The Absolute Experience

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael,

 

Thank you, for the citation.

 

I do not have that text at hand at the

moment, so could you please

answer the question asked above:

 

" ....after reading the scanned

information, I wondered if the change

from " Vijnavadin " to " Buddhist " was in the

orginal text. Is it that

change in the original text? "

 

Have you read Ramanuja refutation of

Sankara?

 

See:

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/ram

anuja.htm

 

or the basic Mahayana Buddhist Refutations

of Atman/ Brahman at:

 

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/con

tratman.htm

 

or Bhikkhu Bodhi's refutation of Mahayana

Buddhism and Advaita?

 

See:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/new

s/ essay27.html

 

None of these are needed to do so. It is

easily done in few words.

 

Lewis

 

£££££££££££££££££££

 

Hi Lewis,

I wouldn't know about the

original text because I have no knowledge

of Sanskrit. That could be an editor's

addition. However within the translated

text individual references are found to

'Buddhists', 'Buddhist views', etc. In

those days discussion was robust and

Sankara did not spare incoherence or

illogic. The present declension where

everybody's right and nobody's wrong,

philosophically speaking, is silly.

 

Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

Hi Michael,

 

Thank you, for the citation.

 

I do not have that text at hand at the

moment, so could you please

answer the question asked above:

 

" ....after reading the scanned

information, I wondered if the change

from " Vijnavadin " to " Buddhist " was in the

orginal text. Is it that

change in the original text? "

 

Have you read Ramanuja refutation of

Sankara?

 

See:

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/ramanuja.htm

 

or the basic Mahayana Buddhist Refutations of Atman/

Brahman at:

 

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/contratman.htm

 

or Bhikkhu Bodhi's refutation of Mahayana Buddhism and

Advaita?

 

See:

 

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/news/essay27.html

 

None of these are needed to do so. It is easily done

in few words.

 

Lewis

 

£££££££££££££££££££

 

Hi Lewis,

I wouldn't know about the

original text because I have no knowledge

of Sanskrit. That could be an editor's

addition. However within the translated

text individual references are found to

'Buddhists', 'Buddhist views', etc. In

those days discussion was robust and

Sankara did not spare incoherence or

illogic. The present declension where

everybody's right and nobody's wrong,

philosophically speaking, is silly.

 

Michael.

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Michael,

 

The scanned page is a translation of text, Sanskirt or

otherwise. That text is in English. The question is

asking about the English text that was scanned. I

asked a simple question and now more directly:

 

Was " Vijnavadin " and " Buddhist " in the original text?

Was there a change in the original text after it was

scanned?

 

Why is there a reference to Sanskrit, Michael? Is the

scanned page the same as it was in the original or was

there a change after the scan?

 

Did you read any of the other text referred to?

 

Is Sankara the only one with logic and coherence?

 

What does logic and coherence, words of any type or

form have to do with that which is has nothing to do

with them in any way?

 

Why project, imagine what today's movements away from

some imagined ideal is? Are you privy to what is in

all appearances, all dreams and imaginings and their

movements towards and away from some ideal system of

thought or belief? Is Sankara's or anyone's world of

words, concepts, arguments, debates, admonitions and

beliefs the ideal that all devolve from in each

arbritrary period of time?

 

Questions asked of you are usually left unanswered.

These are not rhetorical questions, Michael. Issues

are raised by you and here is the response asking for

your bases, knowledge, and assumptions. Bring Sankara

with you, he and his world is no obstacle.

 

Lewis