ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF ADVAITA VEDANTA AND MADHYAfllKA BUDDHISM by ERIC T. REYNOLDS B.A., University of California, Riverside, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of RELIGIOUS STUDIES We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September 1975 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Religious Studies The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date September 8, 1975 ii ABSTRACT This thesis deals with the relation of Samkara's Advaita Vedanta to the Madhyamika Buddhism of Nagarjuna. Much confusion has been generated by this problem both in traditional sources, and the work of modern scholars. The two systems of philosophy have been found unalter ably opposed, and nearly identical by different scholars. The problem has two dimensions, historical and philosophical ,and has focused on the issue of Madhyamika influence in Samkara's philosophy. Historically, some scholars have felt tha tMadhyamika heavily influenced Advaita because Madhyamika was prior in time and the two schools share the doctrines of and an absolute without maya, ajativada, qualities. Thus Advaita must have borrowed these doctrines from Madhya mika. This conclusion is inadequate because it explains the doctrinal development of Advaita using only the external influence of Buddhism at the expense of internal dynamism within the Vedanta tradition. In order to understand the nature of Buddhist influence on Advaita, two questions must be asked. First, what was the nature o rmake up of early Vedanta, and second, what elements of Samkara's philosophy can be found there? This procedure allows us to distinguish the elements of Samkara's philosophy which have their roots in orthodox tradition from those which could be interpreted as Buddhist in origin. In answering these two questions, the conclusion was reached that early Vedanta was not a unified school or philosophy, but a matrix of 'lineages' or iii traditions. Each tradition contains many different threads of philo sophical, psychological, and theological doctrine. The growth of a sep arate school of Vedanta came out of the need to systematize this multivalent tradition. Samkara in forming a systematic interpretation of the Vedanta tradition drew upon numerous teachers and texts from this matrix of doctrine and tradition . Thus, all of the major elements of Samkara's philosophy can be found in early Vedanta but not forged into a systematic whole. Samkara then stands in relation to the Vedanta tradi tion, much as Nagarjuna does to the Mahayana. Both took already existing elements from their respective traditions and placed them in dynamic relationship in order to form a systematic philosophy. .Samkara does seem to have borrowed Buddhist method in accomplishing this systemization. Nagarjuna's dialectic and division of scripture into passages of absolute, and empirical import were both utilized b ySamkara. This borrowing must be understood as one of method and not doctrine, because all of t hmeeta- physical tenets of Samkara's system can be found in early Vedanta, which makes it unnecessary to turn to Buddhism as their source. In addition, Samkara's usage of terms such as is quite distinct from the meaning mayd given them in Madhyamika, and much more atuned to his Vedantic heritage. From these conclusions the philosophy o fSamkara can be viewed as the result of both internal dynamism within the Vedanta tradition, and the external influence of Buddhism. Many investigators have noted the similarity of Advaita and Madhyamika, and have drawn parallels between such concepts as Brahman and or and Frequently only the similarities sunyata, advaita advaya. iv have been pointed out ,with the differences being dismissed as merely those of language. For this reason one system has often been understood through the categories of the other system. However, by viewing similar concepts in their philosophic context, parallels can be drawn which take into account both similarities and differences. The similarity of Advaita and Madhyamika is due to the shar ing of several categories; the absolute, world-as-appearance, 'two truths', and nature of error. The uniqueness of each system comes from the transformation of these categories by the 'causal metaphor' upon which each system is based. The method oTf.R.V. Murti who points out the ontological orientation of Advaita and the epistemological nature of Madhyamika will be used, along with Karl Potter's analysis of causal chains as being at the root of these respective orientations. The combination of these two methods places parallel concepts within their respective philosophical context, allowing us to make a comparison of the two systems which takes into account both the similarities and the uniqueness of each system. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. MODERN SCHOLARSHIP 7 3. THE CONTROVERSY FROM TRADITIONAL SOURCES 27 4. THE HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP O FMADHYAMIKA TO ADVAITA 39 5. ADVAITA AND MADHYAMIKA: THEIR PHILOSOPHICAL RELATIONSHIP 63 6. CONCLUSION 121 BIBLIOGRAPHY 128 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS A particular vote of thanks goes to Professor Joseph Richardson for his patience and instruction over the last three years. His constructive criticism played a major role in my academ igcrowth and developing my ability to write. Hopefully his patience has born fruit in this thesis. Thanks also go to Dr. Keith Clifford for having helped in a similar capacity. In addition I would like to thank Professor William Nicholls and the Department of Religious Studies for their financial support. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION One of the continuing sources of controversy i nIndian philosophy, both historically and at present, has been the relation of Samkara's Vedanta to the Buddhist Mahayana schools, particularly the Madhyamika. This paper intends to explore the relation between the Advaita Vedanta o fSamkara and the Madhyamika philosophy of Nagarjuna by placing both similarities and differences in their historical and philosophical context . These two philosophies have been found both 'nearly identical' and 'irreconcilable' by different scholars, and at the beginning we might say that there are no simple conclusions in this complex matter. The first part of our task is to provide a historical model which demonstrates the nature oftheir mutual influence, the second will combine primarily the methods of Karl Potter and T.R.V. Murti to provide a basis for understanding both the similarities and uniqueness of each philosophical system. The relation of Buddhism to the orthodox schools o Ifndian thought is a difficult problem for both the historian of religion and the philosopher. The importance of this problem for understanding the growth of Indian thought is aptly stated by Poussin, " . .. as long as we have not ascertained the chronological relations between primitive Buddhism and the Aupanishadic—Samkhya theories, between the system of Nagarjuna and that o fSamkara, between Dignaga and 2 'orthodox Nyaya', we cannot boast of even having traced the cardinal lines of the spiritual and intellectual history of India." Of these 1 three areas which Poussin mentions it is certainly the relation of Samkara to Nagarjuna which has generated the most controversy, or perhaps more properly it is the only one which has continued from its inception to be a living issue in modern times. Much confusion has surrounded this problem primarily because of the partisan nature of its history. Traditional commentators and modern scholars alike have perceived the relation of Advaita to Madhyamika through their own bias. The driving force behind the problem has been its polemic nature. The first part of the paper will thus be a history of the problem in its traditional and modern forms both as basis for later discussion, and as a beginning on sort ing out the confusion. Modern scholarship has perceived the problem either through the eyes of, or in reaction to neo-Vedantism . This twentieth century Indian movement finds its most eloquent spokesman in Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan and is typified by universal ism and a tendency to per ceive other philosophies through the conceptual framework of Advaita. Most of the scholars whose work we will discuss share this bias in one form or another . This bias has often resulted in the reduction of Madhyamika to Advaita categories. The method of these Louis de La Vallee Poussin, "Vedanta and Buddhism,"J ournal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland 1,910, p. 130. 3 scholars notes, but does not deal with the historical and philosophical complexity of the problem in a systematic way. Historically, external influence is often used to explain doctrinal development at the expense of internal dynamism within the particular tradition. One to one philosophical parallels are drawn which overlook the context in which similar terms like and operate; profound Brahman Sunyata differences are thus obscured. Traditional history of the problem has an Advaitic and Buddhist side. From the beginning of Advaita, its similarity to Madhyamika was noted by Vedantic teachers of differing view .They identified Samkara's teaching with Buddhism for two reasons, Samkara's concept of a quality-less absolute and (nirguna Brahman) his use of Ramanuja and others were concerned to preserve a maya. theistic interpretation of the absolute, and the reality of the world. Most Advaitins follow Samkara in condemning Madhyamika as nihilism. The Buddhist side of the controversy is less well-known, but can be inferred from a number of textual sources . These indirect references along with a direct reference from Bhavaviveka demonstrate the existence of controversy between Hlnayana and Mahayana schools over the resemblance of Mahayana to Vedanta . This controversy took place, however, before the advent of Samkara's Advaita, and points to a need for sorting out the various historical levels. As an operational definition for Madhyamika, Nagarjuna and his two works the and will MulaMadhyamakakarikas Vigrahavyavartani