What is an Asrama? and Mayavada and Buddhism – Are They One and the Same?

Posted in Labels:















What is an Asrama?


( Advaita Acarya Dasa)






The karmi or the fruitive worker, who is only inclined to eat the fruits of his own labor, will always find it difficult to appreciate the concept of an asrama. Being always engaged in passionate pursuits to materially benefit himself, his family, friends, his town, state or country, how can he ever conceive of the transcendental nature of the selfless activities that completely form the foundation of asrama life? In his mind, the only criterion for any institution to exist is based upon how much it contributes materially to society – and he is more than ready to condemn any such institution that does not. He lacks the understanding that an asrama cannot be designated as a mere institution of this world. On the contrary, it is a place where the Supreme Lord Himself takes up residence in order to receive the loving service of His dear devotees.
Though an asrama is far beyond the scrutiny of any mundane observation, the fruitive worker dares to question its existence. Certainly, an asrama is not a place for that ass of a man who thinks that if God exists then He is only meant to supply the material necessities of society. On the other hand, when dry toil wears out those faithless laborers that are always vigorously endeavoring to attain their desires, they fall back on the misconception that merely abstaining from work will give them freedom from their current dissatisfaction. However, sooner or later they bounce back to perform fruitive work, realizing that they cannot hold their position by such abstention. Thus they meet dissatisfaction at every step. In the Bhagavad-gita Krsna says:
 na karmanam anarambhan naiskarmyam puruso’snute
na ca sannyasanad eva siddhim samadhigacchati
A man cannot attain the state of divine consciousness free from material action simply by abstaining from action. Neither can perfection be attained simply by renunciation. (Gita. 3.4)
 Furthermore, in the Srimad Bhagavatam we find the following verse:
naiskarmyam apy acyuta-bhava-varjitam
na sobhate jnanam alam niranjanam
kutah punah sasvad abhadram isvare
na carpitam karma yad apy akaranam
 Even if knowledge of the self is free from the reactions of mundane activities, it is unappealing if it is devoid of the proper conception of the Infallible Lord. What is the use of fruitive activities, which are always inauspicious, if they are not utilized for in the service of the Lord? (Bhag. 1.5.12)
Affinity to either artificial renunciation or exploitation of material nature is but a diseased condition and the normal position of the soul can only be through dedication to the Supreme Lord Sri Krsna. An asrama is thus a place that facilitates a lifestyle centered on the Supreme Lord and His teachings under the guidance of a bona-fide acarya.

The Definition Of Asrama
In a general sense asrama refers to a residence where holy people live and perform religious austerities. In Sanskrit the term asrama is broken down as – aryata sramyate yatra iti asramah. This means that an asrama is a place where people strive to attain immortality. Also, the term ‘asrama’ is derived from the Sanskrit root ‘srama’ that means exertion or fatigue. The term ‘asrama’ has been used in Sanskrit literature to mean both a place and mode of life associated with religious exertion, and also as a place where there is no exertion (a-srama). In a way, both usages are proper and can be harmonized to mean that an asrama is a place where there is no exertion for selfish material ends, but all exertion is only to serve the Supreme Lord and His devotees. Wherever this ideal is found, that place can be termed as an asrama irrespective of any material consideration. In such a mode of life the residents of the asrama never incur any karma, or reaction since their activities become transcendental. The same concept can be found in the following verse of Srimad Bhagavatam:
vanam tu sattviko vaso gramo rajasa ucyate
tamasam dyuta-sadanam man-niketam tu nirgunam
Residence in the forest is in the mode of goodness, residence in a town is in the mode of passion, residence in a gambling house displays the quality of ignorance, and residence in a place where I reside is transcendental. (Bhag. 11.25.25)

True Philanthropy
There is a widespread misconception amongst the spiritually illiterate people of the current age regarding the practical functions and obligations of an asrama. Indeed, there seems to be no discrimination amongst them whatsoever in judging what actually qualifies to be called an asrama. Any remote establishment in the countryside with a temple where people live a simple life passes off as an asrama. Moreover, nowadays people expect that an asrama should perform social welfare activities like building schools and hospitals, although such responsibilities solely rest on the national government.
It was the Christian missionaries, who came to India in the Eighteenth Century that introduced institutional welfare work to Indian society. Such philanthropic activities were used as a means to convert Hindus to Christianity. In order to counteract this, the Ramakrishna Mission and other Hindu asramas and religious institutions adopted similar welfare schemes.
However, the original ideal of an asrama is solely concerned with the spiritual upliftment of society and is totally independent of any obligation to perform any type of mundane social welfare. The crisis of birth, death, old age, and disease are the actual problems of this world, and the main objectives of an asrama should address the difficulty of how to escape the cycle of birth and death and reach the eternal spiritual platform. True philanthropic activities are eternal in nature, unlike those that simply feed the temporary necessities of bodily existence. Some may argue that a poverty stricken destitute will never be able to understand the philosophy of life unless he is fed properly. However, when there are enough people ready to listen to the spiritual message of the asrama, it is pointless to divert ones resources pursuing mundane philanthropy and thus neglect the main objectives of the asrama. This might sound similar to the utilitarian concept, “Maximum good to the maximum number of people” – the only variation being that the asrama is there to provide the maximum spiritual good to a maximum number of interested people. On the other hand, the intrinsic quality of a genuine Vaisnava is that he is para-duhkha-duhkhi – he is distressed to see the distressed condition of others. A Vaisnava will go out of his way to alleviate the miseries of such people to whatever little extent possible. Thus the concept of an asrama can be understood to be a wholesome environment built on spiritual foundations and objectives, collecting resources for its basic sustenance and projects, and sensitive to the miseries of the people in general.
Nowadays, politicians and world leaders are busy accumulating huge amounts of money for themselves and cheating the public in the name of economic development, while they constantly fight for more and more power. The devotees of the Lord, on the other hand, may also sometimes collect huge amounts of money – not for themselves but only to show that Krsna has sovereignty over everything that exists and to bring about a God conscious revolution amongst the masses. The devotees of the Lord don’t exist in order to enjoy the facilities of the asrama, neither do they retire to the forest to renounce everything. They find the golden means and constantly engage themselves in using everything in the service of the Lord. In reality there is no scarcity of basic necessities on this planet. A few people in power artificially create such scarcities out of narrow-minded greed. The devotees of the Lord stand up to fight such gross ignorance and uproot it from the source.

The Role of the Guardian
An asrama cannot be maintained as a place of informal get-togethers of neophytes who lack proper training in spiritual philosophy and etiquette. Such a place, lacking expert guidance, depending solely on textbooks and the subjective opinions of its members, can only lead to confusion and havoc. The guidance of a true guardian is necessary and is the very life of the asrama. Without submitting to the guardian by the way of initiation and receiving proper instructions to understand spiritual knowledge, the members are but nothing more than spiritual orphans.
tad-vijnanartham sa gurum evabhigacchet
samit-panih srotriyam brahma-nistham
In order to understand the Supreme, one should humbly approach a spiritual master who is learned in the scriptures and has full of faith in the Absolute. (Mundaka Upanisad 1.2.12)
The sastras describe the characteristics of a true spiritual preceptor in the following way:
krpa-sindhuh susampurnah sarva-sattvopakarakah
nihsprhah sarvatah siddhah sarva-vidya-visaradah
sarva-samsaya-samchetta nalaso gurur ahrtah
 One who is an ocean of mercy, who is fulfilled in all respects, who has all good qualities, who works for the benefit of all souls, who is free from lust, who is perfect in all respects, who is well-versed in the scriptures, who knows the science of Krsna, who can remove all the doubts of his disciples, and who is always alert in the service of Krsna is known as a genuine guru. (Hari-bhakti-vilasa 1.45-46)
The very nature of spiritual knowledge is that it is descending and can never be understood by any scholastic research. This means that it is passed down through the disciplic succession, or the parampara system, to the qualified student who has whole-heartedly submitted to his spiritual preceptor. Unlike material sciences that can be taught in a scholastic or empiric method, spiritual knowledge can only be realized within the heart by the process of surrender, sincere questioning and service to the spiritual master. Thus, if there is no spiritual master and only textbooks, the process is incomplete.

Asrama and Varnasrama
smartavyah satatam visnor vismartavyo na jatucit
sarve vidhi-nisedhah syur etayor eva kinkarah
Krsna (Visnu) should always be remembered and never forgotten at anytime. All rules and regulations mentioned in the sastra should be subservient to these two principles. (Padma Purana 6.71.100)
An asrama is built around the above concept centered on Krsna or Visnu. Apart from the physical meaning of a hermitage, the term asrama is also used in the sense of varnasrama, i.e. the four orders (asrama) or occupations (varna) to which every human being belongs. According to varnasrama there are four orders of life namely, brahmacari asrama (celibate student life), grhastha asrama (married life), vanaprastha asrama (life in the forest) and sannyasa asrama (the renounced order). Varnasrama based on ones occupation are again classified in four divisions – brahmana (priestly class), ksatriya  (administrative class), vaisya (merchant class), and sudra (worker class). The whole varnasrama system is structured around the principal of constantly serving the Lord and without it the structure becomes dysfunctional. The same has been explained in the following slokas of Srimad Bhagavatam:
mukha-bahuru-padebhyah purusasyasramaih saha
catvaro jajnire varna gunair vipradayah prthak
ya esam purusam saksad-atma-prabhavam isvaram
na bhajanty avajananti sthanad bhras†ah patanty adhah
From the mouth of Brahma, the brahminical order has come into existence. Similarly, from his arms, the ksatriyas have come, from his waist the vaisyas have come, and from his legs the sudras have come. These four orders and their spiritual counterparts (brahmacari, grhastha, vanaprastha, and sannyasa) combine to make human society complete. If one simply maintains an official position in the four varnas and asramas but does not worship the Supreme Lord Visnu, he falls down from his puffed-up position into a hellish condition." (Bhag. 11.5.3-4)
However, in the modern age, the essence of this varnasrama system as the guiding principal for all activities has been mostly lost. It is said in the scriptures, kalau sudra-sambhavah – “In the age of Kali everyone is a sudra.” The traditional social customs are not followed, although formerly they were followed strictly. Although externally the caste system which is mistakenly based on ones birth exists, the true essence of varnasrama can only be found in small groups of devotees who accept the daiva-varnasrama system. Daiva-varnasrama follows the original classification based on the natural qualities of a candidate, as opposed to congenital considerations. Moreover the followers of daiva-varnasrama place more emphasis on being a Vaisnava above any other classification of the varnasrama system. The scriptures enjoin that the Vaisnava is above the varnasrama system:
sat-karma nipuno vipro mantra-tantra-visaradah
avaisnavo guru na syad vaisnavah sva-paco guruh
A brahmana may be expert in mantra, ritual, and the six kinds of brahminical work performing and teaching sacrifice, studying and teaching scripture, giving and receiving charity but if he is not a Vaisnava he cannot be a guru. On the other hand, a Vaisnava, even if born in a family of untouchables, may be a guru. (Padma Purana)
With the advance of the age of Kali the moral and spiritual deterioration in society is very acute. The following verse in Srimad Bhagavatam gives some of the symptoms of the age of Kali:
dure vary-ayanam tirtham lavanyam kesa-dharanam
udaram-bharata svarthah satyatve dharstyam eva hi
daksyam kutumba-bharanam yaso ’rthe dharma-sevanam
 A holy place will be considered to be no more than a body of water located at a distance. Beauty will simply depend upon one’s hairstyle. Filling the belly will become the supreme goal of life and insolence will be accepted as truth. A man who can maintain his family will be regarded as an expert, and religious principles will be observed only for the sake of attaining fame. (Bhag. 12.2.6)
Consequently, to maintain a healthy Krsna conscious lifestyle is almost impossible without a facility where we may find the association of like-minded devotees and a spiritual environment where every object, action, or person reminds one of Krsna. Those who are intelligent enough to recognize the futility of the rat-race of material existence and are in search of a meaningful spiritual mode of life will always yearn to be a part of such a spiritual family or asrama. Those that submit their lives and become members of such a spiritual family are not bound to any obligation in this material world that they have left behind.
devarsi-bhutapta-nrnam pitrnam na kinkaro nayam rni ca rajan
sarvatmana yah saranam saranyam gato mukundam parihrtya kartam
 O King, a person who has given up all duties to take full shelter of Mukunda, who affords shelter to all, is no longer in debt to the demigods, sages, ordinary living beings, friends, relatives, mankind or even one’s forefathers. (Bhag. 11.5.41)

Conclusion
World peace is, and has been for many decades, a favorite topic of discussion for almost all kinds of people or institutions – be it the United Nations, political parties, environmental organizations, so-called spiritual or religious organizations, educational institutions and, cultural societies – they all harness popularity in the name of world peace. Yet war after war is being fought even after harping on so much over world peace. On introspection however, the truth is that peace initially begins at an individual level. As mentioned previously, inactivity cannot bring peace, as the very nature of the soul is dynamic and activities centered on bodily maintenance and enjoyment only lead to frustration. Just as in music, if even a single string is out of tune the result is an uneasy discord. Similarly, unless the soul co-operates favorably towards the organic scheme of Krsna Consciousness, it cannot attain peace. The asrama is thus not a sedentary place, full of the grave faces of people who were unsuccessful in vocations – it is a harmonious place sheltering fortunate people with fine intelligence that have found the true joy of the soul in the transcendental service of the Supreme Lord Sri Krsna.








Mayavada and Buddhism – Are They One and the Same?


 (Swami B.V. Giri)






In the Padma Purana, there is a famous verse wherein Siva tells Parvati that he will appear in the age of Kali as a brahmana to preach asat-sastra:
mayavadam asat-sastram
pracchanam-baudham ucyate
mayaiva kalpitam devim
kalau brahmana rupinah
O goddess, in the age of Kali, I will appear in the form of a brahmana to preach the false doctrine of Mayavada which is simply covered Buddhism. (Padma Purana 6.236.7)
Indisputably, the brahmana mentioned in the verse is none other than the great Indian philosopher of monistic Vedanta, Adi Sankara. A few verses later Siva continues:
vedarthan maha-sastram mayavadam avaidikam
mayaiva kathitam devi jagatam nasakaranat
 This powerful doctrine of Mayavada resembles the Vedas, but is by nature non-Vedic. O goddess, I propagate this philosophy in order to destroy the world. (Padma Purana 6.236.11)
 The term ‘Mayavada’ refers to the Advaitic theory that the appearance of this world and the duality within it is due to maya – the illusory power of Brahman. This world is unreal and is a vivarta, or a modification through maya. Brahman is the only reality. There are various reasons why this theory is untenable, but that is not the topic of this article.
 ‘Mayavada’ is an expression that is rarely used by Advaitins in referring to themselves or their doctrine as it carries with it a derogatory implication. Adi Sankara himself referred to his philosophy as abheda-darsana (the theory of non-difference) or as dvaitavada-pratisedha (the denial of dualism). However, amongst scholars his philosophy is generally known as kevaladvaita-vada (the theory of absolute non-dualism) or simply Advaita.
From the above verses from Padma Purana it is clear that even before it’s actual inception, Advaita philosophy was considered to be ‘covered Buddhism’. Sankara’s opponents such as Madhva, Ramanuja, Partha-sarathi Misra and Bhaskara associated his teachings with Buddhism mainly due to his theory of nirguna Brahman and his concept of maya. Such accusations have always incensed the Mayavadis and they have strongly protested against such parallels and made great efforts to distance themselves from Buddhism, condemning it as absolute nihilism.
SANKARA’S ACCUSERS
Bhaskara (9th Century CE), the propounder of bhedabheda-siddhanta was one of the earliest Indian philosophers to attack Mayavada. In his commentary on Vedanta-sutra, Bhaskara does not mention Sankara by name, nor does he mention the name of his philosophy. However by reviewing his arguments against the monistic doctrine of maya and the Advaitic concept of anirvacaniya, it is obvious who and what he is alluding to.
Bhaskara is positively vitriolic when writing about the Advaitin’s concept of maya, referring to it’s adherents as bauddha-matavalambin (those that cling to Buddhist ideology) and goes on to say that their philosophy reeks of Buddhism (bauddha-gandhin). Bhaskara concludes that, “No one but a drunkard could hold such theories” and that Mayavada is subversive of all sastrika knowledge:
vigitam vicchinna-mulam mahayanika-bauddhagathitam mayavadam vyavarnayanto lokan vyamohayanti
Expanding on the contradictory and baseless philosophy of maya propagated by the Mahayanika Buddhists, the Mayavadis have misled the whole world. (Bhaskara’s Brahma-sutra-bhasya 1.4.25)
In his Siddha-traya, the Vaisnava philosopher Yamunacarya (917–1042 CE) stated that Buddhism and Mayavada was essentially the same thing. The only difference he could see was that while one was openly Buddhist (prakata-saugata), the other was simply covered (pracchana-saugata).
Following on from Yamunacarya, his disciple Sri Ramanuja (1017-1137 CE) also concurred that Mayavada was another form of Buddhism. In his Sri Bhashya commentary on the Vedanta-sutras, Ramanuja says that to claim that non-differentiated consciousness is real and all else is false is the same as the Buddhist concept of universal void. Furthermore, Ramanuja states that the concepts of such crypto-Buddhists make a mockery of the teachings of the Vedas (veda-vadacchadma pracchana-bauddha).
Another acarya in the line of Ramanuja, Vedanta Desika (1269–1370) wrote his famous Sata-dusini, a text expounding one hundred flaws found in Mayavada. In that work he refers to Sankara as a rahu-mimamsaka (one who obscures the true meaning of Vedanta), a bhrama-bhiksu (a confused beggar), a cadmavesa-dhari – one who is disguised in false garb, and goes on to assert that, “By memorizing the arguments of the Sata-dusini like a parrot, one would be victorious over the crypto-Buddhists.”
In another work, Paramata-bhangam, Vedanta Desika refers to Sankara as, “One who studied the Vedas in the shop of a Madhyamika Buddhist” (referring to Sankara’s param-guru Gaudapada of whom we will speak of later in this article).
Later philosophers also declared Mayavada to be crypto-Buddhism. The Sankhya philosopher Vijnana-bhiksu (1550–1600 CE) tried to reconcile Vedanta with Sankhya philosophy and synthesize all theistic schools of Indian thought into a philosophy that he called Avibhagadvaita (indistinguishable non-dualism). He was an impartial writer who analyzed both the merits and problems of the various doctrines that he encountered. Concerning Sankara’s philosophy, Vijnana-bhiksu states in his Sankhya Pravacana Bhasya:
brahma-mimamsayam kenapi sutrenavidya-matrato bandhasyanuktatat. avibhago vacanaditya-sutrair-brahma-mimamsaya abhipretas-yavibhaga-laksanadraitasy-avidyadivastavatve’pyavirodhaccha. yat tu vedanta-bruvanamadhunikasya mayavadas-yatra lingam drsyate tat tesamapi vijnanavadyeka-desitaya yuktameva.
There is not a single Brahma-sutra in which bondage is declared to be a mere deception. As to the novel theory of maya propounded by vedanta-bruva (those who claim to be Vedantists), it is only another type of Buddhist of the Vijnanavada school (vijnana-vadyekadesin). This theory has nothing to do with Vedanta and it should be understood that this doctrine of these new Buddhists, who assert the theory of maya and reduce our bondage to mere illusion is in this way refuted. (Sankhya Pravacana Bhasya 1.22)
Later on in his work, Vijnana-bhiksu also quotes the famous verse from Padma Purana (mayavadam asat-chastram). Vijnana-bhiksu considered Buddhism to be nastikavada, or atheism, as it was opposed to Vedic thought. Thus, in effect, he was declaring Mayavadis to be out and out atheists.
Amongst all acaryas and philosophers, Sri Madhvacarya was certainly the most hostile towards Sankara. Throughout his campaign to establish his philosophy of Dvaitavada, Madhva continuously attacked Mayavada, which he considered to be the worst kind of heresy. In his Anu-vyakhyana, Brhad-bhasya and Tattvodyota, Madhva also makes the claim that the Advaitins are crypto-Buddhists – na ca sunyavadinah sakasad vailaksanyam mayavadinah (there is no doctrinal difference between Buddhism and Mayavada). He even quotes Buddhist texts and compares them to Advaitin works to prove his point.
At this point it would only be fair to see what Sankara himself has to say about Buddhism.

SANKARA’S ‘CRITICISM’ OF BUDDHISM
Sankara has long been glorified as being the principle architect behind Buddhism’s eventual decline in India. We do not know whether or not Sankara personally debated with Buddhist scholars since all the traditional hagiographies about him were written much later between the 14th and 17th Centuries and are an inextricable combination of legend and history.
What is certain is that by the time Sankara came to prominence, Buddhism was already on the wane in India. Buddhist scholars coming from China lamented the collapse of the Buddhist sanga due to Muslim assaults and the invasion of the White Hunas (Sveta Hunas or Turuskas) in Northern India during the 6th Century CE. During this period there was a resurgence of Vedic thought due to the patronage of such royal dynasties as the Guptas. Thus Sankara cannot be fully credited with the fall of Indian Buddhism.
During the time of Sankara there were three main schools of Buddhism – Vijnanavada (subjective idealism), Bahyarthavada (representationalism) and Madhyamika or Sunyavada (voidism).  In his commentaries on the Upanishads, Sankara’s arguments against Buddhism are rather tame. However, when it comes to his refutations in his Brahma-sutra-bhasya, Sankara is quite derogatory and pens a vitriolic character assassination of Buddha:
api ca bahyartha vijnana sunyavada trayam itaretara viruddham upadisata sugatena spandikrtam atmano sambandha pralapitvam, pradveso va prajasu viruddhartha-pratipattya vimuhyeyurimah praja iti.
Thus by inventing three contradictory systems – the reality of the world, the reality of knowledge and total voidism – it is clear that Buddha was either a man who simply made delirious statements, or else he had a hatred for mankind that induced him to create such a stupid philosophy so that they would become confused. (Sarirka-bhasya 2.2.32)
Sankara indeed made efforts to refute some of the Buddhist concepts found in Vijnanavada and Bahyarthavada, but made no strong attempts to defeat Sunyavada. Sankara writes in his Saririka-bhasya:
sunyavadi-paksastu sarvapramanavipratisiddha iti tannirakaranaya nadarah kriyate. nahyayam sarvapramanaprasiddho lokavyavaharo’nyattattvamanadhigamya sakyate  ‘pahnotumapavadabhava utsarga-prasiddheh
The third type of Buddhist doctrine that states that everything is void is contradicted by all means of right knowledge and thus requires no special refutation. This apparent world, whose existence is guaranteed by all means of knowledge, cannot be denied unless someone should discover some new truth (based on which he could impugn its existence) – for a general principle is proved by the absence of contrary instances. (Sarirka-bhasya 2.2.31)
Sankara dismisses Sunyavada as nihilism as it does not accept a higher reality after rejecting the phenomenal world. However, this accusation of Sankara’s is false since Sunyavada endorses the higher reality of the present moment directly experienced here and now. This is the only real criticism that Sankara makes of Sunyavada. Ultimately Sankara simply dismisses Sunyavada as being unworthy of criticism.

It is obvious from his commentary that Sankara attempted to distance himself from Buddhism. Yet his casual dismissal of Sunyavada and his gross misinterpretation of its doctrine are suspicious and need to be analyzed further.
MAYAVADIS APPLAUD BUDDHISM

It would be unreasonable to simply accuse Sankara of being a crypto-Buddhist simply on the basis of what his opponents have said without further examining the reasons for such accusations.
Throughout history, Mayavadis themselves recognized certain similarities between Buddhism and Advaitavada and have even complimented Buddhist ideology. The Advaitin scholar, Vimuktatman (9th Century CE) agrees with Sankara that Sunyavada Buddhism is nihilism, but admits in his famous work Ista-siddhi that if the Buddhists mean maya when they use the term asat, then their position is similar to that of the Vedantin.
Similarly, Sadananda Yogindra states that if the Buddhists define sunya as, ‘That which is beyond the intellect,’ then the Buddhist is actually a Vedantist.
Although the Advaitin Sriharsa accepts some differences between Advaita and Buddhism, he considers both schools of thought to be similar. Later, Sriharsa’s commentator Citsukha even comes to the rescue of the Sunyavada Buddhists by fending off the Vedic Mimamsakas when they attack the Buddhist concept of ignorance (samvrtti).

The Advaitin scholar Vacaspati Misra (900-980 CE) shows appreciation for the Buddhists when he states in his Bhamati commentary that the Buddhists of the Sunyavada school were advanced in thought (prakrstamati).
If ‘imitation is the highest form of flattery.’ then it certainly must have been true when Sankara plagiarized the famous Buddhist scholar Dharmakirti by directly lifting verses from Dharmakirti’s Pramana-viniscaya and using them in his Upadesa-sahasri. One example is the following:
abhinno’pi hi buddhyatma viparyasitadarsanaih
grahya-grahaka-samittir bhedavan iva laksyate
The intellect itself, though indivisible, is looked upon by deluded people as consisting of the divisions of the knower, knowing and the known. (Upadesa-sahasri.18.142)

GAUDAPADA – BUDDHIST OR ADVAITIN?
Sankara’s doctrine of maya has been one of the principle reasons that he has been accused of being a closet Buddhist. Yet it was actually Sankara’s parama-guru, Gaudapada who posited the idea of maya or ajativada in his famous Mandukya-karika.
Ajativada refers to the theory of non-creation. In his karika Gaudapada claims that the world of appearances is actually maya and does not factually exist. So this theory of maya/ajativada does not originate with Sankara.
However, it does not originate with Gaudapada either…

Prior to Gaudapada, it was Nagarjuna that first postulated the concept of ajativada in his Madhyamika-karikas. In his Mandukya-karika, Gaudapada writes:
khyapyamanamajatim tairanumodamahe vayam
vivadamo na taih sardhamavivadam nibodhata
We approve of the ajati declared them (the Buddhists). We do no quarrel with them. (Mandukya-karika 4.5)
It is even affirmed by Sankara himself that Gaudapada accepted the arguments of the Buddhists regarding ajativada:
vijnanavadino bauddhasya vacanam bahyarthavadi-paksha-pratishedha-param acaryena anumoditam
 The acarya (Gaudapada) has accepted the words of the Vijnanavada Buddhist (Nagarjuna) to prove the unreality of external things. (Sankara’s commentary on Gaudapada’s Karika 4.27)
Gaudapada’s affiliation with Buddhism does not stop there. Gaudapada also gives arguments that are akin to those of the Buddhist scholar Vasubandhu in order to prove that the phenomenal world is unreal by equating the dream state with the waking state.
Furthermore, the two illustrations of the city of the Gandharvas (gandharva-nagara) and the magic elephant (maya-hasti) that Gaudapada uses in his karika to prove the illusory nature of the world are both found in Mahayana Buddhist literature.

In the fourth chapter of Mandukya-karika a case of similar terminology is found between Gaudapada and Nagarjuna. Gaudapada writes in his karika (4.7):
prakrter anyathabhavo na katham cid bhavisyati
And we find a similar verse in Nagarjuna’s Madhyamaka-karika (15.8):
prakrter anyathabhavo na hi jatupapadyate
The title of the fourth chapter of his karika is Alatasanti (circle of fire) which is a word commonly found in Buddhist texts. But probably the biggest give-away is in the fourth chapter of the karika:
nivrttasyapravittasya nishcala hi tada sthitih
visayah sa hi buddhanam tatsamyamajamadvayam
Thus, the mind freed from attachment and undistracted attains a state of immutability. Being realized by the wise, it is undifferentiated, birthless and non-dual. (Mandukya-karika 4.80)
upalambhatsamacaradastivastutvavadinam
jatistu desita buddhaih ajatestrasata sada
For those who, from their own experience and right conduct, believe in the existence of substantiality, and who are ever afraid of the birthless, instruction regarding birth has been imparted by the wise. (Mandukya-karika 4.42)
The Sanskrit word Gaudapada has chosen to refer to the wise is ‘buddha’!
Scholars have pointed out that Gaudapada’s method of dialectical analysis almost mirrors that of Nagarjuna, thus it is obvious that Mahayana Buddhism heavily influenced Sankara’s parama-guru. Despite glaring proof to the contrary, Gaudapada still tried to distance himself from Buddhism by writing at the end of the fourth Chapter of his work, naitad buddhena bhasitam – “My views are not the views held by Buddha.”
Indeed, Gaudapada’s karika is permeated so much with Madhyanika Buddhist thought that some scholars have suggested that he may have previously been a follower of Nagarjuna.

BUDDHIST CONCEPTS WITHIN MAYAVADA
We will now examine other examples where Buddhism has infiltrated Mayavada philosophy.
Two Truths
Sankara postulates that there are two ways of looking at the world. There is a conventional perspective (vyavaharika-satya) where the world appears to be pluralistic, and there is the higher perspective (paramarthika satya) where one realizes that all duality is simply illusory and everything is Brahman.
However, this concept of ‘two truths’ did not originate with Sankara but with the Buddhist scholar Nagarjuna. Nagarjuna refers to these two truths as samvrtti-satta and paramartha-satta. Nagarjuna’s theory was enthusiastically taken up by Sankara in order to explain higher and lower fields of knowledge.

The Non-Existence of the Universe
Buddhism states that the universe is unreal (asat). Since its origin is sunya and it ends in sunya, logically, its interim must also be sunya. Thus they conclude that ultimately the element of time also does not exist. This means that the sum-total of everything in the universe is sunya.
Sankara also posits the same idea when he states jagat-mithya – the universe is false. Sankara rejects all three phases of time (past, present and future) when he writes in his Dasa-sloki:
na jagran na me svapnako va susuptir
I do not experience the waking state, the dream state nor the state of deep sleep. (Dasa-sloki 6)
If one dissolves all states of being that we experience (waking, dreaming and deep sleep), then naturally this eliminates time itself and the only ‘property’ remaining is void, or sunya.
Sankara describes the ultimate cause of the universe as avidya (ignorance). It has no past, present and future. However, conveniently, Sankara explains that this avidya cannot be fully explained philosophically because of its immense propensity – thus he calls it anirvacaniya (inexplicable). Both the asat of the Buddhist and the anirvacaniya of the Mayavadi accept the momentary ‘reality’ of the universe (vyavaharika-satya), it’s ultimate falsity (paramarthika-satya) and its incomprehensible nature – thus asat and anirvacaniya are one and the same thing.
Whereas Buddhists refer to the phenomenal universe as an impression (samskara), Sankara says that it is like a dream (svapna). However, this is just a matter of semantics –both dreams and impressions are in essence the same thing since they only occur on the mental platform.

Ignorance
Both the Mayavadi and the Buddhist agree that ignorance is the cause of suffering. The Mayavadi calls this avidya and the Buddhist refers to this as samvrtti. The Mayavadis go to great lengths to make differentiations between the two. However, the Buddhist scholar Candrakirti give the following etymological meaning of samvrtti:
Samvrtti is not knowing, caused by the veil of avidya, common to all. (Prasannapada 24.8.492.10)
Thus we conclude that the two terms are actually non-different.
Sadhana
The Mayavadi claims that the method of achieving moksa is realization of the non-difference between the atma and Brahman. The Buddhist says that realization that everything is ultimately sunya is the sadhana to attain liberation. Sankara defines moksa thus:
brahma bhinnatva-vijnanam bhava-moksasya karanam
yen’advitiyam anandam brahma sampadyate budhaih
The realization of one's inseparable oneness with Brahman is the means of liberation from temporal existence, by which the wise person achieves the non-dual, blissful nature of Brahman. (Viveka-cudamani 223)
This theory is identical with the Buddhist concept of prajna.  In Buddhism, when the causes of bondage are eliminated one attains realization of sunya which leads to liberation. This realization is known as prajna.

Moksa and Nirvana
Advaita defines moksa as the removal of avidya. Buddhists say that by the removal of samvrtti, one attains nirvana. Both conceptions of liberation are identical.

Brahman and Sunya
Once again, the Mayavadis go to great lengths to prove that their concept of Brahman and the Buddhist concept of sunya are totally different. The Mayavadis argue that by attaining Brahman one achieves ananda, but there is no ananda in sunya.  However, the great Dvaita scholar Raghuttama Tirtha has shown that there is no distinction between the two:
You Mayavadis desire to become Brahman or to become bliss.  You do not say, ‘We want to experience bliss.’ You say, ‘We want to become bliss’.  When one becomes bliss, according to you, one has no consciousness of bliss.  One does not enjoy bliss because you don’t believe that there is any consciousness of any enjoyment in that condition because you say the Self cannot become the object of Self-consciousness. According to you, Brahman is merely bliss and light. This cannot be the highest end.  It is a state of inertness.  It is thus like saying, ‘I do not want to taste sugar, or its sweetness – but I wish to become sugar.’ What is the good of one’s becoming sugar, if one has no consciousness of its sweetness? The lack of consciousness cannot be the highest end of man; in fact, there is no difference in this unconscious brahma-bhava of the Mayavadi, and the sunya-bhava of the Buddhists. (Bhava-bodha sub-commentary of the Brhad-bhasya)
According to Advaita, Brahman is nirguna (without any qualities). But logically speaking, something that is without any attributes whatsoever is as good as nothing (sunya). If something has eternal existence (as the Mayavadis claim Brahman has) then it must have attributes, otherwise it is nothing. Since the Mayavadis Brahman and the Buddhists sunya have no attributes, they must be identical.
Conclusion
The concepts of maya, avidya, vyayaharika-satya and paramarthika-satya, advaya, prajna, the unreality of the universe and time and the attributeless Brahman are all Buddhist contributions, without which there would be no Advaita philosophy. It thus becomes obvious why Sankara was disinclined to launch an all out attack upon Sunyavada Buddhism when he and his predecessor Gaudapada had appropriated so much from that doctrine.
In conclusion, by carefully analyzing the above points it would seem that Sankara’s detractors were correct in assessing that his philosophy was crypto-Buddhism. It can clearly be observed that Sankara and Gaudapada attempted to amalgamate Buddhist epistemology and psychology with the metaphysics of the Upanishads and Vedanta. Thus, from an orthodox standpoint, this automatically disqualifies Advaitavada as a traditional school of Vedic thought.


















Om Tat Sat
                                                        
(Continued...) 



(My humble salutations to  H H Sri Swami Advaita Acharya Dasa ji and  H H Sri Swami B V Giri ji  for the collection)


(The Blog  is reverently for all the seekers of truth, lovers of wisdom and   to share the Hindu Dharma with others on the spiritual path and also this is purely  a non-commercial blog)



 


0 comments