[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

ARTICLE : Hinduism and Buddhism


> Pradip wrote: 
> 
> 	I am sure that he is equating I=ego=Atman. Also he defines a
> trancendental reality called "Dharmakaya" . Dharmakaya is the ultimate and
> essential nature of the Buddha, which is one with transcendental reality,
> the essence of the universe. Radhakrishnan equates Dharmakaya with Brahman.
> The Tibetan system also has "Sambhogkaya" which is a body of subtle form
> in which a Buddha resides in a Buddha-paradise. This is equated to Ishwar
> by Radhakrishnan. There is also nirmankaya which is the earthly manifestation
> of a Buddha to free beings from Samsara. 

Pradip-ji:
	
	Namaste. While I intend no disrespect, I wouldn't place too much
emphasis on what Radhakrishnan says. I would rather rely on someone from the
buddhist tradition and/or the advaita tradition. Radhakrishnan's
understanding of Indian scriptures is not remarkable. For example, see
Swami Nikhilananda's explanation of the mANDUkya upanishhad and his 
explanation of the misunderstanding of Radhakrishnan's thoughts on the 
karika.

	All Tibetan schools (Nyingma, Kagyu, Sakhya, and Geluk) practice
the dzogchen tradition. In this tradition, and these systems, the mind is
said to be cause of all creation (not God). The appearances of things is
merely due to the reflections of the forms (like a mirror). Ultimate
reality is merely a mandala of emptiness. What appears on the emptiness is
ultimately unreal. That includes your mind and Atman. Shankara also quotes
this mirror example in his dakshinamurthi stotra but, obviously, with a
different emphasis (since the Atman is real). 

	The mind, as such, is said to be an union of emptiness and
luminous. The three bodies of enlightenment are the three bodies of
buddha, the truth body (dharma kaya), the enjoyment body (sambhoja kaya)
and the emanation body (nirmana kaya). The first is often referred to as
the Buddha mind, which is inherently empty. Contrast this with nirvakalpa
samadhi, which is inherently blissful. The nirmana kaya are emanations
created by buddhas to benefit sentients. The closest it can be equated in
Hinduism is grace. I can't see how the subtle body of sambhoja kaya, which
is the enjoyment body, is translated to that of Ishvara. Secondly, this
denies a physical form to Ishvara, since sambhoga kaya is a subtle body.
Why should Hinduism deny the physical form to Ishvara ? Do you deny the
existence of physical forms of Vishnu, Shiva and all other Gods ? [I am
not saying you shouldn't]

	See Longchen Rapjampa in the Jewel of the Lotus or any other book
of Tibetan Buddhism. The ultimate reality is referred to as dharma kaya,
which indeed is only an expanse of emptiness (shunyata). Buddhism, and its
philosophers, mainly (imho) Milarepa and Tsong Khapa (who founded the
Gelukpa school), have provided excellent techniques on meditation and/or
developing programs to attain the "buddha mind", which would possibly
resemble any other school of Indian thought, like yoga or advaita's atma
vichara, but the goal of such enquiry is inherently different (imho) from
that of say, neti neti. 

	I think many Indians try to see similarites when they don't 
exist. My response to your original article was to point out irreconciable 
differences between Buddhism, Advaita, Dvaita. Trying to lump all 
of them into a single model is, imho, fruitless. Sanatana Dharma is 
indeed made of various paths. 

> 	I will give you two more pieces of evidence. Dalai Lama writes 
> explicitly that they do not accept the concept of a creator God. No such
> explicit statement is made denying the concept of a Transcendent Reality.
> Infact as I have stated he defines Dharmakaya as the Transcendent Reality.


	Now, the question arises as to whether the Transcendent Reality
is changeless. Contrast this with the statement that the Brahman is 
changeless. Would/Did Nagarjuna believe in such a Reality ? I don't think 
so. In fact, I don't think he held to any theory, including the theory of 
'no theory.' 

> I, personally, saw Dalai Lama give an interview in the PBS program of
> William Buckley. The person introducing him (probably Michael Kinseley)
> mentioned that Buddhists do not believe in God. Dalai Lama smiled and said
> "That is not exactly true."

	Thanks for the information. Probably he thought explaining the 
concept of dharma kaya etc to a person who has been brought up in a 
tradition of 'My Way or the highway' is incredibly difficult. I know from 
my personal experience with Tibetan monks in India that these people are 
extremely simple, very likable to be with, and respect you, not because you 
are knowledgable, but because you are sentient.

> >Kartik asked whether Buddhists quote from upanisads. In fact, I have seen
> >references to the mandukya upanishad and the karika by them. I can look
> >them up for you, in case you are interested.
> 
> Thanks. Yes, I will like it if you post this in the net.
> Regards
> Pradip

	The one I can remember offhand is that passages from the karika 
can be seen in tattva sangraha of shantarakshhita. Kamalashila, his 
primary disciple, identifies them as the teaching of the upanishhads.

dhanyavaad

Giri
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.