advaita vedanta and buddhism

[Guest guest]

The following article discusses Advaita and Buddhism in the context of

Self-Realization. Gives a different perspective.

 

the-highest-teaching-self-or-emptiness-by-pham-d-luan-kkt

 

Namaste and love to all

 

Yours in Bhagavan

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote:

 

advaitin , SURI <SURI441@> wrote:

>

> The real difference between Sanathana Dharma and all others is only this..

> " Thatvamasi " will never be touched by other religions who believe in Human

gods!

> This my humble opinion!

> Pranams to all

 

Namaste,

 

In the Bible there is the phrase I am, and then Jesus saying 'before Moses was I

am'..So Tattwamasi isn't a real difference.

 

The real difference is what India gave to the world 'Sakshin' or the concept of

witness, or that there isn't a 'God' actually getting involved or interfering in

delusion............Cheers Tony.

 

--- End forwarded message ---

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

>

> Hari OM~

>

> Shri Nair ji, Pranam-s,

>

>

>

> Prathamakalpika is one who is in the preliminary levels of self-assessment

> while Prajnajyotih is one who already posess the truth bearing `insight'. He

> is said to have the Rtambhara-prajna. Prajnajyotih pays approach into the

> process of Self-inquiry adhering to the scriptures which prathamakalpika

> does not. This distinction allows Prajnajyotih to have the upper hand over

> the Prathamakalpika. Indeed prajnajyotih has the responsibility to guide

> prathamakalpika and help him out of confounding convictions to which one may

> get afflicted to in the process of any metaphysical inquiry.

> With Narayana Smrti,

>

> Devanathan.J

 

Dear Devanathanji,

I must admit I am totally ignorant of this classification. Could you kindly tell

me in which text it is found?

Thanks,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

From what little I have understood from Upadesa Sahasri of ADI SANKARA,and as

interpreted by SwamiJagadananda(RK Mutt) in Chapter XVI..verses 23 to 28 and as

explained by my Guruji,Swami Paramarthananda,I feel the following:-

 

1.Sankara challenges the only Budhist Theory " Nihilism " which comes closest to

Advaitha,and all other Budhists theories dont even need any explanation..

 

2.In Nihilism everything is temporary..including Consiiousness which acc

Sankara,Nihilists have accepted Consciousness principle..

3.If everything is temporary..' BEING MOMENTARY(ACC TO THEM)THE INTELLECT NEVER

RETAINS THE IMPRESSIONS OF MEMORY " ..(AGAIN RECOGNITION IS SAID TO BE DUE TO

MISCONCEPTION OF SIMILARITY BUT)THERE IS NO CAUSE OF SIMILARITY(BETWEEN THE

PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING MOMENTS)

(IF ON THE OTHERHAND ,A WITNESS PERCEIVING BOTH THE MOMENTS ARE ADMITTED)THE

DOCTRINE OF MOMENTARINESS IS ABANDONED..

PAGE 175

4.I wd like to get common man's explanation for these verses once again from

learned scholars as I am writing from my notes/the book mentioned above..

In conclusion Nihilism tho' colosest to advaitham,is eliminated for

its " Momentariness " ..

5.I have read a book by Dalai Lama " The Universe on an Atom " where He is more

talking about Adavaithic truth intodays context Vs Scientific Failures to prove

anything about Consciousness..

Pranams to all

s.rajah iyer

 

 

http://www.acupressuresocks.com

 

http://www.srajahiyer.sulekha.com/

 

--- On Wed, 6/10/09, putranm <putranm wrote:

 

putranm <putranm

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

advaitin

Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 9:53 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin@ s.com, " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@

....> wrote:

 

>We have to be clear here that Buddha had no intention to contradict >Upanisads.

He was against Vedic ritualism. Buddha did not approve of >Brhamanical supremacy

over the society. He denied blind traditions. >Buddha was a reformer and not a

revolutionary.

 

 

 

Vaibhavji, Take what I say below as just some frank personal statements, and not

necessarily what I think is the right standpoint of the sampradaya. I have

argued for the latter in the last few posts - and they are the same still.

 

 

 

My personal standpoint, and as I would like to think of Buddha, is exactly along

the lines you have mentioned above. It is quite a sentimental " Hindu " thing,

since my personal knowledge of Buddha or Buddhism is very little. You are

possibly more justified in your views than I would know.

 

 

 

In this formal " Pramana " question setting, however, I start with the Sruthi as

Pramana and to the extent the persona of Buddha (through his teachings or

through Buddhism that followed) represents its rejection, I reject " him " , as

being at most, partially representative of Truth and not dependable - hence best

taken for inspiration rather than full guidance. It is not at all a

person-thing; the rejection is really of the Nastika standpoint that negates my

Pramana of transcendental Knowledge - to not do so would mean that I am

considering the need for other Pramana (i.e. Buddha). Lip service or not, that

is the formal stand - and the name " Buddha " here represents only a standpoint.

 

 

 

*If* as you say Buddha really upheld the Upanishadic truths in a reformed

manner, then the possible points of difference become centered around the

karma-kAnda - where Shankara and other Vedantins have also separated themselves

from Purva Mimamsakas but in a re-interpretive manner rather than via a total

rejection. How inhibitive the rejective position in karma-kanda matters may be

in terms of guiding one to the final goal - I don't know, but it is tempting to

make light of them. Doing this, and reassessing Buddha's teachings based on our

Vedanta-pramana, we can probably look upon him as truly realized. Whatever the

Buddha stood for, the path of rejection led to the latter-day Buddhism which

consolidated explicitly the Nastika standpoints.

 

 

 

(As I argued with you before, I would find it much more difficult to grant the

same benefit-of-doubt to Nagarjuna and others. But with Buddha, his greater

'silence' in general gives us the room to do so, if a Vedantin should want to

save the Person from the traditions that followed him: this 'want' however is

not to be imposed on our sampradaya.)

 

 

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Putranm-ji wrote

 

Michaelji,

 

This is one reason why I am against the childish " undeniable " anointing of

saintly people (following other interpretations/pramanas) with " perfect

wisdom " , in the first place - other man's compass is naturally unreliable

for me if it is not the compass I am working with directly. So best I

leave it alone. If I want to anoint " perfect wisdom " , then I have to

indulge in childish rationalizations of making the compasses match

perfectly.

 

Well, the sampradaya may have many an esoteric claim including the one you

mentioned. In what sense is it fundamentalist, and how has its

fundamentalist history compared with that of Islam and Christianity? There

are local in-house issues, but the relationship with other religions has

been acceptant overall, far from mere verbal homage - and that carries

through to this day. When Shyamji said that we don't negate the worth of

other paths (including in our differences to other Vedic paths), he meant

it exactly like that, that is truth for us, no mere " homage " : can people

get that? No one can put Hinduism into the same blob of " fundamentalism "

that some other religions represent. There are inbuilt protective barriers

at every level.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Putranm-ji,

I agree the compasses do not have to be rectified by a central authority.

The road you're on will take you there. Wisdom is a matter of being and

not of knowledge. Fundamentalism arises out of a literal understanding of

the scriptures so that various scriptures come to be in conflict with each

other scientifically or factually. If you believe that the wisdom someone

has must have arisen out of a close contact with the Vedas in a previous

life or that the knowledge of the Vedas are an exclusive jumping off

point for enlightenment with the explicit understanding that the

twice-born are especially favoured then India holds all the mahatmas that

are near to this apotheosis. This, you will agree, would be a very odd

view of divine providence which is a point Sastri-ji made I think.

 

Can all positions be reconciled as positions? The answer to that must be

no, some positions are like the north and south poles of two magnets; they

repel each other. But I believe, and this would I think align with

Advaita, that all positions are sublated by formless wisdom.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

 

--

Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Guest guest]

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

>

> |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

>

> Namaste Putranm-ji,

> I agree the compasses do not have to be rectified by a central authority.

> The road you're on will take you there. Wisdom is a matter of being and

> not of knowledge. Fundamentalism arises out of a literal understanding of

> the scriptures so that various scriptures come to be in conflict with each

> other scientifically or factually. If you believe that the wisdom someone

> has must have arisen out of a close contact with the Vedas in a previous

> life or that the knowledge of the Vedas are an exclusive jumping off

> point for enlightenment with the explicit understanding that the

> twice-born are especially favoured then India holds all the mahatmas that

> are near to this apotheosis. This, you will agree, would be a very odd

> view of divine providence which is a point Sastri-ji made I think.

>

 

Michaelji, I am fine with your general assessment. But fundamentalism cannot be

put into a rigid equation. Just because a religion holds a certain

scripture-bound viewpoint does not make it prone to fundamentalism. One has to

see how and where the followers stress different elements - very often, it is as

much a " formal " mechanism that simply avoids unnecessary conflict and creates a

bridge between differing parties. Its role ends there. You said " childish

rationalizations can mutate into fund... " - here the serious part is the

mutation which involves several human parameters apart from the childish

rationalizations.

 

Take our " avataara " theory. This is ancient in Hinduism; Shankara also is

referred to as avataara of Shiva. If we isolate that idea by itself and refer to

parallel ones in some personality-based religions, we can possibly conclude that

it will generate a parallel fundamentalism, whenever we see a member mention it.

But note how it is stressed within this sampradaya; the orthodox will never deny

his divinity and yet the sampradaya is internally shielded from the excesses of

such assumption. Compare the same in many modern " Hindu " groups to look for the

mutative processes.

 

You may say that the bridge created tends to picture the Vedas as the necessary

ticket for Knowledge. Consider the role of this assumption. It validates

(through the reincarnation theory) the possibility of others not in India or

following Vedas now to have attained supreme wisdom; this is the important gain.

The orthodox Hindu does not accept other pramana for perfect Self-Knowledge. If

he should give the certificate of Knowledge to others, he adds that someway or

other they must have had access to the same Pramana.

 

Now what exactly is this way of access? This is a tough question which will lead

to all sorts of issues. If I read in Tolle's book some equivalent of Advaita,

have I not had some indirect access to the Vedic Knowledge? Is it sufficient is

another question. Moreover, if you read Sadaji's recent post, he mentions that

by Vedas, we don't necessarily mean a body of words but what is eternal truths

that were revealed to the rishis - this is another approach which may seem more

rational and may accomodate for others elsewhere to have attained wisdom. But

again: the orthodox cannot give that certificate (except in a *generic

unverifiable* sense) as their " indirect " path to Truth (nor their supposed

wisdom from such paths) is not what we know to be valid for sure. So either we

leave the question to God's business, or find give some room for " childish

rationalization " . But we are clear, that all these paths have inherent validity

and the progress to Truth is there for all: the reincarnation theory has to be

seen in a wholesome sense eliminating which often gives a bad-face for the

orthodox.

 

(For instance: Think of the idea: we are jivas running around from beginningless

time but demanding a " formal " pass for Moksha right away, no matter what we are

doing. Rather just accept where we are and move from there in a sincere manner -

it will lead us towards liberation, perhaps not in this embodiment, so what? why

limit the Self to that? ETC. We are stressing at the wrong places and needing

the Vedas as our scapegoat - we do essentially what we claim the Veda is doing.)

 

Well, that's my attempt at some rational explanation. But your point is ok.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Dear Rajkumar-ji,

 

Your mail (and also Vaibhav-ji's) ably supplements and supports Peterji's

explanations here earlier.

 

You quoted:

____________

 

" When views of " I " and " Mine " are extinguished

> Whether with respect to the internal or external

> The appropriator ceases

> This having ceased, birth ceases "

> - mUlamAdhyamikakArika:Chapter 18- Examination of Self and >Entities

____________

 

What more has an Advaitin to look for if he is prepared to ignore the label tag?

 

IMHO, Advaita also doesn't make any 'positive' assertions as you point out. The

quotes from your mail below resonate well with Mandukya.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " rajkumarknair " <rajkumarknair wrote:

 

> This is my understanding regarding the madhyamikan methodology.

.......

> Advaita makes positive assertions about the Self-nature as

> Sat-Chit-Ananda. (Eternal-Knowledge-Bliss).

> Madhyamika avoids making any positive assertion about reality or

> self-nature:

>

> " Having passed into nirvAna, the Victorious Conqueror

> Is neither said to be existent

> Nor said to be non-existent

> Neither both nor neither are said.

>

> So when the victorious one abides, he

> Is neither said to be existent

> Nor said to be non-existent.

> Neither both nor neither are said. "

> - mUlamAdhyamikakArika : Chapter 25 - Examination of Nirvana

[Guest guest]

praNAms

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

" When views of " I " and " Mine " are extinguished

> Whether with respect to the internal or external

> The appropriator ceases

> This having ceased, birth ceases "

> - mUlamAdhyamikakArika:Chapter 18- Examination of Self and >Entities

____________

 

What more has an Advaitin to look for if he is prepared to ignore the label

tag?

 

 

> Yes, sounds similar to advaita's assertions!! But I think advaita

vedanta invariably maintains that these cessations are based on ONE truth

and that truth cannot be terminated & is ever existing one..I donot know

what mAdhyamika says about this ever existing & intuitively perceivable

conspicuous truth!!

 

IMHO, Advaita also doesn't make any 'positive' assertions as you point out.

The quotes from your mail below resonate well with Mandukya.

 

 

> again, this reminds me gaudapAda kArika, though we, the advaitins, donot

want to positively describe the Atman, we conclusively say the Atman is the

very nature of him who affirms, denies, doubts or takes an alternative

views. It (advaita) denies everything yes!! but not one's own featureless

nature. GaudapAda kArika 4-83 & 84 clarifies this stand of advaita beyond

any doubt...But again I donot know what would be the stand of mAdhyamika

kArika with regard to this ever glowing truth of Atman.

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hari OM~

 

Shri Sada ji, Pranams,

 

 

 

Religions and thoughts are nodal psychical entities that act as an

instrument for deriving the fundamental experience of Reality. These nodal

entities, beyond doubt, innately exist in every human mind, which stimulates

the formation of convictions and opinions set to articulate the fluid

expressions that are ephemeral in nature. These expressions mediated by

metaphysical investigations shall solidify different images and impressions

regarding the world, its perspectives etc while the same gets fermented in

the very cultural situatedness in which they stand. I believe this to be

the basic process of schematizing the human thought process according to

one’s own historio-cultural background.

 

 

 

Here any critical dissolution of metaphysical concepts must first endevor to

endure the rudimentary elements of pre-suppositions that help to reckon and

re-discover one’s own vital inventions about conceiving the ‘Reality’. The

pluralistic human predicament involves rigourous rehersal in recognizing the

conviviality and coexistence of different cultures in different horizons

that no single culture, religion or tradition has any right to ‘patenize’

any pattern of thought in the name of comparison, coherence or

correspondence. The very pattern of philosophy that arises from different

traditions inseperably exists in blend with its own origin interms of

culture, soil and practice. Let us not crave to cease these lines of thought

from its identities for our sake of convincing self-convictions. Instant

integration of different versions of revelations that exist in different

frequencies, intensities of realizations into single notions is a desperate

attempt to demarginalize respective rational identities within human

capacity. Continental revelation cannot be made coercive in Oriental

conceptions for they differ not only by region but in their respective

cosmotheandric apprehensions. Labelling subjective experiences of

revelations in generic terms such as ‘Advaitic experience’ to all proximate

postulations sounds crude, raw and barbaric at times. Sankara did not call

Buddha’s version of Nirvana as ‘Advaitic experience’ even though we have

Sruti references like ‘Nirvana-anusasanam’. Madhusudhana Sarasvati never

called ‘Caitanya Prabhu’s bhakti’ as ‘Advaitic experience’ even though we

define ‘Bhakti as Paramartha jnana laksanam’. Why then call some European

Christology as ‘Advaitic Experience’? Do we have any rights to do so? Let us

not engage in crystallizing diverse experiences rather partake in

‘in’cultural interactions to imbibe the quality of acknowledging

mutli-valent philosophical appositions.

 

 

 

Vedas are Pramana-s not because they declare truth independent of

personality. Vedas are certainly region specific and people particular.

Subjective spiritual expressions and experiences can never be morphed upon

one another since our respective masters will never endorse such attempts

nor did they prescribe such a practice by name. Based on concrete historical

situations, indigenous cultural horizons should never be diluted in name of

comparison or convenience. There can never be a Universal religion while the

unity among religions must never be misused. May we appraise and appreciate

‘Philosophical Privacy’ which alone is sacred and secure.

 

 

 

With Narayana Smrti,

 

Devanathan.J

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

The talk in few earlier posts has centred to whether the advaitins give a

positive assertion about the Self or not. I would like to draw the attention of

reader to Sri Sankara's commentary on Aitreya Upanisad 2.1 which says:

........... and equally erroneous is to fancy such ideas about Self as 'is' and

'is not', with regard to the eternal unconditioned vision of that Entity in

which all variations of speech and mind gets unified....... any desire to fancy

that it exists or does not exist, that it is one or many, that It has attributes

or has not, that It knows or does not know, that it is active or not ...... that

it has a seed or is seedles, it is inside or outside, that it is void or

not...... that man may roll up the sky like leather to ascend there with his

feet like a staircase. (Pg 51 of Swami Gambhirananda's Translation) The Kena

Upanisad 1.4 says that Brahman is above both, the known and the unknown. The

reference to Gaudapada's Karika has been made earlier.

 

Why do Upanisads describe Brhaman as Sat Chit Ananda? In Sri Sankara's

commentary on Taittirya Upanisad 2.1.1 He says: Brahman is not the agent of

cognition and hence cannot be denoted by the word knowledge. Still Brahman is

indicated by the word knowledge and not denoted by the word ...... as Brahman is

free from such things as class etc. Similarly the word Satya cannot denote

Brahman......(Pg 79, Swami Gambhirananda's Translation)

 

Upanisads describe Brahman to avoid the misunderstanding that when through the

process of neti neti all attributes are negated from Brahman, what remains is

not a non existent entity but something positive. Satya, Chit and Ananda are non

relational terms in this context. As Sri Sankara explains in His commentary on

the Brahma Sutras, that Brahman in not blissful (anandamaya) but bliss itself.

 

The Madhyamika prefers to speak about the Ultimate Reality by use of negatives

alone like it says that ultimate reality is neither existence nor non existence,

neither both existence and non existence, nor is it not existence and not non

existence both. These are called the four kotis or four extreme views. According

to the Madhyamika it is seizing or clinging to the relative as the absolute that

is the cause of suffering and bondage. The relative need not be abandoned, it is

our ignorance of the ultimate nature of the world that leads to our clinging to

the world. The Madhyamikas use the word Tathata to explain that the

unconditioned reality is not exclusive of the relative but acts as the ground of

the relative. All relative entities in their Ultimate Nature are the

Unconditioned Reality itself. Compare the following passage from Nagarjuna's

Maha Prajna Paramita Sastra:

The Ultimate Nature of Subhuti (a disciple) is the same as the Ultimate Nature

of Buddha. The Ultimate Nature of the Tathagata is neither going nor coming. The

Ultimately true nature of Subhuti is also neither coming nor going. .........

The ultimately true nature of all things is the same as the ultimately true

nature of the Tathagata. .............. The ultimate true nature of Tathagata

and the ultimate true nature of all things are in truth one reality, not two,

not divided. This ultimate reality is unmade, it will never be other than what

always is . It is therefore this ultimate reality is not two, not divided.

Take note of the following quotations:

 

1. The Ultimate Truth cannot be taught except in the context of mundane truth,

and unless the ultimate truth is not cognized, nirvana cannot be realized.

(Madhyamika Karika 24:10)

 

2. The Ultimate Truth is not any view. (25:24)

 

3. The non dual nature of rupa is not rupa. All the rupa that there is , all

this is in the truth the one, undivided, ultimate reality which neither gathers

nor scatters, is devoid of colour, devoid of shape, it is all of one nature

which is being of no particluar nature. (Maha Prajna parimata Sastra)

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> praNAms

>

>

> Hare Krishna

>

>

> " When views of " I " and " Mine " are extinguished

> > Whether with respect to the internal or external

> > The appropriator ceases

> > This having ceased, birth ceases "

> > - mUlamAdhyamikakArika:Chapter 18- Examination of Self and >Entities

> ____________

>

> What more has an Advaitin to look for if he is prepared to ignore the label

> tag?

>

>

> > Yes, sounds similar to advaita's assertions!! But I think advaita

> vedanta invariably maintains that these cessations are based on ONE truth

> and that truth cannot be terminated & is ever existing one..I donot know

> what mAdhyamika says about this ever existing & intuitively perceivable

> conspicuous truth!!

>

> IMHO, Advaita also doesn't make any 'positive' assertions as you point out.

> The quotes from your mail below resonate well with Mandukya.

>

>

> > again, this reminds me gaudapAda kArika, though we, the advaitins, donot

> want to positively describe the Atman, we conclusively say the Atman is the

> very nature of him who affirms, denies, doubts or takes an alternative

> views. It (advaita) denies everything yes!! but not one's own featureless

> nature. GaudapAda kArika 4-83 & 84 clarifies this stand of advaita beyond

> any doubt...But again I donot know what would be the stand of mAdhyamika

> kArika with regard to this ever glowing truth of Atman.

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair

wrote:

>

 

>

> What more has an Advaitin to look for if he is prepared to ignore the label

tag?

>

> IMHO, Advaita also doesn't make any 'positive' assertions as you

> point out. The quotes from your mail below resonate well with

> Mandukya.

>

 

Well, what I meant was that Advaita does assert a positively

existent principle called Brahman, and equate individual-self as

well as the world with that Brahman . On the other hand, Madhyamika

does a negative deconstruction of the individual-self without

resorting to any concept of a positive substratum behind that self.

The end-result, of course, will be the same - freedom from wrong

self-notions.

 

Many of the dialectics used by Gaudapada in Mandyukya karika have

their origin in madhyamika karika. There surely has been lot of

give-and-take between the two philosophic schools.

 

 

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

 

Regards,

Raj.

[Guest guest]

praNAms Sri vaibhava prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

 

 

1. The Ultimate Truth cannot be taught except in the context of mundane

truth,

and unless the ultimate truth is not cognized, nirvana cannot be realized.

(Madhyamika Karika 24:10)

 

2. The Ultimate Truth is not any view. (25:24)

 

 

> But it is not clear from the above quotes what exactly the nature of

this ultimate truth that Nagarjuna speaking here?? has he anywhere else

prabhuji?? Yes, vedanta also says ultimate truth is not any view, but at

the same time it categorically says there exists a truth forever which is

beyond the reach of speech & mind..Has Nagarjuna acknowledged this truth

anywhere prabhuji?? I hope he does not call this 'ultimate truth' as

'shunya' and negation of the phenomenal world ends in shunyata in

Nagarjuna's siddhAnta..shankara says in sUtra bhAshya that conventional

notion in ordinary life (vyAvahArika) satya cannot be denied so long as we

donot know something else as real...Unless & untill you realize that

'vishishTa satya' the 'sAmAnya satya' survives...So, as you know, shankara

gives an ever existing status to this vishishta satya while negating the

satyatva of phenomenal world...

 

 

Kindly pardon me, without knowing an iota of buddhistic doctrine I am

dragging this dialogue..

 

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

 

 

bhaskar

 

 

[Guest guest]

bhaskarji,

I feel you did not read the quotation I gave of Maha Prajna Paramita

Sastra just preceding these few quotes. Anyways Madhyamikas have many names for

the ultimate reality

 

depending on the context they are spoken. Take note of the following:

1. Advaya Dharma: means The Undivided Being

2. Tathata: refers the immanence of the unconditioned in the conditioned.

3. Dharmakaya: Lord Buddha liked the concept of refering to the ultimate reality

as eternal righteouness or dharma. This has been pointed out by Rabindranath

Tagore. Dharmakaya means the absolute.

4. Dharmadhatu: This refers to the ultimate reality as the essence of the

conditioned world.

5. Bhutakoti: This refers to the realization that all things in their esential

nature are ultimate reality.

 

These are not basically different names of one reality. Like we call the

absolute as Brahman and yet describe it as the Truth Of The Truth. Similar is

the case here. The only difference is they are many a times used interchangeably

but in the right context of it.

 

Also consider a few quotes from the Maha Prajna Paramita Sastra:

 

a) The tathata is in all. It is in the Buddha, it also is in the boddhisattva,

for it is one, undivided. Apart from tathata there is nothing and devoid of

tathata there is nothing. There is no doubt that even in beasts there is

tathata.

 

b) Through tathata the mind settles in its orignal nature and rests there free

from birth and death.

 

c) The ultimate truth should not be concieved as either divided or undivided;

either as existent or as non existent.

 

d) The ultimate nature of all forms is one reality, not two, not divided.

 

e) The ultimate reality is what I call purity. It is unchanging, the not

false.This is mentioned only in mundane truth for the ultimate nature transcends

all definitions and descriptions, transcends all comments and disputations,

transcends all worlds.

 

Speaking of Brahman in positive terms is a concession to the religious minded.

We cannot distinguish Brahman as a thing and point out that it is this and is of

such and such nature with such and such attributes. This is the theistic

conception. The highest teaching is neti neti, not this, not this. Nagarjuna

does not describe the ultimate truth in positive terms, probably this is the

reason that he has been misunderstood by so many people as a nihilist. On the

other hand the Vaisanavas take the positive descriptions as ultimate and imagine

God as having a body and attributes.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

>

>

> praNAms Sri vaibhava prabhuji

> Hare Krishna

>

>

>

> 1. The Ultimate Truth cannot be taught except in the context of mundane

> truth,

> and unless the ultimate truth is not cognized, nirvana cannot be realized.

> (Madhyamika Karika 24:10)

>

> 2. The Ultimate Truth is not any view. (25:24)

>

>

> > But it is not clear from the above quotes what exactly the nature of

> this ultimate truth that Nagarjuna speaking here?? has he anywhere else

> prabhuji?? Yes, vedanta also says ultimate truth is not any view, but at

> the same time it categorically says there exists a truth forever which is

> beyond the reach of speech & mind..Has Nagarjuna acknowledged this truth

> anywhere prabhuji?? I hope he does not call this 'ultimate truth' as

> 'shunya' and negation of the phenomenal world ends in shunyata in

> Nagarjuna's siddhAnta..shankara says in sUtra bhAshya that conventional

> notion in ordinary life (vyAvahArika) satya cannot be denied so long as we

> donot know something else as real...Unless & untill you realize that

> 'vishishTa satya' the 'sAmAnya satya' survives...So, as you know, shankara

> gives an ever existing status to this vishishta satya while negating the

> satyatva of phenomenal world...

>

>

> Kindly pardon me, without knowing an iota of buddhistic doctrine I am

> dragging this dialogue..

>

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

>

>

> bhaskar

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr wrote:

> Yes, vedanta also says ultimate truth is not any view, but at

> the same time it categorically says there exists a truth forever which is

> beyond the reach of speech & mind..Has Nagarjuna acknowledged this truth

> anywhere prabhuji?? I hope he does not call this 'ultimate truth' as

> 'shunya' and negation of the phenomenal world ends in shunyata in

> Nagarjuna's siddhAnta..shankara says in sUtra bhAshya that conventional

> notion in ordinary life (vyAvahArika) satya cannot be denied so long as we

> donot know something else as real...Unless & untill you realize that

> 'vishishTa satya' the 'sAmAnya satya' survives...So, as you know, shankara

> gives an ever existing status to this vishishta satya while negating the

> satyatva of phenomenal world...

>

>

 

 

For part of the answer, Vaibhavji had said before that Nagarjuna refers to

" asunyata " but avoids going into it further.

 

This discussion had happened before in its historical context, where Vaibhavji

asserted that Nagarjuna and Buddha were not aware of the Upanishads, etc, and I

questioned this (and still do; I think even many Buddhists would accept that

Chandogya Up. was probably known, except such would think Nagarjuna was actually

contradicting the Upanishads). I had also given the link for some views of

modern Rangtong Buddhists who seriously challenge this type of interpretation of

Buddha, Nagarjuna, etc, one claiming explicitly that it would make their

philosophy non-different to the Hindu view. i.e. There are plenty of serious

Buddhists who are not quite in agreement with this, and they also read the same

things - easy to simply blame their bias, but the issue cannot be simply put

" Madhyamikas really said the same in essence " by quoting some " scattered " quotes

- there are other things that makes a wholesome analysis critical.

 

See

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Ved%C3%A0ntavis%C3%A0visShentong/tabid/87/Default.asp\

x

 

and some other links there.

 

Vaibhavji mentioned before of some difference between asunyata and Brahman, but

said it is not that serious. I think Devanathanji mentioned that this sort of

glossing over differences is a serious issue (if our goal is really true

realization).

 

 

thollemelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

putranji,

there is a slight difference in our understanding of the historical

context of Nagarjuna and Buddha. I reiterate my point that Buddha did not feel

he was going against the Upanisads which is the reason he calls his teachings as

Arya Dharma. I also pointed out that there was no systematic school of Advaita

at that time expounding the teachings of Upanisads. Otherwise why would

Nagarjuna refute Sankhyas, Vaiseskikas and Naiyayikas and leave Advaita. I also

pointed out that due to the influence of Purva Mimamsakas in those times the

karma kanda of Vedas was taken as more authorotative than the jnana kanda till

Sri Sankara checked this negative tendency. To point out the unity of these two

systems I have pointed out similar passages from Nagarjuna's works and the

Upanisads and also from the commentaries of Sri Sankara on the latter. The

difference I showed between asunyata and Brahman is that the latter is called

self luminous, direct and immediate. This difference actually has been pointed

out by S. Dasgupta in his " History of Indian Philosophy Vol. 2 " but I said that

this is just a difference in terminology which is natural to differ. I also

pointed out the inadequacy of difining the term 'astika'. It was your personal

opinion that mere lip service to Vedas is enough even if they do not endorse the

Upanisadic view. To prove my point I have given a few 'scattered quotes' but you

have not given even these to prove your point. I pointed similarity with the

teachings of Yoga Vashisth which was dismissed as mere smriti. You cannot expect

me to write a book on this topic now. But for someone seriously interested I

gave references of S. Radhakrishan's Indian Philosophy Vol.1. But it seems there

is hardly any interest to search for the truth by oneself as it is easier to

cling to your orthodox ideas, unsubstantial though they may be.Now, inspite of

all this what less have I done to prove my point.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr@> wrote:

> > Yes, vedanta also says ultimate truth is not any view, but at

> > the same time it categorically says there exists a truth forever which is

> > beyond the reach of speech & mind..Has Nagarjuna acknowledged this truth

> > anywhere prabhuji?? I hope he does not call this 'ultimate truth' as

> > 'shunya' and negation of the phenomenal world ends in shunyata in

> > Nagarjuna's siddhAnta..shankara says in sUtra bhAshya that conventional

> > notion in ordinary life (vyAvahArika) satya cannot be denied so long as we

> > donot know something else as real...Unless & untill you realize that

> > 'vishishTa satya' the 'sAmAnya satya' survives...So, as you know, shankara

> > gives an ever existing status to this vishishta satya while negating the

> > satyatva of phenomenal world...

> >

> >

>

>

> For part of the answer, Vaibhavji had said before that Nagarjuna refers to

" asunyata " but avoids going into it further.

>

> This discussion had happened before in its historical context, where Vaibhavji

asserted that Nagarjuna and Buddha were not aware of the Upanishads, etc, and I

questioned this (and still do; I think even many Buddhists would accept that

Chandogya Up. was probably known, except such would think Nagarjuna was actually

contradicting the Upanishads). I had also given the link for some views of

modern Rangtong Buddhists who seriously challenge this type of interpretation of

Buddha, Nagarjuna, etc, one claiming explicitly that it would make their

philosophy non-different to the Hindu view. i.e. There are plenty of serious

Buddhists who are not quite in agreement with this, and they also read the same

things - easy to simply blame their bias, but the issue cannot be simply put

" Madhyamikas really said the same in essence " by quoting some " scattered " quotes

- there are other things that makes a wholesome analysis critical.

>

> See

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Ved%C3%A0ntavis%C3%A0visShentong/tabid/87/Default.asp\

x

>

> and some other links there.

>

> Vaibhavji mentioned before of some difference between asunyata and Brahman,

but said it is not that serious. I think Devanathanji mentioned that this sort

of glossing over differences is a serious issue (if our goal is really true

realization).

>

>

> thollemelukaalkizhu

>

[Guest guest]

Devanathanji - PraNAms

 

I find some contradictions in the statements you made below.

 

Without going into detail, Truth is not subjective spiritual experience - it is

understanding and not an experience that is subjective but understanding that

the subject, the conscious entity, because of which one is conscious of

everything else including Vedanta, is alone the substantive of the

subject-object duality. That part has nothing to do with desha, kaala or vastu

parichinnatvam as your statements seems to imply. Hence I never question

somebody’s experiences. The knowledge or the truth that I am pure

existence-consciousness is independent of desha kaala and vastu - as satyam - as

explained in Tai Up statement which Shree viabhavji in his excellent

presentation alluded to. I am just reminded of the sloka I studied in

VevekachUDAmaNi - just typing from memory that is fading.

 

jaati niiti kula gotra duuragam

naama ruupa guNa dosha varjitam

desha kaala vishayaati vartiyat

brahmatavtvamasi bhaava yaatmani||

 

One has to recognize in one's own mind that Brahman which is beyond genus, moral

code, lineage, name, form, attributes, beyond the time, space and object

limitations.

 

That you are the truth is absolute and does not depend on any philosophical

doctrines or sampradaayaas and that I must say is absolutely scientific and does

not depend on anything else and that is even beyond Vedas too! since I have to

be there even to appreciate science or science of Vedanta. That is the truth

that Vedas point out as knowledge of which as Ti. up -says brahmavidaapnoti

praram. Hence it is nothing to do eastern or western deshaas as the very nature

of the truth demand. We are not discussing any experience here since it is

braamaatmaiktva bodhena mokshaH siddhati na anyathaa - the knowledge of the

identity of jiiva and Brahman is the one that delivers one - which is not an

experience but knowledge of the experience of adviata anubhava.

 

Anyway I have made the point that need to be made.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

 

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, Antharyami <sathvatha wrote:

 

>

> Vedas are Pramana-s not because they declare truth

> independent of

> personality. Vedas are certainly region specific and people

> particular.

> Subjective spiritual expressions and experiences can never

> be morphed upon

> one another since our respective masters will never endorse

> such attempts

> nor did they prescribe such a practice by name. Based on

> concrete historical

> situations, indigenous cultural horizons should never be

> diluted in name of

> comparison or convenience. There can never be a Universal

> religion while the

> unity among religions must never be misused. May we

> appraise and appreciate

> ‘Philosophical Privacy’ which alone is sacred and

> secure.

