[Advaita-l] 'Sarva-shunya' is impossible!

[V Subrahmanian]

Also, the Bh.Gita says:  नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः । उभयोरपि
दृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः ॥ १६ ॥

The Sat, Existence, can never go out of existence and the asat, that is
mithya, can never have a true existence.

This statement is impossible for anyone to contradict. The Gita itself says
this Sat is acchedya, adaahya, akledya...nitya sarvagata, sanaatana,
achala.

One can deny everything other than the Sat, the Self, but never the
denier.

regards
subbu

On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 12:31 PM V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Sarva-shunya' is impossible!
>
> An inquiry as to the validity of the sarva-shunya-vada of the Buddhists
> leads to a 'no, not valid' conclusion.
>
> How?
>
> In the Brahma-Sutra-Bhashya, Sri Shankaracharya has dismissed this school
> without much ado, saying the refutation of the vijnana-vada of the
> Buddhists is applicable here also.
>
>  शून्यवादिपक्षस्तु सर्वप्रमाणविप्रतिषिद्ध इति तन्निराकरणाय नादरः क्रियते ।
> न ह्ययं सर्वप्रमाणसिद्धो लोकव्यवहारोऽन्यत्तत्त्वमनधिगम्य शक्यतेऽपह्नोतुम् ,
> अपवादाभावे उत्सर्गप्रसिद्धेः ॥ ३१ ॥  2.2.31
>
> "The shunya-vada is without any support or evidence or authority and hence
> does not enthuse one to refute it. The loka-vyavahara which is supported by
> all evidence cannot be refuted without establishing or accepting an
> alternative principle that is higher. It is commonly accepted that what is
> experienced has to exist, unless adequately proved to the contrary."
>
> From this we understand that the Buddhists have not accepted any
> alternative principle to refute the experiential world, whereas Advaitins
> admit  such a principle. And that is the Atman, eternal, unchanging and
> differentiated from the ephemeral experiences of the mind and the
> intellect.This is propounded by the Upanishats and is also amenable to
> experience.
>
> That the Buddhists have not admitted the eternal Atman has been mentioned
> by Sri Shankaracharya in the bhashya on Mandukya-karika of Sri
> Gaudapadacharya:
>
> क्रमते न हि बुद्धस्य ज्ञानं धर्मेषु तायिनः ।
> सर्वे धर्मास्तथा ज्ञानं नैतद्बुद्धेन भाषितम् ॥ ९९ ॥
> तथा धर्मा इति आकाशमिव अचलमविक्रियं निरवयवं
> नित्यमद्वितीयमसङ्गमदृश्यमग्राह्यमशनायाद्यतीतं ब्रह्मात्मतत्त्वम्, ‘न हि
> द्रष्टुर्दृष्टेर्विपरिलोपो विद्यते’ (बृ. उ. ४-३-२३) इति श्रुतेः ।
> ज्ञानज्ञेयज्ञातृभेदरहितं परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वयमेतन्न बुद्धेन भाषितम् । यद्यपि
> बाह्यार्थनिराकरणं ज्ञानमात्रकल्पना च अद्वयवस्तुसामीप्यमुक्तम् । इदं तु
> परमार्थतत्त्वमद्वैतं वेदान्तेष्वेव विज्ञेयमित्यर्थः ॥
> Even though the Bauddha denied the triputi, the external objects and
> admitted the idea that everything is just consciousness, and thereby came
> very close to the Advaya vastu of the Vedanta, yet,  this paramārtha
> tattvam Advaitam (characterized by the nitya chaitanyam for which Shankara
> cited the vakyam above) is to be known only from the Upanishads.
>
> The eternal, unchanging chaitanya (Pure Consciousness) has been elaborated
> in Br. Upanishat - 4.3.23 -  "The mind and the intellect of the jiva, which
> cognize the experiential world, are illumined by the supreme chaitanya that
> never ceases, as it has no decay or destruction."
>
> The following observations by Sri Shankaracharya, in the Brahma sutra
> bhashya (1.1.4.4 - Samanvaya adhikarana - "tat tu samanvayat'), apply to
> shunya vada also (though not explicitly mentioning Buddha).
>
> योऽसावुपनिषत्स्वेवाधिगतः पुरुषोऽसंसारी ब्रह्मस्वरूपः
> उत्पाद्यादिचतुर्विधद्रव्यविलक्षणः स्वप्रकरणस्थोऽनन्यशेषः, नासौ नास्ति
> नाधिगम्यत इति वा शक्यं वदितुम् ; ‘स एष नेति नेत्यात्मा’ (बृ. उ. ३ । ९ । २६)
> इत्यात्मशब्दात् आत्मनश्च प्रत्याख्यातुमशक्यत्वात् , य एव निराकर्ता
> तस्यैवात्मत्वात् ।
>
> "One cannot say that 'the purusha about whom we can learn only from the
> Upanishats is not this Atman', or that 'Such a purusha is not there' or
> that ' such a person cannot be known or experienced', because the Br. Upa.
> 3.9.26 has described this purusha using the word 'Atma' only. That Atman
> cannot be refuted or denied, because the essence of the one who denies is
> this very upanishadic purusha." (one making such a denial is denying
> oneself, which is an impossibility).
>
> So, no one can refute or deny the ephemeral mind and the intellect, and
> the world that is perceived and grasped by such intellect, without
> admitting the eternal Atman. Why? Because, the mind and the intellect can
> be refuted only through an alternative principle that is different from the
> mind and intellect. The upanishadic Atman is such a principle. Buddha has
> not admitted this. Therefore, the 'sarva-shunyatva' cannot be proved by
> Buddha / Buddhists or anybody else. In terms of B. Gita Ch. 13, one can
> deny the world and the instrument of cognition (the intellect) as a product
> of prakruti, a part of 'kshetra'. One can claim oneself to be different
> from the products of prakruti, but only by establishing oneself as the
> eternal Atman different from objective consciousness. But one cannot deny
> the Atman because there is nothing besides the Atman.
>
> Therefore, 'sarva-shunyatva' denying both the product of prakruti that is
> the buddhi which is differentiated from the rest of the prakruti cannot
> hold water.
>
> A couple of years ago, there was a seminar on Buddhism, organised jointly
> by the Maha Bodhi Society and the Karnataka Sanskrit University, at the
> Institute of World Culture, B.P. Wadia Road, Basavanagudi, Bangalore.
> Speaking at the seminar, senior scholar Dr. D. Prahladachar (who is now the
> head of the Vyasraja Matha) observed: "Both Buddhists and Advaitins admit
> the mithyatva of the world. The Advaitins say the substraturm of the world,
> which is but a superimposition, is Brahman as propounded by Vedanta.
> Buddhists do not admit any eternal substratum."
>
> Om Tat Sat
>