Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

[Guest guest]

Hi Saffronite,

The essay is fine so far as it goes but

may I suggest that definitions do not a religion make.

What makes any religion or philosophical system unique

is what lies behind the definitions namely the insights

that first gave rise to them. Insights arise out of

practice and practices themselves have certain assumptions

built into them even if the practitioner cannot articulate

what these are. For instance what is the meaning of

pranayama, of japa, of koan and why do teachers see

wisdom as unfolding in stages. And some famously do not.

Like who, and quote in support of your answer!

Are they all symbolic dramas with the same denouement?

 

Regards,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

In future, please do not post the entire article consisting of multiple

pages from a Webpage to the list. When the webpage is available

readily for public to view or download or print, it is not appropriate

to copy and paste such materials to the list. Please note that this

statement from the list moderator is meant for all members as a

guidance for posting materials to the list. If the material is directly

related and meet the scope and goals of the list, then the member who

posts such materials should seek the permission of the Webmaster.

Ideally, members should inform the list moderators with a note why they

want to post the entire webpage to the list.

 

Also, it is not clear, what is your purpose of this posting. You should

have stated a brief summary introduction describing your purpose and

contention. Without such an introduction, you are just diverting the

attention of the members and the list.

 

regards,

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

 

advaitin, "saffronite_06" <smartie_625>

wrote:

>

> 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)

>

[Guest guest]

saffronite_06 <smartie_625 wrote: 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)

 

 

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.

 

 

Apart from the superficial differences in the philosophies of the four

schools of Buddhism, the basic tenet of the Buddhistic school is the fact of

the emptiness of all phenomena, which we confound to be a self, as against the

Hindu doctrine of there being an eternal substance behind the flux, the

realization consisting in coming upon an existent and eternal entity over and

above the flux, the flux found to have been an unreal manifestation in so far

as Hindu belief is concerned. But, according to Buddhism,the reality is only

the flux, and our error of samsara consists in being tricked into the belief of

something binding the flux. According to Buddhism, the realization of the

emptiness of the phenomena itself, constitutes nirvana, which is not opposite

to samsara, the distinction between the enlightened and the unenlightened

minds consisting in the wrong notion nurtured in the latter regarding the

existence of something apart from the discrete objects, which are

ultimately reduced to dharma-datu. On the other hand the Hindu thinkers, the

Advaitins, posit the existence of an eternal substratum as the cause for this

samsara, the bondage to the samsara being attributable to the metaphysical

ignorance of the fact of the eternal Self mistaken to be an unreal jiva.

Buddhistic meditation consists in knowing that behind and back of the phenomena

nothing exists; the Hindu goal consists in realization of a permanent principle

back of the flux, there being already the end conceived, which is not the case

in Buddhism in which there is no conclusion about the reality, as existing or

non-existing. The concepts of samvrit and paramartha, used by Nagarjuna, refer

to the non-awareness of the conditioned states of life in samvrit as against

such an awareness in the paramartha vision, in such a realization the samsara

not being different from nirvana, apart from understanding the fact of

realization and freedom not pertaining to any individual,

nor constituting any state. In simple words, the Buddhistic world view

consists in understanding the sole reality of becoming, a being in becoming

being unreal, on the other hand the Hindu thinkers assuming the existence of

something over and above the becoming, the realization of which is freedom. The

concept of reincarnation of Buddhism is also radically different from the idea

of the Hindu thinkers on this subject. According to the Buddhists, the reborn

entity is not a permanent jiva, but is merely the impression of memories, there

being no distinction between one entity and another psychologically on account

of the foundational thought of Buddhistic psychology not admitting of the

existence of a self both in the individual and in the universe, both

constituting only conceptual realities, the dharmadathu.

Sankarraman