Arguments and pramANa

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

It seems that of the eight pramANa-s available to darshanaa-s from India,

each school accepts its own subset. There are a couple of questions this

raises:

 

1. How do you argue with a person who believes in a subset of

pramANa-s and you want to refute him/her using a pramANa that she does

not accept? The examples:

 

a. bauddha and shaastra

b. chaarvaaka and shaastra (or any of the many that he does not

accept for that matter)

c. non-dharmic-religion-follower and indian-shaastra (I guess there would be

no argument in some cases here, because questioning the basis of pramANa

of the pUrvapaxi may lead to death!)

 

Is the correct method to first show the insufficiency of his pramANa and

then then introduce the pramANa that you want her to accept?

 

If so, what do you do with ©? Which of the methods is better:

(i) His shaastra is not tenable using pratyaxa and anumaana (becoming

equivalent of chaarvaaka of the pUrvapaxi).

(ii) His shaastra is defective from my shaastra. Hence it is not tenable.

 

2. How do you convince a person who does not know the theory of pramANa-s

that the following statement is correct and not insensitive?

" What X is saying is right from her perspective, though you oppose it

because it is avaidic? " X could be a local individual, or X could be a guru

of some, or X could be considered the equivalent of prophet by some. (I have

myself landed in soup with friends because such of my comments were

perceived " insensitive " .)

 

praNAmaH

Ramakrishna

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " uramakrsna " <uramakrishna wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> It seems that of the eight pramANa-s available to darshanaa-s from India,

> each school accepts its own subset. There are a couple of questions this

> raises:

>

> 1. How do you argue with a person who believes in a subset of

> pramANa-s and you want to refute him/her using a pramANa that she does

> not accept? The examples:

>

> a. bauddha and shaastra

> b. chaarvaaka and shaastra (or any of the many that he does not

> accept for that matter)

> c. non-dharmic-religion-follower and indian-shaastra (I guess there would be

> no argument in some cases here, because questioning the basis of pramANa

> of the pUrvapaxi may lead to death!)

>

> Is the correct method to first show the insufficiency of his pramANa and

> then then introduce the pramANa that you want her to accept?

>

> If so, what do you do with ©? Which of the methods is better:

> (i) His shaastra is not tenable using pratyaxa and anumaana (becoming

> equivalent of chaarvaaka of the pUrvapaxi).

> (ii) His shaastra is defective from my shaastra. Hence it is not tenable.

 

>

> praNAmaH

> Ramakrishna

 

Namaste.

 

Sri Shankaracharya, across His commentarial literature, handles the Bauddhas,

Sankhyas, Naiyayika-s (all dvaitins) by logic and experience alone. He does not

generally quote the Upanishadic passages while arguing with them. He points out

inadequacies/defects/inconsistencies in their systems by taking their very

systems, what they accept, what they postulate, etc.

 

A typical case is in His bhashyam for the Gaudapada Karika III.5. Here the

Acharya invokes an opponent, the Sankhya, who holds that the souls, jiva-s, are

multiple. Shankara shows by logic how the Sankhya's own construct is defective.

Next He takes up the Vaisheshika, etc. who hold that desire, etc. inhere in the

Atman, and shows how this is impossible by analyzing their very construct.

This can be read, in English, on pages 269 - 273 of Swami Gambhirananda's

translation (Advaita Ashrama Edition 2003).

 

The Bauddha schools are shown to be defective in the Karika bhashya for IV 24 -

28.

 

Om Tat Sat

>

[Guest guest]

A typical case is in His bhashyam for the Gaudapada Karika

III.5. Here the Acharya invokes an opponent, the Sankhya, who holds that

the souls, jiva-s, are multiple. Shankara shows by logic how the Sankhya's

own construct is defective. Next He takes up the Vaisheshika, etc. who

hold that desire, etc. inhere in the Atman, and shows how this is impossible

by analyzing their very construct.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

We have to be careful here with regard

to shankara's refutation of sAnkhya & vaisheshika theories. First

of all shankara 'accepts' the existence of multiple jeeva-s and clearly

says jeeva has the definite boundaries within deha and shankara calls this

jeeva as shAreera (shArIra iti sharIre bhavaH ityarthaH clarifies shankara

in sUtra bhAshya) and this shArIra is definitely subject to all 'ups

& downs' and he is karta bhOkta who suffers & enjoys dukha &

sukha & he is also a sAdhaka of dharma & adharma (karthA bhOktA,

dharmAdharma sAdhanaH sukhaduHkhAdimAmshcha)... & shankara also clarifies

this jeeva bhedha is not a problem at all till the realization of ONE truth!!

So, shankara 'vyAvahArically' accepts the existence of multiple jeeva-s

and their respective attributes...And no need to mention all these refutations

are from the point of pAramArthika which is beyond words and speech.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar