Questions on Indian idealism

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

Bhadraiah Mallampalli <vaidix at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

>1. FIFTH ADHYAYA-FIRST BRAHMANA which talks about "the invisible Brahman"
>and "the visible Brahman"

This is simply the pUrNam adaH pUrNam idam verse in the
bRhadAraNyaka, and it can be interpreted otherwise. More
important sources for a two truths theory in Vedanta are
the phrase "neti, neti" in BU 2. 3. 6, and the even more
explicit, "yatra hi dvaitam iva bhavati ..., yatra tv
asya sarvam AtmaivAbhUt ..." (BU 2. 4. 14 and 4. 5. 15).
This is a clear distinction of two levels of reality.
So also, "na dRshTer drashTAram pazyeH, ... na vijnAter
vijnAtAraM vijAnIyAH" (BU 3. 4. 2). Everything here is
closely tied to Vedantic ontology and epistemology. Now,
if one wants to think that in more than thousand years
between this upanishad and Sankara's commentary on it,
nobody in the upanishadic tradition(s) made the same
distinction, and that mature advaita authors stole it
from another tradition, one is welcome to that opinion.
Moreover, one also has to realize that within Vedanta
traditions, the Advaita view can only be faulted by one
who is already committed to a different interpretation,
e.g. Madhva's. A comparative analysis of Advaita and
Buddhism need not be tied to an opposing viewpoint
within Vedanta.

[Aside, for Steve Farmer and Lance Cousins -
Other early upanishadic texts that lend themselves to the
Vedantic theory of two truths (or even multiple levels
of truth) are 6th and 7th chapters of chAndogya upanishad,
and the mUNDaka and prazna upanishad references to parA
vidyA vs. aparA vidyA. In the upanishads themselves, these
theories don't arise because of attempting to reconcile
irreconcilable elements in prior texts. There is a clear
consciousness that these are new texts, different from
the earlier Vedic samhitA-s. Exegesis is not yet central,
although new ideas are presented in terms of old ritual
elements. It is only after 5th century CE that exegetical
concerns become important, taking these very upanishads
as the texts that need exegesis. In terms of temporal
priority, chAndogya and bRhadAraNyaka are clearly pre-
Buddhist, but how one wants to date Buddhist abhidharma
texts relative to the muNDaka upanishad is debatable.
So also with respect to the sAMkhya-yoga elements in the
Mahabharata, which are derived from the early upanishads.]

>
>2. FIFTH ADHYAYA-THIRD BRAHMANA which talks about the word "satyA" being
>made of three syllables.  Two truths "sa" and "ya" and separated by the
>untruth "ti".

1. satya, not satyA. Similarly, prANa - not prANA, apAna - not
   apAnA, and so on, veda - not vedA, yoga - not yogA ...,
   unless your transliteration scheme is quite different. I
   see no reason to dIrgha-fy all terminal akAra-s, in spite
   of a common problem in modern pronunciation.

2. sa-ti-yam is in the fifth adhyAya, FIFTH brAhmaNa. In the
   fifth adhyAya's third brAhmaNa of the bRhadAraNyaka, the
   word analyzed is hRdaya, not satya. These text divisions
   are for the kANva pATha. mAdhyandina numbers differ. Also
   compare chAndogya 8. 3. 5, and see this list's archives
   from Oct. 1997, for a long discussion of this reference.

3. There are some 1001 things described in the upanishads. Not
   everything leads back to the paramArtha-vyavahAra divide,
   and Sankara's explanation of sa-ti-ya is straightforward,
   in both the bRhadAraNyaka and chAndogya references.

4. Finally, advaita is not my personal property. Others are
   free to arrive at it for their own reasons or to differ
   from it for their own reasons.

Best regards,
Vidyasankar

_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.