Advaita and Buddhism( a comparison)

[devotee]

Namaste Renuka,

This is the sure decision of Vedanta: Brahman is all ------ the jiva and the world.
To stay in the state constantly is what is called freedom.
And Brahman is One without a second.
The scripture is the testimony(srutyah pramAnam)

Ok this stanza above talks about the Vedas being the Testimony/Authority.


Then there are these 3 stanzas in Vivekachudamani that go:


1st stanza says:

This Atman is ever established in its own glory;that is proof by itself.
To establish it, neither time,place nor purification is necessary.



2nd stanza says:


To know that 'I am Devadatta' does not require any proof;
so,for a knower of Brahman,the knowledge that "I am Brahman" does not require proof.



The 3rd stanza says:

The Vedas,Satra-puranas and all the sacred books and all the teachers of the world have their existence through His existence.How can they manifest Him who is the Knower of all?

1)The top most stanza says Vedas is pramAnam.

2)The other 2 stanzas say "No proof is needed cos Atma is ever established in its own glory".

3)So the other 2 stanzas contradict the earlier stanza that Vedas is the Authority here for Brahman and the 3rd stanza says that even Vedas etc cant manifest Brahman.

There is no contradiction. You are using the logic wrongly and that is why this issue. Vedas is pranANam because Vedas only say that "Aham BrahAsmi" or "Thou art that" or whatever. This stage is where one has not yet realised the reality and has to depend upon PramANas available. In that state, Veda is PramANa. So, when a discussion takes place or argument has to be made on this issue, the Vedas have to be used as PramANa.

However, when the (Ultimate reality) state is realised, there is no need for any pramANa. Why ? Say, a man is has never ever tasted Sugar and before tasting he wants to make sure how it tastes. So, he must depend upon some external pramANa like a friend's assertion/testimony, writing in a book etc. However, when he tastes sugar and knows how it tastes, does he need any pramANa ? No !

4)Adi Shankara spend time debating with Buddhist and finally I feel the other 3 stanzas actually sounds very much like a Buddhistic view where one can reach the state of Buddhahood(Enlightenment) and Vedas is NOT pramAnyam that is Vedas is not a pre requisite to know the Truth.

I hope you know the difference between pre-requisite and pramANa. A pramANa may not be pre-requisite for anything to happen. Vedas tell you that "Everything is Brahman", "You are Brahman" etc. and that is to be used as PramANa as Vivekachudamani says. Now, the realisation of Brahman doesn't depend upon Veda's study or once written in Veda's everyone gets enlightenment. Reading in a book that Sugar is sweet, you may have this valid knowledge about taste of suger. However, reading book cannot give you the taste of sugar ! So, pramANa and pre-requisite for happening of an event are completely different things.

5)So at the end of the day it seems like Adi Shankara actually "agreed' with the Buddhist.

If you adopt a wrong way of reasoning, you will reach a wrong conclusion and that is what has happened here.

6)I guess Lord Buddha was called Atheistic for nothing at all!(even though He would have really meant that the Vedas is not pramAnyam to know Brahman)

Guessing is full of hazard. Please stay away from it if you want to know the truth.

*******

Finally, there is very little common in what Buddha taught and what Advaita VedAnta teaches. Only when MahAyAn Buddhism came after the death of Buddha in the form of Diamond Sutras and Prajnaparamita, striking similarity between the two doctrines became prominent (Turiya state similar to Buddhahood). In spite of that, a great difference still remained : Absence of God (and also Self) in Buddhism and denying even the illusory existence of "self". The Ultimate state in Buddhism is Emptiness and it has not been deliberated upon in Buddhism how emptiness can give rise to this intelligent world. In Advaita, Self is equated with Fullness and not emptiness.

In fact, the similarity of Buddhahood with Turiya also is not the handiwork of Shankaracharya. This came in Atharva Veda (refer MAndukya Upanishad) and that happened long back before Shankara was even born.

