linguistic:paraphrasing, linguistic:voice_change
Relationship to Buddhism

The influence of Buddhist doctrines on Gaudapada has been a vexed question, though "most recent writers seem to be willing to admit Buddhist influence," yet also note that Gaudapada was a Vedantin and not a Buddhist.

Gaudapada took over the Yogachara teaching of vijñapti-mātra, "representation-only," which states that the empirical reality that we experience is a fabrication of the mind, experienced by consciousness-an-sich, and the four-cornered negation, which negates any positive predicates of 'the Absolute'. Gaudapada "wove into the philosophy of Mandukaya Upanisad, which was further developed by Shankara". In this view,

the ultimate ontological reality is the pure consciousness, which is bereft of attributes and intentionality. The world of duality is nothing but a vibration of the mind (manodṛśya or manaspandita). The pluralistic world is imagined by the mind (saṁkalpa) and this false projection is sponsored by the illusory factor called māyā.

According to Bhattacharya, Asparsayoga also has Buddhist origins. In chapter Four, according to Bhattacharya, two karikas refer to the Buddha. According to Murti, "the conclusion is irresistible that Gaudapada, a Vedanta philosopher, is attempting an advaitic interpretation of Vedanta in the light of the Madhyamika and Yogcara doctrines. He even freely quotes and appeals to them."

However, adds Murti, the doctrines are unlike Buddhism. Chapter One, Two and Three are entirely Vedantin and founded on the Upanishads, with little Buddhist flavour. While the first three chapters discuss Brahman and Atman (soul, Self), Chapter Four doesn't. This, according to Murti, may be because this was authored by someone else and not Gaudapada, a position shared by Richard King. Further, state both Murti and King, no Vedanta scholars who followed Gaudapada ever quoted from Chapter Four, they only quote from the first three. According to Sarma, Chapter Four may well have been written by Gaudapada assuming he was fully conversant with Mahayana school's teachings, yet "to mistake him to be a hidden or open Buddhist is absurd". The doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are totally opposed, states Murti:

We have been talking of borrowing, influence and relationship in rather general terms. It is necessary to define the possible nature of the borrowing, granting that it did take place. (...) The Vedantins stake everything on the Atman (Brahman) and accept the authority of the Upanishads. We have pointed out at length the Nairatmya standpoint of Buddhism and its total opposition to the Atman (soul, substance, the permanent and universal) in any form.

Sengaku Mayeda states that "it might be Gaudapada the author of the Mandukyakarika, or his predecessors, and not Shankara who can be called a ‘Buddhist in disguise'", and credits Shankara with "re-inject the upanishadic spirit into the extremely buddhisticized Mandukyakarika of his paramaguru, pouring new life into it as it were, giving it an interpretation that followed the line of Vedanta school and achieved the re-vedantinization of the buddhisticized vedantic tradition".

Swami Nikhilananda denies Buddhist influence, arguing that Gaudapada used Buddhist terminology because Buddhism was prevalent at that time, but he was ultimately an Advaita Vedantin and he disagrees with Gautama Buddha in the second last verse of the Alatashanti Prakarana in the Kārikā. Dasgupta explicitly states that Nikhilanda is incorrect in denying Buddhist influence, stating, in Sangharakshita's words, that "the influence of Buddhism on his thinking could not be denied."