[Advaita-l] Apoureshyatva - Faith or Logic?

[Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan]

On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan
<rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:41 PM, V Subrahmanian
> <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Balasubramanian Ramakrishnan <
>> rama.balasubramanian at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > अत आगमवशेनागमानुसारितर्कवशेन च चेतनं ब्रह्म *जगतः कारणं
>>> प्रकृतिश्चेति*स्थितम्
>>> > । । ११  । ।
>>> >
>>>
>>> Not really. The question being addressed here is whether pradhAna can be
>>> counted as an entity **independent** of brahman for the creation of the
>>> universe. The sAnkhyA says that the creation is by modification of
>>> pradhAna, which is independent of brahman. Sankaras point is that if a
>>> creation is posited, then the ultimate cause is brahman. But if you read
>>> the bhAShya, he also clearly states that if the sAnkhyA wants to posit the
>>> creation of a world by modification of a supposed pradhAna, *which is
>>> subservient to brahman*, then he has no problem with such a theory. So, as
>>> I said this has nothing to with creation passages, nor contradictory of
>>> evolution theories.
>>>
>>
>> I think you are referring to a different sutra's bhashya above.  What I
>> have spoken about is regarding the sutra   तर्काप्रतिष्ठानादपि....2.1.11
>> where the entire bhashya is about the topic of tarka.  That it is chiefly
>> to address the pradhAnavAdin, sAnkhya is not in doubt:
>>
>> नच प्रधानवादी तर्कविदामुत्तम इति सर्वैस्तार्किकैः परिगृहीतो येन तदीयं मतं
>> सम्यग्ज्ञानमिति प्रतिपद्येमहि |
>>
>> Could you pl. show me the exact bhashya sentences, *from the BSB
>> 2.1.11*that represent what you say above?
>>
>
> I am on travel and don't have the books with me. It's however
> irrelevant whether it's under this sUtra or anywhere else. For the
> simple reason - shankara could have said "Your model of creation
> violates so and so sentences in shruti about creation". Instead he
> says "Make pradhAna subservient to brahman and I have no problem with
> your theory of creation by pradhAna". This clearly shows that these
> theories of creation are orthogonal to what Shankara thinks is
> important and as long as they don't violate the essential things it's
> irrelevant to him where the theory of creation sprung from - shruti
> texts themselves or from sAnkhyA texts.
>

I thought my reference would have been obvious in my first post, but
will expand a little. It seems that people are more interested in
finding which page numbers references occur rather than to get the
basic idea which runs through the entire text of the bhAShya. Note
that the sAnkhyA theory of pradhAna modification is *not* from shruti.
It is formed by using tarka. Shankara makes it clear that his problem
is not the theory of creation per se, but rather pradhAna being
independent of brahman. While he could have claimed that this theory
was not found in the shruti texts and is obtained through tarka, he
merely remarks that the true nature of *brahman being the cause of the
world* cannot be determined by tarka. However if one wants to posit a
transformation of a substance such as prakR^iti as the cause of the
world, he is ok with it *as long as it is subservient to brahman*.
Positing such a theory is again through tarka, but making it
subservient to the fundamental tenet of vedAnta - viz brahman is the
cause of the world - makes it ok in Shankaras eyes. This is quite
different from what has been claimed, viz, "a theory of creation
cannot be determined by logic whether or not it violates the basic
tenets of vedAnta". Please go back and read what Ramesh and I are
trying to say.

Rama