Guest guest Posted January 6, 2000 Report Share Posted January 6, 2000 ear Shri Prasanna Krishna: 1. There are many scholars (including my revered teacher Pt. Bannanje Govindacharya) who think that later scholastic Buddhism distorted the original teachings of the Master. However, I must also tell you that there are an equal number, if not more, who think the opposite, i.e. scholastic Buddhism actually elaborated the teachings of the Buddha in a more precise manner. On that count I have had many a debate with my honorable teacher. Of course, I respectfully beg to differ from him on this. 2. It is only the Advaita and Dvaita schools of VedAnta who regard Buddha to be one of the 10 Incarnations of MahAviShNu. The RAmAnujite school categorically denies Buddha to be an avatAra holding instead BalarAma to be one among the 10 incarnations. Rest of the philosophical schools of Hinduism like NyAya-VaisheShika etc. are totally silent about it. The Buddhists themselves do not accept their master to be an Incarnation of ViShNu. 3. Buddhism is a vast religion covering 13 countries where it is the majority religion. The shUnyavAda doctrine is upheld by only one school of MahAyAna Buddhism, i.e. the MAdhyamika school. The famous philosophers of this school are NAgArjuna (100 AD), Aryadeva (150 AD), BuddhapAlita (200 AD), CandrakIrti (300 AD) and ShAntideva (500 AD). NAgArjuna's MUlamAdhyAmika shraddotpAdashAstra, a monumental work of deep erudition. Similarly are, CandrakIrti's Prasannapada and VigrahavyAvartinI; and ShAntideva's SikShAsamuccya. Even in these works, " ShUnya " is not be understood as " Nothingness " . It is quite clear from their works that " ShUnya " implies the emptiness of worldly phenomena. Many of these Buddhist scholars describe NirvANa as a positive state of bliss. The Buddhism of Northeast Asia is essentially based on the teachings of these great Indian masters. Many MAdhyamika Buddhists think that all three VedAntic AcAryas have not properly understood their doctrine and have unfairly criticized them. I will write more about it sometime later. I hope this somewhat clarifies your questions. regards, Hari-vAyu smaraNa B.N.Hebbar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2000 Report Share Posted January 6, 2000 Balaji Hebbar [sMTP:bhebbar] Thursday, January 06, 2000 7:48 AM krish_p Cc: ; kkalale1; mani; gurukripa1; vijay_srinivasan; sandhya_20194; seshadri; mmurthy; venkataramu BauddhAvatAra ear Shri Prasanna Krishna: 1. There are many scholars (including my revered teacher Pt. Bannanje Govindacharya) who think that later scholastic Buddhism distorted the original teachings of the Master. However, I must also tell you that there are an equal number, if not more, who think the opposite, i.e. scholastic Buddhism actually elaborated the teachings of the Buddha in a more precise manner. On that count I have had many a debate with my honorable teacher. Of course, I respectfully beg to differ from him on this. 2. It is only the Advaita and Dvaita schools of VedAnta who regard Buddha to be one of the 10 Incarnations of MahAviShNu. The RAmAnujite school categorically denies Buddha to be an avatAra holding instead BalarAma to be one among the 10 incarnations. Rest of the philosophical schools of Hinduism like NyAya-VaisheShika etc. are totally silent about it. The Buddhists themselves do not accept their master to be an Incarnation of ViShNu. [Krishna Kalale] Please note: in visistadvaita Sri Vedanta Desika denies Buddha a place in 10 major avataras. However, Buddha's place in the 39 avataras of Sriman Narayana cannot be avoided, since it is mentioned in the pancharatra - ie. ahirbudhnya samhita, which is authoritative to visistadvaitis. 3. Buddhism is a vast religion covering 13 countries where it is the majority religion. The shUnyavAda doctrine is upheld by only one school of MahAyAna Buddhism, i.e. the MAdhyamika school. The famous philosophers of this school are NAgArjuna (100 AD), Aryadeva (150 AD), BuddhapAlita (200 AD), CandrakIrti (300 AD) and ShAntideva (500 AD). NAgArjuna's MUlamAdhyAmika shraddotpAdashAstra, a monumental work of deep erudition. Similarly are, CandrakIrti's Prasannapada and VigrahavyAvartinI; and ShAntideva's SikShAsamuccya. Even in these works, " ShUnya " is not be understood as " Nothingness " . It is quite clear from their works that " ShUnya " implies the emptiness of worldly phenomena. Many of these Buddhist scholars describe NirvANa as a positive state of bliss. The Buddhism of Northeast Asia is essentially based on the teachings of these great Indian masters. Many MAdhyamika Buddhists think that all three VedAntic AcAryas have not properly understood their doctrine and have unfairly criticized them. I will write more about it sometime later. I hope this somewhat clarifies your questions. regards, Hari-vAyu smaraNa B.N.Hebbar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.