>

>

>

> With Narayana Smrti,

>

> Devanathan.J

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21

wrote:

>

> putranji,

> there is a slight difference in our understanding of the historical

context of Nagarjuna and Buddha. I reiterate my point that Buddha did not feel

he was going against the Upanisads which is the reason he calls his teachings as

Arya Dharma. I also pointed out that there was no systematic school of Advaita

at that time expounding the teachings of Upanisads. Otherwise why would

Nagarjuna refute Sankhyas, Vaiseskikas and Naiyayikas and leave Advaita. I also

pointed out that due to the influence of Purva Mimamsakas in those times the

karma kanda of Vedas was taken as more authorotative than the jnana kanda till

Sri Sankara checked this negative tendency. >

>

>

 

 

Sheesh, what a beating!! Definitely however, I will be a lip-servist here and

don't take your attempts at finding this equivalence too seriously - unless

there is some historical subordination:)!! You may also give a proper refutal of

that Buddhist in my link, since that is my one good secondary reference. They

have their own ideas of history of Shentong, etc. - not to mention, they know S.

Radhakrishnan as representing this theorizing of history and of viewpoints.

 

Anyway as to this history, let me refer to your post 45351 where you state among

other things: " Now coming to whether Nagarjuna accepted the Brahman of Upanisads

or not? Nagarjuna obviously did not study these texts. Moreover the concept of

Brahman as we know it was developed by Sankara. " So we should understand the

thought that he or Buddha did not " intend to contradict the Upanishads " as also

including the assumption that they had never even studied the texts. A bit

curious; and here, we are on differing teams - of course, I am without proof, as

usual.

 

The latter statement on Shankara having developed the concept of Brahman was

challenged by several people here. An incisive mind like Nagarjuna's or Buddha's

ought to have caught the gist of advaita written all over Up. should they have

known/heard the gist of the Upanishads i.e. Mahavakyas and famous portions of

Brihad. UP, Chand. UP., etc. They don't have to refute a separate school; the

issue becomes whether they sought to negate the essence of Brahman, or give an

interpretation of it without acknowledging it directly. This is again

conveniently avoided by assuming they never had studied/known the Up in the

first place, and concluding as you say " Nagarjuna did not adopt anything from

Upanisads rather he rejected the authority of the Vedas but still depending on

the teachings of Buddha he came to a conclusion strikingly similar to that of

Sankara, but his orignal teaching was lost to Sankara. "

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

putranji,

can you explain to me why Nagarjuna does not quote a single verse from

the Upanisads? Whether Nagarjuna would have accepted the theory of Sri Sankara

or not is a purely speculative question. I pointed out earlier the prominence of

the karma kanda of the Vedas over the jnana kanda in the mind of people of those

times. I mentioned that Buddha was against Vedic ritualism. You probably mean to

say why Buddha did not write a Bhashya over the Upanisads and for the absence of

such literature we should hold Buddha to be nastika, in a context where you

cannot even define who is a nastika or not. As for evidence Soe Holmes in his

'Creed of Buddha' says that: It was Buddha's mission to accept the teachings of

Upanisads at its best and make it available for the daily needs of mankind. Max

Muller says: 'Many doctrines of Upanisads are indeed pure Buddhism'. Then you

said after quoting me:

Nagarjuna obviously did not study these texts. Moreover the concept of Brahman

as we know it was developed by Sankara. " So we should understand the thought

that he or Buddha did not " intend to contradict the Upanishads " as also

including the assumption that they had never even studied the texts. A bit

curious; and here, we are on differing teams - of course, I am without proof, as

usual.

 

Do you have one single evidence to prove that Buddha wanted to denounce the

authority of Vedas? Do you have a single peice of evidence that the philosophy

of Nagarjuna contradicts the Upanisads?

Uptill now you have presented none.

 

The buddhists do not pay lip service to the Vedas but unfortunately mutual

antagonism drew a line between the two.

 

I have also clarified that it was Sri Sankara who revived the teachings of

Upanisads and thus I had said that the concept of Brahman as we know today was

developed by Sankara, since Sankhyas, Vaisesikas and Purva Mimamsas were

ignorant of it. Here again can you explain me that when Kumarila was building

his metaphysics why did he not find a need to quote the authority of the

Upanisads. He prepared a philosophy to suit the karma kanda of the Vedas.

 

But yea atleast he said the Vedas are authorotative. So what if one realizes

Brahman but tries to expalin it with his own method which turns out to be

complementing the Vedas, we want only people to say 'the Upanisads are great'

follow it or not, we do not care. After all that satisfies our egos, makes us

feel inflated with pride. Sri Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda, Sri

Ramakrishna Paramhansa all believed that Buddha did not contradict the Upanisads

but their words are not Sruti, why believe them?

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@> wrote:

> >

> > putranji,

> > there is a slight difference in our understanding of the

historical context of Nagarjuna and Buddha. I reiterate my point that Buddha did

not feel he was going against the Upanisads which is the reason he calls his

teachings as Arya Dharma. I also pointed out that there was no systematic school

of Advaita at that time expounding the teachings of Upanisads. Otherwise why

would Nagarjuna refute Sankhyas, Vaiseskikas and Naiyayikas and leave Advaita. I

also pointed out that due to the influence of Purva Mimamsakas in those times

the karma kanda of Vedas was taken as more authorotative than the jnana kanda

till Sri Sankara checked this negative tendency. >

> >

> >

>

>

> Sheesh, what a beating!! Definitely however, I will be a lip-servist here and

don't take your attempts at finding this equivalence too seriously - unless

there is some historical subordination:)!! You may also give a proper refutal of

that Buddhist in my link, since that is my one good secondary reference. They

have their own ideas of history of Shentong, etc. - not to mention, they know S.

Radhakrishnan as representing this theorizing of history and of viewpoints.

>

> Anyway as to this history, let me refer to your post 45351 where you state

among other things: " Now coming to whether Nagarjuna accepted the Brahman of

Upanisads or not? Nagarjuna obviously did not study these texts. Moreover the

concept of Brahman as we know it was developed by Sankara. " So we should

understand the thought that he or Buddha did not " intend to contradict the

Upanishads " as also including the assumption that they had never even studied

the texts. A bit curious; and here, we are on differing teams - of course, I am

without proof, as usual.

>

> The latter statement on Shankara having developed the concept of Brahman was

challenged by several people here. An incisive mind like Nagarjuna's or Buddha's

ought to have caught the gist of advaita written all over Up. should they have

known/heard the gist of the Upanishads i.e. Mahavakyas and famous portions of

Brihad. UP, Chand. UP., etc. They don't have to refute a separate school; the

issue becomes whether they sought to negate the essence of Brahman, or give an

interpretation of it without acknowledging it directly. This is again

conveniently avoided by assuming they never had studied/known the Up in the

first place, and concluding as you say " Nagarjuna did not adopt anything from

Upanisads rather he rejected the authority of the Vedas but still depending on

the teachings of Buddha he came to a conclusion strikingly similar to that of

Sankara, but his orignal teaching was lost to Sankara. "

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21

wrote:

>

> putranji,

> can you explain to me why Nagarjuna does not quote a single verse

from the Upanisads? Whether Nagarjuna would have accepted the theory of Sri

Sankara or not is a purely speculative question. I pointed out earlier the

prominence of the karma kanda of the Vedas over the jnana kanda in the mind of

people of those times. I mentioned that Buddha was against Vedic ritualism. You

probably mean to say why Buddha did not write a Bhashya over the Upanisads and

for the absence of such literature we should hold Buddha to be nastika, in a

context where you cannot even define who is a nastika or not. As for evidence

Soe Holmes in his 'Creed of Buddha' says that: It was Buddha's mission to accept

the teachings of Upanisads at its best and make it available for the daily needs

of mankind. Max Muller says: 'Many doctrines of Upanisads are indeed pure

Buddhism'. Then you said after quoting me:

>

> Do you have one single evidence to prove that Buddha wanted to denounce the

authority of Vedas? Do you have a single peice of evidence that the philosophy

of Nagarjuna contradicts the Upanisads?

