notes on Brahmasuutra

[Guest guest]

Dear Sadananda-ji,

 

I am trying to follow your study of Brahmasuutra. Could please shed

some light on several questions I have after reading first two postings.

 

1. Definition of suutram - how it can be both 'asandhigdham' - clear

without being vague or unambiguous, and 'visvatomukham ' - having many

meanings or many facets if possible?

 

2. A technical question about shaastriiya anumana. Is there a 'science'

to establish that shaastra is a valid source for shaastra anumaana, or it is

just accepted or not. What would be the basis for acceptance or not. It

looks like locked up thing, which can be and is easily misused. Like a

person A declares a literature set B as an only valid source for his logic,

and once he does it, he is immune to any criticism since criticism does not

use the same 'valid' source (set B) for its reasoning. I found it difficult

to discuss many things with such 'immunized' people, and would like to cite

some basis for my own 'immunization', if I have a chance.

 

3. In the outlining briefly the composition of Brahmasuutra, you

mention that the second chapter deals with the absence of three types of

contradiction, third being no contradiction with logic. What kind of logic

is being discussed, since it seems that if scientific logic has no access to

the locus discussed, we are talking about shaastriiya logic. Is it not an

internal contradiction, already mentioned as a first type of contradiction

discussed?

 

 

With peace,

 

 

Lilia

[Guest guest]

Dear Lilia

 

Greetings! At least I know now that someone is definitely studying my notes

on Brahmasuutra!

 

Happy to hear from you. I will try to answer to the best I can.

 

Stepanova, Lilia Wrote:

> Dear Sadananda-ji,

>

> I am trying to follow your study of Brahmasuutra. Could please shed

>some light on several questions I have after reading first two postings.

>

>1. Definition of suutram - how it can be both 'asandhigdham' - clear

>without being vague or unambiguous, and 'visvatomukham ' - having many

>meanings or many facets if possible?

 

The author of the suutra has to balance between the two requirements - one

is to be concise and the same time precise. It is said author feels he has

accomplished a lot similar to a birth of a son when he is able to reduce the

suutra by one word without sacrificing the intended meaning.

 

Vishvatomukham - I wrote it as having multiple meanings - these meanings do

not leave the suutra ambiguous, they should be self-consistent and

supportive of each and not contradictory. Shree Vidyasankar Sundaresan

provided the correction, which I posted in adviatin. Here is his

explanation for the word vishvatomukha in the sloka.

 

vishvatomukha means, "facing all sides". Rather than "having

many meanings," the intention is that the sUtra should address

a given subject (vishhaya) from all possible angles/perspectives.

 

As such, this aspect is important not so much for an individual

sUtra, but with respect to the characteristics of the adhikaraNa

in which it occurs. Thus, the goal of the sUtra is to set forth

the vishhaya, to address the saMSaya (doubt) that arises from

various pUrvapakshha-s (prior stance) originating from other kinds

of thinking about the subject, by means of arguments that are

connected to one another in a logical progression (saMgati), and

finally set forth the conclusions (siddhAnta).

 

Hence the word implies that the suutra or suutra-s of that adhikaraNa or

section should address all the important objections available as of that

date providing the logic of the objector and then refute the arguments

logically providing new conclusions of the author. Hence the two

requirements are not contradictory. One can be concise at the same time

refute the all other theories and establish the new one. The type of logic

one uses depends on the objector whether he is aastika or naastika and basis

of his objections. Suutrakaara uses the same logic to refute the objections

on their own ground.

>

>2. A technical question about shaastriiya anumana. Is there a 'science'

>to establish that shaastra is a valid source for shaastra anumaana, or it

>is

>just accepted or not. What would be the basis for acceptance or not. It

>looks like locked up thing, which can be and is easily misused. Like a

>person A declares a literature set B as an only valid source for his logic,

>and once he does it, he is immune to any criticism since criticism does not

>use the same 'valid' source (set B) for its reasoning. I found it difficult

>to discuss many things with such 'immunized' people, and would like to cite

>some basis for my own 'immunization', if I have a chance.

 

What it says all objective sciences deal with anaatma and not aatma. Atma

cannot be objectively analyzed since it is not an object but a subject.

Hence any data on which scientific reasoning is presented belongs to anaatam

and hence science can only draw conclusions about anaatma and not aatma. If

it ventures to draw conclusions on aatma based on its data on anaatma then

it is illogical - I gave simple example of making conclusions about Mars

while data corresponds to moon, unless I show by some other data that there

is connection between the moon's data and Mars data. This connections

should again based on the data collected from both moon and Mars.

 

Essentially logic is invalid if one collects data from one source (here

anaatma) and makes conclusions about other (here aatma). Hence the

limitation of objective sciences in the aatmavidya.

 

But where can we get data for aatma - Scriptures is the only source for it

since these are recordings of the sages who have experimented and realized.

Hence belief is essential that the scriptures a basis for further discussion

on Brahmavidya. Hence I discussed in the Notes-I two types of philosophies

- aastika, those who belief in the validity of the scriptures and naastika -

those who do not.

 

If one does not belief in the scriptures, as the naastika philosophers, the

logic is still used - here the logic is used not to establish aatma (since

it cannot be done) but only logically dismiss the opponents arguments that

their logic is at fault. Here scriptural data is not used since the

opponents do not believe on them. Hence Vedantin uses objective logic to

show that they are wrong and also to show that they cannot use that kind of

logic to establish aatma vidya.

 

Here it is not circular justification - but the recognition of the nature of

the problem. The fact of the matter is aatma cannot be examined

objectively. Hence any so-called objective logic is useless to establish

aatma. At the same time Vedanta is not illogical. That is it is not

accessible to scientific logic yet it is not illogical.

 

Therefore Vedantin does not claim immunity from criticism. What he does is

that refutes the logicians on their grounds using similar to their logic to

show that they are wrong - here he does not use scriptural data to show that

they are wrong. He uses scriptural data to refute those who believe in the

validity scriptures to show their arguments about Brahman are wrong. Only

thing he does not do is to establish Vedanta or Brahma vidya using objective

logic not because he does not want it but because that logic has no access.

>

>3. In the outlining briefly the composition of Brahmasuutras, you

>mention that the second chapter deals with the absence of three types of

>contradiction, third being no contradiction with logic. What kind of logic

>is being discussed, since it seems that if scientific logic has no access

>to

>the locus discussed, we are talking about shaastriiya logic. Is it not an

>internal contradiction, already mentioned as a first type of contradiction

>discussed?

 

In the second chapter, Veda Vyaasa mostly deals with the Naastika

philosophers that is those who do not believe in the Vedas as valid

pramaaNa. Hence he refutes them on their own turf as it were using the

objective logic since that is what they believe in - to show that their

logic is at fault. After establishing that they arguments are at fault, he

also shows that they cannot establish logically the truth, which is beyond

the logic. That is they are at double fault. - one thing is to use the

logic to establish the truth and second even in the logic that they are

using there are errors in the arguments.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

______________________

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

[Guest guest]

You wrote:

 

What it says all objective sciences deal with anaatma and not aatma. Atma

cannot be objectively analyzed since it is not an object but a subject.

Hence any data on which scientific reasoning is presented belongs to anaatam

and hence science can only draw conclusions about anaatma and not aatma. If

it ventures to draw conclusions on aatma based on its data on anaatma then

it is illogical - I gave simple example of making conclusions about Mars

while data corresponds to moon, unless I show by some other data that there

is connection between the moon's data and Mars data. This connections should

again based on the data collected from both moon and Mars.Essentially logic

is invalid if one collects data from one source (here anaatma) and makes

conclusions about other (here aatma). Hence the limitation of objective

sciences in the aatmavidya.

But where can we get data for aatma - Scriptures is the only source for it

since these are recordings of the sages who have experimented and realized.

Hence belief is essential that the scriptures a basis for further discussion

on Brahmavidya. Hence I discussed in the Notes-I two types of philosophies -

aastika, those who belief in the validity of the scriptures and naastika -

those who do not. If one does not belief in the scriptures, as the naastika

philosophers, the logic is still used - here the logic is used not to

establish aatma (since it cannot be done) but only logically dismiss the

opponents arguments that their logic is at fault. Here scriptural data is

not used since the opponents do not believe on them. Hence Vedantin uses

objective logic to show that they are wrong and also to show that they

cannot use that kind of logic to establish aatma vidya.

 

Dear Sadananda'ji,

 

Thanks a lot for clarification. I am sure, many people follow your

discourses with interest. I understand that objective sciences can deal only

with anaatma, and so we need other means to know about aatma. My second

question was not quite about it. What does establish scriptures as the only

source for conclusions about aatma? If I claim that scientific logic is not

acceptable here, it does not automatically follows that another kind of

logic is acceptable. I understand the difference between aastika and

naastika philosophers, but is it only a question of *beliefs* as to who

accepts Scriptures and who does not? What kind of objective logic Vedantins

use to show that naastika philosophers are wrong? - I understand it will

follow later in discussion of Brahmasuutra. What kind of objective logic

Vedantins use to show that *they themselves are right* in their acceptance

of scriptures as an only source, except that they *believe* they are? - will

it be dealt with later? Proving others wrong does not makes one right. Will

we discuss why we are *right*, in addition to discussion why other

philosophies are wrong?

 

Sorry.

 

With peace,

 

Lilia

[Guest guest]

>

>Dear Sadananda'ji,

>

>Thanks a lot for clarification. I am sure, many people follow your

>discourses with interest. I understand that objective sciences can deal only

>with anaatma, and so we need other means to know about aatma. My second

>question was not quite about it. What does establish scriptures as the only

>source for conclusions about aatma? If I claim that scientific logic is not

>acceptable here, it does not automatically follows that another kind of

>logic is acceptable. I understand the difference between aastika and

>naastika philosophers, but is it only a question of *beliefs* as to who

>accepts Scriptures and who does not?

 

Frist the scriptures essentially meant for discussing about aatma. For

learning about the anaatam, say chemistry, I do not need these scripures.

Scriptures are considered as experimental results recorded by prior

experimental scientists or we call them sages who investigated and

discovered themselves - In the process not only they confirmed what others

investigators or sages but added their own additional discoveries in the

laguage that the future generations can follow.

 

In any investigation, one requires a faith to make a valid hypothesis to

investigate - that is the way the human mind works. A scientist also has

to have a faith in the publications of prior scientists and he proceeds

making further hypothesis based on the previous investigations. Here it is

preciseslly the same role the scriptures occupy - they provide the working

hypothesis as well as pointout the pit falls in the path that one may

encounter and show the direction towords the goal. One need not follow

that and do independent study but if the truth is the same one has end up

ultimately the same discoveries but may express differently depending on

ones culture or upbringing. You can read for example, Peace Pilgram, an

American lady who walked in fiftiies - She never read Vedanta and what she

discovered are not differnt from Vedanta. JK did not go through Vedanta

study but criticizes vehemently the teachers etc. But what he taches is

not different from what Vedanta says. So where does it leave. One can

ignore all the knowledge of the prior investigators and re invent the wheel

but one can make use of the experience of the masters and make the journey

easier - it all depends on ones choice and attitudes and opportunities that

are provided for him.

 

The word 'faith' is used rather than blind 'belief' and that is essential

for any invetigation in the objective knowlege but more so in the

subjective knowledge.

 

It is not that scientific knowledge is not acceptable, what it says is that

using that logic one cannot either establish nor deny aatma and the need

for aatmavidya. Hence it is limited. As I said it is used in Brahmasuutra

not to establish aatma or brahman but to counter other scientific logic

used by other philosophers. Remember scientific logic is used in

Brahmasuutra to show that Vedanta is not illogical. So blind belife does

not come into picture.

 

I think these things become more clear as we discuss the logical anaysis of

Brahmasuutra.

 

 

 

What kind of objective logic Vedantins

>use to show that naastika philosophers are wrong? - I understand it will

>follow later in discussion of Brahmasuutra. What kind of objective logic

>Vedantins use to show that *they themselves are right* in their acceptance

>of scriptures as an only source, except that they *believe* they are? - will

>it be dealt with later? Proving others wrong does not makes one right. Will

>we discuss why we are *right*, in addition to discussion why other

>philosophies are wrong?

 

Remember naastika-s use the objective anumaana since they do not believe in

Veda-s. Hence to address those, Vedantin also uses the same objective

anumaana to prove that their analysis is wrong or their criticism is

wrong. As you will see the discussions, Shankara first presents

'puurvapaksha' the objections from other philosophers and then he refutes

them using the same logic - if they are naastika-s he uses objective logic

only to refute them and once they are shown they are worng , he argues why

he is right - this is called 'siddhanta' both from the objective logical

basis as well as scriputural basis. The objective logic he use to show

that he is not illogical and the scriptural logic to establish that nature

of the truth which is beyond the objective logic. Yes he will discuss why

he is right and others are wrong. These I am sure will become clear as we

discuss the bhashya in detail.

 

Thanks for helping me to clarify the issues.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

>

>Sorry.

>

>With peace,

>

>Lilia

>

>

>

>Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of

>Atman and Brahman.

>Searchable List Archives are available at:

>http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>Temporary holiday stoppage of Email, send a blank email to

><advaitin-nomail >

>To resume normal delivery of Email, send a blank email to

><advaitin-normal >

>To receive email digest (one per day, send a blank email to

><advaitin-digest >

>To to advaitin list, send a blank email to

><advaitin->

 

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

I believe Sadananda will take up these issues in due course, but let

me provide some brief input here. The questions you have are central

to the whole discussion.

> question was not quite about it. What does establish scriptures as

the only

> source for conclusions about aatma? If I claim that scientific

logic is not

> acceptable here, it does not automatically follows that another

kind of

> logic is acceptable. I understand the difference between aastika and

 

Correct. At some point, one has to resort to faith. The only other

options are either to totally reject all possible scriptures, or to

partially accept some of each. The latter will be an inherently

biased procedure. But the trouble with the former is this - the way

human beings behave, by and large, is to make a scripture out of the

very rejection of scripture. The words and writings of he who rejects

existing scripture, become scripture for his followers, and we are

back to belief and faith again.

> naastika philosophers, but is it only a question of *beliefs* as to

who

> accepts Scriptures and who does not? What kind of objective logic

Vedantins

> use to show that naastika philosophers are wrong? - I understand

it will

> follow later in discussion of Brahmasuutra. What kind of objective

logic

> Vedantins use to show that *they themselves are right* in their

acceptance

> of scriptures as an only source, except that they *believe* they

 

None. Scripture is taken to be true, as an axiom. But Advaita

Vedantins do make one independent argument about why they themselves

are right, regarding the existence of the Self. And that is, none can

doubt one's own existence. One has to accept that one exists, in

whatever sense of the term, to even doubt whether anything at all

exists. Therefore, one's own Self does exist. This argument is made

independent of scripture, and independent of any other logical

argumentation about the details of what is right and what is wrong.

 

Best wishes,

Vidyasankar