Sankara-Buddhagosa-Hinduism and Buddhism.

[Guest guest]

> do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita

interpretation of the Upanishads?

>

> (Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent for

a while :-)

>

> The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known.

>

> The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I

understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of

the Upanishadic-Brahman.

>

> Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the

second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead

from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the

Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in

avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first

two turnings.

>

> That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective enter

Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists realized

that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness, as

grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held this

position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in particular -

when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is that

*eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more or

less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of the

Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were

independently established and spreading.

>

> Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as

Brahman? Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also

decided to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of

the issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his

posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left

the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous

post.

>

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

> advaitin , " Peter " <not_2@> wrote:

> >

> > Dear Rachmeil and friends,

> >

> > To put my previous post on the two main types of emptiness in Buddhism into

> > context. There are said to be three turnings of the wheel of Dharma (the

> > Buddha's teaching) each emphasising a different aspect of the Dharma. The

> > first two turnings of the wheel of dharma express the rantong nature of

> > emptiness (empty of self-nature). The third turning expounds upon the

> > shentong nature of emptiness (empty-of-other nature).

> >

> > FIRST TURNING:

> >

> > This includes the four noble truths, the doctrine of impermanence,

> > suffering, and non-self, and the specific teachings found in the Abhidharma.

> > >

> > The teaching on emptiness here is that if one investigates the five

> > aggregates one will not find any independent entity call self or ego. (Like

> > the example of the car, earlier.) This is the doctrine of annatta (not self)

> > at this stage.

> >

> > SECOND TURNING:

> >

> > The emphasis here is the real nature of phenomena, namely that all phenomena

> > are empty of self-nature. Even the elements (also called dharmas) that

> > arise and pass away from moment to moment and which together form the

> > compound nature of the personal self are empty of self nature. The whole

> > nature of the dualism between nirvana and samsara is subjected to

> > investigation here and found to be empty of self nature. They are said to

> > be nothing but conceptual labels. Since there is nothing to get away from

> > (samsara) and nowhere to go (nirvana) the aspiration spontaneously arises to

> > be where one is helping suffering humanity. This is the beginning of the

> > bodhisattva path.

> > > THIRD TURNING:

> >

> > The truth about Buddha Nature (Tathagatgarbha) as found in the teachings of

> > the Uttaratantra of Maitreya and the Mahaparanirvana Sutras. This turning

> > examines what remains in emptiness once all of the above (the personal self,

> > all phenomena, the dualism of samsara and nirvana & so on) have been

> > negated. What is the true nature of the world that we misperceive, that we

> > misconstrue with name and form (nama-rupa). Is it a mere nothingness, a

> > vacuum?

> >

> > The answer from this perspective is " No " . The true nature of the world is

> > the ineffable, ungraspable " Thus-ness " - in short buddha-nature itself. The

> > resonance here with Advaita will be obvious to many in the assertion that

> > 'the world as world is unreal, while the world as Brahman is real.'

 

Namaste,

 

There is much speculation about Gautama and 'Buddhism', even Buddhagosa was

talking about 'Heavens' and Avatar Maitreya in the end.

However Buddhism came out of Hinduism so to speak, and its pure form is a

concentration on the most difficult teaching to grasp..Ajativada in

Hinduism....The Buddhists talk about Sunyata, the Void, emptiness, fullness

etc...depending on the time and circumstances. However they do negate the

concept of Brahman, which Ajativada does also----Saguna Brahman that is. So most

of the differences are really created by a turning back to Bhakti as most minds

couldn't accept the no Saguna concept.

 

This is why later Tibetan Buddhism/Mahayana was so popular, as it incorporated

the Bon Po traditions of many Devas and so was similar to Hinduism at the

Dvaitic level onwards....All religions are Dvaitic!!

 

The ordinary person's mind cannot accept the concept of No(Saguna) Brahman,

Sunyata, Ajativada etc as it smacks of the Nastikas and Atheism. There is

nothing to satisfy their need to worship something greater than themselves a

greater being taking responsibility.

 

As Moksha is a dual simultaneous realisation of Saguna or Sakti and NirGuna at

the same time...the road is the same in the end anyway. Thus for consumption of

their Bhaktas both Sankara and Buddhagosa talked in terms of Govinda and Maitrey

respectively, in the end.

 

That doesn't take away anything from the concept of Ajativada or Sahaja

Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as it is the final truth, and requires a certain

fearlessness that most don't wish to have apparently....Cheers Tony.