Date of Udhayana

[nanda chandran]

Birgit Kellner writes :

>These two were by no means the last great Buddhist philosophers >around.
>For Udayana, in fact, his elder contemporary JJAnazrImitra, at >least some
>of whose works were composed before Udayanas', was much >more important. It
>is in this context worth noting that JJAnazrImitra >authored a lengthy
>treatise called "IzvaravAdaH", which covers about >80 pages in Anantalal
>Thakur's edition of J's works (Patna 1987, 2nd >ed.). I don't know whether
>Udayana takes up any specific arguments >from JJAnazrI in this context, but
>he is certainly known to have >reacted against J's arguments on other
>subjects.

If you can show that JnAnashrimitra wrote against theism and also
show that Udhayana was responding to him, your argument would be more
convincing.

>At any rate, there is no reason why Udayana in his historical environment
>should
>not have felt compelled to write a treatise that aims to establish the
>existence
>of Izvara.

As I said before, I find it strange that the top logician of the NyAya
school would write on a subject which was not critical at that point in
time.

>Whether, in doing so, he proposed any substantially new arguments, or
>whether in fact his (presumably largely Buddhist) opponents had managed to
>come
>up with substantially new arguments against the notion of an Izvara in the
>first
>place, is of course a different subject-matter. But the assessment of
>novelty of
>arguments has got nothing to do with dating.

Which is where I disagree. For I do not see his dialectic as being relevant
to his times. Unless ofcourse you can prove otherwise.

>Only if one takes an incomplete and narrow view on what constitute its
>"philosophical environs".

>As far as I can see, only someone who is quite unfamiliar with Udayana, his
>works and the study thereof would come up with such a question.

All this is quite unnecessary - can we practice some objectivity here? I
just raised a few questions. Since you are familiar with Udhayana, all
you've to do is, just show that a post-Shankaran Buddhist philospher raised
arguments against theism and this is what Udhayana responded to. Then the
subject is closed.

Vidhya writes :

>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.

It is a greater flaw to think that the schools are totally unrelated. No
school grew in isolation. Each school grew up arguing with the other schools
and that is the way Indian philosphy developed. For eg :
NAgArjuna criticizes Gautama; VAtsyAyana criticizes NAgArjuna; DignAga
criticizes VAtsyAyana; UdhyotakAra criticizes DignAga; Dharmakirti
criticizes UdhyotacAra; VAchaspati criticizes Dharmakirti and so on.

It is like architects building houses. They might have different designs,
different ideas, different ways of expression - but the ultimate goal is the
same - shelter. Likewise for Indian philosophers the ultimate end is
liberation and they're but discussing the same subject from different
angles. Whether you concentrate on the differences or similarities is your
choice - but do not take your stand on one and deny the other.

>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.

But is criticism of Buddhism the main flavour of their works? Their attacks
are more directed towards Advaita, since it was the leading philosophical
system by that time. Criticism of Buddhism and other schools is part of the
general philosphical views to be refuted.

Again by this I don't mean that Buddhists were non-existent by that time,
only that they were no more in their prime. By that time, Advaita ruled the
roost.

>To whom is Udayana trying to prove anything? Primarily to Buddhists, and
>also
>to anybody who is not a naiyyAyika.

Since Birgit Kellner points out a Buddhist philosopher whom she claims has
written more profound works than SAntarakshita and Kamalasila and was the
one Udhayana's dialectic is directed against, best thing is to check whether
this philospher has written against the concept of a creator God. If that
were so, it would make sense to say Udhayana is answering his criticism.

>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.

Ofcouse, a school which teaches pluralism, atomism, dualistic theism and
most importantly "visesha" - the anti-thesis of the VedAntic unity
underlying all phenomena, would have "heavily" influenced Advaita. But
schools which teach non-dualism, different levels of reality, the unreality
of the world, just because they are nAstika, have no influence on Advaita,
right?

>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.

You've misunderstood me. I'm not questioning the NaiyAyika's reason to prove
the existence of a creator. I'm only questioning the time of his
argument,since I do not see anybody raising objections to the theory.

Also it would be an understatement to say that the VedAnti accepts things
just because the shruti says so. If so, why is Shankara providing logical
arguments in support of Advaita? He could have simply said that truth is
Advaita because the shruti says so and taken no further pains. So where
things can be logically explained he takes the effort to do so. Where they
cannot, he takes shelter in the shruti.

And it is not that Shankara has provided no logical background for theism.
He specifically takes care to criticize views which are against a creator
God. But what he doesn't do is try to prove the existence of God by his own
arguments.Instead he takes shelter in the shruti. From this it is only
reasonable to assume that Shankara thought that proving the existence of a
creator God was beyond the scope of reason.

And arguments against theism have a long history in India. The JainAs, the
ChAravAkas, the Buddhists, the earlier SAmkhyas and some Miimaamsakas
(KumArilla) have all argued against a creator God - all these in
pre-Shankaran times. Buddhist arguments against theism seems to be heavy in
the pre-Advaita days - the SautrAntikas particularly - Yashomitra,
Dharmakirti et al. In this period the NaiyAyikas fighting against the
Buddhists was particularly intense.

By the time of Shankara the subject seems to have been almost exhausted and
at a stalemate, with no favorable conclusion on either side. So Shankara
taking refuge in the shruti for proof of the existence of a creator God
seems quite in tune with the philosophical environs in his time.

And theism is not the main flavor in Advaita. So it is with respect to these
arguments that I think Buddhist criticism after Shankara and before
RAmAnuja, might not have been directed towards theism. But again, if
Birgitte can show that JnAnashrimitra did argue against theism and it was
him that Udhayana's dialectic is directed against, I'm willing to revise my
opinion.

>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.

>You will see that significant Buddhists lived and wrote their texts, many
>centuries after Sankara had come and gone.

I only said that by the time of Shankara Buddhism was on the wane and "on
the wane", can by no means be equated with disappearance. A religion doesn't
die so easily. It would have taken centuries after Shankara before Buddhism
really disappeared.

I was just pointing out that by the 10th century Buddhism has lost its steam
and the VedAntic schools were getting stronger.

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