|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dressed in each adhikarana cumulatively imply a fuller Advaita narrative of the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thus, for example, the following specific arguments all contribute to the overall defense of the Advaita narrative as it moves through "local" arguments toward a complete accounting for its world: the debate with Mimamsa opponents in UMS I.1.4 over the necessity of ritual action; the exposition and defense of the preexistence of effects in their cause in UMS II.1.14; the issue of theodicy in UMS II.1.34-36 and in UMS III.2.37-41; the partial defense and then rebuttal of the notion of agency in UMS II.3.41-42. Inevitably, these claims imply something about competing worldviewsnot by stepping outside Advaita's Textual framework, but because their articulation includes the inscription of those competitors within the scripturally ordered and exegetically regulated worldview that Advaita develops. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Two texts are particularly helpful in showing us the characteristic Advaita way of anticipating objections and defending itself against competing worldviews. First, UMS II.1.1-11 defends Advaita's explanation of the world as derived from Brahman by showing it to be "less unreasonable" than the competing Samkhya view. Second, within UMS II.2, the pada in which various competing positions are organized, inscribed and described as deficient within an Advaita narrative of the world, UMS II.2.1-10 illustrates how even "argumentation by reason alone" occurs only within an upanisadic framework. Let us now consider each in turn. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1. UMS II.1.4-11: The Relative Reasonableness of the Advaita Position
56 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In UMS II.1 and II.2 Advaita defends the view that Brahman is both the material and efficient cause of the world. The goal of UMS II.1 is to show that though derived solely from the upanisads, this position is consonant with tradition (UMS II.1.13) and reason (UMS II.1.4-11). UMS II.1 does not attempt to reproduce the scripturally achieved results by reason alone, but only to show the conformity of right reasoning, exercised by a right person, to the right reading of the upanisads. As such, it has a specific function to perform in the overall "plot" of the |
|
|
|
|
|