Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

[Guest guest]

This is from the wepage: http://www.geocities.com/buddhisthimal/6-

7.htm

 

Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

(A Paradigm Shift)

 

Acarya Dharmavajra

 

(Mr. Sridhar Rana)

 

Many famous Hindu Indian scholars like Radha Krishnan,

Svami Vivekananda and Nepalese scholars like Mr. Chudanath Bhattarai,

Svami Prapannacharya have written that Buddhism is a reaction, a

reformation of Hinduism. The Buddha tried to reform some of the

malpractice within Hinduism. That is all. He never wanted to create a

new religion. In short, according to these scholars, Buddhism is

correct Hinduism without any malpractice and evils and what is called

Hinduism is the malpractice and distorted form of the vedas. There

are three problems with this interpretation of the Buddha's teaching.

One is that if these authors really believe that the Buddha came to

reform evils, malpractice and wrong interpretation of the vedas then

why are they themselves still following these evils and malpractice

and not practicing the Buddha's teachings, the reformed form of the

Vedas? Hoe warped and distorted are the minds of people who with one

breath proclaim the Buddha as the great reformer of Hinduism and then

turn around and call Buddhism (what Buddha taught) wrong. Some of

these scholars have even gone to the extent of claiming that although

the Buddha actually only wanted to reform the Vedas, his disciples

misunderstood him and created a new religion. How illogical to

believe that Buddha's own disciples did not understand him whereas

Hindu Svami's and Panditas 2000 years later really do understand the

Buddha's message. The second problem with this interpretation is that

it implies that Buddha was a Hindu. Simply because Suddhodana was a

king and therefore called a Ksatriya is absolutely no proof that he

was a he was a Hindu. If the Buddha was really a Hindu why did he not

call himself the great Brahmin or Mahabrahman like the great ksatriya

Vishvamitra.? It is strange to call Buddha a proponent of Brahmanism

when he called himself the great sramana or Mahasramana. Although a

lot of research remains to be done about Sramanism. it can certainly

be said that a Sramana is not a Sramanism is itself as old as

Brahmanism. Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, also called himself a

Sramana. If Buddha was merely reforming the Vedas, why did not call

himself a Neo-vedic, Neo-Brahman or true Brahman i. e. Mahabrahmana?

Why did he call himself a Mahasramana?

 

 

 

I would like to ask those scholars and their followers these

questions. Nowhere in the Hindu Shastras are Sraman considered as

part of the vedic fold. And the Buddha called himself a Mahasramana.

It was the custom of India from ancient times to call kings Ksatriyas

be they of the Sramana or Brahmana group. And even if Suddhodana was

of the Brahmin school) of which there is absolutely no proof), the

Buddha certainly did not seem to have taken after Brahmanism but

rather after Sramanism. Sramanism cannot be called Brahmanism by any

historical standard. The third problem is that the teachings found in

Buddhism do not on any way appear as a reformation of Hinduism. Any

one who was studied Buddhism (If I am not talking about prejudiced

Hindu oriented scholars) can see that there is a major paradigm shift

between Hinduism and Buddhism, in fact, between all other religious

systems and Buddhism. A paradigm shift cannot and should not be

misconstrued as a reform. Reforms are changes brought about within

the same paradigm. Paradigm shifts are changes in the very

foundations. The very basics are completely different. In such cases,

it is completely confused thinking to state that one paradigm is a

reformation of another paradigm. So Sramanism is a system of

religious based on a completely different paradigm than Hinduism and

as such it would be gross error to say Buddhism is a reformation of

Vedic Hinduism. It is not a reformation, but a shift in paradigm.

Even if the Vedic paradigm was the older, they are still different

paradigms. But it is even questionable whether the Vedic paradigm is

really older than the Sramana paradigm. After all, although

Buddhism begin with Shakyamuni, Sramanism is much older, and

according to the findings of the Indus valley civilization, was in

the Indian sub- continent even before Brahmanism.