OM

[renuka]

Namaste Renuka,






There is no contradiction. You are using the logic wrongly and that is why this issue. Vedas is pranANam because Vedas only say that "Aham BrahAsmi" or "Thou art that" or whatever. This stage is where one has not yet realised the reality and has to depend upon PramANas available. In that state, Veda is PramANa. So, when a discussion takes place or argument has to be made on this issue, the Vedas have to be used as PramANa.

However, when the (Ultimate reality) state is realised, there is no need for any pramANa. Why ? Say, a man is has never ever tasted Sugar and before tasting he wants to make sure how it tastes. So, he must depend upon some external pramANa like a friend's assertion/testimony, writing in a book etc. However, when he tastes sugar and knows how it tastes, does he need any pramANa ? No !



I hope you know the difference between pre-requisite and pramANa. A pramANa may not be pre-requisite for anything to happen. Vedas tell you that "Everything is Brahman", "You are Brahman" etc. and that is to be used as PramANa as Vivekachudamani says. Now, the realisation of Brahman doesn't depend upon Veda's study or once written in Veda's everyone gets enlightenment. Reading in a book that Sugar is sweet, you may have this valid knowledge about taste of suger. However, reading book cannot give you the taste of sugar ! So, pramANa and pre-requisite for happening of an event are completely different things.



If you adopt a wrong way of reasoning, you will reach a wrong conclusion and that is what has happened here.



Guessing is full of hazard. Please stay away from it if you want to know the truth.

*******

Finally, there is very little common in what Buddha taught and what Advaita VedAnta teaches. Only when MahAyAn Buddhism came after the death of Buddha in the form of Diamond Sutras and Prajnaparamita, striking similarity between the two doctrines became prominent (Turiya state similar to Buddhahood). In spite of that, a great difference still remained : Absence of God (and also Self) in Buddhism and denying even the illusory existence of "self". The Ultimate state in Buddhism is Emptiness and it has not been deliberated upon in Buddhism how emptiness can give rise to this intelligent world. In Advaita, Self is equated with Fullness and not emptiness.

In fact, the similarity of Buddhahood with Turiya also is not the handiwork of Shankaracharya. This came in Atharva Veda (refer MAndukya Upanishad) and that happened long back before Shankara was even born.

OM

Dear Devotee,

Thank you very much for an well worded reply.

Coming to Sunyavadha..I would want to discuss it in days to come if I get the time on why Sunya is just not void or nothing but something that cannot be described and beyond thought and speech hence called Sunya.

[Amrut]

I found a very beautiful link today and wish to share it with members here.

I would just like to differ here a little..my post was about a comparison and not really saying one influenced another...its like comparing butter and curd and both have the same origin that is Milk.

BTW this is the link I would like to share with members.

http://himalaya.socanth.cam.ac.uk/co...1981_02_01.pdf

Namaste Renuka ji,

I have read s small part. S Radhakrishnan was highly influenced by Max Muller, Wilson, et al, the paid members of British East India Co, who made all attempts to demean our shastras. they started a new line of thinking that would saw doubts in our hearts.

Hence I do not read his conclusions or anyone who has commented on his writings, infact anyone who traces his lineage to those 18-19th century westerners.

I remain contented with our shastras. Lord Buddha said that his teachings will last only 500 years. So we do not have his original teachings.

OM

[hinduism♥krishna]

I would want to discuss it in days to come if I get the time on why Sunya is just not void or nothing but something that cannot be described and beyond thought and speech hence called Sunya.

PranAm,

According to Vaidik scriptures, Shunya-Void is a Moola-Prakruti-Maya, which is the origin of all things and blissful as well. It's that abstract think wherein all jivas merges at the end of the day of Lord Brahma or after his death. It's the unmanifested state. But higher than this there is another unmanifested thing . Vedantist calls it Brahman which is Avyakta & Akshara.

And I think Buddha was referring his nothingness to the inferior unmanifested thing.

DhanyavAd.