Mahayana Buddhism and Early Advaita Vedanta (Study)

by Asokan N. | 2018 | 48,955 words

This thesis is called: Mahayana Buddhism And Early Advaita Vedanta A Critical Study. It shows how Buddhism (especially Mahayana) was assimilated into Vedantic theorisation in due course of time. Philosophical distance between Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita-Vedanta became minimal with the advent of Gaudapada and Shankaracharya, who were both harbinge...

Chapter 5.6 - Is Gaudapada a Buddhist?

Those who support the view that Gaudapada was a Buddhist bases their argument on the claim that there are remarkable similarities in between the teachings of Buddhism and that of Gaudapada. It is a fact that the issue of the non-self-theory challenges the claim and remains a riddle. But there are scholars who argues that Buddha nowhere denies the ‘Atman doctrine’ as is originally taught in the Upanishads. According to them, there is, on the other hand, every reason to believe that the Buddha held the doctrine of universal self as similar to that of the Upanishads.

S.N. Dasgupta has discussed the question whether Gaudapada was a Buddhist, in great detail and his conclusion is that:

There is sufficient evidence in the Karika for thinking that he was possibly himself a Buddhist and considered that the teachings of the Upanishads tallied with those of Buddha.… Gaudapada assimilated all the Buddhist Sunyavada and Vijnanavada teachings and thought that these hold good of the ultimate truth preached by the Upanishads. It is immaterial whether he was a Hindu or a Buddhist, so long as we are sure that he had the highest respect for Buddha and for his teachings which he believed to be his own.[1]

Prof. Vidhushekhara Bhattadharya is another great champion of Buddhism and has endeavored in his edition of Gaudapadiya-karika to prove that Gaudapada was merely reproducing the Buddhist philosophical ideas in his work and nothing more. While Prof. Dasgupta does not appear to have made a detailed study of the Karikas, and so confines himself to a few salient points in his criticism, Prof. Vidhushekhara goes further to uphold his thesis that Gaudapada was a Buddhist. Here we would be discussing the problem in a more general manner.

Mahadevan says that the scholars especially these two professors have ignored these basic facts in their enthusiasm to glorify Buddhism. He quotes the following verse that is traditionally regarded as giving the Guruparampara of Shankara:

“Narayanam padmabhavam vasishtam shaktim ca tatputraparasaram ca Vyasam sukam gaudapadam mahantham govinda yoggindramadhasya sisyam

Sri sankaracharya mathasya padmapadam ca hasthamalakom ca sisyam, Tam totakam varthikakaram manyanasmadgurun santhathamanathosmi”

Here Gaudapada is mentioned either as the teacher’s teacher (or at any rate a predecessor) of Shankara. If Gaudapada was a Buddhist it is simply unthinkable that his name is so solemnly remembered every day at the Shankarapithas. One can question the reliability of traditions in an intellectual argument, but it is not a justification to totally ignore an everyday practice.

Shankara in his Sutrabhashya, quotes Gaudapadakarika with the remark

“Aatrokta Vedantartha sampradayavidbhirachari anadimayaya suptou ete.” (1:16).

He thus refers to Gaudapada, most respectfully as a great Acarya who knows the traditional Vedanta teachings. Such a reference would be quite out of place, if Gaudapada had been a Buddhist.

The state of Moksha is called ‘brahmanyam padam’ (4:85) in the Karikas. It is difficult to accept that a genuine Buddhist refer to Moksha in terms of a rival philosophy. The Karikas have as their basis the Mandukyopanishad (in the first prakarana), quote Taittiriyopanishad by name, and are indebted to the Brihdaranyakopanishad and Candogyopanishad, the Bhagavatgita etc. for its doctrines. All these are Vedantic works. No Buddhist would have shown such reverence and preference for non-Buddhist works.

After having enunciated his doctrines, Gaudapada at the end of his work categorically says that his philosophy has not been taught by Buddha (Naitatbuddhena bhashitam 4:99). It is true that attempts have been made to explain away this passage, so as not to be regarded as anti-Buddhistic, but these carry no conviction. Gaudapada in 2:25, refers to the Buddhas (Mana iti manovido Buddheriti ca tadvidah) for the purpose of combating them. In 4:54, he comes to the conclusion ‘Evamna cittaja dharmaschttam vapi na dharmajam’ ‘thus showing that he does not hold the Vijnanavada of the Buddhas. Similarly the Bahyarthavadims are also shown to be wrong in their views.

In the face of the above positive pieces of evidence, it appears strange to accept the claim that Gaudapada is a Buddhist. We can now briefly consider the arguments put forth by S.N. Dasgupta and Bhattacharya.

It is contented that the expression ‘dvipadam varam’ in 4:1 refers to Gautama Buddha. We could see in the Karika in question how the Mahabharata uses this expression a number of times and that ‘dvipadam varam’ was never accepted as a peculiar epithet of Buddha. There is a greater probability of the expression referring to Narayana and Shuka.

There are various terms unique to Buddhist philosophy, used in his Karikas by Gaudapada, such as dharmadhathu, lokothara, thayin, deshita, vaisaradya, samvriti etc. This however might at the most prove that Gaudapada had studied Buddhist philosophy very well, which no one denies. We have seen, how Gaudapada uses some of the above terms (dharma, samvriti etc.) in a more or lessVedantic sense. Gaudapada did accept the Buddhist terminologies, in order to be in a better position to contradict the Buddhist tenets successfully.[2]

It is observed that the major tenet of Gaudapada is that of Asparshayoga is a new invention of Gaudapada in the Mandukya-karika But Karmarkar and other Vedantists denies and argues it is a term already used in the Mahabharata, Yoga Vasista and other ancient texts. Asparshayoga, referred to so respectfully in 4:2, is a characteristic feature in Buddhist philosophy. The usage of Asparshayoga is not actually found in Buddhist literature. Gaudapada owes that expression to the B.G which refers to, Matra sparshastu Kauntheya shitoshna sukhaduhkhadah B.G 2:14& 5:21 and consequently Asparshayoga is the panacea to end all misery.

The simile of the fire brand is peculiarly Buddhist. Gaudapada need not have gone to Buddhists for the simile. The alatha is found used in the Ramayana in Kishkinda kanda and in Mahabharata in Karnaparva. The idea of circling the fire-brand could have been easily suggested by the expression ‘Bhramayan sarva bhutani yanthrarudhani mayaya’ in the B.G. 18:61.

There are a large number of passages in G.K, which seem to be the echoes of the Mula-Madhyamika-karika of Nagarjuna. There is no need of any hesitation in admitting that Gaudapada has borrowed several ideas from his predecessors both Buddhists and Vedantims. Various passages in the Paramarta sara and Yogavasista can be shown to bear striking similarities with those in Gaudapada Karika.

The expression of Buddha in its various forms (Buddhaih, Buddhanam) has been used to refer to the Buddhists and the Gautama Buddha is directly mentioned in 4:9. Most probably Gaudapada would have used the word merely in the sense of ‘the wise one’. And Gaudapada has also borrowed several terms from pre-Buddhist heretic literature.

It would thus be seen that the attempt of certain scholars to prove that Gaudapada was a Buddhist and that he preached Buddhist philosophy or that he incorporated Buddhist ideas in the Upanishadic philosophy, cannot be said to be absolutely successful. There is no doubt that Gaudapada studied very carefully various philosophical systems current in his own time. Such as Samkhya, Yoga, Buddhism and the Gita. He received in addition to Upanishads other ideas from Buddhist philosophy, removed momentariness and Dependent origination which all schools of Buddhist philosophy accept. The teachings of Gaudapada can under no circumstances be described as identical with or approximating to those of Sunyavada of Nagarjuna.

And again R.D Karmarkar says

“Gaudapada thus seems to have been neither a Buddhist nor a Buddhist in disguise, but one who had a profound respect for Vedanta tradition and who evolved his doctrine of non-origination, after having studied the different systems of philosophy current in his time, and having found that they could not stand the test of logical reasoning. He was in short, a Vedantist, both by tradition and conviction; hence it was possible for Shankara and other Vedantists to take his philosophy as their firm basis to build their detailed theories up on.”[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

S.N. Dasgupta, A History of Indian Philosophy, p. 423.

[2]:

Raghunath Damodar Karmarkar, Gaudapada Karika, Bhandarkar Oriental Research

Institute Poona, 1953, p. 23-25.

[3]:

Ibid.

Like what you read? Consider supporting this website: