Bouddha clarifications!!!

[Chandran, Nanda (NBC)]

>A sincere study of both would reveal that there are irreconcilable
differences, >which cannot simply be wished away.
Are the differences with respect to the creator or God? And are these on
the subjects in which the Buddha maintained silence? Are there any major
differences with respect to the Buddha's original teachings (forget the
theories of later Bouddha philosophers).

On all the four statements I fell none of them are false in totality!

>At the very least, affirming that the Buddha was a great Bharatiya
philosopher >should not be based on the false premise that what he
taught was nothing but
>Advaita,
Who said anything about Advaitam? Don't we accept Patanjali as a great
philosopher?

>the second false premise that his silence was only about the existence
of
>God,
As one cannot prove that it's true, it cannot be proved otherwise too.

>the third false premise that the middle path is more
>about an ascetic/non-ascetic way of life than about fundamental
>philosophical thought,
Is it false in totality?

>the fourth false premise that his *original*
>teaching was somehow changed totally out of character in later
centuries.
Some of Buddha's followers interpreted Buddha's silence as nihilism.
Suppose  it wasn't, then the teaching definitely has been changed
totally out of character. And I've one more question too. Which other
reputed Indian school of thought supports nihilism? Forget the Caravaka
materialists! If there's no such school, isn't it strange that something
so radical would have come out?

As Ramana Maharishi said, it's regretable that something as simple and
pure as this (Advaitam or Spirituality etc), has been complicated to
such great extents to lure and enlarge the following of each school of
thought. Even in Thirukural we find that Valluvar maintains silence on
Moksha. It makes absolute sense because Moksha or Brahman is something
which has to be experienced. What's the use taking about issues which in
no way contribute to your salvation? I know about Brahman. I know some
basic concepts of Advaitam. Does it mean that I've attained salvation?
As Rajaji says just knowing isn't enough. The key thing is to
concentrate on the path towards the goal. Further one has to remember
that the Compassionate One was trying to educate the masses who had
little knowledge on such matters, unlike the Vedic Brahmins. And it
defies logic to interpret the Compassionate One's silence as anything
else.

BTW, was there anybody in those days who supported the theory that
Buddha was only expounding the philosophy of the Upanishads?


        Because e-mail can be altered electronically,
        the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.