[Advaita-l] "One subjectivity" and "No creation" reference to Advaita

[Kaushik Chevendra]

Namaste vinodhji,
Thanks for the input.


On Mon, 27 Sep, 2021, 8:10 pm Vinodh, <vinodh.iitm at gmail.com> wrote:

> Namaskaram,
>
> This my understanding on the similarity and difference between Buddhist
> nihilism (sunyavaadam) and Advaitam.
>
> They both claim that this world is illusory and this is the similarity
> between these two systems. However, Buddhist nihilism claims that
> everything seems to comes out of nothing (sunya) whereas Advaita says that
> there is something (brahmam or atma) out of which everything seems to
> appear.
>
> The Advaitic argument against the Buddhist nihilist view is that there has
> to be something as a base for any illusion, like a rope for the illusory
> snake or a conch for the illusory silver or a tree stump for an illusory
> man. An illusion cannot come out of nothing. There is something that exists
> which just appears as something else. It is not that nothing exists and
> still something seems to appear like the Buddhist view claims.
>
> An interesting Buddhist counterpoint I have heard is from the Chandyoga
> Upanishad Shankara bhashya in the 6th adhyaya (also called “satvidya”) in
> the context of the following two sruti statements:
>
> सदेव सोम्येदमग्र आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयम् । तद्धैक आहुरसदेवेदमग्र
> आसीदेकमेवाद्वितीयं तस्मादसतः सज्जायत ॥ ६.२.१ ॥
>
> sadeva somyedamagra āsīdekamevādvitīyam | taddhaika āhurasadevedamagra
> āsīdekamevādvitīyaṃ tasmādasataḥ sajjāyata || 6.2.1 ||
>
> 1. Somya, before this world was manifest there was only existence, one
> without a second. On this subject, some maintain that before this world was
> manifest there was only non-existence, one without a second. Out of that
> non-existence, existence emerged.
>
> The sruti itself posits both these views and asserts that the second view
> corresponding to Buddhist nihilism is invalid.
>
> In Shankara’s bhashya, a Buddhist nihilist objection is raised and replied
> to where the objection goes something like this. We all see that a seed has
> to be completely destroyed in order for a tree to grow from it. So
> according to them this is an example of something coming from nothing.
> Shankaracharya argues that only the form of the seed is lost but the
> material goes to make the tree, because the essence of the type of tree
> (mango or neem etc) is in the seed. Otherwise any tree can grow from any
> seed. Therefore he says that there is no example of something coming out of
> nothing.
>
>
>
> On Mon 27. Sep 2021 at 19:51, Kaushik Chevendra via Advaita-l <
> advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:
>
>> Namaste sir.
>> As you have pointed out that the main dissimilarity between buddhism and
>> av
>> is that av is vedic tradition. Just as a judge's verdict is alone
>> justice,and a commoners verdict even though inline with the judge's view
>> isn't justice,mithyatva of jagat should be understood through shruthi
>> vakya
>> only.
>>
>> On Mon, 27 Sep, 2021, 5:04 pm Bhaskar YR, <
>> bhaskar.yr at hitachi-powergrids.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > praNAms
>> >
>> > Hare Krishna
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >    - Kindly pardon me, I don’t want to go deep into it as my knowledge
>> in
>> >    Buddhism is quite poor (almost nil) and what I read about buddhism
>> is only
>> >    what is available in advaita works😊  So cannot authoritatively say
>> >    anything about doctrine of Buddhism according to their accepted
>> authentic
>> >    works.  If I am right, even in the Buddhism also they will accept the
>> >    existence (astitvaM).  The existence of shUnyatvaM.  And in
>> vijnAnavAda too
>> >    they accept the existence of constructive imagination of external
>> object by
>> >    chitta (mind).  The kArikAkAra too attributes the existence of
>> external
>> >    objects to kampana (vibration) of chitta.  Samanvaya needs to be
>> done with
>> >    the help of shruti, yukti and anubhava.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
>> >
>> > bhaskar
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Namaste sir.
>> >
>> > You have given quite an excellent response. From your post it seems to
>> be
>> > that the dualists contention is true. Probably the scholars will have to
>> > shed light on this.
>> >
>> > In my opinion the difference between the shunya and brahman is
>> existence.
>> > In the sense that shunya is absence of anything. Whereas in av there is
>> > absence of anything other than brahman.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Archives: https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>>
>> To unsubscribe or change your options:
>> https://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>>
>> For assistance, contact:
>> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>>
>