References to Vedanta in Buddhism

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste,

I was reviewing the work of early Buddhist writers to find any mention of Vedanta. In this regard, the book "A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy" by Prof Hajime Nakamura played a very helpful role.

The Upanishadic doctrines were seen by the early Buddhists as a collection of heterogenous views - the idea of there being one coherent philosophy that the Upanishads spoke as a whole was not yet known to the Buddhists. However, there are certain strands in there which are identifiable (and identified as such by Prof Nakamura) with Vedanta.

1) For example, the Majjhima Nikaya, which is one of the collections in the Sutta Pitaka, records a conversation that certain disciples had with the Buddha, which bears close resemblance to Advaita. The Sutta Pitaka is said to have been composed between 3rd century BCE and 2nd century CE.

"O Bhikkus - At that time, Baka, the Brahmaa, produced the following pernicious view - It is permanent. It is eternal. It is always existent. It is independent existence. It has the dharma of non perishing. Truly it is not born, does not become old, does not die, does not disappear, and is not born again. Furthermore no liberation superior to it exists elsewhere."

The Buddha criticises this view saying "Truly, the Baka Brahmaa is covered with ignorance".

2) The idea of consciousness that is beyond the reach of the senses, but illuminates all, is once again reported as a view of the Vedantins in the Majjhima Nikaya: 

"There is a consciousness which the eye does not see, which does not have boundaries, and which shines in all places. It cannot even be perceived as the earthiness of earth, the wateriness of water."

3) The teaching of the Tathagata garbha in the lankAvatAra sUtra is very similar to the Brahman of the Upanishads. Three versions of the Sutra have been preserved in Chinese translation, the earliest in 443 CE.

a) In the sUtra, the tathAgata garbha is described in terms similar to the Alaya vijnAna of the vijnAnavAdins, and is described to be the source of all phenomenal activities:

"Oh mahAmati, the tathAgata garbha is the cause of both good and evil, and is that which creates all living things and pursuits"

b) The description of the tathaAgata garbha is very similar to how the Upanishads describe Brahman:

"The Supreme Brahma is the ultimate state of existence." - the Supreme Brahma here being referred to in the sUtra is a name given to the tathAgata garbha.

c) In fact, the charge that the tathAgata garbha of Buddhism and the parambrahma of the Upanishads are one and the same is raised by the Buddhists themselves in the Sutra.  The Bodhisattva Mahamati asks the Buddha:

"If this be so, O Lord, would not the theory of the tathAgata garbha, be equivalent to the doctrine of the self held by the outsiders? For they too hold as their doctrine, the self that is permanent and the agent, separated from all gunas, omnipresent and imperishable".

The Buddha replies "Mahamati, my teaching of the tathAgata garbha is not the same as the outsiders' teaching of the self, truly...In order to attract those outsiders who adhere to the teaching of the self the Tathagatas teach the Tathagata garbha. Thus, Mahamati, one must now follow the teaching of the selfless-ness of the Tathagata so that one may put to an end the view of outsiders".

To the extent this is an accurate record of a conversation with the Buddha, it is clear that the one, all pervading, imperishable Atma of the Upanishads was known to the Buddha and his followers of the day.

4) The most systematic presentation of the Vedantic system appears to occur in Bhavya's mAdhyamakahRdaya's (MH) eighth chapter. Bhavya is a pre Shankara Buddhist, estimated to have lived between 490 CE - 570 CE. 

For a long time, only the Tibetan translation of the MH and its autocommentary, tarkajvAla, were available. However, the Sanskrit verses of the MH were thankfully discovered in a Tibetan monastery in 1936 by Pandita Rahul Sankrityayana. 

A read of the Vedantic pUrvapaksha in Sanskrit shows a remarkable similarity with GauDapAda's mAnDUkya kArika-s, indicating that Sri GauDapAda AchArya must have preceded Bhavya. The Sanskrit version of the tarkajvAla is still missing.

Some verses below to show the consonance:

a) घटोत्पत्तौ विनाशे वा न आकाशस्य तदात्मता | तदात्मतात्मनोपीष्टा न देहाद्युदयव्ययम् ||

When a pot is created or destroyed, space does not become identical to it (ie space does not become the pot, nor does it have the properties of the pot). Similarly the soul does not become identical with the bodies upon their birth or death.

b) घटाकाशवदेकस्य नानात्वं चेदभेदतः | घटभेदेन चैकत्वं साम्ये सर्वस्य जन्मवत् ||

If it is said that like there is multiplicity of pot spaces, despite space being one - when the pots get destroyed, it becomes one again. Thus everything is the same (upon destruction), like how it was at birth. The word janmavat is corrupted in the surviving manuscript - I have seen other researchers replace "janmavat" for "sammatam".

c) यथा घटादिभेदेऽपि मृद्भेदो नास्ति कश्चन | (तथैव देहभेदेऽपि नात्मभेदोऽस्ति कश्चन )||

Even though there is difference in pots, there is no difference in their content, clay, whatsoever. Similarly, even if the bodies are different, there is no difference in the self. 

d) घटभेदेन यथैकस्मिन् रजोधूमादिभिर्वृते | तद्वत्ता नहि सर्वेषां सुखादेर्न तथात्मनः ||

When any one pot becomes covered in dust, smoke etc, other pots do not. Similar is the case with happiness, which do not belong to the self.

e) अप्रबोधादनात्मज्ञः स्वप्ने भोगाभिमानवत् | चिनोति कर्म भुङ्क्ते च तत्फलं  यच्छुभाशुभम् ||

The one who does not know his self due to ignorance, becomes an experiencer like in a dream, accumulates karma and experiences their results, be they good or bad.

f) देहसंस्थोऽपि असङ्गत्वात् भुञ्जानो नोपलिप्यते | राजवत् कामचारीच पापेनानपाराध्यसौ ||

Even when in the body, even when experiencing, none of the experiences affect him, for he is detached by nature. He does as he pleases, like a king, for he is not guilty of any sin. 

g) एकं सर्वगतं नित्यं परं  ब्रह्माच्युतम् पदम् | योगी युञ्जान आवेत्ति न तदिति पुनर्भवम् ||

The yogi, uniting with the one, all pervading, eternal, supreme, Brahman, the unfailing refuge, directly perceives it, and has no further birth.

h) नित्यं तदविकल्पं च यत्र वाचामगोचरः | गिरस्तत्र प्रयुज्यन्ते भेदापहृतबुद्धिभिः || 

It is eternal, partless and beyond the realm of words. However, words are used to describe it, by those whose intellects are misled by plurality.      

As can be seen, the presentation of the Vedanta pUrvapakshi above is very similar to what one could find in any of Shankara's or other Vedantic teachers' works. 

In fact, the fourth shloka above has a clear consonance with the mANDUkya kArikA 3.5 

यथैकस्मिन्घटाकाशे रजोधूमादिभिर्युते ।न सर्वे सम्प्रयुज्यन्ते तद्वज्जीवाः सुखादिभिः ॥ 

The first sloka above also is similar to 3.4 of the gauDapAda kArikA

घटादिषु प्रलीनेषु घटाकाशादयो यथा । 

आकाशे सम्प्रलीयन्ते तद्वज्जीवा इहात्मनि ॥ ४ ॥

There are other advaitic references in the works of Buddhist philosophers like Kamalashila and Shantarakshita - including referring to the advaitic system as AupaniShada - but as their time frames broadly overlap with Shankaracharya, I have not included those here. 

From the above, we can reasonably conclude the existence of Vedantic, specifically, advaitic thought codified into a living system, well before Shankara's time, as evidenced in the works of writers belonging to other philosophical schools. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[K Sivan]

It would be useful to glean through various purvapaksha  sources and make a compilation of all the instances where the signs of the Advaitic thought as being the purport of the vedantic system are visible.  Nakamura  seems to draw the the conclusion that Pre-Sankaran vedanta was not Advaitic but of bhedabhedic strand of thought.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Sivan ji

I don't think that is correct based on my reading of Nakamura. In several instances, he does point out evidence of Pre Shankara advaitic thought from Buddhist sources. 

However, in his view, in addition to advaita, there are seeds present of other Vedanta based systems - vishiShTAdvaita and bhedAbheda - too.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/02f658b3-1bc6-4f23-a64f-0cbf1fd43441n%40googlegroups.com.

