Brahmasutra refutations

[dhaval patel]

Dear members,

While having a discourse with a swami ji, we were in a process of agreeing to a common determiner (a common text which is agreeable to both). He suggested that brahmasutra is a text where both of us should agree, as there is no refutation of brahmasutras by any of the five darshanas.

Now the questions for me is

1. "Are there any refutation of brahmasUtra by five other darshanas?"

2. "Are there any refutation of brahmasUtras by other darshanas?"

3. If any of the above is correct, what are the resources which I should explore.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

The Vedanta Sutras ascribed to Badarayana is for Vedanta school of thought. Brahma Sutra is agreeable only to Vedanta Scholl of thought. No other Darshanas consider Vedanta sutras in that sense all other Darshanas reject Brahma sutras including Buddhists, jina etc. When Vedanta is refuted by other Darshanas Brahma Sutras too stand refuted.

Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sir

Let us expand the consideration set to the entire Sutra-literature. We see that if an opponent (belonging to School B) wants to refute a particular school (let us call it, A), the refutation is done as per the schematic of his own School (B). We also see a tendency to pick and choose. Not everything that the other school (A) holds is disagreeable to the Opponent (of School B). In fact, we see that many Sutras from other Schools are quoted in support! We see this in Sankarabhashya, in Kumarila quoting Vyakarana-sutras etc. Further, the very act of choosing a pratIka to comment upon is a big statement. Only something worthy of expounding is taken up to expound; occasionally a Sutra might be refuted, corrected etc, but in essence, the collection of Sutras is deemed worthy of study by the commentator. Else, he is better off composing his own text.

So, while Brahmasutras are as such not refuted by the other Darsanas, many concepts central to the Brahmasutras are refuted. Purvamimamsa consigns the Brahma-pratipAdaka-vAkyas of Veda to arthavAda, for instance.

That said, I find one aspect curious. When we ask any believer (esp. great scholars), the school to which they belong, it tends to be one or the other sub-school of Vedanta, rather than Mimamsa, Nyaya or Sankhya. Even later Mimamsa writers, say Laugakshi Bhaskara, exhibit distinct Vedantic tendencies in their invocatory and benedictory verses. Vedanta has been described as Vedantakesari (I heard it a long time back, but could not trace it, when I wanted to do so in a particular instance) in front of whom nobody dares to say anything. If this is the meaning of refutation, evidence to the contrary is thin, if at all it is there.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[dhaval patel]

Just to make my side clear,

1. For my purpose, 'refutation' would include refutation by 'anyone anytime' i.e. it may be as modern as yesterday.

2. I am looking for some work / paper / thesis where the (maybe) flaws of 'brahmasUtras' are analyzed. If there are none / insignificant, then also I am happy to accept the fact. This is just for testing the hypothesis put forward by that Swami ji.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

All Vedanta Texts dealing with brahmas sutras their Commentaries sub commentaries and independent texts deals with refutation and analysis of Brahma sutras from modern books to books of yester years. I am not clear what is the Swamijis hypothesis. One may accept Brahma Sutra as per existing interpretations or can make an new one.

Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

There is a book, maybe of the 17th CE, named 'vyāsa tātparya nirṇayaḥ' by Sri Ayyanna Dikṣitaḥ.  In that book the thesis is: That alone is Vyāsa's (Bādarāyaṇa's) tātparya which the non-Vedāntic darshanas have taken upon as pūrvapakṣa of Vedānta. That way, the author shows how all the non-Vedāntic darshanas have taken up only the kevalādvaita of Vedānta as their purvapaksha of Vedanta darshana.  In other words, the author says for all the non-vedantic schools, it is only kevalādvaita that constitutes the Vedanta darshana. He quotes from those darshanas to substantiate his point. This is a very short book, in Sanskrit, available in Bangalore.

regards

subrahmanian.v   

[dhaval patel]

On 6 Sep 2016 18:06, "Ajit Gargeshwari" <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All Vedanta Texts dealing with brahmas sutras their Commentaries sub commentaries and independent texts deals with refutation and analysis of Brahma sutras from modern books to books of yester years.

I am looking for refutation of brahmasUtras by scholars of rest of 5 darshanas or other darshanas.

>I am not clear what is the Swamijis hypothesis.

