As usual, you are really only interested in spouting off what you have read. However, what you have read is not deep and comprehensive and it shows in your amateurish identifications of the influences between separate traditions.
You read about these influences from the common arena of discourse in India and then conclude that x causes y because of similar concerns in two traditions. Advaita means not-two. However, that does not mean that because the use the term "advaita" or "advaya" is used in multiple traditions that one of these traditions has caused, created or even influenced the view of the others. Kashmiri Trika is not and never has been influenced by Shankara's Kevela Advaita. What they share is a common Indian basis for philosophizing. You also know nothing about the pivitol question of causation in the development of Hinayana dharma-pluralism, Vijñanavada Ideationism and HwaYen's Tathata-Causation. This is a topic that was later very important in the refinement and development of Chan/Zen/Sön - both Linji and Caodong traditions. But then you must already know this because you are the professor who discourses upon everything you've read. You must be the ultimate embodiment of mutual-identity and interpenetration between absolute and relative. Hail to Professor P.Dog Willy ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <punditster@...> wrote: Thanks for posting the information,but you failed to point out the similarities: Shankara's Advaita claims to be based on the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita and the Brahma Sutras, but many scholars such as Sharma and Raju have noted that Shankara shows many signs of influence from Mahayana Buddhism, Madhyamaka, founded by Nagarjuna, the Yogacara, founded by Vasubandhu and Asanga. Gaudapada incorporated aspects of Buddhism into Hindusim in order to reinterpret the Upanishads and the Brahma Sutras. 1. Gaudapada adapted the Buddhist concept of "ajata", the doctrine of non-origination or non-creation, from Nagarjuna's Madhyamika. Ajata is the fundamental philosophical doctrine of Gaudapada. 2. Advaita Vedanta also adopted from the Madhyamika the idea of two levels of reality - "two truths" - absolute and relative. 3. Gaudapada and Shankara adopted almost all of the Buddhist dialectic, methodology, arguments and analysis, their concepts, their terminologies and even their philosophy of the Absolute. 4. Gaudapada embraced the Buddhist idea that the nature of the world is the four-cornered negation. 5. Gaudapada adopted the Buddhist doctrines that ultimate reality is pure consciousness. P.S. You also did not explain the connection between the non-dualism of Advaita Vedanta and the non-dualism of Kashmere Tantrsim. On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 9:28 PM, <emptybill@... mailto:emptybill@...> wrote: In Tibetan Buddhism, Nagarjuna is the most important philosophical figure. It is like Thomas Aquinas for Roman Catholics. Madhyamaka is the basis for understanding Buddhism and Vijñanavada is a close correlate. Contrary to the Tibetans, Madhyamaka is not given the same exalted status in the history of Chinese Buddhism. Their conclusion was that the eight-fold negation of Nagarjuna set the framework for a final negation of all elements (dharmas) of experience, whether material, psychological, or celestial. However, according to them, this very conclusion cannot be final. That is because any negation (no matter how subtle or all encompassing) is by definition the opposite of an affirmation - not merely logically but in final meaning and result. It is therefore merely relative and is neither final nor absolute. Consequently, Madhyamaka was superseded by various other Buddhist schools until Hwa-Yen became the view that encompassed all other schools and all other elements of experience. That view about Madhyamaka was echoed by Shankara who characterized Madhyamaka as shunyavada and dismissed it rather swiftly. Shankara in fact saved some of his most pointed criticisms for the Buddhists of his day, particularly Vijnanavada. In spite of this, there are parallels between some of Gaudapada’s statements and the views of Vijnanavada because they both draw from the same milieu of philosophic discourse. This is one reason that assertions that Advaita was a secret Buddhism demonstrate ignorance of the issues and shallow scholarship. As pointed out by K. A. Krishnaswamy Aiyer, Buddhism and Advaita are fundamentally opposed in five key points: 1. Both say that the world is “unreal”, but Buddhists mean that it is only a conceptual construct (vikalpa), while Shankara does not think that the world is merely conceptual. 2. Momentariness is a cardinal principal of Buddhism – consciousness is fundamentally momentary for them. However, in Advaita, consciousness is pure (shuddha), without beginning or end (anadi) and is thoroughly continuous. The momentariness of empirical states of consciousness overlies this continuity. 3. In Buddhism, the “self” is the ego (the “I”) – a conceptual construct that is quite unreal. In Advaita, the Self is the only “really Real” and is the basis of all concepts. 4. In Buddhism, avidya causes us to construct continuities (such as the self) where there are none. In Advaita, avidya causes us instead to take what is unreal to be real and what is real to be unreal. 5. Removal of avidya leads to nirvana/blowning out for Buddhists but for Shankara it leads to perfect knowledge (vidya).
