Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 Dear suresh-ji, If Adi Sankara was born in 509 BC he would have been alive at the same time of Gautama Buddha whose birth is traditionally given as 563 BC. The following may be of interest. Nagarjuna, the author of the Mulamadhyamaka Karika, is said to have lived around 1st and 2nd century CE. The Vijnanavadin school of buddhism was formed around 150 CE. The Madhyamika school, based on Nagarjuna's teaching only began to flourish a few hundred years after Nagarjuna - around 500 CE. Gaudapada is said to have lived around the 6th or 7th century CE. Scholars show him making reference to buddhist texts dated around 5th, 6th century CE in his Mandukya Karika. Adi Sankara wrote a commentary on Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika, and referred to Gaudapada as his teacher's teacher. Sankara also and makes reference in his commentary to the views of the Vijnanavadins and Madhyamikas. Therefore, *if* the above dates are accurate it raises a question as to whether Adi Sankara could have been born in 563 BC Best wishes, Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of sureshbalaraman > 30 May 2009 19:34 > advaitin > Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > peter ji : > > Sri Adi Sankara was born at Kaladi on the fifth day of the > bright fortnight of the Vaisaka month of the cyclic year > Nandana in cyclic year Nandana - Kali 2593 corresponding to 509 B.C. > > http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/aboutpeetham.html?PHPSESSID=3bd8 > 9626679806113cffff09109b6d85 > > Does it mean that Guru Adi Shankara Achaaryaal was born > before Gautama Buddha aka Prince Siddharth.Can you clarify?Thanks. > > suresh. > > > > > advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > Shentong and Rantong are from the Tibetan - terminology for > " emptiness " that > > probably was not developed in Shankara's time. However, there were > > buddhist texts known to be at least third and fourth > centuries (CE) > > which expounded on buddha-nature (a third turning teaching) such as > > the Srimalasutra and the Mahaparanirvanasutra (not the pali > > mahaparanibbanasutta of the same name). The > Mahaparanirvanasutra like > > its pali namesake is claimed to be the last words of the Buddha. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > advaitin > > > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite > > > 30 May 2009 15:39 > > > advaitin > > > RE: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > > > > > Dear Peter & Sada, > > > > > > Just a thought (I am entirely ignorant on the subject): The name > > > 'Shentong' > > > implies Chinese? Even if the philosophy was around at the > same time, > > > is it not possible that Shankara was unaware of it if it was > > > developed in a different place in an alien language? Maybe it is > > > only much later that its contemporaneous existence has > become clear. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > --- > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 30, 2009 PranAms In a list dedicated to discussions on the teacings of Adi Shankara, a detailed examination of Buddhism is quite incongruous in my personal opinion. The key difference between Vedanta and Buddhism is that the former is firmly rooted in the ONLY pramana for Self-knowledge - the Vedas, and the latter is a nastikA system that rejects the sacrosanctity of the VedAs as the means to knowledge. Shankara himself repeatedly stresses that the ONLY pramana or means of knowledge for knowing the Atman is the shruti vakyA. In BSB 2.1.4 he remarks: " But knowledge of Reality springs from the Upanisadic texts alone, as is stated in such passages as " One who is not versed in the Vedas cannot reflect on the Great Enetity " (- Tai Br 3.12.9.7) and " I ask you of that Infinite Being known only from the Upanishads " (Br.U 3.9.26) " Bereft of the vision of the VedAs, Buddhism lacks in a valid means for self-knowledge. We have already discussed this quite recently in discussions on the role of shravana. Once Buddhism rejects the vedAs they are left without any valid means of knowing the SUpreme Reality - akin to a person gifted with sight wearing a blindfold. Without the means of knowledge i.e. the eyes, one cannot see, and similarly without the means of knowledge i.e. the Vedanta vakyas one cannot gain self-knowledge. Hence alone is a nastika system like Buddhism practically nonexistent in the country of its birth - its own philosophy is mired in conflicting schools and sects with diamterically opposed viewpoints on the most fundamental aspects of the nature of Reality ranging from consciousness being nonexistent to it being momentary, ranging from idealism to nihilism. Read what Shankara has to say as he sums up the teachings of the Buddha in his sutabhashyA: " To be brief from every point of view that this Buddhist doctrine may be examined for finding out some justification, it breaks down like a well sunk in sand; and we do not find any the least logic here. Hence also all behavior based on the Buddhist scripture is unjustifiable. MOREOVER BuddhA exposed his own incoherence in talk when he instructed the three mutually contradictory theories of the existence of external objects, existence of consciousness and absolute nihilism; or he showed his malevolence (was malicious) towards all creatures, acting under the delusion that these creatures would get confused by imbibing contradictory views. The idea is that the Buddhist view should be abjured in every way by all who desire the highest good " I also think it is disingenious to claim that Shankara, who was engaged in discussion with the Buddhists of his time and was perhaps singularly responsible for its inevitable demise in its country of birth, was unclear about its core principles and viewpoints (or at least more unclear than us with our armchari reading of Buddhism centuries after the BuddhA!) One need not criticize Buddhists for holding views they find tenable or beneficial to their spiritual development - attempting to reconcile it with Vedanta is totally fruitless- although it may be quite attractive to Buddhists who, like many others, find in Vedanta the ultimate answers to their systems own internal logical inconsistencies and contradictory viewpoints, and are then able to resolve and reconcile the same within the framework of their own terminologies and systems. Hari OM Shyam advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > Hi Dennis, > > Shentong and Rantong are from the Tibetan - terminology for " emptiness " that > probably was not developed in Shankara's time. However, there were > buddhist texts known to be at least third and fourth centuries (CE) which > expounded on buddha-nature (a third turning teaching) such as the > Srimalasutra and the Mahaparanirvanasutra (not the pali mahaparanibbanasutta > of the same name). The Mahaparanirvanasutra like its pali namesake is > claimed to be the last words of the Buddha. > > Best wishes, > > Peter Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > ...and similarly without the means of knowledge i.e. the Vedanta vakyas one cannot gain self-knowledge. Socrates did, Plotinus did, Buddha did, Lao-Tzu did, Jesus did, Ramana Maharshi did (and those are just some of the " big " names)... Granted, one cannot make a rule out of the exceptions, but we can't rule them out either, otherwise, fundamentalism. Pranams Shyam, Mouna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 doctorgj Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile " Mouna " <maunna Sun, 31 May 2009 00:43:48 <advaitin > Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism " shyam_md " <shyam_md wrote: > ...and similarly without the means of knowledge i.e. the Vedanta vakyas one cannot gain self-knowledge. Socrates did, Plotinus did, Buddha did, Lao-Tzu did, Jesus did, Ramana Maharshi did (and those are just some of the " big " names)... Granted, one cannot make a rule out of the exceptions, but we can't rule them out either, otherwise, fundamentalism. Pranams Shyam, Mouna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 Dear Peter-ji, Thank you for pointing this out so beautifully. Conceptualization by the misuse of analogies, in place of abiding in Awareness, is our tragedy. We can't blame true Advaita for that - for it is always beyond conceptualization. Best regards. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: ...... > In Advaita we use this analogy to assert that ultimately everything in the > empirical world is like the pot, nothing but nama-rupa, while the true > substratum (the clay) is Brahman. As nama-rupa the world is appearance only > and unreal, as Brahman the world is real. For the ignorant (ajnanis) this > is an analogy, for the wise (jnanis) this is the reality. > > In Madhyamaka the aim of deconstruction is to finally let go of the process > of all conceptualisation, of attributing entities where non truly exist and > to rest in awareness free from conceptual contrivances. > > What they are concerned about is that when we say the pot is unreal but clay > is real, when we say the world is unreal but Brahman is real, we are still > conceptualisng the ultimate nature of reality. So they seek to avoid > denying one thing while affirming another. According to this approach, for > as long as we are doing this we are not resting in awareness free from of > conceptual contrivance. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote: > > " shyam_md " <shyam_md@> wrote: > > > ...and similarly without the means of knowledge i.e. the Vedanta > vakyas one cannot gain self-knowledge. > > Socrates did, Plotinus did, Buddha did, Lao-Tzu did, Jesus did, Ramana > Maharshi did (and those are just some of the " big " names)... > Granted, one cannot make a rule out of the exceptions, but we can't rule > them out either, otherwise, fundamentalism. > > Pranams Shyam, > Mouna > That we know who is enlightened and who is not (!): let me make the equally empty " Buddha did not,... " Let me give two reasonings for the related topic. 1. The Nastika of old times had the rejection of Vedas as CENTRAL PREMISE/PRINCIPLE, for to accept its authority means to reliquish the status of independent identity and become subordinate. Thus the Nastika's IS A FUNDAMENTALIST POSITION TO BEGIN WITH. People now can't appreciate this fact. 2. If on the other hand, the Nastika genuinely believes that his Guru's understanding of Ultimate Truth is different from the Vedas, then it is not the business of the Astika to please his own sentiments by reasoning out why that Guru in fact was not differing. The right response is to reject the Nastika position outright, at least wherever it claims to speak of Truth different from that enshrined in the Vedas. If by appealing to Buddha, the Buddhist comes to a Nastika conclusion - then our " automated decision " is that his pramana led him to error, to wrong knowledge. Of course, other possibilities like " He understood Buddha incorrectly " or " He understood the Vedas incorrectly " may be there. But indulging in such may only land us in subjective sentimental-nonsense for the sake of " love-all " . Rather, the Astika gives the opponent full credibility to understanding his own claims, and is clear in his response to these claims. The response is not **as much aimed at a personality** as it is at the Nastika currents that are coming from it. (Within Vedanta itself, we have Advaitins and Visishtadvaitins, and the " non-fundamentalist " Neo-Vedantins who claim that both are ultimately saying the same thing!) thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > ...and the " non-fundamentalist " Neo-Vedantins who claim that both are ultimately saying the same thing! > Dear Sir, I wonder where you got that idea... Yours in Bhagavan, Mouna Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > In Advaita we use this analogy to assert that ultimately everything in the > empirical world is like the pot, nothing but nama-rupa, while the true > substratum (the clay) is Brahman. As nama-rupa the world is appearance only > and unreal, as Brahman the world is real. For the ignorant (ajnanis) this > is an analogy, for the wise (jnanis) this is the reality. > > In Madhyamaka the aim of deconstruction is to finally let go of the process > of all conceptualisation, of attributing entities where non truly exist and > to rest in awareness free from conceptual contrivances. > > What they are concerned about is that when we say the pot is unreal but clay > is real, when we say the world is unreal but Brahman is real, we are still > conceptualisng the ultimate nature of reality. So they seek to avoid > denying one thing while affirming another. According to this approach, for > as long as we are doing this we are not resting in awareness free from of > conceptual contrivance. Namaste, I had somehow missed this post and the next of Peterji (due to my responding to Vaibhavji). This was actually the basic understanding of present day Buddhist objection to Vedanta that I had sometime back. The (I think, more modern) madhyamika here has implicitly conceded that the Upanishads enshrine the highest truth, and now seeks to consolidate superiority on the basis of how to 'realize' that Truth. Whether this was how Nagarjuna (would have) viewed the Upanishads (as flawed in approach but not in the End truth that it somehow contains inspite of suggesting the flawed approach) is to be guessed. As for the objection itself, that is a different topic - but standard enough. thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote: > > > advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote: > > > ...and the " non-fundamentalist " Neo-Vedantins who claim that both are > ultimately saying the same thing! > > > Dear Sir, > I wonder where you got that idea... > > Yours in Bhagavan, > Mouna > Namaskarams. For example. A swamiji of the RKMission told me personally. I might have misunderstood; but he said regarding Shankara and Ramanuja having same realization, and the differences in their assertions of Truth having to do with semantics, etc. for the most part. He said the same about the Vivarna and Bhamati schools within Advaita. (And BTW, I regard that Swamiji very highly, but that tendency to dismiss fundamental differences of schools of thought is there - for good or bad. One principle here may be " When you go to the mango orchard, why are you wasting time counting the leaves? Eat the mangoes! " But I think the Swami was actually sincere in his conclusions.) (My aim in giving this information is not to specially scandalize RKMission in the eyes of people here.) thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > A swamiji of the RKMission told me personally. I might have misunderstood; but he said regarding Shankara and Ramanuja having same realization, and the differences in their assertions of Truth having to do with semantics, etc. for the most part. He said the same about the Vivarna and Bhamati schools within Advaita. > The " etc " might have included " standpoint " (I am trying not to misrepresent him; happened a year+ back); the word semantics was definitely there however. I doubt it was really justified, the way the Swami was suggesting, given the pains that these schools take to keep aware of differences - it did not even (want to?) follow Vivekananda's gradation scheme, for those aware of that. (Ok. Last post on this personal example) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 Dear Shyam-ji, Thank you for sharing your personal views. Of course we are here to study Advaita. I also feel it's not beyond us to respond to a new member who asks the group a question about brahman as understood by advaita and the sunyata of the buddhists', saying he is a " long time student of buddhism (though not a buddhist, per se) and relative newcomer to advaita vedanta, i am trying to understand the similarities and differences between the two systems. to create a personal bridge, as it were. :-) " I admit this touches on my own personal temperament because while I don't believe all spiritual traditions are identical, or that they should be, I am interested in helping people from different traditions build upon what they have in common - 'to build bridges, as it were.' From your email below I get the impression this is not important to you, bearing in mind you have dismissed the validity of any and all spiritual paths that do not first accept the Vedas. I apologise if I have gone into too much detail and distracted us from our main aim in the group. With best wishes, Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of shyam_md > 30 May 2009 21:59 > advaitin > Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > PranAms > In a list dedicated to discussions on the teacings of Adi > Shankara, a detailed examination of Buddhism is quite > incongruous in my personal opinion. > > The key difference between Vedanta and Buddhism is that the > former is firmly rooted in the ONLY pramana for > Self-knowledge - the Vedas, and the latter is a nastikA > system that rejects the sacrosanctity of the VedAs as the > means to knowledge. > > Shankara himself repeatedly stresses that the ONLY pramana or > means of knowledge for knowing the Atman is the shruti vakyA. > In BSB 2.1.4 he remarks: > " But knowledge of Reality springs from the Upanisadic texts > alone, as is stated in such passages as " One who is not > versed in the Vedas cannot reflect on the Great Enetity " (- > Tai Br 3.12.9.7) and " I ask you of that Infinite Being known > only from the Upanishads " (Br.U 3.9.26) " > > Bereft of the vision of the VedAs, Buddhism lacks in a valid > means for self-knowledge. We have already discussed this > quite recently in discussions on the role of shravana. > > Once Buddhism rejects the vedAs they are left without any > valid means of knowing the SUpreme Reality - akin to a person > gifted with sight wearing a blindfold. Without the means of > knowledge i.e. the eyes, one cannot see, and similarly > without the means of knowledge i.e. the Vedanta vakyas one > cannot gain self-knowledge. > > Hence alone is a nastika system like Buddhism practically > nonexistent in the country of its birth - its own philosophy > is mired in conflicting schools and sects with diamterically > opposed viewpoints on the most fundamental aspects of the > nature of Reality ranging from consciousness being > nonexistent to it being momentary, ranging from idealism to nihilism. > > Read what Shankara has to say as he sums up the teachings of > the Buddha in his sutabhashyA: > > " To be brief from every point of view that this Buddhist > doctrine may be examined for finding out some justification, > it breaks down like a well sunk in sand; and we do not find > any the least logic here. Hence also all behavior based on > the Buddhist scripture is unjustifiable. MOREOVER BuddhA > exposed his own incoherence in talk when he instructed the > three mutually contradictory theories of the existence of > external objects, existence of consciousness and absolute > nihilism; or he showed his malevolence (was malicious) > towards all creatures, acting under the delusion that these > creatures would get confused by imbibing contradictory views. > The idea is that the Buddhist view should be abjured in every > way by all who desire the highest good " > > I also think it is disingenious to claim that Shankara, who > was engaged in discussion with the Buddhists of his time and > was perhaps singularly responsible for its inevitable demise > in its country of birth, was unclear about its core > principles and viewpoints (or at least more unclear than us > with our armchari reading of Buddhism centuries after the BuddhA!) > > One need not criticize Buddhists for holding views they find > tenable or beneficial to their spiritual development - > attempting to reconcile it with Vedanta is totally fruitless- > although it may be quite attractive to Buddhists who, like > many others, find in Vedanta the ultimate answers to their > systems own internal logical inconsistencies and > contradictory viewpoints, and are then able to resolve and > reconcile the same within the framework of their own > terminologies and systems. > > Hari OM > Shyam > > > advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > Shentong and Rantong are from the Tibetan - terminology for > " emptiness " that > > probably was not developed in Shankara's time. However, there were > > buddhist texts known to be at least third and fourth > centuries (CE) > > which expounded on buddha-nature (a third turning teaching) such as > > the Srimalasutra and the Mahaparanirvanasutra (not the pali > > mahaparanibbanasutta of the same name). The > Mahaparanirvanasutra like > > its pali namesake is claimed to be the last words of the Buddha. > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Peter > > > > > --- > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 The following quotes of Nagarjuna would help in realizing that his position is not contradictory to Advaita Vedanta: 1. The Ultimate Truth cannot be taught except in the context of mundane truth, and unless the ultimate truth is not cognized, nirvana cannot be realized. (Madhyamika Karika 24:10) 2. The Ultimate Truth is not any view. (25:24) 3. The non dual nature of rupa is not rupa. All the rupa that there is , all this is in the truth the one, undivided, ultimate reality which neither gathers nor scatters, is devoid of colour, devoid of shape, it is all of one nature which is being of no particluar nature. (Maha Prajna parimata Sastra. 436) 4. Ch 25 of Madhyamika Karika is written to show that Nagarjuna does not support nihilism. The difference is that Nagarjuna did not contruct a methaphysical system out of this while the advaitins have done so. REGARDS, VAIBHAV. advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote: > > advaitin , " Peter " <not_2@> wrote: > > In Advaita we use this analogy to assert that ultimately everything in the > > empirical world is like the pot, nothing but nama-rupa, while the true > > substratum (the clay) is Brahman. As nama-rupa the world is appearance only > > and unreal, as Brahman the world is real. For the ignorant (ajnanis) this > > is an analogy, for the wise (jnanis) this is the reality. > > > > In Madhyamaka the aim of deconstruction is to finally let go of the process > > of all conceptualisation, of attributing entities where non truly exist and > > to rest in awareness free from conceptual contrivances. > > > > What they are concerned about is that when we say the pot is unreal but clay > > is real, when we say the world is unreal but Brahman is real, we are still > > conceptualisng the ultimate nature of reality. So they seek to avoid > > denying one thing while affirming another. According to this approach, for > > as long as we are doing this we are not resting in awareness free from of > > conceptual contrivance. > > > Namaste, I had somehow missed this post and the next of Peterji (due to my responding to Vaibhavji). This was actually the basic understanding of present day Buddhist objection to Vedanta that I had sometime back. The (I think, more modern) madhyamika here has implicitly conceded that the Upanishads enshrine the highest truth, and now seeks to consolidate superiority on the basis of how to 'realize' that Truth. Whether this was how Nagarjuna (would have) viewed the Upanishads (as flawed in approach but not in the End truth that it somehow contains inspite of suggesting the flawed approach) is to be guessed. > > As for the objection itself, that is a different topic - but standard enough. > > thollmelukaalkizhu > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 Hamsaji - PraNAms Thanks for clear historical record which really clarifies most of the posts and Buddhistic thoughts in correct perspective. And just a reminder for those who are new- when are referencing to the previous post please copy only those relevant sections to your discussion, without making re-run of the whole of previous post and thus clouding the email- space. The readers already have access to the previous post. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Sat, 5/30/09, hamsa.soham <hamsa001 wrote: As a long-time student of Tibetan Buddhism, ... I am finally moved by this topic to make a small contribution here. ............ For me, what makes Advaita Vedanta uniquely powerful and effective is its pramana,its methodology of directly revealing to the qualified student the nature of reality at the time of teaching, when the Upanishadic wisdom is unfolded by a qualified teacher. This pramana has proven effective for thousands of years, right to the present. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 2009/5/31 Peter <not_2: > > > Dear suresh-ji, > > If Adi Sankara was born in 509 BC he would have been alive at the same time > of Gautama Buddha whose birth is traditionally given as 563 BC. The 509 BCE date for Adi Sankara claimed by some people is part of a different chronology of Indian history offered by these people. In this chronology the date of the Buddha is revised to ~1800 BCE. There are various arguments for this revised chronology but I have not studied the same in detail. However, a person I know who is knowledgeable in these matters says that this revision is not tenable, and that the date for the Buddha in the 5th/6th cen. BCE and Adi Sankara in the 7th/8th cen. CE is reasonably established. However, the pre-Buddha chronology remains a murky affair and the information we have so far is largely conjecture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 2009/5/30 hamsa.soham <hamsa001: > > The teachings on Buddha Nature are said to be for the purpose of > counteracting tendencies towards nihilism--a potential pitfall of > sunyavada, as Adi Shankara saw. I would like to make a comment here regarding our present day opinions on what Adi Shankara " saw " in shunyavada. It is often said that he dismissed the shunyavadins as " nihilists " but the term " nihilist " is an English term, not a Sanskrit one. So it is quite possible that we are reading our own opinions into what Shankara said. Now I have come across the following arguments made by various scholars: 1. That Shankara misunderstood shunyavada to be nihilism. Those who say this are of two types: people seeking to dismiss Advaita and people seeking to reconcile Advaita & Madhyamaka. The latter category includes a wide variety, including those who claim that the " emptiness " of the Madhyamaka is the same as the " fullness " of Advaita. IMO, those who conclude that Shankara misunderstood shunya are presuming that they are understanding Shankara correctly in the first place. This is a rather dangerous presumption given that Shankara wrote in Sanskrit and not English, and most of these scholars are not sampradayavids. 2. That Shankara dismissed only svatantrika madhyamaka and not prasangika madhyamaka The latter group holds that they cannot be dismissed because they have no " view " to offer, but then the Advaitins hold the mirror by saying that advaita is " avirodha " (unopposed) to any & all views. Therefore, both traditions are essentially claiming that theirs is not a specific view. > But the methodology of Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta seem quite > different, at least as Buddhism seems to be taught today. For me, what > makes Advaita Vedanta uniquely powerful and effective is its pramana, > its methodology of directly revealing to the qualified student the > nature of reality at the time of teaching, when the Upanishadic wisdom > is unfolded by a qualified teacher. This pramana has proven effective > for thousands of years, right to the present. The level of emphasis on pramana is not a constant across the classical Advaita Vedanta tradition. One of the prominent contemporary teachers of the classical tradition, Swami Dayananda Saraswati, does put a lot of emphasis on this. Historically, the teachers in the Vivarana line were more emphatic on this point than those in the Bhamati line. I am told that even Swami Chinmayananda (one of Swami Dayananda's gurus) had a somewhat different perspective on this point. > Generally, though, it seems that Buddhist awakening is taught to rely on > lots of meditation practice. Depending on the teacher, one may say the same about Vedanta too. In any case, the term " meditation " is somewhat ill-defined. If one is using the term to mean dhyana, then there are many rigorous practitioners of the same. -- santoá¹£aḥ paramo lÄbhaḥ satsaá¹…gaḥ paramÄ gatiḥ I vicÄraḥ paramaá¹ jñÄnaá¹ Å›amo hi paramaá¹ sukham II - Yoga VÄsiá¹£á¹ha Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 2009/5/31 vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21: > > > The following quotes of Nagarjuna would help in realizing that his position > is not contradictory to Advaita Vedanta: > > 1. The Ultimate Truth cannot be taught except in the context of mundane > truth, and unless the ultimate truth is not cognized, nirvana cannot be > realized. (Madhyamika Karika 24:10) > > 2. The Ultimate Truth is not any view. (25:24) > > 3. The non dual nature of rupa is not rupa. All the rupa that there is , all > this is in the truth the one, undivided, ultimate reality which neither > gathers nor scatters, is devoid of colour, devoid of shape, it is all of one > nature which is being of no particluar nature. (Maha Prajna parimata Sastra. > 436) > > The difference is that Nagarjuna did not contruct a methaphysical system out > of this while the advaitins have done so. I am not sure what you mean by saying that the Advaitns have constructed a metaphysical system. However, if one takes the 3 points mentioned by you and adds the following: " And that Ultimate Truth is YOU " then it becomes Advaita Vedanta. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > I admit this touches on my own personal temperament because while I don't > believe all spiritual traditions are identical, or that they should be, I am > interested in helping people from different traditions build upon what they > have in common - 'to build bridges, as it were.' > > From your email below I get the impression this is not important to you, > bearing in mind you have dismissed the validity of any and all spiritual > paths that do not first accept the Vedas. See my post 45392 for the response to this as well. The last para above is psychological underhand-play. I think Rachmielji should understand about how to construct that 'bridge' by considering all the angles presented in the posts on this topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote: > I would like to make a comment here regarding our present day opinions > on what Adi Shankara " saw " in shunyavada. It is often said that he > dismissed the shunyavadins as " nihilists " but the term " nihilist " is > an English term, not a Sanskrit one. So it is quite possible that we > are reading our own opinions into what Shankara said. I would love to hear in more detail from any willing member of this learned group what Adi Shankara's critique of shunyavada was. I must admit I haven't directly studied his writings on this subject(which I believe are mainly in his Brahma Sutras bhashya?) but have only heard second hand about this subject. I had the impression he found shunyavada nihilistic in that it posited non-existence of self or any absolute reality, as he understood it. But I'd love to get some clarity on this. Thanks. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 Nagarjuna does not call the ultimate reality pure connsciousness, pure existence. His system has the concept of immanence of the ultimate reality in sunya but he does not elaborate it in his epistemology. Thus I said that Sankara has built a metaphysical system out of it. The examination of three states of consciousness again is found in Advaita while the Madhyamika does not do it. Again Asvagosha says that the self has an ultimate nature. Nagarjuna says that the ultimate nature of Tathagata is 'deep, immeasurable, unfathamobable'. When I say 'I am Brahman' it is not the ego that is called Brahman but Brahman is all that there is and Atman can be synonymously used for it. The Madhyamika deny the ego but not the ultimate reality. REGARDS, VAIBHAV. advaitin , Ramesh Krishnamurthy <rkmurthy wrote: > > 2009/5/31 vaibhav_narula21 <vaibhav_narula21: > > > > > > The following quotes of Nagarjuna would help in realizing that his position > > is not contradictory to Advaita Vedanta: > > > > 1. The Ultimate Truth cannot be taught except in the context of mundane > > truth, and unless the ultimate truth is not cognized, nirvana cannot be > > realized. (Madhyamika Karika 24:10) > > > > 2. The Ultimate Truth is not any view. (25:24) > > > > 3. The non dual nature of rupa is not rupa. All the rupa that there is , all > > this is in the truth the one, undivided, ultimate reality which neither > > gathers nor scatters, is devoid of colour, devoid of shape, it is all of one > > nature which is being of no particluar nature. (Maha Prajna parimata Sastra. > > 436) > > > > The difference is that Nagarjuna did not contruct a methaphysical system out > > of this while the advaitins have done so. > > I am not sure what you mean by saying that the Advaitns have > constructed a metaphysical system. However, if one takes the 3 points > mentioned by you and adds the following: > > " And that Ultimate Truth is YOU " > > then it becomes Advaita Vedanta. > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 peter ji : what you write is somewhat logical.But off late,i am thinking,most of the scriptures were written in 'olai chuvadis' or old palm leaves or some dried leaf and prior to that in clay tablets and some in tradition purely oral transmission with a vedic system in tact. plus 800 years of islamic invasion and occupation and another 200 years of of british christian invasion and occupation,so many records to be tampered with to suit rulers of those eras.And least of all,the in-fighting amongst bharathians prior to 1000 years of invasion and occupation,has made me feel very apologetic,as to why i even ventured to check the veracity of old dates of icons.Let me accept the essence of the teachings and not get lost in this trivial technicalities.I owe an apology to our members for wasting my posts on such issues,so i stand corrected. suresh. advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > Dear suresh-ji, > > If Adi Sankara was born in 509 BC he would have been alive at the same time > of Gautama Buddha whose birth is traditionally given as 563 BC. > > The following may be of interest. > > Nagarjuna, the author of the Mulamadhyamaka Karika, is said to have lived > around 1st and 2nd century CE. > > The Vijnanavadin school of buddhism was formed around 150 CE. > > The Madhyamika school, based on Nagarjuna's teaching only began to flourish > a few hundred years after Nagarjuna - around 500 CE. > > Gaudapada is said to have lived around the 6th or 7th century CE. Scholars > show him making reference to buddhist texts dated around 5th, 6th century CE > in his Mandukya Karika. > > Adi Sankara wrote a commentary on Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika, and referred > to Gaudapada as his teacher's teacher. Sankara also and makes reference in > his commentary to the views of the Vijnanavadins and Madhyamikas. > > Therefore, *if* the above dates are accurate it raises a question as to > whether Adi Sankara could have been born in 563 BC > > Best wishes, > > Peter > > > > > > > > advaitin > > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of sureshbalaraman > > 30 May 2009 19:34 > > advaitin > > Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > > > peter ji : > > > > Sri Adi Sankara was born at Kaladi on the fifth day of the > > bright fortnight of the Vaisaka month of the cyclic year > > Nandana in cyclic year Nandana - Kali 2593 corresponding to 509 B.C. > > > > http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/aboutpeetham.html?PHPSESSID=3bd8 > > 9626679806113cffff09109b6d85 > > > > Does it mean that Guru Adi Shankara Achaaryaal was born > > before Gautama Buddha aka Prince Siddharth.Can you clarify?Thanks. > > > > suresh. > > > > > > > > > > advaitin , " Peter " <not_2@> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > > > Shentong and Rantong are from the Tibetan - terminology for > > " emptiness " that > > > probably was not developed in Shankara's time. However, there were > > > buddhist texts known to be at least third and fourth > > centuries (CE) > > > which expounded on buddha-nature (a third turning teaching) such as > > > the Srimalasutra and the Mahaparanirvanasutra (not the pali > > > mahaparanibbanasutta of the same name). The > > Mahaparanirvanasutra like > > > its pali namesake is claimed to be the last words of the Buddha. > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advaitin > > > > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite > > > > 30 May 2009 15:39 > > > > advaitin > > > > RE: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > > > > > > > Dear Peter & Sada, > > > > > > > > Just a thought (I am entirely ignorant on the subject): The name > > > > 'Shentong' > > > > implies Chinese? Even if the philosophy was around at the > > same time, > > > > is it not possible that Shankara was unaware of it if it was > > > > developed in a different place in an alien language? Maybe it is > > > > only much later that its contemporaneous existence has > > become clear. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 I found this very interesting article on the internet by a Hindu convert to Buddhism challenging the Shentong position as genuinely representing Buddhism. This is a good article, worth reading - at least to get their views on this, and thinking ourselves how far this objection represents earlier Buddhism. http://www.byomakusuma.org/Ved%C3%A0ntavis%C3%A0visShentong/tabid/87/Default.asp\ x The next one linked in the same page is not as high quality, but also is worth having a look at (after the first few paras). The Buddhist clarifies the uncompromisable distinction of the religions - in particular, keep observing for their view of shunya, etc. http://www.byomakusuma.org/MadhyamikaBuddhismVisavisHinduVedanta/tabid/76/Defaul\ t.aspx In another article there (on Nagarjuna), the end is: " it is paramount to clarify that the word `Advaya' as used by Mah & #257;y & #257;na in general and N & #257;g & #257;rjuna in specific is a synonym of `Dvyay & #257;nta Mukta', whose meaning has already been clarified above; and is not a correlate of the Ved & #257;ntic `Advaita' which means `Dvitiyam N & #257;sti' i.e. there is only this One and there is no other or second – according to the Ch & #257;ndogya Upaniùad and also according to the commentaries of & #346;amkar & #257;c & #257;rya. " thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:> > > A swamiji of the RKMission told me personally. I might have >misunderstood; but he said regarding Shankara and Ramanuja having >same realization, and the differences in their assertions of Truth >having to do with semantics, etc. for the most part. A respected former member sent the following in private email. This is a different topic from this thread, which I probably should have avoided raising. However the following has to be considered. Quote .... The following link carries a talk by Ved.Br.Sri Mani Dravid Sastrigal in Tamil on the 'chatur mata saamarasyam'. Sri Appayya Dikshitar in an exclusive work titled 'chatur mata saara sangrahaH' has worked out the reconciliation of the four chief schools: Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita and Shivaadvaita. The main theme of this work has been further condensed by a great scholar: Sri Polagam Rama Sastrigal. It is his short work that is being lectured upon in this talk. I hope you will find this talk very useful. Sri Appayya Dikshitar's conclusion is: All the Four Acharyas of these Major Four Schools of Vedanta are Persons with the similar Realization of the Truth. Yet they differed from each other only with a view to address their systems to seekers of varied capacities. .... http://www.advaita-vedanta.info/player.php?lecturer=mds & f=Special%20Lectures/CMS\ _MD%20on%2023rd%20oct%2007%20dss.mp3 END QUOTE Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 Dear putranm-ji (or thollmelukaalkizhu-ji) I understand that you and I may hold different views on this topic. However, I would appreciate it if you did not question my integrity by accusing me of being " under handed " as you have done in your mail below. Shyam-ji in his reply (45383) to my post made it clear he accepts the outright condemnation of Buddhism by Sankara. Shyam-ji also said that all attempts at reconciliation between Advaita and Buddhism are " fruitless " . He also regards only those spiritual paths based on the vedas to be valid. In other words, without the vedas as a pramana there can be no jnana or jnanis in other traditions. This is implicit in what Shyamji states which I wanted to bring to light in my reply. Namely: > From your email below I get the impression this [building bridges with other traditions] > is not important to you, bearing in mind you have dismissed the validity of any and all > spiritual paths that do not first accept the Vedas. With all respect to you and Shyam-ji, I think my comment with regards the impression I was left with is quite a mild summary of his position. Please note, the deliberate use of the word " impression " means I am open to correction if my understanding (impression) of Shyam-ji's position is mistaken. As it happens, because I respect Shyam-ji's request that this is an advaitin group and not a group to discuss buddhism I have posted no further mails on buddhism. Despite his request - you continue to do so. I have no problem with people considering all angles. I do feel uncomfortable, however, when condemnation of other traditions is regarded as acceptable but the effort to understand and find common ground between different spiritual traditions is dismissed, or seen has having not place in this forum. With regards, Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of putranm > 31 May 2009 14:55 > advaitin > Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > > I admit this touches on my own personal temperament because while I > > don't believe all spiritual traditions are identical, or that they > > should be, I am interested in helping people from different > traditions > > build upon what they have in common - 'to build bridges, as > it were.' > > > > From your email below I get the impression this is not important to > > you, bearing in mind you have dismissed the validity of any and all > > spiritual paths that do not first accept the Vedas. > > > See my post 45392 for the response to this as well. The last > para above is psychological underhand-play. > > I think Rachmielji should understand about how to construct > that 'bridge' by considering all the angles presented in the > posts on this topic. > > > > > --- > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted May 31, 2009 Dear suresh-ji, No apology needed from my point of view. Yes, it's a wonder in the circumstance that our scholars are able to date things at all. These things end up being quite controversial depending on whether or not such dating supports or challenges our existing views. And of course, lay people like ourselves often cannot verify these dates at first hand. Regards, Peter > > advaitin > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of sureshbalaraman > 31 May 2009 17:59 > advaitin > Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > peter ji : > > what you write is somewhat logical.But off late,i am > thinking,most of the scriptures were written in 'olai > chuvadis' or old palm leaves or some dried leaf and prior to > that in clay tablets and some in tradition purely oral > transmission with a vedic system in tact. > > plus 800 years of islamic invasion and occupation and another > 200 years of of british christian invasion and occupation,so > many records to be tampered with to suit rulers of those > eras.And least of all,the in-fighting amongst bharathians > prior to 1000 years of invasion and occupation,has made me > feel very apologetic,as to why i even ventured to check the > veracity of old dates of icons.Let me accept the essence of > the teachings and not get lost in this trivial > technicalities.I owe an apology to our members for wasting my > posts on such issues,so i stand corrected. > > suresh. > > > advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > > > > Dear suresh-ji, > > > > If Adi Sankara was born in 509 BC he would have been alive > at the same > > time of Gautama Buddha whose birth is traditionally given as 563 BC. > > > > The following may be of interest. > > > > Nagarjuna, the author of the Mulamadhyamaka Karika, is said to have > > lived around 1st and 2nd century CE. > > > > The Vijnanavadin school of buddhism was formed around 150 CE. > > > > The Madhyamika school, based on Nagarjuna's teaching only began to > > flourish a few hundred years after Nagarjuna - around 500 CE. > > > > Gaudapada is said to have lived around the 6th or 7th century CE. > > Scholars show him making reference to buddhist texts dated > around 5th, > > 6th century CE in his Mandukya Karika. > > > > Adi Sankara wrote a commentary on Gaudapada's Mandukya Karika, and > > referred to Gaudapada as his teacher's teacher. Sankara also and > > makes reference in his commentary to the views of the > Vijnanavadins and Madhyamikas. > > > > Therefore, *if* the above dates are accurate it raises a > question as > > to whether Adi Sankara could have been born in 563 BC > > > > Best wishes, > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advaitin > > > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of sureshbalaraman > > > 30 May 2009 19:34 > > > advaitin > > > Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > > > > > peter ji : > > > > > > Sri Adi Sankara was born at Kaladi on the fifth day of the bright > > > fortnight of the Vaisaka month of the cyclic year Nandana > in cyclic > > > year Nandana - Kali 2593 corresponding to 509 B.C. > > > > > > http://www.kamakoti.org/peeth/aboutpeetham.html?PHPSESSID=3bd8 > > > 9626679806113cffff09109b6d85 > > > > > > Does it mean that Guru Adi Shankara Achaaryaal was born before > > > Gautama Buddha aka Prince Siddharth.Can you clarify?Thanks. > > > > > > suresh. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advaitin , " Peter " <not_2@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Dennis, > > > > > > > > Shentong and Rantong are from the Tibetan - terminology for > > > " emptiness " that > > > > probably was not developed in Shankara's time. > However, there were > > > > buddhist texts known to be at least third and fourth > > > centuries (CE) > > > > which expounded on buddha-nature (a third turning > teaching) such > > > > as the Srimalasutra and the Mahaparanirvanasutra (not the pali > > > > mahaparanibbanasutta of the same name). The > > > Mahaparanirvanasutra like > > > > its pali namesake is claimed to be the last words of the Buddha. > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > advaitin > > > > > [advaitin ] On Behalf Of Dennis Waite > > > > > 30 May 2009 15:39 > > > > > advaitin > > > > > RE: Re: advaita vedanta and buddhism > > > > > > > > > > Dear Peter & Sada, > > > > > > > > > > Just a thought (I am entirely ignorant on the > subject): The name > > > > > 'Shentong' > > > > > implies Chinese? Even if the philosophy was around at the > > > same time, > > > > > is it not possible that Shankara was unaware of it if it was > > > > > developed in a different place in an alien language? > Maybe it is > > > > > only much later that its contemporaneous existence has > > > become clear. > > > > > > > > > > Best wishes, > > > > > > > > > > Dennis > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted June 1, 2009 advaitin , " Peter " <not_2 wrote: > However, I would appreciate it if you did not question my integrity by > accusing me of being " under handed " as you have done in your mail below. Ok. For the readers, I am not going to defend my stand further. The Buddhists in those articles of my previous post have done a good-enough job. Respect distinctions; if attempts at " bridge-building " cloud them and *suggest* fundamental identity - which is denied by most in both traditions, then they should not be encouraged in this type of sampradaya-based forum - perhaps elsewhere or via personal emails. (of course, my opinion. Or I consider myself quite justified in every thing I said, including questioning integrity.) To the extent these discussions have shown clearly our held-differences, *without compromising their psychological seriousness*, they are fruitful and may help in actually building bridges for one trying to travel from one side to the other. To the extent they compromise this, they are " fruitless " (or rather, more in that direction). (Also my opinion: The astika-nastika context is important in any historical discussions on Buddhism.) thollmelukaalkizhu Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
