advaita vedanta and buddhism

June 12, 2009

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams,

>

> While I applaud these relentless attempts at finding common ground with

VedAntA, I think there is a tendency, ?deliberate?, to repeatedly gloss over

some very fundamental and glaring issues, including the following:

>

Shyamji,

I am afraid you will get everything from our members here, but a direct response

to your basic questions; this is your third post of the same type with either

tangential or non-response. That is the strategy in operation, whether

deliberate or not. How can a discussion on your serious points proceed if the

other members cannot properly address your detailed posts?

[Albeit I don't disagree that the article in question is not that high in

quality: I had sent its link (post 45415) earlier as a secondary link to the

more thorough " Vedanta vs Shentong " article.]

If I discuss on religion matters with some cousins of mine, I have to take care

to gloss over (or not at all mention) what they would likely dismiss right away

and try to work with the points that look abstract and modern/rational enough to

seemingly not require " faith " . I feel likewise here. I appreciate the fact that

you don't take this approach.

A member had asked in personal email what I meant by " our sampradaya " in my post

to Michaelji. I had given the following reply; I think I sent it before my last

three posts in this list (and before yours that followed them) - so it is a more

or less candid response. It may not be correct as to definition of " sampradaya "

but looks relevant to the situation here IMO.

QUOTE

By sampradaya, I mean the systematic following of Shankara's interpretation of

the Sruthi and teachings as represented by the official Mathas. They have a

wholesome assessment of all the issues governing our culture, religion and

society, in alignment with how they believe Shankara would have seen it and how

it should guide to the final Goals of our religion. For instance, in issues of

karma kAnda, this becomes clear. It also abides by a framework of guiding rules.

Now when I say " our " , I mean it in an informal sense since many people on this

list may only care for the essential philosophy of advaita in its final

conclusions. Many may not take to " reincarnation " at all or Ishvara. This is one

of the reasons for all this conflict, many do not place importance in things

that the sampradaya might consider important.

Yet the list is supposed to represent Shankara's teachings and at least

formally, they don't advocate taking some aspects lightly. However only a few

like Shyamji can be said to seriously adhere to the " sampradaya " in a thorough

sense.

UNQUOTE

thollmelukaalkizhu

June 12, 2009

Namaste Dr. Shaymji.

Since my 45687 has been tangentially called tangential, I believe I owe you a

clarification which I inadvertently missed before.

I restricted myself to the monk's essay as it glaringly misrepresented Advaita.

I don't know if he has done justice to Buddhism. But, with my meagre knowledge

of the subject, acquired through reading enlightened Members like Peterji,

Vaibhavji, Rajkumarji et al, I have every reason to think that he has faltered

there also.

I didn't respond to the first part of your mail, i.e. the points you have

enlisted, simply and frankly because I am not competent. Hence, my response

(45687) wasn't tangential. It is just the very little I know.

Best regards.

Madathil Nair

June 12, 2009

But, with my meagre knowledge of the subject, acquired through reading

enlightened Members like Peterji, Vaibhavji, Rajkumarji et al, I have every

reason to think that he has faltered there also.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

But still my mind is not in a position to digest the similarities between

buddhism & vedanta...If there is absolute similarity between these two

schools, why gaudapAda & shankara treated them as their rival school &

refuted their siddhAnta in their works (like kArika, sUtra, bruhad &

mAndukya bhAshya) ?? Either they might have misunderstood the doctrine of

buddha or they might have deliberately misrepresented/misinterpreted the

siddhAnta of buddha just because buddha & his lineage have ignored the

veda-s & upanishads while presenting their philosophy!!! Vaibhav prabhuji,

any clarification on this please??

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

PS : Just for the information, Sri Krishnaswamy Iyer, the author of

'Vedanta or the Science of Reality', compares other schools with vedanta

and says buddha's school teaching not goes in line with vedanta.

June 12, 2009

Do you have a single peice of evidence that the philosophy of Nagarjuna

contradicts the Upanisads?

praNAms Sri Vaibhav prabhuji

Hare Krishna

One more childish question from a 'socalled' vedanti who is biased against

buddhism (ofcourse without knowing anything about buddhism :-))

Kindly let me know whether Nagarjuna has anywhere in his kArika used the

word 'shunya' to depict the ultimate reality of this world phenomena!!

Sofar, in the quoted references of yours from mAdhyamika kArika of

Nagarjuna this word 'shunya' is conspicuous by its absence..Kindly let me

know what would be explanation he gives for this word " shunya " if at all he

used this word in his works.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

June 12, 2009

Putramji - PraNAms

For me sampradaaya is absolutely nothing to do with Mathas. They may follow

sampradaaya teaching. It is something to with teaching and the subject invovled.

It is something to do with systematic and self-consistent teaching of the

advaita Vedanta, recognizing the pitfalls that mind can fall into. The one who

has studied under a teacher understanding all the misconceptions that one can

get into he become a fit teacher to teach to the next. This is true in any

science. I have to study a Rutherford model of an atom before I get to Bohr

model even though we know the former is not correct. But by understanding the

former model and later learn the pitfalls in the model, the mind has the

capacity to discriminate properly what is the correct way of thinking. That

training the mind to think properly is sampradaaya. The rest I call it as

paraphernalia, may be helpful but not necessary. This is true in any scientific

discipline and more so for Vedanta since

pitfalls are many and more subtle too, as many have misconceptions about what

self-realization really involves.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

--- On Fri, 6/12/09, putranm <putranm wrote:

By sampradaya, I mean the systematic following of Shankara's interpretation of

the Sruthi and teachings as represented by the official Mathas.

They have a wholesome assessment of all the issues governing our culture,

religion and society, in alignment with how they believe Shankara would have

seen it and how it should guide to the final Goals of our religion.

June 12, 2009

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada

wrote:

>

> Putramji - PraNAms

>

> For me sampradaaya is absolutely nothing to do with Mathas. They may follow

sampradaaya teaching.

Sadaji, that is what I meant. There is clarity in many issues and their

significance when the acharyas of these mathas like Kanchi Mahaswamigal

discusses them, that a generic response often avoids - although one may dismiss

such as paraphernelia. Anycase I had actually suggested to the member to consult

yourself or Shastriji for the right definition.

thollmelukaalkizhu

June 12, 2009

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " vaibhav_narula21 " <vaibhav_narula21@> wrote:

> >

> > sorry putranji,

> > I cannot alter historical facts for you, I would have loved

to but I just can't.

> >

> > REGARDS,

> > VAIBHAV.

>

> Funny, how sure you seem to be --- like some indologists.

>

> (Sorry to others; am doing this contesting in the midst of guests from last

night and for the next 4 days - already looking embarassing how I am hooked onto

this. Otherwise perhaps at least in the " empty " part of the contesting, I could

have done something better than in the past couple of posts:-))

>

This is not a lie or anything. I don't have time to do extensive research right

now, and probably am going to get away from the topic soon anyway. Here is

another link of some scholar who points to the differences. Please read it; it

is very relevant, although I cannot attest to the scholarship directly - looks

good.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html

QUOTE

Vedanta and Buddhism are the highlights of Indian philosophical thought. Since

both have grown in the same spiritual soil, they share many basic ideas: both of

them assert that the universe shows a periodical succession of arising, existing

and vanishing, and that this process is without beginning and end. They believe

in the causality which binds the result of an action to its cause (karma), and

in rebirth conditioned by that nexus. Both are convinced of the transitory, and

therefore sorrowful character, of individual existence in the world; they hope

to attain gradually to a redeeming knowledge through renunciation and meditation

and they assume the possibility of a blissful and serene state, in which all

worldly imperfections have vanished for ever. The original form of these two

doctrines shows however strong contrast. The early Vedanta, formulated in most

of the older and middle Upanishads, in some passages of the Mahabharata and the

Puranas, and still alive today (though greatly changed) as the basis of several

Hinduistic systems, teaches an ens realissimum (an entity of highest reality) as

the primordial cause of all existence, from which everything has arisen and with

which it again merges, either temporarily or for ever.

