Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/Vedanta...

Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha Home Ratnashri Donate Centers Teachings About Us General Programs Education Fund Building Project Maha Krama (The Path) Healing and Wellbeing Kathmandu Center London Center Washington D.C. Center Celebrations News About Us Contact Us Paubhas and Thangkas Spiritual Quest Bodhipushpanjali General Writings Marshland Flowers Vednta vis--vis Shentong
Acharya 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. Kamala la 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 Kamala la are refuting almost the same view that Sankarcrya postulates although neither ntarakita nor Kamala la mentions his name or his work. It is important to understand that according to ntarakita and Kamala la, 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.

1 of 5

12/22/2011 12:04 PM

Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/Vedanta...

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

2 of 5

12/22/2011 12:04 PM

Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/Vedanta...

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-citnanda 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

3 of 5

12/22/2011 12:04 PM

Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/Vedanta...

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, Kamala la, 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

4 of 5

12/22/2011 12:04 PM

Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha

http://www.byomakusuma.org/Teachings/Vedanta...

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? If you have any comments or queries please contact to the following address: Acharya Mahayogi Sridhar Rana Rinpoche ( Choekye Dorjee/ Dharma Vajra) Byoma Kusuma Buddha Dharma Sangha Bishalnagar, Kathmandu, Nepal Tel no: 4416352 Email: byomakusuma@gmail.com

Copyright Byoma Kusuma Buddhadharma Sangha 2011. All Rights Reserved

5 of 5

12/22/2011 12:04 PM