sadvidya and Buddhism

[Guest guest]

Dear Steve,

 

FYI,

 

with love and prayers,

 

Jaishankar

 

 

In the sixth chapter of chandogya upanishad Uddalaka teaches his son

svetaketu, sadvidya - the knowledge of existence.

 

"sadeva somya idam agre AsIt ekam eva advitIyam. tad ha eke Ahu: asadeva

somya idam agre AsIt ekam eva advitIyam tasmat asata: sat jAyata."

 

"O dear one, in the beginning this was existence alone, one only, without a

second. with respect to this some say, "in the beginning this was

non-existence alone, one only, without a second. From that non-existence

issued existence."

 

Further

 

"kuta: tu khalu somya evam syAt iti hOvAca katham asata: sat jAyeta iti. sat

tu eva somya idam agre AsIt ekam eva advitIyam."

 

"He said 'O dear one, by what means of knowledge it is established that

existence verily comes out of non-existence? But surely O dear one, in the

beginning this was existence alone, one only, without a second."

 

Commenting on these two upanishad vAkyAs Shankara says the following (I have

translated only relevant portions here)

 

The word sat here means the vastu (object of knowledge) which is mere

existence, subtle, without any qualities, all pervasive, one, taintless,

partless, consciousness, which is known from all the vedAntavAkyas ( the

sentences of the vedanta, the teaching of the upanishads). The word 'eva' is

used for emphasis. What is that which is being determined?

 

This is being said: "This world which has names, forms and action and which

is a modification was that existence alone." The words sadeva(existence

alone) is connected to the word AsIt (was). When was all this, existence

alone? This is answered as 'agre' - in the beginning, before the creation of

this jagat (universe).

 

Objection: Is it that this (the world) is not existence now, because of

which it is said that it was existence in the beginning?

 

Reply: No

 

Objection: Then why is it said so?

 

Reply: Even now it is existence alone but having names and forms as

qualifications and is the object of the word 'this' and so it is denoted by

the word 'this'. But before creation, in the beginning, it was only the

object of the word 'existence'. Thus it was determined that 'in the

beginning this was existence alone." Before creation it was not possible to

cognise this as having name and having form even like in deep sleep. As

someone after getting up from sleep recognises that there was mere existence

alone in sleep, similarly before creation the vastu (substance, object of

knowledge) was just existence alone.

 

......

 

With respect to the determination of that substance before creation some,

the vainAshikA:, the buddhists say while determining this substance, that

this world was in the beginning before creation, only non-existence merely

an absence of existence. The Buddhists propose merely the absence of

existence as the reality before creation. They dont desire(propose) any

other substance opposed to existence like the NaiyAyikAs who propose that

existence and non-existence as it is and as things opposed to each other.

 

Objection: If the opinion of Buddhists is that before creation there was

mere absence of existence, then by asserting that 'before creation it

existed as non-existence, one only, without a second', how can they speak of

a connection with time, connection with number and non-duality.

 

Reply: Quite so. This is not tenable for those who accept the absence of

existence alone. And their acceptance of mere non-existence is also

untenable because the existence of the person who denies existence, cannot

be denied. If it is said that the cogniser (of non-existence) exists now but

not before creation, then it cannot be so, because there is no means of

knowledge to know the absence of existence before creation. It is illogical

to imagine that there was non-existence alone before creation.

 

.......

 

After having shown the view of the mahAvainAshikas (absolute nihilists)

which is erroneous, the sruti negates it.

By what means of knowledge O dear one, it is established that existence

verily comes out of non-existence? The meaning is that this is not possible

by any means of knowledge. Their view that a sprout is seen to come out of a

seed that is destroyed i.e. it comes out of non-existence itself, is

contrary to their own conclusions.

 

How? Those which are the constituents of the seed, which are characterised

by the form of the seed, continue in the sprout as well. They are not

destroyed when the sprout comes out. Again, other than those constituents

which form the seed, nothing as a substance which can be destroyed at the

time of the birth of the sprout, is accepted by the vainAshikas (Buddhists).

Even if they accept a substance which is other than the constituents, then

also there will be contradiction with their accepted view.

 

Objection: Now, what if it is said that the configuration in the form of the

seed accepted in popular usage gets destroyed?

 

Reply: What is this thing that is called popular usage? Is that existence or

non-existence? If it is non-existence, no analogy can be cited in support.

If, on the other hand, it is existence, then the sprout does not come out of

non-existence. ( Which is his initial statement). Because the sprout is born

from the constituents of the seed.

 

Objection: If it is said that the constituents also become destroyed?

 

Reply: No, because the same logic applies to the constituents also. As per

the vainAshikas, just as a thing constituted by the arrangement of the parts

of the seed does not exist, so also the constituents do not exist. Therefore

their destruction is also untenable. The constituents of the seed have

themselves subtle constituents, and of those constituents again there are

subtler constituents. In this manner this process has no end, therefore the

destruction of all these is not tenable. Since the cognition of existence

persists throughout and since there is no cessation of existence, therefore,

for the sadvadis ( those who hold the view of existence of cause before the

effect comes) the birth of an existing thing from another existing thing

will be acceptable. But in the case of those who hold the view of

nonexistence, no example can be cited for illustrating the birth of an

existing thing from non-existence. According to the sadvAdi, a pot is born

from a lump of clay, because the pot exists when the clay is there and it

does'nt exist when the clay is not. If a pot can come out of non-existence

then somebody wanting a pot would not take up a lump of clay. And the

cognition of non-existence,and indication by the word 'non-existence' will

persist even in the pot. But this is not so. Therefore, existence does not

come out of non-existence.

 

Even if they say "the cognition of clay is the cause of the cognition of

pot, therefore the cognition of clay produces the cognition of pot but in

reality neither the clay nor the pot exists." , even then the cognition of

clay as an existing thing becomes the cause of the cognition of the pot. In

this way existence is not produced from non-existence.

 

Objection: If it is said that, what is meant by cause and effect is only a

succession of the cognition of the clay and the cognition of pot, but there

is no relationship as between a cause and its effect?

 

Reply: No. The vaiNashikas cannot cite any external examples to prove that

cognitions succeed one another, ( The Buddhists do not accept existence of

external objects. Therefore according to them even the cognition of clay and

pot do not exist externally. Hence it is illogical to cite these cognitions

for explaining external experiences of succession or causality because there

is no seperate witness to testify the succession or causality.)

 

Therefore he said "O dear one, how can this really be so? How, in what way

can existence be born out of non-existence?". The implication is that there

is no example whatever, to illustrate the birth of existence from

non-existence.

 

......

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Srividya Jaishankar" <srijai@e...> wrote:

> Dear Steve,

>

> FYI,

>

> with love and prayers,

>

> Jaishankar

>

>

<BIG snip>

 

Dear Jaishankar,

 

Wow, that's just brilliant! The critique is so on target. What a

spiritual genius Shankara was! I was interested to note, by the

way, that the problem of an infinite regress, which I mentioned in

a previous post, was also identified by Sharkara. It is a

conumdrum that lies at the heart of Buddhism, in my opinion --

but then, that might be said of all religious teaching since first

causes and orignation have always been the most difficult of all

philosophic and metaphysical inquiry!

 

This post obviously took a great deal of time and research to do,

so thank you very much for this unselfish effort. There is much to

ponder in what you shared, and I will be glad to study.

 

The grace of God be with you,

Steve