What Sankara really taught

[Guest guest]

Namaste Srinivasji and Sadanandaji,

As to whether memory

is regarded as a pramana by the Advaitin, a point of clarification. If

you define a pramana/valid means of knowledge as a purely distinct means

of knowledge or a direct means of knowledge not known by any other means,

then memory is not a pramana. This is so because the memory is not

directly in touch with the event which gave rise to it, the mental

modification has not the same 'shape' as that event because of course it

is no longer present. So the direct and immediate aspect of the true

pramana is absent in the memory which was there in the original event.

 

That is not to say that in ordinary affairs and criminal trials etc.

memory is discounted. Together with other harder evidence it can be

reliable. From the philosophical point of view if memory was always wrong

then the notion of memory as a corrospondence between past and present

could hardly have arisen. So we can be sceptical about a particular

memory but not about memory as a whole.

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

Michael - PraNAms

 

If

> you define a pramana/valid means of knowledge as a

> purely distinct means

> of knowledge or a direct means of knowledge not

> known by any other means,

> then memory is not a pramana. This is so because

> the memory is not

> directly in touch with the event which gave rise to

> it, the mental

> modification has not the same 'shape' as that event

> because of course it

> is no longer present. So the direct and immediate

> aspect of the true

> pramana is absent in the memory which was there in

> the original event.

 

Michael - Yes you are right - the anadhigata implies

not known before and cannot be applied re-collection

from memory since memory is stored knowledge gained

before. Hence it is only during collection time

anadhigata part applies.

 

But the second part you mentioned - the direct and

immediate is rather tricky - the tricky part is the

original knowledge is direct and immediate only with

reference to pratyaksha or perceptual knowledge and

partly for the shabda (such as the case of the 10th

man story - the thing pointed is right there and no

medium is required) - For anumaana etc it is mediate

and not direct. But when we stored in the memory that

deductive knowledge, when we recollect, the vRitti

that forms is immediately recognized as direct since

mind does not have to go back to anumaana to deduce

that knowledge. Hence I would say, the recollection

of knowledge which is not mediate during the

collection time is now immediate since vRitti of that

knowledge forms and recognized as soon it forms -One

does not have to reapply vyaapti for it to deduce the

knowledge.

 

Of course the vRittis related to happiness, sorrow etc

that are internal cognitions - they are also direct

and immediate. We are not talking about memory here.

 

Any way this is what I gather from the study of VP.

I am planning to post the notes soon and I would

appreciate your through screening of the notes. Since

this is related to Mind business, I have to transfuse

these discussions - analysis of the mind and

epistemological analysis.

 

>

> That is not to say that in ordinary affairs and

> criminal trials etc.

> memory is discounted.

 

I would just call that as recollection of the pramaa

gathered through pramaaNaas previously. Hence memory

itself is not pramaaNa but pramaa bodhakam or

transmitting of the knowledge gained previously.

 

PramaaNa should be valid for collection time rather

than recollection. Hence adviata insists on the six

means only, where memory is not included. Internal

cognitions like happiness etc direct and immediate but

no memory is involved in them.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda