11-10-2011, 08:09 PM
[quote name='Husky' date='08 November 2011 - 09:18 PM' timestamp='1320766832' post='113631']
Easy.
So, let's take a simple example. As stated earlier, the LT and LS (which both belong together being part of the LU in the BP) predate Shankara.
=> LS: nirguNa, satya-j~nAnAnanda, and LT: sachchidAnanda.
(LT also: saguNa. LS similarly: roopa, aroopa etc.)
That suffices to make my point. But just to drive the other point home - that my proof is concluded as I don't need to say anything about the jeevAtman anymore - am grabbing this line from the VS upaniShat described as belonging to the SV:
Likewise, Shankara parrots that the Atman is "chidananda" (being identical with Shiva).
So whichever Hindoos are to blame for/originated the views Romani is accusing Adi Shankara BP of originating, it ain't Shankara BP. Can blame it on Hindoo religion. These very views - *together* - existed there all along.
(b ) More on Romani's claim that
Have already seen in the LS and LT that it was not Shankara who was "contradicting" himself. As for Romani's other charge that SCA is "an attribute" - seen in how Romani implies in the rest of his statement that nirguNa means "no attributes": <- from this 2-part statement, it can be made out that Romani is claiming that SCA is owing to guNas. [And hence his conclusion that the lack of the latter (-> nirguNa/"Brahman has no attributes") means the former must be negated ("can't be SCA").]
BUT:
Though Romani insists that SCA "must" fall under "attributes", clearly it's his definition that is causing the contradiction. Because, in contrast,
(i) many a Hindu predating Shankara (and many after him still - and they all got these ideas from their ancient Hindu sacred scriptures) view SCA as the .... say, "innate nature" of Brahman, i.e. the nature of the Hindoo Gods (their Selves).
(ii) But by the very internal logic that many Hindus insisted on exactly these things which Romani finds contradictory <- that *very* logic dictates that the Hindoo Gods/the Hindoos' Parabrahman(/AtmA) being SCA is viewed separate from the guNas. (So it's not something that would be considered a product arising of the evolution of the guNas. And nirguNa = devoid of guNas/or: neutral state of guNas, i.e. an equilibrium of cancellation, but with the potential still existing - since we're told Prakriti itself is called Brahman.)
From (i) and (ii): this means the paramaatmaa is considered by such Hindus as being of the nature of SCA regardless of whether it is in nirguNa state or sadguNa manifested state.
Romani's fallacy is that merely because "things" [specifically: Other People's Business] appear illogical to *him*, that "therefore" these things "must be" illogical full-stop. And if you can't care less about things not making sense to him, he will threaten that you "dont have arguments and try to avoid the painful subject".
Of course, it still won't make sense to him (which is why one bothers to respond), as this is the 2nd time that I can recollect that he's raised this very topic. On this very thread.
"Tomorrow" he may raise it again. And threaten again. It's practically a matter to bet on.
(c ) So, Shankara parroted a strain of pre-exis
[/quote]
Romani's fallacy is that merely because 2+2=5[specifically: Other People's MATH] appear illogical to *him*, that "therefore" these things "must be" illogical full-stop.
I'm not parroting some western scholar,i'm parroting Ramanuja in his arguments against Shankara.
Easy.
So, let's take a simple example. As stated earlier, the LT and LS (which both belong together being part of the LU in the BP) predate Shankara.
=> LS: nirguNa, satya-j~nAnAnanda, and LT: sachchidAnanda.
(LT also: saguNa. LS similarly: roopa, aroopa etc.)
That suffices to make my point. But just to drive the other point home - that my proof is concluded as I don't need to say anything about the jeevAtman anymore - am grabbing this line from the VS upaniShat described as belonging to the SV:
Likewise, Shankara parrots that the Atman is "chidananda" (being identical with Shiva).
So whichever Hindoos are to blame for/originated the views Romani is accusing Adi Shankara BP of originating, it ain't Shankara BP. Can blame it on Hindoo religion. These very views - *together* - existed there all along.
(b ) More on Romani's claim that
Have already seen in the LS and LT that it was not Shankara who was "contradicting" himself. As for Romani's other charge that SCA is "an attribute" - seen in how Romani implies in the rest of his statement that nirguNa means "no attributes": <- from this 2-part statement, it can be made out that Romani is claiming that SCA is owing to guNas. [And hence his conclusion that the lack of the latter (-> nirguNa/"Brahman has no attributes") means the former must be negated ("can't be SCA").]
BUT:
Though Romani insists that SCA "must" fall under "attributes", clearly it's his definition that is causing the contradiction. Because, in contrast,
(i) many a Hindu predating Shankara (and many after him still - and they all got these ideas from their ancient Hindu sacred scriptures) view SCA as the .... say, "innate nature" of Brahman, i.e. the nature of the Hindoo Gods (their Selves).
(ii) But by the very internal logic that many Hindus insisted on exactly these things which Romani finds contradictory <- that *very* logic dictates that the Hindoo Gods/the Hindoos' Parabrahman(/AtmA) being SCA is viewed separate from the guNas. (So it's not something that would be considered a product arising of the evolution of the guNas. And nirguNa = devoid of guNas/or: neutral state of guNas, i.e. an equilibrium of cancellation, but with the potential still existing - since we're told Prakriti itself is called Brahman.)
From (i) and (ii): this means the paramaatmaa is considered by such Hindus as being of the nature of SCA regardless of whether it is in nirguNa state or sadguNa manifested state.
Romani's fallacy is that merely because "things" [specifically: Other People's Business] appear illogical to *him*, that "therefore" these things "must be" illogical full-stop. And if you can't care less about things not making sense to him, he will threaten that you "dont have arguments and try to avoid the painful subject".
Of course, it still won't make sense to him (which is why one bothers to respond), as this is the 2nd time that I can recollect that he's raised this very topic. On this very thread.
"Tomorrow" he may raise it again. And threaten again. It's practically a matter to bet on.
(c ) So, Shankara parroted a strain of pre-exis
[/quote]
Romani's fallacy is that merely because 2+2=5[specifically: Other People's MATH] appear illogical to *him*, that "therefore" these things "must be" illogical full-stop.
I'm not parroting some western scholar,i'm parroting Ramanuja in his arguments against Shankara.