 

It is the purpose of this paper to show how Brahmanism and

Buddhism are built on two totally different paradigms even though

they share the same language. It is this sharing of the same language

that has fooled most scholars, especially Hindu biased scholars who

have therefore failed to be sensitive to the fact that these are two

completely different paradigms with very little in common except the

same cultural background, and their language, metaphor, analogy, and

words. But as we shall see, the same analogies etc. express two

different conceptual structures (paradigms). When we compare the

Advaita Vedanta, especially as interpreted by Shankara and

Madhyamika, whether be it the Svatantric from of Bhabya or Prasangic

form of Candrakirti, the sharing of the same language, culture and

analogies while talking about two different paradigms becomes

obvious. Because of the use of the same language structure (be it

Pali or Sanskrit) and the same analogies to express two different

paradigms many Vedantins or scholars of Buddhism with Vedantic

backgrounds have been fooled into thinking Buddhist Madhyamika is a

re-interpretation of Hindu Vedanta. Many think Buddhism is the

negative way to the same goal (via negativa) and Hindu Vedanta the

positive way ( positiva). One uses negation and the other affirmation

but the Shunyata of Buddhism is a negative way of talking about the

Brahman of the Vadanta. The issue here is not via negative or via

positive at all but rather two different paradigms, or two different

goals based on two different paradigms, or two diametrically opposed

answers to the burning issue of mankind developed out of

diametrically opposed paradigms. In fact, the Buddha, after long

years of Brahmanic as well as Sramanic meditation, found the concept

of Brahma (an ultimately real, unchanging, eternal substratum to this

ephemeral transient world) not only inadequate to solve the basic

issue of humanity- i. e. sorrow (dukha) and questioned the very

existence of such an eternal substratum; but also declared that a

search for such an imagined (Skt. Parikalpita Atman) Brahman was a

form of escapism and therefore not really spiritual but spiritual

materialism.

 

Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (Skt.

paramartha sat) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of

fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called

God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems); when

Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (Skt. paramartha satta) in

any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism. Therefore it

cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically

said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism, The affirmation of a ground

(Skt. asraya) which is really existent (Skt. paramartha sat) and the

denial that such an existent (Skt. satta) can be found anywhere, with

in or without, immanent or transcendent, are two diametrically

opposed paradigms- not simply variation or reformations of each

other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form: to amend or improve by

change of form or removal of faults or abuse. The example I have

given above of an eternal base without which Hinduism in its own

language would be atheistic (skt. nastik) and the denial (without any

implied affirmation) (Skt. prasajya pratisheda) of such an eternally

existing unchanging base by Buddhism cannot be said to be a

reformation but a deconstruction of the very roots of the Hindu

thesis. That is why Buddhist is not a reformation of Hinduism but a

paradigm shift from the paradigms on which Hinduism is based.

 

 

 

Many Hindu scholars believe that without an ultimate

eternal reality then there can be no liberation from the changing,

transient samsara; therefore even though the Buddha denied the

ultimate reality, he could have meant only conceptually really

existing reality, no the eternal ultimate reality which is beyond

concepts. Otherwise there cannot be liberation. The fault with this

kind of thinking is that it is measuring the thesis (which is no

thesis) of the Buddha (or interpreting the Buddha) from within the

Hindu paradigm. Remaining within the Hindu paradigm, an eternal

ultimate reality is a necessity (a necessary dead end as the Buddha

saw it) for the soteriological purpose, i. e. for liberation. Since

according to the Buddha there is no Brahman- such a concept being

merely an acquired fabrication (skt: parikalpana) learned from wrong

(skt: mithya) scriptures, hankering after, searching for such a

Brahman is necessary a dead end which leads nowhere, let alone

liberation. The Buddhist paradigm if understood correctly, does not

require an eternal something or other for liberation. In Buddhism

liberation is not realizing such a ground but rather a letting go of

all grounds, i. e. realizing groundless. In fact holding on to any

ground is ignorance, according to Buddhism. So in the Buddhist

paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground for

liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is part of

the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major

difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs

when this illusory samsara is completely relinquished and it

vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahman which is the same as

liberation. Since the thesis is that samsara is meraly an illusion,

when it vanishes through knowledge is there were no eternal Brahman

remaining it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or

according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance) an eternal

unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (skt. mahavastu)

is a necessity for liberation else one would fall into Nihilism. But

since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the question posed

by Hindu scholars: How can there be liberation if a Brahman does not

remain after the illusory samsara vanishes in Jnana? is a non

question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its

Enlightenment or Nirvana.

 

First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna samsara is not an

illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning

of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only 'like an

illusion' i. e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does

not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when samsara vanishes like

mist and the Brahmin arises like a sun out of the mist but rather

when seeing that the true nature of samsara is itself Nirvana. So

whereas Brahman and samsara are two different entities one real, the

other unreal, one existing, the other non-existing, samsara and

Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the nature of

samsara or in Nagarjuna's words shunyata is the nature of samsara. It

is the realization of the nature of samsara as empty which cuts at

the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge and results in

knowledge not of another thing beyond samsara but of the way samsara

itself actually exists (skt vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it

is ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really) of samsara itself. It is this

knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of samsara

to the unconditioned experience of samsara itself. That is what is

meant by the indivisibility of samsara and nirvana (Skt. samsara

nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being samsara in

the context of Dzog chen, Mahamudra and Anuttara tantra. Samsara

would be substituted by dualistic mind. Hindu paradigm is world

denying, affirming Brahman. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the

world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (skt. mithya drsti) of the

world. It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from

samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance,

to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.

 

To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates

such an unproven and unprovable dream as an eternal substance or

ultimate reality, be it Hinduism or any other "ism", is propagating

spiritual materialism and not true spirituality. To Hinduism such a

Brahman is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of the Hindu

thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since Buddhism

denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha merely meant

to reform Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally different

paradigm. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all variations

of the same paradigm. So truly speaking you could speak of them as

reformations of each other. But Buddhism has a totally different

paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic- Hinduism. This

leads us naturally to the concept of the truths (skt. satyadvaya).

Both Hindu Vedanta and Madhyamika Buddhism (and for that matter all

forms of Buddhism) use this concept to clarify its paradigm. But

again the same words point at two different paradigms. First of all

the concept of two truths clearly stated as in Buddhism comes into

Hinduism only after Sankaracharya (Seventh/ eight century) whereas

the Buddha himself used these words. But even though Sankara copied

the use of these words from Buddhism and also copied many other

conceptual words from Nagarjuna to elucidate his Vedantic paradigm,

the paradigm that he tries to clarify with these words different. In

many places these conceptual wordings and analogies are forced to

produced the meaning that is required for the Veantic paradigm. In

the Vedantic context, the relative truth (Skt. samvritti satya) is

that this samsara is an illusion and the ultimate truth (skt.

paramartha satya) is that there is an ultimately existing thing (skt.

paramartha satta) transcending/ immanent in this world. The relative

truth will vanish like a mist and the both transcendent and immanent

Brahman will appear as the only Truth, the world being false. To sum

it up, the Vedantic ultimate truth is the existence of an ultimate

existence or ultimate reality. Reality here is used as something

which exists (skt.

satta).

 

However, the Buddhist ultimate truth is the absence of any

such satta i. e. ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality. That

is the significance of Shunyata- absence of any real, independent,

unchanging existence (skt. svabhava). And that fact is the ultimate

truth of Buddhism, which is diametrically opposite to the ultimate

truth of the Hindu Brahman. So Shunyata can never be a negative way

of describing the Atman- Brahman of Hinduism as Vinoba Bhave and such

scholars would have us believe. The meaning of Shunyata found in

Sutra, Tantra Dzogchen, or Mahamudra is the same as the Prasangic

emptiness of Chandrakirti, i. e. unfindability of any true existence

or simply unfindability. Some writers of Dzogchen and Mahamudra or

Tantra think that the emptiness of Nagarjuna is different from the

emptiness found in these systems. But I would like to ask them

whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable; whether or not the

significance of emptiness in these systems is also not the fact of

unfindability- no seeing as it could also be expressed. Also some

Shentong scholars seem to imply that the Shentong system is talking

about a different emptiness. They say Buddha nature is not empty of

qualities therefore, Buddha nature is not merely empty, it also has

qualities. First of all the whole statement is irrelevant. Qualities

are not the question and Buddha nature being empty of quality or not

is not the issue. The Buddha nature is empty of Svabhava (real

existence). Because it is empty of real existence, it has qualities.

As Arya Nagarjuna has said in his Mula Madhyamika Karika: "All things

are possible (including qualities) because they are empty "Therefore

the whole Shentong/ Rangtong issue is superfluous. However, in

Shentong, Buddha nature is also empty and emptiness means unfindable.

In short, the unfindability of any true existence is the ultimate

(skt. paramartha) in Buddhism, and is diametrically opposed to the

concept of a truly existing thing called Brahman, the ultimate truth

in Hinduism.

 

Now let's examine relative truth (skt. samvritti satya).

In Hinduism, the relative truth is the fact that this world is an

illusion (skt. maya). It has no existence. In Buddhism, samsara is

interdependently arising. It has relative existence (skt. samvritti

satta) according to Tsong Khapa or it appears conventionally

according to Gorampa Senge and Mipham. It is like an illusion (Skt.

mayavat). Like all illusions, it appears interdependently based on

various causes and conditions (Skt. hetu pratyaya). It may be like an

illusion but it is the only thing we have, there is nothing behind it

or beyond it which can be called an ultimate thing or reality. The

ultimate reality or truth or fact in the Buddhist sense is the mode

of existence of this illusion like samsara i. e. (Skt. nihsvabhava)

empty of real existence. So here too we find two different parameters

to two different paradigms. Now let us investigate some of the words

used by both paradigms. One word that has created great confusion is

non- dualism. First of all Hindu Vedanta is advaita and Madhyamika

Advaya. Although they are sometimes use interchangeably by both

systems, their meanings are as used in the two paradigms differ. In

Hindu Vedanta, non dualism (advaita) means one without a second Skt:

dvitiyam nasti, Chandogya Upnishad). What is the meaning of this?

That there is only Brahman which really exists, nothing else really

exists. In other words- the world does not exists at al- it is only

am illusion. The true English word for this is Monism according to

Webster Dictionary. The view that there is only one kind of ultimate

substance. Since, as we have been seen already there is no kind of

ultimate substance in Madhyamika Buddhism the meaning advaya (non-

dualism) cannot be like in Hinduism. The Madhyamika scriptures very

clearly defines advaya as "dvaya anta mukta" free from the two

extremes. The extremes are the of eternalism into which the Hindu

vedantic Brahman falls and Nihilism into which many materialistic

system like Charvak fall. But it goes deeper. Non dual knowledge

(skt. advaya jnana) is the state of mind which is soteriologically

free from grasping at the two extremes of knowing in terms of "is"

and "is not" and ontologically free from being "existing" or "non

existing" Advaita jnana is however the knowledge of the one and only

truly existing substance or reality called Brahman in Hinduism. It

could also be called by any other name. Even if the Brahman is

defined as beyond "is and" is not" as in the Yogavasistha, it is only

a round about way of saying that there is an ultimate reality,

Brahman, which is beyond concepts of existing and non existing and

therefore it still falls within eternalism. There is also the use

of :"free from the existence and non existence" in Buddhism and

beyond existence and non existence in Hinduism. "Beyond" implies a

third something which is neither; but "free" does not necessarily

implies a third something which is neither. Some Shentongpas define

the Tathagatagarbha exactly like the Brahman of the Vedanta without

realizing it and even claim as a higher mediator's view which is not

accessible to lower class logicians etc.

 

 

 

Perhaps it is most apt now to talk about two other words

used commonly by both paradigms: Nisprapanca (Tib: thro-me) and

avikalpa (Tib: Tog- me). Nisprapanca means non fabricated and

avikalpa means non- conceptual. In the context of Hinduism, it is the

Brahman (the ultimate reality, the ultimate real, the ultimate

existing) which is beyond concepts and non- fabricated. It also means

a non-fabricated and non-conceptual knowledge of that Brahman. When I

am using ultimate reality as a synonym for the Brahman. I am using

reality to mean something that exists as per the Webster's

Dictionary. I am aware that reality also connotes "fact" i. e. truth

and with such a meaning could be used in Buddhism to mean ultimate

fact/truth. But as one of its connotation is existing, it is

hazardous to use the word ultimate reality in any Buddhist context

and it is always safer to use the word ultimate truth instead. Some

English translations of Dzogchen, Mahamudra etc. have used the word

ultimate reality for Rigpa, co- emergent wisdom (skt. sahaja jnana)

Tathagata garbha, rather indiscriminately without the authors even

realizing that the use of such lax wording brings them not only

dangerously close to Vedantins of one only dangerously close to

Vedantins of one form or the other, but also they are actually using

Buddhist texts to validate the vedantic thesis. If some of them

object that their ultimate reality is empty while the Hindu ultimate

reality is not; the Hindu can ask," then how it is an ultimate

reality in the sense of ultimate existing"? To avoid this confusion,

it is safer and semantically closer to the Buddhist paradigm to use

only "ultimate truth".

 

Now coming back to Nisprapanca and Avikalpa, as for

Buddhism, the first verse of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika makes

it clear that it is the "pratityasamutpada" the interdependent

origination which is nisprapanca and beyond concepts and it is the

wisdom that realizes this that is nisprapanca and avikalpa. No Hindu

Vedanta would agree that the Brahman is interdependent origination or

interdependently originated. The same can be said of words like

acintya (inconceivable), anupamya (inexpressible) or apratistha (non-

established) etc. for which we need not write separately. This

naturally leads us to three crucial words and concepts used in the

two paradigms.: Emptiness, (skt. Shunyata), Interdependent

Origination (Skt. pratityasamutpada) and Brahma (the infinite,

eternal, unchanging, Truly existing, Non conceptual, unfabricated

reality). Many Hindu writers from the 5th/6th century onwards until

today have tried to show that the Brahman and Shunyata, mean the same

thing. The Yogavasistha (7th/8th century) has even very explicitly

stated that the Brahman and Shunya are the same reality. (Chapter

3/5/5-6) Modern authors like Dr. Radhakrishnan, Svami Vivekananda and

Vinova Bhave have also tried to show that they mean the same reality.

Je Tsong Khapa says in his "Pratityasamutpada stuti Subhasita

Hridaya" whatever is dependent on conditions is empty of real

existence. This statement makes it clear that dependent origination

and Shunyata are two labels for the same condition - two sides of the

same coin. Now I would like to ask these Hindu authors "Is Brahman

(which according to them is the same as Sunya), dependently

originated or origination? Even here in the two words there is a

difference. The Brahman can never be a dependent origination because

it is a really existing thing. It can only be a dependently

originated thing I am sure no Hindu would like to say this of the

unchanging eternal independent Brahman. On the other hand, the

significance of Shunyata is "dependant origination" or nisvabhava

(non real existence). The Tathagatarbha, Mahamudra, Rigpa (Vidya) etc

cannot also, empty but not nisvabhava. Such as definition of Shunya

(as not nisvabhava) would not only contradict the entire Buddhist

paradigms but also would force such so- called Buddhist writers to

fall into the "all-embracing" arms of the Vedantin Brahman. If Rigpa,

Mahamudra etc. is described without the correct emptiness, then such

words as Mahamudra, Dzogchen, Rigpa, Tathagatagarbha are only new

names given to the ancient concept of Brahman as found in the

Upanishads (some of which are 600 years than the Buddha. Such

misconcepts of ultimate realities come not from Buddhist but actually

from Hindu Brahman in the garb of Buddhist scholar monks. Some

Buddhist writers give lame excuse about meditative experience &

theory being different. I would like to reiterate that such a

meditative experience is not Buddhist but Hindu because it fits

perfectly with Hindu theory of reality. If meditative experiences are

going to be different from the theory on which they are based, that

would be tantamount to saying that the base has no relation to the

path and fruit, or that path is one and the actual experience of the

fruit (meditative experience is another). At least the Hindu base-

path-fruit is more consistent. They do not being with non real

existence and end up with some kind of subtle existence. The Buddhist

meditation experience must coincide with its base (basic paradigm).

