/lit/ - Literature

Buddhist Monk: Come on Acharya! You too teach the unreality as cause of suffering and grief and pain. The world is nothing but an idea – a dream-like construct where nothing is real (Idealism in Buddhism/Vijnanavada). And now why do you criticize our unreality while professing yours?

Acharya: No. You have not understood the true essence of Advaita then. The unreality of external world that I teach is not based on nothing (It is not Nihilist). My unreality does not base on absence of reality – but on flawed perception of reality. Unlike you, I don’t say there is NO reality at all! I say there is reality and only ONE reality, but the way we perceive or take cognizance is erroneous because of Avidya, Ajnaan and Maya. Once the perception of snake goes away from the rope on the floor, there remain to Snake, only a rope! And there was never a Snake at all, it was rope all throughout. So, the unreal (Snake) was real till the true real (Rope) was realized. After realization, there was never a snake. Likewise, after you realize Brahman, you will experience that there was never a World of otherness. There was always Brahman, here there, inside outside. You are Brahman. It is an absolute identity and this is ultimately proved simply by psychological experience. Shruti has maintained "Tat tvam asi" (That art Thou); "Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). This is no ‘similarity’ as if we should say, "I am something like Brahman", but full and complete identity, “I am the Brahman” and “Brahman is Me”. The Great Tathagata saw suffering, but never endevoured to go deep into its causes. He saw the unrealness of the work-a-day, realized it fully, but he did not realize the true cause (Avidya) and the entity beyond the cause (Brahman). He did not see that strand of argument.

Buddhist Monk: Nah! Sakyamuni did not believe in philosophization or polemics. In Shoola Malunkyovada Sutta, the Tathagata has clarified that he won’t venture into questions of philosophy of suffering, but only the method as to end suffering - "The important thing is to get rid of the poisoned arrow (Suffering) that has pierced your heart, not to inquire where it came from (Source of suffering)”.

Acharya: I know. But then, what did the ilks of Nagarjuna, Vasubabdhu, Asanga, Dharmakirti, Aswaghosa, etc. do? Then why all of them attempted complex philosophisation? No wonder that they failed to bring out a holistic Theory of Being due to inherent contradictions and flaws in the basic tenets. Were they not Vipra Bhikshus (Buddhist Bhikshus at exterior, Brahmin Vedists by intellectual disposition) rather than Buddhists?

I also know the Great Buddha avoided philosophical and metaphysical questions. He did not look deep enough. He just sensed the symptoms of the ailment of suffering and not the true cause. Desire, bondage and attachment etc. are symptoms.

Buddhist Monk: Acharya!