Advaita Vedanta vs Buddhism

[goldisheavy]

Vedanta didn't exist during the Buddha's time. Is it possible to blame us for misunderstanding trans-dimensional harmonics, a branch of science which will be discovered 1300 years from now?

 

What was it called at the time?

 

Neither existence nor non-existence as commonly defined, actually. Buddhists of all schools are very clear about this.

 

Except no Buddhist I know of gives a good definition of existence, never mind gives a commonly accepted one! Before you refute something, it is good to define it. I don't see Nagarjuna spending effort to define any of the terms he refutes. He assumes we all know what he's talking about. His assumption is correct FOR MORONS. But for contemplators it's a bad assumption, because contemplators don't have common definitions of anything. So if Nagarjuna is addressing idiots, that's all good. But if he's talking to Bodhisattvas, he's an idiot. All the Bodhisattvas laugh at Nagarjuna.

 

The trouble with Tibetan Buddhists these days is that they tend to take things too seriously. I personally admire the Taoist virtue of playfulness.

 

Well said! Buddhists are way too serious. This is both good and bad. The good thing is that Buddhist take time to investigate Buddhism and to meditate, etc. That's good. The bad is that the Buddhist then get stuck in the result of their study and can't move beyond it.

[goldisheavy]

Listen to this. When a sick person takes his first pill, he's already thinking how good it will be to NOT be taking the pill. In fact, when you take a pill, you take it so that you don't have to take it later on. You don't want the pill to become a permanent fixture of your life-style. That's what it means for something to be an antidote. You take it out of need, and not because you adore it or love it.

 

Buddhist teachings are indeed antidotes. But people want to become Buddhists forever and they certainly DO NOT look forward to the day when they can safely stop being Buddhists. Or alternatively, they do look forward to that day, but the envisage this day to be magnificent, like being hit with a lightning bolt, amazing, full of rainbows, and devas and amazing Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and such day never comes. Or worse, it does come. In either case, Buddhist become married to their anti-dotes and become morons, almost all of them. It is hopeless. They become proud of the pills they take. They go around proclaiming how their pill is so wonderful, everyone should take it. They don't look forward to stopping the pill consumption. Many Buddhists even want to be reborn into a Universe where these pills are everywhere so they can just keep taking these pills without interruption. I am looking at you Pure Landers.

Edited May 21, 2009 by goldisheavy

[nac]

What was it called at the time?

What were telephones called at the time?

[Lucky7Strikes]

Goldisheavy, did you read through the entire thread? Or did you tell yourself that the people who posted were morons and don't contemplate?

 

I believe when we mention Advaita Vedanta we are not speaking of the literal school...

 

 

Many Buddhists even want to be reborn into a Universe where these pills are everywhere so they can just keep taking these pills without interruption. I am looking at you Pure Landers.

 

Just as you have faith in your skepticism and critical views, the followers of the Pure Land sect have faith in Amitabha Buddha.

[nac]

Buddhist teachings are indeed antidotes. But people want to become Buddhists forever and they certainly DO NOT look forward to the day when they can safely stop being Buddhists. Or alternatively, they do look forward to that day, but the envisage this day to be magnificent, like being hit with a lightning bolt, amazing, full of rainbows, and devas and amazing Buddhas and Bodhisattvas, and such day never comes. Or worse, it does come.

I don't know where you got this idea because the Buddha specifically warned his followers against such dangers. Since there are a lot of dedicated converts to Buddhism these days, (many see it as a more compassionate alternative to Christianity) it becomes statistically probable that many Buddhists will fall into these traps even though thay have been forewarned.

 

About the existence/non-existence thing, I'll answer later since it might be long. Suffice it to say that Buddhists reject Existentialism, Essentialism as well as the idea that the world observed through the senses is 100% illusory. (I can't think of any school which believes in complete illusion, but see Nihilism. How long will such a sect last anyway? ) Tibetan Buddhists classify most Hindu sects as "realism", since they maintain that the Brahman has true existence. He represents the bottom rung of the ladder of truth, the source of all wisdom. Buddhists maintain that the ladder has no discernible bottom. It branches out in many directions and is tied into knots.

Edited May 21, 2009 by nac

[dwai]

 

Advaita Vedanta was mostly derived from Nagarjuna's Buddhist treatises by Adi Shankaracarya. Nagarjuna lived many centuries after the Buddha. How could the Buddha possibly have misunderstood Vedanta?

 

that's the funniest thing I've heard. Advaita Vedanta is based on the Classical and Ancient (waaaay older than Buddha) school of Indian Darshana called Uttara Mimamsa. And no, Advaita Vedanta was not derived off Nagarjuna's Buddhist treatises by Adi Shankaracharya.

 

In course of debate, Adi Shankaracharya had to understand what the other is saying (ie Buddhist POV). It is known as Purva Paksha. He then posited his arguments, and not just defeated several top Buddhist scholars in such debates, but also made them his students (because losing in a scholarly debate in Ancient India implied you become the victor's student in many cases).

 

Buddha didn't misunderstand Vedanta. He simply made his own derivations from Vedantic teachings. The Vedas and Vedanta predate the Buddha by several millenia.

 

I saw at least two people claim that "Vedanta" didn't exist in approx 600-500BCE (roughly the time of Buddha). That is simply untrue.

 

Rg Veda was composed at least before 3100 BCE. Astronomical code in the Rg Veda dates it to around 6500 BCE. The subsequent Vedic texts, the Upanishads (Vedanta) developed way before 1900 BCE (when the Sarasvati River dried up due to tectonic changes in North-Western India).

Edited May 21, 2009 by dwai

[SiliconValley]

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[dwai]

After reading this - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta - I can see where Dwai is coming from (assuming of course that there's no sophistry or ulterior motive involved). From my blunt knowledge of Buddhism and even scanter (read non-existent) knowledge of Advaita Vedanta there appear to be many parallels where differences lie in terminology rather than meaning. Thanks Dwai, I'm now spurred on to seek a more sophisticated understanding of Buddhism that will only be enriched by checking out Advaita Vedanta

 

my reasons for doing this (debate) has two motivations --

 

1) Challenge my understanding vis-a-vis the two systems, and confirm my intellectual understanding that Buddhists too are talking about the same thing as the Vedantins and Taoists.

2) Challenge those commentators (here) who were misleading seekers of Non-duality about the "superiority" of Buddhist philosophy over Vedanta. Like it was proven (and will become clear to serious seekers with unconditioned minds), Buddhist emptiness is a subset/a milestone in the path to Brahman/Tao.

[SiliconValley]

In course of debate, Adi Shankaracharya had to understand what the other is saying (ie Buddhist POV). It is known as Purva Paksha.

 

The same reasoning behind the use of Buddhist terminology in Gaudapadakarika - that leads to the notion of "advaita derived from madhyamaka". For example, Kumarila Bhatta, who is credited with the complete disappearence of Buddhism from India today (along with Shankara), was an adherent of purva mimamsa school and he studied Buddhism under Dharmakirti (who first incorporated concepts from the Nyaya school into Buddhism through pramana nishchaya) to sufficiently understand and refute Sautrantika and other Buddhist schools.

 

This is a bad habit of Hindus too where the tradition is to view all as paths up the mountain; unfortunately most Hindus never fully digest Buddhism because they look at it through a Hindu view (Ken Wilber for example).

 

Not true. The ancient saying - ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti - has been frequently translated as all paths lead to one and stuff. It really means that the "wise" ones refer to the "sat" or "the absolute truth" through various terminologies. The variousness here is only indicative of the impossibleness of describing the "truth" through words. Veda neither states everything as leading to one goal, nor tries to describe itself as different and the only way. In fact, it recognizes that the "top of the mountain" is really not the same for everyone and deals with individual aspirations on a case by case basis.

 

those that do digest Buddhism tend to stick to it, realizing the inherent differences between religions. I have a feeling this whole New Age 'let's bunch all religions into one' came from Hindu influence, since they love to attribute everything to Hinduism. such as Buddha being an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna and merely reforming the Vedas. and of course, Jesus going to India to learn Yoga.

 

I don't know why you developed hatred towards Hinduism - probably a bad shaktipat? - but this generalization is largely incorrect. Buddha being one of the ten incarnations is a long held belief and how do you contest that? And there is no harm discarding that as that belief has had no bearing on Advaita Vedanta or the devoted practice of a Hindu. And the part about Jesus going to India was floated by Westerners and not Hindus per say. The last I heard, it was to Tibet to learn Buddhism and not Yoga

 

Does it really make sense that all religions lead to the same goal? Are all people of the same caliber and understanding? Doesn't it make more sense that there are varying degrees of experience, not just one, and that not all religions reach the highest summit?

 

If a religion - or I would prefer to say spiritual system - could cater to one goal or class alone and different such religions were needed to cater to each group, we would be in a greater mess. Not that we are not already in one. This is exactly what the Vedic system does not do. It recognizes different goals, aspirations and qualifications and its varied teaching is easily evident through the many derived schools of Hindu philosophy we see today. And that there is the highest summit itself is an erroneous thing and there is no logical relevance to such a concept in the approach you speak of. That Buddhism goes beyond the witness of sakshi is a merit only from the Buddhist angle and not from the angle of Vedanta. So, this model where you judge one summit as superior to another is hardly acceptable outside the framework within which you hypothesize.

 

Let's stop fantasizing for a second and get real. There is a presupposition that is tarnishing the view of most Hindus and New Agers and that is: we are all "evolving" on a path to realize Oneness, we will get there eventually: so view isn't important. Grace will bring you there, all you have to do is give up, surrender, and get on the ride. Take the elevator all the way up. All you need is Shaktipat or whatever, and that's it. I used to think this as well, but I don't think it's that easy. I don't think this is true at all. There is no God that will 'bring you up'. We need to get real here, we need to get serious. What if there is no Higher Self or God? what if this belief is a mind creation, furthering your dualistic tendencies and furthering suffering? I think it's time to take our enlightenment more seriously, and to stop fantasizing.

 

Again, you speak based on what you "think" and not on what you have "experienced". You said each individual is different and so is his experience. It is quite possible that the element of grace does do something for someone and surrender in path of Bhakti has been put to some good use towards realization. It is good to stick to your school but wiser to not talk about something based on premature conclusions. Yes, that is what you think, but there is a really big possibility that it is completely untrue and it is you who are fantasizing through overt logic? I am not saying it IS, but consider the possibility. Till both of us can experience brahman/emptiness, we should avoid such baseless conclusions - as you pointed out earlier and avoid unneeded hypothesis. You were on the shaktipat bandwagon, now got on to Buddhism and may be you will hop onto various others before you reach your goal and your descriptions will keep changing meanwhile. So, let's reserve judgments and criticism of other paths till we get somewhere. Or till you can prove that the realization of a Sufi dervish intoxicated with the divine or of a vaishnava who cannot bear a minute of separation from his beloved is lower or inferior when pitted against the serenity of a Buddhist monk. Different expressions of realization or terminologies which matter not outside specific frameworks are no definitive tools for such comparison.

 

unfortunately most Hindus never fully digest Buddhism because they look at it through a Hindu view (Ken Wilber for example). those that do digest Buddhism tend to stick to it

 

Ho, ho .. slow down brother I can rephrase what you said and say"unfortunately most Buddhists never fully digest Advaita Vedanta because they look at it through a Buddhist view. Those that do digest Advaita Vedanta tend to stick to it.

 

Now to something not childish, what are the examples of those who "digested" Buddhism and stuck to it, having realized the drawbacks of Advaita? There are, on the contrary, famous names including Kumarila Bhatta (who I wrote about in an earlier post) who did not. Many Advaitins studied Buddhism under the best of Buddhist scholars to understand the subtleties before writing Advaitic works that refute those schools. And observing the way they give credit to what they see good in the Buddhist school, they can hardly be declared as Blinded by "Hinduism".

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[dwai]

They stop at different positions. There's no "before" or "after" involved. The Buddhist in me says that dragging Brahman into the picture is an empty assertion without necessity or evidence, merely a polluting influence of the Vedic tradition. Such considerations don't arise out of logical necessity from the bare evaluation of sensory input without external contamination by pre-Advaitin traditions and axioms. That is, you can choose to see things this way out of piety ("attachment") and it would still make a logically consistent story, but you can happily see things differently without contradicting the available evidence. In Buddhist philosophy, this can be termed "delusion". Like the atheists are fond of saying, if you assert a positive, it's your job to provide the evidence that proves it, because it's scientifically impossible to prove a negative. I'm sorry if that sounds a little harsh. I could be wrong about all this.

 

PS. Thank you, dwai. You have shown me the importance of both meditation and reason in spirituality. _/\_

 

Along with meditation one has to apply viveka (appropriate discernment and intellect) to remove delusion from truth. The Buddhist in me might agree with you, but the rational being in me would say:

 

"Wait a minute! The theory of Two-truths seems kinda right...as does the principle of dependent origination. May be there is something to this Brahman thing...

...because phenomenon (this arising that arises, this ceasing, that ceases) are empty and my teachings tell me that ultimately there is Only Emptiness. But if it empty, it surely must be a phenomenon. In which case it has to be a lower reality. Therefore there must be a higher reality, which is non-phenomenon."

 

There seems to be some confusion about the chronology of Advaita...see my previous post. Glad to clarify...

 

Dear friends, my intention here is not to sound/seem smug and/or trite. If you get that impression, my apologies. This is my idea of fun and I am glad I have two places I can have such fun in (Ananda for now, in search of the Sat Chit)...

Edited May 21, 2009 by dwai

[Sunya]

Edited May 21, 2009 by mikaelz

[SiliconValley]

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[Sunya]

my reasons for doing this (debate) has two motivations --

 

1) Challenge my understanding vis-a-vis the two systems, and confirm my intellectual understanding that Buddhists too are talking about the same thing as the Vedantins and Taoists.

2) Challenge those commentators (here) who were misleading seekers of Non-duality about the "superiority" of Buddhist philosophy over Vedanta. Like it was proven (and will become clear to serious seekers with unconditioned minds), Buddhist emptiness is a subset/a milestone in the path to Brahman/Tao.

 

You are challenging anyone how? you didn't respond to anything Xabir said.

 

 

I wrote at length about the Gaudapada confusion. And the article you quote - using your own approach - is obviously a Buddhist's view and hence colored, not serving any useful purpose here. I am not trying to say Buddhism and Advaita are same for there are, based on my current understanding, core differences. I am only trying to contest the highhandedness that is being displayed.

 

It really doesn't matter. this sort of historical argument is useless.

 

here are some facts:

there is no thing close to dependent origination or emptiness, sunyata, or the 2 truths teaching in the Upanishads or any of the Vedas in fact.

 

If these elements are in Vedanta then there is obviously Buddhist influence.. Buddha was not a Hindu, he completely rejected the Vedas and discarded any notion of a permanent essence-like Brahman. but his line of thinking was Indian, and having rejected the Vedas he was still influenced by them too: such as the notion of liberation.

 

these are all facts, anything else is theory.

Edited May 21, 2009 by mikaelz

[SiliconValley]

You are challenging anyone how? you didn't respond to anything Xabir said.

It really doesn't matter. this sort of historical argument is useless.

 

here are some facts:

there is no thing close to dependent origination or emptiness, sunyata, or the 2 truths teaching in the Upanishads or any of the Vedas in fact.

 

If these elements are in Vedanta then there is obviously Buddhist influence.. Buddha was not a Hindu, he completely rejected the Vedas and discarded any notion of a permanent essence-like Brahman. but his line of thinking was Indian, and having rejected the Vedas he was still influenced by them too: such as the notion of liberation.

 

these are all facts, anything else is theory.

 

You seem to consider what you like as fact and other stuff as theory - after 3 pages full of just theory. Other than just quoting some person and stating what you think of, there is really no analysis here, and hence nothing to respond to. What you state is thus your belief and you're entitled to it.

[SiliconValley]

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[xabir2005]

Yes...the Buddhist view stops at everything is Empty. Vedanta says everything that is phenomenal is empty. Brahman is non-phenomenal. The two are simply different milestones of the same view.

There is no 'a level further'.

 

The luminosity or pure consciousness is being mistaken as Brahman or Self or a background Witness. When it is not mistaken, it is not grasped as a background, so it is experienced in all appearances. Though this can be translated to something like 'Brahman is the Universe' (Ramana Maharshi, Shankara), Buddhism further negates any inherency to a basic substance. There is absolutely no separation between Ultimate and Relative.

 

Buddhism does not deny the clear luminous nature, only that it must not be seen as an essence. Most people see only the luminous aspect but not the empty aspect. Of course, seeing the empty aspect alone is not enough. That experience of luminosity in the case of someone who claimed to realised Brahman is equally important (though must not be misunderstood). Therefore in Buddhist traditions our true nature is known as luminosity and emptiness inseparable.

 

In fact if you read Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment you would see there is no denying of the vivid luminosity of awareness, even in stage 6, only that its empty nature is understood.

Edited May 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

What does it mean "to exist"? And who is this "them"? For them? Who is this them? Is it me? Cause certainly what you said is not true for me.

According to Advaita doctrine which I can easily quote.

I really don't like it when people don't allow their conversation partners to speak for themselves. I've seen some debates like this play out before. What I've seen is that the Advaita guy is not allowed to speak one's mind.

I did not 'not allow' other conversation partners to speak for themselves. In fact, it is not possible in an open forum. In fact check to see if there is any difference between what I said about Advaita and what Dwai said. If what I said did not corresponded to his view, he would have corrected me.

