Guest guest Report post Posted May 29, 2009 Namaste Rachmielji, you ask > are these 'doubts in the mind' doubts about the content of the vedanta? (e.g., this or that particular vedantic assertion seems 'wrong' to me.) are they doubts about the nature of reality? (e.g., it doesn't make sense to me that the ego/self is just an illusion.) or both? > Both and more - nothing is excluded, as Vedanta is a complete philosophical system and comprises all. Om Shanti Sitara advaitin , " rachmiel " <rachmiel wrote: > > namaste sitara. :-) > > > If they cannot be cleared, then you will either go on trying to clear them within the system of Vedanta or you will move onto another system. If at some point to your mind Vedanta proves not to be valid, you dismiss it. > > are these 'doubts in the mind' doubts about the content of the vedanta? (e.g., this or that particular vedantic assertion seems 'wrong' to me.) are they doubts about the nature of reality? (e.g., it doesn't make sense to me that the ego/self is just an illusion.) or both? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 29, 2009 Dear Sriram, True that Acharya Sankara refuted Sunyavada not only in Dakshinamurti Stotra but also in Brahma Sutra Bhashya. But the the points of refuatation show that Sankara was refuting the popular view about Madhyamika School but not the actual one. As I pointed out in my earlier blog that the Madhyamika School had an abrupt end. Many of its orignal Sanksrit works are lost. It was too sublime to be understood. And also many of its adherents like Candrakirti did not give the correct views of Nagarjuna. In Advaita Siddhi Madhusudana says that the main difference between the two schools was that the advaitin maintained that the world was unreal but the substartum ie 'adhara' Brahman was real. But the Sunyavadins do not accept anything as real at all. But he was wrong. If the actual works of this school are studied one would find that they maintain that there is an absolute entitity beyond relativity. But as Buddha used to keep silence on such issues so did Nagarjuna did not elaborate the idea. He was more concerned on refutation of categories and concepts of the philosophers. Please also refer to S. Radhakrishnan's work: Indian Philosophy Vol. 1, the ch on Buddhism and the final chapter. Also refer ro S. Dasgupta's History of Indian philosophy Vol.1 and 2. REGARDS, VAIBHAV. advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Dear vaibhav, > > Namaste. > > Kindly explain why Acharya Sankara refutes Sunyavata in his Dakshinamurthy Stotra (vide reference 5th sloka). > > // deham pranam api indriyanyapi chalam buddhim cha shunyam viduh > stri .........tasmai sri gurumurthaye namah idam sri dakshinamurthyaye // > > I firmly believe that Dakshinamurthy stotra is strictly in line with Advaita Siddhanta which is a suggested primer before undergoing the svadhyaya of advaita siddhanta in amnaya mutts of acharya sankara. > > > Here are excerpts from a friend of mine: > > ***************************** > > Everything is momentary and void. Each and everything is born in one moment, stays for one moment and is destroyed in > the next moment. Everything is self-comprehending i.e. there is no division of the knower and the known. The bodies of the beings are assemblages of the five Skandhas. These Skandhas are: Roopa skandha, Vijnana skandha, Sanjnaa Skandha, Samskara Skandha and Vedanaa Skandha. The objects and sense organs are called Roopa skandha since they are `formed' (Roopa=form) in the mind. Knowledge of the sense-objects and sense organs is christened as Vijnana skandha. > Name, quality, action, species and knowledge of specialty – this is the fivefold aspect of the Samjnaa Skandha. For the cows, the `name' is stated to be`cow'. The `species' is `cowness', which is inherent in all cows. `Quality' is whiteness etc. `Actions' are referred to when we say, `It goes' etc. `Knowledge of the specialty is of this form: `This animal has horns, four legs and a tail'. Thus, the Samjnaa Skandha is stated to be limited to these five. > Attachment, as also merit and demerit are called Samskara Skandha. Happiness and misery, as also liberation is named as Vedanaa skandha. Verily, apart from these five Skandhas, no other Atman exists at all. Nor is there any creator called Ishwara at all. The world contains in itself all the excellence. > In other words, the various processes in this world, like creation or regulation, take place all by themselves > The world is born out the Skandhas and Paramanus, which are of momentary existence. World of the succeeding moment arises out of the world of the preceding moment. This is what the Buddhists propose. > > Now, remembrance is actually `re-cognition', cognition of something that has already been cognized. If none existed during the deep sleep state and it was all void according to the Buddhists, then who is it that recognizes himself as, `It is I who slept' after waking up? Devadutta's previous experiences can be remembered or re-cognized by Devadutta only and not by Brahmadutta who did not undergo those experiences. So, this proves the existence of a permanent Atman who endures through all the states of consciousness. > If void is the cause of this world, then the world itself cannot be proved to exist. If there is none to assemble the Skandhas > and the Paramanus, there will be no assemblage since there is no cause to achieve it. In the absence of a potter, the mere existence of clay, wheel and stick will not automatically produce the pot. Similarly, if Ishwara, the sentient creator is not accepted, > then there can be no creation. > > What for does the Buddhist, who denies the existence of the Atman keep religious vows? Since according to him, the `conscious entity' is constantly changing, the `entities' that perform the religious acts like fasting are different, so also the `entities' that will reap the fruits of these acts! If one earns something and another enjoys it, why should the person take all that trouble? > > A person engages himself in some action or desists from it, depending on the previous experience and memories of > pleasure or pain. Actions giving pleasure or pain are repeated, others are given up. This is possible only if the continuity of > the personality is accepted, which is what Pratyabhijnaa or re-cognition indicates. If this Pratyabhijnaa is an illusion, then > no continuity of activities is possible in this world. > > **************************** > > with regards, > sriram > > > advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@> wrote: > > > > If the literature of Nagarajuna is closely examined then one would realize that there was no third turning as in adopting the conclusion of advaita. Sunyata is not Brahman. Asunyata is Brahman. In Madhyamika Sutras Nagarjuna uses this term but does not elaborate on it. If one reads Asvaghosa then further elaboration of asunyata is found. In Lankavatara Sutra the term Dharmakaya is used which means the absolute. All these three were before Sankara. There is no way that Nagarjuna could have learnt Sankara's view an even of Upanisads. It was a conclusion based on the teachings of Buddha. Though the Buddha does not speak about metaphysical issues yet he dropped some hints to it. He said that there is a thing unborn, indescribable, that does not change, if this would not have been there would have been no nirvana. If the dialouges of Ananda and Buddha on the concept of self are read one realizes that Buddha was throughout negating the not self. There again is some influence of Madhyamika doctrine on advaita. Gaudapada's karika adopts the line of reasoning of Madhyamika school. Sri Harsa's famous work Khandana Khanda Khadya uses the dialectical method of Nagarjuna to refute the definitions of Nyaya Vaisesika categories. > > The misunderstanding about Madhyamaika school is mainly because at that point of time it was not clearly understood. Soon this school dissappeared and many of its texts are found in chinese as original sanskrit works are lost. Yogacara school of buddhism was that was foremeost at the time of Kumarila and Sankara and both take great pains to refute these views. There is little that is different between Buddhism and Vedanta and thus Swami Vivekananda talked about their unity even during his famous speech in the Parliament of Religions. > > > > REGARDS, > > VAIBHAV. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > > > > > do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita interpretation of the Upanishads? > > > > > > (Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent for a while :-) > > > > > > The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known. > > > > > > The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of the Upanishadic-Brahman. > > > > > > Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first two turnings. > > > > > > That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective enter Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists realized that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness, as grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held this position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in particular - when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is that *eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more or less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of the Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were independently established and spreading. > > > > > > Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as Brahman? Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also decided to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of the issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous post. > > > > > > thollmelukaalkizhu > > > > > > advaitin , " Peter " <not_2@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear Rachmeil and friends, > > > > > > > > To put my previous post on the two main types of emptiness in Buddhism into > > > > context. There are said to be three turnings of the wheel of Dharma (the > > > > Buddha's teaching) each emphasising a different aspect of the Dharma. The > > > > first two turnings of the wheel of dharma express the rantong nature of > > > > emptiness (empty of self-nature). The third turning expounds upon the > > > > shentong nature of emptiness (empty-of-other nature). > > > > > > > > FIRST TURNING: > > > > > > > > This includes the four noble truths, the doctrine of impermanence, > > > > suffering, and non-self, and the specific teachings found in the Abhidharma. > > > > > > > > > The teaching on emptiness here is that if one investigates the five > > > > aggregates one will not find any independent entity call self or ego. (Like > > > > the example of the car, earlier.) This is the doctrine of annatta (not self) > > > > at this stage. > > > > > > > > SECOND TURNING: > > > > > > > > The emphasis here is the real nature of phenomena, namely that all phenomena > > > > are empty of self-nature. Even the elements (also called dharmas) that > > > > arise and pass away from moment to moment and which together form the > > > > compound nature of the personal self are empty of self nature. The whole > > > > nature of the dualism between nirvana and samsara is subjected to > > > > investigation here and found to be empty of self nature. They are said to > > > > be nothing but conceptual labels. Since there is nothing to get away from > > > > (samsara) and nowhere to go (nirvana) the aspiration spontaneously arises to > > > > be where one is helping suffering humanity. This is the beginning of the > > > > bodhisattva path. > > > > > THIRD TURNING: > > > > > > > > The truth about Buddha Nature (Tathagatgarbha) as found in the teachings of > > > > the Uttaratantra of Maitreya and the Mahaparanirvana Sutras. This turning > > > > examines what remains in emptiness once all of the above (the personal self, > > > > all phenomena, the dualism of samsara and nirvana & so on) have been > > > > negated. What is the true nature of the world that we misperceive, that we > > > > misconstrue with name and form (nama-rupa). Is it a mere nothingness, a > > > > vacuum? > > > > > > > > The answer from this perspective is " No " . The true nature of the world is > > > > the ineffable, ungraspable " Thus-ness " - in short buddha-nature itself. The > > > > resonance here with Advaita will be obvious to many in the assertion that > > > > 'the world as world is unreal, while the world as Brahman is real.' > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 29, 2009 *Prachanna baudha*, this was first used by the Latter Sankhya Philosopher Vijnanabhikshu. THe Vaisnanvas latter adopted this. The Tattva Muktavali of Madhva's School calls advaitins doctrine as good as the buddhists. There is a popular story among Vaisnavas that Sri Sankara was the avataara of Lord Siva, came on Earth to misguide us. The Padma Purana through the mouth of Lord Siva says to Narada that in disguise of a brahmin it was he who preached buddhism. REGARDS, VAIBHAV. advaitin , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > *Prachanna baudha* was the term used by Vaishnavas to demean our beloved Acharya Sankara. It was a sort of derogatory word. > > sriram > > advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair@> wrote: > > > > Prachchanna means disguised. So, they were calling him Buddha in disguise. > > > > MN > > ________ > > > > advaitin , Suren Irukulla <surenirukulla@> wrote: > > > > >I also heard Sankara being referred to as prachhanna Buddha. I don't know exactly what that means. May be some one comment. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 29, 2009 putranmji, By giving reference of Swami Vivekananda I meant the same thing as you said. No coming to whether Nagarjuna accepted the Brahman of Upanisads or not? Nagarjuna obviously did not study these texts. Moreover the concept of Brahman as we know it was developed by Sankara. If you read the views of the Mimamsakas like Kumarila and Prabhakara you would come to know that they did not even have any concpetion of Isvara, far then Brahman. Thirdly, if you read The Mula Madhyamika Karika, translation, annotation given by David J. Kalupahana, he convincingly proves that Nagarjuna's ideas were not orignal but the very same of those of Buddha. Fourthly, the true conceptions of Madhyamika School were lost by the time of Sankara. Fifthly, the idea of neti neti, compare Buddha's statement, " everything here is devoid of the self " The practise of rejecting each concept is also similar to the neti neti. Sixthly, sunyata means emptiness ie devoid of existence of its own. Asunyata as a concept is similar to Brahman. BUT probably you did not read the first post I gave on this topic, it points out the difference, the asunyata is totally charcterless, there is no idea of two levels of reality. For Sankara Brahman is immediate, direct and self revealing. This is the difference. My final position on this topic is: Nagarjuna and Sankara's concepts have grave similarity but some differences as well. But these differnces are on the surface level only, the essence is the same. Nagarjuna did not adopt anything from Upanisads rather he rejected the authority of the Vedas but still depending on the teachings of Buddha he came to a conclusion strikingly similar to that of Sankara, but his orignal teaching was lost to Sankara. I don't speak randomly but I have studied Nagarjuna's philosophy. Please refer to S. Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy Vol. 1. Most of my views are based on this work. REGARDS, VAIBHAV. advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@> wrote: > > > > If the literature of Nagarajuna is closely examined then one would realize that there was no third turning as in adopting the conclusion of advaita. Sunyata is not Brahman. Asunyata is Brahman. In Madhyamika Sutras Nagarjuna uses this term but does not elaborate on it. If one reads Asvaghosa then further elaboration of asunyata is found. In Lankavatara Sutra the term Dharmakaya is used which means the absolute. All these three were before Sankara. There is no way that Nagarjuna could have learnt Sankara's view an even of Upanisads. It was a conclusion based on the teachings of Buddha. Though the Buddha does not speak about metaphysical issues yet he dropped some hints to it. He said that there is a thing unborn, indescribable, that does not change, if this would not have been there would have been no nirvana. If the dialouges of Ananda and Buddha on the concept of self are read one realizes that Buddha was throughout negating the not self. There again is some influence of Madhyamika doctrine on advaita. Gaudapada's karika adopts the line of reasoning of Madhyamika school. Sri Harsa's famous work Khandana >Khanda Khadya uses the dialectical method of Nagarjuna to refute the definitions of >Nyaya Vaisesika categories. > > > Firstly, the posts I referred to show the views of a practicing Buddhist. > > Secondly, the last line is very misleading. Vivekananda held the view that Buddha himself never intended to negate the Upanishads (which I am not against either); however he does not say the same about Buddhism (his followers) in general. From the practical perspective, he felt the two are sister religions, etc, but this is not a statement that they as religions held the same philosophy. > > I know Nagarjuna predates Shankara, but the question that is central for me is to what extent the Buddhists rejected the central theme of the Upanishads - that of Brahman. Having come forth in India and spread through it, is there ever a reference in Buddhist literature to the Upanishads, where they themselves suggest that Brahman is no different from Asunyata - except they are particular about not 'describing' it ? From the little history of Nagarjuna, it is said he was born a Brahmana, eventually converted to Buddhism and wrote in Sanskrit. For such a scholar of philosophy in India, I would highly doubt he was unaware of the central Upanishads, of " Poornam " , " Neti Neti " and etc. To suggest that he based " Asunyata " (even if it should be a reference to Brahman) solely on the teachings of Buddha seems naive at best - arguably, he was rather being the 'perfect' convert to a religion that wanted nothing to do with its parent Vedic-religion. > > If Shankara and all were lost to the real teachings of Madhyamika, then that is likely because these were Nastika schools that were presenting themselves as rejecting the Vedas, even at the philosophical level, even while developing an essentially same base, as if independently and as if solely based on the Buddha. To say they did not believe their positions and only we were confused seems again comfortably presumptuous. > > It is not for us to speak on behalf of Madhyamikas. Even today, can we find practicing Madhyamika scholars who agree that the real divergence of Buddhism need not be on philosophical grounds, and that its real new contribution is only on practical levels and subsidiary philosophical elucidation? As I said, the fundamental foundation for the origin and initial development of Buddhism is nothing but " Don't be part of the prevailing Vedic traditions - don't commit as Astika, as somehow following the Vedas in any sense " . The rest is just a followup. Why reconcile with such nonsense, unless this historical aspect is confronted - and not muddled as if total independent development of Buddhism? > > thollmelukaalkizhu > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21 wrote: > > > putranmji, > By giving reference of Swami Vivekananda I meant the same thing as you said. No coming to whether Nagarjuna accepted the Brahman of Upanisads or not? Nagarjuna obviously did not study these texts. Moreover the concept of Brahman as we know it was developed by Sankara. If you read the views of the Mimamsakas like Kumarila and Prabhakara you would come to know that they did not even have any concpetion of Isvara, far then Brahman. Thirdly, if you read The Mula Madhyamika Karika, translation, annotation given by David J. Kalupahana, he convincingly proves that Nagarjuna's ideas were not orignal but the very same of those of Buddha. Fourthly, the true conceptions of Madhyamika School were lost by the time of Sankara. Fifthly, the idea of neti neti, compare Buddha's statement, " everything here is devoid of the self " The practise of rejecting each concept is also similar to the neti neti. Sixthly, sunyata means emptiness ie devoid of existence of its own. Asunyata as a concept is similar to Brahman. BUT probably you did not read the first post I gave on this topic, it points out the difference, the asunyata is totally charcterless, there is no idea of two levels of reality. For Sankara Brahman is immediate, direct and self revealing. This is the difference. > My final position on this topic is: Nagarjuna and Sankara's concepts have grave similarity but some differences as well. But these differnces are on the surface level only, the essence is the same. Nagarjuna did not adopt anything from Upanisads rather he rejected the authority of the Vedas but still depending on the teachings of Buddha he came to a conclusion strikingly similar to that of Sankara, but his orignal teaching was lost to Sankara. > I don't speak randomly but I have studied Nagarjuna's philosophy. Please refer to S. Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy Vol. 1. Most of my views are based on this work. > > REGARDS, > VAIBHAV. > > > To all readers, I DO speak " randomly " and have not studied S. Radhakrishnan's views on Nagarjuna. Thanks to the forum-environment that allows this. I have no clue why " Nagarjuna obviously did not study these texts " . This is a blanket assertion regarding this Sanskrit scholar and presumably born Brahmana during a philosophically-active period of Indian history. We have *no need* to think that Nagarjuna or Buddha were unfamiliar with the Upanishads and that they were " original " in their philosophic-theories. It is obvious that a basic principle for their religion was the rejection of the Vedas, hence the philosophical-development " as if " totally independently of the Vedic religion - i.e. in your assessment " ... did not adopt anything from the Upanishads " . Now the Chandogya Upanishad says " That which is the subtle essense (or subtlest) of all this is the Self of all this. That is the truth. That is the Self. That thou art, O Svetaketu " . Nagarjuna's primary contention: There is no self-nature to anything, no essential Being etc to phenomena ('all this'). He may well be contradicting one of the literal interpretations of Brahman - as the *Self of all this*, and have studied the Chandogya Upanishad - or been familiar with its thought. The direct reference to Vedic thought is missing but the attack on this interpretation is a core to Nagarjuna's efforts. It must have been " in the air " . Now I have this question, which is fundamental to us. You said that " Asunyata " and " Shankara's " " Brahman " are close but not the same. Do you think that the Sruthi would accomodate for Nagarjuna's interpretation in its entirety (without compromising it)? For instance, by specifying certain things more or less, Advaita and Visishtadvaita both find validation in the Sruthi. Do you think that Madhyamika would be able to do this? If yes, then they are Potential-Astikas, inspite of their denial due to ignorance of Sruthi and desire to be Nastikas. Their philosophy is contained within the realm of the Sruthi. If No, then they are really Nastikas - by the boundaries of their philosophy: in particular, the differences are not " surface-level " even if they appear trivial. --- Another point: the statement that " Brahman as we know it " is the development of Shankara, should be reassessed. His role was elucidation and highlighting - figuring out how to reconcile the essential *Upanishadic-connotations* of Brahman as " Neti-Neti " , " Aham Brahmaasmi " , " Self of all this " , etc that suggest advaita (as if no room for " this " and all for " Self " ) inspite of apparent dvaita to our experience. It is in this elucidation of the " iti-neti " conundrum that concepts like Ishvara, maya, etc need to be properly figured out from scripture and reason. They are indeed difficult and require the acharya's guidance. However Brahman in its essence is already well presented in the 'early' Upanishads, and should " Hit " most with an Advaita import. (That Mimamsakas did not follow Ishvara, much less Brahman is putting cart before the horse - here " the essential message of Brahman is already present in Up. " is main point; the right conception is secondary. " Ishvara " is harder to work out in many an intellectual-sense.) thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 --- On Fri, 5/29/09, vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21 wrote: Moreover the concept of Brahman as we know it was developed by Sankara. If you read the views of the Mimamsakas like Kumarila and Prabhakara you would come to know that they did not even have any concpetion of Isvara, far then Brahman. -------- Vaibhavji - PraNAms The above statement is rather surprising. Goudapaada discusses extensively in his kaarikas, which Shankara comments on both the mantras and on the kaarikas - where nature of Brahman is discussed. Kumarila and Prabhakara are puurvamiimamsakas with karma khanDa as the main aspect of Vedas. If I understand correctly Prabhakara was supposed to be student of Kumarila but formed his own theories contrasting his teacher. Of course I have not studied Radhakrishnan books. In the last chapter Goudapaada dismisses all the four schools of Buddhism as Shree Sastriji pointed out. That much only I know about their philosophies. But I am not sure about your statement that Brahman as we know is developed by Shankara. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 ks ji & vaibhav ji : brahman existed much before the appearance guru adi shankara achaaryaal.there was never a time that brahman did not exist nor will there a time for brahman, to cease to exist.aadiyum illai anthammum illai=param porullay.just like newton who gave gravity explanation,our revered guru adi shankara achaaryaal gave us the bashyams,imho.brahman is the atma jnani within everything in this lokas and other lokas.om sarva lokas samasthas sukhino bhavanthu. suresh. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > > > --- On Fri, 5/29/09, vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21 wrote: > > Moreover the concept of Brahman as we know it was developed by Sankara. If you read the views of the Mimamsakas like Kumarila and Prabhakara you would come to know that they did not even have any concpetion of Isvara, far then Brahman. > > -------- > Vaibhavji - PraNAms > > The above statement is rather surprising. Goudapaada discusses extensively in his kaarikas, which Shankara comments on both the mantras and on the kaarikas - where nature of Brahman is discussed. Kumarila and Prabhakara are puurvamiimamsakas with karma khanDa as the main aspect of Vedas. If I understand correctly Prabhakara was supposed to be student of Kumarila but formed his own theories contrasting his teacher. Of course I have not studied Radhakrishnan books. In the last chapter Goudapaada dismisses all the four schools of Buddhism as Shree Sastriji pointed out. That much only I know about their philosophies. But I am not sure about your statement that Brahman as we know is developed by Shankara. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Sureshji - PraNAms Neither I or Vaibhavji are discussing the point your are raising. The questions was not whether Brahman existed before or not - The eternal ever existent Brahman by definition has to be there all the time whether I, you or even Shankara said about it or not. The question is only advaitic understanding of ever existent Brahman. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Fri, 5/29/09, sureshbalaraman <sureshbalaraman wrote: brahman existed much before the appearance guru adi shankara achaaryaal.there was never a time that brahman did not exist nor will there a time for brahman, to cease to exist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 ks ji : i stand corrected. suresh. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Sureshji - PraNAms > > Neither I or Vaibhavji are discussing the point your are raising. > > The questions was not whether Brahman existed before or not - The eternal ever existent Brahman by definition has to be there all the time whether I, you or even Shankara said about it or not. The question is only advaitic understanding of ever existent Brahman. > > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > > --- On Fri, 5/29/09, sureshbalaraman <sureshbalaraman wrote: > brahman existed much before the appearance guru adi shankara achaaryaal.there was never a time that brahman did not exist nor will there a time for brahman, to cease to exist. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Dear Sri Putranm and Sri Narula, The following excerpt from an article by an acquaintance of mine might be of some interest to you. It does not talk about Advaita Vedanta per se but the broader linkages between the Bauddha-s and the Vedic tradition. Regards Ramesh Quote// --\ -------------- Are bauddha nAstIka-s true inheritors of the vedic tradition? We know that even in the late brAhmaNa period the position of indra was being eroded with the rise of prajApati and to a certain extant rudra and viShNu. Yet, the bauddha doctrines retain the high position of indra, to the extant possible within the nAstIka Weltanschauung [to clarify- the tathAgata is the highest object of veneration and power, but shakra is definitely the most powerful of the beings in the world structure] Interestingly, the deities viShNu and rudra find a limited mention in comparison to indra, who is repeatedly termed a boddhisattva and the protector of the bauddha dharma in the early days of this nAstIka mata. In fact, some myths of indra, which have been lost in brAhminical tradition are preserved in early bauddha tradition. Some late upaniShadic traditions which profess connections with the veda rebel against the veda. A clear case is the muNDaka upaniShat. While claiming to be attached to the shaunaka atharvaveda it rebels against vedic authority and claims a knowledge higher than the veda. A similar position is hinted by the earliest yoga texts. The early bauddha texts are not exactly disrespectful towards the veda, but rebels against them claiming a higher knowledge to attain the arihant status or buddhahood. In essence, this higher knowledge is merely semantically and descriptively different from the upaniShadic brahma-vidyA and yoga of the yoga texts — phenomenologically these systems are similar. Sectarian schools of the AstIkas developing within the vedic fold like shaiva, vaiShNava and prAjApatya-brahmavAda are also very distinct in their spirit from the original shrauta religion in their displacement of indra and formulation of distinct ritual systems. This in a way is not very different from bauddha-s worshiping the buddha-s and boddhisatvas. Both the sectarian schools of AstIkas and the nAstIka bauddha-mata are products of brahma-kShatra activity associated with asceticism. The early pAshupata-s, the early vaiShNava-s both vaikhAnasa and pA~ncharAtra are dominated by ascetic brAhmaNa-s. While buddha was a kShatriya, his primary followers, the first arihants are the brahmins shariputra and maudgalyAyana. Both the sectarian AstIka-s and bauddha-s position themselves as The true path. Thus, we might conclude that in diverging from vedic, in conceptual terms, the sectarian AstIka-s and bauddha-s are not really all that different. Both may merely be seen as a part of the same continuum of the post-vedic traditions that drastically diverged at different points from vedic principles. Yet, a careful comparison of these traditions raises chronological and sociological issues that are critical for understanding early Hindu history. Let us observe some features of the early bauddha corpus in comparison to the mainstream AstIka texts: The devas: Both texts speak of a comparable set of gods. As mentioned above in the bauddha system as in the veda indra stands at the head of the pantheon and is the most frequently mentioned deity. brahma is the other god who is prominently mentioned though much less than indra. In the samyutta nikaya 11.5 (the subhAsita-jaya sUtta) presents a brahmodaya contest between indra and the asura viprachitti in which indra triumphs and in his brahmodaya recitation gives verses that declare the bauddha doctrine. This motif of the triumphant indra winning a brahmodaya on account of his elucidation of bauddha thought is very parallel to the late kena upaniShad where indra attains supremacy of the gods because he understands the vedantic brahma vAda. In the dIgha nikaya 20 (mahA-samaya sUtta), the tathAgata introduces the sangha to the devas, gandharva, yakShas etc. In the samyutta nikaya 11.3 (dhajagga sUtta) the tathAgata again mentions several devas and tries to claim that he is greater than them. In these early bauddha works we find the mention of other gods mentioned include prajapati, varuNa, ashvins viShNu, ishAna (rudra), soma and yama. Thus, the bauddhas were well-conversant with the classical vedic pantheon. In he brahma-jAla-sUtta the buddha disparagingly talks of the worship of the devI shrI. In the chula-niddessa which appears to be of the later layer of the pAli canon we encounter the mention of vAsudeva and balabhadra suggesting that the early pA~ncharatric vaiShNAva sect was known to exist coevally. However, in addition the bauddha-s also mention certain deities that appear to have been lost or largely forgotten in mainstream AstIka religion. These include the 4 divine world-kings: dhR^itarAShTra, virUpAkSha, virUdhaka and kubera. Of these only kubera is prominently retained as king of yakSha-s in AstIka tradition. virUpAkSha is remembered as a rAkShasa, whereas dhR^itarAShTra as a nAga. Then there is the goddess manimekhalA, an assistant of indra, who appears to have been popular among seafaring vaishyas as the guardian deity of the sea. She appears in the eponymous tamil bauddha work as a prominent deity and her worship survives to date in Cambodia. These examples illustrate the diversity of Indic tradition outside of the vedic core and remind us that the surviving traditions are only partially cover the original diversity. It also important to note that the bauddha-s appear to share with the purANas the doctrine of multiple cycles of brahma and indra, which is very alien to vedic thought. dAnava-s: The early bauddha works know of several dAnava-s such as viprachitti, prahlAda, bali, virochana, rAhu, namuchi, and the kAlaka~njas. Thus, in addition to the typical vedic demons they also appear to record ones otherwise mentioned only in the purANas. An important point to note is that the chief adversary of gautama buddha is namuchi, he is often mentioned by his uniquely bauddha name mAra. Thus, the tathAgata appears to have stolen the conquest of namuchi from indra, just as the vaiShNava-s appear to do it more subtly in their sectarian purANas. Sects and doctrines: With the exception of the passing mention of worshipers of vAsudeva and balabhadra we do not find a detailed debate with the sectarian AstIka-s amongst the early bauddha-s. Some say there is some evidence that a~NgulimAla was shaiva earlier, but there is little strong evidence for this. In contrast, in somewhat later bauddha works we find explicit polemics against on the worshipers of viShNu and shiva by nAgArjuna. In the even later texts we find the mahAyAna bauddhas internalizing sectarian AstIka deties and trying to demonize the AstIka versions. The main doctrinal adversaries of the buddha are brAhmaNa vedic ritualists (see below). While he disparages various brAhmaNa-s and ascetics performing magical rites, he himself is not averse to showing his superiority in magical rites to his brahmin adversaries (This is excellently illustrated in the tale of the jaTila uruvelA kAshyapa whom the tathAgata converted by staying in their shrauta sacrificial hall). In philosophical terms too he closely positions himself to the brahminical philosophies and tries to overthrow them. He appears to be aware of vaisheShika in the teachings of pakudha kAtyAyana, and obviously of upaniShadic doctrines which he subverts (though he does not mention them by name). Another important point is that he battles lokAyata-s who are described as brAhmaNas. Thus, as seen from the internal evidence of bR^ihaspati and jayarAshi bhaTTa, lokAyata-s were always brAhmANa, probably in core associated with bhUtachaitanya vAda. The early bauddha works also known of a great diversity in shramaNa or ascetic traditions and mention the naked jain (nirgrantha nAthaputra) and AjIvikas of makkhali gosala. Personalities: The early bauddha works are aware of upaniShadic teachers as historical not contemporary figures and tries to claim them as teachers of bauddha doctrines. These include kR^iShNa-dvaipAyana (a bodhisattva), janaka the king of mithila, uddAlaka AruNi, shvetaketu and nArada. They also know of the rAmAyaNa with certain fine details, and claim rAma as a bodhisattva. They know the harivaMsha/mahAbhArata, the existence of the historical king yuddhiShThira in indraprastha. In line with the paurANic genealogies they know of ajAshatru of the rising magadhan imperialism as the contemporary of their hero, shuddhodana-putra. vedic terminology: One of the most important, but oft missed points, is that the early bauddha works consciously adopt vedic terminology for all their major doctrinal concepts: 1) Firstly the doctrine of the buddha is termed dharma. jaimini begins the mImAmsa sUtra-s begin as “athAto dharma-jij~nAsa”. Thus vedic sacrificial ritual was seen as dharma. 2) In the bauddha doctrine the bauddha religious intention is taken to mean karma, again imitating the vedic ritual action which is termed karma. 3) The central knowledge required for the bauddha is called the trayi-vidyA: (i) knowledge of past incarnations of one-self (ii) knowledge of past incarnations of others (iii) knowledge of the four Arya truths. Thus, the vedic term of trayI-vidyA, which signifies the 3 kinds of mantra, R^iks, sAmans and yajushes (not 3 vedas), is imitated. 4) The teaching emanating from the buddha is termed ArSha. Thus the buddha is being considered a R^iShi like the seers of the veda. 5) The bauddha oral tradition is recorded in the form of recitations termed sUtta-s. Here the term used is the same as the vedic oral recitation the sUkta (sUtta does not mean sUtra as commonly mistaken by the unerudite, but sUktaM), which fits in well with the tAthagata’s teaching being ArSha. 6) The follower of the bauddha path is termed Arya, wherein the vedic term for a dvija eligible for ya~jna is taken up. 7) The aspirant entering the bauddha 8-fold teaching is called snAtaka, imitating the qualified vedic student. 8) Charity given for the support of the sangha is termed dakShiNa in imitation of the vedic ritual fee given to the brahmin. Thus, the buddha and his early successors saw themselves as the correct inheritors of the older tradition and that they were giving the true or correct meanings of the terms in that tradition– they use the term sad-dharma. Not surprisingly the buddha spends a lot of effort lecturing on who is the true brahmin . Perhaps, this is also consistent with the observation that in the dramiDa maNimekhalai the bauddha-s consider themselves a “vedic” philosophy like sAmkhya and mImAmasa. Reviewing these points an apparent conundrum emerges: The bauddha-s appear to be linked in a direct sense to the vedic tradition as successors. Whereas, within the AstIka tradition we see the sectarian vaiShNavism and shaivism as successors of vedic. These dominate the epics to greater or lesser degrees and have precursors even in the late vedic period. Yet, these find no or little mention amongst the bauddhas. The typical white Indologists and their fellow travelers have persistently tried to claim that the late vedic corpus (upaniShads, mImAmsa sUtras and itihAsa) and the early bauddha corpus overlapped. However, if we carefully view the evidence we find that as usual the conventional Indological ideas are flawed: The paurANic genealogies, the mentions of the itihAsas by buddha but not vice versa, the mention of upaniShadic teachers by buddha and not vice versa, the mention of post-vedic paurANic deities and figures by the early bauddha works, the mention of diverse pre-existing community of ascetics (already a common feature in the itihAsas), the existence of vaisheShika, lokAyata and mImAmsa thought as prior conditions, all suggest that the bauddha mata was indeed later than all the above developments as traditionally believed by Hindus. What this means is that even-though the sectarian streams had prominence in the itihAsa-s they were not as widespread as it might seem in the period of the buddha. Instead the vedic religion was the dominant feature amongst the elite. Further, the folk beliefs preserved by the tathAgata again had indra and the vedic pantheon, along with many others rather than the sectarian pantheons. This shows that the extant of permeation of vedic Indo-Aryan culture into the grass-roots of Indian society and that the true rise of sectarianism at the grass-root level was a later phenomenon. In reality, like the bauddha-s, the sectarian streams too used the veda as a base. Early sectarian works like bhAgavataM use vedic material, but for their own agenda. Thus, subversion was model in both AstIka and nAstIka traditions. Herein, Indo-Aryan India paralled the earlier Aryan developments- namely subversion of the proto-Indo-Iranian religion (the ancestor of vedic) by Zarathustra in founding the cult of Ahura-Mazda. The huge departure of Zarathushtra was his tendency towards zealous exclusivism or almost monotheism. Likewise, both the AstIka subversionists (shaiva-s and vaiShNava-s) showed some exclusivist tendencies in their later but not early development. The radical departure of the bauddha-s was in erecting blatant nara-stuti (at least vAsudeva and balabhadra were merely emanations of viShNu) and more importantly rejecting deva-bhASha and chandas. This linguistic departure more than anything else was probably to set the bauddha mata aside for ever as a nAstIka tradition. This came as we know from siddhArtha’s own mouth as he forebade the brAhmaNas from composing his work into vedic hymns. ----------- // Unquote Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote: > > The radical departure of the bauddha-s was in erecting > blatant nara-stuti (at least vAsudeva and balabhadra were merely > emanations of viShNu) and more importantly rejecting deva-bhASha and > chandas. This linguistic departure more than anything else was > probably to set the bauddha mata aside for ever as a nAstIka > tradition. This came as we know from siddhArtha's own mouth as he > forebade the brAhmaNas from composing his work into vedic hymns. Rameshji, thanks for posting the detailed article. I am particular about understanding the above. Can you if possible give a brief elaboration of terms like nara-stuti, deva-bhASha, chandas. Why are they connected with linguistic departure? Does this also refer to the usage of terms like sunya, asunyata, etc as opposed to poornam, Brahman, etc - i.e this deliberate linguistic departure became a standard procedure in the philosophical developments of Buddhism? thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 The author of the article I quoted does not make any comments on the philosophy per se. The focus is more on other aspects including devata-s, ritual, mantra-shaastra, etc. nara-stuti: The meaning is obvious - stuti of a human being, as opposed to a deva. deva-bhAShA is Sanskrit, chandas is meter. While we on this list tend to think a lot in terms of philosophy, this author does