Date of Udhayana

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM>

>....Isn't this a good basis to believe that Indian
>philosophers after Shankara considered the concept of a creator God as
>beyond logical proof?

The vedAnta philosophers did. Other schools of Indian philosophy didn't. The
sooner one gives up the idea that there is only one "Indian Philosophy", the
better.

>either, given the rising popularity of the bhakti movement. So who's
>Udhayana trying to argue with?

Look at it this way. It is an unfounded myth, that the Buddhists just packed
their bags and left India for good, after Sankara's time. There is much
evidence for the continued presence of Buddhists in many parts of India,
down to the 13th century or so. According to your ideas, Ramanuja and
Madhva, who came after Sankara, also need not have argued against Buddhist
ideas, but they make it a point to refute various schools of Buddhism. To
whom is Udayana trying to prove anything? Primarily to Buddhists, and also
to anybody who is not a naiyyAyika.

>Also VisishtAdvaita itself is heavily influenced by NyAya. But right from
>its earliest stages, the school never tried to defend theism by

It doesn't seem to be well noticed, but even Advaita is heavily influenced
by nyAya. That doesn't mean a thing, however, for the kind of argument you
are making.

>according to modern dating was a contemporary or slightly earlier than
>RAmAnuja would take up such a cause. And for what purpose?

This sort of making conclusions about relative dates is quite invalid. That
something seems strange does not make it impossible. After all, "strange" is
the name given to one of the six kinds of quarks, you know!

Still, take into account the regional variation in things Indian. Ramanuja
was a south Indian; Udayana lived in Bengal, Bihar, Orissa. His dating is
not very "modern" either. In one of his works, he himself gives a date in
the late 10th century. You can argue about whether to add 78 or to subtract
57 from the date encoded in the Skt. source, but that only gives you a
window of less than 150 years. Of course, you need to give up vague and
preconceived notions, and to pay careful attention to the texts, to
appreciate all this.

>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

The vedAntin or the mImAMsaka can accept something as valid because Shruti
says so. The naiyyAyika cannot. He does not accept the proposition that
Shruti is self-valid. Rather, he says that Shruti is valid because it was
composed by the creator. The existence of this creator is proved by other
arguments, independent of what Shruti says.

Unless you understand the differences between the svataH-prAmANya-vAda of
one group and the parataH-prAmANya-vAda of the other, and all the respective
implications for these arguments about scripture and the creator, you will
continue to find it strange that Udayana makes this argument.

>>Madhusudana Sarasvati cites Udayana approvingly, in his advaitasiddhi.
>
>Can you specify the text from which he quotes?

Atmatattvaviveka.

>KusumAnjali seems
>to be inconsistent with the philosphical environs of its supposed dating.

This is a highly subjective opinion. Without taking into account what
kusumAnjali and other texts by its author say, do you really know what his
philosophical environs were? And when the author himself gives a date, why
should you ignore that?

And yes, there is sufficient evidence to say that the same person composed
all the texts in question. For a quick review, check the volume on
Nyaya-Vaiseshika in the Encyclopedia of Indian Philosophies. Also check the
first volume in this series, which gives a bibliography. You will see that
significant Buddhists lived and wrote their texts, many centuries after
Sankara had come and gone.

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