Gaudapada and Nagarjuna

[DanielR]

When Gaudapada in his Karika talks about 'Nihilist Buddhists' does he refer to Madhyamaka Buddhism or to the earlier Theravada Buddhism??

Can the views of Gaudapada and Nagarjuna be somehow reconciled??

Apparently Gaudapada was inspired a lot by Nagarjuna for his Mandukya Karikas.

I'm reading Nagarjuna at the moment, his views are very interesting!

 

[shivsomashekhar]

When Gaudapada in his Karika talks about 'Nihilist Buddhists' does he refer to Madhyamaka Buddhism or to the earlier Theravada Buddhism??

Can the views of Gaudapada and Nagarjuna be somehow reconciled??

Apparently Gaudapada was inspired a lot by Nagarjuna for his Mandukya Karikas.

I'm reading Nagarjuna at the moment, his views are very interesting!

@DanielR, I recommend the following page -

http://gosai.com/writings/mayavada-and-buddhism-are-they-one-and-the-same

It is written by a Gaudiya Vaishnava, but from what I see, the research is pretty decent and straight (I agree with most of it).

I will add more to it later.

 

[DanielR]

@DanielR, I recommend the following page -

http://gosai.com/writings/mayavada-and-buddhism-are-they-one-and-the-same

It is written by a Gaudiya Vaishnava, but from what I see, the research is pretty decent and straight (I agree with most of it).

I will add more to it later.

oh, yes I would appreciate that, since I know you're interested in Nagarjuna too and Gaudapada!

I'll check this page out right now! Thank you!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nice article and thanks, Shiva. So, what is the problem if Buddhism and Advaita are similar? I do not believe in the bliss business. In Brahman, there is no bliss or sorrow, only deliverance from doubts. That brings me to comment on one particular passage in the article:

"According to Advaita, Brahman is nirguna (without any qualities). But logically speaking, something that is without any attributes whatsoever is as good as nothing (sunya). If something has eternal existence (as the Mayavadis claim Brahman has) then it must have attributes, otherwise it is nothing. Since the Mayavadis Brahman and the Buddhists sunya have no attributes, they must be identical."

I do not think Brahman is 'nirguna'. It has attributes though we do not understand them. Science is helping us to understand them. That energy changes its form in sub-atomic particles continuously at a very high speed in time is certainly an attribute. Hopefully, we will know more about them in future. The LHC is on the trail of a new particle after the discovery of Higg's Boson.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...he-lhc-thrilling-and-confounding-physicists1/

These particle tracks from the CMS experiment at the LHC show two photons arising from a roughly 750-GeV particle created in a proton-proton collision. The event may represent a new particle beyond the Standard Model of physics. Credit: CERN

 

[DanielR]

Nice article and thanks, Shiva. So, what is the problem if Buddhism and Advaita are similar? I do not believe in the bliss business. In Brahman, there is no bliss or sorrow, only deliverance from doubts.

well I agree with that part, I think it's all mainly difference in semantics

 

[निताइ dasa]

Wait so you guys agree that Buddhism and Adwaita-vada are quite similiar? Hahaah last time I said that to an Adwaitin, he had a complete go at me. It was brutal. The debate lasted like 2 weeks, back in the days were I was quite immature...(thought I had to pick a fight with everyone ahha)

 

[Aupmanyav]

I do not find any difference but for one thing - Advaita says an entity which constitutes all things exists. Buddhism generally keeps mum on it, says how does it matter in day-to-day living? I agree with that.
Therefore, I comfortably have both Buddha and Sankara as my gurus.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

Wait so you guys agree that Buddhism and Adwaita-vada are quite similiar? Hahaah last time I said that to an Adwaitin, he had a complete go at me. It was brutal. The debate lasted like 2 weeks, back in the days were I was quite immature...(thought I had to pick a fight with everyone ahha)

Criticism against Gaudapada's doctrine as pseudo Buddhism was already present during the time of Shankara as he makes note of it in his karika-bhashya. The earliest known criticism of Shankara's mayavada as Buddhism comes from Bhaskara and the same criticism was echoed later by Yamunacharya and Ramanujacharya.

However, we have to put this issue in proper perspective. By the time of Gaudapada, there already existed four prominent and distinct sects of Buddhism in India - of which, two are relevant to this discussion.

1. vijnana-vada by the brothers Asanga and Vasubandhu - Consciousness alone is real and everything else is in the mind. That is, the universe is unreal.
2. shunya-vada/madhyamaka by Nagarjuna - Everything is empty by nature.

Gaudapada does three things in his karikas. He accepts the authority of the Veda and accepts the reality of Brahman; his world view resembles that of the vijnana-vadins (karika 2.15, etc) and his dialectics are borrowed from Nagarjuna. To be fair, it is possible that his doctrine did not come from vijnanavada, but from an alternate, unknown source which is neither a Buddhist doctrine or the Upanishads. This may be a possibility because we have the text yoga-vasistha which may be older than Gaudapada and already supports the idea of everything being in the mind.

One of the big arguments is that the nirguna Brahman is essentially the same as Nagarjuna's shunya (which is incorrectly translated as void). Nagarjuna's shunya is not a void, but something that is beyond words; beyond description - which is the same as the Nirguna Brahman as it cannot be described. However, since it is established that the indescribable Nirguna Brahman comes from Yajnavalkya (Brhadaranyka), who lived long before Nagarjuna, it is not true that Advaitins copied the concept of Nirguna Brahman from Nagarjuna. But it should also be noted that the same Upanishads are interpreted very differently by other schools of Vedanta (without a Nirguna Brahman).

There is no denying that the ideas are strikingly similar - that is, there is a strong case to make for Advaita (Ajatavada, specifically) being crypto Buddhism. Similarly, I would like to note that tattva-vada and vishishtadvaita are very similar to the older bedha-abedha doctrine of Bhaskara.

 

[atanu]

When Gaudapada in his Karika talks about 'Nihilist Buddhists' does he refer to Madhyamaka Buddhism or to the earlier Theravada Buddhism??

Can the views of Gaudapada and Nagarjuna be somehow reconciled??

Apparently Gaudapada was inspired a lot by Nagarjuna for his Mandukya Karikas.

I'm reading Nagarjuna at the moment, his views are very interesting!

Gaudapada's karika is a commentary on Mandukya upanishad. No such upanishad or knowledge underlies Nagarjuna. Further, whereas Nagarjuna et al., negated Atman, Gaudapada used immaculate logic to re-establish the knowledge of Atman and it being the same as the Brahman, as the basis of all, in keeping with Vedas.

I am linking a note from Kanchi Site on the subject:

http://www.kamakoti.org/kamakoti/articles/Preceptors of Advaita - 6.html

The central theme of Gaudapada’s philosophy is that nothing is ever born (ajati), not because ‘nothing’ is the ultimate truth as in Sunya-vada, but because the Self is the only reality.

‘No jiva is born; there is no cause for such birth; this is the supreme truth, nothing whatever is born. From the standpoint of the Absolute there is no duality, there is nothing finite or non-eternal. The Absolute alone is; all else is appearance, illusory and non-real. They are deluded who take the pluralistic universe to be real. Empirical distinctions of knower and object known, mind and matter, are the result of Maya. One cannot explain how they arise. But on enquiry they will be found to be void of reality. If one sees them, it is like seeing the foot-prints of birds in the sky. The Self is unborn; there is nothing else to be born. Duality is mere illusion; non-duality is the supreme truth.

That the Self is unborn and advaita is taught in the Vedas, in the Upanishads, in Shruti, in Smriti, and in Itihasa too. So, I personally will not credit this knowledge to any Bauddha school.

 

[DanielR]

Is Mayavada a derogatory term?

 

[निताइ dasa]

Is Mayavada a derogatory term?

See below

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#5

Basically its both. Depends on where it is used. In Vaishnav discussions, its usually a term when critiquing , but when Adwaitins discuss, it simply means "doctrine of maya"

 

[atanu]

See below

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad_faq.html#5

Basically its both. Depends on where it is used. In Vaishnav discussion, its usually a term used to critique, but when Adwaitin discuss it simply means "doctrine of maya"

Actually, it is advaita vAda. So, mAyA vAda is not the essential topic.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

The criticism of Advaita as a form of Buddhism is based on two things -

1. Nirguna Brahman - Since none of the other Vedanta schools subscribe to the theory of Nirguna Brahman, they (starting with Bhaskara) raised the criticism that it was a copy of Nagarjuna's shunya. There are an abundance of Upanishadic statements that support the Nirguna Brahman like Katha 1.3.15, the Neti Neti statements of Brihadaranyaka and so on. But all the other Vedanta schools interpret them to mean something else.

Having realised Atman, which is soundless, intangible, formless, undecaying and likewise tasteless, eternal and odourless; having realised That which is without beginning and end, beyond the Great and unchanging—one is freed from the jaws of death. - Katha Upanishad 1.3.15

2. Maya - The concept of an illusory universe is not to be found in any of the main Upanishads, the Gita or the Sutras. Not directly, anyway. The first well documented record of the concept of unreality comes from vijnana-vada. These two factors are the reason why Shankara's doctrine was labelled as mayavada by critics and seen as a copy of Buddhism. Note that Shankara criticizes vijnana-vada in his sutra-bhashya. I will try to post the content later.

Modern scholars too have held similar views on Advaita. For instance, Dasgupta says - Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His Brahman was very much like the shunya of specifically Nagarjuna. I am led to think that Shankara’s philosophy is largely a compound of vijnanavada and shunyavada Buddhism with the upanishad notion of the permanence of self superadded”

 

[Aupmanyav]

Expand what Gaudapada may have said (I am no scholar but speak from my heart), not just the jivas but animals, vegetation and all non-living things as well. That is Brahman, the sole reality in all its wonder and magnificence. "Sarvam Khalvidam .." We knew it all the time.

 

[Ekanta]

Hi DanielR. I will give an answer as to how I understand it.

When Gaudapada in his Karika talks about 'Nihilist Buddhists' does he refer to Madhyamaka Buddhism or to the earlier Theravada Buddhism??

mādhyamaka (emptiness doctrine)

Can the views of Gaudapada and Nagarjuna be somehow reconciled??

Lets see what he Nagarjuna says about two truths and complare it to Nirvana sutra:

Nagarjuna:
"The Buddha's teaching of the Dharma is based on two truths: a truth of worldly convention and an ultimate truth.
Those who do not understand the distinction drawn between these two truths do not understand the Buddha's profound truth.
Without a foundation in the conventional truth the significance of the ultimate cannot be taught. Without understanding the significance of the ultimate, liberation is not achieved."
(Nagarjuna, Mūlamadhyamakakārika 24:8–10 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine)

Kaccayanagotta Sutta (Buddha speaking) as basis for nāgārjuna’s view
"Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

Nirvana sutra:
"There are two ways in which beings see. One is "is", and the other is "is-not". Such two are not the Middle Path.
When there is no "is" and no "not-is", we have the Middle Path.... This kind of Knowledge that sees is the Buddha-Nature."
"… the Buddha-Nature is the Eternal, Bliss, the Self, and the Pure."
(mahāyāna mahāparinirvāṇa sūtra chapter 33)

So, in this light.... Nagarjuna's "ultimate truth" is not just emptiness (or nihilism, since that is one of the extremes), but rather seeing buddha-nature, which is but the true SELF.

Apparently Gaudapada was inspired a lot by Nagarjuna for his Mandukya Karikas.

Why? There is no reason to say so. Its pure advaita. Sure there can be similar things...

I'm reading Nagarjuna at the moment, his views are very interesting!

Yea, but dont forget to read Nirvana sutra also. Since Nagarjuna might have had a certain objective with his writings, so they became a bit one sided.
http://www.nirvanasutra.net/

 

[DanielR]

Thanks @Ekanta !

That's been helpful!

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nirvana sutra:
"There are two ways in which beings see. One is "is", and the other is "is-not". Such two are not the Middle Path.

That makes it three way. But Mahavira of the Jains recounted seven in his 'Anekantavada' (Multiplicity of view points):

"Affirmation, when not in conflict with negation, yields the desired result of describing truly an object of knowledge. Only when affirmation and negation are juxtaposed in mutually non-conflicting situation, one is able to decide whether to accept or reject the assertion. This is how the doctrine of conditional predications (syādvāda) establishes the truth.”- Āptamīmāṁsā

syād-asti—in some ways, it is; syān-nāsti—in some ways, it is not; syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not; syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable; syān-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable; syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable; syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anekantavada

 

[Ekanta]

Madhyamaka Buddhism or to the earlier Theravada Buddhism??

Also... (as I understand it)... Mahayana goes back to Mahāsāṃghika who is nowdays thought to represent an older tradition than Therevada.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahāsāṃghika

 

[atanu]

....
Having realised Atman, which is soundless, intangible, formless, undecaying and likewise tasteless, eternal and odourless; having realised That which is without beginning and end, beyond the Great and unchanging—one is freed from the jaws of death. - Katha Upanishad 1.3.15

2. Maya - The concept of an illusory universe is not to be found in any of the main Upanishads, the Gita or the Sutras. Not directly, anyway. ”

The concept of mAyA is woven through Vedas and Upanishads. I cite from a Bhakti dominant Upanishad: The Svestavatara,

10 Know, then, that prakriti is maya and that Great God is the Lord of maya. The whole universe is filled with objects which are parts of His being.
....
18 When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; the pure Brahman alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.
......

So, although conventionally the controller Lord and its separate Prakriti (mAyA) are being taught, it is however clearly said that on removal of ignorance, only the Immutable, non-dual remains.

I do not think that the concept of the world being some kind of illusion is alien to any Vedanta school. What is objectionable to the dualistic schools is that eventually, the object of worship (of the dualistic schools) is shown to be part of that illusion by advaita.

Upanishadic teachings "One who sees any difference here goes from death to death" and "As long as there is a second, there is fear", point to the final need of advaita jnana. And these teachings are not borrowed from Buddhism.
...

 

[Aupmanyav]

18 When there is no darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; the pure Brahman alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.

..........

So, although conventionally the controller Lord and its separate Prakriti (mAyA) are being taught, it is however clearly said that on removal of ignorance, only the Immutable, non-dual remains.

I do not think that the concept of the world being some kind of illusion is not alien to any Vedanta school. What is objectionable to the dualistic schools is that eventually, the object of worship (of the dualistic schools) is shown to be part of that illusion by advaita.

Upanishadic teachings "One who sees any difference here goes from death to death" and "As long as there is a second, there is fear", point to the final need of advaita jnana. And these teachings are not borrowed from Buddhism.

Like it, Atanu. OK, what dualistic schools worship is the same Purusha, Brahman, which too is not far from truth. Do not see any difference. Let us not go from death to death.