Advaita - Buddhism in disguise?

shvu · April 16, 2001

There exists a common belief that Shankara's Advaita philosophy is simply Buddhism in disguise and quoted as, Mayavadam prachanna baudham.

The one similarity is both Advaita and Buddhism hold that the world is unreal on Moksha.

The main differences,

1. Advaita has always been around in some form or the other, until it was given a clear-cut form by Shankara. The whole purport of the Vedanta can be shown to be advaitic, by quoting the following Mahavakyas, one from each Veda.

ayamatma Brahma [Atman and Brahman are one] - Mundaka

tattvamasi [Thou art that] - Chaandogya

aham brahmasmi [i am Brahman] - Brihadaranyaka

prajnanam brahma [Absolute knowledge and Brahman are one][Aitareya]

2. The fundamental difference between Buddhism and Advaita is the concept of Brahman. Buddhists have a void and deny Permanence. Advaita on the other hand is based on the Eternal Brahman of the Sruti.

3. The means to Moksha again are different in both systems. Besides there are multiple schools of Buddhism, and so when one says Baudha, it is unsufficient. Since Dvaita is also based on Vedanta, by the above logic, one can also say Dvaita is prachana Advaita.

Hence it is incorrect to say that Advaita is veiled Buddhism. They are as different as can be. It is also incorrect to say that Advaitins are atheists. They have their basis in the Vedas and that would imply that the Vedas are atheistic in nature.

Cheers

jijaji · April 16, 2001

I have never thought Advaita to be veiled Buddhism...

Just political poopla..

;^)

jijaji

jijaji · April 16, 2001

jayasriradhey says;

"It is well known to the followers of Bhagavatpada Sri Shakaracarya that He was PRACCHANNA BUDDHA,Lord Buddha in dsguise"

Dear jayasriradhey, 1st of all ..please forgive me if I offended you in any way last week! I have always read your postings and considered you to have worthwhile contributions. Perhaps I misunderstood you, perhaps I was out of line (which I do on occasion I admit) anyway...there is is ;^)

As far as advaitavadins accepting adi-shankara as buddha reincarnated..

I would love to see some scriptural quotes to support your statement...

;^)

jijaji

shvu · April 17, 2001

This thread should be a good place t oclear up some misconceptions.

There is a piece of misconception that Shankara the Mayavadin, during his last years had a change of heart! That is, he realized that his Advaita philosphy was false and he told people to worship Govinda by composing the Bhaja Govindam.

Of course, it is totally false. According to tradition, Shankara once saw an old man memorizing the gramar rules of Pannini. He suddenly felt a concern, realizing that most people spend their lives in vain pursuits. Out of this concern, he composed the Bhaja Govindam.

Cheers

April 17, 2001

Many scholar who are not Vaisnavas have also accepted Sankara as the one who nurtured the flow of the Buddhist conception. These scholars include Vijñanabhiksu, who is a prominent scholar of Sankhya philosophy; learned yogis of the Patanjali doctrine, and even Buddhist scholars. Now we will show some similarities between the views of Sankara and Gautama Buddha.

Gautama Buddha states that the world is sunya-tattva in all the three fases of time. Everything in the world is sunya, non-existent, in the beginning, middle and end.

Acarya Sankara also taught that the cause of the world is a principle called avidya (ignorance), which is devoid of past, present and future. This principle of ignorance is inexpressible due to its special characteristics of being neither existent nor non-existent.

Brahma satyam mithya - Brahman is real and the world is false.

nidramohat svapnavad tan na satyam suddhah puryo nitya ekah sivo 'ham (Atma-pañcaka 3)

It is clear that Buddha's sunya and Sankara's mithya (falsehood) are both the same. Only the words are different. What is the real difference between Buddha's trikala-sunyatva and Sankara's inexpressible principle of existence and non-existence?

Many scriptures of the Mahayana branch of Buddhism also states that the only means to achieve liberation is prajña-paramita, which is the dame as tattva-jñana postulated by Sankara.

Sankara considered moksa as a condition of complete freedom from grief of this world. The cause of this liberation is jñana of the oneness of Brahman and jiva, and of Brahman and this illusory existence. The brahma-jñana is the only cause of complete annihilation of avidya.

Buddha's prajña is exactly the same principle, only with some different words. Prajña-paramita and 'prajñanam brahma' , that Sankara has quoted from Taittirya Upanisad are the same tattva-jñana, but Buddhists had postulated it before Sankara.

The Prajña-paramita-sutra of Mahayana's states:

saktah kasvamihastotum nirnimittam nirañjanam

sarvavag visayatitam ya tvam kvacidanisrita

and Sankara has made his plagiarism:

arastrdarsanadrsyadibhava sunyaika vastuni

nirvikare nirvikare nirvisese bhida kutah

So, Sankara himself has actually referred to Brahman as sunya!!!

Amara-kosa dictionary is not a sectarian book meant for Gaudiya Vaisnavas, and if you see the word Buddha, he has been called advaita-vadi.

To copy right his doctrine Sankara named it kevaladvaita-vada, pure non-dualism, just to make a new market to the same old wine sold by Gautama Buddha.

Acarya Sankara has only transformed sunya-vada into brahma-vada to re-establish the honor and the authority of Vedas. But only the name has changed, the basis of both is the same.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

shvu · April 17, 2001

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>

arastrdarsanadrsyadibhava sunyaika vastuni

nirvikare nirvikare nirvisese bhida kutah

So, Sankara himself has actually referred to

Brahman as sunya!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Before we go further, can you tell me where Shankara made this statement?

Cheers

shvu · April 17, 2001

It is another popular misconception that Shankara came to fight Buddhism. Shankara did not have a single arugment with the Buddhists. Most of his criticizm and debates were with the Purva Mimamsakas. In his Brahma-sutra Bhasya, he mostly critizes Purva Mimamsa and to a lesser extent, Nyaya, Sankhya and Buddhism.

Kumarila Bhatta, a Purva Mimamsaka and a contemporary of Shankara, is traditonally believed to have converted a large number of Buddhists back into the Hindu fold.

Cheers

shvu · April 17, 2001

My picture was of Shankara chasing the Buddhists with a cane until they cleared the borders of India, but I will go with yours :-)

Cheers

jijaji · April 17, 2001

If Shankara would have been a cabbie....

He would have cleaned up in tips for driving all those Buddhists out of India..!

;^)

jijaji

shvu · April 17, 2001

Looks like Shankara had positioned himself at the border. His 4 main disciples had opened 4 centres in India, where the Buddhists would all collect. Then the disciples would drive them until the border. From there, Shankara would personally drive them across the border. This is how he managed to drive so many buddhists out of India. Of course, these 4 transport centres are today the 4 main Mathas of Shankara and we can guess where the funding must have come from.

Cheers

jijaji · April 17, 2001

;^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^);^)

;^)

jijaji · April 18, 2001

shvu says;

"It is another popular misconception that Shankara came to fight Buddhism. Shankara did not have a single arugment with the Buddhists. Most of his criticizm and debates were with the Purva Mimamsakas. In his Brahma-sutra Bhasya, he mostly critizes Purva Mimamsa and to a lesser extent, Nyaya, Sankhya and Buddhism."

I will agree with shvu on this significant point!

This is no hidden secret..Shankara was mainly concerned with Purva Mimamsa rather than Buddhism.

He certainly did NOT make attack against Buddhism his mission as some would have you believe....

Iskconites say 'Shankara Drove the Buddhists out of India".

Whenever I heard that phrase I always wondered.."What kind of vehicle did he use?" Model-t's were not even available.

It seems if Shankara drove the Buddhists out of India it would have takin a large amount of petrol as well.

So in conclusion it would have been a massive exodus of biblical magnitude...involving thousands of Cars, Trucks, Motorcycles etc..

Seems it would have been recorded in the Digvijaya's...LOL

;^)

jijaji

April 18, 2001

It is another popular misconception that Gaudiya-vaisnavas are 'against' Sri Sankaracarya. We consider that Sankaracarya is none other that Mahadeva-Sankara himself - sankarah sankarah saksat, and that Sankara is the highest Vaisnava - vaisnavam yatah sambhu.

Sankara is the guru for the Vaisnavas. For this reason Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu Himself has instructed all of His followers to always refer to Sankara as Acarya. And for his own part, Sri Sankara was a perfect Vaisnava.

We consider Acarya Sankara as a gunavatara, and at the time he has appeared in India, there was a great need for a gunavatara like him, as evidenced by these scholars of many lines assembled at this forum. Besides Buddhism, many other concocted philosophies, anitya-dharmas were affecting all Vedic dharma.

Sankaracarya, the extraordinarily powerful incarnation of Mahadeva, has appeared to re-established the respectability of the Vedic lore. This was an uncommon feat. All Brahmanda will remain ever indebted to Sri Sankaracarya for this tremendous contribution.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's teachings would be impossible without Sankaracarya's contribution.

In this material world, all activities may be judged according to two different criteria:

1. Tatkalika - those that are relative to a particular period of time.

2. Sarvakalika - those that are applicable for all time.

Sankaracarya's work is to be considered tatkalika and resulted in tremendous benefit to all jivas. Sankaracarya laid a foundation upon which Vaisnava Acaryas such as Ramanuja, Madhva and others, erected the edifice of pure Vaisnava-dharma. Therefore, Sankaravatara is considered by us as a great friend and pioneer acarya of Vaisnava-dharma.

Vaisnavas are now easily able to reap the fruit of the philosophical precept taught by Sankaracarya, as without them no sambandha-jñana would be available. Up to the point of mukti, there is a great deal of agreement between Sripada Sankaracarya's and all Vaisnava-acrayas' doctrines.

Let us consider these similarities:

1.Both lines consider that sentient living entities in this material world are completely distinct and separate from the gross and subtle material bodies.

2. That the jivas are spiritually existent.

3. That mukti entails giving up all connection with this material world.

4. That the worship of Sri Hari is the method to purify the heart and attain mukti.

5. That sadhu-sanga is the basis for any real spiritual practice.

Actually Acarya Sankara has remained silent only on the question of the extraordinary destination attained by jivas after liberation. Therefore we say that Acarya Sankara simply pointed out the path and did not further reveal the confidential secrets of Vaisnava-dharma.

Furthermore, the perfectional stage of absolute oneness, known as advaita-siddhi, and that of prema-bhakti may be conceived as identical from one specific point of view. The narrow interpretation of absolute oneness, however, is quite different than the meaning of prema.

If advaita-siddhi is to be defined as the pure state of a transcendental entity who is devoid of all relationship with insentient matter, then prema and advaita-siddhi may be described as the same. But some modern scholars are not satisfied with advaita-siddhi meaning the oneness of spiritual nature, or cit-dharma. They attempt to establish that the spiritual entities, cit-vastu, themselves become one, and they disregard the conception of the ideology of non-distinction expounded by srutis and propagate in its place a distorted and concocted version.

As this opinion is detrimental to the eternity of prema, Vaisnavas have declared this aberrant philosophy to be in opposition to Vedas and also against Sripada Sankaracaya's original teachings.

Sankaracarya described the state of non-difference simply as the unadulterated condition of spiritual substance. However, some of his so-called followers have marred his reputation, by describing the various states of prema as illusory phenomena, and we call this aberrant deviation mayavada. In this conception of mayavada, advaita-siddhi can never be equaled with prema.

dasa dasanudasa

Satyaraja dasa

April 18, 2001