Enlightenment: Buddhism Vis--Vis HinduismAcharya Mahayogi
Sridhar Rana Rinpoche
It must be understood that Hinduism and Buddhism have shared the
same culture for the last 2500 years, which means theyve also
shared common language/s (Sanskrit or Pali). Because of this
historical situation, there are many words that are used commonly
in both traditions. This has led many scholars, especially Hindu
scholars, to think that words and symbols mean exactly the same
thing in both the traditions. By extending this thinking, they
arrive at the wrong conclusion, mainly that Buddhism is another
form, or revision, or reformation of Hinduism.First of all, it is
wrong to say that Buddhism is either a branch or a formation of
Hinduism. Buddhism is actually a paradigm shift from not only
Hinduism but also from all other religious systems. Secondly, words
used commonly in both Hinduism and Buddhism do not mean the same
thing. In fact, very often they mean almost the opposite, and
certainly at all times they point at two different paradigms.I
would like to elucidate some of these points that will affect the
meaning in the two systems directly or indirectly.First of all, in
the Hindu context, we always find the theory that if illusion is
removed, Brahman will reveal. Thus, samsara is illusion and Brahman
is the only thing behind samsara, or is the base of the samsara,
that truly exists. Only when the illusion-samsara vanishes, the
Non-dual Brahman manifests.However, in the Buddhist context,
illusion is not removed but rather seen as knowledge itself - or is
transformed into knowledge. And this knowledge is not something
that is the support or base of samsara. It is the knowledge of the
true mode of existence of samsara itself. And furthermore, samsara
is not an illusion which will vanish and only the Brahman will
remain. In Buddhism, samsara is interdependently arisen
(pratityasamutpann), like all illusions. So it is only like an
illusion and cannot end. What ends is the wrong experience of
experiencing it as really existing (skt. svabhava siddha). The
knowledge (Gyana), that is synonymous with liberation, is not of an
eternal, unchanging Brahman beyond samsara, but rather of the true
mode of existence of samsara itself.Difference between Advaya and
AdvaitaAlthough both experiences are called non-dual, here too,
they mean two different things. Non-dual (advaita) in the Hindu
context means non-existence of the second (divitiyam nasti). There
is no second substance except the Brahman; it is the only thing
that exists. This should be called Monism rather than Non-dualism.
The phrase 'eka vastu vada' (one thingism) would be close to
'advaita'.However, Buddhism usually uses 'advaya' (only sometimes
is advaita used). Here, it means 'not two', i.e. free from the two
extremes (skt. dvaya anta mukta) - of samaropa (the tendency to see
things as really existing) and apavada (the tendency to see things
as non-existing) - which include the existence of the grasper and
the grasped (grahaka and grahya) too. Advaya is not of a thing (the
one and only thing) like Brahma but a description of the form of
samsara. That is why the samsara that is like an illusion
transforms into Advaya Gyana in Buddhism. In Hinduism, the illusory
samsara vanishes and the true eternal, unchanging Brahman dawns.
That is why Buddhist Gampopa says, "May illusion dawn as
wisdom..."There are two traditions of explaining 'advaya' in
Buddhism. One is called the Vast Lineage (skt. Vaipulay parampara)
of Asanga-Vasubandyhu. This is based on the 'Five Works' of
Maitreya that emphasizes subject-object (skt. grahaka-grahya)
duality. But unlike the various forms of Vedanta, they neither
merge into one whole, nor does the grasper (subject) vanishes, and
the illusion and only the eternal grasper remains. Here, they are
found to be untenable from the very beginning. What remains is
emptiness. This system had many great teachers like
Dingnaga-Dharmakirti.The second lineage, called the Profound
Lineage (skt. gambhira parampara), started with Nagarajuna, and was
passed down through famous teachers such as Aryadeva, Buddhapalita,
Bhavaviveka, Chandrakirti, Shantideva and Atisha. Other famous
teachers, like Shantarakshita and Kamakashila, gave synthetic
interpretations of 'advaya' using both traditions.Any Buddhist
hermeneutics must be based on one of these hermeneutics or their
various branches like Sakara Yogachara, Nirakara Yogachara,
Yogachara, Sautrantic Madhyamik, Prasangic Madhyamika, and
Svatantric Madhyamika, etc. Just because one understands Sanskrit
or Tibetan, one cannot interpret the Sastras (texts) as one likes,
giving straightforward meanings to them. Any interpretation must
belong to, or be in conformity with one of these hermeneutical
methodologies. Otherwise, it becomes one's own private idea of what
these texts are teaching. That is why many Hindu scholars have
misinterpreted the Buddhist texts and claimed that they are
teaching the same thing found in the Hindu texts. But it is even
more unfortunate that even so-called Buddhist scholars or those who
are favorable to Buddhism, have not studied under any lineage
masters belonging to any of the above hermeneutics, and have
interpreted the texts simply on the basis of understanding the
Sanskrit language. Such interpretations are personal ideas and not
true Buddhist hermeneutics, and if analyzed, one will find many
contradiction and inconsistencies.There are some who say that they
are meditators and they are not interested in such theories. Some
say such theories are only intellectual pleasures, and others say
that the lineage of meditation and the lineage of text studies have
no relationship. Such statements prove that such so-called Buddhist
teachers are only half-baked. First of all, I would like to remind
them that Asanga, Vasubandhu, Nagarjuna, Chandrakirti, Shantideve,
and Atisha were all great meditators and they are considered among
the greatest Buddhist masters in history. Such masters believed
that it is necessary to acquire the correct philosophies to be able
to truly practice the Buddhist meditation properly. Of course, H.E.
Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche said that this correct view could be
presented in the form of a simple pith instruction from a qualified
master, instead of an elaborate and detailed study of the religious
texts. But one must still listen, think, discuss, and finally
understand clearly the importance of the pith instruction, which is
the same thing elaborated in the texts. So, to say that to meditate
one does not need to study at all is utter nonsense. It is only
after understanding the view correctly that correct Buddhist
mediation can take place. Otherwise, there would be no difference
between Hindu, Sufi, Christian, Tao, and Buddhist meditations. Some
Newar Vajracharyas think that just taking the initiation of
Cakrasamvhara, chanting its mantras, performing channel and chakra
practice (nadi-chakra yoga) related to it is enough and there is no
need to study. If that was so, why does the Hevajra Tantra, etc.,
say very clearly that one must study first the Vaibhasika, then the
Sautrantic, then the Yogachara, and then the Madhyamika, then only
be initiated? Secondly, if doing just Nadivayu-tilak yog would lead
to Mahamudra accomplishments, then thousands of Hindu masters, who
practice Kundalini Yoga, would achieve Buddhahood. Such thinking
completely contradicts the very basic concept found in Theravada,
Mahayana, and Vajrayana. Meditation progresses from wisdom gained
through hearing (Srutamayi), to wisdom gained through contemplation
(Cintamayi), to wisdom gained through meditation (Bhavanamayai).
How can there be hearing and contemplation without a valid study of
valid religious texts?Notice when I say valid study. Valid study
means study with valid lineage teachers, not just somebody who
knows Sanskrit or Tibetan and happens to be a lama or Vajracharya
by caste, as is found among Tamangs and Newars. Valid lineage
Masters teach according to historically accepted Buddhist
hermeneutics and do not give their own personal self-contradictory
interpretations. Such a Master has studied with someone who belongs
to one or more of these hermeneutical lineages. Such a study is not
merely intellectually entertainment but is also a proper base for
acquiring wisdom gained through listening and contemplation, and
this creates an understanding of the correct view. This is the
proper foundation for proper Buddhist meditation, i.e. the third
wisdom gained through meditation. Simply doing 'nadi-vayu-tilak
yoga' without such a base is the same as doing Hindu meditation,
even if it is part of Hevajra, or Cakrasamvara, or Vajrabhairava,
or Kalacakra practice.It is true that there are different lineages
to study and meditate, but to say that the two are not
interrelated, is simply showing ignorance.Tathagatagarbha
Now, I would like to deal with the concept of Sugatagarbha, or
Tathagatagarbha, or Dharmadhatu, or Dharmakaya. Many Hindu scholars
think that these words prove that Buddhism is basically speaking
about Hindu Brahman. If one studies the Ratnagotravibhaga, and the
Srimala Sutra, it is easy to see that they make it very clear that
Sugatagarbha and Sunyata (emptiness) are cognate words. Sunyata is
the mode of existence of all phenomena, including the mind, which
knows this; whereas Brahman is a separate entity altogether from
all phenomena. Brahman is something that truly exists (absolutely
existing / Parmartha Satta). Sunyata is not a thing or a Super
Thing but the mode of existence of all things. Therefore, it is
nonsense to speak of it as knowable epistemologically but not as a
thing ontologically except interdependently. The Brahman, according
to Hinduism, is not existing interdependently, but truly existing
the one and only truly existing substance. The Brahman is
svabhavasiddha (inherent), whereas Sunyata is nisvabhavata
(non-inherent); the Brahman is svalaksana siddha, whereas Sunyata
is a Laksanata. The Brahman is Paramartha satta (ultimate
existence), whereas Sunyata is the unfindability of such a
parmartha satta anywhere.Since the Ratnagotra makes it clear that
sugatagarbha is just a cognate word for emptiness (Sunyata),
Sugatagarbha and Brahman cannot be the same. The confusion is often
created by the statement that the Sugatagarbha or the Buddha nature
exists in all sentient beings. The word 'exists' is the perpetrator
of confusion here. The exists is only for conventional usage, or
giving way to conventional usage. Without its use here, one cannot
express the fact that this is the mode of abiding of the true
nature of mind of all sentient beings. Exists here is a synonym of
is the mode of abiding, so exists here does not mean abide (skt.
sthita) but rather non abidingness (skt. asthita). This is the mode
of abiding, or the sugatagarbha present in all sentient beings.
Even in the last sentence, the word present can create the same
confusion. Present here would mean presence of the absence of
self-existingness or self-characteristicness, etc. What is
positively named Sugatagarbha is that it is said to exist in all
sentient beings. This exists is qualitative rather than
existential. It is also more epistemological, whereas the Brahman
is more ontologically truly existing. The Brahman is not
non-abiding but rather kutastha, which mean self-abiding.I have
already elaborated the differences of Sunyata Sugatagarbha and
Brahman in my article in the Buddhist Himalaya, Vol. VI, 1994-95.
The word Samantabhadra used in the DzogChen tradition can often
mislead people to believe that Samantabhadra is some kind of a god
in this system. However, there is no God in any form of Buddhism.
Great Buddhist Masters like Nagarjuna, Odiana Acharya, Kalyana
Rakshita, etc., have written books proving that such beliefs are
only for children. So Samantabhadra cannot be some substitute for
God. Samantabhadra is a poetic, metaphoric expression for the
enlightened state, i.e. the Sugatagarbha all sentient beings
already possess. This is the way things really are, the way things
really exist from the very beginning. However, it is called
primordial enlightenment, because this state is always there and
never was not. We, sentient beings, have apparently wandered from
the knowledge, which is already there as our true mode of
existence. Therefore, we have to be re-enlightened, i.e. come to
recognize the primordial enlightened state already present in us,
and through practice become established in it.Buddhism does not
believe, and this applies to the DzogChen, which is considered
relatively quicker or sudden path, that simply because
Samantabhadra - the primordial enlightenment already present in us
from the beginning - we can just recognize that fact and become
enlightened. We have to become re-enlightened because we have
already wandered off the path and need to be re-enlightened. One
needs to remove the cause of our wandering. The cause is ignorance.
Ignorance is basically cognitive but includes the conditioning
produced by the cognitive mistake. These conditionings validate
further the mis-cognition, which further produces more
conditioning. Conditioning has two forms: conceptual defilements
(kleshavarana) and emotional defilements (jeyavarana). Therefore,
to have correct cognition, i.e. true recognition of Samantabhadra,
requires clearing off of the conditionings to some extent. Since
cognition itself is moulded by these conditionings, true
recognition cannot take place unless the hold of the conditionings
has been relaxed to some extent; but even this recognition can only
become a pin-prick opening, which will naturally be conditioned by
the still extant conditionings. So it is only through years of
clearing off the conditionings, through accumulation of merit (skt:
punya sambhara), and having glimpses of the true nature over and
over again through accumulation of knowledge (janasambhara) that
one is finally re-established in the state of re-enlightenment.
Just recognizing one's true unconditioned state is not
re-enlightenment. This is the major difference between the
teachings of DzogChen and those of Punja Svami, Ramana Maharshi,
Adrew Cohen, Krishnamurti, Nisargadutta Maharaja, and Sadyo
Vedantic Systems like Astavakra Gita, Jivan Mukta Gita, etc. They
believe that just recognizing one's true nature is primordially
unconditioned enough to free a man. As we have seen earlier, no
form of Buddhism agrees with that concept. The glimpse is only of
the seed of enlightenment and is not the full enlightenment, or the
enlightened state itself. There is a difference in the
Tathagatagharbha and the Tathagata himself. But there is another
difference too. What they call the unconditioned is the Atman as
found in the texts of Hinduism. What the DzogChen of the Nyingma,
the Mahamudra of Kagyu, and Lamdre of Sakya, the texts of the
Profound and Vast tradition call the unconditioned, is the
Tathagatagharbha, Samantabhadra, Emptiness, Nisvabhavata, Anatma.
As we have seen, these are diametrically opposed paradigms.There
are, however, two schools, some Nyingma and Kagyu schools, based in
the Vast Lineage (skt. vaipulya) of Asanga, which interpret
Tathagatagarbha as being present in full form (not as a seed), but
the veils covering it is gradually unveiled through practice. Some
Sakyapas based in the Profound tradition of Nagarjuna, however,
interpret it only in seed form, and it has to be developed into its
full form through practice.So what can be said in the Buddhist
language is that people like Ramana Masharshi and Krishnamurti have
only the base but no path related to that base, therefore,
logically no fruit too. Many of these teachers teach about an
indifferent state, i.e. choice-less, to be the base, or the
enlightened state. It must be understood very clearly that this is
not the state of Mahamudra or DzogChen. Choice-less Awareness (as
taught in the Shiva Sutras and in the Kashmiri Shaiva school), to
any form of Buddhism is such a state of ignorance (skt. moha) and
not an enlightened state. Being indifferent and untouched by pain,
happiness, anger, attachment, and remaining in a king of
Choice-less Awareness is not DzongChen or Mahamudra, although, they
may sound very close to each other. Such a state is a state of
ignorance or delusion. DzogChen or Mahamudra is free from not only
attachment or aversion but also from the choice-less state.That is
why the Mahapandita and Siddha of the Sakya lineage, Sakya Pandit,
warned, Everybody speaks about MahamudraMahamudra, but if one has
not properly understood or experienced them with the help of a
genuine lineage Master, such a state (indifferent, choice-less
state of awareness) is a sure way to reborn as an animal.It is also
not a question of merely eschewing all conceptuality and just
remaining in a non-conceptual state. When non-conceptuality is used
in the context of Dzogchen or Mahamudra, it is the Yogi pratyaksa,
the unity of Sunyata Prabhasvara, in which Sunyatra Prabhasvara and
the consciousness become one, like water poured into water.This is
the Tathagatagarbha, which is very different from the
non-conceptual experience of a choice-less awareness, or a Brahman
or Parasamvit. Many so-called teachers are confused by the word
non-conceptual. When describing their experience, they believe
everything must be the same, without realizing that there are many
kinds of non-conceptual states. Perhaps things get clearer if one
understands that in the Buddhist context, non-conceptual is
synonymous with pratyaksa- especially Yogi pratyaksa - and it is
always an experience of something which becomes non-dualistically
one with the experiencing consciousness. So it is not just a
non-conceptual state that Buddhist traditions are talking about;
but a particular type of non-conceptual experience of emptiness or
the Tathagatagarbha (skt. avikapla or nisprapanca).Concept of
TrikayaI would now like to take up the concept of Dharmakaya,
Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya. One way of looking at it is
Daharmakaya is Emptiness, Rupakaya (Sambhogakaya and Nirmanakaya)
is interdependent origination (pratityasamtpada). We can divide all
the three doors of body, speech and mind (skt. kaya, vak, citta)
into the three Kayas. A very god metaphor is the crystal ball. The
crystal ball is colourless representing emptiness. Even though it
is colourless by itself, it has the capacity to reflect all the
seven colours, if the right causes and conditions are present. This
capacity is the capacity of emptiness to appear as interdependent
origination. This is the Sambhogakaya, and if the right causes and
conditions appear, i.e. if a torch light is flashed into the
crystal ball, multi-coloured light will project out of it and
appear on the wall. This is the actual appearance of the empty
Samsara. This is called Nirmanakaya.It is of utmost importance to
understand these three Kayas to fully comprehend what Enlightenment
means in Mahayana-Vajrayana Buddhism. We find Enlightenment used in
Hinduism and also by teachers such as Punja Svami, Andrew Cohen,
Nisargadutta, J. Krishnamurti, and U.G. Krishnamurti, but they do
not mean the same Enlightenment as the Enlightenment of Buddhism.
In Mahayana Buddhism, Enlightenment means full realization and
anything else is an inferior state. The popular Hindu definition of
Enlightenment is Mukti, which means taking no more birth in
samsara. This definition is also found in Mahayana and Theravada.