But in their minds Buddhist have the absolute conviction they have it all nailed down. They got it all figured out. They know every religion and they understand every linguistic construct and they are the undisputed champion of all contemplatives.

Of course not all. I'm sure most Buddhists have no idea what Advaita is. On the other hand I did read a couple of Advaita books, I even practised self-inquiry, I know their basic teachings. I'm not saying I'm 'knowledgeable', but it doesn't take a knowledgeable person to see the difference.

 

Many people including Buddhists don't know Advaita, they haven't read up on it, when they say 'no atman' and that Hinduism teaches 'atman' they might think of something like 'oh, they still teach an ego' whereas the 'atman' they're talking about is not a phenomenal atman, an ego, but a transcendental self. Just an example.

When someone says that Brahman exists, what is implied? Brahman can be the same as emptiness.

If Brahman exists, that is by definition NOT empty, since emptiness means empty of the 4 extremes of existence, non existence, both and neither. Emptiness means 'NO essence'. Brahman is an essence, independent, eternal.

[xabir2005]

Buddha didn't misunderstand Vedanta. He simply made his own derivations from Vedantic teachings. The Vedas and Vedanta predate the Buddha by several millenia.

No this is the old argument by Hindus but this is wrong and baseless. Buddha rejected the Vedas and did not base his teachings on them.

 

A portion of the article in Madhyamika Buddhism Vis-a-vis Hindu Vedanta is in refuting this statement.

 

Even Bernadette Roberts, the Catholic contemplative, said:

 

"The often heard notion that Hinduism encompasses or subsumes all other belief systems is true only if every belief system holds with Hinduism that the Absolute IS consciousness or self (Atman). If a belief system does not hold this same view, it cannot be compatible with Hinduism. While every religion shares certain views and experiences in common, when it comes down to the fine line we have to admit our differences. If there were no profound differences, we could not account for different religions."

Edited May 21, 2009 by xabir2005

[xabir2005]

Catholic contemplative Bernadette Roberts:

 

"That everyone has different experiences and perspectives is not a problem; rather, the problem is that when we interpret an experience outside its own paradigm, context, and stated definitions, that experience becomes lost altogether. It becomes lost because we have redefined the terms according to a totally different paradigm or perspective and thereby made it over into an experience it never was in the first place. When we force an experience into an alien paradigm, that experience becomes subsumed, interpreted away, unrecognizable, confused, or made totally indistinguishable. Thus when we impose alien definitions on the original terms of an experience, that experience becomes lost to the journey, and eventually it becomes lost to the literature as well. To keep this from happening it is necessary to draw clear lines and to make sharp, exacting distinctions. The purpose of doing so is not to criticize other paradigms, but to allow a different paradigm or perspective to stand in its own right, to have its own space in order to contribute what it can to our knowledge of man and his journey to the divine.

 

Distinguishing what is true or false, essential or superficial in our experience is not a matter to be taken lightly. We cannot simply define our terms and then sit back and expect perfect agreement across the board. Our spiritual-psychological journey does not work this way. We are not uniform robots with the same experiences, same definitions, same perspectives, or same anything."

[SiliconValley]

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[nac]

The Vedas are not the same as Vedanta. The Vedas are an collection of ancient legends, rituals and other oral traditions. Vedanta are schools of philosophy based on the Vedas, affirming, clarifying and developing their teachings. Sort of like the Bible and Christian philosophy. If you took Christianity, cut off the Bible, God and Jesus from it, you get saint worship, which could be something like Buddhism. Seriously, you've read the Rig Veda, right? Google it, there are free translations all over the net.

 

In Buddhism, the ladder of truth is something like fuzzy logic. Nothing can be 100% certain (1) or 100% illusion (0). It's impermanent, constantly changes appearance and branches off infinitely in all directions. "Form is Emptiness, Emptiness is Form." The closest you can get is 0.0001% true or 99.999% true. If Vedantists called this infinite, uncertain, ungraspable property of reality "Brahman", then I'll agree it's almost the same as Buddhism. But then, you can't really call such a Brahman "real and truly existent in and of itself", can you? (not rhetorical, honest question)

Edited May 21, 2009 by nac

[Sunya]

This is in reference to Buddha being influenced by the Vedas. I think its very dangerous to jump to conclusions and assume that since two systems have similiar ideas than one borrowed it from another, even if these system derived from the same region.

 

In the history of philosophy, especially in science, we see that there are many instances when two (or more) scholars came to the conclusion of very similar theories, independently of each other. Of course, one of them will always be slightly earlier than another. Only later, often several years, do they find out that someone else came to exactly the same conclusions.

 

If karma and rebirth are actual facts, and this is what Buddhism and many other Indian systems are saying, then it is quite possible that these facts can be independently realized. Therefore, just because one person comes to discover this fact and then some time later another person also discovers this fact, does not mean that the latter "adopted" the idea from the former.

 

I think that such a conclusion is a fallacy.

 

Unless of course, scholars work on the a priori assumption that things such as karma and rebirth are in fact false, and not independently verifiable. But such an assumption would simply be another methodological error.

 

But.. it is very possible that Buddha used the prevailing ideas already in Indian culture as a backdrop for his teachings on emptiness, which are not found anywhere before him.

Edited May 21, 2009 by mikaelz

[SiliconValley]

I think its very dangerous to jump to conclusions and assume that since two systems have similiar ideas than one borrowed it from another, even if these system derived from the same region.

 

 

Exactly what I was trying to say! I wrote a couple things to point out that if you think Advaita Vedanta was "derived" from x or y Buddhist's teachings, the other way is a possibility as well, considering the diversity and antiquity of Hinduism. And I assumed such conclusions were the norm here as such a lot posted on this thread is exactly reflective of such conclusions.

 

Unless of course, scholars work on the a priori assumption that things such as karma and rebirth are in fact false, and not independently verifiable. But such an assumption would simply be another methodological error.

 

While I would not state that Buddhism was a "derivative" of Hinduism or Vedanta - like Shankara or Advaita was accused here as a "derivative" of Buddhism - I have listed some clear influences on Buddhism here. They are not coincidences and are not restricted to rebirth or karma, which of course are some original Vedic concepts. An entire book on Upanishadic and Vedic analogies and concepts that are used viz-a-viz in the Pali Nikayas is available for study. And importantly, most of the authors I have quoted here are specifically third-party Westerners who have no affiliation either to Hinduism or Buddhism, unlike Buddhist bhikkus quoted by other friends here And what really is "borrowing" or "deriving"? Does saying getting inspired sound better?

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley

[Sunya]

No, I was referring to Buddha being influenced by Vedas, since some of the Upanishads were around during the same time (the early ones), and some came after Buddha. but that doesn't mean they directly influenced him.

 

As for Samkhya, it is a dualistic philosophy of emanationism, not similar to emptiness. it is more akin to Taoism.

 

maybe Buddha was influenced by Upanishads, and used different teachings, language, and method to get to the same goal, but I think that if Buddha read the Upanishads, achieved moksha, and thought that these methods and philosophies were ok.. he would not have started a new religion. Buddha was concerned with truth, first and foremost. He had many teachers and learned many methods. His teachers even asked him to take over because he got to a very high realization, but he knew this wasn't enough. Instead of reaching a goal given to him by scripture he, always being critical, knew he had to go further. So even if he had Hindu teachers that doesn't mean he was stuck at the same level as them, or that he simply combined prevailing ideas at the time.. his realization had nothing to do with combining ideas, it had to do with letting go of ideas. He let go of Brahman.

Edited May 21, 2009 by mikaelz

[SiliconValley]

The Vedas are not the same as Vedanta.

 

That seems to be a personal opinion. This is not the opinion of either the traditional Advaitins who hold vedanta as the third and the final part of the Veda or of their critics - jaina, buddhist and other schools - who accept Upanishads verily as the vedic teaching. The difference in the content of veda (by which you probably mean brahmana and aranyaka) is intentional due to the three part division.

 

No, I was referring to Buddha being influenced by Vedas, since some of the Upanishads were around during the same time (the early ones), and some came after Buddha. but that doesn't mean they directly influenced him.

 

As for Samkhya, it is a dualistic philosophy of emanationism, not similar to emptiness. it is more akin to Taoism.

 

You miss my point! I never said Buddha picked one system and kept its concepts. What the scholars I quoted are trying to say is that he picked a lot of different points from other systems and built a base for his own theory. Of course, he did have his individual thought like anatta and stuff. This seems to be reasonable to accept unless one believed Buddha to be a super human or something.

 

Mundaka, Brihadaranyaka and Taittiriya have been established by several scholars as spheres of influence that existed before Buddha (assuming a historical personality by that name and his accepted period). I can list the references here if that helps.

Edited May 21, 2009 by SiliconValley