sastras vs pratyaksha

[Guest guest]

I read in a Madhwa book that according both Madhwas and Sankara,

sastric statements cannot be accpeted if it contradicts pratyaksha.

Madhwas say that if sastras say that "fire is cold", we cannot accept

it. They can discount statements of unity on that ground -)

 

My understanding of Sankara is that sastras dont contradict practical

experience - at least in the absolute realm. But when dealing with the

relative sphere, they may contradict one another or experience.

 

If sastras contradict practical experience, what do gaudiyas accept as

pramana?

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram>

wrote:

> I read in a Madhwa book that according both Madhwas and Sankara,

> sastric statements cannot be accpeted if it contradicts

pratyaksha.

> Madhwas say that if sastras say that "fire is cold", we cannot

accept

> it. They can discount statements of unity on that ground -)

>

> My understanding of Sankara is that sastras dont contradict

practical

> experience - at least in the absolute realm. But when dealing with

the

> relative sphere, they may contradict one another or experience.

>

> If sastras contradict practical experience, what do gaudiyas

accept as

> pramana?

 

It's actually a little more complicated than that. The Maadhva view

(as I understand it) is that shruti-shaastras do not contradict

pratyaksha/anumaan, period. Consequently, if a literal

interpretation of shruti is found to contradict pratyaksha/anumaan,

then this interpretation must be discarded as incorrect, and another

interpretation that is faithful to the shruti and also to

pratyaksaha/anumaan must be selected as correct. In other words,

they are not rejecting the shruti, but rather they are rejecting

certain interpretations that are not consistent with all modes of

evidence in favor of other interpretations that are consistent with

(or at least not contradicted by) all three sources of knowledge.

 

To the best of my knowledge, all Vaishnava Vedantins follow this

standard of interpretation, whether they admit it or not. I know for

a fact that Raamaanuja has written something to this effect in Sri

Bhaashya, a fact which I once discussed with the bhakti list

moderator some years ago. I don't remember offhand if Baladeva

Vidyaabhuushana admits to following it (my books are packed up in

anticipation of a big move, I won't have them unpacked for at least

another month). But chances are he probably does follow Madhva's

standard, since extreme literalism in defiance of

pratyaksha/anumaana is traditionally felt by Vaishnavas to lend

itself more to Advaita.

 

K

[Guest guest]

I'd like to pipe in, in addition to what Susarla prabhu said:

 

Madhvacarya had a proviso along with his assertion of the validity

of pratyaksha, which is often left out in discussion. The pre-

condition is that valid pratyaksha pramANa is produced by the

contact of "flawless" sense organs with the appropriate objects. I

quote from the following article, linked here:

http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Feb_2/msg00089.html

 

QUOTE

Pratyaksa or sense perception is defined as the knowledge produced

by the right type of contact (sannikarsa) between "flawless" sense

organs and their appropriate objects.

[...]

The term flawlessness (nirdosatva) applies to every pramana. It

refers to specific conditions under which alone the pramanas become

valid means of knowledge. In the case of pratyaksa, the right kind of

rapprochement between the sense-organs and the obj ect as well as

other conditions of suitable distance, angle of observation,

adequate light and so on are meant to be conveyed by the term

nirdosa. These conditions are applicable to the object, the sense

organs and their contact as well. Perception beco mes faulty through

excessive remoteness, nearness or smallness of objects or of

intervening obstructions or being mixed up with things similar or

through being over shadowed by them. Knowledge, arising when all

these conditions of flawlessness are fulfill ed, is bound to be

true and valid: yathartham.

END QUOTE

 

The Gaudiya position asserting the PRACTICAL primacy of shabda is

not contrary to this, because the 6 defects of living entities and

their jnanendriyas are a fact. So it follows, almost as a corollary

to Madhvacarya's point, that ordinary sense perception cannot be

held above shabda pramANa.

 

One more point:

QUOTE Susarla prabhu:

>But chances are he probably does follow Madhva's

> standard, since extreme literalism in defiance of

> pratyaksha/anumaana is traditionally felt by Vaishnavas to lend

> itself more to Advaita.

END QUOTE

Why does literal interpretation necessarily favour the kevala-

Advaita view? I think it works both ways. In fact, the Advaitins are

notorious for a tendentious interpretation, rejecting disagreeable

shruti as "anuvadaka", and making motivated selections from shruti

(tattvaavedaka and atattvavedaka), etc.

 

As far as I understand, any hermeneutic of Vedanta has to justify

its application of "literal", "oblique" and "figurative" methods of

reading shruti. That application takes us back to initial premises.

This is the circle that causes confusion. Therefore, Madhvacarya's

epistemology makes it clear that human intelligence cannot be an

independent instrument of knowledge...And this also illustrates why

bona fide parampara is of primary importance in deciphering shruti.

 

Hare Krishna.

[Guest guest]

But chances are he probably does follow Madhva's

> standard, since extreme literalism in defiance of

> pratyaksha/anumaana is traditionally felt by Vaishnavas to lend

> itself more to Advaita.

>

> K

 

Sankara establishes advaita through pratyaksha and anumana alone.

Then he does the same by taking recourse to sastras alone saying that

is the best way. Probably that is why vaishnavas feel as you say.

 

According to Ramanuja, sabda rules supreme in matters beyond direct

perception. In matters relating to direct perception, sastras should

be explained so that it tallies with pratyaksha.

 

>From what I understand about Madhwa from you, he believes that

sastras tally with perfect pratyaksha. Even the lord says that and I

am sure Sankara / Ramanuja also agree with that. But when Sankara /

Ramanuja refer to pratyaksha - generally it is in the conditioned

state. I wanted to know what is the position of madhwas and gaudiyas

on value of apara pratyaksha vs sabda.

 

 

Let us say that all schools agree that moon travel is not possible

based ont heir understanding of sastras. And scientists are able to

send people and also show them from earth, how would each school

explain that?

 

Sankaraites would say that correction to sastras should be based on

rules of interpretation laid out in sastras not prompted by

observation. We have to live with the contradiction between

observation and sastras if we are not able to resolve it using

sastras. Ramanujaites would say that sastras should be interpreted

to explain what is observed. How would Madhwas and Gaudiyas explain

it?

[Guest guest]

achintya, "webasura" <rind_19> wrote:

>

> I'd like to pipe in, in addition to what Susarla prabhu said:

>

> Madhvacarya had a proviso along with his assertion of the

validity

> of pratyaksha, which is often left out in discussion. The pre-

> condition is that valid pratyaksha pramANa is produced by the

> contact of "flawless" sense organs with the appropriate objects. I

> quote from the following article, linked here:

> http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Feb_2/msg00089.html

 

This quote is from Jahnava-Nitai dasa's Bhaktivedanta Academy series

of handouts. I like JNd and his generally intellectual approach to

things, but I'm not entirely sure that his summary of some of the

non-Gaudiya acharyas is really faithful to them. In particular, I am

not aware of Madhva himself setting a condition to the effect that

the sense organs must be "flawless." As I understand his philosophy,

the senses are always perfect (albeit limited only to what is

observable within this phenomenal world). As such, when dealing with

a phenomenon of this world, whatever data we can gather from our

senses is appropriate in understanding it, and thus in trying to

select the correct interpretation of shruti.

 

For example, some Advaitins might demand that we "prove" that we are

all individual living entities instead of one, undifferentiated

Brahman. However, for a Tattavaadi, the question would never arise.

The fact of the matter is that we can tell we are individual living

entities with different feelings, different activites, etc. We do

not have consciousness of each other's feelings, and when someone

gets liberation, dies, etc, we do not observe that everyone is

getting liberated, leaving the body, etc at the same time. From this

simple information gathered from the senses and from fairly

conservative inference, we know that we are at this time, individual

living entities and not the same living entity.

 

It is true that pratyaksha requires correct perception - i.e.

incorrectly perceiving something does not count as pratyaksha, thus

making pratyaksha a flawed process. For example, mistaking a rope in

the dark for a snake would not count as pratyaksha, since this

phenomenon occurs due to incorrect deduction based on limited

sensory input. I'm sure Madhva discusses these different pramaanas

in detail in his commentaries; unfortunately my books are packed up

for another 4 weeks.

 

> The Gaudiya position asserting the PRACTICAL primacy of shabda is

> not contrary to this, because the 6 defects of living entities and

> their jnanendriyas are a fact. So it follows, almost as a

corollary

> to Madhvacarya's point, that ordinary sense perception cannot be

> held above shabda pramANa.

 

I think Gaudiyas and Tattvavaadis would say that shabda is above the

other two pramaanas by virtue of having information of phenomena

which are beyond pratyaksha and anumaana. For example, we cannot

conclusively infer that God exists, because by the same process we

could infer the opposite. Thus, we need shabda-pramaana, which is

not limited by pratyaksha/anumaana (because it is apaurusheya) to

tell us of those things.

 

According to this point of view, taking help from pratyaksha to

understand shruti does not make pratyaksha "higher" than shruti in

any sense. Rather, it is acknowledging the fact that some shrutis

can have multiple interpretations (grammatically speaking), and thus

one can sometimes select the correct interpretation by virtue of its

consistency with information gathered from pratyaksha/anumaana.

 

> One more point:

> QUOTE Susarla prabhu:

> >But chances are he probably does follow Madhva's

> > standard, since extreme literalism in defiance of

> > pratyaksha/anumaana is traditionally felt by Vaishnavas to lend

> > itself more to Advaita.

