Brahmasuutra-2

[Guest guest]

Here are some comments, questions and possible corrections on the second set

of notes.

 

bhrama not bhramaa (confusion, perplexity, error, mistake?)

pratyakshha not pratyaksha

anupalabdhi not anupalabdi

apaurushheya not apourushheya

laukika not loukika

 

I didn’t understand the sentence about ‘the dharmi is visible but its dharma

is not’. The first word is not in the dictionary – presumably a part of

speech of the latter?

 

I have some fairly serious concerns about the implications of anumaana.

(Concerns that I would, incidentally, be loathe to raise on the Advaita-L

list!,though I concur entirely with the sentiments expressed by Robert,

incidentally, regarding the truth vs infallibility of the shaastra.)

 

Doesn’t the fact that there is a need for anumaana mean that the basic ‘data

’ in the shaastra is inadequate to ‘explain’ all that is required or asked

of it? Surely if it needs someone of Vyaasa’s caliber to write the

Brahmasuutra to summarise the shruti and someone such as Shankara, surely

the master logician and philosopher, to write commentaries on that, then the

shaastra is not going to mean much to the ordinary person.

 

I suppose that baically, I do not see that anumaana (or any other logical

device) can take you very far if the raw data is inadequate to begin with.

Although I understand that scientific reasoning is laukika, to use it purely

as an analogy, if the data is not up to the analysis, you have to go back

and get some better data! You cannot make reasoned and valid conclusions if

the data is too course.

 

I share Lilia’s concern too about the ‘incestuous’ nature of shaastriiya

logic. One could write something that was complete rubbish and then say the

only way to talk meaningfully about this, question it or elaborate on it is

by using the language and logic defined within it. It is not permitted to

use everyday logic because that is not applicable.

 

Why anyway did Vyaasa or Shankara need to resort to shaastriiya anumaana to

make up for the deficiencies of the original? Since (presumably) both were

enlightened, could they not simply have stated how things actually were?

(Presumably Shankara chose to use laukika anumaana for discrediting the

naastika darshanam-s simply because that had been part of his nature as a

body-mind mechanism and he was continuing to do it ‘for the fun of it’?)

 

Was BaadaraayaNa an Advaitin? (If not, what?) Presumably he could not have

been since, if he had been, the Dvaitins and VishishhTadvaitins could not

have presumed to interpret what he was saying in any other way.

 

My sincere apologies to anyone should they be offended by any of these

question. No disrespect is intended, merely clarification of something that

Sadananda’s excellent commentary has highlighted for me.

 

Namaste,

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Thanks Dennis for the corrections and the input.

 

You have raised many questions, since it is Friday afternoon and being a

Govt. worker, I have to take timeout to answer your questions. Will try to

respond to the best I can slowly this night or tomorrow.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

K. Sadananda

Code 6323

Naval Research Laboratory

Washington D.C. 20375

Voice (202)767-2117

Fax:(202)767-2623

[Guest guest]

Dennis wrote:

 

>I didn‚t understand the sentence about Œthe dharmi is visible but its

>dharma

>is not‚. The first word is not in the dictionary ˆ presumably a part of

>speech of the latter?

 

dharma is the say a quality and dharmi is the locus for that quality. For

example, sugar is dharmi and sweetness is the dharma.

>

>I have some fairly serious concerns about the implications of anumaana.

>(Concerns that I would, incidentally, be loathe to raise on the Advaita-L

>list!,though I concur entirely with the sentiments expressed by Robert,

>incidentally, regarding the truth vs infallibility of the shaastra.)

>Doesn‚t the fact that there is a need for anumaana mean that the basic

>Œdata

>‚ in the shaastra is inadequate to Œexplain‚ all that is required or asked

>of it? Surely if it needs someone of Vyaasa‚s caliber to write the

>Brahmasuutra to summarise the shruti and someone such as Shankara, surely

>the master logician and philosopher, to write commentaries on that, then

>the

>shaastra is not going to mean much to the ordinary person.

 

Vidya has addressed some of the issues you have raised. I will add one or

two from my understanding.

 

If I read the original paper of Einstein it does not mean much to me unless

first I prepare my mind and study perhaps with the help of a competent

teacher who can explain to me the theory of Relativity in the language that

I understand. Hence as you will see in the very first suutra itself, the

adhikaari's qualifications are outlined. In fact in every shaastra,

objective or subjective, it is customary in the preface or in the first one

or two slokas, to provide who is the adhikaari for that shaastra. Ordinary

person will not be able to get any benefit from any shaastra and more so in

aatmavidya. Here the qualified student is not the one who has learned

Sanskrit but the one who has the saadhana chatushhTayam or the four-fold

qualifications, wherein one of the requirements is Shradda or faith in the

teacher and the shaastra - Vidya has also touched this aspect. Hence shruti

also emphasizes "tat viJNaaraatham gurumevaabhi gachchet" - let the seeker

approach a guru to gain this knowledge"

>

>I suppose that baically, I do not see that anumaana (or any other logical

>device) can take you very far if the raw data is inadequate to begin with.

>Although I understand that scientific reasoning is laukika, to use it

>purely

>as an analogy, if the data is not up to the analysis, you have to go back

>and get some better data! You cannot make reasoned and valid conclusions if

>the data is too course.

 

It is not just the question of how sophisticated the data is - as I outlined

in response to Lilia that there is a fundamental issue involved. Science

(here I am talking about objective scientific anaysis) deals with anaatma

and even if it is very sophisticated data it still belongs to the realm of

objective data. anumaana based on this data is object-related and not

relating to the subject the aatma. Here I am not excluding the objects

sciences that relate to mind and intellect - The study of them is still

comes under anaatma since the are objects of ones cognition.

 

Hence whatever conclusions one makes in the obejctive analysis they may be

valid with in the realm of anaatma but that reasoning fails due to the

fundamental nature of the problem when we are dealing with aatma.

 

That is the distinction that is made in the laukika and alaukika anumaana in

Notes-II.

>I share Lilia‚s concern too about the Œincestuous‚ nature of shaastriiya

>logic. One could write something that was complete rubbish and then say the

>only way to talk meaningfully about this, question it or elaborate on it is

>by using the language and logic defined within it. It is not permitted to

>use everyday logic because that is not applicable.

 

This is not a dogmatic issue but more fundamental issue involved as I

explained to Lilia. There are two issues involved. One is the limitation

of the objective sciences which I have been addressing. Second issues is

source of the alaukika anumaana. First issue is independent of whether I

have faith in the scriptures or not. That is the limitation of the

objective data. Now concerning the second issue that is related to the

source for the data on aatma. Scripture is the only source for knowledge -

hence shaastra becomes a valid pramaaNa. Here I donot mean only Veda-s of

the Hindu-s. It includes others scriptures too. Vedanta generically means

the ultimate knowledge. Only the difference is in the Vedanta, here I mean

Upanishads, the teachings are in a discussion format where the teacher and

taught are ruthlessly discussing to reveal the knowledge. The teacher might

have used language that the student is familiar but the essence of the

teachings are independent of any sectarian doctrines. Hence even after

thousands of years after they are edited into book form by Veda Vyaasa, we

still study as textbooks - since the nature of the problem related to

fundamental human problem beyond the limits of desha and kaala.

Hence for the second issue - the faith in those scriptures are requirement.

Since Brahmasuutras are the analysis of these Upanishads, the study

presupposes that as the working hypothesis for a student and this aspect

will be outlined in the very first suutra where adhikaari qualifications

will be discussed.

>Why anyway did Vyaasa or Shankara need to resort to shaastriiya anumaana

>to

>make up for the deficiencies of the original? Since (presumably) both were

>enlightened, could they not simply have stated how things actually were?

>(Presumably Shankara chose to use laukika anumaana for discrediting the

>naastika darshanam-s simply because that had been part of his nature as a

>body-mind mechanism and he was continuing to do it Œfor the fun of it‚?)

 

First the second part- the naastika darshanikaas do not believe in the

Veda-s. They have no choice but to use laukika anumaana in their

discussions - their discussions consist of two parts - one to refute a

Vedantin and second to establish their own doctrine - for both they depend

on laukika anumaana.

 

Vyaasa refutes using similar laukika anumaana one to show that their

arguments are logically incorrect both in refuting Vedanta and to establish

their theories and second also shows that that kind of logic is not valid

for alaukika entity.

 

Now about your first part of your comment - this is the glory of the

Sanaatana Dharma - I think this aspect of discussion refers to your earlier

mails on the subject. Not even Vyaasa, not even Shankara and not even

KrishNa, however much they are realized souls, have the authority to make

statements contradictory to that in the Veda-s. Even if they make

statements, those that are compatible with the Scriptures, here I mean

Veda-s are taken as valid means of knowledge or pramaaNa otherwise they are

rejected. Look at saankhya of Kapila, for example. KrishNa says in Ch. 10

of Geeta - 'among the great thinkers and muni-s Arjuna know me as Kapila

muni'. And yet only those aspects that are compatible with Veda are taken

as granted and others are refuted by Vyaasa as incorrect since they do not

agree with Veda-s - this we will see in Brahmasuutra. In essence

Brahmasuutra-s and its Bhaashhyaas are independent commentaries on Veda-s by

these realized masters but they only explain the Veda-s based on their

understanding. If by chance you find any conflict between Shankara's

commentary and what is discussed in Veda-s, it is Veda-s that should be

relayed upon and not on Shankara's opinion. That is the reason, just as

scientist does not invalidate the data but only invalidate the theories that

explain the data favoring better theories that can explain the data better.

Hence Advaita, VishishhTaadvaita and Dvaita are all conclusions based on the

same data. One cannot reject the data but only conclusion. Faith that the

data is correct is taken for granted.

 

>Was BaadaraayaNa an Advaitin? (If not, what?) Presumably he could not have

>been since, if he had been, the Dvaitins and VishishhTadvaitins could not

>have presumed to interpret what he was saying in any other way.

 

Since we are currently discussing Shree Shankara Bhagavad Paada's commentary

on Brahmasuutra, let us take it for granted what Shankara has taken for

granted - that Brahmasuutra is compatible with Advaita Vedanta. But

remember Advaita Vedanta does not require validation from Brahmasuutra since

the later is apaurushheya. Advaita Vedanta rests squarely and directly on

the Veda-s as pramaaNa. Shree Ramanuja and Shree Madva have refuted

Shankara's philosophy and claim that their philosophies are much more

compatible both with Veda-s and Brahmasuutra. If and when time and my

knowledge permit, I plan to take up atleast their criticisms of Advaita

Vedanta and see how far these are valid.

>My sincere apologies to anyone should they be offended by any of these

>question. No disrespect is intended, merely clarification of something that

>Sadananda‚s excellent commentary has highlighted for me.

>

>Namaste,

>

>Dennis

 

Dennis - I don't think anyone gets offended by your comments at least not in

this list. We are all thankful to you for raising the issues that are of

interest not only to yourself but also to others who are keen on knowing. I

am happy to learn that you are also studying the notes along with me.

 

God Bless you.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

_______________________

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

 

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

http://profiles.msn.com.