It is no use arguing Buddha is wrong or Sri Sankara is right,
but where we are going wrong in our understanding the non-dual truth, propagated
by the great sages of the past. Some say,
that without the sunyvada, Advaita philosophy could not have come into existence;
Because Advaita starts from where sunyavada ends. That is why they say it is extension of
Buddhism. If Advaita existed prior to
Buddha, he would not have advocated sunyavada at all because Advaita is final
and ultimate truth.
Since the Buddhist and Vedic
scriptures have been passed down by hearing. They were written down only
relatively late. So one wouldn’t know whether to rely on the times they give. Also,
a lot depends on the translation. Each 'Shloka' or sutta is open to many layers
of interpretation.
As per the religious archeologists view: the date of Sankara may be taken most correctly as that of
the 9th century. Some claims are made in India that he lived two
thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no proof for this claim. They do not go back farther than the 12th
century A.D. and that all so-called evidences for Sankara having lived two
centuries before Christ are either were conjectures or Pundit's fabrication.
Regarding
the question of Sankara's death, one may dismiss the legend that he did not
die, at the age of 32 but disappeared into a cave. This is another Pundit's
story which is quite unfounded. He did really die in the Himalayas at that age.
As one
go in to the annals of the history, one becomes aware of the fact that; the
spiritual Advaita is mixed up with punditry.
Therefore there is a need to do his own research in order to know the
true essence of Advaita of Sage Sri,Sankara and Sage Sri, Gudapada and emptiness
of Buddha .
How it was possible
for Sri, Sankara to have written so many books during such a short term of
existence. The fact is that he wrote very few books. Those actually written by
him were Commentaries on Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads and on the Gita. All
other books ascribed to him were not written down by his own hand.
They are merely collections of notes recorded by his
disciples from his sayings, talks and discussions. Fourthly Sri, Sankara's own
Guru was named Sri, Govinda and he lived near Indore. When Sri,Sankara wrote
his commentary on the Mandukya his guru was so pleased with it that he took his
disciple to the
Himalayas to visit his own Sri, Guru who was named Sri, Goudapada. Only when
the latter agreed that the commentary was perfect did Sri, Govinda release his disciple
to start his own mission of teaching.
Sri, Sankara wrote his Mandukya commentary first, and then
as this revealed that he thoroughly understood the subject, his gurus requested
him to write the commentary on Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, which was a popular
theological work universally studied throughout India. That is why his
commentary is written from a lower dualistic point, for those who cannot rise
higher, save that here and there Sri, Sankara occasionally has strewn a few truly
Advaitic sentences.
Sri,Sankara had only four fully trained disciples, although
he advised some kings. His doctrines spread after his lifetime. His books were
dictated to secretaries as he traveled. So few therefore were capable of
understanding his philosophy.
Nearly all Bengal thinkers hold views of Maya which are
entirely incorrect and untenable. They do not know Sri, Sankara's Upanishad
Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya. Sri, Sankara wrote his Mandukya
commentary on a beautifully situated island called Omkaresvar, border of Indore
State, where Cauvery and Narbadha rivers meet. On this island there is also a
tomb of Sri,Govinda, his guru.
Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching
according to the people he was amongst. He never told them to give their
particular religion or beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to
give up the worst features of abuse: at the same time he showed just one step
forward towards the truth.
In Brahma Sutras Sage Sri,
Sankara says that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Mandukya he
denies it. This is because he says that at the lower stage of understanding, the
former teaching must be given, for people will get frightened as they cannot understand
how the world can be without a cause, but to those in a higher stage, the truth
of non-causality can be revealed.
Brahma Sutras, i.e.
"Vedanta Sutras" by Badarayana, are intended for those of middling
intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it is a semi-theological,
semi-philosophical work; it starts with the assumption that Brahman exists.
The opening sentence is "All this is Brahman.” But
nobody knows or has seen Brahman. If we say "All this is wood" and
show a piece of wood, the words are understandable. Suppose you have never seen
wood. Then what is the use of such a sentence? It becomes meaningless when the
object indicated is seen by none. Hence the Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent
to "All this is X". Both have no meaning so long as they are not
understood, if we take them as the data to start from. It is for this reason
that I say the book is intended for theological minds, because it begins with
dogma although its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.
A man who describes Sankara's philosophy as negative
(because of his Neti, Neti) does not know that this is applied only to the world
of the Seen, the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to the
Seer. Vedanta never negates the seer, only the seen. Scriptural mastery is not
wisdom.
As one goes deeper in the subject one becomes aware of the
fact that the religion, scriptures and concept of god is nothing to do with spiritual
side of Advaita, the present religious
based Advaitic knowledge and theories is meant for the mass, who hold the
religion as high, not the truth, because religion is based on the form (ego or waking entity)and they view and judge and argue on the base of body (ego or waking entity) as self, but spiritual Advaita is based on the formless
[soul] and it negates everything other then the soul.
Sage Ramana Maharishi said: All the conceptual
divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion
created and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose him
self in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from
which they all arise. It is better follow the direct path of Ramana,
instead of going all around and coming to same point (soul or /Atman).
