Sanatana Dharma questions

[follower12]

Namaste riju ji,

I want to reflect on your opinions which are somewhere mixed up.

riju wrote: In this sutra He mentions that highest Moksh leads to Arhatship and Arhat is a PITFALL on the way to Buddhahood. Hindus have neglected Buddhism because of this.

First, Hindus have not neglected any religion. Some might have done that but it cannot e applied to everyone. It is the fact that we happily follow what we have learnt from our elders. Whether wisdom comes from Hinduism or Buddhism or Jainism or any other religion, it is for our upliftment.
Second, can you mention the original sutra (if you remember) where such statement might be written. As far as I have heard, there is no concept of Moksh and soul in Buddhism. The highest state defined there is Mahaparinirvana after Nirvana. Also, Arhatship is related to Jainism & some buddhists scholars have misinterpreted the penance practice of Jain path. Arhat is the hightest divine state that one can reach before liberation. Lord Buddha himself followed Jain practice for all the purification before enlightenment. He never criticised the path but chalked out a new simple path which can be practiced by everyone.

Why does Guatam Buddha who is incarnation of VISHNU god condemn Arhatship?

He did not condemn it. Those are words of Buddhist preachers, not Lord Buddha himself.

These words are very THOUGHT PROVOKING. They give a different reason and purpose for existence, for pain and sufferings etc.

Path of Buddhism is there for understanding the same aspect.

So, when will the pains and miseries end? Only when when attains liberation otherwise it is one and the same thing. If there were no moksha, there would never have been a need of religion, meditation or spirituality.

[follower12]

knowThyEnemy wrote:

No it is not! Most learnt people will tell you that a person achieves Moksh only when s/he gets rid of all ego. However, when we say "I want Moksh", or "I want to do things that will get me Moksh", then ego is still there, and it stays there no matter how hard we are working towards getting Moksh! And as long as the ego is dominant in a person, there can be no Moksh for him/her.

I was reading this and got a little bit confused as the final outcome of your reflection in the statement also says that Moksha is the highest goal. When ego is destroyed or get purified, it attains liberation. Please correct me if I misunderstood it.

Pranam

[devotee]

Namaste riju,

I have heard that Sanatana religion accepts Guatam Buddha as an incarnation of God Vishnu.
He is personally spoken about a sutra named LOTUS SUTRA.
This sutra is not openly talked about by Hindus as well as Buddhists'

IN this sutra He mentions that highest Moksh leads to Arhatship and Arhat is a PITFALL on the way to Buddhahood.
Hindus have neglected Buddhism because of this.
Buddhists have had difficulty understanding this sutra and hence they never talk about it.

After reading various texts on Buddhism and mainly MahAyAn Buddhism, I feel that Buddha either kept silent or said same thing what Advaita VedAnta says. Yes, his terminologies and way of expressing are different from what we are used to in Advaita VedAnta. Highest state of liberation in Advaita VedAnta is Self-realisation i.e. attainment of Turiya (staying all the time in Turiya is called TuriyatIta). Now, if you compare description of Buddhahood and Turiya ... I find not much difference. Both the states cannot be described and both the states are beyond all mental concepts. Can you quote where Lord Buddha said that highest Moksha leads to Arhatship ?

What Lord Buddha said has been misunderstood in many ways by Buddhists, perhaps, to maintain a separate identity of Buddhism apart from Hindu Dharma. When he says that there is ""no self"" ... he wants that people seeking NirvAna or liberation should not get attached to any concept which leads to bondage of another kind. In Advaita VedAnta too, existence of "self" (i.e. JeevAtmA) is only temporary until Self-realisation. The individuality of JeevAtmA is lost on attaining the state of Turiya. When we talk of the highest state, Advaita VedAnta says that it is the Self whereas Buddha says that it is Buddhahood and ëmptiness". In Buddha's words, the whole world comes from ëmptiness". Here it appears as if Buddha is something totally different from what Advaita says ( as Advaita compares it with Fullness instead of emptiness). The fact is that as AtmA is not a "thing" ... they are saying the same thing using different words. How do you describe anything which is not a thing, which cannot be described by any mental concept ? If you and I have experienced the same thing ... I may choose different words to express the same thing and you can choose yours.

Why does Guatam Buddha who is incarnation of VISHNU god condemn Arhatship?

For Hindus, everything is Divine. A Self-realised soul is same as Brahman and therefore, there is no mistake in saying that Lord Buddha was also an incarnation of God. His being an incarnation of Vishnu is not supported by scriptures. Arhatship is not a concept in Hindu Dharma anmd therefore, this question is not correct.

Instead He suggests that when Arhatship should be protected by developing Sambhogkaya, Nirmankaya and Dharamkaya.
These three kayas can only be developed by a would be Arhant in the day today involvement in existence.

Can you quote where Lord Buddha says all this ? What does he mean by Arhatship ? I am not aware as it is not a concept in Hindu Dharma.


OM

[riju]

Namaste riju ji,

I want to reflect on your opinions which are somewhere mixed up.

First, Hindus have not neglected any religion. Some might have done that but it cannot e applied to everyone. It is the fact that we happily follow what we have learnt from our elders. Whether wisdom comes from Hinduism or Buddhism or Jainism or any other religion, it is for our upliftment.
Second, can you mention the original sutra (if you remember) where such statement might be written. As far as I have heard, there is no concept of Moksh and soul in Buddhism. The highest state defined there is Mahaparinirvana after Nirvana. Also, Arhatship is related to Jainism & some buddhists scholars have misinterpreted the penance practice of Jain path. Arhat is the hightest divine state that one can reach before liberation. Lord Buddha himself followed Jain practice for all the purification before enlightenment. He never criticised the path but chalked out a new simple path which can be practiced by everyone.

He did not condemn it. Those are words of Buddhist preachers, not Lord Buddha himself.

Path of Buddhism is there for understanding the same aspect.

So, when will the pains and miseries end? Only when when attains liberation otherwise it is one and the same thing. If there were no moksha, there would never have been a need of religion, meditation or spirituality.

unload from internet the book 'LOTUS SUTRA" translated by Burton Watson. Go to the chapter 2 named "EXPEDIENT MEANS"
In pages 23 to 46 Guatam Buddha directly condemns Arhats three times.

Lotus sutra is originally spoken by Guatam Buddha and no buddhist denies it.
In this Guatam Buddha tells that Arhatship which leads to moksh is only a gate that opens the path to Buddhahood.
An arhat has a choice.....either his elements dissolve in EMPTINESS thro a process of BLISS.
Or he adopts the understanding of Lotus sutra and and proceeds towards Buddhahood and Nirvan.

Lotus sutra is very difficult to understand and unfortunately all buddhist respect and rever it but reject its preachings.
Hindus never tried it as there was no buddhist easily available who could direct them.
Understanding of Lotus sutra is only possible through direct experience in meditation.
And if one does not have the capability to meditate than one should believe in what Guatam Buddha says in Lotus sutra.

Brahmana started this existence and left it to evolve thro CAUSE AND EFFECT.

The word Buddha means WISDOM in sanskrit and Guatam had achieved this Buddhahood .
In other words Buddha creates and rules the existence.
And when He enters nirvan he remains a pure WISDOM of BRAHMANA for future

[riju]

Namaste Riju Ji,

You are free to put your 'Sutra' views in the Buddhist sub-forum of HDF and call for comparative discussions there.

Nameste Ram11,

There is only one Truth as far as I am concerned.
And that truth is vedas and Sanatan dharam.
Guatam Buddha never went against vedas and sanatam dharam as per my thinking.
Misunderstanding and division has come later due to ignorance of truth.
By writing here I want to know if I am mistaken in this thinking.
As questions and discussions are coming here, please allow me to continue here.
Also please free me from moderator to keep fast pace of the thread.
I bow to whatever decision you take after this letter

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Namaste

Arhatship means one who has realized fully the vitures of the dhamma and has become a noble being, one may or may not have achieved enlightenment

[knowThyEnemy]

knowThyEnemy wrote:

I was reading this and got a little bit confused as the final outcome of your reflection in the statement also says that Moksha is the highest goal. When ego is destroyed or get purified, it attains liberation. Please correct me if I misunderstood it.

Pranam

Namaste follower12,


The statement is indeed confusing and the fault is mine, as I did not state it correctly. I have come across two primary definitions of Moksh. The popular one is that when a person gets out of the cycle of birth-death-rebirth, s/he has attained Moksh. The other is that when the veil of ignorance is removed and the person realizes that s/he is none else but Sat-Chit-Anand Brahman, s/he has attained Moksh. I prefer the latter one, and it appears that you do too. ("When ego is destroyed or get purified, it attains liberation.") Hence we shall use this definition of Moksh in our discussions.


