Hinduism: The Divine and the Mortal

[atanu]

1. I understand that Hinduism teaches of two fundamental beginning-less states of existence: the Divine and the Mortal. I also note that advaita, particularly the ajAtivAda school, holds that the mortal realm, comprised of seekers who feel bound, is only an apparent one and the divine plane also needs to be transcended to be free of all notions of bondage. Advaita view, IMO, has many similarities to the Buddha's teachings. I also note that the advaita teachings were part of the Vedic tradition before Gautama.

Yet the advaita school prescribes for its votaries, in addition to unique methods of the advaita school, the methods that are shared among all schools of Hinduism, as a means to escape the notions of being bound. Common to all schools, IMO, are the general prescriptions of karma, bhakti, and jnana yoga-s as taught in Gita.

2. The precise description of this understanding of the two existence realms is found in Brihadaraynaka upanishad in the form of:

There are two states for man - the state in this world and the state in the next; there is also a third state, the state intermediate between these two, which can be likened to the dream [state]. While in the intermediate state a man experiences both the other states, that of this world and that in the next; and the manner whereof is as follows: when he dies he lives only in the subtle body, on which are left the impressions of his past deeds, and of those impressions is he aware, illumined as they are by the light of the Transcendent Self

3. The same can also be understood from AUM. The 'A', is the waking mortal plane, and the 'M' is the causal divine plane, akin to our deep sleep state. The sarvesvara - the all rulers abide in this realm. The 'U' is the intermediate plane, akin to our dream state. The Self, the Turiya - is the silence beyond the three states, called the Fourth, is not a Realm of experience. It is the Truth of the Truth. Man, as long as it experiences egoistic existence in A and M is bound by the dharma and is reborn as per its karma. As noted earlier, the Ishwara -- the auspicious benevolent Lord-Teacher, the Karma, the reincarnation, the varna, the asramas of life, and the Vedic, Vedantic, Yogic teachings are satya - the Truth. The Gita teaching of 'Sarva dharma parityjjya..' means renouncing these experiential existence realms.

The Turiya, the Truth of the Truth, which is called the Prabhu, the True Controller, is the non dual. The Mind and the Word return from there. In Turiya, which is said to be ineffable and beyond sensual experience, the phenomenal concepts, and the corresponding words, cease to exist. Dual words such as atheist-non-atheist; birth-death, dual-non dual, etc. have no existence, the Mind-Word is said to return from there.

4. The same dual realms of experiential-phenomenal existence is stated in:

purnam adah, purnam idam purnat purnam udachyate; purnasya purnam adaya purnam evavasisyate (Brihad. 5.1.1)

The most common understanding is:

The Fullness of the Infinite – Lessons on the Upanishads – Chapter 12
Purna is fullness. Yesterday we referred to Bhuma, the plenum of felicity, the fullness of being. That Bhuma is also Purna. The Upanishad says, "Purnam adah: that origin of all things is full; purnam idam: this entire creation that has come from that origin of all things is also full; purnat purnam udachyate: from that Full this Full has come; purnasya purnam adaya: having taken away this Full from that Full; purnam evavasisyate: the Full still remains unaffected."

............

5. With the above background information and understanding, I state that while 'the This' is real (even if phenomenally), 'the That' is real (in fact 'the That' is the source and 'the This' is the product). So, in any stage of experiential existence can 'the That', the Brahman, the Ishwara, be denied by a follower of Hinduism. In no stage of experiential existence, the karma-rebirth, can be denied by a follower of Hinduism.

And in the non experiential Prabhu, the Turiya, the words: Atheist, no karma, no rebirth have no meaning.

So, I hold that one who rejects Ishwara, Karma, and Rebirth, is rejecting Sanatana dharma-Hinduism. Such a one, IMO, is not a true Sanatana dharmist.
.......................

I thank the reader for being patient. Let this be debated, if Ishwara so wills.

AUM

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yet the advaita school prescribes for its votaries, ..

To use the word 'prescribe' is wrong in Hinduism. Hindus always have had multiple views. If one's views are not according to that of a sect, the person can be caste out of the sect but not from Hinduism. Take the Example of Vaishampayana and Yajnavalkya. Yajnavalkya differed with Vaishampayana, the guru asked Yajnavalkya to leave all that he had learned from him. Yajnavalkya, it is said, vomited all the knowledge and left. He went on to creat Shukla YajurVeda. The vomited knowledge was taken by four other disciples of Vaishampayana and made into Krishna YajurVeda or Taittiriya Samhita. It is not that Yajnavalkya was branded as a non-Hindu.

There is only one state of the world, existence of Brahman. All rest is illusion. 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya', so said Adi Sankaracharya. Brahman is not subject to karma because it does not do anything, all doing is that of 'maya', and therefore, an illusion. Brahman is also not subject to rebirth because it is eternal. You don't agree with this. You are welcome to differ.

 

[atanu]

To use the word 'prescribe' is wrong in Hinduism. Hindus always have had multiple views. If one's views are not according to that of a sect, the person can be caste out of the sect but not from Hinduism. Take the Example of Vaishampayana and Yajnavalkya. Yajnavalkya differed with Vaishampayana, the guru asked Yajnavalkya to leave all that he had learned from him. Yajnavalkya, it is said, vomited all the knowledge and left. He went on to creat Shukla YajurVeda. The vomited knowledge was taken by four other disciples of Vaishampayana and made into Krishna YajurVeda or Taittiriya Samhita. It is not that Yajnavalkya was branded as a non-Hindu.

This is irrelevant.

There is only one state of the world, existence of Brahman. All rest is illusion. 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya', so said Adi Sankaracharya. Brahman is not subject to karma because it does not do anything, all doing is that of 'maya', and therefore, an illusion. Brahman is also not subject to rebirth because it is eternal. You don't agree with this. You are welcome to differ.

There are 15 problems with your view that I will record as soon as I get some time, if only for benefit of readers who may be genuinely interested. For the present, it will be sufficient to point out one fundamental problem only.

As per you Brahman is physical energy.

As per Shankara, following Sruti, the svarupa lakshna (the paramarthika nature) of brahman is satyam-jnanam-anantam.

Brahman is the Existence. Brahman is the Consciousness, and Brahman is Infinite-beginningless and endless. These are not three different attributes.

On Brahman, your view and Shankara's teaching are diametrically opposite. You are not following advaita of Hindu dharma. No. You are fitting a small part of Shankara's saying to your Rationalist-Atheist viewpoint. Holding to a Rationalist-Atheistic viewpoint is not a problem but your mis-use of Shankara's name is.

 

[Aupmanyav]

True, I differ from Sankara. Is that a crime? So many other people differed from Sankara. Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, Madhva, and Chaitanya. Does Sankara have a copy-right on 'advaita'? Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, and Chaitanya also were advaitists.

 

[atanu]

True, I differ from Sankara. Is that a crime? .

Good. You agree. Then kindly do not 'tag' yourself a follower of 'advaita'. You may be mis-leading scores of people who may like to learn advaita. And that is wrong.

I will tell you the problem.

In a physics class, a physics teacher was teaching. He said "Energy equal to Mass of matter multiplied by speed of light squared. He then wrote on board Einstein's famous equation, E=mc squared."

A man entered and said "I am also a physicist and I follow Einstein. I only marginally differ. Actually, Einstein taught that Energy equal to money multiplied by cunningness squared".

The physics folks were taken aback. They said "This is not physics and this not what Einstein derived."

The man said "So what. I am following Einstein. I have full right to be called a physicist. I only marginally differ from Einstein. According to me E is Energy, m is Money, and c is cunningness. See?"

Physics teacher and the students left.

... Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, and Chaitanya also were advaitists.

Hey rAma. How many lies will you tell?

OK, I assume for the moment that they all were advaitans. Did any one of then teach 'No God', 'No consciousness beyond body', 'no karma' and 'no rebirth'?

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is irrelevant.

How is it irrelevant? It concerns how differences of views are taken in Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Good. You agree. Then kindly do not 'tag' yourself a follower of 'advaita'.

I have explained it earlier also. Sankara did not have a copy-right on advaita. Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, and Chaitanya also differed from Sankara but their philosophies were known as various kinds of 'advaita'. Is that difficult to understand?

Actually, Einstein taught that Energy equal to money multiplied by cunningness squared".

Did he show evidence for the relation between energy, money, and cunningness? If there was good proof, physicists would have accepted it.

It can be proved in one way. Ask the person to sit on burning coal and use all his money and cunningness, then see the result of the experiment. Kindly do not give such arguments which make you look silly. Leave that for 'pravachanas' of Hindu God-men.
Jai Shri Krishna.

 

[atanu]

I have explained it earlier also. Sankara did not have a copy-right on advaita. Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, and Chaitanya also differed from Sankara but their philosophies were known as various kinds of 'advaita'. Is that difficult to understand?Did he show evidence for the relation between energy, money, and cunningness? If there was good proof, physicists would have accepted it.

I asked:

you OK, I assume for the moment that they all ( Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, and Chaitanya) were advaitans. Did any one of then teach 'No God', 'No consciousness beyond body', 'no karma' and 'no rebirth'?

You have by-passed that. The argument started from the point that Sankara teaches "Brahman Jnanam", which is opposite of your view that brahman was physical energy and not consciousness. You said the above teachers (Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, and Chaitanya) weree also advaitins. Did any of your so-called advaita teacher listed by you teach that "brahman ajnana" or "brahman is measurable physical energy"? No.

You have earlier by-passed the crucial point that SAmkhya teaches athat Purusha (consciousness) and Prakriti (Material nature) as distinct.

You believe the following:

1. Consciousness does not last beyond body
2. There is no Ishwara
3. No karma-no rebirth
4. Brahman is physical energy

---------

All names that you take : Sanakara, Nimbarka........, Chaitanya and the Samkhya darsana do not agree with any of your beliefs. So, you are not a Sanatana Dharmist.

You are a Hindustani (Indian) Rationalist-Atheist. If you were to honestly say what you actually believe in, I would bow down and say "Pranam". At present, I think that you are just a prevaricator.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I asked:

You OK, I assume for the moment that they all ( Ramanuja, Nimbarka, Vallabha, and Chaitanya) were advaitans. Did any one of then teach 'No God', 'No consciousness beyond body', 'no karma' and 'no rebirth'?

You believe the following:

1. Consciousness does not last beyond body.
2. There is no Ishwara.
3. No karma-no rebirth.
4. Brahman is physical energy.

How does what any one else believes affects me? Why should it be necessary for me to seek their sanction? They had their views, I have mine.

You have nicely summed up my beliefs, except one that you have missed. 'All things here are Brahman' (Sarvam Khalu Idam Brahma).

 

[atanu]

How does what any one else believes affects me? Why should it be necessary for me to seek their sanction? They had their views, I have mine.

Except that you try hard to disguise as a Hindu advaitan of Sankara school, thereby distorting to others the teaching of Sankara particularly and of Hinduism in general.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I have always said that Sankara is my first guru and Buddha the second. I differ on various points with both of them. Is it necessary that the pupil must never differ from the Guru? Is there any need for me to take a disguise? Sankara believed or propagated worship of deities at a lower level of reality (Vyavaharika). Since it is not an absolute truth, I do not accept it. I have no difference with him at the absolute level of reality (Paramarthika).

 

[atanu]

I have always said that Sankara is my first guru and Buddha the second. I differ on various points with both of them. Is it necessary that the pupil must never differ from the Guru? Is there any need for me to take a disguise? Sankara believed or propagated worship of deities at a lower level of reality (Vyavaharika). Since it is not an absolute truth, I do not accept it. I have no difference with him at the absolute level of reality (Paramarthika).

What do you mean? Shankara just follows Sruti and describes the svarupa lakshana (the self nature) of brahman as "brahma sataym, jnanam (knowledge), anantam". Do you agree?

 

[Makaranda]

I have always said that Sankara is my first guru and Buddha the second. I differ on various points with both of them. Is it necessary that the pupil must never differ from the Guru? Is there any need for me to take a disguise? Sankara believed or propagated worship of deities at a lower level of reality (Vyavaharika). Since it is not an absolute truth, I do not accept it. I have no difference with him at the absolute level of reality (Paramarthika).

Respectfully, I think you do disagree with Shankara with regards to the nature of paramarthika satyam since you disagree with Shankara on both the definition of Brahman (which is the paramarthika satyam) and the 'relationship' of the nature of Brahman and the nature of the jIva (you have said that human consciousness is not Brahman/ different from something else called 'Brahman consciousness'). You have also defined moksha in your own way, as you have said that moksha is nothing more than having all of one's questions answered, which is not the definition of moksha given by Shankara or other Advaitins, traditional or modern. Moksha more commonly defined is the liberating knowledge of one's true nature as Atman/Brahman, which is eternal and limitless consciousness. Since you reject the existence of the Atman and identify the self and the body (or assert that consciousness is a transient emergent property of the body), and since you define Brahman instead as physical energy you are forced to forego the common and accepted definition of moksha in lieu of your own definition (the satiation of intellectual curiosity) with nicely justifies the championing of empirical enquiry and rational scepticism. Since Shankara is not around to correct you, you are fortunate in that you have (thus far) had free reign to wave the banner of Shankara while proclaiming a totally different message to him. I think that if you had a living Vedanta guru, however, you would not be so lucky.

Further, on the topic of differing with one's gurus, I think the point of contention is that you substantially differ, to the degree where your views are irreconcilable with that of your guru. The purpose of the guru is to transmit clear and systematic knowledge through the process of teaching, with the goal of the student gaining the same knowledge as a result. The knower of Brahman teaches his/her knowledge to one who does not know Brahman. Then the ignorant one becomes a knower, too.
If your views are substantially different to those of your guru, which can be argued based on the views you have presented, then in what manner can he be called your guru? What, precisely, has your guru taught you if you disagree with him so substantially? How are you a pupil if you do not accept what the teacher says? You refuse to be taught.

Since it is not an absolute truth, I do not accept it.

What kind of logic is this? The whole empirical universe is not paramarthika satyam from its own standpoint, and so do you deny also the existence of the world? I think not, otherwise you will be forced to deny your own experience of it. Just because a thing is mithyA does not mean it is non-existent, it means it is dependently existent. Otherwise, not only should you be an atheist, but you should also deny the existence of the empirical universe and everything within it, in the same way that you deny the existence of such things as God, the Atma, devas, etc. Otherwise you are not logically consistent. To say that you are an atheist means that you don't believe God has any existence whatsoever. To say a thing is mithyA, however, does not mean it has no existence at all. That which is mithyA is neither sat (totally existent) nor asat (non-existent), but rather is dependently, or relatively existent. If a thing is relatively existent, it is not non-existent. For example, a table is relatively existent- it is a name and form superimposed on wood. We cannot say the table is non-existent, for it is perceived in the wood. But nor can we say the name and form called table has its own existence apart from the wood, therefore we say it is relatively existent, or dependently existent. The paramarthika satyam of a table is wood. The vyavaharika satyam of the wood is the table. There is no non-existence to speak of, only different grades of existence. From the standpoint of the empirical universe, Brahman is its creator, God. From the standpoint of the empirical universe, there is karma, bandha, moksha, samsAra, avidya, jnanam, devatas, Atma, etc, etc. From the standpoint of Brahman, all of the above, including the whole empirical universe, is Brahman only.

 

[Poeticus]

Respectfully, I think you do disagree with Shankara with regards to the nature of paramarthika satyam since you disagree with Shankara on both the definition of Brahman (which is the paramarthika satyam) and the 'relationship' of the nature of Brahman and the nature of the jIva (you have said that human consciousness is not Brahman/ different from something else called 'Brahman consciousness'). You have also defined moksha in your own way, as you have said that moksha is nothing more than having all of one's questions answered, which is not the definition of moksha given by Shankara or other Advaitins, traditional or modern. Moksha more commonly defined is the liberating knowledge of one's true nature as Atman/Brahman, which is eternal and limitless consciousness. Since you reject the existence of the Atman and identify the self and the body (or assert that consciousness is a transient emergent property of the body), and since you define Brahman instead as physical energy you are forced to forego the common and accepted definition of moksha in lieu of your own definition (the satiation of intellectual curiosity) with nicely justifies the championing of empirical enquiry and rational scepticism. Since Shankara is not around to correct you, you are fortunate in that you have (thus far) had free reign to wave the banner of Shankara while proclaiming a totally different message to him. I think that if you had a living Vedanta guru, however, you would not be so lucky.

