Perception in VP

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennis-ji.

 

VP needs another bhAshya at our level. The language is unkindly

unyielding. I never knew English could be so hard on us. I admire

Michael-ji's ability to relish this type of a cup of tea!

 

Our discussions here have taken the rope-snake analogy too far as

usual. To appreciate logically that there is an error in our

perception doesn't call for much faith and all that. It is obvious

from the fact that all our models for the universe have consistently

failed to provide a complete picture.

 

Just a few minutes ago, I was watching an interesting presentation

that came through mail. It takes us on a mind-boggling journey from

our familiar moorings to the infinite vastness of the unverse by

steps of ten raised to the power of ten units of distance, then back

to where we started from and then down into the heart of an atom.

Either way, we end up staring at infinity. That we see parts or

multiplicity in that infinity is indeed the error, nay absurdity at

its worst. Correction of the error is not different from its firm

realization. It cannot be something that comes later, although it

looks so.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Srinivas-ji and Michael-ji,

>

>

>

> Getting out of my depth here - I'm afraid I did not follow your

latest VP

> excerpt at all, Michael.

>

>

>

> In what is said below, is this not where faith in the

scriptures/teacher

> enters into it? Although I currently see what I think is a snake,

the

> scriptures/teacher tells me that it is in fact a rope. I have faith

that

> what they say is true now, in the present and then later, upon

enlightenment

> in the future, I see the truth for myself. This is a perfectly

valid way of

> acquiring knowledge in advaita epistemology, isn't it?

>

>

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

There's a sort of puzzle about pramana/means of

knowledge. Must we not first be aware that a certain proposition is

knowledge before we inquire into whether there is a means of acquiring it

that is relevant and unique to that area of knowledge. What is

authoritative is the appropriate means of knowledge. So the use of sabda

to decide whether that thing is a snake or a rope is not appropriate.

Perception is the pramana for such investigations and a good mongoose.

 

We can see this order of business in B.S.B. I.i.2: " Thus the validity of

the knowledge of an existing thing is determined by the thing itself.

This being the position, the knowledge of Brahman also must be determined

by the thing itself, since it is concerned with an existing reality. "

 

How do you first get the awareness of the thing itself i.e.Brahman?

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

--- ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

 

 

>

> How do you first get the awareness of the thing itself i.e.Brahman?

>

> Best Wishes,

> Michael.

 

Michael - PraNAms

 

We have to be little careful here. No pramaaNa can operate on Brahman - Brahman

being

infinite and attributeless- Hence it is called aprameyam not a thing to be

known. Vedanta

facilitates that which is direct and immedite using the words - just like the

objects of

pratyaksha pramaaNa that one sees directly and immediately. 'Tat tvam asi'

statment is

like a mirror to see ourselves - words although generally operate to reveal

mediate

knowledge, for Brahman and the self that I am, words can give direct and

immediate

knowledge, even though they are aprameyam. Vedanta is pramaaNa for the equation

I am =

Brahman, which requires a vichaara or an inquiry.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

We have to be little careful here. No pramaaNa can operate on

Brahman - Brahman being

> infinite and attributeless- Hence it is called aprameyam not a

thing to be known. Vedanta

> facilitates that which is direct and immedite using the words -

just like the objects of

> pratyaksha pramaaNa that one sees directly and immediately. 'Tat

tvam asi' statment is

> like a mirror to see ourselves - words although generally operate

to reveal mediate

> knowledge, for Brahman and the self that I am, words can give

direct and immediate

> knowledge, even though they are aprameyam. Vedanta is pramaaNa for

the equation I am =

> Brahman, which requires a vichaara or an inquiry.

>

>

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

 

Namaste Sri Sadananda,

 

I ask for your patience here. Not being very knowledgeable as all of

you here, and alhough I read the posts, the understanding is

deficient.

 

You wrote: words can give direct and immediate knowledge...

 

Where I do not understand is liberation through knowledge. Because my

comprehension is that all this " knowledge " is stored as memory in the

ego, the mind. Thus when the ego dies, the memory " dies " with it. So

what will free one from rebirth? Thus, " knowledge " acquired " here " ,

cannot liberate one, because all will be forgotten at death.

 

ParaBrahman is beyond knowledge, so one has to go beyond this

knowledge.

 

How does this knowledge liberate one? In other words, what is

the " mechanic " , " method " through which liberation will follow. Or is

it in the " application " of this knowledge?

 

Namaste

[Guest guest]

H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin , ombhurbhuva <ombhurbhuva wrote:

> We can see this order of business in B.S.B. I.i.2: " Thus the

validity of

> the knowledge of an existing thing is determined by the thing itself.

> This being the position, the knowledge of Brahman also must be

determined

> by the thing itself, since it is concerned with an existing reality. "

> How do you first get the awareness of the thing itself i.e.Brahman?

 

 

Dear Sri Michael,

 

The answer to your question is given by Sri Shankara himself

in his commentary to the sutra 1-1-1 where in he says:

" sarvasya AtmatvAcca brahmAstitvaprasiddhiH |

 

sarvo hi AtmAstitvaM pratyeti na nAhamasmi iti |

 

yadi hi nAtmAstitvaprasiddhiH syAt sarvO lOkO nahamasmi

iti pratIyAt |

 

AtmA ca brahma ||

Trnslation:

Besides, the existence of Brahman is well known from the fact of

Its being the Self of all; for everyone feels that hisSelf exists, and

he never feels, " I do not existence " . Had there been no general

recognition of the existence of the Self, everyone would have felt, " I

do not exist " . And that Self is Brahman. (The end)

 

Dear Michael, You do not have to get the awareness of Brahman.

YOU EXIST AND YOU KNOW THAT YOU EXIST.

THAT IS BRAHMAN/ATMAN/SELF

This is self-evident, self-luminous and nonrefutable TRUTH.

 

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

--- nonduel <nonduel wrote:

 

Being nonduel - it is difficult to do praNAms.

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi starts His Sat Darshan with a sloka - since the

tradition is

always to start a text with a prayer.

Ramana wants to pray - but then he says - How can I pray to you Lord because you

are the

sat swaruupam - Prayer involves thoughts but you are beyond the thoughts - So he

says how

can I think of you who is beyond the thoughts - all I can do is just Be.

That itself is a prayer of a jnaani.

 

Anyway my praNAms to that eternal ever existent nonduel.

 

 

>

 

> You wrote: words can give direct and immediate knowledge...

 

I think I am, in a way, addressing these issues in the companion post -

Knowledge and the

means of Knowledge.

 

To give an example of how words can give direct and immediate knowledge - there

is a

story of the missing 10th man. You may know it but here it is anyway.

 

A teacher sends ten of his disciples to cross the river and get something for

him on the

other side of the river. Knowing the stupidity of his disciples, he appoints a

leader and

asked him to make sure all of them stay together and none will get lost.

 

The ten crossed the river and remembering the teacher's words the leader

assembled all

the people to count to make sure everybody crossed the river without getting

drowned. He

counted one, two, there, etc up to nine since there were only nine in front of

him and

started crying that they missed the 10th man - one fellow got drowned. One of

the members

of the crew told the leader he does know how to count properly and he asked

everybody

else to stand in line and started counting - but he also came up with nine and

one is

definitely missing. Everyone took their turn to count and every time they came

up with

nine people only. Everybody started crying that the 10th man is missing. An old

man

sitting under a tree was watching all this. He realized he better do something

about it.

So went and told the leader - do not worry the tenth man has crossed the river

and there

is no need to cry. The leader was surprised - he asked the old man - Are you

sure? have

you seen the 10th man? Old man said yes he has crossed the river and I will

produce the

10th man right now and right here, But I want you make all your friends to line

and start

counting again. The leader was very skeptical but the old man seems to be

trustworthy

and even though they have done this exercise already for 10 times. With the

faith in the

old man they again assembled - Old man asked the leader to count - he counted

one, two,

three etc until nine and asked the old man where is the tenth man - Old man said

- tat

tvam asi - you are that tenth man. The missing 10th was discovered. That

knowledge of

whereabouts of him is now known. They are searching for the thing where there is

no need

to search. seeker himself is the sought.

 

Words can bring direct and immediate knowledge if the object that is pointed is

right

there directly.

 

Now Brahman is all pervading infinite and one without a second. Therefore there

is no

place where Brahman is not. Anything and everything is nothing but Brahman only.

Now I

am is ever present wherever I am. There is never a time I am missing from

myself! Hence

the teacher say you are that - those words can give direct and immediate

knowledge since

I know I am existent entity and conscious entity and Brahman is existent and

conscious

entity and I am that equation becomes an instruction by the teacher, provided I

have

faith in the teacher's words.

 

Therefore words can give direct and immediate knowledge if the object that is

being

pointed is right there as self-evident entity. We may not accept that knowledge

as how

can I be Brahman because of lack of faith in the words of the teacher and

scriptures.

 

>

> Where I do not understand is liberation through knowledge. Because my

> comprehension is that all this " knowledge " is stored as memory in the

> ego, the mind. Thus when the ego dies, the memory " dies " with it. So

> what will free one from rebirth? Thus, " knowledge " acquired " here " ,

> cannot liberate one, because all will be forgotten at death.

 

Please read my post on knowledge - Here we are not taking about knowledge of ..

but pure

knowledge itself. This aspect is explained in detail in that post - knowledge

and the

means of knowledge.

 

>

> ParaBrahman is beyond knowledge, so one has to go beyond this

> knowledge.

 

parabrahman includes everyting too. sarvam khalu idam brahma - all this is

brahman.

Beyond is only in uderstanding - if I say you have go beyond the ring and

bangle to see

gold. There is nothing other than gold - but since I am getting lost in the

superficial

names and form, the teaching is go beyond the superficial names and forms - that

is what

go beyond the knowledge of names and form to see the substantive Brahman.

 

>

> How does this knowledge liberate one? In other words, what is

> the " mechanic " , " method " through which liberation will follow. Or is

> it in the " application " of this knowledge?

 

When I take myself what I am not as I am, and scripture says you are not what

you think

you are but you are the very knowledge itself - That clear understanding will

liberate me

form all my notional understanding that - I am this -Please study the series

on mind

where it is presented.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

 

 

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Srinivas-ji,

>

>

>

> Apologies if I appear to be being stupid here but it seems the

case that all

> of your certainty is resting on the apauruSheyatva of the shruti.

 

Yes. But that aparuSheyatva itself is not accepted on the basis of

faith. I am so fortunate that due to extensive work already done in

my school, my acceptance of aparuSheyatva has has backing of

epistemological analysis without any assumptions or faith what so

ever.

 

 

>You say

> for example that: " AchArya Shankara has to take time and effort to

refute

> other positions. Why do you think he did so? If he has base his

siddhAnta on

> just faith, he would have no philosophical and moral grounds to

denounce

> others. " In my understanding, Shankara's arguments are referred

for their

> authority to backing statements of shruti so that my understanding

of what

> you are saying is supported.

>

 

True, but you need to keep in mind that Acharya did not accept

shruti authority on faith. That's the key point I am making.

 

 

>

>

> But how does this differ from Christianity for example. Do they

not say that

> the bible is the (literal) 'word of God'?

>

 

It indeed differs. The validity of bible is because it is `word of

God'. How did we know God exist? Because bible says so.

 

Don't you think circularity here? This what we call in nyAya is the

term `anyOnAshraya' and it is an dOsha if used in any proposition.

