Is all this Spirituality Practical and does it have any Utility

I am copying from a lecture of Swami Vivekanada:

What is the utility, the effect, the result, of this knowledge? In these days, we have to measure everything by utility — by how many pounds shillings, and pence it represents. What right has a person to ask that truth should be judged by the standard of utility or money? Suppose there is no utility, will it be less true? Utility is not the test of truth. Nevertheless, there is the highest utility in this. Happiness, we see is what everyone is seeking for, but the majority seek it in things which are evanescent and not real. No happiness was ever found in the senses. There never was a person who found happiness in the senses or in enjoyment of the senses. Happiness is only found id the Spirit. Therefore the highest utility for mankind is to find this happiness in the Spirit. The next point is that ignorance is the great mother of all misery, and the fundamental ignorance is to think that the Infinite weeps and cries, that He is finite. This is the basis of all ignorance that we, the immortal, the ever pure, the perfect Spirit, think that we are little minds, that we are little bodies; it is the mother of all selfishness. As soon as I think that I am a little body, I want to preserve it, to protect it, to keep it nice, at the expense of other bodies; then you and I become separate. As soon as this idea of separation comes, it opens the door to all mischief and leads to all misery. This is the utility that if a very small fractional part of human beings living today can put aside the idea of selfishness, narrowness, and littleness, this earth will become a paradise tomorrow; but with machines and improvements of material knowledge only, it will never be. These only increase misery, as oil poured on fire increases the flame all the more.

Without the knowledge of the Spirit, all material knowledge is only adding fuel to fire, only giving into the hands of selfish man one more instrument to take what belongs to others, to live upon the life of others, instead of giving up his life for them.

Is it practical ? — is another question. Can it be practised in modern society? Truth does not pay homage to any society, ancient or modern. Society has to pay homage to Truth or die. Societies should be moulded upon truth, and truth has not to adjust itself to society. If such a noble truth as unselfishness cannot be practiced in society, it is better for man to give up society and go into the forest. That is the daring man. There are two sorts of courage. One is the courage of facing the cannon. And the other is the courage of spiritual conviction. An Emperor who invaded India was told by his teacher to go and see some of the sages there. After a long search for one, he found a very old man sitting on a block of stone. The Emperor talked with him a little and became very much impressed by his wisdom. He asked the sage to go to his country with him. "No," said the sage, "I am quite satisfied with my forest here." Said the Emperor, "I will give you money, position, wealth. I am the Emperor of the world." "No," replied the man, "I don't care for those things." The Emperor replied, "If you do not go, I will kill you." The man smiled serenely and said, "That is the most foolish thing you ever said, Emperor. You cannot kill me. Me the sun cannot dry, fire cannot burn, sword cannot kill, for I am the birthless, the deathless, the ever-living omnipotent, omnipresent Spirit." This is spiritual boldness, while the other is the courage of a lion or a tiger. In the Mutiny of 1857 there was a Swami, a very great soul, whom a Mohammedan mutineer stabbed severely.

The Hindu mutineers caught and brought the man to the Swami, offering to kill him. But the Swami looked up calmly and said, "My brother, thou art He, thou art He!" and expired. This is another instance. What good is it to talk of the strength of your muscles, of the superiority of your Western institutions, if you cannot make Truth square with your society, if you cannot build up a society into which the highest Truth will fit? What is the good of this boastful talk about your grandeur and greatness, if you stand up and say, "This courage is not practical." Is nothing practical but pounds, shillings, and pence? If so, why boast of your society? That society is the greatest, where the highest truths become practical. That is my opinion; and if society is; not fit for the highest truths, make it so; and the sooner, the better. Stand up, men and women, in this spirit, dare to believe in the Truth, dare to practice the Truth! The world requires a few hundred bold men and women. Practise that boldness which dares know the Truth, which dares show the Truth in life, which does not quake before death, nay, welcomes death, makes a man know that he, is the Spirit, that, in the whole universe, nothing can kill him. Then you will be free. Then you will know yours real Soul. "This Atman is first to be heard, then thoughts about and then meditated upon.

Hinduism and Linux

Windows came up with its 98 version. The users of this version claimed it to be the best version.

Then after some time came the NT version of windows. Again the same claim by the its users that this version is the best and the last.

Later came XP. Once again the same claim repeated by its users that this is the best and last one.

All the users of each windows version have been trying to monopolize all the users of the world to their own version.

On the other hand we have linux. It is not monopolised by one seller or creator, but different users have added to it. And each user can create a module which suits his requirements. It gives a lot of scope for the user to improve, and does not claim exclusive privelages.


Does it ring any bells...if not try reading the above statements by replacing 98 by Jews, NT by christians, and XP by Islam. Each claiming that the previous was also a prophet, but theirs the best and last.

Replace the linux by Hinduism.

Sayantams further additions to this geekdom:

hinduism's basic tenet is: एकम् सत् विप्रा, बहुधा वदन्ति ।
(ekAm sat viprAh, bahudA vadanti: the truth is one, though the sages know it as many). in simple layman terms it means there are many paths to the to the truth, all are equal paths, as long as each path is followed with devotion and persistance. this ulitmate truth is also called ब्रहमाण(brahmAn), a formless supreme entity. thus one may worship any `god' born out of this brahmAn, and reach a state of realizing this truth, or nirvana.

curiously, linux has some similar leanings as if the whole concept is born out of hindu philosophy. linux is one single OS, the ultimate embodiment to computing: freedom of choice. that is the `ulitmate truth' of computing so to speak. linux comes in many forms and can be `applied' to large servers, to desktops, to handheld devices to embedded controllers. no two machines working on linux are the same. there are a multitude of options available for each computing need. thus each user, no matter what flavor of linux one uses, what application he uses uses, he works towards the `ultimate truth' of computing. thus, linux too promotes `the many equal paths to the truth'.

of course, hindu philosophy is very vast, and my first para was a miniscule component of it, yet its the `first principle'. but, even in the great 6 schools of thought, there is a link to the `first principle'. realizing it just requires the will to rise above chanting `ऊँ नमह शिवाय' a hundred or a five hundred times. just a piece of trivia, there is a whole philosophy of `Shadakshari Mantra' behind this seemingly simple chant.

similarly the world of linux is very vast. there is knowledge abundant, only it requires the will to rise above the `Start' menu!

Desert people vs Forest people

Reproduced from Discover Magazine, August 2005 Issue. Though I do not totally agree, it is an interesting viewpoint:


A striking proportion of rain forest dwellers are polytheistic, worshipping an array of spirits and gods. Polytheism is prevalent among tribes in the Amazon basin (the Sherenti, Mundurucu, and Tapirape) and in the rain forests of Africa (the Ndorobo), New Guinea (the Keraki and Ulawans), and Southeast Asia (the Iban of Borneo and the Mnong Gar and Lolo of Vietnam). But desert dwellers—the bedouin of Arabia, the Berbers of the Sahara, the !Kung of the Kalahari Desert, the Nuer and Turkana of the Kenyan/Sudanese desert—are usually monotheistic.

Deserts teach large, singular lessons, like how tough, spare, and withholding the environment is; the world is reduced to simple, desiccated, furnace-blasted basics. Then picture rain forest people amid an abundance of edible plants and medicinal herbs, able to identify more species of ants on a single tree than one would find in all the British Isles. Letting a thousand deities bloom in this sort of setting must seem natural. Moreover, those rain forest dwellers that are monotheistic are much less likely to believe that their god sticks his or her nose into other people’s business by controlling the weather, prompting illness, or the like. In contrast, the desert seems to breed fatalism, a belief in an interventionist god with its own capricious plans.

Textor’s work highlights other differences between desert and rain forest societies. Purchasing or indenturing wives is far less prevalent among rain forest peoples. And in rain forest cultures, related women tend to form the core of a community for a lifetime, rather than being shipped off to serve the expediency of marriage making. Rain forest cultures also are less likely to harbor beliefs about the inferiority of women; you won’t be likely to find rain forest men giving thanks in prayer that they were not created female, as is the case in at least one notable desert-derived religion.

If everything is God, should we then worship a thief too

There was an interesting question which was raised with reference to the “Everything is God” and “I am God” etc which is used symbolically in many places while talking Advaita.

If everyone is God, then is a thief also a God. Will you then stop him from stealing, or start worshipping him with flowers? This was the point raised by Sw. Ashokananda. He then beautifully brings the idea of “Spiritualizing everyday life”, i.e., even if we are not in a position to change our surroundings, we can by changing our attitude towards them, derive spiritual benefit from the same surroundings.

Firstly if one regards his nature as divine, then it naturally follows that he has to also regard others as divine. Everybody is divine, and if we have this feeling in our present state where we still have a sense of outward relationship, our attitude towards other being will be one of worship.

Of course, when you become plunged in the consciousness of atonement with God then you do not know that there is either an inside or an outside. In that very high, inarticulate state in which there is no thought, no movement, nothing, there is no sense of plurality, and the practice of regarding others as divine would not apply. But as long as you are aware of even one other person existing besides yourself -and in our ordinary state we are aware of an infinite number of beings existing outside of us -then, with the philosophical conviction in the background that everyone is indeed divine, the only true attitude you can maintain towards other is that of worshipfulness.

It is at this point the question about the ‘thief’ God arises. How are we supposed to act when we see a thief. Or for ease, when the child is being naughty?

Well, when there is a change in the concept of God, there can also be change in the concept of worship.

What is worship after all… is it just standing and sitting a particular number of time in a day; or is it just putting some flowers on the deity. Surely these are worship. But these are just few forms of worship. The real essence of worship in my view is when you offer something to the God with total love and devotion, without any idea of selfishness, then it is worship. It not very important what we offer, more important is with what attitude we offer, with what love.

So when a child is naughty, I can probably trash him. But it is not done with any feeling of anger, but only with the form of pure love, of what is good for the child. In the same manner, if I see the thief, I will not obviously let him steal. I may probably continue to act the way, I would otherwise have. The only difference is that I no longer do so out of any anger or fear. I do so, coz that is best for him. Selfish considerations will be no longer dictating what I should and should not do. I will do so in an attitude of service, not authority.

This simply attitudinal change is capable of making huge transformation. The world may be as it is. But our attitude towards the world will not be the same. We live in the world, yet be separate from it. We may go on doing our regular Dharma’s, as we are expected by the society to do. But the motive is no longer selfish. Acts thus purified by the fire of unselfishness are no longer bounding and thus spiritual in nature.

The reply of Omkar to this thread (in colour)

good thread you have started. there are some flaws in your argument though.

in an advaitic framework, paropakara is as bad as swartha, because once you view it as a upakara, it gives duality to the whole thing, and one operates under the auspices of mAyA.

there are three kinds of actions.

selfish action (swArthAya karma)
selfless action (paropakArAya karma)
and action in accordance to the need of the moment. (dharma karma)

selfish action accrues pApa, selfless action accrues puNya and dharma karma accrues neither pApa nor puNya.

therefore, an action should not be performed because it is either good or bad for the doer or the subject on whom the action is done.

the action should be performed because at that moment, performing the action is the dharma of the doer.

when action is thus performed under a mental framework that does not think of good or bad, of right or wrong, of profit or loss, or any other ideas introducing duality, that action is what would be termed as advaitic action.

krishna talks about such action in the bhagavat gita. do it because it needs to be done, and you are the one who has to do it.

then the question arises, how do i know then, what action to perform when, if i should not evaluate the presiding conditions or the consequences? (even though i should accept the conditions and expect the consequences)

For this, the mind has to be prepared, there has to be oneness of mind, the samskAras have to be learnt by the reading of the scriptures.

However, Krishna says in the Gita and in reality, he is doing nothing. Because he is both the subject and the doer, therefore, he is doing nothing.

We have to get rid of samskAras that will lead us away from the path of the Gita, and learn samskAras that will align us with the Gita. Therefore, automatically we will stop the thief, and admonish the naughty child without traumatising it.

However, this is just the advaitic position. The dvaitic hindu position is just as your described.

My reply to Omkar:

I agree that in the Paramarthika state action itself does not make any sense. Thats why I added the following lines in my post: Of course, when you become plunged in the consciousness of atonement with God then you do not know that there is either an inside or an outside. In that very high, inarticulate state in which there is no thought, no movement, nothing, there is no sense of plurality, and the practice of regarding others as divine would not apply. But as long as you are aware of even one other person existing besides yourself -and in our ordinary state we are aware of an infinite number of beings existing outside of us

If you carefully observe, the very word "Advaitic action" is a contradiction of words. The word action presupposes duality.

Thats I did not say you will be aware of that truth and see the God in others. You have only intellectual conviction that everything is indeed divine, but you are not aware of that state. So this attitude of seeing God in others is not coz I am 'aware' (living knowledge) that he is divine. No I cannot be aware. But I only know that intellectually that he is divine.

Why should I try to convince mind of something in the ordinary state when it is not aware of oneness? Because to see something other than God is what makes us limited. In meditation you try to be aware of the inner divinity. But speaking in the ordinary level, what about the rest of the hours in a day? So we try to maintian this attitude of seeing divinity outside. The working is same as that of dhyana. In dhyana the fact that divinity is within you is only teoritical to you and not living, but with practice it becomes living too. In the same manner, in the beggining the point that the other is divine is only theoritical to you, but with practice it becomes living. So what matters is not whether I am aware that he is divine or not, but trying to see nothing else but God everywhere, everytime. If you see nothing but divinity, then there is no more duality.

BTW, one must always try to be aware of the self. The famous dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Maitreyi in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad goes as:

And he said: "Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true nature, is one with the Supreme Self.

"Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but she is loved for the sake of the self.

"Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.

"Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.

"Verily, not for the sake of the animals, my dear, are the animals loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
.
.
.

Understanding how Science works

Its not true that science bases everything on facts. The definitions of these very words like theory, experiment, fact etc are not properly understood, and hence leads to confusion.

Firstly the world we live can be divided into two parts:

1. physical

2. abstract


All the real world objects with which experiments are done belong to this.

The other is the abstract, that which does not really exist as a concrete thing, but exists in mind and intellect. For example the language. The language is not a concrete object, but each represents a real entity (it will more accurate to say that "human mind identifies each abstract entity with a real entity" instead of saying "each abstract thing represents a real thing)

Stuff like mathematics, theories etc come under this. There does not exist any concrete mass called 'one'. They all exist only in the mind. But they are identified with the real object of the physical world. For example two may not be real, but "two apples" is real.

If you remember the school maths, we used to study "axioms", which are usually explained as stuff which does not have proof, but are accepted as they are, and the later mathematics is developed on these. What is really is meant by this is the act of linking an abstract entity with a real entity; linking an abstract activity with a real activity.

Thus as Gurri said you may not have real 1+1=2, but you have a physical entity which is represented in the abstract world as '1', as '+' etc.

What essentially you are doing here is developing an equivalent of the physical world in the abstract world.

When one says he proposed a theory, he usually means that he has tried to represent a physical phenomenon in the form of some equations etc, which essentially belong to abstract world. Thus theorizing in other words means replicating a physical phenomenon in the mind. As all this happens fast in the mind, and we usually attach only the end things in the memory, we confuse theory with the real objects itself.

Now what is an experiment or verification of a theory. It is just to know how accurate is the replica we created in the mind. Thus we compare the "results of the abstract world" (which become predictions of the real world) and the results of the real world.

There is a peculiar habit of the human mind: it gives something a name and thinks it is answered. For example the answer for the question "how is universe created?" will mostly be "by Big bang", as though by naming it, everything gets answered. Yea but why does it happen? It is also seen in psychology. Freud while trying to explain why ppl commit suicide, says it is coz of Suicide instinct in the living beings. yea fine it is called suicide instinct, but why is there.... silence. This naming is not done consciously by us, but it still happens.

Of course what ever be the manner in which it works it never the less works. But there is one important point that we should infer from this is that a ‘proved theory’ does not represent a physical fact, but a correct replication and identification by the mind of the physical phenomenon. It then follows that while we only focusing our attention on the system, we are neglecting and not considering into account the most important component of the whole ‘experiment’ – our own mind.

For most ordinary purposes things still work no matter how it works, just the same manner a comp for works for us, no matter we understand how exactly is the principle involved in it. But it then makes science less of science and more of engineering.

Luckily the modern science tries to include most of these considerations into account in relativity etc. Actually Heisenberg proved that nothing can be ‘proved’, and uncertainty always will remain in the study. (logical contradiction?? I don’t know; I have elaborated my views on this here)

In this context it also will not be correct to say “it anyhow works”, coz primary identifications does not work every time. If something does not work with additions, we may try and introduce laplace equation. If even this doesn’t work something else. Everytime we are making trial and error about what is the correct identification of that particular physical phenomenon in the abstract world, and once it is does we say “ah math works”. Maths did not work there, we invented new extensions of it, until they worked.

What is the conclusion of this: it then means that science is not a study of ‘facts’, but the effort of the human mind to understand and thus conquer external nature. If science is the effort to conquer external nature, religion is the effort to conquer nature. The only difference is that in science, the mind is the instrument, and a physical thing the object of study. But in religion, the mind is both the instrument and object of study. Thus thinking, study of self is not wrong, rather must. Thinking about self is different from putting self first. Putting self on top of everything, everytime will cause problems.

Buddhism vis-a-vis Hinduism

Religious aspects in general:

Hinduism can be broadly divided into two main divisions. The Jnana part and the Bhakti part, which though not accurate, for our purpose can be translated as Philosophical and Belief parts.

Hinduism, pre-Buddhism, was mainly (and mostly), comprised of philosophical parts. The Vedas and Upanishads occupied the central part for Hindus to follow in everyday life. The Vedas and the Upanishads are the philosophical aspects of Hinduism.

Even the early Buddhism was only philosophical in nature in its beginning. The differences thus between Hinduism and Buddhism at that time were that of philosophical technicalities, whether the reality is infinite or sunya etc etc kind of stuff.


In addition there were also other kinds of differences, that of excessive ritualism, which marked the Hindu society of those times. In fact much of the popularity of the Buddhism in those times is also attributed to this aspect.

But the Hindu society made corrections in this regard (which can be inferred from the debate victory of Adi Sankaracharya representing Jnana over Purva Mimamsakas representing ritualistic portions). Also the Buddhism which partly started as a revolt to excessive ritualism, made bigger rituals.

It may be interesting to note that the popularity of the temple & monastery concepts etc were the result of the development of Buddhist times. Before that temples were never seen as a central in Hinduism, but only fire altars of the Rig Veda were central. It is in the Buddhist times that giant temples and idols became the trendy (extending even to Bamiyan Buddha’s etc).


Thus we can say that at the beginning of Buddhism, the differences with Hinduism were both on philosophical and ritualistic aspects. But by the time the condition stabilized, both underwent some changes, and there are not much difference left on the extent of rituals.

But in the later times, particularly the Islamic rule, we had the Bakti revolution. It is during these times that the concepts of incarnations, itihasas, puranas etc became popular (the difference between the time for emergence and popularity to be kept in mind). It is the developments of these times, which one can actually see in the Hindu society today mostly. Worship of Rama, Krishna, worship of them, attitude that philosophy and logic not needed in religion, and that belief is superior.

Vedas still are there, and are still central, but they are not vital anymore. How many of the present day Hindus know the what is there is Vedas, Upanishads or what are the Jnana kanda, karma kanda portions of Vedas etc etc. So, Hinduism during these times have undergone a transformation of form.

It is not that the developments of these times were against the concepts of Vedas. But previously it used to be directly Vedas, not it is derivations of Vedas.

Buddhism having disappeared from India did not have the effect of all these changes, and it thus is freezed at the time of pre-Bhakti times in the public memory.

Thus I can say that in addition to the philosophic differences, the only differences Hinduism and Buddhism has are the belief and Bhakti parts. Hinduism has also the concpets of Bhakti in addition to the concepts of Jnana.


Is Buddhism = Hinduism - its bad practices?

It is true that it is a pretty popular view, but I don’t think that this is true. In fact, on the contrary, I think the revolutionary way in which Buddhism took India later lead to many problems, with most of them having their origin either in the Buddhist times of in the transition from Buddhist back to Hindu.

I don’t deny that there were problems in Hindu society before Buddhism. But as I have elaborated in the case of ritualism earlier, those differences are obsolete now. Some major points which are seen as problems by present Hindu society (and which are said to be absent in Buddhism), and their origin.


1. Untouchability: This is actually seen as a development in the middle and declining days of Buddhism. The pre-Buddhist Hinduism was not centered about non-violence, and sacrifices by even some upper castes common. But after Buddhism, non-violence became a taboo, and the Hindu society also was quick to accept this non-violence which was seen as a moral high ground in the society of that times. (I am not talking about introducing non-violence; but the transformation from “non-violence is spiritually superior, and please be non-violence if possible” to “you should be non-violent”). As a result the non-violent classes particularly towards the cow, became lower in social standing. (you may further read this and this articles on the “Broken men” by Ambedkar for more explanation )


2. Excessive Ritualism: Already discussed before.

3. Not logical: Some Hindus feel that Hinduism does not have any logical support, and is just based on some beliefs. It is true that being logical is not seen as compulsory in Hinduism, it is no way true that Hinduism does not have logical support. It just offers it. “If you want take it, there are the reasons. If you don’t want to know, no problem, go ahead” is it attitude. There are extensive philosophical literature and even the study of what is logic itself in ‘nyaya’. Then there is purva mimamsa, uttara mimansa, nyaya, vyseshika, sankya, yoga. Then there are different schools of thoughts Advaita, Dvaita, Visistadvaita, dvaita-advaita, bheda-abheda etc etc. And all not just saying something, but supporting them with arguments.

So this is not true, but appears so only due to the ignorance of some present Hindus, more so in times when the sources of learning our religion is mostly through western studies.


4. Tantra: I personally don’t think that tantra is anything bad. But here I am referring to the degeneration in it. The origins of tantra thought can be found from the earliest times I Hinduism in the form of purusha-prakruti concept etc. But all this was only symbological in nature, and in the times of Buddhism there evolved structured sects of Tantra (eg: Vajrayana)

Hence Buddhism != Hinduism - bad practices in Hinduism.


BuddhISTs and Buddha

Buddha's teachings were deeply spiritual. The Buddhism differs a little from the teachings of Buddha, but still has many factors to learn from. There are man positive contributions of that period, which most of us unaware of. Religion before Buddhism was not easily understood for the masses. It was covered with big rituals. It was Buddha who made religion very easy and it was Buddhism which propagated religion deep into the masses.

If Adi Sankaracharya deserves the credit for defeating many Buddhist scholars in debate, the Buddhists too deserve credit that the sat for the debate, and accepted what is true. Each did not sit for the debate to stick to their positions, but only viewed it as a combined search for truth. Sankara convinced that his was right, and the Buddhists accepted it. I only hope that such pure quest for truth is also there in ppl of present age.

I am not saying that Buddhism was flawless. It did have, and that’s why it vanished from India. But the point I am trying to make is that it need not be seen as an enemy. Buddhism covering most of India, and later it becoming extinct are in my view does not indicate any conflicts in the religions in the India, but only signifies that the Sanatana Dharma was constantly seeking to express itself in a better manner. This is neither a symbol of quarrel nor of a decayed race, but symbolizes a vibrant Nation which was constantly trying to seek perfection.

