Concept of Mukti and Shankaracharya

[George Cronk]

That's a rendering of part of BRAHMASUTRA BHASHYA, Adhyaya II, Pada 2,
Section 31, the last paragraph of which reads as follows:

"We have now refuted both the Buddhist Realists, who maintain the
(momentary) reality of the external world, and the Buddhist Idealists, who
claim that only consciousness exists.  The third variety of Buddhist
philosophy (Madhyamaka Voidism), i.e., the view that everything is empty
(i.e., that absolutely nothing exists),  is contradicted by all the
recognized means of knowledge [perception, inference, the verbal testimony
of the Scriptures, etc.] and therefore requires no special refutation.  The
reality of the phenomenal world is guaranteed by all the means of knowledge.
Its existence cannot be denied without a convincing proof of its
non-existence (or 'emptiness'), for a conclusion arrived at on the basis of
the standard means of knowledge must be accepted in the absence of a
convincing argument to the contrary."

-----Original Message-----
From: MC1 at AOL.COM <MC1 at AOL.COM>
To: INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK <INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK>
Date: Monday, January 04, 1999 2:09 AM
Subject: Re: Concept of Mukti and Shankaracharya


>George, I haven't been following the full dialogue here but in case it
sheds
>some light  on the issue, I offer an alternative taken from Swami
>Vireswarananda's abbreviated translation of Sankara's commentary on the
Brahma
>SUtras - this is most likely the Swami's own interpretation:
>
>This sutra can also be interpreted as refuting the Nihilist's: The
translation
>would then be: And (as Nihilism) is illogical etc.
>
>Nihilism iof the Bauddhas goes counter to everything. It goes against the
>sruti, the smrti, perception, inference, and every other means of right
>knowledge and so has to be entirely diregarded by those who are mindful of
>their welfare.
>
>
>In a message dated 1/3/99, 4:58:47 PM, INDOLOGY at LISTSERV.LIV.AC.UK writes:
><<>In his BRAHMASUTRA-BHASHYA, Adhyaya II, Pada 2, Section 32, Shamkara
writes
>>the following:  "From whatever points of view the Buddhist systems are
>>tested with regard to their plausibility, they cave in on all sides, like
>>the walls of a well dug in sandy soil.  [Buddhist philosophy] has, in
fact,
>>no foundation whatever to rest upon, and thus it is foolish to adopt it as
>a
>>guide in the practical concerns of life.  Moreover, the Buddha,  by
>>presenting three mutually contradictory systems of philosophy -- teaching
>>respectively the reality of the external world, the reality of
>>consciousness-only, and general emptiness -- has himself made it clear
>>either that he was a man given to making incoherent assertions, or else
>that
>>hatred of all beings moved him to propound absurd doctrines that would
>>thoroughly confuse all who might take him seriously.  Thus . . . , the
>>Buddha?s doctrine must be entirely disregarded  by  all  those  who  have
>a
>>regard  for  their  own  happiness."
>>
>>When Shamkara focuses his analytical and critical dialectic on his
>>philosophical opponents, he can be very tough!
>>>>
>