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

[Guest guest]

List Moderators' Note: Please do not include the entire posts of previous

posters while sending your reply. Please do not send

advertisements/announcements that have no direct relevance to on going

discussions. Your tail end of your post containing others's posts has been

truncated.

 

 

Dear Sadanadaji

Thank you very much for the guidance

Swami Paramanda Bharati's works are in kannada, Hindi, and Telugu for the

present - the book is currenly being translated to gujarati , Tamil and

Malayalam but his talks are in Hindi. Teugu, Kannada, Tamil and English.

 

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.

 

The first Issue I take up is

 

Is “Anupalabdhi” a “ Pramana” According to Sankara?

 

It is common knowledge that some Mimmamsakas accept Anupalabdhi as a Pramana

yielding us knowledge of the absence of things. This is due to their treating

both things and the absence of things (abhava) as distinct kinds of knowable

entities (padartha). They distinguished four types of abhava and regarded them

all as knowable. Many Advaitins also tend to accept Anupalabdhi as a Pramana on

the ground that in matters of Vyayavahara, the Bhatta school of Mimamsa is

followed ( Vyavahare bhattanayah) This Is unacceptable to Swamiji who says:

“That which produces correct knowledge of an existing object is “Pramana “.

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. 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 . no Pramana 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]. 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 pramanas {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.

 

VP - is Vedanta Prabhoda of Swami Paramanda Bharati

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote:

Sriram gaaru

 

First - the purpose of my note was just to remind you

as well as those others who post just announcements on

the list- the purpose of this list serve is to have

discussion on the topics on Advaita Vedanta as

propounded by Shankaracarya.

 

While it is important to bring to the attention of the

audience about the new books and their critical

reviews, the forum should not be used for the sole

purpose of advertisement of the works.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

> My arguments may be wrong and others may present also

> their version of the issues raised.

 

 

Sri Sadaananda-ji and Sriram-ji

 

My praNAms to you both.

 

Just couple of points for your information purpose only.

 

>

>

> --- sriram tenneti <tensriram wrote:

>

> >This Is unacceptable to Swamiji who

> > says: " That which produces correct knowledge of an

> > existing object is " PramaaNa " . –

>

 

Sadanadaji is correct. pramANa is not only to establish the

knowledge of existence of objects at specific time-space locus, but

to establish the *absense* (abhAva) of objects at specific time-

space locus also.

 

How `is' is important in knowledge, so also `is not' is equally

important.

 

For example, in vEdAnta, assertion of absense or negations such

as `na iha nanAsti kimchana' or `nEti nEti' is equally as pramANa as

positive asertions such as `ahaM brahmaasmi' etc.

 

 

> > 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].

>

 

Now let us consider some epistemological aspect and background

on `absence' (abhAva) (of anything) in general. This is necessary to

appreciate the problem of how do we apprehend abhAva of anything.

 

In Dvaita vEdanta, absence (of anything) can be graspable by means

of any of three pramANa-s pratyaksha, anumAna or aagama. There is

no sparate anupalabdi as pramANa is accepted.

 

When an absence is grasped immediately without any dilemma or doubt,

it said to be by absence by pratyaksha. Example, absence of a pot at

an space-time locus. Sadananda-ji example of absence of pot on the

table best describes absence-by-pratyaksha.

 

When absence is not grasped immediately but registered with one or

more anumAna (either sAdhana or tarka), it is said to be established

by anumAna. Example would be; absence of a person inside the temple

is *inferred* based on absence of his shoes outside. Here, absence

of shoes is by pratyaksha, where as absence of shoe's owner is by

inference or anumAna.

 

Absence of things by Agama pramANa is straight forward and need not

elaboration. Example, " There is no dukha in mOksha " or to be

specific in Advaitic parlance " There is no duality in pAramArtha "

etc etc.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

--- Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

> Now let us consider some epistemological aspect and

> background

> on `absence' (abhAva) (of anything) in general. This

> is necessary to

> appreciate the problem of how do we apprehend abhAva

> of anything.

 

Srinivas - PraNAms.

 

I fully agree with what you wrote. Thanks.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin

 

Pranams to everyone! Happy new year 2008!

 

> by anumAna. Example would be; absence of a person inside the temple

> is *inferred* based on absence of his shoes outside. Here, absence

> of shoes is by pratyaksha, where as absence of shoe's owner is by

> inference or anumAna.

 

 

Or how about an example of entering in to the Temple and not finding

the Idol of the Lord in the Sanctum Sanctorum.

 

At first there was expectation based on knowledge... paroksha

jnaana.. .... but who has seen the GOD first to create an idol?!

whose knowledge is it?!

 

Love & Light,

Madhava