Our Ideal

Buddha with his tremendous compassion made religion easy for. His love was not just limited to humans but extended to even animals and plants. This also formed the basis for the service attitude for the Buddhist monks. But this also opened the doors for the religion to be easily malleable to suit the individual fancies. Huge monasteries, excessive idols and temples, vamachara etc are some results of it.

On the other hand Sankara had that tremendous intellect. With that he proved wrong all the others false schools. But this kind of intellect often leads to dryness, as can be seen from the so called intellectuals our country is having today who do not feel anything for the one they are writing, but do so, sitting happily in their a/c rooms.

What we want is the Intellect of Sankara with the Heart of Buddha. This must be our ideal.


Philosophical Comparison

Buddha died as a Hindu and is one of the ten Avataras of Vishnu. Buddhism came after Buddha and I do not see Buddhism as something different from Hinduism, hence I will write the differences between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta (school of thought, mainly propounded by Adi Sankaracharya, and said to have participated in philosophical debated with many Buddhists).

Both Buddhism and Vedanta do not agree to the concept of the 'creation'. They hold that it eternally exist. Also both their concepts of time are cyclic, in contrast to the scientific model which suggests time is a one dimentional arrow(although the latest String theory questions this assumption).


According to Buddhism, Sunya or nothingness is the reality. Nihilism as it is called. What we observe is nothing but a series of changes. Each element is formed and then dissolved, and it exists for a infinitesimally small amount time, which is almost tending to zero.

It basically says that there is no fixed something. What we observe is a result of a series of changes. An example is a flowing river. In the river, the water is continously changing all the time, but this change gives us a feeling of river. or a film screen, which is not a single movie, but a series of pictures. In the same way, the universe is also nothing but a series of changes, and change is the only permanent thing, so to say.

But Vedanta does not agree with this Nihilism. It immediately asks "Change fine, but with respect to what?"

If we have to observe a change, or even have a change, then we need three things. ONE-an initial state of the being; TWO- a final state of the being; and the THIRD important one which the buddhists neglect-on observer which does not change with respect to both of these.

So, for even a change to happen, we want the presence of an unchanging element which does not change with respect to both of them.

In the above river example, eventhough the water in river is continoudly changing, there is a definite path which the river follows, and this is what charactarizes the river. In the movie example, the pictures may be changing, but there is a screen behind which is responsible for the feeling of movie. In the same way, universe may be a unending series of changes, but there is something which is unchanging begind all this.


More over the change or creation itself assumes the presence of time. Concept of change cannot exist without the concept of time. But if we talk about trascending the time or atleats bending of time as in the case of relativity, we will be forced to accept that time itself may have a beginning, and to call the change an eternally present phenomenon may be wrong.


So eventhough both Buddhism and Vedanta accept that Universe is not 'created' they differ at what is the final reality. Biddhist maintain that it is Sunya. Vedantins maintain that it is Infinite Brahman.

‘Na Asato Sato Jayate’, "Existence cannot be produced by non-existence." Or rather more simply put - something cannot come out of nothing. This is one of the central ideas of the ideas. It thus rejects the idea of infinitisimal elements being created and destroyed continously.

The Mahayana school understands anitya to mean that elements are trisitory, hence unreal and non-existent, not to speak of the substancelessness of the beings constituted out of the elements. This is a deviation from the Hinayana which denies Dharma-Sunyata. Nagarjuna as I understand, says that so-called objects, qualities, attributes, even nirvaana, Buddha or Biddhisatva are non-existent in the highest sense.

Thus Buddhism denies the existence of world and also the final reality itself as sunya, and hence is also known as Maya Vaada.

Vednata also holds that the world is unreal. But it does not say that final reality is non-existant. It says that behind this illusory world is the reality. As in the above example of movie, the pictures we see on screen are unreal and illusion. From this Buddhism says that world is also like it- a illusion. Vedanta on the other hand says that behind the changing screen there is the screen which makes one see the movie. The Vedanta calls this final reality, the One without any second, as Brahman. Thus Advaita is also known as Brahma Vaada.