on pratyaksa-pramana and the strawman

[Guest guest]

Haribol

 

By being selectively attentive, the dvaita paper has managed to to drive an

artificial wedge between Gaudiya view on perception as evidence

(pratyaksa-pramana) on the one hand and the Shastric view on the otherhand.

 

The shastric view accepting perception as a valid pramana is mentioned in the

SB 11.28.9 and 11.19.1 and our Gaudiya view is consistently discussed in

Baladeva's Prameya-ratnavali 9.1-4. Jiva and Baladeva never deny pratyaksa as

a valid pramana, they just deny its equality with sabda pramana since (in our

case) it is obtained through imperfect senses etc.

 

Interestingly, the Dvaita view as seen below also accepts the subordinate yet

valid status of pratyaksa. Pratyaksa (Perception) is as good as sabda in the

case of the liberated souls and the Lord and His consort, not in the case of

materially embodied souls.

 

"2. Valid Pramanas -- ISKCON argue that all testimony other than

Shabda (revealed scriptural authority) is unreliable. ...

In Tattvavada, Acharya Madhva recognises three valid sources

of knowledge Prathyaksha, Anumana and Agama." (PPV)

 

This basically says that ISKCON and Madhva differ on the validity of

pratyaksa. This is totally bogus. Because even Madhva/Jayatirtha say that

sensory experience is limited in the way it can give knowledge. See below

from BNK Sharma's Philosophy of Madhvacharya. According to both us and them,

pratyaksa is valid but inferior to sabda.

 

 

p. 130-131 of Philosophy of Madhvacharya by BNK Sharma

 

The Maadhva theory overcomes these difficulties by a frank admission that the

way in which things appear to us is causally determined by a number of

factors that are radations of knowledge and finally that no knowledge at the

human level could lay claim to complete comprehension of a thing in all its

innumerable aspects and relations: kasyApi sarvAtmanA viSeyIkaraNAbhAvAt,

(Jayatirtha's Nyaya sudha p. 251). But this limitation of knowledge does not

make it invalid.

 

 

Sense perception is defined by madhva as

nirdoSArthendriyasannikarSajanyaM j~nAnam or knowledge produced by the right

type of contact between flawless sense organs and their appropriate objects.

 

The flawlessness of the sense and their contact, etc. is to be borne out by

the truthfulness of knowldsge with the meaning of yathArtha already given

which is itself ascertained by the saksi. Hence there is no mutual dependence

in the establishment of the flawlesness of the senses. etc.

Absolute flawlessness of indriya impossible only in respect of the knowledge

of God, Laksmi and the released. The svarupajnana of uttamajIvas is always

true while the vRttijnana (sensory knowledge) of all the three classes of

uncrealsed souls, is subject to errror, as the senses in their case are

material. These limitations in the nature of svarupajnana and vrttijnana of

the different orders of beings may perhaps explain from the Madhva point of

view the impossibility for ordinary human perceptions to know the "ding an

sich" as it is.

 

 

End Sharma quote

 

Therefore we can see that once again, the Maadhvas have misconstrued a

Gaudiya thought and attacked it. Thats a strawman argument.

 

Gerald S