[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : About Hinduism and Buddhism
From: Sankar Jayanarayanan <kartik@Eng.Auburn.EDU>
Kartik wrote:
>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:
I stated that this whole issue bristles with difficult problems and is
very controversial. It is not just Radhakrishnan who finds Buddhism same as
Advaita. You can check Ananda Coomarswamy in "Buddha & the Gospel of Buddhism".
He states (p.220) that "There is no true opposition of Buddhism and Brahminism
... Buddha in a majority of fundamentals does not differ from the Atmanists."
Again in page 221 he says "Implicit in Brahman thought from an early period...
and forming the most marked features of later Indian mysticism - achieved also
in the Mahayana, but with greater difficulty - is the conviction that ignorance
is maintained only by attachment, and not by such actions as are void of
purpose and self-reference; and the thought that This and That World,
Becoming and Being, are seen to be one by those in whom ignorance is destroyed.
In this identification there is effected a reconciliation of religion with the
world, which remained beyond the grasp of Theravada Buddhists. The distinction
between early Buddhism and Upanishadic Brahmanism, however practical, are thus
merely temperamental; fundamentally there is absolute agreement that bondage
consists in the thought of I and mine, and this bondage may be broken only
for those in whom all craving is extinct. In all essentials Buddhism and
Brahminism form a single system."
Dalai Lama said " When I say that Buddhism is part of Hinduism, certain
people criticize me. But if I were to say that Hinduism and Buddhism are
totally different it would not be in conformity with truth" (Indigenous Indians
by Koenraad Elst, p 470).
I think that the followers of different Buddhistic systems like
Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana have different attitudes to the question.
......
>>This is the difference between the ajaati-vaada of Buddhism and Advaita:
>>Buddhism:"There is no birth".
>>Avdaita:"There is an unborn".
>>As you can see, the views don't conflict with each other, yet are different.
I must disagree with you here. What Buddhism is saying is that there is
nothing. What Advaita is saying is that there is something which is uncaused.
There seems to be profound conflict here. The confilct can only be resolved by
properly understanding this Nothing.
>>Did Gaudapada 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)
It is interesting that the copy of Gaudapada's Karika that I have (The
Upanishads by Swami Nikhilananda, vol 2) has a different translation. It states
"The knowledge of the wise man, who is all light, is never related to any
object. All the jivas, as well as knowledge, are ever unrelated to objects.
This is not the view of Buddha"(iv.99)
Swami N explains this verse as follows: That the knower, the goal of knowledge
and knowledge(Brahman) are non-different(i.e Atman=Brahman). He also says that
the last sentence implies that Gaudapada's Karika even in his lifetime was
suspected by some (hindu) critics of being influenced by Buddha's teaching.
The same view is held even now by some of Gaudapada's critics. By his emphatic
denial Gaudapada puts all such criticisms to rest.
I personally believe this position due to the following reason. Gaudapada was
the Guru of Govindapada who was the Guru of Shankara. Thus, presumably,
Shankara would know what exactly Gaudapada meant and Shankara feels that
Gaudapada has denied that his path is that of Buddha. By this I am not
saying that Buddha was not Self-realized. All I am saying is that I am
sceptical of the scholar's assertion about Gaudapada.
>>... A very good discussion about Nagarjuna.... and the essential difference
>>between Advaita and Buddhism..
I think the scholars have given the Theravada position. This is not the
position of Dalai Lama for instance. Again and again in his book "Essential
Teachings" he stresses that Shunyata is the Ultimate Truth. He also says that
that this Emptyness is not like the case where a forest has been cut down
making the land empty. More I read him more I find it similar to Advaita. Let
me quote here " When our understanding of the view of Shunyata becomes more
profound, we have an experience of it and we then realize that the "I" that
appears real and independent to us has in fact no existence whatsoever."(p 117)
. This is a very clear Advaitic teaching. He calls this "I" atman. I take this
"I" as the ego. Nothing really means the complete annihilation of ego.
> however, true that Buddhist theologians would quote from the Upanishads when
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>Could you please provide a few examples?
No unfortunately I can not. I definitely read this in some book that I
can not recall. I did not follow up on it.
> 2.Buddha kept silent about the existence of the Ultimate Reality.
>>Nope. He denies any absolute or "ultimate reality".
I read this in Swami Prabhavananda`s "The Spiritual Heritage of India".
Radhakrishnan (IP, Vol 1, p 379-380) says "However much Buddha tried to refuse
to reply to the question of the Ultimate Reality which lay beyond the
categories of the phenomenal world, he did not seem to have any doubt about it.
Buddha said " There is an unborn, an unoriginated, an unmade, an uncompounded;
were there not, O mendicants, there would be no escape from the world of the
born, the originated, the made and the compounded".(Udana viii.3)."
In his book "Essential Teachings" by Dalai Lama, he says that "The path begins
with the renunciation of the samsaric state, continues through the development
of a spirit of love and compassion, the stage called relative Bodhichitta; and
then comes the realization of the Ultimate nature of Reality:Shunyata" (p 10).
Do you know of any place where Buddha says directly that he does not believe
in any Absolute or Ultimate Reality?
> 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!"
You have given the highest philosophical position of Sri Sankara.
However, in this highest philosophical position there is then no birth, no
death and no world. Astavakra Samhita describes this highest philosophical
position. It is rather difficult to describe such a state. However, to most
Hindus, who have not experienced such an exalted state, birth, death and the
world exists. To them Atman does transmigrate. Also most Hindus follow
Theistic systems (followers of Rama or Krishna) where the Atman and Brahman
are separate entities. Thus while I agree with you, I will point out that vast
majority of Hindus accepts the transmigration of the Atman. So while you are
viewing from the absolute point of view, I took the relative point of view.
It is because you are so well-informed that you even caught this esoteric
point.
> 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.
You have again described the highest philosophical position of the
Shankara school. However, the "merging analogy" is quite popular in books. I
think authors use this analogy as otherwise you can not also use the term
liberated individual. After all we already are Brahman, right now, although
we do not feel it due to ignorance. There is actually no individual at all
as strictly speaking everything is Brahman. There is after all only one Atman.
So who will liberate whom? We already are That! This position is found in
Astavakra Samhita for example. In fact Astavakra Samhita says that there is no
liberation also. Thus if you use the term liberated individual within the
frame work of the Sankara school then the merging analogy is appropriate.
Again I think this is a difference between the relative and the absolute
point of view.
>>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!
This I is not the Self but the ego. In the nirvikalpa Samadhi all
ego sense dissolves and actually that experience can not really be described.
Only Brahman is. The confusion arose because Buddhist literature calls "I"
as self or atman. The Hindu literature will call such an "I" ego or little
self. Thus when Buddhist literature says that the atman is destroyed in the
experience of Shunyata or Nirvana, I agree. The only thing is that I know that
they really mean the ego when they talk of the atman.
I was speculating that Buddha and Sankara were describing the same experience
in different words. Sankara came to the conclusion that the world is unreal
and that Atman=Brahman. That is only Brahman exists. Buddha came to the
conclusion that both Atman and World are unreal and Nothing remains. If you
make Nothing=Brahman then the two statements are equivalent. Here by Nothing
I mean the complete dissolving of the ego. Certainly, Dalai Lama would agree
with my definition of Nothing.
> 6. Buddha thinks that only monks can achieve nirvana.
>>Could you please provide references?
I found this in Radhakrishnan,IP, vol 1, p 436.
>>Regards,
>>Kartik
Regards
Pradip
