Dear Nagaraj,
I am not sure I can agree with the statement that Existence is the sum total of existences. Without splitting the hair too thinly, I imagine Śaṅkara would argue that in all forms of ΅x exists" only "exists" is true, "x" is false (see his BhGBhāṣya on 2.16 and the illustrations of ghaṭaḥ san, paṭaḥ san etc., discussed in the context of Being and sāmānādhikaraṇya). Note also the numerous arguments against increase and diminution of Brahman.
Related is the question of Being and existence, which may be what you are getting at by the mention of plural existences. To exist generally means to occur in actuality. How that relates to Being, which is often understood as modal (and in particular pertaining to the potential), is an issue of particular ontologies.
My point was, however, different. Asti/sat in Sarvajñātman is coordinated with or added to satyam. It should not be saying the same thing as satyam.
In any case, I think I may have spent the good will of this community, so I will revert to silence for a while and follow Wittgenstein's sagely advice.
Best wishes,Aleksandar
Aleksandar Uskokov
Senior Lector and Associate Research Scholar
South Asian Studies Council and Department of Religious Studies, Yale University
203-432-1972 | aleksandar.uskokov@yale.edu
"The Philosophy of the Brahma-sutra: An Introduction"
https://www.amzn.com/1350150002/
Office Hours Sign-up: https://calendly.com/aleksandar-uskokov
From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagarajpaturi@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:11 AM
To: Uskokov, Aleksandar <aleksandar.uskokov@yale.edu>
Cc: Jeffery Long <dharmaprof108@yahoo.com>; Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Analogues to Anselm's Ontological Arguments in Indian Philosophy?Dear Sri Aleksandar Usokov ji ,
Thanks for bringing in the sat derived satyam into discussion.
Mathew Kapstein ji too mentioned Sat Chid Ananda in his mention of the Vedantic discussions.
That Styam, Sattaa are discussed as the features of Brahman is not disputed/disputable.
I hope you agree if I say that the statement " Sat(taa) (= existentiality) (itself) is Brahman " / " Brahman is (in the form of ) Sattaa = existantiality " . is different from the statement
" Brahman exists"
" X exists" is different from "Existence is X" or " X is existence ".
A exists, B exists , C exists etc., upto any finite or infinite number has existence of A, B, C etc., implied. But existence of all these entities being identified as some X makes existence of A, B, C as different from Existence , a category denoted by the word with upper case E . Existence with upper case E can be seen to be the common feature of or the sum total of all the existences with lower case e.
X is Existence. Existence is X does not contradict the statement X has a/the feature existence or Existence.
Astitva is a feature of Brahman is on the lines of X has a/the feature existence or Existence above.
" Brahman exists " with a presupposition of its possible negation " Brahman does not exist"
is different from this
Astitva is a feature of Brahman which is non contradicting with Brahman is Existence or Existence is Brahman.
I am not learned in Anselmian position or argument about God.
If my layman's understanding of Anslemian position as 'Existing God is greater or better than non existing God'. is correct , equivalent of that in Brahman terms would be Existing Brahman is better or greater than the non existing Brahman.
Existing Brahman as contrasted with its binary non existing Brahman is not part of the Vedantic discussions.
Hope this clarifies my earlier post.
On Tue, Jun 25, 2024 at 3:47 PM Uskokov, Aleksandar <aleksandar.uskokov@yale.edu> wrote:
Dear Nagaraj,
This isn't entirely right, if I understand you correctly. Along with satyam of the Taittirīya satyam jñānam anantaṁ brahma (with ānandam), Sarvajñātman in his Saṅkṣepa-Śārīraka adds a number of essential positive properties of Brahman (some usual suspects as nitya, śuddha, mukta) that include asti. It isn't entirely clear to me why—there isn't an Anselmian concern—but unless it is entirely theological, i.e., unless he is looking at some Upaniṣad that mentions it as a characteristic of Brahman, I suspect that the Nyāya chain of astitvam -> jñeyatvam -> abhidheyatvam may be at the back of his mind, i.e., that being knowable and nameable is predicated on existing as something actual.
In his list asti is followed by advitīya, if I recall correctly. Now we can argue if this is an existential quantifier or not :)
Best wishes,Aleksandar
Aleksandar Uskokov
Senior Lector and Associate Research Scholar
South Asian Studies Council and Department of Religious Studies, Yale University
203-432-1972 | aleksandar.uskokov@yale.edu
"The Philosophy of the Brahma-sutra: An Introduction"
https://www.amzn.com/1350150002/
Office Hours Sign-up: https://calendly.com/aleksandar-uskokov
From: INDOLOGY <indology-bounces@list.indology.info> on behalf of Nagaraj Paturi via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info>
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 2:16 AM
To: Jeffery Long <dharmaprof108@yahoo.com>
Cc: Indology <indology@list.indology.info>
Subject: Re: [INDOLOGY] Analogues to Anselm's Ontological Arguments in Indian Philosophy?Dear Prof. Jeffrey Long,
'existence' , interestingly enough, is part of the contemporary neologisms in the discourse related to religion in the contemporary Indian languages.
Words aastka and naastika are the neologisms formed and in use as the Indian language replacements for 'theist' and 'atheist' of English.
But , as almost all in this group know, these two words aastka and naastika were not in reference to the existence or no existence of God in the traditional Vaidika discourse.
asti and naasti, in the traditional Vaidika discourse , refer to the existence and no existence of praamaanya for Sruti or existence or no existence of paralokas , svarga, naraka or mokshalokas (such as vaikuntha, goloka, kailaasa, manidveepa etc.)
The root sat for exist as found in the word satya is part of the debates within Vedanta about the satyatva or mithyaatva of the category called Jagat , but not about a category comparable to God.
Category comparable to God, or a category often conflated with or confused for God in the Vaidika darshanas including Vedanta, is " eeshvara ".
Classificational categories seshvara and nireeshvara used in reference to different Vaidika darshanas are not about the existence or no existence of " eeshvara ". It is about whether the category of " eeshvara ". is necessary to account for things , (entities, processes and relationships etc.)
Within Vedanta, brahman and eeshvara , categories comparable to God, are not discussed for existence or no existence of the category/entity.
Another existence or no existence discussion within Bharatiya Darshanas seems to be around aatman and that is between Vedanta and an avaidika darshana, say Baudha darshana . If anattaa is no existence of aatman, then this can be seen to be around the question of existence.
In Vedanta, because of the equivalence of Brahman and aatman at a certain level, this, if it is actually around the existence or no existence of aatman, can be seen to be, at least remotely, connected to the existence or no existence of a category comparable to God.
On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 9:47 PM Jeffery Long via INDOLOGY <indology@list.indology.info> wrote:
Dear Colleagues,
Forgive me if this question has already been raised at some point on this list.
Are any of you aware of arguments developed in Indian philosophical systems akin to the ontological arguments for the existence of God raised by St. Anselm? The closest thing I can think of is Śaṅkara’s argument that existence is self-evident.
With much gratitude in advance,
Jeff
Dr. Jeffery D. Long
Carl W. Zeigler Professor of Religion, Philosophy, & Asian Studies
School of Arts & Humanities
Elizabethtown College
Elizabethtown, PA
https://etown.academia.edu/JefferyLong
Series Editor, Explorations in Indic Traditions: Ethical, Philosophical, and Theological
Lexington Books
“One who makes a habit of prayer and meditation will easily overcome all difficulties and remain calm and unruffled in the midst of the trials of life.” (Holy Mother Sarada Devi)
“We are a way for the Cosmos to know itself.” (Carl Sagan)
_______________________________________________
INDOLOGY mailing list
INDOLOGY@list.indology.info
https://list.indology.info/mailman/listinfo/indology
--
Nagaraj PaturiHyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.Dean, IndicA
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, MaharashtraBoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, MaharashtraBoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.
Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, BengaluruFormer Senior Professor of Cultural Studies,FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.
--
Nagaraj PaturiHyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.Dean, IndicA
BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, MaharashtraBoS Kavikulaguru Kalidasa Sanskrit University, Ramtek, MaharashtraBoS Veda Vijnana Gurukula, Bengaluru.
Member, Advisory Council, Veda Vijnana Shodha Samsthanam, BengaluruFormer Senior Professor of Cultural Studies,FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of Liberal Education,Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.