M&LThe Absolute Experience

[Guest guest]

Hi Guys,

 

Thank you, for the citation.

 

>L: " ....after reading the scanned

> information, I wondered if the change

> from " Vijnavadin " to " Buddhist " was in the

> orginal text. Is it that

> change in the original text? "

 

J: I first read this when Mikey posted

on NDP and also thought it sounded

puzzling. Michael doesn't answer

questions but likes philosophical

classifications. I did like his

comment in a post way back how it

was good to see how you are

" wrong, wrong, wrong " .

 

 

If we want " robust debate " re:

views then post a philosophical

view -such as the assertion that (Self/Atman)

exists inherently and doesn't originate

in dependence on causes and conditions -

or some such thing. One can either

cultivate beliefs or cut through

them - that's about it. So Michael

can pick out any view from Sankara

that he " believes " and we can see

if there is any refutation.

 

 

That would be quite fun. But Buddhist

debate is not to be done in the aim

of " winning " but for freeing mind

of beliefs/attachments. One debates

and analyzes until there is nothing left

to debate and analyze and then moves

on to the next stage - Madhyamika is only

prep. Seeing Sunyata is the beginning of

practice.

 

 

Also puzzled because I thought

" vijnavadin " was another name for Yogacara.

 

I doubt whether Bhikkhu Bodhi has

actually spent any time with the

actual practice of Madhyamika or Mahayana.

He is a scholarly defender of Theravada views.

 

http://www.katinkahesselink.net/tibet/atmsun.htm

 

is an interesting " attempt to reconcile the alleged

difference between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta

on the nature of the Self " . Not sure it

succeeds but attempts at reconciliation

are always good.

 

 

Joyce

 

 

> Have you read Ramanuja refutation of

> Sankara?

>

> See:

> http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/ramanuja.htm

>

> or the basic Mahayana Buddhist Refutations of Atman/

> Brahman at:

>

> http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/contratman.htm

>

> or Bhikkhu Bodhi's refutation of Mahayana Buddhism and

> Advaita?

>

> See:

>

> http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/news/essay27.html

>

> None of these are needed to do so. It is easily done

> in few words.

>

> Lewis

>

> ???????????????????

>

> Hi Lewis,

> I wouldn't know about the

> original text because I have no knowledge

> of Sanskrit. That could be an editor's

> addition. However within the translated

> text individual references are found to

> 'Buddhists', 'Buddhist views', etc. In

> those days discussion was robust and

> Sankara did not spare incoherence or

> illogic. The present declension where

> everybody's right and nobody's wrong,

> philosophically speaking, is silly.

>

> Michael.

>

> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

> Hi Michael,

>

> The scanned page is a translation of text, Sanskirt or

> otherwise. That text is in English. The question is

> asking about the English text that was scanned. I

> asked a simple question and now more directly:

>

> Was " Vijnavadin " and " Buddhist " in the original text?

> Was there a change in the original text after it was

> scanned?

>

> Why is there a reference to Sanskrit, Michael? Is the

> scanned page the same as it was in the original or was

> there a change after the scan?

>

> Did you read any of the other text referred to?

>

> Is Sankara the only one with logic and coherence?

>

> What does logic and coherence, words of any type or

> form have to do with that which is has nothing to do

> with them in any way?

>

> Why project, imagine what today's movements away from

> some imagined ideal is? Are you privy to what is in

> all appearances, all dreams and imaginings and their

> movements towards and away from some ideal system of

> thought or belief? Is Sankara's or anyone's world of

> words, concepts, arguments, debates, admonitions and

> beliefs the ideal that all devolve from in each

> arbritrary period of time?

>

> Questions asked of you are usually left unanswered.

> These are not rhetorical questions, Michael. Issues

> are raised by you and here is the response asking for

> your bases, knowledge, and assumptions. Bring Sankara

> with you, he and his world is no obstacle.

>

> Lewis

>