Date of Udhayana

[birgit kellner]

nanda chandran wrote:

> My argument was basically this :
> 1. There has been a long history of argument for and against a creator God
> in Indian philosophy.
> 2. Just before Shankara, KumArilla Bhatta had argued so vigorously against a
> creator God. And it is significant that Shankara accepts a creator God on
> the strength of the shruti as it can neither be proved nor denied using
> logic.
> 3. All the VedAntins after Shankara also toe the same line.
>
> So it is in this context that I asked whether Udhayana's arguments on this
> case is suited to its time.

For the sake of clarification:
The first message I read from you was advancing the idea that Udayana could not
have lived at the time (appr. 11th century) he is supposed to have lived,
because it would have been unreasonable/impossible/unthinkable for him to still
advance arguments in favour of the existence of Izvara given that ZaGkara had
accepted the impossibility of proving the existence of Izvara on logical
grounds.
At the very least, you thereby questioned the established dates for Udayana.  So
you did actually go a step further, not only asking whether Udayana's arguments
are "suited to his time", but questioning, on the assumption that they are *not*
suited to his time, the dates of Udayana. I understand from your recent messages
that the information provided by Elliot Stern convinced you that there are good
and strong reasons to date Udayana in the way it is commonly done. I have in my
first reply to your initial "thesis" (or "question") simply argued that, on
general methodological grounds, a revision of an established dating requires a
different type of evidence than such atmospheric considerations like "these
arguments do not match the spirit of the times".

This leaves us with the issue of whether Udayana's arguments are "suited to his
time", a question that on its own, without drawing further conclusions, is quite
vague and does not to me look like a promising candidate for fruitful
discussion. But at any rate, in connection with this issue you then mentioned
that Buddhism was on its way out by ZaGkara's time and mentioned as last
Buddhist representatives ZAntarakSita and KamalazIla. So Buddhist opposition,
you implied, could not have been what Udayana argued against either. It was in
this connection that I called to your attention the existence of JJAnazrImitra,
who is known to have been criticized by Udayana in other contexts, and who *may*
also have been criticized by Udayana in this context. *If* one is in general
looking for historical reasons why Udayana still advanced arguments in favour of
Izvara even though others did not, the arguments provided by JJAnazrI, so far
unstudied, are one possibility that one must take into account. I also called to
your attention the existence of other NaiyAyikas such as Trilocana, who before
Udayana (and after ZaGkara) apparently also advanced arguments in favour of
Izvara - also something to take into account in examining this issue.

Anyway, good luck and much success with whatever further research you might want
to carry out on this subject,

Birgit Kellner
Institute for Tibetan and Buddhist Studies
Vienna University