People think it is very difficult to acquire Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana .Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana which has to be acquired carefully and
gradually, through deeper self-search by realizing 'what is not truth' to realize 'what is truth'.
In the past, spirituality was treated not as a
separate subject but as a part of religion, but it is not so. Religion is based
on the form and spirituality is based on formless. Therefore, spirituality is
nothing to do with religion. Spirituality
is a rational inquiry regarding all that is known to exist. Every one, each to
the extent to which one's reasoning power admits, is by nature free to exercise
this faculty, at whatever stage one may be. One is able to devote himself
exclusively to a pursuit of the highest Truth, by means of reason.
It is no use arguing Buddha is wrong or Sri Sankara is right,
but where we are going wrong in our understanding the non-dual truth, propagated
by the great sages of the past. Some say,
that without the sunyvada, Advaita philosophy could not have come into existence;
Because Advaita starts from where sunyavada ends. That is why they say it is extension of
Buddhism. If Advaita existed prior to
Buddha, he would not have advocated sunyavada at all because Advaita is final
and ultimate truth.
Buddha also holds that this world which changes from moment to
moment is no real, it is only a reflection and a thing of which it is the
reflection alone is real. Buddha was not an atheist. He never denied reality.
There is nothing in his words or teaching to show that he considered truth
to be non-existent like horns of a hare. He could not have held the foolish
view that something came out of nothing. It is true; some of his disciples
misunderstood and misinterpreted him. His idea was that the truth which cannot
be designated by a name , or described is words and of which one cannot even
say whether it is existent or none extent , is like non-existent. The
idea is quiet in agreement with the view of the Upanishads. An object which cannot
even be talked about, is, for all practical purposes, as good as non-extent. But
it is not non-existent in the sense that the son of barren woman is
non-existent. This subtle idea, Buddha's contemporaries and even his
disciple fail to catch. In one passage Buddha says clearly: Srmana Gautama was
an atheist. It is annihilation of non-existent of truth that he teaches. So
will people attribute to me atheism, which is not mine? So will they ascribe me
to the theory of non-existent, which again is not mine.
From these similar statements of Buddha it is clear that he was not an atheist. All philosophers old and new arrive at the same point. Orthodox Advaita (monism) that is inevitable; the people of thoughtful temperament cannot find peace and quietude until they do so. Moksha (liberation) is in the realization of oneness with God. They speak of God Goddesses, devotion and devotee, only in an inaccurate way only from the standpoint of dvaithi. After realizing oneness with God, there is no distinction between god and devotee and the word "devotion" has no meaning.
Advaitin disagree with Buddhists who say, there is nothing -
nonentity. Advaitin believe there is some reality, even though things are not
what they appear to be. If one knows the truth, he will know what to do to find
inspiration for action. Seeker of truth‘s subject is to know what is it that is
Real.
Since the Buddhist and Vedic scriptures
have been passed down by hearing. They were written down only relatively late. So
one wouldn’t know whether to rely on the times they give. Also, a lot depends
on the translation. Each 'Shloka' or sutra is open to many layers of
interpretation.
So
many centuries have passed since Sage Sri Sankara appeared; yet it is very hard to find his
true teachings understood anywhere in India today Because so few could rise to
his level. Hence qualified non-dualist sage Sri, Ramanuja, dualist Sage Madvacharya and others came to supply the common demand.
Sage Sri Sankara's
work has got two aspects: the vyavikarika and the paramarthika. He gave
religious, ritual or dogmatic instruction to the populace but pure philosophy
only to the few who could rise to it. Hence the interpretation of his writings
by commentators is often confusing because they mix up the two viewpoints. Thus
they may assert that ritual is a means of realizing Brahman, which is absurd.
As per the religious archaeologists view: the date of Sankara may be taken most correctly as that of
the 9th Century. Some claims are made in India that he lived two
thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no proof for this claim. They do not go back farther than the 12th
century A.D. and that all so-called evidences for Sankara having lived two
centuries before Christ are either were conjectures or Pandit's fabrication.
Regarding
the question of Sankara's death, one may dismiss the legend that he did not
die, at the age of 32 but disappeared into a cave. This is another Pandit's
story which is quite unfounded. He did really die in the Himalayas at that age.
As one
goes into the annals of the history, one becomes aware of the fact that; the
spiritual Advith is mixed up with punditry.
Therefore there is a need to do his own research in order to know the
true essence of Advith propounded by Sri,Sankara and Sri, Gudapada and emptiness
of the Buddha .
How it was possible
for Sri, Sankara to have written so many books during such a short term of
existence. The fact is that he wrote very few books. Those actually written by
him were Commentaries on Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads and on the Gita. All
other books ascribed to him were not written down by his own hand.
They are merely collections of notes recorded by his
disciples from his sayings, talks and discussions. Fourthly Sage Sri, Sankara's own
Guru was named Sri, Govinda and he lived near Indore. When Sri,Sankara wrote
his commentary on the Mandukya his guru was so pleased with it that he took his
disciple to the
Himalayas to visit his own Guru who was named Sri, Goudapada. Only when
the latter agreed that the commentary was perfect did Sri, Govinda releases his disciple
to start his own mission of teaching.
Sage Sri, Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching
according to the people he was amongst. He never told them to give their
particular religion or beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to
give up the worst features of abuse: at the same time he showed just one step
forward towards the truth.
In Brahma Sutras Sage Sri, Sankara says that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Mandukya he
denies it. This is because he says that at the lower stage of understanding, the
former teaching must be given, for people will get frightened as they cannot understand
how the world can be without a cause, but to those in a higher stage, the truth
of non-causality can be revealed.
Brahma Sutras, i.e.
"Vedanta Sutras" by Badarayana, are intended for those of middling
intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it is a semi-theological,
semi-philosophical work; it starts with the assumption that Brahman exists.
The opening sentence is "All this is Brahman.” But
nobody knows or has seen Brahman. If we say "All this is wood" and
show a piece of wood, the words are understandable. Suppose you have never seen
wood. Then what is the use of such a sentence? It becomes meaningless when the
object indicated is seen by none. Hence the Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent
to "All this is X". Both have no meaning so long as they are not
understood, if we take them as the data to start from. It is for this reason
that I say the book is intended for theological minds, because it begins with
dogma although its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.
A man who describes Sankara's philosophy as negative
(because of his Neti, Neti) does not know that this is applied only to the
world of the Seen, the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to
the Seer. Vedanta never negates the seer, only the seen. Scriptural mastery is not
wisdom.
As one goes deeper in the subject one becomes aware of the
fact that the religion, scriptures and concept of god is nothing to do with spiritual
side of Advaita, the present religious
based Advaitic knowledge and theories is meant for the mass, who hold the
religion as high, not the truth, because religion is based on the form (waking entity or ego)
and they view and judge and argue on the base of body (waking entity or ego)as self, but spiritual Advaita is based on the formless (soul) and it negates everything other then the soul.
As Sage Sri, Ramana Maharishi said:- All the conceptual
divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion
created and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose himself in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from
which they all arise. It is better to follow the direct path of Ramana,
instead of going all around and coming to the same point.
"Soul”, which is
present in the form of consciousness, is the only reality and there is nothing
other than this soul or consciousness, which is the innermost self. On the
stand point the formless soul or consciousness, innermost self, there is no
second thing exists other than consciousness.
Because the whole universe in, which we all exist is created out of
consciousness. There is no second thing
exist other than consciousness. Hence it is nondual (non-duality)
