[Advaita-l] Advaita and Madhyamika Buddhism

[Raghav Kumar]

Namaste Sri Chandramouli ji

Thank you. I was having in mind the question of mAdhyamika buddhist
teaching for example. If we take a stand that only if the aupaniShada
puruSa is unfolded with explicit mention and references and quotations from
shruti, it alone is valid advaita teaching, then by definition no matter
what the mAdhyamika buddhists say, they can be said to be lacking in
fulfilling the requirements of a sAdhvI prakriyA since they accept the
words of the Buddha alone as having ultimate prAmANyam.

On the other hand if we focus purely on some core content as defined in
some manner (like say Swami Dayananda Saraswati ji did as mentioned in the
earlier post) then it may be tenable to hold mAdhyamika buddhism (ok the
'modified' non-nihilistic version as was suggested in the earlier post by
Sri Venkatraghavan ji) to be just anuvAda of traditional Vedanta and thus
acceptable and in such case ignore (condone) other ideas like Buddha's
omniscience as being a matter of subjective shraddha and not so important
enough for there to be convergence, necessarily.

I was thinking of shrI sureShvarAcarya's vArtika  -

  yayA yayA bhavetpuMso vyutpattiH pratyagAtmani |

  sa Saiva prakriyA GyeyA sAdhvI sa ca anavasthitA  |

By whatever (approach) one attains the knowledge of the Inner Self, that
itself is to be understood as a right method. It is not fixed (to a
particular approach.) The above vArtika gives latitude to include several
different ways of unfolding the oneness between the individual and the
Whole.But where do we draw the line between a certain pedagogy being
acceptable as being within the ambit of prakriyA bheda and another prakriyA
being an asAdhu prakriyA ?

On 18-Sep-2016 4:38 pm, "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>>>> Namaste Sri Raghav Ji.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reg  << 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. >>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As per my understanding, advaita has no particular preferences reg any
>>>> name and form being considered as supreme in the vyAvahArika state. It is
>>>> left to the individual concerned. But it does consider the phala resulting
>>>> from such preferences and practices relating to it as dependent on the
>>>> choice in accordance with sruti/smriti. But as for pramAna, sruti is the
>>>> only ultimate pramAna followed by smriti.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Reg  << 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. >>,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> more widely accepted view is the other way round. avidyA being bhAva
>>>> rupa alone represents the true teaching of Sri Shankara BhagavatpAda. The
>>>> second part of your statement is not considered by any advaitin at all.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
> ​         ​
>  Reg  <<  Can we take some common minimum principles to be necessary or
> sufficient to
> ​           ​
> be counted as a sadhvI prakriyA of the advaita tradition ? >>,
>
>
>
> ​           ​
> there are ever so many prescribed in the sruti/smriti/purANa/itihasa etc.
> I am not sure why
> ​           ​
> such a doubt should arise.
>
>
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>