> Uptill now you have presented none.

>

 

Vaibhavji, there are plenty of people who have studied these things and come to

likewise conclusions. I provided a link of that Buddhist. Apparently your

interpretation of Nagarjuna's philosophy is not the same as that of a majority

of Buddhists - who you would dismiss right away as being biased. And we have to

take your views on the same " evidence " as correct and theirs as wrong. Nice.

 

And for your evidence, you have given the opinions of Holmes, Muller,

Radhakrishnan; and all the other Buddhists who deny their interpretation are

biased. Very Nice.

 

Your clarifications are your opinions which you seem thoroughly free to assert

as absolute truths. That Buddha did not denounce Vedic authority (I hope, here

you mean with regard to Jnana kanda), that because Nagarjuna did not directly

quote Up. is to imply that even by his time, a scholar of his stature in India

did not study the Upanishads - the foundation of the major living school of

thought. Very Very Nice.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

 

>

> But yea atleast he said the Vedas are authorotative. So what if one realizes

Brahman but tries to expalin it with his own method which turns out to be

complementing the Vedas, we want only people to say 'the Upanisads are great'

follow it or not, we do not care. After all that satisfies our egos, makes us

feel inflated with pride. Sri Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda, Sri

Ramakrishna Paramhansa all believed that Buddha did not contradict the Upanisads

but their words are not Sruti, why believe them?

>

> REGARDS,

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> a scholar of his stature in India did not study the Upanishads - the

foundation of the major living school of thought. Very Very Nice.

>

>

 

Actually for this specific ending of mine, the argument was already made by

Vaibhavji that the Jnana Kanda was not emphasized at those times, by the

majority of schools. Whether we should believe that Buddha or Nagarjuna was

unaware of Upanishadic thought is for us to decide. It is a weak link - in my

opinion.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

>

[Guest guest]

sorry putranji,

I cannot alter historical facts for you, I would have loved to

but I just can't.

 

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> > a scholar of his stature in India did not study the Upanishads - the

foundation of the major living school of thought. Very Very Nice.

> >

> >

>

> Actually for this specific ending of mine, the argument was already made by

Vaibhavji that the Jnana Kanda was not emphasized at those times, by the

majority of schools. Whether we should believe that Buddha or Nagarjuna was

unaware of Upanishadic thought is for us to decide. It is a weak link - in my

opinion.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

> >

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21

wrote:

>

> sorry putranji,

> I cannot alter historical facts for you, I would have loved to

but I just can't.

>

> REGARDS,

> VAIBHAV.

 

Funny, how sure you seem to be --- like some indologists.

 

(Sorry to others; am doing this contesting in the midst of guests from last

night and for the next 4 days - already looking embarassing how I am hooked onto

this. Otherwise perhaps at least in the " empty " part of the contesting, I could

have done something better than in the past couple of posts:-))

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

>

>

>

>

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> >

> > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> > > a scholar of his stature in India did not study the Upanishads - the

foundation of the major living school of thought. Very Very Nice.

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Actually for this specific ending of mine, the argument was already made by

Vaibhavji that the Jnana Kanda was not emphasized at those times, by the

majority of schools. Whether we should believe that Buddha or Nagarjuna was

unaware of Upanishadic thought is for us to decide. It is a weak link - in my

opinion.

> >

> > thollmelukaalkizhu

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste all concerned.

 

IMHO, Vaibhavji and others, like Peterji and Rajkumarji, have explained matters

very lucidly in an inimitable manner. At least to me, their stand is very very

clear and if that helps to clear up the unfortunate muddied waters between

Advaita and Buddhism, I will be the happist person.

 

Let us not remain insular islands when the clarion call of Advaita, by which we

all profess so unabashedly, is to go universal, last night's guests and the

programme for the next four days of anybody notwithstanding.

 

This is my humble view. I would not like to debate on it any further.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@> wrote:

> >

> > sorry putranji,

> > I cannot alter historical facts for you, I would have loved

to but I just can't.

> >

> > REGARDS,

> > VAIBHAV.

>

> Funny, how sure you seem to be --- like some indologists.

>

> (Sorry to others; am doing this contesting in the midst of guests from last

night and for the next 4 days - already looking embarassing how I am hooked onto

this. Otherwise perhaps at least in the " empty " part of the contesting, I could

have done something better than in the past couple of posts:-))

[Guest guest]

Pranams,

 

While I applaud these relentless attempts at finding common ground with VedAntA,

I think there is a tendency, ?deliberate?, to repeatedly gloss over some very

fundamental and glaring issues, including the following:

 

1.

The notion of Pratitya-samutpada(theory of dependent co-origination) and how it

differs from satkaryavada - with its concomitant logical flaws that alone in

fact leads these nihilists to conclude that emptiness is also not an Absolute

Existence from where other phenomena arise.

 

2.

The notion of nairatmyavada which at its core decries that all phenomena lack

the quality of inherent existence...sarve nissvabhavah...every thing is without

selfnature.

In contrast, according to VedAntA there is one Self that is Eternal, the

Ultimate Auspicious Absolute Reality. This Self - the jivAtma IS non-different

from the paramAtmA. The Self, the Atman, IS the basis for everything, and is

eternal.

Attribute IS identical with substance - Sat is Chit is Anantam IS brahman -Such

a view is untenable with Nagarjuna's stated views that the Atman is nonexistent

- i.e. the Buddha nature is empty of Svabhava (real existence).

 

Contrast that with the Upanishads - That great, unborn Self is undecaying,

immortal, undying, fearless; It is Brahman. Brahman is indeed fearless. He who

knows It as such becomes the fearless Brahman - and with the MandukyA -

" ......in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging,

auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known. "

 

3.

The concept of MokshA (or NirvAna in your Buddhistic terminolgy) - in VedantA -

to know Brahman the Ultimate Reality IS MokshA - is attainment of this so-called

BuddhA nature considered liberation in your book? Are you able to explain the

concept of a bodhisattva using Vedantic parallels? Is liberation personal? If a

jivAtma gains the knowledge of the substratum, Brahman, does Buddhism in your

understanding consider him liberated? Is liberation the cessation of samsara? or

is it the gain of the Supreme?

 

4.