> END QUOTE

> Why does literal interpretation necessarily favour the kevala-

> Advaita view? I think it works both ways. In fact, the Advaitins

are

> notorious for a tendentious interpretation, rejecting disagreeable

> shruti as "anuvadaka", and making motivated selections from shruti

> (tattvaavedaka and atattvavedaka), etc.

 

Correct. I was only referring to isolated instances where Advaitins

emphasize certain so-called abheda shrutis in a very literal

fashion, not taking into account that extreme literalism that flies

in the face of what is known to be true empirically cannot give us

the correct understanding. We often hear so-called abheda shrutis

like "sarva khalu idam brahman" being offered as definitive proof of

Advaita, and yet Vaishnavas use sensory perception and inference to

deduce that the jiivas, material world, etc are not the Supreme

Personality of Godhead. This is one example of how a less literal

meaning is deduced to be the correct understanding, since the

literal meaning leads to an illogical conclusion when considering

what we know from pratyaksha and anumaana (and other shrutis).

 

> As far as I understand, any hermeneutic of Vedanta has to justify

> its application of "literal", "oblique" and "figurative" methods

of

> reading shruti. That application takes us back to initial

premises.

 

The most commonly cited justification is a need to maintain

consistency with the rest of the scipture, as well as consistency

with what is know from other pramaanas. For example, statements

like "Arjuna the tiger" and "the house on the river" might literally

refer to a tiger named Arjuna or a house that (impossibly) sits on a

body of water. Yet through inference we know that the correct

meanings are that Arjuna has tiger-like prowess and that the house

in fact sits on the riverbank.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

>>achintya, "webasura" wrote:

>>

>> I'd like to pipe in, in addition to what Susarla prabhu said:

>>

>> Madhvacarya had a proviso along with his assertion of the validity

>> of pratyaksha, which is often left out in discussion. The pre-

>> condition is that valid pratyaksha pramANa is produced by the

>> contact of "flawless" sense organs with the appropriate objects. I

>> quote from the following article, linked here:

>> http://www.hindunet.org/alt_hindu/1995_Feb_2/msg00089.html

 

>This quote is from Jahnava-Nitai dasa's Bhaktivedanta Academy series

>of handouts. I like JNd and his generally intellectual approach to

>things, but I'm not entirely sure that his summary of some of the

>non-Gaudiya acharyas is really faithful to them. In particular, I am

>not aware of Madhva himself setting a condition to the effect that

>the sense organs must be "flawless."

 

 

 

>From Srila Madhvacharya's Pramana Lakshmana and Brahma-tarka at

http://www.dvaita.org/shaastra/prameya.shtml

 

 

nirdoshhArthendriya sannikarshaH pratyaksham.h |

 

Flawless interaction between a sense-organ and an entity in its domain, is

called pratyaksha.

 

In another context, Sri Madhva has also quoted the Brahma-Tarka statement:

 

vishhayAn.h pratisthitaM hi akshaM pratyakshaM iti kIrtitam.h |

 

A sense-organ that is flawlessly situated upon a subject of its observation, is

known as pratyaksha.

 

 

Gerald Surya

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> A sense-organ that is flawlessly situated upon a subject of its

observation, is known as pratyaksha.

>

 

then what is the perception by flawed sense organs called ?

[Guest guest]

Same. But whether it refers to material or spiritual pratyaksa that have to be

understood from the contexts of the specific text.

 

ARd

 

v_raja_ram <v_raja_ram wrote:

>

> A sense-organ that is flawlessly situated upon a subject of its

observation, is known as pratyaksha.

>

 

then what is the perception by flawed sense organs called ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Achintya Homepage: achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their

authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior

approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of

their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or

spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Visit your group "achintya" on the web.

 

achintya

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shopping

Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Shopping

 

 

[Guest guest]

Humble obeisances. My 2 paisa:

 

I think a better understanding of "flaw" can be had when we

understand the LEVEL at which "perception" actually happens. As per

the Vedic viewpoint -- and also by the latest that modern science

has to offer -- perception of the "external" world is apparently a

purely "internal" process of "REMEMBRANCE" within the mind. Consider

this science article for example:

 

Title: Color Perception Is Not In The Eye Of The Beholder: It's In

The Brain

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/10/051026082313.htm

 

QUOTE: "First-ever images of living human retinas have yielded a

surprise about how we perceive our world. Researchers at the

University of Rochester have found that the number of color-

sensitive cones in the human retina differs dramatically among

people—by up to 40 times—yet people appear to perceive colors the

same way. The findings, on the cover of this week's journal

Neuroscience, strongly suggest that our perception of color is

controlled much more by our brains than by our eyes." UNQUOTE

 

In fact, neuroscience goes further and says that there

is "something" that goes even beyond the physical hardware of the

brain ORGAN. They also speculate that this remembrance is controlled

by a higher, self-serving "will". (From the Vedic metaphysical

perspective this is basic stuff.)

 

Now as far as I can put things together -- Unflawed perception comes

from PURE REMEMBRANCE, which is a property of a purified, spiritual

mind. In Gaudiya Vaishnavism, the goal is not to "annihilate mind",

but to reclaim our *spiritual* mind (and body). The materially

contaminated mind interferes with pure remembrance and causes

distortion (vikAra). Material mind arises from a disorientation. Of

course, the subject is more complex, with concepts like "universal

mind", etc. coming in, but basically this understanding is a

starting point.

 

So to come back to the main point: "Preception" is judged

as "flawed" on the basis of shastra. Our "perception" that does not

agree with an authentic interpretation of shastra is flawed by

definition.

 

To conclude with a quote from Srila Prabhupada that shows how the

actual "perception" is "internal", rather than "external":

 

"There are eight kinds of forms recommended for the devotees to see.

The forms may be made out of sand, clay, wood or stone, they may be

contemplated within the mind or made of jewels, metal or painted

colors, but all the forms are of the same value. It is not that one

who meditates on the form within the mind sees differently from one

who worships the form in the temple. The Supreme Personality of

Godhead is absolute, and there is therefore no difference between

the two..."

 

SB 3.28.18

 

[ Note: I've taken the science and SP quotes from a blog by Madhava

Ghosh prabhu at NV: http://walkingthefenceline.blogspot.com/ ]

 

Hare Krishna,

Carl.

[Guest guest]

> In fact, neuroscience goes further and says that there

> is "something" that goes even beyond the physical hardware of the

> brain ORGAN.

 

The word "gocara," meaning one's range of vision, is based on the traditional

concept that sight actually extends from the eye to whatever object the eye

beholds.

 

Of course, it literally means "grazing cows," because the senses--if left

unconctrolled--are no better than witless animals. In this sense, Bilvamangala

Thakura prayed:

 

svagocare cAraya kiM madIyaM

upekSase gAm apathe vrajantIm |

yad gopa-nAtha kriyate kadAcid

na cetasApi tvayi vRtti-bhaGgah ||

 

"Won't You herd mine too, into Your own cow-pasture? Certainly You see this

cow wandering off the path. After all, how could the 'Lord of the cowherds' ever

even think of losing a cow?"

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, mpt@m... wrote:

> The word "gocara," meaning one's range of vision, is based on the

traditional concept that sight actually extends from the eye to

whatever object the eye beholds.

 

Sure. But I'm suggesting that we understand things in terms of the

whole, rather than in the limited physical sense of "inside"

and "out". For instance, even in basic yogic understanding, the

prANa-sarira extends beyond the sthUla, and the manomaya kosha has

an even greater "reach". So at the physical level, we can talk of

seeing a body that is "outside" our physical bodies, and then we can

talk about the separation between the physical eye organ and the

object, and map physical dimensions of "range", etc. The "range of

vision" is spoken of w.r.t. the PHYSICAL eye organ. But the actual

perception happens by the Internal ('Mind') Organ (antah-karana =

manas-buddhi-citta). The chain of thinking-feeling-willing, which is

central to sense-perception, involves much more than the physical

sense organs, and, apart from Vedic theory, we have contemporary

scientific evidence that the causal chain is directed from the

inside-out (although one level can act and react upon the other).

 

My point is to understand "perception" w.r.t. the interplay of ALL

the relevant elements of material nature. The limited field of

material nature that the individual soul 'enjoys' is a complex of

many elements, as the BG and other texts explain. When we see it in

that perspective, we can understand that a phenomenon

like "perception", discussed in the VEDIC sense, cannot be spoken of

in simplistic and purely physical terms. Otherwise what's the use of

all the yogic theory about subtle body, etc in the Vedas?

 

So I was suggesting that it may be neceaary to consider the level at

which perception happens, and what exactly "perception" means. I

brought in some contemporary scientific commentary only incidentally.

 

Gaudiya siddhanta is that shabda-pramANa is superior to pratyaksha,

because our "perception" is subject to delusion, depending on the

degree of our spiritual purity. Perception is ultimately a matter of

the ASSOCIATIONS made within mind. False ego is a state of faulty,

disoriented associations (like mistaking the rope for the snake in

the darkness.) Therefore, sense perception must be verified against

shabda-pramAna. It follows that the pratyaksha of a pure soul is

flawless, and as good as shabda. No reason for our Madhva bros to

misunderstand this position of the Gaudiyas.

Just my thoughts.