Date of Udhayana

[nanda chandran]

Birgit Kellner writes :

>First: I am not familiar with the "Udhayana" referred to by SaGkara, >but
>are you sure of the spelling? The later NyAya-VaiZeSika >philosopher's name
>is correctly transliterated as "Udayana".

I'm sorry. I'm not particularly strong with the rules which govern
transliteration. I just spelt the name the way I thought it would sound.

>Second: Even if it were admitted to be strange that Udayana should
> >continue a debate that SaGkara decided not to continue - which I
>personally would not consider strange at all -, such "atmospheric"
> >considerations are not a reliable basis for establishing the relative
> >chronology of Indian philosophers, nor do they constitute sufficient
> >evidence to call into question datings that are otherwise firmly
> >established.

If Shankara after KumArilla had been the only one who'd given up on the
argumentation, I wouldn't be raising this point. All the VedAnta AchAryas
who follow Shankara - RAmAnuja, Madhva, NimbArka, Vallabha - all of them
sing the same tune. Isn't this a good basis to believe that Indian
philosophers after Shankara considered the concept of a creator God as
beyond logical proof?

And also according to Indological opinion Buddhism was already on the wane
by the time of Shankara. The last great Buddhist philosophers -
SAntarakshita and Kamalasila were either earlier or at best, comtemporaries
of Shankara. I do not think it was a particularly good time for Jainism
either, given the rising popularity of the bhakti movement. So who's
Udhayana trying to argue with? To whom is he trying to prove the existence
of a creator God? His arguments cannot be dismissed as standard NaiyAyika
reasoning, for Udhayana himself says that he is battling athiest opponents -
which I've seen some
scholars interpret as Buddhists. Does this match with the current dating?

By the tenth century, philosophical argumentation was mostly between the
Astika schools - predominently of the VedAntic variety which accepts God on
the strength of the shruti. That the foremost logician of the NyAya school
in his time, who has written profound works on the subject, would waste time
arguing on an issue which wasn't critical anymore, is hard to believe.

Also VisishtAdvaita itself is heavily influenced by NyAya. But right from
its earliest stages, the school never tried to defend theism by logic. That
there's a God who needs to be worshipped almost seems to be taken for
granted. So it is indeed strange that a logician of the NyAya school who
according to modern dating was a contemporary or slightly earlier than
RAmAnuja would take up such a cause. And for what purpose?

Vidhya writes :

>Given the nyAya theory that all knowledge derives its validity from
>extrinsic sources, irrespective of when he may have lived, Udayana >still
>had to argue for inferring the existence of a Creator-God (re: >universe),
>who is also supposed to be the Author-God (re: Vedas).

Why is this so? If it is accepted that a creator God exists (as the
VedAntins did based on the shruti), why is it necessary for a NaiyAyika to
logically prove it? The NaiyAyikas have been traditionally a lot who were
always engaged in logical duels with the Buddhists and most of their
dialectic is directed against them. As pointed out before, if Buddhism was
already a waning force, why would the top logician of the school waste him
time on an issue which wasn't critical anymore?

>Madhusudana Sarasvati cites Udayana approvingly, in his advaitasiddhi.

Can you specify the text from which he quotes? I think even Sri Harsha's
dialectic in KandanakandakAdhya is directed against Udhayana. But which work
are they referring to?

>From Atmatattvaviveka, it is clear that Udayana came after Vacaspati >Misra
>and some post-Sankaran Buddhists like Ratnakirti. Many of his >arguments
>against the Buddhists end with statements that they should >accept advaita
>vedAnta positions.

That is fine. It is just that the philosophical flavor of KusumAnjali seems
to be inconsistent with the philosphical environs of its supposed dating.

So the main question seems to be whether the author of KusumAnjali is the
same as the author of Atmatattvaviveka. So are there internal references in
the works themselves, which assert this?
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com