Antiquity of Advaita Vedanta (was Re: An Open Letter to All)
anandhudli at HOTMAIL.COM
Fri May 19 16:53:32 CDT 2000
On Fri, 19 May 2000 05:48:17 PDT, nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
>>Now, the moment the Bauddha says that the world is unreal, we have to
>>ask the question "In what substratum do you negate the world?"
>Anand, I don't think you've grasped what "unreal" means in either the
>MAdhyamika or the Advaita.
I thought I understood what "unreal" means in advaita. You have brought me
to my senses. Please explain what "unreal" means in advaita. We'll worry
about Buddhism later.
>The misunderstanding of the concept of mAyA is almost the singular reason
>why there's been so much misunderstanding/arguments in Advaitam. MAyA
>doesn't mean illusion in the normal sense. The world is the world we
This is wrong as per advaita. If the world is defined just by what we know
it becomes only an idea fabricated without basis by the mind. This is
refuted by Shankara in the sUtra bhAshhya. See nAbhAva upalabdheH.
The advaitin's point is that the world is perceived in a *substratum*.
Such a world that is perceived in the substratum is negated at the dawn
of jnAna in the very substratum where it was perceived.
>MAyA shows that this *knowing* is not as valid as we believe it to be. And
mAyA shows this??? This is news to me. Please explain.
>this is done on the base of reason - knowledge being critical on itself. So
>it is purely intellectual - it is jnAna as the means. Knowledge eats itself
>up and what is left is ... (while the VedAntin on the strength of the
>says it is brahman, the MAdhyamika prefers silence).
No, advaita cannot merely be an intellectual exercise. It cannot be an
arm-chair philosophy. advaita dialectics, no doubt, seem to be intellectual
exercises but they are, in fact, meant for use in manana, reflection on
the vAkyas of the upanishhads. In dialectics, one has to be formal,
precise, and use razor-sharp arguments. No handwaving such as
"remaining silent" can be used.
Silence is golden sometimes but sometimes it is the hallmark
of a fool who avoids speaking lest he be recognized as such. Or silence
may mean that what is left after "Knowledge eats itself up", as you say,
is irrelevant. If you say something silly to an immensely learned person
he may remain silent, thereby indicating that your remark is not worth
responding to. If this is the sense in which the Bauddhas explain what is
left after the world is negated, then it is totally different from advaita.
So mere silence of the Bauddhas does not necessarily mean that something
profound is being indicated.
Note that I am not criticizing Buddhism as such. What I cannot agree
to, until I see evidence otherwise, is that the silence of the Bauddhas
implies or indicates Brahman as we advaitins define it.
>As the sphotavAdin Bhartrhari says there can be no thought without language
>and vice versa. Language and thought are inseperable. MAyA is the theory
>which shows why language/thought/reason are themselves the veil, which
>covers us from the truth.
Please list some advaita works where this view has been accepted.
bhava shankara deshikame sharaNam
Archives : http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html
Help : Email to listmaster at lists.advaita-vedanta.org
Options : To leave the list send a mail to
listserv at lists.advaita-vedanta.org with
SIGNOFF ADVAITA-L in the body.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list