Because of this, many people confused the Buddhist Enlightenment
with Hindu Mukti. Mukti is no returning to samsara anymore. It is
not enlightenment. In Buddhist Mukti, a person who attains it goes
to one of the pure realms like Sukhavati, etc. This is achieved
through Theravada and some Mahayana practices. He is not born again
in this world until he becomes enlightened. But Enlightenment means
that he has realized total reality as it is (skt. Yathabhuta),
which means he has actualized all the three Kayas. Actualizing the
three Kayas means attaining the three Vajra Kayas. Dharmakaya is
the realization of emptiness (anatma / non-self), and there is no
birth and death anymore after it, because there never was one who
had taken birth. It is not destruction of some really existing
Self. It is the realization that from the beginning, there never
was any Self. This means there never was anyone who took birth from
the very beginning. However, true and in-depth realization of
Dharmakaya also leads to the realization of Rupakaya. Just as true
realization of emptiness also entails true realization of
interdependent origination (pratityasamutpada). Therefore, even
though there is no birth, through the proper causes and conditions
of compassion, etc., Nirmanakaya emanates continuously to help all
sentient beings. It is this Nirmanakaya which is wrongly called
Incarnated Lama by Nepalese Buddhists, due to the influence of
Hinduism. But technically, they are not incarnations but
emanations. Nirmanakayas are not personalities born again but
rather emanated (skt. nirmita) from causes and conditions due to
the innate capacity of Dharmakaya. This innate capacity is
Sambhogakaya. A personality if reborn can be only one. Nirmanakayas
can be infinite.Only such a person, who although is never born,
emanates continuous emanations for the sake of sentient beings. The
person has realised Totality, and only such a person is
enlightened. People who have not manifested such capacities are
merely conceptually enlightened not truly enlightened.This is the
meaning of the statement made by the Eight Karmapa when he was
born. He had turned around to his mother and stated, I am the
unborn Karmapa. The unborn is the empty Dharmakaya. However, the
apparently born Karmapa, who made this statement, is the
Nirmanakaya of this very unborn empty Dharmakaya. If you have
understood Madhyamika well and understood that interdependent
origination itself is un-produced (skt. anutpada), then youll
realize there is no contradiction.Sambhogakaya is the capacity of
the unborn empty Dharmakaya nature of Enlightenment. It consists of
all the qualities like omniscience, etc.If a person does not
possess these qualities, he has not manifested Sambhogakaya.
Therefore, he has not truly manifested the Dharmakaya, which
according to Mahayana Buddhism is not truly enlightened.There are
many such Masters around, especially coming from Hindu backgrounds,
who later claim to be Buddhist masters but they have no realization
of the Three Kayas. Such people cannot be considered as enlightened
Buddhist Masters. Some of them do not even have the faintest idea
what three Kayas are about. Those who want to practice Buddhist
practices and attain Buddhist Enlightenment must be sensitive to
these issues. They must not get confused by sweet talks and oratory
skills.There are many degrees of Enlightenment in Buddhism. That is
the significance of the concept of the Ten Stages (skt. dasha
bhumi). A person who is in the First Stage is already Enlightened
and they are very different from an unenlightened person. This
person already has begun to manifest the Three Kayas to some
extent. The actualization deepens as he moves to the Second Stage,
the Third Stage, and so on until the Seventh Stage. The First to
the Seventh Stage are still considered impure. It is only from the
Eighth onwards that the Nirmanakaya begins to manifest more
visibly. From the Eight to the Tenth are the pure Stages. It is
said that many gods (devas) who have taken refuge in Buddhism and
have practiced according to Buddhist texts, are found between the
First and the Seventh Stages; but only Masters are found from the
Eight upwards. It is only when a person crosses over the Tenth
Stage to the No-Learning stage (skt. asaiksapada), or the state of
Vajradhara according to Tantra, that the person is fully
Enlightened. Often in Tantra, we find thirteen Stages instead of
ten, but again, this is only a question of categories which can be
classified in many ways.But, even a person who achieves the state
of Vajradhara is still only what is called a Mind Buddha. This
means his mind is the mind of full Buddha, like that of the Buddha
Shakyamuni. His body, however, still does not possess the 32
superior and 80 secondary marks present in the body of Buddha
Shakyamuni. So, although, he can be called a Buddha and there is no
difference between his mind and the mind of the Buddha Shakyamuni,
or any other Buddha, he has not perfected the Rupakaya yet. It is
only after collecting vast amounts of merit, by emanating countless
emanations, for the benefit of others, that he will also achieve
the perfect Nirmanakaya, like Buddhas Shakymuni, Krakuchchanda,
Kashyapa, etc.It is said that it took three uncountable eons
(asamkhya kalpa) for Shakyamuni to collect enough merit to have the
perfect Nirmanakaya. According to the Tantra, if the Sambhogakaya
is developed using the Tantra methods, countless emanations can be
sent to collect merit. This can be achieved much quicker and at
faster rate than by following the Sutra system or method that the
Buddha Shakyamuni used.If you understand the Buddhist Enlightenment
correctly, based on what has been said, one begins to realize that
ordinary people, nowadays, who have no such qualities and claim to
be enlightened Masters, are like clowns sitting on the thrones of
emperors caricaturing an emperor. However, people have the freedom
the define Enlightenment in other ways; but in such a case, it is
not the Enlightenment of Buddhism, especially
Mahayana-Vajrayana.People like Milarepa, Longchempa, Marpa, Sakya
Pandita of Tibet; Surata Vajra, Humkara Vajrea, Sasvat Vajra, Vak
Vajra, Jamuna Gubhaju of Nepal; Naropada, Tillipada, Virupada,
Nagarjuna, Atisha of India of the Vajrayana tradition; and Linchi,
Hogen, Sungsan, to San Unmen of China; Dogen, Haquin Banke of Japan
achieved at least one of the higher Stages, if not the Mind of the
Buddhas.All of them manifested the display of Sambhogakaya
throughout their lives, and especially during death. The death
process of an Enlightened being is a very special occasion, and one
can gauge his depth of realization. If he is Enlightened, there is
no doubt that Sambhogakaya will manifest during and after his
death. Some of the many manifestations are: rainbows appearing in
the sky or around the house of the dead body, the body shrinking to
the size of a 8 to16 year old, or in very advanced cases, the body
either vanishing or transforming into light. Mantras and statues of
deities engraved in their bones, special forms like stupas, etc.,
are also found in the ashes. Earthquakes, storms, animals, and
birds beings disturbed, some parts of the body remaining intact
after cremation are some others manifestations. There have been
many well known Masters who have claimed to be Buddhas or
Enlightened in the past whose death showed absolutely no
manifestations. Such people cannot be considered enlightened in the
Buddhist sense. As Karme Chagmed put it, the corpse of an ordinary
man is the bed of a great Scholar MasterFaith and DevotionThere is
no god in Buddhism. Devotions found in Mahayana-Vajrayana are not
the same as that of the devotional cults of Hinduism. First of all,
a person in Vajrayana shows great devotion towards their Guru. This
is because a Guru plays a very special role in Vajrayana. In
Theravada and Mahayana, a Guru is only a Kalyanamitra, i.e. some
body that points the way. In Vajrayana, a Guru is also the way
itself. This second role, teaching the way, is more important role
of a Guru in Vajrayana. The Guru is the State of Enlightenment. But
unlike Sutrayana, which is a cause-vehicle, he is not just a
representative of the goal; he is used as the path itself.Vajrayana
is also called effect-vehicle (skt. phalayana). It uses the effect
in the path, instead of creating causes and conditions (skt.
hetu-pratyaya), as in the cause vehicle to attain the effect one
day. Since the Guru is the Enlightened state (he beings
enlightened), he is used as the Path. He reflects ones own true
nature and all of ones defilements (skt. Klesha) and obstructions
(skt. avaranas). It is when one truly sees the Guru as primordially
pure that one recognizes ones own primordial purity, and also sees
the Guru was always one's own primordially pure
Sugatagarbha.Therefore, devotion here is dedication and devotion to
the path. It is devotion, faith, and dedication towards ones own
Sugatagarbha. That is why in Tantra, a Guru who gives you
initiations is not an individual but a Buddha. More accurately, he
is ones own Buddha Nature, reflected in the personality of the
initiation giver. This is very important for the path of Tantra,
which uses the principle of effect-vehicle (using the fruit itself
in the path to make the path quicker). Devotion is, there, to ones
own Buddha Nature. That is why the first samaya (law, rule, bond)
is to see the Guru as the Buddha, no matter through what kind of
personality it may crystallize. And that is also why one must be
very careful to make sure that the Guru is genuine.A genuine Guru
in Vajrayana does not depend on how his personality is because most
of the personality we see in him are our own characteristics we see
reflected on him. We have to use this as our path. A genuine Master
is someone who has received instructions from a genuine lineage
teacher, belonging to pure, unbroken, realized lineage. Such
lineages are not decided by caste or family, although families can
preserve such lineages. Such a lineage must produce enlightened and
learned masters in every generation. Then, only can it be
considered as a pure and unbroken enlightened lineage.After having
received all the theoretical and practical instructions from such a
lineage master, he himself must have practiced those teachings and
experienced them in his own mental continuum. He must also be
certified by his own masters as a teacher, or as an Acharya, or a
Vajracharya, or a Vidyadhara. Only such a Master, no matter how his
personality is, can be considered worthy of being called a Master
in Vajrayana.It is not necessary in Vajrayana Buddhism to have only
one master. This concept of one guru only is a Hindu concept and
not a Buddhist one. But I have found most Newars have only one
master. This is a Hindu influence and such a concept is not found
in true Buddhism. If we study the life stories of all the Indian,
Nepalese, and Tibetan masters, we find that the majority of them
had many masters. Some of them even had up to 300 masters. It is
also a wrong and narrow minded thinking to think if you have a
Nyingma master, you should not have a Sakya master at the same
time. Nyingma and Sakya are names found only in Tibet. If you study
the history of the lineages, you find the same Indian or Nepalese
Masters taught both Marpa Lotsawa, the founder of the Kagyupa, and
Drogmi Lotsawa, the founder of the Sakya lineages. To Phamthingpa
or Humkara Vajra, Guru Padmasambhava or Bharo Bajracharya, Nyingma,
Kagyu, Sakya or Gelug had no meaning.
Madhyamika Buddhism vis--vis Hindu Vedanta (A Paradigm
Shift)Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana RinpocheMany famous Hindu
Indian scholars like Radha Krishnan, Svami Vivekananda and Nepalese
scholars like Mr. Chudanath Bhattarai, Svami Prapannacharya have
written that Buddhism is a reaction, a reformation of Hinduism. The
Buddha tried to reform some of the malpractice within Hinduism.
That is all. He never wanted to create a new religion. In short,
according to these scholars, Buddhism is correct Hinduism without
any malpractice and evils and what is called Hinduism is the
malpractice and distorted form of the vedas. There are three
problems with this interpretation of the Buddha's teaching. One is
that if these authors really believe that the Buddha came to reform
evils, malpractice and wrong interpretation of the vedas then why
are they themselves still following these evils and malpractice and
not practicing the Buddha's teachings, the reformed form of the
Vedas? Hoe warped and distorted are the minds of people who with
one breath proclaim the Buddha as the great reformer of Hinduism
and then turn around and call Buddhism (what Buddha taught) wrong.
Some of these scholars have even gone to the extent of claiming
that although the Buddha actually only wanted to reform the Vedas,
his disciples misunderstood him and created a new religion. How
illogical to believe that Buddha's own disciples did not understand
him whereas Hindu Svami's and Panditas 2000 years later really do
understand the Buddha's message. The second problem with this
interpretation is that it implies that Buddha was a Hindu. Simply
because Suddhodana was a king and therefore called a Ksatriya is
absolutely no proof that he was a he was a Hindu. If the Buddha was
really a Hindu why did he not call himself the great Brahmin or
Mahabrahman like the great ksatriya Vishvamitra.? It is strange to
call Buddha a proponent of Brahmanism when he called himself the
great sramana or Mahasramana. Although a lot of research remains to
be done about Sramanism. it can certainly be said that a Sramana is
not a Sramanism is itself as old as Brahmanism. Mahavira, the
founder of Jainism, also called himself a Sramana. If Buddha was
merely reforming the Vedas, why did not call himself a Neo-vedic,
Neo-Brahman or true Brahman i. e. Mahabrahmana? Why did he call
himself a Mahasramana?
I would like to ask those scholars and their followers these
questions. Nowhere in the Hindu Shastras are Sraman considered as
part of the vedic fold. And the Buddha called himself a
Mahasramana. It was the custom of India from ancient times to call
kings Ksatriyas be they of the Sramana or Brahmana group. And even
if Suddhodana was of the Brahmin school) of which there is
absolutely no proof), the Buddha certainly did not seem to have
taken after Brahmanism but rather after Sramanism. Sramanism cannot
be called Brahmanism by any historical standard. The third problem
is that the teachings found in Buddhism do not on any way appear as
a reformation of Hinduism. Any one who was studied Buddhism (If I
am not talking about prejudiced Hindu oriented scholars) can see
that there is a major paradigm shift between Hinduism and Buddhism,
in fact, between all other religious systems and Buddhism. A
paradigm shift cannot and should not be misconstrued as a reform.
Reforms are changes brought about within the same paradigm.
Paradigm shifts are changes in the very foundations. The very
basics are completely different. In such cases, it is completely
confused thinking to state that one paradigm is a reformation of
another paradigm. So Sramanism is a system of religious based on a
completely different paradigm than Hinduism and as such it would be
gross error to say Buddhism is a reformation of Vedic Hinduism. It
is not a reformation, but a shift in paradigm. Even if the Vedic
paradigm was the older, they are still different paradigms. But it
is even questionable whether the Vedic paradigm is really older
than the Sramana paradigm. After all, although Buddhism begin with
Shakyamuni, Sramanism is much older, and according to the findings
of the Indus valley civilization, was in the Indian sub- continent
even before Brahmanism.
It is the purpose of this paper to show how Brahmanism and
Buddhism are built on two totally different paradigms even though
they share the same language. It is this sharing of the same
language that has fooled most scholars, especially Hindu biased
scholars who have therefore failed to be sensitive to the fact that
these are two completely different paradigms with very little in
common except the same cultural background, and their language,
metaphor, analogy, and words. But as we shall see, the same
analogies etc. express two different conceptual structures
(paradigms). When we compare the Advaita Vedanta, especially as
interpreted by Shankara and Madhyamika, whether be it the
Svatantric from of Bhabya or Prasangic form of Candrakirti, the
sharing of the same language, culture and analogies while talking
about two different paradigms becomes obvious. Because of the use
of the same language structure (be it Pali or Sanskrit) and the
same analogies to express two different paradigms many Vedantins or
scholars of Buddhism with Vedantic backgrounds have been fooled
into thinking Buddhist Madhyamika is a re-interpretation of Hindu
Vedanta. Many think Buddhism is the negative way to the same goal
(via negativa) and Hindu Vedanta the positive way ( positiva). One
uses negation and the other affirmation but the Shunyata of
Buddhism is a negative way of talking about the Brahman of the
Vadanta. The issue here is not via negative or via positive at all
but rather two different paradigms, or two different goals based on
two different paradigms, or two diametrically opposed answers to
the burning issue of mankind developed out of diametrically opposed
paradigms. In fact, the Buddha, after long years of Brahmanic as
well as Sramanic meditation, found the concept of Brahma (an
ultimately real, unchanging, eternal substratum to this ephemeral
transient world) not only inadequate to solve the basic issue of
humanity- i. e. sorrow (dukha) and questioned the very existence of
such an eternal substratum; but also declared that a search for
such an imagined (Skt. Parikalpita Atman) Brahman was a form of
escapism and therefore not really spiritual but spiritual
materialism.
Since the concept of Brahman, the truly existent (Skt.
paramartha sat) is the very foundation of Hinduism (as a matter of
fact some form of an eternal ultimate reality whether it is called
God or Nature is the basis of all other religious systems); when
Buddhism denies such an ultimate reality (Skt. paramartha satta) in
any form, it cuts at the very jugular veins of Hinduism. Therefore
it cannot be ontologically, epistemologically, and soteriologically
said that Buddhism reforms Hinduism, The affirmation of a ground
(Skt. asraya) which is really existent (Skt. paramartha sat) and
the denial that such an existent (Skt. satta) can be found
anywhere, with in or without, immanent or transcendent, are two
diametrically opposed paradigms- not simply variation or
reformations of each other. The Webster Dictionary defines re-form:
to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or
abuse. The example I have given above of an eternal base without
which Hinduism in its own language would be atheistic (skt. nastik)
and the denial (without any implied affirmation) (Skt. prasajya
pratisheda) of such an eternally existing unchanging base by
Buddhism cannot be said to be a reformation but a deconstruction of
the very roots of the Hindu thesis. That is why Buddhist is not a
reformation of Hinduism but a paradigm shift from the paradigms on
which Hinduism is based.
Many Hindu scholars believe that without an ultimate eternal
reality then there can be no liberation from the changing,
transient samsara; therefore even though the Buddha denied the
ultimate reality, he could have meant only conceptually really
existing reality, no the eternal ultimate reality which is beyond
concepts. Otherwise there cannot be liberation. The fault with this
kind of thinking is that it is measuring the thesis (which is no
thesis) of the Buddha (or interpreting the Buddha) from within the
Hindu paradigm. Remaining within the Hindu paradigm, an eternal
ultimate reality is a necessity (a necessary dead end as the Buddha
saw it) for the soteriological purpose, i. e. for liberation. Since
according to the Buddha there is no Brahman- such a concept being
merely an acquired fabrication (skt: parikalpana) learned from
wrong (skt: mithya) scriptures, hankering after, searching for such
a Brahman is necessary a dead end which leads nowhere, let alone
liberation. The Buddhist paradigm if understood correctly, does not
require an eternal something or other for liberation. In Buddhism
liberation is not realizing such a ground but rather a letting go
of all grounds, i. e. realizing groundless. In fact holding on to
any ground is ignorance, according to Buddhism. So in the Buddhist
paradigm, it is not only not necessary to have an eternal ground
for liberation, but in fact the belief in such a ground itself is
part of the dynamics of ignorance. We move here to another to major
difference within the two paradigms. In Hinduism liberation occurs
when this illusory samsara is completely relinquished and it
vanishes; what remains is the eternal Brahman which is the same as
liberation. Since the thesis is that samsara is meraly an illusion,
when it vanishes through knowledge is there were no eternal Brahman
remaining it would be a disaster. So in the Hindu paradigm (or
according to Buddhism all paradigms based on ignorance) an eternal
unchanging, independent, really existing substratum (skt.
mahavastu) is a necessity for liberation else one would fall into
Nihilism. But since the Buddhist paradigm is totally different, the
question posed by Hindu scholars: How can there be liberation if a
Brahman does not remain after the illusory samsara vanishes in
Jnana? is a non question with no relevance in the Buddhist paradigm
and its Enlightenment or Nirvana.
First of all, to the Buddha and Nagarjuna samsara is not an
illusion but like an illusion. There is a quantum leap in the
meaning of these two statements. Secondly, because it is only 'like
an illusion' i. e. interdependently arisen like all illusions, it
does not and cannot vanish, so Nirvana is not when samsara vanishes
like mist and the Brahmin arises like a sun out of the mist but
rather when seeing that the true nature of samsara is itself
Nirvana. So whereas Brahman and samsara are two different entities
one real, the other unreal, one existing, the other non-existing,
samsara and Nirvana in Buddhism are one and not two. Nirvana is the
nature of samsara or in Nagarjuna's words shunyata is the nature of
samsara. It is the realization of the nature of samsara as empty
which cuts at the very root of ignorance and results in knowledge
and results in knowledge not of another thing beyond samsara but of
the way samsara itself actually exists (skt vastusthiti), knowledge
of Tathata (as it is ness) the Yathabhuta (as it really) of samsara
itself. It is this knowledge that liberates from wrong conceptual
experience of samsara to the unconditioned experience of samsara
itself. That is what is meant by the indivisibility of samsara and
nirvana (Skt. samsara nirvana abhinnata, Tib: Khor de yer me). The
mind being samsara in the context of Dzog chen, Mahamudra and
Anuttara tantra. Samsara would be substituted by dualistic mind.
Hindu paradigm is world denying, affirming Brahman. The Buddhist
paradigm does not deny the world; it only rectifies our wrong
vision (skt. mithya drsti) of the world. It does not give a dream
beyond or separate transcendence from samsara. Because such a dream
is part of the dynamics of ignorance, to present such a dream would
be only to perpetuate ignorance.
To Buddhism, any system or paradigm which propagates such an
unproven and unprovable dream as an eternal substance or ultimate
reality, be it Hinduism or any other "ism", is propagating
spiritual materialism and not true spirituality. To Hinduism such a
Brahman is the summum bonum of its search goal, the peak of the
Hindu thesis. The Hindu paradigm would collapse without it. Since
Buddhism denies thus, it cannot be said honestly that the Buddha
merely meant to reform Hinduism. As I have said, it is a totally
different paradigm. Hinduism, Christianity, Islam, Jainism are all
variations of the same paradigm. So truly speaking you could speak
of them as reformations of each other. But Buddhism has a totally
different paradigm from any of these, not merely from Vedic-
Hinduism. This leads us naturally to the concept of the truths
(skt. satyadvaya). Both Hindu Vedanta and Madhyamika Buddhism (and
for that matter all forms of Buddhism) use this concept to clarify
its paradigm. But again the same words point at two different
paradigms. First of all the concept of two truths clearly stated as
in Buddhism comes into Hinduism only after Sankaracharya (Seventh/
eight century) whereas the Buddha himself used these words. But
even though Sankara copied the use of these words from Buddhism and
also copied many other conceptual words from Nagarjuna to elucidate
his Vedantic paradigm, the paradigm that he tries to clarify with
these words different. In many places these conceptual wordings and
analogies are forced to produced the meaning that is required for
the Veantic paradigm. In the Vedantic context, the relative truth
(Skt. samvritti satya) is that this samsara is an illusion and the
ultimate truth (skt. paramartha satya) is that there is an
ultimately existing thing (skt. paramartha satta) transcending/
immanent in this world. The relative truth will vanish like a mist
and the both transcendent and immanent Brahman will appear as the
only Truth, the world being false. To sum it up, the Vedantic
ultimate truth is the existence of an ultimate existence or
ultimate reality. Reality here is used as something which exists
(skt. satta).
However, the Buddhist ultimate truth is the absence of any such
satta i. e. ultimately existing thing or ultimate reality. That is
the significance of Shunyata- absence of any real, independent,
unchanging existence (skt. svabhava). And that fact is the ultimate
truth of Buddhism, which is diametrically opposite to the ultimate
truth of the Hindu Brahman. So Shunyata can never be a negative way
of describing the Atman- Brahman of Hinduism as Vinoba Bhave and
such scholars would have us believe. The meaning of Shunyata found
in Sutra, Tantra Dzogchen, or Mahamudra is the same as the
Prasangic emptiness of Chandrakirti, i. e. unfindability of any
true existence or simply unfindability. Some writers of Dzogchen
and Mahamudra or Tantra think that the emptiness of Nagarjuna is
different from the emptiness found in these systems. But I would
like to ask them whether their emptiness is findable or unfindable;
whether or not the significance of emptiness in these systems is
also not the fact of unfindability- no seeing as it could also be
expressed. Also some Shentong scholars seem to imply that the
Shentong system is talking about a different emptiness. They say
Buddha nature is not empty of qualities therefore, Buddha nature is
not merely empty, it also has qualities. First of all the whole
statement is irrelevant. Qualities are not the question and Buddha
nature being empty of quality or not is not the issue. The Buddha
nature is empty of Svabhava (real existence). Because it is empty
of real existence, it has qualities. As Arya Nagarjuna has said in
his Mula Madhyamika Karika: "All things are possible (including
qualities) because they are empty "Therefore the whole Shentong/
Rangtong issue is superfluous. However, in Shentong, Buddha nature
is also empty and emptiness means unfindable. In short, the
unfindability of any true existence is the ultimate (skt.
paramartha) in Buddhism, and is diametrically opposed to the
concept of a truly existing thing called Brahman, the ultimate
truth in Hinduism.
Now let's examine relative truth (skt. samvritti satya). In
Hinduism, the relative truth is the fact that this world is an
illusion (skt. maya). It has no existence. In Buddhism, samsara is
interdependently arising. It has relative existence (skt. samvritti
satta) according to Tsong Khapa or it appears conventionally
according to Gorampa Senge and Mipham. It is like an illusion (Skt.
mayavat). Like all illusions, it appears interdependently based on
various causes and conditions (Skt. hetu pratyaya). It may be like
an illusion but it is the only thing we have, there is nothing
behind it or beyond it which can be called an ultimate thing or
reality. The ultimate reality or truth or fact in the Buddhist
sense is the mode of existence of this illusion like samsara i. e.
(Skt. nihsvabhava) empty of real existence. So here too we find two
different parameters to two different paradigms. Now let us
investigate some of the words used by both paradigms. One word that
has created great confusion is non- dualism. First of all Hindu
Vedanta is advaita and Madhyamika Advaya. Although they are
sometimes use interchangeably by both systems, their meanings are
as used in the two paradigms differ. In Hindu Vedanta, non dualism
(advaita) means one without a second Skt: dvitiyam nasti, Chandogya
Upnishad). What is the meaning of this? That there is only Brahman
which really exists, nothing else really exists. In other words-
the world does not exists at al- it is only am illusion. The true
English word for this is Monism according to Webster Dictionary.
The view that there is only one kind of ultimate substance. Since,
as we have been seen already there is no kind of ultimate substance
in Madhyamika Buddhism the meaning advaya (non-dualism) cannot be
like in Hinduism. The Madhyamika scriptures very clearly defines
advaya as "dvaya anta mukta" free from the two extremes. The
extremes are the of eternalism into which the Hindu vedantic
Brahman falls and Nihilism into which many materialistic system
like Charvak fall. But it goes deeper. Non dual knowledge (skt.
advaya jnana) is the state of mind which is soteriologically free
from grasping at the two extremes of knowing in terms of "is" and
"is not" and ontologically free from being "existing" or "non
existing" Advaita jnana is however the knowledge of the one and
only truly existing substance or reality called Brahman in
Hinduism. It could also be called by any other name. Even if the
Brahman is defined as beyond "is and" is not" as in the
Yogavasistha, it is only a round about way of saying that there is
an ultimate reality, Brahman, which is beyond concepts of existing
and non existing and therefore it still falls within eternalism.
There is also the use of :"free from the existence and non
existence" in Buddhism and beyond existence and non existence in
Hinduism. "Beyond" implies a third something which is neither; but
"free" does not necessarily implies a third something which is
neither. Some Shentongpas define the Tathagatagarbha exactly like
the Brahman of the Vedanta without realizing it and even claim as a
higher mediator's view which is not accessible to lower class
logicians etc.
Perhaps it is most apt now to talk about two other words used
commonly by both paradigms: Nisprapanca (Tib: thro-me) and avikalpa
(Tib: Tog- me). Nisprapanca means non fabricated and avikalpa means
non- conceptual. In the context of Hinduism, it is the Brahman (the
ultimate reality, the ultimate real, the ultimate existing) which
is beyond concepts and non- fabricated. It also means a
non-fabricated and non-conceptual knowledge of that Brahman. When I
am using ultimate reality as a synonym for the Brahman. I am using
reality to mean something that exists as per the Webster's
Dictionary. I am aware that reality also connotes "fact" i. e.
truth and with such a meaning could be used in Buddhism to mean
ultimate fact/truth. But as one of its connotation is existing, it
is hazardous to use the word ultimate reality in any Buddhist
context and it is always safer to use the word ultimate truth
instead. Some English translations of Dzogchen, Mahamudra etc. have
used the word ultimate reality for Rigpa, co- emergent wisdom (skt.
sahaja jnana) Tathagata garbha, rather indiscriminately without the
authors even realizing that the use of such lax wording brings them
not only dangerously close to Vedantins of one only dangerously
close to Vedantins of one form or the other, but also they are
actually using Buddhist texts to validate the vedantic thesis. If
some of them object that their ultimate reality is empty while the
Hindu ultimate reality is not; the Hindu can ask," then how it is
an ultimate reality in the sense of ultimate existing"? To avoid
this confusion, it is safer and semantically closer to the Buddhist
paradigm to use only "ultimate truth".
Now coming back to Nisprapanca and Avikalpa, as for Buddhism,
the first verse of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhyamikakarika makes it clear
that it is the "pratityasamutpada" the interdependent origination
which is nisprapanca and beyond concepts and it is the wisdom that
realizes this that is nisprapanca and avikalpa. No Hindu Vedanta
would agree that the Brahman is interdependent origination or
interdependently originated. The same can be said of words like
acintya (inconceivable), anupamya (inexpressible) or apratistha
(non- established) etc. for which we need not write separately.
This naturally leads us to three crucial words and concepts used in
the two paradigms.: Emptiness, (skt. Shunyata), Interdependent
Origination (Skt. pratityasamutpada) and Brahma (the infinite,
eternal, unchanging, Truly existing, Non conceptual, unfabricated
reality). Many Hindu writers from the 5th/6th century onwards until
today have tried to show that the Brahman and Shunyata, mean the
same thing. The Yogavasistha (7th/8th century) has even very
explicitly stated that the Brahman and Shunya are the same reality.
(Chapter 3/5/5-6) Modern authors like Dr. Radhakrishnan, Svami
Vivekananda and Vinova Bhave have also tried to show that they mean
the same reality. Je Tsong Khapa says in his "Pratityasamutpada
stuti Subhasita Hridaya" whatever is dependent on conditions is
empty of real existence. This statement makes it clear that
dependent origination and Shunyata are two labels for the same
condition - two sides of the same coin. Now I would like to ask
these Hindu authors "Is Brahman (which according to them is the
same as Sunya), dependently originated or origination? Even here in
the two words there is a difference. The Brahman can never be a
dependent origination because it is a really existing thing. It can
only be a dependently originated thing I am sure no Hindu would
like to say this of the unchanging eternal independent Brahman. On
the other hand, the significance of Shunyata is "dependant
origination" or nisvabhava (non real existence). The Tathagatarbha,
Mahamudra, Rigpa (Vidya) etc cannot also, empty but not nisvabhava.
Such as definition of Shunya (as not nisvabhava) would not only
contradict the entire Buddhist paradigms but also would force such
so- called Buddhist writers to fall into the "all-embracing" arms
of the Vedantin Brahman. If Rigpa, Mahamudra etc. is described
without the correct emptiness, then such words as Mahamudra,
Dzogchen, Rigpa, Tathagatagarbha are only new names given to the
ancient concept of Brahman as found in the Upanishads (some of
which are 600 years than the Buddha. Such misconcepts of ultimate
realities come not from Buddhist but actually from Hindu Brahman in
the garb of Buddhist scholar monks. Some Buddhist writers give lame
excuse about meditative experience & theory being different. I
would like to reiterate that such a meditative experience is not
Buddhist but Hindu because it fits perfectly with Hindu theory of
reality. If meditative experiences are going to be different from
the theory on which they are based, that would be tantamount to
saying that the base has no relation to the path and fruit, or that
path is one and the actual experience of the fruit (meditative
experience is another). At least the Hindu base- path-fruit is more
consistent. They do not being with non real existence and end up
with some kind of subtle existence. The Buddhist meditation
experience must coincide with its base (basic paradigm). Yes, there
is a shift from conceptual to non-conceptual during meditation but
that does not necessitate a shift from non-real existence to real
existence. If reality is conceptually non real existent it does not
become real existent non conceptually. The true Buddhist meditative
experience or "non real existence "not" real existence". Some may
say that non real existence is only a concept. But the same can be
said of real existence. Since Brahman is real existence by itself,
independent etc. it cannot be a synonym for Shunyata. Some Shentong
Buddhist writers who have not studied Hindu philosophy well enough
try to give invalid excuses by implying that the Atma-Brahman of
Hinduism is imagined , fabricated, whereas the shentong
Tathagatagarbhas is non conceptual (eg. Jamgon Kongtro Lordo Thaye-
Gaining certainly about the view 5.2.4.2.). If one has read the
Vedanta Shastra one finds that the Atma (self) of the Hindu is also
free from mental elaboration like the Tathagatagarbha. So the crux
of the different lies in emptiness not in non-elaboration, non
conceptual, luminous etc. The Atma of the Vedanta is also not
accessible to inferior logicians and not negated by logic because
it is uncreated, unconditioned, self existing, self-luminous and
beyond concept. So just stating that the Hindu Atman is fabricated
and our Tathagatagarbhais not, does not really solve anything. The
Atma is what remains after everything else that is not it, has been
negated. Last of all the Atman is not the ego (Ahamkar, Tib. ngak
dzin) which is what the Shentong logic negates.
Another word that has confounded many Hindu Svamis is the unborn
(skt. ajat or anutpada), unproduced. In the context of the Hindu
Vedanta it means that there is this ultimate reality called the
Brahman which is unborn i. e. never produced by any thing or at any
time, which means it always was. A thing or super thing even a non
thing that always existed and was never ever produced at any period
in time which is separate from this born, illusory samsara. In the
Buddhist context, it is the true nature of samsara itself which
although relatively appears to be "born" ultimately is never born.
Advayavajra in his Tatvaratnavali says " The world is unborn says
the Buddha". As Buddha Ekaputra Tantra (Tib. Sangye Tse tsig
tantra) says, the base of Dzogchen is the samsara itself stirred
from its depth. Since the Samsara stirred from its depth is
interdependently originated, i. e. not really originated i. e.
unborn and since the samsara is only relatively an interdependently
originated thing but ultimately neither a thing nor a non- thing
(bhava or abhava) that truly exists, the use of the word unborn for
Brahman (which is definitely not samsara) and for samsara itself in
Buddhism are diametrically opposed. The true meaning of unborn
(anutpada) is dependently originated (pratityasamutpanna) which is
as already mentioned the meaning of a nisvabhava (non real
existence) or Shunyata. None of these can be a synonym for Brahman
or anything that ahs kind of ultimate real existence, even if it is
called Tathagatagarbha. There is no acceptance of an ultimate
existence in any Buddhist Sutra. It is interesting that an exact
word for paramartha satta in Tibetan Buddhism is very rarely used.
It shows how non-Buddhist the whole concept is. One has to
differentiate between satta (existence) and satya (truth) although
they are so close and come from the same root in Sanskrit. Even in
the Ratnagotra there is one single sentence (Skt. Yad yatra tat
tena shunyam iti samanupasyati yat punartravasistam bhavati tad sad
ihasthiti yathabhutam prajanati): "whatever is not found know that
to be empty by that itself, if something remains knows that to
exist as it is)." This statement is straight out of the Vaibhasika
sutras of the Theravada (Sunnatavagga) and Sautrantik Abhidharma
Samuccaya. It seems to imply an affirming negative. First of all
this statement contradicts the rest of the Ratnagotravibhaga if it
is taken as the ultimate meaning in the Sutra (as Shentongpas have
done). Secondly since it is a statement of the Vaibhasika school
(stating than an ultimate unit of consciousness and matter
remains), it cannot be superior to the Rangtong Madhyamika. Thirdly
its interpretation as what remains is the ultimately existing
Tathagatagarbha contradicts not only the interpretation that found
in other Buddhist sutras as "itar etar Shunyata" (emptiness of what
is different from it) but also the shentong interpretation of
Tathagatagarbha contradicts all the other definition of the
Tathagatagarbha found in the Ratnagotravibhaga itself.
This brings us to the wrod Nitya- i. e. eternal or permanent.
The Hindu use of the word Nitya for its ultimate existing reality,
viz. Brahman is Kutastha Nitya i. e. something remaining or
existing unchangingly eternal, i. e. something statically
eternally. Whatever the word Nitya is used for the ultimate truth
in Buddhism, the Great Pandita Santa rakshita has made it very
clear in his Tatvasamgraha that the Buddhist Nitya is parinami
nitya i. e. changing, transforming, eternal in another words
dynamically eternal. The Buddhist Nitya is more accurately
translated in English as eternal continuum rather than just
eternal. I would like to remind some western translators of Nyingma
and Kagyu texts that it is either the view of Shantarakshita's
Svatantrik Madhyamika or the prasangika view that is given during
the "Tri" instruction of Yeshe Lama as the correct view of
Dzogchen. Now finally I would like to show how the same analogies
are used in the Vedantic Hinduism and Buddhist Madhyamika to
illustrate different thesis. The most famous analogy in both
Vedanta and Madhyamka is that of the snake seen in the rope. In
Vedanta you have the famous Sankaric verse rajjau sarpa
bhramanaropa tadvat Brahmani jagataropa i. e. as a snake is
imputed/ superimposed upon a piece of rope so is the samsara
imposed upon the Brahman. Only the rope or the Brahman is real the
snake-samsara is unreal and does not exist at all. They are only
illusions. If one studies teh analogy one realizes that it is not
such an accurate analogy. The rope is not eternal like Brahman.
Furthermore the rope is not asamskrita (unconditioned like Brahman
so it is not really good example or the proof of a truly existing
independent Brahman. It is a forced analogy. And rightly so,
because it is a Buddhist analogy squeezed to give Vedantic
meaning.
As for Buddhism the rope stands for pratityasamutpada for which
it is a good example being itself interdependently arisen from
pieces of jute etc. and the snake imputed upon it stands for real
existence which is imposed on the interdependently existing rope
appearance. Here it is the rope that is the true mode of existence
of the samsara (unlike the snake representing samsara in Vedanta)
and the snake is our ignorance imputing samsara as really existing
instead of experience it as interdependently arisen. This
interdependence or emptiness is parinami nitya i. e. an eternal
continuum and this applicable to all phenomena. Of course, this
interdependence is the conventional truth whereas nisvabhavata
which is synonymous to emptiness is the ultimate truth in
Madhyamika. Although interdependence is itself conditioned, in
reality it is unborn and empty, its true nature is unconditioned.
But this is not an unconditioned reality like Brahman but an
unconditioned truth i. e. the fact that all things are in reality
empty, unborn, uncreated. Likewise the Mirror reflection analogy is
used to show that just like images which have no existence at all
appear and disappear on the permanent surface of the mirror so too
samsara which is an illusory reflection on the mirror of Brahman
appears on the surface of the Brahman and disappears there. In
Buddhism this metaphor is used to show that samsara is
interdependently arisen like the reflection on the mirror. The
mirror is only one of the causes and conditions and no more real
that the other causes and conditions for the appearance of the
reflection of Samsara. Here too the mirror is a very poor metaphor
for the Brahman, being itself interdependently arisen like the
reflection on it. Actually such analogies are good examples for
pratityasamutpada and not for some eternal Brahman. The mirror
Brahman metaphor is only forced. The same can be said of the moon
on the pond analogy and rainbow in the sky analogy. In conclusion,
I would like to sum it up by stating that Buddhism (especially
Mahayana/ Vajrayana) is not a reformulation of Hinduism or a
negative way of expressing what Hinduism as formulated. Hinduism
and Buddhism share a common culture and therefore tend to use the
same or similar words. They do share certain concepts like Karma
and re-incarnation, although their interpretation differ. Hindu
concepts of karma and therefore reincarnation tend to be rather
linear whereas the Buddhist concept is linked with
pratityasamutpada. The Theravada concept of pratityasamutpada is
also rather linear but the Mahayana/Vajrayana concept is more
non-linear multi dimentional-multi leveled-interdependent
inter-latched. But all similarities to Hinduism ends there. The
Shunyata of the Buddha, Nagarjuna, Candrakirti is by no accounts a
negative way of describing the Brahman of the Upanishad-
Samkara-Vidhyaranya groups.
Vednta vis--vis ShentongAcharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana
Rinpoche
Vednta is based on the Upanishads, some of which are as old as
the Buddha and others are four to eight hundred years older than
the Buddha himself. Shankarcrya (also known as Sankara), who was
from the 8th century, is the most famous commentator of the
Upanishads, and today, the majority of the Hindus follow his
commentaries. In the Bodhyana commentary, according to him, the
hermeneutic of the Upanishads existed even before his time.Although
he was from around the 8th century, he became popular among the
Hindus only after the 10th century when one of his lineage holders,
Vcaspati Misra, wrote a sub-commentary (Tib. grel-wa) on his
commentary. Today, Shankarcrya is considered among the greatest
Hindu philosophers and even educated Hindus in India subscribe to
him. However, since he became well known only after the 10th
century, no Buddhist scholars like Sntideva, ntarakita,
Ratnkarasnti, Jnagarbha, etc., seem to mention him or refute him in
their work.ntarakita has however refuted the Upanishadic
non-dualism in the Tattva Sangraha chapter 7, section 5. In his
refutation of the Upanishadic view he has referred to the followers
of the Upanishad as those who postulate that the tm is eternal, one
and of the nature of knowledge/conciousness/ Jnasvarpa. Kamalala
has also commented on this view describing it as,That is the tm is
of the nature of one eternal consciousness / knowledge.Indeed both
ntarakita and Kamalala are refuting almost the same view that
Sankarcrya postulates although neither ntarakita nor Kamalala
mentions his name or his work. It is important to understand that
according to ntarakita and Kamalala, the Upanishadic view (which is
older than the Buddha and the most common and popular view held by
Hindus today) is that there is a non-dual consciousness or a
non-dual knowledge which is eternal and this is the tm or this is
called the tm. It is important to understand that ntarakita himself
has refuted 6 different interpretations of the tm as accepted in
Hinduism in his time. This non-dual cognition / consciousness /
knowledge which is eternal (nitya / rtag-pa) is one of the tm-s
refuted by ntarakita in his Tattva Sangraha. This tm is not
dualistic; therefore it is not Vijna (Tib. rnam-shes). It is
non-dual and it is eternal. It is called Gyana (ye-shes) by
ntarakita, who used the very word the Upanishad and Sankarcrya
uses.This is how ntarakita refuted this view:The error in the view
of these philosophies is a slight one due only to the assertion of
eternality of cognition.There is, however, a slight difference
between this Upanishadic view refuted here by ntarakita and
Sankarcryas Upanishadic view. Sankaras view is called
Maya-Vivartavd i.e. the illusionist. The view refuted by ntarakita
is called parinmavda - modificationist. The difference is that this
view considers the 5 elements, etc., and the world as illusory
modifications of this non-dual eternal cognition / consciousness,
while Sankara interprets the world and its 5 elements, etc., as
illusory and therefore non-existent and this non-dual eternal
cognition as separate from the illusion. What Khunkhyen Dolpopa
states in his bka sdus bshi pa of the Shentong Ultimate Reality is
exactly this tm view.I have not seen, to date, any Shentong Tibetan
Master refute this tm view. Is it because the only difference
between the view of Sankara and the Shentong is the use of the word
tm, which Buddhists do not like to use?Although Sankarcrya refuted
the Vaibhbika, Sautntrika, Cittamtra, and Mdhyamika, he never
mentioned anything that is even similar to the Shentong view. If a
view similar to Shentong had existed in India and if that had been
the view of Asanga, he would have certainly mentioned it. Hindus
from ancient time until today have always wanted to prove that
Buddhism is just a branch of Hinduism and what the Buddha taught is
just another way of teaching the same teachings as already found in
Hinduism. If anything similar to the Shentong view had already
existed in India by 600 AD, Sankarcrya would have certainly used it
to prove that Buddhism is just a type of Hinduism. Since Asanga was
at least 200 years older than Sankarcrya, why has Sankarcrya
mentioned Vaibhbika, Sautntrika, Cittamtra, and Mdhyamika only and
refuted them only?Sankarcrya even mentions the exact opposite view
of what ntarakita mentioned above and refutes him. In exact
opposite of what ntarakita says, The error in the view of these
philosophers is a slight one due only to the assertion of
eternality of cognition. Sankara says about the Chittamatra The
error in the view of these philosophies is only slight - they
believe the non-dual mind as changing moment to moment; we believe
it as unchanging eternal.If the meaning of the Uttara Tantra is
what the Shentongpas make it out to be, it would have existed in
the Indian sources too. Sankara would certainly have written that
the view of these Buddhist philosophers as what the Vedas had
always taught and that Buddhism is just a branch of Hinduism. Even
today, if any Indian Hindu philosopher comes across the Shentong
view, they would be most happy to embrace it as the correct view
and take it as a solid proof that Buddhism is just a branch of
Hinduism and the Buddha did not teach anything new. This of course
blatantly contradicts what the Buddha himself said in Mahayana,
Theravada, and Sarvstivda Sutras and Sstra-s. The Buddha said that
he taught something that had been lost for a long time. But the
Vedas and the Vedic Brhmins of the Buddhas time, whom the Buddha
met, had been and are still teaching the existence of true tm, and
eternal non-dual cognition as the Ultimate Reality.If we glance
through the Jain literature, we again find that no Jain scholar
mentions that the Buddhists believed in an eternal / permanent
non-dual cognition as the ultimate reality. At least, those Jain
scholars after Asanga should have done so, if that was how the
Uttara Tantra had been interpreted in India.If we analyze both the
Hindu Sankarcryas and the Buddhist ntarakitas, we find that both
agree that the view of the Hindu Advaita Vednta is that the
ultimate reality (tm) is an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition.
The Buddhists as a whole do not agree that the ultimate reality is
an eternal, unchanging non-dual cognition, but rather a changing
eternal non-dual cognition. These statements found in the 6th
century Hindu text and the refutations of the Hindu view found in
the 9th century Buddhist texts (both of which were after the Uttara
Tantra and Asanga), show that the Hindu view of the ultimate
reality as an unchanging, eternal non-dual cognition is
non-existent amongst the Buddhists of India. Not only was such a
view non-existent amongst Buddhists of India, but it was also
refuted as a wrong view by scholars like ntarakita. He even writes
that if and when Buddhists use the word eternal (nitya), it means
parinmi nitya, i.e., changing eternal, and not the Hindu kind of
eternal, which always remains unchanged.The Hindu tm is not only
non-dual cognition but is also unchanging, eternal, and truly
existing. Sankarcrya defines existence (sat) in his Tattvaboda as
that which remains the same in all the 3 times (past, present,
future). In the commentary by Gaudapda (who was Sankarcryas Gurus
Guru), of the Mndukya Upanishada, in verse number 96, he calls the
eternally really existing non-dual cognition is non-relational,
i.e., free from reference points. In the 37th verse of the same
work it is said that this non-dual, eternal, really existing
cognition is free from all sense organs, i.e., free from the
dualistic mind (namshe). So the Upanishadic view is that the really
existing, eternal / permanent, non-dual, non-referential cognition
is the tm, and this is not dualistic mind. This Upanishadic view
existed even before the Buddha, and this was what Sankarcrya
expounded very clearly and most powerfully around the 6th century.
This view, similar to this Sankara view, was refuted by ntarakita
as a wrong view.The Vedntic Sutras and Sstra-s are full of
statements like:
1. This tm is truly existent beyond existence and
non-existence.2. This is truly non-dual beyond dual and non-dual.3.
This tm is the Great Thing (mahvastu), which is permanent
beyond permanent and impermanent, etc., etc.4. It is empty of
all qualities (nirguna), which means empty of foreign
qualities, but not empty (of itself), i.e., not empty of being a
truly existing permanent entity (sat); not empty of being non-dual
coginition (cit), and not empty of bliss (nanda). Sat-cit-nanda is
the nature of this tm (or non-dual cognition).If you have
understood what I have written above, it is easy to understand why
when Ringo Tulku presented the Shentong view in an Indian
symposium, all the Hindu Indian scholars happily agreed with it and
told him happily, This is the same view as our Vedanta!. Also, a
few centuries ago, Jonangpa Kunga Drol Chog, a throne holder of the
Jonangpa, had visited Muktinth, where he presented his views to the
Hindu yogis present there. These Hindu yogis also called him a
genuine Hindu yogi after they heard his Shentong view.Now I have
some questions that I would really like to ask the Shentong
Buddhists:
1. What is the difference between the Shentong view and the most
popular Hindu view of the Vedanta / Upanishad of Sankarcrya?
2. If the views are the same, i.e., there cannot be found any
differences, then what was the new view that the Buddha taught?
3. If this Upanishadic view is the highest view of Buddhism, why
do we not find it in any Buddhist, Hindu, or Jain texts of India?
Taking into consideration that the Hindus, Buddhists, and Jains
debated with each other and refuted each others views right from
the Buddhas time until Buddhism vanished from India, isnt it a bit
strange that none have mentioned a Buddhist view similar to the
Upanishads non-dual Atma? All the Hindu and Jain refutations of
Buddhism can still easily be found in their original Sanskrit. Why
do we not find mention of such a view (Shentong) in any of these
texts even after Asanga? This lacunae itself seems to speak quite
clearly.
4. If this Atma has been refuted by many Buddhist scholars like
Shantarakshita, yanagarbha, etc., how is it possible for the
Shentong view to be free from the same refutation? After all, both
are calling the non-dual cognition, which is permanent,
non-referential, and really existing as the Ultimate Truth and
Ultimate Reality.
5. If the Ultimate View of Buddhism is Shentong, why did
thousands of Brahmins from the time of the Buddha until the 12th
13thcenturies, become Buddhists and refute the Hindu view as wrong?
Many of them were brilliant Hindu / Vedic scholars before they
became Buddhists. How could all of these scholars uphold the
Shentong view while refuting the view of the Upanishads, if they
were saying the same thing?
6. Shenphen Hookham says, They have their own view and we have
our own, so whats wrong if they are the same? This implies that the
views are the same. Do all the Shentongpas agree to her reply? If
they do agree with her then were all the scholars like Candarakrti,
Jnagarbha, ntarakita, Kamalala, Ratnakarashnti, Bhavaviveka,
Buddhaplita, Sntideva, Prajkaramati, and thousands of others just
fools to refute the Hindu tm view of the Upanishads and become
Buddhists?
7. Also, there seem to be many types of Shentong and these need
to be differentiated, otherwise there can be quite a lot of
confusion. Just as there are Nirkra Cittamtra, Skara Cittamtra, or
Yogcra Sautntrika Mdhyamika, Prsngika Mdhyamika, Mdhyamika Shentong
should also be differentiated in various forms, instead of calling
all of them just Shentong. For example, some Shentongpas call the
state of Nirvna permanent. This is not a problem and fits in neatly
with the rest of Buddhism. This is not really contradictory to
Rangtong. As Rangtong does not say the state also is impermanent.
It only says that Nirvna (or such states) is also Nisvabhva. In
such case a Shentong could be called Avasthiti Shentong. This
includes those who say the qualities Svatantrika(guna-s) and Kya-s
are permanent. But since the Rangtong does not deny this, it seems
redundant to call it Shentong. The qualities and Kya-s are also
Nisvabhva. If they were not so, they would not be of any use as
they could not function. But the bka sdus bshi pa of Khunkhyen
Dolpopa seems to say that the Ultimate Reality is a Super-Thing
(Mahvastu of Vednta), which is beyond thing and non-thing (beyond
Vastu and Avastu), and this is permanent. This Shentong should be
called Mahvastu Shentong. This Shentong is the problem and is not
only 100% Vedanta, which predates even Asanga by more than a
thousand years, but is contradictory to both the Srvakayna and
Pramityna. This was not taught by the Siddha-s to the Rishi-s, as
these Rishi-s were older than any of the Mahsiddha-s.
8. Most of the logic used by Shentong to show that the Rangtong
is inferior to its view has a remarkable resemblance to the logic
used by Hindus to refute Buddhism as a whole. These logical
refutations of the Buddhist view by the Hindus from even before
Buddhism entered Tibet are now being echoed by Shentonpas when they
refute Rantong.
A. One must meditate on a truly existing permanent thing to be
liberated. How can anyone be liberated by meditating on the
emptiness of an illusory world or on an emptiness or Antm?
B. This tm is non-conceptual and therefore beyond the refutation
of the lower logicians.
C. This tm is permanent and truly existing, and beyond being
empty and non-empty, beyond permanent and impermanent, beyond
existing and non-existing.
D. The refutation of the logicians cuts only the real existence
of the ego and not the real existence of this tm.
9. There is a small legend that says that the Shentong view was
kept secret in India from the time of Asanga until it entered
Tibet. This story seems cooked up to justify the Shentong lacunae
in the records of all Indian systems. First of all, Asangas
teachings are Sutra-s and the Shentong view is a Sutra view. It is
bit far-fetched to think that Sutra teachings are secret like
Tantra. Second, this implies that all the rya-s like Ngrjuna,
Aryadeva, etc., before Asanga had the wrong view and therefore
cannot be rya-s. Thirdly, why was it necessary to keep Sutra
teachings secret unless it blatantly contradicted the prevalent
Buddhist views coming down through the unbroken lineages and which
were well known to not only all Buddhists, but also all Hindu and
Jain scholars? Fourthly, The Srvaka systems like the Theravda have
an equally interesting lore which fits well, like a piece of jigsaw
with this Secret Shentong in India lore. This lore / legend say
that in later years, many Hindu Bharamins entered Buddhism and
became monks with the secret purpose of subverting the correct
Buddhist view to destroy Buddhism. These Bharamins secretly
implanted Hindu (Tib. rmu-rteg-pa) views of the Veda-s and passed
it on as the highest Buddhist view. But this was kept secret for
many centuries. This legend from the Theravda tradition and the
Secret Shentong in India seems to be uncannily similar to each
other. It seems weird that a Sutra teaching, which is regarded as
the real highest view of Buddhism, was really taught only after
Asanga in the Uttara Tantra, and that too was kept a secret until
it entered Tibet at least according to some Shentongpa legends.
10. These questions are not satires but very genuine for me.
Like some of the ancient scholars and practitioners, I belong to an
orthodox Hindu family and studied and practiced Hindu theory and
practice thoroughly before I became a Buddhist. One of the major
reasons why I became a Buddhist is because of Mdhyamika (and all
the other Buddhist systems), very clearly proved to me that the
Upanishadic tm view (of a permanent non-dual cognition that really
exists) is flawed. Now, if the Shentong view is the real inner
secret and highest view of Buddhism, my raison dtre for becoming a
Buddhist has been pulled like a carpet from under my feet.Can any
Shentongpa please show me how the Shentong view is different from
the Hindu Upanishadic view as explicated above?