[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Shankara was completely illogical comparably whit Buddha.[/quote]While that's Romani's opinion, meanwhile: I never said Buddhist views on metaphysics - as I think it's called - are in error. (Or those of Hindus, like Shankara or anyone else.) Even in earlier posts, I only ever remarked on the error in conflating Shankara as a Buddhist.
But in this instance (on why the matter was brought up): I merely responded to the assertion that Shankara was influenced by Buddhists' Shunyavada in explicating his Advaitam (for which no supporting statements were provided in the original claim).
While nothing is impossible, the claim appears rather unlikely to me - from the little I remember of reading about Shankara - because of the combination of the following two reasons:
1. Shankara BP's stance was that he was merely parroting what is already there in the ancient (pre-Buddhist) Hindu religious literature, plus that his view derives from established Hindu tradition regarding the reading thereof. (The same view from authority and established tradition was equally claimed by the other Acharyas of the different schools of viewing the Vedanta. And there had indeed been 3 traditional readings on Hindus' Vedanta literature since ancient times anyway, as also has existed in Shaivam for instance.)
2. Shankara's criticism of Buddhist views touched on exactly those very aspects where he (as also many another among Hindus) greatly diverged from Buddhism.
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Again Shankara claim that Atman has no attributes,thing that made Atman to be the same thing whit buddhistic Non-Atman.[/quote]
The following is stolen from some discussion on Advaita where apparently some people today wanted to read common ground between Shunyavada and Advaitam. (Note my lips are not moving, so any response from Romani can be directed at these victims instead - although maybe they want to be left alone?) -
And someone comments on the above:
In any case: the above makes it clear that Shankara's perception of the Atman does Not (and can not be made to) mean the same as the "buddhistic Non-Atman".
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']He said that Brahman is Sat-Cit-Ananda(which are attributes) than he completely contradict his first statement saying that Brahman has no attributes.
[...]
"monotheism"
[/quote]Ugh no, not these topics again.
But in this instance (on why the matter was brought up): I merely responded to the assertion that Shankara was influenced by Buddhists' Shunyavada in explicating his Advaitam (for which no supporting statements were provided in the original claim).
While nothing is impossible, the claim appears rather unlikely to me - from the little I remember of reading about Shankara - because of the combination of the following two reasons:
1. Shankara BP's stance was that he was merely parroting what is already there in the ancient (pre-Buddhist) Hindu religious literature, plus that his view derives from established Hindu tradition regarding the reading thereof. (The same view from authority and established tradition was equally claimed by the other Acharyas of the different schools of viewing the Vedanta. And there had indeed been 3 traditional readings on Hindus' Vedanta literature since ancient times anyway, as also has existed in Shaivam for instance.)
2. Shankara's criticism of Buddhist views touched on exactly those very aspects where he (as also many another among Hindus) greatly diverged from Buddhism.
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']Again Shankara claim that Atman has no attributes,thing that made Atman to be the same thing whit buddhistic Non-Atman.[/quote]
The following is stolen from some discussion on Advaita where apparently some people today wanted to read common ground between Shunyavada and Advaitam. (Note my lips are not moving, so any response from Romani can be directed at these victims instead - although maybe they want to be left alone?) -
Quote:Since there are postings about advaita and SUnya-vAda and since some
honorable members are of the opinion that they have good
similarities, can someone who thinks similarly, kindly post some
references to SUnya-vAda in the upanishads (meaning the 10 principle
ones + SvetaSvatara)? Thank You.
[color="#800080"](BTW, merely finding the word shunya in Hindu religious texts is clearly not magically "proof" of the Buddhist Shunyavada POV.
References to Shunya in Hindu texts apparently have other meanings.)[/color]
[color="#0000FF"]Btw, what sense does it make to talk of transmigration/rebirth,
liberation etc. if one does not accept a permanent eternal entity
which undergoes these changes either really or apparently? Here is
where SrI Sankara's criticism of buddhism gets the strongest punch.
(He uses a similar argument in the case of a person attaining
nirvANa.) Do I die and someone else takes rebirth, or do I die and I
myself take rebirth? In the latter case, Atman is inevitable, in the
former case, all philosophy is useless.[/color]
[...]
[...]the buddhistic idea [is] that the concept Atman leads to
selfishness[...]
And someone comments on the above:
Quote:> Btw, what sense does it make to talk of transmigration/rebirth,Based on the sentence structure, I imagine the last quoted para is saying that only people who genuinely understand both points of view can see that neither Shankara (and other Hindu critics of these conclusions of Buddhism) nor the Buddhists agreed they were on the same page on certain metaphysical matters.
> liberation etc. if one does not accept a permanent eternal entity
> which undergoes these changes either really or apparently? Here is
> where SrI Sankara's criticism of buddhism gets the strongest punch.
> (He uses a similar argument in the case of a person attaining
> nirvANa.) Do I die and someone else takes rebirth, or do I die and I
> myself take rebirth? In the latter case, Atman is inevitable, in the
> former case, all philosophy is useless.
Namaste Kalyanji,
Thank you for your posts related to ShUnya-vAda abd Brahman.
You should note that [color="#0000FF"]the people who like to see the similarities in
ShUnya-vAda and advaita[/color] are not objecting to the points raised by
SankarAchArya. The problem lies elsewhere. They [color="#0000FF"]come up with a new
definition for ShUnya-vAda and believe that SankarAchArya was not able to
understand this *real* concept of ShUnya-vAda ! This is where the crux of
the problem is. So no advaitin can change their views by merely repeating
the refutals of SankarAchArya. Only a Buddhist can show them where they went
wrong.[/color]
In any case: the above makes it clear that Shankara's perception of the Atman does Not (and can not be made to) mean the same as the "buddhistic Non-Atman".
[quote name='HareKrishna' date='04 November 2011 - 12:44 AM' timestamp='1320347186' post='113588']He said that Brahman is Sat-Cit-Ananda(which are attributes) than he completely contradict his first statement saying that Brahman has no attributes.
[...]
"monotheism"
[/quote]Ugh no, not these topics again.