Guest guest Posted January 17, 2002 Report Share Posted January 17, 2002 On 01/17/2002 3:41 AM, "advaitin" <advaitin> wrote: > 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? Greetings, friend! Well, this is exactly the argument or response I have continually run into in regard to this question (at least, from Advaitans!), as I pointed out in my original post. And it may well be an answer. But does this answer you offer in fact reflect *Shankara's* view? And if so, what's all the fuss about saying Shankara "refuted" Buddhism and brought millions of Indian's back to the core message of the Upanishads and Gita, as Aurobindo, among others, contends? What was the "refutation" then? And what "reform" are we talking about if Shankara is in fact a crypto-Buddhist, as your reply would seem to indicate? And why can't I find any *Buddhist* scholars or sages of any real note and historical standing saying anything at all like this, i.e., that the Buddha "really" but "silently" taught the Self? (If one thinks the Enlightened One's anatta only refutes the illusory self, and not the big Self, then one simply doesn't know Buddhism, I must frankly say.) I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but it just doesn't wash, so far as I can see, although I know that sages such as Ramana Maharishi and others have contended that "it's all the same thing." I can't tell you how vigorously and fully most Buddhists I know would disagree with this view. God Bless, Steve ~*~ "Faith is necessary for religions, but it ceases to be so for those who go further and who achieve self-realization in God. Then one no longer believes because one sees. There is no longer any need to believe when one sees the Truth." -Ahmad al-Alawi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 17, 2002 Report Share Posted January 17, 2002 Namaste Steven I fully agree with your view. There is enough evidence that Advaita Vedantins rejected Buddhism in the past. While studying the Panchadashi by Swami Vidyaranya (the shankaracharya of Shringeri math 650 years ago), it is obvious that he is in disagreement with the shunyavadins or buddhists. He goes to the extent of raising their objections and answering them to prove his point right. After identifying that shastra pramana is the only means to Self-knowledge, could there be a doubt whether Vedantins would agree with the Buddhists? It is a well-known fact that Buddhists do not recognise the Veda or Upanishads as a valid means to Nirvana. Regards. Kathi > > Steven Fair [sMTP:steven.faircs] > Thursday, January 17, 2002 10:50 PM > advaitin > Re: Vedanta - Digest Number 1216 > > On 01/17/2002 3:41 AM, "advaitin" > <advaitin> > wrote: > > > 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? > > Greetings, friend! Well, this is exactly the argument or response I have > continually run into in regard to this question (at least, from > Advaitans!), > as I pointed out in my original post. And it may well be an answer. But > does this answer you offer in fact reflect *Shankara's* view? And if so, > what's all the fuss about saying Shankara "refuted" Buddhism and brought > millions of Indian's back to the core message of the Upanishads and Gita, > as > Aurobindo, among others, contends? What was the "refutation" then? And > what "reform" are we talking about if Shankara is in fact a > crypto-Buddhist, > as your reply would seem to indicate? And why can't I find any *Buddhist* > scholars or sages of any real note and historical standing saying anything > at all like this, i.e., that the Buddha "really" but "silently" taught > the > Self? (If one thinks the Enlightened One's anatta only refutes the > illusory > self, and not the big Self, then one simply doesn't know Buddhism, I must > frankly say.) > > I'm sorry to put it so bluntly, but it just doesn't wash, so far as I can > see, although I know that sages such as Ramana Maharishi and others have > contended that "it's all the same thing." I can't tell you how vigorously > and fully most Buddhists I know would disagree with this view. > > God Bless, > Steve > > ~*~ > "Faith is necessary for religions, but it ceases to be so for > those who go further and who achieve self-realization in God. > Then one no longer believes because one sees. There is no longer > any need to believe when one sees the Truth." > -Ahmad al-Alawi > > > > 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...
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.