Is Brahman a Person?

[wundermonk]

Which is just my view? The logical fact that...

This is putting the cart before the horse.

(a) a thing cannot have and not have attributes,

Do you know the difference between Tatastha Lakshana and Swarupa Lakshana? This is key to understanding spiritually monistic interpretations of Vedanta.

(b) the fact that a thing without attributes cannot exist,

Really? This is why I asked you in my previous post whether you are knowledgeable about the role nirvikalpa pratyaksha plays in perception.

(c) that the shrutis do not postulate the existence of an entity without attributes?

We will leave this aside for now. Sruthi can be interpreted in atleast 6 different orthodox astika ways whether you like it or not.

[philosoraptor]

Namaste.

Will Patanjali do?

Aum Namah Shivaya

pranams,

Wouldn't the shrutis do better?

[philosoraptor]

This is putting the cart before the horse.

Do you know the difference between Tatastha Lakshana and Swarupa Lakshana? This is key to understanding spiritually monistic interpretations of Vedanta.

Really? This is why I asked you in my previous post whether you are knowledgeable about the role nirvikalpa pratyaksha plays in perception.

We will leave this aside for now. Sruthi can be interpreted in atleast 6 different orthodox astika ways whether you like it or not.

By answering my questions with questions, you must realize that you are not answering my questions at all.

If it's your view that a thing can have qualities and not have qualities, that a thing can exist and have no attributes, etc, then you are defending an indefensible position.

As far as how shruti can be interpreted, your statements seem to be more in line with the indology community which agrees that there is no objective, underlying, unifying message of the Veda. That the Veda has been historically interpreted in multiple ways is not the same thing as saying that it can be interpreted in multiple ways. If that were the case, then the commentators would not have spent so much time refuting each other's conclusions.

Like shiv somashekhar, you are proceeding from the assumption that I am discussing a conclusion acceptable to all or most Hindus. I am not. I am discussing the conclusions of the shruti in the grand tradition of vedAnta, which, contrary to popular belief, does not hold that we should avoid asserting an objective truth to the shruti as you seem to be suggesting. Merely telling me that someone has a different interpretation is not going to convince anyone of anything. You have to be prepared to discuss the shruti and its interpretation, and how those other interpretations (s) are better or at least equally viable.

[Sahasranama]

This idea that there are 6 different orthodox ways of interpreting the Veda was popularised by Max Muller. The importance of the six darshanas in Vedic interpretation has been blown out of proportion by indologists.

[shiv.somashekhar]

pranams,

Wouldn't the shrutis do better?

Not always the case or else we would not need other pramanas at all. Yoga has other pramanas too, besides Shruti. Also, they claim to be compliant with Shruti and therefore quotes from Patanjali should be in good standing.

At the least, it establishes the fact that there are varied opinions on the subject. Anything beyond this would be inter-tradition polemics.

[shiv.somashekhar]

That the Veda has been historically interpreted in multiple ways is not the same thing as saying that it can be interpreted in multiple ways. If that were the case, then the commentators would not have spent so much time refuting each other's conclusions.

That is correct. However, the point I was making is there do exist multiple interpretations and you are agreeing with this. This being a general purpose discussion forum, you cannot make a blanket statement that Shruti says Brahman is anthropomorphic, without being more specific about which school's interpretation you follow. Else, you are claiming there is no contradiction among the various schools which profess to follow Shruti - contradicting your own statement that commentators refute each other.

Merely telling me that someone has a different interpretation is not going to convince anyone of anything. You have to be prepared to discuss the shruti and its interpretation, and how those other interpretations (s) are better or at least equally viable.

The more important point is awareness of the existence of multiple interpretations. I think most people here would be content (and less confused) if they are aware of the fact that there are differences in viewpoint over the same Shruti (which is precisely why we have multiple schools and not just one). As for engaging in polemics to pick out the right one, I suspect most people here are not interested as they have already staked out their positions.

[wundermonk]

By answering my questions with questions, you must realize that you are not answering my questions at all.

That is the wrong conclusion to draw. I was trying a variant of this.

If it's your view that a thing can have qualities and not have qualities, that a thing can exist and have no attributes, etc, then you are defending an indefensible position.

The reason why I entered this thread was because you claimed your position is supported by logic:

A thing cannot be with and without qualities. There is no such thing as an entity without qualities<snip>

The logical fact that (a) a thing cannot have and not have attributes, (b) the fact that a thing without attributes cannot exist,<snip>

I was trying to point out that these positions are NOT supported by logic unless you are willing to commit yourself to a specific philosophical position to begin with. This philosophical position itself may take certain positions as axiomatic. However, a lot of discussions amongst darshanas was regarding which axiomatic positions are valid. As you may or may not be aware - axiomatic statements are considered brute facts. They are taken as given. No other "proof" can be given for these axioms - if they could, these statements would be theorems and not axioms. However, the axiomatic statements of a philosophy need NOT be taken as given and that is the interesting thing about logic. Much as you may dislike the philosophical discourses backed by logic developed by our darshanas and hence your consistent efforts over multiple threads to push these issues under the carpet, the answers to your questions are based on the ideas I mentioned previously (concept of a lakshana, concept of a nirvikalpa pratyaksha, etc.)

As regards sruthi, I do not have an ax to grind against any astika darshana in particular. Different darshanas use different specific verses to support their epistemological/ontological/soteriological pursuit.

Feel free to impose on us your specific interpretation as you like. I will let that go by. This is your thread. I will, however, interrupt when you begin making claims that your position(s) can be established by logic though.

[philosoraptor]

Not always the case or else we would not need other pramanas at all. Yoga has other pramanas too, besides Shruti. Also, they claim to be compliant with Shruti and therefore quotes from Patanjali should be in good standing.

Technically, we don't need other pramANas to establish vedAnta, and I never claimed otherwise. Also, I never claimed that the founders of the sad-darshanas are 100% compliant with shruti.

This discussion needs to be had on the basis of what is in shruti. If one wants to retreat to the opinion of a scholar on the shruti's meaning, then it behooves one to show that this scholar's view does correctly capture the essence of shruti.

At the least, it establishes the fact that there are varied opinions on the subject. Anything beyond this would be inter-tradition polemics.

If getting people to think more deeply about what is in the Veda constitutes an "inter-tradition polemic," then that is what this is.

That is correct. However, the point I was making is there do exist multiple interpretations and you are agreeing with this. This being a general purpose discussion forum, you cannot make a blanket statement that Shruti says Brahman is anthropomorphic, without being more specific about which school's interpretation you follow.

Actually, I can do precisely this, because the shrutis say this multiple times, because it is reasonable and legitimate to discuss the meaning of the shruti, and because I never claimed that all interpretations are valid. Furthermore, you seem to be oblivious to the fact that I quoted translations from the school which I am disagreeing with, not from "sectarian," Vaishnava translators as you may have assumed.

One follows the school of interpretation which seems most consistent with the shruti. I am inviting those who feel otherwise to tell me why the school I "follow," if indeed I am following one, has not correctly understood the shruti, especially since I quoted the translations of the most popular school which they prefer.

Else, you are claiming there is no contradiction among the various schools which profess to follow Shruti - contradicting your own statement that commentators refute each other.

Commentators do refute each other's conclusions, that is true. I never claimed that the the various schools did not contradict each other on some points.

The more important point is awareness of the existence of multiple interpretations. I think most people here would be content (and less confused) if they are aware of the fact that there are differences in viewpoint over the same Shruti (which is precisely why we have multiple schools and not just one). As for engaging in polemics to pick out the right one, I suspect most people here are not interested as they have already staked out their positions.

