[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : About Hinduism and Buddhism
Pradip wrote:
[..]
> The subject of the exact relationship between Hinduism and Buddhism
> is highly controversial.
This is mainly due to people like Radhakrishnan who believed that Buddhism was
in no way different from advaita Vedanta.
But is Buddhism really the same as advaita? IMHO, out of the hundred or so
books that I've come across on Buddhism, the best among them being:
1) "Nagarjuna: the philosophy of the middle way" by David Kalupahana.
2) "Early advaita vedanta and Buddhism" by Richard King.
3) "The great philosophers" (one chapter devoted to Nagarjuna) by Karl Jaspers.
4) "Empty logic" by Cheng.
This is what I've been able to make out so far...here goes...
GauDapaada, Guru of Shankara's Guru, Govindapaada, wrote a treatise called
the "GauDapaadIya KArikA", a commentary on the MANDUkya upanishhad. The fourth
and final chapter of the book, though clearly non-Buddhistic and advaitic, is
replete with Buddhist terminology and in fact quotes directly from Buddhist
sources. Some people have made the mistake of assuming that GauDapaada was a
Buddhist, which clearly he was not. Was he then using Buddhist arguments to
support advaita vedanta? The answer is a loud, resounding YES!!
Both Buddhist and advaitic philosophies involve "ajaati vaada" or
"doctrine-of-no-birth". But with a small difference. GauDapaada says that his
KArikA adpots "avirodha vaada", or "non-conflicting view" with the Buddhist
view.
This is the difference between the ajaati-vaada of Buddhism and advaita:
Buddhism: "There is no birth".
Advaita : "There is an unborn".
As you can see, the views don't conflict with each other, yet are different.
Did GauDapaada believe that Buddha had attained self-realization? I think so.
Consider these verses from the last chapter of the kArikA:
"The Jnana of the Buddha, which is all-pervasive, does not proceed toward
external objects. All souls, too, like Jnana [do not reach out to objects].
This was not stated by the Buddha." (verse 99)
"Having realized the state, difficult to be seen, profound, unoriginated,
fearless, without multiplicity, we salute it to the best of our ability." (100)
Here's what Richard King says (page 191):
"It seems possible...that...GK IV.99 is a statement referring to the
transcendality of the Buddha's teaching and not an attempt to differentiate
the author's own view from that of the Buddha..."
I would agree with King: it's very possible that the "this was not stated by
the Buddha" refers to the ineffable nature of Buddha's knowledge and not that
GauDapaada disagreed with Buddha's enlightenment.
> I will try to briefly point out the major points of
> agreement and disagreement and also point out where Hindu and Buddhist scholars
> disagree. I will also give you some references that you can consult.
>
> 1. Buddha rejects the Karma Kanda of the Vedas but did not deny the
> Jnana Kanda (i.e the Upanishads).
FALSE!! The denial of _any_ "absolute reality" is so central to Buddhism that
it cannot accept the absolutism found in the Upanishads.
>From Nagarjuna's KArikA," The essence of the universe is the essence of the
Tathagata. The Tathagata does not have any essence; therefore the universe
does not have any essence."
As King notes, "absolutism is precisely the target of Nagarjuna's incisive
arguments".
That's the pitfall in the understanding of Radhakrishnan, who thought
that the upanishadic "neti, neti" is similar to Nagarjuna's negations.
Listen to what Cheng says:
"But perhaps Nagarjuna's negation is quite different from Upanishadic negation.
The latter assumes the existence of an inexpressible essential substratum, and
the main aim is to describe, by negation, an absolute which cannot be expressed.The Madhyamika negations do not assume an inexpressible essential
substratum, nor is their purpose to describe, by negation, this reality, rather
to deny that there can be such a reality."
This is the one major point of disagreement between Advaita and Buddhism.
I hope the difference is clear now:
ALL HINDUS ASSUME A TRANSCENDENTAL ABSOLUTE CALLED BRAHMAN, BUT BUDDHISM DOES
NOT, AND IN FACT DENIES SUCH A REALITY!!
> This is the view of the Hindu scholars. The
> Buddhists probably feel that Buddha rejected the whole of the Vedas. It is,
> however, true that Buddhist theologians would quote from the Upanishads when
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Could you please provide a few examples?
> they thought that it would strengthen their case. Buddhists have their own
> scriptures like Dhammapada.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The "scriptures" of Buddhism like Dhammapada seem to say that truths like
"Do not steal" etc. are absolute truths. This is precisely what was
refuted by the Madhyamika Buddhists. They believe that anything written in
the form of words or symbols is simply *false* - even the four noble truths
(Aryasatya) from Buddha's sermons.
A short history course here: Buddhism was given great momentum by Nagarjuna,
often called "the second Buddha", a philosopher who lived during the first
century A.D. He was born either in vidarba (Andhra Pradesh?) or in Kanchi
(Tamilnadu) to a Brahmin family. He was not of very good character in his youth
and along with three of his friends, broke into a palace with no-good
intentions. The guard at the palace spotted his friends and slew them. Luckily,
Nagarjuna managed to hide and vowed that if he escaped, would renounce life.
