[Advaita-l] logic and shastra

[Mahesh Ursekar]

Pranams:
 > Logical arguments are subsidiary to scriptural statements.
 Agreed completely. But there is the question of what a scriptural statement 
actually says, isn't there? Every statement interpreted by one school is 
refuted with 'logic' by another, each considering for reasons of their own 
theirs to be the 'Truth'. So, in effect you don't really have a ground in 
which to say what a scriptural statement actually means! 
 > Even if a scriptural statement has no logical basis at all it is still a 
pramana
> (valid means of knowledge) by the fact of being Shruti. 
 The current Dalai Lama has gone on record to say that the Buddhist 
scriptures can be thrown away if any of their truths are proved wrong by 
science, however dear they may be to him. So, did the great Buddha say - do 
not take me as a God but question every thing I tell you and reject it if it 
doesn't agree with reason. Would you hold Shruti as fact even if 'proved' 
invalid by science?
 >> Here is the actual Sanskrit of Shankaracharyas' bhashya:

>> advaitam kimAgamamAtreNa pratipattavyaM aahosvittarkeNApItyata aaha
>> shakyate tarkeNApi GYAtum | tatkathamityadvaitaprakaraNamArabhyate |
 Humble prostrations. Both for your having read this book and for letting me 
know that such books are available for the general public. Can you possibly 
point me to a place in Mumbai where I can get such treasures (in English 
only)? 
 Humble pranams, Mahesh

  On 6/14/05, Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com> wrote: 
> 
> [was Re: [Advaita-l] Re: Advaita-l Digest, Vol 26, Issue 2]
> 
> 
> On Sat, 11 Jun 2005, Mahesh Ursekar wrote:
> 
> > Chapter VIII, The Advaita Vedanta of Samkara, page 517
> >
> > He states:
> 
> This sentence...
> >
> > "Samkara recognizes the need of reason to test scriptural views.
> 
> ...does not match with this one:
> 
> > Whenever he
> > has an opportunity, he tries to confirm scriptural statements by 
> rational
> > argument [3],
> 
> Logical arguments are subsidiary to scriptural statements. Even if a
> scriptural statement has no logical basis at all it is still a pramana
> (valid means of knowledge) by the fact of being Shruti. The relationship
> between shruti vakyas has to be determined by logical and linguistic means
> particularly the ones which are seemingly contradictory. So in this sense
> Vedanta is logical.
> 
> But that is not to say it is scientific. Science is another application
> of logic, this time to worldly phenomena. Vedanta as we have said is an
> application of logic to sacred texts.
> 
> > Reasoning (tarka) which works as an auxiliary of intuition
> > (anubhava), is commended by him. Reason with him is a critical weapon
> > against untested assumptions and a creative principle which selects and
> > emphasizes the facts of truth."
> >
> 
> One, it is a bit disingenious to say e.g. "reason with him is" suggesting
> this is a unique methodology of Shankaracharya when in fact it is the
> common viewpoint of nearly all philosopers in the Astika tradition.
> 
> Two, It should be made clear that the assumptions that are being tested
> are those of the _interpretations_ of Shruti and not the truth status of
> Shruti itself. It seems Radhakrishnan is trying to use Shankaracharya as
> the mouthpiece for a "critical" way of analyzing the Vedas (no doubt for
> political reasons given his background) and throwing out the bits that
> don't agree with "reason." I hope I have made it clear that
> Shankaracharya would be horrified by such a notion.
> 
> 
> > [3] See Samkara Bhasya on Gaudapada Karika iii. 27. In commenting on 
> iii. 1
> > of Guadapada's Karika, Samkara says: "It is asked whether the Advaita is 
> to
> > be taken as proved only on the evidence of sruti and whether reason 
> cannot
> > possibly demonstrate it and this chapter shows how the Advaita can be
> > demonstrated by reason".
> 
> Here is the actual Sanskrit of Shankaracharyas' bhashya:
> 
> advaitam kimAgamamAtreNa pratipattavyaM aahosvittarkeNApItyata aaha
> shakyate tarkeNApi GYAtum | tatkathamityadvaitaprakaraNamArabhyate |
> 
> "To [the question] 'Should advaitam be founded only on Agama[1] or can it
> be founded on logic also?' We respond: 'It is possible to be known through
> logic also.' To show this, the Advaita Prakarana[2] begins."
> 
> [1] Shastras and tradition.
> 
> [2] Advaita prakarana the third part of the Gaudapadiya Karikas that this
> passage is part of the introduction to.
> 
> I think this shows that anumana is to be taken alongside shabda as a
> pramana not as a replacement for it.
> 
> --
> Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>