Guest guest Posted January 14, 2002 Report Share Posted January 14, 2002 Namaste to all that have been following this discusion of Shastra Pramana, I would ask that you all ponder the reson why Sri Shankara did not remain silent and went on and on, with great effort to refute all those whom he felt were either 1) misinterpreting the Vedic teaching, as well as those 2) who rejected the Vedic teaching. These explicit refutations can be summerized as follows: (Refutation of Brahminacal Schools) 1) Refutation of Liberation through Action 2) Refutation of Liberation through Knowledge and Action combined 3) Refutation of Bheda-Abeda(diference and non differnce) Vada 4) Refutation of Prapancha Vilya(dissolution of the world)Vada 5) Refutation of Spota Vada (creation through Word) 6) Refutation of the Pasupatas (All of Shaivism) 7) Refutation of the Pancaratras (All of Vaishnavism) (Refutation of Non-Vedic World Views) 8) Refutation of Materialism 9) Refutation of Samkhyas 10) Refutation of Yoga Darshana 11) Refutation of Nyaya and Vishesikas 12) Refutation of the Buddhists 13) Refutation of Jainas And last but not least, Shankaras refutation of the Tarkikas (Logicians) deserves a few comments as it is extremely relavant to our discussion of Shastra Pramana. Tarka (Dialectic) Its Purpose and Rules Apart from various specialized uses of the term, dialectic in general, called Tarka in Sanskrit, is defined as the art of philosophical argumentation, concieved especially as the effort to discover and eliminate contradictions in thought. According to Shankara, the Truth is already possessed in immediate intuition by all, but is obscured by ignorance and false convictions. Being infinite, it cannot be encapsulated in any conceptual system. The "means of knowledge" (Pramana) relavant to the Infinite is not preception or inference, but the authority of the Vedic texts, when the later are interpreted with the 'aid of reason' and 'result in' immediate intuitional experience of the Absolute. The final awakening to Truth can only occur through the communication of the supreme Upanishadic texts by a qualified teacher to a qualified pupil. In Shankaras writting, therefore,the function of dialectic is confined to the removal of obstacles to the pupil's understanding of the true meaning of the supreme Upanishadic texts, particularly the obstacles arising from false convictions derived from false convictions derived from the arguments of rival schools. Indeed, the use of reason on the spiritual path has a 'remote' and 'intimate' phase. The intimate phase, in Shankara's eyes the more important, concerns the immediate causes of failure to understand the supreme texts, in particular the failure to isolate the texts concerned with the Supreme Goal from those that concern lesser goals, the failure to interpret them correctly once isolated,and the failure, due to the deeply ingraind adverse predjudices of ignorance, to attain an immediate realization of their truth even when they have been isolated and correctly interpreted. Shankara recognized no distinction between really understanding the meaning of the supreme texts and having immediate apprehension of their truth, since they simply state the true nature of the hearer. However, it is the 'remote' phase of reasoning on the spiritual path that has to be clarified. Here it has the purpose, not of guiding the pupil to an understaning of the Texts, but of protecting him from false suggestions coming from outside the pale. Dialectic (tarka) in this sense involves the exposure of the logical fallacies of those who advance world-views based on perception and inference that contradict the teaching of the Upanishads. Amongst the Brahminical schools of this kind, who paid lip-service to the Veda, we find the dualistic Samkhyas,whose philosopical tenets were also largely boorowed by the Yoga School, and the Vaishesikas, whose philosophical tenets were largely borrowed by the Naiyayikas and(to a lesser degree) by the Mimasikas. The Materialists, Buddhists and Jainas evolved their own teachings in consious oppostionto the Veda. Shankara's refutation of the thinkers of the aboved-mentioned schools merely fills out and develops the work of refutation that is already present in nascent form in the Brahma Sutras. The technique is essentially that of exposing the hidden contradictions latent in the opponent's view that he himself is not aware of. He either fails to remember that what he had said earlier has already cut away the branch on which he is now trying to sit, or else he fails to see that the hidden implications of what he is saying now land him in contratiction with what is said elsewhere by his own school. The Brahma Sutras had alreaky charged the schools enumerated above with 1) self-contradiction(Pratijna-hani, 2)the fallcacy of infinate regress (anavastha), 3)the inablility to solve the same problem in one's own system, for which the opponent is taken to task(sva-paksa-dosha). Shankara adds to the above a few maxims which help to limit the scope of fantasy in explaining worldly events on the basis of perception and inference: 1) 'There can be alternative views with regard to actions but not to facts'. 2) 'One cannot make hypotheses that contradict experience' 3) 'No entity is extablished as real from the mere fact that words are used to refer to it'. 4)'If it were possible to bring non-existent things into existence through the mere power of the imagination, everyone would realize his evey desire'. Thus these discussions are niether useless, nor are they merely for the sake of 'ego gratification'. If we were all to just remain silent there would be no Shankara commentaries, nor the Advaita web site. Hari Om Atmachaitanya advaitin, "Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava@f...> wrote: > Dear Visji, > > Hari Om! Please take it easy. All is in the eyes of the beholder. Though > I understand you, I would request you to ignore comments which are not > suitable in such a way Gandharva Pushpadanda has seen it! Pusphadanta is a > Gandharva who had fallen from grace and at the end by praying to Lord Shiva > he regains his status. In his very famous "Sivamahimna stotra" (Hymn > composed on the Greatness of Lord Shiva) he addresses Lord Shiva very > nicely. > > For example, Lord Shiva got a blue scar on his neck because of drinking > poison and holding it there. But it looked very ugly to Menaka, wife of > Himavanta and mother of Parvati! So she refuses to accept Lord Shiva as her > son-in-law finding many faults in his behaviour. She points out that the > scar on his neck looks quite ugly. > > Pushpadanta in his hymn says "vikArOpi slAghyO bhuvana bhaya baMga > vyasaninaH".... Even the ugly spots are praiseworthy in such a noblesoul > (Lord Shiva) who is addicted to remove the problems of the Universe! He > says though for the common man it looks ugly, but for the one who can > understand, the scar convey Lord Shiva's greatness... Otherwise who will > drink Poison? That too knowing that it may create problems. Lord Shiva > took it, took the probelm on himself, so that the world will no longer be > bothered. That is how we should see the world! > > By the way, Sri Ramakrishna is an illiterate may be for common people. And > it may be true, but we require, we have to have Pushpadanta's vision to > understand Sage Ramakrishna --- vikArOpi slYghyO bhuvana bhayabhaMga > vyasaninaH... > > Yours, > Madhava > > > > > > > -----Ursprungliche Nachricht----- > > Von: R. Viswanathan [drvis@h...] > > intellectually arrogant and abusive in language, even when > > refering to great > > Saints and Gyanies -- other wise Ramakrishna would not be > > described as "the > > illiterate Bengali Priest,who went into Nirvikalpa Samadhi ". > > Where are the > > Moderators to moderate such a language? Vedantic knowledge is > > not a license > > for such a language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 15, 2002 Report Share Posted January 15, 2002 Hi! Discussions are rarely useless. Debates are rarely useful. They have different purposes. If Silence ends in itself, as you say, "there will be no Shankara commentary and nor Advaita web site". However, that is not the case. Silence is just the beginning. In Silence there is the Self, the Brahman (non-describable) and the rest. Without this Silence the Scriptures (in Sanskrit or otherwise) are just text books and nothing more. It is after this Silence the Teachings of Truth come, automatically. Before this Silence comes all the chattering, often times scattered and mis-guided. Some of us are neither here nor there -- neither in the chattering nor in the Silence state.. So the Advaitin group is quite valuable and Shankara's commentary as well. -- Vis ---------- - "atmachaitanya108" <stadri <advaitin> Monday, January 14, 2002 7:09 AM Re: Vedanta Shastra Pramana -- > Thus these discussions are niether useless, nor are they merely for > the sake of 'ego gratification'. If we were all to just remain silent > there would be no Shankara commentaries, nor the Advaita web site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.