 

 

>

>

> When the Christian tells me that his 'unauthored' source of

knowledge says

> such and such, and the Vedantin says that shruti makes this

contrary

> statement, how is one to differentiate initially if not using

faith?

 

Faith is uncalled for. You need explore how exactly vEda differs

from bible here.

 

 

> Shankara was able to argue with the other Astika-s because they

accepted the

> same material as truth, (relying on reason alone to refute the

nAstika-s).

>

 

Using a reason/logic one can refute nAstika and make him accept

there are possibilities of existence of God.

 

But you know, mere possibility is not the proof of actual existence

of Brahman.

 

So, how exactly do you positively establish that Brahman exist as a

non-dual in nature etc etc?

 

That point being, instead of using logic to establish Brahman (i.e

impossible anyway), one need to use logic/reason to establish the

validity of vEdas. Once they are established on firm epistemological

grounds, all proposition one can make about Brahman will be

automatically valid and follows from it.

 

>

>

> Surely those who accept the shruti rather than another source do so

> initially because of faith until such time they are able to

recognize the

> truth for themselves. (Unless they accept it provisionally because

it seems

> reasonable - this was rather the case for me.)

>

 

What kind of `truth' are speaking here?

 

Is it the truth about path being treaded? Or truth about the reality?

 

If it is about the path, what if one realize that the path is

leading him nowhere? It is already late in the life to change the

path and retry.

 

If it is about the reality, even the non-vedic people also claim the

same thing `you believe first and realize later'. So?

 

 

That's the reason, in India the darshana sampradAya-s grew in a

different way as compared to their Western counterparts.

 

In Indian context, philosophy and religion are not two distinct

streams. High importance on correctness of pramANa-vichAra

(epistemology) is given even before one will venture into tatva-

vichAra (ontology) or Ishwara-vichAra (theology). Rival

epistemological positions are subjected to intense scrutiny and

criticism among the schools and as a result it has grown to maturity

as we have now. The very practice of pUrva-paxa and siddhAnta is

aimed at growth of the field.

 

Where as in the West, we do not see philosophy and religion inter-

tangled at all. They might have some superficial religious reasons

to support the followers faith, but the religion is primarily faith

based. All the major Philosophers are academics only and their

philosophy has no bearing on the their way of living.

 

In Indian context, when a person is young, he will be introduced to

religious ideas. These ideas are pushed on basis of faith to begin

with, for as a immature he would not have all the intellectual

capability to absolve the intricacies of nyAya, tarka etc. However,

once he has come to a stage, the school he belongs has already done

the homework for him regarding the philosophical part. He has learn

them vis-à-vis other schools. On the other hand, if a man stops at

religious beliefs only, the very purpose of truth seeking is lost.

He will be another religious fanatic only.

 

 

 

>

>

> So, when you say: " The point is, if I accept a particular claim of

truth on

> the basis of faith alone, I will not be in a position to deny or

refute

> other claims. This is because, the other claims are equally

founded on their

> respective faiths " . I would argue that this is precisely how it is

in the

> beginning. This is why we have religious wars. Eventually, once

one has

> seen the truth for oneself and has become familiar with the

teaching, then

> one is able to reason with the other and (possibly) bring them

round.

>

 

Sir, the idea of religious war in the beginning may be true in

Western culture.

 

However, in vEdic culture, there is no such thing recorded. In fact

the claim is that the very vEdas were handed down from the very

starting point of creation. There is an uninterrupted continuity of

vEdic smapradAya ever since.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael,

 

Not sure I agree I here (for a change!).

 

You say: " So the use of shabda to decide whether that thing is a snake or a

rope is not appropriate. " What about the case where the mother tells the

child that the 'monster' underneath the bed is really just a shadow? In the

case where we trust the informer implicitly, shabda seems perfectly

appropriate (and possibly far safer than pratyakSha)!

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

[Guest guest]

Dear Srinivas-ji,

 

 

 

You said: " True, but you need to keep in mind that AchArya did not accept

shruti authority on faith. That's the key point I am making. "

 

 

 

But Shankara was enlightened, so he did not need to accept it on faith. What

I was saying is that initially one does and only when enlightened is that no

longer necessary.

 

 

 

You said: " The validity of bible is because it is `word of God'. How did we

know God exist? Because bible says so. Don't you think circularity here?

This what we call in nyAya is the term `anyonya Ashraya' and it is a doSha

if used in any proposition. "

 

 

 

Of course. But the statements of shruti - that there is only brahman, that I

am That etc. are also initially 'only because shruti says so'. They are

quite alien to my experience.

 

 

 

You go on to say: " So, how exactly do you positively establish that Brahman

exist as a non-dual in nature etc?

 

" That point being, instead of using logic to establish Brahman (i.e.

impossible anyway), one need to use logic/reason to establish the validity

of Vedas. Once they are established on firm epistemological grounds, all

proposition one can make about Brahman will be automatically valid and

follows from it. "

 

 

 

This seems to be the crux of the matter. You seem to be saying that one can

prove logically that the shruti is valid. How can one do this? Especially

when many aspects appear to be contradictory (e.g. various different

'explanations' of creation).

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Dennis

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Michael-ji,

 

> There's a sort of puzzle about pramana/means of

> knowledge. Must we not first be aware that a certain proposition

is

> knowledge before we inquire into whether there is a means of

acquiring it

> that is relevant and unique to that area of knowledge.

 

If I understood you correctly, you seems to be saying ;

 

A. One needs to make sure a certain proposition is true

(instead of your usage of word `knowledge', which is a bit confusing

for me)

B. Only then, a need to find out is there any relevant means of

knowledge to acquire it.

 

My take is, without any means of knowledge how can you make sure a

proposition is in fact true an depict the reality as is?

 

Therefore, correct process is to using/considering already available

means of knowledge to judge the truthness or otherwise of any

proposition.

 

> What is authoritative is the appropriate means of knowledge. So

the use of sabda

> to decide whether that thing is a snake or a rope is not

appropriate.

> Perception is the pramana for such investigations and a good

mongoose.

>

 

What you are saying true in a limited sense.

 

For all propositions where the subject matter is of this world (that

is not atIndriya), perception and inference play the major role. To

some extent sabda is also valid for such subject matter. Sabda on

its own has now flaw to mislead you from truthhood to falsehood. It

is the source of sabda which make or break the validity of

proposition. So, in cases such as `this is not a snake but a rope',

sabda can be valid means-of-knowledge only if the source of

such `sabda' is already confirmed true apriori independent of the

very proposition itself. These are called `Apta vAkaya-s' in

vEdAnta.

 

 

> We can see this order of business in B.S.B. I.i.2: " Thus the

validity of

> the knowledge of an existing thing is determined by the thing

itself.

> This being the position, the knowledge of Brahman also must be

determined

> by the thing itself, since it is concerned with an existing

reality. "

>

> How do you first get the awareness of the thing itself i.e.Brahman?

>

 

I am not sure what is the full context of BSB I.i.2, but generally

addressing your question;

 

How do we first get the awareness of the thing itself i.e.Brahman?

 

Other poster said that we are already aware of the fact that `I am'

or `I exist'.

 

True.

 

To know that `I exist', I do not need any pramANa. It is svataha-

siddha

 

However, to know that `I forgot I am Brahman' or `I am eternal'

or `I am non-dual' etc such things, I need a means-of-knowledge, for

they are not all svatah-siddha as in the former case.

 

Please note the subtlety involved here. I know I exist, but I do not

know whether I am single or dual? Do I know I am eternal or non-

eternal? Do I know I am bliss or not?

