Conflicting statements?

[Guest guest]

praNAms Hare Krishna

I think here Sri Dennis prabhuji wants a 'shAstric reconciliation' of these two *seeming* contradictory statements from shankara's works..I dont think he is looking for a sophisticated & consolatory reply on these statements from a general advaitic view point ....I humbly request Sri Sastri prabhuji to help us to get the context & exact words of the bhAshya vAkya of these two works & his clarification from the traditional view point.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> One of the two interpretations of BSB 1.i.3 is given (in Swami

> Gambhirananda's translation) as: " (Brahman is not known from any

other

> source), since the scriptures are the valid means of its

knowledge. " and

> Shankara comments that this is pointed out since " it might

(otherwise) be

> suspected that an inference alone has been presented (as the means

of

> knowing Brahman) " . I.e. Shankara seems to be at pains to point out

that

> logic, reason, anumAna are unable on their own to 'prove' the non-

dual

> reality and that one has to rely upon shAstra pramANa alone.

>

>

>

> In commentary upon II.1 of Gaudapada's kArikA on the mANDUkya

upaniShad

> (Swami Nikhilananda's translation), however, Shankara states

that: " It is

> also equally possible to determine the unreality (illusoriness) of

duality

> through pure reasoning. "

>

>

>

> Is there some accepted rationalization of this apparent

contradiction? E.g.

> is this one of the reasons why the Gaudapada commentary is thought

by some

> not to have been authored by Shankara?

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

In the bhAshya on Karika, 2.1, the falsity of objects seen in dream

is proved by reasoning. In Vedanta the world experienced in the

waking state is held to be similar to the things seen in the dream

state, because in both the states there is ignorance of the Reality

and projection of the unreal. Both are dRishyam—perceived.

The inference is that whatever is dRishyam is mithyA. This is the

reasoning adopted by Madhusudana Sarasvati in Advaitasiddhi to

refute the objections of dvaitins. This argument is based on the

bhAshya on Karika 2.1. The dvaitins contend that the world is

perceived (it is pratyaksha) and so it cannot be unreal. The answer

of advaita is that the very fact that it is perceived is enough to

declare it as unreal.

The inference in Advaitasiddhi is in the following form:--

The world is mithyA because of being perceived (dRishyatvAt), being

insentient (jaDatvAt), and being limited (paricchinnatvAt), like

nacre-silver.

Thus the falsity of the world has been established by inference

(which is the same as reasoning). It is pointed out that this

conclusion is also supported by shruti which says, " neha nAnAsti

kincana " (br. up.)—there is no diversity whatsoever here (in

brahman). This shruti statement totally denies the existence of the

world.

 

As far as the knowledge of the nature of brahman is concerned, it

can be known only from the upanishad, as stated in the Bhashya on

br. su. 1.1.3. The Naiyayikas hold that brahman can be inferred from

the fact that the world, being a created object, must have a

creator. But br. su. says that though the existence of a creator can

be inferred, the nature of that creator can be known only from the

upanishad.

Thus, in short, brahman can be known only from shruti, but the

falsity of the world can be established by reasoning (or inference).

There Is therefore no contradiction between the two statements.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis Waite

 

let me thank you for this posting.

I add what i experienced regarding this thread.

Everything i experienced in this life - from conception till the moment i describe - did NOT make any real sense; even the best intellectual concepts did not fit for what i saw and lived thru...Of course i trusted the concepts for a short or long period; but something smelled false...

An example: already with around 12 years i "realized" that one lifetime is by far not enough to live my capacity to its fullest; not at all. So the idea of reincarnation was "born" in this person - without having read about this anything at all.

Before "meeting" Sri Ramana Maharshi i searched like "mad" for an answer "why GD allows all the cruelties to happen" and found no answer which had the aura of authenticity.

Not giving up but deeply frustrated i finally accepted this not having an answer.

And by this honest "letting go" thru Grace michael discovered the idea, that everything, including "myself" must be a DREAM.

And as dream this socalled reality i experience and watch is of the same quality like the dream state.

 

As i am never so convinced of "myself" i accepted this idea - but hoped for a confirmation by someone who i do accept totally as authentic.

And like always in my life the answer to my sincere call came fast....

I met it in the statements of my beloved SadGuru Sri Ramana Maharshi.

 

So even this most highly important discovery can be found by "discrimination" and "logic" - but only if our search is HONEST.

 

Let me thank you again for your input!!!

 

in ITS GRACE

 

michael

 

 

 

 

-

Dennis Waite

Advaitin (AT) (DOT) Com

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 9:50 PM

Conflicting statements?

 

 

 

 

One of the two interpretations of BSB 1.i.3 is given (in Swami Gambhirananda’s translation) as: “(Brahman is not known from any other source), since the scriptures are the valid means of its knowledge.” and Shankara comments that this is pointed out since “it might (otherwise) be suspected that an inference alone has been presented (as the means of knowing Brahman)”. I.e. Shankara seems to be at pains to point out that logic, reason, anumAna are unable on their own to ‘prove’ the non-dual reality and that one has to rely upon shAstra pramANa alone.

 

In commentary upon II.1 of Gaudapada’s kArikA on the mANDUkya upaniShad (Swami Nikhilananda’s translation), however, Shankara states that: “It is also equally possible to determine the unreality (illusoriness) of duality through pure reasoning…”

 

Is there some accepted rationalization of this apparent contradiction? E.g. is this one of the reasons why the Gaudapada commentary is thought by some not to have been authored by Shankara?

 

My own view is that scriptures may well be ‘necessary’ to the extent that the very idea of non-duality is counter-intuitive, but that once the idea is there it can effectively be proven in the sorts of ways that Gaudapada shows, in the fourth prakaraNa of the kArikA-s, that the ideas of other philosophies (both Astika and nAstika) cannot be supported.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.9.2/1783 - Release 12/11/2008 10.01

[Guest guest]

Namaste All followers of this thread:

There is a paradox. Perception itself is founded on the unity of consciousness. This is in conflict with multiple subjects and objects. That which is the basis of multiplicity appears to flout it. That which makes perception to be also makes it unreal. If it is true then it is not true!

Narrowly viewed as consciousness of something, both dream and waking can be assimilated. This consciousness of something in which there is an apparent division of the primal unity is false according to Advaita.

Best Wishes,

Michael

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Sastri-ji (et al),

>

> Everything seems to point to the primacy of reason as far as the

actual

> investigation is concerned.

>

> To return then, to the question of Shankara's viewpoint, are you

saying that

> he is accepted as being in agreement with this position? (You

say: " Thus, in

> short, brahman can be known only from shruti, but the falsity of

the world

> can be established by reasoning (or inference). " )

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

Shri Shankara's view on the question of the scope of reasoning can

be understood from the following statements in his bhAshya:--

 

B.S. B. 2.1.11.--- For this reason also one should not, on the

strength of mere logic, propound something that has to be known only

from the Vedas. Reasoning that has no foundation in the Veda and

springs from the imagination of persons lacks conclusiveness. Man's

conjecture has no limits. Thus it is seen that an argument put

forward by one learned person is proved to be unsustainable by

another learned person. That again is proved to be untenable by yet

another person. The result is that no argument can be accepted as

conclusive. It is well known that even great men like Kapila and

kanada hold divergent views.

 

B.S.B 2.1.6.--- It was also argued that by enjoining reflection over

and above hearing, the Br. up. itself indicates that logic also is

to be accepted. Though this is so, mere empty logic cannot be given

a place here merely because of this; for, logic conforming to the

upanishads is alone resorted to here as a subsidiary means to help

realization. The logic that is acceptable is of the following

nature. Since the states of sleep and wakefulness contradict each

other, the Self is not identified with either of them; since the

individual soul dissociates itself from the world in the state of

deep sleep to become one with the Self which is Existence, it must

be the same as the transcendental Self; since the universe has

originated from Brahman and since the principle is that cause and

effect are non-different, the universe must be non-different from

Brahman; and so on.

 

Thus Shankara's view is that mere logic is not acceptable, but

logic based on shruti can be used.

 

In his bhAshya on Karika 2.1 Shankara first refers to the

shruti " One only without a second " to say that duality ceases to

exist after realization. He then adds that the unreality of the

world of duality can be established even through reasoning. The

first three karikas (shlokas) in this chapter give reasons to hold

that dream experiences are not real. Karika 4 says that objects in

the waking state are unreal for the same reason as those in the

dream state. Thus Gaudapada has himself equated dream and waking on

the basis of reasoning. Shankara has explained this by saying that

dRishyatvam or `being perceived' is common to both the states and so

waking experiences are also unreal like dream experiences. Thus, on

the basis of reasoning Shankara declares the waking state

experiences also to be unreal.

 

Perhaps your question is whether this view of Shankara is in

conformity with his stand that only reasoning based on shruti is

acceptable. It may be pointed out that this reasoning is fully based

on shruti. The kenopanishad says that brahman is different from all

that is knowable. So brahman alone is the knower (dRik) and

everything else is knowable, or dRishyam. The shruti also says that

brahman alone is real. Therefore it follows that whatever is

knowable is unreal because it is different from brahman. The

reasoning thus follows logically from the shruti statements that

brahman alone is the knower (dRik) and brahman alone is real. This

reasoning thus satisfies the condition laid down by Shankara for

being acceptable.

I do not know whether I have answered your doubt.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Sastri-ji,

<< Thus Shankara's view is that mere logic is not acceptable, but logic

based on shruti can be used.>>

Thank you for the BSB quotations – I haven’t got

that far yet in the Swami Paramarthananda talks (maybe next year sometime)!

Indeed, your excellent explanations do answer my question very precisely.

Thanks again!

Best wishes,

Dennis