[Advaita-l] Advaita and Madhyamika Buddhism

[Venkatraghavan S]

This should be nyAya makaranda, not advaita makaranda. Apologies. I have
not studied either work.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan

On 30 Mar 2017 7:39 a.m., "Venkatraghavan S" <agnimile at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaste Sri Praveenji,
> I believe he is referring to the work "advaita makaranda"  by AnandabodhAchArya
> which postulates that avidyA nivritti is a fifth category which does not
> belong to any of the other four. Sastrigal is saying shUnyam, which is not
> any of these four also, is not same as avidyA nivritti either.
>
> Regards
> Venkatraghavan
>
> On 30 Mar 2017 2:34 a.m., "Praveen R. Bhat" <bhatpraveen at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Namaste Chandramouliji,
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 28, 2017 at 4:24 PM, H S Chandramouli <
>> hschandramouli at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> << Unlike other critics Sri Vedanta Desika has understood the nature of
>>> sunya correctly as neither bhava nor abhava nor both nor neither, bhava
>>> abhava vilakshanam. Sri Desika contends that avidya is tantamount to the
>>> Madhyamika theory of sunya. It is to be noted that no advaitic work from
>>> the time of Anandabodhacharya has replied to this charge. But the earlier
>>> work, Ishta Sidhi and its commentary, have raised this question and
>>> provided the answer. In claiming this criticism as original to himself, Sri
>>> Vedanta Desika has either not seen the reference to it in Ishta Sidhi or
>>> has ignored the answer provided in it. There is a fundamental difference
>>> between the concept of sunyam and the concept of avidya nivrtti.
>>>
>>
>> ​I have trouble seeing what the author means with the last line; while
>> the concepts of shUnya and avidyA being compared, why has he suddenly
>> landed on concept of shUnya and concept of avidyA *nivRtti*?
>>
>> About the rest of it, I do agree that there is a difference considering
>> shUnya's apratyogitvam as claimed by Buddhists. Having said that, in
>> Chandogyopanishad, where the Shruti Herself quotes Vainashika pakSha with
>> the mantra "asadevedam agra AsIt", Bhashyakara and Tikakaras say that there
>> cannot be a talk of complete non-absence, meaning without the pratiyogi of
>> bhAva, abhAva cannot be talked about. This Siddhanta objection will apply
>> to Mahavainashikas=Buddhists as well.
>>
>> ​gurupAdukAbhyAm
>> ,
>> --Praveen R. Bhat
>> /* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one
>> know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */
>> ​
>>
>