[Advaita-l] Permanence of the self

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

If 'nothing exists' means 'nothing exists independently' it means
'everything is dependent on something'. But this Dualism only. If A is not
independent it means A is dependent on B. We have two things A and B.
Dualism.

This Dualism is contradicting Chandogya Upanishad -  Sadeva Saumya Idam
Agra Aseet Ekameva Advitiyam and Mandukya Upanishad - Advaitam in this text
-

Nantah-prajnam na bahih-prajnam, nobhayatah-prajnam na prajnana-ghanam na
prajnam naprajnam. Adrishtam-avyavaharayam-agrahyam-
alakshanam-acintyam-avyapadesyam-ekatma-pratyayasaram, prapancopasarnam
santam SIVAM-ADVAITAM caturtham manyante sa tm sa vijneyah.

Both are saying Brahman is One only without a Second. Om Namaha Sivaaya.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

> Dear Subrahmanian-ji,
>
> Thanks very much for the prompt response and your advice is well
> taken. However, I am pursuing this in the spirit of manana, so I hope
> you will permit me to take this forward.
>
> I did make the argument on these lines to my boss:
>
> 1) His contention is not that "nothing exists", but that "nothing
> exists independently". That is, by shunyata he was referring to no
> independent existence, not the absence of existence per se.
>
> To which my question to him was, if he believed that, then how does he
> agree to the Buddhist's idea of nirvana being permanent, because
> according to him, nirvana could not have an independent existence? He
> said that nirvana was permanent, but not independent - it was mutually
> dependent on samsara! My only answer was that such a nirvana,
> dependent on what is an illusion from a paramArthikA point of view,
> seems neither permanent nor desirable!
>
> 2) His second point was that if something did have true independent
> existence, it would be impossible to cognize it. That is, the very act
> of knowledge implies an observer and the observed, and then it no
> longer is a non-dual system. Without being able to cognise that
> existence, it would be as good as it not existing at all.
>
> My response to this was that Brahman by its very nature is Sat and
> Chit - and therefore knowledge, the knower and the known are all the
> same entity that is in permanent existence. Secondly, as you are
> Brahman, even if you do not know it (because of avidya), a lack of
> knowledge does not imply the absence of existence (this is circular
> logic though!). Not particularly satisfied with my answer, but that is
> probably because it is dry ratiocination, as Swami Vidyaranya says.
>
> Any further thoughts?
>
> Regards,
>
> Venkatraghavan
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 05:10 AM, V Subrahmanian S via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> <http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>> wrote:
>
> >The BG 2.16:  Sat, Existence, never goes out of existence. [Nor does it
> >come into existence; it is ever-existent]
>
> >This can never be proved wrong, that is, never denied, by anyone.
>  However
> >much can one try, one can never imagine a situation where existence is
> >not.  After denying existence, Sat, what will be? Such a question might be
> >answered: Nothing will be.  Still that nothing is admitted to exist, in
> >that reply itself: nothing will 'be'.  He is only giving another name or
> >no-name for that situation which still 'is'.  He is only vehemently
> against
> >the word 'existence', sat, since it comes from the Veda.
> >
> >In the Panchadashi 2nd chapter, verses 25 onwards, Swami Vidyaranya has
> >pointed out that the term 'shūnya' is only another name for Sat,
> Existence:
> >
> >( भूतविवेकोनामद्वितीयः परिच्छेदः |)
> >भगवत्पूज्यपादाश्च शुष्कतर्कपटूनमून् |
> >आहुर्माध्यमिकान्भ्रान्तानचिन्त्येऽस्मिन्सदात्मनि ||२५||
> >अनादृत्य श्रुतिं मौर्ख्यादिमे बौद्धस्तपस्विनः |
> >आपेदिरे निरामत्वमनुमानैकचक्षुषः ||२६||
> >शून्यमासीदिति ब्रूषे सद्योगं वा सदात्मताम् |
> >शून्यस्य न तु तद्युक्तमुभयं व्याहतत्वतः ||२७||
> >न युक्तस्तमसा सूर्यो नापि चासौ तमोमयः
> >|****सच्छून्ययोर्विरोधित्वाच्छून्यमासीत्कथं* वद *||२८||
> *>*वियदादेर्नामरूपे मायया सति कल्पिते |
> >शून्यस्य नामरूपे च तथा चेज्जीव्यतां चिरम् ||२९||
> >
> >30. The highly respected Bhagavatpada Sankara also refers to the
> Madhyamikas,
> >  experts in dry ratiocination (contradicting the vedic view), as
> >confused regarding
> >  the self-existent Brahman who is beyond thought.
> >
> >    31. These Buddhists, merged in darkness, and seeing through the
> >one eye of inference
> >  and neglecting the authority of the Vedas, reached only the
> 'nothingness'.
> >
> >
> >  32. (We ask the Buddhists): When you said, 'nothing existed' did you
> mean it
> >  (nothing) was connected with existence (Sat) or it (nothing) was of
> >the nature
> >  of existence ? In either case its nothingness is contradicted.
> >
> >    33. The sun does not have the attribute of darkness; nor is it
> >itself of the
> >  nature of darkness. As existence and non-existence are similarly
> >contradictory,
> >  (you cannot predicate something about nothing, so) how do you say
> >'nothing existed'
> >  ?
> >
> >  34. (The Buddhists retort): (According to you Vedantins) The names and
> forms
> >  of Akasa and other elements are conjured up by Maya in (or on) Sat,
> >the existence
> >  or Reality. Similarly (according to us) they (names and forms) are
> illusively
> >  produced by Maya in (or on) non-existence, Asat. (Reply): Our answer
> is, 'May
> >  you live long', i.e. you have fallen into a logical trap.
> >
> >    35. If you affirm that name and form attributed to an existing
> >thing: are both
> >  creations of Maya (an illusory principle), then tell us what is the
> >substratum
> >  upon which Maya creates names and forms; for illusion without a
> substratum,
> >  is never seen.
> >
> >End of translation.
> >
> >My advise is to first understand the above concepts thoroughly and
> >engage in an argument.
> >
> >If he does not agree with the above, leave him at that.
> >
> >regards
> >subrahmanian.v
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l
> <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
> <http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>> wrote:
>
> >* Dear all,
> *>* I work in an office where my boss is a Buddhist, of the Madhyamaka
> *>* tradition of Nagarjuna. We tend to have several lively debates on the
> *>* nature of reality, and one of the questions that we have recently
> engaged
> *>* on is the concept of a permanent Brahman (self) onto which this
> universe,
> *>* including the BMI, is superimposed due to avidya.
> *>>* Unsurprisingly, he opposes the very notion of a self, and more
> *>* fundamentally, the idea of permanence itself (even on a parAmArthika
> *>* basis). His view, coming from the Nagarjuna school is of shunyata, or
> *>* emptiness (mutual interdependence of everything). And that emptyness
> itself
> *>* is empty.
> *>>* What are the arguments that I can make to prove the existence of the
> *>* Universal self to him?
> *>>* I am aware of Sri Shankara Bhagavatpada's argument in the Brahma Sutra
> *>* Bhashya that to deny the self is illogical - the denier would have to
> have
> *>* a self in existence with which to deny the self. And if he didn't have
> a
> *>* self, then the denial wouldn't exist. However, and my understanding is
> *>* limited here - How does this in itself establish the permanence of the
> *>* self? At best, it seems to me that this argument proves that the
> denier's
> *>* ego at a fixed point in time, not the universal, permanent self. I
> suspect
> *>* he could also reject the idea of an individual self, instead saying
> that it
> *>* is the momentary mind that denies, in that example.
> *>>* I can point him to shruti vAkya pramAna, but to someone that denies
> the
> *>* prAmanyam of shruti, that wouldn't be effective. Any suggestions?
> *>>* Regards,
> *>* Venkat
> *>* _______________________________________________
> *>* Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> <http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/>
> *>* http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> <http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita>
> *>>* To unsubscribe or change your options:
> *>* http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> <http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>
> *>>* For assistance, contact:
> *>* listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> <http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l>
> *>
> _______________________________________________
> 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