Date of Udhayana

[Shrisha Rao]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, nanda chandran wrote:

> Birgit Kellner writes :

> >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?

No, it isn't, because your premise is wrong.  Madhva does take up the
issue of the (possible) logical proofs of a Creator, and his point is
generally well accepted even today -- a Creator cannot be proved by logic,
because even the opposite may be inferred.

The debate on this issue also did not cease with Madhva; Vyasaraya
(1460-1539) goes further in his tarka-tANDava and attempts to show that
the nyAya method of inferring a Creator would also infer one with defects,
etc., which is not acceptable to Udayana and others.  For instance, if one
says that the universe is a product of work for consisting of physical
substances, ghaTavat.h, and therefore must have a Creator, then one can
likewise say that the Creator must have a body subject to disease and
death, and that His knowledge must be temporary and limited, just as with
the potter.  If the naiyAyika holds that the the Creator must be a
sarvaj~na because just as a potter knows his pot, the Creator of all must
know everything, then it can be said that the simile is fallacious; just
as complex creations like houses are built by the labor of many, the
universe may be the work of many creators, none of whom need necessarily
possess virtues such as omniscience.  Thus, a unique and virtuous Creator
cannot be proved logically.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao