Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 1:42 am

Stcherbatsky, while comparing Adi Sankara's views with those of the sunyvadi Budhists (aka Madhyamikas], clarifies the point further (in 'The Conception of Budhist Nirvana' pg 38). Note that Vachaspati Mishra's (circa 9th century AD) 'Bhamati' is a commentary on Adi Sankar's commentary on the Brahma Sutra:

Sankara accuses them [i.e. the Madhyamikas]of disregarding all logic and refuses to enter in a controversy with them. The position of Sankara is interesting because, at heart, he is in full agreement with the Madhyamikas, at least in the main lines, since both maintain the reality of the One-without-a-second, and the mirage of the manifold. But Sankara, as an ardent hater of Budhism, could never confess that. He therefore treats the Madhyamika with great contempt...on the charge that the Madhyamika denies the possibility of cognizing the Absolute by logical methods (pramana). Vachaspati Mishra in the Bhamati rightly interprets this point as referring to the opinion of the Madhyamikas that logic is incapable to solve the question about what existence or non-existence really are. This opinion Sankara himself, as is well known, shares. He does not accept the authority of logic as a means of cognizing the Absolute, but he deems it a privilge of the Vedantin to fare without logic, since he has Revelation to fall back upon. From all his opponents, he requires strict logical methods.

http://creative.sulekha.com/a-critique-of-adi-sankar_325416_blog

by Seva Lamberdar Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:18 am

Samkara, of course, is right.

It's like three students (A in grade 5th, B in grade 13th and C working on his Ph.D. in Math) talking and arguing about the value of Pi.

A says "it is 3.14"; B says "no, it is 3.14159"; and C says "no, it is 3.14159265..."

Samkara, in the above example, is like C; madhyamikas like B; and materialists like A.

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:22 am

who or what is a materialist? that's an interesting word.

by Hellsangel Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:25 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:who or what is a materialist? that's an interesting word.

HTH:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

by MaxEntropy_Man Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:31 am

Hellsangel wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:who or what is a materialist? that's an interesting word.

HTH:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

thank you! the one philosophy course i took in college gave me a scare; the only time i was close to failing at something in college. this brings back some very bad memories.

by Seva Lamberdar Thu Dec 26, 2013 10:37 am

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:who or what is a materialist? that's an interesting word.

In philosophy, materialism relates to limiting the belief in Reality only to the nature (prakriti), thus denying (not accepting) the existence of purusa (soul) and Brahman (God). On the other hand, Buddhists accept the existence of prakriti and purusa separately, but not God.
http://www.geocities.ws/lamberdar/aastika_nastika.html

by Guest Thu Dec 26, 2013 5:28 pm

Rashmun wrote:Stcherbatsky, while comparing Adi Sankara's views with those of the sunyvadi Budhists (aka Madhyamikas], clarifies the point further (in 'The Conception of Budhist Nirvana' pg 38). Note that Vachaspati Mishra's (circa 9th century AD) 'Bhamati' is a commentary on Adi Sankar's commentary on the Brahma Sutra:

Sankara accuses them [i.e. the Madhyamikas]of disregarding all logic and refuses to enter in a controversy with them. The position of Sankara is interesting because, at heart, he is in full agreement with the Madhyamikas, at least in the main lines, since both maintain the reality of the One-without-a-second, and the mirage of the manifold. But Sankara, as an ardent hater of Budhism, could never confess that. He therefore treats the Madhyamika with great contempt...on the charge that the Madhyamika denies the possibility of cognizing the Absolute by logical methods (pramana). Vachaspati Mishra in the Bhamati rightly interprets this point as referring to the opinion of the Madhyamikas that logic is incapable to solve the question about what existence or non-existence really are. This opinion Sankara himself, as is well known, shares. He does not accept the authority of logic as a means of cognizing the Absolute, but he deems it a privilge of the Vedantin to fare without logic, since he has Revelation to fall back upon. From all his opponents, he requires strict logical methods.

http://creative.sulekha.com/a-critique-of-adi-sankar_325416_blog

Akalanka (circa 8th century AD) is one of the greatest philosophers of ancient and medieval India. He is a Jaina by religious conviction and he is highly regarded as a logician of very great ability. In refuting philosophical idealism, Akalanka argues (N.J. Shah, Akalanka's Criticism of Dharmakirti's philosophy, pg 176):

The reality of the external world cannot be ruled out because, like consciousness, it also is repeatedly experienced by us. The external world is not unreal, as no counter-evidence competent to upset it is known to us. There is no doubt in our mind regarding its reality. The cognition of the external world is not a mere delusion created by imagination, because it is not contradicted or sublated by other valid cognitions and also because it bears vivid and distinct reflection of the external world. If the ideas are accepted as real, and the external world is denied reality, we go against the supreme authority of experience. We do not assume the material world; we perceive it.

http://creative.sulekha.com/eminent-jain-philosopher-eloquently-opposes-idealism_325399_blog

by truthbetold Thu Dec 26, 2013 5:32 pm

So now you write responses to your own posts?

by Sponsored content

Hitskin.com

Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite

Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite

Re: Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite

Re: Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite

Re: Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite

Re: Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite

Re: Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite

Re: Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite

Re: Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite

Re: Adi Sankara, the great hypocrite