[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
ARTICLE : Re:Hinduism and Buddhism
Giri <gmadras@engr.ucdavis.edu> wrote:
[I have deleted some portions and moved some of the lines for ease of reply.
I hope I have not changed your point of view in any way.]
>Ultimate reality is merely a mandala of emptiness. What appears on the
>emptiness is ultimately unreal. That includes your mind and Atman.
>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 ultimate reality is referred to as dharma kaya, which indeed is
>only an expanse of emptiness (shunyata).
>Dharma Kaya is often referred to as the Buddha mind, which is inherently
>empty. Contrast this with nirvakalpa samadhi, which is inherently blissful.
>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.'
Giriji
I gather from your article that you think that Tibetan Buddhist
idea of the Transcendental Reality (Dharma Kaya) is different from the
Hindu idea of Brahman. I gather you are saying that Tibetan Buddhists may
not believe in a changeless Transcendental Reality and you give the example of
Nagarjuna. You also point out that Dharma Kaya and nirvikalpa samadhi are
described differently and so are different.
My view is different. What do Brahman, Dharma Kaya or Transcendental
Reality mean? They are all different names or labels for the Infinite. They
all have to be changeless. Why does not Brahman change? It is because Infinite
does not change however a large number you add or subtract to It. That is the
same reason why Dharma Kaya is changeless. This is not just my opinion. Dalai
Lama (Essential Teachings p 12) says that "ultimate shunyata is constant".
You state that Dharma Kaya is merely a mandala of emptiness. The
important point to stress here is that this emptiness is not nihil. It is
called empty because most people when they experience this shunyata do not see
the phenomenal world. The Buddhist description is only an alternate way of
describing the Infinity.
Why do the descriptions of the Hindu mystics and Buddhist arhats
differ? They don't. The whole of Buddha's teaching is on how to overcome
suffering. Thus the Buddhist texts usually do not say explicitly that the
experience of Nirvana is blissful. It is implied. Dalai Lama (ET p46) states
that Nirvana is a state of permanent happiness.
You have raised the issue whether Nagarjuna would believe in a
changeless reality. The experience of Dharmakaya and the constancy of Shunyata
is not a matter of philosophical speculation. Dalai Lama says that a person
who has arrived at Buddhahood knows that ultimate shunyata is constant.
Nagarjuna's Madhyamika School is talking about the nonsubstiantility of all
phenomena which consists of the absence of all real inherent existence. This
has nothing to do with the ultimate reality. A changing Ultimate truth is a
contradiction. The Buddhadharma will then have no ultimate standard to compare.
It is only the relative world that changes.
>The nirmana kaya are emanations created by buddhas to benefit sentients. The
>closest it can be equated in Hinduism is grace.
I think it is more than grace. The Nirmankaya is the earthly
manifestations of a Buddha. A Buddha actually takes a physical body to help
the suffering sentient. Doesn't this remind you of the Gita and its Avatar
concept?
>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]
There are differing conceptions about Ishvara even among different
sects of Sanatan Dharma.
>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 think you are referring to the Neo-Vedanta school. I do not think
the Neo_advaita school has ever denied that Buddhism, Advaita or Dvaita are
not separate paths. Infact the Neo-Advaita position is that these different
paths are bound to appear irreconcilable precisely because they are paths.
They are not Brahman. All contradictions are resolved only where these paths
meet - at the Infinite Brahman. Why does Sri Ramakrishna say that Brahman is
Personal-Impersonal? Precisely because Brahman is Infinite.
In Euclidean Geometry all parallel paths meet at infinity. It is this
important insight that Sri Ramakrishna incorporated into modern Hinduism. He
is no ordinary saint. His teachings are the foundation of the only important
school founded in 500 years, the Neo-Vedanta school. Since the beginning of
the century, you can not describe Sanatan Dharma to contain only Advaita,
Vishistadvaita or Dvaita. That is why I discussed the Neo-Vedanta school in
addition to the other schools.
Regards
Pradip
