As far as I know, Vishishtadvaitha and Dvaita base their arguments on Vedas.

As Buddhists reject the Vedas, how would the dualistic schools of Vedanta debate with Buddhists and establish Veda pramanya?

For Eg: just adreess the existence of soul. Buddhists hold there is no soul. Vedantists hold there is soul. What is the proof according to Vedantists?

  • 1
    No one.........? – user13262 May 8 '19 at 4:38
  • The question is too broad. It would be great if you could be specific about what specific argument or difference would you like to compare in the answers to your question. – Gokul NC Dec 31 '20 at 5:51
  • @GokulNC just adreess the existence of soul. Buddhists hold there is no soul. Vedantists hold there is soul. What is the proof according to Vedantists? – user13262 Jan 13 at 7:31
  • pdfbooks.ourhindi.com/… if you can read hindi, its a book on vedantas refutation of buddhisim, not necessarily Vishistadvaitic or dvaita viewpoint – Krsna Dasa Jan 13 at 8:00
  • @KrsnaDasa The link is dead – Sethu Srivatsa Koduru Jan 14 at 3:50

I would like to write most probable refutation Buddhist doctrine by Vaishnavaism.

Buddhists teach, that there are two types of arising (samudaya), namely external and internal. The external arising refers to things such as the earth, rivers, oceans and so on. These are made of four kinds of minute particles (paramāṇus) namely earthly, watery, fiery, and windy types. The internal arising refers to mind (citta) and memory (caitya). This internal arising is made of five types of aggregates (pañca-skandha), namely form (rūpa), consciousness (vijñāna), sensation(vedanā), perception (samjñā) and mental impression (saṃskāra).

We first reject the theory of creation based on minute particles and aggregates. These elements cannot create the universe because according to Buddhism there is no agent that puts them together. We also reject the possibility that the Buddha could fulfill the role of cosmic agent, pointing out that according to Buddhist theory everything is momentary. If the cosmic agent were momentary, he could not have a desire for creation. The underlying assumption is that a momentary agent cannot have such a desire because to desire something requires the continued existence of the desiring agent. After rejecting what we perceive to be the Buddhist theory of creation, we now proceed to refute the Buddhist theory of causation, namely the doctrine of interdependent origination. According to this Buddhist doctrine, ignorance (avidya) is the ultimate cause of our samsaric experience.

We quote

उत्तरोत्पादे च पूर्वनिरोधात् (Brahma Sutra 2.2.20)

Which means "Ignorance and so on do not explain causality" because the preceding one is destroyed when the subsequent one arises.” The Buddhist theory cannot explain causality: (1) since a momentary (kṣaṇika) cause cannot be the material cause due to the fact that it is not connected to the effect that exists in a later moment, (2) since only a cause that is connected to an effect can be the material cause, (3) since an effect cannot arise without that [i.e. a cause connected to the effect], and (4) because with the destruction of such cause the connection [between the cause and the effect] is not explained. If everything is momentary then there is no causality possible because there cannot be any contact between a cause and an effect. After refuting the Buddhist theories of creation and causality, we now move on to state that the goal of human life according to Buddhism is not worth pursuing.

The desire for the goal of human life, which is eternal and which has a single essence, does not arise for a self that is momentary. This is because such a self has the nature of complete suffering as it is afflicted with great calamity and because there is no self of its own after its [i.e. suffering’s] cessation. To explain, no one desires the destruction of the self. The Buddhist theory of momentariness amounts to the destruction of the self. No one wishes to attain such a state. The goal of human life, which is eternal and which has a single essence is to attain Lord Narayana who is ocean of innumerable auspicious attributes which are intrinsic to His nature and cannot be surpassed — some of them being; omniscience, omnipotence, sovereignty, energy, creative-potency and glory. He is a repository of limitless perfections such as radiance, beauty, fragrance, tenderness, pervading sweetness and youthfulness.

There are four types of meditations which Buddhists practise, namely meditation on one’s characteristics (svalakṣaṇa), on momentariness (kṣaṇika), on suffering (duḥkha) and on emptiness (śūnya).

We reject these four types of meditation on the grounds that they lack scriptural support of the Vedas and the Upaniṣads (aprāmāṇikatvāt). They are ineffective practices because the objects of meditation are wrong. Proper object of meditation is the Lord alone.

I know the great Purusha, who is luminous, like the sun and beyond darkness. Only by knowing Him does one pass over death; there is no other way to the Supreme Goal. (Svetasvatara Upanishad 3.8)

The Blessed Lord said: Those who fix their minds on Me and always engage in My devotion with steadfast faith, I consider them to be the best yogis.(BG 12.2)

There are those who always think of Me and engage in exclusive devotion to Me. To them, whose minds are always absorbed in Me, I provide what they lack and preserve what they already possess. (BG 9.22)

  • Thank you so much for answering. There are three points given. 1. Can't explain the cause of universe 2. Can't explain the causation 3. Goal is not desirable – user13262 Jan 26 at 15:51
  • 1. Now regarding creation and cause of the universe. This exception maybe just maybe valid like 2 thousand years ago but no more. Given that what we know of Big bang theory and Evolution we need no active agent to "create" universe. It can come about itself with no one that needs to be put together. – user13262 Jan 26 at 15:53
  • 2. Regarding causation: There is an assumption that the single moment of cause and effect are synchronous. There is an assumption of universal objective frame of time. This was proved wrong by Einstein. The cause and effect even though momentary can influence each other because their moments over lap. And in that overlap causation happens. The beginning and end of moments of cause and effect are not same. So even this is objection is wrong – user13262 Jan 26 at 15:56
  • 3. Goal of Buddhism: Here its said that Buddhism advocates destruction of self. Quite the contrary. Buddhism does not say to destroy the self but says that there is no self, and the self that is experienced is an illusion which is causing the suffering. According to Buddhism there is no self so, how can one advocate to destroy it? It only advocates to conquer the illusion of the self. More over regarding no backing of the scriptures. Its an argument in circular. Why should Vedas backup Buddhism. Why Vedas backing up proof of anything? Also how are Vedas proved. So even this objection is wrong. – user13262 Jan 26 at 16:02
  • 1) Nope. The recognition of the subjective experiential state as the ultimate reality is based on logic and experience. – Sethu Srivatsa Koduru Jan 26 at 16:15

You must log in to answer this question.