[K Kathirasan]

Namaste Venkatraghavan ji,

Thanks for sharing these references. They were helpful. There are five additional books that I have encountered that could be valuable to you in this endeavour. They are:

1. Buddhism As presented by the Brahmanical Systems by Chitrarekha Kher

2. Upanisads and Early Buddhism by Deodikar

3. The Atman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism by Kamaleswar Bhattacharya

4. Early Buddhism and the Bhagavad Gita by Kashi Nath Upadhyaya

5. An Evaluation of the Vedantic Critique of Buddhism by Gregory Darling

Warmest Regards,

Kathirasan K

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAL34aEnCQ%2BeoobNh20cC00s558g2-KOwyBVrFeGQGBfZzdJdSg%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 4:05 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Sivan ji

I don't think that is correct based on my reading of Nakamura. In several instances, he does point out evidence of Pre Shankara advaitic thought from Buddhist sources. 

However, in his view, in addition to advaita, there are seeds present of other Vedanta based systems - vishiShTAdvaita and bhedAbheda - too.

Namaste Venkat ji,

Is there any particular reference in that book as to what 'shade' of VishiShTadvaita it is?  I am asking this since in the Ramanuja type, it is Vishnu who is Advaita Svarupam and is chid-achid vishishTa.  Is there any mention of the deity base for the school that is mentioned?  This school is also a bheda-abheda school as per the sarva-darshana-sangraha.  

warm regards

subbu 

 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Bhaskar YR]

there are seeds present of other Vedanta based systems - vishiShTAdvaita and bhedAbheda – too

 

praNAms

Hare Krishna

 

I have read somewhere at the time of shankara all vedAntins  were only advaitins with variations in Advaita doctrine itself.  And theory of absolute bheda between jeeva and paramAtma was conspicuous by its absence during his time.  Through jnana and subsequent upAsana one can attain mOksha (not only jnana but upAsana also mandatory), through upAsana of the jnana results in  ajnAna nivrutti etc. might be the beeja rUpa of later vishishtAdvaita but these schools (then existing at the time of shankara) were not absolute bhedavAdins like dualists today.  Ofcourse there is bhatruprapancha bhedAbheda doctrine which has been refuted by bhAshyakAra but I don’t think rAmAjuna praNeeta vishishtAdvaita was existing at the time of shankara.  Curious to know more references.

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

Nakamura quotes this verse from the MH in evidence of seeds of vishiShTAdvaita being present in Bhavya's time

तस्मिन् सर्वाणि भूतानि भवति आत्मैव पश्यतः।

बालपण्डितचाण्डालविप्रादीनान् च तुल्यता ॥

The tarkajvAla commentary to the first line says "all that moves and does not, is comprehended in the self. And besides, one who sees the self realises that the ignorant and the learned, the outcast and the Brahmin are all equal."

Based on the above verse Nakamura says "It is not, however, that the non-dualistic monistic view alone is presented here. It is obvious, also, that since it said that all living beings are comprised within the atman (v.9) , one should admit the seeds of limited non dualism (vishiShTAdvaita) of the Ramanuja school". 

Personally I think this verse makes more sense from the advaitic perspective, especially as the other verses in MH speak of the unity of the self in multiple bodies (whereas I think in V.advaita, multiple selves are admitted, which have a part whole relationship to the paramAtma).

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te05Q6bC6AWATJCdsSJR2_VeyiWdRCn%2BsRa_3J%2Bj%3DEQimw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

Thank you Kathirasan ji. I will try to read these works.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/DC6FB054-838D-45CE-B1D4-13C726675F6C%40gmail.com.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Venkat ji

>तस्मिन् सर्वाणि भूतानि भवति आत्मैव पश्यतः।

This reminds me of मत्स्थानि सर्वभूतानि in Gita 9.4.

Also Isa Upanishad 6.

यस्तु सर्वा॑णि भू॒तान्या॒त्मन्ने॒वानु॒पश्य॑ति ।

स॒र्व॒भू॒तेषु॑ चा॒त्मानं॒ ततो॒ न वि जु॑गुप्सते ॥६॥

>बालपण्डितचाण्डालविप्रादीनान् च तुल्यता ॥

This reminds me of Gita 5.18 -

विद्याविनयसंपन्ने ब्राह्मणे गवि हस्तिनि।
शुनि चैव श्वपाके च पण्डिताः समदर्शिनः।।5.18।।

Best Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Mar 1, 2024 at 8:22 PM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbuji,

Nakamura quotes this verse from the MH in evidence of seeds of vishiShTAdvaita being present in Bhavya's time

तस्मिन् सर्वाणि भूतानि भवति आत्मैव पश्यतः।

बालपण्डितचाण्डालविप्रादीनान् च तुल्यता ॥

The tarkajvAla commentary to the first line says "all that moves and does not, is comprehended in the self. And besides, one who sees the self realises that the ignorant and the learned, the outcast and the Brahmin are all equal."

