Shankara, Gaudapada, Buddhism (from Pracchannabauddha who knew Buddhism superficially)

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The following post , since it digresses from the thread where it is posted, is being made into a new thread:

From: sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 
Bcc: 
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:57:55 -0700

Namaste,

The Vaishnavas like Shri Yaminacharya called both Shri Gaudapadacharya and Shri Adi Shankara as Pracchanna Buddha (conceale Buddha).. Gaudapadacharya appreciated the works of Nagarjuna and Nagarjuna never said that Buddism is nihilism. Lord Buddha had three promulgations, the first one given in Sarnath came to be known broadly as Hinayana (lesser vehicle), which directs the followers to practice virtuous conduct and dharma for their own good, while  the next one given a few decades later at the Vulture peak came to be known as Mahayana (bigger vehicle) and this told the ways by which one can not only benefit oneself but can also carry others alongwith.  The last one given later came to be known as Vajrayana, which was meant to help one to attain nirvana in this birth  itself.

Adi Shankara responded to the Sarvastivadins and others who deviated much from the Mahayana. That does not mean that Adi Shankara was against Mahayana. Both Gaudapdacharya and Adi Shankara understood the Mahayana teachings of Lord Buddha, and appear to have no real difference with Mahayana teachings. In  the Prajñāpāramitā-Hṛdaya Sūtra, Lord Buddha says that Sariputra (a bodhisattva) saw the emptiness in the five skandhas (five koshas) and In Advaita one becomes Videhamukta, when one leaves the five koshas. These five-koshas are given in the Upanishad and when one realizes Brahman, one is no longer confined to the five koshas. 

As regards the birthplace of Kumarila Bhatta (Bhattacharya), he was from the Goalpara district of Assam. His sister Bharati was married to Mandana Mishra.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Nagaraj Paturi]

12:19 AM (50 minutes ago)

What I wrote is to add to the caution that Shri Veeranarayanaji is telling the readers to take. Adi Shankara is not against  the Mahayana Buddhism as the Mahayana teachings are akin the upanishadic teachings and I tried to show that. In that way he can be called Pracchanna Buddha, provided one knows why. If you think that my mail  is wrong in any way,  the scholars, including you, may correct me.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[V Subrahmanian]

Namaste

Here is a pdf on the above topic. Sri Satchidanandendra Sarswati Swaminah (5 January 1880 – 5 August 1975) (SSS) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satchidanandendra_Saraswati has studied the Mādhyamika Kārikā-s of Nagarjuna along with the commentary of Chandrakirti and also the Kārikā-s of Gaudapada and given an account of how Advaita and Buddhism differ.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/ka88cp1dt2eddk3/Advaita_and_Buddhism_SSS.pdf

I thank my friend Sri Pramod Bharadwaj for his effort in making this document in a convenient pdf format from a larger book of the author. 

Says Dr.A.V.Nagasampige, noted scholar of Dvaita Vedanta and Director, pUrNaprajna samshodhana mandiram, Bangalore, in his very popular Kannada book 'mata traya sameekShA':

On page 51 it carries a heading: Is AdvaitavAda Bauddhadarshana?
On page 54 there is a heading : Bauddhas are pracchanna vaidikas.  It says:

The charge that Advaita has been influenced by Buddhist thinking has been stiffly refuted by Shankara, Vachaspatimishra, SarvajnAtmamuni, ShrIharsha, Anandabodha etc.  They have brought out the doctrinal differences between the two schools.  This section goes on to substantiate this statement by several quotes from these Advaita Acharyas' works.  It concludes: 
//Therefore since Buddhists accepted the Vedic formulation of NirviShesha Chaitanya they are 'pracchanna vaidika-s.'  //

// ಆದ್ದರಿಂದ ವೇದದಲ್ಲಿರುವ ನಿರ್ವಿಶೇಷ ಚೈತನ್ಯದ ಪರಿಕಲ್ಪನೆಯನ್ನು ಒಪ್ಪಿದ ಬೌದ್ಧರು ’ಪ್ರಚ್ಛನ್ನವೈದಿಕರು.’//

Vidwan K.P. Babudas of Kalady, Kerala, while delivering his talk at the annual vdiwat sadas at Sringeri last year, 2011, said:

// यदुक्तं शून्यवादिनः सकाशात् मायावादिनः वैलक्षण्यं नास्तीति तत्रोच्यते । वस्तुतः एते बौद्धाः उपनिषदः अवलम्ब्यैव स्वसिद्धान्तं चक्रुः । किन्तु तेषां कापट्यात् औपनिषदोऽयं सिद्धान्त इति तैर्नोक्तम् । वयं तु श्रौतोऽयम् इत्युक्त्वैव  अस्मद्दर्शनं प्रदर्शयाम इति वैलक्षण्यं तेषां सकाशात् । उभयोः दर्शनयोः अधिष्ठानं उपनिषद एव इत्यतः क्वचित् क्वचित् साम्यमिव भवति । // 

The word 'shUnya' is listed as one of the names of Brahman by Sri Paramashivendra Saraswati (the preceptor of Sri Sadashivendra Saraswati of Nerur) in his work:

वेदान्तनामरत्नसहस्त्रम्’ [a book of a thousand names of Brahman culled out from the Vedanta']:
शून्यम् - पारतत्त्र्यादिदोषरहितं निर्विशेषं वा ।  तदुक्तं वासिष्ठे -

शून्यं तत् प्रकृतिर्माया ब्रह्म विज्ञानमित्यपि ।
शिवः पुरुष ईशानो नित्यमात्मेति कथ्यते ॥ इति ।

स्वप्रकाशमानन्दघनं शून्यमभवत् इति श्रुतिः ।  उक्तं च पाद्मे पुराणे - 
यं दृष्ट्वा योगिनो नित्यं सन्तृप्ताः स्वात्मसंस्थितम् ।
अक्षरं सदसच्छून्यं परमात्मानमीश्वरम्॥ इति ।  

There is also the verse from the मत्तविलासप्रहसनम् -

वेदान्तेभ्यो गृहीत्वार्थान् यो महाभारतादपि ।
विप्राणां मिषतामेव कृतवान् कोशसञ्चयम् ॥ 

Mahendravarman in his work 'mattavilAsaprahasanam' says this about the coming into being of the Buddhistic system:

//Taking material from the UpaniShads and also from the MahAbhArata (which includes the BhagavadgItA), Buddha, even as the brAhmaNa-s (vaidika-s) were wide awake, accomplished a great fortune - literally filled up his coffers - (of establishing a vibrant system).// 

Thus, in order to sustain a system, there has to be a kriyA/karma/anuShThAna aspect which too has been derived by the Buddhists from the sanAtana dharma that is the vedic religion. 

Also, the charge that Shankara's knowledge of the Madhyamika doctrine was superficial extends to even Kumarila Bhatta and further to Veda Vyasa himself who aphorized on the Bauddha doctrine in the Brahmasutras and also in the alleged verses of the Padma purana.  

Here is an opinion:

http://orkut.google.com/c43245114-t19700091f3d59685.html

// Kumarila argued that the Buddhist was claiming that the universe was non-existent. This, in a lot of ways was consistent with his literal Sanskrit understanding of the word Shunya (literally 'zero'), found in the Pali Canon and well commented by several later Buddhists. It is noteworthy here, that the Pali canon says that 'samsara' is characterized as 'anicca' (impermanent, not momentary). Further, the Mimamsic (and  Vedantic)

understanding of Shunya is inconsistent with the meaning as described in the
Pali Canon. (emphasis mine)

Kumarila Bhatta's understanding of Buddhist school was far greater than that of any
other non-Buddhist philosopher at the time. His junior contemporary Sankara
(whom most modern Vedantists consider to be greater) also did not understand
Buddhism so well.//

   

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Jsr Prasad]

Thanks to Vidvan Sri Subramanian ji for this excellent post with quite significant links and quotations from great scholars. I have been wondering, why it can't be the other way round, as many concepts are similar in both systems; say, for instance, मा हिंस्याः सर्वा भूतानि.. at vyaavahaarika level and nirvisesha-caitanya at paaramarthika level. Views of H.H. SSS, Prof. Nagasampige, Prof. Babudas, Swami Parameshwarananda Saraswati and views from Mattavilasa-prahasana thoroughly substantiate the realities of the 'pracchanna-vaidikataa' of Buddhists.

"...Kumarila Bhatta's understanding of Buddhist school was far greater than that of any other non-Buddhist philosopher at the time. His junior contemporary Sankara (whom most modern Vedantists consider to be greater) also did not understand Buddhism so well."

The above comment (though from a blog post) is subject to debate. Kumarila Bhatta himself went to study Buddhist study in disguise. Upon found guilty, he was asked by Buddhists to jump from the fort to see whether his belief in Vedas could protect him. He was a staunch believer though, committed a mistake by uttering - 'यदि वेदाः प्रमाणम्...'

Regards.

Prasad

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Thank you Nagarajji, for finding the right thread for the message.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste,

First and foremos,t one should not equate Sugata with Tathagata Buddha. Lord Buddha himself in his Dhammapada calls the monks as Sugata. May be the late respected Satchidananda saraswatiji  did not read the Dhammapada to notice this definition of Sugata. 

Regards,

Sunil KB

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Namaste.

Further to my last mail, please permit me to add that I did not claim that Adi Shankara criticised the teachings of Buddha indiscriminately.. Where Gaudapada expressed similar sentiments to Mahayana. Adi Shankara kept mum and that is "maunam sanmati lakshanam". At the same time Adi Shankara did criticize Dignaga and Dharmakirti, the latter being Adi Shanka's senior contemporary. .

