Refutation of Shunyavada

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Refutation of the Buddhist Shunyavada is easy by these means:

1-One cannot admit that the whole Universe of one´s own experience

comes out of non-existence. If it did, then non-existence would be

our experience, i.e., nothing would exist. Furthermore, if one says

that existence comes out of non-existence, one is postulating a

duality clearly defined by the terms ´existence´ and ´non-

existence´. This duality is seen by all Sages to be FALSE, as all

duality is false, thus, one cannot affirm that existence depends on

non-existence.

2-Furthermore, how can non-existence (if we admit that such a thing

as non-existence is possible) originate anything? If it is non-

existence, it should originate non-existing things, which is not our

experience. When my fingers touch the keyboard I can feel my fingers

touching the keyboard. So if non-existence was the origin of all

existence, then we would not have the five koshas (or the five

skandhas). Our experience would be dull, we would experience non-

existence instead of existence.

3-How can that be that non-existence is the root of everything if

the notion "I" is ever there? No matter how "enlightened" a Buddhist

is, he will always be conscious of himself (believe me I have met

some who are enlightened and they are very conscious of the fact

that they exist). So, if non-existence was the Supreme Truth, on

attaining or realizing the Truth one would die, i.e., one would

merge with non-existence and simply disappear or die -- which does

not happen even in the case of very "enlightened" Buddhists; they

continue to exist.

4-How could the love I have for myself be present if the substratum

of myself is non-existence? The whole cosmos is denying non-

existence since it exists, it is also denying existence. `Existence´

and ´non-existence´ are only dualistic views. Neither one exists,

Truth being beyond dualistic views. So the Buddhists are

contradicting themselves when they assert that all is dependent on

non-existence, because they refute duality, still they

say "existence" and "non-existence".

5-The experience of BEING through the three states clearly asserts

that BEING is the Truth. It cannot be non-existence or existence,

since these two views imply duality. Being is beyond duality

therefore ever-existing. If it were not so, we would wake up every

morning without any memory or even without the recollection "I

slept". So this proves that non-being cannot be the root of being,

just like non-objects cannot be the root of objects. If non-

existence is the root of existence, existence would not have come

into being, everything would be non-existing (there would be no

Universe).

 

But the refutation of Vijnanavada is a little more complex, so I

await for it.

Pranams to all,

frederico

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. Frederico,

 

Your article:

 

"Refutation of the Buddhist Shunyavada is easy by these means:

1-One cannot admit that the whole Universe of one�s own experience

comes out of non-existence......"

 

Thanks for this refutation. Yet, I would suggest that you would produce a

manuscript or reference where the Buddha says that 'non-existence is the origin'

or that 'we are all non-existent'. In fact very often the Buddha states that he

will not take any position on origins. Also, the Buddha has refused to take any

stand on existence and non-existence of the Tathagata. He accepts neither.

Please read the Brahmajala Sutta for reference.

 

For the rest, I think you have refuted very beautifully your own opinion of

Buddhism. What needs to be done next is a sincere, yet objective study of the

Buddha's teachings to find out what he teaches. This is only if you are

interested. If not, I would suggest that you donot waste your time speculating

about Buddhism and trying to refute different things in it.

 

Please remember that the Buddha never made any metaphysical assertion. How then

can he make an assertion of non-existence or annihilation. In fact, in many

places the Buddha refuses to take the position of the annihilationists and

nihilists.

 

-Bhikku Yogi

 

 

 

How low will we go? Check out Messenger’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir Bikkhu Yogi,

 

I understand that Gautama Buddha did not take any stand on this.

My problem is with the current Buddhists that I hear talking

things which lead people to more confusion.

When one very respected Bikkhuni said to an audience in my city

that "the whole of existence depends on non-existence" SHE WAS IN

THE POSITION OF TEACHING THE DHARMA, AND I AM VERY WELL AWARE THAT

BUDDHISTS ESPECIALLY TIBETANS PLACE A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON TEACHERS OF

THE DHARMA. How can that be, then, that this respectable, good-

hearted lady was saying such things? It is because she read it or

heard from some of her teachers.

The problem is not with the historical Buddha, I am sure he would

never say something like "existence depends on non-existence" and

praise total annihilation. In fact by reading the Suttas of the Pail

Canon I can see that he describes "desire for annihilation" (abhava

tanha, if I remember properly) to be one of the errors, as well as

desire for existence (bhava tanha).

The problem is not I repeat with the historical Buddha but with

current teachers who are teaching very confusing doctrines and

praising what is not to be praised, desiring what is not to be

desired.

With all my warmest regards, from a seeker of Truth, like

yourself,

fred

 

advaitin, Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi

wrote:

>

> Dear Mr. Frederico,

>

> Your article:

>

> "Refutation of the Buddhist Shunyavada is easy by these means:

> 1-One cannot admit that the whole Universe of one�s own

experience

> comes out of non-existence......"

>

> Thanks for this refutation. Yet, I would suggest that you would

produce a manuscript or reference where the Buddha says that 'non-

existence is the origin' or that 'we are all non-existent'. In fact

very often the Buddha states that he will not take any position on

origins. Also, the Buddha has refused to take any stand on existence

and non-existence of the Tathagata. He accepts neither. Please read

the Brahmajala Sutta for reference.

>

> For the rest, I think you have refuted very beautifully your own

opinion of Buddhism. What needs to be done next is a sincere, yet

objective study of the Buddha's teachings to find out what he

teaches. This is only if you are interested. If not, I would suggest

that you donot waste your time speculating about Buddhism and trying

to refute different things in it.

>

> Please remember that the Buddha never made any metaphysical

assertion. How then can he make an assertion of non-existence or

annihilation. In fact, in many places the Buddha refuses to take the

position of the annihilationists and nihilists.

>

> -Bhikku Yogi

>

>

>

> How low will we go? Check out Messenger's low PC-to-Phone

call rates.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

atmadarshanam <fsgss wrote: Dear Sir Bikkhu Yogi,

 

I understand that Gautama Buddha did not take any stand on this.

My problem is with the current Buddhists that I hear talking

things which lead people to more confusion.

When one very respected Bikkhuni said to an audience in my city

that "the whole of existence depends on non-existence" Dear sir,

Your confusion is on account of your taking the

expression, " Non-existence,' at its face value. Viewed from the anatta view

point, what the teacher has said is correct. The term, 'Sunya,' used by the

Buddhistic school, is more apt. There is a Tamil text called, "Ozhivil Odukkam,"

which translated into English correctly means, withdrawl into, "Emptiness." The

author of, " Ozhivil Odukkam," is an advaitin down to the boots, his work having

been recommended to be read by no less a person than Bhaghavan Ramana. Another

meaning of the word, "Ozhivil," is pure space. The author means that only in

emptiness there is boundless space, containing infinite possibilities of

creation. It is not a dead, material, space, but is a state of creation as J.K

puts it. Even saint Pattinathar says in a verse: " The supreme beatitude

vouchsafed unto me by the Grace of Lord Siva, that pure Knowledge is beyond the

ken of the arid void of the mind, which dare not enter

there. It is not come by at the bidding of a stately monarch." So any spiritual

teacher, by the term emptiness, cannot have meant a material void, but only a

state of creation. Is that which is beyond the five kosas existence, or

non-existence, or both, or neither existence and non-existence. Has not Sankara

described the Atman by the term, "Prakriti-Vikriti sunyam, ( that is neither

natura naturans nor natura naturanta to use the words of Spinoza) " in

Vivekachudamani ? Great Masters use different words, lest the disciples carry

the words and conceptualize it, missing the true aim, that is to see that which

is behind the words, and is the origin of all the words. Has not the same

Buddha, who talked of anatta, said, " Oh monks! There is some thing

unoriginated, unbecoming, and unformed, but for which there is no escape from

that which is originated, becoming, and formed." The great Buddha could not have

meant a night of nothingness at the end of the journey, but

something, which is infinitely greater than all these mind-born concepts of

existence, non-existene, both existence and non-existence, and neither existence

and non-existence. A Christian mystic talks of a, " Cloud of Unknowing," as a

prerequisite to know God in his true form, which means that one should give up

all mind-born concepts, which are hindrances to know the truth. Saint

Pattinathar, while addressing the Lord in conveying his transcendental state

says, " The ignorant confound Thee as different forms of Panchakshara ( the five

lettered name of Siva ) calling it the gross, subtle, the subtler, the causal,

the great cause. They identify Thy being as mind, prana, the intellect, silence,

and the great void. But none have known thy true being as it is. Oh! What a

pity!

We cannot attribute to truth our conclusions derived from the split mind by

interpreting the words of Masters, born of silence.

with kind regards,

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+

countries) for 2¢/min or less.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Sankarraman:

 

Thanks for your enthusiastic reply with the reference to the famous

work of Vallalar (Ramalinga Swamigal). Several of your conclusions

and assessments about Ramalinga Swamigal need further clarifications

and let me state one by one.

 

First I do not see any evidence that indicates that Vallalar is an

advaitin and on the contrary his poems and books strongly indicate

that he is a dwaitan. He considered individual soul as `anu – minute

microcosm) and God as `almighty' and `anu' can't exist without Him!

He did believe the equality of all Gods – or equivalently believed in

the existence of `One God.' He worshipped all gods and he propagated

the philosophy, "Samarasa Suddha Sanmargam" (Treating everyone equal

and living a pure life for the betterment of everyone). He wants

everyone to follow a life of "Olukkarm" (disciplined life with high

moral principles). This implies disciplining one's sense organs

(indriya olukkam) , strictly following work-ethics (karma olukkam),

learning pure knowledge (jnana olukkam), and develop the mind to

accept everyone equal (jiva olukkam). This is his philosophy of

Samarasa Suddha Sanmargam and those who strictly follow will be able

to discard their `self-created ego' which is the outcome. This

outcome of fully `demolishing one's ego' is called "Ozhivil

Odukkam." He is a moralist who believed that any destruction of ego

is possible only with "OLUKKAM." Detailed accounts of his

philosophical work in English are available for download at the

website http://www.vallalar.org . Read the following book in English

describing life and philosophy.

 

http://www.vallalar.org/books/english/Philosophy%20of%20Saint%

20Ramalingam.pdf

 

Vallalar is highly regarded in Tamil Nad and also in the Southern

part of India and Bhagawan Ramana is quite familiar with his works.

 

I am not sure how you derived your conclusion that the philosophy of

Vallalar is equivalent to `Sunya' of Buddha. You have neither

provided any evidence in support of your contention nor you have

provided any source in support of your assertion. All those who

highly regard Vallalar do not appreciate his works being linked to

the assertions of JK. There is a mountain of difference between

Vallalar, the propagator of `Olukkam" with great devotion to God with

someone like JK. I haven't seen any books on JK insisting his

followers on the importance of "Olukkam,."

Valllar is one of the modern sages like Bhagwan Ramana and he

strongly believed in the equality of living beings and to that extent

he fully qualified to be declared as a vedantin.

 

Let me once again assure Sri Sankarraman that my disagreements are

only with several of his assertions. I highly regard him for his

knowledge on some great works in Tamil which includes the works of

Pattinathar, Vallalar, and Valluvar and others. Sometime due to our

over enthusiasm, we overstate beyond what the great authors interpret

and all of us do this mistake sometime or other. If we can strictly

follow the "Samarasa Suddha Sanmargam" of Vallalar, we can certainly

avoid such mistakes!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Harih Om!

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

>

>

>

> atmadarshanam <fsgss wrote: Dear Sir Bikkhu Yogi,

>

> I understand that Gautama Buddha did not take any stand on this.

> My problem is with the current Buddhists that I hear talking

> things which lead people to more confusion.

> When one very respected Bikkhuni said to an audience in my city

> that "the whole of existence depends on non-existence"

Dear sir,

> Your confusion is on account of your

taking the expression, " Non-existence,' at its face value. Viewed

from the anatta view point, what the teacher has said is correct. The

term, 'Sunya,' used by the Buddhistic school, is more apt. There is a

Tamil text called, "Ozhivil Odukkam," which translated into English

correctly means, withdrawl into, "Emptiness." The author of, "

Ozhivil Odukkam," is an advaitin down to the boots, his work having

been recommended to be read by no less a person than Bhaghavan

Ramana. Another meaning of the word, "Ozhivil," is pure space. The

author means that only in emptiness there is boundless space,

containing infinite possibilities of creation. It is not a dead,

material, space, but is a state of creation as J.K puts it. Even

saint Pattinathar says in a verse: " The supreme beatitude vouchsafed

unto me by the Grace of Lord Siva, that pure Knowledge is beyond the

ken of the arid void of the mind, which dare not enter

[Guest guest]

Dear Ramachandran,

You have not been fair in your approach. In

fact, you have not so much as even cared to know the fact that the two saints,

Kannudhaladigal, the author of the advaitic text, recommended by Ramana, and

saint Ramalingar are different persons. Ramalinga Adigal has given his

introduction, rather preface to the text Ozhivil Odukkam. You please go

carefully through the website for Vallalar, where all his works have been

listed, along with the work Ozhivil Odukkam of saint Kannudhaladigal, for which

there is the preface of saint Ramalingar. In fact, Tamil scholars are in doubt

whether saint Ramalingar, or somebody having this pseudonym has given the

preface, as Vallalar approves of neither Vedanta nor Siddhanta, his position

being one of Arut Perunjyoti, more so this being attributable to the fact of

the difference in the style of writing, discernable in this preface; or If you

have doubt in my words, please go through the Mountain path issue,

perhaps four issues or three prior to this one; you will get your position

confirmed. If you have still doubts about this, please refer this matter to the

scholar-devotees of Ramana, especially Mr J.Jayaraman, the Ramanashram

librarian, who started translating this work and abruptly stopped, to check the

veracity of my statement. If I have told a lie, I shall immediately opt out of

this group. If you are convinced of the truth of my position that Vallalar has

got nothing to do with saint Kannudhaladigal and his work, "Ozhivil

Odukkam,"except that he has given the preface to this work, the genuineness of

which is also subject to doubt by the scholars, you please acknowledge the fact

to this forum. Otherwise, your stand in not approving my message, to say the

least, is authoritarian, peremptory and intolerant. Leave alone whether we

follow advaita or dvaita, some intellectual truthfulness and courage is needed

that one has committed an error. Not acknowlging this is the

perpetuation of the error. Please, be patient to go through the Mountain Path

issues, Advent 2004, Aradhana 2005, and Jayanti 2005, where the translation of

Mr Jayaraman has been published. After reading them, please make your

conclusion. The entire wrong attribution is the term Vallal attached to the

first name Kannudaya, based on which you have glibly concluded that Kannudaya

Vallal is same as Vallalar. Please note that the name Vallal is different from

Vallalar. In order to correctly understand Vallalar even, you have to read all

the six thirumurais, especially the sixth thirumurai and the prose works,

wherein he disowns all his earlier positions, and establishes the sole reality

of Jyoti, which concept is surely different from Advaita. I am, write now,

having the text at my desk. The text has got the preface of Chidambaram

Ramalingam Pillai. Kannudaya Vallal is also referred to as adigal, this being a

honorific title to refer to all devotees of god in Tamil. What

else do you want? If you don't want to admit your error, then it is upto you.

I have got all the six thirumurais of Vallalar with me. Please again don't

confound the term Vallal with Vallalar. You can also mail to David Godman, who

is an authority on Ramana literature to substantiate my position. David Godman

is associated with one Dr Venkata subramanium, who can clarify the matter, if

you want it. I may not be knowledgeable in advaita or K or Buddhism or Vallalar;

but I have got the basic virtue not to indulge in untruth or accept if I have

erred. If you don't like me, throw me out of this group. But you cannot throw me

out of this existence.

 

with regards,

sankarraman

 

 

Note from Ram Chandran:

 

Please refer to the vallalar's homepage and the list of Tamil Books:

http://www.vallalar.org/books/tamil_books.htm

The website's listing of the books is the following:

04 Olivil Odukkam Thiruarutprakasa (Author: Vallalar)

In your earlier posting, you did not provide any details about the author of the

book and it may be possible that both the authors use the same title on their

books. I hope this clarifies the situation. I have no problem and if you

believe that I am in error, let me apologize to you. None of us are experts in

any philosophy ancient or new and we just want to learn by exchanging our

thoughts. Nothing I state in posting is personal and all our disagreements are

only with respect to our understanding of the subject matter. The fact that your

post is released by me to the list should provide you the clue that the list

will not throw someone out of this group just because one moderator doesn't like

someone. Your posting does indicates that I have unintentionally hurt your

feelings and let me apologize to you once again.