Buddha, Mahivira and Ramana Maharisha had different paths, as far as their realization of ultimate truth is concerned, their experiences are not different. Sometimes they even appear to be opposite to each other, as in the case of Buddha and Shankara, but still their experiences are same.
We see the differences not just as ordinary differences, but as striking differences, as if there is an issue of friendship or enmity, because those manifestations do not arise out of experience itself, but out of individuals.
If Mahivira and Meera would sit next to each other, we would say that their experiences are different. Meera loves the sound of her bells, while Mahivira never changes position at night while he is asleep. Meera dances with her bells tied to her ankles, and does not even look where she is going to step, while Mahivira is careful even when he walks and keeps sweeping the ground in front of him.
A man like Shankara, who has experienced the ultimate truth, would say; "There is only one supreme reality. This is the truth, everything else is illusion" A man like Buddha would say: " There is no such thing as supreme reality; there is only nothingness, only emptiness", Their statements seem to be opposite to each other, they seem contradictory. Their emphasis reflects their different individualites. They come back after they have experienced the ultimate truth, and their experience is similar to a glass which is half full, one says that the glass is half empty, while the other denies it, and says that the glass is half full.Certainly there is going to be controversy, as the words, 'empty ' and 'full' seem to be opposite to each other.
The word 'negative' is very close to Buddha's nature, because it is part of his individuality. The reason is psychological; Buddha came from a rich family, where everything was positive; he lived n palaces, in a rich kingdom, surrounded by beautiful women. Buddha had everything in life, hence word'positive' was meaningless for him. He had everything in life; he was so full, that emptiness became meaningful for him.
Shankara was the son of a poor brahmin and grew up in a poor environment; he came from a very poor family, and the hut where he lived was almost empty; for Shankara, negation is utterly meaningless. Shankara saw nothingness throughout his life, hence the positive aspect is meaningful for him.
For Shankara the experience of the ultimate truth was all encompassing. For Buddha the experience of the ultimate truth was pure nothingness. These two individuals differ in their psychological type, but there is no difference as far as their experience of the ultimate truth is concerned.
Mahivira and Buddha came from the same kind of background but their manifestations are different. Mahivira says" To know the self is to attain true knowledge". Buddha says; " A man who believes in the self is the most ignorant man". What can be more contradictory? Both mean the same thing........their words appear to contradictory, but their experiences are certainly not contradictory. A common word like house may mean different to each one as they have their experience or imagination. House to me different than to you.
When Mahivira talks about the self , the word signifies a state of egolessness. When the ego is dropped, what remains is the self; hence Mahivira says that to know the self is to attain true knowledge. And the way to know the self is to surrender the ego "if you drop your ego and become empty, what you are left with is the self"
\Buddha used a beautiful word, atta in Pali language and the true meaning is ego which is reinforced as "I". He said whereever there is 'atta'-ego, there is ignorance. When you let go of the 'atta', that which remains is true knowledge"
This is the reason why Buddha is considered to be a believer in no-self, whereas Mahavira is thought to be a believer in the self. In fact both were saying the same thing.The choice of words in spoken language is left to the individual.Words are only expressions, not the experience itself.
We use words, but words are created by scholars, by academics - but words remain simply words. Mahavira says that if we surrender our ego, what remain is the self. Buddha says that you need to go beyond the feeling of "I am" and that which remains is samadhi. We cannot experience by hearing Mahavira's words or Buddha's words, we can experience only if we drop our egos.
We refer to the dictionary, we read books about philosophy. There are Buddhist scholars, there are Jain scholars, there are Hindu scholars, who know only words - nothing else but words - and keep writing their commentaries which are full of words.
Each individual has his own personal choice of words, because the experience of Mahavira, Buddha and Shankara is a very solitary experience.It is only people who create a web of explanations. Later on, as centuries pass, the web which has been created around Mahavira's words, the web which has been created around Buddha's words, the which has been created around Shankara's words - become so vast that the webs themselves become the enemies.The actual meaning of the original words, and the meaning of words which describe the experience, is lost somewhere down the line - and no trace is left of the original meaning.
This is the problem - Otherwise the experience is never different. Individuals differ from one another. In fact, there are differences; no two individuals can be the same. the day man will realise this truth, he will understand that there cannot be any controversy between religions.It would be good if man became aware of this truth.Religions use the language of controversy, which is not the language of truth. And those who use language for their own controversies are not truly religious - they are only language experts.The difficulty arises when these language experts portray themselves as religious men.
Note : This is only a scribbling note. These are purely my understanding. These may or may not be the correct one. This is not to hurt anybody's feeling.
