> What we wish to believe sentimentally is besides the point,. Puranas > are not history, they are a mix of historical events with > mythological allegories, we will never be able to prove anyone is > an 'avatar', or even a 'saint', we accord those terms to people we > think are a certain way and that will always be a matter of dispute.
Who ever said this has said this beautifully. Well said and aptly conveyed.
Dear SPS, Hinduism has never mandated a belief in a personal God, it is only some sects of Hinduism that perceive it this way. The Ramayana itself has an athiest 'rishi' named Jabala who disputes Sri Rama's unconditional belief in God/among other things.
The 'athiesm' as purported by Buddha is a non belief in a personal God, Buddhism perceives God as the great mounam or ultimate reality and beleives all truths can be found within self by true self seeking and destroying the go. Buddhism does not believe anything is permanent including a personal God with certain characteristics. Adi Sankara's Adwaita philosophy also believes in the 'great mounam' as the ultimate reality, although there are subtle differences in what that reality might be.
Buddhism is not an 'athiestic' religion as commonly believed, it is a radically different belief system that is all which can perhaps be understood better by Hindus with some meditation practice and studying Ramana/ J Krishnamoorthy etc. Those people who are very carried away by a personal God and rituals that emphasise beliefs rather than self seeking will defintely find it very difficult. I will write more on opening lines and what they mean later.
> Thanks Dear Vijay. > > You have opened the topic further.. > > Denial of existence of God .. Buddha > > Ashoka .. did accept existence of (Hindu) Gods.. > > Jayadevar's compilations .. > > Issue 1:: > > Denial of existence of God ... and the opening lines of > " Buddhacarita " ... how this is going to be explained. > > sps > Hi sps sir,
That reminds me... Most vishnu statues in cambodia incl the main statue in angkor is worshipped as buddha...
Maybe the more knowledgeable among you can help throw some light!
Take a deep breath!
1. Prophet Mohammed is also considered a avatar by some Islamic folks. http://islamicweb.com/beliefs/comparative/scriptures.htm Apparently, Atharva veda, Mahabharat, etc predicted a "mlechcha" avatar (mlechcha meaning somebody not following the Vedic tradition) and the descriptions match the Prophet. Why not?
2. Regarding Shankara disputing Buddhism, my dad has heard some claims that there were actually two Sankaras. - one who propounded the pure(kevala) advaitha tradition, wrote the commentaries for Upanishads, Brahma sutras and philosophical works like Viveka Chudamani. This Shankara may have believed only in a Nirguna Brahmam (attribute-less God). He may have been born in BCE during the reign on Vikramaditya according to records in Shringeri mutt. He may have either set up the mutts or have been part of the mutt system set up by somebody else.
- the other, who wrote all the devotional hymns like Soundarya Lahiri, Subramanya Bhujangam, was the one born in Kaladi. He may have believed in the need for a Saguna Brahmam (God with a form). He may also have joined the established mutt system, and was probably born in the generally accepted date of 700 CE. He may have revived the meemansa (rituals) part of Hinduism as a way to counteract Buddhism.
Since our best source of Sankara's life is the Sankara Digvijayam, which is basically a hagiograhy written nearly a century after his eath, anything is possible!
In addition, the first Shankara may also have been the author of Bhagavad Gita, and introduced it into Mahabharatha, in order to make the Vedic truths accessible to common man.
Deepa, thank you. Am not sure if the idea of 'avatar' as propogated by islamic religions is the same as our 'avatars' atleast ethically. Our avatars do not claim to be the 'only way' or no exclusivity is claimed while abrahamic faiths do claim exclusivity.
The idea of Sri Sankara being two different people and one who introduced Gita to Mahabharat sounds quite possible to me.
We can talk much on these lines. Buddhism is a non theistic religion, not an atheistic religion. It is the only religion accepted by scientists as valid in addressing issues around human mind. It addresses the human condition unlike the 'other world' promised by other religions including our own vedic tradition. If we regard the 'sambavami yuge yuge' definition to mean an avatar, Gautama Buddha is an avatar who saved many lives and continues to do so with his teachings. Of course others including followers of Muhammaed can make these claims as well.
