Buddhism and Vedanta
By Bratindra Kumar Sengupta
Summary
This essay compares the philosophical systems of Buddhism and Vedanta, showing that their attempts to transcend dialectical disputes often lead to complex dialectics of their own. It begins by summarising the four principal Buddhist schools – Madhyamika, Yogacara, Sautrantika and Vaibhasika – and notes that these range from extreme negationalism to direct realismfile:///home/oai/share/563029_compressed-5-102.pdf. The author then divides Buddhism into Mahayana (Northern) and Hinayana (Southern) streams and highlights that each developed distinctive doctrines and cosmologies. Turning to Vedanta, the article recalls that it grew out of the Upanisads and was systematised by Badarayana in the Brahma‑sutra; later thinkers like Sankara and Ramanuja elaborated sub‑schools of non‑dualism and qualified non‑dualism. The essay proposes to compare Mahayana Buddhism and Sankarite Advaita to assess where their conceptions of ultimate reality coincide or divergefile:///home/oai/share/563029_compressed-5-102.pdf. It observes that both systems posit an ultimate, unconditioned reality that transcends empirical existence: Sunyata (emptiness) in Madhyamika and Brahman in Advaita. Yet their methods differ – the Buddhist refuses to posit any essence, stressing the emptiness of all phenomena, while the Vedantin affirms a positive Absolute and treats the world as a transient illusion. The article discusses how the Yogacara emphasis on consciousness‑only anticipates aspects of Advaita’s subtle idealism but stops short of affirming a permanent self. It also analyses ethical implications: Mahayana compassion and the Bodhisattva ideal contrast with Vedanta’s emphasis on liberation through knowledge. By examining debates in Indian texts, the author shows that although both traditions influenced each other, they remained distinct philosophical enterprises. The essay concludes that any attempt to synthesise Buddhism and Vedanta must recognise their shared quest for liberation while acknowledging their divergent ontologies and soteriologies.
Conclusion
The article surveys the main schools of Buddhism, outlines the development of Vedanta and compares Mahayana thought with Sankara’s Advaita. It argues that although both traditions seek liberation from suffering and posit an ultimate reality, they differ in ontology, epistemology and practice. Attempts to merge them must therefore respect these foundational differences.