gauDapaada and buddha (was Re: brahman by ...)

[Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian]

Kartik wrote:

> This is not so hard to understand at all. For example, Shankara does not
> permit non-Brahmanas to take up sannyasa; in fact, I think he makes this point
> twice in his upadeshasahasri. Why should Suresvera, one of Shankara's greatest
> disciples, disagree with Shankara on this point?

A vartika is written to correct minor errors which may creep into bhashyas. See
the definition of vartika in A. Mahadeva Sastri's book on Dakshinamurti stotra.
Moreover, this is a very minor point and not one like denying/affirming the
existence of an absolute. It's quite clear that GK IV affirms the existence of
an absolute (the aalaaTa chakra metaphor itself is used to do this).

> > admits that his advaita dialectic is very similar to that of Nagarjuna's,
> > except for the fact that he affirms an absolute where the madhyamaka
> > school does not.
> >
>
> I believe this is exactly the same stance taken by Gaudapada when he says,
> "These people, who while disputing thus and establishing birthlessness, are
> really non-dualists...we do not dispute with them. Understand that this
> philosophy is free from dispute." (paraphrased)

Actually, I think it has nothing to do with the denial of absolute or not. The
dvaitins claim that there was creation (I think gauDapaada considers the
nyaayaa and saa.nkhya system in the verses you are referring to) and come up
with conclusions A and B. Now gauDapaada merely says that both conclusions A
and B can be reached depending on how you look at it, revealing the flaw in the
original premise that there _was_ a creation. Thus ajaati is free from dispute
and is established by the quarelling dvaitins.

Ramakrishnan.