Advaita-Chandran
Balaji Hebbar
bhebbar at EROLS.COM
Sat Feb 20 02:59:45 UTC 1999
"It¹s true that there¹re some Upanishads which hardly seem to endorse
Advaitam. But again if one were to look at them collectively, Advaitam
represents the most consistent view."
The last sentence in the above citation is purely a personal
subjective opinion. (B.N.Hebbar)
"Apart from this we¹ve to remember that Shankara lived at a time when
Buddhism reigned supreme. The nAstikas were tearing apart theories of
the astikas for logically inconsistency. So apart from the collective
view, Advaitam also represents the best possible logical theory for
AtmavAda."
The real folks who defended AtmavAda in the heyday of Buddhism
were the NyAya-VaisheShikas, MImAmsakas and the Jainas. Prof.
C.D.Sharma, the staunch Advaitin like yourself himself makes a
point of this. In fact, he gives great credit to KumArila
Bhatta and goes to the extent of saying "Shankara merely beat
a dead horse." (vide his Critical survey of Indian Philosophy)
Advaita does not in any way represent the best logical theory.
That again, is a personal subjective opinion. (BNH)
"Ofcourse, we¹ve RAmAnuja and VedAntadesika, two great philosophers,
criticizing Advaitam. But to find faults with a theory, doesn¹t in any
way mean that one¹s own theory is right. Logically, the simplest view is
the easiest to defend. Advaitam, taking its stand on Brahman alone being
real, is on better footing than other schools of VedAnta, who dig
themselves into deeper pits by also endorsing the reality of the world.
If one can find thousand faults with Advaitam, one can find ten times
the number of faults with other theories. The other schools of VedAnta
can consider themselves lucky that they didn¹t exist at the time of
VAsubandhu and NAgArjuna or DignAga and DharmakIrti!"
Again, to say Shankara's Advaita is the simplest view is the
understatement of the year. Even though none of the VaiShNava
VedAntins had not come into existence, their "realistic"
predecessors, i.e. the NyAya-VaisheShika and MImAmSA were indeed
"lucky enough" to be the great Buddhist scholars. (BNH)
>Each sticks to his school of thought with
>great resourcefulness and tenacity. However, all leave the sabhA
>in peace and friendship!!!
At least, they all crack a few jokes and share from the same
SNUFF box!!! I guess that qualifies for amicability!!! (BNH)
I¹m glad that such amity still exists, though I¹ve heard things quite to
the contrary. Anyway I don¹t recognize any such warmth in accusations
like "prachanna bauddha" or was it "prachanna mahAyAnika"!
Yes, Shankara is a prachanna MahAyAnika. Anybody, who believes
in two levels of reality like them certainly befits the
nomenclature. The vast majority of the "Vedic" systems are
realistic. Shankara is the odd man out!!! (BNH)
"OK, with respect to the debating you witnessed, let me ask you what the
basis of the debate was? Was it based on logic and reason or was it
based on the shruti, interpreted with logic and reason? If it was on the
former, as I said before, all other schools will be in trouble before
Advaitam. If it¹s on the latter, Advaitam can hold itself as well as the
rest, if not better. But if both criterias were used - that¹s the facts
are supported by empirical experience as well as the shruti - Advaitam
will be on a better footing than the rest."
The rAdhyAnta sabhAs have been carried on by the traditional
community of paNDits of the 3 VedAntic schools for centuries.
In fact you can witness them at many places throughout South
India. Sometimes, it takes place in front of the pIThAdhipatis
of one of the three traditions. The debates are based on
Shruti and reason. I am surprised that you haven't witnessed
any!
Advaita can certainly hold on as LONG as it plays its usual
"highland or lowland" game of two levels of truth. It is
intellectual cowardice. It is like Arjuna trying to shoot a
BhIShma keeping the eunuch ShikhaNDin in front. Let me as you
this: HOW CAN YOU SPEAK OF ONLY ONE REALITY AND IN THE SAME
BREATH SPEAK OF TWO LEVELS OF TRUTH? At least, we realists
may be digging our graves, but you idealists arrive body and
brain dead in a coffin with strange theories!!
The Advaita tradition is not all that united as you present
it to be. To wit, the VivaraNa and the BhAmati schools cannot
agree on the locus of avidyA. (BNH)
But again, Advaitam doesn¹t have any problem with the other shools of
VedAnta. There¹re all, right in the relative sense. But only in absolute
terms are they falling short.
There you go again. Logic is fine as long as it is going
your way. The moment AdvaitahAni is pointed out the dormant
MahAyAna two levels of truth comes out, i.e. relative reality
and absolute reality. (BNH)
You say you can¹t accept that VijnAnavAda is prachanna VedAnta - but
fail to give any reasons.
I cannot because, Advaita begins at best with GauDapAda. You
cannot just usurp the UpaniShads to your way of thinking.
Afterall, you yourself agree that the UpaniShads do NOT present
one consistent system of thought. (BNH)
More information about the INDOLOGY
mailing list