Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Dear All,Please let me know also, how the Tarka helps in understanding Vedanta Paribhasha.With regards,Anupam. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 2010 Report Share Posted February 26, 2010 Namaste Shri Anupam,Studying tarka, as well as sanskrit is needed for understanding any Vedantic text. These are emphasized a lot in traditional learning. Otherwise, there is a danger of misunderstanding what the message of Shankara is. In particular, for the case of tarka and V.P, even a cursory look at the tarka-saMgraha (a translation of Shri Kuppuswami's book is available at archive.org), a canonical text for tarka, and which was perhaps (?) written earlier than V.P shows how much of terminology that each of the schools share, showing true interdisciplinary exchange of ideas, while at the same time disagreeing with each other on many aspects. The use of tarka clearly shows up in anumaana/upamaana chapters of V.P for example. For understanding tarka, I recommend the excellent vedio lectures by Shri Prof. Jha and produced by Chinmaya Mission (www.chinfo.org) that Shri Sada-ji (my praNAms to him) pointed to the list couple of months back. I stopped halfway through the series, being busy with work and other readings, but I understand how superficial my earlier understanding of V.P was! I had previously " read " Shri Sada-ji's lectures of the same as well as " studied " chapters of Swami Satprakashananda's book. I also wholly recommend the chapters on Nyaya and Vaiseshika in the book " Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy " by Prof. Chandradhar Sharma as a pre-reading.Hope this helps. I request scholars of the group to correct me. namaste againRamakrishna2010/2/26 anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav Please let me know also, how the Tarka helps in understanding Vedanta Paribhasha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Dear Ramakrishnaji, While Deva Bhasha is needed to understand Vedanta, Tarka Shastra is not required for a mumukshu. That is what Shri Chandrasekhara Bharati Mahaswamigal of Sringeri emphasized to one of the devotees. I have read those advices long back so i don't remember the exact source of the book (might be Dialogues with Jagadguru / Guru Kripa Vilasam ???). Tarka is required for vada-prativada and as well as to counter the arguments raised by purva paksha. It is required to develop analytical skills and razor sharp intellect but not for vedanta chintana. For a mumukshu who has viveka & vairagya, of what need he has with polemics & tarka. He will follow the footstep of his guru, study the vedanta under him, do manana & nidhidhyasana. But, nevertheless, it is a good subject to sharpen one's intellect and also a hard nut to crack. That is why it is said " tarkaha karkasha " . Tarka is bitter in taste. regs, sriram advaitin , Ramakrishna Upadrasta <uramakrishna wrote: > > Namaste Shri Anupam, > > Studying tarka, as well as sanskrit is needed for understanding any Vedantic > text. These are emphasized a lot in traditional learning. Otherwise, there > is a danger of misunderstanding what the message of Shankara is. > > In particular, for the case of tarka and V.P, even a cursory look at the > tarka-saMgraha (a translation of Shri Kuppuswami's book is available at > archive.org), a canonical text for tarka, and which was perhaps (?) written > earlier than V.P shows how much of terminology that each of the schools > share, showing true interdisciplinary exchange of ideas, while at the same > time disagreeing with each other on many aspects. The use of tarka clearly > shows up in anumaana/upamaana chapters of V.P for example. > > For understanding tarka, I recommend the excellent vedio lectures by Shri > Prof. Jha and produced by Chinmaya Mission (www.chinfo.org) that Shri > Sada-ji (my praNAms to him) pointed to the list couple of months back. > > I stopped halfway through the series, being busy with work and other > readings, but I understand how superficial my earlier understanding of V.P > was! I had previously " read " Shri Sada-ji's lectures of the same as well as > " studied " chapters of Swami Satprakashananda's book. > > I also wholly recommend the chapters on Nyaya and Vaiseshika in the book > " Critical Survey of Indian Philosophy " by Prof. Chandradhar Sharma as a > pre-reading. > > Hope this helps. I request scholars of the group to correct me. > namaste again > Ramakrishna > > 2010/2/26 anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav > > > Please let me know also, how the Tarka helps in understanding Vedanta > > Paribhasha. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 27, 2010 Report Share Posted February 27, 2010 Dear Sriram-ji and Ramakrishna-ji, The word tarka is used in the sense of reasoning in brahma sutra 2.1.11. It is in this sense that tarka is relevant for Vedanta. Reasoning, by itself, is not sufficient for attaining knowledge of Brahman, but reasoning which does not run counter to the upanishadic texts is useful as a help, as shown by the following passages in the bhAShya. B.S. 1.1.1. S.B--- tasmaat brahmajijnaasopanyaasamukhena----- --- ---- prastuuyate. Therefore, beginning with a statement of the desire to know Brahman, there is begun an enquiry for the ascertainment of the meaning of the Vedaanta texts, with the help of reasoning not inconsistent with those texts, the object being liberation (through knowledge). B.S.1.1. 2.S.B--- vaakyaarthavichaaraNaadhyavasaananirvr.ttaa--- ----- dars'ayati. The realization of Brahman results from the firm conviction arising out of deliberation on the upanishadic texts and their meaning, but not from other means of knowledge such as inference, etc. With regard, however, to the texts that speak of the origin, sustenance and dissolution of the universe, even reasoning, not opposed to these texts, is not ruled out as a means of reinforcing the meaning of these texts. In fact, the upanishads themselves accept reasoning as an aid. For instance, it is said, " The Self is to be heard about, to be reflected on " (Br.up.2.4.5). And also the text, " A man, well-informed and intelligent, can reach the country of the Gandharas; similarly, a man who has a teacher attains knowledge " (Ch.up.6.14.2), shows that the texts rely on the aid of the human intellect also (i.e. they give importance to reasoning). B.S.2.1.6.S.B--- yadapi s'ravaNavyatirekeNa mananam vidadhat -------- brahmaavyatirekaH ityevamjaatiiyakaH. It was also claimed 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. It is reasoning of this kind that has been used in VivekachuuDaamaNi to conclude that none of the five sheaths can be the self (verse 156 onwards). B.S.2.1.11.S.B--- itas'cha na aagamagamye arthe kevalena tarkeNa--------- parasparavipratipattidars'anaat. 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. (Therefore, only conclusions firmly based on the scriptures and supplemented by proper reasoning can stand scrutiny). KaTha up. 1.2.9.S.B--- ato ananyaprokta aatmani---- This wisdom about the Self, as presented in the Vedas, that arises when instruction is given by one who has become identified with It, cannot be attained through mere argumentation, based merely on one's own intellect. Best wishes, S.N.Sastri advaitin , " Venkata Sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > Tarka is required for vada-prativada and as well as to counter the arguments raised by purva paksha. It is required to develop analytical skills and razor sharp intellect but not for vedanta chintana. > > For a mumukshu who has viveka & vairagya, of what need he has with polemics & tarka. He will follow the footstep of his guru, study the vedanta under him, do manana & nidhidhyasana. > regs, > sriram Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2010 Report Share Posted February 28, 2010 saashhTaang praNAmaH Shri Sastri-ji, Thankyou for the exhaustive explanation. praNAmaH again, Ramakrishna 2010/2/27 snsastri <sn.sastri: > The word tarka is used in the sense of reasoning in brahma sutra 2.1.11. > It is in this sense that tarka is relevant for Vedanta. > Reasoning, by itself, is not sufficient for attaining knowledge of > Brahman, but reasoning which does not run counter to the upanishadic texts > is useful as a help, as shown by the following passages in the bhAShya. 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.