From: pingali@gaia.cs.umass.edu (Sridhar Pingali)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.eastern
Subject: Re: revelations or lack thereof...
Date: 7 Jan 1993 10:41:11 -0800
Organization: ----
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: gap.caltech.edu


In article <1ifs8cINN23q@gap.caltech.edu> billc@devnull.mpd.tandem.com 
    (Bill Carter) writes:


[deleted]

>   The topic has drifted somewhat, but in a post several weeks ago
>   I proposed that Hinduism is a "revealed" religion.  I gave some
>   justification for the claim that Buddhism is not.
>   So let me clarify; let's assume for discussion that the human
>   persons these religions are based around, if they existed, were
>   righteously enlightened people.  It is the religious systems that
>   evolved around them later which are visible to us today, and
>   those systems do differ.
>
>   Buddhism appears somewhat unique in that even on the surface,
>   there is no claim that Guatama had some special divinity apart
>   from ordinary people like us.  Unusual willpower and determination,
>   perhaps, but he is not said to have been influenced by anything
>   supernatural or born with any special advantage that the ordinary
>   man does not have.  I think this is pretty neat.
>
>   Other religions make no such claim about their central figures.
>   Recklessly controversial, I proposed that Hinduism is among them.
>   So far no one seems to be disputing that.

I did not pay close attention to this thread - so I am not sure
what exactly you did say about Hinduism. So, if I am addressing
a non-question, please say so.

There is a category of being in Hinduism called "jivanmukta" - i.e.,
one who is liberated in this life. This corresponds to the category
of Arahant or Buddha under Buddhism. (As to whether a jivanmukta is
completely liberated from greed, hatred and ignorance as defined by
Buddhism is a separate issue that I do not wish to enter now). Some
Hindus may see a jivanmukta as an avatar, but not necessarily all
do. An avatar would be an incarnation or manifestation of God - but
the word "God" is quite tricky and means different things to different
people.

An example springs to mind - that of Ramana Maharshi. He is widely 
regarded as a jivanmukta, and he quite unamiguously declared that
what was possible for him is possible for all - and in fact, is their
natural state. Everybody may not approach that in this lifetime, for the
simple reason that not everybody is even interested in mukti or
liberation. So while the potential exists for all, many are not karmically
inclined to look in this direction. This is an idea that is fairly
well established in Buddhism. The notions of paramitas being the
accumulated forces of purity in the mind that pull beings towards the
Dharma, the preciousness and rarity of human birth, the good karma
involved in having the opportunity to hear the teaching, the great
good fortune needed to actually practice the Dharma - all fall under
this ambit.

Ramana Maharshi was also regarded as an avatar of Adi Shankaracharya
by some and that of Shiva by others. Different people had different
reactions to him. He himself spoke not only of the way of inquiry -
asking the question "Who am I", but also of Grace. The Grace of the
Guru for those who totally and unconditionally surrendered to him.
If someone was unable or unwilling to that, they could inquire within.
[ IMHO, the apparent sharp cleavage between the two ways dissolves
and reappears and dissolves again. Wisdom requires great surrender.]
He also said that the Guru was within and that all guidance was
from within, and that to know God was to be God. The lesson seems to
be that people should look into their hearts, and trust their intuition
about what seems right for them at different times.

About the Buddha being a "ordinary person" - well one could say that
in a dogmatic sense. But that is apparently not how the Buddha 
referred to himself, nor how others regarded him. In the earliest
phase of his teaching, as recorded in the Sutta Nipata, lay people
referred to him as Reverend Gotama. He was regarded as one of the
numerous samanas or wandering ascetics of his time. But in the later
suttas, he is referred to more commonly as the Blessed One, the Lord,
the Exalted One. His status changed externally in his own lifetime.
He himself spoke about a Tathagatha, a fully Enlightened being arising
in the world. A "Buddha" is a special category of being - when he
was asked whether he was a man or a god, he replied in the negative
to both and said merely that he was Awake. An Arahant is also freed from
greed, hatred and ignorance, but has not developed the paramitas to
completion as has a Buddha. A Buddha, because of the countless
lifetimes that he has spent developing the paramitas, has unsurpassed
skill in means and great compassion, and as such is neither common
nor ordinary.

Regards,
Sridhar

"The winds of circumstance blow across emptiness. Who can they harm?"