Guest guest Posted January 16, 2002 Report Share Posted January 16, 2002 On 01/15/2002 4:08 AM, "advaitin" <advaitin> wrote: > Message: 6 > Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:09:12 -0000 > "atmachaitanya108" <stadri > Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana -- > > Namaste to all that have been following this discusion of Shastra > Pramana, > I would ask that you all ponder the reson why Sri Shankara did > not remain silent and went on and on, with great effort to refute all > those whom he felt were either 1) misinterpreting the Vedic teaching, > as well as those 2) who rejected the Vedic teaching. These > explicit refutations can be summerized as follows: > (Refutation of Brahminacal Schools) > 1) Refutation of Liberation through Action > 2) Refutation of Liberation through Knowledge and Action combined > 3) Refutation of Bheda-Abeda(diference and non differnce) Vada > 4) Refutation of Prapancha Vilya(dissolution of the world)Vada > 5) Refutation of Spota Vada (creation through Word) > 6) Refutation of the Pasupatas (All of Shaivism) > 7) Refutation of the Pancaratras (All of Vaishnavism) > > (Refutation of Non-Vedic World Views) > 8) Refutation of Materialism > 9) Refutation of Samkhyas > 10) Refutation of Yoga Darshana > 11) Refutation of Nyaya and Vishesikas > 12) Refutation of the Buddhists > 13) Refutation of Jainas Dear sir, Namaste! I have greatly enjoyed this particular discussion and thread, and have learned many new things from the various posts. I was wondering if perhaps you could help me understand better Shankara's criticism, indeed, refutation of Buddhism, of which you speak. I do not mean this unkindly, but I have made little progress in various discussions here in the past in gaining new ground on this particular subject. From my own studies, I bring considerable knowledge of the Buddhist tradition, and on the face of it, the teaching of Shankara, so far as I have been able to understand and practice it's advaita, seems to diverge profoundly on some very fundamental points, about the Self, anatta, and so on. Yet in a number of past discussions in this group, and again, I don't mean this critically or unkindly, I have been somewhat frustrated in understanding better just what this "refutation" was or is. Instead, as the topic was addressed, it seemed that there was a general reluctance to say that Buddhism "really" diverges that much at all from Advaita, that apparent differences were merely points of semantics, that the Buddha's agnosticism about God was merely a "negative" way of admitting the Self, in the end, in nirvana, and that finally, "all paths lead to God," even Buddhism. The Buddhist scholars who I showed these responses too heartily disagreed, and one laughed, and said, "No wonder the Advaitans have sometimes been called, historically, the crypto-Buddhists!" Is there in fact "really" no difference between what the Buddha taught and Advaita? If so, pray tell, what what Shankara's "refutation" all about, and his whole reform movement, which apparently brought millions of Indians back to the the central genius of Vedanta? In trying to gain understanding of Shankara's critique of Buddhism, I have rather felt, as a Christian seeking to understand the Eastern wisdom, like a Hindu asking a group of Catholics what Martin Luther's critique of Catholicism was and how it led to the formation of Protestantism, and being told that, in fact, Luther's refutation and critique didn't really amount to much, really didn't diverge fundamentally from Catholic doctrine, and in the final analysis, Luther was a Catholic because he was a Christian! <g> (Of course, Luther in fact did not diverge from much Catholic thought in his Protestantism, but that's another story!) Surely Shankara was a great reformist who had a powerful critique of Buddhism, a critique that still stands, and surely one can understand what this divergence and critique is, without falling into the all-to-common intellectual mushiness that claims that no such differences exists because, purportedly, "all paths lead to truth." I don't think that the devout Buddhists I know are "actually" crypto-Advaitans, and they just don't know it, nor do I think the devout Advaitan, is a crypto-Buddhist, and he or she just doesn't know it -- because, it is argued, any apparent differences in doctrine are finally "illusory" or swallowed up in Final Truth. >From your posts, it seems to me that you might be able to help me finally understand what Shankara's reformation was all about, and how he did come to, yes, let's say the word, *refute* Buddhist teaching in a fundamental way. And again, I do not write this in any spirit of contention or judgmental criticism of the many wonderful answers I have received in this great forum, but perhaps with a little bit of frustration in not being able to gain some ground on something that seems pretty fundamental. After all, this is an Advaitan discussion group, not a a Buddhist one, and hence, there must be a fundamental divergence of teachings. Can this be understood, even if one's point of faith is that final "nirvana" and "moksha" may in fact describe the same final state (although the Buddhist scholars I know best don't think they do, since anatta does not end up in a final Self slipping in the back door, as one scholar put it!) Thanks