This afternoon I walked to the Vedanta Ashram Society Hindu Temple, a mere block from my home here (It is located at 6421 Cork Street, here in Halifax). I had noticed it one night while travelling in the car of my parents, but had not been able to look at the buiding in daylight, or for any length of time. The building is quite humble, with a Hindu symbol and a naming sign on its front being the only indications that it is to any degree special compared to the surrounding homes and commercial buildings. When I returned home I searched online for some information about the building, its congregation, the religious base, and anything else I could find. I was able to find out a fair amount about each.
The Vedanta Society of Southern California has plenty of informative and facinating writing on the subjct of Vedanta on their website. I learned a good deal more about this philosophy in the time I spent reading there. The following text, which I found there, gives a general indication of the Vedanta beliefs.
Vedanta is one of the world’s most ancient religious philosophies and one of its broadest. Based on the Vedas, the sacred scriptures of India, Vedanta affirms the oneness of existence, the divinity of the soul, and the harmony of religions. Vedanta is the philosophical foundation of Hinduism; but while Hinduism includes aspects of Indian culture, Vedanta is universal in its application and is equally relevant to all countries, all cultures, and all religious backgrounds.
A closer look at the word “Vedanta” is revealing: “Vedanta” is a combination of two words: “Veda” which means “knowledge” and “anta” which means “the end of” or “the goal of.” In this context the goal of knowledge isn’t intellectual—the limited knowledge we acquire by reading books. “Knowledge” here means the knowledge of God as well as the knowledge of our own divine nature. Vedanta, then, is the search for Self-knowledge as well as the search for God.
The Vedanta Society of Southern California has plenty of informative and facinating writing on the subjct of Vedanta on their website. I learned a good deal more about this philosophy in the time I spent reading there. The following text, which I found there, gives a general indication of the Vedanta beliefs.
Vedanta is one of the world’s most ancient religious philosophies and one of its broadest. Based on the Vedas, the sacred scriptures of India, Vedanta affirms the oneness of existence, the divinity of the soul, and the harmony of religions. Vedanta is the philosophical foundation of Hinduism; but while Hinduism includes aspects of Indian culture, Vedanta is universal in its application and is equally relevant to all countries, all cultures, and all religious backgrounds.
A closer look at the word “Vedanta” is revealing: “Vedanta” is a combination of two words: “Veda” which means “knowledge” and “anta” which means “the end of” or “the goal of.” In this context the goal of knowledge isn’t intellectual—the limited knowledge we acquire by reading books. “Knowledge” here means the knowledge of God as well as the knowledge of our own divine nature. Vedanta, then, is the search for Self-knowledge as well as the search for God.
12 comments on “Walk To The Temple”
Where’s Cork? Just north of Quinpool? Funny … I was in that neighborhood last night (by the Oxford Theatre), and just got back about 10 minutes ago from Yukon Street (a couple of blocks from the Canadian Tire).
I’ve known that there was a Hindu ashram active … I really love that chant style, but being a practicing Buddhist, well … I’ve too often felt that I was being drawn into an argument about the existence of God and soul, so …
Are you thinking of taking it up? Since moving here in ’92, I have often and for a variety of reasons felt we needed some sort of non-denominational or eceumenical ummmmm ashram, for lack of a better term (“meditation area” sounds so technical!) … a safe space, secure quiet place … refuge, as it were.
Cork is a few blocks past North Street, towards Halifax Shopping Center rather than Oxford.
What do you mean by “I’ve too often felt that I was being drawn into an argument about the existence of God and soul”? Am I to assume you fall into the atheistic branch of Buddhism? Or did you just mean you view diety and souls in a different light?
I choose not to follow any specificly worn spiritual path, but I do like to find out all I can about them. Some aspects of Hinduism I find very noble and rewarding. However, the following aspect of Vedanta I disagree with:
” Just as we honor the various world religions and respect their adherents, we must grow and deepen in our own particular spiritual path–whatever it may be. We shouldn’t dabble in a little bit of Buddhism and a little bit of Islam and a little bit of Christianity and then try a new combo plate the following week. Spiritual practice is not a smorgasbord. If we throw five varieties of desserts into a food processor, we’ll just get one unpalatable mess.
While Vedanta emphasizes the harmony of religions, it also stresses the necessity of diving deep into the spiritual tradition of our choice, sticking with it, and working hard. To paraphrase Ramakrishna, If you want to dig a well, you have to choose your location and keep digging until you reach water. It doesn’t do any good to dig a bunch of shallow holes.
While a shallow spiritual life is probably better than no spiritual life at all, it nevertheless doesn’t take us where we want to go: to freedom, to God-realization. Once we choose which spiritual path we wish to follow, we should doggedly pursue it until we reach the goal. The point is, we can do this while not only valuing other traditions, but also learning from them.”
I find the practicing and enhancing of different paths with aspects of others to be very beneficial. Perhaps I didn’t interpret this notion properly, but I don’t find strict religious tradtion to be helpful, though I find aspects of each beneficial. I believe a person can experience true enlightenment and spirituality without any specific religion.
I think I may adapt some Vedantic practices to my own path, but I don’t believe I could follow it wholeheartedly from what I know of it right now.
I don’t know what it’s like, but I’ve heard of the unitarian church here. It would be non-denominational, though I don’t know what sort of meditational area it might hold. In milder weather I find the cemeteries to be the best places to find peace in this city.
North of North … yoiks.
“Am I to assume you fall into the atheistic branch of Buddhism?
uhhhhhhhh … there’s some other branch?!
“view diety and souls in a different light?“
Sorry, I’m not sure I follow you here … different light one from the other? different light than others view them?
Concerning the point, I’m amazed how often folks forget that Buddha professed an-atman … as close to “no soul” as one can get. And even the simplest Buddhist refuge ceremony includes a vow not to seek refuge in any external agent, i.e. god.
I’d like to explore that tradition, but it always seems to come back to this, and I don’t see that as necessary.
“”Spiritual practice is not a smorgasbord.”“
I agree whole heartedly. (Trungpa Rinpoche called it the “spiritual supermarket”.)
The spin I heard in Zen training was that one should learn a practice well before moving on to another … the angle I took on it was that, since I really am sub-conciously evasive, I’m more than capable of taking all the aspects that are fun and entertaining and distracting while ducking those that touch my pain or threaten my most cherished opinions and most precious neuroses … in short, there’s no edge to a smorgasbord.
I think too few realize that spirituality usually involves something like discipline.
From what you write here I’m quite certain you’ll respond appropriately when you encounter a system or set of practices that work for you.
Yes, there are branches of Buddhism that do include gods. While Buddha may have said things that would support the atheistic view, many people following Buddhism do include gods in their beliefs. Tibet, for instance, has a tradition filled with gods and spirits that colors their practiced branch of Buddhism. Like any other religious section, there are many varieties of practiced Buddhism, even if the largest branch may be atheist-like. I don’t like to make assumptions about anyone’s faith, because I believe it to be a very personal belief that should not be judged by the prevaling view of their religious branch. Not all Catholics, for instance, view homoexuality as morally wrong.
By “view diety and souls in a different light?” I was just wondering if you meant you didn’t believe in soul and deity, or if you viewed them as drastically different from the Hindu view instead.
I do agree that aversion is not helpful in spiritual practice, but I also believe that one can find spiritual reward by travelling varied paths.
I think discipline can be an important part of spitiuality, but that there are also benefits in mindful freedom. I think it all depends on the paths best suited to an individual.
“Yes, there are branches of Buddhism that do include gods.“
You have the words right, but not their meaning: yes, of course there are deities … at the head of my shrine is Vajrassatva, and to one side is Manjusri. In the living room you’ll find a couple of statues of others.
But /none rpt none/ of these stands as do the gods of theistic religions.
If you’re saying Buddhism is theistic then you’re simple in error.
an-atman, in contradistinction to the doctrine of atman that is so important to the Hindu religions. Pretty stark and clear, I’d say!
Now, of course, as a practitioner in the Karma Kagyu school of Tibetan Buddhism, I’m pretty familiar with deity practices. Familiar enough, indeed, to know that these are usually held off for years until a student has established a firm ground and a confident view of more basic tenets, those that are commonly known as abhidharma.
What I liked most about Zen is it’s capacity for crediting our intelligence … that we’re capable of being coy and tricky and deceptive, rather than a rather self-serious naivete that, I think, is a mask for passive-aggression.
Yes, mindful freedom is certainly central to our beliefs … and so discipline, rather than being diminished, is high-lighted.
But of course it’s always easiest to form a confident opinion concerning what we know least about.
*Once we lose our sense of humour, things are no longer funny … amazing, neh?*
I guess I define theism differently from you. I use the dictionary definition of “Belief in the existence of a god or gods”. From what I’ve learned of Tibetan Buddhism, there is a belief in gods involved in their practices, whether it is a direct interaction with them or not. I did not claim all Buddhism is theistic, but I don’t believe one can see it in black and white either, and paint it as atheistic.
I haven’t looked at the Zen philosophy all that closely, certainly not as much as I have Taoism (from which I understand it is derived). The rituals of the Zen practice have been a deterant for me quite often.
Rituals of Zen practice?
In my experience I found there to be much more ritual in Tibetan Buddhism.
I guess it comes down to your valuation of my experience; I notice my frequent repetition of atman anatman didn’t seem to score even a single point.
I’d be very pleased to read anything you find that calls Buddhism theistic, in the sense that Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or “Hinduism” is theistic.
The rituals I was refering to we the ones I’ve seen through the few experiences I’ve had with learning of Zen. Perhaps my view of it is clouded, but the rituals involved with it that I saw just didn’t appeal to me. I wasn’t trying to say other religions, such as Tibetan Buddhism didn’t have more fewer rituals, or dissimilar ones, merely that what I had seen of those practicing Zen did not appeal to me much.
I don’t think I’ve given any value to your experience in any way. I respect your beliefs and experiences. However, I don’t see that atman (individual self) and anatman (no individual self) (I hope I am understanding this correctly) shows the lack of belief in gods or a god in all Buddhism.
I didn’t intend to say that Buddhism is theistic in the sense other religions are. I am aware that it has a very different approach. However, I don’t believe it to be entirely atheistic either, as some branches of it do seem to recognize gods.
“some branches of it do seem to recognize gods“
… it all comes down to the /words/ in that sentence. Given what I said earlier about gods, I’m not sure why you write this way … as though you’re trying to convince me of something despite that something being part of my daily life … it’s a very odd disconnect.
Ok … sorry you’ll let scribbles of black on a white surface pull so strongly.
I appreciate your attitude towards the material … but there seem to be a set of very strong impressions arising from … from somewhere I don’t know and cannot relate to.
HeyHo
I’m sincerely confused by what you are saying here.
Perhaps I did not express myself clearly here. I was merely trying to express how I see theism. I was given the impression through what you had said that you did not understand clearly what I was trying to say about Buddhism, whether I am right or wrong. I was not trying to cinvince you of anything, merely trying to express my view properly, because I didn’t feel I had before because of your response.
“sorry you’ll let scribbles of black on a white surface pull so strongly” I’m really not clear what you mean by this. Could you explain?
I’m not sure what impressions you refer to here. Could you explain that as well? I really don’t want to misunderstand what you are trying to say.
Well gee … I have to retype everything I wrote!
Let’s see if I can put some order into this.
Ok, here’s a quick start: I’ll press Rewind:
Now, at that point, I thought you had used the word “atheistic” as, well, as a man on the street would use it, and so used it that way.
In reply to my question, though, you didn’t carry through on the distinction … you didn’t show that some branches of Buddhism are theistic as we think of Judaism or Christianity being theistic, and others not. And from there, things came off the tracks. You pointed to some branches that “include” gods … put not to some that /don’t/ “include” gods. I don’t know of any branches (what I’d call sects, or schools) of Buddhism that don’t “include” gods … but neither do I know of any that are theistic in the way Christianity or Judaism are (though some people would argue that a few come close in a way that, I think, contradicts what Buddha pointed out).
Ok … a short snapper to try to add some substance: though I describe as some length the role “gods” play in the daily life of a pretty typical Buddhist practitioner, you restate your impression, with a slight switch in words … going from just “atheistic” to “including god”, we now arrive at a definition that uses “Belief in the existence of a god or gods”.
We’ve just gone in a sweeping curve … not quite a circle, but … well … just moving, towards apparently no conclusion!
You’ve more or less granted my point, “I did not claim all Buddhism is theistic” … but then you take it away “but I don’t believe one can see it in black and white either, and paint it as atheistic”.
And that’s why I stressed the “Atman / Anatman” contrast … that’s as close as black and white as you’ll come to in Buddhism, unless you make reference to clear and distinct things like “Suffering has a cause, and to extinguish that cause is to end the suffering” … again, pret’near the folk definition of black and white.
You asked if I fell into an atheistic branch of Buddhism. I asked if there was any other kind. From there, it remained confounded.
A person can’t force clarity … it’s there to be seen and appreciated … or not.
I’ll be looking forward to that too! Or at least me having a job so that I could afford to call you and talk some. 🙂 I’m sure we’ll have some wonderful discussions indeed.