|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
all beings, and above all the worlds, is this same light that within a human being.'' [Chandogya Upanisad 3.13.7] With regard to this the doubt arises: Does the "light" here refer to the light of the sun, etc., or does it mean the supreme self? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I.1.28 [Sankara cites a series of passages from the Kausitaki Upanisad, which refer to the prana ("vital breath"), and says,] With regard to this (prana) the doubt arises: Is it merely vital breath that is signified here by the word "prana," or is it some divine self, or an individual human being, or the supreme Brahman? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As developed in commentary, an adhikarana responds to the initial, exegetically framed question by distinguishing and exploring its full set of ramifications. It elaborates the initial doubt which is to be explored in all its logical and rhetorical possibilities, and follows through on the set of positions, counter-positions, distinctions, refinements and conclusions, all of which together constitute the adhikarana. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Adhikaranas traditionally include these five moments: i. a topic (visaya),usually defined by reference to a problematic text; ii. a doubt (samdeha)is usually expressed as an either/or, recognizing two ostensibly possible courses of interpretation; iii. the first, adversarial position (parvapaksa) will be eventually supersededthough only after being thoroughly understoodand is usually portrayed as involving a misreading of the text in question; iv. a consequent position (uttarapaksa) which responds to the objection (purvapaksa)with a correction that at least partially rectifies the adversarial position; v. the "final, proven" position (siddhanta), a conclusion that resolves the initial doubt. The siddhanta, as the accomplished, last position, is only that: it is the argued, defended conclusion to the ongoing debate, final because nothing more can be saidfor now. The last voice in a debate, it is for now the best conclusion to appeal to in further discussions; it remains vulnerable, because it is the best answerthus far. In theory, any siddhanta can be reduced to the status of an uttarapaksa, or shown to be a purvapaksa. Moreover, the siddhanta never stands independent of the argumentation that |
|
|
|
|
|