SUnya-vAda in the upanishads?

February 29, 2004

Namaste all,

Since there are postings about advaita and SUnya-vAda and since some

honorable members are of the opinion that they have good

similarities, can someone who thinks similarly, kindly post some

references to SUnya-vAda in the upanishads (meaning the 10 principle

ones + SvetaSvatara)? Thank You.

Btw, what sense does it make to talk of transmigration/rebirth,

liberation etc. if one does not accept a permanent eternal entity

which undergoes these changes either really or apparently? Here is

where SrI Sankara's criticism of buddhism gets the strongest punch.

(He uses a similar argument in the case of a person attaining

nirvANa.) Do I die and someone else takes rebirth, or do I die and I

myself take rebirth? In the latter case, Atman is inevitable, in the

former case, all philosophy is useless. Buddha avoided both positions

labeling them as "extreme". While I have no objections to the

position of buddha as I can understand that he is trying to avoid

metaphysical speculation, I dont see any advantage of taking the

middle position (mAdhyamika). It is not necessary that metaphysical

speculation should be spiritually harmful. Anyway, I dont think that

the Buddha himself avoided speculation.

Further, the buddhistic idea that the concept Atman leads to

selfishness is totally untenable. The upanishads and BG say that for

a person who has seen his own Self in everything and vice versa, for

one who recognizes that the everything is brahman, where is there a

need to be selfish? How can he be affected by self-centered emotions?

When there is no duality, how can someone desire something? Indeed,

SrI Krishna declares that for the wise man, there are no distinctions

between a brAhmaNa and a dog-eater. A wise man is not affected by

pleasure and pain, etc. Where is selfishness here???

Regards

Raghavendra

February 29, 2004

> The upanishads and BG say that for

> a person who has seen his own Self in everything and vice versa,

for

> one who recognizes that the everything is brahman, where is there a

> need to be selfish? How can he be affected by self-centered

emotions? etc.etc.......

The above is known even from common sense. "If everything is

understood as brahman, how can there be desires?" is absolutely

commonsensical. From this point of view, the scriptures are asserting

rationality, especially for all those self-styled ultra rationalists

over there.

Regards

Raghavendra

February 29, 2004

-

"Raghavendra N Kalyan" <kalyan7429

> Btw, what sense does it make to talk of transmigration/rebirth,

> liberation etc. if one does not accept a permanent eternal entity

> which undergoes these changes either really or apparently? Here is

> where SrI Sankara's criticism of buddhism gets the strongest punch.

> (He uses a similar argument in the case of a person attaining

> nirvANa.) Do I die and someone else takes rebirth, or do I die and I

> myself take rebirth? In the latter case, Atman is inevitable, in the

> former case, all philosophy is useless.

Namaste Kalyanji,

Thank you for your posts related to ShUnya-vAda abd Brahman.

You should note that the people who like to see the similarities in

ShUnya-vAda and advaita are not objecting to the points raised by

SankarAchArya. The problem lies elsewhere. They come up with a new

definition for ShUnya-vAda and believe that SankarAchArya was not able to

understand this *real* concept of ShUnya-vAda ! This is where the crux of

the problem is. So no advaitin can change their views by merely repeating

the refutals of SankarAchArya. Only a Buddhist can show them where they went

wrong.

I would like to re-post one of your lines to my dear friends here,

----------------

" All this may seem like intolerance to some, but obviously it is not! "

----------------

Hari Om

February 29, 2004

Namaste Pure Advaitins, Advaitins who resonate with the Buddha and

all.

I believe I started this wildfire due to my empathy with Buddha and

Benji.

I have already confessed that I am not a scholar in either advaita or

Buddhism. Ranjeetji has been frank to say that he has not studied

Buddhism well. So, I should assume we both are not adequately

informed.

The exception is Kalyanji, who has come to us, after an unsuccessful

bout with the dwaitins of vAdAvali. I can't take issue with him as I

am least informed about what he is saying. He sounds extremely

knowledgeable in both advaita and Buddhism. May be he has a point

after all.

In the middle of all this, there are two other vEdantins here. One

of them has said that both the cause and effect are real while the

other maintains that there is a 'shade of difference in

their 'reality''. They both have studied the same Sankara to whom we

all profess allegiance. Yet, there is a difference in

understanding. Standing aside, I, another follower of Sankara

(although I have no claims to having read him thoroughly), think that

both of them are in a way right and that I can find some common

meeting ground between them. This means that I do think I am able to

see the truth (that I think is the truth)in their statements despite

the seeming contradiction (semantic, in my opinion) in them.

Then what to say about my empathy with Buddha (not Buddhists) as an

advaitin? I can see an underlying unity in Buddha and advaita

despite the seeming contradictions for which neither Buddha nor

Sankara are responsible. As an advaitin, I would do well to cherish

and nurture that unity. It is futile to ask me to quote authority for

such an understanding. I am not sufficienty equipped to work that

way.

We have found and applauded advaita in St. Antony, Plato, Crito et

al! Yet, we have a very big problem with the Indian Buddha!

I have nothing more to say. I, therefore, request an end to this

digression caused by me. I can't believe all this started from

Jayaramanji's Big Bang!

PraNAms.

OM NAMAH SIVAYA.

Madathil Nair

__________________

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

>

> Namaste Kalyanji,

>

.......>

> You should note that the people who like to see the similarities in

> ShUnya-vAda and advaita are not objecting to the points raised by

> SankarAchArya. The problem lies elsewhere. They come up with a new

> definition for ShUnya-vAda and believe that SankarAchArya was not

able to

> understand this *real* concept of ShUnya-vAda ! This is where the

crux of

> the problem is. So no advaitin can change their views by merely

repeating

> the refutals of SankarAchArya. Only a Buddhist can show them where

they went

> wrong.

March 1, 2004

Namaste,

Swami SatchidAnandEndra Saraswathi in his famous book "The Method of the

Vedanta" (got the book atlast! ) says, the sole purpose of bringing in the

concept of cause-effect is to point out the fact that there is no difference

between the effect and its material cause. Reality is not attributed to the

'effects' in the strict sense of the word. Effect is merely an illusion of

name and form. However, Reality is attributed to the 'effect' when it is

considered based on the substratum on which it rests, the Absolute.

When we say 'Birth or Creation through mAya' what is meant is the coming

into manifestation of the illusionary world of name and form. The Reality

ascribed to Creation, Maintenance and Dissolution of the world is only in

the same way as the presense of the triad in the snake-in-the-rope analogy.

Was a snake 'created' in the absolute sense? Was it dissolved'? Does any of

this have any effect on the rope?

The author relies heavily on GaudapAda's kArika.

Is "The Method of the Vedanta" considered a genuine work in the advaitic

circles? Has any of the SankarAchArya-s of the mutts ever given any

credibility to this work?

Hari Om

-

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

> In the middle of all this, there are two other vEdantins here. One

> of them has said that both the cause and effect are real while the

> other maintains that there is a 'shade of difference in

> their 'reality''. They both have studied the same Sankara to whom we

> all profess allegiance. Yet, there is a difference in

> understanding. Standing aside, I, another follower of Sankara

> (although I have no claims to having read him thoroughly), think that

> both of them are in a way right and that I can find some common

> meeting ground between them. This means that I do think I am able to

> see the truth (that I think is the truth)in their statements despite

> the seeming contradiction (semantic, in my opinion) in them.

>

March 1, 2004

Namaste Sri Nair-ji,

> The exception is Kalyanji, who has come to us, after an

unsuccessful

> bout with the dwaitins of vAdAvali. I can't take issue with him as

>I

> am least informed about what he is saying. He sounds extremely

> knowledgeable in both advaita and Buddhism. May be he has a point

> after all.

May be I have a point Sir, but I am definitely not well versed in

either advaita or buddhism. My knowledge in these areas is quite

limited. But I did take some time to look at the fundamentals of

SUnya-vAda and also Sankara's criticism of buddhism, partly because

too many books suggest a link between these two. I believe that is

the danger of not taking a look at the original writings or atleast

direct translations.

> In the middle of all this, there are two other vEdantins here. One

> of them has said that both the cause and effect are real while the

> other maintains that there is a 'shade of difference in

> their 'reality''. They both have studied the same Sankara to whom

we

> all profess allegiance. Yet, there is a difference in

> understanding.

Regarding causality in advaita, Karl Potter puts it beautifully, in

my opinion. sat-kArya-vAda is better than asat-kArya-vAda. vivarta-

vAda is better than sat-kArya-vAda. ajAti-vAda is the best. Thus, is

the universal nature of advaita.

> Then what to say about my empathy with Buddha (not Buddhists) as an

> advaitin? I can see an underlying unity in Buddha and advaita

> despite the seeming contradictions for which neither Buddha nor

> Sankara are responsible. As an advaitin, I would do well to cherish

> and nurture that unity. It is futile to ask me to quote authority

>for

> such an understanding. I am not sufficienty equipped to work that

> way.

> We have found and applauded advaita in St. Antony, Plato, Crito et

> al! Yet, we have a very big problem with the Indian Buddha!

Sir, I am telling you my opinion here. I too would have appreciated

if there was a real unity, but I dont see one. Regarding St.Anthony

and co., I am completely ignorant of what they said.(I didn't knew

St.Anthony existed, till now) Btw, there is nothing wrong in

empathising with Buddha. Sir, I dont think anybody here has a problem

with Buddha. But why should we (or atleast I) look for advaita in

Buddha's teachings when there is no such thing?

One more thing Sir, if you dont mind. If you cannot quote the reason

or the authority for seeing advaita in Buddha's teachings, how did

you arrive at the conclusion in the first place? Is this an

unreasonable question to ask?

Please note that my posts were not directed against any specific

person. I hardly know anybody in this group.

Regards

Raghavendra

March 1, 2004

Hello Ranjeet and others,

I have been following this discussion on Advaita vs. Shunya and I although

I agree with many of Benjamin´s points of view I would like to give to this list

some personal thoughts on the subject.

As a Buddhist I can be nothing but shocked at the amount and size of

messages written on this issue. It is interesting to know that the Advaitins are

so scholarly and have so many arguments, because this proves that a true

preocupation with the transcendental is part of Advaita, or, that Advaita is not

simply ' dead letter' ; but at the same time I wonder where these very

interesting intellectual discussions actually lead. Do they lead one somewhere?

I think it is wonderful to ponder and construct personal theories about reality

-- and this is why I am here on this list even though I am a Buddhist. But I

also think that Advaita and Buddhism point at the same thing: nothing is really

real, only relatively real. The whole point of friction between these two

philosophies is that in Advaita the search is for the Atman (Self) while in

Buddhism the search is for the Anatman (Not-Self). But when I read Ramana

Maharshi, my mind was enlightened by his words. Atman and Anatman are simply two

different ways of seeing the same thing. Or, seeing the same thing from

different angles. So it is obvious that both religious traditions point to the

same thing which is, an experience of non-duality beyond words.

According to my Buddhist teacher it is useless to be asking ´where did the

world come from?´ or ´where did I come from?´ because it is a cyclical reality,

so the answer is always: ´from a past cause´. And the absence of one first cause

is the reason why it is futile to ponder on this issue. But there is the

non-dual state, and that must be sought by all who aspire to achieve Mukti or

Liberation. So let all strive to achieve that state and realize what is already

present.

Regards,

Fred