[Advaita-l] Advaita and Madhyamika Buddhism

[Venkatraghavan S]

Thank you Sri Chandramouli ji (resending to the group as I understand it
wasn't copied earlier).

Nagarjuna's description of emptiness is the negation of each of the four
logical possibilities - it is not:
1) existent (this is the Buddhist view of existence as characterised by
impermanence, suffering, non-self)
2) non-existent (ie characterised by the absence of an existent thing)
3) existent and non-existent (which is a logical impossibility in the same
locus at the same time) and
4) neither existent nor non-existent. This is the problematic denial from
the standpoint of classical logic. The negation of neither (p) nor not (p)
is either (p) or not(p).

But this has already been denied in 1 and 2. So how can Nagarjuna hold the
negation of 4, 1 and 2 simultaneously? Chandrakirti, his commentator says
that there are two ways a statement can be said to be not ultimately true.
One is if it is ultimately false, the other is if the statement itself has
no meaning. If p has no meaning, then p cannot be said to be ultimately
true or ultimately false. Similarly not p. So what was being said in the
negation of 1 and 2 was not that the statements were ultimately false, only
that they were not ultimately true. Thus if 1) and 2) are not ultimately
true, then the negation of their disjunction neither existent nor absent
cannot be ultimately true.

Where does this leave us? Essentially the sense I get of Nagarjuna's
philosophy is not the denial of self as the ultimate reality, but the
denial of any statements in relation to the self - as statements relating
to the self have no meaning. ie refraining from saying it exists, it
doesn't exist, it exists and does not, or it neither exist nor it doesn't.

I am not sure whether this has been characterised correctly in advaita. It
is possible that it is I who have misunderstood mAdhyamaka Buddhism.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 17 Sep 2016 11:14 a.m., "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thank you Sri Chandramouli ji.
>
> Nagarjuna's description of emptiness is the negation of each of the four
> logical possibilities - it is not:
> 1) existent (this is the Buddhist view of existence as characterised by
> impermanence, suffering, non-self)
> 2) non-existent (ie characterised by the absence of an existent thing)
> 3) existent and non-existent (which is a logical impossibility in the same
> locus at the same time) and
> 4) neither existent nor non-existent. This is the problematic denial from
> the standpoint of classical logic. The negation of neither (p) nor not (p)
> is either (p) or not(p).
>
> But this has already been denied in 1 and 2. So how can Nagarjuna hold the
> negation of 4, 1 and 2 simultaneously? Chandrakirti, his commentator says
> that there are two ways a statement can be said to be not ultimately true.
> One is if it is ultimately false, the other is if the statement itself has
> no meaning. If p has no meaning, then p cannot be said to be ultimately
> true or ultimately false. Similarly not p. So what was being said in the
> negation of 1 and 2 was not that the statements were ultimately false, only
> that they were not ultimately true. Thus if 1) and 2) are not ultimately
> true, then the negation of their disjunction neither existent nor absent
> cannot be ultimately true.
>
> Where does this leave us? Essentially the sense I get of Nagarjuna's
> philosophy is not the denial of self as the ultimate reality, but the
> denial of any statements in relation to the self - as statements relating
> to the self have no meaning. ie refraining from saying it exists, it
> doesn't exist, it exists and does not, or it neither exist nor it doesn't.
>
> I am not sure whether this has been characterised correctly in advaita.
>
> Regards,
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 17 Sep 2016 11:14 a.m., "H S Chandramouli" <hschandramouli at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Sri Venkatraghavan Ji,
>>
>>
>>
>> Reg  << Shunyata does not mean nonexistence or a void. Shunyata, as I
>> understand
>> it, simply signifies that things have no self-being or “essence” of their
>> own. >>,
>>
>>
>>
>> I understand this is the new doctrine proposed as a modification of the
>> shUnyata concept proposed by Nagarjuna earlier which meant nihilism only. I
>> also understand that with this modification it is difficult to explain any
>> significant difference between it and advaita. Advaita concept being
>> earlier to shUnyata concept, the shUnyata concept loses its separate and
>> distinct identity itself.
>>
>>
>>
>> Ofcourse I only know of  this as a statement and really do not have an
>> opinion one way or the other on the issue. Thought I would just bring it to
>> your attention for whatever it is worth.
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 3:05 PM, Venkatraghavan S via Advaita-l <
>> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Namaste,
>>> In reading advaita works critical of Buddhism, it appears to me that the
>>> concept of shUnyata or emptiness as postulated by Nagarjuna has not been
>>> represented correctly in advaita.
>>>
>>> Shunyata does not mean nonexistence or a void. Shunyata, as I understand
>>> it, simply signifies that things have no self-being or “essence” of their
>>> own. However in most advaita works it has only been briefly discussed and
>>> dismissed as nihilism. Nagarjuna himself is critical of nihilism, so it
>>> does not appear that he had nihilism in mind when postulating shUnyata.
>>>
>>> Does anyone know why it has been represented as nihilism and cursorily
>>> dismissed?
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>