not seem to think of philosophical issues as primary. You can see that he describes the yoga of the yoga-shaastra, the Upanishadic Brahmavidya and the Bauddha philosophy as being phenomenologically similar and only descriptively different. This is a big topic that I do not want to get into at this moment (perhaps I am not even qualified to do so) but I do think there is some truth to this idea. Even supposedly " materialistic " philosophies such as Vaisheshika talk about mukti involving freedom from attributes. So when he talks about linguistic departure etc, he is talking more in " cultural " rather than philosophic terms, notably the usage of Pali instead of Sanskrit. It has nothing to do with the usage of terms like shunya. Of course many subsequent Bauddha-s, in particular the Mahayanists, restarted the use of Sanskrit. Note what he says about the Tamil Bauddha epic Manimekhalai, which describes the Bauddha-s as followers of the Veda. This point has been noted by many scholars. On your point about Nagarjuna being a Brahmana, the fact is that the majority of the Bauddha philosophers were actually Brahmana-s, starting with Sariputra, Maudgalyayana, Mahakashyapa, etc in the early days to Ashvaghosha, Nagarjuna, Asanga, Vasubandhu, Bhavaviveka, Dignaga, Dharmakirti and others in later days. Those who were not Brahmana were usually Kshatriya, such as the Buddha himself and a few others such as Shantarakshita. Even the Charvaka-s were mostly Brahmana - Jayarashi Bhatta etc. 2009/5/30 putranm <putranm: > > Rameshji, thanks for posting the detailed article. I am particular about > understanding the above. Can you if possible give a brief elaboration of > terms like nara-stuti, deva-bhASha, chandas. Why are they connected with > linguistic departure? Does this also refer to the usage of terms like sunya, > asunyata, etc as opposed to poornam, Brahman, etc - i.e this deliberate > linguistic departure became a standard procedure in the philosophical > developments of Buddhism? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 dear putranji, the main attack of Nagarjuna is towards the hindu realists. It is true he denied authority of the Vedas but in his works there is no direct attack on the Brahman / Atman conception of Upanisads. He may or may not have been aware of it. Now as for the idea of reconciliation of the two systems based on authority of Sruti, let me tell you that the concept of Brahman in Yoga Vasista is more of the kind of Nagarjuna's Asunya than the Self Effulgent Brahman of Sankara. But these few differences are not poles apart they can certainly be reconciled if allowed to. Doesn't Taittriya Upanisad say that words and mind fall back from the realm of Brahman. The buddhists also believe the same. One more important thing, modern buddhists have tried to reconcile these two systems. In Sogyal Rinpoche's " Tibetan Book Of Living and Dying " he talks of the pure nature of mind which is the essence of all beings and equates it with the Brahman / Atman conception of Upanisads. Nagarjuna built a system based on teachings of Buddha even though he was averse to the Vedas, Sankara built a system averse to Buddha but on the basis of Upanisads. Is it impossible for two men to come to same conclusions? REGARDS, VAIBHAV. advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@> wrote: > > > > > > putranmji, > > By giving reference of Swami Vivekananda I meant the same thing as you said. No coming to whether Nagarjuna accepted the Brahman of Upanisads or not? Nagarjuna obviously did not study these texts. Moreover the concept of Brahman as we know it was developed by Sankara. If you read the views of the Mimamsakas like Kumarila and Prabhakara you would come to know that they did not even have any concpetion of Isvara, far then Brahman. Thirdly, if you read The Mula Madhyamika Karika, translation, annotation given by David J. Kalupahana, he convincingly proves that Nagarjuna's ideas were not orignal but the very same of those of Buddha. Fourthly, the true conceptions of Madhyamika School were lost by the time of Sankara. Fifthly, the idea of neti neti, compare Buddha's statement, " everything here is devoid of the self " The practise of rejecting each concept is also similar to the neti neti. Sixthly, sunyata means emptiness ie devoid of existence of its own. Asunyata as a concept is similar to Brahman. BUT probably you did not read the first post I gave on this topic, it points out the difference, the asunyata is totally charcterless, there is no idea of two levels of reality. For Sankara Brahman is immediate, direct and self revealing. This is the difference. > > My final position on this topic is: Nagarjuna and Sankara's concepts have grave similarity but some differences as well. But these differnces are on the surface level only, the essence is the same. Nagarjuna did not adopt anything from Upanisads rather he rejected the authority of the Vedas but still depending on the teachings of Buddha he came to a conclusion strikingly similar to that of Sankara, but his orignal teaching was lost to Sankara. > > I don't speak randomly but I have studied Nagarjuna's philosophy. Please refer to S. Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy Vol. 1. Most of my views are based on this work. > > > > REGARDS, > > VAIBHAV. > > > > > > > > > To all readers, I DO speak " randomly " and have not studied S. Radhakrishnan's views on Nagarjuna. Thanks to the forum-environment that allows this. > > I have no clue why " Nagarjuna obviously did not study these texts " . This is a blanket assertion regarding this Sanskrit scholar and presumably born Brahmana during a philosophically-active period of Indian history. > > We have *no need* to think that Nagarjuna or Buddha were unfamiliar with the Upanishads and that they were " original " in their philosophic-theories. It is obvious that a basic principle for their religion was the rejection of the Vedas, hence the philosophical-development " as if " totally independently of the Vedic religion - i.e. in your assessment " ... did not adopt anything from the Upanishads " . > > Now the Chandogya Upanishad says " That which is the subtle essense (or subtlest) of all this is the Self of all this. That is the truth. That is the Self. That thou art, O Svetaketu " . > > Nagarjuna's primary contention: There is no self-nature to anything, no essential Being etc to phenomena ('all this'). > > He may well be contradicting one of the literal interpretations of Brahman - as the *Self of all this*, and have studied the Chandogya Upanishad - or been familiar with its thought. The direct reference to Vedic thought is missing but the attack on this interpretation is a core to Nagarjuna's efforts. It must have been " in the air " . > > Now I have this question, which is fundamental to us. You said that " Asunyata " and " Shankara's " " Brahman " are close but not the same. Do you think that the Sruthi would accomodate for Nagarjuna's interpretation in its entirety (without compromising it)? For instance, by specifying certain things more or less, Advaita and Visishtadvaita both find validation in the Sruthi. Do you think that Madhyamika would be able to do this? > > If yes, then they are Potential-Astikas, inspite of their denial due to ignorance of Sruthi and desire to be Nastikas. Their philosophy is contained within the realm of the Sruthi. > > If No, then they are really Nastikas - by the boundaries of their philosophy: in particular, the differences are not " surface-level " even if they appear trivial. > > --- > > Another point: the statement that " Brahman as we know it " is the development of Shankara, should be reassessed. His role was elucidation and highlighting - figuring out how to reconcile the essential *Upanishadic-connotations* of Brahman as " Neti-Neti " , " Aham Brahmaasmi " , " Self of all this " , etc that suggest advaita (as if no room for " this " and all for " Self " ) inspite of apparent dvaita to our experience. > > It is in this elucidation of the " iti-neti " conundrum that concepts like Ishvara, maya, etc need to be properly figured out from scripture and reason. They are indeed difficult and require the acharya's guidance. However Brahman in its essence is already well presented in the 'early' Upanishads, and should " Hit " most with an Advaita import. > > (That Mimamsakas did not follow Ishvara, much less Brahman is putting cart before the horse - here " the essential message of Brahman is already present in Up. " is main point; the right conception is secondary. " Ishvara " is harder to work out in many an intellectual-sense.) > > thollmelukaalkizhu > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Dear Sadanandaji, I am sorry but you did not understand what I was trying to say. What I meant Gaudapada and Sankara's theory were somewhat revolutionary for people of those times. True advaita was existing before too but the influence of purva mimamsakas was so great that more importance was given to the karma kanda of Vedas than jnana kanda. So Sankara had to argue to prove the greater authority of jnana kanda of Vedas. The theories prevalent and held sway at the time of Nagarjuna and his followers must have been different from advaita. That was my point. REGARDS, VAIBHAV. advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > > > > --- On Fri, 5/29/09, vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21 wrote: > > Moreover the concept of Brahman as we know it was developed by Sankara. If you read the views of the Mimamsakas like Kumarila and Prabhakara you would come to know that they did not even have any concpetion of Isvara, far then Brahman. > > -------- > Vaibhavji - PraNAms > > The above statement is rather surprising. Goudapaada discusses extensively in his kaarikas, which Shankara comments on both the mantras and on the kaarikas - where nature of Brahman is discussed. Kumarila and Prabhakara are puurvamiimamsakas with karma khanDa as the main aspect of Vedas. If I understand correctly Prabhakara was supposed to be student of Kumarila but formed his own theories contrasting his teacher. Of course I have not studied Radhakrishnan books. In the last chapter Goudapaada dismisses all the four schools of Buddhism as Shree Sastriji pointed out. That much only I know about their philosophies. But I am not sure about your statement that Brahman as we know is developed by Shankara. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Dear Sadanandaji, To be more precise about what I wish to say please note the following: 1. Advaita theory existed before Sri Sankara as books like Ashtavakra Samhita and Yoga Vasista predate him. 2. The theories having sway at the time of Nagarjuna must have been those of the realists rather than advaita. 3. Sri Sankara brought about a revival of Advaita theory. 4. Kumarila and Prabhakara were Purva Mimamsakas and their theories were more famous at their own time. Both were before Sankara. According to them the Vedas and the creation are eternal. The Vedas were not originated from an Isvara. They had no place for Isvara in their system like the Sankhyas. REGARDS, VAIBHAV. advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21 wrote: > > Dear Sadanandaji, > I am sorry but you did not understand what I was trying to say. What I meant Gaudapada and Sankara's theory were somewhat revolutionary for people of those times. True advaita was existing before too but the influence of purva mimamsakas was so great that more importance was given to the karma kanda of Vedas than jnana kanda. So Sankara had to argue to prove the greater authority of jnana kanda of Vedas. The theories prevalent and held sway at the time of Nagarjuna and his followers must have been different from advaita. That was my point. > > REGARDS, > VAIBHAV. > > > > > > > > > advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- On Fri, 5/29/09, vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21@> wrote: > > > > Moreover the concept of Brahman as we know it was developed by Sankara. If you read the views of the Mimamsakas like Kumarila and Prabhakara you would come to know that they did not even have any concpetion of Isvara, far then Brahman. > > > > -------- > > Vaibhavji - PraNAms > > > > The above statement is rather surprising. Goudapaada discusses extensively in his kaarikas, which Shankara comments on both the mantras and on the kaarikas - where nature of Brahman is discussed. Kumarila and Prabhakara are puurvamiimamsakas with karma khanDa as the main aspect of Vedas. If I understand correctly Prabhakara was supposed to be student of Kumarila but formed his own theories contrasting his teacher. Of course I have not studied Radhakrishnan books. In the last chapter Goudapaada dismisses all the four schools of Buddhism as Shree Sastriji pointed out. That much only I know about their philosophies. But I am not sure about your statement that Brahman as we know is developed by Shankara. > > Hari Om! > > Sadananda > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Before anyone raises the question of why I said that Yoga Vasista was closer to Sunyavadins in its concepts, I would like to reply: 1. Yoga Vasista stands more for dristhi sristhi vada while Sankara held maya to be indefinite ie beyond scope of any affirmation or negation. 2. These differences while very minor, they only pertain to the details than the essence. 3. My point is this: There is room in Sruti and Smriti texts to accomodate Madhyamika doctrine also. REGARDS, VAIBHAV. advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@> wrote: > > > > > > putranmji, > > By giving reference of Swami Vivekananda I meant the same thing as you said. No coming to whether Nagarjuna accepted the Brahman of Upanisads or not? Nagarjuna obviously did not study these texts. Moreover the concept of Brahman as we know it was developed by Sankara. If you read the views of the Mimamsakas like Kumarila and Prabhakara you would come to know that they did not even have any concpetion of Isvara, far then Brahman. Thirdly, if you read The Mula Madhyamika Karika, translation, annotation given by David J. Kalupahana, he convincingly proves that Nagarjuna's ideas were not orignal but the very same of those of Buddha. Fourthly, the true conceptions of Madhyamika School were lost by the time of Sankara. Fifthly, the idea of neti neti, compare Buddha's statement, " everything here is devoid of the self " The practise of rejecting each concept is also similar to the neti neti. Sixthly, sunyata means emptiness ie devoid of existence of its own. Asunyata as a concept is similar to Brahman. BUT probably you did not read the first post I gave on this topic, it points out the difference, the asunyata is totally charcterless, there is no idea of two levels of reality. For Sankara Brahman is immediate, direct and self revealing. This is the difference. > > My final position on this topic is: Nagarjuna and Sankara's concepts have grave similarity but some differences as well. But these differnces are on the surface level only, the essence is the same. Nagarjuna did not adopt anything from Upanisads rather he rejected the authority of the Vedas but still depending on the teachings of Buddha he came to a conclusion strikingly similar to that of Sankara, but his orignal teaching was lost to Sankara. > > I don't speak randomly but I have studied Nagarjuna's philosophy. Please refer to S. Radhakrishnan's Indian Philosophy Vol. 1. Most of my views are based on this work. > > > > REGARDS, > > VAIBHAV. > > > > > > > > > To all readers, I DO speak " randomly " and have not studied S. Radhakrishnan's views on Nagarjuna. Thanks to the forum-environment that allows this. > > I have no clue why " Nagarjuna obviously did not study these texts " . This is a blanket assertion regarding this Sanskrit scholar and presumably born Brahmana during a philosophically-active period of Indian history. > > We have *no need* to think that Nagarjuna or Buddha were unfamiliar with the Upanishads and that they were " original " in their philosophic-theories. It is obvious that a basic principle for their religion was the rejection of the Vedas, hence the philosophical-development " as if " totally independently of the Vedic religion - i.e. in your assessment " ... did not adopt anything from the Upanishads " . > > Now the Chandogya Upanishad says " That which is the subtle essense (or subtlest) of all this is the Self of all this. That is the truth. That is the Self. That thou art, O Svetaketu " . > > Nagarjuna's primary contention: There is no self-nature to anything, no essential Being etc to phenomena ('all this'). > > He may well be contradicting one of the literal interpretations of Brahman - as the *Self of all this*, and have studied the Chandogya Upanishad - or been familiar with its thought. The direct reference to Vedic thought is missing but the attack on this interpretation is a core to Nagarjuna's efforts. It must have been " in the air " . > > Now I have this question, which is fundamental to us. You said that " Asunyata " and " Shankara's " " Brahman " are close but not the same. Do you think that the Sruthi would accomodate for Nagarjuna's interpretation in its entirety (without compromising it)? For instance, by specifying certain things more or less, Advaita and Visishtadvaita both find validation in the Sruthi. Do you think that Madhyamika would be able to do this? > > If yes, then they are Potential-Astikas, inspite of their denial due to ignorance of Sruthi and desire to be Nastikas. Their philosophy is contained within the realm of the Sruthi. > > If No, then they are really Nastikas - by the boundaries of their philosophy: in particular, the differences are not " surface-level " even if they appear trivial. > > --- > > Another point: the statement that " Brahman as we know it " is the development of Shankara, should be reassessed. His role was elucidation and highlighting - figuring out how to reconcile the essential *Upanishadic-connotations* of Brahman as " Neti-Neti " , " Aham Brahmaasmi " , " Self of all this " , etc that suggest advaita (as if no room for " this " and all for " Self " ) inspite of apparent dvaita to our experience. > > It is in this elucidation of the " iti-neti " conundrum that concepts like Ishvara, maya, etc need to be properly figured out from scripture and reason. They are indeed difficult and require the acharya's guidance. However Brahman in its essence is already well presented in the 'early' Upanishads, and should " Hit " most with an Advaita import. > > (That Mimamsakas did not follow Ishvara, much less Brahman is putting cart before the horse - here " the essential message of Brahman is already present in Up. " is main point; the right conception is secondary. " Ishvara " is harder to work out in many an intellectual-sense.) > > thollmelukaalkizhu > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Namaste, The approach in Madhyamaka is to examine and deconstruct the process of attributing entities with a self nature to the empirical world where no such entities exist in reality. It does not deny the existence of the phenomenal world - which would be nihilism. It denies that things have any self nature (an entity status) of their own. In other words, with the example of a clay pot, while the pot has an appearance which is not denied it does not have a self-nature (entity status) of its own. The self-nature of the pot is denied. In Advaita we say pot form (nama-rupa) is nothing but clay, which is the substratum. Pot has no independent status of its own as an entity with a self-nature. Pot as pot form is unreal, while pot as clay is real. In Advaita we use this analogy to assert that ultimately everything in the empirical world is like the pot, nothing but nama-rupa, while the true substratum (the clay) is Brahman. As nama-rupa the world is appearance only and unreal, as Brahman the world is real. For the ignorant (ajnanis) this is an analogy, for the wise (jnanis) this is the reality. In Madhyamaka the aim of deconstruction is to finally let go of the process of all conceptualisation, of attributing entities where non truly exist and to rest in awareness free from conceptual contrivances. What they are concerned about is that when we say the pot is unreal but clay is real, when we say the world is unreal but Brahman is real, we are still conceptualisng the ultimate nature of reality. So they seek to avoid denying one thing while affirming another. According to this approach, for as long as we are doing this we are not resting in awareness free from of conceptual contrivance. The above is the view of the Rangtong Madhyamikas (of the Second turning) normally known as Prasangikas. While it's approach is one of negation, to dismiss it as nihilistic is a gross simplification to say the least. Regards, Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Sadaji writes: > In the last chapter Goudapaada dismisses > all the four schools of Buddhism as Shree Sastriji pointed > out. That much only I know about their philosophies. Dear Sada-ji, Yes, it's a puzzle to me that Gaudapada and Sankara (in his commentary on Gaudapada's Karika) do so - especially with very little analysis of what those school's maintain. For example, dismissing the entire Madhyamika school as arch-nihilists without a single reference to Shentong Madhymaka. Dismissing the views of other schools of thought seems to have been an established formality in those days. It is as if each school sought to higlight just one or two aspects of the opposing school(s) with which to create a caricature relatively easy to dismiss. I have read buddhist commentaries that dismiss Advaita, Samkhya, and opposing schools of buddhism in a similar fashion. Quite often, the students who follow those respective schools only ever know the caricatures created rather than the real teachings of the other schools. In Sankara's commentary of verse 28 of Gaudapada's Karika, he merely asserts that the nihilists (presumably the Madhyamikas) are more audacious than the vinjnanvadin because they