Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta

Similarities with Buddhism

Advaita Vedanta and various other schools of Hindu philosophy share numerous terminology and doctrines with Buddhism. Of the various schools, the similarities between Advaita and Buddhism have attracted Indian and Western scholars attention. Isaeva states in her analysis of scholarly views, that these have historically and in modern times ranged from "Advaita and Buddhism are very different", to "Advaita and Buddhism absolutely coincide in their main tenets", to "after purifying Buddhism and Advaita of accidental or historically conditioned accretions, both systems can be safely regarded as an expression of one and the same eternal absolute truth".

Scholarly comments

Scholars such as Belvalkar, Hiriyanna, Radhakrishnan and Thibaut state that Advaita's and Buddhism's theories on True Reality and Maya are similar, and the influence of Buddhism on Advaita Vedanta has been significant. Both traditions hold that "the empirical world is transitory, a show of appearances", and both admit "degrees of truth or existence". Both traditions emphasize the human need for spiritual liberation (moksha, nirvana, kaivalya), however with different assumptions.

Frank Whaling states that the similarities between Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism are not limited to the terminology and some doctrines, it includes practice. The monastic practices and monk tradition in Advaita are similar to those found in Buddhism.

Yet, according to Natalia Isaeva, "Probably because of these similarities, even such an astute Buddhologist as Rozenberg was of the opinion that a precise differentiation between Brahmanism and Buddhism is impossible to draw".

Concurring schools

The similarities with Buddhism have been criticised by concurring Indian schools. Ramanujacharya, the founder of Vishishtadvaita Vedanta, accused Adi Shankara of being a Prachanna Bauddha, that is, a "crypto-Buddhist", and someone who was undermining theistic Bhakti devotionalism. The non-Advaita scholar Bhaskara of the Bhedabheda tradition, similarly around 800 CE, accused Shankara's Advaita as "this despicable broken down Mayavada that has been chanted by the Mahayana Buddhists", and a school that is undermining the ritual duties set in Vedic orthodoxy.

Mahadevan states, "At the outset it must be pointed out that, when the critics hurl the charge of pseudo-Buddhism against Advaita, they use the word Buddhism rather in a vague and general sense. The doctrine of unreality of the world, and the theory of non-recognition are found to be common as between the idealistic schools of Buddhism and Advaita. Most critics believe that these are not Upanishadic doctrines, and so, their conclusion is that Advaita must have borrowed them from the Mahayana schools. And the earliest teacher who effected this borrowing, in their view, is Gaudapada."

Influence of Mahayana Buddhism

Scholars state that Advaita Vedanta was influenced by Mahayana Buddhism, given the common terminology, methodology and some doctrines. Sharma (2000, pp. 60–63) points out that the early commentators on the Brahma Sutras were all realists, or pantheist realists. He states that they were influenced by Buddhism, particularly during the 5th and 6th centuries CE when Buddhist thought developing in the Yogacara school. Eliot Deutsch and Rohit Dalvi state:

In any event a close relationship between the Mahayana schools and Vedanta did exist with the latter borrowing some of the dialectical techniques, if not the specific doctrines, of the former.

Gaudapada

Scholars are divided on possible Buddhist influence on Gaudapada's writing.

The influence of Mahayana on Advaita Vedanta, states Deutsch, goes back at least to Gaudapada, where he "clearly draws from Buddhist philosophical sources for many of his arguments and distinctions and even for the forms and imagery in which these arguments are cast".

Gaudapada, in his Karikas text, uses the leading concepts and wording of Mahayana Buddhist school but, states John Plott, he reformulated them to the Upanishadic themes. The influence of Buddhism on Gaudapada, states Plott (2000, pp. 285–288), is undeniable and to be expected. He writes,

We must emphasize again that generally throughout the Gupta Dynasty, and even more so after its decline, there developed such a high degree of syncretism and such toleration of all points of view that Mahayana Buddhism had been Hinduized almost as much as Hinduism had been Buddhaized.

Michael Comans states Gaudapada, an early Vedantin, utilised some arguments and reasoning from Madhyamaka Buddhist texts by quoting them almost verbatim. However, Comans adds there is a fundamental difference between Buddhist thought and that of Gaudapada, in that Buddhism has as its philosophical basis the doctrine of Dependent Origination according to which "everything is without an essential nature (nissvabhava), and everything is empty of essential nature (svabhava-sunya)", while Gaudapada does not rely on this principle at all. Gaudapada's Ajativada is an outcome of reasoning applied to an unchanging nondual reality according to which "there exists a Reality (sat) that is unborn (aja)" that has essential nature (svabhava) and this is the "eternal, fearless, undecaying Self (Atman) and Brahman". Thus, Gaudapada differs from Buddhist scholars such as Nagarjuna, states Comans, by accepting the premises and relying on the fundamental teaching of the Upanishads.

Mahadevan suggests that Gaudapada adopted Buddhist terminology and borrowed its doctrines to his Vedantic goals, much like early Buddhism adopted Upanishadic terminology and borrowed its doctrines to Buddhist goals; both used pre-existing concepts and ideas to convey new meanings.

Some scholars suggests that Gaudapada (6th Century CE) bridged Buddhism and Vedanta, by taking over the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness (vijñapti-mātra) and "that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation". According to Gaudapada, the Absolute Reality, that is Brahman, is not subject to birth, change and death. The Absolute is aja, the unborn eternal. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan also opines that Gaudapada's philosophy is different from that of Adi Shankara and Badarayan. Bhattacharya (1943, p. 49), Renard (2010, p. 157) and Comans (2000, pp. 35–36) suggest that Gaudapada took over the Buddhist concept of ajāta from Nagarjuna's Madhyamaka philosophy, which uses the term anutpāda. An equivalent theory of Ajātivāda, "the Doctrine of no-origination" or "non-creation", is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada.

Other scholars, however, refute this idea. According to Murti (1955, pp. 114–115), Gaudapada's doctrines are unlike Buddhism. Gaudapada's influential text consists of four chapters; Chapter One, Two and Three of which are entirely Vedantin and founded on the Upanishads, with little Buddhist flavor. Chapter Four uses Buddhist terminology and incorporates Buddhist doctrines but Vedanta scholars who followed Gaudapada through the 17th century, state both Murti and Richard King, never referenced nor used Chapter Four, they only quote from the first three. While there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different, states Murti (1955, pp. 114–115). Nikhilananda (2008, pp. 203–206) refutes the argument for Buddhist influence on Gaudapada's philosophy by arguing that the whole purpose of Gaudapada was to demonstrate the ultimate reality of the birth-less and non-dual Atman, a concept foreign to Buddhism. Scholars such as Murti state that, while there is shared terminology, the doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different.

Shankara

Given the principal role attributed to Shankara in Advaita tradition, his works have been examined by scholars for similarities with Buddhism. Buddhism supporters have targeted Shankara, states Biderman (1978, pp. 405–413), while his Hindu supporters state that "accusations" concerning explicit or implicit Buddhist influence are not relevant. Daniel Ingalls writes, "If we are to adopt a metaphysical and static view of philosophy there is little difference between Shankara and Vijnanavada Buddhism, so little, in fact that the whole discussion is fairly pointless. But if we try to think our way back into minds of philosophers whose works we read, there is a very real difference between the antagonists".

Ninian Smart, a historian of religion, quotes Mudgal view that "the differences between Shankara and Mahayana doctrines are largely a matter of emphasis and background, rather than essence". Mudgal additionally states that the Upanishadic and Buddhist currents of thought "developed separately and independently, opposed to one another, as the orthodox and heterodox, the thesis and antithesis, and a synthesis was attempted by the Advaitin Shankara".

Dasgupta and Mohanta suggest that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedanta represent "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara."

Atman and anatta

Advaita Vedanta holds the premise, "Soul exists, and Soul (or self, Atman) is a self evident truth". Buddhism, in contrast, holds the premise, "Atman does not exist, and An-atman (or Anatta, non-self) is self evident".

Buddhists do not believe that at the core of all human beings and living creatures, there is any "eternal, essential and absolute something called a soul, self or atman". Buddhists reject the concept and all doctrines associated with atman, call atman as illusion (maya), asserting instead the theory of "no-self" and "no-soul". Buddhism, from its earliest days, has denied the existence of the "self, soul" in its core philosophical and ontological texts. In contrast to Advaita which describes knowing one's own soul as identical with Brahman as the path to nirvana, in its soteriological themes, Buddhism has defined nirvana as that blissful state when a person realizes that he or she has "no self, no soul".

Epistemology

The epistemological foundations of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta are different. Buddhism accepts two valid means to reliable and correct knowledge – perception and inference, while Advaita Vedanta accepts six. However, some Buddhists in history, have argued that Buddhist scriptures are a reliable source of spiritual knowledge, corresponding to Advaita's Śabda pramana, however Buddhists have treated their scriptures as a form of inference method.

Ontology

Advaita Vedanta is a substance ontology, an ontology "which holds that underlying the seeming change, variety, and multiplicity of existence there are unchanging and permanent entities (the so-called substances)". In contrast, Buddhism is normally understood as a process ontology, according to which "there exists nothing permanent and unchanging, within or without man". Kalupahanan (1994) describes that there is also a current in Buddhism which favours substance ontology and sees Madhyamaka and Yogacara as reactions against developments toward substance ontology in Buddhism.

Advaita's three levels of reality theory, states Renard (2010, p. 130), is built on the two levels of reality found in the Madhyamika.