Based on the above verse Nakamura says "It is not, however, that the non-dualistic monistic view alone is presented here. It is obvious, also, that since it said that all living beings are comprised within the atman (v.9) , one should admit the seeds of limited non dualism (vishiShTAdvaita) of the Ramanuja school". 

Personally I think this verse makes more sense from the advaitic perspective, especially as the other verses in MH speak of the unity of the self in multiple bodies (whereas I think in V.advaita, multiple selves are admitted, which have a part whole relationship to the paramAtma).

Thank you Venkat ji, even I feel the verse cited is more Advaita-friendly. 

The Shvetashvatatopanishat says:  त्वं स्त्री पुमानसि त्वं कुमार उत वा कुमारी । त्वं जीर्णो दण्डेन वञ्चसि त्वं जातो भवसि विश्वतोमुखः ॥३॥

All the forms seen in the cosmos  like man, woman, young, old, are of Brahman.  

Brahma sutra bhashya 2.3.43 Shankara cites an Upanishad:

अन्यथा चापि व्यपदेशो भवत्यनानात्वस्य प्रतिपादकः ; तथा ह्येके शाखिनो दाशकितवादिभावं ब्रह्मण आमनन्त्याथर्वणिका ब्रह्मसूक्ते — ‘ ब्रह्म दाशा ब्रह्म दासा ब्रह्मैवेमे कितवाः’ इत्यादिना ; दाशा य एते कैवर्ताः प्रसिद्धाः, ये च अमी दासाः स्वामिष्वात्मानमुपक्षपयन्ति, ये च अन्ये कितवा द्यूतकृतः, ते सर्वे ब्रह्मैव — इति हीनजन्तूदाहरणेन सर्वेषामेव नामरूपकृतकार्यकरणसङ्घातप्रविष्टानां जीवानां ब्रह्मत्वमाह -  Brahman is the boatman, the gambler, etc.  ;

तथा अन्यत्रापि ब्रह्मप्रक्रियायामेवायमर्थः प्रपञ्च्यते — ‘ त्वं स्त्री त्वं पुमानसि त्वं कुमार उत वा कुमारी । त्वं जीर्णो दण्डेन वञ्चसि त्वं जातो भवति विश्वतोमुखः’ (श्वे. उ. ४ । ३) इति, ‘ सर्वाणि रूपाणि विचित्य धीरो नामानि कृत्वाभिवदन्यदास्ते’ इति च ; ‘ 

warm regards

subbu

 

Kind regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Subbu ji

That's a moot point. Regarding the MH mention of the pre-Shankara existence of even vishiShTAdvaita etc., it would be interesting to explore any mention in any such older Buddhist sources of a deity-based vishiShTAdvaita.

 I understand that such evidence is scanty. Only Advaita is extensively referenced and vedic karma kANDam too, which is explicitly denounced in even early Buddhist sources. 

Also, I was looking at the validity of the statement, "the bhedAbheda vAda which was a fairly old Indian system was alone the original progenitor of the deity-based systems. We can say that, at the risk of some loss of nuance,  bhedAbhedavAda + deity-based theology = vishiShTAdvaita "

On a different note, Sri Shankara says in BSB, the Bhagavata/Pancharatra school of the four vyUhas or emanations of viShNu viz., vAsudeva etc.,  is pratyuktaH - refuted etc , indicating that they were to some extent prevalent as well and required refutation. (The sUtra itself merely says utpattyasambhavAt (2.2.42) and does not mention any specific bhAgavata words vyUha etc. )

Om

Raghav

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1gM4vrqTKQwgvbO2tqQQX%3DkXPba5oBON1Wp0ghmcGptw%40mail.gmail.com

.

[Raghav Kumar]

ब्रह्म दाशा ब्रह्म दासा ब्रह्मैवेमे कितवाः

Namaste 

Is the source of this upanishadic phrase known?

Om

Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Raghav ji,

There are some references to a deity based worship (Trimurti specifically) in even more ancient Buddhist works.

Nagarjuna's disciple, Aryadeva, in his work "The Sastra by the Bodhisattva (Arya-) Deva on the Explanation of Nirvana by (Twenty) Heretical and Hinayana (Teachers) Mentioned in the Lanka(-avatara)-sutra" (T'i-p'o-p'u-sa-shih- lang-chia-ching-chung-wai-tao-hsiao-sheng-nieh-p'an-lun Nj. 1260), refers to various Vedic subschools that existed in his times. 

Scholars generally place Nagarjuna in the 2nd century CE and Aryadeva in the 3rd century CE, about 2-3 centuries before Bhavya. Nakamura attributes the "Explanation of Nirvana by Heretical and Hinayana Teachers" to Aryadeva, but there are other scholars that question Aryadeva's authorship of the work.

Some of the schools mentioned in Aryadeva's work are listed below, which show references to Trimurti worship in ancient India.

1) Brahma Deva as the cause of the universe 

"It is asked:-Which outsiders teach that the Brahma Deva is the cause of Nirvana ?"

"It is answered: The fourth class of outsiders, the Vedavādins, teach that from the navel of the god Narayana is born the great lotus flower, and from the lotus is born Brahma Deva, the fore- father of creatures (pitämaha). All living and non-living things are made by Brahma: from the mouth of Brahma are born the Brahmins; from his two arms are born the nobility (ksatriya); from his two thighs the Vaisyas; from his both feet are born the Sūdras. All the earth is a sacrificial place in which are per- formed acts to bring happiness and merit. All lotus flowers are produced so that they may be used as offerings. Undergoing transformation, it makes the mountains and fields, birds and beasts. Among men, the domestic animals like pigs, sheep, asses and horses, in this world-arena are killed to be offered to the Brahma Deva, so that man may obtain rebirth in Nirvana, the name of Brahma's world. And therefore, the Vedavadins teach that Brahma Deva is said to always be the cause of Nirvana."

2. IshAna as the cause of the universe

"It is asked :-What class of outsiders teach that Nirvana comes about by not seeing a difference between the eternal and transitory?

"It is answered :-The fifth class of outsiders, the Isänavadins, hold that the form of the Holy Person (Bhagavat) is invisible and omnipresent, and from its formlessness, it can give birth to all living and lifeless things, which is called Nirvana. Therefore those who belong to the Isänavadins teach this theory, and say that Iśana is eternal and the cause of Nirvana."

3) Narayana as the cause of the universe

"It is asked:-What class of outsiders teach that to see Iśvara, who makes all creatures, is called Nirvana ?

"It is answered :-The twelfth class of outsiders, the followers of Mathara, say that the adherents of Narayana teach that "I make all things. I. among all living things, am supreme. I give birth to the entire world of living and lifeless things. I am the King of Mt. Sumeru, the largest of all mountains. I am the largest ocean of all the waters. I am the grain of all medicines. I am the Muni Kapila of all the sages. If a man with pious heart offers water, leaves, flowers and fruit to me, I shall not lose him, and he shall not lose me.' The Mathara masters teach that the adherents of Narayana say that "All things are created and produced by me, and when they are dissolved into this principle, it is called Nirvana."

4. Maheshvara as the cause of the universe

"It is asked :-What class of outsiders teach that when the creator and created are united together, this is called Nirvana ?

"It is answered:-The fifteenth class of outsiders, the proponents of Maheśvara, teach as follows: The effect is created by Nārāyaṇa. Brahma is the cause. Maheśvara has one body and three parts, i.e., Brahma, Nārāyaṇa, and Maheśvara. The earth is the foundation. The lord of the earth is Maheśvara. In the three worlds, all the living and lifeless things which exist are produced by Maheśvara. As for Maheśvara itself, space is its head, earth is its body, water is its urine, mountains are its excrement, all creatures are worms in its bowels, wind is its life, fire is its warmth, and merit and demerit are its actions (karman). These eight types are the Maheśvara itself. Isvara is the cause of birth and destruction. All is produced by Isvara and by Isvara it is destroyed, and this is called Nirvana. Therefore, the propounders of Maheśvara teach that Isvara eternally produces all things, and is the cause of Nirvana."

Kind regards

Venkatraghavan

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/1374278628.3485857.1709342485607%40mail.yahoo.com.

[Venkatraghavan S]

One interesting point is the reference to the Matharas when discussing the worship of Naryana. The Matharas are a well known dynasty in Orissa that was formed under the patronage of Samudragupta (318 AD - ?), following his military expeditions south. 

It is said that the Matharas ruled Kalinga (Orissa in the modern day)  in the 4th and 5th century CE and are well known Vishnu bhaktas -  there are copper plate edicts showing their worship of Vishnu. 

Thus, if the work quoted in the previous email was indeed by Aryadeva (3rd century), it is possible that the reference to the "followers of Mathara" by Aryadeva as worshippers of Naryana, must refer to some forefathers of the Mathara dynasty that went on to rule Kalinga in the 4th - 5th century CE.

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 7:54 AM Venkatraghavan S <agni...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Raghav ji,

There are some references to a deity based worship (Trimurti specifically) in even more ancient Buddhist works.

Nagarjuna's disciple, Aryadeva, in his work "The Sastra by the Bodhisattva (Arya-) Deva on the Explanation of Nirvana by (Twenty) Heretical and Hinayana (Teachers) Mentioned in the Lanka(-avatara)-sutra" (T'i-p'o-p'u-sa-shih- lang-chia-ching-chung-wai-tao-hsiao-sheng-nieh-p'an-lun Nj. 1260), refers to various Vedic subschools that existed in his times. 

Scholars generally place Nagarjuna in the 2nd century CE and Aryadeva in the 3rd century CE, about 2-3 centuries before Bhavya. Nakamura attributes the "Explanation of Nirvana by Heretical and Hinayana Teachers" to Aryadeva, but there are other scholars that question Aryadeva's authorship of the work.

Some of the schools mentioned in Aryadeva's work are listed below, which show references to Trimurti worship in ancient India.

1) Brahma Deva as the cause of the universe 

"It is asked:-Which outsiders teach that the Brahma Deva is the cause of Nirvana ?"

"It is answered: The fourth class of outsiders, the Vedavādins, teach that from the navel of the god Narayana is born the great lotus flower, and from the lotus is born Brahma Deva, the fore- father of creatures (pitämaha).

Dear Venkat ji,

This is intriguing indeed since the 'Vedavadin' epithet is used for followers of Brahma Deva.  This epithet is not used for Ishana, Narayana, etc.  Is it that the latter are not Vedavadins in the view of the early Buddhists?  Has all this Trimurti, etc. undergone a metamorphosis over time to what we see/believe today?  

regards

subbu

[Venkatraghavan S]

Namaste Subbuji,

That is interesting indeed - I noted it too. As one can see from a study of the Upanishads, a significant share of it is related to various upAsana-s of hiraNyagarbha. It is possible that the Buddhists took this to  represent the view of the Vedas as a whole. 

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[K Sivan]

Namaste Subrahmanian ji,

In The Brihat Samhita of Varahamihira 60.19(6th Cent) too there is a mention of Vipras who were Brahma worshippers.

Just thought of mentioning

The Bhāgavatas are the worshippers of Viṣṇu; the Magas are the worshippers of the Sun; Dvijas wearing ashes are the worshippers of Śiva. Persons possessed of a knowledge of the Devas attendant on the Mātṛ Devas are the worshippers of the Mātṛ Devas. The Brāhmaṇas (Vipras) generally are the worshippers of Brahmā. The Śākyas are the worshipers of the God of the Arhats. The Bauddhas are the worshippers of Buddha. The ceremony of fixing the images and the like ceremonies shall be performed by the respective worshippers of the several images.

~ Brihat Samhita 60.19

[Kalyan]

Namaste Subbuji

In Buddhist texts, the word brahmA is used synonymously with brahman (of the upanishads) in many places.

Examples from Nikayas which are earliest texts of Buddhism.

1. Digha Nikaya, 13

https://suttacentral.net/dn13/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

And it seems that that mendicant has no enmity, ill will, corruption, and does wield power, while Brahmā is the same in all these things. Would a mendicant who is the same as Brahmā in all things come together and converge with him?”

“Yes, Master Gotama.”

“Good, Vāseṭṭha! It’s quite possible that that mendicant will, when the body breaks up, after death, be reborn in the company of Brahmā.” 

2. Digha Nikaya, 11

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.11.0.than.html

"When this was said, the gods of the retinue of Brahma said to the monk, 'We also don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. But there is Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. He is higher and more sublime than we. He should know where the four great elements... cease without remainder.'

3. Digha Nikaya, 24

https://suttacentral.net/dn24/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=plain&reference=none&notes=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin

There are some ascetics and brahmins who describe the origin of the world in their tradition as created by the God Almighty, by Brahmā. ....

...Now, the being who was reborn there first thinks, “I am Brahmā, the Great Brahmā, the Vanquisher, the Unvanquished, the Universal Seer, the Wielder of Power, God Almighty, the Maker, the Creator, the First, the Begetter, the Controller, the Father of those who have been born and those yet to be born. And these beings were created by me. Why is that? Because first I thought, ‘Oh, if only another being would come to this state of existence.’ Such was my heart’s wish, and then these creatures came to this state of existence.”

You can refer to the links for more details.

Best Regards

[Kalyan]

The last example from Digha Nikaya 24, reminds me of the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, 1st Chapter, fourth brahmana.

Best Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 4:09 PM Kalyan <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste Subbuji

In Buddhist texts, the word brahmA is used synonymously with brahman (of the upanishads) in many places.

The case that we discussed is mentioned there as:  //  The fourth class of outsiders, the Vedavādins, teach that from the navel of the god Narayana is born the great lotus flower, and from the lotus is born Brahma Deva, the fore- father of creatures (pitämaha). //

Hence this is about the Chaturmukha Brahma.  

regards

subbu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/105b9c7f-4289-4a28-9ae1-ec17ca83993dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan]

I think it is a scenario of adhyAsa of brahmA and brahman.

Best Regards

[Kalyan]

Namaste Sivan ji

Can we say brahmaNaH refers to worship of brahman rather than brahmA? It is shashTi for brahman shabda. 

Best Regards

[K Sivan]

Namaste Kalyan Ji,

I do not Think brahmaNaH can refer to the worship of brahman in this particular context, as the subject of the said chapter is pratimā-pratiṣṭhāpana. It discusses the specifications of establishing the pratimās of those who are listed . As Pratima can only be of a saguna devata, It should mean the diety brahma only which is further made apparent from the fact he is distinguished from Shiva and Narayana.

Best Regards

[V Subrahmanian]

This verse of the Brihatsamhita reminds one of a  famous verse that incorporates many deities and even Buddha and Jina:

यं शैवाः समुपासते शिव इति ब्रह्मेति वेदान्तिनो

बौद्धा बुद्ध इति प्रमाणपटवः कर्तेति नैयायिकाः।

अर्हन्नित्यथ जैनशासनरताः कर्मेति मीमांसकाः

सोऽयं नो विदधातु वाञ्छितफलं त्रैलोक्यनाथो हरिः॥१३३॥

The Brihatsamhita verse also informs us that all kinds of worship has existed from very ancient times. 

regards

subbu

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/2ae65a2a-ac07-4673-9e10-904f7a0d2b3bn%40googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan]

Namaste Sivan ji

You have a valid point.

But I want to understand what is brahmA shabda roopa for shashTi singular. If this is also brahmaNah, then your point is true (going by my limited knowledge of Sanskrit). I do not know if brahmA is AkAranta punlinga. I checked one AkAranta punlinga and it transforms differently.

Best Regards

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Kalyanji,

On Sat, Mar 2, 2024 at 10:52 PM Kalyan <kalyanchakr...@gmail.com> wrote:

You have a valid point.

But I want to understand what is brahmA shabda roopa for shashTi singular. If this is also brahmaNah, then your point is true (going by my limited knowledge of Sanskrit). I do not know if brahmA is AkAranta punlinga. I checked one AkAranta punlinga and it transforms differently.

brahman is nakArAnta prAtipadika which declines in M & N, former as brahmA brahmANau brahmANaH meaning chaturmukhabrahmA and latter as brahma brahmaNI brahmANi meaning parabrahman. 3rd case onwards all N decline as M. So brahmaNaH is 6th case, singular for both.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Kalyan]

Many Thanks and Namaskarams Praveenji, for this clarification!

Sincerely Yours

Kalyan

[V Subrahmanian]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 7:12 AM Bingming <kanishkde...@gmail.com> wrote:

In Mādhyamakahṛdaya and its autocommentary Tarkajvālā, Bhāviveka takes upon Vedānta  and gives forth his view on it. The section is named Vedāntatattvaviniścaya. You may check it here https://archive.org/details/hinduphilosophyinbuddhistperspectivevedantatattvavinisscayaofbhavyamadhyamakahrd_632_f/mode/2up

Thanks for this link to a book that seems inteesting.  

regards

subbu 

Venkatraghavan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/41e18e44-39b5-44b6-b806-a5f4654edeeen%40googlegroups.com.

[Bingming]

Thank you, sir. I thought that it was useless since the OP had already mentioned about Bhāviveka.