Guest guest Posted December 15, 2003 Report Share Posted December 15, 2003 advaitin, ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva@e...> wrote: > Hello Benjamin, > Not being a scholar, I only met them > coming home, however, some of them hold that the > attribution of Vivekachudamani and Atma Bodha to > Shankara is dubious. B.S.B. is definitely assigned to > his authorship as is Upadesasahasri his only non- > commentarial work. The latter I would recommend for > your perusal. It is a short work, Chap.II is a self > contained dialogue on the rational basis of advaita. > The deep sleep argument is given primacy. > > What Shankara wrote was: Yes, you do speak like that, > since you have no curb to your mouth; but you do not > speak logically ..... > > This is different from your 'curb his mouth'. In > general Shankara rejects Buddhist teaching on Annata > (anatman/no self) and Annica (momentariness). On the > particular point about the status of objects my > banging on about it has been to counter your stance > which uncountered might be accepted by default. It's > an important button and should be clicked. Shri > Sadananda does not line up with your position on that > one either as he states "but it is not non-existence > of duality; otherwise Advaita would have been called > monism". It's the level of substratum that the unity > that underpins name and form is found. > Best Wishes, Michael dear Michael, we can acknowledge that Shankara rejected the buddhistic view of anatman and annica for some practical reason, but no person of common sense can see that Shankara disagreed personally with it,... which ever way we twist it, for them, big souls, anirvacaniya is undecidable in "final" analysis. eric 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.