What did Sankara really teach! - Is “Anupalabdhi” a “ Pramana” According to Sankara?

[Guest guest]

--- sriram tenneti <tensriram wrote:

 

> Selected Issues from his book would be posted in

> English comments or views of Scholars obtained from

> this forum would be passed on to him for

> clarification.

 

 

> Swami Paramanda Bharati has no premanent address

> and is always on the move withen India ; as and when

> contact can be established clarifications would be

> sought.

 

Shree Sriramji PraNAms. – First my praNaams to Shree

Swamiji.

 

List serve would prefer discussions directly rather

than though you. I understand Shree Swamiji is busy

and would not have access to the email etc or too busy

to discuss directly in this forum. In that case my

recommendation is that since you have already provided

the reference to his works and people can order the

books, study and write to him if they are interested.

It is always difficult to communicate via an

intermediary.

 

> The first Issue I take up is

 

If you are going to be the discusser, there is no

problem. We assume that you have understood what

Swamiji has written and ready to defend your

statements as presented. I am sure Swamiji would

appreciate the fact this kind of knowledge cannot

takes place though an intermediary.

> Is “Anupalabdhi” a “ PramaaNa” According to

> Sankara?

 

Now why is this important for understanding advaita

Vedanta, as taught by Shankara? Brahma satyam, jagat

mithyaa and jiivo brahmaiva na aparaH – to establish

that do I have to know whether ‘anupalabdhi’ is

validated as pramaaNa or not by Shankara? There are

many Vedantins who feel that anupalabdhi, arthaapatti

as well as upamaana are nothing but shades of anumaana

only.

>

>Many Advaitins

> also tend to accept Anupalabdhi as a PramaaNa on the

> ground that in matters of Vyayavahara, the Bhatta

> school of Mimamsa is followed

 

I am not sure this is correct. Are you saying that

anupalabdhi is accepted as pramaaNa because Bhatta

school of miimaamsa accepts it? How about Sankhyaas

and nayyayikaas? I think Advaitin accepts the six

pramaaNas, because they feel that they are independent

means of knowledge – not because of Bhattas.

 

>This Is unacceptable to Swamiji who

> says: “That which produces correct knowledge of an

> existing object is “PramaaNa “. –

 

With all due respects to Shree Swamiji, I must restate

the definition –That which gives the knowledge of an

object is pramaa. Pramaa by definition is validated

knowledge. When we say ‘object is’ the existence is

already implied in the is-ness.

 

Even when there is

> an object and doubtful or wrong knowledge occurs

> about that object. Nobody either cites or asks for

> a pramana for such knowledge.

 

True only because the existence of an object is

established by the attributes of the object perceived

through the senses. Hence ‘object’ knowledge is

attributive knowledge and not substantive knowledge

since substantive is Brahman which cannot be known

through senses. Incorrect sense perception could

occur in gathering incomplete or incorrect attributes

due to defects in the senses or in accessories as

Vedanta paribhaasha, VP, discusses.

 

Such being the case,

> how can there be any talk of any object or its

> correct knowledge in the total absence of the object

> itself? ... it becomes quite evident that an object

> does not exist when During

> vyavahara

 

There is big jump in the arguments here. These

statements do not follow from the previous statements.

 

 

Anupalabdhi as a pramaaNa operates only on the objects

whose attributive knowledge is known previously. Let

me give you an example. Please go and check if there

is a pot on the table, if I ask, and you come and

report back saying there is no pot on the table. If

there are several pots on the table and I can ask for

a specific pot giving you all the attributes of that

particular pot that differentiates that pot from all

other pots for you to identify and report to me if

that particular pot is there or not. If that pot is

there, you would obviously check the current

attributes that your senses can measure and compare

with those that I have given by description and then

say yes there is that pot on the table or no that pot

is not there on the table. That particular pot is

absent is pramaa, since now I know, which I did not

know before, and which I could not have been known

without the knowledge of the absence of that pot,

whose attributes are known a priory. Thus pratyabhijna

is involved in establishing anupaladbhi as pramaaNa.

What Swamiji statement can apply only if I do not know

the attributes of the object a priory – in the example

– sir please go and see if there is gaagaabuubu on the

table. You may report what are the things on the table

not knowing which one of them is gaagaabuubu or if

there is anything like that. The reason is you have no

attributive knowledge of that object even to compare

with what is there on the table. You cannot remove the

gaagaabuubu from the table if it is there!

 

We just transacted with the pot knowledge using

anupalabdhi – since I know now somebody has removed my

pot, which I kept on the table. Hence absence of an

object can be cause for transaction too. We do this

all the time when people who promised or things that

are suppose to be are not there (I noticed that this

happens in Chennai a lot!) – how do I know that they

are not there – I can see – what?- That I cannot see

them where they are suppose to be!

 

> no PramaaNa is ever able to attain its

> knowledge, Therefore it is superfluous to imagine

> the absence of such an object as itself a kind of an

> object and then proceed to imagine a special and

> separate pramana to account for its knowledge "

> [VP. p. 211].

 

Sorry to say – the analysis does not seem to be right.

 

 

>His support for this stand is

> derived from Shankara’s statement that one must

> realize all the lokas to be unsubstantial by

> examining them with pramaaNas {cit. Mundokopanishad

> 1.2.12 IDBS. Pp508- 509}. Here the

> insubstantiality (nissarata) of the lokas. being

> (abhavarupa in character,. should have elicited the

> mention of anupalabdhi if that had really heen

> considered a pramana by Sankara.

 

First, I must confess that I am not qualified to

comment on this. My feeling is Shankara is using

shaastriiya anumaana for establishing his arguments

about the object that are apouruSheyam. Swamiji’s

justification that Shankara should have used

anupalabdhi and since he did not use it, and therefore

it proves that Shankara did not consider it as a

pramaaNa – It is very weak basis to accept or reject

anupalabdhi. All lokas are unsubstantial anyway since

they are all mithyaa and Brahman alone is satyam.

vaachaarambhanam vikaaro naamadheyam is sufficient to

establish unsubstantiality of all lokas – fields of

experiences.

 

> VP - is Vedanta Prabhoda of Swami Paramanda

> Bharati

 

In advaita vedanta literature, VP stands for Vedanta

Paribhaasha by Dharmaraja Advarin that discusses all

these epistemological issues that are raised above on

which Michaelji just posted an article.

 

In closing, please let Shree Swamiji know with my

praNaams that my comments pertain to the issues raised

and are not to show in any way my disrespect to him or

the tradition that he stands for. I am happy to learn

that he is doing a great service in propagating

sanaatana dharma among the masses.

 

My arguments may be wrong and others may present also

their version of the issues raised.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda