisions in homogeneous consciousness and the resultant superpositions and errors of judgement leading to misery), the oneness of self and brahman is revealed, ending the misery of samsara.
http://www.sankaracharya.org/vivekachudamani1.php
I find, the vichara, the constant awareness of anatta in Buddhism to be same as 'vichara of self and self-non self' of advaita. These two are only apparently different. The experience is the same.