With the monistic metaphysics of the Vedanta contrasts the pluralistic

Philosophy of Flux of the early Buddhism of the Pali texts which up to the

present time flourishes in Ceylon, Burma and Siam. It teaches that in the whole

empirical reality there is nowhere anything that persists; neither material nor

mental substances exist independently by themselves; there is no original entity

or primordial Being in whatsoever form it may be imagined, from which these

substances might have developed. On the contrary, the manifold world of mental

and material elements arises solely through the causal co-operation of the

transitory factors of existence (dharma) which depend functionally upon each

other, that is, the material and mental universe arises through the concurrence

of forces that, according to the Buddhists, are not reducible to something else.

It is therefore obvious that deliverance from the Samsara, i.e., the

sorrow-laden round of existence, cannot consist in the re-absorption into an

eternal Absolute which is at the root of all manifoldness, but can only be

achieved by a complete extinguishing of all factors which condition the

processes constituting life and world. The Buddhist Nirvana is, therefore, not

the primordial ground, the eternal essence, which is at the basis of everything

and form which the whole world has arisen (the Brahman of the Upanishads) but

the reverse of all that we know, something altogether different which must be

characterized as a nothing in relation to the world, but which is experienced as

highest bliss by those who have attained to it (Anguttara Nikaya, Navaka-nipata

34). Vedantists and Buddhists have been fully aware of the gulf between their

doctrines, a gulf that cannot be bridged over. According to Majjhima Nikaya,

Sutta 22, a doctrine that proclaims " The same is the world and the self. This I

shall be after death; imperishable, permanent, eternal! " (see Brh. UP. 4, 4,

13), was styled by the Buddha a perfectly foolish doctrine. On the other side,

the Katha-Upanishad (2, 1, 14) does not see a way to deliverance in the Buddhist

theory of dharmas (impersonal processes): He who supposes a profusion of

particulars gets lost like rain water on a mountain slope; the truly wise man,

however, must realize that his Atman is at one with the Universal Atman, and

that the former, if purified from dross, is being absorbed by the latter, " just

as clear water poured into clear water becomes one with it, indistinguishably. "

Vedanta and Buddhism have lived side by side for such a long time that obviously

they must have influenced each other. The strong predilection of the Indian mind

for a doctrine of universal unity (monism) has led the representatives of

Mahayana to conceive Samsara and Nirvana as two aspects of the same and single

true reality; for Nagarjuna the empirical world is a mere appearance, as all

dharmas, manifest in it, are perishable and conditioned by other dharmas,

without having any independent existence of their own. Only the indefinable

" Voidness " (sunyata) to be grasped in meditation, and realized in Nirvana, has

true reality.

This so-called Middle Doctrine of Nagarjuna remains true to the Buddhist

principle that there can be nowhere a substance, in so far as Nagarjuna sees the

last unity as a kind of abyss, characterized only negatively, which has no

genetic relation to the world. Asanga and Vasubandhu, however, in their doctrine

of Consciousness Only, have abandoned the Buddhist principle of denying a

positive reality which is at the root all phenomena, and in doing so, they have

made a further approach to Vedanta. To that mahayanistic school of Yogacaras,

the highest reality is a pure and undifferentiated spiritual element that

represents the non- relative substratum of all phenomena. To be sure, they

thereby do not assert, as the (older) Vedanta does, that the ens realissimum

(the highest essence) is identical with the universe, the relation between the

two is rather being defined as " being neither different nor not different. " It

is only in the later Buddhist systems of the Far East that the undivided,

absolute consciousness is taken to be the basis of the manifold world of

phenomena. But in contrast to the older Vedanta, it is never maintained that the

world is an unfoldment from the unchangeable, eternal, blissful Absolute;

suffering and passions, manifest in the world of plurality, are rather traced

back to worldly delusion.

On the other hand, the doctrines of later Buddhist philosophy had a far-reaching

influence on Vedanta. It is well known that Gaudapada, and other representatives

of later Vedanta, taught an illusionistic acosmism, for which true Reality is

only " the eternally pure, eternally awakened, eternally redeemed " universal

spirit whilst all manifoldness is only delusion; the Brahma has therefore not

developed into the world, as asserted by the older Vedanta, but it forms only

the world's unchangeable background, comparable to the white screen on which

appear the changing images of an unreal shadow play.

In my opinion, there was in later times, especially since the Christian era,

much mutual influence of Vedanta and Buddhism, but originally the systems are

diametrically opposed to each other. The Atman doctrine of the Vedanta and the

Dharma theory of Buddhism exclude each other. The Vedanta tries to establish an

Atman as the basis of everything, whilst Buddhism maintains that everything in

the empirical world is only a stream of passing Dharmas (impersonal and

evanescent processes) which therefore has to be characterized as Anatta, i.e.,

being without a persisting self, without independent existence.

Again and again scholars have tried to prove a closer connection between the

early Buddhism of the Pali texts, and the Vedanta of the Upanishads; they have

even tried to interpret Buddhism as a further development of the Atman doctrine.

There are, e.g., two books which show that tendency: The Vedantic Buddhism of

the Buddha, by J.G. Jennings (Oxford University Press, 1947), and in German

language, The Soul Problem of Early Buddhism, by Herbert Guenther (Konstanz

1949).

(continued in that link)

UNQUOTE

> thollmelukaalkizhu

>

> >

> > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> > >

> > > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> > > > a scholar of his stature in India did not study the Upanishads - the

foundation of the major living school of thought. Very Very Nice.

> > > >

> > >

> > > Actually for this specific ending of mine, the argument was already made

by Vaibhavji that the Jnana Kanda was not emphasized at those times, by the

majority of schools. Whether we should believe that Buddha or Nagarjuna was

unaware of Upanishadic thought is for us to decide. It is a weak link - in my

opinion.

> > >

> > > thollmelukaalkizhu

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

June 12, 2009

Antharyami ji:

Pardon my interjection between you and ks ji.

>>Vedas are certainly region specific and people particular.

Subjective spiritual expressions and experiences can never be morphed upon

one another since our respective masters will never endorse such attempts

nor did they prescribe such a practice by name.<<

While i understand the context in which you have written,i wish to voice my

opinion here.Bharatham was the only desham in ancient bhu-loka.Therefore only

sanathana dharma prevailed all over.Vedas were the only religious

scriptures,which were consistently used by other religions,existing in its

present form,with various permutations and combinations incorporated into them.

Bharatham's geography was entirely different than the map that is existing

today.Thereby fulfilling Lord Krishna's,famous gitaupadeshams verse

of,re-incarnating yuge yuge whenever adharma tries to reign the world.I

sincerely believe,that all,the enlightened masters did avatar from bharatham

territory only,but has been obscured by repeated wars,demolitions,structures

re-built to put sanathana dharma,on a lower scale by other religionists.

Our Vedanta is of extremely high finesse,and in this advaitham is by far the

best,in my opinion.

Regards

Suresh.

June 12, 2009

> 2.

> The notion of nairatmyavada which at its core decries that all phenomena lack

the quality of inherent existence...sarve nissvabhavah...every thing is without

selfnature.

> In contrast, according to VedAntA there is one Self that is Eternal, the

Ultimate Auspicious Absolute Reality. This Self - the jivAtma IS non-different

from the paramAtmA. The Self, the Atman, IS the basis for everything, and is

eternal.

> Attribute IS identical with substance - Sat is Chit is Anantam IS brahman

-Such a view is untenable with Nagarjuna's stated views that the Atman is

nonexistent - i.e. the Buddha nature is empty of Svabhava (real existence).

>

> Contrast that with the Upanishads - That great, unborn Self is undecaying,

immortal, undying, fearless; It is Brahman. Brahman is indeed fearless. He who

knows It as such becomes the fearless Brahman - and with the MandukyA -

" ......in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging,

auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known. "

******************************************************************

shyamji,

In Advaita Siddhi Madhusudana Saraswati says that to prove the unity

of Brahman, it becomes necessary to prove the unreality of the world. Now, what

is this unreality? If objects were unreal like the horns of a hare they would

never have been percieved. So this cannot be the meaning. Unreality means the

relativity of the world, that it lacks inherent existence, its existence is

derived. From where? From Brahman, otherwise what would be the meaning of

calling Brahman the substratum of the world? Please read Sri Sankara's

commentary of Taittirya Upanisad 2.8.5 where he says: The reality of a substance

surely cannot be dependent on external agencies........Mutability is not a

reality because that depends on other factors..........any peculiarity that

arises in an existing substance is a result of external agencies.(Pg 145, Swami

Gambhirananda's translation).

Nagarjuna is trying to prove the same. He is bent on the criticism of categories

for one reason ie to show that these do not exist in their own right. The theory

of Sankhyas and Vaisesikas makes these categories eternal in itself and and the

objects of the world percieved as their abstractions.

You said that according to Nagarjuna the buddha nature is empty of real

existence. Wonder of wonders, I have read many books of Nagarjuna but did not

find a single quote indicating such a conclusion. In other words, there is

actually none.

Brahaman is Sat Chit Ananda but this would be unacceptable to Nagarjuna. How do

we know that? Because Nagarjuna does not give any positive description of the

ultimate reality. But I have pointed out in the earlier post how uncompromising

were Sri Sankara on the negative description of Brahman. Refer to his commentary

on Taittirya Upanisad 2.1.1, Pg 79 of Swami Gambhirananda's translation. He

clearly states that these Sat Chit etc only indicate Brahman and do not denote

Him as Brahman is beyond all class etc.

Atman is non existent according to Nagarjuna. When does he say that? I myself

don't know. To prove that Nagarjuna is not a nihilist I have given many quotes.

I have also discussed the Four Kotis or extremes, if anyone has read my

preceding posts he would be aware of these topics. Compare your quotation of

Mandukya with this quote from Maha Prajna Paramita Sastra:

In this knwoledge of true nature of all things, there cannot be obtained any

character of its own, any object of its own, in it all determinate modes of

knowing become extinct.

This somewhat answers you objection in Pt 3.

Here is another quote which I have given earlier also:

The Ultimate Nature of Subhuti (a disciple) is the same as the Ultimate Nature

of Buddha. The Ultimate Nature of the Tathagata is neither going nor coming. The

Ultimately true nature of Subhuti is also neither coming nor going. .........

The ultimately true nature of all things is the same as the ultimately true

nature of the Tathagata. .............. The ultimate true nature of Tathagata

and the ultimate true nature of all things are in truth one reality, not two,

not divided. This ultimate reality is unmade, it will never be other than what

always is . It is therefore this ultimate reality is not two, not divided.

The highest ideal in Buddhism is Buddha and not Boddhisattva. Prajnaparamita or

the perfection of wisdom, the advaita equivalent of jnana, for them leads to

cessation of suffering and bondage of samsara. 'Realizing the Supreme', is not

Atman the supreme itself? Does one realize anything as other in Nirvikalpa

Samadhi? Does the ego remains intact in Nirvikalpa Samadhi? This is a totally

indescribable expereince for you admit duality to mantain something as superior

and another as inferior. This is the harm of concepts. They are all relative and

betray the understanding of advaita.

Your Pt.4 was:

The concept of God or ParamAtma or Ishwara? You dismiss Ishwara as a " theistic

conception " . You base this on your own ignorance about theism, bhakti and

advaitA. Please explain how then your version of Buddism account for the world

of diversity? How is the One appearing as many?

***********************************************************

Nagarjuna mentions ignorance as the root cause of samsara. Taking the unreal as

real one tries to fulfill his never ending desires forcing him to take birth

again and again.

**********************************************************

" In Buddhism what is Eternal is Change. "

I am sorry but I challenge this statement. From where does it come. The world is

truly a changing phenomena, it is knowhere called eternal. You miss the

'fourteen questions' found in the Nikayas where Buddha preferred to remain

silent than answer questions pertaining to the ultimate nature of the self, the

world.

**********************************************************

Nagarjuna in his literature cautions the aspirant that taking the relative as

absolute is an error and clinging onto the absolute as something divided from

the world as another error. Don't theists make the same error. An absolute being

different from the world but yet remaining in a particular location he can still

be immanent. How? Even I dont know. For those thinking that Brahman can be

positively described please consider, Vivekachudamani. 572:

This exists or This does not exist are the two qualities of the intellect.

Really they do not exist in the Atman which is beyond them both.

This is exactly the Middle Way, commiting neither to existence nor to non

existence. And if criticisms of categories is a proof of Nagarjuna nihilism then

we may as well call the great Vednating Sri Harsa a nihilst for writing the

Khandana Khanda Khadya.

TO ALL OTHERS, I WONDER WHY AM I ASKED SAME QUESTIONS AGAIN AND AGAIN WHEN I

HAVE ANSWERED THEM MORE THAN ONCE. PLEASE REFER TO THE EARLIER POSTS WHERE THIS

TOPIC HAS BEEN ELABORATELY DISCUSSED. IT IS DIFFICULT FOR ME TO KEEP ON

REPEATING MYSELF.

REGARDS,

VAIBHAV.

advaitin , Shyam <shyam_md wrote:

>

> Pranams,

>

> While I applaud these relentless attempts at finding common ground with

VedAntA, I think there is a tendency, ?deliberate?, to repeatedly gloss over

some very fundamental and glaring issues, including the following:

>

> 1.

> The notion of Pratitya-samutpada(theory of dependent co-origination) and how

it differs from satkaryavada - with its concomitant logical flaws that alone in

fact leads these nihilists to conclude that emptiness is also not an Absolute

Existence from where other phenomena arise.

>

> 2.

> The notion of nairatmyavada which at its core decries that all phenomena lack

the quality of inherent existence...sarve nissvabhavah...every thing is without

selfnature.

> In contrast, according to VedAntA there is one Self that is Eternal, the

Ultimate Auspicious Absolute Reality. This Self - the jivAtma IS non-different

from the paramAtmA. The Self, the Atman, IS the basis for everything, and is

eternal.

> Attribute IS identical with substance - Sat is Chit is Anantam IS brahman

-Such a view is untenable with Nagarjuna's stated views that the Atman is

nonexistent - i.e. the Buddha nature is empty of Svabhava (real existence).

>

> Contrast that with the Upanishads - That great, unborn Self is undecaying,

immortal, undying, fearless; It is Brahman. Brahman is indeed fearless. He who

knows It as such becomes the fearless Brahman - and with the MandukyA -

" ......in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging,

auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known. "

>

> 3.

> The concept of MokshA (or NirvAna in your Buddhistic terminolgy) - in VedantA

- to know Brahman the Ultimate Reality IS MokshA - is attainment of this

so-called BuddhA nature considered liberation in your book? Are you able to

explain the concept of a bodhisattva using Vedantic parallels? Is liberation

personal? If a jivAtma gains the knowledge of the substratum, Brahman, does

Buddhism in your understanding consider him liberated? Is liberation the

cessation of samsara? or is it the gain of the Supreme?

>

> 4.

> The concept of God or ParamAtma or Ishwara? You dismiss Ishwara as a " theistic

conception " . You base this on your own ignorance about theism, bhakti and

advaitA. Please explain how then your version of Buddism account for the world

of diversity? How is the One appearing as many?

>

> In fact Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are diametrically opposed - in Advaita

Vedanta the Truth is Existence and Eternal. In Buddhism what is Eternal is

Change.

>

> Let me also mention here your repetetive contention that BuddhA was only

against the ritualistic section of the VedAs it is untenable because the Buddha,

as a human has no authority whatsoever to accept or reject portions of the VedAs

he considered palatable or not. The VedAs being coeval with Creation are eternal

- so what is dharma and what is adharma is based on what the VedAs say - not

what based on what we as limited entities - limited both in space and time infer

or postulate. For example I get into a hotel and spot a man stabbing another in

the throat - i rush to save him and then realize its a movie scene being shot

and am promptly escorted out. My view of things in the here and now disables my

ability to judge anything in absolute terms.(See Shankara's arguments in BSB

3.1.25)

>

> Please note that Krishna in the GitA condemns not the ritualism itself but

those who think of the rituals as being the sole end in itself. See the BG:Ch3

> " All beings are born out of food,All food is born out of rain,

> All rain is born out of sacrifices,And all sacrifices are born out of

actions.All actions are born out of Vedas,All Vedas are born out of perennial

God,And so the Vedas which are spread every where, Is based always on

sacrificial worship. "

>

> The VedAs are like a benevolent Mother - you take her from her what you want,

and if what you want harms you, the very same Mother then nurtures you back and

rehabilitates you. It is like a

> Son " Ma, I want to play with a knife "

> Mother " No dont do that you will cut yourself "

> Son " Ma, I really really want to play with a knife "

> Mother " OK - here is the knife "

> Son " Maaaaa......my finger is bleeding. "

> Mother " Its going to be OK dear, let me get you some bandaid "

>

> Now can another son disown the Mother? The VedAs - coeval with Creation -

encompass all of humanity - the tamasic and the sattvic, the asuric and the

daivi - everyone gets from the Holy Mother exactly what they want and hence

alone exactly what they deserve - in our tradition there is no Evil with a

parallel reality outside of Ishwara's order, ignorance being the Only real Evil.

>

> The VedAs are svatah-pramanyam - they do not need any complementing.

>

> I fully admit that my knowledge of Buddhism is limited - and many of my

arguments against it may stem from this fact - however this is a forum to

discuss *traditional* advaita, *as taught by Adi Shankara* - the views expressed

here are a mere re-affirmation of His views - there is neither chauvinsim nor

any egoistic claims of exclusivity here - it is what it is. Contextual

discussions are hence bound by AND limited to the paradigms of what

ShankarachAryA taught, to the best that we can understand and appreciate - at

least in my view.

>

> Finally if after a million exertions you do conclude and convince yourself,

that the Atman of the Upanishads is indeed the Shunya of the Buddists, you could

not have made a bigger mockery of hundreds and thousands of Buddhist scholars

through the ages - indeed of the BuddhA himself - if in formulating and lending

shape and substance to a new philosophy (their claim, not ours), they all simply

reaffirmed an eternal Truth of the very VedAs they set out to decry.

>

> Hari OM

> Shri Gurubhyoh namah

> Shyam

>

> The following article written by a Buddhist monk is very informative about

these points.

>

> ***

> Madhyamaka Buddhism vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta

> A Paradigm Shift

> by

> Acarya Dharmavajra

> (Mr. Sridhar Rana)

>

> Many famous Hindu Indian scholars like RadhaÐºrishnan, Svami Vivekananda and

Nepalese scholars like Mr. Chudanath Bhattaraj, Svami Prapannacharya have

written that Buddhism is a reaction, a reformation of Hinduism. The Buddha tried

to reform some of the malpractice within Hinduism. That is all. He never wanted

to create a new religion. In short, according to these scholars, Buddhism is

correct Hinduism without any malpractice and evils and what is called Hinduism

is the malpractice and distorted form of the vedas. There are three problems

with this interpretation of the Buddha's teaching. One is that if these authors

really believe that the Buddha came to reform evils, malpractice and wrong

interpretation of the vedas then why are they themselves still following these

evils and malpractice and not practicing the Buddha's teachings, the reformed

form of the Vedas?

>

> How warped and distorted are the minds of people who with one breath proclaim

the Buddha as the great reformer of Hinduism and then turn around and call

Buddhism (what Buddha taught) wrong. Some of these scholars have even gone to

the extent of claiming that although the Buddha actually only wanted to reform

the Vedas, his disciples misunderstood him and created a new religion. How

illogical to believe that Buddha's own disciples did not understand him whereas

Hindu Svamis and Panditas 2000 years later really do understand the Buddha's

message. The second problem with this interpretation is that it implies that

Buddha was a Hindu. Simply because Suddhodana was a king and therefore called a

Ksatriya is absolutely no proof that he was a Hindu. If the Buddha was really a

Hindu why did he not call himself the great Brahmin or Mahabrahman like the

great ksatriya Visvamitra? It is strange to call Buddha a proponent of

Brahmanism when he called himself the

> great sramana or Mahasramana. Although a lot of research remains to be done

about Sramanism it can certainly be said that a Sramana is not a Brahmana and

that Sramanism itself is as old as Brahmanism. Mahavira, the founder of Jainism,

also called himself a Sramana. If Buddha was merely reforming the Vedas, why did

not call himself a Neo-Vedic, Neo-Brahman or true Brahman, i.e., Mahabrahmana?

Why did he call himself a Mahasramana?

>

> I would like to ask those scholars and their followers these questions.

Nowhere in the Hindu Sastras are Sraman considered as part of the Vedic fold.

And the Buddha called himself a Mahasramana. It was the custom of India from

ancient times to call kings Ksatriyas be they of the Sramana or Brahmana group.

And even if Suddhodana was of the Brahmin school) of which there is absolutely

no proof), the Buddha certainly did not seem to have taken after Brahmanism but

rather after Sramanism. Sramanism cannot be called Brahmanism by any historical

standard. The third problem is that the teachings found in Buddhism do not in

any way appear as a reformation of Hinduism. Any one who was studied Buddhism

(If I am not talking about prejudiced Hindu oriented scholars) can see that

there is a major paradigm shift between Hinduism and Buddhism, in fact, between

all other religious systems and Buddhism. A paradigm shift cannot and should not

be misconstrued as a reform.

> Reforms are changes brought about within the same paradigm. Paradigm shifts

are changes in the very foundations. The very basics are completely different.

In such cases, it is completely confused thinking to state that one paradigm is

a reformation of another paradigm. So Sramanism is a system of religious based

on a completely different paradigm than Hinduism and as such it would be gross

error to say Buddhism is a reformation of Vedic Hinduism. It is not a

reformation, but a shift in paradigm. Even if the Vedic paradigm was the older,

they are still different paradigms. But it is even questionable whether the

Vedic paradigm is really older than the Sramana paradigm. After all, although

Buddhism begins with Shakyamuni, Sramanism is much older, and according to the

findings of the Indus valley civilization, was in the Indian sub-continent even

before Brahmanism.

>

> It is the purpose of this paper to show how Brahmanism and Buddhism are built

on two totally different paradigms even though they share the same language. It

is this sharing of the same language that has fooled most scholars, especially

Hindu biased scholars who have therefore failed to be sensitive to the fact that

these are two completely different paradigms with very little in common except

the same cultural background, and their language, metaphor, analogy, and words.

But as we shall see, the same analogies etc. express two different conceptual

structures (paradigms). When we compare the Advaita Vedanta, especially as

interpreted by Sankara and Madhyamaka, whether be it the Svatantrika form of

Bhasya or Prasangika form of Candrakirti, the sharing of the same language,

culture and analogies while talking about two different paradigms becomes

obvious. Because of the use of the same language structure (be it Pali or

Sanskrit) and the same analogies to

> express two different paradigms, many Vedantins or scholars of Buddhism with

Vedantic backgrounds have been fooled into thinking Buddhist Madhyamaka is a

re-interpretation of Hindu Vedanta. Many think Buddhism is the negative way to

the same goal (via negativa) and Hindu Vedanta the positive way (via positiva).

One uses negation and the other affirmation but the Sunyata of Buddhism is a

negative way of talking about the Brahman of the Vadanta. The issue here is not

via negative or via positive at all but rather two different paradigms, or two

different goals based on two different paradigms, or two diametrically opposed

answers to the burning issue of mankind developed out of diametrically opposed

paradigms. In fact, the Buddha, after long years of Brahmanic as well as

Sramanic meditation, found the concept of Brahma (an ultimately real,

unchanging, eternal substratum to this ephemeral transient world) not only

inadequate to solve the basic issue of

> humanity, i.e., sorrow (duhkha) and questioned the very existence of such an

eternal substratum; but also declared that a search for such an imagined (Skt.

Parikalpita Atman) Brahman was a form of escapism and therefore not really

spiritual but spiritual materialism.

>

> Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (Skt. paramartha sat) is the

very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of fact some form of an eternal

ultimate reality whether it is called God or Nature is the basis of all other

religious systems); when Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (Skt.

paramartha satta) in any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism.

Therefore it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically

said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism, The affirmation of a ground (Skt. asraya)

which is really existent (Skt. paramartha sat) and the denial that such an

existent (Skt. satta) can be found anywhere, with in or without, immanent or

transcendent, are two diametrically opposed paradigms - not simply variation or

reformations of each other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form: to amend or

improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuse. The example I have

given above of an eternal base without which

> Hinduism in its own language would be atheistic (skt. nastika) and the denial

(without any implied affirmation) (Skt. prasajya pratisedha) of such an

eternally existing unchanging base by Buddhism cannot be said to be a

reformation but a deconstruction of the very roots of the Hindu thesis. That is

why Buddhist is not a reformation of Hinduism but a paradigm shift from the

paradigms on which Hinduism is based.

>

> Many Hindu scholars believe that without an ultimate eternal reality then

there can be no liberation from the changing, transient samsara; therefore even

though the Buddha denied the ultimate reality, he could have meant only

conceptually really existing reality, no the eternal ultimate reality which is

beyond concepts. Otherwise there cannot be liberation. The fault with this kind

of thinking is that it is measuring the thesis (which is no thesis) of the

Buddha (or interpreting the Buddha) from within the Hindu paradigm. Remaining

within the Hindu paradigm, an eternal ultimate reality is a necessity (a

necessary dead end as the Buddha saw it) for the soteriological purpose, i. e.

for liberation. Since according to the Buddha there is no Brahman - such a

concept being merely an acquired fabrication (skt: parikalpana) learned from

wrong (skt: mithya) scriptures, hankering after, searching for such a Brahman is

necessary a dead end, which leads nowhere,

> let alone liberation. The Buddhist paradigm, if understood correctly, does

not require an eternal something or other for liberation. In Buddhism liberation

is not realizing such a ground but rather a letting go of all grounds, i.e.,

realizing groundless. In fact holding on to any ground is ignorance, according

to Buddhism. So in the Buddhist paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have

an eternal ground for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself

is part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major

difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs when this

illusory samsara is completely relinquished and it vanishes; what remains is the

eternal Brahman which is the same as liberation. Since the thesis is that

samsara is meraly an illusion, when it vanishes through knowledge is there were

no eternal Brahman remaining it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm

(or according to Buddhism all

> paradigms based on ignorance) an eternal unchanging, independent, really

existing substratum (skt. mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation else one

would fall into Nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different,

the question posed by Hindu scholars: How can there be liberation if a Brahman

does not remain after the illusory samsara vanishes in Jnana? - is a question

with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm and its Enlightenment or Nirvana.

>

> First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna samsara is not an illusion but like

an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the meaning of these two statements.

Secondly, because it is only 'like an illusion', i.e., interdependently arisen

like all illusions, it does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when

samsara vanishes like mist and the Brahmin arises like a sun out of the mist but

rather when seeing that the true nature of samsara is itself Nirvana. So whereas

Brahman and samsara are two different entities one real, the other unreal, one

existing, the other non-existing, samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and

not two. Nirvana is the nature of samsara or in Nagarjuna's words sunyata is the

nature of samsara. It is the realization of the nature of samsara as empty which

cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge and results in

knowledge not of another thing beyond samsara but of the way samsara itself

actually exists (skt

> vastusthiti), knowledge of Tathata (as it is ness) the Yathabhuta (as it

really) of samsara itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong

conceptual experience of samsara to the unconditioned experience of samsara

itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of samsara and nirvana (Skt.

samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The mind being samsara in the

context of Dzog Chen, Mahamudra and Anuttara tantra. Samsara would be

substituted by dualistic mind. Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming

Brahman. The Buddhist paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our

wrong vision (skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream beyond

or separate transcendence from samsara. Because such a dream is part of the

dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would be only to perpetuate

ignorance.

>

> To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates such an unproven and

unprovable dream as an eternal substance or ultimate reality, be it Hinduism or

any other " ism " , is propagating spiritual materialism and not true spirituality.

To Hinduism such a Brahman is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of

the Hindu thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since Buddhism

denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha merely meant to reform

Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally different paradigm. Hinduism,

Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all variations of the same paradigm. So truly

speaking you could speak of them as reformations of each other. But Buddhism has

a totally different paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic- Hinduism.

This leads us naturally to the concept of the truths (skt. satyadvaya). Both

Hindu Vedanta and Madhyamaka Buddhism (and for that matter all forms of

Buddhism) use this concept to

> clarify its paradigm. But again the same words point at two different

paradigms. First of all the concept of two truths clearly stated as in Buddhism

comes into Hinduism only after Sankaracarya (Seventh/eight century) whereas the

Buddha himself used these words. But even though Sankara copied the use of these

words from Buddhism and also copied many other conceptual words from Nagarjuna

to elucidate his Vedantic paradigm, the paradigm that he tries to clarify with

these words different. In many places these conceptual wordings and analogies

are forced to produced the meaning that is required for the Vedantic paradigm.

In the Vedantic context, the relative truth (Skt. samvritti satya) is that this

samsara is an illusion and the ultimate truth (skt. paramartha satya) is that

there is an ultimately existing thing (skt. paramartha satta) transcending/

immanent in this world. The relative truth will vanish like a mist and the both

transcendent and immanent

> Brahman will appear as the only Truth, the world being false. To sum it up,

the Vedantic ultimate truth is the existence of an ultimate existence or

ultimate reality. Reality here is used as something which exists (skt. satta).

>

> However, the Buddhist ultimate truth is the absence of any such satta i. e.

ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality. That is the significance of

Sunyata - absence of any real, independent, unchanging existence (skt.

svabhava). And that fact is the ultimate truth of Buddhism, which is

diametrically opposite to the ultimate truth of the Hindu Brahman. So Sunyata

can never be a negative way of describing the Atman-Brahman of Hinduism as

Vinoba Bhave and such scholars would have us believe. The meaning of Sunyata

found in Sutra, Tantra Dzogchen, or Mahamudra is the same as the Prasangic

emptiness of Chandrakirti, i. e. unfindability of any true existence or simply

unfindability. Some writers of Dzogchen and Mahamudra or Tantra think that the

emptiness of Nagarjuna is different from the emptiness found in these systems.

But I would like to ask them whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable;

whether or not the significance of emptiness in these

> systems is also not the fact of unfindability- no seeing as it could also be

expressed. Also some Shentong scholars seem to imply that the Shentong system is

talking about a different emptiness. They say Buddha nature is not empty of

qualities therefore, Buddha nature is not merely empty, it also has qualities.

First of all the whole statement is irrelevant. Qualities are not the question

and Buddha nature being empty of quality or not is not the issue. The Buddha

nature is empty of Svabhava (real existence). Because it is empty of real

existence, it has qualities. As Arya Nagarjuna has said in his Mula Madhyamaka

Karika: " All things are possible (including qualities) because they are empty

" Therefore the whole Shentong/ Rangtong issue is superfluous. However, in

Shentong, Buddha nature is also empty and emptiness means unfindable. In short,

the unfindability of any true existence is the ultimate (skt. paramartha) in

Buddhism, and is diametrically

> opposed to the concept of a truly existing thing called Brahman, the ultimate

truth in Hinduism.

>

> Now let's examine relative truth (skt. samvritti satya). In Hinduism, the

relative truth is the fact that this world is an illusion (skt. maya). It has no

existence. In Buddhism, samsara is interdependently arising. It has relative

existence (skt. samvritti satta) according to Tsong Khapa or it appears

conventionally according to Gorampa Senge and Mipham. It is like an illusion

(Skt. mayavat). Like all illusions, it appears interdependently based on various

causes and conditions (Skt. hetu pratyaya). It may be like an illusion but it is

the only thing we have, there is nothing behind it or beyond it which can be

called an ultimate thing or reality. The ultimate reality or truth or fact in

the Buddhist sense is the mode of existence of this illusion like samsara i. e.

(Skt. nihsvabhava) empty of real existence. So here too we find two different

parameters to two different paradigms. Now let us investigate some of the words

used by both paradigms. One word

> that has created great confusion is non- dualism. First of all Hindu Vedanta

is advaita and Madhyamaka Advaya. Although they are sometimes use

interchangeably by both systems, their meanings are as used in the two paradigms

differ. In Hindu Vedanta, non dualism (advaita) means one without a second Skt:

dvitiyam nasti, Chandogya Upnishad). What is the meaning of this? That there is

only Brahman which really exists, nothing else really exists. In other words-

the world does not exists at al- it is only am illusion. The true English word

for this is Monism according to Webster Dictionary. The view that there is only

one kind of ultimate substance. Since, as we have been seen already there is no

kind of ultimate substance in Madhyamaka Buddhism the meaning advaya

(non-dualism) cannot be like in Hinduism. The Madhyamaka scriptures very clearly

defines advaya as " dvaya anta mukta " free from the two extremes. The extremes

are the of eternalism into which the

> Hindu vedantic Brahman falls and Nihilism into which many materialistic

system like Charvak fall. But it goes deeper. Non dual knowledge (skt. advaya

jnana) is the state of mind which is soteriologically free from grasping at the

two extremes of knowing in terms of " is " and " is not " and ontologically free

from being " existing " or " non existing " Advaita jnana is however the knowledge

of the one and only truly existing substance or reality called Brahman in

Hinduism. It could also be called by any other name. Even if the Brahman is

defined as beyond " is and " is not " as in the Yogavasistha, it is only a round

about way of saying that there is an ultimate reality, Brahman, which is beyond

concepts of existing and non existing and therefore it still falls within

eternalism. There is also the use of : " free from the existence and non

existence " in Buddhism and beyond existence and non existence in Hinduism.

" Beyond " implies a third something which is neither;

> but " free " does not necessarily implies a third something which is neither.

Some Shentongpas define the Tathagatagarbha exactly like the Brahman of the

Vedanta without realizing it and even claim as a higher mediator's view which is

not accessible to lower class logicians etc.

>

> Perhaps it is most apt now to talk about two other words used commonly by both

paradigms: Nisprapanca (Tib: thro-me) and avikalpa (Tib: Tog- me). Nisprapanca

means non fabricated and avikalpa means non- conceptual. In the context of

Hinduism, it is the Brahman (the ultimate reality, the ultimate real, the

ultimate existing) which is beyond concepts and non- fabricated. It also means a

non-fabricated and non-conceptual knowledge of that Brahman. When I am using

ultimate reality as a synonym for the Brahman. I am using reality to mean

something that exists as per the Webster's Dictionary. I am aware that reality

also connotes " fact " , i.e., truth and with such a meaning could be used in

Buddhism to mean ultimate fact/truth. But as one of its connotations is

existing, it is hazardous to use the word ultimate reality in any Buddhist

context and it is always safer to use the word ultimate truth instead. Some

English translations of Dzogchen, Mahamudra etc.

> have used the word ultimate reality for Rigpa, co- emergent wisdom (skt.

sahaja jnana) Tathagata garbha, rather indiscriminately without the authors even

realizing that the use of such lax wording brings them not only dangerously

close to Vedantins of one only dangerously close to Vedantins of one form or the

other, but also they are actually using Buddhist texts to validate the vedantic

thesis. If some of them object that their ultimate reality is empty while the

Hindu ultimate reality is not; the Hindu can ask, " then how it is an ultimate

reality in the sense of ultimate existing " ? To avoid this confusion, it is safer

and semantically closer to the Buddhist paradigm to use only " ultimate truth " .

>

> Now coming back to Nisprapanca and Avikalpa, as for Buddhism, the first

verse of Nagarjuna's MulaMadhyamakakarika makes it clear that it is the

" pratityasamutpada " the interdependent origination which is nisprapanca and

beyond concepts and it is the wisdom that realizes this that is nisprapanca and

avikalpa. No Hindu Vedanta would agree that the Brahman is interdependent

origination or interdependently originated. The same can be said of words like

acintya (inconceivable), anupamya (inexpressible) or apratistha (non-

established) etc. for which we need not write separately. This naturally leads

us to three crucial words and concepts used in the two paradigms.: Emptiness,

(skt. Sunyata), Interdependent Origination (Skt. pratitya-samutpada) and Brahma

(the infinite, eternal, unchanging, Truly existing, Non conceptual, unfabricated

reality). Many Hindu writers from the 5th/6th century onwards until today have

tried to show that the Brahman and Sunyata,

> mean the same thing. The Yogavasistha (7/8th century) has even very

explicitly stated that the Brahman and Sunya are the same reality. (Chapter

3/5/5-6) Modern authors like Dr. Radhakrishnan, Svami Vivekananda and Vinova

Bhave have also tried to show that they mean the same reality. Je Tsong Khapa

says in his " Pratityasamutpada stuti Subhasita Hridaya " whatever is dependent on

conditions is empty of real existence. This statement makes it clear that

dependent origination and Sunyata are two labels for the same condition - two

sides of the same coin. Now I would like to ask these Hindu authors " Is Brahman

(which according to them is the same as Sunya), dependently originated or

origination? Even here in the two words there is a difference. The Brahman can

never be a dependent origination because it is a really existing thing. It can

only be a dependently originated thing I am sure no Hindu would like to say this

of the unchanging eternal independent

> Brahman. On the other hand, the significance of Sunyata is " dependant

origination " or nisvabhava (non real existence). The Tathagatarbha, Mahamudra,

Rigpa (Vidya) etc cannot also, empty but not nisvabhava. Such as definition of

Sunya (as not nisvabhava) would not only contradict the entire Buddhist

paradigms but also would force such so- called Buddhist writers to fall into the

" all-embracing " arms of the Vedantin Brahman. If Rigpa, Mahamudra etc. is

described without the correct emptiness, then such words as Mahamudra, Dzogchen,

Rigpa, Tathagatagarbha are only new names given to the ancient concept of

Brahman as found in the Upanishads (some of which are 600 years than the Buddha.