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

I draw the attention of colleagues to a fundamental aspect of Gau·ap¡da’s doctrine as found in the Mu¸·akopaniÀad. The salient feature is the fourfold graded division of things. This first appeared in the Ch¡ndogya but then it became an obscure idea. The fourfold division is found later in the Maitr¢ and the M¡¸·£kya. There are reasons to believe that it was Maitreyan¡tha (Abhisamay¡laṅk¡rak¡rik¡) who revived the old doctrine in a Buddhist garb. The M¡¸·£kya which I believe to be a post-Vedic UpaniÀad of the fourth century took up the theory paving the way of its permeating the later Minor UpaniÀads.

I refer colleagues to the premier article in the Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 6, 1978 Dordrecht, Holland.

The idealism of Gau·ap¡da is UpaniÀadic but some aspects like the fourfold division indicate possible Mahayana Buddhist influence.

Sorry for the long lecture

Best

DB

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (nagara...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

The following post , since it digresses from the thread where it is posted, is being made into a new thread:

From: sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 
Bcc: 
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:57:55 -0700

Namaste,

The Vaishnavas like Shri Yaminacharya called both Shri Gaudapadacharya and Shri Adi Shankara as Pracchanna Buddha (conceale Buddha).. Gaudapadacharya appreciated the works of Nagarjuna and Nagarjuna never said that Buddism is nihilism. Lord Buddha had three promulgations, the first one given in Sarnath came to be known broadly as Hinayana (lesser vehicle), which directs the followers to practice virtuous conduct and dharma for their own good, while  the next one given a few decades later at the Vulture peak came to be known as Mahayana (bigger vehicle) and this told the ways by which one can not only benefit oneself but can also carry others alongwith.  The last one given later came to be known as Vajrayana, which was meant to help one to attain nirvana in this birth  itself.

Adi Shankara responded to the Sarvastivadins and others who deviated much from the Mahayana. That does not mean that Adi Shankara was against Mahayana. Both Gaudapdacharya and Adi Shankara understood the Mahayana teachings of Lord Buddha, and appear to have no real difference with Mahayana teachings. In  the Prajñāpāramitā-Hṛdaya Sūtra, Lord Buddha says that Sariputra (a bodhisattva) saw the emptiness in the five skandhas (five koshas) and In Advaita one becomes Videhamukta, when one leaves the five koshas. These five-koshas are given in the Upanishad and when one realizes Brahman, one is no longer confined to the five koshas. 

As regards the birthplace of Kumarila Bhatta (Bhattacharya), he was from the Goalpara district of Assam. His sister Bharati was married to Mandana Mishra.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Jsr Prasad]

Adi Shankara kept mum and that is "maunam sanmati lakshanam".

Sri Sunil ji, you might wanted to say "maunam sammati lakshanam."

[Jsr Prasad]

Respected Bhattacharya sir,

I got interested in your following pointer -

'The idealism of Gau·ap¡da is UpaniÀadic but some aspects like the fourfold division indicate possible Mahayana Buddhist influence.'

If I've not mistaken, you refer to the concept that has already been revealed by Sushruta in Sushruta Samhita - तत्र चतुर्विधो भूतग्रामः संस्वेदजजरायुजाण्डजोद्भिज्जसञ्ज्ञः । (1.1.22).

Let me quote the purport of Sushruta's statement, who are not acquainted with.

Loka has a two fold division - 1. स्थावर and 2. जङ्गम ।

स्थावर is again fourfold:

1. वनस्पतयः

2. वानस्पत्याः

3. वीरुद्ः

4. ओषधयः

जङ्गम is again fourfold:

1. जरायुजाः

2. अण्डजाः

3. स्वेदजाः and

4. उद्भिज्जाः

Indeed, Ayurveda is considered to be an upaveda of which we are well aware of. Hence, must this be the most ancient reference to the four fold division, explained ever?

Best

DB

Regards

Prasad

[Nagaraj Paturi]

There was a discussion on suitability of words like idealism in discussing Indian notions such as Advaita Vedanta in the thread/post:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/aCO-PLV4Lcs/I__d3290AgAJ

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalyan K]

Can some learned vidwAn confirm if the following 2 statements are true -

1. The charge of Shankara being prachchanna bauddha was first levelled by Bhaskara, the bhedAbheda vAdin.

2. Sriharsha virtually acknowledges that advaita and mAdhyamika buddhism are the same, except that the former accepts an eternal Atman, while the latter does not.


Regards
Kalyan

[K S Kannan]

Just for information.

Swami Sachchidanandendra Sarasvati has translated Dhammapada into Kannada.

So he must have read the book.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

If so, how can he think Tathagata Buddha as Sugata ? He must have mistranslated Dhammapada, on this point.

[Kalyan K]

With all due respect, I wouldn't trust an advaitin's translation of a Buddhist work. Will advaitins trust a dvaitin translating their works?


Regards
Kalyan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Prof. Kannan said, "Swami Sachchidanandendra Sarasvati has translated Dhammapada into Kannada.
So he must have read the book." (Highlighting mine). Did he ask anyone to trust the translation? His point was 'he must have read the book'. 

2. BTW, are all the translations of Dhammapada by Buddhists only?

3. Are all the translations of Gitanjali by Brahmos? Would you trust the translations of Gitanjali by non-Brahmos?

4. If one takes a stand that an Advaiti is a pracchannabouddha, one's not trusting the Advaiti's translation of a Buddhist work is a contradiction. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

[Kalyan K]

//2. BTW, are all the translations of Dhammapada by Buddhists only?//

May be not. There could be some translations by non-Buddhists. However, the advaitin is not merely a non-buddhist. Buddhism is pUrvapaksha for the advaitin. That would make a lot of difference.

By the way, the tag of prachchanna bauddha is not liked by most modern day advaitins.

Regards
Kalyan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

That is the point. 

If one want's to give significance to the fact that 'Buddhism is pUrvapaksha for the advaitin' it is not correct to call an Advaitin as a prachhannabauddha. 

The problem that I am highlighting is that those who give significance to the fact that 'Buddhism is pUrvapaksha for the advaitin' themselves are calling Advaitins as prachhannabauddhas. Those who agree with the observations by persons like Prof.Yamakami that Sankara did not understand Buddhism agree contradictingly with the observation that Sankara is a prachhannabauddha. 

>By the way, the tag of prachchanna bauddha is not liked by most modern day advaitins.

---- Was that tag liked by any pre-modern Advaitin?

When a person knows that a tag is being used in a pejorative sense in reference to the thought he subscribes to, it is natural not to like the tag. 

There are expressions such as kuhanaagopa, leelaamaanushavigraha which are of the opposite type. They are used in praise. 

When a person uses the tag prachhannabauddha in a pejorative sense, there are the following implications:

1. The user of the tag does not like Buddhism. He likes the form in which the prachhannabaudha appears outwardly. His allegation is that the prachhannabauddha's outward form is not his true form.

2. If a person who likes Buddhism uses the tag prachhannabauddha in reference to an Advaitin, use of that tag is like kuhanaagopa, leelaamaanushavigraha used in praise. 

3. A person who likes Buddhism, can not use the tag prachhannabauddha in a pejorative sense. If he does, it is either naivety or hypocrisy. 

  

  

Regards
Kalyan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Friday, 28 April 2017 19:49:33 UTC+5:30, Kalyan K wrote:

Can some learned vidwAn confirm if the following 2 statements are true -

1. The charge of Shankara being prachchanna bauddha was first levelled by Bhaskara, the bhedAbheda vAdin.

As far as I know, Bhaskara uses the word bauddha-matavalambin (see the image below, and also here) but not pracchanna-bauddha. I may be corrected.

 

The word pracchanna-bauddha, which in my humble opinion is quite apt, is used by Bhagavan Ramanujacharya in his commentary on BS  II.2.27.

2. Sriharsha virtually acknowledges that advaita and mAdhyamika buddhism are the same, except that the former accepts an eternal Atman, while the latter does not.

I do not know about this, other list members may throw some light.

Thanks, Nityananda

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 28 April 2017 19:49:33 UTC+5:30, Kalyan K wrote:

Can some learned vidwAn confirm if the following 2 statements are true -

1. The charge of Shankara being prachchanna bauddha was first levelled by Bhaskara, the bhedAbheda vAdin.

As far as I know, Bhaskara uses the word bauddha-matavalambin (see the image below, and also here) but not pracchanna-bauddha. I may be corrected.

 

The word pracchanna-bauddha, which in my humble opinion is quite apt,

The word pracchanna-bauddha, in my humble opinion, is not apt at all since it at once reveals that the both the systems bauddham and advaitam have not been understood correctly and distinctly. I have noticed that in the present day, in public platforms when non-advaitins speak, they carefully state the difference between the two systems lest they should be dubbed as misrepresenting Advaita or not knowing the clear difference between the two systems. I recall a very recent instance where a highly respected scholar of Dvaita Vedanta, Dr. D.Prahladachar, while addressing the gathering at the symposium on Nagarjuna's Mula Madhyamika Karikas, in the Institute of World Culture, Bangalore, said: While both Buddhism and Advaita hold the world to be mithya, the latter clearly states that the world is a superimposition on the substratum Brahman that is eternal. 

Non-advaitins while expounding their classical texts to their followers might not give up the pracchanna-bauddha remarks found in their books and even while writing new commentaries/glosses would hold to it but when it comes to public discourse where a general audience is present, such a remark is carefully avoided.    

 

is used by Bhagavan Ramanujacharya in his commentary on BS  II.2.27.

In the present day discussions of the three schools of Vedanta, Advaitins are also invariably included. If only they are really seen as 'veda-vāda-cchadma...' and therefore to be kept away, the symposiums as we see commonly arranged today, should have taken a different form. I have seen that non-advaitins scholars are seated together with Advaitin scholars even while food is served. If they are seen as those only pretending to be vaidika-s but not really so, the practice of a non-advaitin orthodox scholar resorting to an orthodox advaitin scholar's house for a temporary stay (where it is not otherwise possible), and accept the hospitality for svayam pāka would be out of place. The practice is vice-versa too. 

Thus, in my opinion, that remark is at best a thing of the past and only academic in nature and no more than that. 

2. Sriharsha virtually acknowledges that advaita and mAdhyamika buddhism are the same, except that the former accepts an eternal Atman, while the latter does not.

One has to be told as to in which work Sriharsha says this. 

regards

subrahmanian.v 

 

 

I do not know about this, other list members may throw some light.

Thanks, Nityananda

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Puranas which consider Buddha as one of the avatAra-s, consider him to be an avatAra of VishNu and of no other dEva. Buddha, as per this view, is, like any other avatAra of VishNu, is prachhannavishNu. This kind of expression is explicitly used in the case of gOpAla rUpa of VishNu, through expressions such as kuhanAgOpa etc. VaishNavas following the perspective of Buddha as an avataara of VishNu consider that such an avataara had a purpose. Since Bauddha (doctrine) had a 'strategic' purpose,  as per this view, probably being Bauddha in hiding / Bauddha in disguise is also viewed as a strategic activity and probably, the word prachhannabauddha is not used in a pejorative sense, by the followers of the buddhaavataara view, because of this reason 

2. It seems that since Buddha is pracchannaVishNu and  S'ankara is prachhannabuddha , S'ankara is prachhannavishNu. 

 

[Jsr Prasad]

Your comment is not in good taste. You did not show where Swamiji has faltered in interpreting Buddha for Sugata. When you allege on scholar of such a stature, you might have studied his Dhammapada Kannda translation, right? You are welcome to present your views to the scholars.

With a little knowledge in the subject, I can't add more to the discussion; but would like to say the following:

Is Tathaagata Buddha same as Sugata?

Yes, Viveka Vilasa text says -

बौद्धानां सुगतो देवो विश्वं च क्षणभङ्गुरम् ।
आर्य्यसत्त्वाख्यया तत्त्वचतुष्टयमिदं क्रमात् ।।१।।

"There are four first principles recognized as articles of faith by the Buddhists, viz.:-. Sugatadeva, otherwise known as Buddha, is the Lord worthy of homage."

Further, the followers of बुद्ध, are called बौद्ध and the followers of सुगत are called सौगत, grammatically with a Taddhita affixation. If Buddha is not Sugata, then do you believe, there are two proponents of Buddhist philosophy? If so, I would appreciate if you can remove the confusion created by Buddhist scholar Amarasimha in his Amarakosha  -

सर्वज्ञस्सुगतो बुद्धो धर्मराजस्तथागतः... etc.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:37 PM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

If so, how can he think Tathagata Buddha as Sugata ? He must have mistranslated Dhammapada, on this point.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:23 AM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just for information.

Swami Sachchidanandendra Sarasvati has translated Dhammapada into Kannada.

So he must have read the book.

[Jsr Prasad]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:25 AM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

With all due respect, I wouldn't trust an advaitin's translation of a Buddhist work. Will advaitins trust a dvaitin translating their works?

Firts of all this is seemingly a deliberate digression from the context. <Will advaitins trust a dvaitin translating their works?> Yes, why not? When a Dvaita or Visishtaadvaita translates an Advaita work, I would trust the same if He were unbiased. In other words, if were considered to be an 'aapta.' You may look at the valuable comments of respected Prof. Prahaldachar Ji and Prof. Nagasampige Ji.

Prof. Paturi Ji said - <If one want's to give significance to the fact that 'Buddhism is pUrvapaksha for the advaitin' it is not correct to call an Advaitin as a prachhannabauddha.> That means, a siddhanti can only establish his siddhaanta, only after having clearly and straightforwardly mentioned the puurva-paksha. So, puurva-paksha should be either be a gist of the puurva-pakshi or a direct extract from their texts.

Vidwan Sri Subramanian Ji has offered ample inputs on 'pracchanna-vaidikataa' of Bauddhas. You are not interested in following it up?

I am adding the above to the arguments put forth by Prof Paturi.

[Jsr Prasad]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:34 AM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 9:54 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, 28 April 2017 19:49:33 UTC+5:30, Kalyan K wrote:

Non-advaitins while expounding their classical texts to their followers might not give up the pracchanna-bauddha remarks found in their books and even while writing new commentaries/glosses would hold to it but when it comes to public discourse where a general audience is present, such a remark is carefully avoided.   

Scholars may excuse my indulgence. In the pdf link provided by Vidvan Subramanian Ji, the following portion may attract the attention of scholars, with regard to his above comment (page 9) -

"Sri Gaudapada has divided the Mandukya texts into sections and has introduced his Karikas in between every two sections with a sentence "अत्रैते श्लोका भवन्ति," The following verses are in elucidation of this section. Seeing that traditional Advaitins have been studying the Karikas in the same order, the authors of Bhashyas pertaining to other schools, perhaps mistook the karikas too for portions of the Upanishad, and attempted to explain them also by dextrous display of interpretation so as to suit their own doctrine. And being unable to perhaps to twist the other chapters on unreality etc., studied indepently by the Advaitins and mroe expressly establishing Advaita unequivocally, or even to meet the arguments adduced by the Bhashya thereon, they may have begun to pacify their followers by dubbing the Advaitins as crypto-Buddhists. This is the only hypothesis that could explain the phenomenon."

 

I have seen that non-advaitins scholars are seated together with Advaitin scholars even while food is served. If they are seen as those only pretending to be vaidika-s but not really so, the practice of a non-advaitin orthodox scholar resorting to an orthodox advaitin scholar's house for a temporary stay (where it is not otherwise possible), and accept the hospitality for svayam pāka would be out of place. The practice is vice-versa too. 

This observation is noteworthy and this custom can still be seen in Vaidika houses (irrespective of the trimata-sampradaaya) in Telangana and Andhra states.
 

2. Sriharsha virtually acknowledges that advaita and mAdhyamika buddhism are the same, except that the former accepts an eternal Atman, while the latter does not.

One has to be told as to in which work Sriharsha says this.

It would be good if Sriharsha's reference to such a siddhanta-aikya, is provided!

[Jsr Prasad]

I regret, please read "When a Dvaita or Visishtaadvaita scholar translates an Advaita work," for "When a Dvaita or Visishtaadvaita translates an Advaita work..

[Kalyan K]

//It would be good if Sriharsha's reference to such a siddhanta-aikya, is provided!//

First of all, I dont know whether Sriharsha really said about siddhAnta aikya. Thats why i asked members here to confirm this.

Having said that, Sri Harsha uses mAdhyamika logic to argue against nyAya in his khandanakhandakhAdya. If Sriharsha has really made such a comment, it would most likely be in this work.

Regards
Kalyan

[Kalyan K]

One must note that all statements which treat Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu are post-Shankaran and even Ramanuja did not seem to be familiar with them. If we mix up the chronology, we are bound to come to absurd conclusions like Shankara being prachchanna Vishnu.

[Kalyan K]

//As far as I know, Bhaskara uses the word bauddha-matavalambin (see the image below, and also here) but not pracchanna-bauddha. I may be corrected.//

Thank you Nityanandji. I think this shows even Bhaskara thought that there are many similarities between buddhism and advaita.


Regards
Kalyan

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Sweeping expression of bias against a well- recognized path may not be appropriate in an scholarly forum like BVP. Whether Dvaita, or Vishishtadvaita or Advaita, all are correct in their own perspective. When Lord Ram offered to give the highest Mukti (Sayujya Mukti) to Hanumaji, the latter rejected the offer, as he preferred  to remain a Bhakta. Even Adi Shankara is also said to have expressed that the dvaitavada can be more appealing for the sake of Bhakti  "Bhaktyartha". So why quarrel on who belongs to which path.

As regards Shri Satchidananda Saraswati (SSS) he was a very learned person and I have great regards for him, not because he was an advaitin. Simlarly,  I also have great regards for Dr. B.N.K.Sharma (BNKS) , another very learned person, who was a Dvaitin. It is not necessary that I should agree to everything SSS or BNKS said.

Regards,

Sunil KB

Virus-free. www.avast.com

[Kalyan K]

//Vidwan Sri Subramanian Ji has offered ample inputs on 'pracchanna-vaidikataa' of Bauddhas. You are not interested in following it up?//

As far as I know, Buddha openly rejected the vedas.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>we are bound to come to absurd conclusions like Shankara being prachchanna Vishnu.

reductio ad absurdum or argumentum ad absurdum is a method of reasoning/proof. The absurd conclusion proves the initial assumption that lead to it is false. 

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 1:58 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

One must note that all statements which treat Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu are post-Shankaran and even Ramanuja did not seem to be familiar with them. If we mix up the chronology, we are bound to come to absurd conclusions like Shankara being prachchanna Vishnu.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>all statements which treat Buddha as an incarnation of Vishnu are post-Shankaran and even Ramanuja did not seem to be familiar with them.

Ramanuja is post-Sankaran. He can not  'seem to be familiar with them'. 

tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte sammohāya sura-dviṣām ।

buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati ॥

— srimad-bhagavatam, 1.3.24

Ramanuja was familiar with Bhagavata Purana. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

//Vidwan Sri Subramanian Ji has offered ample inputs on 'pracchanna-vaidikataa' of Bauddhas. You are not interested in following it up?//

As far as I know, Buddha openly rejected the vedas.

S'ankara openly rejected Buddhism for that matter. But did that stop people from tracing tracing S'ankara's ideas to Buddhism?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//As far as I know, Bhaskara uses the word bauddha-matavalambin (see the image below, and also here) but not pracchanna-bauddha. I may be corrected.//

Thank you Nityanandji. I think this shows even Bhaskara thought that there are many similarities between buddhism and advaita.

If presence of many similarities between schools is enough reason to say that school X is pracchanna-y school, then we may end up saying that the Gaudia school is only pracchanna Ramanuja or Madhva school for all of them accept Vishnu to be supreme, accept an eternal Vishnu loka and reaching there for salvation, world is real, real distinction across jiva-s, etc. Vidwan Polagam Rama Sastry in his book 'chaturmatasāmarasyam' (published along with Appayya Dikshita's 'Chaturmatasarasangraha')  first lists 51 'general' similarities between the four schools: Advaita, Srikantha's Shiva vishsistadvaita, Ramanuja's and Madhva's schools. After that, between two schools, taken in a particular order, in this list also he goes on to list several similarities. 

regards

vs     

Regards
Kalyan

[Nagaraj Paturi]

prachhannavaidikataa of Buddhism refers to Vedic roots of certain Buddhist ideas and practices. 

There were/are descriptions of Buddhism as 'protestant Hinduism' , as a 'subset of Hinduism' etc. by a certain strand of western scholarship too. Alexander Wynne's 'the origin of Buddhist meditation' and other such works do trace at least certain aspects of Buddhism to Vedic culture or texts .

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Vidwan Sri Subramanian Ji has offered ample inputs on 'pracchanna-vaidikataa' of Bauddhas. You are not interested in following it up?//

As far as I know, Buddha openly rejected the vedas.

S'ankara openly rejected Buddhism for that matter.

Here is just one example for the above:

Brahmasutra bhashya 2.2.32:

किं बहुना ? सर्वप्रकारेण — यथा यथायं वैनाशिकसमय उपपत्तिमत्त्वाय परीक्ष्यते तथा तथा — सिकताकूपवद्विदीर्यत एव ; न काञ्चिदप्यत्रोपपत्तिंपश्यामः ; अतश्चानुपपन्नो वैनाशिकतन्त्रव्यवहारः । अपि च बाह्यार्थविज्ञानशून्यवादत्रयमितरेतरविरुद्धमुपदिशता सुगतेन स्पष्टीकृतमात्मनोऽसम्बद्धप्रलापित्वम् , प्रद्वेषो वा प्रजासु — विरुद्धार्थप्रतिपत्त्या विमुह्येयुरिमाः प्रजा इति । सर्वथाप्यनादरणीयोऽयं सुगतसमयःश्रेयस्कामैरित्यभिप्रायः ॥ ३२ ॥

[Nagaraj Paturi]

But the fact remains that Buddhism, Jainism and Vedic tradition (under the title of 'Hinduism') are classified together into one single group called 'Dharmic religions' by the scholars of Comparative Religion to distinguish them from say, Abrahamic or semitic religions. Dharmic religions have many other concepts apart from 'Dharma', such as jananamaraNachakra, kAlachakra etc. in common.

Continuities between among 'Dharmic' traditions in certain specific aspects is natural, already recognized and studied. Discontinuities among them too are bound to be there. It is the discontinuities which give distinct identities to each of them within the group.Subscribers to both sides do purvapaksha of the other side pointing out the discontinuities between them. The two way process of flow of ideas from Vedic to Buddhist and Jain and from Buddhist and Jain to Vedic is natural and not a fault on the part of either of the sides.

To use the fault lines for breaking India is a strategy being tried out nowadays.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalyan K]

//
S'ankara openly rejected Buddhism for that matter. //

Yes, but the real prachchanna bauddha, if any, would not be Shankara. It would be Gaudapada, who has a more accommodating view of the Buddhists. Shankara would be prachchanna bauddha only in the sense that he follows the same teachings as Gaudapada.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः ।

 

सर्वे धर्मा स्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद् बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ गौडपादकारिका 4-99

 

That Gaudapadacharya had to say, "नैतद् बुद्धेन भाषितम् " shows that wrongly taking certain notions of Advaita Vedanta as Buddhist ideas was there by the time of Gaudapadacharya himself and he had to clarify saying, 'this is where Advaita Vedanta stands out distinctly from Buddhist ideas.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalyan K]

//
There were/are descriptions of Buddhism as 'protestant Hinduism' , as a 'subset of Hinduism' etc. by a certain strand of western scholarship too. Alexander Wynne's 'the origin of Buddhist meditation' and other such works do trace at least certain aspects of Buddhism to Vedic culture or texts .//

Practices like yoga and meditation are most likely pre-vedic and can be seen in the Indus valley civilization. Further, the brAhmaNas and sramaNas had some common doctrines too.

[Kalyan K]

//
If presence of many similarities between schools is enough reason to say that school X is pracchanna-y school,//

Here, the question is whether the similarities are due to following a common set of scriptures or whether it is because of influence of one school over the other. For buddhism and advaita, the former is ruled out. Only the latter possibility remains.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Congratulations for being able to decipher the Indus Valley material and see Yoga and Meditation in that material. But those who would stick to scientific research are frank enough to say that most of the 'Indus Valley' material (that is now excavated beyond 'Indus Valley' in a vast part of India) is not yet deciphered and hence unintelligible. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Of course. How does it matter? Continuities among various strands of culture of India is the point. Influences or common sources or whatever, the two way give and take is the point. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Kalyan K]

I presume you are probably not aware of the pashupathi seal.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I am aware of the seal that is being given the name Pashupati and I am also aware thatis one amng many ways of viewing that seal. 

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:58 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

I presume you are probably not aware of the pashupathi seal.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jsr Prasad]

Further, the brAhmaNas and sramaNas had some common doctrines too.

Prince Bodhidharma from South India went to China and spread ancient Yoga in the form of martial arts - popularized the Shaolin temple of Kung-Fu. Buddhist monks learned martial arts to protect themselves from the dacoits and robbers. So, Kung-Fu etc., are pracchanna-Yoga forms..

[Kalyan K]

//
That Gaudapadacharya had to say, "नैतद् बुद्धेन भाषितम् " shows that wrongly taking certain notions of Advaita Vedanta as Buddhist ideas was there by the time of Gaudapadacharya himself and he had to clarify saying, 'this is where Advaita Vedanta stands out distinctly from Buddhist ideas.//

That he had to give such a clarification shows that he himself acknowledges the strong similarities between his doctrine and buddhism. He also openly salutes the Buddha, which is incorrectly taken as a salutation to Narayana, by Shankara.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Some people view the same seal this way too:

https://www.academia.edu/7548594/The_Proto-Shiva_seal_or_Pashupati_and_the_five_pranas_depicted_on_an_Indus_seal._An_Indus_Rosetta_stone_

[Nagaraj Paturi]

For those who take such similarities for granted and such salutations, if they exist, as a good culture of mutual respect, this information is not worrisome. Only for those who want to be blinded by the similarities and do not want to go beyond, the clarification  "नैतद् बुद्धेन भाषितम् " is an eye-opener. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jsr Prasad]

//If presence of many similarities between schools is enough reason to say that school X is pracchanna-y school,//

Here, the question is whether the similarities are due to following a common set of scriptures or whether it is because of influence of one school over the other. For buddhism and advaita, the former is ruled out. Only the latter possibility remains.

Prof. Mahesh Chandra Nyayaratna in his very brief and excellent work, 'Brief Notes on the Modern Nyaya System of Philosophy and its Technical Terms,' gives a nice example on paramparaa-sambandha as follows -

स्वसम्राडधिकृतराज्यत्वसम्बन्धेन भारतवर्षीयाः सर्व्वे एव आर्य्या अनार्य्याश्ट इंलण्डे सन्ति; इंलण्डीयाश्च तत्र स्थिता अपि स्वराज्येश्वरीसाम्राज्यसम्बन्धेन भारतवर्षे तिष्ठन्तीति ।

Is this possible in reality? Possible, only in logic. Once, respected Prof. Vineet Chiatanya Ji told us an example about the impropriety of logic:

All animals can fly

Elephant is animal

Therefore, elephant can fly!

Such things that you argue belongs to logical fallacies.

[Kalyan K]

Mr. Nagaraj

Just because you are the moderator, you should not be indulging in personal attacks like "being blind to so and so" against your opponents.

[Kalyan K]

You will have to re-write a lot of history to accept that theory.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Where did I say, 'being blind to .....' ? 

Where is the personal attack in whatever I said? 

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 4:16 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Nagaraj

Just because you are the moderator, you should not be indulging in personal attacks like "being blind to so and so" against your opponents.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Just because you are a list member , you should not be indulging in baseless allegations against a moderator. 

[V Subrahmanian]

Gaudapada's criticism of Buddhism in the 4th chapter of the Kārikā is comprehensive:

तस्मान्न जायते चित्तं चित्तदृश्यं न जायते । 
तस्य पश्यन्ति ये जातिं खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदम् ॥ २८ ॥

 भाष्यम्

 बाह्यार्थ

‘प्रज्ञप्तेः सनिमित्तत्वम्’ (मा. का. ४ । २५) इत्यादि एतदन्तं विज्ञानवादिनो बौद्धस्य वचनं बाह्यार्थवादिपक्षप्रतिषेधपरम् आचार्येणानुमोदितम् । तदेव हेतुं कृत्वा तत्पक्षप्रतिषेधाय तदिदमुच्यते — तस्मादित्यादि । यस्मादसत्येव घटादौ घटाद्याभासता चित्तस्य विज्ञानवादिना अभ्युपगता, तदनुमोदितमस्माभिरपि भूतदर्शनात् ; तस्मात्तस्यापि चित्तस्य जायमानावभासता असत्येव जन्मनि युक्ता भवितुमिति अतो न जायते चित्तम् । यथा चित्तदृश्यं न जायते अतस्तस्य चित्तस्य ये जातिं पश्यन्ति विज्ञानवादिनः क्षणिकत्वदुःखित्वशून्यत्वानात्मत्वादि च ; तेनैव चित्तेन चित्तस्वरूपं द्रष्टुमशक्यं पश्यन्तः खे वै पश्यन्ति ते पदं पक्ष्यादीनाम् । अत इतरेभ्योऽपि द्वैतिभ्योऽत्यन्तसाहसिका इत्यर्थः । येऽपि शून्यवादिनः पश्यन्त एव सर्वशून्यतां स्वदर्शनस्यापि शून्यतां प्रतिजानते, ते ततोऽपि साहसिकतराः खं मुष्टिनापि जिघृक्षन्ति ॥ 

He would not be saluting Buddha after criticizing him/his doctrine wholesale.  Those who have not studied the Karika and other works where Shankara offers salutation to Gaudapada and also hails him as 'sampradayavit Acharya' in his BSB make such comments.

[Dipak Bhattacharya]

I sent a message on Gaudapada but it did not go

DB

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:34 PM, Dipak Bhattacharya <dipak...@gmail.com> wrote:

I draw the attention of colleagues to a fundamental aspect of Gau·ap¡da’s doctrine as found in the Mu¸·akopaniÀad. The salient feature is the fourfold graded division of things. This first appeared in the Ch¡ndogya but then it became an obscure idea. The fourfold division is found later in the Maitr¢ and the M¡¸·£kya. There are reasons to believe that it was Maitreyan¡tha (Abhisamay¡laṅk¡rak¡rik¡) who revived the old doctrine in a Buddhist garb. The M¡¸·£kya which I believe to be a post-Vedic UpaniÀad of the fourth century took up the theory paving the way of its permeating the later Minor UpaniÀads.

I refer colleagues to the premier article in the Journal of Indian Philosophy, Vol. 6, 1978 Dordrecht, Holland.

The idealism of Gau·ap¡da is UpaniÀadic but some aspects like the fourfold division indicate possible Mahayana Buddhist influence.

Sorry for the long lecture

Best

DB

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

This message is eligible for Automatic Cleanup! (nagara...@gmail.com) Add cleanup rule | More info

The following post , since it digresses from the thread where it is posted, is being made into a new thread:

From: sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 
Bcc: 
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:57:55 -0700

Namaste,

The Vaishnavas like Shri Yaminacharya called both Shri Gaudapadacharya and Shri Adi Shankara as Pracchanna Buddha (conceale Buddha).. Gaudapadacharya appreciated the works of Nagarjuna and Nagarjuna never said that Buddism is nihilism. Lord Buddha had three promulgations, the first one given in Sarnath came to be known broadly as Hinayana (lesser vehicle), which directs the followers to practice virtuous conduct and dharma for their own good, while  the next one given a few decades later at the Vulture peak came to be known as Mahayana (bigger vehicle) and this told the ways by which one can not only benefit oneself but can also carry others alongwith.  The last one given later came to be known as Vajrayana, which was meant to help one to attain nirvana in this birth  itself.

Adi Shankara responded to the Sarvastivadins and others who deviated much from the Mahayana. That does not mean that Adi Shankara was against Mahayana. Both Gaudapdacharya and Adi Shankara understood the Mahayana teachings of Lord Buddha, and appear to have no real difference with Mahayana teachings. In  the Prajñāpāramitā-Hṛdaya Sūtra, Lord Buddha says that Sariputra (a bodhisattva) saw the emptiness in the five skandhas (five koshas) and In Advaita one becomes Videhamukta, when one leaves the five koshas. These five-koshas are given in the Upanishad and when one realizes Brahman, one is no longer confined to the five koshas. 

As regards the birthplace of Kumarila Bhatta (Bhattacharya), he was from the Goalpara district of Assam. His sister Bharati was married to Mandana Mishra.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sir, since you are not in the 'moderated' list, your messages are expected to reach the list directly without reaching the moderator's panel to be permitted. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Being blinded by' is an idiom. It means'being too overwhelmed by a certain observation to be able to see/understand anything beyond that. It is not a personal quality of an individual. It is a comment on the observation made as part of an argument. Comment made on the reasoning, reasoning method, observation as part of a discussion well within the norms of a discussion. 

Any reasoning by a participant in a discussion based on the personal attributes /features of the opponent or a negative comment on the personal attributes/features of the opponent is considered to be personal attack. I did not do anything that deserves to be called personal attack. 

Hence your statement that I made3 a personal attack is a baseless allegation.

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 7:19 PM, Kalyan <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Look at what you said. Yeah you didn't say "being blind to..." but you said "being blinded by ....". If this is not a personal attack against me, I dont know what is. And you remove me from the group after attacking me personally!

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/kZikXaymSIw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sir, if you have the message in your sent mail folder, please send it to the list again simultaneously copying it to me. I will post it in your behalf if it does not go through this time. 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Your statement is faulty. Buddha rejected the Karma kanda (the Samhita and Brahmanas of Veda ) and not the Jnanakanda (the Aranyaka anf the Upanishads of the Vedas).

Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 1:19 AM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Vidwan Sri Subramanian Ji has offered ample inputs on 'pracchanna-vaidikataa' of Bauddhas. You are not interested in following it up?//

As far as I know, Buddha openly rejected the vedas.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

The moderators do have privilege and they too are human beings. Rremeber the adage "To err is human"  So please do not point out such things. Moderation is going to stay and even if it appears to be arbitrary to one, one has to accept it. What else can one do?

Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 3:46 AM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Nagaraj

Just because you are the moderator, you should not be indulging in personal attacks like "being blind to so and so" against your opponents.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Please read Buddha's Dharmapada (Dhammpada) and then reply. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 12:53 AM, Jsr Prasad <jsrap...@gmail.com> wrote:

Your comment is not in good taste. You did not show where Swamiji has faltered in interpreting Buddha for Sugata. When you allege on scholar of such a stature, you might have studied his Dhammapada Kannda translation, right? You are welcome to present your views to the scholars.

With a little knowledge in the subject, I can't add more to the discussion; but would like to say the following:

Is Tathaagata Buddha same as Sugata?

Yes, Viveka Vilasa text says -

बौद्धानां सुगतो देवो विश्वं च क्षणभङ्गुरम् ।
आर्य्यसत्त्वाख्यया तत्त्वचतुष्टयमिदं क्रमात् ।।१।।

"There are four first principles recognized as articles of faith by the Buddhists, viz.:-. Sugatadeva, otherwise known as Buddha, is the Lord worthy of homage."

Further, the followers of बुद्ध, are called बौद्ध and the followers of सुगत are called सौगत, grammatically with a Taddhita affixation. If Buddha is not Sugata, then do you believe, there are two proponents of Buddhist philosophy? If so, I would appreciate if you can remove the confusion created by Buddhist scholar Amarasimha in his Amarakosha  -

सर्वज्ञस्सुगतो बुद्धो धर्मराजस्तथागतः... etc.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 11:37 PM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

If so, how can he think Tathagata Buddha as Sugata ? He must have mistranslated Dhammapada, on this point.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 9:23 AM, K S Kannan <ks.kann...@gmail.com> wrote:

Just for information.

Swami Sachchidanandendra Sarasvati has translated Dhammapada into Kannada.

So he must have read the book.

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:26 AM, sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaste,

First and foremos,t one should not equate Sugata with Tathagata Buddha. Lord Buddha himself in his Dhammapada calls the monks as Sugata. May be the late respected Satchidananda saraswatiji  did not read the Dhammapada to notice this definition of Sugata.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Gaudapada was accomodative to Mahayana, while Shankara's dispute was with the other sects of Buddhism. One has to know the difference between the sects of Buddhism before discussing Gaudapada ansd Adi Shankara's  leanings or otherwise towards Buddhism.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Where did Buddha say that he was promulgating a new religion? Nowhere.  To my knowledge Buddha was asking the brahmins of his time  to give prominence to the essence of the Vedas (or. the Jnanakanda i.e., the Arnatyakas and Upanishads). He was not against the Yajnas but was certainly against the animal sacrifice in Yajnas) and this irritated the brahmin-priests, while many other brahmins accepted him well. The mahayanis are the brahmin followers of Buddha.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Adi Shankara accepted only agamapramana.

Virus-free. www.avast.com

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The adage suits when moderators err. Moderators did not err. It does not mean they don't. In this case, they didn't. 

But thanks for trying to spread understanding. 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sir, 

Statements like "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." may boomerang very quickly because you are responding to a Sanskrit scholar with sound training in Shastras with a 'little knowledge' in those aspects from your side. 

[Jsr Prasad]

Sunil Ji,

I wonder, why you did not say anything on the ‘full knowledge’ of Swamiji. On one hand you say “As regards Shri Satchidananda Saraswati (SSS) he was a very learned person and I have great regards for him…” and on the other hand, you seriously doubt his learning on utopian grounds. What a paradox Ji! Should I repeat from my previous post - <You did not show where Swamiji has faltered in interpreting Buddha for Sugata.>

I did not have read the Dha(r)mmapada text, but revered Swamiji must have read it. Prof. Kannan Ji has expressed the same, initially. When you don’t use a common sense on commenting upon a holy and departed soul, what is the fun in considering your suggestion?

Don’t give free advises on anyone's little knowledge, as I am still waiting to see your response on the quotations from Viveka Vilasa and Amarakosha?

--

J.S.R. Anjaneya Prasad,
Associate Professor, Dept. of Sanskrit Studies,
School of Humanities, University of Hyderabad,
Prof. C.R. Rao Road, Hyderabad - 500 046
Tel: +91-40-2313 3803

।। पुरुषोऽयं लोकसम्मितः ।।

[Jsr Prasad]

Sri Sunil Ji's understanding is apparently a vyaaja-stuti!

[Kalyan]

Buddha did not accept the Atman/brahman of the upanishads.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/kZikXaymSIw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

There are many scholars who may know a lot of Sanskrit, and that  does not mean that they know everything in the world. I was referring to Sugata, which Lord Buddha himself mentioned in  Dhammapada. So reading the Dhammapada should be the first thing before opening mouth. That is my stand. The jains call even Lord mahavira as Sugata. Jacobi has written how the word Sugata has been used.

[Jsr Prasad]

My post was an analogy with regard to ongoing postulations. Neither did I say Adi Sankara has accepted anumaana nor did I say, he rejected aagama-pramaaNa.

[Kalyan]

//Gaudapada's criticism of Buddhism in the 4th chapter of the Kārikā is comprehensive://

Comprehensive? Thats hardly the case. In fact Shankara himself practically accepts in GK 4.99 that Buddhism and advaita are very close doctrines in the context of naitad buddhena bhAshitam.

You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/kZikXaymSIw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

When I say you are responding to a Sanskrit scholar with sound training in Shastras, I am referring to Prof. JSR Prasad. Your future messages with expressions like 'before opening mouth' towards such venerable scholars shall be rejected. 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Thank you for the warning. Contesting a moderator is a dangerous thing. I am already in the moderated list and as usual many of my mails may not pass through the moderator's scanners. If the worse come to the worst, I may have to unsubscribe from the forum.

Regards,

skb

On Sat, Apr 29, 2017 at 11:00 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Yes, that option is always there for you. I agree. 

[Kalyan]

Here is the relevant Shankara bhAshya

ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न बुद्धेन भाषितम् । यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥

Regards

Kalyan

[Jsr Prasad]

There are many scholars who may know a lot of Sanskrit, and that  does not mean that they know everything in the world.

Perfectly fine, नहि सर्वः सर्वं जानाति ।

समुद्रवद्व्याकरणंं महेश्वरे तदर्धकम्भोद्धरणं बृहस्पतौ ।

तद्भागभागाच्च शतं पुरन्दरे कुशाग्रबिन्दूत्पतितं हि पाणिनौ ।।

Regards

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Read the Tevijja sutta, where Lord Buddha did mention "Brahman". If you want to know more on Atman in Buddhism please read books like

"The Atman-Brahman in Ancient Buddhism" by kamaleshwara Bhattacharya

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Prasadji,

Before writing the email, which  I was responding to, you yourself were apologetically mentioned that with your little of knowledge . . . . etc. and then you went on to write authoritatively on "sugata". Your reply was not the right one. so it appeared to me that you have not read the Dharmapada. Amarakosha written in the first century BCE wrote "सर्वज्ञः सुगतो बुद्धो धर्मराजस्ततथागतः (sarvajnaH, sugataH, buddhaH"  dhamarajaH, tathAgataH), but I was referring to the  Dhammapada of Tathgata Buddha  of the 19th century BCE. One cannot overule the meaning of  Sugata definition given in the Buddhist canonial text of the 19th century BCE by quoting a later day text. Further, by the time of Amarakosha eveo Lord Mahavira was born and the word Sugata has been used by the Jains too.

Shri Subrahmanianji sent an on Shri Satchidananda Saraswatiji (SSS) and that mentioned Sugata and responding to that I wrote that SSS might not have read the Dhammapada.  Had you read that attachment ypu would have known what I was referring to.

Don't try to be apologetic if you think that you are knowall, as you are now trying to say.

[Kalyan K]

Sri Prasadji

I have no personal interest in this debate on the meaning of the word sugata. But out of curiosity, I checked some Sanskrit diictionaries online. Apparently, the word sugata can mean a buddhist or a buddhist teacher or buddha himself. The Monier-Williams dictionary gives references for the former two meanings, which anyone is welcome to verify.

Regards
Kalyan

[Gitarthi - Sunil K.Bhattacharjya]

Yes, In that case  I can be one among those who stopped writing to BVP.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Enough of your fancy theories of 19th century BCE and so on which you have been repeating without providing evidences sought by the members. 

I allowed this post just to show to the group your impolite expressions towards scholars such as :

"Don't try to be apologetic if you think that you are knowall, as you are now trying to say."

No further post from you shall be allowed in the list. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Yes, you can be one among those. The choice is of exercising that option is from both sides. 

If many lists and different moderators of the same list are facing the same difficulty with you the fault does not lie with the lists or moderators. 

We now exercise that option from our side. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[V Subrahmanian]

2017-04-30 0:02 GMT+05:30 Kalyan <pk.k...@gmail.com>:

Here is the relevant Shankara bhAshya

ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न बुद्धेन भाषितम् । यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥

Regards

Kalyan

On Saturday, April 29, 2017, Kalyan <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Gaudapada's criticism of Buddhism in the 4th chapter of the Kārikā is comprehensive://

Comprehensive? Thats hardly the case. In fact Shankara himself practically accepts in GK 4.99 that Buddhism and advaita are very close doctrines in the context of naitad buddhena bhAshitam.

The above conclusion is not supported by that bhashya. Contrary to what you think, Shankara is actually highlighting Buddha's failure to uphold the Reality of the Vedantic Brahman. Buddha's negating/denying the world is not the sufficient condition for satisfying Shankara the Brahmavādin's aim. In fact holding the jagat mithyā is only incidental for Shankara, for he has said clearly:

Karika 1.17 bhashya:

प्रपञ्चनिवृत्त्या चेत्प्रतिबुध्यते, अनिवृत्ते प्रपञ्चे कथमद्वैतमिति, उच्यते । सत्यमेवं स्यात्प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत ; रज्ज्वां सर्प इव कल्पितत्वान्न तु स विद्यते । विद्यमानश्चेत् निवर्तेत, न संशयः । न हि रज्ज्वां भ्रान्तिबुद्ध्या कल्पितः सर्पो विद्यमानः सन्विवेकतो निवृत्तः ; न च माया मायाविना प्रयुक्ता तद्दर्शिनां चक्षुर्बन्धापगमे विद्यमाना सती निवृत्ता ; तथेदं प्रपञ्चाख्यं मायामात्रं द्वैतम् ; रज्जुवन्मायाविवच्च अद्वैतं परमार्थतः ; तस्मान्न कश्चित्प्रपञ्चः प्रवृत्तो निवृत्तो वास्तीत्यभिप्रायः ॥

Gist: it is not the world that really existed that has been negated; there is no world that existed first of all to get negated (by the use of shruti).  Thus the buddhist's negating the world does not make him any significantly close to advaita.  The purpose of negating the world is to uphold the Vedantic Advaitic Brahman. When this very purpose is not satisfied by the buddhist, his negating the world is of not any use. That is the idea conveyed by the 4.99 bhashya.  

Shankara labels the buddhist 'sarva-vaināśika' (as opposed to the vaiśeṣika who is 'ardha-vaināśika) and goes on to show how the buddhist doctrine is unvedāntic and therefore to be shunned:

BSB 2.2.18

वैशेषिकराद्धान्तो दुर्युक्तियोगाद्वेदविरोधाच्छिष्टापरिग्रहाच्च नापेक्षितव्य इत्युक्तम् ; सोऽर्धवैनाशिक इति वैनाशिकत्वसाम्यात्सर्ववैनाशिकराद्धान्तो नतरामपेक्षितव्य इतीदमिदानीमुपपादयामः ।

Shankara's alluding to the buddhist's negating the world is only in the well-known spirit of 'परमतमप्रतिषिद्धम् अनुमतं भवति’ - what is non-contradictory in the opponent's school is admissible to the siddhāntin. There are numerous examples for this in Shankara's bhashya:

BSB 1.1.4

 ‘त्वं हि नः पिता योऽस्माकमविद्यायाः परं पारं तारयसि’ (प्र. उ. ६ । ८) ‘श्रुतं ह्येव मे भगवद्दृशेभ्यस्तरति शोकमात्मविदिति ; सोऽहं भगवः शोचामि, तं मा भगवाञ्छोकस्य पारं तारयतु’ (छा. उ. ७ । १ । ३) ‘तस्मै मृदितकषायाय तमसः पारं दर्शयति भगवान्सनत्कुमारः’ (छा. उ. ७ । २६ । २) इति चैवमाद्याः श्रुतयो मोक्षप्रतिबन्धनिवृत्तिमात्रमेवात्मज्ञानस्य फलं दर्शयन्ति । तथा च आचार्यप्रणीतं न्यायोपबृंहितं सूत्रम् — ‘दुःखजन्मप्रवृत्तिदोषमिथ्याज्ञानानामुत्तरोत्तरापाये तदनन्तरापायादपवर्गः’ (न्या. सू. १ । १ । २) इति । मिथ्याज्ञानापायश्च ब्रह्मात्मैकत्वविज्ञानाद्भवति ।

He cites a Nyayasutra which holds that the root cause of samsara is mithyajnana and refers to the nyayasutrakāra as 'āchārya'.  By this much it would be incorrect to conclude that Shankara (1) holds the nyayadarshana as close to vedanta (2) Shankara is pracchanna naiyāyika.

In the BGB Shankara openly appreciates the Sankhyadarshana for its being adept in classifying the prakriti into various categories. That does not make that darshana close to Shankara or make him pracchanna sānkhya. In fact for Shankara, the sankhya is pradhāna malla, the foremost opponent.

Shankara has similarly appreciated the vaisheshika too for their 24-tattva categorisation in the Gitabhashya.  Shankara has alluded to the Yoga sutras too in the bhashyas. He has even said, referring to the Buddhist's idea of the ephemerality of sense objects, 'who would refute that?'  All these do not make those darshana-s any closer to Vedanta.   Here is just one example of where Shankara makes a comprehensive refutation of buddhism:  BSB 2.2.32

 अपि च बाह्यार्थविज्ञानशून्यवादत्रयमितरेतरविरुद्धमुपदिशता सुगतेन स्पष्टीकृतमात्मनोऽसम्बद्धप्रलापित्वम् , प्रद्वेषो वा प्रजासु — विरुद्धार्थप्रतिपत्त्या विमुह्येयुरिमाः प्रजा इति । सर्वथाप्यनादरणीयोऽयं सुगतसमयःश्रेयस्कामैरित्यभिप्रायः ॥ ३२ ॥   

He says above: the buddhist by his self-contradictory schools of bāhyārtha vāda, vijnāna vāda and shunya vāda is out to delude the people out of hatred to them. By no means is this system to be followed by mumukshus. It is this alone, in other words, that Shankara states in the commentary to the Karika 4.28:

 अपि च बाह्यार्थविज्ञानशून्यवादत्रयमितरेतरविरुद्धमुपदिशता सुगतेन स्पष्टीकृतमात्मनोऽसम्बद्धप्रलापित्वम् , प्रद्वेषो वा प्रजासु — विरुद्धार्थप्रतिपत्त्या विमुह्येयुरिमाः प्रजा इति । सर्वथाप्यनादरणीयोऽयं सुगतसमयःश्रेयस्कामैरित्यभिप्रायः ॥ ३२ ॥

All said and done, for Shankara, even the Bauddha is a dvaitin: Karika bhashya 3.17:

कथम् ? स्वसिद्धान्तव्यवस्थासु स्वसिद्धान्तरचनानियमेषु कपिलकणादबुद्धार्हतादिदृष्ट्यनुसारिणो द्वैतिनो निश्चिताः,

Thus, there is no way either Gaudapada or Shankara would be totally appreciative of  or devoted to the Buddha or his doctrine. What Shankara is saying in the 4.99 bhashya is akin to saying 'trying to hit on the nail-head he just missed and ended up hitting the thumb.'  This analogy brings out the 'sarvavaināśika' epithet. So, failing to uphold the eternal Atman of the Vedanta and explicitly upholding the shunya is what is meant by Shankara's comment. Merely negating the world naturally ends in a void in a non-Vedantic scenario.  Both the commentators to the above bhashya have denied any 'closeness' of the buddhist to the vedantin. 

 

 

[Kalyan]

The key word here is अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् by which Shankara admits that buddhism comes close to non-dualism. He does not say this for any other doctrines like samkhya, yoga or nyaya though he might have accepted some aspects of them.

To give an analogy, there are lot of similarities between human beings. Everyone has 2 hands, 2 legs etc. But there are lot more similarities between siblings or twins. Buddhism and advaita are siblings in this analogy.

On Sunday, April 30, 2017, Kalyan <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Firstly, I want to say that there is no point in quoting the sUtra bhAshya or gItA bhashya because it is Gaudapada that is under the scanner. So I am ignoring the quotations from these sources.

Secondly, the question is - are buddhism and advaita closely allied doctrines? To this, we dont need to work based on conjecture because Shankara himself has given the answer -

ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न बुद्धेन भाषितम् । यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda -

"That the nature of the supreme reality is free from differences of knowledge, known and knower and is without a second...this fact was not expressed by Buddha, though, a near approach to non-dualism was implied in his negation of outer objects and his imagination of everything as mere consciousness. But the non-duality, the essence of the ultimate reality, is to be known from the upanishads only. This is the purport."

Therefore we dont need to rely on conjecture when we have Shankara openly admitting that Buddhism is close to advaita.

In fact, I would say that if you add upanishadic Atman to mahayana buddhism, you get Gaudapada's advaita.

--

[Kalyan]

Firstly, I want to say that there is no point in quoting the sUtra bhAshya or gItA bhashya because it is Gaudapada that is under the scanner. So I am ignoring the quotations from these sources.

Secondly, the question is - are buddhism and advaita closely allied doctrines? To this, we dont need to work based on conjecture because Shankara himself has given the answer -

ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न बुद्धेन भाषितम् । यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda -

"That the nature of the supreme reality is free from differences of knowledge, known and knower and is without a second...this fact was not expressed by Buddha, though, a near approach to non-dualism was implied in his negation of outer objects and his imagination of everything as mere consciousness. But the non-duality, the essence of the ultimate reality, is to be known from the upanishads only. This is the purport."

Therefore we dont need to rely on conjecture when we have Shankara openly admitting that Buddhism is close to advaita.

In fact, I would say that if you add upanishadic Atman to mahayana buddhism, you get Gaudapada's advaita.

--

[gobind medini]

// स्वप्रकाशमानन्दघनं शून्यमभवत् इति श्रुतिः//

Which shruti is this? 

Svaprakashatvam is not an attribute of Brahman. It only suggests that Brahman imparts "existence and meaning" (prakAsh) to the world objects without undergoing any change in Itself or without any action on its part. It is a negation of darkness (jaDatva). Even "sat, chit, Ananda", the so called characteristics of the Brahman are essentially words which need to be dropped after they serve the purpose of negating non-existence, non-sentience etc.. Brahman is via negativa, neti neti and any positive attributes or words like nitya, shuddha, buddha,mukta ets which we may occasionally use to describe Brahman are nothing but negation of their opposites. We cannot differentiate Brahman from Shunya because both are via negativa.. totally attribute-less. the real description of Brahman is silence (bAdhva-bAShkali dialogue vide BS 3.2.17) of brahmasUtra)

This fact is prominently highlighted in Advaita's ajAti-vAda (akin to ajAta-vAda of mAdhyamaka): "There is no birth, no death, no bondage, no spiritual aspirant, no Seeker, and no one liberated. This is the ultimate Truth." (Cf. vivekachUDAmaNi, amRRitbindu upaniShad etc.). Thus, both mAdhyamaka and Advaita vedAnta converge on the similar end position.

gobind

On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

The following post , since it digresses from the thread where it is posted, is being made into a new thread:

From: sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: 
Bcc: 
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 10:57:55 -0700

Namaste,

The Vaishnavas like Shri Yaminacharya called both Shri Gaudapadacharya and Shri Adi Shankara as Pracchanna Buddha (conceale Buddha).. Gaudapadacharya appreciated the works of Nagarjuna and Nagarjuna never said that Buddism is nihilism. Lord Buddha had three promulgations, the first one given in Sarnath came to be known broadly as Hinayana (lesser vehicle), which directs the followers to practice virtuous conduct and dharma for their own good, while  the next one given a few decades later at the Vulture peak came to be known as Mahayana (bigger vehicle) and this told the ways by which one can not only benefit oneself but can also carry others alongwith.  The last one given later came to be known as Vajrayana, which was meant to help one to attain nirvana in this birth  itself.

Adi Shankara responded to the Sarvastivadins and others who deviated much from the Mahayana. That does not mean that Adi Shankara was against Mahayana. Both Gaudapdacharya and Adi Shankara understood the Mahayana teachings of Lord Buddha, and appear to have no real difference with Mahayana teachings. In  the Prajñāpāramitā-Hṛdaya Sūtra, Lord Buddha says that Sariputra (a bodhisattva) saw the emptiness in the five skandhas (five koshas) and In Advaita one becomes Videhamukta, when one leaves the five koshas. These five-koshas are given in the Upanishad and when one realizes Brahman, one is no longer confined to the five koshas. 

As regards the birthplace of Kumarila Bhatta (Bhattacharya), he was from the Goalpara district of Assam. His sister Bharati was married to Mandana Mishra.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Kalyan]

Of course, what Shankara does not realize is that it is not mahayana buddhism that has come close to advaita, but the other way round. Advaita has gone close to mahayana buddhism. Advaitins refute everything except Atman. Buddhists go one step further and refute the Atman also. In that sense, Buddhists are one step ahead of advaitins.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

​

2017-04-30 13:17 GMT+05:30 Kalyan <pk.k...@gmail.com>:

To give an analogy, there are lot of similarities between human beings. Everyone has 2 hands, 2 legs etc. But there are lot more similarities between siblings or twins. Buddhism and advaita are siblings in this analogy.

This is like calling vandhyAputra and an existent Devadatta as siblings or twins! Moreover, just because Advaita rejects everything other than Atman based on Shruti, and Buddhism rejects everything including Atman, based on nothing, it doesn't mean that Buddhism is "ahead" of Advaita Vedanta. This is like saying that since dvaitins assert everything as real, if someone goes on to say that vandhyAputra is also real, then that person would be ahead of dvaitins.

I couldn't find the exact mail in this thread since I read through them all only today, where someone said that Buddhism and Advaita have only one difference, the former rejects Atman while the latter accepts it. This is like saying that an equation that tends to zero is equal to an equation that tends to infinity!

​

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

​

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Kalyan <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course, what Shankara does not realize is that it is not mahayana buddhism that has come close to advaita, but the other way round. Advaita has gone close to mahayana buddhism.

For Shankara, Buddhism, as purvapaksha, is received from tradition, starting from Veda Vyasa and Gaudapada, Kumarila bhatta, and the Acharyas whom he salutes in his bhashyas. So the right way to view any non-vedantic school is with Vedanta as the reference point. Shankara does not subscribe to your asampradayic views, which he has asked one to reject as something with no content worth consideration. 

     

Advaitins refute everything except Atman. Buddhists go one step further and refute the Atman also. In that sense, Buddhists are one step ahead of advaitins.

For Vedantins the illogicality and impossibility of rejecting the Atman is quite apparent.  One need not go further to see who is ahead of whom. 

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 3:28 PM, gobind medini <gome...@gmail.com> wrote:

This fact is prominently highlighted in Advaita's ajAti-vAda (akin to ajAta-vAda of mAdhyamaka): "There is no birth, no death, no bondage, no spiritual aspirant, no Seeker, and no one liberated. This is the ultimate Truth." (Cf. vivekachUDAmaNi, amRRitbindu upaniShad etc.). Thus, both mAdhyamaka and Advaita vedAnta converge on the similar end position.

Neither Vedantins nor the buddhists accept the above position. The verse you cite has Brahman at the base of all those negations. 

[V Subrahmanian]

2017-04-30 13:00 GMT+05:30 Kalyan <pk.k...@gmail.com>:

Firstly, I want to say that there is no point in quoting the sUtra bhAshya or gItA bhashya because it is Gaudapada that is under the scanner. So I am ignoring the quotations from these sources.

Firstly I want to say that there is no point in ignoring the BSB and the BGB because the method of Shankara's vedanta is: ekavākyatā. He takes the global view and not any localized view. That is why he has cited Gaudapada in the BSB. So, if you ignore the other passages of Shankara, you are clearly working on conjecture giving up pramana. 

Secondly, the question is - are buddhism and advaita closely allied doctrines? To this, we dont need to work based on conjecture because Shankara himself has given the answer -

ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न बुद्धेन भाषितम् । यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda -

"That the nature of the supreme reality is free from differences of knowledge, known and knower and is without a second...this fact was not expressed by Buddha, though, a near approach to non-dualism was implied in his negation of outer objects and his imagination of everything as mere consciousness. But the non-duality, the essence of the ultimate reality, is to be known from the upanishads only. This is the purport."

Therefore we dont need to rely on conjecture when we have Shankara openly admitting that Buddhism is close to advaita.

Traditional Advaitins rely on traditional commentaries and not on translations. If you find the latter reliable, you are so much less towards the truth.  

In fact, I would say that if you add upanishadic Atman to mahayana buddhism, you get Gaudapada's advaita.

Those who are not trained in the proper sampradaya end up with such cocktails. Shankara calls them 'mūrkhavadupekshaniyaḥ. 

[V Subrahmanian]

2017-04-30 13:17 GMT+05:30 Kalyan <pk.k...@gmail.com>:

The key word here is अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् by which Shankara admits that buddhism comes close to non-dualism. He does not say this for any other doctrines like samkhya, yoga or nyaya though he might have accepted some aspects of them.

Since you have ignored the other passages of Shankara with which alone the above is to be read, you fail to grasp the import, tātparya, of that statement.  

To give an analogy, there are lot of similarities between human beings. Everyone has 2 hands, 2 legs etc. But there are lot more similarities between siblings or twins. Buddhism and advaita are siblings in this analogy.

That only proves that Buddhism has evolved from the Upanishads but abandoned the source. Siblings are known to have a common parentage.  

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

2017-04-30 13:00 GMT+05:30 Kalyan <pk.k...@gmail.com>:

ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न बुद्धेन भाषितम् । यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥

Translation by Swami Gambhirananda -

"That the nature of the supreme reality is free from differences of knowledge, known and knower and is without a second...this fact was not expressed by Buddha, though, a near approach to non-dualism was implied in his negation of outer objects and his imagination of everything as mere consciousness. But the non-duality, the essence of the ultimate reality, is to be known from the upanishads only. This is the purport."

​Near approach to non-dualism doesn't not mean same as non-dualism. The last sentence of even the translation rejects it. "To be known from the Upanishads​ only" means that otherwise it cannot be known. This is confirmed by the Tikakara so: सकलभेदविकलं परिपूर्णमनादिनिधनं ज्ञप्तिमात्रमुपनिषदेकसमधिगम्यं तत्त्वमिह प्रतिपाद्यते। *मतान्तरे तु नैवमिति* कुतो मतसाङ्कर्याशङ्का *अवकाशमसादयेदित्यर्थः*।

 

 

In fact, I would say that if you add upanishadic Atman to mahayana buddhism, you get Gaudapada's advaita.

​​First, by saying this you seem to have accepted that Upanishadic Atman is Advaita Atman. Then, to the specific kind of jump you make in equating, I too could jump and ​say that since "Upanishadic Atman" is Advaita Atman, you add it to anything and you will get Advaita. Its not really an argument, is it!​

गुरुपादुकाभ्याम्।

प्रवीणभट्टः।

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Sorry, making a correction in typo: ​Please read "Near approach to non-dualism doesn't not mean same as non-dualism" as "​Near approach to non-dualism doesn't mean same as non-dualism".

[gobind medini]

Why do you say so? Here, Brahman is not the base, this position is Brahman itself! This is brahma-vAda or ajAti-vAda of Advaita which is no different than ajAta-vAda of mAdhyamaka though they start from different positions. In fact for Advaita this is the ultimate truth as well as article of faith while mAdhyamaka reaches this truth from pratItyasamutpAda.  

(By the way, when the Bindu Upanishads as well as viveka-chUDAmaNi talks about this narrative they are not talking about brahman as a "base").

..and pray, why this position of ajAtivAda is not acceptable to mAdhyamaka? In fact its earliest articulation appears in mUlamAdhyamakakArikA of nAgarjuna in the first or second century AD resulting in the absolutist position of uttata-tantra (ratnagotravibhAga), lankAvatAra sUtra and bhAvaviveka probably before gauDpAda's time and and hence most probably before Shankara (8th century AD). 

Incidentally, when you say, ajAti vAda is not acceptable to Buddhists, I hope you are making this statement after reading all these mahAyAna texts. 

g

[V Subrahmanian]

Dear Sri Gobind ji,

My comment was only about your concluding statement and not about the other things:

//Thus, both mAdhyamaka and Advaita vedAnta converge on the similar end position.//

regards

vs

[gobind medini]

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 6:01 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Apr 30, 2017 at 1:40 PM, Kalyan <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Of course, what Shankara does not realize is that it is not mahayana buddhism that has come close to advaita, but the other way round. Advaita has gone close to mahayana buddhism.

For Shankara, Buddhism, as purvapaksha, is received from tradition, starting from Veda Vyasa and Gaudapada, Kumarila bhatta, and the Acharyas whom he salutes in his bhashyas. So the right way to view any non-vedantic school is with Vedanta as the reference point. Shankara does not subscribe to your asampradayic views, which he has asked one to reject as something with no content worth consideration. 

This is the most problematic position which orthodox Advaitins take. Tradition is no guarantee for correctness. This fact has been accepted by muNDaka upaniShad (1.2.8), kaTha upaniShad (1.2.5) as well as in Canki Sutta of Madhyama Nikaya (MN 95). Interestingly all these use the analogy of "blind leading the blind". In fact muNDaka call such stanch ritualists-traditionalists as mahAmUDha. We can view upaniShad-s themselves in that sense a break from certain parts of Vedic traditions. So there is no need to deprecate Buddhism as abandoning the tradition. Buddhists do not accept Vedas as the authority because (a) the possibility of "blind leading the blind" greatly exists in any long, unbroken, unreformed tradition, (2) they do not accept apauruSheyatva of any texts, (3) they do not accept animal sacrifices. Even sAnkhya, the Astika (vaidika) tradition calls Vedas avishuddha (not very pure) for this reason though they consider Vedas as Apta. This is quite a rational position which is not acceptable to any of the AchAryas of vedAnta (whether advaita, v.advaita, bhedAbheda, or dvaita vedAnta. So be it, but most of contemporary Hindus are quite comfortable with the position of sAnkhya where vedas are Apta-vAkya but there authority is not unlimited.

 

     

Advaitins refute everything except Atman. Buddhists go one step further and refute the Atman also. In that sense, Buddhists are one step ahead of advaitins.

For Vedantins the illogicality and impossibility of rejecting the Atman is quite apparent.  One need not go further to see who is ahead of whom. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> Tradition is no guarantee for correctness

-- The word 'correct' or the argument 'traditional hence correct' is not there in Sri V Subrahmanyaji's post.