The Greatest Indian known to history was a UPwalah

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:39 am

deadbeat dad.

by indophile Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:41 am

I thought he was Nepalese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Nepal

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:46 am

indophile wrote:I thought he was Nepalese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Nepal

1. He was born near the UP-Nepal border (albeit on the Nepali side).
2. He met his first disciples in UP and he gave his first sermon in UP (in Sarnath, near Benaras)
3. He attained Moksha in UP (in Kushinagar).

by indophile Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:48 am

Did he attain moksha in Up? I thought it was in Gaya in Bihar.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:49 am

indophile wrote:Did he attain moksha in Up? I thought it was in Gaya in Bihar.

He attained enlightenment in Gaya; he attained Moksha in Kushinagar which is in UP.

by indophile Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:07 pm

So he was born in Nepal, got enlightenment in Bihar, and died in UP.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:08 pm

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:13 pm

indophile wrote:So he was born in Nepal, got enlightenment in Bihar, and died in UP.

his name and fame are due to his philosophical teachings which captured the imagination of the world. He gave his first sermon in UP, his first disciples were UPwalahs, and he spent most of his life in UP. Further, the fact that he was born on the Nepali side of the UP-Nepal border does not mean he was a Nepali. You yourself were born and raised in Southern Orissa and yet you consider yourself to be a Telugu.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:17 pm

trying to think of the moment when I got my enlightenment. i have 2 or 3 possible ones, will try to finalize the one.

by Propagandhi711 Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:17 pm

one of the sweetest sounds on the internets is the air hissing out of a deflated ego

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 12:20 pm

Rashmun wrote:

My humble tribute to this great man:

http://creative.sulekha.com/the-budha-on-miracle-makers_408317_blog

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:00 pm

Well, let us look at this "carefully".

He was a Nepalese who left his wife and son to live like a free-loader teaching already known philosophy (the Upanishads) by giving it a new twist.

He felt that people in UP were Bimaru, decided to teach some basic stuff and was disappointed that bhaiyyas could not be taught. Later on, Vemana expressed his support to Buddha's views on bhaiyyas and said in frustration, "koyya bommanu thecchi kottinaa palukunaa, viswadaabhiraama vinura Vema".

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:03 pm

a bihari (ashoka) can take any doofus, be he nepali (buddha), and propel him to fame. biharis have to be the greatest indians known to history.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:15 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Well, let us look at this "carefully".

He was a Nepalese who left his wife and son to live like a free-loader teaching already known philosophy (the Upanishads) by giving it a new twist.

He felt that people in UP were Bimaru, decided to teach some basic stuff and was disappointed that bhaiyyas could not be taught. Later on, Vemana expressed his support to Buddha's views on bhaiyyas and said in frustration, "koyya bommanu thecchi kottinaa palukunaa, viswadaabhiraama vinura Vema".

Could you tell me where in the Upanisads the Budha's Law of Universal Flux (pratitya samutpada) is described? Thanks. In case, you have never heard of this Law of Universal Flux you can take a look at my blogs on this subject:

http://creative.sulekha.com/budha-on-pratitya-samutpada_408257_blog

http://creative.sulekha.com/budha-on-universal-flux_407663_blog

http://creative.sulekha.com/universal-flux-a-digression-into-ayurveda_408291_blog

by smArtha Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:50 pm

Rashmun wrote:Could you tell me where in the Upanisads the Budha's Law of Universal Flux (pratitya samutpada) is described? Thanks. In case, you have never heard of this Law of Universal Flux you can take a look at my blogs on this subject:

http://creative.sulekha.com/budha-on-pratitya-samutpada_408257_blog

http://creative.sulekha.com/budha-on-universal-flux_407663_blog

http://creative.sulekha.com/universal-flux-a-digression-into-ayurveda_408291_blog

Here is a Rashmun style response

In brahma-sUtra-bhAshya (BSBh), Sankara argues against Buddhist Schools in II.2.18-32. In last two of these sUtra-s (II.2.31 and 32) he summarily dismisses Buddhist doctrine on the basis of kshaNikatva (momentariness) and SUnyatA (emptiness or absence of substratum). Sankara does not find any logic in both these principles.

One thing needs to be noted here is that Sankara does not refute empirical framework of pratItya samutpAda but refutes sarvAstivAdins, yogAcArins etc who use this principle to assert their view. Also, anAtmA and pratItyasamutpAda are said to be based on original Buddha teachings and hence they are the metaphysical axioms of Buddhism. SUnyatA has been equated in mAdhyamka to pratItyasamutpada; it is a later position formulated by nAgArjuna in the name of Buddha: "yaH pratItyasamutpAdaH SUnyataH tAM pracakshamahe" (mUlamAdhyamakakArikA 24.18).

When anAtmA and pratItyasamutpAda were standing separately in Tripitaka (Pali canon), the most authentic expression of early Buddhism, why were they combined into the axiomatic identity pratItya-samutpAda = SUnyata (= anAtma) by Sri nAgArjunA in his Sanskrit text?

This act of nAgArjuna (c.. 2nd century AD or later) foreclosed (or minimized) the possibility of pratItysamutpAda being used as another vedAnta prakrIyA like adhyAropa-apavAda, anvaya-vyatireka, or dRk-dRshya viveka. We can find the support for this argument in Sankara's BSBh itself (II.2.20). In refuting sarvAstivAdins Sankara reaches the position of 'permanence' as the 'third' alternative while discussing origination (utpAda) and cessation (nirodha). Here, Sankara could have called this permanence as brahman, but he refrains from it possibly because mAdhyamaka too can call it SUnya (emptiness) due to their axiomatic position of pratItyasamutpAda = SUnya.

It is interesting to note that gauDapAda does not dwell on pratItyasamutpAda much but uses it only to show that absolute consciousness is not governed by pratItyasamutpAda (GK IV.28). He bases his arguments on the upanishadic principle brahman = Atman though in the process he sometimes uses terminology prevalent in Buddhist literature. (e.g. MMK of nAgArjuna; and mAdhyamakarhudaya kArikA of bhAvaviveka).

The ajAtivAda (no origination) of advaita will look benignly at 'dependent-origination' since it happens in vyavahAra. Ultimately, whether flux of the universe can stand on its own (mAdhymaka) or whether it needs acosmic substratum (brahman of advaita), are two axiomatic positions. There is no problem if somebody decides to call brahman as SUnya. (What is in a name; brahman is beyond name and form after all).

DS has its first cause as avidyA and the remaining nodes described in Tipitaka also are traveresed in avidyA and hence they are part of vyavahAra to use the Vedanta terminology. The 12-node chain is cyclically operational hence the name bhAvacakra which has its analog in brahmacakra in SvetASvatara. The only (and important) difference is the brahmacakra has the substratum of brahman while bhAvacakra has none. Thus pratItyasamutpAda, to use the Vedanta terminology, is operational only at "vyavahara" (and obviously not at pAramArthika level).

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:54 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Could you tell me where in the Upanisads the Budha's Law of Universal Flux (pratitya samutpada) is described? Thanks. In case, you have never heard of this Law of Universal Flux you can take a look at my blogs on this subject:

http://creative.sulekha.com/budha-on-pratitya-samutpada_408257_blog

http://creative.sulekha.com/budha-on-universal-flux_407663_blog

http://creative.sulekha.com/universal-flux-a-digression-into-ayurveda_408291_blog

Here is a Rashmun style response

In brahma-sUtra-bhAshya (BSBh), Sankara argues against Buddhist Schools in II.2.18-32. In last two of these sUtra-s (II.2.31 and 32) he summarily dismisses Buddhist doctrine on the basis of kshaNikatva (momentariness) and SUnyatA (emptiness or absence of substratum). Sankara does not find any logic in both these principles.

One thing needs to be noted here is that Sankara does not refute empirical framework of pratItya samutpAda but refutes sarvAstivAdins, yogAcArins etc who use this principle to assert their view. Also, anAtmA and pratItyasamutpAda are said to be based on original Buddha teachings and hence they are the metaphysical axioms of Buddhism. SUnyatA has been equated in mAdhyamka to pratItyasamutpada; it is a later position formulated by nAgArjuna in the name of Buddha: "yaH pratItyasamutpAdaH SUnyataH tAM pracakshamahe" (mUlamAdhyamakakArikA 24.18).

When anAtmA and pratItyasamutpAda were standing separately in Tripitaka (Pali canon), the most authentic expression of early Buddhism, why were they combined into the axiomatic identity pratItya-samutpAda = SUnyata (= anAtma) by Sri nAgArjunA in his Sanskrit text?

This act of nAgArjuna (c.. 2nd century AD or later) foreclosed (or minimized) the possibility of pratItysamutpAda being used as another vedAnta prakrIyA like adhyAropa-apavAda, anvaya-vyatireka, or dRk-dRshya viveka. We can find the support for this argument in Sankara's BSBh itself (II.2.20). In refuting sarvAstivAdins Sankara reaches the position of 'permanence' as the 'third' alternative while discussing origination (utpAda) and cessation (nirodha). Here, Sankara could have called this permanence as brahman, but he refrains from it possibly because mAdhyamaka too can call it SUnya (emptiness) due to their axiomatic position of pratItyasamutpAda = SUnya.

It is interesting to note that gauDapAda does not dwell on pratItyasamutpAda much but uses it only to show that absolute consciousness is not governed by pratItyasamutpAda (GK IV.28). He bases his arguments on the upanishadic principle brahman = Atman though in the process he sometimes uses terminology prevalent in Buddhist literature. (e.g. MMK of nAgArjuna; and mAdhyamakarhudaya kArikA of bhAvaviveka).

The ajAtivAda (no origination) of advaita will look benignly at 'dependent-origination' since it happens in vyavahAra. Ultimately, whether flux of the universe can stand on its own (mAdhymaka) or whether it needs acosmic substratum (brahman of advaita), are two axiomatic positions. There is no problem if somebody decides to call brahman as SUnya. (What is in a name; brahman is beyond name and form after all).

Sankara and Gaudapada are not refuting the Budhism of the Budha in their writings; they are refuting Mahayana Budhism which constitutes a deviation in many respects from original Budhism. If there is one thing we can glean about Adi Sankara's understanding of Budhism it is that he had NO knowledge about original Budhism i.e. the Budhism as preached by the Budha.

Further, Sankara's refutation of Mahayana Budhism is hypocritical for reasons i have elucidated in earlier posts.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:56 pm

It is so obvious that these doctrines [of Advaita] are borrowed from the Madhyamika [sunyavada] doctrines, as found in Nagarjuna's "karikas", and the Vijnana-vada doctrines, as found in the Lankavatara, that it is needless to attempt to prove it. Gaudapada assimilated all the Budhist Sunyavada and Vijnana-vad teachings and thought these held good of the ultimate truth preached by the Upanisads. It is immaterial whether he was a Hindu or a Budhist, so long as we are sure that he had the highest respect for the Budha and for the teachings which he believed to be his. Gaudapada took the smallest Upanisad to comment upon, probably because he wished to give his opinions unrestricted by the textual limitations of the bigger ones. His main emphasis is on the truth that he realised to perfect. He only incidentially suggested that the great vacuity would hold good of the highest atman of the Upanisads, and thus laid the foundation of the of a revival of the Upanisad studies on Budhist lines. How far the Upanisads guaranteed in detail the truth of Gaudapada's views it was left for his disciple, the great Sankara to examine and explain.

--S.N. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy vol.1, pg 429

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:56 pm

why do they apply lipstick and blush to male Gods' pictures?

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:58 pm

Rashmun wrote:It is so obvious that these doctrines [of Advaita] are borrowed from the Madhyamika [sunyavada] doctrines, as found in Nagarjuna's "karikas", and the Vijnana-vada doctrines, as found in the Lankavatara, that it is needless to attempt to prove it. Gaudapada assimilated all the Budhist Sunyavada and Vijnana-vad teachings and thought these held good of the ultimate truth preached by the Upanisads. It is immaterial whether he was a Hindu or a Budhist, so long as we are sure that he had the highest respect for the Budha and for the teachings which he believed to be his. Gaudapada took the smallest Upanisad to comment upon, probably because he wished to give his opinions unrestricted by the textual limitations of the bigger ones. His main emphasis is on the truth that he realised to perfect. He only incidentially suggested that the great vacuity would hold good of the highest atman of the Upanisads, and thus laid the foundation of the of a revival of the Upanisad studies on Budhist lines. How far the Upanisads guaranteed in detail the truth of Gaudapada's views it was left for his disciple, the great Sankara to examine and explain.

--S.N. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy vol.1, pg 429

Stcherbatsky, while comparing Adi Sankar'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.

Cogitating on this, one cannot but help give Adi Sankara the advice one may give to a common charlatan:
denounce most of all those vices which you yourself possess.

by smArtha Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:05 pm

Rashmun wrote:It is so obvious that these doctrines [of Advaita] are borrowed from the Madhyamika [sunyavada] doctrines, as found in Nagarjuna's "karikas", and the Vijnana-vada doctrines, as found in the Lankavatara, that it is needless to attempt to prove it. Gaudapada assimilated all the Budhist Sunyavada and Vijnana-vad teachings and thought these held good of the ultimate truth preached by the Upanisads. It is immaterial whether he was a Hindu or a Budhist, so long as we are sure that he had the highest respect for the Budha and for the teachings which he believed to be his. Gaudapada took the smallest Upanisad to comment upon, probably because he wished to give his opinions unrestricted by the textual limitations of the bigger ones. His main emphasis is on the truth that he realised to perfect. He only incidentially suggested that the great vacuity would hold good of the highest atman of the Upanisads, and thus laid the foundation of the of a revival of the Upanisad studies on Budhist lines. How far the Upanisads guaranteed in detail the truth of Gaudapada's views it was left for his disciple, the great Sankara to examine and explain.

--S.N. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy vol.1, pg 429

What makes you and Mr. Professor 'assume' that Shankara or Gaudapada were the original proponents of 'Advaita'. We can see Advaita Darsana in works of distant past viz. Brahma Sutras of vyAsa, Astavakra Gita, Yoga Vasishta etc. So not enough reason to buy the stupid and half-baked theories being peddled by the 'critics'.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:08 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:It is so obvious that these doctrines [of Advaita] are borrowed from the Madhyamika [sunyavada] doctrines, as found in Nagarjuna's "karikas", and the Vijnana-vada doctrines, as found in the Lankavatara, that it is needless to attempt to prove it. Gaudapada assimilated all the Budhist Sunyavada and Vijnana-vad teachings and thought these held good of the ultimate truth preached by the Upanisads. It is immaterial whether he was a Hindu or a Budhist, so long as we are sure that he had the highest respect for the Budha and for the teachings which he believed to be his. Gaudapada took the smallest Upanisad to comment upon, probably because he wished to give his opinions unrestricted by the textual limitations of the bigger ones. His main emphasis is on the truth that he realised to perfect. He only incidentially suggested that the great vacuity would hold good of the highest atman of the Upanisads, and thus laid the foundation of the of a revival of the Upanisad studies on Budhist lines. How far the Upanisads guaranteed in detail the truth of Gaudapada's views it was left for his disciple, the great Sankara to examine and explain.

--S.N. Dasgupta, History of Indian Philosophy vol.1, pg 429

What makes you and Mr. Professor 'assume' that Shankara or Gaudapada were the original proponents of 'Advaita'. We can see Advaita Darsana in works of distant past viz. Brahma Sutras of vyAsa, Astavakra Gita, Yoga Vasishta etc. So not enough reason to buy the stupid and half-baked theories being peddled by the 'critics'.

the works you mention make no mention of 'theory of two truths', 'three levels of reality', etc. These were inventions of the Mahayana Budhists which were borrowed by Advaitins like Gaudapada and Adi Sankara and made a part of their Advaita philosophy. To conceal this large scale plagiarism Adi Sankara went on to attack and abuse the same Mahayana Budhists to whom he owed an intellectual debt.

by smArtha Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:09 pm

Rashmun wrote:Sankara and Gaudapada are not refuting the Budhism of the Budha in their writings; they are refuting Mahayana Budhism which constitutes a deviation in many respects from original Budhism. If there is one thing we can glean about Adi Sankara's understanding of Budhism it is that he had NO knowledge about original Budhism i.e. the Budhism as preached by the Budha.