Such misconcepts of ultimate realities come not from Buddhist but actually from

Hindu Brahman in the garb of Buddhist scholar monks. Some Buddhist writers give

lame excuse about meditative experience & theory being different. I would like

to reiterate that such a meditative

> experience is not Buddhist but Hindu because it fits perfectly with Hindu

theory of reality. If meditative experiences are going to be different from the

theory on which they are based, that would be tantamount to saying that the base

has no relation to the path and fruit, or that path is one and the actual

experience of the fruit (meditative experience is another). At least the Hindu

base- path-fruit is more consistent. They do not being with non real existence

and end up with some kind of subtle existence. The Buddhist meditation

experience must coincide with its base (basic paradigm). Yes, there is a shift

from conceptual to non-conceptual during meditation but that does not

necessitate a shift from non-real existence to real existence. If reality is

conceptually non real existent it does not become real existent non

conceptually. The true Buddhist meditative experience or " non real existence

" not " real existence " . Some may say that non real

> existence is only a concept. But the same can be said of real existence.

Since Brahman is real existence by itself, independent etc. it cannot be a

synonym for Sunyata. Some Shentong Buddhist writers who have not studied Hindu

philosophy well enough try to give invalid excuses by implying that the

Atma-Brahman of Hinduism is imagined , fabricated, whereas the shentong

Tathagatagarbhas is non conceptual (eg. Jamgon Kongtro Lordo Thaye- Gaining

certainly about the view 5.2.4.2.). If one has read the Vedanta Shastra one

finds that the Atma (self) of the Hindu is also free from mental elaboration

like the Tathagatagarbha. So the crux of the different lies in emptiness not in

non-elaboration, non conceptual, luminous etc. The Atma of the Vedanta is also

not accessible to inferior logicians and not negated by logic because it is

uncreated, unconditioned, self existing, self-luminous and beyond concept. So

just stating that the Hindu Atman is fabricated and

> our Tathagatagarbha is not, does not really solve anything. The Atma is what

remains after everything else that is not it, has been negated. Last of all the

Atman is not the Ego (Ahamkara, Tib. ngak dzin) which is what the Shentong logic

negates.

> Another word that has confounded many Hindu Svamis is the unborn (skt.

ajata or anutpada), unproduced. In the context of the Hindu Vedanta it means

that there is this ultimate reality called the Brahman which is unborn, i.e.,

never produced by any thing or at any time, which means it always was. A thing

or super thing even a non thing that always existed and was never ever produced

at any period in time which is separate from this born, illusory samsara. In the

Buddhist context, it is the true nature of samsara itself which although

relatively appears to be " born " ultimately is never born. Advayavajra in his

Tatvaratnavali says " The world is unborn says the Buddha " . As Buddha Ekaputra

Tantra (Tib. Sangye Tse tsig tantra) says, the base of Dzogchen is the samsara

itself stirred from its depth. Since the Samsara stirred from its depth is

interdependently originated, i. e. not really originated i. e. unborn and since

the samsara is only relatively

> an interdependently originated thing but ultimately neither a thing nor a

non-thing (bhava or abhava) that truly exists, the use of the word unborn for

Brahman (which is definitely not samsara) and for samsara itself in Buddhism are

diametrically opposed. The true meaning of unborn (anutpada) is not dependently

originated (pratitya-samutpanna) which is as already mentioned the meaning of a

nisvabhava (non real existence) or Sunyata. None of these can be a synonym for

Brahman or anything that ahs kind of ultimate real existence, even if it is

called Tathagatagarbha. There is no acceptance of an ultimate existence in any

Buddhist Sutra. It is interesting that an exact word for paramartha satta in

Tibetan Buddhism is very rarely used. It shows how non-Buddhist the whole

concept is. One has to differentiate between satta (existence) and satya (truth)

although they are so close and come from the same root in Sanskrit. Even in the

Ratnagotra there is one

> single sentence (Skt. Yad yatra tat tena sunyam iti samanupasyati yat

punartravasistam bhavati tad sad ihasthiti yathabhutam prajanati): " whatever is

not found know that to be empty by that itself, if something remains knows that

to exist as it is). " This statement is straight out of the Vaibhasika sutras of

the Theravada (Sunnatavagga) and Sautrantik Abhidharma Samuccaya. It seems to

imply an affirming negative. First of all this statement contradicts the rest of

the Ratnagotravibhaga if it is taken as the ultimate meaning in the Sutra (as

Shentongpas have done). Secondly since it is a statement of the Vaibhasika

school (stating than an ultimate unit of consciousness and matter remains), it

cannot be superior to the Rangtong Madhyamaka. Thirdly its interpretation as

what remains is the ultimately existing Tathagatagarbha contradicts not only the

interpretation that found in other Buddhist sutras as " itar etar Sunyata "

(emptiness of what is different

> from it) but also the shentong interpretation of Tathagatagarbha contradicts

all the other definition of the Tathagatagarbha found in the Ratnagotravibhaga

itself.

>

> This brings us to the word nitya, i.e., eternal or permanent. The Hindu use of

the word Nitya for its ultimate existing reality, viz. Brahman is Kutastha Nitya

i. e. something remaining or existing unchangingly eternal, i. e. something

statically eternally. Whatever the word Nitya is used for the ultimate truth in

Buddhism, the Great Pandita Santa rakshita has made it very clear in his

Tatvasamgraha that the Buddhist Nitya is parinami nitya i. e. changing,

transforming, eternal in another words dynamically eternal. The Buddhist Nitya

is more accurately translated in English as eternal continuum rather than just

eternal. I would like to remind some western translators of Nyingma and Kagyu

texts that it is either the view of Santarakshita's Svatantrika Madhyamaka or

the prasangika view that is given during the " Tri " instruction of Yeshe Lama as

the correct view of Dzogchen. Now finally I would like to show how the same

analogies are used in the Vedantic

> Hinduism and Buddhist Madhyamaka to illustrate different thesis. The most

famous analogy in both Vedanta and Madhyamka is that of the snake seen in the

rope. In Vedanta you have the famous Sankaric verse rajjau sarpa bhramanaropa

tadvat Brahmani jagataropa, i.e., as a snake is imputed/superimposed upon a

piece of rope so is the samsara imposed upon the Brahman. Only the rope or the

Brahman is real the snake-samsara is unreal and does not exist at all. They are

only illusions. If one studies teh analogy one realizes that it is not such an

accurate analogy. The rope is not eternal like Brahman. Furthermore the rope is

not asamskrita (unconditioned like Brahman so it is not really good example or

the proof of a truly existing independent Brahman. It is a forced analogy. And

rightly so, because it is a Buddhist analogy squeezed to give Vedantic meaning.

