Antiquity of Advaita Vedanta

Anand Hudli anandhudli at HOTMAIL.COM
Mon Jun 26 20:27:33 CDT 2000

On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 16:49:23 PDT, nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>And I suppose with your two week acquaintance with Buddhism, you can
>understand what it took a milleneum for Bauddha philosophers to comprehend.
 To learn the basic things such as whether the Buddha taught a self or
 not does not take years of study. ALso, you are assuming that I had a
 two week study of Buddhism. That is quite false and an unjustified
 assumption. Not everyone jumps to conclusions based on half-baked
 theories like you.

>And I suppose your sudden affinity with the HinayAna is due to the fact
>it supports your theories. Anyway my argument doesn't concern HinayAna. My
>argument only involves Advaita's relation with the MahAyAna schools of
>Buddhism - the MAdhyamaka and the VijnAnavAda (I hope atleast now that
>you're aware that there's something called the HinayAna and the MahAyAna).

 If you wish to "prove" your idiotic theory about MAdhymaka and advaita
 go ahead. I have no problem with that. By now, it is clear that whatever
 you say will only be taken as gibberish. I have seen a lot of gibberish
 here in the past. I can tolerate some more.

>There's not a single place in any of the nikAyas, where the Buddha directly
>says there's no self. He'll alway say that the body is not the self, the
>mind is not the self, the skandhas are not the self etc. But nowhere will
>directly say that there's, "no self".

 In any case, he never asserted a permanent self, nor did he say that the
 self is avyakta. The claim was that he considered it avyakta which is
 quite ridiculous.

>There's no point in this argument. You can argue with somebody who atleast
>has done his homework. But how can you argue with ignorance which blatantly
>parades as knowledge?
 Your fantastic claims about MAdhyamika prove that you have not even
 understood it correctly.

>You cannot learn Bauddha philosophy in two weeks. It takes years of deep
>hard study. What you're questioning in my posts with your assorted quotes
>from "authoritative authors", is years of earnest and devoted learning.
>Please don't make learning and knowledge cheap, just because you've to
>a point.

 Just because you don't like those authors who are much more knowledgable
 than you are, don't bad-mouth them. Just because those authors, many of
 whom are practising Buddhists, quoted are not on this list arguing with
 you, don't proclaim that you are better than them. MadhusUdana puts this
 best when says: "A lion does not roar back at a barking dog (because
 the lion knows the dog is not even worth fighting with)".

>Go on, now abuse me.
>Bitter personal criticism, blatant denials, fantastic theories and out of
>context quotes from "authoritative authors" are your style, aren't they?
 Now, that you are shown to have an incorrect understanding of even
 mAdhyamika, you are the one who is resorting to abuse, not me.

I have better things to do than argue with you who imagine some
connection between mAdhyamika and advaita. This is so foolish! It is
like a child who sees clouds and thinks there are faces of people or
animals in them.


bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam

Archives :
Help     : Email to listmaster at
Options  : To leave the list send a mail to
           listserv at with
           SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list