Beyond
Nirvaana
For
the purpose of obstructing transmission of knowledge to sinful
persons,
theistic philosophy has sometimes proffered
interpretations
that contradict the Vedic view. These sections are
mostly
unsubstantiated. The major portions, which do not
contravene
the Vedas, are easy to prove. Thus in Padma Puräna,
besides
criticism of the knowledge of brahman,
other philosophies
have
also been censured. For example in Padma Puräna, Mahädeva
speaks
to his consort Pärvaté:
såëu
devi! Pravaksyämi taàasäni yathäkramam
yeñäm
çrävaëamätreëa pätityaà jïäninäm api
prathamaà
hi mayaivoktaà çaivaà päçupatädikam
macchaktyä-veçitair
vipraiù saàproktäni tataù param
kaëädena
tu saàproktaà çästraà vaiçeñikaà mahat
gautamena
tathä nyäyaà säëkyantu kapilena vai
dvijaàanä
jaimininä pürvam vedamayärthataù
niréçvareëa
vädena kåtam çästraà mahattaram
dhiñaëena
tathä proktaà cärväkam atigarhitam
bauddha
çästram asat proktaà nagna-néla-paöädikam
mäyävädam
asac chästraà pracchannaà bauddham eva ca
mayä
eva kathitaà devi kalau brähmaëa rüpinä
apärthaà
çrutiväkyänäà darçayalloka-garhitam
karma
svärüpatyäjyatvam atra ca pratipädyate
sarva
karma paribhraàçän naiñkarmyaà tatra cocyate
parätma
jévayor aikyam mayä atra pratipädyate
brähmaëo’sya
paraà rüpaà nirguëaà darçitaà mayä
sarvasya
jagato’pyasya näçanärthaà kalau yuge
vedärtha
van mahä çästraà mäyävädam avaidikam
mayaiva
kathitaà devi!jagatäà näçakäraëät
O
Devé! I shall systematically explain ‘Tämasa – Darçana’,
philosophy
in the mode of ignorance, hearing which even
knowledgeable
persons will become confused and diverted. Kindly
hear
it. The very first concept ‘päçupat’,
which is a part of the
Çaiva-philosophy,
is in the mode of ignorance. Brähmaëas
empowered
by me propagated these tämasika philosophies.
The
sage
Kaëäda for example, postulated the Vaiçeñika philosophy.
The
philosophy of Mäyävädism: A life history
40
Beyond Nirväëa
Gautama
compiled the Nyäya scriptures and Kapila, the Sänkhya
tradition.
Jaimini compiled the Pürva-mémäàsä scripture, which
promulgated
a false, atheistic view. Similarly Cärvaka put out an
equally
misleading theory from his imagination. For the
destruction
of the demoniac class of men, Lord Viñëu’s incarnation,
Buddha,
propagated a false teaching. The Mäyäväda philosophy
is a
false doctrine disguised as Buddhism.
O
Goddess! In the age of Kali, I will appear as a brähmaëa and
preach
this false philosophy. This view is contrary to the Vedic
conclusion
and is strongly denounced by the mass. In it I have
perpetuated
the theory of non-action, which urges one to give up
life’s
activities altogether to attain freedom from reactions.
Furthermore,
I have established the one-ness of ‘Paramätma’,
Supersoul,
with the jéva, as well as the view
that brahman is
devoid
of
attributes. Intending to bring about the absolution of the world
in
Kali yuga, I have given Mäyäväda philosophy the stamp of Vedic
authority
and recognition.
Çré
Vijïäna Bhiksu then writes:
iti-adhikaà
tu brahma mémäàsä-bhäñye prapaïcitam asmäbhir iti
More
details regarding these points are available in my
commentary
to ‘Brahma-mémäàsä’.
It is very
important that we understand this scholar’s background and
motivation.
Çré Vijïäna Bhiksu was intent on establishing a synthesis of
all
philosophical schools. He did not nurture any ill feeling or envy towards
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya; rather he maintained an objective, unbiased stance and
judiciously
analysed both his merits and demerits. One who is realised in
the
Absolute Truth unhesitatingly admits both what is true and what is
false, but
never falls into the illusion of confusing the two. If pointing out
discrepancies
in a fabricated, speculative theory is hastily considered as
envious
behaviour, then Çré Çaìkaräcärya himself can be faulted for the
same. Çré
Çaìkaräcärya was never censured for calling Çäkya Siàha Buddha
an
imbecile. In his commentary to the Brahma-Sütra 2/1/32, Çré
Çaìkaräcärya
wrote:
bahyärtha
vijïäna çünyaväda trayam itaretara viruddham upadiçata
‘sugatena’
spañöékåtam ätmano’ saàbandha praläpitvam
Sugata
Buddha’s statements are incoherent, as if made by one
who
has lost his faculty of reasoning.
41
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s slanderous remarks on Çäkya Siàha Buddha should
not prompt
one to think that he was against Buddhist philosophy. He
undertook
a big effort to refute Çäkya Siàha Buddha’s philosophies of
Vijïänatmavad
and Bahatmavad with use of proper logic and
arguments,
however
his venture into refuting the philosophy of Çünyaväda
(annihilation
of the self) did not seem to acquire the same magnitude. Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s
reverence for the Buddha and his Çünyaväda philosophy
was
substantial, and was nurtured internally – this point will be delved
into
later. The previous statements by Çréla Vyäsadeva unambiguously
declare
that Çré Çaìkaräcärya was a disguised Buddhist. He took Buddhist
philosophy,
which contradicts the Vedas, and giving it the stamp of Vedic
authority,
extensively propagated it in the world.
(Footnotes)
1 Latter
day Mäyävädés commonly misuse the word ‘nirguna’ by
conveniently
misinterpreting
its basic meaning (nir=without, and guna=material
form)
erroneoiusly
thinking that ‘no material form’ means ‘no form at all’. This is
despite
copious Vedic references to the countless transcendental sentient
attributes
of the Lord that are supra mundane. Ed.
2 Often
translated as ‘un-godly’ or ‘demoniac’. However, a more direct
translation
of the word’s meaning is: a-against
or opposite to, sura-the light
(of the
Supreme).
The
philosophy of Mäyävädism: A life history
42
Beyond Nirväëa
Two
Buddhas
Çäkya
Siàha Buddha and the Viñëu Avatära Buddha
It may be
observed in different places in the Puräëas that Mäyävädism
has been
referred to as Buddhism. It is therefore necessary in this context
to briefly
discuss Buddhism. Çré Buddha’s philosophy or views is Buddhism.
Hence, it
is imperative that readers become acquainted with scriptural
facts
about Lord Buddha, who is declared by scripture to be one of the
ten
incarnations (avatäras) of the Supreme Lord, Çré Viñëu.
This is described
in Çréla
Jayadeva Gosvämé’s composition ’Gétä Govinda’:
vedän
uddharate jaganti vahate bhügolam udbibhrate
daityaà
därayate balià chalayate kñatra kçayaà kurvate
paulastyaà
jayate halaà kalayate käruëyam ätanvate
mlecchän
mürccayate daçäköikåte kåñëäya tubhyaà namaù
O
Kåñëa, He who accepts ten incarnations! I offer my obeisances
unto
You for saving the Vedic scriptures as Matsya-incarnation;
You
held up the universe as Kurma-incarnation and lifted up the
world
as Varäha, the Boar-incarnation; as Nåsiàha You vanquished
Hiraëyakaçipu;
as Vämana You deceived Bali Mahäräja; as
Paraçuräma
You exterminated the corrupt warrior class; as Räma
You
slew Rävaëa; as Balaräma You took up the plough; as Buddha
You
bestowed compassion and as Kalki You kill the Mlecchas.1
In his
Daça Avatära Strotram, Çréla Jayadeva writes in the ninth verse:
nindasi
yajïa vidherahaha çrutijätam
sadaya
hådaya darçita paçughätam
keçava
dhåta buddha çaréra
jaya
jagadéça hare jaya jagadéça hare
O Lord
of the universe, Keçava! You took the form of Lord Buddha
Who is
full of compassion and stopped the slaughter of animals
which
is strictly forbidden in the Vedas.
If this
Lord Buddha is an incarnation of Lord Viñëu, then Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s
connection to Him requires further elaboration and
analysis.
It becomes imperative to research this matter if Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s
philosophy
is referred to as another presentation of Buddhism. Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s
assessment of Buddha seems opaque, for he would have
us believe
that Çäkya Siàha Buddha and the Lord Buddha that the
Vaiñëavas
worship are one and the same personality. However, this is far
43
from the
truth. Our revered gurudeva, Çréla Bhaktisiddhänta Sarasvaté
Thäkura,
revealed that Çäkya Siàha Buddha was simply a highly intelligent
mortal, a
vastly learned person who had attained some inner realisations.
So by
declaring Çäkya Siàha to be Lord Buddha or by equating him with
Lord
Viñëu’s incarnation, Çré Çaìkaräcärya gives sufficient proof of the
respect
and dedication he quietly nurtured within him for Çäkya Siàha.
The
berating and admonishment he directed towards Çäkya Siàha is indeed
only an
‘eye-wash’ intended to hoodwink the public.
One may
ask at this point, in which context did Çré Çaìkaräcärya opine
Çäkya
Siàha Buddha (also known as Gautama Buddha) and Avatära Buddha
to be the
same personality? In response, I kindly request the learned
readers to
scrutinise Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s commentaries. In his commentary
to
Brahma-Sütra that I referred earlier, the word sugatena
refers to
Gautama
Buddha, the son of Çuddhodana and Mäyädevi, and not to the
original
Viñëu incarnation Buddha. While discussing Buddha’s philosophy,
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya mentions his name in his commentary: ‘sarvathä
api
anädarëéya
ayam sugata-samayaù çreyaskämaiù iti abhipräyaù.’ - In this
statement sugata
again refers to Gautama Buddha, the son of Mäyädevi.
The word ‘samäyäh’
indicates philosophical conclusions (siddhänta) i.e.
Gautam
Buddha’s siddhänta. However, it is true that another name for
Viñëu
Avatära Buddha is Sugata, and thus Çaìkaräcärya falsely interpolated
Çäkya
Siàha Buddha as if he were Viñëu Avatära Buddha. The use of the
name
Sugata-Buddha for Viñëu Avatära Buddha was already existing in
Buddhist
scriptures. This is substantiated in the book ‘Amarakoña’ an
extremely
ancient treatise written by the famous nihilist and atheist Amara
Siàha. It
is believed that Amara Siàha was born approximately 150 years
prior to
Çaìkaräcärya’s birth. Amara Siàha was the son of the brähmaëa
Sabara
Svämé, who fathered a host of children with different mothers of
different
castes. This ancient verse about Amara Siàha was well known
in the
learned circles of yore:
brähmaëyäm
abhavad varäha mihiro jyotirvidäm agraëéù
räjä
bhartåhariç ca vikrämanåpaù kñaträträtmajäyäm abhüt
vaiçyäyäà
haricandra vaidya tilako jätaç ca çaìkuù kåté
çüdräyäm
amaraù ñaòeva çabara svämé dvija sya ätmajäù
Varäha
Mihira, foremost among the greatest astrologers, was born
from
the womb of a brähmaëa lady. King Vikrama and King
Bhartåhari
were born from a kñatriya mother.
From a vaiçya
mother
were born Haricandra, a vaidya tilaka – an
excellent
Äyurveda
physician and Çaìku; and from a maidservant (çüdra)
Two
Buddhas
44
Beyond Nirväëa
mother
was born Amara Siàha. These six were fathered by the
brähmaëa
Çabara Svämé.
The
Amarkoña Speaks of Two Buddhas
Amara
Siàha was the author of many books on Buddhism. By
coincidence
all these books came in to the possession of Çré Çaìkaräcärya,
who
subsequently preserved only the Amarakoña and burnt all the others.
The
following verses about Buddha are found in the Amarakoña.
sarvajïaù
sugato buddho dharmaräjas tathägataù
samanta
bhadro bhagavän märajil lokajij jinaù
ñaòabhijïo
daçabalo’ dvayavädé vinäyakaù
munindrä
çréghanaù çästä muniù
All
knowing, transcendental Buddha, king of righteousness, He
who
has come, beneficent, all encompassing Lord, conqueror of
the
god of Love Mära, conqueror of worlds, He who controls his
senses,
protector of the six enemies, possessor of the ten powers,
speaker
of monism, foremost leader, lord of the ascetics,
embodiment
of splendour and teacher of the ascetics.
The above
verse contains eighteen names of Viñëu Avatära Buddha
including
the name Sugato, and the verse below contains the
seven aliases
of Çakya
Siàha Buddha without any mention of Sugato.
çäkyamunis
tu yaù sa çäkyasiàhaù sarvärthasiddha çauddhodaniç ca
saù
gautamaç
cärkabandhuç ca mäyädevé sutaç ca saù
Teacher
of the Çäkyas, lion of the Çäkyas, accomplisher of all
goals,
son of Çuddhodana, of Gautama’s line, friend of the
entrapped
ones, the son of Mäyädevé.
In these
verses, starting with sarvajnah and finishing with munih
are
eighteen names
addressing the original Viñëu incarnation Lord Buddha.
The next
seven names beginning with Çäkya-munistu to Mäyädevi-Sutasca
refer to
Çäkya Siàha Buddha. The Buddha referred to in the first eighteen
names and
the Buddha referred to in the later seven names are clearly not
the same
person. In the commentary on Amarakoña by the learned Çré
Raghunätha
Cakravarté, he also divided the verses into two sections. To
the
eighteen names of Viñëu Avatära Buddha he writes the words “astadaç
buddha”,
which clearly refers only to the Viñëu avatära. Next, on his
commentary
for the seven aliases of Çäkya Siàha he writes: “ete
sapta
45
çakya
bangçabatirneh buddha muni bishete”, meaning- ‘the next seven names
starting
from Çäkya-munistu are aliases of Buddha-muni who was born
into the
Çäkya dynasty.’
Thus from
the above verses and their commentaries it is indeed
transparent
that Sugata Buddha and the atheist sage Gautama Buddha are
not one
and the same person. I take this opportunity to request the learned
readers to
refer to the Amarakoña published by the respected Mr. H. T.
Colebrooke
in 18072. On pages 2 & 3 of this book the name ‘Buddha’ has
been
explained. The ‘Marginal Note’ on page 2 for the first eighteen names,
states
they are names of Ajina or Buddha and the ‘Marginal Note’ for the
later
seven, states these are aliases of Çakya Siàha Buddha. A further
footnote
is added to clarify the second Buddha, of the later seven names –
Footnote
(b) ‘the founder of the religion named after him.’
Mr.
Colebrooke lists in his preface the names of the many commentaries
he used as
references. Beside Raghunätha Cakravarté’s commentary, he
took
reference from twenty-five others. It can be said with certainty that
the
propagator of Bahyatmaväda, Jnanatmaväda and Çünyamaväda, the
three
pillars of atheism, was Gautama Buddha or ‘Çäkya Siàha Buddha’.
There is
no evidence whatsoever that Sugata Buddha, Lord Viñëu’s
incarnation,
was in any way connected with atheism in any form. Çäkya
Siàha or
Siddhärta Buddha, received the name Gautama from his spiritual
master
Gautama Muni, who belonged to the Kapila dynasty. This is
confirmed
in the ancient Buddhist treatise ‘Sundaränanda Carita’: ‘guru
goträd
ataù kautsäste bhavanti sma gautamäù’- meaning “O’ Kautsa, because
his
teacher was Gautama, they became known from his family line”
Other
Buddhist Literatures Recording Two Buddhas
Besides
the Amarakoña, so highly favoured by Çaìkaräcärya, there are
other
famous Buddhist texts like Prajìä-Päramitä Sütra, Astasahastrika
Prajìä-Päramitä
Sütra, Sata-sahastrika Prajìä-Päramitä Sütra, Lalita
Vistara
etc. Proper scrutiny of these texts reveals the existence of three
categories
of Buddha namely:
__
__
__
Human
Buddhas: like Gautama, who came to be known as Buddha after
enlightenment.
Bodhisattva
Buddhas: Personalities like Samanta Bhadraka who were
born
enlightened.
Adi (original)
Buddha: the omnipotent Viñëu Avatär incarnation of Lord
Buddha.
The
Amarakoña states that Lord Buddha, Çré Viñëu’s incarnation is
also known
as Samanta Bhadra, whereas Gautama Buddha is a human
Two
Buddhas
46
Beyond Nirväëa
being.
Other than the eighteen names of the Viñëu Avatära Buddha
mentioned
in Amarakoña, many names of Lord Buddha are recorded in
the above
mentioned Buddhist texts. In Lalita
Vistara, Ch.
21 page 178, it
is described
how Gautama Buddha meditated on the same spot as the
predecessor
Buddha.
ea
dharaëémuëde pürvabuddhäsanasthaù
samartha
dhanur gåhétvä çünya nairätmaväëaiù
kleçaripuà
nihatvä dåñtijälaï ca bhitvä
çiva
virajamaçokäà präpsyate bodhim agryäà
The
one seated on the hallowed earth of the previous Buddha’s
birthplace
is on the path of voidism and renunciation. With his
weapon,
the powerful bow, he vanquishes the enemies of distress
and
illusion. Thus with wisdom he will attain the auspicious state
of
grieflessness and worldly detachment.
It is
transparent from this verse that Gautama Buddha, realising the
spiritual
potency of the previous Buddha’s birthplace, chose to perform
meditation
and austerities in that vicinity, under a pipal tree. The ancient
and original
name of this place was Kékata, but after Gautama attained
enlightenment
here it came to be known as ‘Buddha Gaya’ (Bodhi Gaya).
Even to
the present day, the rituals of worship to the deity of Buddha at
Bodhi Gaya
are conducted by a sannyäsé (renounced monk) of the ‘Giri
order’
belonging to the Çré Çaìkaräcärya sect. It is commonly accepted
amongst
these monks that Buddha-Gaya (Viñëu Avatära Buddha) was a
predecessor
of Gautama Buddha, who came later to the original Buddha’s
birthplace
to practice meditation. Çäkya Siàha Buddha chose this place
to attain
liberation, knowing it to be saturated with immense spiritual
power.
Laìkävatära
Sütra is a famous and authoritative Buddhist scripture.
From the
description of Buddha, which is found in this book it may be
firmly
concluded that he is not the more recent Çäkya Siàha or Gautama
Buddha. In
the beginning of this book we find Rävaëa, King of Lanka,
praying
first to the original Viñëu incarnation Buddha and then to the
successive
future Buddha. A part of this prayer is reproduced below:
laìkävatära
sütraà vai pürva buddha anuvarëitaà
smarämi
pürvakaiù buddhair jina-putra puraskåtaiù
sütram
etan nigadyante bhagavän api bhäñatäà
bhaviñyatyanägate
käle buddhä buddha-sutaç ca ye
47
Rävaëa,
the king of Laìka, at first recited in the ‘Toöaka’ metre,
then
sang the following –“I invoke in my memory the aphorisms
known
as ‘Laìkävatära-sütra’, compiled and propagated by the
previous
Buddha (Viñëu’s incarnation). The son of Jina (Lord
Buddha)
presented this book. Lord Buddha and his sons, who
will
appear in the future, as well as Bhagavän, the Viñëu
incarnation,
will continue to instruct all from this book.”
Aïjana’s
son, named Buddha is different from Çuddhodana’s
son
Some
people may consider that it is not Çaìkaräcärya but the Vaiñëavas
who
demonstrate a greater degree of respect and sincere reverence
towards
Buddha, therefore, it is they who should also be known as
Buddhists.
In this regard my personal view is, according to Linga Puräëa,
Bhaviñya
Puräëa and the ninth of the ten Viñëu incarnations mentioned in
the Väraha
Puräëa, the Buddha described therein is not the same
personality
as Gautama Buddha, who was the son of Çuddhodana.
Vaiñëavas
never worship the nihilist and atheist (sünyaväda) Buddha
or
Gautama
Buddha. They only worship Lord Viñëu’s ninth incarnation, Lord
Buddha,
with this prayer from the Çrémad-Bhägavatam 10/40/22:
namo
buddhäya çuddhäya daitya-dänava-mohine
O
Supreme Lord Buddha! I offer my obeisance unto You, Who is
faultless
and have appeared to delude the demoniac and atheistic
class
of men.
Earlier in
Çrémad-Bhägavatam 1/3/24, Lord Buddha’s advent is described
in the
following manner:
tataù
kalau sampravåtte
sammohäya
sura-dviñäm
buddho
nämnäïjana-sutaù
kékaöeñu
bhaviñyati
Then,
in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as
Buddha,
the son of Aïjanä, in the province of Gayä, just for the
purpose
of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.
The Buddha
mentioned in this verse is Lord Buddha, son of Aïjana;
also known
by some as ‘Ajina’s’ son. Çré Çrédhara Svämé writes in his
authoritative
commentary to this verse:
Two
Buddhas
48
Beyond Nirväëa
buddha
avartäramäha tata iti aïjanasya sutaù
ajina
suta it päöhe ajino’ pi sa eva kékaöeñu madhye gayä-pradeçe
The
words ‘ tataù kalau’ etc.
describe Viñëu’s incarnation Buddha
as the
son of Aïjana. Ajina in the word ‘ajina
sutaù’ actually means
‘Aïjana’.
Kékata is the name of the district of
Gayä.
The
monists, either by mistake or some other reason, regard Çré Çrédhara
Svämi as
belonging to their sect and persuasion. Be as it may, his comments
however on
this matter can easily be accepted by the Mäyävädis as true
without
hesitation. The following quote is from Nåsàha Puräëa 36/ 29:
kalau
präpte yathä buddho bhavannäräyaëa – prabhuù
In
Kali-yuga the Supreme Lord Näräyaëa appears as Buddha.
A fair
estimate of Lord Buddha’s appearance can be made from this
verse;
that he lived approximately 3500 years ago, or by accurate
astronomical
and astrological calculation around 4000 years ago.
Regarding
the astrological facts at the time of His birth, the treatise
‘Nirnaya-sindhu’
states in the second chapter:
jyaiñöha
çukla dvitéyäyäà buddha-janma bhäviñyati
Lord
Buddha will appear on the second day of the waxing moon,
in the
month of Jyaiñöha.
Elsewhere
in this book is described the procedure for Lord Buddha’s
worship:
pauña
çuklasya saptamyäà kuryät buddhasya püjanam
Lord
Buddha is especially worshipped in the seventh day of the
waxing
moon in the month of Pausa.
The
rituals, prayers and procedures for worship mentioned in these
scriptures
all clearly indicate that they are meant for Lord Viñëu’s ninth
avatära
incarnation. Lord Buddha also finds repeated mention in many
authentic
Vedic scriptures like Viñëu Puräëa, Agni Puräëa, Väyu Puräëa
and Skanda
Puräëa. The Buddha mentioned in Devé Bhägavat, a more
recent
text, and in Çakti Pramoda refers to Çäkya Siàha – not
the Viñëu
Avatära
Buddha.
The truth
remains that there are many different demigods and
demigoddesses
who are worshipped by their respective devotees, in the
same way
that Çäkya Siàha Buddha (who was an atheist) is worshipped
or
glorified by his followers. However, this is all completely separate and
49
unrelated
to the path of Sanätana-dharma, which is the eternal religion of
man
enunciated in the Çrémad-Bhägavatam.
According
to the German scholar Max Mueller, Çäkya Siàha Buddha
was born
in 477 BC in the Lumbiné gardens, within the city of Kapilävastu.
This
ancient, and at that time, well-populated city in the Terai region of
Nepal was well
known. Çäkya Siàha or Gautama Buddha’s father was
known as
Çuddhodana, while his mother was called Mäyädevi, this is all
accepted
historical fact. Although Aïjana’s son and Çuddhodana’s son
both share
the same name (Buddha), they are nevertheless two different
personalities.
One of them was born in Kékaöa – which is now famous as
Bodhi-Gayä,
while the second Buddha was born in Kapilävastu,
Nepal.
Thus the
birthplace, parents, and era of Viñëu Avatära Buddha and the
birthplace,
parents, era etc. of Gautama Buddha are totally at variance.
We can
therefore now observe that the famous personality generally
referred
to as ‘Buddha’, is not the Viñëu incarnation, the original
Lord
Buddha and
hence, Çaìkaräcärya’s views on this are completely
unacceptable.
It is not uncommon to find disagreements in matters of
tradition
and history, but in regards to important and significant issues
an
unbiased and objective discussion is imperative. Attracted by Buddha’s
personality
and fame it is one thing to honour and respect him, but being
impressed
by his philosophy and teachings and reverentially surrendering
to him is
wholly another matter. Whatever the case may be, I am sure
that the
respected readers have grasped the crucial point that Buddha is
not a
single person, but at least two separate identities, – Çäkya Siàha is
not the
same as Lord Buddha, Viñëu’s ninth incarnation. It is certainly
undeniable
that there are some similarities between these two Buddhas,
yet it is
incontestable that they are two different persons.
(Footnotes)
1 Mleccha
- derived from the sanskrit root mlech
meaning to utter indistinctly
(sanskrit)
– a foreigner; non-Äryan; a man of an outcaste race; any non-
Sanskrit-speaking
person who does not conform to the Vedic social and
religious
customs.
2 This
book was published under the auspicies of the Asiatic Society and can
be
referenced at its library. See www.indev.nic.in/asiatic/. Ed.
Two
Buddhas
50
Beyond Nirväëa
The
Influence of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
Çré Kiçoré
Mohana Cattopädhyäya, a follower of Buddhism, writes in his
book
Prajïä-Päramitä Sütra pg. 177:
‘The
concept of çünyaväda, (voidism) in Buddhism and the
concept of
‘impersonal brahman’ of Hinduism (Çaìkaräcärya) mean
the same
but sound different.’
That
Çaìkaräcärya was a prominent exponent of Buddhism is a subject
of debate.
Furthermore, his book goes on to unquestionably prove that
Çaìkaräcärya’s
ideas and precepts correspond to the Buddhist’s own views.
Philosophers
from the Säìkhya school like Vijïäna Bhikñu, yogés of the
Pataïjali
school; philosophers of Vedänta, renowned scholars and äcäryas
like Çré
Rämänuja, Çré Madhava, Çré Jéva Gosvämé, Çré Vallabäcärya, Çréla
Kåñëadäsa
Kaviräja Gosvämé, Çré Baladeva Vidyäbhuñaëa etc., and even
Buddhist
scholars; all consider Çaìkaräcärya as a pre-eminent supporter
and
upholder of the Buddhist school of thought.
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s unstinted display of reverence and respect towards
Buddhism
is merely a substantiation of the different facts, diagnosis and
arguments
that we presented earlier in this regard. Many Puräëas have
referred
to Çaìkaräcärya’s philosophy and teachings as camouflaged
Buddhism.
Understanding that these Puräëic statements are irrefutable,
many
adherents of the Çaìkaräcärya school postulate that these verses
and
statements were interpolations, and then try to foist off false, unsound
arguments
on the innocent public. In truth they cannot furnish a shred of
evidence
in support of their assertions.
The
Conclusions of Buddhism and Çré Çaìkaräcärya
A
comparison of time honoured precepts and traditional knowledge
in
Buddhist philosophy shows many similarities in Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s
teachings.
However, to pin the label of a covert Buddhist agent on
Çaìkaräcärya
singularly on the basis of aitihya,
time-honoured traditional
precepts,
would possibly invite acrimonious objections from the Mäyävädis.
Therefore,
to address their objections and satisfy them I will meticulously
elucidate
the philosophical conclusions of both schools of thought and
present
their similarities, with a view to chart the growth and expansion
of this
philosophy for the benefit of my respected readers.
Prakåti
(material nature) is indeed mäyä, or a
part and parcel of it, as
such
labeling Gautama Buddha’s interpretation of pantheism as
Mäyävädism
is not a mistake. The word ‘Buddha’ is derived from the
Sanskrit
word budha, from which comes bodha meaning
perception or
51
knowledge.
Gautama Buddha was born in the womb of Mäyädevi – similarly
the
knowledge (budha) which is produced out of the matrix
of the illusory
material
nature (mäyä) is known as Mäyävädism, while the precepts
preached
by Buddha are called Buddhism. A relevant fact worthy of
mention is
that after Gautama Buddha’s appearance Mäyävädism acquired
a specific
character, and was tangibly manifested and broadcasted to the
world. The
precepts of non-dualism or monism (advaitaväda) prior to
the
original
Lord Buddha’s appearance is quite distinct from Çaìkaräcärya’s
and
Gautama Buddha’s brand of advaitaväda. Our main
objective now is
to utilise
all means to show the parallels within Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s teachings
and
Buddhism. The concepts of jagat (material
world), brahman
(transcendence),
çünya (nothingness), mokña (means of
liberation), the
oneness of
brahman etc., in Buddhism concur with all those in Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s
Mäyävädism, as will be shown below.
The
Buddhist concept of a False Universe
According
to Buddhist philosophy the universe is a zero, a part of
nothingness.
The source of the universe is zero or the state of nothingness
and its
end is also false, zero. Thus when its beginning and end are false;
the
interim or middle period must also necessarily be false. They deny the
existence
of käla (time) in any form. Thus the substance of all existence,
the Alpha
to Omega of everything is çünya,
nothingness. The past is nonexistent,
the future
is non-existent and between the two, the present is
also
ultimately non-existent. They postulate: “The present does not exist,
it is
simply another appellation for past and future. For example a word
before
being spoken is in the future and as soon as it is spoken the time
changes to
past and the present then is swallowed up, never to be found.”
With this
logic and argument the Buddhists want to prove that the present
manifested
universe is non-existent.
The
Vaiñëavas point is that when one says ‘King Räma is living’, does it
not in the
very least denote that the statement requires the factual existence
of someone
to make the statement? If everything is zero, then the person
who argues
against the existence of ‘the present’ including his mind and
logic are
all non-existent! In truth, if one practically wants to inquire into
the nature
of his existence, one can perceive that the present does in
actual
fact exist, and hence one is able to perceive the transformations of
the past
and future. If nothing exists then how was Çäkya Siàha Buddha
able to
take birth in this world? How was he able to renounce his kingdom
and
establish his philosophy? Be this as it may, Buddhism denies the
existence
of the universe and of the time factors – past, present and future.
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya has subscribed to this view, as we shall see.
The
Influence of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
52
Beyond Nirväëa
Çaìkaräcäryä
teaches that the Universe is False
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya, faithfully following in the footsteps of Çäkya Siàha
Buddha
also postulated the theory that the ultimate cause of the universe
is a
non-qualitative, not-existing in time, impersonal oneness (çünya) that
he
described as avidyä or nescience. The elusive concept of
his avidyä is
in
practice inexplicable. This avidyä is neither
eternal and real, nor is it
false but
rather an inexplicable principle distinct from both ‘sat’ (the
eternally
real) and ‘asat’ (the non-existent and unreal). As a
comprehensible
concept it is inexpressible, which is easily substantiated
by his own
admission. In his book Ajïäna Bodhiné, Çaìkaräcärya writes
in the
eighth statement:
bho
bhagavän yad bhrama mätra siddhaà tat kià satyam?
are
yathä indrajälaà paçyati janaù vyäghra jalataòädi
asatyatayä
pratibhät kim / indrajäla bhrame nivåtte sati
sarvam
mithyä iti jänäti idam tu / sarveçäm anubhava siddham
O
Lord! That which can be attained (seen) only in illusion, can
that
be factual? How can the optical illusion of a tiger or a waterfall
on
stage conjured by a magician be perceived as unreal by the
audience?
(Meaning, it is not.) But after the magic show everyone
realises
that the optical illusions were actual illusions. This is easily
comprehensible
to all.
Again in
his book Nirväëa Daçaka he writes:
na
jägran na me svapnako vä suñuptir na viçve
I do
not experience the awakened state, the dream-state nor deep
sleep.
Such
statements unambiguously illustrate that Çré Çaìkaräcärya, like
Gautama
Buddha denied the existence of the universe. Çré Çaìkaräcärya
states
elsewhere, in the Ätma-païcaka, Verse 6:
äbhätédaà
viçvam ätmany asatyam
satya
jïäna änanda rüpeëa vimohät
nidrä
mohät svapnavat tan na satyaà
çuddaù
pürno nitya ekaù çivo’ ham
In the
meaning of this verse, the phrase ‘svapnavat tanna satyam’ refers
to the
universe. ‘The universe is non-existent, like a dream it is false. The
universe
only seems real while we are asleep in a dream state, in reality it
does not
exist.’
53
Buddha in
some places has referred to the universe as saàskära, an
‘impression’,
while Çaìkaräcärya declares that the universe appears like a
dream.
Hence one can see that, in principle svapna, dream
and saàskära,
impression
are the same, or synonymous, because both exist in the realm
of
imagination. The unimaginable images that are seen in a dream are
caused by
impressions – that is the opinion of philosophers and
psychiatrists.
Although Çré Çaìkaräcärya, in his commentary on Vedäntasütra
has torn
apart the concept of saàskära, on closer scrutiny it becomes
transparent
that his concept of a dreamlike universe and the philosophy
of saàskära
are one and the same – they differ only in nomenclature.
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya, when explaining the meaning of avidyä (nescience),
which
according to him is the cause of the universe, speaks of an
inexpressible
reality which is beyond existence and non-existence – when
this is
compared to Buddha’s concept of nothingness, no difference can
be
perceived. His analogy of ‘the oyster and silver’ infers that to
momentarily
mistake an oyster for silver is due to avidyä or
nescience,
and is
produced of ignorance (ajïäna). The false assumption that its
shine
makes it
silver depends upon one’s temporary and fallible angle of
perception.
Faith in appearances is firm as long as avidyä -
nescience
persists,
which is according to Buddhist understanding, only momentary.
By this
they postulate that the momentary assumption that the oyster is
silver is
nothing but ignorance, and as this ignorance is non-existent in
time –
past, present and future, it is false. The venerable Çré Räjendranätha
Ghoña made
the following hypothesis in regards to Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s
views:
“That
which does not exist has or makes an appearance – like this
universe;
whereas the one who truly exists does not make an appearance,
like brahman.” This
idea simply echoes the Buddhist view. Thus the
Buddhist scholar
and philosopher Jïänaçré’ said:
yat
sat tat kñaëikam
That
which appears real is but momentary, fleeting, hence it is
false.
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya, commenting on Buddha’s idea of ‘momentary
appearance,’
writes in his book Aparokñänubhüti, verse 44:
rajju-jïänat
kñaëenaiva yad vad rajjurhi sarpiné
Paraphrased
this reads;
The
mistaken appearance of a snake (sarpa) as a
rope (rajju),
The
Influence of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
54
Beyond Nirväëa
although
an illusion, is nevertheless a momentary one. In the same
way,
the illusory appearance of this universe is indeed momentary.
I ask our
respected readers to be the judge. What is the difference
between
Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s explanation of the momentary illusory
appearance
of the universe’s existence and Çäkya Siàha Buddha’s view of
the
absence of time continuum?
Brahman
and Void
I have
presented that, in regards to the universe, both Çré Çaìkaräcärya
and
Gautama Buddha accept the same conclusion. If the universe is nonexistent,
false,
momentary, a mere appearance or apparition, then what
is real
and eternally existent? – This is exactly what we are required to
ascertain
here. For the non-dualist Gautama Buddha çünya (void) is
reality,
and
eternally existent, meaning knowledge of çünya is the
highest
realisation.
For the impersonalist Saìkaräcärya, brahman is the
eternal
reality;
i.e. brahman realisation is the highest realisation. Earlier we quoted
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya saying, ‘that which has no appearance (form) is sat, reality
with
eternal existence’, while Buddha says that the unmanifest (without
appearance
or form) is çünya (void), or sat, eternal
reality. Çré Çaìkaräcärya
describes
this ‘sat’ as brahman, the
Absolute Truth, which is the same
concept as
Buddha’s çünyaväda or voidism. Furthermore, Çré Çaìkaräcärya
expertly
kept the concept of Buddha’s çünya intact and
protected while
replacing
it with the term brahman to mean the same thing. Additionally,
whatever
more the Buddhists had to say about çünya, Çré
Çaìkaräcärya
simply
repeated them in describing brahman. On careful
scrutiny therefore,
no
contradictions between çünya and brahman can be
found. I will further
establish
this fact as hard and fast with some examples.
Gautama
Buddha’s concept of Voidism
The
following quote is taken from Prajìä-päramitä Sütra an authoritative
Buddhist
text – sütra 16:
sudurbodhäsi
mäyaiva dåçyase na ca dåçyase
‘You (çünya) are
very difficult to understand; like an illusion you
are
manifest and unmanifest.
In the
Sütra 2 of this same book it is stated:
äkäçamiva
nirlepäà niçprapaìcäà nirakñaräm
yastaà
paçyati bhävena sa paçyati tathägatam
55
One
who perceives you as sky or ether – the void which is
detached,
non-material and formless is tathägata, has
realised
void.
In the
second round of the Buddhist text Añtasähasrikä-prajìä-päramitä
it is
written:
sarva
dharmä api devaputra mäyopamäù svapnopamäù
pratyag
buddho’pi mäyopamaù svapnopamaù
pratyag
buddhatvam api mäyopamaà svapnopamam
samyak
sambuddho’pi mäyopamaù svapnopamaù
samyak
sambuddhatvam api mäyopamaà svapnopamam
O Son
of God! All religions are illusions like a dream. Every
Buddha,
even all the Bodhisattvas (Buddhas) and all religious
teachings
are illusions like a dream.
Again in
the book Sarvadarçana-saìgraha, the
philosopher Säyana
Mädhava
has expounded Buddhist tenets in this manner in Doctrine 15:
mädhyamikäs
täavad uttama prajìä ittham acékathan
bhikñupäda
prasäraëa-nyäyena kñaëa-bhaìgädyabhidhäna mukhena
sthäyitva
anuküla vedanéyatva anugatva sarva-satyatva bhrama
vyävarttanena
sarva-çünyatäyäm eva paryavasänam
atas
tattvam sad asad ubhayänubhayätmaka catuñkoöi
The
most intelligent of Mädhyamikäs gave the analogy of a beggar
who
stretches his legs in discomfort. Thus, introducing the theory
of the
momentary non-existent nature of every experience, even
of
pain, once it is accepted as favourable. This defeats the
hypothesis
that everything exists. With this accomplished, all
theories
culminate in voidism. This factually means that beyond
the
four parameters – sat, asat
and neither of these two, lies the
state
of void.
In the
same book, Doctrine 21 explains the concept of çünya, void:
kecana
bauddhä bähyeñu gandhädiñu äntareñu
rüpädi-skandheñu
satsväpi taträn ästham utpädayituà
sarvaà
çünyam iti präthamikän vineyäncékathan
The
Influence of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
57
Verse
(45): “Beyond brahman,
which forms the ingredients and
cause
of the material universe, nothing else exists”.
Verse
(46): “brahman, is both the cause and
the source of the
living
entities. Therefore, all material dualities and distinctions
are
also brahman themselves,
– one should think in this way”.
Verse
(94): “Just as earth, water etc. are the ingredients required
for
the making of an earthen pot, similarly the ajïäna, or
nescience,
is the ingredient forming the material universe. It is
questioned
in the Upaniñads that once this nescience is removed
what
remains of matter, or the universe?”
From this
it is apparent that Çré Çaìkaräcärya espouses brahman to be
the primal
cause of the universe. In his view all living entities are generated
from brahman, and it
is again brahman who, due to ignorance becomes
manifest
as the universe. Once nescience is destroyed, then everything
that is
manifest (all living entities) is also destroyed and transformed into
brahman. The
universe is the breeding ground for duality, like fear and
suffering.
Çäkya Siàha Buddha tried to nullify the sufferings of the world
with the
weapon of Çünyaväda; voidism and Çré Çaìkaräcärya tried to
accomplish
the same with the weapon of the ‘brahman’ concept.
Thus for
the
purpose of neutralising material suffering, Çré Çaìkaräcärya applied
the path
of realising an impersonal brahman, where
Gautama Buddha
applied
his path of voidism. With the dissipation of the illusory or dreamlike
appearance
of the universe, one theory claims that brahman remains,
while
the other
claims that void remains. At this point it is important to reveal
the means
each proponent recommends for the dissipation of the false
appearance
of the universe. The exploration and analysis of this subject is
necessary
to gain a better understanding of the extent to which they concur
with each
other’s views.
The
Path of Salvation in Buddhism
Regarding
the means to attain mokña, salvation through Buddhism, Säyana
Mädhava
has written:
tat
dvividhaà tadidaà sarvaà duùkhaà dukhäyatanaà
duùkhasädhanam
ceti bhävayitvä tan nirodha upäyaà tattva jïänaà
sampädayet/
ata eva uktaà duùkha-samudäya-nirodhamärgäçcatväraù
äryabuddhasyäbhimatäni
tattväni/ tatra duùkhaà
prasiddhaà
samudäyo duùkha-käraëaà tad dvividhaà pratyayopanibandhano
hetupanibandhanaçca
The Influence
of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
56
Beyond Nirväëa
Some
Buddhists’ strategy to teach beginners is, to explain that
matter
and sense perception (scent, sight, hearing, tasting, etc.),
the
internal form, and even ‘sat’, are
all çünya, void. Thus, they
infuse
apathy in their students for all of these.
In Lalita
Vistära, chapter 21, this statement about Çäkya Siàha Buddha is
found:
samartha
dhanur gåhétvä çünya-nairätmavädine kleçäripun nihatvä
Çäkya
Siàha Buddha was able to nullify the sufferings of material
existence
with the bow of çünya and nairatmavad, void
and egoless-
ness.
From
numerous proofs such as those above, and all gleaned from
different
authoritative Buddhist scriptures, it may be concluded that the
nihilistic
concept of emancipation in void is like merging into the unlimited
expanse of
the sky – formless and immaterial. Furthermore, matter is the
metamorphosis
of çünya, void – the original cause, and everything is like
a dream,
an illusion. Although matter is momentary, nevertheless it’s
source and
original cause is çünya, void.
In the
Prajìä-päramitä Sütra it is stated: “As soon as the qualities and
characteristics
of a mango is separated from the mango it reaches void.’
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s concept of a non-qualitative brahman is merely
another
name for çünya. Buddha
says: “What does not possess action nor qualities
is çünya”; while Çré
Çaìkaräcärya says: “What does not possess qualities
is brahman.”
Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s Doctrine of ‘Brahman’
The
subject of the similarities between Çäkya Siàha Buddha’s voidism
and Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s ‘brahmanism’ require necessary and proper
comparison,
examples of which follow. Çré Çaìkaräcärya writes in his
book
‘Aparokñänubhüti,’ verses 45, 46 and 94:
upädänaà
prapaïcasya brahmaëonye na vidyate
tasmät
sarva prapaïco’yaà brahmaivästi na cetarat
brahmaëaù
sarva-bhütäni jäyante paramätmanaù
tasmäd
etäni brahmaiva bhavantéty avadhärayet
upädänaà
prapaïcasya mådbhäëòasyeva dåçyate
ajïänam
ca iti vedäntästan nañöaiva kä viçvatä
58
Beyond Nirväëa
By
realising that this universe is permeated by suffering and that
it is
the outreach of sorrow and the source of sorrow, one must
try to
attain philosophical knowledge as a means to extirpate
sorrow.
There are four paths to accomplish this. But according to
Buddha
all philosophical knowledge is a means to end sorrow.
Everyone
knows the definition of sorrow. But does anyone know
that
the universe itself is the cause of sorrow and suffering; this
cause
is of two kinds – ‘pratyayopanibandhana’ and
‘hetupanibandhana’,
connected to one’s feelings and connected
to the
cycle of cause and effect.
In
Prajìä-päramitä Sütra 17 this statement of self-praise is found:
margaste
meko moksasya iti niscayah meaning, “You are the only path of
salvation,
there is no other, this is certain.” In many books of the Buddhist
Mahäyäna
branch the Prajìä-päramitä’s path of salvation has been
acknowledged
as the most significant. Right in the beginning of the
Çatasahaçréka
prajìä-päramitä it is written:
Salvation
cannot be attained from any knowledge found
outside of
what is written in Prajìä-päramitä. Hence one must
hear and
read it with care and respect.
Elsewhere
in this book the following statement is found:
yä
sarvajïätayä nayaty upaçamaà çäntyaiñinaù çrävakän
yä
märgajïätayä jagaddhita kåpä lokärtha sampädikä
sarvakäram
idaà vadanti munayo viçvaàm jayä saìgatä
tasmai
çrävaka-bodhasattva gaëino buddhasya mätre namaù
By
whose compassion one attains complete knowledge, the Prajìäpäramitä
rewards
its readers, who desire peace, with complete
cessation
of all sorrows in material existence. It knows the path
that
leads to mokña. Thus it alone is the
source of benediction for
the
entire universe. I offer my respects to Bodhisattva Prajìäpäramitä
who is
in the form of a book.
The above
quotes from the Buddhist scripture lead us to conclude that
mokña
(the attainment of salvation in void, çünya) is
realisation of the
fundamental
truth or ‘Prajìä-päramitä’. What Buddhists exactly
understand
by this Prajìä-päramitä is explained in the first aphorism of
the
Prajìä-päramitä itself – Sütra 1:
nirvikalpe
namastubhyaà prajïä-päramite’ mite
yä
tvaà sarva anavadya aìgi nirvadyair nirékñase
59
Aho
Prajìä-päramitä! I offer my reverential worship unto You.
You
are absolute and immeasurable. Your limbs and construction
are
flawless. Hence only a faultless person alone is able to perceive
you.
If one was
to analyse every word of this verse it can be clearly seen
that the
path suggested by Çré Çaìkaräcärya for attaining brahman
concurs
fully with
this. The Buddhists postulate furthermore that cessation of the
two types
of causes mentioned above – pratyayopanibandhana (connected
to one’s
feelings) and hetupanibandhana (connected to the cycle of karma)
results in
moksa, salvation. Sayana Mädhava mentions this in his book:
tad
ubhaya nirodha karanäntaraà vimala jïänodayo vä
muktiù
tannirodhopäyo märgaù sa ca tattva jïänaà
tac
ca präcéna bhävanä baläd bhavati ité paramaà rahasyam
Paraphrased
it means,
When
these two causes are extirpated, pure knowledge blossoms;
in
other words, salvation is attained. Those who are qualified to
root
out and destroy these two causes, acquire absolute
knowledge.
This absolute knowledge or prajìä-päramitä, is
attained
only on the strength of ancient wisdom. This is an
extremely
recondite mystery. Once the cause is destroyed, the
effect
is automatically nullified – this is an axiomatic truth.
Thus
according to the Buddhist philosophy the only means to obtain
the void
is to nullify the cause that manifests the universe, and the method
of
nullifying, is to acquire absolute, immeasurable knowledge.
Salvation
as enunciated by Çré Çaìkaräcärya
Çaìkaräcärya
composed a poem entitled Kevalo`ham wherein he
delineates
the process of attaining salvation. Here we quote a verse from
that poem;
Verse 2:
brahma
bhinnatvävijïänaà bhava mokñasya käranam
yena
advitéyam änandaà brahmä saàpadyate budhaiù
Realisation
that brahman is
non-dual (non-different from the
universe),
is the state of salvation, liberation from material
existence.
Learned scholars attain that ‘one without a second’,
the
embodiment of bliss called brahman, by
this process of
realisation.
The
Influence of Buddhism on Çaìkaräcärya
60
Beyond Nirväëa
The next
verse is from his book Aparokçanubhuti, Verse 106:
tyägaù
prapaïca rüpasya cidätmatvävalokanät
tyägo
hi mahatäà püjyaù sadyao mokñamayo yataù
When
one directly perceives the enlightened self, one renounces
the
universe with all its material forms. This state of renunciation
is
venerated by great personalities, for it soon leads to salvation.
Direct
perception of the spiritual self or realising brahman’s
non-duality
etc., are
processes of attaining salvation. Realisation is postulated to be
the cause
that dissipates nescience or ignorance. Thus Gautama Buddha’s
concept of
prajìä (absolute knowledge) and Çré Çaìkaräcärya’s concept
of brahman-jïäna
(realisation of brahman) are one
and the same, with no
differences.
Çré Çaìkaräcärya has tried to bolster support and credibility
for the
above view by quoting extensively from Aitareya Upäniñadä and
commenting
on them in his book Çaririka bhäñya. He has cited mantras
like ‘prajïänam
brahma’ – (realised knowledge of brahman), ‘prajìäne
pratisthitam’ etc. Çré
Çaìkaräcärya’s commentary, as well as the
commentaries
of Çayanäcärya and others which all relied heavily on his
commentaries,
reveal that the word ‘prajìä’ meant ‘nirupadhika
caitanya’
–
‘enlightened consciousness in ego-less-ness’, and the word ‘pratisthita’
meant ‘the
illusory universe’.
There is
no doubt that Çré Çaìkaräcärya seized Çäkya Siàha Buddha’s
principle
of prajïä terming it ‘enlightened consciousness in an ego-less
state’,
and also took his concept of a momentary universe and defined it
with his
analogy of the rope and the snake. Çré Çaìkaräcärya further states
in his
Aparokçanubhuti 135:
kärye
käraëatä yätä käraëe na hi käryatä
käraëatvaà
tato gacchet käryäbhäve vicärataù
It is
possible that cause is inherent in effect, but effect is not
inherent
in the cause. Thus, by contemplating on the absence of
effect
the cause disappears.
In verse
139 of the same book he writes:
kärye
hi käraëaà paçyet paçcät käryaà vivarjayet
käraëatvaà
tato gacchet avaçiñöhaà bhaven muniù
Having
observed the cause in an effect, one should then reject it.
When
causation itself disappears, it is what remains that should
be
aspired for.
Om Tat Sat
(Continued...)
Post a Comment