Date of Udhayana

[nanda chandran]

>I still maintain that. I have pointed out the areas in which
>this influence is particularly seen.

Yes, but mere similarity of the theory of bhutas (which anyway is
invalid in the ultimate sense in Advaita) and VAtsyAyana's view
of bliss in liberation (which anyway is self-contradictory given
NyAya's stand that the self is in essence, unconscious), hardly
counts for "heavy" influence.

>Philosophy is not limited to ontology.

I never said that. But NyAya has little in common with the main
tenets of Advaita (in its paramArtha sense) in all its
dimensions - ontology, epistemology, psychology, metaphysics etc

>You have to read Sankara to see how much attention
>he pays to the standard 5-member nyAya structure of argument.

Which again, is invalid in the ultimate level in Advaita. I've
taken great pains to explain why, but still you keep repeating
the same argument.

>I don't have the time to write a bigger essay comparing advaita
>and nyAya, but I have given you the necessary pointers. If you
>are not prepared to specifically address the above points, or
>other specific issues, to question my statement about the "heavy" influence
>of nyAya on advaita, this discussion is at an end.

I've already pointed out the invalidity or superficial importance
of such arguments. But ofcourse, you'll posture as if nothing ever
happened and keep repeating the same arguments.

>And I don't have the inclination to take up the madhyamaka thread.
>If you bring up specific points, one can discuss them. I am not
>alone in requesting that you make primary references.

For Ulrich, I've already pointed out the references present in my
articles in the archives of the Advaita or Advaitin list. Since
you were present in the original discussions, you do not need them.
But ofcourse, in your classic way, you'll ignore all the
arguments and keep repeating your own arguments.

Take for instance your assertion that samsAra = avidhya, where
you've made no distinction between ontology and epistemology. I've
taken care to explain why an ontological interpretation would be
absurd and only the epistemological solution is the logical
answer. But still you simply assert that samsAra = avidhya. Either
you didn't understand the argument or you're deliberately playing
dumb! Initially I used to think the latter, but of late I'm
beginning to suspect the former.

I simply don't have time for all this vithandA vAdham. And to
think that I wasted over two months trying to teach people, who
do not even understand the difference between ontology and
epistemology, the similarity between Advaita and MAdhyamaka!
And for this pointless discussion I ignored a much more worthy
cause.

Let Vinaayakaa give me more wisdom in the future.
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com