Perception in VP

[Guest guest]

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.

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

 

Namaste Sadanandaji,

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. Sankara in

B.S.B. I.i.2 details the converging and convincing ways that we can

arrive at firm faith. From a rational point of view he mentions the idea

of design and the unmoved mover, then there is the witness of a realised

teacher and there are the Vedas. " But in the former case (concerning the

valid knowledge of Brahman), the Vedic texts, personal experience, etc.

are the valid means as far as possible; for the knowledge of Brahman

culminates in experience, and it relates to an existing entity. "

 

Best Wishes,

Michael.

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

 

namaskaar to all

 

advaitin , Steve Stoker <otnac6 wrote:

>

> 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 "

>

 

concur.

 

the idea of anihilating the ego (instead of putting it in its proper

perspective...i.e. attenuating it) ((note: i've been criticized for

misleading people by virtue of my screen name " egodust " ...to them i

say, " the name retains a slither of ego by virtue of the word " dust "

in it...otherwise i would have picked something like " egodead "

or " egogone. " )), or the idea that the world is unreal end-of-story,

or the idea that one has to attain perfection (or even that

perfection exists anywhere anytime anyhow in the manifest *as well

as* unmanifest dimensions), are not merely counterproductive, they

represent the *greatest* obstacles in the final steps to

enlightenment!!

 

how?

 

simple. (note: the answer below comes with an attempt at levity,

using the comedy tactic of exaggeration...)

 

the more one tries to kill out, stamp out, bang out, shoot out, smash

to smitherines with a chrome steel baseball bat, or squeeze into

oblivion between the slabs of a 5000 ft lb hydraulic press, or crash

into its own thought-formed mirror image via a 100 mile diameter atom

smasher, for that matter, the more predictably unsuccessful it'll

prove to be. and the stagnation will continue until these radical

concepts are abandoned.

 

the above is being said based on direct experience. i suspect that

the sastras and other sacred texts have deliberately cloaked these

facts behind complex statements, in order to inspire one to think for

oneself. to my understanding, we've entered a time in this kaliyug

where [for those who have ears to hear] they are ready for the

previously hidden " truths " (as per the path) to be revealed.

 

i've been watching my self write all this and wiil certainly be

clicking the send button, against my better [superficial, apparently]

judgment! (time and again and again, it's been shown to me that

there are forces at work no-one cannot begin to fathom. so be it.)

 

OM sri ramanarpanamasthu!

[Guest guest]

Sri. Putram-ji,

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

> 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 am not talking about individuals who are not qualified/able to

judge the validity of vEda themselves. I am disagreeing the point

that everybody concerned with Veda are taking on the faith.

 

An example would help clear my point-- say there is a praposition

that " E = MC^2 " . I am not a physicist and definitely not qualified

(and also not able!) to prove how it is true. I may take it on

faith, but at the same time, can I make a claim E=MC^2 is known and

accepted by humanity in general based on faith? I know for sure

there is a rational explanation behind that proposition. Also I know

all concerned (such as physicist, mathematicians etc) accept that

proposition on critically solid foundation without any faith.

 

In this thread, since we are discussing about epistemological

techniques as explored in VP, I was making a point that validity of

Shruti is established fact on rational epistemological basis by

vEdAntins. Faith is uncalled for here.

 

Sri.Shastri-ji has studied VP and I am sure he will appreciate the

time and effort taken by author of VP to establish the validity of

vEda-s. Let's wait for Michael-ji to post relevent section on

shruti's validity.

 

> 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.

 

But Putram-ji, VP has different idea on 'pramANa'.

 

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

--- Durga <durgaji108 wrote:

 

> Knowledge arises immediately from the direct recognition

> of the truth of one's own nature;

 

Yes Durgaji - this indeed was the topic discussed in the series Knowledge and

the Means

of Knowledge -1.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p wrote:

>

>

>

> Sri. Putram-ji,

>

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

>

> > 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 am not talking about individuals who are not qualified/able to

> judge the validity of vEda themselves. I am disagreeing the point

> that everybody concerned with Veda are taking on the faith.

 

 

Well, the bible has several things in it. But let's ask, was Jesus

qualified as far as what things he said in the Bible? If he was, then

the Jesus-bible is not by faith either since an enlightened person

(lets suppose for discussion) like Jesus was qualified. But how do we

know Jesus was qualified? Well, he said stuff like " Knock and the door

will open " , so follow the path. How to know if the path is qualified?

Well, I know it seems correct where I am right now (Newton's laws) and

I know the same path is followed by Jesus (E=mc^2). So I conclude that

the path will necessarily lead where Jesus says, because he travelled

it and says it leads there.

 

Put that in the Veda or religion, somewhere faith comes up, or we are

aiming at *too much* through such logic, given our present state of

ignorance.

 

 

> In this thread, since we are discussing about epistemological

> techniques as explored in VP, I was making a point that validity of

> Shruti is established fact on rational epistemological basis by

> vEdAntins. Faith is uncalled for here.

>

 

Really, it would be highly useful for others if you could write a

thorough essay (like Sadaji comes up with) justifying this claim. Most

of us are too lazy to study VP for this purpose.

 

 

 

> But Putram-ji, VP has different idea on 'pramANa'.

>

 

Ok. And what is that, as per your understanding? Can you point to a

thread where it is specifically defined? (I was a bit more humble in

my original previous response: i.e. don't know what " Pramana " exactly

means.)

 

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Srinivas Kotekal " <kots_p wrote:

> 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.

 

praNAms Shri Shrinivas-ji,

 

[i did not read the full thread. So, maybe someone may have made

this point.]

 

It seems to me that the statement " aparuSheyatva of

the shruti is accepted as a logical statement " is true

at a paaramarthic (absolute) level, not a vyavaharic

(empirical) level.

 

It will become apparent (and obviously true) once the seeker

reaches the absolute level of understanding, when he sees

the shruti manifesting in all creation, when each

statement of the Veda is absolutely true, when he (the

seeker) has felt Vishvamithra, Bharadwaja, Diirghatamas,

Vaagambhrini, Yagyavaklya and some of the sages of the

shruti speaking from within.

 

However, at a vyavaharic level, it may have to be

accepted apriori.

 

It is much like accepting some premises in mathematics,

like Peano axioms. Or even accepting that " 1+1 = 2 " .

If the kindergarden student starts asking " why is 1+1=2? " ,

then he would not progress beyond that level. Once he

accepts it and proceeds to a certain level, then he can change

the frame of reference (the base of the number system, for

example) and argue that 1+7=10 (which is a true statement

in base 8 number system, but not true in base 10 number

system!).

 

Like every other example, the above example has

limitations, but seems to serve the purpose.

Just thought I would add what I felt.

 

praNAms to all Advaitins,

Ramakrishna