gaudapaada and buddha (was Re: brahman by ...)

[egodust]

Kim Poulsen wrote:
>
>    parikalpita is our D), it is the subjective, the subtle state, while
> paratantra is our C), etc. In G.K IV these terms are also employed frequently
> by G. He starts his treatise by using the maNDuukya terms and ends it using
> the mahayana terms. The commentators fills in other terms for the same
> principles. Shankara is very clear about the almost identicality of
> buddhism and Vedanta.
>    The two major differences are
>
> 1) while the Vedanta philosopher by a positive statement will affirm his
> essential with A) (brahman and paramaatman) Nagarjuna by a series of denials
> and negative statements will deny the reality of anything else. He even denies
> the ultimate reality of a non-conditioned state like svabhaava, there is but
> the absolute, it is the "svabhaava" of the other states.
>   It is this philosophy which cannot be refuted (being based on solid
> ground), but may have a problem with its attittude, so to speak.
>
> 2) By terming their absolute shhuunyata, the buddhists seems to be
> protesting against unfounded ideas about Brahman, but the mutual terms
> akshara, para and parama are found far more often in both cases
>

Concur with your basic premise.  If I may embellish...

It's apparent that the ideas adopted by most followers of the 'big 4'
(Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism) are in conflict due to lack of
insight...ignorance.  If theosophy teaches us anything, it points the way to
discovering the universal key or philospher's stone revealing the archetypal
anima mundai responsible for corroborative doctrines manifesting in all
cultures and all ages.  Clearly, such Ageless Wisdom Teachings belong to
no-one exclusively; neither to any culture.

The most compelling thread of commonality that runs through these superficially
different doctrines is the idea of a profound translogical simplicity relating
to the quality of unalloyed Being-ness (as H.P. Blavatsky expressed it) that
dwells in the Heart.  Achieving the peaceful awareness of this primal state
is the soul's magnum opus.  Deep investigation into the Life-picture reveals
how seemingly compelling philosophical matters extraneous to this are
metaphysically irrelevant.  We could say that this specifically relates to an
ultimate condition: precluding moksha.  On the contrary, it would seem to
represent an urgent centerpiece in the jnanamarga, especially if we consider
the idea of planting such seed into the pattern of our thinking...cultivating
and nurturing it...to one day overthrow the tyranny of the oppressive ego-Mind.

I can't agree with your intimation about the "greatest man who walked the
planet," however. (presumably referring to Sakyamuni Buddha)  Jnani's have no
degrees.  One may stimulate an individual more than others, but that's due to
personal temperament.  For example, Sankara works through Mind, Ramakrishna
through emotion.  Neither of their ego's is more than a burnt rope--as we've
often heard the saying go--they look like ropes, but you can't use them to tie
anything.

namaste.