The concept of God or ParamAtma or Ishwara? You dismiss Ishwara as a " theistic

conception " . You base this on your own ignorance about theism, bhakti and

advaitA. Please explain how then your version of Buddism account for the world

of diversity? How is the One appearing as many?

 

In fact Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are diametrically opposed - in Advaita

Vedanta the Truth is Existence and Eternal. In Buddhism what is Eternal is

Change.

 

Let me also mention here your repetetive contention that BuddhA was only against

the ritualistic section of the VedAs it is untenable because the Buddha, as a

human has no authority whatsoever to accept or reject portions of the VedAs he

considered palatable or not. The VedAs being coeval with Creation are eternal -

so what is dharma and what is adharma is based on what the VedAs say - not what

based on what we as limited entities - limited both in space and time infer or

postulate. For example I get into a hotel and spot a man stabbing another in the

throat - i rush to save him and then realize its a movie scene being shot and am

promptly escorted out. My view of things in the here and now disables my ability

to judge anything in absolute terms.(See Shankara's arguments in BSB 3.1.25)

 

Please note that Krishna in the GitA condemns not the ritualism itself but those

who think of the rituals as being the sole end in itself. See the BG:Ch3

" All beings are born out of food,All food is born out of rain,

All rain is born out of sacrifices,And all sacrifices are born out of

actions.All actions are born out of Vedas,All Vedas are born out of perennial

God,And so the Vedas which are spread every where, Is based always on

sacrificial worship. "

 

The VedAs are like a benevolent Mother - you take her from her what you want,

and if what you want harms you, the very same Mother then nurtures you back and

rehabilitates you. It is like a

Son " Ma, I want to play with a knife "

Mother " No dont do that you will cut yourself "

Son " Ma, I really really want to play with a knife "

Mother " OK - here is the knife "

Son " Maaaaa......my finger is bleeding. "

Mother " Its going to be OK dear, let me get you some bandaid "

 

Now can another son disown the Mother? The VedAs - coeval with Creation -

encompass all of humanity - the tamasic and the sattvic, the asuric and the

daivi - everyone gets from the Holy Mother exactly what they want and hence

alone exactly what they deserve - in our tradition there is no Evil with a

parallel reality outside of Ishwara's order, ignorance being the Only real Evil.

 

The VedAs are svatah-pramanyam - they do not need any complementing.

 

 

I fully admit that my knowledge of Buddhism is limited - and many of my

arguments against it may stem from this fact - however this is a forum to

discuss *traditional* advaita, *as taught by Adi Shankara* - the views expressed

here are a mere re-affirmation of His views - there is neither chauvinsim nor

any egoistic claims of exclusivity here - it is what it is. Contextual

discussions are hence bound by AND limited to the paradigms of what

ShankarachAryA taught, to the best that we can understand and appreciate - at

least in my view.

 

Finally if after a million exertions you do conclude and convince yourself, that

the Atman of the Upanishads is indeed the Shunya of the Buddists, you could not

have made a bigger mockery of hundreds and thousands of Buddhist scholars

through the ages - indeed of the BuddhA himself - if in formulating and lending

shape and substance to a new philosophy (their claim, not ours), they all simply

reaffirmed an eternal Truth of the very VedAs they set out to decry.

 

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

 

The following article written by a Buddhist monk is very informative about these

points.

 

***

Madhyamaka Buddhism vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

A Paradigm Shift

by

Acarya Dharmavajra

(Mr. Sridhar Rana)

 

 

Many famous Hindu Indian scholars like Radhaкrishnan, Svami Vivekananda and

Nepalese scholars like Mr. Chudanath Bhattaraj, 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?

 

How 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 Svamis 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 Hindu. If the Buddha was really a

Hindu why did he not call himself the great Brahmin or Mahabrahman like the

great ksatriya Visvamitra? 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 Brahmana and

that Sramanism itself is 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 Sastras 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 in

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 begins 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 Sankara and Madhyamaka, whether be it the Svatantrika form of

Bhasya or Prasangika 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 Madhyamaka 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 (via positiva).

One uses negation and the other affirmation but the Sunyata 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 (duhkha) 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. nastika) and the denial

(without any implied affirmation) (Skt. prasajya pratisedha) 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 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 sunyata 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 Madhyamaka 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 Sankaracarya (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 Vedantic 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

Sunyata - 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 Sunyata

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 Sunyata

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 Madhyamaka

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 Madhyamaka 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 Madhyamaka Buddhism the meaning advaya (non-dualism)

cannot be like in Hinduism. The Madhyamaka 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 connotations 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 MulaMadhyamakakarika 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. Sunyata), Interdependent Origination (Skt. pratitya-samutpada) 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 Sunyata,

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

stated that the Brahman and Sunya 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 Sunyata 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 Sunyata is " dependant

origination " or nisvabhava (non real existence). The Tathagatarbha, Mahamudra,

Rigpa (Vidya) etc cannot also, empty but not nisvabhava. Such as definition of

Sunya (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

Sunyata. 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 Tathagatagarbha is 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 (Ahamkara, Tib. ngak dzin) which is what the Shentong logic

negates.

Another word that has confounded many Hindu Svamis is the unborn (skt.

ajata 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 not dependently

originated (pratitya-samutpanna) which is as already mentioned the meaning of a

nisvabhava (non real existence) or Sunyata. 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 sunyam 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 Madhyamaka. 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 Sunyata "

(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 word 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 Santarakshita's Svatantrika Madhyamaka 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 Madhyamaka 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

Madhyamaka. 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 interpretations

differ. Hindu concepts of karma and therefore reincarnation tend to be rather

linear whereas the Buddhist concept is linked with pratitya-samutpada. The

Theravada concept of pratitya-samutpada is also rather linear but the

Mahayana/Vajrayana concept is more non-linear multidimentional and multileveled

interdependent inter-latched. But all similarities to Hinduism end there. The

Sunyata of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Candrakirti is by no accounts a negative way

of describing the Brahman of the Upanisad-Sankara-Vidyaranya 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

***

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21 wrote:

 

 

vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21

Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

advaitin

Thursday, June 11, 2009, 11:53 AM

But yea atleast he said the Vedas are authorotative. So what if one realizes

Brahman but tries to expalin it with his own method which turns out to be

complementing the Vedas, we want only people to say 'the Upanisads are great'

follow it or not, we do not care. After all that satisfies our egos, makes us

feel inflated with pride. Sri Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda, Sri

Ramakrishna Paramhansa all believed that Buddha did not contradict the Upanisads

but their words are not Sruti, why believe them?

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr. Shaym-ji.

 

Your 45685.

 

The monk you quoted seems to be a 'paradigm-fixate'!

 

Forget about Buddhism. Do you really think he knows Advaita, which goes by the

name of Hinduism in his essay?

 

To my eyes, his understanding of Advaita is faulty. A person of your calibre, I

am sure, will easily agree on that point. How can we then expect an

'informative' assessment of the two (Vedanta and Buddhism) from him? I am sure

Dr. Radhakrishnan, Sw. Vivekananda et al would have discarded his essay in the

bin without taking a second look, had they chanced upon it.

 

The author is just obdurate adamance on the other side - illogical too.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair