[Advaita-l] logic and Shastra

[Mahesh Ursekar]

Pranams Amuthan: 

 Many thanks for you elaborate and detailed reply. I had to delete your 
message and make a new post since the Spam filter keeps rejecting the Reply- 
message as Spam. I hope the audience has access to your last mail.

 Before I start let, me say that I am not arguing for arguments sake but the 
whole purpose of this thread was with a view of trying (however naively) to 
establish Brahman in my mind on more rational terms than with dependence on 
Sruti alone. In this, I am not alone since the great Sankaracharya (as has 
been mentioned before) has also seen the importance of this. 

 [You said]

first, the existence of brahman cannot be known by any inference (anumAna) 
whatsoever, for any inference 

relating to brahman can be done only after a direct perception (pratyaksha) 
of it and since anumAna is 

dependent on pratyaksha for its validity.

[end]

 This above argument is not valid. If anuman required pratyaksha, the blind 
would be incapable of anuman but we know when a blind person bumps against 
something, he infers it is an obstrution to be avoided. Or, when the wind 
blows against your face, you infer that there must be a high pressure-low 
pressure system in the atmosphere. In the same way, I need pratyaksha to 
define Brahman is someway (sat-cit-ananda) but by anuman, I can establish 
that something like this aught to exist. 

 [You said]

exists" (i guess this was the essence of ur earlier argument), then this 
argument is fallacious since there is no ground to identify the intelligent 
cause thus inferred with brahman, which is known (only) from 

[end]

 I never tried to infer this with Braham itself but with the necessity of a 
"creator". Subsequent arguments went on to show that this "creator" needed 
to be above time, space, causation. My simple minded and Sankara 
philosophical arguments were provided for this. 

 [You said]

as mentioned in my previous post, chit and Ananda are undefined terms. now, 
assume that a logical proof exists,

[end]

 I am sorry I fail to understand your meaning of "undefined". Maybe if you 
explained this I could try to follow your proof. The way I see it, your 
using both words in a sentence seems to indicate you have an idea of what 
they mean. On the other hand, if you mean that words and symbols cannot 
grasp their true essence, that is a different matter with which all my 
earlier posts concur. 

 [You said]

now, in the domain where vedAnta operates, the class of systems is the class 
of various notions of an ultimate cause, 

[end]

 Again, I am sorry but don't buy this as a basis for you "axioms". In that 
case there would be no need for religious discourse - each religion could be 
proved to be a self consistent whole without any rationality. The Christian 
would start his or her argument with - assume a old man who is the creator 
of the world, the Muslim with Allah, and so on. This ends up as requiring 
more faith than reason. (I don't wish to downplay faith but maybe what I 
mean is dogmatic faith). 

 [You said]

if the world can be explained completely without any reference to brahman, 
then there is no need to worry

about what the SAstra-s say. if it cannot be explained thus, the necessity 
of SAstra-s is clear. 

[end]

 What is your opinion? Can the world be explained without the shastras? 

 [You said]

the purpose of all this axiomatization is to provide a logically consistent 
scheme to convince us that this mahodadhi of Soka and moha which inevitaby 
traps us, can be overcome by Atmaj~nAna.

[end]

 But, dear sir, a self-consistent axiomatic system is provided by the Jaina 
and the Buddhist too. Why is Vedanta so special?

 [You said]

He didn't explain the world simply because it is not existent in the 
absolute sense independent of brahman. He states what the truth is and not 
what we want it to be. either way, it doesn't matter if people criticize 

Him.

[end[

 Agreed completely. Truth bows to no one!

 [You said]

what i meant by self-introspection was not any argumentation like this, 

[end[

 I tried to explain my position with regard to this at the start. In any 
case, maybe some of my arguments (or am I being too optimistic?) might 
provide some food for thought i.e. introspection.

 [You said]

to live by the vedAnta is possible only for a j~nAni. for mumukshu-s, 

[end]

 Ah, then unto what purpose all this discussion and debate? Are we aspiring 
to become pundits or Jnanis? As Swami Ranganathananda (the late President of 
the Ramakrishan Math) used to say (my words) "Try, try to implement even a 
little of the truth. Take the attitude that one day you will get there, 
however long it takes" or the lion Swami Vivekananda's saying (from memory) 
"Why wait for another life time. Be free, be free even in this life!" 

 Humble pranams, Mahesh