|
Is the Buddhist
Sahasrarapadma, Hindu Sahasrara and Christian Kingdom the
same?
From: "jagbir singh" <www.adishakti.org@gmail.com>
Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 3:56 pm
Subject: Is the Buddhist Sahasrarapadma, Hindu
Sahasrara and Christian Kingdom the same?
|
—- In
shriadishakti@yahoogroups.com,
"jagbir singh"
<adishakti_org@y...> wrote:
>
>
> BUDDHISM, THE FULFILMENT OF HINDUISM
> Swami Vivekananda
> 26th September, 1893
>
> I am not a Buddhist, as you have heard, and yet I am.
If China, or
> Japan, or Ceylon follow the teachings of the Great
Master, India
> worships him as God incarnate on earth. You have just
now heard
> that I am going to criticise Buddhism, but by that I
wish you to
> understand only this. Far be it from me to criticise
him whom I
> worship as God incarnate on earth. But our views about
Buddha are
> that he was not understood properly by his disciples.
The relation
> between Hinduism (by Hinduism, I mean the religion of
the Vedas)
> and what is called Buddhism at the present day is
nearly the same
> as between Judaism and Christianity. Jesus Christ was
a Jew, and
> Shakya Muni was a Hindu. The Jews rejected Jesus
Christ, nay,
> crucified him, and the Hindus have accepted Shakya
Muni as God
> and worship him. But the real difference that we
Hindus want to
> show between modern Buddhism and what we should
understand as
> the teachings of Lord Buddha lies principally in this:
Shakya Muni
> came to preach nothing new. He also, like Jesus, came
to fulfil
> and not to destroy. Only, in the case of Jesus, it was
the old
> people, the Jews, who did not understand him, while in
the case of
> Buddha, it was his own followers who did not realise
the import of
> his teachings. As the Jew did not understand the
fulfilment of the
> Old Testament, so the Buddhist did not understand the
fulfilment
> of the truths of the Hindu religion. Again, I repeat,
Shakya
> Muni came not to destroy, but he was the fulfilment,
the logical
> conclusion, the logical development of the religion of
the Hindus.
>
> The religion of the Hindus is divided into two parts:
the
> ceremonial and the spiritual. The spiritual portion is
specially
> studied by the monks.
>
> In that there is no caste. A man from the highest
caste and a man
> from the lowest may become a monk in India, and the
two castes
> become equal. In religion there is no caste; caste is
simply a
> social institution. Shakya Muni himself was a monk,
and it was
> his glory that he had the large-heartedness to bring
out the
> truths from the hidden Vedas and through them
broadcast all over
> the world. He was the first being in the world who
brought
> missionarising into practice — nay, he was the first
to
> conceive the idea of proselytising.
>
> The great glory of the Master lay in his wonderful
sympathy for
> everybody, especially for the ignorant and the poor.
Some of his
> disciples were Brahmins. When Buddha was teaching,
Sanskrit was no
> more the spoken language in India. It was then only in
the books
> of the learned. Some of Buddha's Brahmins disciples
wanted to
> translate his teachings into Sanskrit, but he
distinctly told
> them, "I am for the poor, for the people; let me speak
in the
> tongue of the people." And so to this day the great
bulk of his
> teachings are in the vernacular of that day in India.
>
> Whatever may be the position of philosophy, whatever
may be the
> position of metaphysics, so long as there is such a
thing as death
> in the world, so long as there is such a thing as
weakness in the
> human heart, so long as there is a cry going out of
the heart of
> man in his very weakness, there shall be a faith in
God.
>
> On the philosophic side the disciples of the Great
Master dashed
> themselves against the eternal rocks of the Vedas and
could not
> crush them, and on the other side they took away from
the nation
> that eternal God to which every one, man or woman,
clings so
> fondly. And the result was that Buddhism had to die a
natural
> death in India. At the present day there is not one
who calls
> oneself a Buddhist in India, the land of its birth.
>
> But at the same time, Brahminism lost something — that
> reforming zeal, that wonderful sympathy and charity
for everybody,
> that wonderful heaven which Buddhism had brought to
the masses
> and which had rendered Indian society so great that a
Greek
> historian who wrote about India of that time was led
to say that no
> Hindu was known to tell an untruth and no Hindu woman
was known
> to be unchaste.
>
> Hinduism cannot live without Buddhism, nor Buddhism
without
> Hinduism. Then realise what the separation has shown
to us, that
> the Buddhists cannot stand without the brain and
philosophy of the
> Brahmins, nor the Brahmin without the heart of the
Buddhist. This
> separation between the Buddhists and the Brahmins is
the cause of
> the downfall of India. That is why India is populated
by three
> hundred millions of beggars, and that is why India has
been the
> slave of conquerors for the last thousand years. Let
us then join
> the wonderful intellect of the Brahmins with the
heart, the noble
> soul, the wonderful humanising power of the Great
Master.
>
>
> Swami Vivekananda
> BUDDHISM, THE FULFILMENT OF HINDUISM
>
Sages have for millenniums extolled: "When Kundalini
sleeps man is
awake to the world. He has objective consciousness. When
Kundalini
awakes and ascends to Sahasrara then the person gains
divine
consciousness and total awareness of the world and
becomes one with
the universe. In Samadhi the body is maintained by the
nectar which
flows from the union of Shiva and Shakti with Sahasrara."
The great sage Swami Vivekananda noted that wherever
there was "any manifestation of what is ordinarily
called supernatural power or
wisdom, a little current of kundalini must have found
its way into
the sushumna what thus man ignorantly worships under
various names
the yogi declares to the world to be the real power
coiled up in
every being, The Mother of eternal happiness if we but
know how to
approach her."
R.C. Zaehner, in his book Bhagavad Gita questioned: "How
is it, one may ask, that the fully integrated self which
has already 'become Brahman' can also attain to
'Brahman's saving touch', or, according to the variant,
to 'union with Brahman'? ... a atouch' of which the
Buddhists know nothing ... which Pascal spoke and over
against which finite man seemed to make no sense ...
When thought by spiritual exercise is checked and comes
to rest, and when of oneself one sees the self in the
Self and finds content therein, that is the utmost joy
which transcends all things of sense and which soul
alone can grasp. When he knows this and knowing it
stands still, moving not an inch from the reality he
sees, he wins a prize beyond all others ...(B.G.
6.20-22) — a state of complete interiority and
introversion, in which 'his joy is within, his bliss
within, his light within' (B.G. 5.24) and in which he
'becomes Brahman.' This is the Buddhist Nirvana, and the
'highest Brahman' of the Upanishads is identified with
it."
Shri Mataji keeps insisting that this joy is within,
this bliss is within, this light is within by which
mortals realize Brahman. According to the Adi Shakti
"the Joy of the Sahasrara is called as Nirananda since
long, since ancient times called as Nirananda or
Nirmala-ananda. So many call it as Nirmala-ananda or
Nirananda. That Joy is the Joy that you enjoy even when
you get crucified. That Joy is the Joy that you enjoy
even when you get poisoned. Even on your death-bed you
enjoy that Joy. That Joy is Nirananda."
Then isn't the Buddhist Nirvana of the Sahasrarapadma,
and the
'highest Brahman' of the Upanishads experienced in the
Sahasrara
similar to the Joy of the Kingdom of God within that
Jesus preached?
jagbir
|
|