Lastly there are orthodox hindus and orthodox buddhists. Orthodox hindus regard any challenge to vedic beliefs as non hindu, orthodox buddhists on the other hand regard any belief in addition to their own as non buddhist.As long as these people exist it would be impossible to find any definite correlation to Buddha and Sri Vishnu. But we can still persist because so many people starting from Jayadeva, Gandhi, etc did believe in both Rama and Buddha at the same time.
--- > > > Hi sps sir, > > That reminds me... Most vishnu statues in cambodia incl the main statue in angkor is worshipped as buddha... > > Rgds > Vj >
Hi,
I stand corrected ....just did some searching and find that the buddha/vishnu statue in the entrance to angkor - was actually taken from inside the temple ( sounds familiar) and kept at the outer gate when the hindu temple was taken over by buddhists and converted into a buddhist shrine. ( hmm hmm). the statue lost its head ( hmmm) and was retouched....the original vishnu head was replaced by a buddha head....so its buddha vishnu now..
Indeed these are tangents to the debate. Only that it does not actually touch the periphery of the circle.
The mention of Prophet Muhammed in Bhavishya Purana was a later day addition. Or simply idaicherugal. So this carries no water. But who did it? Was it the Hindus of India or the Muslims of India? I dont know honestly. But this definitely carries no water. In fact, take a breath, the same Islamic websites interpret this Prophet Muhammed as the Kalki Avatar. Does any one want to subscribe to this belief.
And again, I still stand by my word (which was originally echoed by Smt Malathi) that Puranas are nothing but a little history with some many mythical allegories. So this tangent is now fired away.
Regarding Adhi Sankara, the claim that he might have belong to a time BCE is really far fetched. And about two Sankaras, even I have heard that. But this view does not have a global acceptance. Indeed it was Kaladi Sankara who revived the Sanathana Dharma after the onslaught of Jainisma and Buddhism in South India. It is the same Kaladi Sankara who stuck to Nirguna Brahmam and also had a Saguna Brahmam and said "Bhaja Govindam, Bhaja Govindam, Govindam Bhaja mooDa mathE". So if at all there was another Sankara who wrote Lalitha Sahasranamam etc, he must have been after this Kaladi Sankara. But I am sure that the Global view is that, it is the same Kaladi Sankara, who wrote these slokas as well.
++++++++++++Quote++++++++++++++++++ In addition, the first Shankara may also have been the author of > Bhagavad Gita, and introduced it into Mahabharatha, in order to make > the Vedic truths accessible to common man. +++++++++++Unquote+++++++++++++++++
What is the basis on which this claim is made. Is there any reference to, even an existence of such belief? And if this is accepted for argument sake, then the followers of Sankara, could not be Saivites and they have to be only Vaishnavites and we all probably know what is written in Gita. Well, I am not intending on a pan-religion or pan-sect debate here, but am only trying to list the reasons, why Sankara could not be BCE.
In this SINGLE - SIGNIFICANT day, our Group appears to be poisted to look at VARIOUS OPTIONS (after taking DEEP breathe )!
1. Member Deepa postulated ::
Profet Mohammed as avtar.
Re Tajmahal (whether it was old Hindu structure) itself, we are yet to have consensus.
Two Sankaras :: The " Aadhi Sankara " period itself is yet to be confirmed - observed our Dear Venkat - recently. Another one - prior to Him ... Sankara .. !
2. Buddha - all said and done the Sage - who undisputedly preached NON-VIOLENCE AND ADORED BY AN EMPEROR OF ASHOKA'S CALIBRE - His Head replaced Vishnu's Head !!
3. Dr. Jaybee recently queried as to why the Heads of Pillayars cut neatly around singampunari area ( in ancient days ) ?
Followers of Adi Sankara, to the much thought of belief, are not Saivites but are called Smartha's.
As you yourself mentioned, Sankara did sing Bajagovindam as well as sang soundarya lahari. So he never preached or practiced Saivism but veda dharma as a whole.
Many,( including me till a year ago), think that Sankara's followers are saivites. Its not so. Smartha's are the ones who go by smrithi's - veda's and upanishads and they follow the veda dharma. Sanakara reestablished the veda dharma and his followers are called smartha's because they follow the smrithis.
