[Advaita-l] Budha & Advaita

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, murali mohan wrote:

> Probably Budha,

Buddha.  Budha is the planet Mercury.

> who was a man of few words, did not talk about Brahman 
> becoz there was no point in talking about something that cannot be 
> described by words and has to be experienced.

Then why do Astikas talk so much about Brahman?

> When one reaches Shoonya 
> going beyond the mind then experience of Brahman comes by default.

This is similiar to the Samkhya/Yoga view that realization comes 
automatically after the mind is stabilized through samadhi.  But this is 
not the Advaitin view.  It is not enough to reach a plateau, one must 
actively _know_.

If Buddha didn't know or refused to say, that is enough to discard him as 
a valid authority by Advaita standards.

>  Also the ritualistic portion of Vedas such as in Karma Kanda were meant 
> only for Karma Yogis

Karma Yogis are only a subset of performers of karma.

> and were never considered compulsory for evolution

I don't know exactly what you mean by evolution here, but karma is 
compulsory for anyone who subscribes to the notion "I" regardless of 
whether they accept responsibility or admit it or not.

> as there are other paths such as for example Bhakti marg, direct enquiry 
> method of Ramana Maharshi etc which also leads to the experience of the 
> divine.

There are two and only two options as far as karma is concerned.  All 
those who deal with duality must perform their obligatory duties 
regardless of any other disciplines they may take up.  only those who have 
renounced all duality (i.e. sannyasis) are allowed to give up their 
duties.

> Karma Kanda was prescribed for those interested in material 
> benefits, generally for the gross people. I don't think Shankara ever 
> advocated or supported animal sacrifies

Brahma sutra 3.1.25 but see my other message for caveats by which Advaita 
Vedanta differs from the strict ritualist emphasis of the Purva 
Mimamsakas.

> - I think it was he who 
> clarified that what was meant by animal sacrifices in Karma Kanda was 
> the killing of one's own animal instincts.

animal instincts aren't the enemy.  Ego is.

> Vedas are highly cryptic and 
> symbolical and cannot be taken for word meaning and had to be 
> interpreted correctly by sages like Shankara. Does anyone know whether 
> physical animal sacrifices were ever sanctified in our scriptures?

yes they were.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>