|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ing alternatives, since their doctrines contradict the upanisads. But "from the upanisadic point of view, one cannot even dream that there is no liberation, because here [in the Advaitic reading of the upanisads] it is known certainly that the self is one, that the one cannot be both subject and object, and that all the different modifications are mentioned in the upanisads to be based on mere speech." (UMS II.2.10)
75 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Such argumentation is a reasonable discourse voiced by and for those who are educated in the upanisads, and it may impress the believer, as it is intended to do; but others, who are not the intended readers of the Text, will surely find this appeal to the upanisads not quite a demonstration based on reason alone. They may come to accept it, but only if they first submit themselves to the upanisadsas these are properly read in Advaita. Reason is not decisive. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reasonable argumentation occurs in Advaita, and outsiders to the Advaita tradition need not abandon the prospect of reasonable inquiry; but this reasoning occurs only deep within the UMS Text, deep within Advaita's textual progress toward a right understanding of the world as a soteriologically attuned whole. In UMS II.2 one learns more about Advaita's informed reasoning, not about reason itself, nor about which of the described positions might turn out to be correct on the basis of rational scrutiny alone. To excerpt UMS II.2 (or any part of it) for separate consideration may be a tempting shortcut into Advaita, but it is an ultimately misleading exercise that fails to enlighten. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Truth, Text And Reader |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the preceding pages I have described several basic methods by which Advaita articulates its real truth claims: i. the double discourse about Brahman with qualities and without qualities, and the intrusive and paradoxical great sayings, as two strategies by which the reader is forced constantly to reread the Text, and so realize a truth that cannot be stated, even in the Text; ii. the permanently exegetical genealogy of doctrine of Brahman; iii. the accompanying decomposition of competing posi- |
|
|
|
|
|