Further, on the topic of differing with one's gurus, I think the point of contention is that you substantially differ, to the degree where your views are irreconcilable with that of your guru. The purpose of the guru is to transmit clear and systematic knowledge through the process of teaching, with the goal of the student gaining the same knowledge as a result. The knower of Brahman teaches his/her knowledge to one who does not know Brahman. Then the ignorant one becomes a knower, too.
If your views are substantially different to those of your guru, which can be argued based on the views you have presented, then in what manner can he be called your guru? What, precisely, has your guru taught you if you disagree with him so substantially? How are you a pupil if you do not accept what the teacher says? You refuse to be taught.



What kind of logic is this? The whole empirical universe is not paramarthika satyam from its own standpoint, and so do you deny also the existence of the world? I think not, otherwise you will be forced to deny your own experience of it. Just because a thing is mithyA does not mean it is non-existent, it means it is dependently existent. Otherwise, not only should you be an atheist, but you should also deny the existence of the empirical universe and everything within it, in the same way that you deny the existence of such things as God, the Atma, devas, etc. Otherwise you are not logically consistent. To say that you are an atheist means that you don't believe God has any existence whatsoever. To say a thing is mithyA, however, does not mean it has no existence at all. That which is mithyA is neither sat (totally existent) nor asat (non-existent), but rather is dependently, or relatively existent. If a thing is relatively existent, it is not non-existent. For example, a table is relatively existent- it is a name and form superimposed on wood. We cannot say the table is non-existent, for it is perceived in the wood. But nor can we say the name and form called table has its own existence apart from the wood, therefore we say it is relatively existent, or dependently existent. The paramarthika satyam of a table is wood. The vyavaharika satyam of the wood is the table. There is no non-existence to speak of, only different grades of existence. From the standpoint of the empirical universe, Brahman is its creator, God. From the standpoint of the empirical universe, there is karma, bandha, moksha, samsAra, avidya, jnanam, devatas, Atma, etc, etc. From the standpoint of Brahman, all of the above, including the whole empirical universe, is Brahman only.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What do you mean? Shankara just follows Sruti and describes the svarupa lakshana (the self nature) of brahman as "brahma sataym, jnanam (knowledge), anantam". Do you agree?

I agree to this: Through 'jnana' we know Brahman. If Shruti, Sankara, or any one else differs from this, they are welcome to their own views.

Since you reject the existence of the Atman and identify the self and the body .. Since Shankara is not around to correct you, you are fortunate in that you have (thus far) had free reign to wave the banner of Shankara while proclaiming a totally different message to him. I think that if you had a living Vedanta guru, however, you would not be so lucky.

Atman is the body and the body is the whole (poornamidam). That too is Brahman. There is nothing such as soul. You are unnecessarily dividing a thing where no division exists (if it is poornam, then where is the question of further division). Perhaps Sankara would have agreed with me privately, whatever might have been his public stance. As I have said Sankara was the head of a sect and had more responsibilities than I have. Apart from Sankara, so many have waved the banner of 'advaita' in their own way. There were Sri Ramanuja, Sri Nimbarka, Sri Vallabha, and Sri Chaitanya. What is your objection to my waving the 'advaita' banner?

 

[Poeticus]

What is your objection to my waving the 'advaita' banner?

He doesn't have any objections.
None at all. In fact, he's calling
you quite lucky, Aup. And that
would be a good thing. I wouldn't
have approved of his post other-
wise.​

: hamster :​

 

[atanu]

I agree to this: Through 'jnana' we know Brahman. If Shruti, Sankara, or any one else differs from this, they are welcome to their own views.

Your posts actually sadden me. Again with folded hands I will request you to pause, take 3 long deep breaths, and ponder on what you just said.

Brahman is All. So, knowing this advaita Brahman (through jnana), if the jnana vanishes then, and only the 'physical energy' remains, then how it works? How is brahman known?

Who discerns oneself as brahman and how, if the foundation itself is not jnana? Do not repeat the blind materialist atheist mantra that the inert physical matter-energy knows itself.

Sruti and Sankara are clear: brahman sat yam, brahma jnanam, brahma anantam.