His statement is - there has been no  refutation of brahmasUtras by any scholar till now. I am searching resources to confirm whether this is true or not.

>One may accept Brahma Sutra as per existing interpretations or can make an new one.

It is not about interpretations of brahmasUtras. It is about there being no refutation of brahmasUtras. Alternate (and often contradictory) interpretations of brahmasUtras is not under consideration yet.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Unless we know the full context of the discussion of Dr Dhaval Patelji with the Swamiji, we may not be able to understand the intent of his statement.

Possibility1 : When people speak of differences among different schools of Vedanta, one can justifiably respond by saying the different schools of Vedanta are just different interpretations of Brahma Sutras and none of them refutes Brahma Sutras.

Possibility 2: When people speak of refutations  of Brahma Sutras by scholars of other Dars'anas , one can justifiably respond by saying that these refutations are directed  at a certain school of interpretation of Brahma Sutras, not directed at the Sutras themselves.

Possibility 3: When people speak of criticisms of Brahma Sutras by modern scholars on socio-political grounds, one can justifiably say that taking a contrary ideological position to the content of one or many of the Sutras does not amount to disproving the validity of the content of a Sutra.

It could have as well been a general non-polemical expression of admiration of one's favourite book .

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 8:16 PM, dhaval patel <drdhav...@gmail.com> wrote:

On 6 Sep 2016 18:06, "Ajit Gargeshwari" <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All Vedanta Texts dealing with brahmas sutras their Commentaries sub commentaries and independent texts deals with refutation and analysis of Brahma sutras from modern books to books of yester years.

I am looking for refutation of brahmasUtras by scholars of rest of 5 darshanas or other darshanas.

>I am not clear what is the Swamijis hypothesis.

His statement is - there has been no  refutation of brahmasUtras by any scholar till now. I am searching resources to confirm whether this is true or not.

>One may accept Brahma Sutra as per existing interpretations or can make an new one.

It is not about interpretations of brahmasUtras. It is about there being no refutation of brahmasUtras. Alternate (and often contradictory) interpretations of brahmasUtras is not under consideration yet.

>
> Regards
>
> Ajit Gargeshwari
>
>  
>
> From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvparishat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of dhaval patel
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 6:01 PM
> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Brahmasutra refutations
>
>  
>
> Just to make my side clear,
>
> 1. For my purpose, 'refutation' would include refutation by 'anyone anytime' i.e. it may be as modern as yesterday.
>
> 2. I am looking for some work / paper / thesis where the (maybe) flaws of 'brahmasUtras' are analyzed. If there are none / insignificant, then also I am happy to accept the fact. This is just for testing the hypothesis put forward by that Swami ji.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

> To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

His statement is - there has been no  refutation of brahmasUtras by any scholar till now. I am searching resources to confirm whether this is true or not.

Every interpreter of Brahma Sutra Bhashya says this. There are several hundred commentators on Brahma Sutra. So Swamji view is another view.

I am looking for refutation of brahmasUtras by scholars of rest of 5 darshanas or other darshanas.

Yoga Sankhya Buddhists Jains etc have their own sutra or sutra texts. They don’t look into Brahma sutras. They do so only if needed to support their system.

 

Yoga sutras, Sankhya Mimamsa, or Nyaya sutras has not been completely refuted till now. No system of thought or Darshanas or their sutras has been completely discarded or has been refuted in totality. Parts have been accepted parts have been discarded and parts have been commented by non vedantic and vedantic schools of thought or Darsanas. Hence context and a clear statement of Swami jis hypothesis is needed for scholars to comment further.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear friends,

Pedagogically one may have to speak a lot on Advaita Vedanta, but at the scholarly level, when at all it is required, what one needs to remind the other scholars is that, for the advaitin, there is only one permanent entity, the Brahman and nothing else, i.e.,as the upanishad says :."sarvam khalvidam Brahma". One may add to that the Ajativada verse (i.e., the verse of non-creation), which  Gaudapada included in his Mandukya karika, but the verse belongs originally to the original Bhagavad Gita of 745 verses. That according to Shankara is Vedanta. Shankara wrote his bhashya on the vulgate version of the Bhagavad Gita of 700 verses, but it does not mean that Shankara was not aware of the original source and the meaning of the Ajativada verse. It appears that the other Dvaita and the Vishishtadvaita scholars were so busy in refuting the works of Shankara, that they either did not have the access to or the inclination to read  the Ajativada verse and the doctrine. To my mind, had Shankara been alive today, he would have objected  to the use of the term "Vedanta" for  any other form of Vedanta, which talks about individual existence as separate from Brahman (Dvaita) or individual existence both as separate and as non-separate from Brahman (Vishishtadvaita).

