Shankara and the quest for Advaita Vedanta to repudiate Buddhism

[9th]

This is an article I discovered on a blog a while ago.  It gives some fascinating insight into the origins of the apparent likenesses which Advaita has to Buddhism and yet the stark differences and opposition against it that was promoted by Shankara at that time.

 

 Shankara was a Upanishadic philosopher who aimed to provide the correct meaning of the ancient Indian texts at a point when both the Buddhist and the Hindu communities in India were showing signs of disintegration, corruption and decay. Shankara lived in the 8th and early 9th century, born of Brahmin parents in the village of Kaladi on the Malabar coast (today's Kerala, South India). He mostly frequented Varanasi however, the stronghold of Brahminical Hinduism and was taught within the lineage of Gaudapada, a Upanishadic teacher strongly influenced by Buddhism.

This period of Indian history saw immense religious conflict and social change. Hinduism was disunited and had split into many groups and sects, each with their own views. Buddhist philosophy appeared pessimistic to the general populace. According to Shankara, literalists and ritualists alike had missed the spirit of the Upanishads while even worse, nihilists and iconoclasts were contradicting the sacred scriptures. He accused Buddhism of teaching non-existence and even portrayed the Buddha as an incarnation sent to lead the wicked astray and hasten the end of the Kali Yuga.

Meanwhile in Varanasi, Buddhism was gaining popularity with the local elite: new ideologies of renunciation were emerging in Northern India which opposed ritualism and superceded Brahminism with its accent on caste inequalities and the privileged position of priests. Fierce competition broke out among the Indian philosophical schools for royal benefaction and economic security. To secure his survival as a spiritual teacher, Shankara assimilated Hindu and Buddhist ideas into a new form of Vedantic Absolutism which continued to endorse the authority of the Upanishads and his lineage teacher, Gaudapada.

The Upanishads speak of an ultimate reality named Brahman which is eternal. This was also the teaching of Gaudapada. However Gaudapada (who lived in the 8th century too) was also strongly influenced by Yogacara Buddhism and Madhyamaka Buddhism. Since the Upanishadic Brahman was ultimately real, he readily accepted the Yogacara teaching that by contrast the world was unreal and illusory (māyā) being a projection of the mind. However whereas Madhyamaka Buddhism taught the doctrine of non-origination (anutpāda), which said there was no ultimate reality (like Brahman) to ever come into existence, Gaudapada decided to keep the Upanishadic Brahman and say instead that it was 'unoriginated' (ajativāda). He did this to avoid contradicting the authority of the sacred texts.

As a result Shankara argued for Gaudapada's "unoriginated Brahman" stating that Brahman was unchangeable, infinite and imperishable. This continued to uphold the authority of the Upanishads since Brahman remained the supreme reality but it also pandered to new fashionable Buddhist ideas since the Upanishadic Brahman was recast as nirguna or "without attribute": that is, formless and indescribable. But Shankara's Brahman was also non-dual. This reinvented the traditional Hindu concepts of jiva, Atman and Brahman and reconfigured their relationship, which once again put the Upanishads head and shoulders above the rest. Shankara had sidestepped the literalists by sweeping away the theism of early Vedantins (which later culminated in Ramanuja and Madhva). He had countered the Hindu ritualists because he had embraced the Buddhist idea of non-violence (ahiṃsā) and its rejection of animal sacrifice. Shankara also continued to distance Hinduism from Buddhism by vehemently criticising the Buddhist doctrine of emptiness (śūnyatā). This reiterated the popular perception that Buddhism was pessimistic and conveniently disguised the fact that he and Gaudapada had borrowed ideas from the Yogacara and Madhyamaka schools.

Shankara's philosophy - just as all spiritual philosophy - was political. This is now having serious implications for today's Advaita:

Advaita is outmoded and does not recognise modern theoretical physics. Because Gaudapada and Shankara accepted Yogacarin ideas that the world is illusory (being a creation of the mind), Advaita argues that ultimate reality is experienceable, non-illusory, and eternal. This rules out by definition the existence of theoretical entities such as electrons, protons and neutrinos since they cannot be directly experienced or perceived.
 

It is stuck in absolutism. In subverting the Madhyamakan theory of non-origination which states there is "no birth", Gaudapada and Shankara taught instead "there is an unborn" in the form of an unoriginated Brahman. Madhyamakans suggest that an ultimate reality is impossible because existence is co-dependently originated (pratītyasamutpāda). If all things arise interdependently, they can have no independent essence of their own, in which case they cannot be said to have ever arisen. Advaita however argues for an ultimate reality and says instead that it is this which is unoriginated. This is where Shankara's teaching short-circuits. Shankara stated that all levels of reality culminate in Brahman as the substratum of anything we experience. For him the world is an illusory appearance in Brahman. All things are therefore unreal and subject to change but due to ignorance (avidyā) we mistake them for being real - an ignorance which must be destroyed. Here the Advaitic Brahman is something "that is already there" despite us being unaware of its existence. Shankara turns his Nirguna Brahman into an absolutely existent object skulking in the shadows. The problem with objectifying anything is that it is then found not to truly exist - because like all phenomena - it is subject to change. This is a circle which cannot be squared ...

These absolutist ideas manifest in the ridiculous schism between Traditional and Neo Advaita, which is the legacy of the weaknesses of Gaudapada and Shankara's political philosophy. In recent times, Dennis Waite and James Swartz have initiated an acrimonious attack on those who dismiss methods and focus on the non-existence of the "I". Waite and his cabal call themselves "Traditional Advaitins"; they insist that a method is necessary for realisation; and they accuse their critics of the heresy of nihilism, labelling them "Neo Advaitins". This is the same argument that Shankara had with the Buddhists. Shankara rightly accused Buddhism of nihilism: the Sarvastivada and Yogacara schools taught the complete non-existence (as well as the total existence) of phenomena. But here Shankara was guilty of exactly the same absolutism. While the Sarvastivadins and the Yogacarins argued for the complete non-existence of something, Advaita was arguing for the complete existence of something (that is, Nirguna Brahman). This is nihilism and eternalism respectively. Advaita and Buddhism were playing off the same chess board, just positioned at opposite ends ...

In exactly the same way there are now modern Advaita teachers who say either "no method" or "no I" (e.g. Papaji, Karl Renz) - and also - "there is only the Self" or "there is only Consciousness" (e.g. Lakshmana Swamy, Nisargadatta). These statements are absolutist too since they insist that the Self and Consciousness completely exist (eternalism) or something like a method or the "I" completely don't exist (nihilism). Dennis Waite and his cronies are culpable of exactly the same crime they are accusing their critics of. Traditional Advaita's criticism of Neo Advaita is the song and dance of separation still playing to the same ill-starred tune: a Greek chorus of personae acting out the sequel to the Gaudapadian drama! The conceit of Traditional Advaita has become a mirror image of their consumerist cousins the Neo Advaitins. They are locked together in an eternal struggle which neither can win. This is like a still from the opening of the Russian movie Nightwatch where the forces of polarity - light/dark, order/chaos and eternalism/nihilism (call them what you will!) - are locked into a Mexican standoff of epic proportions. Traditional and Neo Advaita are both purveyors of a dogma/anti-dogma which is stale and strangely irrelevant - and their only contribution has been to add a new historical layer of mental confusion over a complete absence of any spiritual realisation whatsoever. They are engrossed in a petty, factional fight and their day is done.

Traditional and Gaudapadian Advaita have failed to address the arguments of Madhyamaka Buddhism. This too is the legacy of Gaudapada's political formulation of Advaita. We know that Gaudapada borrowed from the Madhymakans and reinterpreted their thesis of non-origination without crediting them. Unlike the Sarvastivadin and Yogacarin positions, the Madhyamaka teaching of non-origination was not nihilist. Its main teachers Nagarjuna and Candrakirti - now classified as Prasangika Madhyamaka - rejected outright both nihilism and eternalism. They advocated instead a new interpretation of the Buddha's Middle Way which says (as modern theoretical physics confirms) that absolutes are impossible. There cannot truly be any enlightenment, Self or Brahman to attain - nor can there truly be any jiva, "I" or method to attain it. This position does not say "no I" or "no method". It says all things including the person exist as empty, co-dependent arisings which are neither totally existent nor totally non-existent. Methods may happen, methods may not - what happens simply happens - and whether someone practises a method or not is completely irrelevant ...

Traditional Advaita does not even faithfully represent Shankara's teaching. Waite and Swartz are likely unaware of the precise historical currents they are shaped by. But even if they are aware of them, they don't understand them. For example their dogmatic insistence on "rigorous practice" flies in the face of the fact that Shankara, rather ironically, didn't really advocate a method for realisation! Because Gaudapada and Shankara theorised the world as unreal, the jiva in its ignorance was in need of unification with Brahman. This meant the jiva and Brahman were two separate entities and something was needed to connect them. Shankara therefore suggested the new idea that Brahman resided as Atman within the jiva, stating that Brahman could not be attained. Rather, the jiva could only hope that their ignorance would be destroyed by the jnana of an enlightened guru. Giving up desire for worldly pleasure and reflecting on the meaning of Atman as identical to Brahman would help but it could not bring about liberation itself ...

[s1va]

Whoever wrote the article clearly seems to be in a confused state.  This has nothing to do with Buddhism or Advaita.  The contradiction or confusion is simply on the mind of the person that wrote the article.  The author needs to find the answers.

 

If the author has already found the answers, and that is this article, great!  But, I really doubt it.  There is discontent bordering near anger with the use of the words, "ridiculous schism". , and expectations born out of author's own mind such as statements below,

Advaita have failed to address the arguments of Madhyamaka Buddhism....

 

Really?  Advaita doesn't have to address a thing, let alone Madhyamaka Buddhism!  

 

What needs to be addressed is this author's own expectations that advaita has to address something and it failed.  I suggest that the author work on that first  -- in the mean time, leave alone advaita, buddhism, etc. to do their own things.

 

We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them. " Albert Einstein"

 

Edited March 23, 2017 by kāvēri

[9th]

Whoever wrote the article clearly seems to be in a confused state.  This has nothing to do with Buddhism or Advaita.  The contradiction or confusion is simply on the mind of the person that wrote the article.  The author needs to find the answers.

 

If the author has already found the answers, and that is this article, great!  But, I really doubt it.  There is discontent bordering near anger with the use of the words, "ridiculous schism". , and expectations born out of author's own mind such as statements below,

 

To be fair, Id agree that the author has some bias and also some general confusion about "what the truth should be" or so forth.  My main interest in the article has to do with the historical information regarding the context of the relationship between Advaita and Buddhism, which was certainly a big deal in Shankara's time.   I have no interest in his personal interpretations of the issues whatsoever.

 

However, Shankara was known to be a very popular debater of philosophy and would travel far and wide to argue his points and address the issues which he saw as incongruent with his version of the truth.

 

When he speaks of a "failure to address" and so forth, it should be taken in this context - as Shankara most certainly did develop his ideas in response to his environment and especially the surrounding philosophical systems of his time.  Shankara took it upon himself to address many issues of many systems with his own divergent thinking and statements and debates - and he would often compare and contrast the ideas directly to the ones which he was attempting to reform or repudiate.

 

This is very common throughout history, and especially in India.  Siddhartha did the exact same thing when he founded Buddhism.

 

Really?  Advaita doesn't have to address a thing, let alone Madhyamaka Buddhism!  

 

What needs to be addressed is this author's own expectations that advaita has to address something and it failed.  I suggest that the author work on that first  -- in the mean time, leave alone advaita, buddhism, etc. to do their own things. 

 

 

Here is where I would disagree with you.  If anything, neither Advaita nor the author has to address a thing.  But if one is to be held accountable, then all must be accountable.  There is no preferential treatment to be found outside that which you personally ascribe to the situation, and this is where you show your own bias.  Advaita is responsible for the ideas it promotes and if it fails to address a particular issue (either by omission or misapprehension), then that is something that may be a concern for some people.  If it is not a concern for you, great - enjoy yourself.  

 

However that is only your own personal bias - in exactly the same way the author has a bias which prompts him to use terminology such as "ridiculous schism".  If you do not think he should have any expectations to this topic, then you as well must be true to this by having no expectations yourself.  Otherwise you will also quite clearly demonstrate your own kind of "schism".  You speak of the author "harboring discontent bordering on anger", and yet the content of your response here could also be said to demonstrative of the same exact thing.  But what is the point of such subjective judgements in the first place?

[dwai]

To be fair, Id agree that the author has some bias and also some general confusion about "what the truth should be" or so forth.  My main interest in the article has to do with the historical information regarding the context of the relationship between Advaita and Buddhism, which was certainly a big deal in Shankara's time.   I have no interest in his personal interpretations of the issues whatsoever.

 

However, Shankara was known to be a very popular debater of philosophy and would travel far and wide to argue his points and address the issues which he saw as incongruent with his version of the truth.

 

When he speaks of a "failure to address" and so forth, it should be taken in this context - as Shankara most certainly did develop his ideas in response to his environment and especially the surrounding philosophical systems of his time.  Shankara took it upon himself to address many issues of many systems with his own divergent thinking and statements and debates - and he would often compare and contrast the ideas directly to the ones which he was attempting to reform or repudiate.

 

This is very common throughout history, and especially in India.  Siddhartha did the exact same thing when he founded Buddhism.

 

 

 

Here is where I would disagree with you.  If anything, neither Advaita nor the author has to address a thing.  But if one is to be held accountable, then all must be accountable.  There is no preferential treatment to be found outside that which you personally ascribe to the situation, and this is where you show your own bias.  Advaita is responsible for the ideas it promotes and if it fails to address a particular issue (either by omission or misapprehension), then that is something that may be a concern for some people.  If it is not a concern for you, great - enjoy yourself.  

 

However that is only your own personal bias - in exactly the same way the author has a bias which prompts him to use terminology such as "ridiculous schism".  If you do not think he should have any expectations to this topic, then you as well must be true to this by having no expectations yourself.  Otherwise you will also quite clearly demonstrate your own kind of "schism".  You speak of the author "harboring discontent bordering on anger", and yet the content of your response here could also be said to demonstrative of the same exact thing.  But what is the point of such subjective judgements in the first place?

 

There is intellectual knowledge (and philosophy) and then there is experiential knowing (direct experience). If you ask me, it's better that a practitioner picks one discipline and follows through with great sincerity, so they attain the realization offered by the system. If this is not done, basically these discussions just remain in the intellectual realm and don't serve much purpose.

 

Instead of trying to prove or disprove one or the other tradition, the seeker should stick with the one that fits their present mentality and understanding.

 

Best,

 

Dwai

 

[s1va]

However, Shankara was known to be a very popular debater of philosophy and would travel far and wide to argue his points and address the issues which he saw as incongruent with his version of the truth.

 

Had the author said, Shankara failed to address so and so....      I would say, this is author's opinion and respect that.

But, he said Advaita failed to address....  

 

Advaita is not animate (no life or 'chaitanya', it can't get up and address).  Advaita just means "not two" (a-dwaita).  How can this "not two" address any issue? Neither Shankara nor the Neo-Advaita teachers author quotes, hold sole proprietorship on Advaita.  Advaita as philosophy,  has been there long before Shankara.  May be the author thinks Advaita and Shankara are synonymous.  Even if Shankara failed to address something, I doubt he might come back in the form of Shankara to address the issue   .  

I just meant that we have to move on, from battles that are over, for our own sake.  philosophies can't fight, only people or mind engages in such battles.

[s1va]

-

Edited July 9, 2017 by kāvēri

[Spotless]

An interesting an insightful article.

 

The basic practice of each is nearly identical with some quibbling over fine points - all of which become resolved in latter stages of realization. The debate is excellent because it draws out the fine points of the words that point to that which cannot be explained. This is philosophy - it is not headless debate - it is mind held to the grindstone- which necessarily brings forth the necessity of very real contemplation.

 

Some retreat into the absolutism of the Athiest or that of the Fundamentalist - but most of those in the debate illustrated by the author were of a practice and at least theoretically meditating and working upon themselves in coming to Presence.

 

The author brought up Absolutism more than once - he railed against it - not a bad thing to rail against in an article.

When people take positions they tend toward absolutes - this is particularly true in debates because otherwise one is arguing with a moving target which is repugnant to some fruition of the inter course.

 

True practice is not adherence to a belief - in fact it is a practice of letting go of beliefs, words, entanglements- held frequencies.

 

For the most part their is no difference in the various systems mentioned - they attract those that can hear them, for whom their vibrations point to some resonance within that person's frequencies and appears to best light the way. The little stuff is in fact little stuff - because once in real practice it is clear that you are not to believe anything but you are to verify it for yourself.

 

Initially this is given a nod and then students do the opposite - they read everything and get the teaching down and are able to quote and recite and debate. But hopefully this beginner stage is then superseded by actual and diligent practice within which the edgy confines of belief is ebbed away in the emerging Presence and mind structures are continually abandon and fall away.

 

As Presence emerges then again at a certain point the book learning begins to re-emerge - hopefully years later - and one will perhaps find the lineage and its words still fresh - most probably with new words for the finer details. New words better fitted for the time and age in which they address.

 

Things such as teachings become stale - assumptive and dogmatic - they simply do. The core does not necessarily - if it is truth it is Presence - but set in words it becomes stale. Practice renews the words - debate can be a great catalyst that demands new words.

 

Today we are in need of new words - and they are coming - they are pouring in. Many are Awakening - some weakly - some very strong - but no doubt Awakening. For those that have Awakened it is clear that these fine arguements are of little importance, meaning that they are not something to over-dwell upon. It is putting the cart before the horse for those that have not Awakened.

And for anyone that has Awakened it becomes of so little importance as to be an ephemeral concern born of mind noise long ago losing its appeal for discussion. 

 

The seeker will only find her/his own answers - coming to Presence is how this will unfold - pointing the way through the frequencies of noise and attachment is all the teacher is trying to convey. The true teacher does not give a shit about the nail polish - but some like to (and must) file the stones and staple the paper together in "the right places" because they "must".

Edited June 9, 2017 by Spotless