Brahman itself is of the nature of knowledge, else in absence of any other thing, brahman will not know itself. In fact, the Sanatana dharma position, and especially the advaita position, is that on removal of all objects of mind, the Self knowing brahman shines on its own.

Self knowledge is the very nature of Brahman. Even now, in this body, it is evident.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If your views are substantially different to those of your guru, which can be argued based on the views you have presented, then in what manner can he be called your guru? What, precisely, has your guru taught you if you disagree with him so substantially? How are you a pupil if you do not accept what the teacher says? You refuse to be taught.

One who put me on the path is my guru. Sankara did so by teaching me 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya'. Buddha tought me by teaching 'Kalama Sutta'. The fact would not change whatever be my views at any later time. Sankara said there is Ishwara at Vyavaharika level, I differ. Buddha brushed many things under the carpet that I wanted to know about saying that they are 'achinteya', I differ. Now, if my gurus want they can turn me out like Vaishampayana turned out Yajnavalkya, but that would not change my views.

 

[atanu]

One who put me on the path is my guru. Sankara did so by teaching me 'Brahma satyam, jagan-mithya'. ... ...

You are prevaricating. I am sorry to say that.

It has been pointed out many times, that in Brahma Sutra bhashya, Sankara upholds the Taittiriya Sruti "brahman satyam brahma jnanam brahma anantam".

As brahma is advaita, it would not know itself if it was not of the nature of knowledge. I think even a novice once told about this will reflect and agree that the self nature of brahman has to be jnanam, else it would never be known and it would never be taught. It is similar with Nirvana.

I do not think that you can be persuaded to reflect, since, IMO, you reflected and devised a way to fit your atheistic-materialistic Dennet inspired 'no consciousness' philosophy to 'Hindu:Atheist:Advaita" tag.

IMO, wilful misrepresentation of Sruti is a sin.

I quote a little bit from Shri Ramana

Guru Ramana, 1974 ed. pp. 81-3 quoted in Sri Ramana Maharshi on 'I' and 'I-I', p.2

This point is made again in the concluding section of Mr. Cohen's talk with Bhagavan:

C: How to reach that Centre where what you call the ultimate consciousness- the 'I-I' - arises? Is it by simply thinking 'Who am I?'

B: Yes, it will take you up. You must do it with a calm mind - mental calmness is essential.

C: How does that consciousness manifest when that Centre - the Heart - is reached? Will I recognise it?

B: Certainly, as pure consciousness, free from all thought. It is pure unbroken awareness of your own Self, rather of Being - there is no mistaking it when pure.
C: Is the vibratory movement of the Centre felt simultaneously with the experience of Pure Consciousness, or before, or after it?

B: They are both one and the same. But sphurana can be felt in a subtle way even when meditation has sufficiently established and deepened, and the ultimate consciousness is very near, or during a sudden fright or great shock, when the mind comes to a standstill. It draws attention to itself, so that the meditator's mind, rendered sensitive by calmness, may become aware of it, gravitate toward it, and finally plunge into it, the Self.

C: Is the 'I-I' consciousness Self-realisation?

B: It is a prelude to it: when it becomes permanent Sahaja it is Self-realisation, Liberation. (29)

Self or Brahman realisation, that Brahman alone is, is not an unconscious realisation. Else it would not be a realisation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

What kind of logic is this? The whole empirical universe is not paramarthika satyam from its own standpoint, and so do you deny also the existence of the world? I think not, otherwise you will be forced to deny your own experience of it.

Makaranda, even for believing in something at Vyavaharika level, there need to be explanation of the belief. Sankara would perhaps not have accepted the existence of FSM or unicorn or pink fairies. Vyavaharika level does not give anyone the freedom to believe in anything (whatsoever) they want. What is the evidence of existence of Ishwara at Vyavaharika level? Similarly, perhaps Sariputta, Ananda, Kaccayana, were satisfied with what Buddha said, I am not. Buddha and Sankara had their own reasons to do so, I am not bound by those reasons. As for respect, I do not think there was any diminution of respect of Vaishampayana in Yajnavalya's heart even after he was asked to abandon what Vaishampayana taught. Similarly, I differ from my gurus, but that does not mean that I do not respect them now. The respect remains the same. Buddha allowed me to differ by saying "nor upon the consideration, "The monk is our teacher." "