Date of Udhayana

[Vidyasankar Sundaresan]

nanda chandran <vpcnk at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:

w.r.t Birgit Kellner -

>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.
>
.......
>All this is quite unnecessary - can we practice some objectivity here? I
>just raised a few questions. Since you are familiar with Udhayana, all

It seems to me that you are the one who needs to practice some objectivity
here. Anyone with a computer and a subscription to this list can type out
hundreds of such questions. If you wish to make a serious argument, present
primary evidence and substantiate your reasoning. At the very least, make an
effort to show why you find something strange. Nobody who has taken some
trouble to read these texts, or at least to read about them, finds this
strange. If you wish to argue that Udayana must have been pre-Sankara, the
onus is on you to present arguments in that regard. And you have to be more
convincing than "I find it strange." If this is the crux of your argument,
the only response is going to be, "so what?"

w.r.t. to me -

>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 :

You are really tilting at windmills here. To whom are you imputing this
supposed flaw? Read <www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/gaudapada.html>. I haven't
updated this page for more than a year. You have done nothing more than to
repeat my own comments, and curiously enough, against me.

........

>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.

The mere existence of a post-Sankaran Buddhist philosopher in India is
sufficient to prove you wrong. There can be no unanimity over whether one
thinker is more profound than another, or more subtle than another. In any
case, Birgit Kellner made no such claim. All she pointed out was that
Udayana has responded to some of the arguments made by Jnanasrimitra, in
other contexts. And she pointed out that the same Jnanasrimitra had also
written against various conceptions of Isvara. She also gave you the name of
the relevant text. Why don't you do the "checking" yourself? That would be
the best thing for all concerned.

>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?

You are mixing up two separate discussions, from two separate mailing lists.
Not very good for netiquette. At this point of time, on this list, I have no
desire to enter into how, when and why madhyamaka thought may or may not
have influenced advaita vedAnta.

For the sake of readers who are wondering what this is about, Nanda's
comment refers to an earlier discussion of madhyamaka and advaita, taking
place on the Advaita mailing list. You can find the details from the June
2000 archives, at <lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l.html>.

.....

>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.

How does the passage of time affect criteria of consistency within a system
of thought? And whom don't you see raising objections, and to what theory?
Put yourself in the shoes of a naiyyAyika (if that is possible), and think
about parataH-prAmANya and why it is a logical necessity for Udayana to have
made his arguments about a creator.

>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.

This "environs" bogey again. What were the philosophers of different schools
in the generations after Sankara supposed to do?

....

>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.

Your "on the wane" argument was built on the reasoning that Udayana was
highly responsible for Buddhism to have been on the wane even before Sankara
was born. Check your premises. Your argument is faulty on multiple counts.

Finally, you are not the only one who can ask questions, and provide no
answers. Let me ask you one question. Whatever your ideas may be about the
relative date of Sankara and Udayana, can you enlighten us about your view
of the absolute date of Sankara? I don't expect a fixed date. Just the
ballpark estimate of the century is enough right now. A little bit of honest
reasoning behind it would also be appreciated.

Vidyasankar