[Advaita-l] 'Sarva-shunya' is impossible!

[V Subrahmanian]

Sarva-shunya' is impossible!

An inquiry as to the validity of the sarva-shunya-vada of the Buddhists
leads to a 'no, not valid' conclusion.

How?

In the Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya, Sri Shankaracharya has dismissed this school
without much ado, saying the refutation of the vijnana-vada of the
Buddhists is applicable here also.

 शून्यवादिपक्षस्तु सर्वप्रमाणविप्रतिषिद्ध इति तन्निराकरणाय नादरः क्रियते ।
न ह्ययं सर्वप्रमाणसिद्धो लोकव्यवहारोऽन्यत्तत्त्वमनधिगम्य शक्यतेऽपह्नोतुम् ,
अपवादाभावे उत्सर्गप्रसिद्धेः ॥ ३१ ॥  2.2.31

"The shunya-vada is without any support or evidence or authority and hence
does not enthuse one to refute it. The loka-vyavahara which is supported by
all evidence cannot be refuted without establishing or accepting an
alternative principle that is higher. It is commonly accepted that what is
experienced has to exist, unless adequately proved to the contrary."

From this we understand that the Buddhists have not accepted any
alternative principle to refute the experiential world, whereas Advaitins
admit  such a principle. And that is the Atman, eternal, unchanging and
differentiated from the ephemeral experiences of the mind and the
intellect.This is propounded by the Upanishats and is also amenable to
experience.

That the Buddhists have not admitted the eternal Atman has been mentioned
by Sri Shankaracharya in the bhashya on Mandukya-karika of Sri
Gaudapadacharya:

क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः ।
सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ९९ ॥
तथा धर्मा इति आकाशमिव अचलमविक्रियं निरवयवं
नित्यमद्वितीयमसङ्गमदृश्यमग्राह्यमशनायाद्यतीतं ब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वम्, ‘न हि
द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ (बृ. उ. ४-३-२३) इति श्रुतेः ।
ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न बुद्धेन भाषितम् । यद्यपि
बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं तु
परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥
Even though the Bauddha denied the triputi, the external objects and
admitted the idea that everything is just consciousness, and thereby came
very close to the Advaya vastu of the Vedanta, yet,  this paramārtha
tattvam Advaitam (characterized by the nitya chaitanyam for which Shankara
cited the vakyam above) is to be known only from the Upanishads.

The eternal, unchanging chaitanya (Pure Consciousness) has been elaborated
in Br. Upanishat - 4.3.23 -  "The mind and the intellect of the jiva, which
cognize the experiential world, are illumined by the supreme chaitanya that
never ceases, as it has no decay or destruction."

The following observations by Sri Shankaracharya, in the Brahma sutra
bhashya (1.1.4.4 - Samanvaya adhikarana - "tat tu samanvayat'), apply to
shunya vada also (though not explicitly mentioning Buddha).

योऽसावुपनिषत्स्वेवाधिगतः पुरुषोऽसंसारी ब्रह्मस्वरूपः
उत्पाद्यादिचतुर्विधद्रव्यविलक्षणः स्वप्रकरणस्थोऽनन्यशेषः, नासौ नास्ति
नाधिगम्यत इति वा शक्यं वदितुम् ; ‘स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ९ । २६)
इत्यात्मशब्दात् आत्मनश्च प्रत्याख्यातुमशक्यत्वात् , य एव निराकर्ता
तस्यैवात्मत्वात् ।

"One cannot say that 'the purusha about whom we can learn only from the
Upanishats is not this Atman', or that 'Such a purusha is not there' or
that ' such a person cannot be known or experienced', because the Br. Upa.
3.9.26 has described this purusha using the word 'Atma' only. That Atman
cannot be refuted or denied, because the essence of the one who denies is
this very upanishadic purusha." (one making such a denial is denying
oneself, which is an impossibility).

So, no one can refute or deny the ephemeral mind and the intellect, and the
world that is perceived and grasped by such intellect, without admitting
the eternal Atman. Why? Because, the mind and the intellect can be refuted
only through an alternative principle that is different from the mind and
intellect. The upanishadic Atman is such a principle. Buddha has not
admitted this. Therefore, the 'sarva-shunyatva' cannot be proved by Buddha
/ Buddhists or anybody else. In terms of B. Gita Ch. 13, one can deny the
world and the instrument of cognition (the intellect) as a product of
prakruti, a part of 'kshetra'. One can claim oneself to be different from
the products of prakruti, but only by establishing oneself as the eternal
Atman different from objective consciousness. But one cannot deny the Atman
because there is nothing besides the Atman.

Therefore, 'sarva-shunyatva' denying both the product of prakruti that is
the buddhi which is differentiated from the rest of the prakruti cannot
hold water.

A couple of years ago, there was a seminar on Buddhism, organised jointly
by the Maha Bodhi Society and the Karnataka Sanskrit University, at the
Institute of World Culture, B.P. Wadia Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore.
Speaking at the seminar, senior scholar Dr. D. Prahladachar (who is now the
head of the Vyasraja Matha) observed: "Both Buddhists and Advaitins admit
the mithyatva of the world. The Advaitins say the substraturm of the world,
which is but a superimposition, is Brahman as propounded by Vedanta.
Buddhists do not admit any eternal substratum."

Om Tat Sat