Buddhism and Advaitam

[Sankar Jayanarayanan]

Nanda Kumar <nkumar at OPPENHEIMERFUNDS.COM> wrote:

> A religion like Hinduism didn't crop out all of a sudden. It's a product of
> millinieums of civilization. It evolved out of the experience and thought of
> the people. Even those studies and sciences which don't directly deal
> with religion and which form a significant part of the six schools of Indian
> philosophy contributed to the creation of Sanatana Dharma. So a school
> like Advaitam has a strong base on which it was built.
>

Trying to understand advaita as simply a product of a human mind is considered
fatal to its spirit. The Upanishads are not to be thought of as an expression
of the creativity of a Rishi's mind.

This needs to be said: the study of Hinduism as a mere school of philosophy
which has existed for a few centuries is a "Western" style of analysis.
Western philosophers understand any philosophy from its historical perspective
alone, and most importantly, as Karl Jaspers says,"feel themselves to be part
of a heritage, assimilating the essence of what has been said by other great
philosophers into their own Existence." Wisdom is something that can be
absorbed from books.

Most Indian philosophers do not stop with that. The "seeking" of a something
beyond what can be expressed by a philosophy, acquiring a wisdom beyond what
can be grasped by the mind, is very typical of Indian philosophers,
sometimes resulting in even trying to transcend their own traditions
(e.g. advaita and Buddhism).

This goes beyond merely playing a role as a philosopher in the history of a
tradition, as you seem to be saying here:

> But Buddhism is for the most part the creation of Gauthama Buddha.

The advaita tradition considers the Upanishads to be of paramount importance
in removing spiritual ignorance, but advaita Vedanta is not a tradition of
philosophical thought alone. It demands great Self-control and the adherence to
dharma.

> Gauthama himself was a Hindu prince and was schooled with the Hindu
> school of thought. But it's said that he was at odds with the caste
> system and didn't agree with the Untouchablity which was in practice.
> So he sought a more flexible religion and philosophy which would be
> applicable to the common man too.  Could such a disagreement been
> interpreted as anti-Vedic? But even if he was truly anti-Vedic there's no
> way one can refute the Vedic influence in his philosophy, because
> without that even Buddha wouldn't have a base. So can even Buddhism
> actually be called a Hindu school of thought rather than a seperate
> religion? And that might account for the great similarity between
> Advaitam and Buddhism.
>

To make such a statement is to reject all the differences in the two
philosophical traditions.

> And on the contradiction in ideas about the Absolute, isn't it the final
> stage, the samadhi? Advaitam and Buddism are  paths to reach that goal.
> Once somebody reaches that state, wouldn't definitions like Advaitam
> and Buddhism might be insignificant?
>

Even Hitler, Gandhi, and a leper appear the same at that stage. Deriving
conclusions at the Vyavaharika level from what is experienced at the
Paramarthika level would lead only to absurdity.

Last, but not the least, there is great disagreement about what the
"final stage" is. Buddhism gives no definite answer, not even affirming the
*existence* of a Paramarthika.

-Kartik