Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The theory of two truths in India

[shivraj singh]

Any system which believes in moksha and rebirth tied to karmic concepts how can it distinguish between soul/atman/"breath of life" and God?

The article below that you linked also has no quotation that attributes two truths explicitly to Buddh himself.

Later interpreters then becomes a case of experts colliding with each other and how seriously one takes them is matter of personal preference.

Regards,
Shivraj

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 5/26/18, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The theory of two truths in India
To: "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Saturday, May 26, 2018, 9:15 AM

Here is a very informative article on the
theory of two truths in India-


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-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.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:55 AM, 'shivraj singh' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

Any system which believes in moksha and rebirth tied to karmic concepts how can it distinguish between soul/atman/"breath of life" and God?

The article below that you linked also has no quotation that attributes two truths explicitly to Buddh himself.

Later interpreters then becomes a case of experts colliding with each other and how seriously one takes them is matter of personal preference.

Very correctly stated, Sri Shivraj, one cannot agree more.  Actually those who propounded the 'borrowed from Buddhism' theory are non-Vedantins who have no in depth study of the Vedanta. They are those who believe that Upanishads/Vedas are composed over a period of time and hence have the 'old-later Upanishads' idea. This is inimical to the vaidikas.  Hence, the asampradayavit idea is to be rejected as that of a murkha.

The method, unscientific at that, they have adopted is: compare if the 'vyavaharika-paramarthika' idea is contained in post-Shankara non-advaitic commentaries and conclude on the    'borrowed from Buddhism'  theory.  

Shankara cites (at the end of the 4th Brahmasutra bhashya) three verses from a purvacharya whom later researchers have identified as a Sundara Pandya. Not much is known about this author except that he has also written something on purva mimamsa.  

अपि चाहुः — ‘गौणमिथ्यात्मनोऽसत्त्वे पुत्रदेहादिबाधनात् । सद्ब्रह्मात्माहमित्येवं बोधे कार्यं कथं भवेत् ॥ अन्वेष्टव्यात्मविज्ञानात्प्राक्प्रमातृत्वमात्मनः । अन्विष्टः स्यात्प्रमातैव पाप्मदोषादिवर्जितः ॥ देहात्मप्रत्ययो यद्वत्प्रमाणत्वेन कल्पितः । लौकिकं तद्वदेवेदं प्रमाणं त्वाऽऽत्मनिश्चयात्’ इति ॥ ४ ॥ [The last highlighted portion means: the vyavaharika is pramana till such time Atman-knowledge arises.]

Actually these verses contain the vyavaharika-paramarthika and Shankara does not appeal to any Buddhist work for this but a purvacharya, a Vedantin. This is evident by the use of the word Sat Brahma and the verses clearly brings out the Vedantic Aham Brahma realization. 

The idea of  'borrowed from Buddhism' will not sustainable, as it has been thus far, until and unless a pre-Buddhist and pre-Nagarjuna non-advaitic Upanishad bhashya is examined for this idea. This is the only scientific method of arriving at the truth of such a theory. Anything other than this method will be only specuIation. In fact the Nagarjuna factor is also not sustainable since there are Shankara MaTha-s who hold a  BCE date for Shankara. Surely they do not hold the Upanishad bhashyas are post-Nagarjuna. So, the Nagarjuna factor is a weak plea altogether.

 Here are some observations of various people:

// In Madhyamaka the two truths are two epistemological truths: two different ways to look at reality. //   This is not so in Advaita. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta#Criterion_of_Sublation

// Scholarship after 1950 suggests that almost all Sannyasa Upanishads have a strong Advaita Vedanta outlook.^{[269][270][271]} Six of these Sannyasa Upanishads – Aruni, Kundika, Kathashruti, Paramahamsa, Jabala and Brahma – were composed before the 3rd-century CE, likely in the centuries before or after the start of the common era, states Sprockhoff; the Asrama Upanishad is dated to the 3rd-century.^[272][273]

The strong Advaita Vedanta views in these ancient texts may be, states Patrick Olivelle, because major Hindu monasteries of this period (early 1st millennium CE) belonged to the Advaita Vedanta tradition.^[269] //

^{[the above opinion militates against the Nargarjuna-factor as he is placed in the 2 CE]}

^{//    Vedantists and Buddhists have been fully aware of the gulf between their doctrines, a gulf that cannot be bridged over. //}

//  Gaudapada adopted some Buddhist terminology and borrowed its doctrines to his Vedantic goals, much like early Buddhism adopted Upanishadic terminology and borrowed its doctrines to Buddhist goals; both used pre-existing concepts and ideas to convey new meanings.^[478][451] While there is shared terminology, the Advaita doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are fundamentally different.^[295][487]//

^{//   According to Sarma, "to mistake him [Gaudapada] to be a hidden or open Buddhist is absurd".[485] The doctrines of Gaudapada and Buddhism are totally opposed, states Murti:[295]//}

//  Scholars are divided on the historical influence of Advaita Vedanta. Some Indologists state that it is one of the most studied Hindu philosophy and the most influential schools of classical Indian thought.^{[380][21][381]} Advaita Vedanta, states Eliot Deutsch, "has been and continues to be the most widely accepted system of thought among philosophers in India, and it is, we believe, one of the greatest philosophical achievements to be found in the East or the West".^[382]//

^{In fact even Bhaskara, who first criticised Shankara as 'pracchanna bauddha' (before Ramanuja), himself accepts the two-truth theory.  For him bheda in samsara is real and abheda in moksha is also real. Shankara has refuted}

^{this view in the BSB 2.1.14.  Even the Madhva system has two truths: svatantra satya and paratantra satya though they would not hold either of these as unreal.  Any system that accepts both bheda and abheda as real are actually}

^{admitting two truths. All systems that teach moksha accept a samsara state that is due to ajnana and a moksha state that is free from ajnana. Naturally, then, the moksha/liberated state is the true state of the jiva and the samsaric}

^{state is not his true state. This is an inevitable conclusion that all mokshavadins have to admit. This is what Shankara stated in the Brihadaranyaka Bhashya:} 

सर्ववादिनामपि अपरिहार्य: परमार्थ-संव्यवहारकृतो व्यवहारः ।

//sarva-vAdinaamapi aparihaaryah paramaartha-samvyavahaarakRto vyavahaarah// (Brihadaranyaka bhashya: 3.v.i).  //

regards

^{subrahmanian.v}

 

 

[Kalyan K]

//Later interpreters then becomes a case of experts colliding with each other and how seriously one takes them is matter of personal preference. //

The question is not whether later interpreters have done anything new. The question is - where is the doctrine of 2 truths originally from? The answer is - it is from Buddhism and propounded by Nagarjuna. Other schools like advaita, have merely borrowed this concept.

[Kalyan K]

//The method, unscientific at that, they have adopted is: compare if the 'vyavaharika-paramarthika' idea is contained in post-Shankara non-advaitic commentaries and conclude on the 'borrowed from Buddhism' theory.//


Nagarjuna is very much pre-Shankara.

[Kalyan K]

//Hence, the asampradayavit idea is to be rejected as that of a murkha//

Perhaps the sAmpradAyavits who blindly believe that all Vedic literature is eternal should be considered as true mUrkhas.

[Kalyan K]

//The idea of 'borrowed from Buddhism' will not sustainable, as it has been thus far, until and unless a pre-Buddhist and pre-Nagarjuna non-advaitic Upanishad bhashya is examined for this idea. This is the only scientific method of arriving at the truth of such a theory. //


Given that most upanishads except 3 or 4 are themselves post-Buddhistic, it is unlikely you will find any pre-Buddhistic commentaries of upanishads. Even if such a commentary is found, one has to investigate which school it belongs to and also date it. Given that no doctrine of 2 truths is found in the 10 main upanishads, and given the rich history of 2 truths doctrine in the buddhistic schools which pre-date advaita by a long period, the natural conclusion is that advaita borrowed this doctrine from buddhists.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//The idea of  'borrowed from Buddhism' will not sustainable, as it has been thus far, until and unless a pre-Buddhist and pre-Nagarjuna non-advaitic Upanishad bhashya is examined for this idea. This is the only scientific method of arriving at the truth of such a theory. //


Given that most upanishads except 3 or 4 are themselves post-Buddhistic, it is unlikely you will find any pre-Buddhistic commentaries of upanishads. Even if such a commentary is found, one has to investigate which school it belongs to and also date it. Given that no doctrine of 2 truths is found in the 10 main upanishads,

The doctrine of 3 truths is found in the Taittiriya Upanishad explicitly. And of 2 truths in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, explicitly.  

 

and given the rich history of 2 truths doctrine in the buddhistic schools which pre-date advaita by a long period, the natural conclusion is that advaita borrowed this doctrine from buddhists.

Such a conclusion is only unnatural and mischievous because the Upanishads have predated Buddhistic schools.  Buddha was known to have rebelled against the  veda of which the Upanishads are an inalienable part. .  

--
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.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 1:34 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Hence, the asampradayavit idea is to be rejected as that of a murkha//

Perhaps the sAmpradAyavits who blindly believe that all Vedic literature is eternal should be considered as true mUrkhas.

Only those who believe otherwise are nastika and therefore have no right to talk about the Upanishads and its tattva.  That is why such are labelled murkhas.  

--
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.

[Jsr Prasad]

Dear members,

Please restrain from abusing at personal level. Discussion seems academic only when  decorum is maintained. Otherwise, either we need to forcibly stop the discussion or the members.

Moderators

On Sun 27 May, 2018, 8:46 PM Kalyan K, <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Hence, the asampradayavit idea is to be rejected as that of a murkha//

Perhaps the sAmpradAyavits who blindly believe that all Vedic literature is eternal should be considered as true mUrkhas.

--
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.

On 27-May-2018 8:46 PM, "Kalyan K" <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Hence, the asampradayavit idea is to be rejected as that of a murkha//

Perhaps the sAmpradAyavits who blindly believe that all Vedic literature is eternal should be considered as true mUrkhas.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

It would be fair to assume that Nagarjuna studied Buddha's works at the very least. It begs a question as to what exactly did Buddha study? It is well-known at least in the sampradAya that he studied Vedas, including Upanishads. Its a different matter that he used all that he thought as useful, rejected the rest with ardha-jarati nyAya, and then his followers sold it as their own with a twist of shUnya instead of infinity! So to say that there were barely any Upanishads before Buddha is ridiculous. In writ, maybe so. Further, the Purvamimamsakas that Buddhists opposed have called a lot of the Upanishad content as arthavAda. They have beyond doubt also established apaurusheyatva of Vedas, again, including Upanishads. Why is it that we should take that karmakANDa existed but Upanishads did not! Such a nonsensical argument was never made by the then Purvamimamsakas even, who could have had a strong argument otherwise to say that such an Upanishad itself doesn't exist!

Its easy to say that whatever is said in the Upanishads is open to interpretation and the mantra itself doesn't say it. That can only be an incomplete picture of the Vedas from someone outside the sAmpradAyika fold, who perhaps doesn't have a clue of what tAtparyaniShchaya is. And if that still be the argument, I would respond then that Nagarjuna's is also an interpretation of the Upanishad mantras from where he sourced the idea, directly or indirectly, without giving due credit.

On a related note, if neither Buddhists nor Advaita Vedantins think that they talk of the same thing, I always wonder what is the compulsion of AV opponents who seem to know neither Buddhism nor AV to keep asserting that both are same! Both Bhagavan Gaudapadacharya in Mandukyakarika and Bhashyakara in Brahmasutrabhashya have rejected that Buddhists say the same thing.

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] */ 

[Kalyan K]

//The doctrine of 3 truths is found in the Taittiriya Upanishad explicitly. And of 2 truths in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, explicitly.//

No such doctrine is found. Of course, if one superimposes buddhistic theory of 2 truths on the upanishads, then that is a different case. But it is still buddhistic superimposition only.

[Kalyan K]

//Such a conclusion is only unnatural and mischievous because the Upanishads have predated Buddhistic schools.//


The only upanishads that are generally considered to be pre-buddhistic are brihadaranyaka, chhandogya and may be taittiriya and aitareya.


// Buddha was known to have rebelled against the veda of which the Upanishads are an inalienable part.//


Even the upanishads have rebelled against vedas. As an example, Shvetaketu studied all vedas, but still does not know about the Atman.

[Kalyan K]

//It would be fair to assume that Nagarjuna studied Buddha's works at the very least. It begs a question as to what exactly did Buddha study? It is well-known at least in the sampradAya that he studied Vedas, including Upanishads.//

Can you tell me which buddhist sources say that the Buddha studied all the upanishads? Sure, there were 3 or 4 upanishads which are unanimously considered pre-Buddhistic. But to say that all upanishads are pre-Buddhistic is stretching things too far.

//Its a different matter that he used all that he thought as useful, rejected the rest with ardha-jarati nyAya, and then his followers sold it as their own with a twist of shUnya instead of infinity!//


One of the original doctrines of the Buddha is pratItya samutpAda. Now, can you show me any vedic work which is pre-Buddhistic and also talks about this concept?

// They have beyond doubt also established apaurusheyatva of Vedas, again, including Upanishads.//

Can you please tell me how you can establish apaurusheyatva of vedic literature?


// And if that still be the argument, I would respond then that Nagarjuna's is also an interpretation of the Upanishad mantras from where he sourced the idea, directly or indirectly, without giving due credit.//

When upanishads themselves dont contain 2 truths, how could Nagarjuna have obtained this from the upanishads.


//On a related note, if neither Buddhists nor Advaita Vedantins think that they talk of the same thing...//


We have a practically direct admission from Shankara himself in the Mandukya bhashya that his doctrine is very close to Buddhism.

[Kalyan K]

// Scholarship after 1950 suggests that almost all Sannyasa Upanishads have a strong Advaita Vedanta outlook.[269][270][271] Six of these Sannyasa Upanishads – Aruni, Kundika, Kathashruti, Paramahamsa, Jabala and Brahma – were composed before the 3rd-century CE, likely in the centuries before or after the start of the common era, states Sprockhoff; the Asrama Upanishad is dated to the 3rd-century.[272][273]//


If this is the case why does Shankara not comment on these upanishads and does not quote them, except for a few instances of Jabala? After all, if there is any upanishad that strongly supports advaita and is pre-Shankara, then one expects Shankara would quote them. Why is he not quoting them?

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

// Scholarship after 1950 suggests that almost all Sannyasa Upanishads have a strong Advaita Vedanta outlook.[269][270][271] Six of these Sannyasa Upanishads – Aruni, Kundika, Kathashruti, Paramahamsa, Jabala and Brahma – were composed before the 3rd-century CE, likely in the centuries before or after the start of the common era, states Sprockhoff; the Asrama Upanishad is dated to the 3rd-century.[272][273]//


If this is the case why does Shankara not comment on these upanishads and does not quote them, except for a few instances of Jabala? After all, if there is any upanishad that strongly supports advaita and is pre-Shankara, then one expects Shankara would quote them. Why is he not quoting them?

The Kathashruti is also cited by Shankara in the Br.Up. bhashya for sannyasa.  Swami Madhvananda gives the reference for that passage as Kathashruti/Katharudra upanishad.  There is no rule that Shankara should cite all the Upanishads in the bhashya.  One Jabala Upanishad that Shankara refers is for absolute identity but that passage is not found in the extant Jabala which has several other passages Shankara cites for sannyasa, etc.  That gives room for a thinking that there could be another Upanishad by that name, perhaps that is the one the above opinion refers to.   

--
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.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:51 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:24 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

// Scholarship after 1950 suggests that almost all Sannyasa Upanishads have a strong Advaita Vedanta outlook.[269][270][271] Six of these Sannyasa Upanishads – Aruni, Kundika, Kathashruti, Paramahamsa, Jabala and Brahma – were composed before the 3rd-century CE, likely in the centuries before or after the start of the common era, states Sprockhoff; the Asrama Upanishad is dated to the 3rd-century.[272][273]//

There is an Upanishad by the name Amritabindu (also called Brahmabindu)   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amritabindu_Upanishad    which scholars place as of the same period as the above listed few sannyasa Upanishads.  One verse from this Upanishad each is quoted by Gaudapada and Shankara:

http://upanishad.info/upanishads/text/krishna-yajurveda/sanskrit/amrita-bindu

// The text sometimes appears under the title Brahmabindu Upanishad or Amritanada Upanishad, in some anthologies.^//

Gaudapada in the Karika 2.32:

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः । 
न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ ३२ ॥

[Many would think this is a composition of Gaudapada, but the entire verse is available in the above Upanishad.]

Another verse from that Upanishad (cited below) is found in the Gaudapada Karika 3rd chapter with the same analogy: jiva = pot space, body = pot: 

घटसंवृतमाकाशं नीयमाने घटे यथा । 
घटो नीयेत नाकाशं तथा जीवो नभोपमः ॥ १३ ॥

Shankara in the BSB 3.2.18:

 ‘एक एव हि भूतात्मा भूते भूते व्यवस्थितः । एकधा बहुधा चैव दृश्यते जलचन्द्रवत्’ (ब्र. बिं. १२) इति चैवमादिषु ॥ १८ ॥  

This above verse has been cited by a Gaudiya commentator Rupa Goswami, which I had seen long ago. 

Thus, the idea of 'paramarthika' is contained in the Upanishad.  The idea of 'vyavaharika' is also contained in several upanishads:

।  विज्ञानात्मा चिदा-भासो विश्वो व्यावहारिको जाग्रत्स्थूलदेहाभिमानी कर्मभूरिति च विश्वस्यनाम भवति  ।     Paingala Upanishad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paingala_Upanishad

//The date or author of Paingala Upanishad is unclear, but given its style and the texts it references, it is likely an early medieval era text because the 8th-century scholar Adi Shankara refers to it in his bhasya (review and commentary) on Brahma Sutras.^[7][8] //

इतिसप्तविधं प्रोक्तं भिद्यते व्यवहारतः  ।  मायोपाधिविनिर्मुक्तं शुद्धमित्यभिधीयते॥  ३८   Katharudropanishat (from where Shankara has cited in the Br.Up. for sannyasa)

Thus, there is no need to think that the concept of vyavaharika-paramarthika is originally of Buddhistic origin; it is well established in the Upanishads.  

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Kalyan K]

//Gaudapada in the Karika 2.32:

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।
न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ ३२ ॥

[Many would think this is a composition of Gaudapada, but the entire verse is available in the above Upanishad.]

Another verse from that Upanishad (cited below) is found in the Gaudapada Karika 3rd chapter with the same analogy: jiva = pot space, body = pot:

घटसंवृतमाकाशं नीयमाने घटे यथा ।

घटो नीयेत नाकाशं तथा जीवो नभोपमः ॥ १३ ॥ //


These seem to be actually compositions of Gaudapada, which are later included in the upanishad.

If this upanishad existed in its current form before Shankara and if it strongly supports advaita, one wonders why it is not often quoted. If Shankara wanted support on 2 truths, he could have simply quoted this upanishad, but he does not do so.

[Kalyan K]

//The Kathashruti is also cited by Shankara in the Br.Up. bhashya for sannyasa. Swami Madhvananda gives the reference for that passage as Kathashruti/Katharudra upanishad.//

All one can find is one alleged quotation from all the supposedly strongly advaitic upanishads? Compare with literally thousands of quotations from the 10 principal upanishads.


// There is no rule that Shankara should cite all the Upanishads in the bhashya.//


There may not be such a rule, but expectation is that he would quote them if they are strongly advaitic.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:27 AM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Gaudapada in the Karika 2.32:

न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।
न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ ३२ ॥

[Many would think this is a composition of Gaudapada, but the entire verse is available in the above Upanishad.]

Another verse from that Upanishad (cited below) is found in the Gaudapada Karika 3rd chapter with the same analogy: jiva = pot space, body = pot:

घटसंवृतमाकाशं नीयमाने घटे यथा ।
घटो नीयेत नाकाशं तथा जीवो नभोपमः ॥ १३ ॥ //


These seem to be actually compositions of Gaudapada, which are later included in the upanishad.

This cannot be proved unless the pre-included version is produced as 'original'. 

If this upanishad existed in its current form before Shankara and if it strongly supports advaita, one wonders why it is not often quoted. If Shankara wanted support on 2 truths, he could have simply quoted this upanishad, but he does not do so.

Not necessary. He sees them as natural parts of the Upanishads, not deserving any special reference. In any case, the 'borrowed from Buddhism' theory can sustain only if a pre-buddhist, pre-nagarjuna non-advaitic bhashyam for the Taittiriya, etc. Upanishads are examined.  Until this happens the theory does not hold any water. There is ample proof for the 'long history' of the paramartha-vyavahara in Upanishads that are the source for the Buddhists for the two-truth doctrine. It is they who have borrowed it from the Upanishads.  

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:59 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//The Kathashruti is also cited by Shankara in the Br.Up. bhashya for sannyasa.  Swami Madhvananda gives the reference for that passage as Kathashruti/Katharudra upanishad.//

All one can find is one alleged quotation from all the supposedly strongly advaitic upanishads? Compare with literally thousands of quotations from the 10 principal upanishads.

Why 'alleged'? Because it cuts at the root of 'borrowed from buddhism' theory?  

// There is no rule that Shankara should cite all the Upanishads in the bhashya.//


There may not be such a rule, but expectation is that he would quote them if they are strongly advaitic.

There are innumerable quotes that Shankara gives for advaitic import. So, he need not cite each and every one. He in fact says here and there 'passages of this kind' that implies such passages everywhere.  

[V Subrahmanian]

Apart from the Upanishads, the idea of 'vyavahara-paramartha' is found in many Puranas and the Mahabharata too: 

The Mahabharata:

12211011c पुरुषावस्थमव्यक्तं परमार्थं निबोधयत्
12211012a इष्टिसत्रेण संसिद्धो भूयश्च तपसा मुनिः
12211012c क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्व्यक्तिं बुबुधे देवदर्शनः
12211013a यत्तदेकाक्षरं ब्रह्म नानारूपं प्रदृश्यते

The Vishnupuranam too has the terms 'paramartha' 'vyavahara' in  abundance. This Purana has been cited in dozens by Ramanuja. No one holds that this is a purana influenced by buddhism! 

Sridhara Swamin's commentary brings out the Advaitic purport.

सद्भाव एवं भवतो मयोक्तो ज्ञानं यथा सत्यमस्तयत्यमन्यत् ।

एतत्तु यत्संव्यवहारभूतं तत्रापि चोक्तं भुवनाश्रितं ते  ॥ २,१२.४५ ॥

पुराणसंहिताकर्त भवान्वत्स भविष्यति  ।

देवतापारमार्थ्यं च यथावद्वेत्स्यते भवान्  ॥ १,१.२६ ॥

ज्ञानस्वरूपमत्यन्तनिर्मलं परमार्थतः  ।

तमेवार्थस्वरूपेण भ्रान्तिदर्शनतः स्थितम्  ॥ १,२.६ ॥

परमार्थस्त्वमेवैको नान्योस्ति जगतः पते  ।

तवैष महिमा येन व्याप्तमेतच्चराचरम्  ॥ १,४.३८ ॥

रूपं गन्धो मनो बुद्धिरात्मा कालस्तथा गुणाः  ।

एतेषां परमार्थश्च सर्वमेतत्त्वमच्युत  ॥ १,१९.६९ ॥

श्रीपराशर उवाच

इतीरितस्तेन स राजस्तत्याज भेदं परमार्थदृष्टिः  ।

स चापि जातिस्मरणाप्तबोधस्तत्रैव जन्मन्यपवर्गमाप  ॥ २,१६.२४ ॥

The above is only a sample.

The Garuda purana too has this pair: vyavaharika-paramarthika:

https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-garuda-purana-2/d/doc63656.html#note-e-40184

No one holds this as an influence of Buddhism!!

6. Now hear, O Bird, the two-fold nature of the body of man. One is Vyāvahārika, and the second Pāramārthika.

47-52. On the Vyāvahārika there are thirty-five millions of hairs of the body, seven hundred thousands of hairs of the head, it is said, and twenty nails;

There are said to be thirty-two teeth usually, O son of Vinatā; the flesh is said to be one thousand palās^[19] and blood one hundred palās;

Fat is ten palās; skin is seven palās, marrow is twelve palās; the "great blood" is three palas;

Seed is known to be two kuḍavas; ovum one kuḍava; and bones in the body are said to be three hundred and sixty;

The nāḍīs, both dense and subtle, number tens of million; bile is fifty palās; phlegm is half of that;

The waste materials are not measurable, as they are constantly changing. The body which possesses these attributes is Vyāvahārika.^[20]

53. All the worlds, mountains, continents, oceans, suns and planets are in the Pāramārthika^[21] body.

54. In the Pāramārthika body, there are six chakras in which are said to be located the attributes of the egg of Brahmā.

The Chandogya 'mrittiketyeva satyam' is brought out by the Vishnu Purana too:

कटकमुकुटकर्णिकादिभेदैः कनकमभेदमपीष्यते यथैकम्  ।

As the cause of the origin and destruction, the Lord is sarvAtma and therefore is the controller of all. The analogy is: The various ornaments such as bangle, crown, earrings, etc. the effects named so. They are but transformations of gold that is one alone, …

सुरपशुमनुजादिकल्पनाभिर्हरिः अखिलाभिरुदीर्यते तथैकः  ॥ ३,७.१६ ॥

So too by the imagined disctinctions, which are mere names, such as gods, animals and humans, One Hari alone is articulated. The verse itself uses the word ‘kalpana’ to indicate that the different entities and the differences  among them is a mere kalpana. Hari alone is spoken of variously as gods, humans, etc.

[The Chandogya Shruti ‘वाचारम्भणं विकारो नामधेयम्, मृत्तिकेत्येव सत्यम्’ is what is meant here.  The shruti teaches that the transformations of gold, clay, etc. are mere names and the truth in them is the material cause.  So too the entities such as gods, animals and humans are mere names and they are essentially Hari, Brahman, alone. In other words, difference across various ornaments, various entities such as gods, humans and animals, is due to maya, ignorance. The truth is the material cause, Brahman.]

क्षितितलपरमाणवोनिलान्ते पुनरुपयान्ति यथैकतां धरित्र्याः  ।

सुरपशुमनुजादयस्तथान्ते गुणकलषेण सनातनेन तेन  ॥ ३,७.१७ ॥

Further, since bheda, difference, is maayika, when the maya, ignorance, is gone, Hari alone remains. Gods, humans and animals are only manifestations of gunas. When gunas subside, one becomes one with Vishnu.

 

[Dr ramanath]

The theory of two truth; The doctrine of absolute middle/middle way
gets us to comprehend two kinds of Truth Absolute Truth only can be
cognized comprehension of these two satyas
(Truths) as together but also distinctively. The very first of is
called as samvrti-satya
(Conditional Truth) and scond one is paramartha-satya (Absolute Truth).
This kind of exposition first time given by Nagarjuna in his text
Mulamadhyamaka Sastram.
Shankara distinction has explained this in Advaita context .

On 28/05/2018, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Apart from the Upanishads, the idea of 'vyavahara-paramartha' is found in
> many Puranas and the Mahabharata too:
>
> The Mahabharata:
>

> 12211011c पुरुषावस्थमव्यक्तं *परमार्थं* निबोधयत्

> 12211012a इष्टिसत्रेण संसिद्धो भूयश्च तपसा मुनिः
> 12211012c क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्व्यक्तिं बुबुधे देवदर्शनः
> 12211013a यत्तदेकाक्षरं ब्रह्म नानारूपं प्रदृश्यते
>
>
>
>
> The Vishnupuranam too has the terms 'paramartha' 'vyavahara' in abundance.
> This Purana has been cited in dozens by Ramanuja. No one holds that this is
> a purana influenced by buddhism!
> Sridhara Swamin's commentary brings out the Advaitic purport.
>
> सद्भाव एवं भवतो मयोक्तो ज्ञानं यथा सत्यमस्तयत्यमन्यत् ।
>

> एतत्तु *यत्संव्यवहारभूतं* तत्रापि चोक्तं भुवनाश्रितं ते ॥ २,१२.४५ ॥

>
>
> पुराणसंहिताकर्त भवान्वत्स भविष्यति ।
>

> *देवतापारमार्थ्यं* च यथावद्वेत्स्यते भवान् ॥ १,१.२६ ॥
>
> ज्ञानस्वरूपमत्यन्तनिर्मलं *परमार्थतः* ।
>
> तमेवार्थस्वरूपेण *भ्रान्तिदर्शनतः* स्थितम् ॥ १,२.६ ॥
>
> *परमार्थस्त्व*मेवैको नान्योस्ति जगतः पते ।

>
> तवैष महिमा येन व्याप्तमेतच्चराचरम् ॥ १,४.३८ ॥
>
> रूपं गन्धो मनो बुद्धिरात्मा कालस्तथा गुणाः ।
>

> एतेषां *परमार्थश्च* सर्वमेतत्त्वमच्युत ॥ १,१९.६९ ॥

>
> श्रीपराशर उवाच
>

> इतीरितस्तेन स राजस्तत्याज भेदं *परमार्थदृष्टिः* ।

>
> स चापि जातिस्मरणाप्तबोधस्तत्रैव जन्मन्यपवर्गमाप ॥ २,१६.२४ ॥
>
> The above is only a sample.
>
>
> The Garuda purana too has this pair: vyavaharika-paramarthika:
>
> https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-garuda-purana-2/d/doc63656.html#note-e-40184
>
> No one holds this as an influence of Buddhism!!
>
>
> 6. Now hear, O Bird, the two-fold nature of the body of man. One is
> Vyāvahārika, and the second Pāramārthika.
>

> <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-garuda-purana-2/d/doc63656.html#page-147>47-52.

> On the Vyāvahārika there are thirty-five millions of hairs of the body,
> seven hundred thousands of hairs of the head, it is said, and twenty nails;
>
> There are said to be thirty-two teeth usually, O son of Vinatā; the flesh

> is said to be one thousand *palās*[19]
> <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-garuda-purana-2/d/doc63656.html#note-e-40182>
> and blood one hundred *palās*;
>
> Fat is ten *palās*; skin is seven *palās*, marrow is twelve *palās*; the

> "great blood" is three palas;
>

> Seed is known to be two *kuḍavas*; ovum one *kuḍava*; and bones in the body

> are said to be three hundred and sixty;
>

> The *nāḍīs*, both dense and subtle, number tens of million; bile is fifty
> *palās*; phlegm is half of that;

>
> The waste materials are not measurable, as they are constantly changing.
> The body which possesses these attributes is Vyāvahārika.[20]

> <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-garuda-purana-2/d/doc63656.html#note-e-40183>

>
> 53. All the worlds, mountains, continents, oceans, suns and planets are in
> the Pāramārthika[21]

> <https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/the-garuda-purana-2/d/doc63656.html#note-e-40184>

>> // The text sometimes appears under the title *Brahmabindu Upanishad* or
>> *Amritanada
>> Upanishad*, in some anthologies.//

>>
>> Gaudapada in the Karika 2.32:
>>
>> न निरोधो न चोत्पत्तिर्न बद्धो न च साधकः ।
>> न मुमुक्षुर्न वै मुक्त इत्येषा परमार्थता ॥ ३२ ॥
>>
>> [Many would think this is a composition of Gaudapada, but the entire
>> verse
>> is available in the above Upanishad.]
>>
>> Another verse from that Upanishad (cited below) is found in the Gaudapada
>> Karika 3rd chapter with the same analogy: jiva = pot space, body = pot:
>>
>> घटसंवृतमाकाशं नीयमाने घटे यथा ।
>> घटो नीयेत नाकाशं तथा जीवो नभोपमः ॥ १३ ॥
>>
>>
>> Shankara in the BSB 3.2.18:
>>
>> ‘एक एव हि भूतात्मा भूते भूते व्यवस्थितः । एकधा बहुधा चैव दृश्यते
>> जलचन्द्रवत्’ (ब्र. बिं. १२) इति चैवमादिषु ॥ १८ ॥
>> This above verse has been cited by a Gaudiya commentator Rupa Goswami,
>> which I had seen long ago.
>>
>> Thus, the idea of 'paramarthika' is contained in the Upanishad. The idea
>> of 'vyavaharika' is also contained in several upanishads:
>>

>> । विज्ञानात्मा चिदा-भासो विश्वो *व्यावहारिको* जाग्रत्स्थूलदेहाभिमानी

>> कर्मभूरिति च विश्वस्यनाम भवति । Paingala Upanishad https://en.
>> wikipedia.org/wiki/Paingala_Upanishad
>>

>> //The date or author of *Paingala Upanishad* is unclear, but given its

>> style and the texts it references, it is likely an early medieval era
>> text
>> because the 8th-century scholar Adi Shankara

>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara> refers to it in his bhasya
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhasya> (review and commentary) on Brahma
>> Sutras <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Sutras>.[7]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paingala_Upanishad#cite_note-FOOTNOTEDalal2014347,_Article_on_Upanishads-7>
>> [8]
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paingala_Upanishad#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKrishnan200421%E2%80%9322-8>
>> //
>>
>> इतिसप्तविधं प्रोक्तं भिद्यते *व्यवहारतः *। मायोपाधिविनिर्मुक्तं

>>>> 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.
>

--
With Best Regards
Ramanath
--
Dr. Ramanath Pandey,
Research Officer, Oriental Institute of
the M S University of Baroda,
Former Research Associate, Department of Budhist Studies, University of
Delhi and
Former Associates of IIAS, Simla
Hon. Secretary, Indian Society for Indic Studies( InSIS)
Founder Secretary of DRPSECT
Mobile:+91-9998281366

InSIS – To promulgate the knowledge for the good of the ...
www.insis.drpsect.org.in

[हर्षवर्धनः]

Friends, let me chime in.

The theory of two truths is based on the the theory of the real and the phenomenal, which in turn is based upon the theory of the soul (whose existence the later Buddhists deny but the Buddha refused to say anything touching upon it) and the creation. Ergo, the two "levels' of truth, or two truths. That such penetrating seers as the Upanishadic rishis could not discern this model is something I do not accept. Dismissing their writings as unexplicit or roundabout is not fair. It is the truth that the Upanishads did first talk about the two truths. 

All these theories have their origin in Samkhya, (which I think the Buddha studied) and particularly in the theory of satkaryavada. If we see the effect as well as the cause, then at one level we can say that the effect is real (evidenced by senses) and so is the cause (inferred)  and they seem to be different (two truths, as it were), while at another level we can say that the effect comes from the cause and so there's only cause and no effect (one truth, as it were). 

Swami Vivekananda puts it likes this (if I remember aright): The effect is the cause evolved; the cause is the effect involved.

The two truths have their origin in Samkhya, which is the oldest philosophy of India, and records of which have been maintained in the Upanishads, and parts of which was developed later by some Buddhist thinkers.

It has become fashionable to partly trace some old Indian ideas and attribute them to a new 'religion'. It is to be remembered that even the Buddha never claimed to have started a religion, or originated any ideas. The Buddha was never a Buddhist.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:03 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Such a conclusion is only unnatural and mischievous because the Upanishads have predated Buddhistic schools.//


The only upanishads that are generally considered to be pre-buddhistic are brihadaranyaka, chhandogya and may be taittiriya and aitareya.

The Chadogya talks of 'satya' as distinct from the manifestations. The Paramarthika is also a satya alone and not anything else. The Taittiriya talks explicitly of three satyas: two with the name satya and the third with the name anrta.   

// Buddha was known to have rebelled against the  veda of which the Upanishads are an inalienable part.//


Even the upanishads have rebelled against vedas. As an example, Shvetaketu studied all vedas, but still does not know about the Atman.

There is no rebellion here; Shvetaketu did not know the Atman even theoretically because of his inattentiveness when it was taught in the Gurukulam.  Even Narada for that matter, in the Chandogya 7th chapter, had studied the Veda but did not know the Atman as direct realization.  He came to Sanatkumara with the view to know it. In normal veda adhyayana itself a brahmachari in the gurukulam is exposed to the Atman/Brahman knowledge. It is up to him to take it forward by proper nididhyasana to realize it. So, these are not any instances of denigration of the Veda.  In fact there is a Niruktastatement: If someone has not grasped the essence of the Veda even after studying it, he is only an inert pillar:  स्थाणुरयं भारहारः किलाभूत् अधीत्य वेदं न विजानाति योऽर्थम्। योऽर्थज्ञ इत्सकलं भद्रमश्नुते नाकमेति ज्ञानविधूतपाप्मा ॥ १-६-१८ ॥ sthāṇurayaṃ bhārahāraḥ kilābhūt adhītya vedaṃ na vijānāti yo'rtham । yo'rthajña itsakalaṃ bhadramaśnute nākameti jñānavidhūtapāpmā ॥     

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 6:54 AM, हर्षवर्धनः <placidus...@gmail.com> wrote:

Friends, let me chime in.

The theory of two truths is based on the the theory of the real and the phenomenal, which in turn is based upon the theory of the soul (whose existence the later Buddhists deny but the Buddha refused to say anything touching upon it) and the creation. Ergo, the two "levels' of truth, or two truths. That such penetrating seers as the Upanishadic rishis could not discern this model is something I do not accept. Dismissing their writings as unexplicit or roundabout is not fair. It is the truth that the Upanishads did first talk about the two truths. 

All these theories have their origin in Samkhya, (which I think the Buddha studied) and particularly in the theory of satkaryavada. If we see the effect as well as the cause, then at one level we can say that the effect is real (evidenced by senses) and so is the cause (inferred)  and they seem to be different (two truths, as it were), while at another level we can say that the effect comes from the cause and so there's only cause and no effect (one truth, as it were). 

Swami Vivekananda puts it likes this (if I remember aright): The effect is the cause evolved; the cause is the effect involved.

The two truths have their origin in Samkhya, which is the oldest philosophy of India, and records of which have been maintained in the Upanishads, and parts of which was developed later by some Buddhist thinkers.

It has become fashionable to partly trace some old Indian ideas and attribute them to a new 'religion'. It is to be remembered that even the Buddha never claimed to have started a religion, or originated any ideas. The Buddha was never a Buddhist.

What you say in the last para is very true.  Even Advaita never claims it is a new system.  So too dvaita and Vishishtadvaita.  All hold that they are only bringing out what is in the Upanishads. So to think that Advaita came later than Buddhism is only incorrect understanding of the philosophy.

Advaita accepts Sankhya as very close to Vedanta:  

विवर्तवादस्य पूर्वभूमिः वेदान्तवादे परिणामवादः ।
व्यवस्थितेऽस्मिन् परिणामवादे स्वयं समायाति विवर्तवादः ॥ 

I think it is from the SankshepashAreeraka.  

[The doctrine of transformation (Sankhya) is the one that just precedes the doctrine of transfiguration (vivarta) of the Vedanta.  Once the former is well grasped, the latter falls in place by itself.]

Shankara holds the Sankhya as the chief opponent; Buddhism is only an opponent as a nastika mata. Yet Shankara has a word of praise for the Sankhya for their contribution that is non-contradictory to the Vedanta. परमतम् अप्रतिषिद्धम् अनुमतं भवति is Shankara's statement. That way alone he is appreciative of the Bauddha too when it comes to their statements on vairagya and their holding the world to be only consciousness (momentary).  Shankara accepts non-contradictory aspects of Nyaya-vaisheshika, Yoga, Pancharatra too. For Shankara all these schools, including Jaina and Charvaka are dvaitins. 

regards

  

[V Subrahmanian]

The Mandukya corpus contains yet another statement of the Paramarthika-vyavaharika pair:

This verse of the first chapter is held to be Gaudapada karika by Shankara and Rangaramanuja but as Upanishad by Madhva.  The second half of the verse is cited by Vidyaranya as Mandukya shruti. So does the Vivekachudamani.    

प्रपञ्चो यदि विद्येत निवर्तेत न संशयः । 
मायामात्रमिदं द्वैतमद्वैतं परमार्थतः ॥ १७ ॥ 

The 7th mantra of the mandukya 'nantah prajnam.....' has the term 'avyavaharyam'  thereby negating vyvaharaika and showing the Turiya as not something that is vyavaharika.  Thus, this two-truth idea is already well established in the Mandukya corpus and does not require to be adapted from Buddhistic sources which have only borrowed it from the Vedic corpus. 

There is no agreement within the Buddhistic schools/traditions as to what exactly is the meaning of the two-truth doctrine:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine#CITEREFRenard2010

// The Buddhist doctrine of the two truths (Wylie: bden pa gnyis) differentiates between two levels of satya (Sanskrit), meaning truth or "really existing" in the discourse of the Buddha: the "conventional" or "provisional" (saṁvṛti) truth, and the "ultimate" (paramārtha) truth.^[1]

The exact meaning varies between the various Buddhist schools and traditions. The best known interpretation is from the Madhyamakaschool of Mahāyāna Buddhism, whose founder was Nagarjuna,^[1] For Nagarjuna, the two truths are epistemological truths. The phenomenal world is accorded a provisional existence. The character of the phenomenal world is declared to be neither real nor unreal, but logically indeterminable. Ultimately, phenomena are empty (sunyata) of an inherent self or essence, but exist depending on other phenomena(Pratītyasamutpāda).^[1]

In Chinese Buddhism, the Madhyamaka position is accepted and the two truths refer to two ontological truths. Reality exists of two levels, a relative level and an absolute level.^[2] Based on their understanding of the Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, the Chinese supposed that the teaching of the Buddha-nature was, as stated by that sutra, the final Buddhist teaching, and that there is an essential truth above sunyata and the two truths.^[3]

The śūnyatā doctrine is an attempt to show that it is neither proper nor strictly justifiable to regard any metaphysical system as absolutely valid. It doesn't lead to nihilism but strikes a middle course between excessive naivete and excessive scepticism. //

Thus there is confusion and therefore no finality, within the Buddhist schools about the meaning of the concept. This also shows that this idea is not of the Buddhist but that which already existed from time immemorial in the Veda.  The idea of Atman that the Buddha is famous for having denied is surely of the Upanishads. Surely, the Vedanta is not a nairatmyavada.  This also shows that the Paramarthika Satyam of the Vedanta is the Atman aka Brahman. And the vyavaharika is anatman.  The Chandogya, Brihadaranyaka and all Upanishads are about this atma anatma discourse alone. 

regards

subrahmanian.v

 

[Ramanath pandey]

The two absolute truth, there is no doubt based on Veda-upanishad. But real exposition of this first time given by Nagarjun in detail in his Mulamadhyamaka-sastram. All other expostion came for refutation of Nagarjuna's contention. Acarya Sankara also said in other words.

On Sunday, 27 May 2018 10:42:31 UTC+5:30, shivk...@yahoo.com wrote:

Any system which believes in moksha and rebirth tied to karmic concepts how can it distinguish between soul/atman/"breath of life" and God?

The article below that you linked also has no quotation that attributes two truths explicitly to Buddh himself.

Later interpreters then becomes a case of experts colliding with each other and how seriously one takes them is matter of personal preference.

Regards,
Shivraj

--------------------------------------------
On Sat, 5/26/18, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

 Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The theory of two truths in India
 To: "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
 Date: Saturday, May 26, 2018, 9:15 AM
 
 Here is a very informative article on the
 theory of two truths in India-
 
 
 https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/twotruths-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.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Kalyanji,

On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 9:54 PM Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//It would be fair to assume that Nagarjuna studied Buddha's works at the very least. It begs a question as to what exactly did Buddha study? It is well-known at least in the sampradAya that he studied Vedas, including Upanishads.//

Can you tell me which buddhist sources say that the Buddha studied all the upanishads?

​Could you show me where I said all?​ Could you also tell me whether or not it is accepted as per you that Buddha rejected Vedas. Or did he reject it without studying Vedas, which includes Upanishads? Or would you rather say that he studied karmakANDa and rejected the same, but did not study Vedanta and we therefore, do not know if he knew what is stated there about two realities or not, let alone accept or reject it?

Sure, there were 3 or 4 upanishads which are unanimously considered pre-Buddhistic. But to say that all upanishads are pre-Buddhistic is stretching things too far.

The absence of proof is *not* proof of absence. A writ not found doesn't a mean a writ non-existent, then it would really be too far to say that words also didn't exist as transmitted in karNasampradAya in the tradition. Is there karNasampradAya in Buddhism also that they predate Upanishads!

//Its a different matter that he used all that he thought as useful, rejected the rest with ardha-jarati nyAya, and then his followers sold it as their own with a twist of shUnya instead of infinity!//


One of the original doctrines of the Buddha is

​​

pratItya samutpAda. Now, can you show me any vedic work which is pre-Buddhistic and also talks about this concept?

I suggest you look up Wiki that AFAIK you consider as a very authentic source of learning. To lead, it records so: Pratityasamutpada (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद) consists of two terms: pratitya: "having depended";[3] it appears in various Vedas and Upanishads, such as hymns 4.5.14, 7.68.6 of the Rigveda and 19.49.8 of Atharvaveda, in the sense of "confirmation, dependence, acknowledge origin".[4][5] 

I rest my case.

// They have beyond doubt also established apaurusheyatva of Vedas, again, including Upanishads.//

Can you please tell me how you can establish apaurusheyatva of vedic literature?

One doesn't need to since it has already been done by Purvamimamsakas (PM). Kindly search online for details, but a simple fact is that when no one claims authorship in a karNasampradAya, there is no author. When it is established against none other an opponent than Buddhist, the latter claims his work also to be apaurusheya, to which the PM says that now its not easy to claim so after claiming authorship! This is where your example of pratityasamutpada also lands. Either its traced in Vedas when it stops becoming original or its original when its not apaurusheya and therefore flawed.

 

// And if that still be the argument, I would respond then that Nagarjuna's is also an interpretation of the Upanishad mantras from where he sourced the idea, directly or indirectly, without giving due credit.//

When upanishads themselves dont contain 2 truths, how could Nagarjuna have obtained this from the upanishads.

Sorry, you're putting the cart before the horse. You can't use an unproven claim as proof to refute. Moreover, Buddhists also use the mantra asat eva idam agre asIt in one argument to prove shUnyavAda. Are they referring to an idea non-existent in Upanishads? In fact, Upanishads anticipate entire shUnyavada as a possible misunderstanding and reject it in that very mantra and following.

​

 

//On a related note, if neither Buddhists nor Advaita Vedantins think that they talk of the same thing...//


We have a practically direct admission from Shankara himself in the Mandukya bhashya that his doctrine is very close to Buddhism.

​Maybe, but close is not same.​

 

​ And wherever Bhashyakara says "ours"​, it is not "his", it is what Upanishad talks of. Just because Karikarakara and Bhashyakara use the words same as those philosophers to refute them as they are gaining strength against Vaidika dharma, it doesn't mean that we borrowed from them.

गुरुपादुकाभ्याम्।

प्रवीणभट्टः।​

[Kalyan K]

Apart from the Upanishads, the idea of 'vyavahara-paramartha' is found in many Puranas and the Mahabharata too:

//

The Mahabharata:

12211011c पुरुषावस्थमव्यक्तं परमार्थं निबोधयत्
12211012a इष्टिसत्रेण संसिद्धो भूयश्च तपसा मुनिः
12211012c क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्व्यक्तिं बुबुधे देवदर्शनः

12211013a यत्तदेकाक्षरं ब्रह्म नानारूपं प्रदृश्यते//


This is hardly an explicit reference to 2 truths. It looks like the above verse is not even from the critical edition.



//The Vishnupuranam too has the terms 'paramartha' 'vyavahara' in abundance//


Only if one follows advaita commentaries which were written post 13th century CE?

[Kalyan K]

//The Mandukya corpus contains yet another statement of the Paramarthika-vyavaharika pair:


This verse of the first chapter is held to be Gaudapada karika by Shankara and Rangaramanuja but as Upanishad by Madhva. The second half of the verse is cited by Vidyaranya as Mandukya shruti. So does the Vivekachudamani. //

If advaitins hold the verse to be karika, then how can you argue it is Sruti?

[Kalyan K]

//There is no rebellion here; Shvetaketu did not know the Atman even theoretically because of his inattentiveness when it was taught in the Gurukulam. Even Narada for that matter, in the Chandogya 7th chapter, had studied the Veda but did not know the Atman as direct realization. //


Now, one cant say that Narada is also inattentive.

[Kalyan K]

​//Could you show me where I said all?​ Could you also tell me whether or not it is accepted as per you that Buddha rejected Vedas. Or did he reject it without studying Vedas, which includes Upanishads? Or would you rather say that he studied karmakANDa and rejected the same, but did not study Vedanta and we therefore, do not know if he knew what is stated there about two realities or not, let alone accept or reject it?//

Namaste Sri Praveenji

Buddha rejected vedic rituals and superiority of brahmins. Whether he studied any upanishads, I dont know. He did not accept Atman.



//The absence of proof is *not* proof of absence.//

By this logic, there were atom bombs in the vedic age.





//I suggest you look up Wiki that AFAIK you consider as a very authentic source of learning. To lead, it records so: Pratityasamutpada (Sanskrit: प्रतीत्यसमुत्पाद) consists of two terms: pratitya: "having depended";[3] it appears in various Vedas and Upanishads, such as hymns 4.5.14, 7.68.6 of the Rigveda and 19.49.8 of Atharvaveda, in the sense of "confirmation, dependence, acknowledge origin".[4][5]

I rest my case.//


The wiki is not telling that buddhist doctrine of PS is from vedic literature. Rather it is bringing out the meanings of pratitya and samutpada as present in vedas.




//One doesn't need to since it has already been done by Purvamimamsakas (PM). Kindly search online for details, but a simple fact is that when no one claims authorship in a karNasampradAya, there is no author.//

Great logic sir. How can any literature have no authors?

//Either its traced in Vedas when it stops becoming original or its original when its not apaurusheya and therefore flawed.//

By what logic can you say it is flawed if it is original?




//Sorry, you're putting the cart before the horse. You can't use an unproven claim as proof to refute. Moreover, Buddhists also use the mantra asat eva idam agre asIt in one argument to prove shUnyavAda. //

shUnya and asat are different.




//We have a practically direct admission from Shankara himself in the Mandukya bhashya that his doctrine is very close to Buddhism.
​Maybe, but close is not same.​ //


Thanks for acknowledging that Buddhism and advaita are close. We have no differences here.

[Kalyan K]

//This cannot be proved unless the pre-included version is produced as 'original'. //


Why Shankara then does not identify it as Sruti is a mystery.

[हर्षवर्धनः]

Yes, Sri Subrahmanian, I agree with your assessment. 

In my view, the two truths theory comes from the two viewpoints of the ultimate, the Brahmatattva. (Here, of course, the Buddhist position does not apply, as they do not admit of a atma, let alone paramatma. This is a different discussion.)

Basically, in its original form, the two truths is the dualist and monoist position. While I disagree with Sri Samkara on some points in his Brahmasutrabhashya, I readily accept that the vedantic position is entirely based on the Upanishads, which mostly advance the monoist position (sarvam khalvidam brahma - Chhāndogya) but also do not dismiss the dualist position (Chhandogya 6th chap., Katha, Svetashvatara, Taittiriya etc).

We must synthesize and harmonize.

एकं सद्विप्रा बहुधा वदन्ति ||

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:03 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//This cannot be proved unless the pre-included version is produced as 'original'. //


Why Shankara then does not identify it as Sruti is a mystery.

There are instances where Shankara has not identified certain passages as 'shruti'.  For instance the other verse of this very Amritabindu Upanishad that he cites in the BSB, he simply says 'moksha shastra'.  And while citing Gaudapada in the BSB twice, he refers to him as 'sampradayavit acharya.'  It is only when we search such verses that we find the source.   

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//There is no rebellion here; Shvetaketu did not know the Atman even theoretically because of his inattentiveness when it was taught in the Gurukulam.  Even Narada for that matter, in the Chandogya 7th chapter, had studied the Veda but did not know the Atman as direct realization.  //


Now, one cant say that Narada is also inattentive.

Not so. One might have been attentive in 'hearing' but not have put it to further manana and nididhyasana.  

[V Subrahmanian]

As I have said, all advaitins do not hold it as karika.  

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Apart from the Upanishads, the idea of 'vyavahara-paramartha' is found in many Puranas and the Mahabharata too:
//
The Mahabharata:

12211011c पुरुषावस्थमव्यक्तं परमार्थं निबोधयत्
12211012a इष्टिसत्रेण संसिद्धो भूयश्च तपसा मुनिः
12211012c क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्व्यक्तिं बुबुधे देवदर्शनः
12211013a यत्तदेकाक्षरं ब्रह्म नानारूपं प्रदृश्यते//


This is hardly an explicit reference to 2 truths. It looks like the above verse is not even from the critical edition.

Statement of one is enough to imply the other. That is the method of understanding/conveying.  It is from the BORI critical edition.   

//The Vishnupuranam too has the terms 'paramartha' 'vyavahara' in  abundance//


Only if one follows advaita commentaries which were written post 13th century CE?

Why? The words themselves speak out the concept clearly, unmistakably. A commentary does not become non-advaitic just because it is written at a particular point of time. 

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Kalyan ji

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 12:34 PM Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Buddha rejected vedic rituals and superiority of brahmins.

​Without knowing what they are or after knowing what they are.​ The superiority of brahmins of lack of the same is irrelevant to this thread, or so do I hope.

 

Whether he studied any upanishads, I dont know. He did not accept Atman.

​If you do not know, you cannot say that he and his followers didn't borrow from Upanishads so unequivocally; thanks for accepting the same.

 

 

//The absence of proof is *not* proof of absence.//

By this logic, there were atom bombs in the vedic age. 

Your argument would have made sense if I had said that absence of proof means proof of presence! I didn't even state anything close to it, so please revisit your thinking!

​

 

The wiki is not telling that buddhist doctrine of PS is from vedic literature. Rather it is bringing out the meanings of pratitya and samutpada as present in vedas.

​

​No, no, look at the meaning given for the same as to what ideas they talk of. You want to find the same compounded word with same meaning; why not the same idea with different words. The Upanishads talk of dependent origination all the time. This is what Advaita is strong at pointing out mithyAtva as. The entire idea of dhamma is nothing but dharma/karma. Almost everything in Buddhism is borrowed from Vedas with corrupted Sanskrit words and here you are claiming that Advaita Vedanta borrows from Buddhism!

​

Great logic sir. How can any literature have no authors?

Thanks, its called anyathAnupapattiH. Vedas are the breath of Ishvara as per the mantra. I will take your sarcasm as an objection worth considering as soon as you explain as to how you or someone is the author of your breath. If you cannot, and still reject what Vedas are, then why look for answers in Vedas or derived philosophies thereof! Why even accept Atman or mokSha then! Or is this completely academic for you? Instead, you can explain big bang in a different thread and its source as well. 

 

//Either its traced in Vedas when it stops becoming original or its original when its not apaurusheya and therefore flawed.//

By what logic can you say it is flawed if it is original?

In short, just by being a human produce, it is flawed. Else you and I would accept anything and everything that anyone says, but we look at with a suspicious eye due to our own human flaws. The jaundiced eye issue. Buddhists have lost this case long back even when they knew what apaurusheya means, you can't win it back for them even if you knew the same. Pls study what apaurusheya is if you are truly interested. श्रद्धावाल्ँलभते ज्ञानम्।

​

 //Sorry, you're putting the cart before the horse. You can't use an unproven claim as proof to refute. Moreover, Buddhists also use the mantra asat eva idam agre asIt in one argument to prove shUnyavAda. //

shUnya and asat are different. 

​By what understanding of the word sat and the na~nj meanings?​ In other words, please explain as to why none of the six meanings of na~nj prefix to sat cannot mean shUnya.

Thanks for acknowledging that Buddhism and advaita are close. We have no differences here.

For one, "maybe" doesn't mean acceptance.​ For another, 2 levels being close definitely doesn't mean shUnya and pUrNa are the same; they are 180 degrees apart.

[Kalyan K]

//There are instances where Shankara has not identified certain passages as 'shruti'. For instance the other verse of this very Amritabindu Upanishad that he cites in the BSB, he simply says 'moksha shastra'. And while citing Gaudapada in the BSB twice, he refers to him as 'sampradayavit acharya.' It is only when we search such verses that we find the source.//


He need not identify the Sruti, but here he takes it as Karika and not Sruti. Even gaudapada, while giving the pot space example, does not say that it is from a Sruti.

[Kalyan K]

//As I have said, all advaitins do not hold it as karika.//

But Shankara is the gold standard for advaitins and he holds it as karika.

[Kalyan K]

//Statement of one is enough to imply the other. //

Not so. If one does not know what is the other.


//Why? The words themselves speak out the concept clearly, unmistakably.//

If VP is talking about 2 truths, and if advaita is borrowing the 2 truths from VP, one wonders why Shankara does not quote it in the context of the 2 truths doctrine.

[Kalyan K]

​//If you do not know, you cannot say that he and his followers didn't borrow from Upanishads so unequivocally; thanks for accepting the same. //

Namaste Sri Praveenji

I never remember saying the above. I am only saying that advaitins have lifted from nagarjuna, the 2 truths theory.


//Your argument would have made sense if I had said that absence of proof means proof of presence! //


Then what is the proof that all upanishads were there by the time of Buddha.
​

//The Upanishads talk of dependent origination all the time.//

Why then did Shankara interpret them as sat kArya vAda?


// Almost everything in Buddhism is borrowed from Vedas with corrupted Sanskrit words and here you are claiming that Advaita Vedanta borrows from Buddhism!//

You need to provide evidence for your claim just as I showed how MMK talks about 2 truths.
​

//Thanks, its called anyathAnupapattiH. Vedas are the breath of Ishvara as per the mantra. I will take your sarcasm as an objection worth considering as soon as you explain as to how you or someone is the author of your breath.//


I am sorry. I asked you to prove apaurusheyatva and you are avoiding the topic. I am not concerned about breath and health. Please show vedas are apaurusheya.





//In short, just by being a human produce, it is flawed.//

Not everything produced by humans is flawed.

// Pls study what apaurusheya is if you are truly interested. श्रद्धावाल्ँलभते ज्ञानम्।//

So apaurusheyatva depends on shraddha. This must be a peculiar apaurusheyatva.


​


//shUnya and asat are different.
​By what understanding of the word sat and the na~nj meanings?​ In other words, please explain as to why none of the six meanings of na~nj prefix to sat cannot mean shUnya.//


asat is non-existence. Shunya is lack of essence.


//For one, "maybe" doesn't mean acceptance.​ For another, 2 levels being close definitely doesn't mean shUnya and pUrNa are the same; they are 180 degrees apart.//

Advaita = madhyamika buddhism - shunya + nirguna brahman

In other words, advaita is same as madhyamika buddhism, with shunya replaced by brahman.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 3:38 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//There are instances where Shankara has not identified certain passages as 'shruti'.  For instance the other verse of this very Amritabindu Upanishad that he cites in the BSB, he simply says 'moksha shastra'.  And while citing Gaudapada in the BSB twice, he refers to him as 'sampradayavit acharya.'  It is only when we search such verses that we find the source.//


He need not identify the Sruti, but here he takes it as Karika and not Sruti.

What is wrong with that?  An author can be seen to annotate/reproduce verbatim a passage.

  

Even gaudapada, while giving the pot space example, does not say that it is from a Sruti.

Why should he state that when it is already known to be there?  

//Statement of one is enough to imply the other. // 

//Not so. If one does not know what is the other.//

If one studies a text under an Acharya one does not have any problem. The Acharya, being more knowledgeable, will fill in the gaps. The difficulty is only when one approaches a text on his own. 

//But Shankara is the gold standard for advaitins and he holds it as karika. //

For Advaitins if there is no contradiction, taking it as a shruti is not diminishing the power of a karika. That is why Shankara himself has called Gaudapada a 'sampradayavit Acharya.'  Acharya vaak is veda vaak. 

// If VP is talking about 2 truths, and if advaita is borrowing the 2 truths from VP, one wonders why Shankara does not quote it in the context of the 2 truths doctrine.//

When VP is talking about 2 truths, and when it is lifting it from the Upanishads, one wonders why Nagarjuna does not quote the source.  

// To prove that Nagarjuna "lifted from vedanta", you have to prove that the Mandukya upanishad is pre-Nagarjuna, which is by no means accepted universally.//

For vaidikas, there is no need for a 'universal' acceptance. That is why nastikas are kept out of this.  It is well known that Nagarjuna being of a recent origin, his words from the Mandukya is a clear give away. Anyone familiar with the ten upanishads, at least, will easily find this out. 

[Praveen R. Bhat]

​Namaste Kalyanji,

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 5:03 PM Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

I never remember saying the above. I am only saying that advaitins have lifted from nagarjuna, the 2 truths theory.

You keep asking for proof, but you have yourself given no proof.​ So by what proof have Advaitins lifted from Nagarjuna? You yourself have accepted that you do not know whether Buddha studied Upanishads. Then proof from your side is impossible.

 

//Your argument would have made sense if I had said that absence of proof means proof of presence! //

Then what is the proof that all upanishads were there by the time of Buddha.

​To me the proof is sampradAya. Just like you don't have any trust in sampradAya, I do not have any trust in any of the scholars you may refer to.​

 

 

//The Upanishads talk of dependent origination all the time.//

Why then did Shankara interpret them as sat kArya vAda?

To show mithyAtva. What is ultimately real for others need not be so in Upanishads itself.

// Almost everything in Buddhism is borrowed from Vedas with corrupted Sanskrit words and here you are claiming that Advaita Vedanta borrows from Buddhism!//

You need to provide evidence for your claim just as I showed how MMK talks about 2 truths.

Sorry, I need to do nothing of the sort. ​You have provided evidence for nothing. Based on someone talking of something you can't make a claim that other has borrowed.

​

 

//Thanks, its called anyathAnupapattiH. Vedas are the breath of Ishvara as per the mantra. I will take your sarcasm as an objection worth considering as soon as you explain as to how you or someone is the author of your breath.//


I am sorry. I asked you to prove apaurusheyatva and you are avoiding the topic. I am not concerned about breath and health. Please show vedas are apaurusheya.

Neither is this the topic of this thread to ask proof of it nor is the onus on me to prove the same already proven by PMs. I can't keep establishing everything already established by the living tradition. ​I've just hinted you with leads. To you breath and health are same! I am right in the middle of the topic that you think I am avoiding! If you do not understand the argument of breath​ that since breath is not created by the person whose breath it is, Vedas which are the breath are not created, I can't help you. I have asked you to look up Purvamimamsakas establishing the same. Else create another thread and ask for help understanding the same. 

 

//In short, just by being a human produce, it is flawed.//

Not everything produced by humans is flawed.

Even one flawed work is sufficient to be doubtful. Else you would have believed the "human-created (as per you)" sampradAya instead of doubting it.

​

 

// Pls study what apaurusheya is if you are truly interested. श्रद्धावाल्ँलभते ज्ञानम्।//

So apaurusheyatva depends on shraddha. This must be a peculiar apaurusheyatva.

What an unrelated jump from "one who has shraddhA gains knowledge​" to "aparusheyatva depends on shraddhA"! To clarify, I meant: have shraddhA in sampradAya and study as to how apaurusheyatva is established. Even science and logic needs you to have shraddhA in the teacher. That doesn't mean "so science and logic depend on shraddhA".

 

//shUnya and asat are different.
​By what understanding of the word sat and the na~nj meanings?​ In other words, please explain as to why none of the six meanings of na~nj prefix to sat cannot mean shUnya.//


asat is non-existence. Shunya is lack of essence.

Unexplained and therefore, unestablished assertion. My question as to why asat cannot mean shUnya has been avoided. 

//For one, "maybe" doesn't mean acceptance.​ For another, 2 levels being close definitely doesn't mean shUnya and pUrNa are the same; they are 180 degrees apart.//

Advaita = madhyamika buddhism - shunya + nirguna brahman 

​ Unproven. It could also very much mean Madhyamika = ​AV - nirguNa brahma. One need not even add shUnya since shUnya is lack of nirguNabrahma which itself is the essence.
​

In other words, advaita is same as madhyamika buddhism, with shunya replaced by brahman.

Using such statements, one can prove in one's own mind that anything is anything else! That is like saying: in other words, emptiness is really fullness, one just has to replace zero with infinity! By your own translation, shUnya is lack of essence while brahman is hopefully still infinite.

​--praveen​

[Kalyan K]

Dear Sri Praveen

This discussion is not going anywhere.


I will end it with a few points-

1. MMK chapter 24 of nagarjuna is the first exposition of 2 truths, which was about 500 or 600 years before Shankara.

2. It is ok to have respect for tradition, but to believe in aparusheyatva in this age is ...let us say...out of the ordinary.

[Kalyan K]

//What is wrong with that? An author can be seen to annotate/reproduce verbatim a passage.//


Shankara does not identify it as Shruti because he knows too well that it is karika. Somebody later lifted it and created a bogus Sruti.



//Even gaudapada, while giving the pot space example, does not say that it is from a Sruti.

Why should he state that when it is already known to be there?//

Gaudapada does not state because there was no Sruti at his time that talks of pot space example. Some advaitin wanted to give a greater legitimacy to advaita and created a bogus Sruti by lifting his verses.


//For Advaitins if there is no contradiction, taking it as a shruti is not diminishing the power of a karika. That is why Shankara himself has called Gaudapada a 'sampradayavit Acharya.' Acharya vaak is veda vaak. //

You are practically admitting here that Gaudapada faked some Srutis.




//When VP is talking about 2 truths, and when it is lifting it from the Upanishads, one wonders why Nagarjuna does not quote the source. //


Nagarjuna does not need to quote a source as this is his original doctrine. He is not lifting it from anybody, unlike the advaitins.



//For vaidikas, there is no need for a 'universal' acceptance. That is why nastikas are kept out of this. It is well known that Nagarjuna being of a recent origin, his words from the Mandukya is a clear give away. //


If Nagarjuna was of recent origin, then Shankara was born yesterday.

[shivraj singh]

--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 5/27/18, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} The theory of two truths in India
To: "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sunday, May 27, 2018, 8:53 AM

//Later interpreters then becomes

a case of experts colliding with each other and how
seriously one takes them is matter of personal preference.

//

The question is not
whether later interpreters have done anything new. The
question is - where is the doctrine of 2 truths originally
from? The answer is - it is from Buddhism and propounded by
Nagarjuna. Other schools like advaita, have merely borrowed
this concept.

--
The page you linked from stanford has this statement:
"Contemporary scholarship suggests that the Buddha himself may not have made any explicit reference to the two truths. "

Do you have a reference that Buddh propounded the two truths?

Regards,
Shivraj

[Kalyan K]

//Do you have a reference that Buddha propounded the two truths? //

I have always maintained that Nagarjuna is the originator of 2 truths theory.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 7:21 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//What is wrong with that?  An author can be seen to annotate/reproduce verbatim a passage.//


Shankara does not identify it as Shruti because he knows too well that it is karika. Somebody later lifted it and created a bogus Sruti.

You have nothing to show a sruti as bogus. There is nothing in that sruti to be not-a-sruti. It expounds a vibrant doctrine.  

//Even gaudapada, while giving the pot space example, does not say that it is from a Sruti.

Why should he state that when it is already known to be there?//

Gaudapada does not state because there was no Sruti at his time that talks of pot space example. Some advaitin wanted to give a greater legitimacy to advaita and created a bogus Sruti by lifting his verses.

How do you know? The very Amritabindu Upanishad from which he has cited the na nirodho verse has this analogy. Moreover, an analogy need not come only from the sruti. Sruti is using logic to make known things. The one with Tarka shastra jnana is familiar with the space-upadhi analogy. None can prove the non-existence of that shruti.    

//For Advaitins if there is no contradiction, taking it as a shruti is not diminishing the power of a karika. That is why Shankara himself has called Gaudapada a 'sampradayavit Acharya.'  Acharya vaak is veda vaak. //

You are practically admitting here that Gaudapada faked some Srutis.

For someone who cannot accept apaurusheyatva, all shrutis, the 10 which Shankara commented upon, are all faked ones.  No different from that. There cannot be any 'original' shruti. Such is the lot of those who date the shruti.   

//When VP is talking about 2 truths, and when it is lifting it from the Upanishads, one wonders why Nagarjuna does not quote the source. //


Nagarjuna does not need to quote a source as this is his original doctrine. He is not lifting it from anybody, unlike the advaitins.

The proof is so glaring. Nagarjuna needs to acknowledge the source of his theory. One who reads his verses can  quickly see the fraud. 

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).// 

Buddhism = Brahmavada + shunya - Brahman.  

Vidyaranya in the Panchadashi has stated this.    

 

If Nagarjuna was of recent origin, then Shankara was born yesterday.

That does not make the Shruti a publication after Nagarjuna. He already had the Shruti corpus from which he lifted all that he wanted to forge a theory. That is the only way he could make people believe he was giving something different from the Vedanta.  

[Venkatraghavan S]

This discussion seems to be suffering from a case of post-hoc fallacy. The works of advaita vedAnta, based on the ones available today, historically occur after mAdhyamaka Buddhism, therefore where the two are similar, the former must have borrowed from the latter. 

An interesting counterpoint can be found in the work mAdhyamakahridaya by Bhavya, a sixth century mAdhyamaka buddhist. Prof VV Gokhale in a paper titled "The Vedanta-Philosophy described by Bhavya in his Madhyamakahrdaya" (Indo-Iranian Journal, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1958) presents a description of Vedanta (pre-Sankaran) that was available during Bhavya's time. He also refers to a situation where the mahAyAna school is criticised as being similar to vedAnta. In reply, Bhavya generously says that whatever is good in the upaniShads has also been taught by the Buddha.

In one of the chapters of the Madhyamakahridaya dealing with the hInayAna objections to mahAyAna, the hInayAna-buddhist criticises the mahAyAna buddhist saying;

न बुद्धोक्तिर्महायानं सूत्रान्तादावसंग्रहात् |

मार्गान्तरोपदेषात् वा यथा वेदान्तदर्शनम् ||

The mAhAyAna teaching was not spoken of by the Buddha, either because it is not included in the sUtrAntas, or because like the vedAnta darshana, it teaches heretic paths to salvation. 

To this attack, the mahAyAnist replies 

वेदान्ते च हि यत् सूक्तम् तत् सर्वं बुद्धभाषितम् |

दृष्टान्तन्यूनता तस्मात् संदिग्धं वा परीक्ष्यताम् ||  

Whatever is well said in the vedAnta (upaniShads) has been taught by the Buddha. The various examples cited by the hInayAna are faulty and what is doubtful must be examined. 

Here is an example of pre-Sankaran Buddhist work where the opponent criticises the mahAyAna school as being similar to vedAnta! The reply of the mahAyAna buddhist is even more remarkable - there is a concession that the best elements of the upaniShads have been taught by the Buddha himself. 

To argue that advaita borrowed from Buddhism, or Buddhism borrowed from advaita is missing the larger point - the two schools are similar in many respects, but different too. Similarity does not imply that one created and the other borrowed, nor does difference imply the absolute absence of common ground.  

Regards,

Venkatraghavan

[Kalyan K]

You are welcome to believe that Nagarjuna forged his theories. From my perspective, the doctrine of 2 truths was first expounded by Nagarjuna. Advaitins borrowed from him but they don't like to acknowledge that. In this context, it is interesting to note that advaitins have been accused of being disguised Buddhists right from the time of Bhaskara. Of course, we seldom find theives acknowledging that they have stolen.


I have nothing else to say on the topic. The article from Stanford gives the rich history of 2 truths doctrine in India, long before advaita came into the picture.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Kalyanji,

On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 8:50 PM Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

This discussion is not going anywhere.

​I agree which is why I had said lets agree to disagree earlier on.​

 

I will end it with a few points-

1. MMK chapter 24 of nagarjuna is the first exposition of 2 truths, which was about 500 or 600 years before Shankara.

... but after Upanishads.​

 

2. It is ok to have respect for tradition, but to believe in aparusheyatva in this age is ...let us say...out of the ordinary.

Thanks, ​I'll take​

 

​that as a compliment. I'll also leave you with some thought: Its okay to inquire in the tradition, but not question everything stated in the tradition with pre-concluded notions. If apaurusheyatva is funny, the theory of karma should also sound hilarious, since child prodigies, etc, are likely just out of the blue coincidences! As for this age, why should Ishvara, Atma, saMsAra, mokSha, etc, be for this age then? Perhaps, just comparative study and finding faults with tradition that has absolutely no basis in this age is up to the mark for sure.

​
Best wishes,

[Praveen R. Bhat]

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:56 AM Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

In this context, it is interesting to note that advaitins have been accused of being disguised Buddhists right from the time of Bhaskara.

No good deed goes unpunished. Attacks on Advaita with name-calling is not new, but accusations do not mean facts. It just shows that mean-minded people existed all the time. तैरयं न विरुध्यते।

 

Of course, we seldom find theives acknowledging that they have stolen.

​We also know that attack is the best form of defence for many, 

​and that one with a jaundiced eye sees the world coloured.​

 

I have nothing else to say on the topic.

L

​ets hope so, if you can't keep off name-calling.

[Dr.C.S.R. Prabhu]

General knowledge is that the Upanishads preceded Buddha by a large period.Therefore Advaita framework of the Upanishads preceded Buddha and ofcourse Nagarjuna.Buddha practised Yoga .He had Enlightenment through Yoga.His experience of Shunya is from Yogic states of Dhyana and Samadhi.Many persons experience Shunya state,where in the Chitra vrittis come to stand still.Nothing exists.The observer or the self does exist because that observer or self is experiencing the Shunya.This is the Drashta of Yoga :योगश्चित्तवृत्तिनिरोघ  तदाद्रष्टु स्वरूपे अवस्थानम् We all know that this self is the part of the Self.

--

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.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I was travelling. So could not participate well here.

There older posts/threads on apaurusheyatva that came up during this thread:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/ixklvY7xtfU/J_W0RFikBAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/ixklvY7xtfU/keTyK_evBAAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/ixklvY7xtfU/keTyK_evBAAJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/impersonality%7Csort:date/bvparishat/ixklvY7xtfU/NQD2CpANBQAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/J1aUWS66aeA/ZDWJjiLNdTgJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/apaurusheyatva%7Csort:date/bvparishat/_sSO6qhwtMk/beBLf-zvenMJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/HQgfcs4s5UM/zCc0smw7CgAJ

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/HQgfcs4s5UM/DDSVMWRkCgAJ

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.

--

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.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

"X exists for analytical purposes but it does not exist in the ultimate understanding" is found in Bhartrihari 's Vaakyapadeeyam. Pada, Varna etc. exist for analytical purposes. But in the ultimate analysis, they do not exist. Only Vaakyaartha exists in the ultimate understanding- is his theory. 

Pada exists for vyavahaara. But it does not exist in the ultimate understanding. Only vaakyaarha exists in ultimate understanding. 

This understanding in VP is absolutely independent of Buddhism.  

[हर्षवर्धनः]

Sir, perhaps I am asking a tangential question, but I am curious to know this:

If advaita is absolutely independent of Buddhist ideas, and despite the germ of some ideas (which were later developed by the buddhists) being found in the early upanishads, why did some commentators term some advaitins "crypto-buddhists"? 

I am going thru Ganganath Jha's trans of Sri Harsha's KhandanaKhandaKhadya in which he too remarks upon this label and it seems to me that he is not too opposed to this labeling

kind rgds

Harsha

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.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

You might want to read:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/Prachhanna$20bauddha%7Csort:date/bvparishat/TCLi5_8DMSA/VGmTPm3hKQAJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/bauddha$20who$20knew%7Csort:date/bvparishat/VQ-eu7Adwe8/B9zkzfh1CAAJ

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

upamaa is one of the sources of our understanding. 

We understand/cognise things through comparison.

That leads to identifying similarities. But we don't stop at identifying similarities. We identify differences and distinctions. This is how we for example identify different members of an animal group, say rodents or bovinae/bovines etc. separately. In some, this ability to identify distinctions is stunted or does not work or works selectively. 

People identified similarities between some Buddhist ideas and some ideas of Advaita. They stopped at that. Started saying both are he same. This happened by the time of Gaudaada himself. That is what prompted Gaudapaada to clarify "naitadbuddhena bhaashitam". He asked them to go further than stopping at similarities. He wanted them to see the differences and distinctions.

Second, those who used words like prachchhanna bauddha did not like Buddhism. They were appealing to the sentiments of all those like themselves, who did not like Buddhism.  If you want to malign nationalism, best way is to say that all nationalists are Hitler-like.

If you don't have a dislike for Buddhism, you are not offended by being compared to Buddhists or your ideas being compared to Buddhist ideas. 

Buddhism being avaidika, Advaita being Vaidika itself brings in a huge foundation for differences. 

All Dhaarmic 'religions' , namely Jainism, Buddhism and all the strands of 'Hinduism' have similarities among themselves. But they have differences among themselves too. Similarly, the similarities between Buddhism -Jainism and Advaita too are not the whole story. The differences between Buddhism-Jainism and Advaita are also important. 

When similarities are found diffusionists (subscribers to monogenesis) attribute the similarities to borrowing. But those who subscribe to polygenesis attribute similarities to coincidence.

If there is a flow of ideas from Vedic to Buddhist and vice-versa, there is no need to feel bad or surprised about it. 

There is a conspiracy particularly among some western Indologists nowadays to create a wedge between Buddhists and 'Hindus' by tracing many things found in Hinduism, in Buddhism.  

The complex of Dhaarmic religions having flow of ideas among themselves is nothing surprising and need not be a source of quarrel among ourselves. 

When we try to identify distinctions going beyond similarities, it is not with the purpose of a quarrel. It is only for the purpose of accuracy of understanding. 

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]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:09 PM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

You might want to read:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/Prachhanna$20bauddha%7Csort:date/bvparishat/TCLi5_8DMSA/VGmTPm3hKQAJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/bauddha$20who$20knew%7Csort:date/bvparishat/VQ-eu7Adwe8/B9zkzfh1CAAJ

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

upamaa is one of the sources of our understanding. 

We understand/cognise things through comparison.

That leads to identifying similarities. But we don't stop at identifying similarities. We identify differences and distinctions. This is how we for example identify different members of an animal group, say rodents or bovinae/bovines etc. separately. In some, this ability to identify distinctions is stunted or does not work or works selectively. 

People identified similarities between some Buddhist ideas and some ideas of Advaita. They stopped at that. Started saying both are he same. This happened by the time of Gaudaada himself. That is what prompted Gaudapaada to clarify "naitadbuddhena bhaashitam". He asked them to go further than stopping at similarities. He wanted them to see the differences and distinctions.

Well said, Paturi ji. I am reminded of a work by Late Vidwan Sri Polagam Rama Sastri, ' Chatur mata saamarasyam' where he has listed over 60 similarities across the four disciplines: Advaita, Shivaadvaita (ShrikanTha), Vishistadvaita and Dvaita.  Yet, we see that there are core differences across these systems.  

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 5:39 AM, Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

You might want to read:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/Prachhanna$20bauddha%7Csort:date/bvparishat/TCLi5_8DMSA/VGmTPm3hKQAJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/bauddha$20who$20knew%7Csort:date/bvparishat/VQ-eu7Adwe8/B9zkzfh1CAAJ

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

upamaa is one of the sources of our understanding. 

We understand/cognise things through comparison.

That leads to identifying similarities. But we don't stop at identifying similarities. We identify differences and distinctions. This is how we for example identify different members of an animal group, say rodents or bovinae/bovines etc. separately. In some, this ability to identify distinctions is stunted or does not work or works selectively. 

People identified similarities between some Buddhist ideas and some ideas of Advaita. They stopped at that. Started saying both are he same. This happened by the time of Gaudaada himself. That is what prompted Gaudapaada to clarify "naitadbuddhena bhaashitam". He asked them to go further than stopping at similarities. He wanted them to see the differences and distinctions.

Second, those who used words like prachchhanna bauddha did not like Buddhism. They were appealing to the sentiments of all those like themselves, who did not like Buddhism.  If you want to malign nationalism, best way is to say that all nationalists are Hitler-like.

If you don't have a dislike for Buddhism, you are not offended by being compared to Buddhists or your ideas being compared to Buddhist ideas. 

Buddhism being avaidika, Advaita being Vaidika itself brings in a huge foundation for differences. 

All Dhaarmic 'religions' , namely Jainism, Buddhism and all the strands of 'Hinduism' have similarities among themselves. But they have differences among themselves too. Similarly, the similarities between Buddhism -Jainism and Advaita too are not the whole story. The differences between Buddhism-Jainism and Advaita are also important. 

When similarities are found diffusionists (subscribers to monogenesis) attribute the similarities to borrowing. But those who subscribe to polygenesis attribute similarities to coincidence.

If there is a flow of ideas from Vedic to Buddhist and vice-versa, there is no need to feel bad or surprised about it. 

There is a conspiracy particularly among some western Indologists nowadays to create a wedge between Buddhists and 'Hindus' by tracing many things found in Hinduism, in Buddhism.  

The complex of Dhaarmic religions having flow of ideas among themselves is nothing surprising and need not be a source of quarrel among ourselves. 

When we try to identify distinctions going beyond similarities, it is not with the purpose of a quarrel. It is only for the purpose of accuracy of understanding. 

This whole mail from Prof. Paturi should be printed out and framed by anyone who follows the dhaarmic religions! Thank you Prof. Paturi for this wonderful summary.

Ramakrishnan

 

[Kalyan K]

//There is a conspiracy particularly among some western Indologists nowadays to create a wedge between Buddhists and 'Hindus' by tracing many things found in Hinduism, in Buddhism.//


From what I have seen, Western Indologists seem to be the favorite punching bags for everything in this forum.

Shankara, after acknowledging that his doctrine is close to Buddhism in the Mandukya commentary, has the following uncharitable remarks against Buddha in BSB 2.2.32 -

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34208.htm

//....Moreover, Buddha by propounding the three mutually contradictory systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only, and general nothingness, has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused.--So that--and this the Sûtra means to indicate--Buddha's doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness.//


Perhaps, Shankara never said this. Perhaps this is also a conspiracy by western indologists. Certainly, western indologists seem to be working overtime to drive a "wedge" between Hindus and Buddhists.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sri Kalyan-ji,

Why this comment of Sankara about Buddha? There are numerous such comments by the adherents of one of the Dhaarmic traditions against the other and one 'Hindu' tradition against the other. 

This did not stop HH Sri Dalai Lama-ji from having intensely cordial relationship with HH Sri Kanchi Periyava and vice versa. I can show you numerous instances of cordial relationships among different Dhaarmic traditions and among various 'Hindu' traditions a very big number of theoretical differences not withstanding. 

Coming to the section of western Indologists conspiring to create a wedge, that is not specifically in this context. It is in the context of several other cases of historiography of ideas. Even if you don't agree the scholars themselves are very clear about their agenda. There is a much bigger section of western Indologists who are aware of the agenda of their colleagues and are trying to counter their efforts whenever and wherever possible. 

So please don't expect that anyone is going to say, " Sankara never said this. " . Sankara and other pratipakshins of all the Indic traditions have said many things in khaNDana of all their pratipaksha Indic traditions. 

That is what the indic intellectual tradition all about. That is not any quarrel. 

 

--
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.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Prof. Paturi Mahodaya,

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 3:09 PM Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com> wrote:

There is a conspiracy particularly among some western Indologists nowadays to create a wedge between Buddhists and 'Hindus' by tracing many things found in Hinduism, in Buddhism.  

 

​Thanks for calling a spade a spade.​ Its high time we give up political correctness for the sake of truth; facts staring straight in our faces have long been ignored.

Kind rgds,

[V Subrahmanian]

On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 9:27 PM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//There is a conspiracy particularly among some western Indologists nowadays to create a wedge between Buddhists and 'Hindus' by tracing many things found in Hinduism, in Buddhism.//


From what I have seen, Western Indologists seem to be the favorite punching bags for everything in this forum.

Shankara, after acknowledging that his doctrine is close to Buddhism in the Mandukya commentary,

Shankara is doing exactly the opposite:

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

The translation of Swami Gambhirananda is very clear here:  //The nature of the supreme Reality is free from the 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 this non-duality, the essence of the ultimate Reality, is to be known from the Upanishads only. This is the purport.// 

If Shankara was really acknowledging his doctrine's closeness to Buddhism, his wording should have been:  अस्माभिः बौद्धसामीप्यमुच्यते | [We are saying that which is close to Buddhism]. 

So, Shankara is only saying what essentially Buddha did not say and in what respects Buddha came close to Vedanta.  And that the Paramarthika satyam can be known only from the Vedanta.  This is quite different from saying 'Shankara acknowledged his doctrine is close to Buddhism.'  And also that the idea of Paramarthika satyam is already in Vedanta and that is not within the grasp of Buddhism. Anyone who understands the language of Shankara can see how far removed it is from the claim made above. The gist is: It is not that 'Shankara is close to Buddhism.' On the other hand, as per Shankara, it is Buddhism that has come close to Vedanta in those respects, but missed the essential Paramarthika Truth of Vedanta'. 

When one understands what Shankara has exactly stated in the Mandukya Bhashya, above, he can easily see the remarks about Shankara's Brahma sutra bhashya on Buddhism are also not maintainable. 

regards

subrahmanian.v  

 

has the following uncharitable remarks against Buddha in BSB 2.2.32 -

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe34/sbe34208.htm

//....Moreover, Buddha by propounding the three mutually contradictory systems, teaching respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of ideas only, and general nothingness, has himself made it clear either that he was a man given to make incoherent assertions, or else that hatred of all beings induced him to propound absurd doctrines by accepting which they would become thoroughly confused.--So that--and this the Sûtra means to indicate--Buddha's doctrine has to be entirely disregarded by all those who have a regard for their own happiness.//


Perhaps, Shankara never said this. Perhaps this is also a conspiracy by western indologists. Certainly, western indologists seem to be working overtime to drive a "wedge" between Hindus and Buddhists.