Yes, there is a shift from conceptual to non-conceptual during

meditation but that does not necessitate a shift from non-real

existence to real existence. If reality is conceptually non real

existent it does not become real existent non conceptually. The true

Buddhist meditative experience or "non real existence "not" real

existence". Some may say that non real existence is only a concept.

But the same can be said of real existence. Since Brahman is real

existence by itself, independent etc. it cannot be a synonym for

Shunyata. Some Shentong Buddhist writers who have not studied Hindu

philosophy well enough try to give invalid excuses by implying that

the Atma-Brahman of Hinduism is imagined , fabricated, whereas the

shentong Tathagatagarbhas is non conceptual (eg. Jamgon Kongtro Lordo

Thaye- Gaining certainly about the view 5.2.4.2.). If one has read

the Vedanta Shastra one finds that the Atma (self) of the Hindu is

also free from mental elaboration like the Tathagatagarbha. So the

crux of the different lies in emptiness not in non-elaboration, non

conceptual, luminous etc. The Atma of the Vedanta is also not

accessible to inferior logicians and not negated by logic because it

is uncreated, unconditioned, self existing, self-luminous and beyond

concept. So just stating that the Hindu Atman is fabricated and our

Tathagatagarbhais not, does not really solve anything. The Atma is

what remains after everything else that is not it, has been negated.

Last of all the Atman is not the ego (Ahamkar, Tib. ngak dzin) which

is what the Shentong logic negates.

Another word that has confounded many Hindu Svamis is

the unborn (skt. ajat or anutpada), unproduced. In the context of the

Hindu Vedanta it means that there is this ultimate reality called the

Brahman which is unborn i. e. never produced by any thing or at any

time, which means it always was. A thing or super thing even a non

thing that always existed and was never ever produced at any period

in time which is separate from this born, illusory samsara. In the

Buddhist context, it is the true nature of samsara itself which

although relatively appears to be "born" ultimately is never born.

Advayavajra in his Tatvaratnavali says " The world is unborn says the

Buddha". As Buddha Ekaputra Tantra (Tib. Sangye Tse tsig tantra)

says, the base of Dzogchen is the samsara itself stirred from its

depth. Since the Samsara stirred from its depth is interdependently

originated, i. e. not really originated i. e. unborn and since the

samsara is only relatively an interdependently originated thing but

ultimately neither a thing nor a non- thing (bhava or abhava) that

truly exists, the use of the word unborn for Brahman (which is

definitely not samsara) and for samsara itself in Buddhism are

diametrically opposed. The true meaning of unborn (anutpada) is

dependently originated (pratityasamutpanna) which is as already

mentioned the meaning of a nisvabhava (non real existence) or

Shunyata. None of these can be a synonym for Brahman or anything that

ahs kind of ultimate real existence, even if it is called

Tathagatagarbha. There is no acceptance of an ultimate existence in

any Buddhist Sutra. It is interesting that an exact word for

paramartha satta in Tibetan Buddhism is very rarely used. It shows

how non-Buddhist the whole concept is. One has to differentiate

between satta (existence) and satya (truth) although they are so

close and come from the same root in Sanskrit. Even in the Ratnagotra

there is one single sentence (Skt. Yad yatra tat tena shunyam iti

samanupasyati yat punartravasistam bhavati tad sad ihasthiti

yathabhutam prajanati): "whatever is not found know that to be empty

by that itself, if something remains knows that to exist as it is)."

This statement is straight out of the Vaibhasika sutras of the

Theravada (Sunnatavagga) and Sautrantik Abhidharma Samuccaya. It

seems to imply an affirming negative. First of all this statement

contradicts the rest of the Ratnagotravibhaga if it is taken as the

ultimate meaning in the Sutra (as Shentongpas have done). Secondly

since it is a statement of the Vaibhasika school (stating than an

ultimate unit of consciousness and matter remains), it cannot be

superior to the Rangtong Madhyamika. Thirdly its interpretation as

what remains is the ultimately existing Tathagatagarbha contradicts

not only the interpretation that found in other Buddhist sutras

as "itar etar Shunyata" (emptiness of what is different from it) but

also the shentong interpretation of Tathagatagarbha contradicts all

the other definition of the Tathagatagarbha found in the

Ratnagotravibhaga itself.

 

This brings us to the wrod Nitya- i. e. eternal or permanent.

The Hindu use of the word Nitya for its ultimate existing reality,

viz. Brahman is Kutastha Nitya i. e. something remaining or existing

unchangingly eternal, i. e. something statically eternally. Whatever

the word Nitya is used for the ultimate truth in Buddhism, the Great

Pandita Santa rakshita has made it very clear in his Tatvasamgraha

that the Buddhist Nitya is parinami nitya i. e. changing,

transforming, eternal in another words dynamically eternal. The

Buddhist Nitya is more accurately translated in English as eternal

continuum rather than just eternal. I would like to remind some

western translators of Nyingma and Kagyu texts that it is either the

view of Shantarakshita's Svatantrik Madhyamika or the prasangika view

that is given during the "Tri" instruction of Yeshe Lama as the

correct view of Dzogchen. Now finally I would like to show how the

same analogies are used in the Vedantic Hinduism and Buddhist

Madhyamika to illustrate different thesis. The most famous analogy in

both Vedanta and Madhyamka is that of the snake seen in the rope. In

Vedanta you have the famous Sankaric verse rajjau sarpa bhramanaropa

tadvat Brahmani jagataropa i. e. as a snake is imputed/ superimposed

upon a piece of rope so is the samsara imposed upon the Brahman. Only

the rope or the Brahman is real the snake-samsara is unreal and does

not exist at all. They are only illusions. If one studies teh analogy

one realizes that it is not such an accurate analogy. The rope is not

eternal like Brahman. Furthermore the rope is not asamskrita

(unconditioned like Brahman so it is not really good example or the

proof of a truly existing independent Brahman. It is a forced

analogy. And rightly so, because it is a Buddhist analogy squeezed to

give Vedantic meaning.

 

As for Buddhism the rope stands for pratityasamutpada

for which it is a good example being itself interdependently arisen

from pieces of jute etc. and the snake imputed upon it stands for

real existence which is imposed on the interdependently existing rope

appearance. Here it is the rope that is the true mode of existence of

the samsara (unlike the snake representing samsara in Vedanta) and

the snake is our ignorance imputing samsara as really existing

instead of experience it as interdependently arisen. This

interdependence or emptiness is parinami nitya i. e. an eternal

continuum and this applicable to all phenomena. Of course, this

interdependence is the conventional truth whereas nisvabhavata which

is synonymous to emptiness is the ultimate truth in Madhyamika.

Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is

unborn and empty, its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not

an unconditioned reality like Brahman but an unconditioned truth i.

e. the fact that all things are in reality empty, unborn, uncreated.

Likewise the Mirror reflection analogy is used to show that just like

images which have no existence at all appear and disappear on the

permanent surface of the mirror so too samsara which is an illusory

reflection on the mirror of Brahman appears on the surface of the

Brahman and disappears there. In Buddhism this metaphor is used to

show that samsara is interdependently arisen like the reflection on

the mirror. The mirror is only one of the causes and conditions and

no more real that the other causes and conditions for the appearance

of the reflection of Samsara. Here too the mirror is a very poor

metaphor for the Brahman, being itself interdependently arisen like

the reflection on it. Actually such analogies are good examples for

pratityasamutpada and not for some eternal Brahman. The mirror

Brahman metaphor is only forced. The same can be said of the moon on

the pond analogy and rainbow in the sky analogy.

