Amidst a painful noisy environment thanks to college kids, got back to what gives me peace and sanity.
Writing a piece on why mAyA as propounded by Shankara and so on, is untenable, from logical grounds.
The lynchpin so to speak, that Shankara employs to derive an ephemeral nature the world, rests on the ontological stature of the said mAyA/avidyA.
The former, being a positive aspect so to speak and the latter, negative in its nature from the perception of individuals.
The two however share an ontological stature of being aside the dichotomous true false natures, says Shankara.
Venkatanatha, drawing religiously from Ramanuja and the rest before him, decries the untenable ontological category of an absolute non-true, non-false or a beyond true and false.
Most of Venkatanatha (and Ramanuja's primary rebuttal/rejection in Sribhashya) stem out of the practical implications of this ontology and how it plays into the cosmogony if one may. And that makes it tge central point of any systematic rejection of Shankara's philosophical expositions.
Subscribe to As we go passing
Get the latest posts delivered right to your inbox