--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > (72-77) Having thus humbled the pride of the Buddhists, > > > > the Brahmana sage [Skanda as Kumarila Bhatta] now began > > > > to expound the meanings of the Vedic Mantras in order > > > > to enlighten [Indra as] king Sudhanvan. The king thereupon > > > > said, "In wordy controversies, success and failure depend > > > > only on the learning of the respective parties. It does > > > > not really prove the truth of the thesis. I can accept > > > > the religion of that party as true, who can jump down > > > > unhurt from the top of yonder mountain." > > > > At these words of the king, all the scholars merely stood > > > > aghast looking at each other, unable to take up the > > > > challenge of the ordeal. But the Brahmana sage, with his > > > > mind concentrated on the Veda, ascended the mountain top, > > > > and declared: "If the Veda is the true scripture, my body > > > > shall not be hurt by this ordeal." With this mighty > > > > declaration, > > > > the sage jumped down from the mountain top, as the spectators > > > > shouted in wonder of the sight: "Oh! Is it king Yayati > > > > coming down from heaven on the expiry of the merits his > > > > grandson had transferred to him!" That best of Brahmanas > > > > now touched the earth as lightly as a bundle of cotton. > > > > Is it any wonder that the Veda protects one with whole- > > > > hearted faith in it? > > > > > > A wonderful teaching. I feel that the world > > > would definitely be a better place if religious > > > fanatics, those who are caught up in the "My way > > > is the best" game, undertook a similar test and > > > proved their "best" claim by leaping from the > > > top of the nearest mountain. > > > > It was kinda surprise to me how "anti-buddhist" > > Vidyaranya is. I myself have nothing against Buddhists. > > FCS, I'm doing anapanasati in addition to TM nowadays. :) > > And a combination ,sort of, of TM and anapana is very > > "powerful". :0 > > I understood that. I was just commenting on the > attitude expressed in the teaching, and in similar > quotes you've posted lately. I, too, am somewhat > shocked by the vehemence with which early leaders > of the Shankaracharya tradition tried to put down > their Buddhist "competition." > > Because that's really the issue. Buddhism was to > the Hindu establishment very much what Catharism > was to the established Roman Catholic Church -- a > competitor that ate into profits. Buddhism rejected > most of the rites and rituals (yagyas, etc.) for > which the priests received money. The very *idea* > of an approach to liberation that could be done on > one's own, without the intervention of clergy (*paid* > clergy) was probably viewed as a real danger, because > it challenged the status quo and economic solvency > of the Hindu tradition. The religious fanatic "We > know the truth and no one else does" stuff is almost > secondary; the primary motivation in all of this > seems to have been financial. > > What's striking me in these quotes is how far *back* > the attitude that many of us find challenging in > the TM movement goes. The tendency to boast about > one's tradition and one's teachings being "the best" > is *clearly* expressed here. The tendency to put > down other traditions is also clearly present. The > reliance on "tests" to "prove" the superiority of > their tradition to all others. The reliance on > flashy siddhis to impress those who are easily > impressed by flashy siddhis and lure them into > making a false connection between flashy powers > and enlightenment or self knowledge. > > The more I read of this stuff, the more I'm inter- > ested in Lama Ole's theory of "jealous gods" being > one of the main problems in spirituality. If there > *are* gods, goddesses, devas, etc., why would anyone > sane want to follow or revere a set of them who are > so lost in their egos that they spend much of their > teaching time putting down "competitor" gods, > goddesses, and devas?
But as you pointed out earlier: > > NO ONE could have been clearer > > in life about rejecting the Hindu system than the > > original Buddha. He also rejected to some extent > > the notion of avatars. So it's not exactly surprising that the Hindu system would retaliate. In any case, competition between "jealous gods" doesn't seem to apply here, given that Buddhism doesn't have any gods in the first place, and that what the Brahmana sage was defending wasn't gods per se but rather the Veda, so the competing elements are a bit more abstract. Interestingly, Jesus is said to have been challenged to perform a miraculous feat--to enlist his God to save him from the cross--and he declined. This is perceived in Christianity as a victory, not a defeat. The real problem is the need to compete. It can take many forms, depending on the nature of the competing religions. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/JjtolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