I came to know about this from Deivathi Kural by Kanchi paramacharya.
And ofcourse, we all know Sankara preached Adwaitha and when someone says everything is ONE, they cannot be saivites :) because saivism glorifies Siva which is again dwaitha.
Venkatesh As I said, these are all theories in circulation. I do know the "global opinion", but that does not mean we can completely discard new opinions. Sure, some of them are imaginary or wishful- thinking, but others have to be given the benefit of doubt.
If we all believe in one supreme power and if we believe in "sambhavami yuge yuge", why does God/Vishnu have to take avatars only in India? Any great saint/reformer across the world is technically a avatar. The Srimad Bhagavatham may not have captured all the avatars, but that doesnt mean they are not avatars. The idea of a Prophet Mohammed or Jesus or Lao Tze or Zoroaster as avatars is fascinating and divine. (My opinions apart, many people have commented on the similarities between the Koran and Atharva Veda)
I agree that the evidence is slim for the two-Sankara theory, though there is still controvery around some of the works. (Viveka Chudamani for one). So, who knows?
One thing regarding your statement below - I dont see the connection between my comment on Gita and Saivities. Followers of Sankara are NOT Saivites - they are called Smarthas and they can believe in any of the Shanmadhams set up by Sankara himself. In fact, Smarthas believe that the Nirguma Brahmam is personified in Siva/Vishnu/Brahma and are open to worshipping any God-form.
*********************************************************** >What is the basis on which this claim is made. Is there any > reference to, even an existence of such belief? And if this is > accepted for argument sake, then the followers of Sankara, could not > be Saivites and they have to be only Vaishnavites and we all > probably know what is written in Gita. Well, I am not intending on a > pan-religion or pan-sect debate here, but am only trying to list the > reasons, why Sankara could not be BCE. > *******************************************************
Deepa, very well put!! You have tempted me to find out more on the similarities between Koran and Atharva Veda, do you know more of links in this regard, aside from my googling for info?
There are many similarties between Buddhism and Adwaita, my argument is perhaps Vishnu did manifest as Buddha to lead people away from blind following of scripture and focus on inner growth, who really knows?
As for someone posting on the Buddha wearing sacred thread, buddhists do wear the sacred thread, in fact even women buddhist monks too. What is the significance of that i must admit I don't really know, another thing to find out.
I wanted to make a comment on some earlier discussion on Ahimsa.
Ahimsa is, by no means, Buddha's original idea. It is one of the tenets of living prescribed in the Upanishads (I think Chandogya). The 3 key tenets of living are stated to be brahmacharyam (referring to self- control, not living as a bachelor :)), ahimsa and satyam.
Secondly, isn't it true that Jainism focuses on Ahimsa even more than Buddhism does or modern day Hinduism does?
Of course, Buddha should be commended for popularizing/reiterating the idea!
Thanks for the note. I did realise on reading it that I did not convey what I intended clearly.
As you said correctly, the followers of Sankara are termed as Smarthas and not Saivites. But most of the later day, I repeat, later day (this "later day" is atleast from the times of Appayya Dikshitar - probably after 1400AD) started terming themselves as Saivites, though they worship Vishnu also. Not like the Veera- Vaishnavites.
This terming is what I intended to convey. Sorry that, the way I wrote had caused a confusion.
Great Words!! Sorry that I interpreted your previous posts, so literally.
Yes, if we are ready to look upon in a Broader Perspective, even you and me and the entire world are avatars of Vishnu. If you want to term a Prophet Muhammed or Jesus Christ or a Zoroaster as an avatar of Vishnu, I will be the most happiest person. The reason is, atleast someone subscribing to Nammazhwar's views openly. I have quoted this before and am doing it again. He says in his Thiruviruttam,
Please note the words, "piNangum samayam palapala vAkki" and "avaiavai thOru aNangum palapalavAkki nin mUrthi parappi vaithhAi". These words are nothing but a direct answer to your question regarding Prophet Muhammed or Jesus Christ or for that sake anybody else.
And more importantly, if we can see the world in that way, there will be total harmony. Now you may wonder,why I objected to the view that Prophet Muhammed being an avatar of Vishnu. Let me clarify that I wrote that only with respect to the scriptures. I mean, only those avatars that are explicitly mentioned in the scriptures that we follow.
So I am fine with it, if one says objectively that every one in the world is an avatar of one Supreme Being. Afterall I quoted earlier, again from Nammazhwar ".. en ninRa yOniyumAip pirandhAi imayOr thalaivA.."
Regarding the Gita and Saivites, I had just posted my rejoinder to Satish's post, and clarified my words. However the link that I was intending is, in a coloquial sense, in Gita, Krishna says that He is the God of Gods and one need to surrender to "only Him" to get mOksha. In that case if we accept that it was not Krishna's words but that of Sankara, then followers of Sankara should be rather Vaishnavites and not Saivites, as some of the Smarthas do call themselves as Saivites. This is what I tried to mean. Sorry if I had confused you.
Wow!!! That was a great comparision. I had never looked into these Abrahamic beliefs in this way, except that the Noah's flood could have been a simile to our Matsya Avatar.
> 2) The Noah's Ark episode and our Matsya Avatar episode of floods
another is thoniappar in sirkali. where shiva is pictrised as a boatman during the great floods.
a temple to be seen to be beleived. 3 stories. ground floor is shiva as bramapurishwarar in ling am for. first floor huge statue of shiva as a boat man second floor is sattanaathar.
see it while travelling from chidambaram to mayavaram.
> Brahmapuram @ Seerkazhi, where (thiru) Gnanasambandar was born and > breast-fed by Umai ... >
no way then why is she also called unnamulai amman. she fed none including ganesa and muruga.
she fed sambanda milk in a golden cup.
that is the cup sambandars father threw on the temple wall in anger thinking his son was lying.
while sambanda calls shiva KALVAN here sundara calls him PITHA in his first song. shows the degree of their intimacy with god even before singing the first song.
I asked about this with some local Buddhists. They say it is optional, not caste or gender specific, it is a symbol of acceptance of the buddhist dharma/eight fold path as an adult. There are monks and ordinary buddhists who wear it and some others prefer not to.
There is not much material online other than a good wikipedia article on upanayanam, which mentions that In Buddhism, the Upanayanam is referred to by the Pali term, "opanayiko" which is one of the six characteristics of the Dharma. It is related to refuge in the Triple Gem and practicing the Eightfold Path which leads one through to the Four stages of enlightenment. In the Visuddhimagga it is called "opanayiko" or "upanayanam" as the practice leads "onwards to Nirvana": nibanam upaneti ti ariya maggo upaneyo...opanayiko,"It leads on to nibanna, thus the Eightfold Path is onward leading...so it is leading onwards." In Buddhism, a person of any age, sex or caste can obtain the Upanayanam through refuge in the Triple Gem and practicing the Eightfold Path.
Simply put, it would be wise to conclude that someone wearing a sacred thread is not necessarily hindu or jain.
5. the Buddha panel seen on the eastern face of the southern entrance of the ardha mandapa is a part of the Triparantaka story and does not depict the great Buddha.
this wiki post has been updated with all the varalaaru.com articles on the big temple ....a must read
scroll down in the link to the extenal links section...a real treasure trove...thanks varalaaru.com team
External links Raajaraja's Meikeerthi Analysis - by Dr.M.Nalini in Varalaaru.com magazine Raajarajeswaram - Part I- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - Part 2- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - Part 3- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - Certain Revelations- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - Architecture- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - Inscriptions- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - Chandeshwara Shrine- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - Mural Restorations- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - Saantharam Icons- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - Special Characteristics- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - New Revealations- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola Raajarajeswaram - A Travellogue- Brihadeshwara temple or Big Temple, Thanjavur - Period:Chola
I believe there is some confusion here and I did not find any direct reference to wearing the sacred thread by Buddhists. Upanayanam, upanishads etc. mean leading one closer or nearer. But wearing of the sacred thread is "yagnyopavitha dharanam" and I did not find any mention to this practice. Perhaps I should do more study.
Highly informative and lots of assumptions need to be revisited.
I fully agree that the Chozha painters followed Sundarar's hymns and periyapuranam was written later and most probably Sekkizhar personally visited this temple.
Thanks Vijay. Very best regards to Dr. Kalaikkovan & Dr. Nalini.