[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 1, Issue 32

[Jay Nelamangala]

Dear VidyAshankar,

Thanks for your reply. Your emails are great food for thought.


To interpret  IkshatyadhikaraNa as the refutation
of SAnkhyas' view that jada-prakrti is jagat-kAraNa is not relevant to
the theme of samanvaya-adhyAya.

Even when "prakrti"  is brought up for discussion in prakrtyadhikaraNa,
under I.4.23-27,  BaadarAyaNa is doing "samanvaya" of words such as
Stree, yOni, Sooti, Prakrti.   This is because the whole adhyAya is about
"samanvaya" of various Vedic words.

That is the central  point.  Rest is all details.

>
> Your interpretation would leave "heyatva" without a referent at all. If,
as
> you claim, there is no mention of sAMkhya at all in sUtra 1.1.5, then the
> question of heyatva (fit to be discarded) does not arise at all.

Not at all.   In the previous sootra "Om GouNaschEt na AtmashabdAt"
nothing that is GouNa is established as the subject matter of jignyAsA.
But it is well known that Atma shabda is also used for jeeva, as jeevAtman.
But Sruti says, "tamEvaikam jAnatha AtmAnam anyAvAcho vimunchatha"
where,  there is a possibility for someone to take Atma to be jeevAtman,
then  "anyAvAcho vimunchatha" may be construed as anything that is not
jeevAtman,  which brings about "hEyatva" on Parabrahman itself.  One may
conclude enquiry into something other than Brahman is Brahma-jignyAsa,
as upanishat itself  by saying "anyAvAchO vimunchatha"  is advising
"hEyatva"
on Brahman.

So, Sri VedavyAsa  negates such a position through this sootra, by
establishing
that "Om hEyatva avachanAccha Om" -  hEyatva on Brahman is not advised by
Shruti or using your words,  "Shrutis do not say Brahman is fit to be
discarded"

>we (vedAntins, especially advaita vedAntin-s)
> say that there is only one, the SOLE, cause of the entire universe,

We are also vEdaantins,  and we also say Parabrahman is jagadEka-kAraNa.

>Nothing that is aSabda is
> accepted as the cause of the universe, including the material universe.
>
Then what is the cause?  may I ask.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vidyasankar Sundaresan" <svidyasankar at hotmail.com>
To: <jay at r-c-i.com>; <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2003 6:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 1, Issue 32


>
> >I am aware of the fact that some interpret this to refute
> >the school of sAmkhya.
>
> The "some" are Sankara and followers of his school, viz. the traditional
> advaita vedAntin-s.
>
> >1) First of all,  to say that sAmkhyas say "Prakrti is ashadba" and then
> >to refute it is incorrect,  because sAmkhyas do not say Prakrti is
ashabda.
>
> That is not how the argument goes at all. Firstly, sAMkhya-s do not say
> "prakRti is aSabda." Nor do the vedAntin-s think that the sAMkhya-s say
that
> "prakRti is aSabda." Rather, we (vedAntins, especially advaita vedAntin-s)
> say that there is only one, the SOLE, cause of the entire universe,
> including the material universe, mind you). Nothing that is aSabda is
> accepted as the cause of the universe, including the material universe.
>
> Now, what is that which is aSabda? The prime example is the prakRti of the
> sAMkhya system, which postulates a purely material prakRti as the cause of
> the material universe and credits all seeing (IkShaNa) to the purusha, who
> is entirely different from prakRti. The purpose of this sUtra is to show
> that the brahman of vedAnta is not to be confused as being equivalent to
the
> prakRti of the sAMkhya-s. In spite of being the material cause of the
> universe, brahman nevertheless is endowed with IkshaNa. Indeed, brahman
> creates merely through IkshaNa. The rest of the sUtra-s that follow within
> this adhikaraNa, especially the one that says "heyatva avacanAc ca", make
> this further clear.
>
> Your interpretation would leave "heyatva" without a referent at all. If,
as
> you claim, there is no mention of sAMkhya at all in sUtra 1.1.5, then the
> question of heyatva (fit to be discarded) does not arise at all.
>
> >2) Sri VedavyAsa has dealt with sAmkhya in the second chapter in
> >detail,  and so to say Sri VedavyAsa has refuted in 1.1.5 and repeated
> >it  again in II.2.1-10 is against the
> >"alpAksharam asamdigdham sAravat vishwatOmukham
> >astObham anavadyam"   nature of the sootras.
>
> Not at all true. If this is the argument you want to use against
> SankarAcArya's interpretation of the Ikshaty adhikaraNam, then how would
you
> explain the fact that even before (tentatively assuming your principle)
> taking up sAMkhya in II.2.1-10, the sUtrakAra says "smRty anavakASa dosha
> prasanga iti cen na, anya smRty anavakASa dosha prasangAt" and "etena
yogaH
> pratyuktaH" in sUtras II.1.1 and II.1.3?
>
> bhavato'bhiprAye, yadi sAMkhya-darSanasya nirAkaraNaM
> racanAnupappaty-adhikaraNa evArabdham, tathA kena vai yogaH pratyuktaH?
>
> According to you, how has the yoga school already been handled, in sUtra
> II.1.3, if sAMkhya has not been taken up before II.2.11-10?
>
> May I reiterate, whose interpretation of the sUtra-s do you espouse? Or is
> it your own?
>
> Vidyasankar
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>