buddha and his teachings(Re: message to my friends) (fwd)

[Ravisankar S. Mayavaram]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 1998 20:17:18 -0400
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <ramakris at erols.com>
To: msr at tamu.edu
Subject: Re: buddha and his teachings(Re: message to my friends)

Ravi,

Please take a look at the following. Let me know if you want something
edited. Thanks.

Rama.

Sankaran Jayanarayanan wrote:

> There are doubts as to whether or not the commentary attributed to
> Shankara is authentic. The reason is obvious: when terms like "Buddha is
> the greatest among all the bipeds" is liberally interpreted by the
> commentator as an invocation to a Guru, and verses very evidently
> composed by Buddhist commentators like Nagarjuna are lifted almost
> verbatim, and the commentator doesn't notice the similarities to
> Buddhism (note the fact that Shankara's Bramha suutra bhaashhya does
> reveal knowledge of Buddhism), doubts on the authorship of the
> commentary on the kaarikaa are legitimate. After reading both the BSB
> and the commentary on the MANDuukya kaarikaa, it's obvious that the
> latter reveals a great lack of knowledge of Buddhism. I could go into
> the details in a much more clear-cut manner if only I had a copy of the
> BSB with me now.

Doubts for who? We are interested in sha.nkara and his direct followers.
That's the purpose of THIS list. None have questioned the authenticity
including SacchidAnandendra sarasvatI. As for scholars, this has been
examined in depth by Mayeda. He feels it's a work of sha.nkara. Isayeva
also feels it's a work of sha.nkara. You have some outdated papers by
Ingalls in mind. Don't you feel it's time we shook off the yoke of the
Western world and accept our traditions?

> This I didn't know :-) I have read of Kumarila Bhatta's views, but not
> of Sureshvara's.
>
> >But do note that whatever be the case, we are NOT interested, WHOEVER
> >the commendation comes from. This includes Ramana Maharshi also. As per
> >list rules RMs explanations of sha.nkara's teachings are allowed. This
> >is because it's a major task following just the teachings of advaita
> and
> >we are NOT interested in people coming and confusing the issues even
> >further. May I point out that if the Buddha taught the same as
>                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > sha.nkara
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >there is no need to mention Buddha's teachings separately, following
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >sha.nkara is enough? But if he did not, then obviously the teachings
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > are
> ^^^^^
> >not suitable for this list.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I hope you realize the absurdity of your above statement! You can
> substitute "Buddha" with "Ramana" and it would still be logical :-) It's

?!!

I'm sorry. Is this yet another attempt to irritate me? I clearly said
Ramana's explanation of sha.nkara's teachings. This is the second time.
Please, let's not argue for the sake of arguing. We are NOT interested
in anything else other than sha.nkara's teachings. Is that clear enough
or no? Now repeat after me:

This list if for sha.nkara and his followers teachings. This list is for
sha.nkara and his followers teachings ... :-)

Magically you'll find this a simple idea after sometime :-). It's really
quite easy.

BTW, I just chacked up the Talks with Ramana Maharshi, index. It's a 627
page book and hold your breath: Buddha is mentioned 3 grand times!!
sha.nkara is mentioned about once every 2-3 pages. So his name is not
mentioned separately in the index. That should show something. Everytime
it was because someone else brought the topic up. Elsewhere, on one
occasion he just says the same thing as sureshvara: namely his followers
must have misinterpreted him. All in all it does not warrant so much
emphasis on Buddha, and that too on our list. There are better lists for
that and if you/anyone wants I can give tips on where to find info.

I can also give you quotes where he criticizes the concept of
Bodhisatvas as utterly absurd. Send me private mail if you want and I'll
try to dig it up for you. It's of no use to this list anyway.

> I had to reply to his first email, since there was the point
about
> GauDapaada that required clarification. I didn't want to get into this

Then you could have replied about gauDapAda here and sent the rest to
Ravi.
Simple enough.

> mess, and this shall certainly be my last posting on this topic.

I certainly hope so. I am not very keen on wasting my time either!

_However_, I have a _very_ keen interest in maintaining the list policy
as it is, for obvious reasons. I am in no mood to keep quiet at requests
for removing the list rules as they are.

Rama