As luck would have it, he escaped from the palace and renounced life. Having
studied the Vedas at Kanchi in a very short time - and supposedly, dazzling
everyone with his intelligence - he travelled to Nalanda, Bihar, to learn
the Buddhist doctrines. He soon mastered everything there was to know,
and became a "walking library" at Nalanda. Later, he joined Nalanda university
as faculty :-) Nothing of his personality is known, except for a letter written
by him to the then Andhra king with some advise on how to rule the kingdom well.
In that letter, he also advises the king to "freely give gifts to Brahmins",
which is quite surprising, considering that the Brahmins are normally against
Buddhism. Nagarjuna also writes in pure sanskrit, unlike Buddha who preached in
Pali.
Nagarjuna's basic style of philosophy is popularly known as "viTANDa vaada",
i.e, exposing the weaknesses in the other systems of philosophy without
presenting a thesis of his own. His contribution to philosophy is a series of
paradoxes in the philosophical problem of existence vs non-existence, like:
1) If objects are real, why do they undergo destruction and cease to exist?
How can a real entity lose the property of existence?
2) If nothing exists, there can be no such thing as change, for how can
nothingness undergo change?
Therefore the universe, which undergoes change, is neither existent nor
non-existent: it is "empty" or "shunya": a weird "existence" void of essence.
As Karl Jaspers says,"Nagarjuna taught that the universe has a phantom existence
with no permanent substance".
Nagarjuna also rejects any metaphysical view as void of any meaning whatsoever.
For instance, Samkhya believes that cause and effect are identical, and
Vaiseshika believes that they are different. Nagarjuna rejects both!
He disagrees with Samkhya, vaiseshika, nyaya, vedanta...you name it, he
disagreed with it.
His most important work, the mUla madhyamaka kArikA is a commentary on the
"Kaccayana Sutta" of the pali Buddhist canon. This is a condensed version of
the Kaccayana sutta:
-------------------
KaatyAyana: People say "right view, right view". What do they mean?
Buddha : People are inclined towards two views about the world: existence and
non-existence. To one who has seen the arising of the universe as
it has come to be, the notion of non-existence of the universe does
not arise. To one who has seen the destruction of the universe as it
has ceased to be, the notion of existence of the universe does not
arise.
-------------------
Nagarjuna comes up with a philosophy based on "dependent arising" (pratiitya
samutpaada) and "emptiness" (shUnyataa) which is a commentary on the above
dialogue.
The "pratitya samutpada" of Buddhism is a poorly understood concept even by
the best of modern scholars on Buddhism. The problem lies in this important
verse in the Mula Madhyamaka Karika :
"We state that whatever is dependent arising (pratiitya samutpaada), that itself
is emptiness (shunyata). That verily is the middle way (madhyamaka)".
Here, Nagarjuna clearly says that:
"pratiitya samutpaada" = "shUnyataa" = "madhyamaka"
The above verse has been debated endlessly from the second century AD to this
day. You see, two schools of Chinese Buddhism emerged just because of
(mis)interpretations of the above verse!
> 2.Buddha kept silent about the existence of the Ultimate Reality.
Nope. He denies any absolute or "ultimate reality".
IMHO, advaita emphasizes the absolute and treats the perceived universe
as the effect of ignorance, while Buddhism does not care for any absolute, but
considers evidence from everyday experience to be of paramount importance.
> 3.Both Hinduism and Buddhism believe in Karma and rebirth. There is,
> however, one major difference. Hindus believe that the Atman transmigrates
> from one birth to another.
Getting down to strict scholastics, this is untrue! In his upadeshasahasri,
Shankara clearly says that the Atman _does not_ transmigrate! In fact, to a
disciple who complains of suffering repeatedly in various births, the Guru
admonishes him, "You are the ever-free Brahman, yet you hold the inverted view
that you transmigrate!"
> Buddhism believes that nothing transmigrates
> from one birth to another since there is no such thing as the Atman.
In a sense, you're right. "Life" is supposed to be "grasping devoid of a self".
> The difference can be understood as follows. You can think of
> the liberated person as a candle light while Brahman as the sun. Sri Ramanuja
> and Sri Madhva are saying that the candle light while similar to the sun can
> never be the sun. It remains a candle light. Sri Sankara is saying that the
> liberated individual is like a light which merges in the effulgent glory of
> Brahman just as a river merges in the sea.
No! Shankara says that:
ATMAN = BRAHMAN
not "Atman is a part of Brahman". You see, there is only one Atman, never two.
> I discussed the Hindu position to such details for the following
> reason. May be, Buddha took the position of Extreme Jnani. He was probably
> describing the experience of Nirvana where there is complete loss of
> individuality. That is why he may be saying that both the Atman and the world
> are unreal (there is no I nor you nor the world in that state).
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
FALSE!
According to advaita, there is _only_ I in the ultimate state !! In fact,
the "no I" business is exactly what Shankara is opposed to! Never does Shankara
deny the Self, and certainly not in the ultimate viewpoint!
> 6. Buddha thinks that only monks can achieve nirvana.
Could you please provide references?
> Regards
>
> Pradip
>
Regards,
Kartik