for your thoughts, and to anyone else who might want to enter in, but please, no more apologia for how the Buddha "really" didn't teach anything that different from Advaita. Sorry folks, it just ain't so, and unless I totally misunderstand Shankara, and his reformation, he didn't think so either. Best wishes, Steve ~*~ "Surrender is giving oneself to the Divine -- to give everything one is or has to the Divine and regard nothing as one's own, to obey only the Divine will and no other, to live for the Divine and not for the ego." Sri Aurobindo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2002 Report Share Posted January 16, 2002 Namaste Steve: Only a few words. >From my viewpoint "the Buddha's agnosticism about God was merely a "negative" way of admitting the Self" because anatta means that the jiva (skandhas) is not real, is not the Self; and Nirvana (which is no-attributes, like Brahman?) is the Reality. Where is the jiva when realize that "all is Brahman". I'm rigth? Best Regards Daniel _______________ MSN Photos es la manera más sencilla de compartir e imprimir sus fotos: http://photos.latam.msn.com/Support/WorldWide.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2002 Report Share Posted January 16, 2002 Namaskar to All ! This is what His Holiness of Kanchipuram, Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Mahaswamiji had to say about Sri Sankara and Buddhism: http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part12/chap3.htm (this is an English translation from one of the pages in a book titled Deivathin Kural, a collection of speeches in Tamil by His Holiness) I quote... "... There are very few passages in the Acarya's commentaries critical of that religion (Buddhism), a religion that was opposed to the Vedas" ANd... "We cannot find support in his (Sri Adi Sankara's) commentaries for the view that he was responsible for the decline of Buddhism in India. " Regards Venkatesh ------------------- > On 01/15/2002 4:08 AM, "advaitin" <advaitin> > wrote: > > > Message: 6 > > Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:09:12 -0000 > > "atmachaitanya108" <stadri > > Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana -- > > > > Namaste to all that have been following this discusion of Shastra > > Pramana, > > I would ask that you all ponder the reson why Sri Shankara did > > not remain silent and went on and on, with great effort to refute all > > those whom he felt were either 1) misinterpreting the Vedic teaching, > > as well as those 2) who rejected the Vedic teaching. These > > explicit refutations can be summerized as follows: > > (Refutation of Brahminacal Schools) > > 1) Refutation of Liberation through Action > > 2) Refutation of Liberation through Knowledge and Action combined > > 3) Refutation of Bheda-Abeda(diference and non differnce) Vada > > 4) Refutation of Prapancha Vilya(dissolution of the world)Vada > > 5) Refutation of Spota Vada (creation through Word) > > 6) Refutation of the Pasupatas (All of Shaivism) > > 7) Refutation of the Pancaratras (All of Vaishnavism) > > > > (Refutation of Non-Vedic World Views) > > 8) Refutation of Materialism > > 9) Refutation of Samkhyas > > 10) Refutation of Yoga Darshana > > 11) Refutation of Nyaya and Vishesikas > > 12) Refutation of the Buddhists > > 13) Refutation of Jainas > > > Dear sir, > > Namaste! I have greatly enjoyed this particular discussion and thread, and > have learned many new things from the various posts. > > I was wondering if perhaps you could help me understand better Shankara's > criticism, indeed, refutation of Buddhism, of which you speak. > > I do not mean this unkindly, but I have made little progress in various > discussions here in the past in gaining new ground on this particular > subject. From my own studies, I bring considerable knowledge of the > Buddhist tradition, and on the face of it, the teaching of Shankara, so far > as I have been able to understand and practice it's advaita, seems to > diverge profoundly on some very fundamental points, about the Self, anatta, > and so on. > > Yet in a number of past discussions in this group, and again, I don't mean > this critically or unkindly, I have been somewhat frustrated in > understanding better just what this "refutation" was or is. Instead, as the > topic was addressed, it seemed that there was a general reluctance to say > that Buddhism "really" diverges that much at all from Advaita, that apparent > differences were merely points of semantics, that the Buddha's agnosticism > about God was merely a "negative" way of admitting the Self, in the end, in > nirvana, and that finally, "all paths lead to God," even Buddhism. > > The Buddhist scholars who I showed these responses too heartily disagreed, > and one laughed, and said, "No wonder the Advaitans have sometimes been > called, historically, the crypto-Buddhists!" Is there in fact "really" no > difference between what the Buddha taught and Advaita? If so, pray tell, > what what Shankara's "refutation" all about, and his whole reform movement, > which apparently brought millions of Indians back to the the central genius > of Vedanta? > > In trying to gain understanding of Shankara's critique of Buddhism, I have > rather felt, as a Christian seeking to understand the Eastern wisdom, like a > Hindu asking a group of Catholics what Martin Luther's critique of > Catholicism was and how it led to the formation of Protestantism, and being > told that, in fact, Luther's refutation and critique didn't really amount to > much, really didn't diverge fundamentally from Catholic doctrine, and in the > final analysis, Luther was a Catholic because he was a Christian! <g> (Of > course, Luther in fact did not diverge from much Catholic thought in his > Protestantism, but that's another story!) > > Surely Shankara was a great reformist who had a powerful critique of > Buddhism, a critique that still stands, and surely one can understand what > this divergence and critique is, without falling into the all-to-common > intellectual mushiness that claims that no such differences exists because, > purportedly, "all paths lead to truth." I don't think that the devout > Buddhists I know are "actually" crypto-Advaitans, and they just don't know > it, nor do I think the devout Advaitan, is a crypto-Buddhist, and he or she > just doesn't know it -- because, it is argued, any apparent differences in > doctrine are finally "illusory" or swallowed up in Final Truth. > > >From your posts, it seems to me that you might be able to help me finally > understand what Shankara's reformation was all about, and how he did come > to, yes, let's say the word, *refute* Buddhist teaching in a fundamental > way. And again, I do not write this in any spirit of contention or > judgmental criticism of the many wonderful answers I have received in this > great forum, but perhaps with a little bit of frustration in not being able > to gain some ground on something that seems pretty fundamental. After all, > this is an Advaitan discussion group, not a a Buddhist one, and hence, there > must be a fundamental divergence of teachings. Can this be understood, even > if one's point of faith is that final "nirvana" and "moksha" may in fact > describe the same final state (although the Buddhist scholars I know best > don't think they do, since anatta does not end up in a final Self slipping > in the back door, as one scholar put it!) > > Thanks for your thoughts, and to anyone else who might want to enter in, but > please, no more apologia for how the Buddha "really" didn't teach anything > that different from Advaita. Sorry folks, it just ain't so, and unless I > totally misunderstand Shankara, and his reformation, he didn't think so > either. > > Best wishes, > Steve > > ~*~ > "Surrender is giving oneself to the Divine -- to give everything one is or > has to the Divine and regard nothing as one's own, to obey only the Divine > will and no other, to live for the Divine and not for the ego." > Sri Aurobindo > > > ------------------------ Sponsor ---------------------~--> > Access Your PC from Anywhere > Flexibility and Freedom - Free Download > http://us.click./9WCYWA/5XkDAA/ySSFAA/XUWolB/TM > ---~ -> > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > > -------------------------- | http://www.kamakoti.org/ | | A website on Hinduism, | | with a difference ... | ------------------------- ----------------- Oreka ! Nous sommes l'internet moins cher ! Surfez 25% moins cher avec http://www.oreka.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2002 Report Share Posted January 18, 2002 Namaste, The goal of dharma is universal welfare. The great men who produced the works on Dharmasastra didn't have a trace of self-interest in them and had nothing but the thought of the happiness of all creatures. These treatises are the authority on which dharma is founded. You find the form of things, the image, with your eyes; you perceive sound with your ears; you know dharma with the help of Dharmasastra. The Vedas (Sruti) are the root of all dharma. After Sruti comes Smrti. The latter consists of the "notes" based on Smrti. It is the same as Dharmasastra. Another guide for the dharma is the example of great men. The Puranas provide an answer to how great men conducted themselves. Then there is sistacara to guide us, the life of virtuous people of noble character. Not everybody's conduct can be a guide to us. The individual whose life is an example for the practice of dharma must have faith in the sastras and must live in accordance with their ordinances. Besides, he must be free from desire and anger. The conduct of such men is sistacara. Another authority or guide is what we know through our conscience in a state of transparency. In matters of the Self, of dharma and religion, the Vedas are in the forefront as our guide. Next come the dharmasastras. Third is the conduct of the great sages of the past. Fourth is the example of the virtuous people of our own times. Conscience comes last in determining dharma. Now everything has become topsy-turvy. People give importance first to their conscience and last to the Vedas. We must consult our conscience only as a last resort when we have no other means of knowing what is dharma with reference to our actions. Why is conscience called one's "manahsaksi"? Conscience is fit to be only a witness(saksi), not to be a judge. A witness often gives false evidence. The mind, however, doesn't tell an untruth - indeed it knows the truth of all things. " There is no deceit that is hidden from the heart(mind), " says Auvvai. Conscience may be regarded as a witness. But nowadays it is brought in as a judge also in dharmic matters. As a witness it will give us a true report of what it sees or has seen. But on the basis of it we cannot give on what is just with any degree of finality. "What I think is right, " everybody would try to satisfy himself thus about his actions if he were to be guided only by his conscience. How can this be justified as the verdict of dharma? We often hear people say, "I will act according to what my conscience tells me. " This is not a right attitude. All at once your conscience cannot be given the place of a judge. It is only when there is no other way open to you that you may tell your mind: "You have seen everything as a witness. Now tell me your opinion. " The mind belongs to each one of us as individuals. So it cannot be detached from our selfish interests. The place it has in one's personal affairs cannot be given to it in matters of religion. On questions of dharma the opinion of sages alone is valid, sages who were concerned with universal welfare and who transcended the state of the individual concerned with his own mind [or with himself]. to be continued.......... - Steven Fair <steven.faircs advaitin <advaitin> Wednesday, January 16, 2002 6:52 PM Shankara and his refutation of Buddhism > On 01/15/2002 4:08 AM, "advaitin" <advaitin> > wrote: > > > Message: 6 > > Mon, 14 Jan 2002 15:09:12 -0000 > > "atmachaitanya108" <stadri > > Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana -- > > > > Namaste to all that have been following this discusion of Shastra > > Pramana, > > I would ask that you all ponder the reson why Sri Shankara did > > not remain silent and went on and on, with great effort to refute all > > those whom he felt were either 1) misinterpreting the Vedic teaching, > > as well as those 2) who rejected the Vedic teaching. These > > explicit refutations can be summerized as follows: > > (Refutation of Brahminacal Schools) > > 1) Refutation of Liberation through Action > > 2) Refutation of Liberation through Knowledge and Action combined > > 3) Refutation of Bheda-Abeda(diference and non differnce) Vada > > 4) Refutation of Prapancha Vilya(dissolution of the world)Vada > > 5) Refutation of Spota Vada (creation through Word) > > 6) Refutation of the Pasupatas (All of Shaivism) > > 7) Refutation of the Pancaratras (All of Vaishnavism) > > > > (Refutation of Non-Vedic World Views) > > 8) Refutation of Materialism > > 9) Refutation of Samkhyas > > 10) Refutation of Yoga Darshana > > 11) Refutation of Nyaya and Vishesikas > > 12) Refutation of the Buddhists > > 13) Refutation of Jainas > > > Dear sir, > > Namaste! I have greatly enjoyed this particular discussion and thread, and > have learned many new things from the various posts. > > I was wondering if perhaps you could help me understand better Shankara's > criticism, indeed, refutation of Buddhism, of which you speak. > > I do not mean this unkindly, but I have made little progress in various > discussions here in the past in gaining new ground on this particular > subject. From my own studies, I bring considerable knowledge of the > Buddhist tradition, and on the face of it, the teaching of Shankara, so far > as I have been able to understand and practice it's advaita, seems to > diverge profoundly on some very fundamental points, about the Self, anatta, > and so on. > > Yet in a number of past discussions in this group, and again, I don't mean > this critically or unkindly, I have been somewhat frustrated in > understanding better just what this "refutation" was or is. Instead, as the > topic was addressed, it seemed that there was a general reluctance to say > that Buddhism "really" diverges that much at all from Advaita, that apparent > differences were merely points of semantics, that the Buddha's agnosticism > about God was merely a "negative" way of admitting the Self, in the end, in > nirvana, and that finally, "all paths lead to God," even Buddhism. > > The Buddhist scholars who I showed these responses too heartily disagreed, > and one laughed, and said, "No wonder the Advaitans have sometimes been > called, historically, the crypto-Buddhists!" Is there in fact "really" no > difference between what the Buddha taught and Advaita? If so, pray tell, > what what Shankara's "refutation" all about, and his whole reform movement, > which apparently brought millions of Indians back to the the central genius > of Vedanta? > > In trying to gain understanding of Shankara's critique of Buddhism, I have > rather felt, as a Christian seeking to understand the Eastern wisdom, like a > Hindu asking a group of Catholics what Martin Luther's critique of > Catholicism was and how it led to the formation of Protestantism, and being > told that, in fact, Luther's refutation and critique didn't really amount to > much, really didn't diverge fundamentally from Catholic doctrine, and in the > final analysis, Luther was a Catholic because he was a Christian! <g> (Of > course, Luther in fact did not diverge from much Catholic thought in his > Protestantism, but that's another story!) > > Surely Shankara was a great reformist who had a powerful critique of > Buddhism, a critique that still stands, and surely one can understand what > this divergence and critique is, without falling into the all-to-common > intellectual mushiness that claims that no such differences exists because, > purportedly, "all paths lead to truth." I don't think that the devout > Buddhists I know are "actually" crypto-Advaitans, and they just don't know > it, nor do I think the devout Advaitan, is a crypto-Buddhist, and he or she > just doesn't know it -- because, it is argued, any apparent differences in > doctrine are finally "illusory" or swallowed up in Final Truth. > > >From your posts, it seems to me that you might be able to help me finally > understand what Shankara's reformation was all about, and how he did come > to, yes, let's say the word, *refute* Buddhist teaching in a fundamental > way. And again, I do not write this in any spirit of contention or > judgmental criticism of the many wonderful answers I have received in this > great forum, but perhaps with a little bit of frustration in not being able > to gain some ground on something that seems pretty fundamental. After all, > this is an Advaitan discussion group, not a a Buddhist one, and hence, there > must be a fundamental divergence of teachings. Can this be understood, even > if one's point of faith is that final "nirvana" and "moksha" may in fact > describe the same final state (although the Buddhist scholars I know best > don't think they do, since anatta does not end up in a final Self slipping > in the back door, as one scholar put it!) > > Thanks for your thoughts, and to anyone else who might want to enter in, but > please, no more apologia for how the Buddha "really" didn't teach anything > that different from Advaita. Sorry folks, it just ain't so, and unless I > totally misunderstand Shankara, and his reformation, he didn't think so > either. > > Best wishes, > Steve > > ~*~ > "Surrender is giving oneself to the Divine -- to give everything one is or > has to the Divine and regard nothing as one's own, to obey only the Divine > will and no other, to live for the Divine and not for the ego." > Sri Aurobindo > > > > Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman and Brahman. > Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/ > To Post a message send an email to : advaitin > Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages > > > > Your use of is subject to > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 18, 2002 Report Share Posted January 18, 2002 advaitin, "Daniel Rednes" <lagthong@h...> wrote: > Namaste Steve: > > Only a few words. > From my viewpoint "the Buddha's agnosticism about God was merely a > "negative" way of admitting the Self" because anatta means that the jiva > (skandhas) is not real, is not the Self; and Nirvana (which is > no-attributes, like Brahman?) is the Reality. Where is the jiva when realize > that "all is Brahman". > I'm rigth? > > Best Regards > > Daniel > > Namaste, Daniel! I much appreciate your reply, but I won't repeat myself here much as to why I don't think core Buddhist teaching would agree wtih this conclusion. I think it's important to remember that the Buddha himself was fully aware of this argument you just made, had a full understanding of what Brahman was meant to be in Hindu thought, investiaged fully and completely and in practice the way of the Hindu holy men, and he finally rejected Atman and Brahman in a way that is so complete, total, and rigorous, that I think those who have not taken refuge in the Buddha can truly grasp, although Buddhist scholars do try to make it plain. <G> If you want an education in this, not always very pleasant, go to one of the alt.buddhist newsgroups, and make the claim there that Brahman is Nirvana -- and then duck! <G> This is not to say, my friend, that there aren't some incredibly important convergences, and more than a little truth in what you say, but there are also some irreconcilable divergences -- else, why did the Buddha come to "reform" Hinduism and why did Shankara come as a "protestant" to Buddhism? There simply are differences that aren't, finally, simply semantics or limitations of the human mind when trying to describe the divine. Practically, I say, "Let us all get "empty", lose all false attachment and desire, find the Silence" and then let what we find, or don't find in this Silence, be our guru and wayshower. In my own life it's been this: "Be still, and know that I am God." I love the Buddha, but where he falls silent, my God says, "I AM THAT I AM," so who am "I" not to listen, and adore? <G> With affection, Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2002 Report Share Posted January 20, 2002 advaitin, "stevenfair" <steven.faircs@v...> wrote: > advaitin, "Daniel Rednes" > <lagthong@h...> wrote: > Namaste Steve: > > Only a > few words. > From my viewpoint "the Buddha's > > agnosticism about God was merely a > "negative" > > way of admitting the Self" because anatta means > > that the jiva > (skandhas) is not real, is not the > > Self; and Nirvana (which is > no-attributes, like > > Brahman?) is the Reality. Where is the jiva when > > realize > that "all is Brahman". > I'm rigth? > > > > Best Regards > > Daniel > > > > > Namaste, Daniel! I like Daniel's reply. My Buddhist friend just says (as Frank does too) that to try to stick any description on It just won't wash. Col > > > I much appreciate your reply, but I won't repeat > > myself here much as to why I don't think core > Buddhist > teaching would agree wtih this > conclusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.