vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM
Tue Mar 2 23:20:09 UTC 1999
Im very sorry for the delayed reply. I just havent been able to read
the digests for quite a while.
Balaji Hebbar writes :
>The last sentence in the above citation is purely a >personal
subjective opinion. (B.N.Hebbar)
Even this statement is subjective, as ultimately all statements are :-)
>"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
>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
Im not denying the role of KumArilla or UdhayAna in fighting the
Bauddhas. But criticizing another theory doesnt in any prove the
strength of ones own theory. And adopting a theistic, atomic and a non
conscious Soul theory, the NaiyAyikas are logically on unstable ground.
Part of the strength of the Bauddhas actually depended on the weakness
of such AstikA doctrines.
It was with Shankara that a full fledged logically consistent view of
AtmavAda developed, which itself played a significant part in the
disappearance of Buddhism in BhArath.
>Advaita does not in any way represent the best logical
When making such a statement please explain yourself.
>Again, to say Shankara's Advaita is the simplest view >is the
understatement of the year.
Advaita Brahman OR Atman
Visistadvaita and Dvaita Brahman + Atman + world
So which of these equations is simpler?
>Even though none of the >VaiShNava
>VedAntins had not come into existence, their "realistic"
>predecessors, i.e. the NyAya-VaisheShika and MImAmSA were
>"lucky enough" to be the great Buddhist scholars. (BNH)
Yes, the fighting would have gone on and on, without any end in sight.
Probably the Bauddhas wouldve truimphed! Look at the progress of
thought of the schools that youve mentioned. The Bauddhas had
progressed from materialism to absolutism. But how different is
KusumAnjali from Vaishesika and NyAya SutrAs with its bhAshyam and
vArtikam? After a millineum and half, UdhayAna is essentially talking
the same thing with an Ishvara included, so they can seek refuge in
adhrshta or the God's mysterious will, in case of logical inconsistency!
Pre-Shankara Astika thought was in most part only devatA knowledge
(SAmkhya excluded). Inspite of their no soul theory, the Baudhhas would
have been tolerated in theyd accepted an Ishwara. The same reason the
SAmkhya was also branded nAstika. To equate God with man is the reason
for the ire of the theists against Advaitam.
But philosophically the so called nAstikas are on better footing than
>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)
When the shruti says Brahman is beyond the intellect and senses, how
else can you develop a logically consistent philosophy? By definition
the absolute is beyond the relative. So the only way out is two levels
Ofcourse, this is not true, if one has the intellect to comprehend how
Sriman NArAyana creates the universe with a wave of his hand!
>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?
Ill answer this question if you can answer the Buddhas question : The
whole universe that we know is a system of relations : we know nothing
that is or can be unrelated. How can that which depends on nothing and
is related to nothing produce things which are related to one another
and depend for their existence upon one another?
>The Advaita tradition is not all that united as you >present
it to be.
>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)
The primary problem lies in the average individuals inability to
understand Advaitam. And if you already have preconceived notions,
theres little scope!
>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.
If thats your reasoning, then the same will hold true for other schools
of VedAnta also.
You think Madhvas question about the source of the illusion in
VijnAnavAda is sharp dialectic. How can I reason with you?
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
More information about the INDOLOGY