> > According to Raju, Gaudapada lived and taught during the 7th
century CE.
> > Gaudapda adopted the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure
> > consciousness.
> >
On 8/31/2014 12:44 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com [FairfieldLife] wrote:
>
> Willy, you were given the references necessary to know better than this.
>
Thanks for responding, but I do not know any better.
We do not really know exactly when these teachers lived and taught -
it's mostly speculation. There isn't even any historical proof that
Shankara founded four mathas in the first place. There is not even any
proof that Gaudapada did not write the entire Mandukya Upanishad
himself! All we have is some manuscripts that were preserved and an oral
tradition. We DO know that Shankara quoted some famous Buddhist
logicians and that he may have misunderstood their doctrine.
>
> Apparently, you only scanned Michael Comman’s text The Method of Early
> Advaita Vedanta. Once you obtained a copy through inter-library loan,
you
> should have photo-copied the pertinent sections. Then you wouldn’t
prattle
> on with such generalities that confuse Buddhist stream-of-consciousness
> momentariness (vijñâna-santana) with the Advaita-Upanishadic realization
> of Awareness (jñâna).
>
The distinctions between Advaita and Vijnanvada are just too subtle for
most causal readers, Bill. That's about all I can say at this point.
Perhaps if you get time you can explain it in more detail. Apparently
both Gaudpada and Shankara were cryoto-Buddhists: Nirvana is Brahman,
the non-dual /Pure Consciousness/. There may be some finer details to
consider, but this is the main gist of the doctrine.
The only main point to discuss would be the nature of /maya/ as
propounded by Shankara, which is not real, yet not unreal either. There
is just no reason I can determine that would justify a pre-supposition
that /the term Brahman/ is the only term to denote the ultimate reality,
/Pure Consciousness/, call it what you will.
> Go get a copy and actually read it. Stop trying to slime Gaudapada with
> vijñâna-vada. These are different methodologies and only share
similarities
> because they both use common 6-7th Century philosophical nomenclature.
>
There is just nothing in the Vedic literature that would suggest the
doctrine of non-dualism previous to Gaudapada. Badarayana, Madhva,
Ramanuja, Vallabha, Nimbarka and Chaitanya all agree on this - all were
dualists or quasi-dulaists. Apparently Gaudapda adopted the Buddhist
doctrines that /ultimate reality is pure consciousness/ and that the
nature of the world is the /four-cornered negation/. Gaudapada adapted
both doctrines into a philosophy of the Advaita, which was further
developed by Shankara. The Vijnanvada similarities are unmistakable,
according to Raju and Sharma.
Where is Vaj when I need him?
So, let's compare:
Excerpt from mANDUkya kArikA IV by gauDapAda:
/"Duality is only an appearance; non-duality is//
//the real truth. The object exists as an object//
//for the knowing subject; but it does not exist//
//outside of consciousness because the distinction//
//of subject and object is within consciousness."/
Excerpt from vijnApti matratA siddhi by vasAabAndhu:
/
//"Reality is Pure Consciousness; external objects //
//do not exist outside thought. Reality can be //
//directly realized by transcending the //subject-object
duality."/
Work cited:
Raju 1992, Raju, P.T., The Philosophical Traditions of India, Motilal
Banarsidass, p. 177.
Sharma, Chandrahar, A Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy, Rider, p.
245-246.//
