From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The use of the word "Buddha"[edit]

I believe it is necessary to clarify in what sense the word "Buddha" has been used in the article at different places.Gaudapada did salute The Buddha in his karika but the word Buddha meant "the awakened one" and not Gautama buddha.This has been categorically clarified in The Mandukya Upanishad being published by The Advaita ashrama in which they have cited Gaudapada himself saying at the end of the karika that"This(his own view)is not the view of Buddha"Abheyendra 09:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Polemical style[edit]

There are many claims in this article about Gaudapada and Buddhism. These need to be cited. Buddhists have always denied the existence of a Self in the Upanishadic sense and so many claims in this article are dubious. Mitsube (talk) 23:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please go ahead and replace unsourced with sourced material. The article has been waiting for someone who knows something about the subject. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't know too much. I have some material on the Buddhist influence on Shankara but not much on Gaudapada himself. Mitsube (talk) 07:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the standard inaccuracies regarding the Buddha and the Upanishads, as well as novel ones regarding Vasubandhu and Nagarjuna. Mitsube (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
There is some material about Gaudapada and Buddhism in Kencho Tenzin;s thesis Shankara: A Hindu Revivalist or a Crypto Buddhist? Chris Fynn (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
hello, i was the one who put in the chunk of the text on gaudapaada. if something was considered 'dubious' in the article then such should be stated clearly and contrary proofs provided. without that how can the article be edited or sections of it deleted? Mitsube (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vpcnk (talkcontribs)


I am wondering what the source is for the large [1882 words] piece of text that starts just after footnote number four and doesn't end until the end of the section entitled 'Asparsha Yoga' . . . ? I am not doubting the validity of anything necessarily, I would just like to see references. It seems like an awful lot of text with no citations or references to any source or text. For instance when the authors states, "Gaudapada says," ideally there should be a reference to the citation quoted. It would most likely come from the Karika on the Mandukyopanishad, so simply a chapter and verse reference would suffice for these quotations. Surely there must also be a wealth of secondary source material on Gaudapada, by both 'western' and south Asian scholars. Google Book search turned up over 100,000 results; Google Scholar search turned up 1200 results: so clearly there is no dearth of printed material in which to find sources, both primary and secondary, for citation purposes. I was about to begin reading my Nikhilananda translation of Mandukyopanishad with Gaudapadiya Karika; I believe this would be a good translation to cite for primary source references. I currently have no secondary material specifically relating to Gaudapada, but could easily acquire such sources through an interlibrary loan, if scholarly attention is still a desideratum for this entry on such an important figure. JBWQuinn (talk) 16:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)