Pramana - Doctrine of the Criterion -

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Readers may find these excerpts very stimulating.

 

A Philosophical Analysis (by Prof. R.D.Ranade)

 

[Prof. Ranade (1886-1957) was Professor of Philosophy (1920-1947) and

Vice-Chancellor at Allahabad University (1937-47). He was an

outstanding scholar known for his writings on religion, philosophy

and mysticism. His last book was 'Vedanta-The Culmination of

Indian Thought' - 1970, Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai].

 

Following are some excerpts from the above book -

 

Ch 3 - The Problem of Logic -

 

" The metaphysical approach to Reality gave us the conclusion that

the Spirit is the highest grade of Reality. The question we will now

consider is how to know this reality and how to know that knowledge

is valid. In order to sift true knowledge from false knowledge some

criterion is necessary. The question of the criterion would be a very

fundamental one...........................

 

Philosophers though they differ as to which criterion is the best,

agree in holding that there must be some criterion. To say that the

svataHprAmANyavAdins do not accept a criterion cannot be a valid

objection. Though they speak of no criterion for truth,

they do require a criterion to find out error. As far as truth is

concerned, they tell us, it is self-revealing; it is its own

criterion. But with all schools of thought, truth is not

self-revealing; hence arises the necessity of an external criterion.

This, however, does not suggest that the truth-quality is something

which is imposed by an external criterion. Truth is constitutive

while the criterion is only epistemic in significance.

As compared to truth itself, its value is secondary. In the order of

existence truth will always come first; only in the order of

knowledge the criterion manages to gain priority. The criterion is

only a revealer of truth--an instrument which will

lead us to truth. But as a harbinger of truth it has a responsible

job.

It should not distort truth while it reveals it.

The criterion must be comprehensive and easy to be used.

It must be self-evident so that it requires no other criterion to

validate it.

If it does, the process in the first place leads to infinite regress

and in the second place

incapacitates the original criterion as a cripple which itself

requires crutches.

The criterion must be such as will definitely lead to truth. We may

even say that it

must be like a 'this-or-nothing-principle' so that if you employ it

you are certain to reach

truth and if you do not employ it, you are sure to miss it.

Even while criticising the criterion it must be taken resort to.

It is obvious that there can be only one such criterion.......

 

... A glance at the history of philosophy will show that the nature

of the criterion differs according to the metaphysical views held by

different thinkers. A distinction is often made between sources of

knowledge and validity of knowledge.................................

 

In Indian philosophy the source of knowledge and the test of its

validity are fused, in that whenever we speak of a means of

knowledge, it implies a means of valid knowledge

(Pramana).

 

............We have now to understand whether all these six Pramanas

(Pratyaksha, Anumana, Shabda, Upamana, Arthapatti, Anupalabdhi) are

independent or whether they are related.....

in the light of the supreme Vedantic criterion, viz.

Anubhava..............................................

 

There is a variety of opinion in regard to the value of Shabda as a

philosophical criterion.

The Vaisheshikas do not recognise this at all.

The Sankhyas recognise it hoping that the Upanishads might be

regarded as advocating only Sankhyaism.

The Naiyayikas believe in it, but make it ancillary to God.

The Mimamsakas exalt it above every other Pramana making it supreme

even above God whom they feel no necessity of recognising............

 

....Shabdapramana would only be a ritualistic dogma unless we mean by

Shabda the eternal sound which can be validated only by " Anubhava " .

In that sense, it becomes equivalent to Sphota or the primal sound

which is validated only by Anubhava. Hence it follows that

Anubhava is the only true criterion of Reality..............

 

.....The mystical criterion : If we were to enquire about the psych-

metaphysical nature of Anubhava, we find that it is an immediate,

first-hand, intuitive apprehensin of Reality.

It satisfies all the requirements of a good criterion that we noted

in the beginning. It alone gives truth and does not require any other

criterion for its validation. It is self-evident. We have seen that a

criterion has only an instrumental value. When there is direct

approach to Reality there is no necessity of an intermediate

criterion and it can be dispensed with forthwith. The direct

experience becomes its own criterion. Reality though ineffable is

experienceable. Therefore, Anubhava is the only appropriate criterion

of it. There is no otherness at this stage. Here the faculty of

intuition leads us on to the beatific vision. ...................... "

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

 

Sunder Hattangadi <sunderh

advaitin

Wednesday, March 5, 2008 8:51:56 PM

Pramana - Doctrine of the Criterion -

 

Namaste,

 

Readers may find these excerpts very stimulating.

 

A Philosophical Analysis (by Prof. R.D.Ranade)

 

 

in the light of the supreme Vedantic criterion, viz.

Anubhava.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......

 

experienceable. Therefore, Anubhava is the only appropriate criterion

of it. There is no otherness at this stage. Here the faculty of

intuition leads us on to the beatific vision. ............ ......... . "

 

Sunder - PraNAms

Thanks for posting Prof. Ranade's notes on PramANa.

With all due respects to professor, I have to differ from what I understood from

the notes.

If Anubhava is translated as experience - then experience itself is not a

pramANa - but only provides one to inquire knowledge of that experience. I

experience sunrise and sunset - but the knowledge of that experience is Sun

never rises and sets. That knowledge also has to explain why I do see sunrise

and sunset when there is no sunrise and sunset.

Advaitic anubhava everyone has - as Shankara points out in this commentary on

Ch. Up - tat tvam asi statement. - That is the analysis of deep sleep state - by

analyzing the word swapiti - swa swaruupam apiiti - one attains one's own nature

- sat swaruupam - in the deep sleep state. Hence it is not the lack of

experience of advaita. One advaitic experience is not different from the other -

if so we will be making dvaita out of advaita.

What is lacking is our knowledge of the experience.

Normally the shabda or words give only jnaanam or information about things -

like how is Indra loka etc. This is only hearsay information and is called

jnaanam.

But the shabda can give the vijnaanam which is to be translated as jnaanam

supported by direct experience - if the thing that is being point is right there

- like the case of missing 10th man. That knowledge is knowledge supported by

anubhava - since what is being pointed is right there for pratyaksha.

Hence Shankara says the knowledge backed by experience is like seeing fruit on

your hand - direct perceptual knowledge.

Perception as we are analyzing in the Knowledge series is direct and immediate -

because knowledge e and experience are merged into one in that pramANa. You are

that - you is direct and immediately present since the very subject knower is

the object of knowledge - there cannot be more direct than that.

And That that is being pointed is also immediately available since it is

infinite and all pervading.

Hence Tat tvam asi - is aparoksha anubhuti.

The problem that knowledge does not get firmly rooted is - due to pre-conceived

notion about both TAT and TVAM - blocking the knowledge in terms of 1) samshaya

- doubts about the identity and 2) viparyaya - habitual notion that I am only

this which is only true in the transactional cases.

Hence Anubhava comes after shabda as support to convert jnaanam to vijnaanam -

but that advaitic anubhava everybody has it. Hence when people say we

understand it but we want to experience - shows that they need to understand

some more - that what they experience all the time is Brahman - that is the

clear understanding they need.

Hence scripture says - shastra-anubhava-yukti - go together.

Just clarification based on my understanding.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

 

Recent Activity

7New Members

Visit Your Group

Finance

It's Now Personal

Guides, news,

advice & more.

Y! Messenger

Instant smiles

Share photos while

you IM friends.

Best of Y! Groups

Check it out

and nominate your

group to be featured..

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> Thank you Ram-ji for the clarification.

>

> " ...There is no otherness at this stage.... " This is the

> penultimate sentence in the excerpt. It can only mean 'aparokSha

> anubhUti' (unmediated experience).

>

> Vamadeva exclaiming (Brihad.Upan. 1:4:10) " I was Manu, and

the

> Sun too... " ; or Trishanku (Taittir. Upan. 1:10:1) " I am the

mover of

> the tree.... " ; or again (Taiittir. Upa.n 3:10:6) - " ...I am food,

I am

> the food-eater.... " ;

>

> Or Krishna in the Gita " aham AtmA... " ; or

> Shankara's " ....shivo.ahaM " , can have no Pramana except one's

own

> realization/experience, which is what I understand to be Prof.

Ranade's

> point.

>

> As Reality is beyond the senses and the intellect (atIndriya

and

> buddheH param), the Pramanas are only pointers as.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

 

Dear Sunder-ji,

Asyou have pointed out, what Prof. Ranade means by anubhava is

aparoksha-anubhuti. Only that shabda which leads to this anubhuti is

the highest pramana. Any sentence spoken by a reliable person is a

pramana, but it gives knowledge of only empirical matters. Even the

karma kANDa is pramana only for attainments which are within

thevyAvahArika realm, including heaven itself. The Prof. has not

said that anubhava itself is a pramana. He points out that pramana

is the means to anubhuti

S.N.Sastri

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

 

> I would like to provide my understanding of Prof. Ranade and I do

> believe that his framework of thought on " Anubhava " is quite

> different from your framework. I would like to point out that there

> can be Transient Anubhava and Transcendent Anubhava – sunrise and

> sunset are transient anubhava where as Sun is Transcendental Anubhav.

> As a matter of fact, knowledge also falls into transient and

> transcendental categories.

 

Ram - PraNAms

 

Thanks for your input - I would like to provide the following thoughts for

consideration.

 

First experience involves tripuTi - experiencer- experienced and experiencing

and

also time bound - hence it is desha kaala vastu parichinnam - that is limited by

space-wise, time-wise and object-wise. Therefore all are vyAvahArika.

 

The same is true for knowledge of - there is knower, known and knowing.

 

In the pAramArthika - it is not experience it is understanding since that

involves

recognizing the tripuTi is not real but one appearing as many - advaitam - where

the

experience-experiencer and experience 'as though' merges into one - myself - the

source of all the three.

 

Self-realization involves realization of true nature of oneself - that jnAnam

that

involves an understanding that there is nothing real other than oneself. Since

one

experiences himself all the time even when one is ignorant - the jnAnam is not

different from vijnAnam since we are dealing with the one that is being

experienced

all the time. Krishna talks about jnAna vijnAna yoga in 7th Chapter of Gita.

 

In advaita, pramANas are six only - as Vedanta paribhASha discusses.

 

I am not sure Prof. Ranade's definition of anubhava. If it translated as

experience,

then we have tripuTi- problem. If it is translated as realization - which is

recognition of my true nature - it is the same as knowledge of myself. Since it

is

not objective knowledge and knowledge of myself involve the identity of both

subject

the knower and object the known into one - advaitam becomes nature of that

knowledge

where the tripuTi dissolves as discussed above.

 

Just clarifying based on my understanding. If you feel it is the same thing what

Prof. Ranade's definition of anubhava - then we need to put that 'anubhava' in

quote

unquote to indicate that there is no tripuTi in that.

 

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda