Fwd: RE: Fwd: Fwd: BrahmaSutra and Buddhism

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavathas

 

The Shankara point of view as described by my father

Adiyen Ramanuja Dasan

 

Aravindan

**************************************

 

I will give Shankaras view as it is for the Sutra 2 2

30

 

To be brief, from every point of viewthat this

Buddhist doctrine may be examined for finding out some

justification, it will break down like a well sunk in

sand;and we donot find any least logic here.Hence also

all behaviour based on the Buddhist scriptures is

unjustfiable.Moreover Buddha exposed his own

incoherence in talk when he instructed the three

mutually contradictory theories of the existence of

external objects,existence of consciousness and

absolute nihilism;or he showed his malevolence towards

all creatures,acting under the delusion that these

creatures would get confused by imbibing contradictory

viewsThe idea is that the Buddhist view should be

abjured in every way by all, who desire the highest

good

 

In the previous sutra Shankara is logic personified.

 

The Sutra is 'Kshnikathwa cha' meanig 'The ego

-conciousness cannot be the abode , for it is

momentary.'

 

If you assume ego-conciousness to be the abode of all

that you feel( not the soul)tht too has no stability

since it is also momentary.For, unless there be some

principle running thro every thing and abiding thro

all three periods of time(past, present and future) or

some unchanging witness of all,there can be no human

dealing involving remembrance, recognition etc,which

are contingent on past impressions that are stored up

in conformity with environment,time and causation If

ego- consciousness be assumed tobe unchanging by

nature,your doctrine of momentariness will be set at

nought.

 

It strange that in Sri Bhashya this sutra is not

there. Ramanuja says that the the Buddhist view,namely

though the pot does not exist its mental impression

exists is not tenable since in practice we dont find a

situation when knowledge alone existing with out its

object, In other words knowledge requires an object.

 

Later I will tell about Madhva's

 

To understand fully you should spend some time with

me-The Kalaksheba mode is the best way to unravel

these coplex logics.

 

Love

 

Appa.

 

 

 

 

 

>Arvind Rajagopalan <rwind_raj

 

 

>To

 

 

 

 

>Arvind Rajagopalan <rwind_raj

>rajagop_s

>Fwd: Re: [ramanuja] Fwd: BrahmaSutra and

Buddhism

>Wed, 1 Sep 2004 18:29:37 -0700 (PDT)

>

>

>Another mail asking further clarification. Mohan if

>you recollect is the person you met in Denver

>

>

>--- Mohan Ramanujan <mohan_ramanujan

 

>wrote:

>

> > ramanuja

> > "Mohan Ramanujan"

> > <mohan_ramanujan

> > 1 Sep 2004 04:34:12 -0000

> > Re: [ramanuja] Fwd: BrahmaSutra and

> > Buddhism

> >

> > Dear Sriman,

> >

> > Indeed it is very interesting. Just out of

> > curiosity.... Can you also tell what is the reply

of

> > Sankara and Madhwa to the Sunyavada of Buddhists.

 

> >

> > Thanks & Regards

> > Mohan Ramanujadasan.

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 Arvind Rajagopalan wrote :

> > >

> > >Dear Bhagavatas,

> > >

> > >An interesting email from my father i wanted to

> > share

> > >with all.

> > >

> > >Adiyen Ramanuja dasan

> > >

> > >Aravindan

> > >******************************************

> > >In the latest issues of Kumudam Bhakti, we are

> > >translating Brahma sutras which deal with

Buddhism.

> > As

> > >you may know the second chapter of BS is called

> > >Avirodha Adhyaya and the sutras therein argue how

 

> > >other philosophies like Lokayata, Jaina, Sankya,

> > Yoga

> > >Nyaya,,Vaishshika, Pasupatha are not supported by

 

> > the

> > >Vedas .I thought you will like the arguments of

BS

> > >against Buddhism as I found them a delight to my

> > >rational mind and hence this letter.

> > >

> > >First I will give the English translation of what

 

> > we

> > >have written as introduction to the Adhikaranam

> > >dealing with Buddhism and then I will try to give

 

> > you

> > >a translation of Sri Bhashya to give you a sample

 

> > of

> > >the great intellect of Sri Ramanuja.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Let us understand the essentials of Buddhism as

an

> > >introduction to the Sutras that follow.

> > >

> > >Buddhism is divided into two main branches,

> > >Mahayana(great Path) and Hinayana(lower path)

> > Hinayana

> > >has again two branches called Vaibhashika and

> > >Southrandhika. Mahayana is divided into Yogachara

 

> > or

> > >Vignanavada and Madhyamika.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Two thousand five hundred years ago(circa BC

> > >563-483)lived Gautama Buddha one of the

outstanding

> > >thinkers of mankind. His life history is fairly

> > known

> > >to all of us.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >What he realised as the fundamental truth is

this.

> > In

> > >the universe every thing is changing every

moment.

> > >Even the rocks and mountains change, slowly but

> > >surely. There in nothing that does not change.

> > >

> > >So, anything that changes cannot be true, meaning

 

> > >permanent What is true is change and not objects

of

> > >change. So nothing exists.(if you slice every

> > moment

> > >into infinite parts and say that in every one of

> > those

> > >parts things change, you will realise this)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >This Sunya philosophy (nihilism) based on Khana

> > >Bhanga Nyayam, can be translated in English as

> > under.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Everything is changing and nothing is constantly

> > >existing. Since nothing has constant existence,

it

> > >follows that nothing is real, or, only Nothing is

 

> > >real. Thus, nothing in fact exists.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >On the basis of the above principle of

transience,

> > >Buddhists are called Sunyavadhis or Kshanikas.

> > >

> > >Let us now see the differences among the four

> > >branches.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >The external world of objects, thro our senses,

> > >becomes our internal world How can we say that

our

> > >internal world is the exact replica of the

external

> > >world?.

> > >

> > >Our senses may alter the external world and

present

> > to

> > >us an internal world, which may be totally

> > different

> > > from the external world. Also we have said that

> > every

> > >thing changes every moment . So both the external

 

> > and

> > >internal worlds are changing, moment to moment.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >The Vaibhashikas say that though the external and

 

> > >internal worlds are changing every moment, for

the

> > >duration of that one moment they are real, and

they

> > >exist.

> > >

> > >The Southrandhikas say that the external world

can

> > >only be guessed by us, since we only perceive the

 

> > >internal world and we can only deduct that the

> > >external world is a replica of the internal

world.

> > >

> > >Since both say that the world is real, even

though

> > for

> > >a moment only, the Hinayanis are called Realists.

 

> > >

> > >Yogacharas say that by the logic of transience

> > >external world does not exist. Only the internal

> > world

> > >or our thoughts are real.

> > >

> > >Madhyamikas go one step further and say by the

same

> > >logic of transience, the internal world or our

> > >thoughts are also unreal ,since thoughts are also

 

> > >changing every moment.. Theirs is the ultimate

> > >nihilism.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Now I will give a sample of Sri Bhashya.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >BS 2-2-30 Sarvada Anupapades cha.

> > >

> > >Sarvada- In every way.

> > >

> > >Anupapades cha-(Sunyavada) Is not tenable or

> > >appropriate..

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >The Buddhists say thus.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Gnana, or thought and external world does not

exist

> > >This non-existence is the’ ‘reality’

> > >

> > >If an object exists, there must be a cause. For

the

> > >pot to exist clay is the cause.

> > >

> > >The problem is, we cannot deduct the cause for

> > >anything. Because we are not able to see

anything

> > >created from another thing. Even clay has to be

> > >kneaded etc for becoming the pot and hence how

can

> > we

> > >say for sure, that the pot is created by clay.

So

> > we

> > >say that if there is an object we cannot say for

> > sure

> > >that it has been created from another existing

> > object

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > From non existence no existing thing can be

> > created.

> > >Out of nothing can anything come?( like in a Sai

 

> > baba

> > >trick!) Clay gets completely destroyed when pot

is

> > >made. When clay gets destroyed there is nothing

> > left .

> > >or only nothing is left. So pot cannot be created

 

> > out

> > >of nothing. So we say the pot does not exist.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >There is a third possibility. From pot itself pot

 

> > can

> > >come. But this is no creation.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > We have proved that an existing thing cannot be

 

> > >created from another existing thing or a non

> > existing

> > >thing In other words nothing can exist!( Do you

> > >follow this logic? Buddha must have had a very

> > sharp

> > >mind indeed)

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Ramanuja says in reply thus

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >What do you say? Do you say things exist? Or

Doyou

> > say

> > >things don’t exist ? or do you say they exist and

 

> > >don’t exist ? None of the three assumptions will

> > lead

> > >to Sunyavada.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >If you say things exist.. We have already proved

> > that

> > >existence and non existence is the knowledge or

> > >gnanam of status change. We see a pot and after

> > >someone removes the pot or it gets destroyed to

> > become

> > >pieces, we don’t see the pot - this is a mere

> > status

> > >change. So how can you say that nothing exists?

> > >Sunyavada fails.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >If by means of some logic or Pramana, you want to

 

> > >prove that everything is Sunyam, then since that

> > logic

> > >or Pramana is also included in the statement that

 

> > >every thing is Sunya, you can never prove your

> > theory

> > >of Sunyavada.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >Are you confused to such a degree that you wish I

 

> > >stop? I stop here.

> > >

> > >Affly,

> > >

> > >Appa.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > >arvind <rwind_raj

> > > >rwind_raj

> > > >"rajagop_s"

> > <rajagop_s

> > > >punyajanam pics

> > > >14 Aug 2004 22:21:09 -0700

> > > >

> > > >punyajanam pics

> > > >If you did not see the full album please click

> > here

> > >

> >

>

>http://f2.pg.photos./ph/rwind_raj/album?.tok=phrmZlBB46hp4Qsm&.dir=/48\

99&.src=ph

 

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB

messages!

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >azhwAr emberumAnAr jeeyAr thiruvadigalE saranam

> > >

> > > Links

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> > [Non-text portions of this message have been

> > removed]

> >

> >

> >

 

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mail is new and improved - Check it out!