[Advaita-l] Advaita and Madhyamika Buddhism

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

There is a book by Candrakirti - A refutation of Self in Indian
Buddhism. If he is saying there is no Self in persons how can it be
like Vedanta? It is in Google books and Amazon.

You can deny Self in everything like Devas, Gandharvas, men and
animals but how can you deny Self in the Observer? In Advaita also in
Eka Jeeva Vaada we can deny Self in external things and persons but we
cannot deny Self in the person doing the thinking. He must have a Self
to realize. Otherwise what is there to be done in this life? If
everything is a Dream there is a Dreamer. He must have a Self.

On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 7:16 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l
<advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
> Namaste Praveenji,
>
> On 18 Sep 2016 1:47 p.m., "Praveen R. Bhat" <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Doesn't this sound more like our definition of सदसद्भ्याम् अनिर्वचनीया
> माया than ब्रह्म?! Since you clarify that the Buddhist definition of
> existence is different, still I think Madhyamika calls it a dependent
> existence.
>
> I initially thought too, but I think what they are saying is that shUnya is
> anirvachanIyam - ie no statement can be made of it which is ultimately true.
> They say that everything is ultimately empty, meaning nothing can be said
> of anything. Which is what I perceive to be the problem of this system.
>
>> I think the crucial difference may be in the fact that "no denial of the
> self"  is a lot different from "affirmation of the self". Two Shruti
> statements come to mind, one being असन्नेव स भवति and अस्तीत्येव
> उपलब्धव्यः। Even for परोक्षज्ञान, affirmation/conviction that there is an
> existent entity beyond time and space is necessary.
>
> I agree. However I am not trying to compare Madhayamaka Buddhism with
> Advaita. Only wondering if that school has been adequately considered and
> rebutted in advaita. The issue, as I understand it, with Nagarjunas
> position is that no statement can be made about anything which is
> ultimately true - even Buddhist statements are not ultimately true.
>
> That being the case nothing can be said about a system which says nothing,
> perhaps explaining the minimalist treatment of mAdhyamaka in advaita.
>
> 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



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh