Buddhism and the Self

[anand_hudli at BMC.BOEHRINGER-MANNHEIM.COM]

  The issue of whether or to what extent Buddhism and advaita are alike
  has been very controversial for quite some time. I have expressed some
  of my views earlier, so I won't repeat them. I agree that Buddhism and
  advaita have something in common, but I don't agree that they are
  equivalent.
  They are two different philosophies, inspite of the perceived similarity.

  Let me explain. Buddha borrowed heavily from the Vedas, especially from the
  upanishads, in formulating his philosophy. Even academic scholars agree that
  many of the upanishads, and the celebrated Giitaa too, are from the
  pre-buddhist era. So it is possible, nay very likely, that Buddha explained
  many of the concepts from the Vedas, but in the language that people could
  easily understand. He condemned violence and preached compassion. There is
  no doubt that he was a great man. In fact, Hindu mythology elevates him to
  an avatar of Vishnu. But we should remember that great men (and gods!)
  may make mistakes too, just like us.

  The mistake that Buddha committed was that he _selectively_ accepted some
  portions of the Vedas and rejected others. He rejected the entire karma
  kaaNDa. For the most part, his was an anti-vedic philosophy. He essentially
  agreed with many upanishadic conclusions, especially the "neti neti"
  principle. What he was trying to do is somewhat similar to "have the cake
  and eat it too." You cannot manufacture a philosophy by partly accepting
  the Vedas and partly rejecting them. You have got to explain the Vedas
  _as_a_whole.

  Advaitic conclusions are undoubtedly the conclusions of the Vedas, ie. the
  upanishads. But advaita also explains the other parts of the Vedas,
  including the karma kaaNDa, with remarkable consistency. What advaita
  does reinforce is the idea of an Absolute Reality. This kind of
  Absolutism is missing from Buddhism.

  Unfortunately, many people who read Shankara and GauDapaada come to the
  conclusion that their ideas were similar to those of the Buddhists. This
  erroneous conclusion could be due to many reasons. Shankara, for example,
  is perceived as being vehemently opposed to karma KaaNDa, the ritual
  portion of the Vedas. This is a wrong perception. What Shankara opposed
  is the Miimaamsakas' claim that karma  is the real purport of the
  Vedas and that the upanishads are merely auxilliary or explanatory in
  nature. Shankara claimed all along that the jnaana kaaNDa, ie. the
  upanishads, represent the true import of the Vedas, and it is the
  karma kaaNDa that is auxilliary. Shankara never said karma kaaNDa
  should be abolished as the Buddhists did.

  People who read just the GauDapaada kaarikas and Shankara's commentary
  on the upanishads come to erroneous conclusions about advaita. To get a
  correct understanding of advaita, one must study the prasthaana-trayi,
  the three prasthaana's - Upanishads, the Brahma Suutra, and the Giitaa.
  The advaitic position on karma kaaNDa is clearly brought out in the
  Giitaa Bhaashhya of Shankara, and to a lesser extent in the Brahma
  suutra Bhaashhya.

  When one considers all the three advaitic interpretations, ie. those
  of the upanishads, the Brahma suutra, and the Giitaa, it becomes amply clear
  that advaita and Budhhism are different.


  Anand