Let's take a hypthetical situation where a person achieves Moksh at the age of 50, but he stays alive till 85. What should that person do for the 35 years after liberation? He already achieved the goal that everyone told him is "the highest goal"! Should he visit temples on a weekly basis and worship there? What for? He already got the highest reward that God can give someone! Should he read religious scriptures? What for? He already got the highest knowledge! Should he start a business and make money? What for? Money and wealth try to fulfill the ego's hungers. But his ego has no hunger left! That person would be reduced to being an aimless wanderer and would spend his 35 years doing nothing but waiting for death!


IMO Moksh should not be a person's 'goal'. Bhagavad Gita strongly emphasize the importance of dharma and Nishkam Karma. Moksh is a reward that is only for God to give to people. God controls Moksh, whereas we control dharma. However God clearly says in Gita that 1) whoever ignores dharma is a sinner, and 2) people shoud not expect any rewards when they live by dharma or do Nishkam karma.


What this means is that we should have total trust in God and realize that we will get Moksh only when God decides it is time for us to have Moksh. Once we have such understanding, this idea called Moksh becomes nothing but a theory about which there is nothing for us to do. We should stick only to what is in our hands- dharma, and should work towards living by dharma. When the time is right, God will give Moksh even to those who have never even heard of this term!


More: Mahabharat has a story of Abhimanyu (Arjun's son) who died fighting in the war. Sri Krishn told Pandavs not to mourn since he had died in the process of performing his dharma. However, this does not automatically mean that Abhimanyu got Moksh. He may have though, even though at his age he most likely did not even know what Moksh even was! At his age, he probably only knew that it was his dharma to fight hard to win and not be afraid of death. That is exactly the attitude that we need to have.


Hence the bottomline of my reflection is that Moksh should not be our goal nor should we think much about it! We will get our Moksh whenever it is in our destiny. We should concentrate only on dharma.


Now let's come back to that hypothetical situation that I mentioned above with the only difference that the person has led his life living by dharma. At 50, when he gets Moksh, he will continue to live by dharma for the rest of his life. The only difference now would be that living by dharma for 35 years would be an automatic Nishkam Karma on his part for which no one would get credit. This person would not be "waiting for death". He will stay busy doing Nishkam Karma and he would not even realize when his 85 years are over.

[devotee]

Namaste,

To help this thread, I think it is better to clarify the different types of liberation or Moksha our scriptures describe. Muktika Upanishad lists five types of liberation. The excerpt is given below for ready reference :

I-i-18-23. Rama: Liberation is of four kinds: Salokya etc. But the only real type is Kaivalya.Anybody even though leading a wicked life, attains Salokya, not other worlds, byworshipping my name. Dying in the sacred Brahmanala in Kashi, he will get the Tarakamantraand also liberation, without rebirth. On dying anywhere (else) in Kashi,Maheshvara will utter the Taraka-mantra in his right ear. He gets Sarupya with me as hissins are washed away.The same is called Salokya and Sarupya. Persevering in good conduct, with mind fixedupon me, loving me as the Self of all, the twice-born gets nearer to me – This is called thethree forms of liberation. Salokya, Sarupya and Samipya.

I-i-24-25. Meditating on my eternal form as prescribed by the Teacher, one will surelyachieve identity with me like the insects changing into the bee. This alone is the liberationof identity (Sayujya) yielding the bliss of Brahman.All these four kinds of Mukti will be got by worshipping Me.

I-i-26-29. But by what means is the Kaivalya kind of Moksha got? The Mandukya isenough; if knowledge is not got from it, then study the Ten Upanishads. Getting knowledgevery soon, you will reach my abode. If certainty is not got even then, study the 32Upanishads and stop. If desiring Moksha without the body, read the 108 Upanishads. Heartheir order.

What is Kaivalya ? Kaivalya means the state where "there is no other". Its root is "Kevala" means, "only one" i.e. Advaitam.

Moksha is getting free from cycles of births and deaths. However, apart from Kaivalya which is the highest form of liberation, there are four other types which are described in Muktika Upanishad (SAlokya, SAmipya, SArupya, SAyujya). Buddha doesn't advise to go for other types but only for Kaivalya as understood by me.

OM

[riju]

As I understand .......

Moksh.....When all elements physical as well as cosmic dissolve in Guru/God/Devi/Devta due to Bhakti or devotion.
This person gets free from cycle of rebirth and death.

Arhat/Arihant...When all elements get dissolved in Brahmana/Emptiness/Nirvana. This is possible only when the person gets
free from desires /emotions by Tapasya/meditation in isolation as a monk. Here the person has a choice
of becoming a Buddha before dissoving his elements in Nirvana.

[follower12]

Namaste Riju ji & devotee ji & knowthyenemy ji,

The topic is very interesting and I have learnt a lot from your posts. I think I can use Shrimad Bhagwad Gita as the only reference here as I have not read other scriptures at all like Upnishads & Vedas. I have gone through their sub-parts on different websites but still it counts less awareness on my part. So, forgive me for any narrow minded opinion that I might give here.
riju ji's post is indeed very interesting and has triggered a reasoning in me. So, if you don't mind, I would like to reflect on each statement separately.

riju ji wrote:

Consider an alternative answer from the point of view of Sanatana Dharma and give your views.......Brhamana created many consciousnesses (souls) as a replica of HIM.
And sent them down to go and CREATE an EXISTENCE.

I think we are referring Hinduism as Sanatana Dharm here, ain't we?
As Shri Gita elaborates that Soul can neither be created nor destroyed. So, I find Lord Brahma creating replicas of HIM as contradictory.

These consciousness out of IGNORANCE considered themselves as individual souls and became EGOS.

Soul cannot be converted from one form to another. Shri Gita states that soul had remained pure since minus infinity & will be so till plus infinity. Ego is different from soul. The elemental state of soul remians unchanged. That's why Shri Krishna Bhagwan said, "I am inside you & there is no difference between me and soul of other living beings."

Some others found no solutions to the pain and sufferings and ran for MOKSH as losers.

Losers would be a wrong term to use here. I think we could understand significance of Moksh.

Related to this, Shri Krishna Bhagwan has mentioned that Paramdham(space where soul recides after Moksh for infinite time, permanently in infinite bliss) is the last goal that a human being should have to make his birth fruitful. You can find the shloka where relative state of soul (with respect to antahkaran) changes from Shuddhatma to Vishuddhatma.

In a satsang, I heard the Atmagyani describing evolution of a being in this sansaar as, " A soul transmigrates from one species to another continuously ( it is total 84 lac yonis). Then, when he gets human birth, a new evolution starts as subtle body 'ego' takes birth only after these many transmigrations. There are total 14 lac layers of evolution of human beings that can be divided into three sets on basis of evolution. First set does not believe in religion as it is still learning basic instincts, second set gets associated to different religion and then the third set which consists of top 50,000 layer of evolution makes effort for Moksha. The beings below the third set of layer cannot grasp Moksh or core meditation practices usually. Bu the beings of first set and second set will eventually comes to third after a span & move ahead towards liberation."

Everywhere in Hinduism literature, it is mentioned that Moksh is final destination as far as I see.

There is a SUTRA authored by Guatam Buddha. It is named LOTUS SUTRA. In this sutra HE condemns ARHATS as fools who run for MOKSH.

If that is true to infinitesimal extent then be sure that this sutra does not contain even a single word of wisdom of Lord Buddha but just interpretation of then followers, who were against anything that hindered the follower count. Because even in my dream I cannot think of Buddha Bhagwan using such words. He never did.

unload from internet the book 'LOTUS SUTRA" translated by Burton Watson.

Always rely on original text, the translated parts are often filled with opinions of author. Ancient theories juxtaposed with modern views generally degrade the content value. If you go through history of how major sutras were compiled by follower monks then you will be shocked to find that it was more like politics and hardly religious. That's why I would say keep your wisdom alivewhile going through these books.

Lotus sutra is originally spoken by Guatam Buddha and no buddhist denies it.

But Lord Buddha will undoubtedly deny it on seeing how his words were misinterpreted. He was not an ordinary being who can use such language. Ask Buddhists about concept of soul, they ahve even more things from pali texts to deny its overall existence. But I think you know what Buddha said when questioned were raised about Atma (soul). He simply remained silent as he said to say whether it exists or not would be wrong as he didn't see anyhing related to soul in Buddhagyan.

Hindus never tried it as there was no buddhist easily available who could direct them.

Revering but rejecting, so contradictory, isn't it? Most of Hindus I know are well aware about Buddhism & main teachings. Only controversial things are placed apart as that is mainly a matter for mainstream Buddhism followers.