[Advaita-l] किं श्रीमद्भागवतं प्रच्छन्नं बौद्धम् ?

[Sriram Krishnamurthy]

Namaste,
Shankara Bhagavadpada had never been a Buddhist and his only motto was to
establish the Sanatana Vaidika Dharma. The following articles makes
interesting reading.

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=540&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=546&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=566&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

http://www.kamakotimandali.com/blog/index.php?p=581&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1

Thanks and Regards,
Sriram

2011/3/31 V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>

> श्रीगुरभ्यो नमः
> Is the shrImadbhAgavatam Buddhism in disguise?
>
> Here is a quote from the English work 'srIdakshinAmUrtistotram' Vol.I p.
> 645
> authored by Sri D.S. Subbaramaiya (published by the Sharada Peetham,
> Sringeri):
>
> // The ShaDakSharIvyAkhyA says while referring to the YogAchAraa school of
> Buddhism:
>
> विज्ञानवादिनस्तु क्षणिकविज्ञानप्रवाहाः आत्मेति वर्णयन्ति । ...उक्तं हि
> ’धीसन्ततिः स्फुरति निर्विषयोपरागाः’ इति । सन्तानो नाम नानाव्यक्तिषु
> नैरन्तर्येण वर्तनम् । तच्चानुभवदशायां *’सैवं दीपज्वाला’ *इतिवदेकत्वेन
> अनुभूयमानत्वम् ।
>
> [The vijnAnavAdins, however, portray Atman as a santAna, a series of
> momentary cognitions.  Even according to them, liberation is the rise of
> the
> series of pure cognitions on the removal, by knowledge, of the afflictions
> of the objects of parlance.  So has it been said 'The series of cognitions
> manifests as free from the association of objects.'  By santAna is meant
> non-intermittent series of individuals.  And that is the oneness that is
> experienced as in  *'This is the same flame'...*..the attempt at proving
> its
> momentary nature is to secure the establishing of the momentary nature of
> external objects by having recourse to the inference 'that which exists is
> momentary'....which is not invalidated by the falacy of inconstancy.] //
>
> http://www.freesangha.com/forums/index.php?topic=2104.0
> According to Buddhism, everything is relative and impermanent (Anitya) in
> the empirical, conditioned world. It is pertinent here to remember the
> statement of the Greek philosopher Heraclitus who said “*You* cannot *step*
> *twice* *into* the *same* *river*, for fresh waters are ever flowing in
> upon
> *you*”. This means that although I may continue to see the *same*
> *river*externally from a gross point of view, the water molecules I am
> seeing at a
> particular location at any moment are different from the water molecules
> the
> moment before and the moment after. One thing disappears, conditioning the
> appearance of the next in a series of cause and effect. Everything is in a
> state of becoming something else the next moment.
>
>
> http://www.messagefrommasters.com/Beloved_Osho_Books/Personal_Notes/Books_I_Have_Loved.pdf
>
> He says in these FRAGMENTS – again the notes of a Devageet, a disciple.
> Heraclitus did not write.
> There must be something, some reason why these people do not write, but of
> that a little later.
> Heraclitus says in the FRAGMENTS: ”You cannot step in the same river
> twice.”
> And then he says:
> ”No, you cannot step in the same river even once....” This is tremendously
> beautiful, and true too.
> Everything is changing, and changing so fast that there is no way to step
> in
> the same river twice;
> you can’t even step in the same river once. The river is constantly
> flowing;
> going, going, going to
> the ocean, to the infinite, going to disappear into the unknown.
>
> http://en.allexperts.com/q/Philosophy-1361/2009/5/step-river-twice.htm
> Heraclitus said this famous phrase, and it wasn't in reference to a
> metaphorical river, but to an actual river.  Early philosophy was concerned
> with explaining change and what it meant to our very ability to persist
> through time.  When he said that you cannot step into the same river twice,
> he meant quite literally that the river you step in is very different each
> time you step in it (from a purely molecular level, this is true, as water
> which was upstream is now down stream, and none of the water molecules are
> where they were when you first stepped into it).
>
> As for the discrepancy of perceptions (ie. "a person's experience compared
> with another experience(s) can never be exactly the same, even if the
> general experience is of the same nature"), a number of philosophers have
> noted this, and it leaves one either accepting an Aristotelian theory of
> forms in knowledge (i.e. the overarching form of the thing experienced
> remains the same, so all knowers know the same thing by knowing its form,
> or
> else a radical skepticism a la Quine and the other moderns who think you
> can
> know nothing.).
>
> End of the quotes from the internet.
>
> Be that as it may, we are concerned with the Buddhist view that was
> presented at the beginning of this study.  I am not presenting the exact
> bauddha kArikaa in support of this.   Now, we shall see what Shankaracharya
> says with respect to things:
> In the bhashyam for the mantra परीक्ष्य लोकान् कर्मचितान् ..of the
> mundakopanishat 1.2.12, giving a graphic account of the created world, He
> says:
>
> //    ...लोकान् संसारगतिभूतान् अव्यक्तादिस्थावरान्तान्
> व्याकृत-अव्याकृतलक्षणान् बीजाङ्कुरवत् इतरेतरोत्पत्तिनिमित्तान्
> अनेकानर्थशतसहस्रसङ्कुलान् कदलीगर्भवदासारान्
> मायामरीच्युदकगन्धर्वनगराकारस्वप्नजलबुद्बुदफेनसमान्
> *प्रतिक्षणप्रध्वंसान् *पृष्ठतः
> कृत्वा....//
>
> //..the worlds -  in their essence from every point of view - the worlds
> that exist as the goals of transmigration, ranging from the Unmanifested to
> a motionless thing, whether evolved or involved; that are productive of one
> another like the seed and the sprout; that are assailed with multifarious
> troubles in their hundreds and thousands; that are devoid of substance like
> the interior of a plantain tree; that appear like magic, water in a mirage,
> or a city in space; and *that get destroyed at every turn -* that is to
> say,
> turning one's back on the worlds earned ...//
>
> In the Kathopanishat bhashyam for the mantra ऊर्ध्वमूलोऽवाक्शाखः...(2.3.1)
> He says about the manifest world:
>
> // जन्मजरामरणशोकाद्यनेकानर्थात्मकः *प्रतिक्षणमन्यथास्वभावो
> *मायामरीच्युदकगन्धर्वनगरादिवद्
> दृष्टनष्टस्वरूपत्वादवसाने च वृक्षवदभावात्मकः कदलीस्तम्भवन्निःस्सारः...//
>
> //It consists of many evils, such as birth, old age, death, sorrow,
> etc.,*it changes itself every moment, inasmuch as no sooner is it seen
> than its
> nature is destroyed* like magic, water in a mirage, a city in the sky, etc.
> and it ceases to exist ultimately like a tree; it is without any heart-wood
> like the stem of a plantain tree....//
>
> One can easily see that just as the Buddhistic view of the world that is
> 'kShaNika', Shankara too describes the world to be momentary, that is
> changing every moment.
>
> This is a typical instance for the non-advaitins to dub Advaita as Buddhism
> in disguise or 'Buddhism presented in Upanishadic phraseology' as Dr.B N K
> Sharma (BNK) puts it in his works.  The reasoning is: if there is a
> similarity/close similarity between Buddhism and Advaita, then the latter
> is
> a replication of the former.
>
>
> http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/23451465/739768586/name/BNK+SHARMA%27S+RESEARCH.pdf
>
> On page 27:
> //Advaita has a threefold classification of reality which has its parallel
> in the Abhidharmasamuccaya of Asanga (310-390 A-D) (Edited by V. V. Gokhale
> JRAS 1947). The differences are purely terminological. //
>
> On page 14:
>
> //The words used in the text such as Mithyaatarka,
> *drstantas*, kuhakendrajala have a *close family resemblance with the terms
> of the Mithyattvanumana of Advaita and its Drstantas *like shell-silver,
> snake in the rope and Dvaitendrajala used by Suresvara and especially the
> phrase Vaidikesu paristhatum icchanti which are all tell tale. They deserve
> to be compared with the outspoken denunciations by early writers like
> Bhaskara : Vigitam Vicchinnamulam *mahayanikam Bauddha gathitam
> mayavadam *vyavarnayantah
> lokan Vyamohayanti. Parthasarathi Misra writes Tadvaram mayavadan
> Mahayanikam and Yadavaprakasa observes
> Yuyam ca Baudhasca samana sampadah.//
>
>  BNK says that the term प्रच्छन्नबौद्धः with reference to the Advaitin  was
> not used by Sri Madhvacharya or Sri Jayatirtha but only came to be seen in
> other/later works of Vedantadeshika and others.  Of course, the infamous
> PadmapurANic verse too uses it.
>
> Now by extending the logic adopted by BNK (and the non-advaitic schools)
> and
> applying it to the srImadbhAgavatam we can easily conclude that the
> BhAgavatam, too, is प्रच्छन्नं बौद्धम् in as much as it shares this common
> trait of describing the objects of the world as क्षणिक, दृष्टनष्ट : -
>
> नित्यदा ह्यङ्ग भूतानि भवन्ति न भवन्ति च |
> कालेनालक्ष्यवेगेन सूक्ष्मत्वात्तन्न दृश्यते || (17.42)
>
> My, friend, through the imperceptible march
> of Time creatures are being *constantly born
> and dying. * But this is not observed because
> of its subtlety. (The Lord refers unasked to the
> constant molecular change in the body to
> stimulate the spirit of dispassion.)
> यथार्चिषां स्रोतसां च फलानां वा वनस्पतेः |
> तथैव सर्वभूतानां वयोऽवस्थादयः कृताः || 17.43
>
> As in the case of flames, or streams, or the fruits
> of a tree, even so are the conditions of age etc.
> brought about (by Time).
>
> *सोऽयं दीपोऽर्चिषां यद्वत्स्रोतसां तदिदं जलम्*
> सोऽयं पुमानिति नृणां मृषा गीर्धीर्मृषायुषाम्  (uddhavagItA 17.44)
>
> As in the case of flames the idea and the
> statement that '*this is that very lamp'*, or
> in the case of streams that 'this is that very
> water', are false (the recognition being merely
> based on a semblance), so also are the idea
> and the statement that 'this is that very man'
> with reference to men whose lives are vain
> (because they are enveloped in ignorance).
>
> The close resemblance of the srImadbhAgavatam
> verses and vijnAnavAda doctrine of Buddhism
> is obvious through the admitting of the same
> analogy 'This is the same flame' by both the
> srImadbhaagavatam and the vijnAnavaadin. (Recall the
> statement of BNK about the similarity of
> dRstAnta-s (analogies) between two schools being
> sufficient reason to dub them identical)  to establish
> the same characteristic pertaining to the momentariness
> of the (objects of) the world.
> While there are two analogies (flame and river water)
> that are available to us from the vijnAnavAdin, we have several
> to prove the momentariness of objects, kShaNikatvam
> as taught in the uddhavagItaa verses we have
> cited.  Thus, there is a strong case to hold
> that the srImadbhAgavatam is 'प्रच्छन्नं बौद्धम्’ going by
> the reasoning: there is a close similarity between
> the two, the similarity between Advaita (as
> is obvious from the sample quotes from Shankara's
> commentaries) and the srImadbhAgavatam notwithstanding.
>
> Om Tat Sat
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>