[Advaita-l] Permanence of the self

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan

I have gone through the article. It is balanced article like you said. But
unfortunately I have no good knowledge of Buddhist source books or Buddhist
arguments. From my understanding I can make some comments. Kindly correct
me if wrong -

1  Gaudapada has explained the Ajaativaada in the Karikas. Buddha has not
spoken of Ajaativaada. Naitad Buddhena Bhashitam.

2. Gaudapada has accepted authority of Vedanta and Brahman-Atman in his
Karikas. Buddha has not accepted authority of Vedas and Vedanta. He has not
spoken of Brahman-Atman. Naitad Buddhena Bhashitam.

3 In the article on Page 6 - 'Gautama Buddha advocates the the everlasting
real nature of the Law. Gaudapada advocates the Pure Intelligence only
which is beyond the sphere of the law of causality. The one contends the
metethical Law of phenomena, the other the transcendental reality of the
pure consciouness.'  What is 'everlasting real nature of the Law' accepted
by Gautama Buddha? I did not understand.

4. Same page -  'Here one might raise objections against my view and say
among others: isn't the highest truth of Gautama Buddha the Consciousness
Only, because the Trirnsika declares it so? My answer is no. Read carefully
the following verses! And you will find out that the Non-mind (acittam) or
Non-consciousness is the highest truth. The Consciousness Only is a half
-way house,where one should not dwell forever. It should be left behind in
order to arrive at the highest truth. And this is the real nature of the
Law (dharma-dhatu) which is identical with the knowledge of no false
imagination (nirvikalpajnanam), and which may be expressed by the knowledge
won after' it (tatprsthalabdha jnanam).'
What Gautama Buddha said Gaudapada did not say. Naitad Gaudapaadaihi
Bhashitam.

This important point is cutting to pieces the bad Bengali and other
scholars argument saying -  the Sunyata of Buddhists is same as Brahman
Consciousness of Vedanta and we Advaitis do not have anything new and
Advaita and Buddhism are the same. These people have not understood Advaita
and they have not understood Buddhism also.

5 I do not agree with this on Page 7 - 'It is doubtless that the
Upanishadas had much influence upon Buddhism and vice versa. This is the
reason why Vidhushekhara's interpretation of Gaudapada has appeared and
Samkara is sometimes reproached for his being a pracchanna bauddha.'

How is it possible the Apaurusheya Eternal Upanishads got influence of
Buddhism? There may be some new and recent Upanishads but the Old
Dashopanishads were there in Gautama Buddha's time also. The author cannot
accuse 'Upanishads got Buddhist influence' for these Ten Upanishads. Adi
Sankara wrote his Bhashyas on these Ten Upanishads. But Buddists got
Upanishad ideas. Advaita is Upanishad based philosophy. On the surface both
share some common ideas. By observing this ignorant people said Advaitis
are Pracchanna Bauddhas. But who said this they themselves are Pracchanna
Charvakas. This is the joke.

On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:11 PM, Venkatraghavan S <agnimile at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear Sri Venkatesh,
> This is a pertinent article that deals with this very kArikA - seems to me
> to be a very balanced analysis. Thought I would share it as it may be
> useful.
>
> https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ibk1952/9/1/9_1_410/_pdf
>
> Regards,
> Venkat
> Namaste
>
> I am trying to understand this Sloka. I kindly request scholars here to
> help my understanding.
>
> At the end of the Alati Shanti Prakarana the Parama Guru of Adi Sankara
> Sri Gaudapada has said Naitad Buddhena Bhashitam. This was not spoken by
> Buddha. Some bad scholars think Buddha did not speak of Atman because it
> cannot be spoken in words. He remained silent. Silence is the highest
> teaching. But this is a wrong explanation for this Sloka.
>
> क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः ।
> सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ९९
> and ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न  बुद्धेन  भाषितम् ।
> यद्यपि बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं
> तु परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥
>
> This is a difficult Sloka to understand with even Adi Sankara Bhashya on
> it. The Buddhists have understood the Emptiness of the world. This Advaitis
> can understand as Jaganmithyaatva the Unreality of the World. Even though
> the Buddhists are close to Vedantis because they reject outside Objects of
> the World but they have not understood the Brahma Satyatva the Reality of
> Brahman. The Only way to understand Brahman is through Vedanta. The
> Buddhists are missing this. They cannot understand Atman or Brahman without
> Vedanta. The Budhhist theory is Incomplete.
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:48 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>> First of all, thanks a lot for taking the time to provide your comments in
>> this debate. Just a few initial responses:
>>
>> Sri Murali HR: "Do nothing."
>> Venkat: Perhaps you mean this exercise is futile and hence not doing
>> anything is better than otherwise? If so, maybe, but sometimes an exercise
>> in futility may produce unexpected results that still have value (in this
>> case, this very email chain has afforded me a better understanding). But I
>> understand the sentiment, thanks.
>>
>> Sri Subbu:"Shankara has grouped Bauddha along with others and called them
>> dvaitins. Check the archives of this forum to get the exact reference from
>> the Gaudapada karika bhahsya."
>> Venkat: Thank you sir. I will certainly do so.
>>
>> Sri Vidyasankar:" By this logic, non-cognizability is posited as a
>> necessary attribute of true
>> independent existence and then the same non-cognizability is used to
>> argue for non-existence."
>> Venkat: Thanks for articulating it so well! There is certainly circularity
>> in this chain of logic - "Existence requires cognisance. Cognisance
>> implies
>> change. Change implies non-existence."   The first leg of that chain -
>> that
>> existence requires cognizance to prove its existence is the weakest leg of
>> his argument, in my opinion. The problem with the second leg is whether
>> cognisance implies change in the cognising agent - so, even if one were to
>> argue that Brahman's existence is self-evident, can we say that Brahman
>> knows it *exists*? If so does it change by mere fact of its knowledge?
>>
>> Sri Venkatesh Murthy: "If 'nothing exists' means 'nothing exists
>> independently' it means 'everything is dependent on something'. But this
>> Dualism only."
>> Venkat: Its dualism, but probably qualified - in the sense that nothing
>> exists in and as of itself, but only in relation to something else, which
>> also does not exist in and as of itself. In terms of classification, one
>> may call it dualist, or nihilist.
>>
>> Sri Krishnamoorthy: "If everything ends in shunyatha- I mean emptiness or
>> nothingness-then why should one live at all?"
>> Venkat: I think you have hit on an important conclusion from Buddhism (or
>> at least my understanding of it, based on what my boss/friend says) -
>> there
>> is no ultimate reality, no conventional reality, no path, no seeker and
>> nothing to be known. Its precisely because when faced with that, people
>> naturally tend to ask why should one bother to live at all, that nirvana
>> as
>> a goal and sadhana as a means to achieve it are taught in the Buddhist
>> tradition - but if one were to actually walk that path, they do believe
>> there is no ultimate reality.
>>
>> Sri HS Chandramouli: "For such an entity there need not be any action
>> needed
>> to enable it. Just its presence itself could enable it. The nearest
>> illustration
>> is that of the Sun. In the absence of sunlight no visual cognition occurs.
>> The presence of the Sun enables such cognition without any action by the
>> Sun."
>> Venkat: First of all, thanks very much for your detailed mail - it was
>> certainly helpful to me and therefore no need to apologise. I think the
>> concept that my friend fails to appreciate is one of "self-evidence", that
>> is if some thing "is", you do not need anything else to prove it "is".
>>
>> Sri Balagopal: "Swami Paramarthananda Ji says that one has to sharpen
>> one's
>> intellect to at least begin understanding vedanta (advaita). How else the
>> 'eye' can see the 'eye' itself* !!. If one refuses to step up from one's
>> manda budhi (will happen only if one is willing to study vedant
>> 'sampradayically') god alone can save him ! They will never understand and
>> you will have either more whiter hair or the existing ones will begin to
>> fall !! Because after a stage it becomes a futile discussion instead of
>> fertile."
>> Venkat: Thanks sir. I completely understand and am quite wary about this -
>> which is why I will not indulge in this debate for too long, but for the
>> moment, the discussion is certainly helping me crystallise my thought
>> process.
>>
>> Once again, thank you for your thoughtful comments.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Venkat
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:49 AM, Srivathsa Rao <vathsa108 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > DearSri Venkatraghavan,
>> >
>> > Even shankaracharya says,something cannot come from nothing....or form
>> > emptyness nothing can come.....then from where this bhudhi came
>> according
>> > to bhudhists?
>> >
>> > According to advaita there exists a jgnana called brahman,because of
>> which
>> > this world came to exists....who's special power of hiding this jgnana
>> so
>> > called maya ,helps him to create this world.....
>> >
>> > but according to bhudhists nothing exists....so for where this bhudhi
>> came
>> > to exist from emptyness?
>> >
>> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 5:14 PM, Srivathsa Rao <vathsa108 at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >> DearSri Venkatraghavan,
>> >>                                              Even bhudhists accept the
>> >> moksha through jgnana yoga,that means..they accept there exists a
>> >> jgnana,which gives them moksha.....
>> >> this jgnana can't be empty...as jgnana exists and empty exists are
>> >> contradictory ....
>> >>
>> >> this jgnana is called as brahman in vedanta...it exists and continues
>> to
>> >> exits....as moksha is eternal according to all religion,this jgnana is
>> also
>> >> eternal.....
>> >>
>> >> Vedanta says this jgnana of brahman is nothing but self 'I" .......as
>> >> this jgnana exists eternally ,"I "exists eternally....
>> >>
>> >> regards,
>> >> Srivathsa Rao I
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:44 PM, balagopal ramakrishnan via Advaita-l <
>> >> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Swami Paramarthananda Ji says that one has to sharpen one's intellect
>> to
>> >>> at least begin understanding vedanta (advaita). How else the 'eye'
>> can see
>> >>> the 'eye' itself* !!. If one refuses to step up from one's manda budhi
>> >>> (will happen only if one is willing to study vedant
>> 'sampradayically') god
>> >>> alone can save him ! They will never understand and you will have
>> either
>> >>> more whiter hair or the existing ones will begin to fall !! Because
>> after a
>> >>> stage it becomes a futile discussion instead of fertile.
>> >>> Well, as Venkat Ji said - it might help to sharpen one's; but, be
>> >>> cautious while wrestling - pigs don't know pigs stink!!
>> >>> Regards
>> >>> Balagopal
>> >>> *"shrotrasya shrotram manaso mano.." (Kena Up 1.2)
>> >>>
>> >>>      On Wednesday, 18 February 2015 1:22 PM, H S Chandramouli via
>> >>> Advaita-l <advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Dear Sri Venkataraghavan,
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Reg 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.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Yes. Any act of knowledge implies an observer and the observed.
>> However
>> >>> when the observer and the observed are jada ( inert ) , that is
>> incapable
>> >>> of the act of cognition by themselves, an enabling entity is needed to
>> >>> enable such cognition. For such an entity there need not be any action
>> >>> needed to enable it. Just its presence itself could enable it. The
>> >>> nearest
>> >>> illustration is that of the Sun. In the absence of sunlight no visual
>> >>> cognition occurs. The presence of the Sun enables such cognition
>> without
>> >>> any action by the Sun. Just its presence enables it. We can now
>> consider
>> >>> the experience of all of us. We are aware of the Creation in our
>> waking
>> >>> state. When we pass on to the dream state, we cognize the dream
>> creation.
>> >>> Even though there is nothing in common between these two creations,
>> we do
>> >>> have the knowledge ( in the waking state where this analysis is being
>> >>> done
>> >>> ) that it is the same cognizing entity ( namely ourselves ) which
>> >>> experienced both the creations. We can now consider the deep sleep
>> state.
>> >>> We only have recollection of that state. The recollection is that no
>> >>> creation was experienced. Not even Time. Also we enjoyed unalloyed
>> pure
>> >>> happiness. Note that this is only a recollection in the waking state.
>> >>> Also
>> >>> our cognition is that it is the same entity ( namely ourselves ) which
>> >>> had
>> >>> earlier experienced the two types of creation that is having this
>> >>> recollection also. This is not logically possible unless there was
>> some
>> >>> other entity which “ witnessed “ all these three states independently
>> and
>> >>> enabled us to cognize the same as such . This enabling is not done as
>> an
>> >>> act on its part but happens just by its proximity or its presence
>> because
>> >>> it happens all the time automatically as it were and is universal.
>> Your
>> >>> Budhist friend also can vouch for it.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  We can now consider our experience with the passage of time. Right
>> from
>> >>> our childhood days through to our last days we change so much both
>> >>> mentally
>> >>> and physically that it is practically impossible to recognize that it
>> is
>> >>> the same single entity ( namely ourselves ) which has experienced all
>> >>> these
>> >>> changes unless that is brought to our attention automatically and all
>> the
>> >>> time by a “ Witnessing Agent “ who is independent of the experiencing
>> >>> entity ( namely ourselves ) . This again confirms what was concluded
>> >>> previously that such a “ Witness “ is “ existent “ all the time and in
>> >>> all
>> >>> the states ( waking/dream/deep sleep ) which by its mere proximity or
>> >>> presence enables such cognition. This being a universal experience it
>> can
>> >>> be logically postulated that a “ permanent “ conscious entity exists
>> >>> which
>> >>> is what your Budhist friend is disputing. It is not necessary that
>> such
>> >>> an
>> >>> entity must itself be cognizable. It can be inferred. Even Budhists
>> admit
>> >>> inference as permissible in a postulation. If your friend does not
>> agree
>> >>> with this postulation he needs to logically refute such a possibility.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Having said this, I would like to add that going by pure logic this
>> can
>> >>> at
>> >>> best be a postulate only and not an assertion. That is the limitation
>> of
>> >>> logic by definition. The assertion that it IS so is possible only
>> through
>> >>> the Shrutis. But that is a different story. I am very sorry if this
>> has
>> >>> become too long. Please bear with me. I really did not want to make it
>> >>> too
>> >>> brief as I thought it could be misunderstood as it usually happens in
>> >>> forums like this where we do not know each other personally.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>  Regards
>> >>>
>> >>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>> >>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> 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://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
>> >>> >
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
Regards

-Venkatesh