[Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 2

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Mon, 6 Jun 2005, Mahesh Ursekar wrote:

> Two points. From what I have read, Wittgenstein never managed to prove his
> claim (that reality lies beyond words and symbols). He came close to it be
> never nailed it down. Infact, if he had done it, science would have been
> given a serious run for its money. Another point is that I believe S.
> Radhakrishnan in his classic two volume book on Indian philosophy makes a
> reference to the fact that Adi Sankaracharya managed to achieve this feat.
> Maybe the Sankaracharya's arguments were not as rigorous as required by
> current philosophy (which gets close to mathematics in rigor at times) but
> it would indeed be interesting is someone knows something about his
> thoughts.

I can't see how anyone especially someone of the purported calibre of 
Radhakrishnan could come to the conclusion that Shankaracharya believes 
reality is beyond words.  The famous "neti neti" most certainly doesn't 
imply this.

> And when you think about it, for a Jnani, like the erstwhile Vidyaranya,
> whose profound thinking Jaldhar extolls, relying merely on the sruti would
> be revolting.

Why?  What makes you think hearing and reflecting on shastras doesn't 
involve thought processes?

> Rather his or her greater reliance on thought processes is
> what classifies him or her as a Jnani in the first place! There has to be a
> convincing enough reason why a reality beyond time, space and causation has
> to exist! Jaldhar, any thoughts?

I would remind readers again that the name of this discipline is not Aikya (one)
but a-dvaita. (not two.)  The purpose of jnana is to destroy the false 
conceptions at the end of which truth alone remains.  This I suppose would 
be the "reason".

> Of course, you missed point linking the two statements:
> 1. A dullard does well if he or she has the right attitude
> 2. A dullard can do well only if an intelligent agency is helping him or her
> Linking statement: In my arguments below, I said:
> Now, while <<1. may be true due to the law: "you are what you think">> you
> can't deny
> that the dullard would most likely not be resourceful enough to reach the
> high position he or she
> is currently at. Hence the need for 2.

Bhagavan does not play favorites with His creations but impartially alots 
consequences on the basis of their actions.  So the succesful dullard may 
have some virtues hidden under that dull exterior.

-- 
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>