By far the most popular school of Hindu philosophy, which almost all Hindus nowadays belong to, is the Vedanta school, which is based on an ancient Hindu work called the Brahma Sutras or Vedanta Sutras. The Brahma Sutras consist of a series of aphorisms which summarize and systematize the philosophical teachings of a set of Hindu scriptures called the Upanishads. They also spend some time defending the philosophy of the Upanishads against rival schools of Indian philosophy. In particular, here is what they say concerning Buddhism:
Topic-4: Refutation of Buddhist Realists
- Even if the integration be supposed to arise from either of the causes, that will not be achieved.
- If it be argued that a combination becomes possible since (nescience and the rest) can be the causes of one another (in a successive series), then we say, no, (for nescience etc.,) can each merely be the cause of origin of another just succeeding.
- And because the earlier is negated when the later emerges, (therefore nescience and the rest cannot each be the cause of the next in the series).
- (If it be contended that the effect arises) even when there is no cause, then your assertion (of causation) will be stultified; else (if you contend that the entity of the earlier moment continues till the entity of the later moment emerges), the cause and effect will exist simultaneously.
- Neither pratisamkhya-nirodha (artificial annihilation) nor an apratisamkhya-nirodha (natural annihilation) is possible, for there can be no cessation (either of the current or of the individuals forming the current).
- And (the Buddhist view is untenable) owing to defect arising from either point of view.
- And (non-existence cannot be asserted) in the case of Akasa on account of the absence of (its) dissimilarity (with destruction).
- And (a permanent soul has to be admitted) because of the fact of remembrance (ie., memory).
- Something does not come out of nothing, for this does not accord with experience.
- And (if something can come out of nothing, then) on the same ground, success should come even to the indifferent people.
Topic-5: Buddhist Idealism Refuted
- (External objects are) not non-existent, for they are perceived.
- And because of the difference of nature (the waking state is) not (false) like dream etc.
- (Tendencies) can have no existence since (according to you) external things are not perceived.
- And (the ego-consciousness cannot be the abode), for it is momentary.
- Besides (this view stands condemned), it being untenable from every point of view.
My question is, have any Buddhist thinkers responded to this critique of Buddhism? Note that I don't want answerers to try responding to the critique themselves (which might lead to too much speculation and arguments). I'm just interested in whether any published works have responded to it.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You in Advance.
EDIT: Here is a book about the Brahma Sutras' critique of the Vedanta school.