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

[Guest guest]

Srinivasji writes:

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.

 

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

 

Namaste Srinivasji,

In the example offered you have made the error

of saying that there is perception of non-existence. That cannot be

correct as an absent thing cannot be an object of the senses because it

does not present itself to any of the senses. In this instance you should

speak of the non-apprehension of the existence of the pot where you might

have expected it. This is a direct, non-inferential, non-perceptual

knowledge. Those of you who read light fiction might recall Sherlock

Holmes and 'The dog that did not bark in the night-time'. Conclusion: the

dog must have known the murderer.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji.

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> Namaste Srinivasji,

 

> In the example offered you have made the error

> of saying that there is perception of non-existence. That cannot

be

> correct as an absent thing cannot be an object of the senses

because it

> does not present itself to any of the senses. In this instance you

should

> speak of the non-apprehension of the existence of the pot where you

might

> have expected it. This is a direct, non-inferential, non-

perceptual

> knowledge. Those of you who read light fiction might recall

Sherlock

> Holmes and 'The dog that did not bark in the night-time'.

Conclusion: the

> dog must have known the murderer.

>

 

No, it is not correct to say `non-apprehension of existence of pot'.

 

When see at the table you don't see void at the locus, instead you

do `see' an empty table at the locus. This seeing empty table is the

hEtu in deducing the absence of the pot (if that is what expected

there) or all objects in general. When you see an empty table, you

don't just conclude absence of a pot but absence of all other objects

too.

 

If it were to be, as you hold, just an non-apprehension of existence

of pot; then you wouldn't be in position to assert absence ( or

presence) of any other objects at that locus. In order to overcome

this difficulty, you need to infinitely keep saying `non-apprehension

of jar', `non-apprehension of apple' ... so and so forth.

 

It is my pleasure discussing epistemology with you.

 

Regards,

Srinivas

 

 

 

 

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

>

[Guest guest]

--- Srinivas Kotekal <kots_p wrote:

 

..

>

> If it were to be, as you hold, just an

> non-apprehension of existence

> of pot; then you wouldn't be in position to assert

> absence ( or

> presence) of any other objects at that locus. In

> order to overcome

> this difficulty, you need to infinitely keep saying

> `non-apprehension

> of jar', `non-apprehension of apple' ... so and so

> forth.

>

 

PraNams

 

I think Sreenivas is correct - What I wrote was

'pratyabhijna is required for anupaladbhi to operate

as pramaaNa.

 

Non-apprehension of a pot implies the attributive

knowledge of the pot from previous perceptions or from

the memory - or samskaara which is what pratyabhijna

stands for - is the basis on which I say, ‘I do not

see pot there on the table’. That is why I gave

another example - gaagaabuubu - if I have no prior

samskaara of that, there is no way anupalabdhi can

operate as knowledge its abhaava.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda