On PramaaNa

August 19, 2004

--- toviraj <toviraj wrote:

> Sadaji,

> Pranams, need more clarification on shastra pramanam to understand

> this post,

Shree viraj

PramaaNa is related to an epistemological issues and best reference from

Advaita point of view is Vedanta Paribhaasha by Dharmaraja Advariindra.

Michael has done extensive study of this and he may be in a better

position to answer many of the questions related to pramaaNa in the

Advaita doctrine.

I will state some of my understanding here.

Pramaa means knowledge and pramaaNa is the means of knowledge -

pramaakaranam pramaanam - that by which knowledge is gained is

pramaanam. this is just an obvious definition -or a basic definition.

Advaita Vedanta s like tarkika-s to six pramaaNa-s. For

simplicity we can consider three - pratyaksha, anumaana and shabda.

Perceptual knowledge is pratyaksha - anumaana is deductive knowledge -

the deduction is based on what is known as vyaapti jnaanam or

concomitant relation between cause and effect or hetu and saadhya. That

concomitant relation is again supported by pratyaksha. Hence anumaana

indirectly depends on pratyaksha for its support.

Shabda becomes a pramaaNa when pratyaksha and anumaaana cannot provide

that knowledge. Example - is there a heaven or hell. They cannot be

established by perceptual knowledge (pratyaksha) or by logic (anumaana).

Hence scripture is the pramaaNa or means of knowledge to know that there

is heaven or hell. This obviously calls for a belief or faith in the

scriptures for it to act as pramaaNa. For instance the statements of

mahaavaakyaa-s are shabhda or shaastra pramaaNa. I do not need logic if

I can directly see the fire on the distant hill - hence logic comes only

as pramaaNa if pratyaksha fails or does not give concluding knowledge.

Similarly I do not need shaastra if what is pramaa or knowledge that is

provided can be directly established by pratyaksha or anumaana. The case

in point is - tat tvam asi which dvaitins take it as atat tvam asi -

meaning 'you are not that'. I do not need shaastra to tell me that I am

not that since it has been everybody's experience all along - that I am

limited and I am ignorant and I am mortal - and how I can be that which

is eternal, immutable and infinite. Hence Shasta here becomes a

pramaaNa since it providing knowledge different from what I experience

through senses etc. Just as shaastra or science is a pramaaNa to tell

me contrary to what I experience that the sun neither raises nor sets.

Any pramaaNa has to be anaadigata - that which cannot be established by

any other means - which I mentioned in my post as a part of the

definition of pramaaNa.

Pramaa is knowledge - now if one goes into deeper analysis - it is

impossible to define what is 'knowledge'? What we define as knowledge is

not knowledge but only 'knowledge of..' So we take knowledge of .. as

knowledge itself. Here exists a fundamental problem if one thinks

deeply. In his series Chittaranjanji has discussed some aspects of it

from his understanding. We have in the scriptures a student asking a

teacher – Bhagavaan, please teach me that, knowing which I know

everything- kasminno bhagao vijnyaate sarvam idam vijnyaatam bhavati?' -

Since the universe is infinite with infinite things, knowledge of ...

everything is impossible. Our experience has been in any objective

knowledge the field of specialization becomes narrower and narrower and

so one knows more and more about less and less. The question that the

seeker is asking is therefore not an objective knowledge but that

knowledge by knowing which everything is known. Hence the student is

after the knowledge of Brahman. But Brahman being infinite, one cannot

know Brahman either -Hence it cannot be of the type knowledge of ... It

is the knowledge itself, which as I said cannot be defined. For that

only shaastra becomes a pramaaNa since perception and anumaana fail.

That knowledge cannot be negated or sublated either. The way the

shaastra presents that knowledge is by using words that take one beyond

the words – through implication. Hence one has to have right frame of

mind to see what Scripture says – hence purity of the mind or saadhana

is important. This Is what Shankara discusses as – four-fold

qualifications of the student in his commentary on the first

Brahmasuutra-s. dhaanenaamtni pastyanti kaschit aatmanaam aatmanaa –

says Krishna. One sees oneself by oneself through contemplation and

meditation on oneself. In the process of knowledge of oneself

(non-objective knowledge since it is not really knowledge of ..) one

also knows that the self he is, is the self in all and all in his self.

Hence is not any more ‘knowing of Brahman’ but recognizing that ‘I am

Brahman’ aham brahmaasmi’. Hence scripture declares – knower of Brahman

becomes Brahman – this cannot happen unless the knower and the known as

one and the same – all the dvaita or duality sublates in that knowledge

of oneself as total self. Hence Scripture alone is the pramaaNa for

this – and that knowledge cannot be sublated – it is abaadhitam – Hence

I said it is trikaala abhaadhitam and hence knowledge of real reality.

I have just provided some preliminary thoughts to think about. There

are many books available discussing these aspects. I recommend a close

study of these if one is interested.

A flood of information has been provided in the past one and half months

by many discussors. As prof. VK suggested, it is time to sit back and

contemplate on these flood of ides to gain the depth of understanding

that subject demands. Most of the questions gets resolved if one

contemplates on those deeply. I intend to follow Prof. Vk suggeston to

sit back and study for the next few weeks.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

August 20, 2004

Hence scripture declares ? knower of Brahman becomes Brahman ? this cannot

happen unless the knower and the known as one and the same ? all the dvaita

or duality sublates in that knowledge of oneself as total self. Hence

Scripture alone is the pramaaNa for

this ? and that knowledge cannot be sublated ? it is abaadhitam ? Hence I

said it is trikaala abhaadhitam and hence knowledge of real reality.

praNAm Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Very well said prabhuji. knower & known distinction should not be there

whatsoever in paramArtha. *knowing* paramAtman (brahman) as world by

sitting in *knower* position thinking he himself is also brahman is the

position of bhatruprapancha. Shankara refuted this theory in

brahadAraNyaka's khilakanda bhAshya. That is why shankara says in gIta

bhAshya the final pramANa indeed removes the very notion of knowership of

Atman. We can see the same opinion of shankara when he is commenting on

paNcha kOsha prakriya in taitirIya upanishad making clear distinction

between our Ananda svaruPa & vijnAnamaya & Anandamaya Atman of pancha

kOSha-s. And in sUtra bhAshya at the end of samanvaya adhikaraNa bhAshya

shankara says *the empirical means of knowledge considered to be valid upto

the time of determination of the real self* (laukikam tadvdevEdaM pramANam

tvAtmanishchayat). BruhadAraNyaka shruti says for jnAni when he is one

without second how can he see with what?? how could one speak with what??

etc.etc. So, here shankara's commentary on prasthAna traya & shruti itself

telling us there is no duality whatsoever in *that* (nEha nAnasti

kiNchana).

Further, unlike others, shankara makes a very brave statement that shruti

siddhAnta should be in line with our universal experience (sArvatrika

pUrNAnubhava) also. while commenting on the very second sUtra of brahma

sUtra shankara categorically says shruti-s alone are not the means of

knowledge in the case of brahma jignAsa but intuitive realisation also to

be considered as valid means. shAstra-s are jnApaka & it is not kAraya.

The truth embedded in shruti should comply with our intuitive realisation

which is based on anubhava (anubhavasAnatvAt). Hence gaudapAda, Sri

shankara & those who know the *sampradAya* brought in avasthA traya which

is purely based on *sarvatrika anubhava* to teach us the ever witnessing

nature of Atman.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

August 20, 2004

Namaste,

The Knower of Lion does not become lion.

But, the knower of Brahman "Becomes" Brahman.

The Lion is diffrerent from the knower of the Lion, but Atma or the Self is not

only the knower, but also the known and the knowledge. There is no becoming

although it is said the knower of Brahman becomes Brahman. he ignorance of this

fact gets removed .

Regards

bhaskar.yr wrote:

Hence scripture declares ? knower of Brahman becomes Brahman ? this cannot

happen unless the knower and the known as one and the same ? all the dvaita

advaitin/

advaitin

Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

August 20, 2004

praNAms Mani prabhuji

Hare Krishna

The Knower of Lion does not become lion.

bhaskar :

Yes, advaita does not say that, it is dualists who gives this

interpretation when we (advaitins) say brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati:-)) sage

vAmadEva's realisation does not make him another glittering star like sun

:-)) Those who attribute realisation to dehAdhi nAma rUpa upAdhi can say

like this.

Mani prabhuji:

But, the knower of Brahman "Becomes" Brahman.

bhaskar :

yes, but this *becoming* is nothing intuitive knowledge of ever existing

nature of his svarUpa which is devoid of nAma rUpAdhi bhEda.

Mani prabhuji :

The Lion is diffrerent from the knower of the Lion, but Atma or the Self is

not only the knower, but also the known and the knowledge.

bhaskar :

Atman is sAkshi to knower (the vijnAna Atman/jnAtru), known (jnEya) &

knowledge (jnAna) tripad. In HIS presence only avidyAkruta kartrutva,

bhOktrutva, pramAtrutvAdi vyavahAra happens...But our svarUpa never ever

get tainted by this avidyA vyavahAra. anvEshtavyAtmavijnAnAt prAk

pramAtrutvamAtmanaH! anivishtaH syAt pramAtaiva pApmadOshAdhi varjitaH!!

says shankara in sUtra bhAshya. After the dawn of knowledge jnAni

realises that pramAtrutva is mere adhyasta & his true nature is nitya

shuddha buddha mukta Ananda svarUpa.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

There is no becoming although it is said the knower of Brahman becomes

Brahman. he ignorance of this fact gets removed .

August 20, 2004

--- bhaskar.yr wrote:

Baskarji - pranaams and thanks for your comments the post 'on PramaaNa'.

I agree with the contents of your post. But I am providing further

clarifications on my part in view of your comments before I go into

silence.

> Shankara refuted this theory in

> brahadAraNyaka's khilakanda bhAshya. That is why shankara says in gIta

> bhAshya the final pramANa indeed removes the very notion of knowership

> of

> Atman.

Yes like kartrutva bhaava, jnatrutva bhaava is also due to adhyaasa. It

is not something to know, it is something to be. Also, one does not

become Brahman either since finite cannot become infinite. It is

recognition of ones own nature that one is infinite already even when

one has the notion that one is finite.

> BruhadAraNyaka shruti says for jnAni when he is

> one

> without second how can he see with what?? how could one speak with

> what??

> etc.etc. So, here shankara's commentary on prasthAna traya & shruti

> itself

> telling us there is no duality whatsoever in *that* (nEha nAnasti

> kiNchana).

Just one note. From the jnaani's point he does not see or hear or do

etc., since he is all in all. Yet seeing, hearing, doing etc goes on in

his presence - prakRiti eva ca karmaani kriyamaanaani sarvaShaH| yas

pasyati tadaatmaaanam akartaarama sa pasyati| PrakRiti does all the

actions one who sees that he is not a doer really sees (understands.

Duality can exist at the vyaavahaarika level even for jnaani while he

has no more notions that he is the seer or knower or performer etc.

That is what jiivan mukta state is. All actions - actor, acting and

object of action are all in him. Duality what so ever is not there from

paaramaarthika state - Duality can be there at vyavahaarika level while

he has no more misunderstanding that the duality is reality.

>

> Further, unlike others, shankara makes a very brave statement that

> shruti

> siddhAnta should be in line with our universal experience (sArvatrika

> pUrNAnubhava) also. while commenting on the very second sUtra of

> brahma

> sUtra shankara categorically says shruti-s alone are not the means of

> knowledge in the case of brahma jignAsa but intuitive realisation also

> to

> be considered as valid means. shAstra-s are jnApaka & it is not

> kAraya.

> The truth embedded in shruti should comply with our intuitive

> realisation

> which is based on anubhava (anubhavasAnatvAt).

Baskarji - I will put the statement other way. Since truth is

aprameyam, shaastra-s are never a kaarya for realization either. It is

pramaaNa in the sense that by shravaNa, manana and nidhidyaasana, along

the lines implied by shaastra pramaaNa one realizes oneself - dhyaanena

aatmani pasyanti ...

On the same token one can realize through anubhava but it cannot become

a pramaaNa. Shaastra pramaaNa provides an independent or non-subjective

means to confirm the personal anubhava. So to put your statement

another way the anubhava should comply the shaastra rather than other

way around. Otherwise every Tom, Dick and Harry's (or we can say every

devadaata's, somadatta's or yajnadatta's anubhava) becomes a pramaaNa.

> Hence gaudapAda, Sri

> shankara & those who know the *sampradAya* brought in avasthA traya

> which

> is purely based on *sarvatrika anubhava* to teach us the ever

> witnessing

> nature of Atman.

Yes by bringing sampradaaya, for which shastra forms a basis (shotriya),

shaastra is given the highest state as pramaaNa. A right teacher or

sampradaaya teacher is one who directs his disciple to shaastra and not

to himself or his anubhava as pramaaNa, since anubhava is always

subjective. Shraddhaavan labhate jnaanam - and shraddhaa is shaastrasya

guru vaakyasya satya budhhaavadhaarana, saa shraddhaa. Clear

understanding that the words of the teacher and the scriptures (as

interpreted by the teacher) are indeed true - is the shraddhaa. Hence

although shabda pramaaNa includes the aapta vaakya, in the spirituality,

shaastra alone are pramaaNa for not only for indication the nature of

reality through teaching but also confirmation of ones own knowledge or

anubhava of the state supreme.

Now the silence.

Hari OM!

Sadananda

>

> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

> bhaskar

>

=====

What you have is destiny and what you do with what you have is self-effort.

Future destiny is post destiny modified by your present action. You are not only

the prisoner of your past but master of your future. - Swami Chinmayananda

August 23, 2004

praNAm Sri Sadananda prabhuji

Hare Krishna

Sada prabhuji:

I agree with the contents of your post. But I am providing further

clarifications on my part in view of your comments before I go into

silence.

bhaskar :

prabhuji, kindly clarify whether this silence is applicable for all the on

going topics?? or this silence imposed on this month's main topic

*real-unreal*?? Moderators pls. clarify.