You have a point. But from Advaitin POV and stance, this doesn't necessarily mean that their concept of an untarnished, ought to be perceived without the muddling of wrong imagination projected onto it Reality does not become void just because most of Shruti concerns itself with Saguna Brahman. They can probably explain why this is the case.
Actually even from a Dvaitin POV to construct a consistent, meaningful and loyal philosophical system from the Vedas is also hard. Why? Because the pithy Monotheistic statements are far and few.
Pranams. One can superimpose many explanations on a body of literature to force the "round peg" into the "square hole" of one's sectarian limitations. However, to the objective seeker, the question that one must ask is whether such explanations seem to be reasonable interpretations, i.e. "Is this really what the seer is trying to tell me?" As I have noted more than once, the formless and the formed Brahman are spoken of with equal reverence in shruti, and utmost attention must be accorded both sets of statements. The arbitrary assignment by the interpreter of some vAkyas to a higher category than others, undercuts the authority of the shruti itself. Thus, the question isn't, "Can I do this?" but rather, "Does shruti give me a basis for interpreting like this?"
First, I am not articulating from a "Dvaitin POV" as you have mistakenly assumed, nor am I quoting from "Tattvavadi pramaanas" as someone very strangely asserted. Second, "monotheistic" statements are not few and far between. They are actually quite common throughout the Vedas. The problem Dvaitins would likely face is elsewhere, specifically in the way they must approach the abedha-shrutis. Their view is that there are no such thing as "abedha-shrutis," which strikes me as a very bold stance to take in the light of many statements asserting non-difference. But I only indicate these doubts as an impartial observer. I have not had the chance to study their literature in great detail, and it is not my intention to judge their views without giving them adequate study.Actually even from a Dvaitin POV to construct a consistent, meaningful and loyal philosophical system from the Vedas is also hard. Why? Because the pithy Monotheistic statements are far and few.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
If advaitins do not take attribute to mean something other than what is commonly understood by the word, it is pointless of you to ask me to define what an attribute is.While it may be difficult to define what an attribute is, it is a concept that is cognized by human beings and understood to mean a certain thing, even if its meaning cannot be expressed in words due to the limitations of language.
As I pointed out, it attributes are identical to the substance to which they belong, they are also be identical to each other, which is clearly not the case.A red lamp-post would then have all the attributes of a red fruit, which it does not.
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
Actually, it is not pointless. One way of argumentation is to grant the opponent's thesis, for the moment, and then derive a contradiction - a reductio. So, the Advaitin need not define what an attribute is. All he has to do is to take the opponent's definition of it and then show how a contradiction results.
Actually, according to the opponent (in reality, it was the Nyaya against whom the Advaita was arguing but both Dvaita/Visishtadvaita accepted parts of Nyaya ontology - that surrounding attributes and their relationship with substances), everything that exists is knowable and nameable (i.e. defineable). So, a Nyaya himself will staunchly defend his ability to define what an attribute/guna is. So, no linguistic limitation atleast for the Naiyayika.While it may be difficult to define what an attribute is, it is a concept that is cognized by human beings and understood to mean a certain thing, even if its meaning cannot be expressed in words due to the limitations of language.
This argument is not tenable against the Advaitin. The Advaitin does NOT even grant the ultimate existence of an attribute. The only universal is existence, or "is"ness itself. All else is name and form and born due to ignorance. He will bring arguments from sruthi and other syllogisms to support his position. He is willing to grant no difference/duality whatsoever. Did you have time to read through Shankara's purport on BG 2:16?As I pointed out, it attributes are identical to the substance to which they belong, they are also be identical to each other, which is clearly not the case.A red lamp-post would then have all the attributes of a red fruit, which it does not.
Any quality or property of an object is an attribute,even existence. Anything without attributes is a nonentity. And the advaitin does not have ANY support from shruti for his position. The mimamsa nyayas make it clear that the word nirguna is to be interpreted in harmony with the shrutis describing attributes of Brahman.The Advairin has no right to postulate two Brahmans in accordance with the universally accepted principles of vedic exegesis, nor does shruti say anywhere that there are two Brahmans.As philosoraptor said, the focus must not be on interpreting shruti vut on understanding what it is trying to say.
Rather than logically describing how something can exist without attributes, you are simply meandering off into unrelated discussions. Your comments on the (non)definability of attributes were in response to a certain statement made by philosoraptor and me, tp which they are completely irrelevant.
Frankly, I was hoping you would have some strong logic to convince me on this one.The idea of Brahman having no attributes is appealing in some respecrs, but it is simply illlogical.
Last edited by Omkara; 23 December 2012 at 08:13 PM.
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
Arguments by plain assertion simply do not work.
Just because you find something illogical does not make it illogical. You would have to derive some contradiction or something to prove so. One of the very first steps in order to do that is to provide accurate definitions of various terms of usage. That unfortunately, has not been done on this thread.
The burden of proof is completely on the advaitin in this case. No one has ever observed or can observe a substance without attributes.The advaitin must prove that such an object exists. Any object can be defined only in terms of its attributes. If there are no attributes, there is no object. If you disagree with this, good luck finding an example to the contrary.
As I pointed out, any property or characteristic associated with an object is an attribute, even existence.Do you disagree with this? If so, it is your job to explain what an attribue is.If you do not disagree, then Brahman has attributes.
Besides, the very name Brahman is a descriptive term.
Any object that can be observed or analyzed through pratyaksha or anumana has attributes.Thus you can ptove the existence of an attributeless substance only from shruti. But you seem to be shying away from prividing any shtuti proof (or any proof for that matter)
You seem to have chosen not to reply to what I said earlier, that upakrama nyaya and utsargapavada nyaua invalidate the division of Brahman into saguna and nirguna Brahman.Do you have any reply to this? By these principles of exegesis, Brahman MUST be saguna.
Also, you set out in the beginning the Advaitin stand that an object is identical to its attributes, which I showed was fallacious.What is the reason for you not bothering to defend it bow? Why did you put it firward in the first place then?
Last edited by Omkara; 23 December 2012 at 09:22 PM.
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
There is quite a bit of confusion regarding what is an attribute/relation/universal/particular, etc. Many of the things you state are just plain wrong. For e.g. per Nyaya, a guna and a relation are particulars and not universals. Existence is considered to be the universal with the widest extension and it is not a guna. To get into what is a universal, why it is posited, how it is different from particular, etc. is not going to be possible in this thread.
Nyaya and Mimamsa can not be talked in the same breath as if they believe in the same ontology. There are sharp and irreconcileable differences between the two. There is no "mimamsa nyaya".
Finally, no one claims, and certainly not the Advaitin, that Brahman is an object of perception.
The mimamsa nyayas are principles of vedic exegesis accepted by all vedantic schools.I am not 'mixing mimamsa and nyaya'.
What nyaya darshana considers an attribute is irrelevant to this discussion.Philosoraptor is an adherent of vishishtadvaita vedanta and I am an adherent of tantric shaivism.Neither of us has anything to do with nyaya darshana.
Last edited by Omkara; 24 December 2012 at 01:39 AM.
namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||
Om shrImAtrE namah
sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu
A Shaivite library
http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks