Chapter 6 - Critical Evaluation

Indian Philosophy consists of all the trends in the evaluation of human thinking and thought which enriches the culture of man. The schools of Nyaya and Vaisheshika have played a role in the development of Sankhya. Atheist Sankhya is one of the oldest philosophies in India. It accepts twenty five principles. Prakriti received the reflection of the Purusha by consciousness or (cit). Sankhya and Yoga are complementary and for self-transformation.

“But the deeper implications of the correlation of senses and objects are not brought out by the Sankhya except saying that both originate in the ego (ahamkara).”^[1]

In Indian philosophical tradition, Buddhism and Advaita schools are different streams converging in human search for liberation. In general, Buddhist philosophy especially Madhyamika metaphysics has different conception of liberation and it also logically analyze Anatma tradition by reestablishing the Tathagatha’s teachings. The development of Advaita Vedanta emphasizes the Atman tradition established in the Upanishads and other Shrutis like Bhagavat-gita and Brahma-sutra. When the Madhyamika literature exposes the very essential teachings of Buddha in the sutras and Abhidharmas, the main source of Buddhism is only meant to destroy the weeds of the life cycle. Mrs. Rhys Davids has pointed out that the Buddha is a critic of Brahmanism only in an external matters and the internal system of spiritual cultures he takes for granted.^[2]

The more superficially we study Buddhism, the more it seems to differ from the Brahmanism in which it originated and more profound our study, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish Buddhism from Brahmanism, or to say in what respects, if any, Buddhism is really unorthodox. During Buddha’s time, Brahmanism was in its extreme format and really a sacrificial religion with it goes with fire worship.^[3]

Buddha says,

“I pile no wood for fires or altars,
I kindle a flame within me
My heart the hearth the flame the self”

Buddha gave his last message as,

“Be such as have the self,
As your lamp, self as only refuge,
The law as lamp and only refuge”

The similar ideas are told in the Svetasvatara Upanishad as:

“If the light of the lamp–the bridled man by means of his Own self-suchness” (Svt. Up. II:15).

Even Brihadaranya Upanishad also emphatically states,

“The spirit (Atman) is our light, when all other lights have gone out” (Brih. Up. IV:3:6).

These Upanishadic ideas and words of criticism acknowledge that Buddhism is the real outcome of Hinduism. It has a historical origins and gradual growth in the Indian Philosophical arena.

According to A. K. Coomaraswamy,

“The intention of the Buddha was clearly to restore the truth in the ancient doctrine.”^[4]

P T. Raju observes about the development of Indian religion in his book ‘Structural Depth of Indian Thought’ as:

“The word Atman also occurs in the pre-Upanishadic, parts of the Veda. Originally it meant breath, and by gradual stages came to be identified with the self and spirit in man and even with the Brahman in meaning.”^[5]

“The highest in man’s being is also the deepest. It is the highest because it is the most desirable, and it is the deepest because it is the ground of his being. The drive of Indian thought then is an incessant and towards ontological being.”^[6]

Buddhism was intellectually dominant in the period of Gaudapada. The Chapter three and four, both proves that Buddhist works and thoughts have influenced Gaudapada. At the same time he was distanced from a Buddhist, with Madhyamika ideas in his mind he formulated Advaita Vedanta.

The twelve linked formula of causation (i.e.) the depending arising is the foundation of Buddhist philosophy.

“This cycle of existence is the general principle that all phenomena arise in dependence upon causes and conditions i.e. everything causes into being only in a relation of dependence upon something.”^[7]

“The teaching of dependent origination is said to avoid two extreme views, that there is something permanent (shashvata) and the other extreme that there is nothing that endures (nechedavada). Buddha’s view is a middle way between these two extreme positions; he taught that while all things do have continuity, it is the continuity that belongs to a changing series. Each member of the series is impermanent; a member of the series arises in a condition of dependence upon the previous member and, in turn, provides the condition for the arising of the next member of the series. Thus, Buddhism teaches the middle way between the extremes of being and non-being.”^[8]

Nagarjuna, the founder of Madhyamika Philosophy re-established the principle of dependent origination and developed it into dialectic which stresses on ‘Svabhava Shunyata’. His argument was, if something has an essential nature it could exist independently in its own right. According to Buddha, all things originate only in dependence upon other things. Things have no essential nature (nisvabhavata). Everything is empty of an essential nature (Svabhava Shunya). Therefore everything is empty (Shunya). Emptiness is the equivalent of nisvabhavata which is the outcome of the understanding of dependent origination. It is the emptiness of the Phenomena. This is the correct understanding of the middle way, because it avoids the two extremes of performance and annihilation. Thus, Madhyamika declares ‘the being and non-being, and samsara and nirvana are also relational’. So the Madhyamika dialectic becomes the theory of relativity in its essence and nature.

Michael Comans says,

“Gaudapada ought not to be considered a Buddhist and his Brahman is changeless. Therefore, world is an appearance of Brahman. Gaudapada have been initially inspired by the teachings of Mahayana, but his whole approach is fundamentally Upanishadic.”^[9]

The Upanishadic literature or the major Upanishadic texts can be divided into three categories, early Upanishads, middle-later, and new Upanishads. It is sure that the earlier Upanishads are the real seeds (stuff) which are the cardinal sources of Gaudapadiya-karika

It is generally accepted that the earliest stratum contains the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Chandogya Upanishad. The middle Upanishads such as Aitareya, Prashna, Mundaka shows upanishadic ideas is an accepted fact. Upanishadic literatures have influenced Gaudapadiya-karika largely and distinctively.

Upanishadic thinkers were also in search of truth through their intuition and personal experiences. Their question was on the place of man in the universe and the nature of individual self.

Richard King pointed out that their enquiry was on:

“Atman, the Upanishads agree, is the true self of each living being that which constitutes its real essence. What was the precise nature of this existence or what was the relation with macrocosmic and microcosmic entity, the self-consciousness? (ego consciousness).”^[10]

This was the real and main question of both the Buddhists and the Vedantims.

“The motion of a transmigrating agent (samsarin) emphasized the fact that the true self (Atman) of a person was not just the person embodied in the present lifetime. The self has experienced a myriad of different existence in different bodies and in different circumstances. This re-incarnating self constitutes the permanent essence, the intrinsic nature of each individual. As such our bodies are merely vehicles or chariots and it is only through ignorance that the individual continues to spend his or her life wrongly associating their true self (Atman) with the ephemeral embodied self (shariratman).”^[11]

What is the true nature of self? It is self-sacrifice through one’s own karmas i.e. external performance of rituals and internal performance of asceticism. All the activities like–thought, sensation, passions and desires -that would:

“Eventually precipitate an institutive realization of one’s true nature as ‘Atman’, the permanent self that lies behind the many lives experienced during the cycle of rebirths. The goal is the attainment of knowledge, a mystical gnosis of one’s true self, the permanent essence of conscious existence beyond the incessant round of rebirths. It is in the Upanishads, then, that we find the establishment of a new spiritual goal, that of moksha, the realization of truth.”¹²

Buddhist Philosophy, in its latest stages, became so similar to Vedanta that it was eventually assimilated into it and because of this Buddhism started to lose justification for separate existence, gradually disappeared from India (Its homeland), except for a few border areas.

P.T. Raju radically criticizing the Buddhist philosophy and assumes that:

“One will be justified also in saying that it has not disappeared from India, but forms part of the life blood of Indian outlook and culture, for Buddha is still venerated as an incarnation of the supreme godhead in its aspect as mercy and compassion (karuna) and his philosophical, ethics, and religious concepts are incorporated into all the great philosophies of spiritual life.”^[12]

The common factor between Buddhism and the Yoga is that the world is a continual, becoming, a process, a flow, and a transformation and that the yogic concept of citta, the Buddhist concept of Alaya-vijnana, and Vedantic concepts of bijatman, karmasharira, citta, avijnana perform the same functions.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad is one of the major sources of Vedanta which describes the states of waking, dreaming etc. But Mandukya and then the Mandukya-karika of Gaudapada goes further into the investigation of human mind and its consciousness in a more psychological and scientific method.

“Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and Mandukya Upanishad are describing the four states of human mind and its indefinable functions. Mandukya clearly differentiates the dreaming state (svapna) from the dreamless state, whereas the distinction between the two states is not always clear in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad which conflates these two states.”^[13]

Mandukya Upanishad and Mandukya-karika explicitly analyzes the four states of consciousness and svapnasthana, into two, first dreaming and second dreaming and the third one is dreamless state and the Turiya the fourth can be analyzed and cognized as the other mind (vijnaya) the Paramatman (Brahman).

Buddhism enjoyed intellectual dominance in the period of Gaudapada. It is evident that Buddhist ideas influenced Gaudapada, though he was an Upanishadic teacher. Being a staunch Advaitic teacher, Gaudapada had the Buddhist and Madhyamika literature and its thoughts in his mind while formulating the Advaita Vedanta.

The critical evaluation of two systems on the anthological status shows that there are similarities between the Shunyata doctrine of the Madhyamika and the non-origination theory of Advaita. The Buddhists and Vedantims have similar explanations about the anthological nature of the phenomena. The great contribution that Buddhist subject made was the practical and easily understandable explanations regards the impermanence of the world of experience. Gaudapada came at the same conclusion about the nature of the world, namely that it is only apparently real, by applying Nagarjuna’s own reasoning about svabhava to the unknown Brahman. The invention of Buddha’s psychological analysis and the emphatic statement of Nagarjuna’s formula on the middle way should be taken as a path of practical wisdom. Buddhist Psychology itself is quite alive to the relativity of terms like birth and death. According to the Abhidharma, birth and death take place simultaneously every moment.^[14]

The theory of dependent origination maintains the theory of anatma in its dialectical and at the same time dynamic character. The law of dependent origination is in fact the middle way (madhyamarga) avoiding the two extremes.

“And among the four noble truths, the first two noble truths of suffering and source are associated with the first kind of dependent origination that deals with beings as a whole and not with particular ones. The last two noble truths of cessation and path are originations concerned with lives of individuals including the specialized one, Tathagata who follow the path. This psychological discovery fully understood by Tathagata and then he taught to his principle monks.”^[15]

In the Gaudapadian system, Brahman is the source of everything. All things spring from Brahman only.^[16] Brahman is not a personal god, but it is super personal and beyond description and apprehension.

“Brahman is the Supreme and inclusive of all. He says Brahman is of higher Brahman and lower Brahman (Aparabrahman) as Ishvara, seated in the hearts of all. It is the intelligent principle created by Itself. In the beginning there was only Brahman was and Brahman is and Brahman would be the source of everything.”^[17]

In the Bhagavad-gita it has been explained as:

“The Lord dwells in the hearts of all beings, O Arjuna, causing all beings, by his illusive power (maya), to revolve, as if caught in a machine.”^[18]

Advaita and Madhyamika had a clear and similar approach towards the psychology of karma and its continuing effects (the consequence of action) and the samsara.

A person is not made by his actions but by his desires alone. As is his desire so is his resolve, such is the action. Our desires motivate our action. The motivating desire itself is the root cause of birth and its perpetuation in samsara. The source of our continued sorrow (suffering) is our desire (karma) for sense objects and pleasures. This is the beginning of the ethicizing of the concept of karma, which is its transformation from an external theory of causation to an intrinsic moral theory based upon the motives behind actions.^[19]

Maya or illusion occurs in both Nagarjuna’s and Gaudapada’s Philosophic illustration. The firebrand analogy and snake rope analogy are akin to the imaginary appearances of object to the perception. Mula-Madhyamika-karika uses this analogy with Buddhist view of projection and illusion appearance of objects to the mind.

Consciousness (vijnana) is vibrating. The world is a dualistic construction caused by the oscillation of consciousness (citta-spandita). The analogy of a firebrand was originally used by Buddhists to distinguish the real and the unreal. When firebrand is moved in a circular motion there appears to be a wheel of fire honoring in the air. The illusion of performance is created by the firebrand’s shift movements.

Gaudapada illustrates the rope snake analogy to explain the illusion of the world. The common and much used analogy of rope snake illusion misapprehends the perceiver.

TMP explain this as:

“to the enquiring intellect maya is a riddle. When the absolute is realized there is no maya to be explained. Gaudapada says maya which really does not exist.”^[20]

Due to avidya or maya we cannot recognize the Brahman. All the illusion is due to ignorance and false knowledge; we cannot experience reality that is Brahman according to Gaudapadiya-karika and Vedanta. Duality or non-duality or the world of plurality is all illusory projection of the self (Atman).

Here Gaudapada urges:

“The Vivartha-vada or superimposition or trans-figuration of the object and subject relation, falsely understood as the snake in the rope becomes real when this fake knowledge is sublated the aspirant become aware of the presence of the rope. Till such awareness arises, he holds on to the rope as snake and experiences fear etc. The same way Brahman appears as the world due to maya.”^[21]

Gaudapada’s contention is same as the Nagarjuna’s view of the Supreme, the nirvana which is elaborately discussed in the Mula-Madhyamika-karika Directly and technically Nagarjuna’s dialects are very much observed in Gaudapada’s philosophy of non-dual Brahman.

“In the three status i.e. waking, dreaming and sleep, a cognized (antaprajna) experiences all changes but self remain unchanging as one which is the essence of knowledge (ekatma pratyaya sara). It is cessation of the universe (prapancopashama). It is peaceful (shantam), auspicious (shivam), and non-dual (advaita) that is to be known. This is the one as undivided consciousness which is the nature of bliss (cittamatra-sat-citananda).”^[22]

Madhyamikas and Buddhists call it as ‘bodhi’.

Western and Indian thinkers unanimously admit that Gaudapada’s Mandukya-karika is an authoritative text on Advaita Vedanta. It gives a strong foundation for the later Vedantims including Shankara.

Gaudapada sis the first systematic exponent of Advaita Vedanta. His Mandukhya-karika contains the essentials of the Advaita system. Anyone who reads the karika will be undoubtedly impressed by his firm conviction in the non-dual self, in the illusoriness of the world and in the oneness of the individual soul and the self. Not only did he believe in these Upanishadic doctrines, but also expounded them with the help of, scriptural texts and dialectical arguments. Besides Shankaracarya who was Gaudapada's interior, Advaitins of later period too deeply respected him and and referred to him as a great authority on Advaita Vedanta.

The post-Shankara Vedanta developed three theories to explain the nature of non-difference between the jiva and Brahman. They are: the theory of limitation (avacchedavada), the theory of reflection (pratibimbavada) and the theory of appearance (abhasavada). Mandana Misra and Vacaspati Misra are the exponents of Avacchedavada. Padmapadacarya and prakasatman are the founders of pratibimbavada. Suresvaracarya is the exponent of Abhasavada. These are also known as Bhamati, Vivarna and Vartika schools respectively. Vacaspati and their followers have propounded the theory of limitation and plurality of souls on the analogy of pot-ether etc. which has been employed by Gaudapada in the Advaita-prakarana in the seven karikas (iii.3-9). The nucleus of Abhasavada and pratibimbavada may be traced to the sixth karika in the agama-prakarana and to the sixth karikas (iv.47-52) in the Alatasantiprakarana. The karika in the Agama-prakarana teaches that the individual souls are appearances of the self and the karikas belonging to the fourth prakarana establishes the illusoriness of the appearances through the imagery of fire brand. The falsity of appearances constitutes the key concept of the Vartika school. Suresvaracarya in his Brhadarnyakopanishad-bhasya-Vartika and Naiskarmha-siddhi has quoted many karikas and Gaudapada's statement to support his definition of Abhasavada. Anadanubhava refers to Gaudapada as the knower of the truth, while quoting his famous karika (ii.32) for establishing the unreality of even mukti (liberation). The asparsa yoga for meditation taught by Gaudapada was formulated as Samprajnata (determinate) and Asamprajnata (indeterminate) samadhi by later Advaitins like Anadagiri and Sadananda. We have already noted how Sadananda has derived four obstacles viz. laya, viksepa, kasaya and vasasvada in practicing indeterminate samadhi from the karikas dealing with the Asparsayoga. The dialectical method of Gaudapada is on indispensable asset of Advaitins. We hardly find an Advaita text without this element. It is clear for the above account that the karika anticipates the development of Advaita Vedanta in successive centuries in many respects.

About Nirvana and Samsara-TRV Murti says:

“Neuman and phenomenon are not two separate states, nor are they two states of same thing. The absolute is only real. It is the reality of samsara which is sustained by false construction (kalpana). The absolute looked at the thought forms of constructive imagination as the empirical world, without these disturbing media of thought.”^[23]

The change is subjective not objective. The real is as it has ever been. This is the Copernican revolution that the Madhyamika dialectic contributed to Buddhism as well as Indian Philosophy.

Here we have to know that Gaudapadiya-karika represents the early stage of the critical and historical development of Advaita Vedanta. After the detailed analysis of Gaudapadiya-karika, we have come to the conclusion that Madhyamika dialectics and Mula-Madhyamika-karika had an integral role in developing the major tenets of Gaudapadiya-karika Our analysis of the contents of the Gaudapadiya-karika has highlighted the centrality of two doctrinal themes within the text. These are the doctrine of non-origination (ajativada) on one hand and the concept of Asparsha yoga on the other. Both these ideas are directly or indirectly the outcome of the admixture of earlier schools (teachers) and their vision.

Madhyamika system and their works have profoundly influenced the philosophy and religion in India and the world at large. The central teaching of Madhyamika is Shunyata. It gives priority to Depended origination. It is void–it is devoid of nothing–it is prajna-spiritual intuition (intellectual intuition)–prajna-paramita. Non-dual intuition or wisdom-prajnaparamita-shunya is the spirit, the Absolute. It is same as the Prajnana Brahman of Advaitins. Shunyata is the supreme concept of Buddhism. The state of mind is Bodhi-citta. It is the foundation of all good.

Aryadeva, Nagarjuna’s first disciple says,

“No activity of the Buddha is without intention, their very breath is for the good of beings.”^[24]

Buddhism especially Madhyamika and its schools like Navayana and Zen Buddhism make a back ground for the spiritual regeneration of the world culture. It strengthens the moral and spiritual value of man and rises to a new civilization with its ethics. It is of strong kind in the human values and ideal to a puissance of world order. Madhyamika Philosophy can serve as a new understanding to write the world within the chaos and tyranny of the world order. In fine, it may be said that both Madhyamika and Advaita grew in the religio philosophical atmosphere of the Indian sub-continent and strived to upkeep the dignity of man by providing the equality of human essesnce and opening the doos of liberation to one and all.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

P.T. Raju, Structural Depth of Indian Thought, p. 331.

[2]:

Rhys Davids, Relation between Early Buddhism and Brahmanism, p. 46.

[3]:

p. 57.

[4]:

A.K. Coomaraswamy, Hinduism and Buddhism, Indira Gandhi National Centre for the Arts, Delhi, 1990, p. XII.

[5]:

P.T. Raju, Op cit. p. 15.

[6]:

Ibid. p. 15.

[7]:

Michael Comans, The Method of Early Advaita Vedanta, Motilal Banarasidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 2000, p. 75.

[8]:

p. 89.

[9]:

Ibid. p. 91.

[10]:

F. Richard King, Early Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism, Delhi, 1997, p. 52.

[11]:

Ibid. p. 55. 12.. p. 55.

[12]:

P.T. Raju, Op cit. p. 146.

[13]:

Thomas E. Wood, The Mandukya Upanisad and the Agama Sastra (An Investigation in to the Meaning of the Vedanta), Motilal Banarsidass Publishers, Varanasi, 1992, p. 62.

[14]:

T.R.V. Murti, ‘Central Philosophy of Buddhism’, Motilal Banarsidass Publishers Pvt. Ltd., Delhi, 2016, p. 57.

[15]:

Lama Anagarika Govinda, The Psychological Attitude of Early Buddhist Philosophy, Rider & Company, London, 1961, p. 57.

[16]:

Sarvam khalu idam brahma

[17]:

Richard King, Op cit. p. 59.

[18]:

Ishvarah sarva-bhutanam hrid-deshe rjuna tishthati bhramayan sarva-bhutani yantrarudhani mayaya” BG 18:61.

[19]:

Alex Wayman (Ed.), Buddhist Insight (Essays), Delhi, 1984, p. 167-168.

[20]:

T.M.P. Mahadevan, Op. cit. p. 236.

[21]:

Ibid. p. 236.

[22]:

Ibid. p. 94.

[23]:

T.R.V. Murti, Op. cit. p. 274.

[24]:

Ibid. p. 283.