« It seems like religious superstition | Main | Power is not always knowledge »

March 31, 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

thezennist: I have not read Gauḍapāda but I have read works of Shankara (i'm from India). Personally, I'm influenced by Buddha's Dhamma and Ramana Maharishi's concept of Advaita philosophy. At the outset, both may seem to be propounding conflicting truths. But to me, the essence, finding deliverance from rebirth and attaining eternal peace, if it is by nirvana (I note the, possibly intentional, lack of clarity of what exactly constitutes nirvana - divinity or shunyata) or realizing Self does not matter. The path is same, through my own efforts I strive to be free from body, gross mind, and the ego. Somehow at a practical level, for me the experience of truth (however limited or basic) leads me to not lay excessive emphasis on finer details of ultimate end and just focus on the path (Vipassana method in my case). Further, the Dhamma and its methods makes it comparatively easier to pursue the path as there is no "seeking" at a level of meditation.

My point is these contemplation on origins or relationship between Advaita / Buddhism may be interesting but not really relevant.

It is like walking a razor's edge. How to experience mind without falling into idolatry? Here is the truth as I have experienced it: the enlightened beings don't need our praise, or anything at all, from us. They have truth, are truth. What does Buddha need from us? What is Buddha?

Seeking_truth0 : The question is how far was Gauḍapāda influenced by Buddhist thought? This further rests on the question, what is the Buddha’s message? The typical westerner wrongly believes, without basis, that the Buddha denied the ātman.

thezennist: "Advaita owes its birth and development to Buddhism.", Can you explain further? As per my understanding Upanishads which have glimpses of non-duality predates Buddhism. Further Advaita and Buddhism are poles apart in the ultimate truths despite the seemingly similar path.

Not here to argue, but to really understand.

Thanks. I find this very sad in one way because I read the Lankavatara Sutra and I think that this is the tradition, the penetrating truth. And clearly e.g. Hui-Neng understood it. But somewhere in the muck things were lost. It's like Advaita Vedanta is the backup plan, "Zen with a safety net" as I've come to think of it. After all, who was the more realized being in terms of seeing the Mind, Sri Ramana Maharshi or Shunryu Suzuki Roshi?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo