Date of Udhayana

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Nanda Chandran:

>misspelling
>the names - it was not intentional. I'll take more care in the future.

I was just going to heave a sigh of relief, but you spoilt it!

>BTW, the "dha" in Udhayana is more pronounced and thicker than it is in
>Nanda, thus justifying the "h" in the former.

Really? And you also think this is a more correct spelling?
I suggest you correct your pronunciation then, in addition to
spelling. Paying attention to such apparently insignificant
details will prevent major and unnecessary confusion, say
between Madhva and Madhava.

>I'm unable to understand how the "validity of knowledge", seriously
>affects the argument for or against a creator God. Can you please explain?

I'll be brief. The mImAMsaka and the vedAntin have to argue
for svataH prAmANya, because they have to hold that scripture
is self-valid (but for different reasons). Generally, most
arguments about a creator and scripture boil down to,
"scripture is valid because God wrote it; God exists because
scripture says so." By holding to svataH-prAmANya, this
circularity is avoided.

The naiyyAyika does not accept that scripture, or for that
matter, any other kind of knowledge, is self-valid. No
proposition is valid unless it can be proved to be true. The
naiyyAyikas have had to pay much attention to the nature and
structure of proof, like logicians elsewhere in the world.
Scripture derives its validity from being the composition of
a creator God. To avoid the circularity mentioned above, any
"worthy" nyAya author simply *has* to prove the existence of
such a creator through independent arguments. He cannot say
that he accepts a creator just because scripture says so. He
has to validate his philosophical stance through what he would
consider to be valid proof. And this is irrespective of when
he may have lived, and irrespective of whether his opponents
were "great" or not. If he had not made these arguments, he
would not have been considered "worthy" or the "top" author
of his school. I thought this much should have been immediately
obvious to anyone with a little interest in classical Indian
philosophical systems. Apparently not. I seriously suggest you
read Purusottama Bilimoria's 1988 book on the subject, titled
"Sabdapramana: word and knowledge," covering mImAMsA, nyAya and
advaita vedAnta views.

>>All I'm saying is that there has been an influence of nyAya on advaita.
>
>Well, that's quite a drop from the original "heaviness" of the influence!

No, it is not. I don't expect anybody who hasn't made an
attempt to understand the logical method followed by Sankara
to get any sense of the nature of how nyAya (note, I don't
include vaiSeshika here) has influenced him. The influence of
nyAya on advaita is at least as heavy as on viSishTAdvaita.
And in the matter of bliss and liberation, do read Vatsyayana
first, and compare him with Sankara, before dismissing the
possibility.

Vidyasankar

ps. Re: your previous mail, I refused to take the bait, with
all its words of learned length and thundering sound. If you
can give me at least one quotation from an advaita text that
says samsAra = nirvANa, I will think about discussing it with
you. If you cannot, you have misunderstood both Sankara and
Nagarjuna, so there is little point in the exercise.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com