Buddhism in relation to Vedanta, past and present – as seen in Bhagavad Gita ch2:26-28

Buddhism is very popular today, but as you know, it originated in India as an offshoot of Vedanta philosophy. However, Vedanta, the conclusion of the Veda, particularly the Vaishnava school based on Bhagavad Gita, is not Buddhist in any way. In fact it is the opposite of Buddhist philosophy.

Buddhism stems from the Indian prince named Siddhartha Gautama, who became the Buddha after some years of practice, around 600 BCE. The Vedas were written down around 5000 years ago by Vyasadeva, at the end of the Dvapara Yuga (great age) and the beginning of the current Kali Yuga, the last period of the four great ages.

The Vedas, particularly this Bhagavad Gita and other Vaishnava literatures, like the Bhagavat Purana, teach that we are an eternal unchanging spirit soul, called jivatma (jiva atma) in Sanskrit. However, Hinayana or Theravada Buddhism teaches the opposite, a philosophy called Vaibhasika, which describes the foundation of all things as emptiness (sunyata). This is totally contrary to Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta, which propounds a personalist teaching, with a personality of godhead, and a personal eternally individual spirit soul within every one of us. Simultaneously, Vedanta does conversely also acknowledge the impersonal aspect of existence, called brahman in Sanskrit. Yet brahman – pure undifferentiated spirit - is said to be merely the effulgence of the personality of godhead Krishna, the speaker of the Gita, also known in his expansion as Vishnu and his incarnation like Ramachandra.

Although the Buddha taught around 600 BCE, this philosophy of Vaibhasika or emptiness was popularized in the 4-5th century CE by the Buddhist scholar Vasubandhu, as well as others like Dignaga and Dharmakirti, who specialized in logic and epistemology. In fact the use of logic and logical analysis are primary tools in the Buddhist system of philosophical thought.

My concern with that approach to truth is this: Who is doing the logical analysis? It’s people like you and me of course, and even if they were smarter and longer practised or studied, we are all subject to four basic defects: We have imperfect senses, we can fall under illusion, we have a tendency to make mistakes, and we have the cheating propensity. No one is immune to these four defects. And so with defective senses and the other concerns, how do we trust these logicians who speculate around the nature of absolute truth? We can’t.

All your attempts at logic are done with flawed senses that are under illusion and make mistakes. Therefore, their very foundation – you and your mind – are flawed, and so your speculations and conclusions are likely to also be flawed. So when the Vaibhasika Buddhist philosophers attempt to explain pratityasamutpada (dependent origin) or sunyata (emptiness) we simply cannot trust them to be authoritative. That is why Vaishnava Vedantists do not trust speculation, they rather teach one to trust the authority of Veda, the literature presented as the words of the supreme personality of godhead Krishna, spoken here in Bhagavad Gita or written down by Krishna’s literary incarnation Vyasadeva.

You can talk logic all you want, but you are talking with a flawed mind and senses, so your conclusions will be flawed. You can’t be trusted. Neither can I be trusted. This is a trustless system. I recommend that you trust no one. Rather verify. Whatever philosophy someone presents to you, ask them to verify it with a scriptural reference from the Veda. Otherwise they are potentially speculating, spit-balling or worse, cheating. Old Sadhguru can talk all he wants, that modern example of a show-bottle guru today as I write this, but when he says that he does not read or quote Veda, then to me he is a sad excuse for a guru and a fraud. Obviously he heard his information from some authority, specifically Veda, but to say he takes no literary work as an authority means that he can sprout anything from his fertile imagination and you have to accept it because you accept him.

In the Vaishnava lineage the authority is the Veda, and if you are fortunate then you might have a legitimate guru in the lineage alive to teach you, or you might have the commentary by sadhus or holy men who simply repeat the message of their gurus in the same lineage. But they decry upstart speculators who deny the authority of Veda, calling them charlatans. And they laugh at the attempts of people who use their imperfect mind and senses to speculate about absolutes in the name of logic, even though nyaya or logic is part of the process. However, without shastric or scriptural reference from Veda, it is untrustworthy and incomplete.

Now Buddhism has become trendy and popular in the west over the past several decades, especially since the Chinese Communist Party invaded Tibet and committed genocide on the Tibetans there in the 1950s, forcing the Dalai Lama to flee to India for shelter and destroying many temples, texts and lives in the process. Such an atrocity that needs to be accounted for, instead of brushed under the carpet because we need capitalism with its marriage to communism to keep expanding the balance sheet. This is selling out to line the pockets, selling out the Tibetan race of people, who are not Han Chinese or Manchu descendants.

Even though Vaishnava Vedanta philosophically opposes Buddhist doctrine in all its forms, Buddhism originated from the Sanskrit Veda, and so Vedantists still stand by their little brother in sympathy and solidarity, and condemn the atrocities of the CCP in Tibet in the 1940s and 50s and since. India’s president Nehru and others openly welcomed the Dalai Lama and Buddhism back to mother India back then and offered shelter, as India does today, despite trying to be diplomatically correct with their trading partner, neighbor and BRICS leader China. A neighbor who continues to this day to overstep the LAC or line of actual control or northern border of India at the southern border of China, whose imperialist tendencies have come of age in this century as the CCP aims to take over control of the planet via the long and unrestricted war against anyone who opposes their dictates. Let’s not be humbled by bullies or naive regarding our world history and politics today on the ground. Indian soldiers continue to die fighting to defend their northern border from Chinese incursion.

Nevertheless, Buddhism’s mother India, and older brother – Veda – offer shelter to the entire Buddhist headquarters and Tibetan government in exile, despite vehemently opposing their philosophy of Vaibhasika or their idea of the absolute truth. According to Vaibhāṣika philosophy, all phenomena, including physical and mental aspects, arise dependently and are devoid of inherent or independent existence. This concept, along with the denial of a permanent unchanging soul, are opposed in these Bhagavad Gita verses quoted below.

Logical reasoning and inference alone are not enough to support a philosophical point. Only Vedic reference will suffice because it is said to be the words spoken by god, especially Bhagavad Gita, or “the song of god”, if you prefer the English name of this Sanskrit teaching on yoga. That said, Vedanta uses pramana or logical debate, and has its own department of Sankhya to discuss logically the concepts of matter and spirit. However, the Gita and most of Vedanta is primarily Vaishnava literature or subject matter about Vishnu, the supreme omnipotent and monotheistic godhead, along with his expansions and assistants, the demigods and also the rest of us eternal living entities. Certainly the followers of Vedanta in India today are mostly Vaishnavas and certainly theistic, as opposed to the atheistic Buddhists.

Bhagavad Gita As It Is, translation and commentary by Swami A. C. Bhaktivedanta ch2:26

अथ चैनं नित्यजातं नित्यं वा मन्यसे मृतम् ।
तथापि त्वं महाबाहो नैनं शोचितुमर्हसि ॥ २६ ॥

atha cainaṁ nitya-jātaṁ
nityaṁ vā manyase mṛtam
tathāpi tvaṁ mahā-bāho
nainaṁ śocitum arhasi

atha—if, however; ca—also; enam—this soul; nitya-jātam—always born; nityam—forever; vā—either; manyase—so think; mṛtam—dead; tathāpi—still; tvam—you; mahā-bāho—O mighty-armed one; na—never; enam—about the soul; śocitum—to lament; arhasi—deserve

TRANSLATION
If, however, you think that the soul is perpetually born and always dies, still you have no reason to lament, O mighty-armed.

COMMENTARY
There is always a class of philosophers, almost akin to the Buddhists, who do not believe in the separate existence of the soul beyond the body. When Lord Kṛṣṇa spoke the Bhagavad-gītā, it appears that such philosophers existed, and they were known as the Lokāyatikas and Vaibhāṣikas. These philosophers maintained that life symptoms, or soul, takes place at a certain mature condition of material combination. The modern material scientist and materialist philosophers also think similarly. According to them, the body is a combination of physical elements, and at a certain stage the life symptoms develop by interaction of the physical and chemical elements. The science of anthropology is based on this philosophy. Currently, many pseudo-religions—now becoming fashionable in America—are also adhering to this philosophy, as well as to the nihilistic nondevotional Buddhist sects.
Even if Arjuna did not believe in the existence of the soul—as in the Vaibhāṣika philosophy—there would still have been no cause for lamentation. No one laments the loss of a certain bulk of chemicals and stops discharging his prescribed duty. On the other hand, in modern science and scientific warfare, so many tons of chemicals are wasted for achieving victory over the enemy. According to the Vaibhāṣika philosophy, the so-called soul or ātmā vanishes along with the deterioration of the body. So, in any case, whether Arjuna accepted the Vedic conclusion that there is an atomic soul, or whether he did not believe in the existence of the soul, he had no reason to lament. According to this theory, since there are so many living entities generating out of matter every moment, and so many of them are being vanquished every moment, there is no need to grieve for such an incidence. However, since he was not risking rebirth of the soul, Arjuna had no reason to be afraid of being affected with sinful reactions due to his killing his grandfather and teacher. But at the same time, Kṛṣṇa sarcastically addressed Arjuna as mahā-bāhu, mighty-armed, because He, at least, did not accept the theory of the Vaibhāṣikas, which leaves aside the Vedic wisdom. As a kṣatriya, Arjuna belonged to the Vedic culture, and it behooved him to continue to follow its principles.

Bhagavad Gita ch2:27

जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युर्ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च ।
तस्मादपरिहार्येऽर्थे न त्वं शोचितुमर्हसि ॥ २७ ॥

jātasya hi dhruvo mṛtyur
dhruvaṁ janma mṛtasya ca
tasmād aparihārye 'rthe
na tvaṁ śocitum arhasi

jātasya—one who has taken his birth; hi—certainly; dhruvaḥ—a fact; mṛtyuḥ—death; dhruvam—it is also a fact; janma—birth; mṛtasya—of the dead; ca—also; tasmāt—therefore; aparihārye—for that which is unavoidable; arthe—in the matter of; na—do not; tvam—you; śocitum—to lament; arhasi—deserve

TRANSLATION
For one who has taken his birth, death is certain; and for one who is dead, birth is certain. Therefore, in the unavoidable discharge of your duty, you should not lament.

COMMENTARY
One has to take birth according to one's activities of life. And, after finishing one term of activities, one has to die to take birth for the next. In this way the cycle of birth and death is revolving, one after the other without liberation. This cycle of birth and death does not, however, support unnecessary murder, slaughter and war. But at the same time, violence and war are inevitable factors in human society for keeping law and order.
The Battle of Kurukṣetra, being the will of the Supreme, was an inevitable event, and to fight for the right cause is the duty of a kṣatriya. Why should he be afraid of or aggrieved at the death of his relatives since he was discharging his proper duty? He did not deserve to break the law, thereby becoming subjected to the reactions of sinful acts, of which he was so afraid. By avoiding the discharge of his proper duty, he would not be able to stop the death of his relatives, and he would be degraded due to his selection of the wrong path of action.

Bhagavad Gita ch2:28

अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि व्यक्तमध्यानि भारत ।
अव्यक्तनिधनान्येव तत्र का परिदेवना ॥ २८ ॥

avyaktādīni bhūtāni
vyakta-madhyāni bhārata
avyakta-nidhanāny eva
tatra kā paridevanā

avyaktādīni—in the beginning unmanifested; bhūtāni—all that are created; vyakta—manifested; madhyāni—in the middle; bhārata—O descendant of Bharata; avyakta—nonmanifested; nidhanāni—all that are vanquished; eva—it is all like that; tatra—therefore; kā-what; paridevanā—lamentation

TRANSLATION
All created beings are unmanifest in their beginning, manifest in their interim state, and unmanifest again when they are annihilated. So what need is there for lamentation?

COMMENTARY
Accepting that there are two classes of philosophers, one believing in the existence of soul and the other not believing in the existence of the soul, there is no cause for lamentation in either case. Nonbelievers in the existence of the soul are called atheists by followers of Vedic wisdom. Yet even if, for argument's sake, we accept the atheistic theory, there is still no cause for lamentation. Apart from the separate existence of the soul, the material elements remain unmanifested before creation. From this subtle state of unmanifestation comes manifestation, just as from ether, air is generated; from air, fire is generated; from fire, water is generated; and from water, earth becomes manifested. From the earth, many varieties of manifestations take place. Take, for example, a big skyscraper manifested from the earth. When it is dismantled, the manifestation becomes again unmanifested and remains as atoms in the ultimate stage. The law of conservation of energy remains, but in course of time things are manifested and unmanifested—that is the difference. Then what cause is there for lamentation either in the stage of manifestation or unmanifestation? Somehow or other, even in the unmanifested stage, things are not lost. Both at the beginning and at the end, all elements remain unmanifested, and only in the middle are they manifested, and this does not make any real material difference.
And if we accept the Vedic conclusion as stated in the Bhagavad-gītā (antavanta ime dehāḥ) that these material bodies are perishable in due course of time (nityasyoktāḥ śarīriṇaḥ) but that soul is eternal, then we must remember always that the body is like a dress; therefore why lament the changing of a dress? The material body has no factual existence in relation to the eternal soul. It is something like a dream. In a dream we may think of flying in the sky, or sitting on a chariot as a king, but when we wake up we can see that we are neither in the sky nor seated on the chariot. The Vedic wisdom encourages self-realization on the basis of the nonexistence of the material body. Therefore, in either case, whether one believes in the existence of the soul, or one does not believe in the existence of the soul, there is no cause for lamentation for loss of the body.

Reference: www.prabhupadabooks.com
Image: www.mygodpictures.com