[Advaita-l] Advaita and Madhyamika Buddhism

[Raghav Kumar]

I remember Sri Swami Dayananda Saraswati ji saying that anywhere in the
world in any language if the truth of nonduality viz., the oneness between
the individual and the Whole is taught, it is acceptable as advaita. This
is ofcourse unexceptionable.

My question is to understand what is the reasonable position when, although
there is acceptance of nirvisheSha brahman as paramArthasatyam, there is
divergence on other issues like
1. Ishvara is viShNu w.r.t. vyavahAra.
2. In another system, like mAdhyamika, Buddha is  omniscient. His words
have prAmANyam.
3. avidyA being abhAva rupa alone represents the true teaching of Sri
Shankara BhagavatpAda. Accordingly those who regard avidyA as bhAvarUpA
will not be able to attain nivRtti from avidyA.

Can we take some common minimum principles to be necessary or sufficient to
be counted as a sadhvI prakriyA of the advaita tradition ?

Om
Raghav

On 18-Sep-2016 2:01 pm, "Raghav Kumar" <raghavkumar00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste
> Can we say that the अौपनिष्दं पुरुषं was likely to have been taught by at
> least some of the माध्यमिक Buddhists? The similarities are there - such as
> different orders of Reality etc. This would have been discussed before. But
>
> My question is a more general one -
> 1. Can the content of advaita be unfolded and taught without explicit
> references to shruti and bhAShya? Say in some other language...
>
> 2.  What would be the key ideas which would have to be present in such an
> unfoldment or pedagogy?  (I was having in mind ideas like multiple orders
> of Reality, importance of a prepared mind etc.)
>
> 3. We have the well-known vArtika saying that there maybe an endless
> number of prakriyAs to unfold the truth. But what exactly constitutes a
> sadhu prakriya and how may we discern an asAdhu prakriya?
> For example, suppose a prakriya smartly (?) says that nirvisheSha brahman
> alone is the paramArthika satyam , is it enough? Even if such a prakriya
> says that vishnu alone is Ishvara as far as vyavahAra is concerned . ( this
> is only an example i am considering and the specifics have already been
> discussed 'threadbare' in a different thread.) This question of whether its
> a sadhu prakriya or not  applies to even the mAdyamika prakriyA lets say as
> taught in the mUlamAdhyamika kArikA.
>
> Om
> Raghav
>
> On 17-Sep-2016 3:44 pm, "H S Chandramouli via Advaita-l" <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
>>
>>
>>
>> Reg  << Shunyata does not mean nonexistence or a void. Shunyata, as I
>> understand
>> it, simply signifies that things have no self-being or “essence” of their
>> own. >>,
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand this is the new doctrine proposed as a modification of the
>> shUnyata concept proposed by Nagarjuna earlier which meant nihilism only.
>> I
>> also understand that with this modification it is difficult to explain any
>> significant difference between it and advaita. Advaita concept being
>> earlier to shUnyata concept, the shUnyata concept loses its separate and
>> distinct identity itself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ofcourse I only know of  this as a statement and really do not have an
>> opinion one way or the other on the issue. Thought I would just bring it
>> to
>> your attention for whatever it is worth.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Namaste,
>> > In reading advaita works critical of Buddhism, it appears to me that the
>> > concept of shUnyata or emptiness as postulated by Nagarjuna has not been
>> > represented correctly in advaita.
>> >
>> > Shunyata does not mean nonexistence or a void. Shunyata, as I understand
>> > it, simply signifies that things have no self-being or “essence” of
>> their
>> > own. However in most advaita works it has only been briefly discussed
>> and
>> > dismissed as nihilism. Nagarjuna himself is critical of nihilism, so it
>> > does not appear that he had nihilism in mind when postulating shUnyata.
>> >
>> > Does anyone know why it has been represented as nihilism and cursorily
>> > dismissed?
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Venkatraghavan
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>> >
>> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>> >
>> > For assistance, contact:
>> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>