Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta
| Part of a series on | |
| Hindu philosophy | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Orthodox | |
|
|
|
| Heterodox | |
|
|
|
| Part of a series on |
| Buddhism |
|---|
 |
.svg){kind=small}
| Part of a series on |
| Advaita |
|---|
 |
 Hindu philosophy |
Advaita Vedanta and Mahayana Buddhism share significant similarities. Those similarities have attracted Indian and Western scholars attention,[1] and have also been criticised by concurring schools. The similarities have been interpreted as Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta, though some deny such influences, or see them as expressions of the same eternal truth.[2]
Advaita Vedanta (IAST, Advaita Vedānta; Sanskrit: अद्वैत वेदान्त; literally, not-two) is the oldest extant sub-school of Vedanta – an orthodox (āstika) school of Hindu philosophy and religious practice. Advaita darśana (philosophies, world views, teachings) is one of the classic Indian paths to spiritual realization.[3][4] It took shape with the writings of Gaudapada in the 6th century CE.
Buddhism /ˈbudɪzəm/ is a religion[5] and dharma that encompasses a variety of traditions, beliefs and spiritual practices based on teachings attributed to the Buddha (5t century BCE), but diversified since then in a wide variety of practices and traditions. Buddhism originated in India, from where it spread through much of Asia. It declined in India during the middle ages, after the rise of new forms of Hinduism, including Advaita Vedanta.
Similarities with Buddhism
Advaita Vedanta and various other schools of Hindu philosophy share numerous terminology and doctrines with Buddhism. Of the various schools, the similarities between Advaita and Buddhism have attracted Indian and Western scholars attention.[1] Isaeva states in her analysis of scholarly views, that these have historically and in modern times ranged from "Advaita and Buddhism are very different", to "Advaita and Buddhism absolutely coincide in their main tenets", to "after purifying Buddhism and Advaita of accidental or historically conditioned accretions, both systems can be safely regarded as an expression of one and the same eternal absolute truth".[6]
Scholarly comments
Scholars such as Belvalkar, Hiriyanna, Radhakrishnan and Thibaut state that Advaita's and Buddhism's theories on True Reality and Maya are similar,[7] and the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta has been significant.[8] Both traditions hold that "the empirical world is transitory, a show of appearances",[7][9] and both admit "degrees of truth or existence".[10] Both traditions emphasize the human need for spiritual liberation (moksha, nirvana, kaivalya), however with different assumptions.[11][note 1]
Frank Whaling states that the similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are not limited to the terminology and some doctrines, it includes practice. The monastic practices and monk tradition in Advaita are similar to those found in Buddhism.[8]
Yet, according to Natalia Isaeva, "Probably because of these similarities, even such an astute Buddhologist as Rozenberg was of the opinion that a precise differentiation between Brahmanism and Buddhism is impossible to draw".[13]
Concurring schools
The similarities with Buddhism have been criticised by concurring Indian schools. Ramanujacharya, the founder of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, accused Adi Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a "crypto-Buddhist",[1] and someone who was undermining theistic Bhakti devotionalism.[8] The non-Advaita scholar Bhaskara of the Bhedabheda tradition, similarly around 800 CE, accused Shankara's Advaita as "this despicable broken down Mayavada that has been chanted by the Mahayana Buddhists", and a school that is undermining the ritual duties set in Vedic orthodoxy.[8]
Mahadevan states, "At the outset it must be pointed out that, when the critics hurl the charge of pseudo-Buddhism against Advaita, they use the word Buddhism rather in a vague and general sense. The doctrine of unreality of the world, and the theory of non-recognition are found to be common as between the idealistic schools of Buddhism and Advaita. Most critics believe that these are not Upanishadic doctrines, and so, their conclusion is that Advaita must have borrowed them from the Mahayana schools. And the earliest teacher who effected this borrowing, in their view, is Gaudapada."[14]
Influence of Mahayana Buddhism
Scholars state that Advaita Vedanta was influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, given the common terminology, methodology and some doctrines.[15] Sharma (2000, pp. 60–63) points out that the early commentators on the Brahma Sutras were all realists, or pantheist realists. He states that they were influenced by Buddhism, particularly during the 5th and 6th centuries CE when Buddhist thought developing in the Yogacara school. Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi state:
In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some of the dialectical techniques, if not the specific doctrines, of the former.[16]
Gaudapada
Scholars are divided on possible Buddhist influence on Gaudapada's writing.
The influence of Mahayana on Advaita Vedanta, states Deutsch, goes back at least to Gaudapada, where he "clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments are cast".[16]
Gaudapada, in his Karikas text, uses the leading concepts and wording of Mahayana Buddhist school but, states John Plott, he reformulated them to the Upanishadic themes.[14] The influence of Buddhism on Gaudapada, states Plott (2000, pp. 285–288), is undeniable and to be expected. He writes,
We must emphasize again that generally throughout the Gupta Dynasty, and even more so after its decline, there developed such a high degree of syncretism and such toleration of all points of view that Mahayana Buddhism had been Hinduized almost as much as Hinduism had been Buddhaized.
Michael Comans states Gaudapada, an early Vedantin, utilised some arguments and reasoning from Madhyamaka Buddhist texts by quoting them almost verbatim. However, Comans adds there is a fundamental difference between Buddhist thought and that of Gaudapada, in that Buddhism has as its philosophical basis the doctrine of Dependent Origination according to which "everything is without an essential nature (nissvabhava), and everything is empty of essential nature (svabhava-sunya)", while Gaudapada does not rely on this principle at all. Gaudapada's Ajativada is an outcome of reasoning applied to an unchanging nondual reality according to which "there exists a Reality (sat) that is unborn (aja)" that has essential nature (svabhava) and this is the "eternal, fearless, undecaying Self (Atman) and Brahman".[17] Thus, Gaudapada differs from Buddhist scholars such as Nagarjuna, states Comans, by accepting the premises and relying on the fundamental teaching of the Upanishads.[17]
Mahadevan suggests that Gaudapada adopted Buddhist terminology and borrowed its doctrines to his Vedantic goals, much like early Buddhism adopted Upanishadic terminology and borrowed its doctrines to Buddhist goals; both used pre-existing concepts and ideas to convey new meanings.[14]
Some scholars suggests that Gaudapada (6th Century CE) bridged Buddhism and Vedanta, by taking over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra)[note 2] and "that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation".[20][21][note 3] According to Gaudapada, the Absolute Reality, that is Brahman, is not subject to birth, change and death. The Absolute is aja, the unborn eternal.[23][24] Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan also opines that Gaudapada's philosophy is different from that of Adi Shankara and Badarayan.[25] Bhattacharya (1943, p. 49), Renard (2010, p. 157) and Comans (2000, pp. 35–36) suggest that Gaudapada took over the Buddhist concept of ajāta from Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy, which uses the term anutpāda.[note 5] An equivalent theory of Ajātivāda, "the Doctrine of no-origination"[23][note 6] or "non-creation", is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada.[23]
Other scholars, however, refute this idea. According to Murti (1955, pp. 114–115), Gaudapada's doctrines are unlike Buddhism. Gaudapada's influential text consists of four chapters; Chapter One, Two and Three of which are entirely Vedantin and founded on the Upanishads, with little Buddhist flavor. Chapter Four uses Buddhist terminology and incorporates Buddhist doctrines but Vedanta scholars who followed Gaudapada through the 17th century, state both Murti and Richard King, never referenced nor used Chapter Four, they only quote from the first three. While there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different, states Murti (1955, pp. 114–115).[33] Nikhilananda (2008, pp. 203–206) refutes the argument for Buddhist influence on Gaudapada's philosophy by arguing that the whole purpose of Gaudapada was to demonstrate the ultimate reality of the birth-less and non-dual Atman, a concept foreign to Buddhism. Scholars such as Murti state that, while there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different.[34][35]
Shankara
Given the principal role attributed to Shankara in Advaita tradition, his works have been examined by scholars for similarities with Buddhism.[8][36] Buddhism supporters have targeted Shankara, states Biderman (1978, pp. 405–413), while his Hindu supporters state that "accusations" concerning explicit or implicit Buddhist influence are not relevant. Daniel Ingalls writes, "If we are to adopt a metaphysical and static view of philosophy there is little difference between Shankara and Vijnanavada Buddhism, so little, in fact that the whole discussion is fairly pointless. But if we try to think our way back into minds of philosophers whose works we read, there is a very real difference between the antagonists".[1]
Ninian Smart, a historian of religion, quotes Mudgal view that "the differences between Shankara and Mahayana doctrines are largely a matter of emphasis and background, rather than essence".[37][note 7] Mudgal additionally states that the Upanishadic and Buddhist currents of thought "developed separately and independently, opposed to one another, as the orthodox and heterodox, the thesis and antithesis, and a synthesis was attempted by the Advaitin Shankara".[38]
Dasgupta and Mohanta suggest that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta represent "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara."[39][note 8]
Differences from Buddhism
Atman and anatta
Advaita Vedanta holds the premise, "Soul exists, and Soul (or self, Atman) is a self evident truth". Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise, "Atman does not exist, and An-atman (or Anatta, non-self)[42] is self evident".[43][44][note 9]
Buddhists do not believe that at the core of all human beings and living creatures, there is any "eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman".[45] Buddhists reject the concept and all doctrines associated with atman, call atman as illusion (maya), asserting instead the theory of "no-self" and "no-soul".[44][46] Buddhism, from its earliest days, has denied the existence of the "self, soul" in its core philosophical and ontological texts. In contrast to Advaita which describes knowing one's own soul as identical with Brahman as the path to nirvana, in its soteriological themes, Buddhism has defined nirvana as that blissful state when a person realizes that he or she has "no self, no soul".[45][11]
Epistemology
The epistemological foundations of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are different. Buddhism accepts two valid means to reliable and correct knowledge – perception and inference, while Advaita Vedanta accepts six.[47] However, some Buddhists in history, have argued that Buddhist scriptures are a reliable source of spiritual knowledge, corresponding to Advaita's Śabda pramana, however Buddhists have treated their scriptures as a form of inference method.[48]
Ontology
Advaita Vedanta is a substance ontology, an ontology "which holds that underlying the seeming change, variety, and multiplicity of existence there are unchanging and permanent entities (the so-called substances)".[49] In contrast, Buddhism is normally understood as a process ontology, according to which "there exists nothing permanent and unchanging, within or without man".[50] Kalupahanan (1994) describes that there is also a current in Buddhism which favours substance ontology and sees Madhyamaka and Yogacara as reactions against developments toward substance ontology in Buddhism.
Advaita's three levels of reality theory, states Renard (2010, p. 130), is built on the two levels of reality found in the Madhyamika.
Notes
- ^ Helmuth von Glasenapp writes: "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 Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 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."[12]
- ^ It is often used interchangeably with the term citta-mātra, but they have different meanings. The standard translation of both terms is "consciousness-only" or "mind-only." Several modern researchers object this translation, and the accompanying label of "absolute idealism" or "idealistic monism".[18] A better translation for vijñapti-mātra is representation-only.[19]
- ^ 1. Something is. 2. It is not. 3. It both is and is not. 4. It neither is nor is not.[web 1] [22]
- ^ The influence of Mahayana Buddhism on other religions and philosophies was not limited to Vedanta. Kalupahana notes that the Visuddhimagga of Theravada Buddhism tradition contains "some metaphysical speculations, such as those of the Sarvastivadins, the Sautrantikas, and even the Yogacarins".[26]
- ^ An means "not", or "non"; utpāda means "genesis", "coming forth", "birth"[web 2] Taken together anutpāda means "having no origin", "not coming into existence", "not taking effect", "non-production".[web 3] Gaudapada, states Raju (1992, pp. 177–178), "wove Buddhist doctrines into a philosophy of the Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara".[note 4] At the same time, Gaudapada emphatically rejected some theories of the Buddhists, such as the multiplicity and momentariness of consciousnesses, which were core doctrines of the Vijnanavada school, and their techniques for achieving liberation.[27] The Buddhist tradition usually uses the term "anutpāda" for the absence of an origin[28][29] or sunyata.[30] According to D.T Suzuki, "anutpada" is not the opposite of "utpada", but transcends opposites. It is the seeing into the true nature of existence,[31] the seeing that "all objects are without self-substance".[32]
- ^ "A" means "not", or "non" as in Ahimsa, non-harm; "jāti" means "creation" or "origination;[23] "vāda" means "doctrine"[23]
- ^ Ninian Smart is a proponent of the so-called "common core thesis", which states that all forms of mysticism share a common core. See also [web 4] and [web 5]
- ^ This development did not end with Advaita Vedanta, but continued in Tantrism and various schools of Shaivism. Non-dual Kashmir Shaivism, for example, was influenced by, and took over doctrines from, several orthodox and heterodox Indian religious and philosophical traditions.[40] These include Vedanta, Samkhya, Patanjali Yoga and Nyayas, and various Buddhist schools, including Yogacara and Madhyamika,[40] but also Tantra and the Nath-tradition.[41]
- ^ Plott: "The Buddhist schools reject any Ātman concept. As we have already observed, this is the basic and ineradicable distinction between Hinduism and Buddhism."[44]
References
- ^ a b c d Biderman 1978, pp. 405–413.
- ^ N.V. Isaeva (1993), Shankara and Indian Philosophy, SUNY Press, pages 12-14
- ^ Sharma 2007, p. 6.
- ^ Deutsch 1988, p. 4.
- ^ Lopez 2001, p. 239.
- ^ Isaeva 1993, pp. 12–14.
- ^ a b Helmuth Von Glasenapp (1995), Vedanta & Buddhism: A comparative study, Buddhist Publication Society, pages 2-3, Quote: "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 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 [in Buddhism]".
- ^ a b c d e Whaling 1979, pp. 1–42.
- ^ Dasgupta & Mohanta 1998, pp. 351–352.
- ^ Dasgupta & Mohanta 1998, p. 354.
- ^ a b Loy 1982, pp. 65–74.
- ^ Helmuth Von Glasenapp (1995), Vedanta & Buddhism: A comparative study, Buddhist Publication Society, pages 1-2
- ^ Isaeva 1993, p. 172.
- ^ a b c Plott 2000, pp. 285–288.
- ^ Grimes 1998, pp. 684–686.
- ^ a b Deutsch & Dalvi 2004, p. 126, 157.
- ^ a b Comans 2000, p. 88–93.
- ^ Kochumuttom 1999, p. 1.
- ^ Kochumuttom 1999, p. 5.
- ^ Sharma 2000, p. 60-63.
- ^ Raju 1992, p. 177.
- ^ Garfield 2003.
- ^ a b c d e Sharma 1996, p. 127.
- ^ John Plott (2000), Global History of Philosophy: The Patristic-Sutra period (325 - 800 AD), Volume 3, Motilal Banarsidass, ISBN 978-8120805507, pages 285-288
- ^ Nikhilananda 2008, pp. 203–206.
- ^ Kalupahana 1994, p. 206.
- ^ Sharma 1996, p. 152–154.
- ^ Renard 2010, p. 157.
- ^ Bhattacharya 1943, p. 49.
- ^ Renard 2010, p. 160.
- ^ Suzuki 1999, p. 123-124.
- ^ Suzuki 1999, p. 168.
- ^ Gaudapada, Devanathan Jagannathan, University of Toronto, IEP
- ^ Murti 1955, pp. 114–115.
- ^ Potter 1981, p. 81.
- ^ Dasgupta & Mohanta 1998, pp. 349–352.
- ^ Ninian Smart (1992), Doctrine and Argument in Indian Philosophy. Brill, page 104
- ^ S Mudgal (1975), Advaita of Shankara: A Reappraisal, Motilal Banarasidass, page 175
- ^ Dasgupta & Mohanta 1998, p. 362.
- ^ a b Muller-Ortega 2010, p. 25.
- ^ Muller-Ortega 2010, p. 26.
- ^ Anatta, Encyclopedia Britannica (2013), Quote: "Anatta in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying soul. The concept of anatta, or anatman, is a departure from the Hindu belief in atman ("the self")."
- ^ Dae-Sook Suh (1994), Korean Studies: New Pacific Currents, University of Hawaii Press, ISBN 978-0824815981, page 171
- ^ a b c Plott 2000, p. 63.
- ^ a b [a] KN Jayatilleke (2010), Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, ISBN 978-8120806191, pages 246-249, from note 385 onwards; [b] Steven Collins (1994), Religion and Practical Reason (Editors: Frank Reynolds, David Tracy), State Univ of New York Press, ISBN 978-0791422175, page 64; "Central to Buddhist soteriology is the doctrine of not-self (Pali: anattā, Sanskrit: anātman, the opposed doctrine of ātman is central to Brahmanical thought). Put very briefly, this is the [Buddhist] doctrine that human beings have no soul, no self, no unchanging essence."; [c] Edward Roer (Translator), Shankara's Introduction, p. 2, at Google Books to Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, pages 2-4; [d] Katie Javanaud (2013), Is The Buddhist ‘No-Self’ Doctrine Compatible With Pursuing Nirvana?, Philosophy Now
- ^ Helen J Baroni (2002), The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Zen Buddhism, Rosen Publishing, ISBN 978-0823922406, page 14
- ^ Grimes 1996, p. 238; Sharma 1966, pp. 291–300; Potter 1977, pp. 155–174, 227–255; Clayton 2010, p. 54
- ^ Wayman 1999, pp. xix–xx.
- ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 49-50.
- ^ Puligandla 1997, p. 40-50.
Sources
Published sources
Web-sources
- ^ Anthony Peter Iannini (2001), Nāgārjuna's Emptiness and Pyrrho's Skepticism
- ^ Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit, Utpāda
- ^ Sanskrit Dictionary for Spoken Sanskrit, Anutpāda
- ^ Stanford Encyclopedia of Mysticism, Mysticism
- ^ Richard King (1999), Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India, and 'The Mystic East.