Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Namaste Chitteranjanji, A brave effort at reconciliation. I think that in this case Shankaracarya was in a cleft stick. Writing a commentary on Mandukya Up. some reference had to be made to the karika of his paramaguru Gaudapada. Positions put in that work if encountered anywhere else would have been shredded. Here he simply makes them explicit and leaves them alone. Where lineal piety cannot ignore the import of a sutra he takes it to be a reducti ad absurdum move. To confirm for yourself that is the case go back to his own commentary on the Mandukya Up., the two are together in the Advaita Ashrama edn. What he has to say there about the dream and the waking state is in substantial agreement with the B.S.B. and Brh. Up. comm. The developement and the realisation of the implication of philosophical positions can take hundreds of years. Only in modern times is the legacy of Cartesian dualism (17th.C.) being systematically dismantled and that is chiefly the work of the great genius Wittgenstein. So Gaudapada wasn't wrong, just noetically early. An extract from Surendranath Dasgupta's History of Indian Phil. deals with this issue http://www.realization.org/page/doc0/doc0087.htm Best Wishes, Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Namaste Shri Michaelji, Thank you for your comments, Michaelji. > Writing a commentary on Mandukya Up. some reference had to be > made to the karika of his paramaguru Gaudapada. Positions put in > that work if encountered anywhere else would have been shredded. The position that the syllogism of the Karika proves the unreality of the world has been shredded by the other schools. If the Karika is not taken as being aimed at the Buddhists, the current interpretation still lays it open to the fault of irrelevance, since it cannot convey the meaning of unreality to someone for whom the vyapti is not a familiar instance. It is my belief that this is the reason why Shri Shankaracharya does not follow the line of the Karika, in order that the doctrine of Advaita may be enunciated and directed to those that are characterised by avidya rather than to a jnyani. Perhaps this expediency was required to prevent the perplexing conception of world- unreality from further accentuating the curvature of the avidya-laden lens through which the world is looked at. > The developement and the realisation of the implication of > philosophical positions can take hundreds of years. Only in > modern times is the legacy of Cartesian dualism (17th.C.) > being systematically dismantled and that is chiefly the work > of the great genius Wittgenstein. So Gaudapada wasn't wrong, > just noetically early. I agree. It may seem strange to many ears in this forum, but I believe that the idea that Madhwa Dvaita is a philosophy of dualism is another legacy that needs dismantling. Warm regards, Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Dear Chittaranjan , Namaste. > I agree. It may seem strange to many ears in this forum, but I > believe that the idea that Madhwa Dvaita is a philosophy of dualism > is another legacy that needs dismantling. You are welcome to try that by all means ! If you & moderators don't mind , bring up this topic of yours in vAdavaLi. We'll take up from there. Regards, Srinivas. advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik" <chittaranjan_naik> wrote: > Namaste Shri Michaelji, > > > Thank you for your comments, Michaelji. > > > > Writing a commentary on Mandukya Up. some reference had to be > > made to the karika of his paramaguru Gaudapada. Positions put in > > that work if encountered anywhere else would have been shredded. > > The position that the syllogism of the Karika proves the unreality of > the world has been shredded by the other schools. If the Karika is > not taken as being aimed at the Buddhists, the current interpretation > still lays it open to the fault of irrelevance, since it cannot > convey the meaning of unreality to someone for whom the vyapti is not > a familiar instance. It is my belief that this is the reason why Shri > Shankaracharya does not follow the line of the Karika, in order that > the doctrine of Advaita may be enunciated and directed to those that > are characterised by avidya rather than to a jnyani. Perhaps this > expediency was required to prevent the perplexing conception of world- > unreality from further accentuating the curvature of the avidya- laden > lens through which the world is looked at. > > > > The developement and the realisation of the implication of > > philosophical positions can take hundreds of years. Only in > > modern times is the legacy of Cartesian dualism (17th.C.) > > being systematically dismantled and that is chiefly the work > > of the great genius Wittgenstein. So Gaudapada wasn't wrong, > > just noetically early. > > I agree. It may seem strange to many ears in this forum, but I > believe that the idea that Madhwa Dvaita is a philosophy of dualism > is another legacy that needs dismantling. > > > Warm regards, > Chittaranjan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Dear Shri Shrinivas-ji, I believe that you have misunderstood whatever I said to be some kind of a challenge to Dvaita. That was not at all my concern. I was saying that Dvaita is not what is commonly understood today as dualism, by which term is normally meant that a plurality of independently subsisting things exist. The understanding that I got from my discussions in Vadavali was that the existence of the world is sustained only by the existence of Brahman. If my undertanding is wrong, then I stand corrected, and then let the matter rest here. Thank you for the invitation, but I have no wish or desire to take it up in Vadavali. Regards, Chittaranjan advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote: > > Dear Chittaranjan , > > Namaste. > > > I agree. It may seem strange to many ears in this forum, but I > > believe that the idea that Madhwa Dvaita is a philosophy of dualism > > is another legacy that needs dismantling. > > You are welcome to try that by all means ! > > If you & moderators don't mind , bring up this topic of yours in > vAdavaLi. We'll take up from there. > > Regards, > Srinivas. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 Dear Sri Chittaranjan-ji, Thanks for clarifying your position. I stand corrected about your posting. >I was saying that Dvaita is not what is commonly understood today as >dualism, by which term is normally meant that a plurality of >independently subsisting things exist. Yes indeed, it is the general misconception about Dvaita vEdAnta among outsider. I thank you for your bold effort, while yourself being an outsider, to correct that misconception by attesting the correct position. >The understanding that I got from my discussions in Vadavali was that the existence of the world >is sustained only by the existence of Brahman. Your understanding is to the point and thanks again for it. Regards, Srinivas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Namaste Shri Srinivasji, Thank you for your reply. All's well that ends well! :-) Warm regards, Chittaranjan -- In advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote: > > > Dear Sri Chittaranjan-ji, > > Thanks for clarifying your position. I stand corrected about your > posting. > > >I was saying that Dvaita is not what is commonly understood today as > >dualism, by which term is normally meant that a plurality of > >independently subsisting things exist. > > Yes indeed, it is the general misconception about Dvaita vEdAnta > among outsider. I thank you for your bold effort, while yourself > being an outsider, to correct that misconception by attesting the > correct position. > > >The understanding that I got from my discussions in Vadavali was > that the existence of the world > >is sustained only by the existence of Brahman. > > Your understanding is to the point and thanks again for it. > > Regards, > Srinivas. 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.