 

Coming back to question raised in above B.S.B. I.i.2 about

svatahapramAnya of validity of the knowledge of an existing thing;

 

I think you are confusing between validity of a thing perceived vis-

à-vis validity of means-of-knowledge itself.

 

If a thing is presented to a perception, it is valid in intself

unless invalidity " happens " due to something other than that thing

itself. That you already know.

 

On the other hand, if the means-of-knowledge is other than

perception (such as inference or shruti), validity of such means-of-

knowledge is to be evaluated on the same concept of svataha-

prAmaNya. This is what the technique used in establishing the

validity of the shruti.

 

So in case of making people accept Brahman (and other ontological

scheme of things) epistemologically, it is three step process;

 

1. Establishing the svatahprAmaNya concept of validity.

2. Using it, establishing the validity of shruti as a means-of-

knowledge.

3. Using such shruti, proposing the nature of reality.

 

As I said in other mail, when shruti is established as

epistemologically true and infallible, the entire system of vEdAnta

which is based on such means-of-knowledge be established as truth.

 

Please note that for all these to happen, perception (pratyaksha) is

the fundamental and supportive. That's the reason pratyaksha is

called `upajIva' pramANa (one which is foundation) and shruti is

called `upajIvika' (one which is depending on). For this reason, one

needs to be extra careful while interpreting the shruti so that it

should not cause harm to the foundation itself, which is

pratyaksha. If it so, it is called upajIva-virOdha fallacy. This is

also true when making the inference about the things. May be I will

write in separate mail if anyone has more questions on this aspect.

It is already lengthy !

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p wrote:

 

> How do we first get the awareness of the thing itself i.e.Brahman?

>

> Other poster said that we are already aware of the fact that `I am'

> or `I exist'.

>

> True.

>

> To know that `I exist', I do not need any pramANa. It is svataha-

> siddha

>

> However, to know that `I forgot I am Brahman' or `I am eternal'

> or `I am non-dual' etc such things, I need a means-of-knowledge, for

> they are not all svatah-siddha as in the former case.

>

> Please note the subtlety involved here. I know I exist, but I do not

> know whether I am single or dual? Do I know I am eternal or non-

> eternal? Do I know I am bliss or not?

>

 

Just dropping in, no intention to destroy the flow of this conversation.

 

It seems one cannot forget " I am Brahman " ; rather one can only realize

the identification of " i " made of limitations, in which such a

realization also occurs. That realization translates as " I am Brahman "

in the mental redirection process, that " I am that Purnam looking

through this mind as the jiva " i " . "

 

I does not 'know', the jiva knows. The jiva knows that its nature is

of existence, the jiva also knows that its particular aspects are dual

and non-eternal. Now is that Existence/Being/Self aspect to be

considered in conjunction with the identifiable aspects, or should It

be recognized as the basis beyond identification and to be reached for

by the removal of all identifiers (neti, neti)?

 

The former approach reveals " jiva " and dvaita, the latter settles in

" Brahman " and advaita: the nondual " I " belongs to the Whole and the

parts are the superimpositions upon It, making it appear many.

 

(standard 'gibberish'? :-)

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Hi Michael,

>

> Not sure I agree I here (for a change!).

>

> You say: " So the use of shabda to decide whether that thing is a

snake or a

> rope is not appropriate. " What about the case where the mother

tells the

> child that the 'monster' underneath the bed is really just a

shadow? In the

> case where we trust the informer implicitly, shabda seems perfectly

> appropriate (and possibly far safer than pratyakSha)!

>

> Best wishes,

> Dennis

 

Dear Dennis-ji,

I am also of the view that in the instance cited by you, sabda or

the word of the mother is pramANa for the child, because the child

has full faith in its mother's word. The story of the ten men who

crossed a river and thought that one man was missing, but found him

when pointed out by a passer-by is evidence that sabda pramANa can

also remove illusion. Of course it will be so only if the hearer has

full faith in the words of the speaker. sabda itself is defined as

the word of an 'Apta' or a reliable person. If the hearer does not

have full faith in the speaker, his word cannot become pramANa. The

veda is pramANa only because every one concerned has full faith in

it.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite@> wrote:

> >

sabda itself is defined as

> the word of an 'Apta' or a reliable person. If the hearer does not

> have full faith in the speaker, his word cannot become pramANa. The

> veda is pramANa only because every one concerned has full faith in

> it.

 

Namaste,

 

It may be worth adding Gita's teaching that faith (shraddha) is

proportionate to the 'sAttvika guNa' of one's nature (XVII:3).

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michael-ji and Sadananda-ji,

 

 

Michael-ji wrote:

 

> Exactly so. At first sight there may be a

> circular aspect to religious belief in the sense that we believe

in

> scripture to believe in God who has delivered the scripture.

 

Michael-ji, we vEdAntins (of all schools) do not accept that

scriptures are delivered by God. Vedantins asserts that vEdas are not

authored by anybody including God. This is where there is no

circularity unlike those of bible. I am not sure what is source of

your assertion.

 

 

Sri.Sadanandaji wrote:

 

> Michael - PraNAms

>

> We have to be little careful here. No pramaaNa can operate on

Brahman -

> Brahman

> being

> infinite and attributeless- Hence it is called aprameyam not a

thing to be

> known. Vedanta

> facilitates that which is direct and immedite using the words -

just like

> the

> objects of

> pratyaksha pramaaNa that one sees directly and immediately. 'Tat

tvam asi'

> statment is

> like a mirror to see ourselves - words although generally operate

to reveal

> mediate

> knowledge, for Brahman and the self that I am, words can give

direct and

> immediate

> knowledge, even though they are aprameyam. Vedanta is pramaaNa for

the

> equation

> I am =

> Brahman, which requires a vichaara or an inquiry.

 

 

Sadananda-ji, this is my understanding;

 

Epistemologially speaking, one need to make a distinction between the

raw observation and a proposition.

 

From a neautral person's point of view, assertion " No pramaaNa can

operate on Brahman - Brahman being infinite and attributeless " is not

given in his/our imedeate raw perception(s) and hence a proposition

in itself.

 

To know the truthness value of that praposition, we need a pramANa.

Therefore, the need for a pramANa is unavoidable. It is unavoidable

if not to know Brahman, but to say no pramANa to Brahamn.

 

So also the statement " Brahman is called aprameyam not a thing to be

known. " itself is not given in our immedeate perception. From a

neautral person's point of view, it is an statement of proposition.

Such person would claim we need to know that statement first in order

to understand it to be true/false. But how did we know that fact that

Brahman is not a thing to be known? Obviously we vEdAntins assert

this statement as an n proposition using the vEda, which is a means-

of-knowledge. However, for a neautral person, he wont take vEda as a

means-of-knowledge as authority. So, final it boils down to the fact

that vEdAntins has to first establish the validity of vEda-s. Once it

is done, rest is all details, whether a pramANa is required to know B

or not etc.

 

The point is; to know B we may not need a means, but to say so we

need one. So 'what is that' or 'how is that' is the subject of this

discussion.

 

With warm regards,

Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Sastri-ji,

 

 

advaitin , " snsastri " <sn.sastri wrote:

> sabda itself is defined as

> the word of an 'Apta' or a reliable person.

 

In vEdAnta, 'sabda' could also be of apouruShEya.

 

 

> If the hearer does not

> have full faith in the speaker, his word cannot become pramANa.

 

prAmaNyatvam of sabda pramANa (for that matter of any pramANa) is not

something subjective in nature in order to say it is pramaNa if one

has faith in speaker/author otherwise not. If at all a pramANya exist

for a sabda (of both pouruSheya or apouruSheya) it is 'objectively'

exist irrespective who assert or writes it.

 

prAmaNyatvam of a pramANa is its capacity to dipict or reveal the

reality 'as is'. If the reality is independent of the observer, the

capacity to reveal such reality must necessarily independent of

observer or comprehending being.

 

For that matter, all three pramANas are objective in nature and not

subjective at all. A nirdushTa pratyksha is pramANa if A is seeing

and believeing it so or B is seeing and beleieving it so. So also for

an anumAna.

 

 

>The

> veda is pramANa only because every one concerned has full faith in

> it.

 

What if I don't have faith in vEda, Brahman will be cease to exist

for me? Is there any such thing as objective reality then?

 

Is Brahman a subjective idea, then? He exist for some and does not

for others? A vijnyAnavAdin will be happy to take down a vEdantin a

move or two.

 

As for as my understanding goes, all schools of vEdanata and all

other five darshana-s accepts objective validity for vEdas.

 

 

Regards,

Srinivas

[Guest guest]

Hello Srinivas!

 

For that matter, all three pramANas are objective in

nature and not

subjective at all.

 

I wonder about that statement. The are all subjective

in that it takes a subjective " I " or ego to even

cognize them, to know their theoretical existence. If

there is no one to cognize, there is nothing to

cognize. This is where it's impossible to get away

from objective/subjective riding in tandem. The pairs

of opposites again and that's always tripping us up if

we don't hold both simultaneously. " Both/and " rather

than " Either/or "

 

 

______________________________\

____

Looking for last minute shopping deals?

Find them fast with Search.

http://tools.search./newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> --- nonduel <nonduel wrote:

>

 

> > How does this knowledge liberate one? In other words, what is

> > the " mechanic " , " method " through which liberation will follow. Or is

> > it in the " application " of this knowledge?

>

> When I take myself what I am not as I am, and scripture says you are

not what you think

> you are but you are the very knowledge itself - That clear

understanding will liberate me

> form all my notional understanding that - I am this -Please study

the series on mind

> where it is presented.

> Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Knowledge arises immediately from the direct recognition

of the truth of one's own nature; and the ignorance

of 'I and mine' [ego] is negated, like the confusion

of the four quarters [directions] [upon the rising of

the sun].

 

paraphrase of verse 46 Atmabodha

 

(We studied this today, so beautiful!)

 

Hari Om!

Durga

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p wrote:

>

> >The

> > veda is pramANa only because every one concerned has full faith in

> > it.

>

> What if I don't have faith in vEda, Brahman will be cease to exist

> for me? Is there any such thing as objective reality then?

>

> Is Brahman a subjective idea, then? He exist for some and does not

> for others? A vijnyAnavAdin will be happy to take down a vEdantin a

> move or two.

>

> As for as my understanding goes, all schools of vEdanata and all

> other five darshana-s accepts objective validity for vEdas.

>

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas

>

 

Sri Kotekalji,

 

This logic does not seems sound. Those who go to the Veda for

spiritual help are unenlightened. They are not qualified to judge its

validity; epistemology or anything else, such a person ultimately must

take in that scripture by faith. Their doing-so or not does not

determine the truth or untruth of the scriptural conclusion.

 

I think of the word " Pramana " as meaning the basis for our

conclusions. So if the Veda is said to be Pramana for such and such,

then we are basing those conclusions on the Veda, which is regarded as

starting point for our analysis. We don't ask for a further pramana

for the Veda, call it epistemology or anything else. Such side tools

are meant to give assurance but cannot constitute proof:

 

Even if such logic supposedly rules OUT other conclusions (is that

your claim?), they cannot (to the unenlightened) rule IN the primary

positive conclusions of the scripture. Perhaps the Advaitin can try to

do such a thing for the primary conclusion, and I tried to give such a

picture in my last post, by avoiding the general extra baggages. But

add together the traditional baggage of eternal-jiva, karma, Ishvara,

reincarnation, pralaya, etc. etc. it is verily a BIG BAGGAGE of " faith " .

 

thollmelukaalkizhu