>

> As for Buddhism the rope stands for pratityasamutpada for which it is a

good example being itself interdependently arisen from pieces of jute etc. and

the snake imputed upon it stands for real existence which is imposed on the

interdependently existing rope appearance. Here it is the rope that is the true

mode of existence of the samsara (unlike the snake representing samsara in

Vedanta) and the snake is our ignorance imputing samsara as really existing

instead of experience it as interdependently arisen. This interdependence or

emptiness is parinami nitya i. e. an eternal continuum and this applicable to

all phenomena. Of course, this interdependence is the conventional truth whereas

nisvabhavata, which is synonymous to emptiness, is the ultimate truth in

Madhyamaka. Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in reality it is

unborn and empty, its true nature is unconditioned. But this is not an

unconditioned reality like Brahman but an

> unconditioned truth i. e. the fact that all things are in reality empty,

unborn, uncreated. Likewise the Mirror reflection analogy is used to show that

just like images which have no existence at all appear and disappear on the

permanent surface of the mirror so too samsara which is an illusory reflection

on the mirror of Brahman appears on the surface of the Brahman and disappears

there. In Buddhism this metaphor is used to show that samsara is

interdependently arisen like the reflection on the mirror. The mirror is only

one of the causes and conditions and no more real that the other causes and

conditions for the appearance of the reflection of Samsara. Here too the mirror

is a very poor metaphor for the Brahman, being itself interdependently arisen

like the reflection on it. Actually such analogies are good examples for

pratityasamutpada and not for some eternal Brahman. The mirror Brahman metaphor

is only forced. The same can be said of the moon on

> the pond analogy and rainbow in the sky analogy.

>

> In conclusion, I would like to sum it up by stating that Buddhism (especially

Mahayana/Vajrayana) is not a reformulation of Hinduism or a negative way of

expressing what Hinduism as formulated. Hinduism and Buddhism share a common

culture and therefore tend to use the same or similar words. They do share

certain concepts like Karma and re-incarnation, although their interpretations

differ. Hindu concepts of karma and therefore reincarnation tend to be rather

linear whereas the Buddhist concept is linked with pratitya-samutpada. The

Theravada concept of pratitya-samutpada is also rather linear but the

Mahayana/Vajrayana concept is more non-linear multidimentional and multileveled

interdependent inter-latched. But all similarities to Hinduism end there. The

Sunyata of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Candrakirti is by no accounts a negative way

of describing the Brahman of the Upanisad-Sankara-Vidyaranya groups.

>

> I would like to dedicate this article for the long lives of Ven. H. E. Urgyen

Tulku, H. E. Chobgye Tri Chen, H. H. Sakya Trizin and Ven. Karma Thinley

Rinpoche and to the 17th century siddha Vajracharya Surat Vajra of Nepal, Tache

Baha. May his lineage be re- instated again

> ***

--- On Thu, 6/11/09, vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21 wrote:

>

> vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21

> Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism

> advaitin

> Thursday, June 11, 2009, 11:53 AM

> But yea atleast he said the Vedas are authorotative. So what if one realizes

Brahman but tries to expalin it with his own method which turns out to be

complementing the Vedas, we want only people to say 'the Upanisads are great'

follow it or not, we do not care. After all that satisfies our egos, makes us

feel inflated with pride. Sri Ramana Maharishi, Swami Vivekananda, Sri

Ramakrishna Paramhansa all believed that Buddha did not contradict the Upanisads

but their words are not Sruti, why believe them?

> >

>

June 12, 2009

I just forgot answering a few more questions of shyamji which I am giving here:

1. The concept of Isvara in Buddhism.

First of all the advaitins do not have any concept of creation. Isvara manifests

the universe with maya as its auxiliary and then rules and governs it. The

limiting adjuct of the jiva is internal organ and Isvara is maya.

You would be surprised to know that this concept also exists in Buddhism. This

is the tathagata garbha, also known as the transformation body of the Buddha. In

the Lankavatara Sutra Lord Buddha says:

I come into the hearing range of the ignorant in this Sahaloka world in hundreds

of thousands of three people, and they call me under these names, yet they fail

to recognize that they are all my own appellations. There are some who call me

the Self Existing One, the leader, the remover of obstacles, the guiding one,

Buddha, Rishi, Bull King Brahma, Visnu, Isvara, the Originator, Kapila, the

Destroyer, the Imperishable, Soma, Fire, Rama, Vyasa, Suka, Indra, The Strong

One, or Varuna; there are others who know Me as immortality, Suchness, Truth,

Reality, Eternity, Dharmadhatu,, formless,..........., the all knowing one.

While I am thus knwon in hundreds of thousands of titles not only of this world,

but also other worlds, my names are not exhausted..........Those who know me

will recognize me everywhere, but the ignorant who cannot rise above dualism

will now know me. .............. They are thus unable to comprehend that One

Tathagata may be known in many different names and titles. (Pg 192 and 193,

translation by D.T. Suzuki)

Here are the comments of the famous Buddhist scholar D.T. Suzuki: If the Buddha

is compassionate enough to see the suffering beings, there is no other way to

satisfy his heart's desire than that of dividing himself into so many different

forms and approaching sufferers. The masses may think that they have what they

want excusively in the form revealed to their minds. In fact the Tathagata never

divides himself.

For further information read D.T. Suzuki's Studies In The Lankavatara Sutra.

2. It was said that many buddhists do not agree with this equivalence of Advaita

and Buddhism. How do we know that? Through one article of a buddhist. Is that a

majority? Please consider that leading Buddhists like The Dalai Lama and Sogyal

Rinpoche are not against such a notion rather they positively support it.

3. QUOTE: Let me also mention here your repetetive contention that BuddhA was

only against the ritualistic section of the VedAs it is untenable because the

Buddha, as a human has no authority whatsoever to accept or reject portions of

the VedAs he considered palatable or not. The VedAs being coeval with Creation

are eternal - so what is dharma and what is adharma is based on what the VedAs

say - not what based on what we as limited entities - limited both in space and

time infer or postulate. For example I get into a hotel and spot a man stabbing

another in the throat - i rush to save him and then realize its a movie scene

being shot and am promptly escorted out. My view of things in the here and now

disables my ability to judge anything in absolute terms.(See Shankara's

arguments in BSB 3.1.25)

>

> Please note that Krishna in the GitA condemns not the ritualism itself but

those who think of the rituals as being the sole end in itself. See the BG:Ch3

> " All beings are born out of food,All food is born out of rain,

> All rain is born out of sacrifices,And all sacrifices are born out of

actions.All actions are born out of Vedas,All Vedas are born out of perennial

God,And so the Vedas which are spread every where, Is based always on

sacrificial worship. "

UNQUOTE:

Shyamji, this just tells me how carefully you have been reading my posts. This

is what I said: Sri Krishna spoke against the attitude of people who believe

that by performance of sacrifices they can get immortality. Buddha too

challenged this position. He challenged the supremacy of brahmanas in social

hierachy and emphasized unity. Many today know how the Vedas were misintrepreted

by the smriti and shastra writers who turn them as and when they like to suit

heir interests. Wasn't the birth determined jati system invented by the shastras

of ours. One of the contributers of the Rig Veda is Manu Sravani who was a

grocer, Visvamitra was a kshatriya, Gargi was a woman. How did such close minded

ness of latter times then infect our country. Buddha wanted the spirit of

religion and not its outer covering. Didn't Nachiketa oppose his father when he

was performing a dry sacrifice for his own benefit?

The saints do not come in this world to teach the masses what the scriptures

say. This can be done by street smart scholars also. You and I can do it. They

come to lead us to the path of realization of the truths embodied in the

scriptures. They come not to feed our intellects but to feed our hearts. These

saints are above the obligations of the scriptures. They follow them only to set

an example. Budhha did whatever he could to teach the masses the way to truth.

He felt the the ritualistic mindset was an impediment and thus rejected it. Even

then he said that he was preaching Arya Dharma.