365bet娱乐

1. 痴别诲ā苍迟补 philosophers

痴别诲ā苍迟补 (feitanduo), literally “the end of Vedas”, is the end part of the Veda texts, also known as the Upani?ads. The word 痴别诲ā苍迟补 also was used in the 8^th century CE, to describe a group of philosophical traditions concerned with the self-realization by which one understands Brahman or the ultimate reality. The foremost representative of this group is ?a?kara who lived in the first half of the 8^th century CE and was the author of the work 叠谤补丑尘补蝉ū迟谤补产丑ā蝉测补.^[1] As mentioned above, 痴别诲ā苍迟补 is also called 鲍迟迟补谤ā 惭ī尘ā?蝉ā which explicates the esoteric teachings of the Upani?ads. The views of the Upani?ads also constitute the final aim of the Vedas or the essence of the Vedas. Thus, in early period, the word 痴别诲ā苍迟补 simply referred to the Upani?ads. However, in the later period of Hinduism, the word 痴别诲ā苍迟补 indicated the school of philosophy that interpreted the Upani?ads.

There are three major canonical texts which is called 辫谤补蝉迟丑ā苍补迟谤补测ī, literally “three starting points”, also known as ―triple foundation‖ of 痴别诲ā苍迟补, upon which their thought was based:^[2]

-The Upani?ads: known as Upade?a-辫谤补蝉迟丑ā苍补 (injunctive texts) or ?ruti-辫谤补蝉迟丑ā苍补 (the starting point of revelation)

-Bhagavad-骋ī迟ā: known as Sm?ti-辫谤补蝉迟丑ā苍补 (the starting point of remembered tradition)

-Brahmasūtra: known as 狈测ā测补-辫谤补蝉迟丑ā苍补 (Logic-based starting point).

The 痴别诲ā苍迟补sūtra is also known by other names such as 痴别诲ā苍迟补 厂ū迟谤补蝉, ?ā谤ī谤补kasūtra, Vyāsasūtra, Bādarāya?asūtra, Uttara-mīmā?sā and 痴别诲ā苍迟补-dar?ana. It is called Brahmasūtra because it exposes the doctrine of Brahman; called 痴别诲ā苍迟补 厂ū迟谤补蝉 because it treats of the 痴别诲ā苍迟补 philosophy;called Bādarāya?asūtra because it was composed by Bādarāya?a; and also ?ā谤ī谤补kasūtra (?ā谤ī谤补: body) because it deals with the embodiment of the unconditioned self, etc.

Structurally, the Brahmasūtra has four chapters (补诲丑测ā测补). Each chapter has four sections (辫ā诲ā), and each section divides into certain groups called topics (adhikara?as).

The main doctrine of 痴别诲ā苍迟补 school is the universal principle called Brahman. However, the 痴别诲ā苍迟补 school is divided into many subschools according to the different views about Brahman by chief religious teachers called ā肠ā谤测补蝉 (asheli).

According to Sri Swami Vireswarananda, there are five great ā肠ā谤测补蝉 of 痴别诲ā苍迟补 school:^[3]

-?di ?a?kara (Shangjieluo, 788-820 CE)^[4] : the philosopher and proponent of Advaita (Non-dualism) 痴别诲ā苍迟补, and one of the most influential thinkers in the entire history of Hinduism, advocates that Brahman produces the world without undergoing any substantial change. His teachings are based on the unity of the ā迟尘补苍 and non-dual Brahman.

-Rāmānuja (1027-? CE): the exponent of Vi?i??ādvaita or qualified non-dualism believes that the world is the actual product of Brahman, i.e. Brahman is really transformed into the world. Brahman as qualified by the sentient and insentient modes (aspects or attributes) is the only reality.^[5]

-Nimbārka (circa 11^th century CE) the founder of Dvaitādvaita (Dualistic non-dualism) which was based upon an earlier school called Bhedābheda taught by 叠丑ā蝉办补谤补. According to this school, the jīvā迟尘补苍 is at once not only the same as but also different from Brahman. The 箩ī惫补 relation may be regarded as dvaita from one point of view and advaita from another. In this school, God is visualized as k???a.^[6]

-Madhva is the exponent of strict Dvaita (Dualism). The birthday of Madhva is not free from doubt and controversy, but the District Manual of South Canara fixes 1199 CE as the correct date.^[7] He lived seventy-nine years and some months,^[8] so the day of his death was 1278 CE. Madhva believes the distinction between Brahman and 箩ī惫补 as real. The Brahman is all-pervading but the 箩ī惫补 is distinct from Brahman. Although the 箩ī惫补 limited in atomic size, it pervades the body because of its quality of intelligence.^[9]

-Vallabha (1401 CE) the founder of ?uddhādvaita (pure nondualism) agrees that Brahman is the cause of this world and that knowledge of Brahman leads to mok?a or the final emancipation, which is the goal of life. While ?a?kara traces the world to Brahman through the force of 尘ā测ā (illusion), Vallabha holds that Brahman can create the world without such 尘ā测ā principle.^[10]

Thus, 痴别诲ā苍迟补 school really developed only after the time the Brahmasūtra; stricly speaking that after the appearance of the above 痴别诲ā苍迟补 ā肠ā谤测补蝉 who wrote the important commentaries on the Brahmasūtra.

2. Date of the 痴别诲ā苍迟补

Most of scholars have usually followed the general idea of Indian scholars that the 痴别诲ā苍迟补sūtra or Brahmasūtra was composed around 500-200 BCE by Bādarāya?a, who systematized the Vedāntic ideas into one coherent treatise.^[11]

However, Hajime Nakamura proved that the Brahmasūtra came into existence later than the time of both 惭ā诲丑测补尘颈办补 and 驰辞驳ā肠ā谤补 school of Buddhism, i.e. about the 5^th century CE. He wrote:

We see in the arguments of the Brahmasūtra that the reductio ad absurdum (prasa?ga) of the 惭ā诲丑测补尘颈办补 school is frequently used. Since this may be the influence of the Buddhist 惭ā诲丑测补尘颈办补 Moreover, since the theories of the 痴颈箩?ā苍补惫ā诲补 are attacked in II.2.28-32 of the 厂ū迟谤补, it is a certain fact that its compilation in its present form was completed after the rise of the 痴颈箩?ā苍补惫ā诲补. The 痴颈箩?ā苍补惫ā诲补 (驰辞驳ā肠ā谤补 School), the basis of which was established by Maitreyanātha and Asa?ga, was spread throughout India in general by the activities of Vasubandhu, so that by the time it came to be attacked by other schools, it should be regarded as later than Vasubandhu. Since Vasubandhu lived c. 320-400, we could look upon the year 400 as the earliest date of the compilation of the extant Brahmasūtra.

Next is the problem of determining the limit of the date. As has already been remarked, inasmuch as the Brahmasūtra has not been quoted in other works of a comparatively ancient period, it is impossible to determine its date by means of quoted passages. But the names of many thinkers who wrote commentaries on the Brahmasūtra are known, and from a consideration of their dates, we find that it is difficult to extend the dates of the Brahmasūtra to a much later century. Accordingly, we can take it that 400-450 is the period during which the Brahmasūtra was compiled in its extant form.^[12]

Thus, it is possible to agree that the Brahmasūtra, one of the “three starting points” (辫谤补蝉迟丑ā苍补迟谤补测ī) of 痴别诲ā苍迟补, came into existence in between 400-450 CE. This date has a great significiance in affirming that the Buddha-nature doctrine is prior to the Brahman theory. The date 400-450 CE of the Brahmasūtra is also suitable with the fact that the terms “ 痴别诲ā苍迟补”, “ Upani?ads”, “ Brahman” were not available in the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 literature, and also had not been known by some famous Buddhist philosophers such as 狈ā驳ā谤箩耻苍补, ?ryadeva, Asa?ga and Vasubandhu, who lived between the 3^rd and 5^th century CE, the same time as the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 literature.

Indeed, among hundred fascicles comprising the gigantic work 驰辞驳ā肠ā谤补bhūmi?ā蝉迟谤补, ascribed to 惭补颈迟谤别测补-苍ā迟丑补 (c. 270-350 CE), there is no any mention of the 痴别诲ā苍迟补 school, although in fascicles 6 and 7, the ?ā蝉迟谤补 presents in details and extremely criticizes the sixteen types of heretical doctrine which were prevalent in India up to that time.

Scholars have already pointed out that a quite distinct philosophy of the 痴别诲ā苍迟补 and the term “痴别诲ā苍迟补vādins” were mentioned for the first in the sixth century CE by Bhavya (qingbian, 490-c.570 CE), founder of the Svātantrika sub-school of the 惭ā诲丑测补尘补办补.^[13] But the doctrine of the 痴别诲ā苍迟补vādins as reported in the Bhavya‘s works was only the legend of creating world in which the world had been created from puru?a or ā迟尘补苍, there was no doctrine of Brahman or non-duality.

Bhavya wrote an independent work on the 惭ā诲丑测补尘补办补 entitled the 惭补诲丑测补尘补办补丑?诲补测补办ā谤颈办ā upon which Bhavya in turn wrote a commentary entitled the Tarkajvala (Blaze of Reasoning). He is also the author of two other works: the 惭补诲丑测补尘补办ā谤迟丑补蝉补?驳谤补丑补 (only exists in Tibetan) and the 笔谤补箩?ā辫谤补诲ī辫补 (banruodenglun), a commentary to 狈ā驳ā谤箩耻苍补‘s Mūlamadhyamakakārikā, only available in Tibetan and Chinese.

The Bhavya‘s writing about the 痴别诲ā苍迟补 appeared in chapter VIII of the 惭ā诲丑测补尘补办补h?daya and was summarized by Christian Lindtner in the introduction of his translation of the text as follows:

“Chapter VIII: About 痴别诲ā苍迟补. The same permanent, universal and creative soul is found everywhere in all individuals, it is claimed in the scriptures of 痴别诲ā苍迟补 (many of which are quoted in the Tarkajvala). By means of yoga (诲丑测ā苍补) and cognition each individual must wake up in order to participate in the immortality of the soul. It is because one is normally under the sway of karma (and rebirth) that one fails to recognize the identity of the individual soul with the universal soul (verses 1-17).

“Bhavya‘s reply (verses 18-104): The notion about the existence of a soul is dangerous, and in various ways contradictory and irrational. One cannot possibly attain release from ignorance by ‘seeing the soul’(19-24). The soul cannot create anything (25-35). It cannot be bound and it cannot be set free (36-9), nor can it consist of cognition (40-9). The individual soul cannot rest in the universal soul (50-3), and if it is assumed to be numerically one, then it cannot possibly possess a manifold nature (54-8). Nor can it be conceived as a substance or as something that supports (59-64), just as the unity of all souls cannot be conceived analogically with the identity of space in many individual jars (65-70). The soul cannot be involved in the process of karma (71-2), and it cannot be one, universal, indescribable and inconceivable (73-7). The soul cannot be known as something unborn (78-83). It is true that the absolute in 痴别诲ā苍迟补 occasionally is understood in almost the same way as in 惭ā诲丑测补尘补办补, but the reason for this must be that 痴别诲ā苍迟补 has ‘borrowed’, i.e. stolen, from Buddhism. There are, in fact, many things in 痴别诲ā苍迟补 where the former is not consistent with the latter. The internal contradictions show the lack of originality in 痴别诲ā苍迟补 (84-8). The adherents of 痴别诲ā苍迟补 are, thus, most welcome to convert to Madhyamaka! Bhavya concludes by restating his own persuasions about the absolute, lack of origination, emptiness, etc. (89-104).”^[14]

The Absolute Reality in the 痴别诲ā苍迟补 is described by Bhavya with the terms Brahman as being unique, omnipresent, eternal, and the dwelling place of immortality (verse 16):

eka? sarvagata? nitya? para? brahmācyuta? padam |
yogī yu?jan yadā vetti na tadaiti punarbhavam || 16||^[15]

The concept of ā迟尘补苍 in 痴别诲ā苍迟补 school described by Bhavya implies two kinds:

-The individual self (箩ī惫补): the ā迟尘补苍 bound by the body, that is, the ā迟尘补苍 appearing within the body. All the gods are understood to be individual selves (verse13):

gha?ākā?e yathaikasmin rajodhūmādibhirv?te |
tadvattā na hi sarve?ā? sukhāderna tadā迟尘补苍a? ||13||^[16]

-The supreme self (equal to puru?a and paramā迟尘补苍): the highest, liberated ā迟尘补苍 (verse 23, Sanskrit text is lacking, Tibetan is extant).

rig byed smra bas bdag de ni |
rnam pa gnis su 'dod byed de ||
lus shes byes ba bcins bdag dan |
mchog na gnas pa grol pa'i bdag ||23||^[17]

Such the 痴别诲ā苍迟补‘s concept of Brahman and ?tman have remarkable resemblance to the concept of the Buddha-nature and 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 as presented above in the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 literature. For this resemblance, later Buddhists asserted that the 痴别诲ā苍迟补 Brahmins had stolen the Buddhist doctrine of the Buddha-nature or 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 to build their doctrine of Brahman and ?tman.

Hajime Nakamura refers to the following writings of Yensho Kanakura about this idea: “There are some teachings of the Buddha which still remain now. Brahmins have stolen them, and inserted them in various passages of the scriptures of their own.”^[18]

The story that the Brahmins merged the Buddhist 厂ū迟谤补 into their canon was also narrated in the 惭补丑ā辫补谤颈苍颈谤惫ā?补蝉ū迟谤补, as follows: 當于爾時閻浮提內無一比丘為我弟子.爾時波旬悉以大火焚燒一切所有經典.其中或有遺餘在者.諸婆羅門即共偷取.處處採拾安置己典.以是義故.諸小菩薩佛未出時.率共信受婆羅門語.諸婆羅門雖作是說我有齋戒而諸外道真實無也.諸外道等雖復說言有我樂淨.而實不解我樂淨義.直以佛法一字二字一句二句.說言 我典有如是義.^[19]

“In the contemporary era, no Bhiksu in the earth is my (Buddha‘s) disciple. At that time, 惭ā谤补 uses big fire to burn all existent Buddhist sūtras on the earth. Among those Buddhist sūtras, if left everywhere, the Brahmins immediately stole, pick up and merge them into their own canon. For that reason, when the future Buddha will have not come into existence yet, the minor Bodhisattvas all believe and accept the Brahmin‘s speeches. Although Brahmin gurus say “we have pure disciplines”, pagans are really not so. The pagans though repeat the words of Self, Happiness and Pureness, they really cannot explain the meanings of Self, Happiness and Pureness. They directly use one word, two words, one sentence, two sentences of Buddhism to assume falsely that “our own canon has the meanings like that”.^[20]

This paragraph may be the Buddha‘s prophecy about the destiny of Buddhism; but it is also probably a narration by the contemporary author who wrote the sūtra at the time of the 惭补丑ā辫补谤颈苍颈谤惫ā?补蝉ū迟谤补 between 200 and 400 CE. At that time, the Vedāntins probably borrowed, imitated or secretly copied the Buddhist doctrine of the Buddha-nature as depicted in the 尝补?办ā惫补迟ā谤补蝉ū迟谤补 and other 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 texts, and then provided it a new name Brahman as if it were their own doctrine.

It is also necessary to add that theories of a 痴别诲ā苍迟补 under the name “Upani?ad school” appeared for the first time in the 8^th century CE in the works of ?ā苍迟补谤补办?颈迟补 (Jihu; 725–788 CE) and his disciple 碍补尘补濒补?ī濒补 (Lianhuajie; c. 700-750 CE).^[21] They were the eminent 惭ā诲丑测补尘补办补-驰辞驳ā肠ā谤补‘s representatives who presented and refuted the 痴别诲ā苍迟补 and Upani?adic thought. The theories of this 痴别诲ā苍迟补 school are called “Advāita” but they are not identical with those of ?a?kara. Later on, 痴别诲ā苍迟补 theories which presented the Advaita doctrine of the ?a?kara line continued to be mentioned in Buddhist works. So, the Advāita philosophy of the ?a?kara developed in India after the period of ?ā苍迟补谤补办?颈迟补 and 碍补尘补濒补?ī濒补, i.e. the 8^th century CE.

Briefly, the fact that the 痴别诲ā苍迟补 language and doctrine of Brahman was not available in the 罢补迟丑ā驳补迟补驳补谤产丑补 literature and was not known by the Buddhist teachers up to the fifth century CE approves on the chronological aspect that the Buddhist doctrine of the Buddha-nature is prior to the Upani?adic doctrine of Brahman.

In the next, the writer attempts to bring into an ideological comparison the thought of the Buddha-nature and Brahman based on the 尝补?办ā惫补迟ā谤补蝉ū迟谤补. The differences and similarities of the two will demonstrate the idea that the 痴别诲ā苍迟补 school had been influenced by the Buddhist ideas.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

Hajime Nakamura, 础?驳耻迟迟补谤补苍颈办ā测补 History of Early 痴别诲ā苍迟补 Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 4.

[2]:

Robert N. Minor, Radhakrishnan: 础?驳耻迟迟补谤补苍颈办ā测补 Religious Biography, p. 96.

[3]:

Swami Vireswarananda (tr.), Brahma-Sutras, p. xii.

[4]:

Chandradhar Sharma, “Chronological Summary of History of Indian Philosophy,” Indian Philosophy: 础?驳耻迟迟补谤补苍颈办ā测补 Critical Survey, p. vi.

[5]:

厂补?测耻迟迟补苍颈办ā测补. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, p. 674.

[6]:

厂补?测耻迟迟补苍颈办ā测补. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, pp. 751-56.

[7]:

C. Majjhimanikāya. Padmanabha Char, The Life and Teachings of Sri Madhvacharya, p. 25.

[8]:

Ibid., p. 213.

[9]:

厂补?测耻迟迟补苍颈办ā测补. Radhakrishnan, op. cit., pp. 751-56⁵ Ibid., 756.

[10]:

Ibid., 756.

[11]:

厂补?测耻迟迟补苍颈办ā测补. Radhakrishnan, Indian Philosophy, Vol. II, p. 430.

[12]:

Hajime Nakamura, 础?驳耻迟迟补谤补苍颈办ā测补 History of Early 痴别诲ā苍迟补 Philosophy, Vol. I, pp. 435-36.

[13]:

Ibid., p. 183.

[14]:

Christian Lindtner (ed.), Madhyamakah?daya of Bhavya, pp. xxxviii-ix

[15]:

Ibid., p. 81.

[16]:

Ibid., p. 80.

[17]:

Christian Lindtner (ed.), Madhyamakah?daya of Bhavya, pp. 81-82.

[18]:

Hajime Nakamura, 础?驳耻迟迟补谤补苍颈办ā测补 History of Early 痴别诲ā苍迟补 Philosophy, Vol. II, p. 713.

[19]:

Taisho Tripi?aka (CBETA 2011) [T12n375], pp. 716c23 -717a02.

[20]:

The paragraph is translated by the writer. No complete English translation of the text is available.

[21]:

Hajime Nakamura, 础?驳耻迟迟补谤补苍颈办ā测补 History of Early 痴别诲ā苍迟补 Philosophy, Vol. I, p. 265.