Regards,

Sunil KB

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 9:40 PM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Yoga sutras, Sankhya Mimamsa, or Nyaya sutras has not been completely refuted till now. No system of thought or Darshanas or their sutras has been completely discarded or has been refuted in totality. Parts have been accepted parts have been discarded and parts have been commented by non vedantic and vedantic schools of thought or Darsanas.

परमतमप्रतिषिद्धम् अनुमतं भवति  । That which is not contradictory to us in other disciplines is admissible.  Shankara says this in the Sutra bhashya 2.4.12::

एवं तर्हि ‘परमतमप्रतिषिद्धमनुमतं भवति’ इति न्यायात् इहापि योगशास्त्रप्रसिद्धा मनसः पञ्च वृत्तयः परिगृह्यन्ते — ‘प्रमाणविपर्ययविकल्पनिद्रास्मृतयः’ (पा. यो. सू. १-१-६) नाम ।

subrahmanian.v

 

Hence context and a clear statement of Swami jis hypothesis is needed for scholars to comment further.

 

Regards

Ajit Gargeshwari

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvparishat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of dhaval patel
Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 8:16 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Brahmasutra refutations

 

On 6 Sep 2016 18:06, "Ajit Gargeshwari" <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All Vedanta Texts dealing with brahmas sutras their Commentaries sub commentaries and independent texts deals with refutation and analysis of Brahma sutras from modern books to books of yester years.

I am looking for refutation of brahmasUtras by scholars of rest of 5 darshanas or other darshanas.

>I am not clear what is the Swamijis hypothesis.

His statement is - there has been no  refutation of brahmasUtras by any scholar till now. I am searching resources to confirm whether this is true or not.

>One may accept Brahma Sutra as per existing interpretations or can make an new one.

It is not about interpretations of brahmasUtras. It is about there being no refutation of brahmasUtras. Alternate (and often contradictory) interpretations of brahmasUtras is not under consideration yet.

>
> Regards
>
> Ajit Gargeshwari
>
>  
>
> From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvparishat@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of dhaval patel
> Sent: Tuesday, September 6, 2016 6:01 PM
> To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Brahmasutra refutations
>
>  
>
> Just to make my side clear,
>
> 1. For my purpose, 'refutation' would include refutation by 'anyone anytime' i.e. it may be as modern as yesterday.
>
> 2. I am looking for some work / paper / thesis where the (maybe) flaws of 'brahmasUtras' are analyzed. If there are none / insignificant, then also I am happy to accept the fact. This is just for testing the hypothesis put forward by that Swami ji.
>
> --

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Jsr Prasad]

Vedanta has been described as Vedantakesari (I heard it a long time back, but could not trace it, when I wanted to do so in a particular instance) in front of whom nobody dares to say anything.

तावद्गर्जन्ति शास्त्राणि जम्बुका विपिने यथा ।
न गर्जति महातेजः यावद्वेदान्तकेसरी ।।

sent from my Motorola phone

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Yes, that is so because al are correct for their  levels of jijnasha. Shankara meant it but as I understand, Ramakrishna Paramhansa said it very explicitly.

Regards,

Sunil KB

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Jsr Prasad]

> परमतमप्रतिषिद्धम् अनुमतं भवति  । That which is not contradictory to us in other disciplines is admissible.  Shankara says this in the Sutra bhashya 2.4.12::
>

Anumatam is one of the 32/36 tantra yuktis in Arthashstra and Ayurveda, respectively. It is also part of 28 tantra yuktis in Vishnu-dharmottara-apurana.

[dhaval patel]

Thank you very much for everyone's response in this thread. After reading responses of scholars here and searching this online, there are not many books or researches which come up. Now I also feel that there is no significant refutation of brahmasUtras by followers of other philosophies.
I am open to corrections.

Thanks,

[Sivasenani Nori]

​Sir

Thank you very much.

I wonder if the learned members know the source of this verse or similarly worded​

 

​ones.

Regards

N. Siva Senani​