Most people don't stake out their position based on a dispassionate evaluation of the evidence. They usually pick a view that matches their own personal views, and trust that everything will fall in step. Thus, discussions like these are timely and warranted.

That is the wrong conclusion to draw. I was trying a variant of this.

It looked to me like you were evading the question. I still don't think I ever got an answer from you.

The reason why I entered this thread was because you claimed your position is supported by logic:

No, I claimed that it was supported by shruti, which I quoted. I only made the most conservative of extrapolations to illustrate the meanings. If you contest the meanings, you should explain why they actually mean something else, rather than crying foul that one does not accept multiple contradictory interpretations as equally valid.

I was trying to point out that these positions are NOT supported by logic unless you are willing to commit yourself to a specific philosophical position to begin with.

None of which has any bearing on the what the shruti means, and whether you can contest that meaning.

This philosophical position itself may take certain positions as axiomatic.

The only axiom accepted by all vedAnta schools is the apaurusheyatva of the veda.

However, a lot of discussions amongst darshanas was regarding which axiomatic positions are valid. As you may or may not be aware - axiomatic statements are considered brute facts. They are taken as given. No other "proof" can be given for these axioms - if they could, these statements would be theorems and not axioms. However, the axiomatic statements of a philosophy need NOT be taken as given and that is the interesting thing about logic. Much as you may dislike the philosophical discourses backed by logic developed by our darshanas and hence your consistent efforts over multiple threads to push these issues under the carpet, the answers to your questions are based on the ideas I mentioned previously (concept of a lakshana, concept of a nirvikalpa pratyaksha, etc.)

As regards sruthi, I do not have an ax to grind against any astika darshana in particular. Different darshanas use different specific verses to support their epistemological/ontological/soteriological pursuit.

Feel free to impose on us your specific interpretation as you like. I will let that go by. This is your thread. I will, however, interrupt when you begin making claims that your position(s) can be established by logic though.

It sounds to me like you don't want to have this sort of discussion, which is fine. You can accept that "all existing entities must have attributes" is a truth that is self-evident, or you can argue that basic axiomatic truths need to be debated, and that those who advance such positions are somehow closed-minded. I suppose you would similarly argue that the assertion "2+2=4" should not be taken for granted, either. That does not exactly make for a very strong position, but then as you are so fond of reminding us, we shouldn't take any position for fear of disagreeing with someone else's historically accepted position.

regards,

[Omkara]

Do you know the difference between Tatastha Lakshana and Swarupa Lakshana? This is key to understanding spiritually monistic interpretations of Vedanta.

It is ridiculous to say that descriptions of Brahman's attributes are tathastha lakshanas. A tathastha lakshana always references an object OTHER than the object which is the actual subject of the lakshana. If you say that descriptions of Brahman's attributes are tathastha lakshanas, you are in effect saying that those attributes exist separately outside Brahman, and thus you will have to discard your monistic position.

Really? This is why I asked you in my previous post whether you are knowledgeable about the role nirvikalpa pratyaksha plays in perception.

Are YOU knowledgeable about the tatparyalingas, which are rules of scriptural exegesis accepted by all darshanas?
Utsargapavada nyaya, one of the tatparyalingas, states that if a negative statement in scripture contradicts a positive statement in scripture, the negative statement has to be reinterpreted in accordance with the positive statement. Thus statements tat brahman is attributeless have to be reinterpreted in accordance with the positive statements that He has attributes.

Nirvikalpa pratyaksha cannot be used as proof of attributelessness or nonduality. People from all sects of hinduism and several sects of Buddhism have all claimed to have experienced nirvikalpa samadhi, and eaxh sect has a different explanatikn of what actually occurs in that state.

[Omkara]

Namaste.

Will Patanjali do?

Aum Namah Shivaya

Patanjali was a dualist who beleived in a personal God. His sect's interpretation of Nirvikalpa Samadhi is likewise dualistic. I don't see how you can quote him in support of your views.