Not Gaudapada, but Buddha!

[Govind Rengarajan]

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

> assumption that the followers of each tradition somehow misunderstood and
> modified the basic teachings, although the "original" teachers of every
> tradition taught the same things. It is intellectually very arrogant, to
> assume that those who transmit the various traditions do not understand it
> well themselves.
>

Excellent point. Since Vidyasankar has decided to remain silent on
this issue, I shall pitch in my thoughts.

I think there is a general tendency among the new wave of
spiritualists and scholars to consider the followers of the
"original" teachers of any religion to have a single-minded purpose
of refuting other doctrines or philosophies while the "original"
teacher himself might not have said so. This attitude is clearly
insulting (ofcourse often not intended) to the later teachers and
AcAryAs of any tradition. It is important to keep in mind that
having dedicated their life to study and practice of a particular
system, they are in a better position to state the *intended*
(particularly when the "original" teacher did not write anything)
teachings of their "original" teacher. In order to be able to
understand their motivations and teachings, it is necessary to learn
from them. Until such time, second guessing the Buddha's or
any of the original teachers' thoughts will only create another
system of thought.

Also, this drive to seek unity in all of world's religions is
perhaps unnecessary! Or is it necessary to gain more conviction in
the existence of the "truth"? An alternative, which has been
in existence for millenniums (until this century ;-), is to follow
your teacher, or to find a teacher. It is as simple as that!

Regards,
govindarajan

>From  Tue Feb 10 19:04:25 1998
Message-Id: <TUE.10.FEB.1998.190425.0500.>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 19:04:25 -0500
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Organization: Home Personal Account
Subject: Re: Not Gaudapada, but Buddha!
Comments: To: Advaita List <Advaita-L at tamu.edu>
Comments: cc: Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya at CCO.CALTECH.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya at CCO.CALTECH.EDU> writes:

> In addition to the four false premises I mentioned in my previous mail,
> there is a fifth premise that gauDapAda was favorable to Buddhism,
> but his own grand-disciple, Sankara was not. May I inquire about
> the reasons behind holding such a position?

Greetings Vidya:
      I believe that there can be no definite answers for your
questions.  It is possible to speculate the reasons for Sankara's
position on Buddhism.  The Buddhism as stated by Buddha is only a
restatement of the ideas expressed in the Upanishads.  He spread only
the ideals of the orthodox religion, but repudiated the ascendancy of
the priests and the elaborate ritualism.  In Buddhism, more emphasis was
placed on the morality and Buddha was more concerned with providing a
remedy for the ills of life.  Buddha failed to address the metaphysical
questions. The negative side of life was overemphasized and positive
counterparts were completely ignored. Nirvana meant annihilation unlike
the Upanishadic meaning of liberation from the bondage of finitude.
Buddha's teaching consists of four Truths:  Life is evil. Ignorance is
the source of evil. Evil can be overcome. Right knowledge is the means
of removing evil.  Buddha's Dharma consists of Eightfold Path: Right
belief. Right aim. Right speech. Right action. Right living. Right
effort. Right mindfulness.  Right contemplation. In summary, the
Buddhist sadhana was strictly regimental where as the Hindu approach was
aimed to achieve the joyous union.
     Buddhism at the time of its emergence was regarded as the second
renaissance of Hinduism.  Buddhism was much more practical and appealing
to a large segment of the Hindu population but the majority of the
Hindus clung to Brahmanical Hinduism. There were significant historical
developments up to the 3rd century A.D. The list includes the
developments of Saivism, Vaishnavism, Vedangas, Sastras, Kautilya's
Artha Sastra, Jataka tales, code of Manu, numerous Puranas, etc.  These
revivals enabled common people to understand the religion of the
Upanishads. Saktism gave rise to a mass of religious literature known as
the Tantras. The Epics and Puranas became popular in the subsequent
years. The period up to the 7th century A.D. may be called the period o
the Puranas and Darsanas.
     About the middle of the 7th Century A.D. Buddhism was in a state of
decline.  The fall of Buddhism is attributed to Kumarila Bhatta, the
founder of the Bhattapada school of Karma- Meemamsa who was a great
opponent of Buddhism.  Kumarila Bhatta took Vedas and Vedic rites as the
basis and challenged the relevance of Buddhism.  Sankara who lived in
the later part of 8thcentury and earlier part of 9th century assimilated
the good points of Buddhism that agreed with the Vedic beliefs and
traditions.  Sankara was very careful not to deplore the Vedic rites and
rituals but purified those rituals that were misused. The age which saw
the advent of Sankara was a dark period of religious disputes and
unrest. The society was infested with heinous practices which were given
religious sanction by the culturally decayed population.  Those who
embraced Buddhism could not live up to the noble ideas preached by the
Buddha.  India during that time period was going through a great
intellectual, spiritual and social turmoil. Sankara became the spiritual
and religious master to revive and reestablish the Sanatana Dharma and
the philosophy of the Nondual Brahman of the Upanishads.
     The theologies developed by Sankara and Buddha were restatements
of  the ideas of the Upanishads. Buddha emphasized the negative side of
life and formulated a disciplined path to overcome sorrows.  Sankara
stressed the importance of the knowledge of SELF and pointed out that
the negative sides of life are only illusions.  Sankara was very keen in
reviving Sanatana Dharma and the purifying the Vedic rites and rituals.
Vedavyasa was the revolutionary spiritual leader to revitalize the Hindu
Scriptures during the Mahabharat time periods.  Sankara followed the
footsteps of Vedavyasa and restored Hindu Scriptures and Hindu Dharma.
Sankara was a missionary and visionary and he was responsible for the
survival of Hinduism in India in the present century.

Note: Western scholars have opined that Sankara was born in A.D. 788 and
their historians also accept this date.
--
Ram Chandran
9374 Peter Roy Ct.
Burke, VA 22015
Ph.703-912-5790

>From  Wed Feb 11 08:27:56 1998
Message-Id: <WED.11.FEB.1998.082756.0500.>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 1998 08:27:56 -0500
Reply-To: chandran at tidalwave.net
To: "Advaita (non-duality) with reverence" <ADVAITA-L at TAMU.EDU>
From: Ram Chandran <chandran at TIDALWAVE.NET>
Organization: Personal
Subject: Re: Not Gaudapada, but Buddha!
Comments: To: Advaita List <Advaita-L at tamu.edu>
Comments: cc: Govind Rengarajan <govind at ISC.TAMU.EDU>,
        Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vidya at CCO.CALTECH.EDU>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Tue, 10 Feb 1998, Vidyasankar Sundaresan wrote:

> assumption that the followers of each tradition somehow misunderstood and
> modified the basic teachings, although the "original" teachers of every
> tradition taught the same things. It is intellectually very arrogant, to
> assume that those who transmit the various traditions do not understand it
> well themselves.

Govind Rengarajan <govind at ISC.TAMU.EDU> replied:

> .........

> Also, this drive to seek unity in all of world's religions is
> perhaps unnecessary! Or is it necessary to gain more conviction in
> the existence of the "truth"? An alternative, which has been
> in existence for millenniums (until this century ;-), is to follow
>  your teacher, or to find a teacher. It is as simple as that!

Greetings Shri Vidya and Shri Govinda:

  I honestly believe that our attempt to resolve these complex areas can
be attributable to either intellectual arrogance or stupidity.  It
appears that we are speculating without facts and evidences.  Can we
ever resolve fundamental religious issues using a scientific framework?
The answer is obviously no.  Examples and counter examples can be shown
from history to support and dispute  intellectual arrogance and
stupidity.  What are we attempting to prove here? Can we ever claim that
it is very easy for us to choose a teacher and follow a path?

.  I agree that there is no necessity to seek unity in all of worlds'
religions. But it is more important that we learn to accept unity in the
diversity and assume one god, one nation and one people. The five
fingers of the hand provided by the Grace of God look and feel
different. Aren't we better off with fingers with those distinctive
characteristics than with identical characteristics?
We can search for the TRUTH if and only if we accept the existence of
the TRUTH!

   I want to give a simple analogy between religions and rivers.
Religions and Rivers were pure at the Origin.  Rivers supply water and
religions supply morals. At the origin, the water and the moral were
pure. The purity of water at Gangothri was polluted when Ganges reached
Banaras. The morals and teachings of any religion were also polluted
during the passage of time.  Some rivers and some religions are more
polluted than others. Scientific purification of water is possible and
the pure water has neither any taste nor identity.  However, scientific
purification of religious ideas and morals is neither possible nor
acceptable!  This limitation is responsible for religious disputes,
misunderstanding and intellectual debates.
--
Ram Chandran
Burke, VA 22015