We can make same statements about Buddha having NO knowledge of the original teachings of Yoga/Vedanta. And also extend it to that all the dvaita scholars you were quoting and the professors of philosophy you were falling back on had NO knowledge of the original tenets of Advaita.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:13 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:Sankara and Gaudapada are not refuting the Budhism of the Budha in their writings; they are refuting Mahayana Budhism which constitutes a deviation in many respects from original Budhism. If there is one thing we can glean about Adi Sankara's understanding of Budhism it is that he had NO knowledge about original Budhism i.e. the Budhism as preached by the Budha.

We can make same statements about Buddha having NO knowledge of the original teachings of Yoga/Vedanta. And also extend it to that all the dvaita scholars you were quoting and the professors of philosophy you were falling back on had NO knowledge of the original tenets of Advaita.

Budha's philosophical views do not depend on what is present in the Upanisads/Vedanta. Adi Sankara's philosophical views are heavily dependent on Mahayana Budhism since the concepts of 'three levels of reality', 'theory of two truths', etc. were inventions of Mahayana Budhists which were plagiarised by Adi Sankara and made a part of his Advaita philosophy. To conceal his large scale plagiarism the same Sankara made a sham show of horror and anger as he attacked the same Mahayana Budhists to whom he owed an intellectual debt.

by smArtha Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:14 pm

Rashmun wrote:the works you mention make no mention of 'theory of two truths', 'three levels of reality', etc. These were inventions of the Mahayana Budhists which were borrowed by Advaitins like Gaudapada and Adi Sankara and made a part of their Advaita philosophy. To conceal this large scale plagiarism Adi Sankara went on to attack and abuse the same Mahayana Budhists to whom he owed an intellectual debt.

Advaita considers Anitya, Dukha and lastly Anatma as three levels of reality? This is news to me. Can you quote the work of Sankara that talks about this?

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:19 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:the works you mention make no mention of 'theory of two truths', 'three levels of reality', etc. These were inventions of the Mahayana Budhists which were borrowed by Advaitins like Gaudapada and Adi Sankara and made a part of their Advaita philosophy. To conceal this large scale plagiarism Adi Sankara went on to attack and abuse the same Mahayana Budhists to whom he owed an intellectual debt.

Advaita considers Anitya, Dukha and lastly Anatma as three levels of reality? This is news to me. Can you quote the work of Sankara that talks about this?

When i talk of three levels of reality in Advaita, i am talking of the levels of reality corresponding to pratibhashika satya, vyahvarika satya, and paramarthika satya.

by smArtha Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:21 pm

Rashmun wrote:When i talk of three levels of reality in Advaita, i am talking of the levels of reality corresponding to pratibhashika satya, vyahvarika satya, and paramarthika satya.

Oh.. they had three he proposed three and hence Sankara plagiarized is your argument. Did you even venture to compare and contrast what these three levels meant in each case i.e. Madhyamika and Advaita darsanas?

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:22 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:When i talk of three levels of reality in Advaita, i am talking of the levels of reality corresponding to pratibhashika satya, vyahvarika satya, and paramarthika satya.

Oh.. they had three he proposed three and hence Sankara plagiarized is your argument. Did you even venture to compare and contrast what these three levels meant in each case i.e. Madhyamika and Advaita darsanas?

yes i did. The meaning of the three levels is exactly the same in Mahayana Budhism as it is in Advaita.

by smArtha Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:42 pm

Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:When i talk of three levels of reality in Advaita, i am talking of the levels of reality corresponding to pratibhashika satya, vyahvarika satya, and paramarthika satya.

Oh.. they had three he proposed three and hence Sankara plagiarized is your argument. Did you even venture to compare and contrast what these three levels meant in each case i.e. Madhyamika and Advaita darsanas?

yes i did. The meaning of the three levels is exactly the same in Mahayana Budhism as it is in Advaita.

With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that all sentient beings (everything in the phenomenology of psychology) are marked by these three characteristics:

Anicca (Sanskrit anitya) "inconstancy" or "impermanence". This refers to the fact that all conditioned things (sankhara) are in a constant state of flux. In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that may go on to form new plants. Buddhism teaches a middle way, avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and nihilism.^[3]

Dukkha (Sanskrit duhkha) or dissatisfaction (or "dis-ease"; also often translated "suffering", though this is somewhat misleading). Nothing found in the physical world or even the psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction.
Anatta (Sanskrit anatman) or "non-Self" is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a self; to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent.

Can you explain your understanding of each of the pratibhAshika, vyAvahArika and paramArthika and tell us point by point how it matches the above the definitions of the above three-levels of existence?

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:52 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:When i talk of three levels of reality in Advaita, i am talking of the levels of reality corresponding to pratibhashika satya, vyahvarika satya, and paramarthika satya.

Oh.. they had three he proposed three and hence Sankara plagiarized is your argument. Did you even venture to compare and contrast what these three levels meant in each case i.e. Madhyamika and Advaita darsanas?

yes i did. The meaning of the three levels is exactly the same in Mahayana Budhism as it is in Advaita.

With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that all sentient beings (everything in the phenomenology of psychology) are marked by these three characteristics:

Anicca (Sanskrit anitya) "inconstancy" or "impermanence". This refers to the fact that all conditioned things (sankhara) are in a constant state of flux. In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that may go on to form new plants. Buddhism teaches a middle way, avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and nihilism.^[3]

Dukkha (Sanskrit duhkha) or dissatisfaction (or "dis-ease"; also often translated "suffering", though this is somewhat misleading). Nothing found in the physical world or even the psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction.
Anatta (Sanskrit anatman) or "non-Self" is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a self; to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent.

Can you explain your understanding of each of the pratibhAshika, vyAvahArika and paramArthika and tell us point by point how it matches the above the definitions of the above three-levels of existence?

i may have done so in an earlier blog post. will try looking for it. if not i will write a new blog on this important issue.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 2:55 pm

Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:When i talk of three levels of reality in Advaita, i am talking of the levels of reality corresponding to pratibhashika satya, vyahvarika satya, and paramarthika satya.

Oh.. they had three he proposed three and hence Sankara plagiarized is your argument. Did you even venture to compare and contrast what these three levels meant in each case i.e. Madhyamika and Advaita darsanas?

yes i did. The meaning of the three levels is exactly the same in Mahayana Budhism as it is in Advaita.

With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that all sentient beings (everything in the phenomenology of psychology) are marked by these three characteristics:

Anicca (Sanskrit anitya) "inconstancy" or "impermanence". This refers to the fact that all conditioned things (sankhara) are in a constant state of flux. In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that may go on to form new plants. Buddhism teaches a middle way, avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and nihilism.^[3]

Dukkha (Sanskrit duhkha) or dissatisfaction (or "dis-ease"; also often translated "suffering", though this is somewhat misleading). Nothing found in the physical world or even the psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction.
Anatta (Sanskrit anatman) or "non-Self" is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a self; to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent.

Can you explain your understanding of each of the pratibhAshika, vyAvahArika and paramArthika and tell us point by point how it matches the above the definitions of the above three-levels of existence?

i may have done so in an earlier blog post. will try looking for it. if not i will write a new blog on this important issue.

The 'matching' is not with the terms you mention. As i said earlier the invention of 'three levels of reality' was not of the Budha but of the Mahayana Budhists. In Mahayana Budhism, vyahavarika satya is called saamvriti satya and paramarthika satya is called i think paramaartha satya. i forget what pratibhasika satya is called.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:02 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:When i talk of three levels of reality in Advaita, i am talking of the levels of reality corresponding to pratibhashika satya, vyahvarika satya, and paramarthika satya.

Oh.. they had three he proposed three and hence Sankara plagiarized is your argument. Did you even venture to compare and contrast what these three levels meant in each case i.e. Madhyamika and Advaita darsanas?

yes i did. The meaning of the three levels is exactly the same in Mahayana Budhism as it is in Advaita.

With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that all sentient beings (everything in the phenomenology of psychology) are marked by these three characteristics:

Anicca (Sanskrit anitya) "inconstancy" or "impermanence". This refers to the fact that all conditioned things (sankhara) are in a constant state of flux. In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that may go on to form new plants. Buddhism teaches a middle way, avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and nihilism.^[3]

Dukkha (Sanskrit duhkha) or dissatisfaction (or "dis-ease"; also often translated "suffering", though this is somewhat misleading). Nothing found in the physical world or even the psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction.
Anatta (Sanskrit anatman) or "non-Self" is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a self; to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent.

Can you explain your understanding of each of the pratibhAshika, vyAvahArika and paramArthika and tell us point by point how it matches the above the definitions of the above three-levels of existence?

The definition of pratitya samutpada as given in the wikipedia extract u posted corresponds to the definition given by the mahayana budhists in which the claim is made that there is nothing in this world which ceases to exist. This is not the position of the Budha on pratitya samutpada. To know the position of the Budha on this issue, read my blogs whose links i gave in an earlier post in this thread.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:08 pm

Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:When i talk of three levels of reality in Advaita, i am talking of the levels of reality corresponding to pratibhashika satya, vyahvarika satya, and paramarthika satya.

Oh.. they had three he proposed three and hence Sankara plagiarized is your argument. Did you even venture to compare and contrast what these three levels meant in each case i.e. Madhyamika and Advaita darsanas?

yes i did. The meaning of the three levels is exactly the same in Mahayana Budhism as it is in Advaita.

With the faculty of wisdom the Buddha directly perceived that all sentient beings (everything in the phenomenology of psychology) are marked by these three characteristics:

Anicca (Sanskrit anitya) "inconstancy" or "impermanence". This refers to the fact that all conditioned things (sankhara) are in a constant state of flux. In reality there is no thing that ultimately ceases to exist; only the appearance of a thing ceases as it changes from one form to another. Imagine a leaf that falls to the ground and decomposes. While the appearance and relative existence of the leaf ceases, the components that formed the leaf become particulate material that may go on to form new plants. Buddhism teaches a middle way, avoiding the extreme views of eternalism and nihilism.^[3]

Dukkha (Sanskrit duhkha) or dissatisfaction (or "dis-ease"; also often translated "suffering", though this is somewhat misleading). Nothing found in the physical world or even the psychological realm can bring lasting deep satisfaction.
Anatta (Sanskrit anatman) or "non-Self" is used in the suttas both as a noun and as a predicative adjective to denote that phenomena are not, or are without, a self; to describe any and all composite, consubstantial, phenomenal and temporal things, from the macrocosmic to microcosmic, be it matter pertaining to the physical body or the cosmos at large, as well as any and all mental machinations, which are impermanent.

Can you explain your understanding of each of the pratibhAshika, vyAvahArika and paramArthika and tell us point by point how it matches the above the definitions of the above three-levels of existence?

The definition of pratitya samutpada as given in the wikipedia extract u posted corresponds to the definition given by the mahayana budhists in which the claim is made that there is nothing in this world which ceases to exist. This is not the position of the Budha on pratitya samutpada. To know the position of the Budha on this issue, read my blogs whose links i gave in an earlier post in this thread.

the definition of Dukha and also of Anatta given by you are the definition given by the Mahayana Budhists, and not by the Budha, as per my understanding of the subject. the problem with these wikipedia articles which you are using as source material is that they are not distinguishing between the budhism of the budha, hinayana budhism, and mahayana budhism.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Jan 07, 2014 3:38 pm

TW: "why do they apply lipstick and blush to male Gods' pictures?"

Interesting observation. Male Gods are also usually shown without a mush.

May be, the male devotees will pay more attention if God is shown with feminine features?

If we accept Rashmun's line of thinking, all these Gods are from UP. Perhaps, the artists think that bhaiyyas are feminine!

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:12 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:TW: "why do they apply lipstick and blush to male Gods' pictures?"

Interesting observation. Male Gods are also usually shown without a mush.

May be, the male devotees will pay more attention if God is shown with feminine features?

If we accept Rashmun's line of thinking, all these Gods are from UP. Perhaps, the artists think that bhaiyyas are feminine!

Murugan and Ayappa are not from UP but they are depicted similarly. Also, it is shameful to see you calling hindu Gods 'bhaiyyas'. Just because Advaita claims all hindu gods are false gods at the paramarthika level you think you can get away with your nonsense.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:29 pm

Rashmun: Are you saying that Murugan (Kartikeya) is not NI?

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:33 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun: Are you saying that Murugan (Kartikeya) is not NI?

As per hindu mythology he is said to reside in Tamil Nadu. One of his two wives, Valli, is a tamil tribal Goddess.

by smArtha Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:02 pm

Rashmun wrote:The 'matching' is not with the terms you mention. As i said earlier the invention of 'three levels of reality' was not of the Budha but of the Mahayana Budhists. In Mahayana Budhism, vyahavarika satya is called saamvriti satya and paramarthika satya is called i think paramaartha satya. i forget what pratibhasika satya is called.

Afaik, Mahayana defined only two - samvrit and paramartha. There is no equivalence to Paribhashika. Hence, still waiting for you to validate your claims of Advaita borrowing from Mahayana.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:28 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The 'matching' is not with the terms you mention. As i said earlier the invention of 'three levels of reality' was not of the Budha but of the Mahayana Budhists. In Mahayana Budhism, vyahavarika satya is called saamvriti satya and paramarthika satya is called i think paramaartha satya. i forget what pratibhasika satya is called.

Afaik, Mahayana defined only two - samvrit and paramartha. There is no equivalence to Paribhashika. Hence, still waiting for you to validate your claims of Advaita borrowing from Mahayana.

you are misinformed. Mahayana Budhism also talks of three levels of reality and there is a term the Mahayana Budhists use (which i now forget) which is the equivalent of pratibhashika.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:38 pm

Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The 'matching' is not with the terms you mention. As i said earlier the invention of 'three levels of reality' was not of the Budha but of the Mahayana Budhists. In Mahayana Budhism, vyahavarika satya is called saamvriti satya and paramarthika satya is called i think paramaartha satya. i forget what pratibhasika satya is called.

Afaik, Mahayana defined only two - samvrit and paramartha. There is no equivalence to Paribhashika. Hence, still waiting for you to validate your claims of Advaita borrowing from Mahayana.

you are misinformed. Mahayana Budhism also talks of three levels of reality and there is a term the Mahayana Budhists use (which i now forget) which is the equivalent of pratibhashika.

The two main schools of Mahayana Budhism are sunyavada(also known as Madhyamika) and vijnana-vada (also known as Yogacara). Both sunyavada and vijnana-vada talk of three levels of reality. In vijnanavada, the term 'parikalpita' is the one that is the equivalent of the 'pratibhashika' of Advaita. More on parikalpita here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-cAoYoJSnYC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=buddhism+three+levels+of+reality&source=bl&ots=3TDLJH5n4P&sig=IjsbMJZpJ_ezrMxfj2P-QcesGyU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4DMUtTND8Oy2wXo_4DwCg&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20three%20levels%20of%20reality&f=false

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 5:48 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The 'matching' is not with the terms you mention. As i said earlier the invention of 'three levels of reality' was not of the Budha but of the Mahayana Budhists. In Mahayana Budhism, vyahavarika satya is called saamvriti satya and paramarthika satya is called i think paramaartha satya. i forget what pratibhasika satya is called.

Afaik, Mahayana defined only two - samvrit and paramartha. There is no equivalence to Paribhashika. Hence, still waiting for you to validate your claims of Advaita borrowing from Mahayana.

you are misinformed. Mahayana Budhism also talks of three levels of reality and there is a term the Mahayana Budhists use (which i now forget) which is the equivalent of pratibhashika.

The two main schools of Mahayana Budhism are sunyavada(also known as Madhyamika) and vijnana-vada (also known as Yogacara). Both sunyavada and vijnana-vada talk of three levels of reality. In vijnanavada, the term 'parikalpita' is the one that is the equivalent of the 'pratibhashika' of Advaita. More on parikalpita here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-cAoYoJSnYC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=buddhism+three+levels+of+reality&source=bl&ots=3TDLJH5n4P&sig=IjsbMJZpJ_ezrMxfj2P-QcesGyU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4DMUtTND8Oy2wXo_4DwCg&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20three%20levels%20of%20reality&f=false

Some online articles claim that while Yogacara (vijnanavada) does talk of three levels of reality, Madhyamika or sunyavada only talks of two levels of reality. This is incorrect as even sunyavada talks of three levels of reality.

by smArtha Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:27 pm

Rashmun wrote:The two main schools of Mahayana Budhism are sunyavada(also known as Madhyamika) and vijnana-vada (also known as Yogacara). Both sunyavada and vijnana-vada talk of three levels of reality. In vijnanavada, the term 'parikalpita' is the one that is the equivalent of the 'pratibhashika' of Advaita. More on parikalpita here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-cAoYoJSnYC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=buddhism+three+levels+of+reality&source=bl&ots=3TDLJH5n4P&sig=IjsbMJZpJ_ezrMxfj2P-QcesGyU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4DMUtTND8Oy2wXo_4DwCg&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20three%20levels%20of%20reality&f=false

That there are differences in what constitutes the substratum of reality - sUnya vs brahman is the main point of deviation between Madhyamaka and Vedanta schools.