assert the absolute non existence of everything including their own experiences. Yet in his commentary on verse 40 of the Karika, Sankara explains objects are not real because they are perceived (perhaps alluding to their mithya status). He goes on to deny any causal relations between objects, saying, " Hence men of knowledge find that causal relation between any objects whatsoever is not capable of being proved. " Just like Gaudapada and Sankara's commentary, Nagarjuna (who composed his Mulamadhymaka Karika many years earlier) disputes the reality of objects. Nagarjuna's views on non-origination and Gaudapada's views on ajatavada have many similarities in their arguments, which is why some people assert the influence of Buddhism on the Karika. Nagarjuna had also argued that the causal relation between objects cannot be demonstrated. Yet he is clearly not meant to be included in Sankara's statement: " Hence men of knowledge find that causal relation between any objects whatsoever is not capable of being proved. " The aspects of similarity and agreement between the two schools are omitted. Regards, Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 tony ji : buddha never wanted to be called as an avataaram,just as guru adi shankara achaaryaal never wanted to be known as an avataaram.its people who gave this honorific titles to show their gratitude,becoz of the classic works or bashyams left behind by them,by which people reached pinnacles of happiness. case in example is our Mahaswamigal of Kanchipuram.He never wanted to be addressed as 'nadamadum deivam'(walking ogd) as an avataaram.but simple devotees and sishyas,by virtue of their love & gratitude express such profound titles on him;left to him,he was satchidananda vigraha swaroopam.just his drishti is enough to remove you from avidya.anyways this is my view. imho,buddhism and advaitham merge after a certain point.but that is my opinion only,as a true advaithin,i am unable to see differences or non-dual natures of assimilations of various darshanas,given to us by enlightened masters of yore ,present and so it will be in the future generations to come. suresh. advaitin , " Tony OClery " <aoclery wrote: > > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > > > do people here think Nagarjuna would have accepted with Shankara's advaita interpretation of the Upanishads? > > > > (Feel like the nasty guy, but must do my job. Still planning to be silent for a while :-) > > > > The first turning is Buddha's forte and most well known. > > > > The second turning is the critical point of separation from Vedanta. As I understand, one of the important implications of this turning was negation of the Upanishadic-Brahman. > > > > Advaitins should pay close attention to the historical significance of the second turning, AND ask whether Buddhism at this stage really intended to lead from the second to the third turning, which seems like going back to the Upanishadic Atman/Brahman - a turn that Nagarjuna seemed very particular in avoiding. The usual critical understanding of Buddhism includes only the first two turnings. > > > > That brings us to the third turning. At what point did this perspective enter Buddhism, how was it established and spread? It seems later Buddhists realized that all their brooding on emptiness must be turned over to Fullness, as grounded in It. HOWEVER it seems overzealous to suggest that Buddhism held this position uniformly in its history, during Buddha and Nagarjuna in particular - when it established itself as a Nastika school. What we can say is that *eventually* perhaps, there were schools of Buddhism whose conclusions more or less pointed back to Brahman and agreed with the Advaita interpretation of the Upanishads - i.e. they turned full circle. By then, of course they were independently established and spreading. > > > > Well, is all this really the case? Partly perhaps, but Shunyata same as Brahman? Back when I came to these forums, a serious Buddhist " Neil Glazer " also decided to come to advaita and made some very detailed posts clarifying some of the issues. I would highly recommend that people interested go back and read his posts: 34969, 34987, 34970, 34940, 34945, and others. I think he might have left the list due also to some of my later comments along the lines of my previous post. > > > > thollmelukaalkizhu > > > > advaitin , " Peter " <not_2@> wrote: > > > > > > Dear Rachmeil and friends, > > > > > > To put my previous post on the two main types of emptiness in Buddhism into > > > context. There are said to be three turnings of the wheel of Dharma (the > > > Buddha's teaching) each emphasising a different aspect of the Dharma. The > > > first two turnings of the wheel of dharma express the rantong nature of > > > emptiness (empty of self-nature). The third turning expounds upon the > > > shentong nature of emptiness (empty-of-other nature). > > > > > > FIRST TURNING: > > > > > > This includes the four noble truths, the doctrine of impermanence, > > > suffering, and non-self, and the specific teachings found in the Abhidharma. > > > > > > > The teaching on emptiness here is that if one investigates the five > > > aggregates one will not find any independent entity call self or ego. (Like > > > the example of the car, earlier.) This is the doctrine of annatta (not self) > > > at this stage. > > > > > > SECOND TURNING: > > > > > > The emphasis here is the real nature of phenomena, namely that all phenomena > > > are empty of self-nature. Even the elements (also called dharmas) that > > > arise and pass away from moment to moment and which together form the > > > compound nature of the personal self are empty of self nature. The whole > > > nature of the dualism between nirvana and samsara is subjected to > > > investigation here and found to be empty of self nature. They are said to > > > be nothing but conceptual labels. Since there is nothing to get away from > > > (samsara) and nowhere to go (nirvana) the aspiration spontaneously arises to > > > be where one is helping suffering humanity. This is the beginning of the > > > bodhisattva path. > > > > THIRD TURNING: > > > > > > The truth about Buddha Nature (Tathagatgarbha) as found in the teachings of > > > the Uttaratantra of Maitreya and the Mahaparanirvana Sutras. This turning > > > examines what remains in emptiness once all of the above (the personal self, > > > all phenomena, the dualism of samsara and nirvana & so on) have been > > > negated. What is the true nature of the world that we misperceive, that we > > > misconstrue with name and form (nama-rupa). Is it a mere nothingness, a > > > vacuum? > > > > > > The answer from this perspective is " No " . The true nature of the world is > > > the ineffable, ungraspable " Thus-ness " - in short buddha-nature itself. The > > > resonance here with Advaita will be obvious to many in the assertion that > > > 'the world as world is unreal, while the world as Brahman is real.' > > Namaste, > > There is much speculation about Gautama and 'Buddhism', even Buddhagosa was talking about 'Heavens' and Avatar Maitreya in the end. > However Buddhism came out of Hinduism so to speak, and its pure form is a concentration on the most difficult teaching to grasp..Ajativada in Hinduism....The Buddhists talk about Sunyata, the Void, emptiness, fullness etc...depending on the time and circumstances. However they do negate the concept of Brahman, which Ajativada does also----Saguna Brahman that is. So most of the differences are really created by a turning back to Bhakti as most minds couldn't accept the no Saguna concept. > > This is why later Tibetan Buddhism/Mahayana was so popular, as it incorporated the Bon Po traditions of many Devas and so was similar to Hinduism at the Dvaitic level onwards....All religions are Dvaitic!! > > The ordinary person's mind cannot accept the concept of No(Saguna) Brahman, Sunyata, Ajativada etc as it smacks of the Nastikas and Atheism. There is nothing to satisfy their need to worship something greater than themselves a greater being taking responsibility. > > As Moksha is a dual simultaneous realisation of Saguna or Sakti and NirGuna at the same time...the road is the same in the end anyway. Thus for consumption of their Bhaktas both Sankara and Buddhagosa talked in terms of Govinda and Maitrey respectively, in the end. > > That doesn't take away anything from the concept of Ajativada or Sahaja Nirvikalpa Samadhi, as it is the final truth, and requires a certain fearlessness that most don't wish to have apparently....Cheers Tony. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 --- On Sat, 5/30/09, Peter <not_2 wrote: Yes, it's a puzzle to me that Gaudapada and Sankara (in his commentary on Gaudapada's Karika) do so - especially with very little analysis of what those school's maintain. For example, dismissing the entire Madhyamika school as arch-nihilists without a single reference to Shentong Madhymaka. Peter- PraNAms I agree with you based on what you have presented. I am not sure when the Shentong Madhyamika came and to what extent that was widespread at Shankara's time, etc- these are also questions that one should be aware of. I have studied some of the books of VishishTaadvaita and they also take up Budhhistic doctrines and various epistemological analysis and dismiss them as incorrect. Most of the time, they take advaita as puurvapaksha and Ramaanuja spends significant portion of his Shree bhaashya (commentary on Brahmasuutras) rejecting advaita doctrine. Vedanta Deshika has 'shatadhuushanii' or hundred abuses on advaita Vedanta - involving mostly dialectical arguments. Rejecting other philosophies to establish their own is normal procedure adopted by philosophers at that time. Your point is well taken that one has to study any philosophy on its own merit to see if that is consistent with ones understanding. I am reminded of the sloka - only by god's grace one is led to a proper teacher. And Dattatreya says in Avadhuuata Gita only by grace of God one gets advaita vaasanas. Most importantly, I see as a scientist that one has to use discriminative intellect as one goes after the truth that is absolute, and one does not depend on any philosophy per sec. My own spiritual journey is clear example for myself. I started as vishiShtaadvaitin, then JK philosophy and ultimately landed into adviata. My prostrations to all my teachers who shaped my thinking and who helped me in one way or the other to arrive at the clear vision of the truth. Looking back all the teachers where the right teachers at the right time to help me to see clearly beyond any particular teaching that is the absolute truth. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21 wrote: > > dear putranji, > the main attack of Nagarjuna is towards the hindu realists. It is true he denied authority of the Vedas but in his works there is no direct attack on the Brahman / Atman conception of Upanisads. He may or may not have been aware of it. Now as for the idea of reconciliation of the two systems based on authority of Sruti, let me tell you that the concept of Brahman in Yoga Vasista is more of the kind of Nagarjuna's Asunya than the Self Effulgent Brahman of Sankara. But these few differences are not poles apart they can certainly be reconciled if allowed to. Doesn't Taittriya Upanisad say that words and mind fall back from the realm of Brahman. The buddhists also believe the same. One more important thing, modern buddhists have tried to reconcile these two systems. In Sogyal Rinpoche's " Tibetan Book Of Living and Dying " he talks of the pure nature of mind which is the essence of all beings and equates it with the Brahman / Atman conception of Upanisads. Nagarjuna built a system based on teachings of Buddha even though he was averse to the Vedas, Sankara built a system averse to Buddha but on the basis of Upanisads. Is it impossible for two men to come to same conclusions? > > REGARDS, > VAIBHAV. Sri Vaibhavji, thanks for the explanation. I don't agree with your assessment of this history and regard it in the same lines as western historians who will say that the Upanishads were more or less the same time in origin as Buddha. But I will leave the issue for now: if any Advaitin wants to do this reconciling business with a complete acceptance of their version of history, the same self-deluding remains as far as I am concerned: they created boundaries for the sake of identity - forgive 'ok'; forget - not so easy. As for Rinpoche, when he says " Pure nature of mind " is " Brahman " , it is not clear to me that he identifies this with Asunyata, or whether he believes a " higher " truth than his reference to Brahman. As for Yoga Vasishta, we accept it but not as Sruthi. Let Advaitins not confuse this one bit - it has to be understood following the understanding established fully on the basis of Sruthi. Otherwise such texts indeed can fall to Nastika conclusions or whatever. Of course, you point to Taitteriya Up for reference of one point. thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Dear Peter & Sada, Just a thought (I am entirely ignorant on the subject): The name 'Shentong' implies Chinese? Even if the philosophy was around at the same time, is it not possible that Shankara was unaware of it if it was developed in a different place in an alien language? Maybe it is only much later that its contemporaneous existence has become clear. Best wishes, Dennis advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of kuntimaddi sadananda Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:48 PM advaitin RE: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism --- On Sat, 5/30/09, Peter <not_2 <not_2%40btinternet.com> > wrote: Yes, it's a puzzle to me that Gaudapada and Sankara (in his commentary on Gaudapada's Karika) do so - especially with very little analysis of what those school's maintain. For example, dismissing the entire Madhyamika school as arch-nihilists without a single reference to Shentong Madhymaka. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Hi Dennis, Shentong and Rantong are from the Tibetan - terminology for " emptiness " that probably was not developed in Shankara's time. However, there were buddhist texts known to be at least third and fourth centuries (CE) which expounded on buddha-nature (a third turning teaching) such as the Srimalasutra and the Mahaparanirvanasutra (not the pali mahaparanibbanasutta of the same name). The Mahaparanirvanasutra like its pali namesake is claimed to be the last words of the Buddha. Best wishes, Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite > 30 May 2009 15:39 > advaitin > RE: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > Dear Peter & Sada, > > Just a thought (I am entirely ignorant on the subject): The > name 'Shentong' > implies Chinese? Even if the philosophy was around at the > same time, is it not possible that Shankara was unaware of it > if it was developed in a different place in an alien > language? Maybe it is only much later that its > contemporaneous existence has become clear. > > Best wishes, > > Dennis Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Pranaams to all, As a long-time student of Tibetan Buddhism, and a current student of traditional Advaita Vedanta, who has been gratefully enjoying and learning a tremendous amount from the wonderfully informed discussions on this group, I am finally moved by this topic to make a small contribution here. " Shentong " is a transliteration of a Tibetan term (gzhan.stong.) meaning " emptiness of other " or " other emptiness " , as already explained. While based on both Nagarjuna's teachings on emptiness and the " third turning " Buddhist teachings on Buddha Nature (Tathagatagarbha), such as Yogacara (e.g. the shastras of Asanga and Vasubhandhu), which probably pre-dated Adi Shankara, my understanding is that the specific term shentong originated in Tibet in around the 11th century, after Adi Shankara's time. Its view on emptiness as having " qualities " , such as luminosity/awareness, power and compassion, probably came from earlier Indian sources and is certainly grounded in the Buddha Nature teachings. Still, it is unlikely that Adi Shankara would have been aware of this view or that Buddhists extant at his time would be discussing shentong-type ideas that seem similar to Vedantic ideas, e.g. " self-cognizing (or luminous) emptiness, " and so on. Interestingly, the Buddha Nature teachings (and shentong) are criticized by some Buddhist schools as being " crypto-brahmanical " , i.e. as bringing Vedantic ideas into Buddhism " through the back door. " Strong critics of shentong include the proponents of the rangtong, or prasangika madhyamika schools, such as the Gelugpa sect of Tibetan Buddhism (the Dalai Lama's sect). Prasangika denies the existence of any absolute nature, substrate or consciousness. The Gelugpa almost wiped out the major Tibetan shentong school, the Jonangpa's, who only survived by retreating to far flung monasteries in the remote Tibetan province of Golok. The teachings on Buddha Nature are said to be for the purpose of counteracting tendencies towards nihilism--a potential pitfall of sunyavada, as Adi Shankara saw. They posit the existence of an awakened nature intrinsically within each being, that has positive qualities, such as wisdom and compassion, while still being " empty " in that this intrinsic self-nature cannot be conceptualized or objectified. My own feeling about the relationship between emptiness teachings and Advaita Vedanta's teachings on brahman (and atman) is that while they are philosophically very different, there are enough parallels and resemblances, when you take into account the teachings on Buddha Nature, such as shentong, to intimate that they are pointing to the same reality. But the methodology of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta seem quite different, at least as Buddhism seems to be taught today. For me, what makes Advaita Vedanta uniquely powerful and effective is its pramana, its methodology of directly revealing to the qualified student the nature of reality at the time of teaching, when the Upanishadic wisdom is unfolded by a qualified teacher. This pramana has proven effective for thousands of years, right to the present. There may be some parallels here, too, in Tibetan Buddhism, specifically in the advanced Vajrayana giving of " pointing out " instructions by a Buddhist master personally to a qualified student, on " the nature of mind " (Vedantins would say, " nature of consciousness, " I think). (Of course, as pointed out previously, Buddhists do not accept sruti as divinely inspired--so I am only talking about something roughly analogous, not identical, to Vedanta's pramana, in that the nature of reality is said to be conveyed by words at the time of teaching). Generally, though, it seems that Buddhist awakening is taught to rely on lots of meditation practice, coupled with intellectual study-- the notion of a pramana that reveals the vision of reality to the student at the moment of hearing from the teacher does not seem to be very widespread, and is rarely encountered in Buddhism, if encountered at all. I hope these reflections are helpful. With appreciation and gratitude, Hamsa advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote: > > Dear Peter & Sada, > > Just a thought (I am entirely ignorant on the subject): The name 'Shentong' > implies Chinese? Even if the philosophy was around at the same time, is it > not possible that Shankara was unaware of it if it was developed in a > different place in an alien language? Maybe it is only much later that its > contemporaneous existence has become clear. > > Best wishes, > > Dennis > > > > advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf > Of kuntimaddi sadananda > Saturday, May 30, 2009 1:48 PM > advaitin > RE: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > > > --- On Sat, 5/30/09, Peter not_2 > <not_2%40btinternet.com> > wrote: > > Yes, it's a puzzle to me that Gaudapada and Sankara (in his commentary on > > Gaudapada's Karika) do so - especially with very little analysis of what > > those school's maintain. For example, dismissing the entire Madhyamika > > school as arch-nihilists without a single reference to Shentong Madhymaka. > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 peter ji : Sri Adi Sankara was born at Kaladi on the fifth day of the bright fortnight of the Vaisaka month of the cyclic year Nandana in cyclic year Nandana - Kali 2593 corresponding to 509 B.C. http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/aboutpeetham.html?PHPSESSID=3bd89626679806113cffff\ 09109b6d85 Does it mean that Guru Adi Shankara Achaaryaal was born before Gautama Buddha aka Prince Siddharth.Can you clarify?Thanks. suresh. advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > Hi Dennis, > > Shentong and Rantong are from the Tibetan - terminology for " emptiness " that > probably was not developed in Shankara's time. However, there were > buddhist texts known to be at least third and fourth centuries (CE) which > expounded on buddha-nature (a third turning teaching) such as the > Srimalasutra and the Mahaparanirvanasutra (not the pali mahaparanibbanasutta > of the same name). The Mahaparanirvanasutra like its pali namesake is > claimed to be the last words of the Buddha. > > Best wishes, > > Peter > > > > > > advaitin > > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite > > 30 May 2009 15:39 > > advaitin > > RE: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > > > Dear Peter & Sada, > > > > Just a thought (I am entirely ignorant on the subject): The > > name 'Shentong' > > implies Chinese? Even if the philosophy was around at the > > same time, is it not possible that Shankara was unaware of it > > if it was developed in a different place in an alien > > language? Maybe it is only much later that its > > contemporaneous existence has become clear. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Dennis > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
