Executive Summary
AI
- Moderating a panel with Swamiji and Professor Robert Thurman, the host relays Greg Good's question: why should a layperson study Advaita Vedanta, Tibetan Buddhism or Madhyamaka, and what impact does it have on daily life?0:40
- Swamiji answers with the prayojana, the purpose: the project is overcoming suffering and the attainment of fulfillment, and he later cites Dara Shukoh, who had the Upanishads translated into Persian and found in them a flood of light illuminating dark areas of his own faith.1:35
- Thurman answers personally, that he dropped out of Harvard at 20 or 21 and went to India for four or five years to find a teacher and become a yogi, then became a professor to keep at it, because Sanskrit and Tibetan grammar and Indian logic showed him a culture doing inner science rather than exotic curiosity.4:12
- Both insist the differences matter before any synthesis: Swamiji quotes the old English saying what does he know of England who knows only England, and recalls Jay Garfield telling him to keep his Advaita outside the door of a Madhyamaka class, while Thurman attacks simplistic labelling such as Madhva equating Shunyavada with Lokayata, and the materialist reading of shunyata as nothingness.15:33
- Asked whether Brahman and shunyata name the same thing, Swamiji gives a straight yes, warning that Brahman is misunderstood as something and shunyata as nothing when both mean no-thing, while Thurman retells the Pali Kevada Sutta in which Brahma admits he did not create the world and is not omnipotent, and argues the Buddhists are not atheists.34:57
Key Quote
“The project is overcoming suffering.”
— Swamiji1:35
Key Quote
“But anyway, I dropped out of Harvard and went to India to find a teacher to become a yogi because I was tired of being told that I couldn't understand the world.”
— Robert Thurman4:28
Key Quote
“and I read Vedanta and I read Ghalib and there's a point when I can't see one from the other.”
— Subhanu11:57