Antiquity of advaita vedanta (was : an open letter to all)

[Anand Hudli]

On Wed, 21 Jun 2000 13:44:16 PDT, nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>I know there's very little point in my posting a reply to this, but this is
>for readers who might be misled by such arguments.
>
>>He calls it viGYAna (consciousness)
>>and describes it as aja (birthless), achala (stationary), avastu
>>(non-object), shAnta (peaceful), and advaya (nondual) in 4.45.
>>The mAdhyamika can *never* say  this about *anything*.
>
>"aparapratyayam shAntam prapanchairaprapanchitam nirvikalpam anAnArtham
>etat tattvasya lakshanam" - "the Real is that which can only be directly
>realized, that which is calm and blissful, where all plurality is merged,
>that where all the cries of the intellect are satisfied, that which is the
>non-dual Absolute".
>                                                 - MAdhyamaka KArikA
>

 This is scholarship of those who think they have mastered the arguments
 of advaita! I repeat once again, the mAdhyamika can *never*
 accept, for example, the ViGYana that GauDapAda is talking about. He
 would not categorically assert any consciousness and   the Self. The
 whole of mAdhyamika theory rests mainly on two things -
 1) pratItya-samutpAda or dependency of anything on others,
 and 2) the teaching of anAtman, or the non-Self that comes directly
 from the Buddha. The Bauddha can *never* accept that everything is
 inherently existent (has Existence for its essence). He can *never*
 accept that there is a Self in all beings. This outright shreds to
 pieces all outlandish claims about any influence on advaita. Period.
 The quote from the MMK which is supposed to compare with GK 4.45 is
 inappropriate and irrelevant for this reason.


>That advaita is prachanna bauddham is not to be disproved by trying to show
>that advaita has no buddhist influence. Though this might pass in dogmatic
>or fanatic circles (which incidentally has no place in a true Advaitic
>following and is but a clear example of ignorance being a breeding ground
>for prejudice), a scholarly critical evaluation will tear such an argument
>to shreds.

 This is the example of rather rabid fanaticism from those who consider
 themselves scholarly, the kind one resorts to force personal views
 on those of GauDapAda and Shankara. Making such comments is only an
 indication of sheer desperation to prove something that cannot be proven!

 I also request the list administrators to *forbid* such statements on the
 grounds that they do not contribute constructively to either an
 understanding of advaita nor even to a comparative understanding of
 the points of mAdhyamika. I hope everyone has heard the Hindi saying,
 "na ghar kA na ghAT kA". If we try to mix advaita with mAdhyamika, by
 distorting the teachings of both as is being done here,  we
 will neither have the benefits of advaita nor even of mAdhyamika whatever
 they may be. We are hearing a distorted version of advaita and
 mAdhyamika as well. One has to have the perseverance and the mental
 capacity to go through the texts. But then this is probably asking too
 much for some who would be just eager to jump to conclusions.

 Anand

--
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help     : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.