Date of Udhayana

[nanda chandran]

>Nanda, the said earlier discussion didn't take place on this
>list, and it was totally inappropriate of you to bring it up in
>response to a peripheral comment that I made.

Vidhya, why is your comment peripheral while my comment about our
earlier discussion, isn't?

>You still haven't responded to my question about your personal view
>regarding the probable date of Sankara.

I generally desist from having views on such subjects. But I've a
quite a few questions with regards to the current dating. I've
pointed out a few of those in an earlier post.

>I don't have to justify Birgit Kellner to you, but if you think her
>response was vague, do realize that your questions were even more so.

Is it vague that there is a long history of argument for and against
a creator God in Indian philosophy?

Is it vague that KumArilla had argued rather forcefully against the
concept?

Is it vague that while Shankara criticizes arguments denying a creator,
he refuses to put forward any arguments of his own in favor of a creator
, which shows the reason why he takes refuge in the shruti for proving
the existence of the creator?

Is it vague that all VedAntins after Shankara too toe the same line?

Is it vague that the philosophical environment during that time had
gone past the creator/no-creator argument?

In this context is it not reasonable to expect the NaiyAyikas to catch on to
the situation and desist from arguing further?

>A little piece of advice, perhaps unsolicited, and that you
>will perhaps reject immediately - statements based on "flavor",
>"environs" and "strangeness" do not cut any ice, especially when
>you give the impression of not having done any primary research
>yourself.

You're only trying trivialize the issue.

>1. Is liberation intrinsically bliss or is it an experience of
>bliss? Compare Sankara and Vatsyayana on this.

I do not have the NyAya bhAshyam on hand. But AFAIK, for the NaiyAyika
the self in essence is unconscious. But without consciousness, how can
there be any experience of bliss? So is VAtsyAyana arguing that
liberation is bliss itself?

>2. Check P. K. Sundaram's word-index to Sankara's commentary on
>the brahmasUtra, for references to the nyAyasUtras.

>3. The properties of the five "elements". Compare Sankara's
>comments in upadeSasAhasrI and his commentary on taittirIya
>upanishad, with the sAMkhya and nyAya views of AkASa, vAyu etc.
>See which school of thought Sankara is closer to on this issue.

PrAkriti, the gunas, the bhutas etc are acceptable only in the vyavahAra
level in Advaita. In its paramArthika all these are unreal and hence
cannot be said as the core principles of Advaita.

The bed rock of Advaita lies in its denial of reality to the phenomenal
world and asserting the non-dual reality which transcends the phenomenal
world. Some people make the mistake of thinking that Advaita means only
the non-dual identity of Atman or Brahman with the individual soul. That the
soul in essence is reality itself is taught by all the Astika schools. So
why are they also not called Advaita then? No, Advaita in its true sense
means the non-dual identity of the phenomenal with the noumenal - samsAra
with nirvAna. One without an other and hence devoid of plurality. Reality
according to Advaita is pure consciousness and beyond the grasp of the
pramAnas.

NyAya in contrast asserts the existence of infinite individual
non-conscious souls and infinite atoms each different from the other, a
creator God distinct from both the souls and atoms, the validity
of the pramAnas etc. And its views on the shruti is also something which
Advaita will never accept.

You cannot even bridge the two systems with a barge pole!

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