RSS

Tag Archives: Nirvana

The essential teachings of the Buddha

[Siddhartha Gotama was the prince of the Sakiya clan , who ruled a prosperous republican community belonging to Kosala kingdom situated at the foot of Himalayan ranges. His father was Suddhodana , a Sakyan Chieftain; and his mother was Maya. Siddhartha was born under a Saal tree in the Lumbibi garden (along the Indo -Nepal border) , while his mother was travelling to her parent’s home. He lost his mother while he was still an infant; and, was brought up by his mother’s sister, Pajapati Gotami. He married Yasodhara, his cousin; and the couple had a son named Rahula. Siddhartha was a good looking person with a strong body. He had his military training in his upbringing ; and, was once invited by King Bimbisara to join his army as a General.

Siddhartha left his home, at the age of twenty nine, soon after the birth of his son, in search of ‘Truth’.  For six long years he studied earnestly, went from teacher to teacher ; and, lived the life of a mendicant , practicing severe austerity. He was satisfied neither with the teachings nor with the methods prescribed. He also realized   that with a body so utterly weakened as his, he would not be able to pursue his path with any chance of success. Finally, he broke away from his fellow Samanas; and, also abandoned extremes of self-torture and prolonged fasting. He practiced meditation under a pipal tree in the Uravela forests along the banks of the Neranjara River (near Gaya). Gotama , at the age of thirty-five, attained enlightenment on a full moon in the month of May (vaisakha, vesak).

The Buddha was a wandering monk for twenty years , starting from his enlightenment, continuously on move from place to place. He then settled down at Savasthi, living on alms, for about twenty years. He left Savasthi in his 79th year ; and, spent the next rainy season at Rajagraha , from where he moved northward. While on move, at the age of 80, he passed away quietly at Kusinara in the Malla country.

The Buddha is the precious jewel of humanity. No matter how you look at him, he must have been a wonderful person of majesty, tenderness, compassion and one who was free from prejudices. He always carried himself with dignity. You cannot fail to wonder at the brilliance, greatness, empathy and the nobility of the person and his teachings. Though twenty-five centuries have gone since the passing away of the Buddha, his message of love, compassion and wisdom continue to influence and guide us.]

Introduction

1.1. It is said that the First Discourse (pathamadesana) of the Buddha introduces his teachings and his philosophy. Many think it holds the essential teachings of the Master : ‘There is no teaching of the Master outside the scope of this sermon.’ It also marks a watershed in his life. It was from here that Samana Gotama the wanderer emerged as the Revered Teacher (Bhagava), as the Blessed One (Araha) and as the perfectly enlightened One (Sammaa- Sambuddha).

1.2. The pathamadesana is of unique importance in the Buddhist history. It was from here the incomparable wheel of Dhamma was set in motion (Dhamma-chakka-parivattana) by the Blessed One. The full moon of Asadha is therefore celebrated as Dhamma Day and it marks the beginning of the annual retreat period in the monasteries for the monsoon (Vassa or chatur-masya).

A. My emancipation is won

2.1. It was on the full moon night in the month of Vesaka – the sixth month; on one of those nights he spent under the Bodhi tree, he understood the sorrows of earthly existence and experienced the supreme peace unaffected by earthly existence. He said to himself “My emancipation is won…Done what is to be done. There is nothing beyond this (katamkarniyam, naaparamitthattaya).”

2.2. For several days, he wandered in peace and tranquillity, among the woods. He enjoyed his quiet serene days and lonely walks in the forest. He wished the idyllic life would last forever. He pondered whether he should share his newfound wisdom with others. Yet, he wondered whether anyone would be interested or would appreciate his findings, which helps in seeing things clearly, as they are, and in attaining knowledge, higher wisdom, peace, and enlightenment or nirvana.

2.3. He debated, there might still be those not entirely blinded by the worldly dirt. He thought of his teachers Alara Kalama and Uddaka Ramaputta, both “wise, intelligent and learned; and of nature scarcely tainted “; and said to himself they would quickly comprehend the knowledge he had just gained. Then, he sadly realized that Uddaka son of Rama had just passed away; and Alara Kalama died about seven days ago. Then the thought came to him of his erstwhile fellow Samanas, those who left him to pursue their ways. He decided to talk to his fellow seekers and share with them the new wisdom (Majjhima Nikaya; Sutta 26).

3.1. He journeyed from place to place from Gaya ; and at length reached the holy city of Varanasi after nearly seven weeks, covering a distance of about 144 miles .On his way a monk named Upaka enquired Gautama where he was headed to, “To set in to motion the wheel of Dhamma (Dhamma Chakkampavattetum)” he replied ” I proceed to Varanasi”.

3.2. There at Varanasi he learnt the five ascetics (Kondanna, Vappa, Mahanama, Assaji, and Bhadda) whom he knew before were at Isipatana (Rishipattana – where the sages live; now called Saranath), nearby. He found them in the garden Migadaaya (Deer park) at Isipatana. They were surprised to see him but were impressed by his majestic, pure and serene demeanour. They wondered whether he had achieved uttari-manusa-dhamma, the super human status.

He told them he had done what had to be done. He had attained it. He asked them to listen to his findings. He told them: “I teach about suffering and the way to end it”.

3.3. They listened to him in all earnestness. What he spoke to those five ascetics later gained renown as one of the greatest and most important discourses in religious history. At the end of the talk, Gotama emerged as the Teacher. He came to be revered as Bhagava (the Blessed One).

The talk was “The first teaching” (Pathamadesana). It later came to be celebrated as Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, the discourse that set in motion the wheels of Dhamma.

B. Pathamadesana

4. 1.The Buddha spoke to the five ascetics at the garden of Migadaaya where the deer roamed unmolested and in peace, located in Isipatana near the holy city of Varanasi, in the evening of the full moon day in the month of Asalhi – the eighth month (Ashada-July). He spoke in simple Magadhi the language his listeners understood well. The discourse was brief, with short, simple and precise statements. There were no definitions and no explanations. It was a direct sincere talk.

4.2. It was a simple and a straight narration of how Samana Gotama transformed into the Buddha. He spoke from his experience, narrated his findings, and explained the four truths and the three aspects of each; and the middle path.

5.1. He opened the discourse by exhorting the five monks who believed in strict asceticism to avoid the extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification, as both do not lead to perfect peace and enlightenment. “These two extremes should not be resorted to by a recluse who has renounced the world”. He advised them to follow the Middle Way (majjhiama-patipada). Then, he went on to explain four noble truths (cattariariya-sacchani) and their true nature: Sorrow (Dukkha) in life is a fact; it has a cause; that cause can be eliminated; and there is a method by which it is eliminated.

5.2. The Indian tradition looks upon the Buddha as the master of the analytical method (vibhajyavadin). His very first discourse is an excellent example of his consummate analytical skill.

5.3. The discourse is logically well structured. It puts forth certain postulates derived from observation and experience; and seeks to construct a logical structure explaining relationships among the postulates.

5.4. The Buddha did not stop at the intellectual edification. He was moved by compassion for his fellow beings and tried to show a method for eradication of sorrow. Dhamma preached here is both a theory and a practical procedure.  His postulates have therefore an operational aspect. The methods he suggested were drawn from his life and his experiences. His methods lead to a definite end (niyyana). It is like “putting down the burden” or to “cure the disease”. That is what Dhamma really means.

C. The Middle Way (majjhiama-patipada)

6.1. The Buddha arrived at a time when almost every shade of opinion was in currency in the Indian scene; but, excessive speculation was the bane of the period. In a way of speaking, he came to the rescue of Indian philosophy at its critical hour when no one seemed to have a clear view of things. He set himself to prepare a perfect –net (Brahma-jaala) of dialectics for entangling all sorts of sophistry.   The Buddhist philosophy is not only an integral part of Indian philosophy, but is a whole in itself. It therefore shares many characteristics   of the other streams of Indian thought; and, at the same time asserts its own beliefs.

6.2. The Buddha opened his celebrated discourse at the Migadaaya in Isipattana, saying:

“There are two extremes, O monks, from which he who leads a spiritual life must abstain. What are those two extremes? One is a life of pleasure, devoted to desire and enjoyment: that is base, ignoble, and un-spiritual, unworthy, unreal. The other is a life of mortification: it is gloomy, unworthy, unreal. The perfect one, O monks, is removed from both these extremes and has discovered the way which lies between them, the middle way (majjhiamapatipada) which enlightens the eyes, enlightens the mind, which leads to rest, to knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nirvana.”

6.3 The Middle-way that the Buddha taught here as the right conduct for a monk is compared to tuning a lute which emits melodious sounds of right pitch only when its strings are stretched neither too loose nor too tight.

7.1. His majjhiama-patipada was not merely his ethical teaching but was also the very foundation of his views on many issues including those on the nature of universe, the nature of soul sand such other subjects. One could even say that the metaphysics of the Buddha was based in the ’middle-way’. By this, he achieved a position that was away from extremes, away from dogmatism. He always maintained that one should avoid clinging to an idea or a concept for the mere sake of it. He is said to have remarked “I’ve used ideas as boats to cross the river, not to carry them around upon my head.”

Being and Non-Being

8.1. Even at the very early stages of Indian thought, two groups had clearly emerged: the one that asserted the hypotheses of the Being (sat-karya-vada), and the other of Non-Being (asat-karya-vada) .Both the camps left strong impressions on the later Indian speculations. The history of the subsequent Indian philosophy could be said to be mostly about the unfolding and expansion, a wider application, continued modifications of these two ancient postulates, or   departure from either.

8.2. The Buddha rejected both the extreme positions of Being and Non-Being. He preached the doctrine that embodied the middle mode (eteubho ante anupa-gammam-ajjhimena …Dhammamdeseti) of Becoming; believing neither in chance nor in necessity exclusively, but in conditioned happening.

The Universe

9.1. In regard to the Universe, the Buddha was questioned several times whether ‘it exists’ or whether ‘it does not exist’’; whether the universe (loka) is eternal or not; whether it is infinite or not. The Thathagatha, not going by the extremes, taught the intermediate way (Madhyama Prathipada). He explained that the concept of ‘it – exists (asti)’ represents an absolute and an un-changing substance; while ‘it- does not – exist (nasti)’ concept means that everything is annihilated without a trace. His middle-path was   that the world is neither Being nor is it Non-Being; but it is the Becoming. It is a continual change- to- be and passing away; ‘there is nothing permanent or eternal in the universe’. He preferred a dynamic explanation to the static changeless position.

9.2. The real nature of the universe, according to the Buddha, consists series of temporary principles, which change; each principle in the sequence of conditions becomes the condition for the next; there is continuity though there no continuous substance.

The Buddha explained  :

“ Just as from milk comes curds , from curds butter , from butter ghee , from ghee junket;  but, when it is milk it is not called curds, or butter , or ghee or junket; and, when it is curds it is not called by any of the other names; and so on”.

Here, he was not only putting forward his concept of the law of causation but was also pointing to the principle of identity at each stage. Each state in the chain of changes is real in its own context and when it is ‘present’; and it is not real when it was past as ‘something that it was’; and also not real when in future ‘it will be something’.

10.1. The Buddha held the view that the transmigration (samsara) was a process and it was beginning-less. No ultimate point of origin could be discerned. There is no final, ultimate beginning, according to the Buddha. One can go on forever tracing the cycle back from life to life. The same conditions will be found generating new life all the time. “Leave aside these questions of the beginning and the end “he said “I shall instruct you on the Law. If that is, this comes to be; on springing of that, this springs up. If that is not, this does not come to be; on the cessation of that, this ceases to be” (Majjima Nikaya: 2.32).

11.1. The Buddha was asked several times ‘who runs’; ‘who contacts’; or ‘who desires’ the universe, and so on. His reply was that the questions were ‘unsound’ or wrongly worded. The proper form of the questions, as he said, was ‘through what conditions is there contact or desire’ etc. For each condition there is the ‘cause’ (hetu), the source (nidana), the origination (samudaya); and there is a condition (pratyaya) for each principle we are examining. If the condition did not exist the principle would not happen. It is not, therefore, correct to speak of persons who do things; but we should try to understand the universe in terms of the series of events and the conditions that caused those events. In other words, there is action, but there is no agent such as a god, soul, self etc ‘who does things’ (Samyutta Nikaya: 2.13).There is just the process (vritti) a continuing coming-to-be and passing away or a series of related events; and, these are impersonal.

11.2. The Buddha was no mere logician; he was a philosopher endowed with a keen insight into the nature of reality. In place of theories of this or that agency constituting the source, the Buddha put attention on the order of things itself. The order he conceived was the continual coming-to-be and passing away of everything. He explained the reality , as he understood, in terms of change, movement, continual becoming; a change which does not consist of disconnected events or isolated freaks of nature, but one that presents a continuous structure, a closed series of forms, a series of causes and effects. It is not that the effect is identical with the cause, but it has its roots in the cause. When a seed grows into a plant, it becomes a wholly different object without the seed having survived (niranvaya-vada). But a tree would not have been in existence without the presence of the seed

11.3. That constant transition, change or becoming is not erratic, not pre-ordained; but, it goes on by the momentum of its own natural laws of causes and effects. Thus, the universe, according to the Buddha, is some kind of objective reality that is governed by natural and impersonal forces and processes; by conditions and principles that are transient, with no beginning. And, his universe has no enduring substances.

Soul

12.1. The texts tend to bracket the issue of universe with the question of the ‘soul’. He was often asked whether he who acts is the same as the one who (subsequently) enjoys the results of it; or, whether one (person) acts and another one experiences the results of it. Here too, the Buddha favoured a middle path avoiding the extremes of an entity called soul that survives birth after birth; and that of a soul which perishes as the body withers away. The Buddha explained a human as the dynamic inter-relation of five skandas. 

“Truly, if one holds the view that self is identical with the body, in that case there can be no holy life. Again, if one holds the view that self is one thing and the body another, in that case, too, there can be no holy life. Avoiding both extremes the Perfect One teaches the doctrine that lies in the middle.” (Sauyutta Nikaya: 2, 61).

13.1. Here, the Buddha opted for a sequence of conditioned events, where there is neither a permanent soul nor an agent, but where there are series of causes and effects, with each effect conditioning that which follows it.

The Buddha in his second discourse delivered a few days after his first discourse at Saranath on the outskirts of Varanasi, speaks about his concept of AnattaAnatta – lakkhana – sutta’. The teaching instructs one not to identify self with ‘”Any kind of feeling whatever…Any kind of perception whatever…Any kind of determination whatever… Any kind of consciousness whatever…”

13. 2. But, translating the Buddhist concept of an-atma or anatta as –   ‘no soul’ or that ‘self does not exist at all ‘- seems rather misleading.  An-atta, in the Buddhist context suggests that ‘self is not an enduring entity or eternal essence’. It is not the ultimate reality (dharmataa) either .The Buddhist tradition believes that the root of all suffering is in regarding the ‘self’ as a permanent or a static entity or as an unchanging essence; and clinging to it.

14.1. It must be mentioned that Buddhism does not deny a soul altogether. The Buddhist view is that the belief in a changeless “I-entity” (soul) is the result of incorrect interpretation of one’s experiences. As per the Buddhist view, self/soul is not a permanent entity, or a static substance, or as an essence, but it is understood as a dynamic process which one experiences as perceptions, ideas or desires. It says; self is wrongly taken as a fixed, enduring entity. According to Buddhism, there is not anything which is enduring, fixed, and eternal. Everything is interdependent and changing. Everything is an aggregate lacking self (samghata); and has no astitva or existence outside of shifting contexts . Everything is in constant flux (spandana). If things are not momentary, everyone and everything would be eternal. There is incessant change; but with continuity. All phenomena come into being as a result of causes and conditions, they change every moment, and eventually they pass away. A belief in a permanent or a changeless-self is a false concept leading to mistaken notions about reality.

[The later Buddhist texts refer to what they call as the Three Universal Truths enunciated by the Buddha:

  1. Nothing is lost in the universe: Nothing is lost in the universe. Matter turns into energy, energy turns into matter. A dead leaf turns into soil. A seed sprouts and becomes a new plant.
  2. Everything Changes: Everything is continuously changing. Life is like a river flowing on and ever-changing.
  3. Law of Cause and Effect: All events are subject to the laws of Cause and Effect.]

14.2. The Buddhism believes that the self is a changing phenomenon. It is like a raindrop. When it is in the ocean, it is a part of the ocean ; when it evaporates, it becomes a part of the cloud; and, when it rains, it becomes a part of stream or a lake or a well. It is its functions and relationship which give form to its character.

Consciousness

15.1. Similarly, in regard to consciousness too, the Buddha did not deny existence of feelings, thoughts, sensations or whatever; but, he did not also talk about a permanent conscious substance that experiences all these. According to him, the streams of consciousness ever changing, arise and perish leaving behind no permanent “thinker”. As Abhidhamma-kosa explains that there is no agency apart from feeling, ideas, volitions, etc “There is no self separate from a non-self”. In other words, there is no “self” apart from the process.

15.2. Each phase of experience, as it appears and disappears, is shaped into the next. That process of change with continuity ensures that every successive phase carries within it ‘all the potentials of its predecessors’. Hence, a man is not the same in any two moments’;  and yet he is not quite different. The body which is the aggregate (skandas) of sensations, the thoughts, and the physical frame is thus    not only a collective, but also a   recollective unit.

Suspended judgment

16.1. The Buddha is often blamed for maintaining silence on the key question of a permanent self. I reckon that was rather unjust. The Buddha was reluctant to define the indefinable, that which cannot be apprehended by mind.

When he suspended his judgment on certain questions, he really meant us to understand that no one answer (eka-amsika) could be taken to be the only right one. The Buddha chose not to give out a partial answer of either a ‘yes’ or ‘a no’ when other explanations seem quite possible. For instance, on the question of ‘soul’, had he said ‘yes’, it would not have been consistent with his position that all things are impermanent. And, had he said “no” then, he would be denying his own concepts of kamma, rebirth, and dependent origination etc. Merely judging the issue from individual (separate) stand points of view would lead to wrong conclusions. According to the Buddha , as most of those matters pertained to a ‘state – of –fact’ (loka-dhamma) it would be prudent to approach each from more than one point of view (aneka-amsika).

16.2. His teaching represents a reaction and an attempt to approach life rationally. He was averse to theoretic curiosity. He did not speculate on things beyond the sphere of perception and reason. He was pragmatic. The Buddha taught what was necessary to overcome Dukkha. He did not dwell upon all that he knew, since he saw no practical use for the rest. He denied speculative intervention; disassociated from dogmas. He perhaps thought that such speculations would fuel idle curiosity and distract the seeker from the task of getting past Dukkha. ‘Philosophy purifies none,’ he said, ‘peace alone does.’

Buddha preaching

D. Four noble truths (cattariariya-sacchani)

17.1. The Buddha then went on to explain four noble truths (cattariariya-sacchani): Sorrow (Dukkha) in life is a fact; it has a cause; that cause can be eliminated; and there is a method by which it is eliminated.

Briefly, he said:

:- Clinging to existence is sorrow (dukkha-mariya-saccham);

:- Thirst or craving (tanha) for pleasure (kamatanha), thirst for existence (bhavatanha), thirst for heavenly existence (vibhavatanha) is the cause;

:- Suffering ceases with the complete cessation of this thirst, and

:- The Path (dukkha – nirodha-gaminipatipadaariya-saccham) that leads to the cessation of sorrow is the Eightfold Path, that is: Right Belief, Right Aspiration, Right Speech, Right Conduct, Right Means of Livelihood, Right Endeavour, Right Memory and Right Meditation.

17.2. When a person properly develops the Noble Eight Fold Path (ariyo-atthangiko-maggo) he can eradicate craving which is cause of suffering. When he eradicates craving, he can stop completely the continuous cycle of suffering. When this craving and this suffering are removed completely (vimutti), one can realize Nibbana.

17.3. Based on these postulates the Buddha set out to teach his methods for the benefit of humanity. The rest of Buddha’s teachings are within the ambit of these principles.

 18.1. The first three Noble Truths (understanding, diagnosis, and prescription) are of theoretical import while the fourth is essentially a practical measure. The discourse explains this as the method (naya), the road (magga) and the steps to be taken (patipada) to eliminate sorrow and to obtain emancipation.

18.2. The second and the fourth postulates (origination of sorrow and the methods of eliminating sorrow) represent Buddha’s original contribution to Indian ethos; the former being his philosophical stand point and the latter his religious system.

18.3. Of the eight factors of the Noble Eightfold Path, the first two relate to Wisdom, the second three to Morality, and the last three are about Concentration. Sila – Morality (right speech, right action, right livelihood), Samadhi – Concentration (right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration), and Panna – Wisdom (right attitude, right understanding) are the three stages of the Noble Path. These factors denote the stages and attitudes of the aspirant.

18.4. The concept of path as it relates to the pilgrim and his progress occurs in Upanishads too. Yajnavalkya mentions it as pantha. The Buddha extends it to a series of steps patipada (step by step) leading to the goal (vaddanaka-patipada). The Buddha is thus the path finder of noble path (ariyapada or ariya-atthangika-magga). He preferred to describe it, simply, as majjima-patipada, the middle path.

18.5. The removal of Dukkha was also the stated objective of other doctrines (e.g. Samkhya), but the Buddha made it the central point of his teaching. Its special value lies in the explanation it gives of the origin of suffering, in the manner in which it deduces the possibility of its removal and in the means it recommends for doing so.

E. Dukkha: cause and cessation

19.1. The First Noble Truth deals with Dukkha, which, for want of a better term in English, is inadequately rendered as suffering or sorrow. In many English-language- Buddhist texts Dukkha is therefore often left un-translated. As a feeling, Dukkha means that which is difficult to endure. What is Dukkha? It is a phenomenon, which is universal (sabba-satta-sadharana); and is readily identifiable (suvinneya) by the troubles (badhana) it causes. It is like the ’burning heat’ (santhapana).

In the Canon, the Pali term ‘Dukkha’ is meant to denote disquiet, unrest, sorrow, affliction, stress, a sort of heat (tapana) etc caused by attachment. It is explained; attachment to whatever that is impermanent (anichcha) leads to Dukkha (Yad-aniccam tam Dukkham). It was meant to include both pleasure and pain; happiness and suffering; all arising out of impermanence of things. In short, whatever is subject to the law of causality is characterized by Dukkha.   The older texts equate Dukkha with ‘tanha’ (Snkt. thristna) meaning thirst, craving , dissatisfaction  or at times with burden.

19.2. Elimination (nirodha) of Dukkha, in contrast, has the character of quiet (santi). Nirodha is the absence of rodha (flood) of suffering. It is characterized by cessation (attagama), detachment (virago) and freedom from craving (mutti).

19.3. In this context, happiness (sukha) is not mentioned as an opposite of sorrow (Dukkha) or as an ideal state for aspiration. In the Buddha’s scheme of things, nothing phenomenal could appear to be sukha; happiness is not a reality. Suffering is a reality and when it is removed, we find quiet, wisdom and freedom as positive gains- and not happiness.

20.1. The Buddha, the Great Healer, looked upon Dukkha as a sort of disease and his method was naturally that of a physician seeking a remedy to cure it. Illustrating the Buddha’s design the second century scholar Upatissa in his Vimutti-Magga wrote: “Just as a skilled physician first sees the symptoms of a disease, then examines the cause of it, and then prescribes a suitable remedy; so the four truths may be known as coming in the same order”. The Buddha is therefore revered as the Beshaja- guru and Mahabeshaja (the great physician).

20.2. The Buddha believed that if one wishes to avoid certain types of results, one needs to change the conditions that give rise to them. The effect lies latent in the cause; and that effect in turn seeds the next effect. He said, removal of a basic condition will remove all its effect.

20.3. The Buddha reasoned that Dukkha the core problem of human existence has a cause; and, the removal of that cause must result in removal of its effects. The Buddha recognized that Dukkha is caused by the ignorance of the reality of things as they are and by clinging to things that have ceased to exist. Holding on to something that no longer exists, he observed, leads to delusions, attachments and stress.

20.4. He argued, if you find the principles, you should also be able to find the method, because the two are intimately associated; and, if we once know the process, we are on the most expedient way (magga) to get rid of its effects. Since the problem originates from lack of right understanding, the solution to the malady should be sought in gaining the right understanding. Therefore, the Buddha said, one desirous of seeking liberation (vimutti) must move away from attachments and discard mistaken ideas in order to acquire right understanding (samyak-gnana or prajna). That is to say, when ignorance is dispelled (attagama) by right knowledge, the succeeding links of the chain snap one after another automatically.

20.5. In other words, a person’s bondage is caused by ignorance or incorrect understanding. Liberation too is, in effect, caused by understanding- but it is the proper understanding; and nothing more. Bondage is the wrong understanding that binds; while liberation is the right understanding that frees. In either case, it is a matter of understanding. He said, ‘clinging to ideas is an obstruction to right –understanding; the best of states for right- understanding is non-attachment; and let-go all attachments, even the attachment to ideas and concepts’.

20.6. According to this scheme, prajna or right knowledge is the basis of the whole discipline of the four-fold truth. But if it were to result in a sense of freedom, it should be more than mere intellectual conviction, however strong it might be. It is essential that the knowledge be transformed into one’s own authentic experience. And prajna leads to that intuitive experience.

Nirvana

21.1. What is the logical aim of the eight-fold path? The object attained by following this discipline is designated Nirvana. The term Nirvana derived from the root va (to blow like the wind) qualified by a negative prefix nir denotes a state of motionless rest where no wind blows, where the fire has been quenched, where the light is extinguished and where the stars have gone out . The term therefore literally means ‘blowing out’ or ‘becoming cool’. It signifies attaining the Truth by cessation of craving (tanha) and clinging (upadana). Nibbana is a state of utter extinction – not of existence, but of attachment to things that are impermanent. It is a state beyond the chain of causation, a state of freedom and spontaneity.

The Buddha explained it with a simile of an oil-lamp sinking upon itself and expiring when its fuel runs out. Nirvana suggests a state of emptiness and nothingness; of the emptiness of ego and of the impermanence of all things. It is the realization of truth that destroys ignorance; and ends cravings, hatred and suffering.  And, Nirvana is described as a state of blessedness, unbound peace and deliverance. The Pali Canon speaks of Nirvana as a state beyond all conceptual thoughts; and yet, the one that could be experienced in meditation.

22.1. The Buddha refused to speculate on the nature of his Nirvana. His attitude was, in effect: If you want to know what Nirvana is like, then experience your own Nirvana. We therefore do not really know how the Buddha experienced his Nirvana.

22.2. The Buddha insisted that his followers should not try borrowing ideas or experiences from him; but they should arrive at their own. In other words, every person should win his/her own liberation. It is an attainment through self-reliance, not by the grace of a god; or by the blessings of a teacher or someone else.

22.3. The Buddha guides the aspirant on the path that leads to right-understanding. But he disclaims any personal authority; and asks the follower to work it out himself. The follower when he succeeds in attaining the enlightenment will not become a second Buddha or a replica of the Buddha. In the final analysis, both the Buddha and his follower free themselves from the bonds of samsara; yet, each retains his individuality.

22.4. The Buddha, therefore, emphasized that Nirvana is neither annihilation nor eternal life. It simply is a cessation of a process, of a sequence of events. In the Brahma-nimantanika Sutra (Majjhima-Nikaya), the Buddha said: Do not think that this (nirvana) is an empty or void state. There is this consciousness, without distinguishing mark, infinite and shining everywhere (Vinnana-mani-dassana-manantam-sabbato-pabham); it is untouched by the material elements and not subject to any power.

Arhant

23.1. A right understanding when it arises frees instantaneously; and is not delayed until the exhaustion of the karmas that have brought the current life into existence. In other words, liberation need not wait until one’s death. An enlightened- one living in a body is termed an Arhant in the Buddhist lore. On one occasion, the Buddha describes the state of an Arhant as:

He who has gone to rest, no measure can fathom him / There is no word to speak of him/ What thought could grasp has blown away/  And every path to speech is barred. (Suttanipata)

23.2. The Buddha was rather reluctant to be drawn into a discussion on the state of consciousness of an Arhant after he discarded his mortal coils.  Asked what happens to an Arhant upon his death, the Buddha is said to have exclaimed: “What happens to footprints of birds in mid air?” Perhaps, the Buddha likened the death of an Arhant to the extinction of a flame when the fuel (karma or clinging) runs out.

 F. Compassion and ethics

24.1. The Buddha did not stop at the intellectual edification. He was moved by compassion for his fellow beings and tried to show a method for eradication of sorrow. The Dhamma he preached was at once the theory and the practical way of conduct in life. In his first discourse, the Buddha talked about the importance Sila-Morality: right speech, right action, right livelihood; and asked his listeners “To cease from evil, to cleanse one’s mind, to do what is good”.

24.2. The distinctive character of the Buddha’s teaching is his emphasis on compassion and ethics. The Buddha asserted that it is not adequate if one merely focuses on elimination of suffering; but one must acquire the skill of probing the nature of the object. Those efforts must essentially be rooted in ethics and a wholesome mental state. The cultivation of the four sublime virtues of loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic Joy, and equanimity is of great importance; and should be practiced with mindfulness.

The practice of these virtues would help development of a well-focused healthy human being. It would also ensure common good and help moving toward a harmonious strife-less society.

24.3. The Buddha is the very embodiment of compassion the loving kindness towards all beings. Dharmakirti (c. 600 -660 AD), a Buddhist philosopher, a pupil of Isvarasena and a teacher at Nalanda, remarked that the greatness of the Buddha as a spiritual teacher lies not so much in his mastery or knowledge in various fields of learning but in his having attained boundless compassion for all beings.

buddha-wallpapers

Resources and References

1.DhammacakkappavattanaSutta http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html

2. Outlines of Indian Philosophy by Prof M Hiriyanna

3. A course in Indian Philosophy by  Prof. AK Warder

4. A Philosophical Analysis of Buddhist Notions by ADP Kalansuriya

Pictures are from Internet

 
10 Comments

Posted by on October 11, 2012 in Buddha, Buddhism

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Samkhya : Part Six : Samkhya – Buddhism – Vedanta

Continued from Part Five

W. Samkhya and Buddhism

50.1. Samkhya and Samkhya-like ideas certainly predate emergence of Buddhism. One of the teachers of the Buddha is said to have taught a doctrine that resembled Samkhya. There are certain similarities between Samkhya and the early Buddhism. It is likely each influenced the other, in their later stages. That does not however mean that Buddhism is the same as Samkhya. Their dissimilarities are perhaps more significant than their similarities.

50.2. The similarities between Samkhya and the early Buddhism could briefly be mentioned as: acceptance of the notion that life is characterized by suffering; rejection of the notion of absolute God; rejection of the concept of soul; emphasis on individual rather on cosmic; similarity in the theories of evolution; similarity in the view of the world as a constantly becoming and changing phenomena; acceptance of the concept of Gunas; acceptance of the Satkarya vada that the effect resides in its cause;   similarity in enumeration of the basic elements or components of nature; similarity in the notions of liberation kaivalya or nirvana;   rejection of both the Vedic authority and the validity of rituals; rejection of extreme practices and self torture etc.

50.3. In each of these similarities the Buddhist projections appear more radical or perhaps more elaborate. Having said that let me also mention that such similarities are not unique to Samkhya and Buddhism alone. One finds such features generally among other ancient Indian Schools too. For instance, the adoption of enumeration of various components of nature was a well accepted method among other systems of thought; rejection of Vedic authority and its ritualistic attitude was also a feature of other rational schools; the notion of aloofness kaivalya absolute independence was also the ideal of Jains. Similarly, the theories of Karma, Gunas and such other beliefs were commonly accepted by most schools.

50.4. But one similarity which is rather striking is the emphasis on Dukkha suffering and its eradication. That was the stated objective of both the systems. Buddhism however made that the central point of its doctrine. The Buddha’s second and the fourth postulates on the origination of sorrow and the methods of elimination of sorrow are his original contribution to Indian thought; the former being his philosophical stand point and the latter his religious system.

50.5. The other distinctive characteristics of Buddhism are the emphasis on compassion and ethics. . The Buddha asserted that it is not adequate if one merely focuses on elimination of suffering; but one must acquire the skill of probing the nature of the object. Those efforts must essentially be rooted in ethics and a wholesome mental state. The cultivation of the four sublime virtues of loving-kindness, compassion, empathetic Joy, and equanimity is of great importance.

50.6. The Samkhya abandons the idea of the existence of the absolute, but it retains the idea of spirit (Purusha) and of material world (Prakrti); the Buddhism, on the other hand abandoned both these two conceptions, and retained only the fleeting series of mental states (stream of consciousness) as a quasi reality, In either case there is effort to disown the human psycho-physical apparatus and its functioning.

51.1. Samkhya teaches that we should look beyond our personal affinities with Prakrti and realize the timeless unchanging nature of our true self, which resides beyond Prakrti as Purusha the pure consciousness. This realization can be understood as the reverse process of evolution back into the Purusha. Whereupon the Purusha is established in its own nature as kaivalya solitary and independent, indifferently observing the natural world.

51.2. Early Buddhism as also Samkhya attempted to do away with the illusion that empherical ego is the real Self; though the Buddha remained silent on the question of Self as also on the question of nirvana. But, the Buddha’s studious disapproval of metaphysical discussion on these aspects did not seem to have yielded the results he desired. Because, his silence spurred series of speculations in the later Buddhist Schools; and caused much confusion and bewilderment.

51.3 . The nature of Nirvana is perhaps the most debated issue of Buddhist philosophy, probably because the Buddha himself refused to speculate on it. His attitude was, in effect: If you want to know what nirvana is like, then experience it. But clearly Nirvana does not involve the isolation of a pure consciousness as in the case of Samkhya, because there is no such thing as permanent consciousness in early Buddhism. The unique feature of Buddhism is that there is no permanent Self at all, and never was; there are only five skandhas, “heaps” of elements, which constantly interact. It is significant that the skandhas do not constitute a Self; the sense of a Self is merely an illusion created by their interaction. The Buddha emphasized that one should not identify anything as the Self.

X. Samkhya and Vedanta

52.1. Even prior to the emergence of Samkhya as a system , the Samkhya-like ideas and terms appeared in the Vedas, Upanishads, the Bhagavad-Gita, the epics and other texts .This suggests that the monistic trends in Vedic thought and dualistic concepts of Samkhya had common origins.

52.2. But Samkhya as a doctrine was ever distinct from the Vedic stream of speculative intuitions. The early Samkhya, in sharp contrast, refused to speculate on god and rejected the scriptures and rituals as means for human attainments. It stepped aside cosmological explanations or implications.  It affirmed the existence of the objective-world; emphasized the world has to be understood in the context of human existence; and said the world is inextricably wound up with the presence of human existence. One has to therefore deal with the world positively.

52.3. The Samkhya separated itself from the scripture- based Vedanta and preferred to be a group of reason-based free thinkers with only a loose scriptural affiliation. But the Samkhya never rejected the Veda completely unlike the Buddhists and the Jains; but maintained that Vedas cannot be accepted as unquestioned sole authority. Besides, the Samkhya brand of atheism never collapsed into the materialism of Charvakas and naturalists (Lokayatas). Samkhya always maintained spiritual and salvation-oriented outlook.

52.4. Though both the Upanishads and Samkhya identified knowledge (jnana) and effective discrimination (viveka) as the means for attaining human aspirations, which is realizing one’s true identity, Samkhya was dualistic to its core whereas the Upanishads adopted a non-dual approach saying that the absolute consciousness encompasses the entire universe, everything that resides in it is but a transformation of that principle.

53.1. The Samkhya insisted that the individual consciousness, the true identity of man , is distinct from everything else and there are infinite number of such unit consciousness. It said consciousness (Purusha) which sees the world (Prakrti) is separate from what it sees. It asserted that confusing the seer for the seen or mixing both is the cause for man’s suffering.

53.2. Vedanta, on the other hand, asserted the notion of identity of the individual consciousness and the Universal consciousness. It declared that the entire manifest universe is an expression or transformation of that absolute consciousness. Vedanta sharply differed from the Samkhya theory of evolution of the manifest world as emanating through a series of causes and effects.

53.3. Samkhya maintains two independent realities and infinite numbers of Purushas. Vedanta does not accept two infinites and multiplicity of Souls.

The extreme form of dualism between subject and object was seen as a basic inadequacy of Samkhya as it left no room for coexistence of the two categories.

53.4. The later variations of the Samkhya School attempted to resolve these difficulties by (1) conceiving Purushas not as distinct from each other, but as various aspects or reflections of one unitary consciousness; and (2) conceiving prakrti not as distinct from this unified consciousness, but as an aspect of it. But this, of course, transformed Samkhya into a completely different system, because it gives up the basic dualism of Purusha and Prakrti.

53.5. With these modifications Samkhya came to resemble the monistic system of Sri Shankara. It was also rendered theistic with Samkhya accepting the existence of a Supreme Being (Parama Purusha) the God.  But, these adaptations rendered Samkhya acceptable to Vedic Schools; and Samkhya came to be regarded, since about the sixteenth century, as one of the six accepted Schools of traditional Indian philosophies (Darshana).

53.6. With or without its modifications, Samkhya is a very important School of thought; and has contributed to the richness, profundity and breadth of the Indian philosophy. The explanations and elaborations offered by most other Schools of Indian thought are based in the foundations provided by the terms and concepts provided by the Samkhya. Swami Vivekananda in his exposition of Samkhya philosophy aptly remarked, “If we take into consideration Advaita Vedanta, then our argument will be that the Samkhya is not a perfect generalization …and yet all glory really belongs to the Samkhya. It is very easy to give a finishing touch to a building when it is constructed.”

Y. Kaivalya, Nirvana and Moksha

54.1. Samkhya, Buddhism and Vedanta are the three most important philosophical systems. The three together represent almost the whole of Indian philosophies. Nearly every shade of metaphysical discussion revolves round these three pillars. They may also be viewed as three basic ways of resolving the relation that exists between God and world; Man and God; Man and world; and in general the nature of relation between subject and object.

54.2. All the three systems regard realizing ones true identity and gaining release from suffering of all sorts as the goal of human evolution. There are similarities as also differences among the three modes of enquiry.  All the three instruct the individual to avoid identifying with any physical or mental phenomenon but to let-go all identities. All three agree that enlightenment – variously called as kaivalya, nirvana or moksha- is not an intellectual construct.  They point out that liberation cannot be attained through theoretical knowledge of the scriptures because it is a state that is beyond all categories of thought. In other words, enlightenment or liberation is beyond philosophies. Enlightenment is an experience.

55.1. The question is: since all the three systems regard enlightenment as a state beyond intellect, are they all referring to the same experience or whether there are different kinds of enlightenment?

That question arises because the basic tenets and methods of the three systems are irreconcilably different. Samkhya is dualistic, the early Buddhism may be considered pluralistic, while Advaita Vedanta is monistic.

55.2. Samkhya is the most radical possible dualism between subject and its object. The separation between the two (Purusha and Prakrti) is so extreme that the system-connect virtually fails because the two neither can come together nor communicate with each other.

55.3. Early Buddhism attempts to combine subject into object. Consciousness according to Buddhism has no independent existence; it is something that is conditioned and arising out of the interaction with other factors (skandas). Buddhism does not believe in a permanent Self. The Self is merely an illusion created by the interaction of the five aggregates (skandas). The Self shrinks to nothing and there is only a void; but the Void is not a thing — it expresses the fact that there is absolutely nothing, no-thing at all, which can be identified as the Self.

Both Samkhya and Buddhism focus on the individual and do not discuss cosmic aspects of existence. Both are basically radical and dualistic in their approach. And, both disregard the Vedas, Vedic authority and its rituals.

55.4. Advaita Vedanta on the other hand conflates object into subject. There is nothing external to Brahman, the One without a second. Since Brahman is a non-dual, self-luminous consciousness, it encompasses the entire universe. And the universe is nothing but the transformation of Brahman. Everything is the Self the Brahman.

56.1. What do kaivalya, nirvana or moksha   mean in these systems

 According to Samkhya, the Purusha in its true form is ever pure and ever-present. The Arhat, said the Buddha, is “deep, immeasurable, and unfathomable, like the mighty ocean.”  The Brahman of Vedanta is an infinite pure consciousness pervading everywhere.

The Samkhya ideal of attaining enlightenment (Kaivalya) is described as Discriminative Knowledge (Viveka-khyāti). It consists in Purusha (pure consciousness) realizing its distinction from Prakrti (everything else) with instruction of Buddhi (knowledge of discrimination).Ignorance (Aviveka)  is failure to differentiate Purusa (Jnasvarupa) as distinct from the intellect, ego, mind and other modifications of Prakrti. Liberation (Kaivalya) in Samkhya is neither the acquisition of a new state, nor the shaking of an old one. It is only the disappearance of the conditioned factors of Aviveka, ignorance or the wrong-knowledge. The state of liberation is named as Kaivalya (aloneness) because the Purusa enjoys unique aloofness in its splendid isolation.

But,  Kaivalya which is essentially based in dualism was viewed as an inadequacy of the Samkhya. The Yoga which has its theoretical base in Samkhya sought to correct the position. In Samadhi the pure consciousness becomes one with the object of meditation. The distinctions between the knower, knowing and the known is obliterated .It is akin to the Advaita ideal of realizing the whole universe as the Self.

56.2. Nirvana is also the realization of the true nature of Reality – of being, non-being and becoming.  The term Nirvana derived from the root va (to blow like the wind) qualified by a negative prefix nir denotes a state of motionless rest where no wind blows, where the fire has been quenched, where the light is extinguished and where the stars have gone out .The Buddha explained it with a simile of an oil-lamp sinking upon itself and expiring when its fuel has been consumed .Nirvana suggests a state of emptiness and nothingness. At the same time Nirvana is described as a state of blessedness, unbound peace and deliverance.

Nirvana is characterized as a state beyond conditioned consciousness, beyond the ceaseless motion of life (Samsara).  It is the absolute extinction of suffering and attainment of unique intuitive wisdom ( Prajna or Pannā). The Buddha however refused to speculate on the nature of it. We therefore do not really know how the Buddha understood Nirvana. The Pali Canon speaks of a state beyond all conceptual thoughts; and yet, it could be experienced in meditation.

But nirvana does not seem to involve the isolation of a pure consciousness, (as in the case of Samkhya) because such concept is not present in the early Buddhism. The concept of a permanent Self is also not there. The Buddha emphasized that one should not identify anything as the Self. Nirvana, in essence is complete freedom by abandoning all sensations, all perceptions, all volitions, and acts of consciousness. It is a state of bliss which is entirely different from and free from all that exists in the Samsara.

The Buddhist Nirvana is not the eternal essence, which is the basis of everything and from which the whole world has arisen (like the Brahman of the Upanishads) but the reverse of all that we know, something altogether different which must be characterized as a nothing in relation to the world, but which is experienced as highest bliss by those who have attained to it (Anguttara Nikaya, Navaka-nipata 34).

56.3. Vedanta says Brahman is One without a second; Brahman is unbound there is nothing outside it. For Sri Shankara, moksha, liberation, is the realization that I am, and always have been, Brahman. One does not attain or merge with this Brahman; one merely realizes that one has always been Brahman. Sri Shankara uses the analogy of the space within a closed jar: that space has always been one with all space; their separateness is nothing but a construct (kalpana vishesha)

57.1. On the face of it the early Buddhism and Vedanta appear to have serious differences. While Buddhism does not believe in a Self, Vedanta says everything is the Self. There is apparently no consciousness in nirvana, but everything is consciousness in moksha. The one appears to be the mirror image of the other. They are extreme positions, trying to resolve the relation between the Self and the non-self by conflating the one into the other. The not-self of Buddhism holds within it the Self; while the Self of Advaita swallows the not-self.

57. 2. How different are they? Or do they mean the same thing in reverse?

It perhaps depends on the way one looks at it. In either case there is no duality between the object (that which is observed) or the subject (that which observes).If you look at it in another way there is not a great deal of difference between the two systems.

In both the systems the right understanding is the key to salvation. It is the right understanding that liberates. In Vedanta, one does not attain or merge with this Brahman; one merely realizes that one has always been Brahman. Similarly in Buddhism too one does not achieve anything new, but realizes ones true nature (or Buddha nature) as being always been pure and unstained. All that one needs to do is to realize that fact.

The concept of Shunya emptiness of later Buddhism is rather fascinating. Shunyata transcends human thoughts and speech. In Mahayana Buddhism shunyata, emptiness not merely refers to the absence of a Self but is also the fundamental characteristic of all reality; shunyata is the category which corresponds to the Vedanta concept of Brahman.

57.3. But can shunyata be reconciled with the One without a second?

Yes, it can be done. The explanation offered is that there is essentially only one thing; and to put it more accurately it is not even one in the numerical sense. We cannot say that it is One, yet, we cannot say it is not one, not two or not any number. The term selected by Vedanta to give expression to its idea  of Reality is: ‘it is not two’ (a-dvaita).

To call it One, is just a way of saying that it is a unity and there is nothing outside it — no duality of a subject and an object. The it (tat) would not even be aware of itself as being one or being alone. It is absolute wholeness. In another way of saying, because there is nothing outside it, its phenomenal experience would be of nothing or nothing, which is shunyata.

58.1. There are some passages in the Pali Canon which almost sound Vedanta- like. Its language too resemble the mysticism of Vedanta

 There is Oh disciples an unborn, un-originated, uncreated and unformed. Were it not there … Oh disciples,.. there would be no possibility of existence of the world of the born, generated, created and formed.(Udana 8.3)

The great ocean is deep, immeasurable and unfathomable..So also the Perfect One is deep, immeasurable and unfathomable as the great ocean. (Samyutta Nikaya 4)

58.2. The Buddha emphasized that nirvana is neither annihilation nor eternal life. In the Brahmanimantanika Sutra (Majjhima-Nikaya), the Buddha said: Do not think that this [nirvana] is an empty or void state. There is this consciousness, without distinguishing mark, infinite and shining everywhere (Vinnanam anidassanam anantam sabbato-pabham); it is untouched by the material elements and not subject to any power.
 
 
 
On another occasion the Buddha describes the state of an Arhant the one who has realized;

He who has gone to rest, no measure can fathom him.

There is no word to speak of him.
What thought could grasp has blown away.
And every path to speech is barred.
(Suttanipata)
 *
58.3. Just as there are passages in the Pali Canon which sound like Vedanta, so there are passages in the Upanishads which seem Buddhist-like. Perhaps the most famous among them is Yajnavalkya’s instruction to his wife Maitreyi in the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad: “Arising out of these elements (bhuta), into them also one vanishes away. After death there is no consciousness (na pretya samjna ‘sti)….”
*

Yajnavalkya explains: For where there is a duality, as it were (iva), there one sees another…. But when, verily, everything has become just one’s own self, then what could one see and through what… Through what could one know that owing to which all this is known? So, through what could one understand the Understander? This Self… is imperceptible, for it is never perceived. (II. iv. 12-15)

Thus, the notions of infinity and nothingness appear in both the systems. Nothingness is an image or a reflection of the infinity.

59.1. But, why did Sri Shankara preferred to speak of the One and the Buddha of nothingness?

It seems that the answer to this lies in the nature of their philosophies. In referring to Brahman as One without a second, Sri Shankara tries to describe reality from outside, as it were, because that is the only perspective from which it can be understood as One. Sri Shankara was basically a philosopher; and as all philosophers do, he looks upon the whole of reality objectively and to comprehend its structure. It is as if the philosophizing intellect takes a look at the whole of existence from outside of it.

59.2. But the Buddha was describing his experience. He realized that one cannot get outside of reality and describe it as an object; because one is inseparable from that reality. He also believed too much philosophizing and clinging to ideas is an obstruction to enlightenment. He advocated meditation as a process to let go all attachments, even the attachment to ideas and concepts.

59.3. But both the savants accept that conceptual thinking is part of the problem; not in itself the way to enlightenment. If one accepts that the goal is to attain liberation rather than to understand it, then philosophy too must ultimately be transcended or let go. Philosophy might try to view things externally, but ultimately it is one’s experience that really matters.

59.4. Can nirvana or moksha be experienced? I do not know. But it appears these states suggest a condition where the boundaries of individual identity would simply dissolve. It would perhaps be a complete absence of tension and effort, a letting go of all identities and of everything that was previously clung to;   and one would eventually become that everything which in fact one always was.

60.1. In summary, the difference between the Buddhist nirvana and the Vedantic moksha is one of perspective. The Vedanta explanation — that of realizing ones true identity -is a philosophical view. The Buddhist interpretation of letting go all identities is objective description. But in each case the actual experience appears to be the same. Ones experience is the truest test of all, as Sri Shankara observed.

flower2

Duality is a normal reality of experience.. So Samkhya talks of a framework to link up with the dual world as elementising becomes logical and reasonable..and easier to comprehend. Advaita is an unusual reality… an abstract experience and perhaps can be obtained in a particular state. You can’t understand it as even elemntaising of a whole kills the essence. Buddhism is like Samkhya as it does not delve on question of god and is very practical to remove dukkha… and so is Samkhya.

All theses are true but in different locations… and if all locations exist within us…all these are true…as experiential realities. So one does not contradict the other.

..DSampath

Lotus_Flower purity

 

References and sources

Vedanta and Buddhism 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html

Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta 

http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/fulltext/Jr-an/26715.htm

 
11 Comments

Posted by on October 3, 2012 in Samkhya

 

Tags: , , , , , ,