Buddhism says:~ All things are illusory, and noting exists. However, Advaita avers that it is not so. It says that the universe of course is illusory, but there is Brahman (consciousness), that exists forming the very substratum of all things (illusion or universe).
Buddha was a Gnani, but his interpreters are not. Buddha did not enter into scriptural interpretation. So the Vedanthist threw him out of their religion.
The Five Skandhas
The Buddha taught that an individual is a combination of five aggregates of existence, also called the Five Skandhas. These are:~
- Form
- Sensation
- Perception
- Mental formations
- Consciousness
Various schools of Buddhism interpret the skandhas in somewhat different ways. Generally, the first skandha is our physical form. The second is made up of our feelings, emotional and physical, and our senses — seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, smelling.
The third skandha, perception, takes in most of what we call thinking — conceptualization, cognition, reasoning. This also includes the recognition that occurs when an organ comes into contact with an object. Perception can be thought of as “that which identifies.” The object perceived may be a physical object or a mental one, such as an idea.
The fourth skandha, mental formations, includes habits, prejudices and predispositions. Our volition, or willfulness, also is part of the fourth skandha, as are attention, faith, conscientiousness, pride, desire, vindictiveness, and many other mental states both virtuous and not virtuous. The causes and effects of karma are especially important to the fourth skandha.
The fifth skandha, consciousness, is awareness of or sensitivity to an object, but without conceptualization. Once there is awareness, the third skandha might recognize the object and assign a concept-value to it, and the fourth skandha might react with desire or revulsion or some other mental formation. The fifth skandha is explained in some schools as the base that ties the experience of life together.
The Self Is No-Self
What’s most important to understand about the skandhas is that they are empty. They are not qualities that an individual possesses, because there is no-self possessing them. This doctrine of no-self is called anatman or anatta.
Very basically, the Buddha taught that “you” are not an integral, autonomous entity. The individual self, or what we might call the ego, is more correctly thought of as a by-product of the skandhas.
On the surface, this appears to be a nihilistic teaching. But the Buddha taught that if we can see through the delusion of the small, individual self, we experience that which is not subject to birth and death.
Two Views
Beyond this point, Theravada Buddhism and Mahayana Buddhism differ on how anatman is understood. In fact, more than anything else it is the different understanding of self that defines and separates the two schools.
Very basically, Theravada considers anatman to mean that an individual’s ego or personality is a fetter and delusion. Once freed of this delusion, the individual may enjoy the bliss of Nirvana.
Mahayana, on the other hand, considers all physical forms to be void of intrinsic self (a teaching calledshunyata, which means “emptiness”). The ideal in Mahayana is to enable all beings to be enlightened together, not only out of a sense of compassion, but because we are not really separate, autonomous beings.
There’s an apparent discrepancy between the Buddha’s words in The Dhammapada —
“By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another.” (Dhammapada,chapter 12, verse 165)
John Daido Loori, Roshi~ “The responsibility that emerges with realization is not limited to what is happening to us. It embraces the whole catastrophe. It includes everything everywhere, throughout time and space — past, present, and future. There is no separation.” (Loori, The Heart of Being, page 172)
So, when there is harm, where does the responsibility lie? Is it individual or universal?
The Mahayana answer is, of course, “both.” When dualities dissolve, and the barriers fall, there are no limits to our being. Therefore, there are no limits to our responsibility. However, as individuals we are entirely responsible for ourselves. Daido used to tell us to not blame anyone else even for our bad moods — “No one can make you angry. You make yourself angry.”
As per Daidos ~ That responsibility, that sense of responsibility, encompasses the whole universe, because it’s based on the realization that we’re not separate from the universe. What happens to the ten thousand things happens to me. What’s going on in Somalia is going on right here. In the jungles of South America. In the Ozone layer. Whatever affects this great universe affects this body and this mind. That’s the realization of the Buddha, and that’s the realization that these Precepts are based on.
