[Advaita-l] logic and Shastra
mahesh.ursekar at gmail.com
Fri Jun 17 21:41:02 CDT 2005
Many thanks for you elaborate and detailed reply. I had to delete your
message and make a new post since the Spam filter keeps rejecting the Reply-
message as Spam. I hope the audience has access to your last mail.
Before I start let, me say that I am not arguing for arguments sake but the
whole purpose of this thread was with a view of trying (however naively) to
establish Brahman in my mind on more rational terms than with dependence on
Sruti alone. In this, I am not alone since the great Sankaracharya (as has
been mentioned before) has also seen the importance of this.
first, the existence of brahman cannot be known by any inference (anumAna)
whatsoever, for any inference
relating to brahman can be done only after a direct perception (pratyaksha)
of it and since anumAna is
dependent on pratyaksha for its validity.
This above argument is not valid. If anuman required pratyaksha, the blind
would be incapable of anuman but we know when a blind person bumps against
something, he infers it is an obstrution to be avoided. Or, when the wind
blows against your face, you infer that there must be a high pressure-low
pressure system in the atmosphere. In the same way, I need pratyaksha to
define Brahman is someway (sat-cit-ananda) but by anuman, I can establish
that something like this aught to exist.
exists" (i guess this was the essence of ur earlier argument), then this
argument is fallacious since there is no ground to identify the intelligent
cause thus inferred with brahman, which is known (only) from
I never tried to infer this with Braham itself but with the necessity of a
"creator". Subsequent arguments went on to show that this "creator" needed
to be above time, space, causation. My simple minded and Sankara
philosophical arguments were provided for this.
as mentioned in my previous post, chit and Ananda are undefined terms. now,
assume that a logical proof exists,
I am sorry I fail to understand your meaning of "undefined". Maybe if you
explained this I could try to follow your proof. The way I see it, your
using both words in a sentence seems to indicate you have an idea of what
they mean. On the other hand, if you mean that words and symbols cannot
grasp their true essence, that is a different matter with which all my
earlier posts concur.
now, in the domain where vedAnta operates, the class of systems is the class
of various notions of an ultimate cause,
Again, I am sorry but don't buy this as a basis for you "axioms". In that
case there would be no need for religious discourse - each religion could be
proved to be a self consistent whole without any rationality. The Christian
would start his or her argument with - assume a old man who is the creator
of the world, the Muslim with Allah, and so on. This ends up as requiring
more faith than reason. (I don't wish to downplay faith but maybe what I
mean is dogmatic faith).
if the world can be explained completely without any reference to brahman,
then there is no need to worry
about what the SAstra-s say. if it cannot be explained thus, the necessity
of SAstra-s is clear.
What is your opinion? Can the world be explained without the shastras?
the purpose of all this axiomatization is to provide a logically consistent
scheme to convince us that this mahodadhi of Soka and moha which inevitaby
traps us, can be overcome by Atmaj~nAna.
But, dear sir, a self-consistent axiomatic system is provided by the Jaina
and the Buddhist too. Why is Vedanta so special?
He didn't explain the world simply because it is not existent in the
absolute sense independent of brahman. He states what the truth is and not
what we want it to be. either way, it doesn't matter if people criticize
Agreed completely. Truth bows to no one!
what i meant by self-introspection was not any argumentation like this,
I tried to explain my position with regard to this at the start. In any
case, maybe some of my arguments (or am I being too optimistic?) might
provide some food for thought i.e. introspection.
to live by the vedAnta is possible only for a j~nAni. for mumukshu-s,
Ah, then unto what purpose all this discussion and debate? Are we aspiring
to become pundits or Jnanis? As Swami Ranganathananda (the late President of
the Ramakrishan Math) used to say (my words) "Try, try to implement even a
little of the truth. Take the attitude that one day you will get there,
however long it takes" or the lion Swami Vivekananda's saying (from memory)
"Why wait for another life time. Be free, be free even in this life!"
Humble pranams, Mahesh
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list