Date of Udhayana

[nanda chandran]

>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.

When I first read this, I thought, "What is Shrisha talking about?". While
he seemed to refute me, his arguments just complement my argument that after
Shankara philosophers thought that a creator God was beyond logical proof.
Vyasathirtha is perfectly right and is quite in line with Shankara, that
though a creator cannot be logically proven, neither can he be logically
denied.

But it took a second reading to grasp the implication of Shrisha's post that
not all philosophers took that stand. Apparently even after Shankara there
were those who were bent on proving the existence of God based on reason.
Maybe Udhayana was one of them. But a philosopher of his class, a century
after Shankara, couldn't realize the futility of such an enterprise, is
definitely a surprise to me.

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