gaudapaada and buddha (was Re: brahman by ...)
rbalasub at ECN.PURDUE.EDU
Mon Nov 25 14:17:44 CST 1996
>The translation by Gambhirananda (also from RK math) says:
>"The knowledge of the enlightened man, who is all pervasive, does not
>extend to objects; all the souls, too, like objects (do not reach out to
>objects). This view was not expressed by Buddha."
>Another way to translate it would be (just minor variations in the
>translation you have provided):
>"The knowledge of the Buddha, who is all light, is ever untouched by
>objects. All the entities as well as knowledge are also (ever untouched by
>any object.) This is not in the teachings of the Buddha."
>Note that the word is "Bhashitam" not "drishhTi". Therefore, a better
>translation is "teaching" and not "view." Also, the "wise one" in the
>beginning of the verse when replaced by "Buddha" makes it all the more
>clear that the word "etat" -- "this" -- in the second line refers
>to the _knowledge of the Buddha_. Therefore, the import is "The knowledge
>of the Buddha is not in the teachings of the Buddha."
Whoa! Wait a minute here. Obviously Buddha means two different things. Because
the knowledge of the Buddha is _not_ in the teachings of the Buddha. Thus wise
men see the truth of GK.IV, which was _not_ taught by the Buddha, is the correct
interpretation. (the way Swami Nikilanada has interpreted it also). I'd guess
Madhyamika Buddhism is included in "the teachings of Buddha" also. Whatever the
case may be, it is quite clear GK.IV is not _completely_ satisfied with Buddhism
(Madhyamika or otherwise) by this single statement alone. That said I'll reply
to the rest of your post in maybe two weeks. Sorry for the delay.
Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant (May faulty logic
undermine your entire philosophy) -- strong Vulcan curse
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list