The world is apprehended by way of the mind The world is acted upon by way of the mind And all good things and bad Exist in the world by way of the mind. ~Samyutta Nikaya
Buddha was a Gnani, but his interpreters are not. Buddha did not enter into scriptural interpretation. So the Hindus threw him out of their religion. Sankara however although he agreed in nearly all points with Buddha, was a tactician and wanted to teach these truths within the Hindu fold. Hence he did in Rome as Rome does! He made himself outwardly appear as an orthodox Hindu, and thus secured his aim.
Buddhism has failed through misunderstanding Gotama and believing that nothing is left to exist after Nirvana. What is it that sees the illusory nature of the finite ego? This is what the Buddhists need to answer and cannot on their theories.
Buddha’s teachings that all life is misery belongs to the relative standpoint only. For you cannot form any idea of misery without contrasting it with its opposite, happiness. The two will always go together. Buddha taught the goal of cessation of misery, i.e. peace, but took care not to discuss the ultimate standpoint for then he would have had to go above the heads of the people and tell them that misery itself was only an idea, that peace even was an idea (for it contrasted with peacelessness).
That the doctrine he gave out was a limited one, is evident because he inculcated compassion. Why should a Buddhist sage practice pity? There is no reason for it. Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason, viz. unity, non-difference from others, and because it explains that it used the concept of removing the sufferings of others, of lifting them up to happiness, only as we use one thorn to pick out another, afterwards throw both away. Similarly, Advaita discards both concepts of misery and happiness in the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable.
Buddhists say that a thing exists only for a moment, and if that thing has still got some of the substance from which it was produced how then can they deny that its cause is continuing in the effect; hence its existence is more than a moment. Vedanta is concerned with whether it is one and the same thing which has come into being, or has it come out of nothing.
Even the Sunyavada ultimate of the “void” is really a breath, and therefore an imagination and not ultimate truth.
Buddha as a constructive worker committed an error in failing to give the masses a religion, something tangible they could grasp, something materialistic, if symbolic that their limited intellect could take hold of, in addition to his ethics and philosophy. Here Sri Ramakrishna was wiser and gave the religion; such as Kirtan, puja etc.–to the ignorant masses, as well as Advaita to those like Vivekananda.
Buddha gave as the central feature of his doctrine the great law of Karma in order to reiterate its ethical meaning. He did more good in this to uplift the people than the ritualists.
Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists who say that there are many Buddhas living in spirit bodies and helping our earth from the spiritual world are still in the sphere of religious illusion, not ultimate truth. Their statements are wrong. Every sage realizes that the only way to help mankind is to come down amongst them, for which he must necessarily take on flesh-body. When people are suffering how can he relieve their suffering unless he appears amongst them? When people are suffering how can he feed them from an unseen world whether their struggle be for material bread or for spiritual truth? No! He must be here actually in the flesh. It is impossible to help them in any other way and all talk of Shiva living on Mount Kailas in spiritual body or Buddha in Nirmanakaya, invisible body belongs to the realm of delusion or self-deception.
The Buddhist scriptures were completely distorted by the time of Sankaracharya. Sankaracharya had to criticise the Buddhist literature prevailing then as the Buddhists themselves were confused as to what Shunyata is. Vasubandhu and his disciple Dignaga (the latter lived about a couple of centuries before Sankaracharya) could not retain the original teachings of Lord Buddha. At first Vasubandhu did not agree with his half-brother Asanga and wrote one book on Abhidharma and later on he went to the side of Asanga and wrote a second book, where he opposed his own earlier views on Abhidharma. Sankaracharya had to criticise the Buddhist knowledge and literature of his time as he wanted to bring to us back the Pure Vedantic knowledge through his work on the Prasthanatraya. That is why there is reference to the writing of Dharmakirti in Sutrabashya.
There is another aspect also the puranic literature the Vishnu Purana also says that Lord Buddha created confusion. And in Sarnath he first taught about the Moral code which is basic. He talked about Anatma. And two decades later he taught the concept of Shunyata and the tenets of the Mahayana Buddhism.? In spite of Nagrjuna’s telling that Shunyata is not Nihilism and that Parajanaparamita also mentioning about the Shunyata after one leaves the five? skandhas, there are and there will always be people who will go on calling Buddha’s philosophy as Nihilism. About the origin of the Tantric Buddhism also there are controversies.
The Hindus considers Lord Buddha being an Avatara of Lord Vishnu. It seems that in many Buddha viharas, probably more in Sri Lanka, there are statues of Lord Vishnu, which are looked at reverentially. By the Buddhists. Sri Ramakrishna Paramhansa also says that there is no doubt about Lord Buddha being an Avatara of Lord Vishnu. Swami Vivekananda tells us about him very superlatively. Dr. Radhakrishnan says that he was a reformer of Hinduism.
The theory of no soul also follows from the doctrines of dependent origination. There is no in visible permanent substance besides the flow of consciousness. As the body is destroyed the five skandhas disappear into five elements (Pancha bhutas) and nothing remains besides the Upadana or Karma. This principle is known as the theory of no-soul in Buddha’s philosophy.
Like the view of William James, Buddha also admits the selas the flow of consciousness. In the consciousness the present movement is the result of the past moment and the future the result of the present. Thus one moment succeeds another moment and the actions and the memory of the past moments are transferred to the next moment. The cause of the present mental state is that past mental state. Buddha has explained the community of the life with the example of the flame of a lamp. There is cause and effect relation between antecedent and subsequent states of life. The life is a systematic and continuous process of different stages. In this process every stage depends on the stage preceding it, and the subsequent stage is the result of the present stage. Hence the life is homogeneous. Like the flame of a lamp it is changing every moment. The flame of a lamp in every moment depends on the conditions prevailing at that time, but in spite of the difference in flames, they appear to be the same due to continuity. Buddha believes in rebirth and the principle of Karma. He however, does not believes in rebirth in the sense that a soul enters in a different body after leaving one body, but rebirth means that another birth follows every birth or another birth is caused due to one birth. Just as a lamp can be lighted by another lamp and yet the lights of both cannot be identified, similarly in spite of cause and effect relations between the two the two births are different and not identical.
As a matter of fact, Buddha has always asked the disciples not to indulge in useless discussions regarding the soul. If the soul is taken as eternal, one gets attached to it and suffers in the efforts to make it happy. According to Buddha, the love with the invisible and unproved soul is as much ludicrous as the love of some invisible and imaginary beautiful women. The attachment towards this soul is like preparing a ladder to mount on a place which has not been seen by anyone.
According to Buddha man is a name for a conglomeration. Just as wheel and other parts of a chariot are together called a chariot. Similarly the body with the external form, mental states and colorless consciousness is together called the human being. This conglomeration is the man. Besides this there is no soul. So long as this conglomeration remains, the life of man also remains; death is the name of its destruction.
At another place, Buddha has called the man as the sum total of five Skandhas. Those five skandhas are changing elements and man is more or less a collection of them. As the man dies, this collection is scattered. In the five skandhas the first is the “Roop” which includes the form, complex and size etc. of the human body. Another skandhas is Vedan which includes the feelings like pleasure, pain and aversion etc. The third Skandha is consciousness or Sanjana. It includes different types of conglomerations and knowledge. The fourth skandha is the Samskaras which include the tendencies due to the actions of the post birth. The fifth Skandha is the Vijnan or consciousness.
Advaita sages agreed in nearly all points with Buddha. Buddhism has failed through misunderstanding Gautama and believing that nothing is left to exist after Nirvana. What is it that sees the illusory nature of the finite ego? This is what the Buddhism need to answer and cannot on their theories.
Advaitic sages say:~ it is the, the Seer. The Buddhists are in error in regarding the finite ego as illusory, and as having nothing more behind it: but they would have been perfectly correct in such outlook had they added the notion of the Seer or Witness. How is it that Skandas come together and compose the ego? Who sees them come and go? It is the Witness or the seer, the Atman, which is in the form of consciousness and through by amazing the formless witness and witnessed (universe) one becomes aware of the existence of the formless witness mentally.
Advaitic view:~
Sage Sri, Sankara’s system of Advaita does not need the support of any Scripture or Revelation like the Veda. The Srutis may all disappear, yet will his school stand. For it is based, not upon the varying theological fancies, which are as numerous as the sands of the sea, but upon reason, the common heritage of all mankind, irrespective of colour or creed or clime.
The tenet of Nirguna Brahman is true for Sage Sri, Sankara, not because it is taught by the Sruti, but because it is based on anubhava (intuitive experience) though it is also supported by the Sruti … The Advaitin knows that a legitimate doubt may have here to arise. The Rishis may have truly spoken, but they may have been deluded themselves. How are we certain that what the Rishis cognized is the Reality or Truth? This can be proved according to the Advaita, only by anubhava.
And also:~
Again, in the absence of this anubhava, Nirguna Brahman as an object of thought is mere sound without sense. To one who has not seen a penguin, for instance, the word has no meaning … Of what use, then, is such Sruti to him? Similarly, common sense tells the Advaitin that the meaning of the Sruti and especially where there are conflicting interpretations is made out by means of reasoning based upon the authority of anubhava, which is final.
Thus reason comes into play between Sruti and anubhava, corroborating the data of intuition with those of the revealed texts. But reason also permits discrimination between the different possible experiences, for, in an a priori astonishing fashion:
Anubhava … can reveal not two, but twenty thousand conflicting experiences. And the business of the wise is to sift the ultimate truth from out of all these … The Advaitin rejects nothing. All human experiences are his data. He tests all by reason. Anubava here is not physical experience but spiritual realization.
Only Advaita can reply: it is the witness, the Seer. The Buddhists are in error in regarding the finite ego as illusory, and as having nothing more behind it: but they would have been perfectly correct in such outlook had they added the notion of the witness. How is it that Skandas come together and compose the ego? Who sees them come and go? It is the witness, the Atman, and this lack Vedanta supplies in the seer and seen and reason Analysis. When they say that the mind comes and goes they are forgetting that there must be another part of the mind as consciousness which notices it and which tells them of this disappearance and appearance. All their misunderstandings arise from the fact that Buddha refused to discuss ultimate questions. When Buddhism degenerates into Nihilism Advaitin refutes it ( Manduka P.281). The truth of a single reality within or underlying the illusory ego is all-important and without it Buddhism becomes fallacious.
Vedanta admits the transitoriness and evanescence of thoughts just like Buddhism, but not of the Mind which observes this transitoriness and knows it.
Manduka Upanishad:~ Buddhists borrowed from Upanishads because they were Indians. The Vedantins did not need to borrow from Buddhism therefore (P.396 v.99 )
Buddha taught the illusoriness of ego, but did not go farther probably because he thought the world could not understand the higher truth. Hence followers go with him to that point of his, and then deny the Vedantic doctrine of one supreme reality when Buddha himself neither denied nor advocated it. Anyway the refutation of his followers is to ask them “What is it that is aware of the ego’s illusoriness?” There must be something that tells you that. That something is the witness, and if you say this witness itself may be illusory, coming and going, still there must be something non-transient i.e. permanent, to tell you this.
Buddha’s teachings that all life is misery belongs to the relative standpoint only. For you cannot form any idea of misery without contrasting it with its opposite, happiness. The two will always go together. Buddha taught the goal of cessation of misery, i.e. peace, but took care not to discuss the ultimate standpoint for then he would have had to go above the heads of the people and tell them that misery itself was only an idea, that peace even was an idea (for it contrasted with peacelessness). That the doctrine he gave out was a limited one, is evident because he inculcated compassion. Why should a Buddhist sage practice pity? There is no reason for it. Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason, viz. unity, non-difference from others, and because it explains that it used the concept of removing the sufferings of others, of lifting them up to happiness, only as we use one thorn to pick out another, afterwards throw both away. Similarly, Advaita discards both concepts of misery and happiness in the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable.
Buddhists say that a thing exists only for a moment, and if that thing has still got some of the substance from which it was produced how then can they deny that its cause is continuing in the effect; hence its existence is more than a moment. Vedanta is concerned with whether it is one and the same thing which has come into being, or has it come out of nothing.
Even the Sunyavada ultimate of the “void” is really a breath, and therefore an imagination and not truth.
Buddha as a constructive worker committed an error in failing to give the masses a religion, something tangible they could grasp, something materialistic, if symbolic that their limited intellect could take hold of, in addition to his ethics and philosophy. Here Sri Ramakrishna was wiser and gave the religion; such as Kirtan, puja etc.–to the ignorant masses, as well as Advaita to those like Vivekananda.
Buddha gave as the central feature of his doctrine the great law of Karma in order to reiterate its ethical meaning. He did more good in this to uplift the people than the ritualists.
Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists who say that there are many Buddhas living in spirit bodies and helping our earth from the spiritual world are still in the sphere of religious illusion, not ultimate truth. Their statements are wrong. Every sage realizes that the only way to help mankind is to come down amongst them, for which he must necessarily take on flesh-body. When people are suffering how can he relieve their suffering unless he appears amongst them? When people are suffering how can he feed them from an unseen world whether their struggle be for material bread or for spiritual truth? No! He must be here actually in the flesh. It is impossible to help them in any other way and all talk of Shiva living on Mount Kailas in spiritual body or Buddha in Nirmanakaya, invisible body belongs to the realm of delusion or self-deception.
Looking at all the above religious views one can concludes that :~
One life time is not enough to acquire self-knowledge by studying the scriptures. The scriptures itself declare: ~ Studying of scriptures is not necessary
Yoga Vasistha:~ “Teachers, interpretations of sacred texts, the force of religious merit–none of these lead to the realization of that Ultimate Truth which is revealed in the clear reflection of the heart, engendered from contact with the good.”
The Upanishads clearly indicate:~
This Atman cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas, or by intelligence, or by much hearing of sacred books. It is attained by him alone whom It chooses. To such a one Atman reveals Its own form.(Katha Upanishad Ch-II -23-P-20)
This Atman cannot be attained through study of the Vedas, nor through intelligence, nor through much learning. He who chooses Atman—by him alone is Atman attained. It is Atman that reveals to the seeker Its true nature. (3 –page-70 Mundaka Upanishad (Upanishads by Nikilanada)
Sage Sri, Gaudapada says that:~The merciful Veda teaches karma and Upaasana to people of lower and middling intellect, while Jnana is taught to those of higher intellect.
This clearly indicates that religion, which is based on individual conduct, prescribes karma and Upaasana to people of lower and middling intellect, therefore religion is for the lower intellect. And wisdom is for those are capable of inquiring into their own existence.
Bhagavad Gita:~ Brahman is considered the all-pervading consciousness which is the basis of all the animate and inanimate entities and material. (brahmano hi pratisthaham, Bhagavad Gita 14.27)
If Brahman is considered the all-pervading consciousness then, it is necessary to realize, the consciousness as self, which pervades all the three states to realize the fact that there is no second thing exists other the consciousness. Thus, consciousness (Atman) is the ultimate truth (Brahman).
Even in the Buddhism: ~ Buddhist teaching has itself become a kind of interactive and self-evolving process, much like its idea of pratityasamutpada. However, the end goal is still Nirvana, which is an experience ultimately beyond all concepts and language, even beyond the Buddhist teachings. In the end even the attachment to the Dharma, the Buddhist teaching, must be dropped like all other attachments. The tradition compares the teaching to a raft upon which one crosses a swift river to get to the other side; once one is on the far shore; there is no longer any need to carry the raft. The far shore is Nirvana, and it is also said that when one arrives, one can see quite clearly that there was never any river at all.
Some scholars claim that, Sage Sri, Sankara and Sage Sri, Goudpada borrowed their ideas from Buddhism. But in Mundaka (page 281) these two declare they are not Buddhists, only a number of their ideas agree with those of Buddhism, whilst they point out their difference of view from Sunyavada Buddhists and Vijnanavadins. Thus, Sage Sri Sankara and Sage Sri, Goudpada both agree and disagree with Buddhists.
Sunyavadins say there is nothing, neither matter nor mind: they are nihilists. How do they know mind ceases to exist? Where is the proof. When you know everything is the mind, both the changing forms and the underlying substances how can you posit its real change into nothingness? Mind, Brahman always remains really itself because of its nature. We see change every minute but by inquiry into the nature of change and cause, we see that it is only when we imagine that there is a cause and change.
The distinction between Sankara’s Advaita and Vijnanavadin Buddhism is that the former is mentalism i.e. mind is the real, whereas the latter is idealism, i.e. ideas are real. Advaitins follow the former.
Buddhism did not graduate its teaching to suit people of varying grades; hence its failure to affect Asian society.
Buddha’s teachings that all life is misery belongs to the relative standpoint only. For you cannot form any idea of misery without contrasting it with its opposite, happiness. The two will always go together. Buddha taught the goal of cessation of misery, i.e. peace, but took care not to discuss the ultimate standpoint for then he would have had to go above the heads of the people and tell them that misery itself was only an idea, that peace even was an idea (for it contrasted with peacelessness). That the doctrine he gave out was a limited one, is evident because he inculcated compassion. Why should a Buddhist sage practice pity? There is no reason for it. Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason, viz. unity, non-difference from others, and because it explains that it used the concept of removing the sufferings of others, of lifting them up to happiness, only as we use one thorn to pick out another, afterwards throw both away. Similarly, Advaita discards both concepts of misery and happiness in the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable.
Buddhists say that a thing exists only for a moment, and if that thing has still got some of the substance from which it was produced how then can they deny that its cause is continuing in the effect; hence its existence is more than a moment. Vedanta is concerned with whether it is one and the same thing which has come into being, or has it come out of nothing.
Even the Sunyavada ultimate of the “void” is really a breath, and therefore an imagination and not truth.
Buddha as a constructive worker committed an error in failing to give the masses a religion, something tangible they could grasp, something materialistic, if symbolic that their limited intellect could take hold of, in addition to his ethics and philosophy. Here Sri Ramakrishna was wiser and gave the religion; such as Kirtan, puja etc.–to the ignorant masses, as well as Advaita to those who are capable of grasping the truth beyond form,time and space.
Buddha gave as the central feature of his doctrine the great law of Karma in order to reiterate its ethical meaning. He did more good in this to uplift the people than the ritualists.
| Sage Sri, Sankara says: ~ From the point of any of these four uses karma is of no use for attaining liberation. Remaining in one’s own true form is the release. It consists in realizing the true nature of the Self which is ever-existent and eternal. Moksha, therefore, is not something to be produced, for it is eternal (nityatvat). It is not something to be purified, for it is bereft of all qualities and impurities (nirgunatvat, nirdoshatvat cha). There is also another reason here. It cannot be purified since it is not a means (asadhanadravyatmakatvat). Only a thing that serves as a means can be purified, as the sacrificial vessel or clarified butter by sprinkling of water and so on. (commentary on Bhr, Upanishads 3-3-1) |
| Sage Sri, Sankara says:~ Karma is not competent to remove ignorance, for it is not opposed to it. It does not matter in what way we charecterize ignorance, whether as absence of knowledge or as doubt or as erroneous knowledge. It is always removable by knowledge, but not by action in any of its forms, for there is no contradiction between ignorance and karma. (Commentary on Brah.3-3-1 ) |
Upanishads:~ They alone in this world are endowed with the highest wisdom who are firm in their conviction of the sameness and birthlessness of Atman. The ordinary man does not understand their way. (Chapter IV — Alatasanti Prakarana 95-P-188 in Upanishads by Nikilanada)
Therefore, if one is seeking truth he has to know his true self is not physical but is the consciousness, which is in the form of consciousness.
Self-knowledge or Bramha Gnana or Atma Gnana cannot be attained by study of the Vedas and intellectual understanding or by bookish knowledge. Therefore, there is no use of studying the Vedas and other scriptures in order to acquire the non-dual wisdom. That is why Buddha rejected the scriptures, and even Sri, Sankara indicated that, the ultimate truth lies beyond religion, concept of God and scriptures.
Thus it is necessary to follow the formless path dropping all the accumulated baggage and move forward to reach the destination in lesser time and effort.