Yogacara tradition itself didn't evolve in isolation and absolutely only from the 'original' teachings of Buddhism. It had borrowed heavily from the Yoga, Tantra and Shaiva/Shakta Agamic traditions. Actually, these schools while vehemently against the karma kanda/purva mimamsa aspects of the Vedic traditions share overlapping concepts/ideas with the Vedanta/Uttara Mimamsa schools. So it is natural to find overlap between Agama/Yoga influenced Yogacara Buddhism vs Vedanta based Advaita traditions. The three types of reality that you are claiming to be the 'original classification' of Yogacara is not 'invented' by its proponents. It is already present in the Yoga/Tantra/Upanishadic schools. The Taitteriya Upanishad itself states them explicitly/implicitly - सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ”satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat’ (Taittiriya Up. II.6) - this is Satyam(Paramarthika) and Anrtam (Unreal - Vyavaharika and Pratibhashika). Similar concepts but different nomenclature is also found in various Tantra/Yoga schools that pre-date the Yogacara traditions.

by nevada Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:30 pm

Isn't Gandhi aka Ghandy more well known?

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:32 pm

smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The two main schools of Mahayana Budhism are sunyavada(also known as Madhyamika) and vijnana-vada (also known as Yogacara). Both sunyavada and vijnana-vada talk of three levels of reality. In vijnanavada, the term 'parikalpita' is the one that is the equivalent of the 'pratibhashika' of Advaita. More on parikalpita here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-cAoYoJSnYC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=buddhism+three+levels+of+reality&source=bl&ots=3TDLJH5n4P&sig=IjsbMJZpJ_ezrMxfj2P-QcesGyU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4DMUtTND8Oy2wXo_4DwCg&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20three%20levels%20of%20reality&f=false

That there are differences in what constitutes the substratum of reality - sUnya vs brahman is the main point of deviation between Madhyamaka and Vedanta schools.

Yogacara tradition itself didn't evolve in isolation and absolutely only from the 'original' teachings of Buddhism. It had borrowed heavily from the Yoga, Tantra and Shaiva/Shakta Agamic traditions. Actually, these schools while vehemently against the karma kanda/purva mimamsa aspects of the Vedic traditions share overlapping concepts/ideas with the Vedanta/Uttara Mimamsa schools. So it is natural to find overlap between Agama/Yoga influenced Yogacara Buddhism vs Vedanta based Advaita traditions. The three types of reality that you are claiming to be the 'original classification' of Yogacara is not 'invented' by its proponents. It is already present in the Yoga/Tantra/Upanishadic schools. The Taitteriya Upanishad itself states them explicitly/implicitly - सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ”satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat’ (Taittiriya Up. II.6) - this is Satyam(Paramarthika) and Anrtam (Unreal - Vyavaharika and Pratibhashika). Similar concepts but different nomenclature is also found in various Tantra/Yoga schools that pre-date the Yogacara traditions.

So the one word 'Anrtam' should be interpreted to include/incorporate two very different terms-- vyahvarika satya/paramarthika satya and also pratibhashika/parikalpita-- in your opinion?

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:47 pm

Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The two main schools of Mahayana Budhism are sunyavada(also known as Madhyamika) and vijnana-vada (also known as Yogacara). Both sunyavada and vijnana-vada talk of three levels of reality. In vijnanavada, the term 'parikalpita' is the one that is the equivalent of the 'pratibhashika' of Advaita. More on parikalpita here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-cAoYoJSnYC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=buddhism+three+levels+of+reality&source=bl&ots=3TDLJH5n4P&sig=IjsbMJZpJ_ezrMxfj2P-QcesGyU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4DMUtTND8Oy2wXo_4DwCg&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20three%20levels%20of%20reality&f=false

That there are differences in what constitutes the substratum of reality - sUnya vs brahman is the main point of deviation between Madhyamaka and Vedanta schools.

Yogacara tradition itself didn't evolve in isolation and absolutely only from the 'original' teachings of Buddhism. It had borrowed heavily from the Yoga, Tantra and Shaiva/Shakta Agamic traditions. Actually, these schools while vehemently against the karma kanda/purva mimamsa aspects of the Vedic traditions share overlapping concepts/ideas with the Vedanta/Uttara Mimamsa schools. So it is natural to find overlap between Agama/Yoga influenced Yogacara Buddhism vs Vedanta based Advaita traditions. The three types of reality that you are claiming to be the 'original classification' of Yogacara is not 'invented' by its proponents. It is already present in the Yoga/Tantra/Upanishadic schools. The Taitteriya Upanishad itself states them explicitly/implicitly - सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ”satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat’ (Taittiriya Up. II.6) - this is Satyam(Paramarthika) and Anrtam (Unreal - Vyavaharika and Pratibhashika). Similar concepts but different nomenclature is also found in various Tantra/Yoga schools that pre-date the Yogacara traditions.

So the one word 'Anrtam' should be interpreted to include/incorporate two very different terms-- vyahvarika satya/~~paramarthika~~ saamvriti satya and also pratibhashika/parikalpita-- in your opinion?

*Corrected*

by MaxEntropy_Man Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:06 pm

religion and religious philosophy are as boring as dried cow poop. i think the most interesting ancient indian is madhava of sangamagrama.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:08 pm

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:religion and religious philosophy are as boring as dried cow poop. i think the most interesting ancient indian is madhava of sangamagrama.

bandar kya jaane adrakh ka swaad.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:17 pm

Rashmun wrote:
MaxEntropy_Man wrote:religion and religious philosophy are as boring as dried cow poop. i think the most interesting ancient indian is madhava of sangamagrama.

bandar kya jaane adrakh ka swaad.

Also your favorite Madhava was of the 16th century AD. I don't know why you persist on insisting that he was an ancient Indian.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The two main schools of Mahayana Budhism are sunyavada(also known as Madhyamika) and vijnana-vada (also known as Yogacara). Both sunyavada and vijnana-vada talk of three levels of reality. In vijnanavada, the term 'parikalpita' is the one that is the equivalent of the 'pratibhashika' of Advaita. More on parikalpita here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-cAoYoJSnYC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=buddhism+three+levels+of+reality&source=bl&ots=3TDLJH5n4P&sig=IjsbMJZpJ_ezrMxfj2P-QcesGyU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4DMUtTND8Oy2wXo_4DwCg&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20three%20levels%20of%20reality&f=false

That there are differences in what constitutes the substratum of reality - sUnya vs brahman is the main point of deviation between Madhyamaka and Vedanta schools.

Yogacara tradition itself didn't evolve in isolation and absolutely only from the 'original' teachings of Buddhism. It had borrowed heavily from the Yoga, Tantra and Shaiva/Shakta Agamic traditions. Actually, these schools while vehemently against the karma kanda/purva mimamsa aspects of the Vedic traditions share overlapping concepts/ideas with the Vedanta/Uttara Mimamsa schools. So it is natural to find overlap between Agama/Yoga influenced Yogacara Buddhism vs Vedanta based Advaita traditions. The three types of reality that you are claiming to be the 'original classification' of Yogacara is not 'invented' by its proponents. It is already present in the Yoga/Tantra/Upanishadic schools. The Taitteriya Upanishad itself states them explicitly/implicitly - सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ”satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat’ (Taittiriya Up. II.6) - this is Satyam(Paramarthika) and Anrtam (Unreal - Vyavaharika and Pratibhashika). Similar concepts but different nomenclature is also found in various Tantra/Yoga schools that pre-date the Yogacara traditions.

So the one word 'Anrtam' should be interpreted to include/incorporate two very different terms-- vyahvarika satya/~~paramarthika~~ saamvriti satya and also pratibhashika/parikalpita-- in your opinion?

*Corrected*

Additionally, there are many traditional hindu scholars who have argued that the sunya of sunyavada is no different from the Brahman of Advaita. For instance Madhavacharya, founder of Dvaita Vedanta, says in his commentary on Brahma Sutra ii.2.29 that the definition of Brahman (God) given by the Advaita Vedantists is no different from the definition of sunya given by the sunyavadi Budhists.

by Guest Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:24 am

Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
smArtha wrote:
Rashmun wrote:The two main schools of Mahayana Budhism are sunyavada(also known as Madhyamika) and vijnana-vada (also known as Yogacara). Both sunyavada and vijnana-vada talk of three levels of reality. In vijnanavada, the term 'parikalpita' is the one that is the equivalent of the 'pratibhashika' of Advaita. More on parikalpita here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=G-cAoYoJSnYC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=buddhism+three+levels+of+reality&source=bl&ots=3TDLJH5n4P&sig=IjsbMJZpJ_ezrMxfj2P-QcesGyU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e4DMUtTND8Oy2wXo_4DwCg&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=buddhism%20three%20levels%20of%20reality&f=false

That there are differences in what constitutes the substratum of reality - sUnya vs brahman is the main point of deviation between Madhyamaka and Vedanta schools.

Yogacara tradition itself didn't evolve in isolation and absolutely only from the 'original' teachings of Buddhism. It had borrowed heavily from the Yoga, Tantra and Shaiva/Shakta Agamic traditions. Actually, these schools while vehemently against the karma kanda/purva mimamsa aspects of the Vedic traditions share overlapping concepts/ideas with the Vedanta/Uttara Mimamsa schools. So it is natural to find overlap between Agama/Yoga influenced Yogacara Buddhism vs Vedanta based Advaita traditions. The three types of reality that you are claiming to be the 'original classification' of Yogacara is not 'invented' by its proponents. It is already present in the Yoga/Tantra/Upanishadic schools. The Taitteriya Upanishad itself states them explicitly/implicitly - सत्यं च अनृतं च सत्यमभवत् ”satyam cha anRtam cha Satyam abhavat’ (Taittiriya Up. II.6) - this is Satyam(Paramarthika) and Anrtam (Unreal - Vyavaharika and Pratibhashika). Similar concepts but different nomenclature is also found in various Tantra/Yoga schools that pre-date the Yogacara traditions.

So the one word 'Anrtam' should be interpreted to include/incorporate two very different terms-- vyahvarika satya/~~paramarthika~~ saamvriti satya and also pratibhashika/parikalpita-- in your opinion?

*Corrected*

Additionally, there are many traditional hindu scholars who have argued that the sunya of sunyavada is no different from the Brahman of Advaita. For instance Madhavacharya, founder of Dvaita Vedanta, says in his commentary on Brahma Sutra ii.2.29 that the definition of Brahman (God) given by the Advaita Vedantists is no different from the definition of sunya given by the sunyavadi Budhists.

According to Advaita Vedanta:
1. Brahman(God) is the only reality.
2. Brahman is pure consciousness which is devoid of any attributes (nirguna)

My understanding is that the sunya of the sunyavadi Budhists has the same definition as the Brahman of the Advaita Vedantists.

by Sponsored content