[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 2
mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com
Tue Jun 7 00:34:12 CDT 2005
> Another point is that I believe S. Radhakrishnan in his classic two
volume book on Indian philosophy makes > a reference to the fact that Adi
Sankaracharya managed to achieve this feat.
I fear my text was interpreted incorrectly possibly due to the incorrect
juxtaposition of sentences. What I wanted to say was that S. Radhakrishnan
in his book (and I confirmed this yesterday) mentions that Adi Sankaracharya
arrived at the necessity of Brahman by pure logical arguments without
recourse to the Upanishads. He did indeed do this in his Bhasya on the
Gaudapada Karika. However, the need of existence of Brahman is quite
different from being able to capture its profoundity in words. Infact, that
is exactly what Wittgenstein was trying to show - that words and symbols
cannot capture the essence of the noumenon or in Vedantic terms, Brahman.
>> Why? What makes you think hearing and reflecting on shastras doesn't
>> involve thought processes?
I fully agree that meditating on the sruti requires a profound depth of
thinking. However, the point of my post was whether one needs to depend on
the conclusion ('*Prajnanam Brahma" - 'Brahman is conciousness')* solely
based on the sruti or can one arrive at it with logical arguments.
On 6/7/05, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Mahesh Ursekar wrote:
> > Two points. From what I have read, Wittgenstein never managed to prove
> > claim (that reality lies beyond words and symbols). He came close to it
> > never nailed it down. Infact, if he had done it, science would have been
> > given a serious run for its money. Another point is that I believe S.
> > Radhakrishnan in his classic two volume book on Indian philosophy makes
> > reference to the fact that Adi Sankaracharya managed to achieve this
> > Maybe the Sankaracharya's arguments were not as rigorous as required by
> > current philosophy (which gets close to mathematics in rigor at times)
> > it would indeed be interesting is someone knows something about his
> > thoughts.
> I can't see how anyone especially someone of the purported calibre of
> Radhakrishnan could come to the conclusion that Shankaracharya believes
> reality is beyond words. The famous "neti neti" most certainly doesn't
> imply this.
> > And when you think about it, for a Jnani, like the erstwhile Vidyaranya,
> > whose profound thinking Jaldhar extolls, relying merely on the sruti
> > be revolting.
> Why? What makes you think hearing and reflecting on shastras doesn't
> involve thought processes?
> > Rather his or her greater reliance on thought processes is
> > what classifies him or her as a Jnani in the first place! There has to
> be a
> > convincing enough reason why a reality beyond time, space and causation
> > to exist! Jaldhar, any thoughts?
> I would remind readers again that the name of this discipline is not Aikya
> but a-dvaita. (not two.) The purpose of jnana is to destroy the false
> conceptions at the end of which truth alone remains. This I suppose would
> be the "reason".
> > Of course, you missed point linking the two statements:
> > 1. A dullard does well if he or she has the right attitude
> > 2. A dullard can do well only if an intelligent agency is helping him or
> > Linking statement: In my arguments below, I said:
> > Now, while <<1. may be true due to the law: "you are what you think">>
> > can't deny
> > that the dullard would most likely not be resourceful enough to reach
> > high position he or she
> > is currently at. Hence the need for 2.
> Bhagavan does not play favorites with His creations but impartially alots
> consequences on the basis of their actions. So the succesful dullard may
> have some virtues hidden under that dull exterior.
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list