 

In conclusion, I would like to sum it up by stating that

Buddhism (especially Mahayana/ Vajrayana) is not a reformulation of

Hinduism or a negative way of expressing what Hinduism as formulated.

Hinduism and Buddhism share a common culture and therefore tend to

use the same or similar words. They do share certain concepts like

Karma and re-incarnation, although their interpretation differ. Hindu

concepts of karma and therefore reincarnation tend to be rather

linear whereas the Buddhist concept is linked with pratityasamutpada.

The Theravada concept of pratityasamutpada is also rather linear but

the Mahayana/Vajrayana concept is more non-linear multi dimentional-

multi leveled-interdependent inter-latched. But all similarities to

Hinduism ends there. The Shunyata of the Buddha, Nagarjuna,

Candrakirti is by no accounts a negative way of describing the

Brahman of the Upanishad- Samkara-Vidhyaranya groups. I would like to

dedicate this article for the long lives of Ven. H. E. Urgyen Tulku,

H. E. Chobgye Tri Chen, H. H. Sakya Trizin and Ven. Karma Thinley

Rinpoche and to the 17th century siddha Vajracharya Surat Vajra of

Nepal, Tache Baha. May his lineage be re- instated again.

[Guest guest]

Sir,

 

The author has mixed that which he calls by the name of Hinduism with

Advaita. He seems not to understand what Advaita really is. Just

this one quote from his post is enough to prove this point. My

observations are in brackets :

 

QUOTE

> First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna samsara is not an

> illusion but like an illusion.

 

[Advaita doesn't call samsAra an illusion.]

>There is a quantum leap in the meaning

> of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only 'like an

> illusion' i. e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it does

> not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when samsara vanishes like

> mist and the Brahmin arises like a sun out of the mist but rather

> when seeing that the true nature of samsara is itself Nirvana.

 

[The goal of advaita also is to recognize true nature. It doesn't

advocate denial.]

> So

> whereas Brahman and samsara are two different entities one real,

the

> other unreal, one existing, the other non-existing, samsara and

> Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two.

 

[brahman and samsAra are not two different entities to Advaita. If

it were so, shruti would not have proclaimed "sarvaM khalvidam

brahma" (All this is only Brahman.)]

> Nirvana is the nature of

> samsara or in Nagarjuna's words shunyata is the nature of samsara.

 

[Why did Nagarjuna have to invent a new word 'shUnyatA' for it!?

> It

> is the realization of the nature of samsara as empty which cuts at

> the very root of ignorance

 

[This applies to Advaita too, i.e. realization of the nature of

samsAra.. However, it doesn't understand samsAra as empty.]

>and results in knowledge and results in

> knowledge not of another thing beyond samsara but of the way

samsara

> itself actually exists (skt vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as

it

> is ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really) of samsara itself.

 

[That is a contradiction. Understand something as shUnyata and then

explore the way it actually exists! Advaita's Brahman is not a thing

that exists beyond samsAra. It is the truth that pervades every atom

of samsAra.]

>It is this

> knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual experience of

samsara

> to the unconditioned experience of samsara itself.

 

[Advaita also seeks to eliminate the misconception or misapprehension

of Reality.]

>That is what is

> meant by the indivisibility of samsara and nirvana (Skt. samsara

> nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being samsara in

> the context of Dzog chen, Mahamudra and Anuttara tantra. Samsara

> would be substituted by dualistic mind. Hindu paradigm is world

> denying, affirming Brahman.

 

[There is no world denial in Advaita. It seeks only the affirmation

of the world in its true nature, which is what is called Brahman.]

>The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the

> world; it only rectifies our wrong vision (skt. mithya drsti) of

the

> world.

 

[Advaita does the same by rectifying misapprehension of Reality.]

 

It does not give a dream beyond or separate transcendence from

> samsara. Because such a dream is part of the dynamics of ignorance,

> to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate ignorance.

 

[Only the author's wrong understanding of Advaita propagates such a

dream.]

 

[The right understanding of Advaita will remove the need,

fastidiously substantiated by the author, for two entirely different

paradigms.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair